West-Saxons in the borders of Worcester and Herefordshire under an Oak thereby tacitly reproving the Idolatry of the Pagan Britains who acted their Superstitions under an Oak as the Learned Sr. H. Spelman observes In the Tenth Century King Edward the Elder Son of King Alfred called a Synod at Intingford where he confirmed the same Ecclesiastical Constitutions which King Alured had made before Many Councils were Conven'd during the Reign of King Athelstan as at Exiter Feversham Thunderfield London and at Great Lea which last is of most account in regard of the Laws therein made specially that concerning the payment of Tithes the which you may peruse in the Learned Sr. H. Spelm. Concil p. 405. During the Reign of King Edgar Hoel Dha held a National Council for all Wales at Tyquin which was wholly in favour of the Clergy this Council was held when Dunst in was Archbishop of Canterbury in whose time there were Two other Councils conven'd the one at Cartlage in Cambridgshire the other at Caln in Wiltshire After this William the Conqueror conven'd a Council of his Bishops at Winchester wherein himself was personally present with two Cardinals sent from Rome in this Council Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury was deposed and Lâ—â—frank a Lombard substituted in his room During the Reign of King Henry the First Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury summoned a Council at Westminster which Excommunicated all Married Priests half the Clergy at that time being Married or the Sons of Married Priests During the Reign of King Stephen Albericus Bishop of Hostia sent by Pope Innocent into England conven'd a Synod at Westminster wherein it was concluded That no Priest c. should have a Wife or a Woman in his house on pain of being sent to Hell Also that their Transubstantiated God should dwell but Eight days in the Box for fear of being Worm-eaten or moulded Under the Reign of King Henry the Second who disclaimed the Popes authority refused to pay Peter-pence and interdicted all Appeals to Rome a Synod was called at Westminster wherein was a great Contest between the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York for Precedency York appeals to Rome the Pope interposes and to end old Divisions makes a new distinction entituling York Primate of England and Canterbury Primate of all England Under the Reign of King Henry the Third a Council was held at Oxford under Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury wherein many Constitutions were made as against Excess of demands for Procurations in Visitations against Pluralities Non-Residence and other abuses of the Clergy In the Ninth year of King Edward the First John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury held a Council at Lambeth with his Suffragans some account whereof Walsingham gives us in these words viz. Frater Johannes Peckham Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus ne nihil fecisse videretur convocat Concilium apud Lambeth in quo non Evangelii Regni Dei praedicationem imposuit sed Constitutiones Othonis Ottobonis quondam Legatorum in Anglia innovans jussit eas ab omnibus servari c. Walsing in Ed. 1. He then made Sixteen Ecclesiastical Laws which are inserted among the Provincial Constitutions After this he summoned another Council of his Clergy at Reading wherein he propounded the drawing of all Causes concerning Advowsons to the Ecclesiastical Courts and to cut off all Prohibitions from the Temporal Courts in Personal Causes but upon the Kings express Command to desist from it this Council was dissolved Parker de Antiq. Eccles Anglic. fo 205. An 1290. During the Reign of King Henry the Fourth Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury conven'd a Synod at St. Pauls Church Lond. wherein the King joyned with them in punishing all Opposers of the Religion received Trussel de vita H. 4. Under King Henry the Fifth an Universal Synod of all the Bishops and Clergy was called at London where it was determined That the day of St. George and also of St. Dunstan should be a double Feast in holy Church In the same Kings Reign was a Convocation held at London conven'd by Henry Chichley Archbishop of Canterbury wherein were severe Constitutions made against the Lollards In the Reign of King Henry the Seventh a Synod was held at London by John Morton Archbishop of Canterbury to redress the Excess of the London Clergy in Apparel and frequenting of Taverns We had almost omitted the Synod in England An. 1391. under the Reign of King Richard the Second Simon Sudbury then Archbishop of Canterbury in which Synod it was Ordain'd That whosoever Appealed to Rome besides Excommunication should lose all his Goods and be Imprisoned during his Life vid. Hist of the Church of Great Britain p. 117. A Modern and Ingenious yet unfortunate Author well observes a Fourfold difference or distinction of Synods or Convocations in this Realm in reference to the several manners of their Meeting and degrees of their Power The First he states in point of Time before the Conquest The Second since the Conquest and before the Statute of Praemunire The Third after that Statute but before another made in the Reign of King H. 8. The Fourth after the 25th of the said King 1 Before the Conquest the Popes power prevailed not over the Kings of England who were then ever present Personally or Virtually at all Councils wherein matters both of Church and State were debated and concluded Communi consensu tam Cleri quam Populi Episcoporum Procerum Comitum nec non omnium Sapientum Seniorum populorumque totius Regni 2 After the Conquest but before the Statute of Praemunire the Archbishops used upon all emergent Cases toties quoties at their own discretions to assemble the Clergy of their respective Provinces where they pleased continuing and dissolving them at their pleasure which they then did without any leave from the King whose Canons and Constitutions without any further Ratifification were in that Age obligatory to all subjected to their Jurisdiction Such it seems were all the Synods from Lanfranck to Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury in which Arundels time the Statute of Praemunire was Enacted 3 After which Statute which much restrained the Papal power and subjected it to the Laws of the Land the Archbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute Command but at the pleasure of the King by whose Writ and Precept only they were now and henceforth Summoned Of this Third sort of Convocations were all those kept by and from Thomas Arundel unto Thomas Cranmer or from the 16th of R. 2. unto the 25th of King H. 8. These Convocations also did make Canons as in Lindwoods Constitutions which were Obligatory although confirmed by no other Authority than what was meerly Synodical 4 The last sort of Convocations since the said Statute called the 25th of King H. 8. That none of the Clergy should presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any â—â—her Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by
Church-gemote Int. Leges H. 1. c. 8. The Convocation is under the power and Authority of the King 21 Ed. 4. 45. b. Assembled only by the Kings Writ 13 Ed. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. The King having directed his Writ therein assigning the time and place to each of the Archbishops to the effect aforesaid the Archbishop of Canterbury doth thereupon direct his Letters to the Bishop of London as his Dean Lindw Provin Sec. 1. de Poenis ver Tanquam in Gloss First Citing himself peremptorily then willing him to Cite in like manner all the Bishops Deans Archdeacons Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and generally all the Clergy of his Province to the Place at the day in the said Writ prefixed withal directing that one Proctor for every Cathedral or Collegiate Church and two for the other Clergy of each Diocess may suffice In pursuance whereof the Bishop of London directs his Letters accordingly willing them to certifie the Archbishop the Names of all such as shall be so Monished by them in a Schedule annexed to their Letters Certificatory whereupon the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and the other Churches having Elected their Proctors it is certified to the Bishop who makes due Returns thereof which method is likewise observed in the other Province of York It is said That these Proctors anciently had Place and Vote in the Lower House of Parliament a good expedient for the maintenance and preservation of the Liberties of the Church The Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation is immediately at the first Assembly by the motion of the Bishops chosen by that Lower House and presented to the Bishops as their Prolocutor by whom they intend to deliver their Resolutions to the higher House and to have their own House specially ordered and governed His Office is to cause the Clerk to call the Names of the Members of that House as oft as he shall see cause likewise to see all things propounded to be read by him to gather the Suffrages or Votes and the like Trin. 8 Jac. It was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and divers other Justices at a Committee before the Lords of Parliament concerning the Authority of a Convocation 1 That a Convocation cannot Assemble without the Assent of the King 2 That after their Assembling they cannot conferr to constitute any Canons without License del Roy. 3 When upon Conference they conclude any Canons yet they cannot execute any of them without the Royal Assent 4 They cannot execute any after Royal Assent but with these Limitations viz. 1 That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2 Nor against Statute Law 3 Nor against the Common Law 4 Nor against the Customes of the Realm All which appears by 25 H. 8. c. 19. 19. Ed. 3. Title Quare non Admisit 7. 10. H. 7. 17. Merton cap. 9. By 2 H. 6. 13. a Convocation may make Constitutions to bind the Spiritualty because they all in person or by Representation are present but not the Temporalty Q. And 21 Ed. 4. 47. the Convocation is Spiritual and so are all their Constitutions Vid. The Records in Turri 18 H. 8. 8 Ed. 1. 25 Ed. 1. 11 Ed. 2. 15 Ed. 2. Prohibitio Regis ne Clerus in Congregatione sua c. attemptet contra jus seu Coronam c. By which it appears that they can do nothing against the Law of the Land or the Kings Prerogative 5. The word Convocation and the word Synod are rather words of two Languages than things of two significations for although they have different derivations the former from the Latin the other from the Greek yet in effect they both center in the same thing Convocation à Convocando because they are called together by the Kings Writ It is of very great Antiquity according to Sir Edward Coke who mentions out of Mr. Bede and other Authors and ancient Records such as were nigh a thousand years since and more expresly of one great Synod held by Austins Assembling the Britain Bishops in Council An. 686. And affirms That the Clergy was never Assembled or called together at a Convocation but by the Kings Writ And in the year 727. there was a Convocation of the Clergy called Magna Servorum Dei frequentia It was by the assistance and authority of Ethelbert the first Christian King of Kent that Austin called the aforesaid Assembly of the British Bishops and Doctors that had retained the Doctrine of the Gospel to be held in the borders of the Victians and West-Saxons about Southampton as supposed to which resorted as Mr. Bede says Seven Bishops and many other Learned Divines but this Synod or Convocation suddenly brake up without any thing done or resolved This Assembly was conven'd for determining the time for the Celebration of Easter touching which the Controversie continuing no less than 90 years after was at last concluded at another Convocation purposely called at Whitby by the Authority of Oswy King of Northumberland and whereof the Reverend Cedda newly Consecrated Bishop was Prolocutor and King Oswy himself present at the Assembly Likewise about the year 1172. at Cassils in Ireland a Convocation was held by Authority of King H. 2. soon after he had Conquered that Island which Convocation was for the Reformation of the Irish Church where amongst many other Constitutions it was Decreed That all the Church-Lands and all their Possessions should be altogether free from the Exaction of Secular men and that from thenceforth all Divine things should be handled in every part of Ireland in such sort as the Church of England handleth them Likewise about the year 1175. at London a Synod or Convocation was held at which King H. 2. was present where among other Canons and Constitutions it was both by Authority of the King and Synod decreed That every Patron taking a Reward for any Presentation should for ever lose the Patronage thereof Which together with other Canons then made for the better government of the Church of England were Published by Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Kings Assent Likewise a Provincial Synod was held at Oxford by Stephen Langton Archbishop of Canterbury under King H. 3. about the year 1222. for Reformation of the Clergy with many others in subordination to the Laws of the Land One special Priviledge of the Convocation appears by 8 H. 6. cap. 1. All the Clergy from henceforth to be called to the Convocation by the Kings Writ and their Servants and Familiars shall for ever hereafter fully use and enjoy such liberty and Immunity in coming tarrying and returning as the Great men and Commonalty of the Realm of England called or to be called to the Kings Parliament have used or ought to have or enjoy 8 H. 6. In Parliamento Statutum est ut Praelati atque Clerici câ—rumque Famulatus cum ad Synodos accesserint iisdem Privilegiis ac
of King Kanute made for the indemnity of such as should have recourse to Tribunals for their safe coming and going to and from Courts of Justice Et volo ut omnis homo pacem habeat eundo ad gemotum vel rediens de gemoto id est placito nifi fit fur probatus It is a word from the Saxon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 convenire unde Nostratium to meet But this digression the Reader must put on the Abbots score in regard the word Abbates gave the occasion thereof which may be but a Venial offence in regard that that Ecclesiastical Dignity is with us laid aside though their Possessions had better Fortune yet when King H. 8. did dissolve them he did not only augment the number of Colledges out of the Revenues thereof but also erected divers new Bishopricks as at Westminster Oxford Peterborough Bristol Chester and Glocester all remaining at this day save that at Westminster which being restored to its pristine Institution by Queen Mary and Benedictines placed therein was after by Queen Elizabeth converted to a Collegiate Church In this Chapter there is mention also made of Chauntries Cantaria or if you please Aedes Sacra ideo Instituta Dotata Praediis ut missa ibidem Cantaretur pro anima Fundatoris propinquorum ejus Ita Spelm. Of these and Free Chappels about 2374. were dissolved by King H. 8. to whom they were given by Parliament in the 38th year of his Reign The Religious Houses under 200 l. per An. were granted to him in An. 1535. All greater Monasteries in An. 1538. The Chantery and Free Chappels in An. 1545. Of these Chanteries Forty seven belonged unto St. Pauls London And as for Annates or First-Fruits it is Historically reported to us that they were first introduced into England in the time of King Edward the First by Pope Clement who succeeded Benedict For this Pope Clement after the death of Pope Benedict was no sooner Elected and Enthron'd in France but he began to exercise his new Rapines here in England by a compliance with the said King Edward in granting him a Two years Disme from his Clergy for his own use though pretended for the aid of the Holy Laud that with the more ease himself might exact the First Frutts of vacant Ecclesiastical Benefices to augment his own Revenues though not within his own Territories This is said to be the first President of any Popes reserving or exacting Annates or First-Fruits of all Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices throughout England extant in our Histories which though reserved but for Two years by the Pope at first yet afterwards grew into a Custome by degrees both in England and elsewhere And thus they remained in the Pope until an Act of Parliament entituled the Crown thereunto in the time of King Henry the Eighth which afterwards were restored again to the Pope by Queen Mary but in the first year of Queen Elizabeth an Act pass'd for restoring the Tenths and First-Fruits to the Crown Notwithstanding what some Historians have as aforesaid reported touching the first introduction of First-Fruits into England by Pope Clement in the time of King Edward the First it is most evident that they were to be yielded and paid here in England some hundreds of years before that time as appears by the Laws of Ina King of the West Saxons who began his Reign in the year 712. The Law was this viz. Primitias seminum quisque ex eo dato domicilio in quo ipso Natali die Domini commoratur Lambert de Leg. Inae Reg. And by the Laws of King Edgar who began his Reign in the year 959. it is Ordained in these words Ex omni quidem ingeniorum terra ipsae Seminum Primitiae primariae penduntor Ecclesiae Idem de Leg. Edgari Reg. Ipsas autem Seminum Primitias sub Festum Divi Martini reddito Ibid. The like you have in the Laws of King Kanute who began his Reign in the year 1016. Seminum Primitiae ad Festum Divi Martini penduntor si quis dare distulerit eas Episcopo undecies praestato ac Regi Ducenos viginti Solidos persolvito Idem Lamb. It is supposed that Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of Ed. 3. was the first that made way for Popes to Appropriate Annates and First-Fruits in this Kingdom to themselves for the said Archbishop An. 1246. upon a feigned pretence that his Church of Canterbury was involved in very great Debts by his Predecessor but in truth by himself to carry on Forein Wars and gratifie the Pope procured from Pope Innocent a grant of the First years Fruits of all Benefices that should fall void within his Diocess for the space of Seven years till he should thence raise the Sum of Ten thousand Marks yearly out of the Bishoprick So that this Grant of First Fruits of Benefices to Boniface the said Archbishop made way for Popes Appropriating First-Fruits and Annates to themselves soon after But in process of time the Parliament having as aforesaid settled them on King H. 8. there was an Office thereof established in London An. 1538. whereby the Kings Revenue increased exceedingly from this Office for the receipt of Tenths and First-Fruits which was then first erected in London such Moneys being formerly paid to the Pope for that the Tenths and First-Fruits of the English Clergy were yearly return'd to Rome But now the Pope being dead in England the King was found his Heir at Common Law as to most of the Power and Profit he had usurped and the Rents which the Clergy paid were now changed together with their Landlord for Commissioners whereof the Bishop of the Diocess was ever one were appointed to estimate their Annual Revenues that so their Tenths and First-Fruits might be proportioned accordingly At this time the Oblations from the Living and Obits from the Dead were as duly paid as Predial Tithes and much advanced the Income but Queen Mary did after by Act of Parliament exonerate the Clergy from all these First-Fruits and ordered the payment of the Tenths to Cardinal Poole for discharge of Pensions allowed to certain Monks and Nuns but Queen Elizabeth in the first year of her Reign resumed these First-Fruits and Tenths only Personages not exceeding ten Marks and Vicarages ten Pounds were freed from First-Fruits vid. Stat. 1 Eliz. cap. 4. That which in the method of the ensuing Treatise next offers it self to consideration is Altarage Altaragium taking its denomination from the Altar because to speak properly Altargium est Emolumentum Sacerdoti provenieus ratione Altaris ex Oblationibus sc vid. Jo. de Athon in Constit. Legatim Otho c. Auditu ver Proventus Touching this Altarage there is an Ancient Record in the time of King H. 3. about the year 1234. in the Chronicle of William Thorne the Augustine Monk of Canterbury whereof among other things there is mention made in a certain Composition between Edmond Archbishop
whatsoever Name or Names they may be called in their Convocation in time coming which alwaies shall be assembled by the Kings Writ unless the same Clergy may have the Kings most Royal assent and License to make promise and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical upon pain of every one of the said Clergy doing the contrary to this Act and thereof convicted to suffer Imprisonment and making Fine at the Kings will Since this year from Archbishop Cranmer to this day all Convocations are to have the Kings leave to debate on matters of Religion and their Canons besides his Royal assent an Act of Parliament for their Confirmation And as to the General Councils there are not any of them of use in England except the first Four General Councils which are established into a Law by King and Parliament The Learned Bishop Prideaux in his Synopsis of Councils gives us the definition of Synodographie and says It is such a Methodical Synopsis of Councils and other Ecclesiastical Meetings as whereby there may be a clear discovery to him that doubts how any Case may be enquired after and what may be determined concerning the same And then immediately after gives us the definition of a Council which he calls a Free Publick Ecclesiastical Meeting especially of Bishops as also of other Doctors lawfully deputed by divers Churches for the examining of Ecclesiastical Causes according to the Scriptures and those according to the power given by Common Suffrages without favour of parties to be determined in matters of Faith by Canons in cases of Practice by Presidents in matters of Discipline by Decrees and Constitutions Of these Councils he observes some to have been Judaical others Apostolical others Oecumenical some Controverted others Rejected and some National to all which he likewise adds Conferences 1 Under the Title of Judaical Councils he comprehends the more solemn Meetings about extraordinary affairs for the Confirming Removing or Reforming any thing as the matter required Such he observes to have been at Sichem under Josuah and Eleazer Josh 24. At Jerusalem the first under David Gad and Nathan being his Assistants 1 Chro. 13. At Carmelita under Ahab and Elias 1 King 18. At Jerusalem the Second under Hezekiah 2. Chro. 29. At Jerusalem the Third under Josiah and Hilkiah 2 Kin. 33. 2 Chro. 34. At Jerusalem the Fourth under Zorobabel and Ezra and the Chief of the Jews that return'd from the Captivity of Babylon And lastly that which is called the Synod of the Wise under John Hircanus Genebrand Chron. l. 2 p. 197. 2 The Apostolical Councils he observes to have been for the substituting of Matthias in the place of Judas Act. 1. For the Election of Seven Deacons Act. 6. For not pressing the Ceremonial Law Act. 15. 11. For the toleration of some Legal Ceremonies for a time to gain the Weak by such condescension Matth. 21. 18. For composing the Apostles Creed For obtruding to the Church 85 Canons under the notion of the Apostles authority concerning which there are many Controversies Lastly for the Meeting at Antioch where among Nine Canons the Eighth commanded Images of Christ to be substituted in the room of Heathenish Idols the other pious Canons being destitute of the Synods authority vid. Bin. Tom. 1. p. 19. Longum p. 147. 3 Of Oecumenical or General Councils some were Greek or Eastern others were Latin or Western The more Famous of the Oecumenical Greek Councils were the Nicene the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the first of Chalcedon Of Constantinople the second of Constantinople the third The Nicene the second The more Famous of the Oecumenical Latin Councils were at Ariminum the Lateran at Lions at Vienna the Florentine the Lateran the fifth and lastly at Trent 4 Of Controverted Councils if that distinction be admissable according to the Classis thereof digested by Bellarmine the Computation is at Constantinople the fourth at Sardis at Smyrna at Quinisext at Francfort at Constance and at Basil 5 Of Rejected Councils whereby are intended such as either determine Heretical Opinions or raise Schisms the Computation is at Antioch at Milain at Seleucia at Ephesus the second at Constantinople at Pisa the first and at Pisa the second 6 Of National Synods which comprehend the Provincials of every Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop the distribution is into Italian Spanish French German Eastern African Britain 7 To these may be added Ecclesiastical Conferences which were only certain Meetings of some Divines wherein nothing could be Canonically determined and therefore needless to be here particularly inserted vid. B. Prideaux Synops of Counc vers fin The grand Censure of the Church whereby it punisheth obstinate Offenders is by way of Excommunication which though the Canonists call Traditio Diabolo or giving the Devil as it were Livery and Seizin of the Excommunicate person yet the Romanists have a Tradition that St. Bernard Excommunicated the Devil himself Sanctus Bernardus plenus virtutibus quadam die praesentibus Episcopis clero populo Excommunicavit quendam Diabolum Incubum qui quandam mulierem in Britannia per septeunium vexabat sic Liberata est ab eo Chron. Jo. Bromton de Temp. H. 1. A miraculous Excommunication and a Sovereign Remedy against Diabolical incubations The Excommunication which St. Oswald pronounced against one who would not be perswaded to be reconciled to his Adversary had nothing so good though a more strange effect for that Excommunicated him out of his Wits and had it not been for Wolstan who as miraculously cur'd him you might have found him if not in Purgatory then in Bedlam at this day Illi cujus es says Sanctus Oswaldus Te commendo carnem Sathanae tuam trado Statim ille dentibus stridere spumas jacere caput rotare incipit Qui tamen à Wolstano sanatus cum Pacem adhuc recusaret iterum tertio est arreptus simili modo quousque ex corde injuriam remitteret offensam If you have not faith enough to believe this on the Credit of Abbot Brompton who Chronicled from the year 588 in which St. Austin came into England to the death of King Richard the First which was in the year 1198. if you have not I say faith enough for the premisses you are not like to be supplied with any on this side Rome unless you have it from Henry de Knighton Canon of Leyster who wrote the Chronicle De Eventibus Angliae from King Edgars time to the death of King Richard the Second for he in his Second Book de Temp. W. 2. doth put it under his infallible pen for an undeniable Truth And indeed is much more probable than what the said Abbot reports touching St. Austins raising to life the Priest at Cumpton in Oxfordshire 150 years after his death to absolve a penitent Excommunicate that at the same time rose also out of his grave and walked out of the Church at St. Austins command That no
Secular who within that Province whereof he is Archbishop hath next and immediately under the King Supream power Authority and Jurisdiction in all causes and things Ecclesiastical Of such there are only Two in England one of the Province of Canterbury styled Metropolitanus Primas Totius Angliae the other of York styled Primas Metropolitanus Angliae Under the two Archbishops are twenty six Bishopricks whereof twenty two in the Province of Canterbury and four in the Province of York so that besides the two Archbishops there are twenty four Bishops The Christian Religion in England took root first in the See of Canterbury St. Austin who first preached the Gospel to the one was the first Archbishop of the other Canterbury once the Royal City of the Kings of Kent was by King Ethelbert on his Conversion bestowed on St. Augustine the Archbishop and his Successors for ever and so the Chair thereof became originally fixed in that City of Canterbury Cantuarienses Archiepiscopi Dorovernenses antiquitus dicti sunt quia totius Anglicanae Ecclesiae Primates Metropolitani fuerunt The Archbishop whereof being styled Primate and Metropolitan of all England is the first Peer of the Realm and hath Precedency not only before all the Clergy of the Kingdom of England but also next and immediately after the Blood Royal before all the Nobility of the Realm Sr. Edward Cokâ— says more and lets us to understand That in Ancient time they had great Precedency even before the Brother of the King as appears by the Parliament Roll of 18 E. 1. and many others which continued until it was altered by Ordinance in Parliament in the Reign of H. 6. as appears by a Roll of Parliament of that Kings Reign entred in the Back of the Parliament Roll. The Precedency in Parliament and other Places of Council at this day is That the two Archbishops have the Precedency of all the Lords Temporal and every other Bishop in respect of his Barony hath place of all the Barons of the Realm and under the estate of the Viscount and other Superiour Dignities And at this day in all Acts Ordinances and Judgments c. of Parliament it is said The Lords Spiritual and Temporal The Bishops among themselves have this Precedency 1. The Bishop of London 2. The Bishop of Duresme 3. The Bishop of Winchester The Archbishop of Canterbury as he hath the Precedency of all the Nobility so also of all the great Officers of State He writes himself Divina Providentia whereas other Bishops only use Divina Permissione The Coronation of the Kings of England belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury and it hath been formerly resolved that wheresoever the Court was the King and Queen were Speciales Domestici Parochiani Domini Archiepiscopi He had also heretofore this Priviledge of special remark That such as held â—ands of him were liable for Wardship to him and to compound with him for the same albeit they held other Lands in chief of our Sovereign Lord the King All the Bishopricks in England except Duresme Carlisle Chester and the Isle of Man which are of the Province of York are within the Province of Canterbury The Archbishop whereof hath also a peculiar Jurisdiction in thirteen Parishes within the City of London and in other Diocesses c. Having also an Ancient Priviledge That wherever any Mannors or Advowsons do belong to his See they forthwith become exempt from the Ordinary and are reputed Peculiars and of his Diocess of Canterbury If you consider Canterbury as the Seat of the Metropolitan it hath under it twenty one Suffragan Bishops whereof seventeen in England and four in Wales But if you consider it as the Seat of a Diocesan so it comprehends only some part of Kent viz. 257 Parishes the residue being in the Diocess of Rochester together with some other Parishes dispersedly scituate in several Diocesses it being as aforesaid an Ancient Priviledge of this See that the places where the Archbishop hath any Mannors or Advowsons are thereby exempted from the Ordinary and are become Peculiars of the Diocess of Canterbury properly belonging to the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury whose Provincial Dean is the Bishop of London whose Chancellour is the Bishop of Winchester whose Vice-Chancellour anciently was the Bishop of Lincoln whose Precentor the Bishop of Salisbury whose Chaplain the Bishop of Worcester and the Bishop of Rochester when time was carried the Cross before him Lind. Const de Poenis gl ibid. c. 1. ver tanquam 2. The Metropolitan See of York had its Original at the first reception of the Gospel in England when King Lucius established Sampson the first Archbishop thereof Not long after the Conversion of the Saxons Paulinus by Pope Gregory's appointment was made Archbishop thereof An. 622. This Province of York anciently claimed and had a Metropolitan Jurisdiction over all the Bishops of Scotland whence they had their Consecration and to which they swore Canonical Obedience The Archbishop of York styles himself Primate and Metropolitan of England as the Archbishop of Canterbury Primate and Metropolitan of All England About two hundred years since viz. An. 1466. when George Nevil was Archbishop of York the Bishops of Scotland withdrew themselves from their obedience to him and had Archbishops of their own The Archbishop of York hath precedency before all Dukes not being of the Blood Royal as also before all the Great Officers of State except the Lord Chancellour Of this Province of York are the Bishopricks of Duresme Chester Carlisle and the Isle of Man who write themselves Eboracenses or Eborum The Diocess belonging to this See of York contains the two Counties of York and Notingham and in them 581 Parishes whereof 336 are Impropriations 3. It hath been question'd whether there be any difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan the DD. herein seem to be divided some conceiving that there is some difference between them others affirming that they are both one the Canon Law seems in a sense to favour each of these Opinions saying in one place that the Archbishop as President hath the charge and oversight of the Metropolitans and other Bishops 21. Dist Cleros In another place That Archbishop and Metropolitan are but one and the same in deed and in truth although they differ in Name Wilhel in Clem. ult de Privileg verb. Archiepiscopo vers fin Metropolitanus Archiepiscopus idem sunt Sed Metropolitanus nomen trahit à numero Ecclesiarum viz. à metro mensura polis Civitas Otho glo in verb. Archiepiscopus De Offic. Archiepisc He is called Archiepiscopus quasi Princeps Episcoporum in respect of the other Bishops whereof he is chief and Metropolitanus in respect of the number of the Cities or Cathedral Churches where the Bishopricks are Lindw ubi supr gl ib. ver Metropolitanum For the word Civitas doth signifie with us as it doth in other Kingdoms such a Town
Corporate as hath a Bishop and a Cathedral Church Yet Crompton in his Jurisdictions in his Computation of our Cities doth omit Ely though it hath a Bishop and a Cathedral Church Thus Westminster is called a City and accordingly there is mention made of a Bishop of Westminster in a Statute made during the Reign of King Henry 8. But by Letters Patents dated 21. May 2 Eliz. in pursuance of an Act of Parliament of 1 Eliz. not printed the Revenues of that late Monastery were vested in the Dean and Chapter of the Collegiate Church of Westminster which hath caused Errors in the Pleadings of some Cases by styling it the Cathedral for Collegiate Church of Westminster Cassanaeus who wrote as well De Gloria Mundi in general as of the Customes of Burgundy in particular saith That France hath within its Territories 104 Cities and gives this Reason Because there are so many Seats of Archbishops and Bishops Yet Sir Edw. Coke observes Cambridge to be a City by ancient Record although it does not evidently appear that it ever was an Episcopal See And in the Stat. of 11 H. 7. c. 4. it is there called the Town of Cambridge 4. In England and Wales there were Anciently three Provinces and over them Three Archbishops whose Archbishopricks were founded above 1500 years since For soon after the Conversion of King Luâ—ius who began his Reign over the Britains An. 170. being prevailed with to embrace the Christian Faith by the perswasions of Elvanus who had been brought up at Glastenbury and of Medwanus both Britains and therein confirmed by the Divines which Eleutherius who became Pope An 177. sent into Britain for that end and purpose The said King being by them baptized the False Religion of the Druids with their Idols was soon abolished Heathen Temples purged and then consecrated to the service and worship of the True God and in the place of twenty eight â—lamâ—ns were Bishops consecrated the Three Archbishops whereof were founded in the Three chief Cities of the then Three Provinces erected by the Romans where Arch-Flamins had formerly been maintain'd viz. at London the Metropolis of Britannia Prima at York the Metropolis of Maxima Caesariensis and at Caerlegion in Wales which is said to be Caerleon upon Vske formerly called Isca in Monmouthshire the Metropolis or chief City of Britannia Secunda or under Vrbs Legionum Cambria Gildas antiquissimus inter eos qui fide digni sunt Britannicarum rerum scriptor tradit Britannos ab ortu Evangelii Christianam suscepisse fidem Ant. Brit. ubi supr Ac primum Paulum ipsum cum aliis Gentibus tum nominatim Britannis Evangelium nunciasse post priorem suam Romae incarcerationem Theodoret. l. 9. de Curand Graecor affect Origenes qui proximis fuit post Apostolos seculis testatur Britanniam in Christianam consentire Religionem Orig. Hom. 4. in Ezech. Lucius Rex Britanniae An. 179. Baptizatus Ab Eleutherio Pontiâ—ice Romano reformationem Angliae petiit Episcop 29. ordinavit Ant. Brit. fo 4 5 7. Before the coming of the Saxons into England the Christian Britains had three Archbishops viz. of London York and Caerleon in Wales The Archiepiscopal See of London was by the Saxons placed at Canterbury for St. Austins sake where he was buried That of Caerleon being translated to St. Davids and after subjected to the See of Canterbury 5. From this time to Dioclesians Perfecution which though the Tenth and last yet the first which the Britains felt Christianity flourished in this Island which â—y that Persecution was almost extirpated out of the Land till Constantine the Great wore the Imperial Crown in whose time it revived till the beginning of the next Century when it was infected with the Pelagian Heresie till the condemnation thereof in the Council of Carthage and Mela and happily suppressed by Germanus Bishop of Auxerre and by Lupus Bishop of Troys in Campeigne who at the request of the English Catholicks were sent by the French Bishops into England as at the same time and for the same end Palladius was by Pope Celestine into Scotland And now the Christian Religion flourished again till the time of the usurping Tyrant Vortiger who after he had slain Vodinus Archbishop of London was himself burnt in a Castle besieged by Aurelius Ambrose having first surrendred Kent Suffolk and Norfolk to the Infidel Heâ—gist who with his Saxons almost desolated the Land insomuch that Theanus Bishop of London and Theodiceus Bishop of York were forced to flie into Cornwal and Wales until St. Augustines coming hither where he then found only one Archbishop and seven Bishops being with forty others as Assistants to him sent hither by Pope Gregory to Convert the Nation whom Ethelbert King of Kent kindly received and seated him as aforesaid in a Mansion in Canterbury the Metropolis of his Kingdom and assigned him a place to erect a Bishops See who afterwards fixed his Seat at Canterbury whichever since hath continued the Metropolis of this Kingdom And thus St. Austin upon his Entrance into England by the favour and bounty of the said King Ethelbert having fixed his Seat at Canterbury the Archbishops thereof have by a continual Series or Succession continued as Metropolitans of all England 6. And whereas there were as aforesaid anciently Three Archbishopricks in Three distinct Provinces within this Kingdom whereof that of Caerleon upon Vske in Wales was one and whereof Dubritius in the year 466 was Archbishop who having his Seat at Landaff became for his integrity Archbishop of all Wales and was upon Resignation in his old Age succeeded in the Archbishoprick by his Disciple David Uncle toking Arthurn by whose consent he removed the See to Menevia of which place he still retaineth the name of Episcopus Menevensis and the Town it self thereupon called Twy Devi or Saint Davids as taking its denomination from his Name yet it afterwards so unhappily happened that Sampson a succeeding Archbishop upon a great Plague raging in Wales went to Dola in Little Britain and thither carried the Pall with him whereby St. Davids for ever after lost the dignity of an Archbishop And in the time of H. 1. both that See and the rest in Wales became subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury as at this day 7. In the time of King Lucius London had an Archbishop to whose Jurisdiction at that time the greatest part of England was subject This Archbishop was that Theanus forementioned who was the chief Founder and Builder of St. Peters Church in Cornhill London which was the Cathedral of his Diocess till King Ethelbert built St. Pauls Church In this See continued the Dignity of an Archbishop above 180 years but by reason of the Saxon Persecution stood void till that Ten years after the coming of St. Austin Melitus was consecrated Bishop of that See and so it continued ever after as a Bishoprick
1 Jac. cap. 3. vid. 17 Ed. 3. cap. 40. 2. The Congé d'Eslire being granted to the Dean and Chapter they proceed accordingly to Election which in the sense here intended as appropriated to this Subject is that Regular Choice which is made of an Ecclesiastical person to succeed in the office and dignity of Bishop in and of that Diocess whose See at the time of such Election is vacant This Election referring to an Episcopacy or the choice of a new Bishop in a vacant See is done by a Dean and Chapter but there are also other Elections Ecclesiastical relating to a Regular choice of other persons to other Offices and Dignities in the Church subordinate to the former but here it is specially meant of such an Election or choice of a new Bishop as is precedent to Confirmation Consecration and Investure or Instalment being made as aforesaid by the Dean and Chapter of a Cathedral Church by vertue of the Kings License and Letters Missive according to his Majesties nomination and pleasure contained in such Letters Missive in pursuance of such License to Elect under the Great Seal of England which Election being made accordingly the Dean and Chapter are to return a Certificate thereof under their Common Seal unto his Majesty This Election alone and of it self be it to an Archbishoprick or Bishoprick if the person Elected were before the Parson or Vicar of any Church Presentative or Dean of any Cathedral or held any other Episcopal Dignity doth not ipso facto make void in Law such former Benefice or Dignity or Deanry because he is not compleat and absolute Bishop meerly by such Election but only Bishop Elect And an Election only of such one to a Bishoprick who had before a Benefice with Cure or any other Ecclesiastical Dignity or promotion doth not make a Cession thereof And it hath been adjudged that a Commendam retinere made to such a person of such a Parsonage Deanry or other dignity Ecclesiastical which the said Parson had before his Election to the Bishoprick is yet good to him notwithstanding such Election and so remains good to him until his Consecration 3. Confirmation hath various senses according to the different Acceptation of the word but here it is mainly intended for that which in order to an Investure of a Bishop is done by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province in which a Bishoprick is void and unto which a new Bishop is to be Invested with such usual Benedictions and Ceremonies as are requisite to the same Note That before an Archbishop or other Bishop is Confirmed Consecrated or Invested he must take the Oath of Fealty unto the Kings Majesty only after which the King under his Great Seal doth signifie his Election to one Archbishop and two other Bishops otherwise unto four Bishops within his Majesties Dominions thereby requiring them to Confirm his Election and to Consecrate and Invest the person Elected After which Confirmation and Consecration he is compleat Bishop to all intents and purposes as well to Temporalties as Spiritualties And now he hath plenam potestatem tam Jurisdictionis quam Ordinis and may therefore after his Consecration certifie an Excommengment and upon his Confirmation the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease and a Writ for Admission of a Clerk to a Benefice awarded Episcopo Electo Confirmato hath been held to be good Likewise the King may by his Letters Patents after such Confirmation and before Consecration grant unto such Bishop his Temporalties which Grant from his Majesty is held to be potius de gratia quam de jure but if the Bishop of one Diocess be translated to a Bishoprick in another there needs no new Confirmation of him In the Canon de Confirmatione Episcoporum of Othobon's Constitutions it is Ordained in haec verba viz. Vt cujus Electionis Episcopalis Confirmatio postulatur inter caetera super quibus Inquisitio Examinatio praecedere debet Secundum Canonum Instituta illud exactissime inquiratur utrum plura Beneficia cum animarum cura qui Electus est antequam eligeretur habuerit Et si habuisse inveniatur an cum eo super hoc fuerit dispensatum Et an Dispensatio si quam exhibuerit vera sit ad omnia beneficia quae obtinuit extendatur Et si in aliquo Praemissorum is ad quem Confirmatio spectat Electam deficere sua discussione compererit eidem nullatenus munus Confirmationis impendat 4. There is also Confirmation of another kind and far remote in sense from the former not of any Ecclesiastical consideration nor of any Affinity with the other otherwise than Nominal and that is the ratifying or confirming of an Office or an estate in a Place or Office to one who hath or formerly had the possession thereof by a good Title but voidable though not actually and at present void To explain this A Bishop grants his Chancellorship by Patent to one for term of his Natural life this Grant is good to the Patentee and not in it self void yet upon the Bishops death it is voidable unless it be corroborated and ratified by the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter This is not the Confirmation here intended but the Confirmation of the Election of a new Bishop in order to his Consecration and Investure which though heretofore was by the Bishop of Rome when he claimed a Spiritual Jurisdiction in this Realm yet now since the Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 20. the same is at his Majesties Command performed by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of the Province wherein such Bishoprick is void and two other Bishops otherwise by four such Bishops within his Majesties Dominions as to whom under his Broad Seal he shall signifie such Election commanding them to Confirm the same as also to Consecrate and Invest the person whose Election to the Bishoprick is so Confirmed as aforesaid 5. The Confirmation of the Election of Bishops to vacant Sees according to the Canon Law and as practised in such Kingdoms beyond Sea where the Pope doth claim and exercise a Spiritual Jurisdiction is as to the mode and solemnity thereof quite another thing to what the practice is with us in this Realm 6. In France though the Nomination of a Bishop to succeed in a vacant See belongs to the French King yet if he doth not Nominate within Six or Nine months next after the death of the former Bishop Jus devolutum est ad Papam if a Bishoprick be there void be it quomodocunque whether by Cession or otherwise the Law speaks indefinitely in that case the King shall Nominate in France who shall be the new Bishop but then he must Nominate within Six or Nine months which being Elapsed and no Nomination he cannot afterwards Nominate Nam jus sit ad Papam devâ—lutum nec poterit purgare moram For the Law in that Case and in that Kingdom is that
placuit 10. q. 3. Rebuff de Commenda who yet by the same Law possit expensas facere ex reditibus Beneficii Commendati sumere ex eo alimenta debita persolvere sicut is qui titulum habet c. 1. de Solutio hoc afferit Archidiac in cap. qui plures 21. q. 1. 7. The grand Case of a Commendam was that of Evans and Kiffin against Ascuth which being two daies argued by the Judges and by Noy Attorney is acutely and succinctly Reported thus viz. In Trespass Dr. Thornbury being Dean of York was chosen Bishop of Limbrick in Ireland But before Consecration or Confirmation he obtained a Patent with large words Non obstante retinere valeat in Commendam the said Deanary c. And afterwards he was chosen Bishop of Bristol and then also before Installation he obtained another Patent with a more ample Dispensation of retaining the Deanary in Commendam It was Agreed by all That the Church or Deanary c. in England shall be void by Cession if the Parson or Dean c. be made a Bishop in Ireland For the Canon Law in that is one through all the World Also Ireland is governed by the Laws of England and is now as part of England by Subordinacy Note well 45 E. 3. 19. b. Confirmation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case Confirmation under the Great Seal of England of Presentation to a Church in Ireland of the Heir of the Tenant of the King and that a Dispensation under the Great Seal of England is good in this Case without any Patent of it in Ireland vid. 8 Ass 27. 10 E. 3. 42. An Exchange of Land in England for Land in Ireland is good Note 20 H. 6. 8 Scir fac sued in England to Repeal a Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland vid. the Irish Statute 2 Eliz. cap. 4. That an Irish Bishop may be made under the Great Seal of England Note Stat. 1 E. 6. the Irish Bishops shall be Donative by Patent of the King under the Great Seal of England yet the King may let them be chosen per Congé d'Eslire c. 1 Noy Attorney Argued at Bar and so stated the Points of the said Case by themselves If a Commendatary Dean by a Retinere in Commendam may well Confirm a Lease made by the Bishop for it is Agreed That a Commendatary Dean by Recipere in Commend cannot Confirm because he is but a Depositarius Note 19 H. 6. 16. 12 H. 4. 20. 27 H. 8. 15. a Commendatary shall be sued by that Name and by such a Commend he may take the profits and use Jurisdiction and yet is not a Dean compleat Note he may make a Deputy for Visitation but not for Confirmation of Leases Note if there be two Deans in one Church both ought to Confirm Vid. Dy. 282. Co. Inst 30. a. 2 The Second point if such a Bishop be chosen to another Bishoprick if now the first Church in Commend admitting that there was a Full Incumbent be void presently by the Election and assent of the Superiour viz. the King And it seemed to him that it was because there need not be a new Consecration and he vouch'd Panormitan 2. par 101. The Bishop of Spires was chosen Bishop of Trevers and had the assent of the Pope and that he came to Trevers and there found another in possession and he would have returned to the former Bishoprick and could not He also Cited 8 Rep. Trollop's Case That the Guardianship of the Temporalties cease by the Election of a new Bishop Note that Serjeant Henden who argued on the contrary vouch'd Mich. 4 Jac. May Bishop of Carlisle made a Lease to the Queen and a Commission issued out of the Exchequer to take it and the Dean and Chapter Confirmed it before the Inrolment of it and yet Adjudged good That Case was for the Castle of Horne First the Judges having Argued two daies Resolved 1 That all Commendams are Dispensations and that Cession commenced by the Canon and Council of Lateran 2 That the King may dispense with that Canon 11 H. 7. 12. For the Pope might and now by the Statute 21 H. 8. that power is given to the King cumulative by way of Exposition veteris and not by Introduction novi Juris and by that Statute a concurrent power is given to the Archbishop of Canterbury and may be granted to the King or by the Archbishop c. 3 That the Dispensation after Election to the first Bishoprick and before Consecration c. and also the Dispensation after Election to the second Bishoprick and before Confirmation is good enough in both Cases and he remains a good Dean to Confirm c. and afterwards the Judgment in the Case being an Action of Trespass was given accordingly 8. A Commendam is to be granted Necessitate evidenti vel utilitate Ecclesiae suadente and in the Infancy of the Church quando defuerunt Pastores they were necessary A Commendam ordinarily is but for six months and he that hath it is Custos only the other is extraordinary and that is for life and he is an Incumbent The King by his Prerogative Royal may grant a Commendam without any Statute yet if such Commendam shall be good it may be very mischievous to the Patron It is it seems agreed in the Books of the Common Law that the use of Commendams in their first Institution was lawful but not the abuse thereof and that a perpetual Commendam viz. for life was held unlawful and condemned by a Council of 700 Bishops It is likewise Reported to us That where the Incumbent of a Church was created a Bishop and the Queen granted him to hold the Benefice which he had in Commendam It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Queen had the Prerogative by the Common Law and that it is not taken away by the Stat. of 35 H. 8. 9. In a Quare Impedit brought by the King against Cyprian Horsefall and Robert Wale on a Special plea pleaded by Wale the Incumbent the Kings Attorney demurred in Law The Case in substance was this viz. the Corporation of Kilkenny being Patrons of a Vicarage within the Diocess of Ossery Presented one Patrick Fynne thereunto who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted After that during the Incumbency of the said Fynne Adam Loftus Archbishop of Dublin and Ambrose Forth Doctor of the Civil Law being Commissioners Delegates for granting of Faculties and Dispensations in the Realm of Ireland according to the Statute of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. by their Letters Dated 9 Octob. 33 Eliz. granted to John Horsefall then Bishop of Ossery That the said Bishop unum vel plura Beneficia curata vel non curata sui vel alieni Jurispatronatus non excedentia annuum valorem quadraginta Librarum adtunc vacantia vel quae per imposterum vacare contigerint perpetuae Commendae titulo adipisci occupare retinere omnesque fructus
as Patron claiming the Patronage to himself for such a Collation doth amount to a Presentation and here are two or three Collations pleaded which should put the Queen out of possesion although she shall not be bound by the First during the life of the first Incumbent Vid. Br. Quare Impedit 31. upon the abridging of the Case of 47 E. 3. 4. That two Presentments the one after the other shall put the King out of possession and put him to his Writ of Right of Advowson which Anderson denied And it was holden by the whole Court here is not any Presentation and then no possession gained by the Collations and although the Bishop doth Collate as Patron and not as Ordinary yet it is but a Collation And there is a great difference betwixt Collation and Presentation for Collation is a giving of the Church to the Parson but Presentation is a giving or offering of the Parson to the Church and that makes a Plenarty but not a Collation 3. The Collation of the Ordinary for Lapse is in Right of the Patron and will serve him for a Possession in a Darrein Presentment as appears by Colt and Glover's Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield where it is said That the Ordinary or he that presents by Lapse is a kind of Attorney made by Law to do that for the Patron which it is supposed he would do himself if there were not some lett and thefore the Collation by Lapse is in right of the Patron and for his turn 24 E. 3. 26. And he shall lay it as his possession for an Assize of Darrein Presentment 5 H. 7. 43. It seems also by Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and others That although a Bishop Collate wrongfully yet this makes such a Plenarty as shall barr the Lapse of the Metropolitan and the King And this Collation by Lapse is an act and office of Trust reposed by Law in the Ordinary Metropolitan and King the Title of Lapse being rather an Administration than an Interest as in Colt's Case aforesaid which Title of Collating by Lapse may be prevented by bringing a Quare Impedit against the Bishop Also where and in what Cases the bringing of that Writ against the Bishop shall or shall not prevent such Collation appears in the Case of Brickhead against the Archbishop of York as Reported by Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice 4. Presentation is the Nomination of a Clerk to the Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted by him to a Benefice void and the same being in Writing is nothing but a Letter Missive to the Bishop or Ordinary to exhibite to him a Clerk to have the Benefice voided the Formal force hereof resteth in these words viz. Praesento vobis Clericum meum Thus Presentation properly so called is the act of a Patron offering his Clerk to the Bishop to be Instituted in a Benefice of his Gift It is where a man hath a Right to give any Benefice Spiritual and presents the person to the Bishop to whom he gives it and makes an Instrument in writing to the Bishop in his favour and in case there be divers Coheirs and they not according in the Presentation that which is made by the eldest of the Coheirs shall be first Admitted but if it be by Joyntenants or Tenants in Common and they accord not within Six months the Bishop shall present by Lapse By the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 12. a Presentation of an Infant to a Benefice is void And although a Presentation being but the Commendation of a fit person by the Patron to the Bishop or Ordinary to be Admitted and Instituted into a Benefice may be done either by word alone or by a Letter or other writing yet the Grant of a next Avoidance is not good without Deed But a Presentation being no other than a Commendation of a Clerk to the Ordinary as aforesaid and only a thing concerning an Advowson without passing any interest of the Inheritance of the Advowson may be done by word only upon which ground it was Resolved by the whole Court That the Kings Presentation unto an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor parcel of his Dutchy under the Great Seal of England without the Seal of the Dutchy was well made and good Yea and for the same Reason for that a Presentation is but a Commendation and toucheth not the Inheritance was the Kings Presentation to the Deanary of Norwich held good albeit in the said Presentation he mistook and mis-recited the Name of the Foundation of the Deanary 5. A. seized of an Advowson in Fee Grants Praesentationem to B quandocunque quomodocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum in the Grant there was further this Clause viz. Insuper voluit concessit That the Grant should remain in force quousque Clericus habilis idoneus shall by his Presentation be Admitted Instituted and Inducted Afterwards A. grants away the Advowson in Fee unto S. The Church becomes void S. Presents The Church becomes void again S. Presents G. upon a Disturbance of M. the Presentee of B. the First Grantee a Quare Impedit is brought The Question was Whether B. the First Grantee not Presenting upon the First Avoidance had lost the benefit of his Grant In this Case it was Adjudged by the whole Court That although A. the Grantor grants Donationem Praesentaâ—ionem quandocunque Ecclesia vacare contigerit pro unica vice tantum yet B. ought to have taken the first Presentation that happened and hath not Election to take any turn other than the First when the Church first became void and by his neglect in not Presenting then had lost the benefit of his Grant and the subsequent words in the Grant are but only an Explanation of the words precedent and relate to the next Avoidance 6. The Right of Presentation is a Temporal thing and a Temporal Inheritance and therefore belongeth to the Kings Temporal Laws to determine as also to make Laws who shall Present after Six months as well as before so as the Title of Examination of Ability or Nonability be not thereby taken from the Ordinary The Law is the same touching Avoidances for it shall be judged by the Kings Temporal Laws when and whether the Church may be said to be void or not the cognizance whereof doth not belong to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws and therefore where a Parson is made a Bishop or accepts another Benefice without License or Resigneth or be Deprived In these cases the Common Law would hold the Church void albeit there were any Ecclesiastical Law to the contrary And it is sufficient for the Ordinary's discharge if the Presentee be able by whomsoever he be Presented which Authority is acknowledged on all sides to have been ever inherent in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction But as to the Right of Presentation it self to determine who ought to Present and who
notwithstanding they were several Advowsons and several Quare Impedits might be brought of them and several Actions maintain'd for their several Possessions yet the Presentment of one man to the Parsonage and Vicarage was no Plurality because the Parsonage and Vicarage are but one Cure And there is a Proviso in the Statute That no Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed shall be taken by the Name of a Benefice with Cure within the Statute as to make it a Plurality 6. The Lord Hobart in Colt and Glover's Case against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield is clear of Opinion That Bishopricks are not within the Law under the word Benefices in the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. So that if a Parson take a Bishoprick it avoids not the Benefice by force of this Law but by the ancient Common Law as it is holden 11 H. 4 60. But withal he holds it as clear That if a Bishop have or take two Benefices Parsonages or Vicarages with Cure either by Retainer or otherwise de novo he is directly as to these Benefices within the Law for he is to all purposes for those not a Bishop whether it be in his own Diocess or not but a Parson or Vicar and by that Name must sue and be sued and Prescribe and Claim For if any person having one Benefice with Cure c. take another c. whosoever will hold two Benefices must have such a Qualification and such a Dispensation as the Law 21 H. 8. requires Whereupon the Lord Hobart in the foresaid Case is clear of Opinion That if a man be qualified Chaplain to any Subject and then be made a Bishop his Qualification is void so as he cannot take two Benefices de novo after by force of that Qualification But if he had lawfully two Benefices before his Bishoprick he may by Dispensation of Retainer besides his former Dispensation to take two Benefices hold them with his Bishoprick And if a man being the King's Chaplain take a Bishoprick he holds that he ceaseth to be the King's Chaplain and Bishops are not in that respect Chaplains to the King within the meaning of the Statute So that the Clause of the Statute that gives the King power to give as many Benefices as he will of his own gift to his Chaplain will not serve them In this Case of Colt c. against the Bishop of c. he is of Opinion That if a man have a Benefice with Cure worth above 8 l. he cannot without Qualification and Dispensation procure another with Cure to be united to it after though they make but one Benefice for this Cautel of Union is provided for by Name But of Unions before he is of another Opinion Case Colt Hob. Rep. 7. In ancient times the Pope used to grant Dispensations of the Canons in this Realm and so might the King have done The first Statute that restrain'd the power of the Pope was that of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities That the Church shall be void notwithstanding any Grant of the Pope Also the power of the Pope was taken away by the Statute of 25 H. 8. Before that of the 21 H. 8. the Pope might have dispensed with a man to have twenty Benefices and so might the King The 21 H. 8. was the first Statute or Law which gave allowance for Pluralities afterwards by the 28 H. 8. the power of the Pope was given to the King But as it was said and agreed in the Case of Evans and Ascough that was not by way of Introduction but Cumulutive and by way of Exposition And by that Statute the Archbishop of Canterbury had in this matter a concurrent power with the King and Dispensation granted by the King or by the Archbishop is good Also in the said Case it was agreed by all the Justices That if a Parson or Dean in England doth take a Bishoprick in Ireland it makes the first Church void by Cession because Ireland is a Subordinate Realm to England and governed by the same Law For it was there agreed by all as well by the Justices as those of the Barr That if a Parson or Dean in England take a Bishoprick in Ireland the first Church is void by Cession Justice Whitlock gave this Reason for it Because there is but one Canon Law per totam Ecclesiam and therefore wherever the Authority of the Pope extended it self be it in one or divers Realms the taking of a Bishoprick made the Deanary or Parsonage void Nemo potest habere duas Militias nec duas Dignitates est impossibile quod unus homo potest esse in duobus locis uno tempore And 5 R. 2. F. Tryal 54. the whole Spiritual Court is but one Court which Book is very remarkable to that purpose That the Canon Law is but one Law Which Reason was also given by Justice Doderidge in the same Case and upon the same point who said That the Law of the Church of England is not the Pope's Law but that all of it is extracted out of Ancient Canons as well General as National Another Reason which he then gave was Because Ireland is a Subordinate Realm and governed by the same Law Because although before the time of H. 2. they were several Kingdoms or Realms yet the Laws of England were there Proclaimed by King John and is subject to the Laws of England And if the King having a Title to Present to a Church in Ireland confirm it to the Incumbent under the Great Seal of England it is good 45 Ed. 3. 70. 8. In Savacre's Case it was adjudged in the Common Pleas That if a Baron or others mentioned in the Statute of 21 H. 8. take divers Chaplains which have many Benefices and after they discharge their Chaplains from their Service they shall retain their Benefices during their Lives and if the Baron takes others to be his Chaplains they cannot take many Benefices during the Lives of the others which are Beneficed and Discharged of their Services for if the Law were otherwise the Lords might make any capable of holding Benefices by admitting them to be their Chaplains 9. T. prayed a Prohibition to the Arches the Case was this One had a Recovery in a Quare Impedit and he had a Writ to the Bishop against T. upon which A. his Clerk was admitted c. and after the Recovery died and T. supposing his heir to be in the Ward of the King and that the said A. took another Benefice without sufficient Qualification by which the Church was void by Cession and he attained a Presentation of the King and he was Admitted c. by the Lord-keeper being within the Diocess of Lincoln and A. sued him in the Ecclesiastical Court and T. prayed a Prohibition and it was granted per totam Curiam for without question there ought nothing to be questioned in the Ecclesiastical Court after the Induction of the party And whether it is a Cession
Fees wherewith Churches have been endowed otherwise in possessions of the Church newly purchased by Ecclesiastical persons 10 That such as Abjure the Realm shall be in peace so long as they be in the Church or in the Kings High-way 11 That Religious Houses shall not by compulsion be charged with Pensions resort or Purveyors 12 That a Clerk Excommunicate may be taken by the Kings Writ out of the Parish where he dwells 13 That the examination of the Ability of a Parson presented unto a Benefice of the the Church shall belong unto a Spiritual Judge 14 That the Elections to the Dignities of the Church shall be free without fear of any Temporal power 15 That a Clerk flying into the Church for Felony shall not be compelled to abjure the Realm 16 And lastly That the Priviledge of the Church being demanded in due form by the Ordinary shall not be denied unto the Appealor as to a Clerk confessing Felony before a Temporal Judge 2. In conformity to the premisses there were other Statutes after made in the time of King Ed. 3. whereby it was Enacted 1 That the goods of Spiritual persons should not without their own consents be taken by Purveyors for the King 2 That the King shall not collate or present to any vacant Church Prebend Chappel or other Benefice in anothers Right but within Three years next after the Avoidance 3 That the Temporalties of Archbishops Bishops c. shall not be seized into the Kings hands without a just cause and according to Law 4 That no waste shall be committed on the Temporalties of Bishops during Vacancies and that the Dean and Chapter may if they please take them to Farm 5 And lastly That the Lord Chancellor or Lord Treasurer may during such vacancies demise the Temporalties of Bishopricks to the Dean and Chapter for the Kings use 3. And as there are Articuli Cleri so there are also Articuli Religionis being in all thirty nine Agreed upon at a Convocation of the Church of England Ann. 1562. Ratified by Q. Elizabeth under the Great Seal of England Confirmed and Established by an Act of Parliament with his Majesties Royal Declaration prefixed thereunto Which Act of Parliament requires a Subscription by the Clergy to the said thirty nine Articles the same also being required by the Canons made by the Clergy of England at a Convocation held in London Ann. 1603. and ratified by King James The said Subscription referrs to three Articles 1. That the Kings Majestie under God is the only Supream Governour of the Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countreys c. 2. That the Book of Common Prayer and of Ordaining of Bishops Preists and Deacons containeth nothing in it contrary to the Word of God c. 3. That he alloweth of the said thirty nine Articles of Religion and acknowledgeth them to be agreeable to the Word of God By the Statute of 13. Eliz. 12. the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto but the Delinquent against the Canon of King James is to be prosecuted and proceeded against by the Censures of the Church And it is not sufficient that one subscribe to the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion with this Addition so far forth as the same are agreeable to the Word of God For it hath been resolved by Wray Cheif Justice and by all the Judges of England That such subscription is not according to the Statute of 13. Eliz. because the Subscription which the Statute requires must be absolute But this is no other then Conditional 4. The Circumspecte agatis is the Title of a Statute made in the 13 th year of Ed. 1. Ann. D. 1285. prescribing certain Cases to the Judges wherein the Kings Prohibition doth not lie As in Case the Church-yard be left unclosed or the Church it self uncovered the Ordinary may take Cognizance thereof and by that Statute no Prohibition lies in the Case Nor in case a Parson demands his Oblations or the due and accustomed Tythes of his Parishioners nor if one Parson sue another for Tythes great or small so as the fourth part of the Benefice be not demanded nor in case a Parson demand Mortuaries in places where they have been used and accustomed to be paid nor if the Prelate of a Church or a Patron demand of a Parson a Pension due to him nor in the Case of laying violent hands on a Clerk nor in Cases of Defamation where Money is not demanded nor in Case of Perjury In all which Cases the Ecclesiastical Judge hath Cognizance by the said Statute notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition So that the end of that Statute is to acquaint us with certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie And the Statute of 24 Ed. 1. shews in what Case a Consultation is to be granted And by the Statute of 50. Ed. 3. cap. 4. no Prohibition shall be allowed after a Consultation duely granted provided that the matter of the Libel be not enlarged or otherwise changed CHAP. XLIV Of several Writs at the Common Law pertinent to this Subject 1. What the Writ of Darrein Presentment imports in what case it lies and how it differs from a Quare Impedit 2. Assise de utrum what and why so called 3. Quare Impedit what for and against whom it lies 4. What a Ne admittas imports the use and end thereof 5. In what case the Writ Vi Laica removenda lies 6. What the Writ Indicavit imports and the use thereof 7. What the Writ Advocatione Decimarum signifies 8. Admittendo Clerico what and in what Case issuable 9. The Writ Beneficio primo Ecclesiastico habendo what 10. That Writ Cautione Admittenda and the effect thereof 11. The writ of Clerico infra Sacros ordines constituto non eligendo in Officium What the use or end thereof 12. The Writ Clerico capto per Statutum Mercatorum what 13. What the Writ of Clerico convicto commisso Goalae in defectu Ordinarii deliberando was 14. What the Writ of Annua Pensione was anciently 15. The Writ of Vicario deliberando occasione cujusdam Recognitionis what 16. Three Writs relating to Persons excommunicated 17. Assise of Darrein Presentment brought after a Quare Impedit in the same cause abates 18. Difference of Pleas by an Incumbent in respect of his being in by the Presentment of a stranger and in respect of his being in by the Presentment of the Plaintiff himself 19. Notwithstanding a recovery upon a Quare Impedit the Incumbent continues Incumbent de facto until Presentation by the Recoverer 20. Of what thing a Q. Imp. lies and who shall have it 21. Who may have a Quare Impedit and of what things 22. How and for whom the Writ of Right of Advowson lies 23. What the Writ de jure patronatus and how the Law proceeds thereon 24. The Writ of Spoliation what and where it lies 25. The Writ
I do allow the Printing of this Book entituled An Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws FRA NORTH Imprimatur hic Liber cui Titulus AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE. ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS Guil. Sill R. P. D. HENR Episc Lond à Sacris Dom. Repertorium Canonicum OR An Abridgment OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS OF THIS REALM Consistent with the TEMPORAL WHEREIN The most Material Points relating to such Persons and Things as come within the Cognizance thereof are succinctly Treated Principio Comperto facile est adjicere Reliquum Cooptare Tho. Cana. in Proaem Decret nu 3. T. 1. By JOHN GODOLPHIN LL. D. LONDON Printed by S. Roycroft for Christopher Wilkinson at the Black Boy against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1678. THE Introduction THE Question which King Henry the Eighth did once put to both the Universities of this Realm viz. An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuicunque Episcopo Extero being Resolved in the Negative and that Resolution ratified in the Convocation An. 1534. an Act of Parliament passed about two years after for the extinguishing of that Papal Authority in this Realm This succceded so well in consequence of what the Convocation An. 1530. had before acknowledged him viz. The Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England that that Supremacy was likewise after confirmed by Act of Parliament to him his Heirs and Successors This is that Supremacy here tenderly touch'd at in the first Chapter of the ensuing Abridgment and without which all that follows would be but insignificant and disfigured Cyphers When King Henry the Eighth was thus both Parliamentarily and Synodically invested herewith although it was with all the Priviledges and Preheminences incident thereto yet no more accrued to the Crown thereby than was legally inherent in it before yet in regard of the Usurpations that in divers Kings Reigns had successively invaded the Rights of the Crown in that most splendent Jewel thereof another Convocation in An. 1532. to give the King as it were Livery and Seisin of the said Supremacy promised him in verbo Sacerdotii That they would not from thenceforth Assemble in any Convocation or Synod without his Majesty's Writ nor make any Canons or Constitutions without his License and consent nor execute the same until they were Ratified under the Great Seal of England All which was done without the least diminution of any Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Power or Priviledges in the free exercise of that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which they anciently enjoyed The whole of this Design being only to eject the Roman Pontifex and annul his Usurpation in a matter of that weighty Consequence to which the Crown was so undoubtedly Entituled And this only in a way consonant to that Allegiance which every Subject without distinction owes to his lawful Sovereign in all matters as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his Majesty's Realms and Dominions whereby the Clergy as well as Laity being all Subjects alike might be reduced not only to their Primitive Obedience unto but also to their Dependance on their own Sovereign in preference to any Forein Potentate whatever That the Supream Civil Power is also Supream Governour over all Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical is a Rule says the Learned Bishop Taylor of such great necessity for the conduct of Conscience as that it is the measure of determining all Questions concerning the Sanction of Obedience to all Ecclesiastical Laws the duty of Bishops and Priests to their Princes the necessity of their paying Tribute and discharging the burthens and relieving the necessities of the Republick It was never known says the same Author in the Primitive Church that ever any Ecclesiastical Law did oblige the Catholick Church unless the Secular Prince did establish it The Nicene Canons became Laws by the Rescript of the Emperour Constantine says Sozomen When the Council of Constantinople was finished the Fathers wrote to the Emperour Theodosius and petitioned Vt Edicto Pietatis tuae confirmetur Synodi sententia The confirmation of the Canon and Decrees of the great Council at Ephesus by the Emperour is to be seen at the end of the Acts of the Synod And Marcian the Emperour wrote to Palladius his Prefect a Letâ—er in which he testifies that he made the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon to become Laws Ea quae de Christiana fide à Sacerdotibus qui Chalcedone â—convenerunt per nostra Praecepta Statuta sunt c. Thus also the Fathers of the Fifth General Synod petitioned Justinian to confirm and establish their Canons into a Law The same Prince also Published a Novel in which he commands Vim Legum obtinere Ecclesiasticos Canones à quatuor Synodis Nicena Constantinopolitana prima Ephesina prima Chalcedonensi expositos confirmatos Vid. Concil Tolet. All which confirms it for a Truth That even in the Primitive Church the Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical was in the Supream Secular Prince Touching Archbishops our Malmesbury confesses that in the Ancienter times of the Britains it was unknown where the Archbishoprick was At the Council of Arles An. 314. Silvester the Pope is but plain Bishop as appears by the Nomenclature of those that were at that Council The High Title of Archbishop was for a long time in use in the Eastern Church before it came into the West For whereas our Beda tells us That Augustine was Ordained Archbishop of the English Nation by Etherius Archbishop of Arles aforesaid he therein follows the mode of speaking current in his own times for Gregory the then Pope in his several Letters written to them affords neither of them that Title no not when he bestows the Pall upon Augustine and gives him the precedency and priority in respect of York and all other Bishops of Britain Yet the incomparable B. Vsher affirms that they did not quite deny Archbishops among the Old Britains for he proves they had such but that all Memorials were lost where the Archiepiscopal or Patriarchal Seat resided For although London hath been for many Ages the Chiefest of Britain and was no less than 1300 years since reputed Vetus Oppidum and Augusta yet a Modern Writer of great Learning and Authority would have York as the more Ancient Metropolis of the Diocess of the Britains and that not only because it was a Roman Colony which London was not as Onuphrius contrary to so great and plain Authority of Tacitus doth affirm but also for that the Emperours Palace and Praetorium likewise Tribunal or chief Seat of Judgment was there whence by the Old Historian Spartianus it was called Civitas by way of excellency It must be acknowledg'd that the very Original of things are to us much clouded in obscurity and uncertainty yet he that duly consults Antiquity will find That what Radulphus de Diceto writes touching the Original of Episcopacy and Archiepiscopacy in Britain seems to have
Provisions Appeals to Rome holding Plea of Spiritual things thence arising Excommunications by his Bulls and the like were no other than Usurpations and Encroachments on the Dignity and Prerogative Royal. 14. In the Reign of King H. 8. An. 1539. the Abbots of Colchester Reading and Glastenbury were condemned and executed under colour so the Author expresses it of denying the Kings Supremacy and their rich Abbies seized on as Confiscations to the use of the King But when the Act of Supremacy came to be debated in the time of Queen Elizabeth it seemed a thing strange in Nature and Polity That a Woman should be declared to be the Supream Head on Earth of the Church of England but the Reformed party not so much contending about Words and Phrases as aiming to oust the Pope of all Authority within these Dominions fixed the Supream power over all Persons and Estates of what rank soever in the Crown Imperial not by the Name of Supream Head but tantamount of the Supream Governess In Queen Mary 's time there was an Act of Parliament made declaring That the Regal power was in the Queens Majesty as fully as it had been in any of her Predecessors In the body whereof it is expressed and declared That the Law of the Realm is and ever hath been and ought to be understood That the Kingly or Regal Office of the Realm and alâ— Dignities Prerogatives Royal Power Preheminences Priviledges Authorities and Jurisdictions thereunto annexed united or belonging being invested either in Male or Female are be and ought to be as fully wholly absolutely and entirely deemed adjudged accepted invested and taken in the one as in the other So that whatsoever Statute or Law doth limit or appoint that the King of this Realm may or shall have execute and do any thing as King c. the same the Queen being Supream Governess Possessor and Inheritor to the Imperial Crown of this Realm may by the same power have and execute to alâ— intents constructions and purposes without doubt ambiguity question or scruple any Custome use or any other thing to the contrary notwithstanding By the tenor of which Act made in Queen Mary 's Reign is granted to Queen Elizabeth as much Authority in all the Church-Concernments as had been eâ—ercised and enjoyed by King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. according to any Act or Acts of Parliament in their several times Which Acts of Parliament as our learned Lawyers on these occasions have declared were not to be considered as Introductory of a new power which was not in the Crown before but only Declaratory of an old which naturally belonged to all Christian Princes and amongst others to the Kings and Queens of the Realm of England And whereas some Seditious persons had dispersed a rumour that by the Act for recognizing the Queens Supremacy there was something further ascribed unto the Queen her Heirs and Successors viz. a power of administring Divine Service in the Church which neither by any equity or true sense of the words could from thence be gathered she thereupon makes a Declaration to all her Subjects That nothing was or could be meant or intended by the said Act than was acknowledged to be due to King H. 8. and King Ed. 6. And further declared That she neither doth nor will challenge any other Authority by the same than was challenged and lately used by the said Two Kings and was of Ancient time due unto the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all persons born within her Realms and Dominions of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other Forreign Power shall or ought to have any Superiority over them Which Declaration published in the Queens Injunctions An. 1559. not giving that general satisfaction to that groundless Cavil as was expected and intended the Bishops and Clergy in their Convocation of the year 1562. by the Queens Authority and Consent declared more plainly viz. That they gave not to their Princess by vertue of the said Act or otherwise either the ministring of Gods Word or Sacraments but that only Prerogative which they saw to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scripture by God himself that is to say that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers And lastly to conclude this tender point There is in the said Act for the better exercising and enjoying of the Jurisdiction thus recognized to the Crown an Oath as aforesaid for the acknowledgment and defence of this Supremacy not only in the Queen but also her Heirs and Successors Likewise a power given to the Queen her Heirs and Successors by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England To Assign and Authorize c. as she and they shall think fit such Persons being natural born Subjects to exercise use and occupy under her and them all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminencies in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realms of England and Ireland or any other her Highness Dominions or Countries and to visit reform repress order correct and amend all such Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction or can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the pleasure of Almighty God c. This was the Foundation of the High-Commission Court and from hence issued that Commission by which the Queens Ministers proceeded in their Visitation in the First year of her Majesties Reign CHAP. II. Of Archbishops 1. A Description of that Dignity here in England the Antiquity Precedency Priviledges and Style of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Precincts of that See 2. The Antiquity Precedency and Style of the Archbishop of York with the Precincts of that See 3. What difference between Archbishop and Metropolitan and why called Metropolitan 4. Three Archbishops in England and Wales Anciently 5. The vicissitudes of the Christian Religion Anciently in this Island of Great Britain 6. How the Third Archbishop came to be lost 7. The great Antiquity of an Archbishop in London 8. The Original of the Style Primate and Metropolitan 9. What the difference Anciently between the Two Archbishopricks of Canterbury and York certain Priviledges of the latter 10. Whether an Archbishop may call Cases to his own cognizance nolente Ordinario 11. In what Case the Clerk is to be Instituted by the Archbishop where the Inferiour Ordinary hath right to Collate Also his power of Dispensations 12. A Case at Common Law relating to the Archbish Jurisdiction 13. Certain special Priviledges of the Archbishop of Canterbury 1. ARCHBISHOP ab Archos Princeps Episcopus Superintendens is that Spiritual person
vacancy of a Bishoprick the Dean and Chapter by virtue of his Majesties License under the Great Seal of England hath proceeded to the Election of a new Bishop in pursuance of and according to his Majesties Letters Missive on that behalf and Certificate thereof made unto the Kings Majesty under their Common Seal then follows the Confirmation Consecration and Investiture by the Archbishop or Metropolitan of that Province wherein such Bishoprick was void the said Election having upon such elected Bishops Oath of Fealty to the Kings Majesty been first signified to the Archbishop by the King under his Great Seal whereby the said Archbishop is required to Confirm the said Election and to Consecrate and Invest the person Elected And now he is compleat Bishop as well unto Temporalties as Spiritualties yet after his Confirmation and before his Consecration the King may if he please ex gratia grant him the Temporalties But after his Consecration Investiture and Instalment he is qualified to sue for his Temporalties out of the Kings hands by the Writ de Restitutione Temporalium And yet it seems the Temporalties are not de jure to be delivered to him until the Metropolitan hath certified the time of his Consecration although the Freehold thereof be in him by his very Consecration But if during the Vacation of Archbishopricks or Bishopricks and while their Temporalties are in the Kings hands the Freehold-Tenants of Archbishops or Bishops happen to be attainted of Felony the King by his Prerogative hath the Escheats of such Freeholders-Lands to dispose thereof at his pleasure saving to such Prelates the Service that is thereto due and accustomed Before the Conquest the Principality of Wales was held of the King of England and by the Rebellion and forfeiture of the Prince the Principality came to the King of England whereby the Bishopricks were annexed to the Crown and the King grants them their Temporalties 10 H. 4. 6. 7. The manner of making a Bishop is fully described in Evans and Kiffin's Case against Askwith wherein it was agreed That when a Bishop dies or is Translated the Dean and Chapter certifie the King thereof in Chancery and pray leave of the King to make Election Then the King gives his Congé d'Esâ—ire whereupon they make their Election and first certifie the same to the party Elect and have his consent Then they certifie it to the King in Chanceâ—y also they certifie it to the Archbishop and then the King by his Letters Patents gives his Royal Assent and commands the Archbishop to Confirm and Consecrate him and to do all other things necessary thereunto whereupon the Archbishop examines the Election and the Ability of the party and thereupon confirms the Election and after Consecrates him according to the usage upon a New Creation And upon a Translation all the said Ceremonies are observed saving the Consecration which is not in that case requisite for that he was Consecrated before 8. Bishopricks were Donatives by the King till the time of W. Rufus and so until the time of King John Read for that the History of Eadmerus Vid. Case Evans vers Ascouth in â—in Caâ— Noy 's Rep. It hath been generally held That before the Conquest and after till the time of King John Bishops were Invested by the King per Baculum Annulum but King John by his Charter granted That there should be a Canonical Election with Three Restrictions 1. That leave be first asked of the King 2. His Assent afterwards 3. That he shall have the Temporalties during the Vacation of the Bishoprick whereof mention is made in the Stat. of 25 Ed. 3. de Provisoribus and which is confirmed by the Stat. of 13 R. 2. c. 2. Also the Law in general is positive therein That in the making of all Bishops it shall be by Election and the Kings Assent and by the 25 H. 8. the Statute for Consecration of Bishops makes it more certain And if the Pope after the said Charter did use to make any Translation upon a Postulation without Election and Assent of the King it was but an Usurpation and contrary to the Law and restrained by 16 R. 2. and 9 H. 4. 8. And after the 25 H. 8. it was never used to have a Bishop by Postulation or any Translation of him but by Election as the said Statute prescribes And the form of making a Bishop at this day is after the same manner as aforesaid and according to the said Statute 9. The Interest and Authority which a Bishop Elect hath is That he is Episcopus Nominis non Ordinis neque Jurisdictionis But by his Confirmation he hath Potestatem Jurisdictionis as to Excommunicate and Certifie the same 8 Rep. 89. And then the power of the Guardian of the Spiritualties doth cease But after Election and Confirmation he hath Potestatem Ordinationis for then he may Consecrate confer Orders c. For a Bishop hath Three Powers 1. Ordinis which he hath by Consecration whereby he may take the Resignation of a Church confer Orders consecrate Churches And this doth not appertain to him quatenus Bishop of this or that place but is universal over the whole World So the Archbishop of Spalato when he was here conferr'd Orders 2. Jurisdictionis which is not Universal but limited to a place and confin'd to his See This power he hath upon his Confirmation 3. Administratio rei familiaris as the Government of his Revenue and this also he hath upon his Confirmation The Bishop acts either by his Episcopal Order or by his Episcopal Jurisdiction By the former he Ordains Deacons and Priests Dedicates or Consecrates Churches Chappels and Churchyards administers Confirmation c. By the latter he acts as an Ecclesiastical Judge in matters Spiritual by his Power either Ordinary or Delegated 10. An. 1430. Temp. Reg. H. 6. Hen. Chicheley Archiepisc Cant. in Synodo Constitutum est Ne quis Jurisdictionem Ecclesiasticam exerceret nisi Juris Civilis aut Canonici gradum aliquem ab Oxoniâ—nsi vel Cantabrigiensi Academia accepisset Ant. Brit. fo 284. nu 40. The power of the Bishop and Archbishop is derived from the Crown as was held in Walkers Case against Lamb where it was also held That the Grant of a Commissary or Official to one was good notwithstanding he were a Lay man and not a Doctor of Law but only a Batchelour of Law for the Court then said That the Jurisdiction of the Bishop and Archdeacon is derived from the Crown by usage and prescription and that in it self as it is coercive to punish Crimes or to determine Matrimonial Causes and Probate of Testaments and granting of Administrations being Civil Causes are derived from the Crown and not incident de mero jure to the Bishop which appears by Henslows Case par 9. Cawdry's Case par 5. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. the Stat. of 37 H. 8. and divers other Authorities and the Statute of 37 H. 8. c.
And the Judgment of Parliament expressed in the Preamble of that Statute of Faculties is very remarkable to this purpose where it is recited that the Bishop of Rome had deceived and abused the Subjects of the Crown of England pretendig and perswading them That he had full power to Dispence with all human Laws Vses and Customes of all Realms in all Causes which be called Spiritual which matter hath been usurped and practised by him and his Predecessors for many years to the great derogation of the Imperial Crown of England For whereas the said Realm of England recognizing no Superiour under God but the King hath been and yet is free from subjection to any mans Laws but only to such as have been devised made and Ordained within this Realm for the weal of the same or to such other as by sufferance of the King and his Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free liberty and by their own consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long use and custome to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and ancient Laws of this Realm originally established as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custome and not otherwise it standeth with natural equity and good reason that all such human Laws made within this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consent and Custome should be Dispenced with abrogated amplified or diminished by the King and his Parliament or by such persons as the King and Parliament should authorize c. Vid. 21 H. 7. 4. a. where it is said That certain Priests were deprived of their Benefices by Act of Parliament in the time of R. 2. whereby it hath been concluded that the King of England and not the Pope before the making of the said Statute of Faculties might de jure Dispence with the Ecclesiastical Law in that and other cases For although many of our Ecclesiastical Laws were first devised in the Court of Rome yet they being established and confirmed in this Realm by acceptance and usage are now become English Laws and shall no more be reputed Roman Canons or Constitutions As Rebuffus speaking De Regula Cancellariae Romanae de verisimili notitia Haec Regula says he ubique in Regno Franciae est recepta est Lex Regni effecta observatur tanquam Lex Regni non tanquam Papae Regula Papa eam revocare non potest The Kings of England from time to time in every Age before the time of H. 8. have used to grant Dispensations in Causes Ecclesiastical For whereas the Law of the Church is That every Spiritual person is Visitable by the Ordinary King William the Conqueror by his Charter Dispenced with the exempted the Abbey of Battell from the Visitation and Jurisdiction of the Ordinary in these express words Sitque dicta Ecclesia libera quieta in perpetuum ab omni subjectione Episcoporum quarumlibet personarum dominatione sicut Ecclesia Christi Cantuariensis c. whereby he Dispences with the Law of the Church in that Case Vid. libr. De vera differentia Regiae potestatis Ecclesiasticae Edit 1534. where that whole Charter is recited at large The like Charter was granted to the Abbey of Abingdon by King Kenulphus 1 H. 7. 23 25. and Cawdry's Case Co. par 5. fo 10. a. So likewise every Appropriation doth comprize in it a Dispensation to the Parson Imparsonee to have and retain the Benefice in perpetuity as appears in Grendon's Case Plow Com. 503. In which Act the King by the Common Law shall be always Actor not only as Supream Patron but also as Supream Ordinary as is also observed in Grendon's Case For the King alone without the Pope may make Appropriations 7 E. 3. Fitz. Quare Impedit 19. And in the Case of Malum prohibitum and Malum in se in 11 H. 7. 12. a. it is held That the King may dispence with a Priest to hold Two Benefices and with a Bastard that he may be a Priest notwithstanding the Ecclesiastical Laws which are to the contrary And as he may dispence with those Laws so he may pardon all Offences contrary to these Laws and his Pardon is a barr to all Suits pro salute Animae or reformatione morum and all Suits ex Officio in the Ecclesiastical Court Hall's Case Coke 5. par fo 51. In all Faculties or Dispensations for the holding of Two Benefices granted at the Court of Rome there was always a particular Derogation or Non obstante the right of Patronage of Lay-Patrons and of the right of the King by name express where the Patronage belonged to him otherwise the Faculty was void For by the Canon Law the Lay-Patrons ought to be called to give their Consents in all Cases of that nature And if such a particular Non obstante were not added in the Faculty then there was inserted another Clause viz. Dummodo Patronorum expressus accedat Consensus also by another Clause Authority was always given to the Official or Archdeacon or other Ecclesiastical Minister to put him to whom the Faculty is granted into possession of the Benefice cum acciderit And because by the Canon Law the Patron 's consent was ever requisite in a Commenda for that reason in every Faculty or License granted by the Pope to make a Permutation Union or Appropriation of Churches these words were ever added viz. Vocatis quorum interest which chiefly intends the Patron And which Union and Approbation shall not according to the Common Law be made without the Patron 's assent Vid. 11 H. 7. 8. 6 H. 7. 13. 46 Ass p. 50. Ed. 3. 26. 40 Ed. 3. 26. Grendon's Case Plow Com. 498. a. A Faculty or Dispensation is of such force that if a Clerk be presented to a Benefice with Cure and be Admitted Instituted and Inducted into the same so that the Church is full of him if afterwards he be presented to another Benefice Incompatible or elected to a Bishoprick and before he is Instituted to the second Benefice or be created Bishop he obtain a Faculty or Dispensation to retain the first Benefice Perpetuae Commendae titulo that is for his life that Faculty or Dispensation shall be of such effect that the former Benefice shall not be void by acceptance of the Second or by promotion to the Bishoprick but he shall remain full and perfect Incumbent of the first Benefice during his life In the time of H. 6. when Henry Beaufort Great Uncle to the King being Bishop of Winchester was made a Cardinal and after that purchased from the Pope a Bull Declaratory that notwithstanding he were made Cardinal yet his Bishoprick of Winchester should not be void but that he might retain the same as before yet it was held That the See of Winchester was void by assuming the Cardinalship which
exempts the Bishop from the Jurisdiction of his Metropolitan And for that the Cardinal fell into a Praemunire for which he purchased his Pardon which is sound among the Charters 4 H. 6. in Archivis Turr Lond. 6 7 Eliz. Dyer 233. a. Jo. Packhurst being elected to the Bishoprick of Norwich before that he was created Bishop obtained a Faculty or Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury by force of the Statute of Faculties to retain a Parsonage which he had before in Commendam for Three years viz. Ã Festo Michaelis An. Dom. 1560. usque ad idem Festum in An. 1563. Before the first Feast of St. Michael Packhurst is created Bishop and afterwards he resigned the Benefice And the Question was whether that Benefice became void by the resignation of Packhurst or by his promotion to the Bishoprick And it was adjudged That the Church became void by his Resignation Which proves That by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation he continued Parson until he had Resign'd Vid. N. Br. 36. h. If a Parson who hath a Faculty or Dispensation to hold his Rectory be created a Bishop and after the Patron present another Incumbent who is Instituted and Inducted now the Bishop shall have a Spoliation against that Incumbent which proves that his real possession in the Parsonage always continued by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation And in this Case of a Commendam in Sir Joh. Davis Reports this difference is put between a Faculty to take a Benefice and a Faculty to retain a Benefice viz. That a Faculty granted to one who is not Incumbent to Take a void Benefice is void And a Faculty to one who is Incumbent of a Benefice to Retain the same Benefice is good By virtue of these Faculties Dispensations and Provisions from the Pope Edmond the Monk of Bury who was a Minister in the Court of King Ed. 3. had many Benefices as appears in the foresaid Case of the Bishop of St. Davids 11 H. 4. And Hankford said in the same Case fo 191. a. That by virtue of such Faculty one and the same person had been Abbot of Glastenbury and Bishop also of another Church simul semel and had the Possessions and Dignity of both at the same time Likewise Hen. Chichley who was afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury being a Prebend in the Cathedral Church of Sarum was elected Bishop of St. Davids and before his Consecration the Pope reciting by his Bull that he was elected Bishop of St. Davids granted him a Faculty and power to hold and enjoy all his other Benefices till the Pope should otherwise order c. Vid. Nov. Decis Rot. 331. And that these Faculties or Dispensations to hold Benefices in Commendam were granted in the Court of Rome in the time of King H. 5. appears in Lindw de Praeb c. Audistis ver Dispensatione And although in case of Hen. Beauford aforesaid it was held That the Dispensation came too late it being granted after the Bishop was created Cardinal yet afterwards in the time of King H. 8. Cardinal Wolsey having before he was created Cardinal obtained a Bull from the Pope to retain the Archbishoprick of York as perpetual Administrator and the Abbey of St. Albans in perpetuam Commendam he held both during his life by virtue of the said Faculty or Dispensation Vid. 27 H. 8. 15. b. By these Presidents and Authorities it is evident That before the making of the foresaid Statute of Faculties such Dispensations were had and obtained at the Court of Rome to hold in Commendam Ecclesiastical Benefices in England But the Truth is as in the foresaid Case de Commenda Davis Rep. such Faculties or Dispensations granted by the Pope touching Ecclesiastical Benefices in England were ever contrary to the Law of the Realm for it was a meer usurpation on the Crown of England before the Statutes made against Provisors And these Statutes were made in declaration of the Common Law in that point 12 Ed. 2. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 169. 19 Ed. 2. Eitz Qua non admisit 7. 15 Ed. 3. Fitz. Qua. Imp. 160. 21 Ed. 3. 40. 11 H. 4. 230. a. It is also meet to be known That long before King H. 8. the Statute of 16 R. 2. and divers other Laws against Provisors and Appeals to Rome and the Popes Usurpation upon the Rights of the Crown of England were made well-nigh as severe as any since The first encroachment of the Bishop of Rome upon the Liberties of the Crown of England was made in the time time of King William the Conqueror For before that time the Pope's Writ did not run in England his Bulls of Excommunication and Provision came not thither nor were any Citations or Appeals made from thence to the Court of Rome Eleutherius the Pope within less than two hundred years after Christ writes to Lucius the Brittish King and calls him God's Vicar within his Kingdom Pelagius the Monk of Bangor about An. 400. being cited to Rome refused to appear upon the Pope's Citation affirming That Britain was neither within his Diocess nor his Province And when about the year 600 Augustine the Monk was sent by Gregory the Great into England to Convert the Saxons the Brittish Bishops then in Wales regarded neither his Commission nor his Doctrine as not owing any duty to nor having any dependence on the Court of Rome but still retained their Ceremonies and Traditions which they received from the East-Church upon the first plantation of the Faith in that Island And though Ina the Saxon King gave the Peter-pence to the Pope partly as Alms and partly in recompence of a House erected in Rome for English Pilgrims yet certain it is that Alfred Aethelstane Edgar Edmond Cauutus and Edward the Confessor and other Kings of the Saxon Race gave all the Bishopricks in England per Annulum Baculum 9. In the Case of Evans against Askwith it was agreed That the nature of a Dispensation is for to derogate and make void a Statute Canon or Constitution as to that which it prohibites as to the party and it is as an Exception as to him out of the Statute or Constitution It is said that a Dispensation is Provida Relaxatio mali prohibiti necessitate vel utilitate pensata And in the same Case it was also Resolved by all the Judges That the King hath power to Dispence with Statutes and Canons in force within this Realm By the very Common Law of right it was in the King for the Canons are the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Land and do not bind except they are received in the Realm as appears by the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. And by the Statute of Merton touching one born before Marriage as by the Canon yet at Common Law he is Legitimate And 10 H. 7. 12. it is said That the King may Dispence with one to hold Two Benefices and it seems the Pope
of Advowson of a Church he may only say that he was seized as of Fee and not in his Demesn as of Fee whether it be an Advowson in Gross or Appendant which Appendancy is held to be for the most part by Prescription and must relate to such things as are in their own nature of a perpetual continuance for which reason it is That Advowsons cannot be said to be Appendant to Rents Services and the like because such things are extinguishable And although an Advowson be not properly said to be a Demesn yet it may be Appendant to a Demesn as of Lands or things Corporeal and Perpetual and therefore as supposed not to a House of habitation meerly quatenus such yet to the Soyl whereon the House is erected whereby the Law which hath the clearest prospect of Casualties at a distance hath provided that the Advowson shall stand though the House fall but an Advowson Disappendant and in Gross which in man hath alone and not by reason of any other thing but severed from the Lands to which it was Appendant such an Advowson is exempt from divers prejudicial Incidents which the other viz. the Appendant cannot well avoid And where a Subject or Common person hath an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor and there be an Usurpation upon him by a Presentation made by a Stranger whose Clerk is in for Six months though this makes the Advowson of such Common person Disappendant to his Mannor yet it is otherwise in case of the King who may grant the Advowson notwithstanding such Usurpation for a man cannot put the King out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation as hath been Adjudged Nor doth the King's Presentation by Lapse sever the Advowson from the Mannor or cause it to become disappendant as in Gawdy's Case against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Others was likewise Adjudged in which Case it was also said by Habard Chief Justice That neither doth a wrongful Collation of the Bishops make any Disappendancy nor any binding Plenarty against the true Patron but that he may not only bring his Quare Impedit when he please but also Present upon him seven years after Also whereas it was said before That an Advowson cannot be Appendant to things Extinguishable as to Rents Services and the like so it seems at the Common Law an Advowson in Possession cannot be Appendant to a Reversion expectant upon an Estate for life for the Case was The King seized of a Mannor with an Advowson Appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum una cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet the Advowson passed not Finally whereas also it hath been Adjudged as aforesaid that the King cannot be put out of possession either by Presentation or Usurpation this seems to refer only as to the Kings Advowson and not as to his present Presentation for the Opinion of Sir H. Hobart Chief Justice is That although the King may be dispossessed of his present Presentation he cannot be so of his Advowson and therefore he may still grant it notwithstanding the Usurpation as was Judged in a Writ of Error upon a Judgment given to the contrary between the King and Campion for the Vicarage of Newton Valence 23. A Donative in the Kings Gift may be with Cure of Souls as the Church of the Tower of London is a Donative in the Kings Gift with Cure as in the Case of Fletcher and Mackaller where Information was brought upon the Stat. 31 Eliz. of Simony for procuring him to be promoted to the Church of the Tower for money and per Curiam it well lies 24. The Queen hath the Advowson of the Vicarage of H. and grants the Vicarage to J. S. It was the Opinion of all the Justices that the Advowson passeth not for that the Vicarage is another thing than the Advowson of the Vicarage The Queen seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor cum Advocatione Ecclesiae the Church being then void It was Adjudged the Avoidance did not pass but the Queen should Present pro hac vice And in the Queen and Hussie's Case it was Resolved That a double Presentation would not put the Queen out of possession if she hath Right And in Stephens and Clarks Case it was Resolved That the Grant of the next Avoidance to one during the Avoidance is void in Law CHAP. XX. Of Appropriations 1. The great Antiquity of Appropriations a Conjecture of their Original whether Charles Martell was the occasion thereof they were prohibited in England anciently by the Pope whether they can be otherwise than by the King or some Authority derived from him 2. How the End and use of Appropriations is changed at this day from what it was in the Original Institution thereof 3. Appropriators why called Proprietarii The care of R. 2. in making Provision for thé Vicar in case of Appropriations Requisites of Law to make an Appropriation 4. A further discovery of the Original use and ends of Appropriations and under what qualifications 5. Whether Appropriations were anciently grantable to Nunneries 6. Appropriations not now to be questioned as to their Original 7. A Vicarage endowed may be Appropriated but not to a Parson 8. Three considerable Points of Law resolved by the Justices touching Appropriations 9. Whether an Advowson may be Appropriated without a Succession Appropriations usually were to Corporations or Persons Spiritual 10. How a Church Appropriate may be disappropriated 11. In Appropriations the Patron and his Successors are perpetual Parsons 12. Whether an Appropriation of a Parsonage without endowment of the Vicarage be good Also whether an Appropriation may be made without the Kings License 1. IT is a question at this day undecided Whether Princes or Popes were the first Authors of Appropriations the practice whereof by each of them is of great Antiquity but whether in imitation of Charles Martell's Sacrilegious President the first by whom Tithes were ever violated in the Christian World is but a Supposition rather than any Assertion among Historians It was long since Traditionally Recorded in History that about the year 650. when the said Charles Martell Father of Pipin after King of France in defence of his Country against the Hunnes Gothes and Vandals had slain no less than 34500 of those Infidel Sarazens in one Battel he did not restore to such of the Clergy of France their Tithes as from whom under a fair pretence of supporting the charges of the War thereby he had upon a Promise of Restitution thereof so soon as the War should cease obtained the same but instead thereof gratified such of the Nobility as had assisted him in the War by the grant thereof to them and their Heirs for ever But whether this Sacriledge if it be true had
is Created Bishop and dies Incumbent it seems the King shall not Present to the Church by his Prerogative for that the Church is not void by his being made a Bishop in which case the Prerogative gives the Presentation to the King but by the death of the Incumbent in which case the Prerogative doth not take place Co. Ent. 474. Hele's Case there pleaded that in such case the Church is void by death and admitted that it belongs to the Patron to present upon his death 24. If a Church whereof a Bishop in right of his Bishoprick is the Patron becomes void after the death of the Bishop and before the Seizure of the Temporalties yet the King shall have the Presentation And if a Church belonging to the Patronage of a Bishop become void and the Bishop Present and die before Institution the King shall have that Presentation by his Prerogative So if a Bishop die after Institution of the Clerk and before Induction the King shall have the Presentation by his Prerogative Also if Lapse incurr to the Ordinary and before the Six months pass the Ordinary is Translated or dies it seems the King shall have the Presentation and not the Ordinary or his Executors or the Guardian of the Spiritualties P. 40 El. B. Dubitatur Hob. Rep. 208. in case of death But if a Bishop having right to present to a Prebend and present his Clerk who is Instituted and Inducted in the Morning and Afternoon the same day the Bishop dies whereby the Temporalties come into the Kings hands yet the King in that case may not have the Presentation 25. The Patronage of the Deanary of an Archbishoprick doth of Common right belong to the Archbishop and he shall Present to the Avoidance But by Composition it may be Elective by the Chapter and yet the Patronage remain in the Archbishop And where a Parson ought to present to a Vicarage if the Vicarage become void during the vacancy of the Parsonage the Patron of the Parsonage shall present 26. An Alien who is a Minister may be presented to a Church and Anciently it was usual for Aliens to have Spiritual promotions here and Priors Aliens had great possessions in England and were Parsons Appropriate yet by the Statutes of 13 R. 2. 1 H. 5. French-men are disabled from having Benefices in England and French-men Denizon'd Sed Qu. whether they continue of force at this day And if a meer Lay-man or a man altogether illiterate be presented Instituted and Inducted it is not in Construction of the Common Law a meer Nullity but such are Parsons de facto but if a Woman be Presented Instituted and Inducted it is a meer Nullity at that Law because her Incapacity is apparent 27. If a man present his Clerk to the Bishop and he die before he is received he may present another and although a man hath presented his Clerk to the Bishop yet he may present another at any time before the Bishop shall have received such his Clerk 28. If J. S. Present and his Clerk be Admitted and Instituted before Induction J. D. cannot Present his Clerk for the Church was Full before as to a Common person for by the Institution he had Curam animarum But where a Common person Presents and his Clerk be Admitted and Instituted yet before Induction the King if he hath Right may Present and his Clerk shall be Instituted for the Church is not Full as against the King before Induction But if the King hath not right to the Church in that case the Church is Full by the Admission and Institution of a Common person's Clerk without Induction as against the King so as that he may not in that case Present 29. If a Bishop Collate without any good Title of Lapse or otherwise and then the Patron die after the Six months claps'd and his Executor bring Quare Impedit by force of the Statute of 4 E. 3. and the Bishop and Incumbent plead Plenarty by Six months it was Adjudged no Plea on Demurrer for that the Collation is not any Plenarty being Tortious Also if a Bishop Collate without a good Title of Lapse it puts not the Patron out of possession but he may Present afterwards albeit the Bishop's Clerk were Instituted and Inducted 30. A Common person may Present to a Church per Parol and if it be by Writing yet it is not any Deed but only in nature of a Letter to the Bishop Also the King may Present either by his Letters or per Parol without Writing But if the King be deceived in his Title it will be a void Presentation And if the King grant a Presentation by his Letters by the words damus Concedimus without other words of Presentation yet it seems it shall amount to a Presentation and be a sufficient Warrant for the Bishop to Institute him Dubitatur 19 E. 3. Quare Impedit 60. A Common person by his Letter or his Word may make a Presentation to a Benefice to the Bishop the King may Present by Word if the Ordinary be present if the King under any Seal present it is good And Mich. 10 Jac. it was held by the whole Court that a Presentment under the Great Seal to a Church parcel of the Dutchy of Lancaster is good and needed not to be under the Dutchy-Seal Where a man accepts a Second Benefice with Cure without a Dispensation or Qualification the First Benefice is void and the Patron may Present but if he doth not Present then if it is under value no Lapse shall incurr until there is a Deprivation and Notice But if it be above value then the Patron must Present within Six months The King seized of an Advowson in the Right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Presented to it under the Great Seal and not under the Seal of the Dutchy And Resolved That the Presentation was good for the Presentation is but a Fruit fallen from the Tree and the King may Present by word because a Presentation is but a Commendation of the Clerk to the Ordinary A man seized of an Advowson in Fee granted to another and his Heirs that when the Church should become void that the Grantee and his Heirs should Nominate a Clerk to the Grantor and his Heirs and he and his Heirs should Present him to the Ordinary Resolved That if he who hath the Nomination Present he which ought to Present shall have a Quare Impedit against him and è contra In Beverley and Cornwell's Case it was Resolved That if any Advowson comes to the Queen for Forfeiture by Outlawry and the Church becomes void and the Queen Presents and then the Outlawry is reversed for Error yet the Queen shall enjoy the Presentment because it came to the Queen as a profit of the Advowson but if the Church be void at the time of the Outlawry and the
the First were vnder the annual value of Eight pounds or sine cura And what persons are qualified either for the Granting or receiving Pluralities appears by the Stat. of 21 H. 8. c. 13. In which there is not any limitation of Number of Chaplains to be retained by the King Queen and Prince and other the King's Children for which reason they may retain as many Chaplains as they please and each of them qualificable by a Dispensation for Plurality But if either of the King's Chaplains be Sworn of his Majesties most Honourable Privy Council such may purchase a Dispensation to hold Three Benefices with Cure of Souls The Persons specially qualified by Dispensations for Pluralities are either 1 Such as are retained as Chaplains to Persons of Honour Or 2 Such as are qualified thereto in respect of their Birth Or 3 Such as are dignified with some certain Degrees in either of the Universities of this Kingdom In reference to the first of these every Archbishop and Duke may have Six Chaplains Marquess and Earl Five every Viscount and other Bishop Four Lord Chancellor Three Knight of the Garter Three Baron Three Dutchess Marchioness Countess and Baroness being Widows Two Treasurer and Controller of the Kings House Two the Kings Secretary and Dean of his Chappel the Kings Almner and Master of the Rolls Two the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Warden of the Cinque Ports One In reference to the Second qualification viz. By Birth the Brothers and Sons of all Temporal Lords and of Knights born in Wedlock may purchase Dispensations to hold Two Parsonages c. with Cure of Souls In reference to the Third all Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity Doctors and Batchelors of Law Presented to any of these Degrees not by grace only but by any of the Universities of this Realm may purchase and hold as aforesaid Vid. Statute 21 H. 8. cap. 13. 4. Although by the Letter of which Act the First Living is not void until Induction into the Second the words being If the party be Instituted and Inducted in possession of the Second Living that then the first shall be void yet to avoid the great inconveniency as Sir Simon Degge observes in his Parsons Counsellor that otherwise would ensue it has been held That the First Living is void upon the bare Institution into the Second and so it should seem the Law was before the making of this Act where the party had no Dispensation The sufficiency of qualification for Plurality relates as well to the Dispensation as to the Person for if the Dispensation after its being had from the Master of the Faculties be not confirmed under the Great Seal of England other qualifications will not suffice Nor are the supernumerary Chaplains of any person of Honour retained by him above the Number allowed by the Statute qualified for Plurality Co. 4. 90. B. versus the Bishop of Gloucester and Saveacre Anders More 561. The death attainder degradation or displacing of a Chaplains Lord or his discharging his Chaplain unqualifies him for a Plurality of incompatible Livings otherwise of the Chaplain of a Dutchess Marchioness Countess or Baroness in case of After-marriage A double Capacity in one and the same person of Honour to qualifie his Chaplains doth but capacitate him to qualifie his Number of Chaplains only according to his best qualification A Person of Honour having retained his full Number of Chaplains and discharging them after their preferment may not during their Lives qualifie others 5. The Question was formerly put Whether the 8 l. yearly value intentioned in the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 13. shall be understood according to the Taxed value in the Kings Books or according to the very true value of the Benefice Mr. Hughes in his Parsons Law reports a Case in King James's time wherein this Question was debated pro con the Judges equally divided the Case for difficulty and variance of Opinion adjourned and afterwards as he there speaks de auditu by order of the King compounded In that Case Two Presidents it seems were shewed in proof of that Opinion which inclined to have it taken according to the very value of the Benefice notwithstanding when the same point came again several years after into question the Court then seemed to incline against the Opinion which was for the very value of the Benefice But says he the Case was not then resolved or adjudged but remaineth a Question undetermined Quaere the Law Foster and Walmesley Justices held the value should be taken according to the Taxed value as in the Book of First-Fruits but Warburton and Coke Chief Justice Contra. It hath been Resolved in Holland's Case and likewise in Digby's Case Rep. 4. and often before since the Council of Lateran An. Do. 1215. That if a man have a Benefice with Cure whatever the value be and is Admitted and Instituted into another Benefice with Cure of what value soever having no Qualification or Dispensation the First Benefice is ipso facto so void that the Patron may Present another to it if he will But if the Patron will not Present then if under the value no Lapse shall incurr untill Deprivation of the first Benefice and Notice But if of the value of eight pounds or above the Patron at his peril must Present within Six months by the Statute of 21 H. 8. And in that Case of Digby it was adjudged That when a man hath a Benefice with Cure above eight pounds and afterwards taketh another with Cure and is Presented and Instituted and before Induction procures the Letters of Dispensation that this Dispensation comes too late For by the Institution Ecclesia plena consulta existit against all persons except the King for every Rectory consisteth upon Spiritualty and Temporalty And as to the Spiritualty viz. Cura animarum he is compleat Parson by the Institution for when the Bishop upon Examination had admitteth him able then he doth Institute him and saith Instituo te ad tale Beneficium habere curam animarum of such a Parish accipe curam tuam c. Vide 33 H. 6. 13. But touching the Temporalties as the Glebe-Lands c. he hath no Freehold in them until Induction For by the General Council of Lateran Anno Dom. 1215. it appeareth That by the acceptance of two Benefices the first is void Aperto jure for upon this Council are the Books of the Common Law in this Caâ—e founded And it was in this Case Resolved That this was an Acceptance of a Benefice cum Cura within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Institution is an Acceptance by the Common Law A man was Presented to a Church with a Vicarage endowed the Parson accepted of a Presentation to the Vicarage without Dispensation Whether this were a Plurality by the Canon Law and by the Statute of 21 H. 8. was the Question Hobart Chief Justice was of Opinion That
sole Prince conferred the Tithes of all the Kingdom upon the Church by his Royal Charter Of which Ingulph Abbot of Crowland An. 855. saith That King Ethelwolph with the consent gratuito consensu of his Prelates and Princes did first enrich the Church of England with the Tithes of all his Lands and Goods Many other Laws of the Saxon Kings for the payment of Tithes are recited by Mr. Selden as entirely the Gift of Kings And so saith King Elred Nemo auferat à Deo quod ad Deum pertinet Praecessores nostri concesserunt The whole Bishoprick Anciently was in a large sense a Paroecia and the income of it by Contributions first and by Tithes also afterwards was the Common stock of all the Clergy of the Diocess and Mr. Selden asserts it to be the general Opinion of all the Common Lawyers That before the Lateran Council under Innocent 3. every man might have given his Tithes to what Church he would probably within the Diocess because they were not the Propriety as yet of any one Presbyter but the Common Patrimony of all the Diocesan Clergy So that Tithes are a Tenth part of all increase Tithable due to God and consequently to his Ministers that wait on the Altar These are divided into Three sorts 1. Praedial Tithes arising only either of the Fruits of the Ground as Corn Hay Hemp and the like or of the Fruits of Trees and Orchards as Apples Pears and the like 2. Personal Tithes arising of the profits that come by the labour and industry of Man either by Handicrafts as Carpenters Masons and the like or by Buying Selling or Merchandizing 3. Mixt Tithes arising partly of the Ground and partly of the Industry of Man as of Calves Lambs Piggs Milk Cheese and the like No Tithes shall be paid for such things as do not increase and renew year by year by the Act of God Of Praedial Tithes some are called Majores vulgarly termed the Great Tithes others Minores vel Minutae vulgarly the Small Tithes The Great such as Wheat Rye Hay c. The Small such as Min◠Annis Cumin c. And commonly with us here in England we compute Flax in the number of Small Tithes which is a Praedial Tithe as also Wool Milk Cheese Eggs Chicken of all kinds Lambs Honey Bees-wax and the like Vid. Lindw cap. de Decimis In Ancient times the Laity were so far from subtracting their Tithes as is the common practice of these daies that oft-times they would give more than was due or demanded and were so Conscientious in the payment thereof as at their death they usually bequeathed a Soule-Sceat to their Parochial Priest in lieu of any Tithes forgotten and at their Funerals caused their best Ox or Horse to be led with the Corps and as a Mortuary or Oblation given to the Priest in recompence of any Tithes which possibly in their life-time might have been omitted to be paid But in these latter Ages not regarding what S. Hierom says That Fraudare Eccelsiam est Sacrilegium all Artifices imaginable are put in practice to subduct the Tithes and therefore to enforce the due payment thereof were the Statutes of H. 8. and Ed. 6. made and enacted 2. Covarruvias with other Canonists and Schoolmen holds That by the Moral Law the rate or proportion of Tithes is not necessarily to be the Tenth part of the Fruits which the more received Opinion holds to be both Erroneous and Mischievous and that by the Law of God and Nature no Custome deviating from the exact rate and proportion of the Tenth of the Fruits ought to prevail any longer than by the free and mutual consent of Parson and Parishioner For which reason it is supposed That the paying of a Halfpeny for a Lamb or a Peny for a Calf by such as have under Seven in one year is now become an unreasonable Custome in regard the value of such Lambs and Calves is now raised four times higher than in Ancient times This seems far remote from Tithes the very Quotity whereof seems to be Moral rather than Ceremonial or Judicial and not only allowed or approved but even commanded by our Saviour himself Yea by the very Law of Nature which is the ground of the Moral Law and long before the Levitical Tithes appear to be due in that Abraham paid it to Melchisedec And God himself who is the best Interpreter of his own Law calls the detention of Tithes Sacriledge And that Command of Christ affirming that Tithes ought to be paid of all even to the very Herbs spoken by him at the period of the Levitical Law ought not to be restrained only to the Priesthood of Aaron for it doth now remain in force as to Priests under the Gospel as that other part of the Moral Law Thou shalt not steal the withholding of Tithes being expresly interpreted Theft and Robbery by the Prophet And lest it should be thought a meer Human Interest or in the power of Man to alienate God himself hath vouchsafed to take Tithes upon his own account in his Ministers behalf These Tithes could not be meerly Ceremonial as some would have it for they prefigure nothing nor are they repealed by any one Text in the Gospel but reinforced as aforesaid so that whatever was commanded in the Old Testament and grounded on the Law of Nature and being not Repealed in the New must yet stand in force as a Duty of the Moral Law And if it be Objected That Tithes were not paid in the Primitive times of the Christian Church the Reason is not because they were not then due but because there was not then any such settled Order for things of this or the like nature in the Church 3. Wherefore all the Common Objections made against the payment of Tithes in the Christian Church may be reduced to one of these Four 1. That our Saviour gave no Command to his Apostles to take Tithes but rather on the contrary said Freely ye have received freely give Answ Yet our Saviour says These things speaking of Tithes ought you to have done And says The workman is worthy of his meat And St. Paul says The Labourer is worthy of his Reward Where hath Christ in totidem verbis forbidden Sacriledge wilt thou therefore commit it because he hath not in terminis terminantibus forbidden it Thou that abhorrest Idols dost thou commit Sacriledge 2 Tithes were not paid till about three hundred years after Christ as Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian do testifie Answ These Fathers do withal acknowledge that during that time the Churches Maintenance was the Peoples free Contribution which probably might have continued to this day had not that Contribution in process of time turned into a Sacrilegious Century by Covetousness instead of a Commanded Decuma as a Duty Morally enjoyn'd 3. That Tithes came first into this Kingdom by the power of the Pope as by Pope
Men which belong to the Blessed Hill They abstained from things that have life and some of them from Marriage One Dosithens a Samaritan is supposed to be the first Founder of the Samaritam Heresies and the first among them that rejected the Prophets as not having spoken by the Holy Ghost There were four sects of Samaritan Hereticks according to Epiphanius each of them holding their different Heresies in some respects and having in other respects certain Heretical Tenents common to them all By all which premisses it is most evident that the Prince of Darkness and the Father of Lyes hath had in all Ages Nations and Churches his Emissaries to infect them with Heretical and Blasphemous Erros but the Gates or Power of Hell to this day never could nor to Eternity ever shall prevail against the Truth CHAP. XLI Of Councils Synods and Convocations 1. The several kinds of Councils and Synods 2. What Canons in force in the Realm of Primo Ed. 6. Also how the Canons entituled Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum became abortive 3. That part of the Canon Law is part of the Law of England 4. Convocation in England what how and by what Authority and for what ends conven'd also of what Members it doth consist with the Authority thereof 5. Convocations and Provincial Synods of very great Antiquity in England have been ever call'd by the Kings Writ their Priviledges 6. The Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions may not be repugnant either to the Kings Prerogative or to the Laws Statutes or Customes of this Realm 7. Lindwood's Method of Provincial Synods in this Realm and under what Archbishops 8. The four several kinds of Councils and Synods in general 9. A compendious Catalogue thereof when and where held by and under whom conven'd with the principal matters therein treated and determined 1. OF Councils or Synods there are four kinds viz. 1 Oecumenical as being called out divers Nations 2 National as out of divers Provinces both these kinds of Councils or Synods were ever assembled by Imperial Regal or Papal Authority 3 Provincial as out of divers Dioceses conven'd by Metropolitans or Patriarchs 4 Diocesan as out of one Diocese onely assembled by the Bishop thereof The frequent celebration of Synods the Council of Basil calls praecipuam agri Domini culturam Touching Synods vid. Duar. de Sacr. Eccl. minist et benefic 2. In the Reign of King Hen. 8. the Bishops and Clergy in the Convocation an 1532. oblig'd themselves neither to make nor execute any Canons or Constitutions Ecclesiastical but as they were thereto enabled by the Kings Authority it was by them desired by him assented unto and confirm'd in Parliament that all such Canons and Constitutions Synodal and Provincial as were before in use and neither repugnant to the word of God the Kings prerogative Royal or the known Laws of the Land should remain in force until a Review thereof were made by 30 persons of the Kings appointment which Review not having been made from that time to the first year of King Edward 6. All the said old Canons and Constitutions so restrained and qualified did then still remain in force as before they were For this consult the Act of Parliament of 25 H. 8. c. 1. And in the Third year of the said King Edward 6. there passed an Act in Parliament For enabling the King to nominate Eight Bishops and as many Temporal Lords and Sixteen Members of the Lower House of Parliament for Reviewing of such Canons and Constitutions as remained in force by virtue of the Statute made in the 25th year of King H. 8. and fitting them for the use of the Church in all times succeeding According to which Act the King directed a Commission to Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Persons whom he thought fit to nominate to that employment and afterwards appointed a Sub-Committee of Eight persons to prepare the Work and make it ready for the rest that it might be dispatch'd with the more expedition which said Eight persons were the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Goodrick Bishop of Ely Dr. Cox the Kings Almoner Peter Martyr Dr. in Divinity William May and Rowland Taylor Drs. of Laws John Lucas and Richard Goodrick Esquires by whom the Work was undertaken and digested fashioned according to the method of the Roman Decretals and called by the name of Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum c But not being Commissionated hereunto till the Eleventh of November in the year 1551. they either wanted time to Communicate to the chief Commissioners by whom it was to be presented to the King or found the King encumber'd with more weighty Affairs than to attend the perusal thereof And so the King dying before he had given life unto it by his Royal Assent and Signiture the design miscarried and never since thought fit to be resumed in the following Times by any of those who have had the Government of the Church or were concerned in the honour and safety thereof 3. It is asserted by good Authority That if the Canon Law be made part of the Law of this Realm then it is as much the Law of the Land and as well and by the same Authority as any other part of the Law of the Land Likewise in the Case of Shute against Higden touching Voidance of a Former Benefice by being Admitted and Instituted into a Second and that by the Ancient Canon Law received in this Kingdom This says the same Authority is the Law of the Kingdom in such cases And in the Case of Hill against Good the same Author doth further assert That a Lawful Canon is the Law of the Kingdom as well as an Act of Parliament And whatever is the Law of the Kingdom is as much the Law as any thing else is so for what is Law doth not suscipere magis minus Which Premisses though they may seem yet are not inconsistent with what Sr. Ed. Coke says viz. That the Laws of England are not derived from any Forein Law either Canon Civil or other but a special Law appropriated to this Kingdom That it may be said of its Law as of its situation Et penitus toto divisos Orbo Britannos 4 Convocation is the highest Ecclesiastical Court or Assembly called and convened in time of Parliament by the Kings Writ directed to the Archbishops consisting of all the Clergy of both Provinces either Personally or Representatively present in the Upper House of the Archbishops and Bishops and the Lower House of the other Clergy or their Proctors chosen and appointed to appear for Cathedral or other Collegiate Churches and for the Common Clergy of every Diocess with a Prolocutor of each House and President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury to consult of matters Ecclesiastical and thereon to Treat Agree Consent and Conclude as occasion requires on certain Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical to be ratified and confirmed by the Royal Assent They were Anciently called
Causes to his own Cognizance Nolente Ordinario p. 19. Sect. 10. Whether he may Cite a man out of his own proper Diocess p. 100 c. Sect. 3. The great Antiquity Precedency Priviledges Style and Precincts of the Archbishop of Canterbury p. 13. Sect. 1. He is the first Peer in England next to the Blood Royal. ibid. Anciently he had Primacy as well over all Ireland as England p. 20. Sect. 13. He was anciently styled Patriarcha orbis Britannici Pontifex ibid. He had some special marks of Royalty p. 21. Sect. 13. Several Priviledges peculiar to him ibid. Whether he had concurrent Jurisdiction in Inferiour Diocesses within his Province p. 18. Sect. 9. That See kept Four years by King William Rufus without an Archbishop p. 24. Sect. 3. In what respects the Archbishop of Canterbury hath some power over the Archbishop of York p. 18. Sect. 9. The Original of the Metropolitan See of York p. 14. Sect. 2. The Antiquity Precedency Style and Precincts of the Archbishop of York ibid. Anciently an Archbishop of London p. 17. Sect. 7. Archâ—s-Court the higâ—â— Consistory p. 83. Sect. 6. Why so called p. 100. Sect. 3. The great Antiquity Jurisdiction and decent order 〈…〉 5. 〈…〉 and what he is p. 60. Sect. 1. How he 〈…〉 Office and Jurisdiction p. 61. Sect. 1. The 〈◊〉 kinds of Archdeacons and how many in England p. 61. Sect. 2. How they are distinguished by the Canon Law p. 65. Sect. 10. Whence their Pâ—rer is derived p. 62. Sect. 3. The Canon touching 〈…〉 to their Visitations p. 64. Sect. 9. Whether they have Power of Visitation Jure communi p. 63 67. Sect. 7. What Remedy in case an Archdeacon dâ—th refuse to swear the Church-Wardens elect p. 164. Sect. 9. Whether an Archdeaconry be understood as a Benefice with Cure p. 62. Sect. 5. and p. 200. Sect. 13 Arch-Flamins what and how many anciently in England and where p. 16. Sect. 4. They were succeeded by as many Archbishopricks ibid. Arch-Presbyter what p. 56. Sect. 7 Arms or Coat-Armour on Monuments or Church-windows not to be defaced or demolished p. 138 139. Sect. 5 Arrests whether they may de executed on Christmas-Day p. 115. Sect. 12. Whether executable on Clergy-men in time of Divine service p. 141. Sect. 8. Articles 39 of Religion what kind of subscription thereunto required p. 163. Sect. 8. Articles of Religion under King Ed. 6. p. 8. Sect. 14. The like under Q. Eliz. ibid. Articles of Enquiry on a Jure Patronatus p. 180. Sect. 2. Articles before the high Commissioners at York against the Vicar of Hallifax p. 189. Sect. 9. Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis what p. 639. Assault on a Clerk whether cognizable before the Ordinary p. 115. Sect. 12. Assaults in the Church or Church-yard are not to be retaliated p. 139. Sect. 5 Assent to the Articles of Religion what good or not within the intent of the Statute p. 163. Sect. 8. Assent of the Ordinary requisite to the Foundation of a Church p. 207. Sect. 5. Assent of the Patron requisite to the Vnion and Appropriation of Churches p. 109. Sect. 8. Assise de utrum what and why so called p. 644. Sect. 2. Atturney at Law he may not be elected Church-warden p. 164. Sect. 9. Audience or Court of Audience what it was where kept and what matters it took Cognizance of p. 106. Sect. 7. Aumone or Frank Almoigne a description thereof it 's use and end p. 338. Sect. 4. AVoidance what 283. Sect. 1. Twofold ibid. What difference between Avoidance and Next Avoidance p. 284. Sect. 2. How many ways it may be p. ibid. Sect. 3. In what Court cognizable p. 122. Sect. 21. The difference between the Common and Canon Law in reference to Avoidances p. 286. Sect. 8. The grant of the Next Avoidance during an Avoidance is void p. 219. Sect. 24. Whether the grant of a Next Avoidance good without Deed p. 255. Sect. 4. Avowe or Advowe what p. 181. Sect. 5. Austin whether the first that preached the Gospel in England p. 13. Sect. 1. Whether the first Archbishop of Canterbury p. ibid. Where buried p. 16. Sect. 4. Award or Arbitrement pleaded in Barr of Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court and refused no ground for a Prohibition p. 122 123. Sect. 25. B. BAIL whether it may be taken for one apprehended by a Capias De Excom capiend p. 651. Sect. 25. Banns what whence derived how published by whom dispensed with and the legal Requisites in order to such Dispensations p. 465. Bark of Trees what not Tithable p. 387. Barren Land the Law touching the Tithes thereof p. 387. c. Bastard whence that word and who properly such p. 478. Sect. 1. and p. 486. Sect. 16 18. How differenced from Mulier at Common Law p. 478. Sect. 2. How distinguish'd at the Civil Law p. 480. Sect. 5. How that Law computes the time of a Womans going with Child p. 482. Sect. 7. How computed at the Common Law p. 482 Sect. 9. and p. 484. Sect. 12. Bastardy how distinguish'd at Common Law p. 478 479. Sect. 3. It is Triable by the Certificate of the Bishop p. 122. Sect. 21. How prosecuted in Courts of Justice p. 480. Sect. 6. and p. 484. 485. Sect. 13. How punished p. 438. Sect. 10. and p. 485. Sect. 14. Difference between the Common Civil and Ecclesiastical Law in reference to Bastardy p. 487. Sect. 19. Baud whether and where Actionable for calling one so p. 519 520. Sect. 11. and p. 520. Sect. 13. and p. 523. 20. Beauford Henry Great Vncle to King H. 6. and Bishop of Winchester made Cardinal how he thereby fell into a Premunire p. 110. Sect. 8. Becket Archbishop of Canterbury his contention with King Henry 2. p. 100. Sect. 2. Beech-Trees how and in what Case Tithable or not p. 389. Bees in what kind they pay Tithes p. ibid. Benefice Ecclesiastical the true definition thereof p. 200. 12. The reasons of that definition p. ibid. Whether Ecclesiastical Dignities fall under the notion of Benefices p. 200. Sect. 13. Of what a Benefice consists p. 200 201. Sect. 14. No Contract to be made for it nor is it vendible p. 201. Sect. 15. Six Signs or Requisites of an Ecclesiastical Benefice p. ibid. The common distinction thereof p. 201. Sect. 16. Beneficio primo Ecclesiastico habendo what that Writ imports p. 647. Sect. 9. Birch-Trees whether Tithable after Twenty years growth p. 390. Bishop the derivation of that word and why so called p. 22. Sect. 1. Anciently he was the universal Incumbent of his Diocess p. 13. Sect. 1. Why called Ordinary p. ibid. Sect. 2. What things requisite to his Creation p. 25. Sect. 4. The form and manner of making Bishops ibid. and p. 26. and p. 50. Sect. 8. His interest and Authority in his several capacities p. 29 30. Sect. 9. Whether he may grant Letters of Institution out of his own proper Diocess and under any Seal other than his own Seal of Office