for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for-Reformation Order and Correction of the same and of all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities shall for ever by Authority of this Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm This Act by a former Clause thereof doth Repeal the Statute of 1 and 2 Ph. Ma. c. 8. whereby the Acts of 26 H. 8. c. 1. and 35 H. 8. c. 3. were repealed so that the Act of Repeal being repealed the said Acts of H. 8. were implicitely revived whereby it is declared and enacted That the King his Heirs and Successors should be taken and accepted the only Supream Head in Earth of the Church of England and should have and enjoy annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as well the Title and style thereof as all Honours Dignities Prebeminencies Jurisdictions c. to the said dignity of Supream Head belonging c. By which Style Title and Dignity the King hath all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatever And by which Statute the Crown was but remitted and restored to its Ancient Jurisdiction which had been formerly usurped by the Bishop of Rome And this is that Supremacy which is here meant and intended 3. The said Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. doth not only repeal the said Stat. of 1 and 2 P. M. c. 8. but it is also a reviver of divers Acts asserting several branches of the Kings Supremacy and re-establishing the same it doth likewise not only abolish all Forreign Authority but also annex the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown of this Realm with power to assign Commissioners for the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And then further Enacts to this effect viz. That all Ecclesiastical persons of what degree soever and all and every Temporal Judge Justice Mayor or other Lay or Temporal Officer or Minister and every other person having Fees or wages from the Crown within this Realm or the Dominions thereof shall upon his Corporal Oath testifie and declare in his Conscience That the Kings Majesty is the only Supream Governour of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or causes as Temporal And that no Forreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction power superiority preheminence or authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore doth utterly renounce and forsake all Forreign Jurisdictions powers superiorities and authorities and doth promise that from henceforth be shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and lawful Successors and to his power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions priviledges preheminencies and authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Majesty his Heirs and Successors or united or annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm The practices of the Romanists in the 4th year of Queen Elizabeth and the danger thereby threatning both the Queen and State occasioned her to call a Parliament 12. Jan. An. 156 2 3 which passed an Act For assurance of the Queens Royal power over all Estates and Subjects within her Dominions By which Statute was enacted The Oath of Supremacy as also what persons were obliged to take it and who should have power to administer the same And this was both the original and the cause of that Oath By the said Statute of 1 El. c. 1. appears also what the penalty is for refusing to take the said Oath as also the penalty of maintaining a Forreign Authority as likewise what other persons than the fore-mentioned shall be obliged to take the said Oath which was afterwards again further ratified and established by the Statute of 5 Eliz. c. 1. 4. The King within his own Territories and Dominions is according to Bracton Dei Vicarius tam in Spiritualibus quam Temporalibus And in the Ecclesiastical Laws of Edward the Confessor the King is styled Vicarius summi Regis Reges regunt Ecclesiam Dei in immediate subordination to God Yea the Pope himself Eleutherius An. 169. styled King Lueius Dei Vicarius in Regno suo 5. The Supremacy which heretofore the Pope did usurp in this Kingdom was in the Crown originally to which it is now legally reverted The Kings Supremacy in and over all Persons and Causes Ecclesiastical within his own Dominions is essentially inherent in him so that all such Authority as the Pope here once usurped claiming as Supream Head did originally and legally belong to the Crown and is now re-united to it by several Statutes as aforesaid On this Supremacy of the King as Supream Head Sr. Edward Coke grounds the power of granting a Commission of Review after a Definitive Sentence in the Delegates for one Reason that he gives is because after a Definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commission Ad Revidendum And such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown Quia sicut Fontes communicant aquas fluminibus cumulative non privitive sic Rex subditis suis Jurisdictionem communicat in Causis Ecclesiasticis vigore Statuti in hujusmodi Casu editi cumulative non privitive By the Second Canon of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of the Church of England it is ordained That whoever shall affirm that the Kings Majesty hath not the same Authority in Causes Ecclesiastical that the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church or impeach in any part his Regal Supremacy in the said Cases restored to the Crown and by the Laws of this Realm therein established shall be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be restored but only by the Archbishop after his repentance and publick revocation of those his wicked Errors 7. The King being next under God Supream Governour of the Church of England may Qua talis redress as he shall see cause in all matters of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the conservation of the Peace and Tranquillity of his Realms The Pope as appears by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. c. 21. claimed full power to dispense with all human Laws of all Realms in all Causes which he called Spiritual Now the King as Supream hath the same power in himself within his own Realms legally which the Pope claimed and exercised by Usurpation Eadem praesumitur mens Regis quae est Juris The Kings immediate personal ordinary inherent power which he executes or may execute Authoritate Regia suprema Ecclesiastica as King and Supream Governour of the Church of England is one of these Flowers qui faciunt Coronam Nor is the Kings immediate power restrained by such Statutes as authorize inferiour persons The Lord Chief Justice Hobart asserts That although the Stat. of 25 H. 8. 21. doth say That all Dispensations c. shall be granted in manner and
17. is to that purpose 11. In former times many Bishops had their Suffragans who were also Consecrated as other Bishops were These in the absence of the Bishops upon Embassies or in multiplicity of business did supply their places in matter of Orders but not in Jurisdiction These were chiefly for the ease of the Bishops in the multiplicity of their Affairs ordained in the Primitive times called Chorepiscopi Suffragan or Subsidiary Bishops or Bishops Suffragans and were Titular Bishops Consecrated by the Archbishop of the Province and to execute such Power and Authority and receive such profits as were limited in their Commissions by the Bishops or Diocosans whose Suffragans they were What Towns or Places to be the Sees of Bishops Suffragans and how many to a Diocess and in what Diocesses appears by an Act of Parliament made in the Reign of King H. 8. Such Suffragan Bishops are made in case the Archbishop or some other Bishop desire the same In which case the Bishop presents Two able persons for any place allowed by the said Act of Parliament whereof his Majesty doth chuse one but at present there are no Suffragan Bishops in England They were no other than the Chorepiscopi of the Primitive Times Subsidiary Bishops ordained for easing the Diocesan of some part of his burthen as aforesaid by means whereof they were enabled to perform such Offices belonging to that Sacred Function not limited to time and place by the ancient Canons by which a Bishop was restrained in some certain Acts of Jurisdiction to his proper Diocess Of these there were twenty six in the Realm of England distinguished by the Names of such Principal Towns as were appointed for their Title and Denomination The Names and Number whereof together with the Jurisdiction and preheminences proportioned to them the Reader may peruse in the Act of Parliament made An. 26 H. 8. 12. According to the Temporal Laws of this Land if a Bishop grant Letters of Institution under any other Seal than his Seal of Office and albeit it be out of his Diocess yet it is good For in Cort's Case against the Bishop of St. Davids and others where the Plaintiff offered in evidence Letters of Institution which appeared to be sealed with the Seal of the Bishop of London because the Bishop of St. Davids had not his Seal of Office there and which Letters were made also out of the Diocess It was held That they were good enough albeit they were sealed with another Seal and made out of the Diocess for that the Seal is not material it being an Act made of the Institution And the writing and sealing is but a Testimonial thereof which may be under any Seal or in any place But of that point they would advise 13. A Bishop if he celebrate Divine Service in any Church of his Diocess may require the Offerings of that day He may sequester if the King present not and 12 H. 8. 8. by Pollard he must see the Cure served if the person fail at his own Costs He may commit Administration where Executors being called refuse to prove the Will He hath power of distribution and disposing of Seats and charges of Repairs of the Churches within his Diocess He may award his Jure Patronatus where a Church is Litigious between an Usurper and the other but if he will chuse the Clerk of either at his peril he ought at his peril to receive him that hath Right by the Statute He may License Physicians Chirurgions Schoolmasters and Midwives He may Collate by Lapse He may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk He may give convenient time to persons interested to take notice of Avoidances He is discharged against the true Patron and quit of Disturbance to whom it cannot be imputed if he receive that Clerk that is in pursuance of a Verdict after Inquest in a Jure Patronatus He may have Six Chaplains and every Archbishop may have Eight Chaplains He may unite and consolidate small Parishes and assist the Civil Magistrate in execution of some Statutes concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs And by the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. any Bishop may at his pleasure joyn and associate himself to the Justices of Oyer and Terminer or to the Justices of Assize at the open and general Sessions to be holden at any place within his Diocess in Causes of the Church And the Statute made 17 Car. 1. c. 27. for the disinabling of persons in Holy Orders to exercise Temporal Jurisdiction or Authority is Repealed by the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 2. whereby they are now enabled to exercise such Temporal Jurisdiction as formerly and is commonly styled the Ordinary of that Diocess where he doth exercise his Episcopal Authority and Jurisdiction In Parliament Bishops as Barons may be present and Vote at the Trial and Arraignment of a Peer only before Sentence of death or loss of Member be pronounced that they may have no hand in blood in any kind they have by Canon Law the Priviledge and Injunction to absent themselves and by Common Law to make Proxies to vote for them 14. ORDINARY according to the acceptation of the Common Law with us is usually taken for him that hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in Causes Ecclesiastical immediate to the King He is in Common understanding the Bishop of the Diocess who is the Supervisor and for the most part Visitor of all his Churches within his Diocess and hath Ordinary Jurisdiction in all the Causes aforesaid for the doing of Justice within his Diocess in jure proprio non per deputationem and therefore it is his care to see that the Church be provided of an able Curate Habet enim Curam Curarum and may execute the Laws of the Church by Ecclesiastical Censures and to him alone are made all Presentations to Churches vacant within his Diocess Ordinarius habet locum principaliter in Episcopo aliis Superioribus qui soli sunt Vniversales in suis Jurisdictionibus sed sunt sub eo alii Ordinarii hi videlicet quibus Competit Jurisdictio Ordinaria de jure privilegio vel consuetudine Lindw cap. Exterior tit de Constitutionib 15. The Jurisdiction of the Ordinary or Bishop as to the Examination of the Clerk or as to the Admission or Institution of him into a Benefice is not Local but it follows the person of the Ordinary or Bishop wheresoever he is And therefore if a Clerk be presented to the Bishop of Norwich to a Church which is void within the Diocess of Norwich who is then in London or if it be to a Bishop of Ireland who is then in England and in London the Ordinary may examine the Clerk or give him Admission or Institution in London And so it was adjudged 16. The Ordinary is not obliged upon a Vacancy to receive the Clerk of him that comes first for as he
may have a Writ of Right of Advowson but this Writ lieth not for him unless he claim to have the Advowson to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple which Advowson is valuable though the Presentment be not 18. The Queen seized of an Advowson being void the Ancestor of P. Presented and so gained it by Usurpation and then the Church being void he Presented again his Clerk dies and then the Queen grants the Advowson to Y. the Plaintiff who brings a Quare Impedit in the Queens Name supposing that this Usurpation did not put the Queen out of Possession It was argued That the Grant could not pass without special words because it is in the nature of a Chose in Action And Dyer Mead and Windham held That this Usurpation did gain possession out of the Queen and that she should be put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the Opinion of Anderson Cheif Justice was clearly That the Queen was not out of Possession for he said That it was a Rule in our Books that of a thing which is of Inheritance the act of a Common person will not put the Queen out of possession But if she had only a Chattel as the next Advowson then perhaps it is otherwise But Mead and Windham very earnestly held the contrary relying on the Book of 18 E. 3. where Shard said That if the King had an Advowson in his own Right and a Stranger who had no Right happen to Present it puts the King out of Possession And the King shall be put to his Writ of Right as others shall The Defendant alledged Two Presentations in his Ancestor after the Title of the King and demanded Judgment if the King should have a Writ of Possession and the Plea was admitted to be good But after Pasch 25 Eliz. Judgment was given for the Queen for that she might very well maintain a Quare Impedit and the two Presentments did not put her out of possession 19. In a Quare Impedit by G. against the Bishop of L. and D. Incumbent The Case was That a Mannor with the Advowson Appendant was in the hands of the King and the Church became void and the King grants the Mannor with the Advowson If the Grantee shall have the Presentation or the King was the question All the Justices held clearly That the Avoidance would not pass because it was a Chattel vested And Periam said that in case of a Common person without question an Advowson appendant would not pass by such Grant for if the Father die it shall go to his Executor but if it be an Advowson in Gross in case of a Common person there is some doubt But in the Principal Case all the Judges held ut supra and said That so it was in 9 E. 3. 26. Quare Impedit 31. and in Dyer in the Case of the Church of Westminster But F. N. B. is contrary 33. N. 20. Of Advowsons there are three Original Writs whereof one is a Writ of Right the other two of Possession viz. Darrein Presentment and Quare Impedit And where an Advowson descendeth unto Parceners though one Present twice and usurpeth upon his Co-heir yet he that was negligent shall not be clearly barr'd but another time shall have his turn to Present when it falleth And by the Statute of 3 Jac. 5. every Recusant Convict is utterly disabled to Present to any Ecclesiastical Living or to Collate or Nominate to any Donative whatsoever the Advowson of every such Recusant being left to the disposition of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Also by the Statute of 13 E. 1. 5. it is directed what Action shall be maintained by him in the Reversion who is disturbed to Present after the Expiration of a particular Estate where there is also provided a Remedy for him in the Reversion or Remainder or others that have right where there is an Usurpation of an Advowson during any particular Estate And that Judgments given in the Kings Courts touching Advowsons shall not be avoided by Surmizes but by lawful means Likewise it is Statute-Law to hold That Advowsons shall not pass from the King but by Special words for when the King doth give or grant Land or a Mannor with the Appurtenances unless he make express mention in his Deed of Advowsons of Churches when they fall belonging to such Mannor or Land they are reserved to him notwithstanding the word Appurtenances albeit among Common persons it hath been otherwise observed nor is it lawful to purchase an Advowson during the dependancy of a Suit at Law concerning the same 21. If a Feme Covert be seized of an Advowson and the Church becomes void and the Wife dieth the Husband shall Present Where Parson and Vicar be Endowed in one Church and the Vicarage becomes void the question is To whom the Advowson of the Vicarge doth belong and who in that case shall be said to be the Patron of the Vicarage Whether the Patron of the Parsonage or the Parson It seems the Books at Common Law the Judges and the Court were divided in Opinion touching this point some of the Judges were of Opinion That the Advowson of the Vicarage appertains to the Parson Others that it belongs to the Patron Such as inclined that it is in the Patron gave for reason That the Ordinary cannot make a Vicar without the assent of the Patron 5 E. 2. Quare Impedit 165. puts the Case That although the Vicarage be Endowed with the assent of the Patron and Ordinary yet the Advowson of the Vicarage doth remain in the Parson because the same is parcel of the Advowson of the Parsonage And 16. E. 3. Grants 56. it was a question Whether by the Grant of the Advowson of the Church the Advowson of the Vicarage did pass and there it was said by Stone That it doth pass as Incident to the Parsonage And in regard the Vicar is as the Parsons Substitute and his Endowment originally only as a Maintenance for him in officiating the Cure for the case of the Parson whose Concern it is to see that he be a fit and able person sufficient for the Cure it should thence seem rational that the Parson should be his Patron to Present such an one to the Vicarage as shall be sufficient for the Cure for which reasons the Patronage of the Vicarage should seem rather to belong unto the Parson than to the First Patron of the Parsonage Appropriate 22. An Advowson cannot it seems at the Common Law be called a Demesne for that it is not such a thing as a man hath a Manual occupation or possession of as he hath of Lands Tenements and Rents whereof he may say in his Pleading That he was seized thereof in his Demesn as of Fee which he cannot say that hath only the Advowson of a Church because it lies not as the other in Manual occupation And therefore in the case
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
it shall be lawful for the King's Chaplains to whom it shall please the King to give any Benefices or Spiritual Promotions to what number soever it be to accept and receive the same without incurring the danger penalty and forfeiture in this Statute comprised upon which the Question was Whether by this last Proviso a Chaplain of the King having a Benefice with Cure above the value of eight pounds per Annum of the Presentation of a Common person might accept another Benefice with Cure over the value of eight pounds also of the Presentation of the King without Dispensationâ— The words of the Statute by which the first Church is made void are That if any Parson having one Benefice with Cure of Souls being of the yearly value of eight pounds or above accept or take any other with Cure of Souls and be Instituted and Inducted into possession of the same that then and immediately after such possession had thereof the first Benefice â—hall be adjudged in the Law to be void Vide Holland's Case 4 Co. 75. â— This Case was not argued but the point only opened by Dodesidge Serjeant of the King for the Plaintiff 17. A. was Parson of M. which was a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and was Chaplain to the Earl of S. and obtained a Dispensation to accept of another Benefice modo sit within Ten miles of the former which was confirmed under the Great Seal He accepted of another Benefice Seventeen miles distant from the first and was Instituted and Inducted both Benefices being within the Diocess of Lincoln The Archbishop in his Visitation Inhibited the Bishop of Lincoln not to execute any Jurisdiction during his Visitation It was found that the Patron had neglected to present to the first Benefice within the Six months and that the Bishop of Lincoln within the second Six months Collated one to the first Benefice who was Admitted and Inducted The points were Whether 1 Si modo was a Condition in this Licence and made the first Benefice void when he took the Second 2 Whether the Bishop Collating during the time of the Archbishop's Visitation and after his Inhibition was good Resolved That in the principal Case Si modo should not be taken for a Condition and that the Benefice should not be void quoad the Patron as the taking of a second Benefice is by the Statute of 21 H. 8. and then the second point of the Collation by the Bishop in the time of the Visitation and also the Inhibition will not be material 18. Quare Impedit pretending the Church void for Plurality The Defendant said he was Chaplain to the Lord M. and pleaded a Dispensation from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Confirmation thereof In the Letters of Dispensation the words were mentioning the two Benefice to be of small value unimus anneximus incorporamus the second Benefice to the first without the word of Dispensamus thereof The Court held it a sufficient Dispensation for it is not of necessity to have the word Dispensamus and if the Circumstances prove it it is sufficient 19. In the Case between Whetstone and Higford it was held by the Justices That if the Queen retains a Chaplain by word only yet he is such a person as may have a Plurality within the Statute of 21 H. 8. of Pluralities and is a person able to make a Lease And in a Quare Impedit it was Resolved That if there be two Parsons of one Church and each of them hath the entire Cure of the Parish and both the Benefices be of the value of eight pounds and the one dieth and the other be presented it is a Plurality within the Statute of 21 H. 8. 20. The Countess of K. being a Widow retained two Chaplains and after retained a third the third purchased a Dispensation to have two Benefices with Cure and he was advanced accordingly whereof the first was above the value of eight pounds It was adjudged in this Case and afterwards affirmed in a Writ of Error That he was not lawfully qualified within the Statute of 21 H. 8. by which the first Benefice by acceptance of a second was void and that the Title did accrue to the Queen to present for it was Resolved That the Statute gives power to a Countess to retain two Chaplains and no more and when the Statute is executed she cannot retain a third Chaplain and the Retainer of the third cannot divest the capacity of Dispensation which was vested by her Retainer in the two first Chaplains 21. A Parson having a Benefice of the value of eight pounds took a second Benefice without Dispensation being above the value of eight pounds The Court took no consideration of the Statute of 26 H. 8. and the value there mentioned but regarded only the true value of the Benefice 22. For Title to an Avoidance the Statute of 21 H. 8. was pleaded touching the taking of a second Benefice with Cure Issue was upon the Induction by which it seemed to be admitted That Admission and Institution did not make the first Benefice void without Induction 23. Quare Impedit brought the Defendant pleaded the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. That Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take two Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second Benefice and died The Question was Whether before the Statute of 25 H. 8. the Pope might grant Dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the King 's of England had been Sovereigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held That the Dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. and that this Dispensation to retain a second Benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. 24. The Countess of K. had two Chaplains by Patent a third had no Patent of Chaplainship but he was first Retained and took two Benefices by Dispensation It was Adjudged he was lawful Chaplain for the Patent is not of necessity but only in case where he hath cause to shew it and here he hath no cause to shew it because her Retainer was good without a Patent 25. The Case between Robins Gerrard and Prince was in effect this viz. A man is Admitted Instituted and Inducted into a Benefice with Cure of the value of eight pounds and afterwards the King presents him to the Church of D. which is a Benefice with Cure and he is Admitted and Instituted The Archbishop grants him Letters of Dispensation for Plurality which Letter
Chancery the Sheriff came to the house but could not apprehend the parties B. finding the house empty entered peaceably S. made an Affidavit in B. R. that he was ousted by the Sheriff by force and B. put in possession the Court of B. R. thereupon granted a Writ of Restitution he having an Appeal depending of the Deprivation In this Case these points were resolved 1 That the Writ De vi Laica removenda is not returnable unless the Sheriff find the Force 2 That the Kings Bench cannot award Restitution upon an Affidavit but there ought to be a Return of the Writ of Vi Laica c. in the Chancery and upon Affidavit made there that the Sheriff by virtue of the Writ hath removed one and put another in possession Restitution is awardable 3 Resolved that upon a Deprivation by the High Commissioners no Appeal lieth because the Commission is grounded upon the Prerogative of the King in the Ecclesiastical Goverment and therefore the Commissioners being immediate from the King and possessing his person no Appeal lieth 4 Resolved That the Canons of the Church made by the Convocation and the King without Parliament shall bind in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as an Act of Parliament In the principal Case it was adjudged that until the Deprivation was repealed it stood good and so B. had good Title to the Church A Lease was made of a Rectory a Parson was presented to it and upon a supposition that he was held out by Force had a Vi Laica removenda upon which the Sheriff returned Non inveni vim Laicam nec potentiam armatam notwithstanding which Return upon Affidavit that he was kept out with Force a Writ of Restitution was awarded out of the Kings Bench. Yet in Zakars Case Coke Chief Justice said we are to judge upon a Record and not upon Affidavits in which Case he being deprived for Simony Richardson Serjeant moved the Court to have him restored again because as he urged it he was unlawfully removed The reason being that in a Vi Laica removenda whereby he was removed which Writ by F. N. B. and the Register comes to remove omnem vim Laicam he shews that the Sheriff did dispossess him and put another in the which he ought not to do and as Coke Chief Justice then said that in so doing he had done against the Law if he removes one and puts another in and Richardson Serjeant there cited Robinsons Case Hill 38. Eliz. where upon an Affidavit made that the Sheriff in a Vi Laica removenda had removed one and put another in there this was debated whether upon this shewed to the Court the first man removed should be restored again or not and there resolved by the whole Court the second man to be displaced again and the first to be restored and Coke said if a Justice of Peace remove a Force he cannot put another into possession 26. There is a Writ in the Register Quod Clerici non Eligantur in officium Ballivi c. For all Ecclesiastical persons in office are allowed certain priviledges by the Common Law in respect of their Function they are exempt from all personal charges which might any way hinder them in their calling as to be Chosen to the Office of Bayliff Beadle Reeve or the like in respect of their Lands to which end the said Writ is provided which doth recite that by the Common Law they ought not to be chosen to such offices aforesaid and commands that in case any Distress be taken or Amercement levied on any of them on that account that it shall be restored So the Stat. of Marleb cap. 10. That persons of Holy Church and persons Religious shall not be commpell'd to come to the Sheriffs Tourne or Leet and so also it is by the Common Law In Favour also of Holy Church the Law did anciently allow them Two other priviledges viz. Clergy and Abjuration In the Ninth year of the Reign of King James a question was moved whether after the Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico comburendo did at that day lie or not as to the Resolution of which question the Judges were then divided in opinion as appears in the Fortieth Chapter precedent § 7. what was then controverted is now decided by an Act of Parliament made in the 29 th year of his Majesties Reign wherehy it is enacted that the Writ commonly called Breve de Haeretico comburendo with all process and proceedings thereupon in order to the executing such Writ or following or depending thereupon and all punishment by death shall be from thenceforth utterly taken away and abolished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FINIS The Kings Supremacy Vld. Heyl. Cypr. Angl. p. 1. In his Cases of Conscience lib. 3. ch 3. fol. 544. Lib. 3. cap. 4. fol. 600. nu 4. Archbishops and Bishops a Spelm. in Archaeologo b Bed Eccl. Hist lib. cap. 1. 27. c D. Usserius in primord pag. 97. d Ammian Marc. lib. 14. e Philip. Berterius Pithanon Diatrib 1. c. 3. fin f Onuphr in Imperio Romana g Spartian in Severo vid. Burt. Com. in Anton. pag. 83 c. h Hist Angl. Script Antiq. Radulph Abbre Chron. Col. 435 436. i Beda l. 2. c. 3. k Bed lib. 2. cap. 9. It is Reported That Fridona a Saxon was the first English Archbishop and of the See of Canterbury in the Seventh Century about the year 656. Fuller Church-Hist Cent. 7. p. 84. nu 85. l Anonym qui de Archiepisc Ebor. scripsit An. 1460. m Harris descrip Britan. l. 1. c. 7. n Euseb Eccl Hist l. 10. c. 5. Pag. 9. See the Admir'd Selden ad Eutichii Origines pa. 122. Burt. Com on Antonin fo 81. o Herod Hist lib. 3. p C. de Reivindicat q Seld. Anaect Angl. Brit. ib. 1. cap. 7. r Ossilegium or the gleaning up of his Bones s Dio. Cassius Hist Rom. l. 76. Guardians of the Spiritualties Congé d'Eslire Election c. Radulph de Diceco Abbre Chronic. de Reg. Steph. R. Idem de Reg. R. 1. Chron. Gervas de Temp. R. 1. Hist Counc Trent lib. 8. Dict. Lib. 8. Deans and Chapters Archdeacons Procurations Diocesan Chancellors Courts Ecclesiastical Churches and Chappels pag. 169. a Claris Seld. illust in Polyol magni Poetae Angl. Cant. 8. b Guil. Stephanides Descript Lond. c Spartian Hist d Rad. de Diceto Abbr. Chron. e Hist Ri. Prioris Hagulstad de Gest R. Steph. f L. 5. Inae R. g Chron. Gâ—rvas de Temp. H. 2. h Chron. Jo. Brampton de LI. Edm. Reg. i Idem de Legib. Kâ—nuti Reg. Churchwardens Consolidation Dilapidations 1 Chro. 24. Suarez de Virt. Stâ—tu Religionis lib. 1. c. 28. nu 18. Patrons and Patronage Parsons and Parsonage Vicars Vicarages and Benefices Advowsons Appropriations Vid. G. Thorne in his chronicle De Reb. gestis Abbatum S. Augustin Cant. Commendams Lapse Collation and
rot 454. Cort vers Episc St. Dav. Croke p F. N. B. fo 38 and Regist of Writs fo 33. a. q Mich. 10 Jac. rot 2642. Colt Glover vers Bish of Cov. Lichf Hob. Rep. r 4â— El. B. R. Co. 4. par 79. 〈◊〉 Case s Co. ibid. Digh. Case t Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. per. Co. Rol. Rep. u P. 13 Jac. B. R. Case Hitchin and Glover Rol. Rep. x 5 Eliz. Dyer 221. vid. Hare and Birkley's C. Plow Com. 528. acc y 18 Eliz in Giles Case vid. Co. 10. par 132. in Holts Case vid. 18 Eliz. z Hill 8 Cha. rot 454. B. R. Cort vers Bishop of St. Davids Cro. Rep. a Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Hitchings vers Glover Rol. Rep. b Co. lib. 4 7 9. c Mich. 10 Jac. rot 2642. Colt Glover vers B. of Cov. and Lichf Hob. R. d Oliver vers Hussey Latch Rep. e Case Dennys vers Drake Lane's Rep. Vid. Co. lib. 4. Digbie's Case fo 79. Resignation of a Benefice e 34 Eliz. C. B. Gayton's Case Owens Rep. f The aforesaid Case of Rud vers the Bishop of Lincoln Hutt Rep. g 15 H. 4. 76. b. 14 H. 6. Qua. Imp. 162. 38 H. 6. 15. h â—8 E. 3 3. b. i 1â— H. 4. 9. k Ib. Contr. 14 H. 6. Qua. Imp. 162. adjudg'd of a Prebend l 11 H. 4. 10. m 14 H. 4. 11. b. Rol. Abr. ver Presentem lit C. n Pasch 23. Eliz. C. B. ad judg Godb. 23. vid. Fitz. N. B. 47. 26 H. 8. 3. by Knighâ—ly o 4 H. 8. Dyer 1. p Vid. Cro. Rep par 3. fo 258. q Pasch 17 Jac. C. B. Sir W. Elvis vers Archbishop of York and others Hob. Rep. r Sir Tim. Hutton's Case C. B. Hob. Rep. s Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Glover against Shedd Rol. Rep. t Plow 52â— b. u Mich. 15 Jac. B. R. Rones Case Poph. Rep. x Chr. Deans Case Noy's Rep. y Pasc 2 Jac. C. B. ret 1320. Strange vers Foote Noy's Rep. z Mich. 12 Jac. B. between Sir Tim. Hutton and the Bish of Chester a Hill 15 Jac. B. R. Hitcham and Glover's Case Roll. Rep. b More 's Rep. c Middleton and Lawte's Case More 's Rep. Trin. 9 Jac. B. R. Holt's Case in Bulstr par 1. a Bro. tit Quare Imp. nu 51. b Pasch 28 El. C. B. 〈◊〉 vers 〈◊〉 Owen Rep. c Mich. 31 32 Eliz. Crâ—â—â—s Case Rep. ibid. d Broo. tit Quare Imp. nu 51. e Colt and Glover's Case vers Bâ—â— of Câ—v Lich f. Hob. Rep. f 13 Jac. in Scaccar Rot 96. Sheffeld vers Ratcliff Hob. Rep. g Mich. 17 Jac. C. B. Rot. 2710. Holland vers Shelley Hob. Rep. i Mich. 31 32 Eliz. C. B. Cripps vers the Archâ— of Cant. and others Ower Rep. k Co. 1. par Instit 46. 335. * Sir Marmad Wivel's Case Hob. Rep. l Pasch 31 Eliz. B. R. Vnderhil and Savage's Case Leon. Rep. m Mich. 30 31 El. C. B. Case Brckesby against Wickham and the Bishop of Lincoln n Hill 36 Eliz. B. R. Poph. Rep. o Terms of Law verb. Cession p Latch Rep. fo 234. q Conc. Lat. An. 1215. Innoc. 3. Pap. r 24 E. 3. 30 24 E. 3. 26. b. acc F. N. B. 24. l. s Pasch 31 Eliz. B. R. Vnderhil and Savage's Case Leon. 1. Rep. 316. t Co. 4. par 77. in Holland's Case u 5 Ed. 3. 3. Qu. Imp. 35. 24 E. 3. 38. Pars Law c. 16. x Triâ— 3 Car. B. R. Evans and Kiffin vers Askwith Jones Rep. y Dy. on St. 13 Eliz. the last Case vouch'd in Case Sâ—ubely vers Buâ—ler Hob. Rep. z Trin. 4 Car. Rot. 441. the King vers George Archb. of Cant. and Thâ— Pâ—yst Cro. Rep. a D. 13 14 Eliz. 304. 54. Rol. Abr. ver Presentment lit M. b Co. 4. Holland's Case 39 Eliz. c Trin. 14 Car. B. R. Mann and the Bishop of Bristol and others Cro. par 3. d Pynchin and Dr. Harris Cro. par 2. e Williams and the B. of Lincolns Case Cro. par 1. f Mich. 42 43 Eliz. B. R. Sir R. Basset and Gee's Case Cro. par 1. g Benet and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Cro. par 1. h Lewes and Benet's Case More 's Rep i Sir Godfr Foliamb's Case More 's Rep. a An. 1215. b Concil Later To. 4. 221. cap. 29. 24 E. 3. 33. 39 E. 3. 44. F. N. B. 34. L. Co. 4. par 75. c Dyer 237. p. 29. Cro. Eliz. 853. d Vid. Parss Law cap. 21. Ibid e Co. 4. par 79. Digbie's Case In the Parsons Counsellor par 1. chap. 4. Chaplains Archbishop 8 Duke 6 Marquess 5 Earl 5 Bishop 6 Viscount 4 Lord Chancellor 3 Knight of the Garter 3 Baron 3 Dutchess Marchioness Countess Baroness Widows each 2 Treasurer Controller of the Kings House each 2 Kings Secretary 2 Stat. 21 H. 8. cap. 13. Kings Almner Clerk of the Closer Master of the Rolls each 2 Chief Justice B. R. 1 Warden of the Cinque Ports 1 Par. 1. chap. 4. Co. 4. 79. b. Hob. 166. i Co. 4. 17. b. k Id. 4. 118. l Ibid. m Co. 4. 90. a. n Pasch 8. Jac. C. B. the King and the Bish of Bristol and Bauleighs Case vid. Hughe's Pars Law cap. 18. o 40 El. C. B. Pusâ— and Smâ—h's Case Trin. 43 El. B. R. rot 564. Bond and Triket's Case Cro. par 3. p. 858. p Vid. Paâ—s Law ubi supr Vnder Pâ—pe Innocent 3. q Shute vers Higden Vaugh. Rep. vid. Anders 1. pa. f. 200. b. p. 236. vide Moor 's Rep. Câ—s Larg ad eund effect r Co. 4. Digby's Case 41 Eliz. f. 78. s Mich. 22 Jac. B. R. Woodley and the Bishop of Exeter and Manwaring's Case Cro. par 2. q Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 1642 Colt and Glover vers Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield Hob. Rep. r Hill 22. Jac. B. R. rot 1164. Evanâ— vers Ascough Latch Rep. s Ibid. f. 234. t Savaâ—re's Case Owen's Rep. n Thornton's Case Whinch Rep. w The King against the Archbishop of Canterbury and Prust Hetley's Rep. x Pinson's Case in Heâ—ley's Rep. y Trin. 43. Eliz. B. R. Bene vers Trickett Noy's Rep. z The King against the Bishop of Chichester Noy 's Rep. a 11 H. 4. 60. H. 39. El. B. R. inter Aâ—miger Holland per Cur. Resolv'd b Liber Successionis 19. c Co. 4. Holland 75. b. d Co. 4. Digby 79. e Lindw◠〈◊〉 81. f Rol. Abr. veâ—b Presentment lit L. pag. 353. g â—des verâ— the Bishop of Oxfâ—â—d in Vaugh. Rep. Pasch 9. Jac. 〈◊〉 en Ireland en le Case de Commenda enter le Rey â—yprian Horsfall Robert Wale Davis Rep. Hill 1610. 8 Jac. C. B. Wallop against the Bishop of Exeter and Murrey Clerk Brownâ—â— pa. 2. Tâ—â—â— 13. 〈◊〉 B. R. Dodjâ—â—â— and Lynâ—'s Case â—ro par 3 Mich. 41 42 Eliz. B. R. The Queen and Page's Case Cro. p. 1. Cro. ibid. Cro. ibid. The Queen and Darcte's
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
form following and not otherwise yet the King is not thereby restrained but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may still grant them as King for that all Acts of Grace and Justice flow from him By the Eighth Canon Concilii Calchuthensis held under Pope Adrian the First An. 787. the Pope had power to grant what Immunities and Priviledges he pleased in Church-matters and they were by the said Canon to be duly observed Whatever Authority the Pope pretended to in this Kingdom in such matters by way of Usurpation the same may the King as Supream Governour of the Church next under God in his own Dominions use and lawfully exercise by his Regal Authority ex justa plenitudine Potestatis suae Likewise Pope Agathon An. 680. in Concilio Romano-Britannico exercised his Papal Authority in the time of Lotharius King of Kent not only touching the Reformation of Errors and Heresies then in this Church but also as to the composure of differences and dissentions that then were among the Clergy of this Realm Such Presidents of the usurped power of the Papal See exercised in this Kingdom are now of no further use than to illustrate or exemplifie the Legal power inherent in the Kings of this Realm in such matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the most High and Sacred Order of Kings being of Divine Right it follows that all persons of what estate soever and all Causes of what quality soever whether Ecclesiastical or Civil within his Majesties Realms and Dominions are subordinated to the Power and Authority of the King as Supream It is not only acknowledged but also constituted by way of an Ecclesiastical Canon That the power of Calling and Dissolving Councils both National and Provincial is the true Right of all Christian Kings within their own Realms and Territories 8. The Ecclesiastical Legislative power was ever in the Kings of this Realm within their own Dominions That in Ancient times they made their own Ecclesiastical Laws Canons and Constitutions appears by several Presidents and Records of very great Antiquity which were received and observed within their own Territories without any Ratification from any Forreign power One instance among many may be given of the Ecclesiastical Laws of Alured Mag. Regis Anglorum An. 887. This they did de jure by virtue of their own inherent Supremacy And therefore when Pope Nicholas the Second An. 1066. in the Bull wherein he ordained Westminster to be the place for the Consecration of Kings gave power to Edward the Confessor and his Successors to constitute such Laws in the Church as he should think fit he gave him therein no more than was his own before For the Kings of England might ordain or repeal what Canons they thought fit within their own Dominions in right of their Regal Supremacy the same being inherent in them Jure Divino non Papali For we find that in King AEtheldreds days An. 1009. in Concilio AEnhamensi Generali the Canons then made and afterwards caused by King Kanutus to be Transcribed were called the Kings Canons not the Bishops En hujus Concilii Canones quos in suas Leges passim transcripsit Rex Canutus Malmsburius AEtheldredo Regi non Episcopis tribuit And the Peers of this Realm per Synodum Landavensem were unexcommunicable nisi prius Consulto Rege aut ejus praecepto Which is a plain demonstration That the Kings of England Anciently had the Supremacy and superintendent Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction inherent in themselves exclusively to all other either home or Forreign powers whatever 9. It is by good Authority asserted That the King as Supream is himself instead of the whole Law yea that he is the Law it self and the only chief Interpreter thereof as in whose Breast resides the whole knowledge of the same And that his Majesty by communicating his Authority to his Judge to expound the Laws doth not thereby abdicate the same from himself but that he may assume it again unto him when and as oft as he pleases Dr. Ridl View p. 2. c. 1. Sect. 7. Consonant whereunto is that which Borellus hath Principum Placita Legis habent vigorem eatenus vim Legis obtinebunt quatenus fuerint cum honestate conjuncta Borel de Magist Edict l. 2. c. 4. Roland à Val. Cons 91. nu 54. vo 2. And Suarez tells us That Princeps est Lex viva reipsa praecipit ut Lex per scripturam Of which Opinion also is Alexander Imola and many others Suar. Alleg. 9. nu 13. The grant of Dispensations is a peculiar and very considerable part of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the which is eminently in the Crown and by the Stat. of 25 H. 8. the Archbishop of Canterbury may grant Dispensations Archiepiscopus possit dispensare contra Statutum Provinciale per se editum Et qui potest jus condere potest illud tollere Lindw de Cler. Conju c. 2. gl ult Extr. de Elect. c. Significasti c. Intonuit And in another place Episcopus in quibusdam Casibus Dispensare potest contra Canones Const Otho de Concu Cler. gl ver Meritis 10. The Laws and Statutes of this Realm have been tender of the Kings Supremacy ever since the Forreign power over the State Ecclesiastical was abolished In the Statute of 13 Car. 2. cap. 12. there is a Proviso That nothing in the said Act shall extend to abridge or diminish the Kings Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and affairs And in the Stat. of 22 Car. 2. cap. 1. there is a Proviso That not any thing therein contained shall extend to invalidate or avoid his Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical affairs but that his Majesty his Heirs and Successors may from time to time and at all times hereafter exercise and enjoy all Powers and Authority in Ecclesiastical affairs as fully and amply as any of his Predecessors have or might have done 11. As no Convocations for Ecclesiastical Constitutions or for correction or reformation of Abuses in the Church can be Conven'd without his Majesties Writ for that end and purpose so being Conven'd no Canons or Constitutions that shall then be agreed on can have any effect in Law or be in force to oblige any of his Majesties Subjects until his consent thereunto be first had and obtained and until they shall have the power of Ecclesiastical Laws by being ratified and confirmed by the Supream Authority Therefore the Archbishop of Canterbury may not hold a Council for his Province without the Kings leave for when such Council was held by Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury it was prohibited by Fitz-Peter Chief Justice for that he had not the Kings License therein but he would not obey And 13 E. 3. Rot. Parl. M. 1. there was a Writ for a Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury and Pauls And another for the other of York vid. Stat. 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the Clergy of England acknowledge that
may take competent time to examine the sufficiency and fitness of a Clerk so may he give convenient time to persons interessed to take knowledge of the Avoidance even in case of Death and where notice is to be taken not given to present their Clerks to it And perhaps if he do receive the Clerk of him that comes first yet he may quit himself of Disturbance because he doth nothing therein but as Ordinary in Law But if two or more Present so that the Title is become Litigious then and in such case he cannot receive the Clerk of any of his own pleasure except the Title be certain but hath his way of safety by Jure Patronatus and when he hath used the Jure Patronatus and that finds for one party yet he may still receive a contrary Clerk if he will for who can lett him but that must be at his own peril and that is at a double peril 1. That the Title be the better 2. That the Patron whose Clerk he hath received will plead and defend that Title for otherwise he cannot do it But though after Inquest in Jure Patronatus the Ordinary may accept the contrary Clerk yet it is against Justice and the intent of the Law For since it is a Provision meerly for the good and safety of the Ordinary and he pretends Doubt and therefore puts the Patron to this enquiry to his charge and delay to satisfie and secure him he ought to judge and receive the Clerk according to that Verdict And that is the true meaning of the Books that say that the Ordinary is to judge of the better Title that is not to prejudge of his own Will but secundum allegata probata upon Verdict of the Right given and found according to the form of Law to give Institution which is his Judgment and the Induction his Execution And though it is but an Inquest of Office and therefore binds not True it is it binds not but with a distinction that is it binds not the Patron in his Quare Impedit but is Final even to the true Patron that he cannot impute disturbance to the Ordinary following that Verdict and therefore it ought to bind him to follow it For to these purposes it is a full Verdict never to be tried again And if but one Present if the Ordinary make doubt of his Title as in many cases he justly may being a stranger to it he may require satisfaction by Jure Patronatus 17. If it be demanded whether the Ordinary can cite a man out of his Diocess the Common Law answers it in the Negative And so it was held by Jones and Whitlock Justices in Brown's Case where they held That at the Common Law a Bishop cannot cite a man out of his Diocess and there Whitlock held that the Ordinary hath not any power of Jurisdiction out of his Diocess but to absolve a person Excommunicated If one in N. commit Adultery in another Diocess during the time of his Residence he may be cited in the Diocess where he committed the offence although he dwell out of the Diocess by Coke Warburton and Winch And in the time of his Visitation he hath Jus ad Synodalia according to the Custome more or less as in Gloucestershire where the Impropriation of Dereburt pays annually 7s 9d pro Synodalibus Procurationibus for this Synodal is not in this sense here taken as in the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. for Synodals Provincial which seem to signifie the Canons or Constitutions of a Provincial Synod nor for the Synod it self which the word Synodale doth sometimes signifie but it is here in the same sense as the word Synodies in the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap. 16. for a Synodal is no other than a Cense or Tribute in mony paid to the Bishop or Archdeacon by the Inferiour Clergy 18. Every Spiritual person is visitable by the Ordinary So is a Dean de mero jure for he is Spiritual The Ordinary hath also power of Correction of a Parson And every Hospital be it Lay or Spiritual is Visitable By the ancient Law of the Realm the King hath power to Visit reform and correct all Abuses and Enormities in the Church Nor are the Kings Donatives visitable by the Ordinary but properly by the Lord Chancellour And the King may grant a Special Commission to that purpose But as to Hospitals if they be Spiritual the Ordinary shall visit them if they be Lay-Hospitals the Patron In the Statute of 1 El. cap. 2. there is a Proviso That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have full power and authority by virtue of this Act as well to enquire in their Visitations Synods and elsewhere within their Jurisdiction or any other time or place to take occasions and informations of all and every the things above-mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the Limits of their Jurisdiction or Authority and to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Process in like manner as heretofore hath been used by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws The Ancient custome was for the Visitor to visit in his own person visitare Ecclesiatim per cunctas Dioceses parochiasque suas 10. q. 1. c. Episcopum E. Concil Toletan 4. ca. 35. This Visitation is a special and peculiar duty belonging to every Bishop as derived from the Apostles who themselves were Visitors and for that end and purpose did pertransire Ecclesias Vrbes The Bishop hath his Triennials per Archidiaconi Visitatio potest fieri singulis annis Extr. de Offic. Archid. c. Mandamus We find also that Episcopus debet Visitare singulis annis Parochiam nisi dimittat propter gravamen Ecclesiarum tunc mittat Archidiaconum c. Ab. Sic. super 2. 1. de Offic. Archid. c. ut Archidiaconus 10. q. 1. c. Decrevimus c. Episcopum 19. Every Bishop hath his Cathedral and Council and the Council and Bishop there decide matters of Controversie the Prebends have their names from the affording of help to the Bishop If any Clerk after he hath sworn Canonical Obedience should happen to commit Episcopicide he is guilty of Petty-Treason and shall suffer as such Whereas heretofore the County of Gloucester was a part of the Diocess of Worcester out of which it was taken by King H. 8. when first made a Bishoprick the Diocess of Worcester was in the time of King Ed 6. laid to the See of Gloucester Dr. Heylin 's Hist Eccl. p. 101. Next unto the Two Archbishops the Bishop of London of all the other Bishops hath the Preheminence Episcopus Londinensis says an Ancient Record speciali quadam Dignitate caeteris anteponendus quia Ecclesiae Cantuariensis Decanus est Provincialis The Bishop of Duresme who is
by some particular persons like unto the Reasons of a Chappel of Ease 4. Touching the Reparation of Churches it hath been Ruled That he who hath Land in a Parish though he doth not inhabite there shall yet be chargeable to the Reparation of the Parish-Church but not to the buying of the Ornaments of that Church for that-shall be levied of the Goods of the Parishioners and not of their Lands by Sir Hen. Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged And it hath been holden That if two Churches Parochial be united the Reparation shall be several as before And although the Lord of a Mannor may prescribe to a certain Seat or Pew in the Church by having time out of mind maintained and repair'd the same at the proper costs of himself and Ancestors yet as to the Common Seats of the Church it is otherwise in respect of the Common Parishioners As in the Case of Harris against Wiseman against whom Harris had procured a Prohibition Wiseman having Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against him for a Seat in the Church which did belong to his House and it was said by Hobart and Winch only present That a man or a Lord of a Mannor who had an Isle or a Seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the Spiritual Court he shall have a Prohibition but not every common Parishioner for every common Seat yet in that case a Supersedeas was granted to stay the Prohibition It hath also been held That the Grant of a Seat in a Church to one and his Heirs is not good for the Case of Brabin and Tradum was That the Church-wardens of D. had used time out of mind to dispose and order all the Seats of the Chuch whereupon they disposed of a Seat to one and the Ordinary granted the same Seat to another and his Heirs and excommunicated all others who afterwards should sit in the Seat and a Prohibition was prayed and granted for this Grant of a Seat to one and his Heirs is not good for the Seat doth not belong to the Person but to the House for otherwise when the person goes out of Town to dwell in another place yet he shall retain the Seat which is no reason and also it is no reason to excommunicate all others that should sit there for such great punishments should not be imposed upon such small Offenders an Excommunication being Traditio diabâ—la 5. In the Case of Day against Beddington and others upon a Cross-Bill between the parties for pulling down of painted Glass Pictures and Arms in a Window in an Isle of a Chappel in the Parish of Wellington in Somerset these points in the Case were Resolved 1. If an Inhabitant there and his Ancestors time out of mind c. have used to Repair an Isle in a Church and to sit there with his Family c. and to bury there that makes that Isle proper and peculiar for his Family Otherwise if he had not used to Repair it at his own costs but with the charge of the Parish then the Ordinary may appoint who shall sit there from time to time notwithstanding a use to sit there only to the contrary 2. If any Superstitious Pictures are in a Window of a Church or Isle c. it is not lawful for any to break them c. without License of the Ordinary and if any does to the contrary he shall bind him to his good Behaviour And so it was in Prickett's Case 3. That the Ordinary or Church-warden cannot License a Parishioner to Bury within the Church But it ought to be Licensed by the Parson for the Franktenement is in him only 4. If Coats of Arms are put in a Window or upon a Monument in the Church or Church-yard they may not be broken by the Ordinary Parson or Church-wardens or any other for the Heir shall have his Action upon the Case for that 9 Ed. 4. 14. for they belong to him 30 Ed. 3. 9. b. c. 5. If one be Assaulted in the Church or within a Church-yard he may not beat the other or draw a Weapon although it be in his own defence there for it is a Sanctified place and he may be punished for that by 2 Ed. 6. And so if in any of the King's Courts or within view of the Courts of Justice because a Force in that case is not justifiable though in his own defence 6. For the penalty of Striking or drawing a Weapon in the Church or Church-yard Vid. Stat. 5 Ed. 6. cap. 4. whereby it is enacted That if any person shall by words only quarrel chide or brawl in any Church or Church-yard it shall be lawful for the Ordinary of the place upon proof by two Witnesses to suspend the Lay-Offender ab ingressu Ecclesiae and the Clerk-Offender from the ministration of his Office for such time as to the said Ordinary shall seem meet And if any one shall smite or lay violent hands upon another in any Church or Church-yard in that case ipso facto the Offender shall be deemed Excommunicate But and if any person shall maliciously strike another with any Weapon in any Church or Church yard or to the intent of striking another with the same shall but draw a Weapon in any Church of Church-yard the Offender being thereof duly convicted shall lose one of his Ears if he hath any or in one of his Cheeks with a hot-Iron be burnt and mark'd with the letter F in case he hath no Ears and besides shall stand ipso facto Excommunicated Upon this Statute there was an Indictment against Jasper Colmley and John Colmley of Hoxton in the County of Middlesex for that they Insultum fecerunt upon John Higham Dr. of Physick in Ecclesia de Shoreditch praedicta Et praedict Joh. Higham adtunc c. ibidem in Ecclesia praedict de Shoreditch verbaraverunt vulneraverunt male tractaverunt contra formam Statuti c. Upon this the Grand Jury find Billa vera quoad Jasper Colmley and Ignoramus for John Colmley And hereupon he appeared and pleaded Not guilty and found against him Rolls now moved in an Arrest of Judgment That the Indictment was not good being Fecerunt whereas it is found only Billa vera against one Sed non allocatur because it was exhibited against Two and it is but false Latin Secondly because the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and this Offence is not punishable by the Statute unless that he smote with a Weapon or drew a Weapon in the Church or Church-yard or drew a Weapon to that intent which is not mentioned in the Indictment And by the Second clause in the Statute For smiting or laying violent hands it is Excommunication ipso facto and it is not mentioned here how he struck and thereof the Justices doubted But Jones said That the Indictment is good for Battery at the Common Law But all the other Justices were against him
Church for that he may then be twice charged for he may be charged for that in the Parish where the Land doth lie in which case Prohibition hath been granted 27. If a Citizen of London erect a House in the Parish of A. with intent of dwelling there in time of Sickness at London and hath not any Land in the Parish and after is Assessed 20 s. for Reparation of the Church where others who have 100 acres of Land in the same Parish pay but 6 d. yet no Prohibition shall be granted on a Suit for the said 20 s. in the Ecclesiastical Court for that they have Jurisdiction of the thing and for which reason they may order it according to their Law 28. If there be a Chappel of Ease within a Parish and any persons of the Parish have used time out of mind c. alone and by themselves without others of the Parishioners to repair that Chappel of Ease and there to hear Divine Service and to Marry and all other things only they Bury at the Mother-Church yet they shall not be discharged of Reparations of the Mother-Church but ought to contribute to the same for the Chappel was Ordained only for their ease But if Inhabitants within a Chappelry prescribe to be discharged time out of mind c. of the Reparation of the Mother-Church and are sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for the same a Prohibition lies on that Surmize 29. If a man be rated for the Ornaments of the Church according to the Land which he hath in the Parish a Prohibition lies for the Rate for that ought to be according to the personal Estate Also if a man who is not any Inhabitant within the Parish but hath Land there be rated for the Ornaments of the Church according to the Land a Prohibition lies for the Inhabitants ought to be rated for that and it was said by Yelverton That it had been often so Resolved 30. If all the Parishioners are not rated for the Reparation of the Church but some are and some are not and those that are rated be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court a Prohibition will lie But if the major part of the Parishioners of a Parish where there are four Bells doth agree that there shall be a fifth Bell made and it be made accordingly and a Rate made for payment of the same it shall bind the lesser part of the Parishioners although they did not agree to it for otherwise any obstinate persons may hinder any thing intended to be done for the Ornament of the Church and therefore in this case a Prohibition was denied 31. The Ecclesiastical Court may not try the Bounds of a Parish if therefore there be a Suit there depending for that a Prohibition will lie as where the difference is between two Vicars concerning a Chappel of Ease As when the Vicar of a Parish Libels against another to avoid his Institution to the Church of D. which he supposes to be a Chappel of Ease belonging to his Vicarage if the Defendant suggest that D. is a Parish of it self and not a Chappel of Ease a Prohibition lies for they may not try the Bounds of a Parish 32. If a Vicar sue the Parson Impropriate for dammages for cutting down the Trees growing in the Church-yard a Prohibition lies for that if the Trees belong to him he may have Trespass at Common Law And in this case a Prohibition was granted 33. One being sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for money for reparation of the Church prayed a Prohibition and had it and after it was moved for a Consultation The case was this viz. The party that was sued prescrib'd that there is a Chappel within the same Village in which they have had at all times Sacramenta Sacramentalia and that he nor the Inhabitants of that Village which resort to the said Chappel have ever used to repair the said Church the first point in this case was whether the Prescription were good and the Chief Justice said that it is contrary to Common right that they who have a Chappel of Ease in a Village should be discharged of repairing the Mother-Church and it may be that the Church being built with Stone it may not need any Reparation within the memory of man and yet that doth not discharge them without some special cause of discharge shewed The second point was the taking away of an Objection as they said viz. That a Prescription which is incident to Ecclesiastical things shall be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court and so that Objection removed and commonly the Church-wardens are chosen in the Ecclesiastical Court yet the Lord of a Mannor may prescribe for that and then it shall not be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court although it be a Prescription of what appertains to a Spiritual thing 34. Note that in the case of Churchwardens the Chief Justice said That for the repairing the Fabrick of the Church the charge is real charges the Land and not the person but for the Ornaments of the Church it is personal and there if a man be not an Inhabitant within the Parish he is not chargeable in respect of his Land for such Tax doth charge the Goods only And to this Chamberlain Justice agreed and none denied it but where there is a Farmor of the Land there the Farmor alone shall not be charged for it is not reason that a poor Husbandman who paies Rent for his Land and perhaps to the utmost value should build Churches but it may be unknown to the Parishioner and the Churchwardens who hath the Fee in reversion and therefore they may impose the whole Tax on the Farmor and he by way of Answer may alledge in the Ecclesiastical Court that he is but the Farmor and thereupon the Tax shall be divided between him and his Landlord according to the Rate which the Land is worth more than the Rent and on the Landlord according to the quantity of the Rent quod quaere for in Jeofferie's Case 5 Coke it is Resolved That the Farmor alone is chargeable and that a Consultation was granted but not for that reason but for that the Reversioner had pleaded an insufficient plea in the Ecclesiastical Court viz. That he was not an Inhabitant within the Parish which is not a good plea as also for the great delay which he had used having made or brought two Appeals and after a Prohibition and so had put the Parish to 60 l. charge for the recovery of 6 l. and for that reason chiefly and not on the matter in Law was the Consultation granted 33. In Frances and Ley's Case it was Resolved by the Justices That Coats of Arms placed in Windows or a Monument placed in the Church or Church-yard cannot be beaten down and defaced by the Parson Ordinary Churchwardens or any other And if they be the Heir by descent interessed in the Coat
time of King H. 3. Ed. 3. and Ed. 4. they in the Ecclesiastical Court have not any power to intermeddle with the Precinct of Parish-Churches neither are they there to Judge what shall be said to be a mans Parish-Church And so was the Opinion of the whole Court and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition was granted 41. Touching the Reparations of a Church and who were liable thereunto this being a question coming in debate before the Judges It was Resolved by the whole Court That for and towards the Reparation of a Church the Land of all as well of Foreigners there not inhabiting as of all others is liable thereunto and this is so by the general custome of the place and this is to be raised by a Rate imposed according to the value of the Land and that in the nature of a Fifteen and this is not meerly in the Realty Williams and Yelverton Justices and Flemming Chief Justice Not the Land but the person of him who occupieth the Land is to be charged Yelverton Justice A man is chargeable for Reparations of a Church by reason of the Land and for the Ornaments in the Church by reason of his coming to Church Williams Justice and Flemming Chief Justice If the person have Land there he is chargeable for both whether he come to Church or not for that he may come to Church if he please 42. In a Prohibition the Case was this The Defendant did Libel before the Bishop of London in the Consistory Court for a Seat in the Church Sentence there passed against the Defendant whereupon he Appealed to the Arches The Court was moved for a Prohibition in regard the Title to the Seat or Pew was grounded upon a Prescription The Court answered c. As for the Title we are not here to meddle with it this being for a Seat in the Church Haughton Justice This Disposition of Pews in the Church belongs of right to the order and discretion of the Ordinary and to this purpose is the case of 8 H. 7. fo 12 and Sir William Hall's case against Ellis Doderidge Justice I moved this case in the Court of C. B. and it was for a Seat in the Church An Action there brought for Disturbance and I there cited Hall's case and 9 E. 4. fo 14. The Case of the Grave-Stone and Coat-Armor for the taking of which an Action of Trespass lies at the Common Law and therefore by the same reason an Action of Trespass should lie for such a Disturbance in a Seat of a Church but there the Judges did all of them say That they would not meddle with the deciding of such Controversies for Seats in the Church but would leave the same to them to whom more properly it belonged Croke Justice Hall's case was this where a man did build an entire Isle in the Church and was at continual charge to repair it if he be disturbed in the use of this he shall for this Disturbance have his remedy at the Common Law and so it hath been adjudged But the Judges all said We are not here to meddle with Seats in the Church Doderidge Justice This Appeal here is like unto a Writ of Error at the Common Law but it doth differ in this By the Appeal the first Judgment or Sentence is suspended but after a Writ of Error brought the first Judgment still remains until it be reversed Coke Chief Justice It was Pym's Case in the Common Bench and 8 H. 7. fo 12. that the Ecclesiastical Court hath Jurisdiction and power to dispose of Pews and Seats in the Church But if there be an Isle built by a Gentleman or by a Nobleman and he hath used to Bury there and there hath his Ensigns of Honour as a Grave-stone Coat-Armor or the like which belongs not unto the Parson if he take them the Heir may well have an Action of Trespass Otherwise it is where the same is repaired at the Common charge of the Parish there they have the disposing of them Ellis and Hall's Case remembred a Kentish Case there the Seat was repaired by him and was belonging to his Capital Messuage by Prescription and so triable at the Common Law And so where the Case is Special that the party doth wholly and solely repair the same in such a case if a Suit be there concerning such a Seat a Prohibition well lieth but not otherwise But if a Nobleman comes to dwell in the Countrey he is now within the sole order and dispose of the Ordinary for his Pew and Seat in the Church and upon the former difference was Pym's case adjudged in the C. B. in this principal Case a Prohibition was denied by the whole Court CHAP. XIII Of Churchwardens Questmen and Sidemen 1. What such are in construction of Law how the choice of them is to be made and wherein the Office doth consist 2. What Actions at Law may lie for or against them 3. Whether Actions lie for the New Churchwardens in Trespas done in time of their Predecessors 4. Certain things appertaining to the Church within the charge and office of Churchwardens to provide and preserve 5. Cases in Law touching the Election of Churchwardens 6. What Sidemen or Questmen are and their duty 7. Action at Law against Churchwardens touching Distress taken by them for money for relief of the Poor 8. A Churchwarden refusing to take the Oath of Enquiry on the 39 Articles Action thereon 9. What remedy in case the Archdeacon refuses to Swear the Church-wardens Elect. 10. The Injunctions of King Ed. 6. touching all Marriages Baptisms and Burials to be Registred in the presence of the Churchwardens 11. Whether the Release of one Churchwarden shall be a Bar to his Companion in an Ecclesiastical Suit commenced by them both 12. Prohibition where Churchwardens have pretended a Custome to chuse the Parish-Clerk 13. The like upon a Presentment by Churchwardens against one in matter more proper for a Leet than the Ecclesiastical Court to take cognizance of 14. The prevalency of Custome against a Canon in choice of a Churchwarden in reference to a Vicar and the Parishioners 15. If question be whether Lands next adjoyning unto a Church-yard shall be charged with the repairs of the Fences thereof and Custome pleaded for it in what Court cognizable 16. In Action of Account by Parishioners against Churchwardens by whom a Release of Câ—sts is pleaded but disallowed in the Ecclesiastical Court whether Prohibition lies in that case 17. Whether Churchwardens are a Corporation qualified for Lands as well as Goods to the use of the Church 18. The Churchwardens disposal of Goods belonging to the Church without the assent of the Sidemen or Vestry void 19. Churchwardens not Ecclesiastical Officers but Temporal employed in Ecclesiastical Affairs Before whom are they to Account 20. Whether Churchwardens may have Action for Trespass done to the Church in their Predecessors time 21. Whether the Parishioners by force of a
certain day in the Vestry to Elect Churchwardens They elect A. and present him to the Archdeacon who refuses A. and forbids him to exercise the Office of a Churchwarden because the Parson pretended that by the new Canon the Election of a Churchwarden belonged to him to dispose c. and exercise the Office of Churchwarden And A. is sued ex Officio in the High Commission-Court amongst other things touching that A. prays a Prohibition because the Canon does not take away the Custome Also it would be very mischievous if the Parson should Elect whom he please to be Churchwarden And the Parson and Churchwardens being a Corporation then they may dispose of the Goods and Lands of the Parish as they please Coke Chief Justice said That a Convocation hath power to make Constitutions for Ecclesiastical Things or Persons 20 H. 6. 14. 21 E. 4. 46. But they ought to be according to the Law and Custome of the Realm And they cannot make Churchwardens that were Eligible to be Donative without Act of Parliament and the Canon is to be intended where the Parson had nomination of a Churchwarden before the making of the Canon And now Rule was given for a Prohibition if cause be not shewn to the contrary c. ex motione Serjeant Foster 6. As touching Sidemen otherwise called Questmen they are only such as are annually chosen according to the custome of every Parish to assist the Churchwardens in the enquiry and presenting such Offenders to the Ordinary as upon such Presentments are prosecuted and punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court 7. In an Action of Trespass against the Churchwardens where by the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 2. if for a Distress taken by them for money for the relief of the Poor Trespass be brought against them and Verdict pass for them the Defendants shall recover treble Dammages with their Costs And that to be assest c. by the same Jury or by Writ of enquiry of Dammages it was Resolved 1 That the Costs shall not be trebled but only the Dammages 2 That the treble Dammages are well assest by the Jury although that it be not done by the Court. Because the words are by the same Jury to be assest and not Dammages to be trebled by them 8. Upon an Habeas Corpus the Case was return'd to be That H. being Churchwarden refused to take the Oath of Enquiry of the 39 Articles touching Ecclesiastical matters And the warrant of the Commitment of the High Commissioners was to retain him and until we shall give order for his delivery By the Court c. Vntil we that is All we 12 Ed. 4. 3. a. 1 H. 7. 7. a. that is not good for if then any of them dies or be removed The party shall never be delivered by that means But it ought to be Until he shall be lawfully delivered But notwithstanding the Churchwarden was not out upon Bail because now also he refused to take that Oath But with a So far forth as the Articles do agree with the Law of God and the Land Note that such subscription or consent to the Articles 13 Eliz by a Parson is not good As it was Adjudged in 33 34 Eliz. B. R. Clark against Smithfield But afterwards the Church-warden was delivered by the High Commissioners 9. If the Parishioners have time out of mind used to chuse two Churchwardens yearly and to present them to the Archdeacon to be Sworn and he have used to Swear them and upon such election and presentation to him to be Sworn he shall refuse to Swear them a Writ may issue out of the King's Bench directed to the Archdeacon commanding him to Swear them Mich. 15 Jac. B. R. such Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of Sutton Valence in Kent for although there was a Canon made primo Jac. to the contrary yet that cannot take away the custome Tr. 15 Car. B. R. The like Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of the Parishes of Ethelborough and St. Thomas Apostles in London after divers motions and upon hearing of the Council on both sides Pasch 4 Car. B. R. Rot. 420. between Draper and Stone The like Writ was granted for the Churchwardens of Holberton in Devon If one be chosen Churchwarden and the Official of the Bishop refuse to Administer his Oath to him he shall have a Special Writ directed to the Official commanding him to give him his Oath Trin. 17 Jac. B. R. Bishop's Case Roll Rep. Note That an Attorney cannot be a Churchwarden if he be chosen and refuse and be sued for such a Refusal in the Ecclesiastical Court he may have a Prohibition Pasch 14 Car. 1. B. R. in Wilson's Case Trin. 15 Car. 1. B. R. Barker's Case Roll's Cases 2. par fo 272. 10. By the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. An. 1547. to all the Clergy as well as Laity of this Realm it is required That the Parson Vicar or Curate and Parishioners of every Parish within this Realm shall in their Churches and Chappels keep one Book or Register wherein they shall write the day and year of every Wedding Christning and Burial made within their Parish c. and therein shall write every persons Name that shall be so Wedded Christned or Buried And for the safe keeping the said Book the Parish shall be bound to provide of their common charges one sure Coffer with two Locks and Keys whereof the one to remain with the Parson Vicar or Curate and the other with the Wardens of every Parish-Church or Chappel wherein the said Book shall be laid up Which Book they shall every Sunday take forth and in the presence of the said Wardens or one of them write or record in the same all the Weddings Christnings and Burials made the whole week before and that done to lay up the Book in the said Coffer as before And for every time that the same shall be omitted the party that shall be in the fault thereof shall forfeit to the said Church three shillings four pence to be employed to the Poor mens Box of that Parish 11. A man taxed by the Parish for Reparation of the Church was sued for the Tax by the Churchwardens in the Ecclesiastical Court Depending this Suit one of the Churchwardens released to the Defendant all Actions Suits and Demands the other Church-warden proceeded in the prosecution of the Suit and upon this the Defendant procured a Prohibition upon which matter shewed therein was a Demurr joyned Davenport moved for a Consultation The Question was where two Churchwardens sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Tax and one of them Release whether that Release shall barr his Companion or not It seem'd to him that this Release shall not be any barr to his Companion or impediment to sue for he said That Churchwardens are not parties interessed in the Goods of the Church but are a special Corporation for the benefit of the Church for which he cited
Advowson lieth for him who hath an Estate in an Advowson in Fee-simmple or Right of an Estate therein to him and his Heirs in Fee-simple Which Writ being Quod clamat tenere de te doth suppose a Tenure and lieth not only for the whole Advowson but also for some part thereof As also because a Praecipe quodreddat lieth for it as hath been Adjudged As also that a Common Recovery may be suffered of an Advowson as hath been likewise Adjudged As also because an Advowson as other Temporal Inheritances may be forfeited by Attainder of Treason or Felony or lost by Usurpation six months Plenarty Recusancy Outlawry Negligence or Lacks of Presentment Translation or Cesser and given away in Mortmain As also for that the Wife shall be endowed thereof and have the third Presentment and the Husband shall be Tenant thereof by the Courtesie also it is successively devisable among Coparceners that the priority of Presentment shall be in the eldest Sister likewise it may pass by way of Exchange for other Temporal Inheritance and albeit during the vacancy of the Church it be not in it self valuable yet otherwise it is as to an Incumbent and by Grat of all Lands and Tenements an Advowson doth pass if not by Livery yet by Deed is transferable as other Temporal Inheritances and pass with the Mannors whereunto they are appendant by Prescription unless there were before a severance by Grant Deed Partition or other Legal Act which Prescription is so requisite to Appendancy as without which it cannot well be at all 8. An Advowson in Gross is understood as under a more beneficial qualification than that which is Appendant and that which is Appendant may by severance become an Advowson in Gross And therefore in the Case where a man being seized of a Mannor whereto an Advowson was Appendant and by Deed granting one Acre belonging to that Mannor unà cum Advocatione Ecclesiae did further by the same Deed give and grant the said Advowson the Question was whether the Advowson did pass as Appendant to the Acre or as an Advowson in Gross And the better Opinion was That by that Grant the Advowson was severed from the Mannor and was become in Gross for that the Deed shall be taken most beneficial for the Grantee to have the Advowson in Gross and not as Appendant to the Acre But in that case it was Agreed If the whole Mannor had been granted then the Advowson had passed as Appendant and not in Gross Yet an Advowson Appendant to a Mannor descending to divers Coparceners making Partition of such Mannor without mentioning the Advowson remains Appendant notwithstanding such Division and Severance from the Mannor Yea although the Mannor of D. to which an Advowson is Appendant be granted and by the same Deed the Advowson also of the Church of D. So as it is named no otherwise than in Gross yet it shall thereby pass only as Appendant 9. If the King makes a Lease for life of a Mannor to which an Advowson is Appendant without making any mention of the Advowson the Advowson remains in the King as in Gross as was granted by the Justices And it was said by them That in such case by Grant of the Reversion Habendum the Reversion with the Advowson the Advowson passeth not to the Patentee for that the Advowson was severed and became in Gross as to the Fee And in another Case where it was found before Commissioners That A. was seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant and that he was a Recusant convict whereupon two parts of the Mannor were seized into the Kings hands who leased the Mannor with Appurtenances and all profits and commodities and Hereditaments to the same belonging unto J. S. for 21 years if A c. and afterwards the Church became void In this Case it was held That albeit there was no mention in the seizure of the Advowson yet the Presentment belonged to the King and that the King alone should Present Secondly That there were no words in the Kings Grant to J. S. to carry away the Advowson from the King and that notwithstanding that Grant the Advowson remained still Appendant to the Mannor 10. By words implying meerly matter of profit or things gainful as Cum omnibus commoditatibus Emolumentis proficuis advantagiis and the like an Advowson will not pass because it is contrary to the nature of an Advowson regularly and therefore the Advowson of a Vicarage appendant to a Prebend passed not by a Lease with such words of several parts of the Prebend to which such Advowson was appendant Not will an Advowson appurtenant to a Mannor pass by the Grant of an Acre of Land parcel of that Mannor cum pertinentiis otherwise if the Grant be of the Mannor it self cum pertinentiis Yet in a Case where the King being seized of a Mannor to which an Advowson was appendant granted the Mannor to J. S. for life and then granted the Mannor to J. D. after the death of J. S. Habendum cum Advocatione and then by Parliament the King reciting both the Grants confirmed them by Parliament yet it was Adjudged in that Case That the Advowson did not pass Nor will an Advowson if once Appendant pass without special words of Grant thereof which may not be strained in the construction thereof to an unusual or unreasonable sense for which reason an Appropriation will not pass by the name of an Advowson but as aforesaid an Advowson of a Vicarage may be Appendant to a Prebend All which hath been Resolved in the fore-cited Case And if Tenant in Tail be of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant the Church being full and he grants proximam Advocatione and then dies by his death the Grant becomes meerly void as was also Resolved in Walter and Bould's Case In a Quare Impedit The Case was between the Chancellor and Scholars of Oxford and the Bishop of Norwich and others The Plaintiff counted upon the Statute of 3 Jac. That J. S. being Owner of an Advowson 2 Jac. was a Recufant convict and that afterwards the Church became void and so they by the Statute ought to Present One of the Defendants pleaded That the Advowson was appendant to a Mannor and that two parts of the Mannor were seized into the Kings hands by Process out of the Exchequer and that the King by his Letters Patents granted the Two parts to the Defendant with the Appurtenances and granted also all Hereditaments but Advowsons were not mentioned in the Letters Patents and so said the Presentation did belong to the Defendant It was Resolved That the Advowson did not pass by the word Appurtenances without mention of Advowson or words Adeo plena integra in tam amplo modo forma as the Recusant had the Mannor 11. In case a Patron be Outlawed and the Church becoming
void a Stranger doth usurp and presents his Clerk to the Avoidance and Six months pass and afterwards the King being entitled to the Avoidance by reason of the Outlawry bring a Quare Impedit against the Incumbent as being in wrongfully and remove him By this means the Advowson is recontinued again to the Rightful Patron whereof he was ousted by the Usurpation who upon the reversal of the Outlawry shall Present in case the Church becomes void again 12. A man hath Three Avoidances granted him of one Church at one time and by one Deed The Church becomes void the Grantor by Usurpation presents his Clerk who is Admitted Instituted and Inducted afterwards the Church becomes void again In that case the Grantee shall present to the Second Avoidance for that the former Presentation made by the Grantor usurping did not put the Grantee out of all the Avoidances and Adjudged accordingly 13. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant presented B. who was Admitted Instituted and Inducted afterwards A. fells the Mannor to which the Advowson was appendant unto J. S. The Church becomes void by the death of B. whereupon the Queen 15 Feb. 1588. Present J. D. by these words viz. Per mortem naturalem Incumbeatis ibid. vacant who thereupon 20th of the said Feb. was Admitted Instituted and Inducted by Letters of Institution Per Dominam Reginam veram indubitatam Patronam The said J. D. dies The King presents R. in these words viz. Ad nostram Praesentationem sive ex pleno jure sive per Lapsum Temporis sive alio quocunque modo spectant The only Question was Whether notwithstanding all this matter the Advowson did remain Appendant or not And it was Adjudged by the Court That the Advowson remained Appendant notwithstanding the Queens presentation of J. D. For it appeared there was no colour of Title to the Queen to present no Lapse for the Presentation Institution c. were all in the same month wherein the Advoidance was And it was no Usurpation by the Queen because the Presentation supposed a Right where none was and so was void for the Queen meant to do no wrong And upon the same reason the Presentation of R. afterwards by the King was void And it was then further holden by the Court That the Presentation of J. D. being void it was but a Collation of the Bishop which makes no disappendancy nor so much as a plenarty against the Rightful Patron but that he may bring his Quare Impedit when he will and if the Bishop receive his Clerk the other is out ipso facto 14. Although an Advowson be a kind of Reversion of a right of Presentation to a Living or Benefice called Spiritual yet it is now in the nature of other Temporal Inheritances and therefore he that hath this Right in him may either devise it by Will or grant it by Deed in Fee or for life or for years as other things And in regard an Advowson or Jus Patronatus refers to and respects not the Oblations and Tithes belonging to the Church but rather the Building thereof with the Ground whereon it is built and the Endowment thereof if therefore any debate or controversie should happen to arise touching any of these last mentioned it might prejudice the Patron as to his Right to the Advowson but if the controversie be only touching the other viz. the Oblations or Tithes whether Great or Small the Jus Patronatus will remain good and entire to the Patron notwithstanding such Controversie provided the Suit doth not extend and be for a fourth part of the whole belonging to the Church Lindw de Foro Comp. cap. Circumspecte verb. Item si Rector gl ibid. verb. quarta pars And he to whom the Right of Advowson of any Church appertains is termed Avowè for distinctions sake to discriminate him from those who sometime Present in the Name of another as a Guardian that presents in the Name of his Minor as also to difference him from such as have only for term of their Lives or of years or by Intrusion or Disseisin the Lands to which an Advowson appertains the Avowè properly and strictly taken being only he who may Present in his own Right and in his own Name 15. It hath been Adjudg'd That an Advowson belonging to a Prebend will not pass by a Lease thereof albeit it hath in it these words viz. Commodities Emoluments Profits and Advantages because all these four words being of one sense and nature imply things gainful which is contrary to the nature of an Advowson regularly as aforesaid yet an Advowson may be yielded in value upon a Voucher and may be Assets in the hand of an Executor and in the foresaid Case of London vers c. it is said That an Appropriation nor the Advowson of it will not pass by the name of an Advowson yet an Advowson will be contained under the name of a Tenement And where the King granted that Monks should have all their Possessions of the Abbey in the Vacation for their sustentation Ruled that they should not have the Advowsons because no sustentation arose from them nor will an Advowson though it be appendant pass in the Kings Grant without special words yet in the Case of a Recusant convict to whose Lands an Advowson is appendant the seizure of Two parts of his Land for the King is a Seizure by consequence of two parts of the Advowson without mention of it and if the King have but Two parts of an Advowson yet he shall Present alone for no Subject can be Tenant in Common with the King who though he be no party to a Quare Impedit yet if his Title appear clear for him against both parties shall have a Writ awarded for him to the Bishop Or if the King joyn issue in a Quare Impedit which is not found fully for him yet if a Title do any way appear the Court must award a Writ to the Bishop for him 16. A. brought Quare impedit against D. The Plaintiff counted that the Defendant had disturbed him to Present ad Vicariam de D. and shewed That the Queen was seized of the Rectory of D. and of the Advowson of the Vicarage of D. and by her Letters Patents gave unto the Plaintiff Rectoriam praedictam cum pertinentiis etiam Vicariam Ecclesiae praedict And it was holden by the whole Court That the Advowson of the Vicarage by these words doth not pass nor so in the Case of a Common person much less in the Case of the King But if the Queen had granted Ecclesiam suam of D. then by Walmsley Justice the Advowson of the Vicarage had passed 17. Although he who after the death of a Parson Incumbent hath Right of Presentation in him doth not upon a Disturbance bring a Quare Impedit not Darrein Presentment but suffereth a Stranger to usurp upon him yet he
3 ly if he Present not within the time by Law limited then the King shall Present for that he is Patron paramount of all the Benefices within his Realms as also because the King and his Progenitors Kings of England have had Authority time out of mind to determine the Right of Patronages in this Realm in their own Courts whence lies no Appeal to any Foreign pretended Power The Rosell Summist indeed makes more Gradations in this matter as from the Patron to the Chapter from the Chapter to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Metropolitan from the Metropolitan to the Patriarch and if none such then to the Pope Sed hoc nihil ad nos part of whose happiness is an Index Expurgatorius of the last recited Premisses And although the Law is That the Ordinary shall Present in case the Patron doth not within Six months yet the Law withal is That if the Patron Present before the Ordinary put in his Clerk the Patron of right shall enjoy his Presentation And if the Ordinary surcess his time limited he loses his power as to that Presentation specially if it be devolv'd to the King And when the Presentation is in the Metropolitan he shall put in the Clerk himself and not the Ordinary and so there is no default in the Ordinary though he Present not the Clerk of the Patron if his time be past in which case there is no remedy for the Patron against the Ordinary This matter of Lapse is of very ancient practice for Mich. 3. E. 1. B. Rot. 105. Staff the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield pleaded a Collation by Lapse Authoritate Concilii against the Prior of Landa to the Church of Patingham And 6 E. 1. Rot. Paten membra 25. in a Quare non admisit by the Abbot of St. Mary Eborum against the Bishop of Norwich the Bishop made a Title by Lapse viz. That he Collated Authoritate Concilii post Lapsum semestre c. And there afterwards in the Judgment it is said Quia tempus semestre Authoritate Concilii non incipit versus Patronum nisi à tempore scientiae mortis c. Q. what Council is here meant or intended For P. 9 E. 1. B. Rot. 51. it appears that Lapse was given per Concilium Lugdunense post tempus semestre The like also in a Writ in the time of E. 2. cited by Sir Ed. Co. 6. in Catesby's Case 62 yet in Bracton the Lapsus temporis is de Constitutione Lateranensi And yet Britton fo 225. speaks of the Tempus Semestre or the Six months according to the Council of Lions But Mr. Selden in his Book of Tithes 390. says That the Manuscripts of Breton have Lateran for Lions and in fol. 388. holds That this Lapse was received in the Laws of this Realm out of the General Council of Lateran held in the year 25 H. 2. as the Learned Serjeant Roll observes in his Abridgment on this word of Lapse where he also cites Hovenden fo 326. asserting That among the Canons of the Council of Lateran under Alex. 3. held under Alex. 3. An. 1118. in the time of King Hen. 2. there is a Canon in these words or to this effect viz Cum vero Praebendas Ecclesias seu quaelibet Officia in aliqua Ecclesia vacare contigerit vel si etiam mod◠vacant non diu maneant in suspenso sed infra Sex menses personis quae digne administrare valeant conferantur si autem Episcopus ubi ad eum spectaverit conferre distulit per Capitulum Ordinetur And before the said Council the Patron was not limited to any time but might Present at his pleasure without any Lapse Touching other Presidents of great Antiquity relating to this Subject of Lapse the Reader is here referred to that Learned Serjeant Rolle in the forecited place of his Abridgment And although according to the Gradations aforesaid the Lapse devolves from the Patron to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King yet if after Lapse incurr to the Metropolitan and before Collation by him made the Patron Present he may Present to the Ordinary of the Diocess without Presenting to the Metropolitan Contra H. 41 El. B. R. per Popbam for thereby he seems to redeem his neglect But yet if Lapse devolve to the King and then the Inferiour Ordinary Collate by the Lapse and his Clerk be Instituted and Inducted it seems this doth not make a Plenarty against the King to put him to his Quare Impedit but he may notwithstanding Present and oust the Clerk of the Ordinary for when Lapse incurrs to the King it cannot be taken away by the Ordinary And then when the Ordinary Collates without good Title it makes not any Plenarty against him who hath the right as the King hath to Present for a Lapse incurring to the King is not like that which incurrs to the Metropolitan But if a Patron Present and his Clerk be Instituted and remain Eighteen months without Induction in that case there doth not any Lapse incurr to the King for the King hath not any Lapse but where the Ordinary might have had it before But if a Bishop dies whereby the Temporalties are in the Kings hands if during that time the Six months pass whereby a Lapse happens the King shall have it and not the Guardian of the Spiritualties Nor doth an Admittance of a Resignation by Fraud take away the Kings Title for in Comber's Case against the Bishop of Cicester where the Issue in a Quare Impedit was If S. R. by covin between him and C and R. did Resign into the hands of the said Bishop if the King hath Title of Lapse and a Resignation be made by fraud and one Admitted this shall not take away the Kings Title for if the Kings Title appear upon Record then shall go out a Writ for the King but otherwise it is upon matter of Evidence the King doth lose his Presentation as well by resignation as by death where he hath Title to Present by Lapse and doth not except the Resignation be by Fraud And in the Case of the Queen and the Archbishop of York and Bucks it was Resolved by the Justices That a Collation although double or treble cannot be an Usurpation against the King to put him out of an Advowson 2. The Canon Law allows Two months more to an Ecclesiastical than to a Lay-Patron ere the Lapse shall be incurr'd the former having by that Law Six months to Present the latter but Four Summ. Angel tit Jus Patronat § 16. So the Law of Scotland Pars Couns par 1. c. 2. We need not enquire into the Reason of that difference or disproportion let it suffice the Laity That it was the Canonists pleasure to have it so for reasons best known to their own interest the Common Law impartially levels them both to one and the same equal standard
than the Bishop himself or other Ordinary which also must be given to the Patron personally if he live in the same County and if in another County then Publication thereof in the Parish-Church and affixed on the Church-Door will serve turn if such Notice doth express in certain as it ought to do the cause of the Deprivation c. As upon Deprivation of an Incumbent for not Reading the 39 Articles of Religion the Ordinary is to give the Patron Notice thereof which Notice ought to be certain and particular Before Lapse can incurr against a Patron Notice of his Clerks being refused by the Ordinary for Insufficiency must be given to the person of the Patron if he may be found and it is not in that Case sufficient to fix an Intimation thereof on the Door of that Church to which he was Presented D. 16 El. 327. 7. b. Adjudged 5. It is said That a Lapse is not an Interest naturally as is the Patronage but a meer Trust in Law And if the Six months be incurred yet the Patrons Clerk shall be received if he be Presented before the Church be Filled by the Lapse Observe 7 Eliz Dyer 241. for it seems by that case that the Patron should Present against the Kings Lapse for he hath dammage but for half a year And Hob. Chief Justice says That a Lapse is an act and office of Trust reposed by Law in the Ordinary Metropolitan and lastly in the King the end of which Trust is to provide the Church of a Rector in default of the Patron and yet as for him and to his behoof And therefore as he cannot transfer his Trust to another so cannot he divert the thing wherewith he is entrusted to any other purpose Nor can a Lapse be granted over as a Grant of the next Lapse of such a Church neither before it fall nor after If the Lapse incurr and then the Ordinary die the King shall Present and not the Executors of the Ordinary For it is rather an Administration than an Interest and the King cannot have a Lapse but where the Ordinary might have had it before If an Infant-Patron Present not within Six months the Lapse incurrs The Law is the same as against a Feme-Covert that hath right to Present 33 E. 3. Qua. Impedit 46. 6. In the first Paragraph of this Chapter it is said That Tempus Semestre authoritate Concilii non incipit versus Patronos nisi à tempore Scientiae mortis personae that is of the last Incumbent And so Adjuged upon a Writ in the time of E. 2. and said to be per Legem Consuetudinem Regni hactenus usitatas As if the Incumbent die beyond Sea the Six months are not computed from the time of his death but from the time of the Patrons knowledge thereof and so it was Adjudged in a Quare non admisit between the Abbot of St. Mary Eborum and the Bishop of Norwich as aforesaid For the Six months are not reckoned from the death of the Last Incumbent but from the time the Patron might according to a reasonable Computation having regard to the distance of the place where he was at the time of the Incumbents death if he were within the Realm at that time have come to the knowledge thereof for he ought afterwards to take notice thereof at his peril and not before for that he was in some other County than that wherein the Church is and wherein the Incumbent died And if the Ordinary refuse a Clerk for that he is Criminous in that case the Patron shall not have Six months to Present after Notice thereof given him but of the Avoidance The Law is the same in case of Refusal by reason of Illiterature But if the Church be void by Resignation or Deprivation the Six months shall be computed from the time of Notice thereof given to the Patron and not from the time of the Avoidance Yet if the Ordinary refuse a Clerk because he is Criminous he is to give notice thereof to the Patron otherwise the Lapse doth not incurr So likewise if he be refused for Common Usury Simony Adultery or other Notorious Crime Notice thereof ought to be given to the Patron otherwise the Lapse doth not incurr A Lay Patron ought to have Notice ere the Lapse shall incurr in case his Clerk be refused for Illiterature otherwise as to a Spiritual Patron because the Law presumes he might well know of his insufficiency before he presented him And if the Bishop who took a Resignation dies the Lapse doth not incurr to his Successor without Notice to the Patron 7. In a Quare Impedit the Defendant pleaded That he demanded of J. S. the Presentee of the Plaintiff to see his Letters of Orders and he would not shew them and also demanded of him his Letters Missive or Testimonial testifying his ability and because he had not his Letters of Orders nor Letters Missive nor made any proof of them to the Bishop he desired leave of the Bishop to bring them who gave him a week and he went away and came not again and the Six months passed and the Bishop Collated by Lapse It was Adjudged in this Case That these were no Causes to stay the Admittance of the Clerk for the Clerk is not bound understand it only at Common Law to shew his Letters of Orders and Letters Missive to the Bishop but the Bishop must try him upon Examination 8. A Parson of the Church of S. of the value of Ten pound took a Second Benefice without a Dispensation and was Instituted and Inducted and continued so for twelve years The Patron presented J. S. who was Instituted and Inducted and so continued divers years and died The Queen presented the Defendant C. ratione Lapsus in the time of A. who was Instituted and Deducted B. the Patron brought a Quare Impedit against the Ordinary and C. It was held by the Justices That the Writ did well lie and that Tempus occurrit Reginae in this Case and that last Clerk should be removed And it was held by the Justices That upon a Recovery in a Quare Impedit any Incumbent that comes in pendente Lite should be removed 9. In the Case between Cumber and the Bishop of Chichester it was Resolved 1 If Title of Lapse accrues to the King and the Patron Presents yet the King may Present at any time as long as the Presentee is Parson but if he dies or Resigns before the King Presents he hath lost his Presentment 2. If the King hath Title by Lapse because a Parson hath taken a Second Benefice if the Parson dies or Resigns his First Benefice and the Patron Presents whose Presentee Resigns upon Covin and dies the King hath lost that Presentment CHAP. XXIII Of Collation Presentation and Nomination 1. What Collation is and how it differs from Presentation 2. Collation
gains not the Patronage from the Crown 3. The Ordinary's Collation by Lapse is only in the Patron 's right 4. What Presentation is and how in ease of Co-heirs or Joynt-tenants or Tenants in Common 5. Whether the Grantee of the next Presentation not Presenting at the First Avoidance shall lose the benefit of his Grant 6. The Right of Presentation is not an Ecclesiastical but Temporal Inheritance and cognizable at the Common Law 7. The power of the Ordinary in case of Coparconers Joyntenants or Tenants in Common as to Presentation 8. In what Case the Bishop hath Election whose Clerk he will Admit 9. Whether a Presentation is revokable before Institution 10. Whether the Son may succeed his Father in the Church and who may vary from or repeal his Presentation 11. What Nomination is and the Qualifications thereof 12. In what Case the Presentation is the Nomination or both as one in Law 13. In what case the Nominator shall have a Quare Impedit as well as he that hath Right of Presentation And there may be a Corrupt Nomination as well as a Corrupt Presentation 14. Whether the Collatee be Incumbent if the Bishop Collate him within the Six months And in what Case the Kings Presentation within the Six months may be an Vsurpation or not 15. Where the Ordinary Collates the Patron is to take notice of it at his peril 16. Who shall Present in case the Ordinary to whom a Lapse is devolved be within the Six months translated to another Bishoprick 17. A Resignation to a Proctor without the Bishops Acceptance makes not the Church void 18. A Parochial Church may be Donative exempt from the Ordinary's Jurisdiction and is Resignable to and Visitable by the Patron not the Ordinary 19. Where Two are to Present by Turns what Presentation shall serve for a Turn or not 20. By the Canons the Son may not succeed the Father in the same Church 21. To what a Presentation may be made 22. The Kings right of Presentation as Supream Patron 23. In what case the Kings Prerogative to Present doth not take place 24. In what Cases it doth 25. To whom the Patronage of an Archbishoprick belongs 26. Whether Alien Ministers are Presentable to a Church in England 27. In what Cases the Patron may Present de novo 28. Difference between the King and a Common person in point of Presentation 29. A Collation makes no Plenarty where it is tortious 30. Presentation may be per parol as well as by Writing 31. What amounts to a Revocation of the King's Presentation 32. Causes of Refusal of the Clerk Presented 33. Certain Law Cases pertinent to this Subject 34. Whether Institution granted after a Caveat entered be void 35. What shall be held a Serving of a Turn and good Plenarty and Incumbency against a Patron in Severalty 36. A Clerk refused by reason of his not being able to speak the Welsh Language 37. What is the best Legal Policy upon every Presentation by Vsurpation 38. One of Two Grantees of an Advowson to whom the other hath released may Present alone and have a Qua. Imp. in his own Name 39. A Clerk refused for Insufficiency by the Bishop may not afterwards be Accepted 1. COllation in its proper signification is the bestowing of a Benefice by a Bishop that hath it in his own proper right gift or patronage distinguish'd from Institution only in this That Institution into a Benefice is at the instance motion or Presentation of the Patron or some other having pro tempore the Patrons Right performed by the Bishop Extra de Instit de Concess Praeben c. But Collation is not only when the person is Admitted to the Church or Benefice by the Bishop or other person Ecclesiastical but also when the Bishop or that other Ecclesiastical person is the rightful Patron thereof or when the Bishop or Ordinary hath right to Present for Lapse of the Patron and yet sometimes Collation is and hath been used for Presentation And so Presentation Nomination and Collation are commonly taken for one and the same thing in substance though at times distinguished And whereas it hath been a Question If one hath the Nomination and another the Presentation which of them shall be said to be the very Patron it hath alwaies been taken to be the better opinion that he who hath the Nomination is Patron of the Church And where an Abbot had the Presentation and another the Nomination and the Abbey surrendred to the King he that hath the Nomination shall now have all for the King shall not Present for him that being a thing undecent for the King But as to Collation and Presentation they were in substance one and the same thing as aforesaid But to speak properly Collation is where the Bishop himself doth freely give a Benefice which is of his own Gift by right of Patronage or Lapse This word Collation seems also to be frequently used when the King Presents and hence it is that there is a Writ called Collatione facta uni post mortem alterius c. directed to the Justices of the Common Pleas Commanding them to direct their Writ to a Bishop for the Admitting one Clerk in the place of another Presented by the King which Clerk during the Suit between the King and the Bishops Clerk is departed this life For Judgment once given for the Kings Clerk and he dying before his Admission the King may bestow his Presentation on another This Collation Presentation and Nomination are in effect Synonima being distinguished only in respect rather of Persons than of Things 2. Yet there may be a great difference betwixt Presentation and Collation which gains not the Patronage from the King as appears in the Case of the Queen against the Bishop of York where the Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the said Bishop and one Monk and counted upon a Presentment made by King Hen. 8. in the right of his Dutchy of Lancaster and so conveyed the same to the Queen by Descent The Bishop pleaded That he and his Predecessors have Collated to the said Church c. and Monk pleaded the same Plea upon which there was a Demurrer And it was moved by Beaumont Serjeant That the Plea is not good for a Collation cannot gain any Patronage and cannot be an Usurpation against a Common person much less against the Queen to whom no Lapses shall be ascribâ—d and although the Queen is seized of this Advowson in the right of her Dutchy yet when the Church becomes void the right to Present vests in the Royal person of the Qu. and yet vid. the Old Regist 31. Quando Rex praesentat non in jure Coronae tunc incurrit ei Tempus Hamm. Serj. By these Collations the Queen shall be put out of possession and put to her Writ of Right of Advowson but the same ought to be intended not where the Bishop Collates as Ordinary but where he Collates
Law which will not be good if the Institution were not good All which was also the Opinion of the Court in the Case aforesaid for if the Question be whether Parson or no Parson which comprehends Induction it is Triable at the Common Law And although by the Institution the Church if Full against all persons save the King yet he is not compleat Parson till Induction for though he be admitted ad Officium by the Institution yet he is not entitled ad Beneficium till Induction 18. In an Ejectione Firmae brought by the Lessee of Rone Incumbent of the Church of D. it was found by Special Verdict that the King was the true Patron and that Wingfield entered a Coveat in vita Incumbentis he then lying in Extremis scil Caveat Episcopus nè quis admittatur c. nisi Convocatus the said Wingfield the Incumbent dies Naunton a Stranger Presents one Morgan who is Admitted and Instituted afterwards the said Wingfield Presents one Glover who is Instituted and Inducted and afterwards the said Rone procures a Presentation from the King who was Instituted and Inducted And then it came in◠question in the Ecclesiastical Court who had the best Right and there Sentence was given That the First Institution was Irrita Vacua Inanis by reason of the Caveat and then the Church being Full of the Second Incumbent the King was put out of possession and so his Presentation void But it was Adjudged and Resolved by all the Court for Rone For 1 it was Resolved That this Caveat was void because it was in the life of the Incumbent According to the Common Law if a Caveat be entered with the Bishop and he grant Institution afterwards yet it is not void After a Caveat entered Institution is not void by the Common Law Pasch 13 Jac. B. R. Hitching vers Glover Rol. Rep. Cro. par 2. 2. The Church upon the Institution of Morgan was Full against all but the King and so Agreed many times in the Books and then the Presentation of Glover was void by reason of the Super-institution and therefore no obstacle in the way to hinder the Presentation of Rone and therefore Rone had good Right And if the Second Institution be void the Sentence cannot make it good for the Ecclesiastical Court ought to take notice of the Common Law which saith That Ecclesia est plena consulta upon the Institution and the person hath thereby Curam animarum And as Doderidge Justice said He hath by it Officium but Beneficium comes by the Induction And although by the Ecclesiastical Law the Institution may be disannull'd by Sentence yet as Lindwood saith Aliter est in Angl. And Doderidge put a Case out of Dr. Student lib. 2. If a man Devise a Sum of Money to be paid to J. S. when he comes to Full age and he after sue for it in the Spiritual Court they ought to take notice of the Time of Full age as it is used by the Common Law viz. 21. and not of the time of Full age as it is in the Civil Law viz. 25. So in this case for when these Two Laws meet together the Common Law ought to be preferred And when the Parson hath Institution the Archdeacon ought to give him Induction Vid. Dyer 293. Bedingfield's Case cited by Haughton to accord with this Case 19. By the Court That if an Archdeacon make a general Mandate for the Induction of a Parson viz. Vnivers personis Vicariis Clericis Literatis infra Archidiaconat meum ubicunque Constitut That if a Minister or a Preacher who is not resident within the Archdeaconry makes the Induction yet it is good And the Opinion of four Doctors of the Civil Law was shewn in the Court accordingly upon a Special Verdict 21. In the Case of Strange against Foote the sole Point upon the Special Verdict was If one Prideoux being Admitted and Instituted to a Prebendary with the Cure 4 Eliz. be being but Nine years of age notwithstanding the Statute it is meerly void Note 4 H. 6. 3. That if a Feme who is an Infant under 14 years hath issue it is a Bastard 21. It is said at the Common Law that after Induction the Admission and Institution ought not to be drawn into question in the Ecclesiastical Court for they say That after Induction the Ecclesiastical Law may not call into question the Institution That by Institution the Church is full against Common persons but not against the King and that by Induction the King may be put out of possession And in the Case between Rowrth and the Bishop of Chester it was Resolved That after an Induction an Institution is not to be examined in the Ecclesiastical Court but by a Quare Impedit only But yet the Justices if they see cause may write to the Bishop to Certifie concerning the Institution 22. Two Patrons pretended Title to Present the one Presented and the Bishop refused his Clerk He sued in the Audience and had an Inhibition to the Bishop and after he there obtained Institution and Induction by the Archbishop Afterwards the Inferior Bishop Instituted and Inducted the Clerk of the other for which Process issued out of the Audience against him he upon that prayed a Prohibition and a Prohibition was awarded as to the Incumbency because the Ecclesiastical Courts have not to meddle with Institution and Induction as was there said for that would determine the Incumbency which is triable at Common Law 23. In a Prohibition prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court the Case appeared to be this viz. Holt was Presented Instituted and Inducted to the Parish-Church of Storinton afterwards Dr. Wickham draws him into the Ecclesiastical Court questioning of him for some matters as touching the validity of his Induction and upon this a Prohibition was by him prayed Williams Justice A Prohibition here in this Case ought to be granted this being directly within the Statute 45 Ed. 3. cap. 3. for here the very Title of the Patronage comes in question with the determination of which they ought not to intermeddle also matter of Induction and the validity thereof is determinable at the Common Law and not in the Ecclesiastical Court and therefore a Prohibition ought to be granted and the whole Court agreed with him herein and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Prohibition in this Case was granted CHAP. XXV Of Avoidance and Next Avoidance as also of Cession 1. What Avoidance is how Twofold 2. The difference in Law between Avoidance and next Avoidance 3. How many waies Avoidanee may happen what Next Avoidance is The word Avoidance falls under a double Acceptation in Law 4. The Next Avoidance may not be granted by a Letter it cannot be granted but by Deed. 5. Grant of a Next Avoidance by the Son Living the Father Tenant in Tail is void 6. How Avoidance may be according to the Canon Law which
unless he be qualified for Plurality Or if a Dean be made a Bishop yea though a Dean or Parson in England be made a Bishop in Ireland as aforesaid his Benefice becomes void as was Resolved in Evans and Askwith's Case for that the Constitution or Council which makes it void is general and not limited to any place And so it was also Resolved 3 E. 3. Fitz. Trial and so adjudged 21 Jac. C. B. in the Case between Woodley and the Bishop of Exon and Manwaring 12. The case may so happen that albeit a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the same yet his First Benefice shall not be void by Cession though the Benefices be incompatible though there be no Dispensation in the case and although himself be not otherwise qualified for Pluralities For it hath been Resolved That if a man having one Benefice accept another and be Instituted and Inducted into the Second and then read not his Articles that yet the First Benefice voids not by Cession because the Second is as not taken Notwithstanding it cannot be denied but that where a man having a Benefice with Cure of Souls above the value of Eight pounds per Ann. doth take another with Cure and is thereto Admitted Instituted and Inducted the First Benefice without Dispensation becomes void as in the Case of the King against George Lord Archbishop of Canterbury In which Case it was held That the Church was absolutely void in facto jure by taking of a Second Benefice and that by the express words of the Statute of 21 H. 8. So that by the Acceptance of a Second Benefice the Church is void facto jure quoad the Patron and all others Sed Q. whether void as to an Usurper for in some cases a Benefice may be void as to some persons and not void as to others As in the Case of Simony whereby as well as by Cession a Church becomes void yet in that case although it be void to all men quorum interest to the King and his Incumbent and all that claim under him and to the Parishioners to the Ordinary and to the like yet according to Sir Hen. Hobart Chief Justice it is not void to an Usurper for a man without Right cannot Present unto it as to a Church void nor the Ordinary so discharge himself if he receive the Clerk of an Usurper for he is none of them quorum interest Pasch 14 Jac. Rot. 1026. Case of Winchcombe against the Bishop of Winchester and Rich. Pulleston Hob. Rep. 13. If the Next Avoidance be granted to Three persons and after the Church become void and then Two of the Three Present the Third Grantee being a Clerk in this case the Presentation is good and the Bishop may not refuse him inasmuch as all Three were Joynt-tenants thereof by the Grant and only Two of them joyn in the Presentment for that the Third person cannot Present himself but if only one of these Three Grantees Present the Third the Bishop hath power to refuse him And if an Incumbent having the Advowson do Devise the Next Avoidance it seems it is good Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Harris vers Austen Rol. Rep. 14. In Holland's Case it was Resolved That before the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 13. if he which had a Benefice with Cure accept another with Cure the First was void but this was no Avoidance by the Common Law but by Constitution of the Pope of which the Patron might take Notice if he would and Present without Deprivation But because the Avoidance accrued by the Ecclesiastical Law no Lapse incurred without Notice as upon a Deprivation or Resignation so that the Church was void for the benefit of the Prtron not for his disadvantage But now if the First Benefice be of the value of Eight pounds per annum the Patron at his peril ought to Present for to an Avoidance by Parliament every one is party but if not of Eight pounds it is void by the Ecclesiastical Law of which he needs not take Notice 15. In a Quare Impedit The Defendant said A. was seized of the Advowson of the Church of D. and by Deed 19 Jac. granted to J. S. the Next Avoidance and that J. S. died and made his Executor who Presented the Plantiff to the Church being void Upon Non concessit it was found That A. granted to J. S. durante vita ipsius J. S. primam proximam Advocationem and that he died before the Church became void Whether this was an absolute Grant of the Next Avoidance as is pretended was the Question And Resolved it was not but it is limited to him to Present to the Advowson if it becomes void during his life and not that otherwise it should go to his Executors and therefore it was Adjudged against the Defendant 16. The Incumbent of a Church purchased the Advowson thereof in Fee and devised that his Executor should Present after his decease and devised the Inheritance to another in Fee It was said the devise of the Next Avoidance was void because when his Will should take effect the Church was instantly void But the Court held the devise was good for the Law is so and it shall be good according to the intent of the party expressed in his will The Grant of the Next Avoidance during the Avoidance is void in Law Steephens and Clark's Case More 's Reports 17. In a Quare Impedit the Case was The Corporation of B. being seized of an Advowson granted the Next Avoidance to J. S. and afterward granted primam proximam Advocationem to the Earl of B. who granted it to the Plaintiff The Church became void J. S. Presented his Clerk who was Inducted and then the Church became void again It was Resolved that the Second Grant was void so as the Plaintiff had no Title for when he had granted primam proximam Advocationem to one he had not Authority to grant it after to another but if the First Grant had been lost so as it could not have been pleaded there perhaps the Second Grand had been good 18. In a Quare Impedit the Case was H. being Incumbent of a Church was Created a Bishop in Ireland and the Queen Presented the Defendant It was the Opinion of the Justices That this Creating of the Incumbent a Bishop in Ireland was a good cause of Avoidance and that the Queen should have it by her Prerogative But if the Queen doth not take the benefit of the First Avoidance but suffers a Stranger to Present and the Presentee dies she may not have Prerogative to Present to the Second Avoidance 19. The Next Avoidance of a Church was granted to A. and B. A. releases to B. and after the Church became void It was Adjudged in this Case That B. may Present and upon Disturbance have a Quare Impedit in his own Name
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
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
in such Vacancy for the succeeding Parson shall have the Tithes happening during the Vacancy deducting the charges of collecting the same and serving the Cure during such Vacancy Also if an Incumbent be removed in a Quare Impedit the Plaintiff shall not have the main profits And an Incumbent being in by Usurpation he cannot be removed but by a Quare Impedit 4. An Incumbent Resident that keeps a Curate is obliged to read the Common Prayers in his Parish-Church once a month in his own person on pain of forfeiting Five pounds for every omission 5. In Thomson's Case where T. Libelled for Dilapidations against the Executors of his Predecessors and Henden moved for a Prohibition for that that T. is not Incumbent for his Presentation was by the King ratione Minoritatis of one C. and the King had not any such Title to Present for where the King mistakes his Title the Presentation is void and he is no Incumbent 6. Rep. 26. Green's Case And Sir Tho. Gawdy's Case where the King Presented jure Prerogat when he had another Title and the present Action was adjudged void and whether he is Incumbent or not that shall be tried But by the Court a Prohibition was denied because that he was now Incumbent And the Judges would not take notice of the ill Presentation of the King But in case of Simony the Statute makes the Church void and then the Judges may take notice of that and grant a Prohibition if the Parson sues for Tithes But if a Quare Impedit be brought and appears that the King had not cause of Presentation then a Prohibition may be granted which was also granted by all the other Justices Mich. 3 Car. C. B. Thomson 's Case Hetley's Rep. 6. In Dame Chichleys Case against the Bishop of Ely it was said by Henden That an Incumbent by the Statute of 25 Ed. 3. c. 7. cannot plead quatenus such unless he be Incumbent ante diem impetrationis Brevis unless he be Incumbent pendente lite he cannot plead c. Hutton If one be Presented Instituted and Admitted before the Writ and Inducted after and before his Pleader he may plead well 7. A Libel was against H. Vicar of S. in the High Commission-Court at York because that he was not Resident but lived at Doncaster and neglected to serve his Cure and that divers times he when the High Court visited spoke so loud that he was offensive to many and being reproved for that he gave a Scornful Answer And that there was one Wright in the Parish who had a Seat in the Church and that the Vicar would Spit in abundance into the said Seat and that when Wright and his Wife were there And that in his Sermon he made Jests and said That Christ was laid in a Manger because he had no mony to take up a Chamber but that was the knavery of the Inn-keeper he being then in contention with an Inn-keeper in the Parish And that in time of Divine Service he thrust open the door of Wright's Seat and said That he and his Wife would sit there in disturbance of Divine Service And for that a Prohibition was prayed and granted for the High Commission cannot punish Non Residency nor breaking the Seat in Divine Service And the other were things for which he shall be bound to the good behaviour and the Complaint ought to be to the Ordinary 8. Note by Tanfield that by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. of Non-Residency That if the Parson be Absent 80 daies in a year although it be at several times viz. ten daies at one time and twenty daies at another time until eighty daies c. That is within the Statute by which it hath been Adjudged 9. The personal Residence of all Ecclesiastical persons on their Cures respectively is a duty so incumbent on them for the better discharge of their Sacred Function the prevention of Dilapidations and the maintenance of Hospitality that it is enacted That every Spiritual person promoted to any Archdeaconry Deanary or Dignity in any Church Cathedral or Collegiate or Beneficed with any Parsonage or Vicarage shall be personally Resident and abiding in at or upon such Dignity Prebend or Benefice or one of them at the least and that if any such person wilfully Absent himself from his said Benefice c. by the space of a Month at one time or two Months at several times in any one year to be accounted at several times that such person so absenting shall forfeit ten pounds for every such default It is also further provided That the Parson or Vicar shall be Resident in and upon his Parsonage or Vicarage-House if he have any and not at any other House in the Parish but if he hath no House on his Glebe or be removed without fraud for his Health or without fraud Imprisoned or be beyond Sea in his Majesties Service or without fraud abide in any University within this Realm to study or be a Chaplain qualified for Plurality by the Statute of 21 H. 8. either of these may excuse his Residence for the time Also the King may give a License to any of his own Chaplains to be Non-Resident And any Ecclesiastical person may be Non-Resident for such time as without fraud he is attending a Suit in Chancery There are also other Chaplains of other persons that are qualified for Non-Residence which for brevities sake are here omitted And where a Chaplain is qualified in respect of his Service for Plurality if his Lord die or be Attainted or be removed from his place it will not it seems suffice that he be Resident only upon one of his Livings without the King 's Special License with a Non obstante 10. The Canon made by Cardinal Otho and afterwards Confirmed and de novo Established by Othobon seems very severe as to Vicars in case of Non-Residence for in their Constitutions it is Ordained That if any Non-Resident shall receive the profits or Fruits of a Vicarage he shall restore the one Moity thereof to the Church one half of the other Moity to the Poor of that Parish and the rest to the Archdeacon of the place if he discharge his duty in making a diligent Enquiry yearly herein and shall forthwith make it known to the Bishop and whoever shall disobey the Premisses by one Month shall also be deprived of his other Benefices if he have any and be rendered incapable of ever having that Vicarage again or any other Benefice for Three years And in case the Archdeacon shall neglect what herein is enjoyned him he shall be deprived of that part allotted him as aforesaid and suspended ab ingressu Ecclesiae Constit Othobon de Residentia Vicariorum 11. The Oath of Residence on a Vicarage is as followeth viz. Ego A. B. juro Quod ero Residens in Vicaria mea nisi aliter dispensatum fuerit à Dioecesano meo What
for the avoiding of Leases made by a Parson by his Absence from his Living by the space of eighty daies in one year and also shews that one Stallowe who was Parson of Sharrington to whom these Tithes did belong and in whose Right the Defendant claimed them was Absent from his Parsonage by the space of eighty daies in one year and shews in what year and so by this his interest determined and Agreement with the Plaintiff by this made void but they found further as the Plaintiff made it to appear That Stallowe the Parson of Sharrington was not Absent in manner as it was alledged for that they found that he did dwell in another Town adjoyning but that he came constantly to his Parish-Church and there read Divine Service and so went away again They did also find hat he had a Parsonage-house in Sharrington fit for his habitation and whether this were an Absence within the Statute as to avoid his Lease they left that to the Judgment of the Court Yelverton Justice This is a good Non-Residency within the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. but not an Absence to avoid a Lease made within the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. It cannot be said here in this Case that he was Absent for he came four daies in every week and in his Parish-Church did read Divine Service Williams Justice upon the Statute of 13 and 14 Eliz the Parson ought not to be Absent from his Church eighty daies together in one year à Rectoria sua but this is not so here for he came to his Church and read Divine Service there every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and therefore clearly this cannot be such an Absence within the scope and intention of these Statutes as thereby to avoid his Lease Yelverton Justice he ought to be Absent eighty daies together per spatium de Octogin diebus ultra and this to be altogether at one time and so the same ought to have been laid expresly the which is not so done here for that it appears here that he was at his Parsonage-house and did read Prayers every Sunday Wednesday Friday and Saturday and so the whole Court were clear of Opinion that this Absence here as the same appeared to be was not such an Absence by the space of eighty daies in one year to avoid his Lease within the said Statute and so the Defendants Plea in Barr not good and therefore by the Rule of the Court Judgment was entered for the Plaintiff 17. An Information was Exhibited against Two Parsons by J. S. upon the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 13. against one of them for Non-Residency and against the other for taking of a Farm the one of them pleaded Sickness and that by the Advice of his Physicians he removed into better Air for Recovery of his health and this is justifiable by the whole Court vid. more for this Coke 6. par fo 21. in Butler and Goodall's Case The other pleaded That he took the Farm for the maintenance of his House and Family And this also is justifiable by the Opinion of the whole Court Crooke moved the Court for the Defendants That the Plaintiff was a Common Informer and that he did prefer this Information against them only for their vexation and so to draw them to compound with him as formerly he hath so done by others for which they prosecuted an Indictment in the Countrey upon the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. made to punish Common Informers for their Abuses The whole Court did advise them to prosecute this Indictment against him Crooke moved for the Defendants That in regard the Informer is a man of no means that the Court would order him to put in sufficient Sureties to answer Costs if the matter went against him and that then the Defendants would presently answer the Information Williams Justice nullam habemus talem legem this is not to be done but the Rule of the Court was That the Defendants should not answer the Information until the Informer appeared in person 18. In an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff in his Declaration sets forth that the Defendant was Parson of D. and did Covenant That the Plaintiff should have his Tithes of certain Lands for thirteen years and that afterwards he Resigned and another Parson Inducted by which means he was ousted of his Tithes and for this cause the Action brought The Defendant pleads in Barr the Statutes of 13 Eliz. cap. 20. and 14 Eliz. cap. 11. for Non-Residency upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurr'd in Law It was urged for the Plaintiff That the Plea in Barr was not good because it is not averred that the Defendant had been Absent from his Parsonage by the space of Eighty daies in a year for otherwise the Covenant is not void by the Statutes For the Defendant it was alledged That the pleading of the Statute of 13 Eliz. is idle but by the Statute of 14 Eliz. this Covenant is made void for by the Statute all Covenants shall be all one with Leases made by such Parsons And in this case if this had been a Lease this had been clearly void by Surrender of the Parson and so in case of a Covenant Doderidge and Houghton Justices The Statutes of 13 and 14 Eliz. do not meddle with Assurances at the Common Law nor intended to make any Leases void which were void at the Common Law and therefore this Covenant here is not made void by the Statute unless he be Absent Eighty daies from his Parsonage Coke Chief Justice agreed with them herein They all agreed in this Case for the Plaintiff and that by the Preamble of 14 Eliz. it is shewed the intent of the Statute to be to make Covenants void within the Provision of 13 Eliz. by Absence for Eighty daies And Judgment in this Case was given for the Plaintiff CHAP. XXIX Of Abbots and Abbies also of Chauntries and of the Court of Augmentations 1. Abbot what why so called the several kinds thereof and how many anciently in England 2. A famous Abbot anciently in Ireland The manner of their Election prescribed by the Emperour Justinian Anciently the Peers of France were frequently Abbots 3. The ancient Law of King Knute concerning Abbots 4. The Abbot with the Monks making a Covent were a Corporation 5. Abbots were either Elective or Presentative they were Lords of Parliament How many Abbies in England and which the most Ancient Founded by King Ethelbert 6. Chaunter and Chauntries what and whence so called their use and end 47 belonging anciently to St. Pauls in London when and by what Laws their Revenues were vested in the Crown 7. Before King John's time Abbots and Priors were Presentative afterwards Elective 8. Six Differences taken and Resolved in a Case at Law touching Chauntries 9. Certain Cases in Law touching Lands whether under pretence of Chauntries given by the Statute to the King or not 10. What the Court of Augmentations was the end
alter not the Prescription And he cited a Cause which was in this Court argued at Barr and afterwards at Bench between Cooper and Andrews Mich. 10 Jac. Rot. 1023. for the Park of Cowhurst Vid. 32 E. 1. Fitz. Avowry 240. 5 E. 2. Fitz. Annuity 44. 20 E. 4. 14. 14 E. 4. 4. But this Case was adjudged for the Plaintiff Quod stet Prohibitio and that which is by the name of Park is for the Land and is annexed to the Land by the name of Park if the Prescription had been to pay a Buck or a Doe out of the Park then it would alter the Case But it is general and had been paid also after the Park disparked And the Case of Cooper and Andrews was a shoulder of every third Deer that was killed in the Park and two shillings in money and that Case was never Adjudged 32. V. brought Trespass against T. Clerk Vicar of A. for taking Bona Catalla and count for the taking of two Carectac glaci Anglicè Wood And upon Not guilty pleaded the Jury gave this Special Verdict viz. for the Moity of a Load of Wood Si videbitur Curiae quod Decimae glaci ne sunt Minutae Decimae then the Defendant Not guilty but Si sunt Minutae Decimae then he is Guilty This Case was argued at Barr by Bridgman and Henden Serjeants And the Court Vnement agreed That for ought that here appears this Verdict being found without any Circumstance that this Wood shall be taken to be Minutae Decimae It was agreed by Henden That if it had been found Wood growing in a Garden then Minutae Decimae And it was agreed by the Court That it might have been so found that it should be Majores Decimae and Praedial as if all the profits of the Parsonage consist of such Tithes And so of other things which in their own nature are Minutae may become Majores if all the profit of the Parish consist therein As in some Countries a great part of the Land within the Parish is Hemp or Lime or Hâ—ps there they are Great Tithes and so it may be of Wool and Lambs Pasch 3 Jac. B. R. in Beddingfield's Case Farmer to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich who had the Parsonage Impropriate and had used to have Tithes of Grain and Hay and the Vicar had the Small Tithes And a Field of 40 Acres was planted with Saffron and it was Adjudged That the Tithes thereof belong to the Vicar There was a Case in this Court as it was vouched by Henden 3 Jac. between Potman a Knight and another And the Question was for Hops in Kent and Adjudged that they were great Tithes but as for Hops in Orchards or Gardens these were Resolved to belong to the Vicar â—s small Tithes There was a Case in this Court for Tithe of Weild which is used for Dying and that was in Kent and it was sown with the Corn and after the Corn is reaped the next year without any other manurance the said Land brings forth and produces Weild And that was a Special Verdict whether the Vicar shall have the Tithe of it or the Parson but one of the parties died before any Judgment And if Tobacco be planted here yet the Tithes thereof are Minutae Decimae And all these new things viz. Saffron Hops Weild c. if it doth not appear by material Circumstances to the contrary shall be taken as Minutae Decimae And so this Case was Adjudged for the Defendant 33. In the Case of a Prohibition in case of a Libel in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Cattels the Plaintiff alledged that those Cattel of which Tithes were demanded are for his Dairy and for the Plough and Winch being only present said That the Parson shall not have Tithes of such Cattel but if he breed up Cattel to sell it is otherwise Secondly the Plaintiff in the Prohibition alledged That time beyond memory the Parishioners had paid a halâ—â—â—â—or the Tithe of a Calf and a peny for a Cow and that upon a day limited they use to bring this to the Church and to pay this to the Vicar and now the Vicar had Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against them to compel them to bring it home to his housâ— And Winch said That this is no occasion of a Prohibition for they agree in the Mâ—dus but vary in the place of payment and this is not matter of substance and for that reason no Prohibition will lie 34. B. brought a Prohibition against C. and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seized of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicâ—r sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes and shewed that time beyond Memory c. they had held that Discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they lett that to the Plaintiff And it was moved by Henden Serjeant That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Politick and Temporal which are not capable of this Prescription in non Decimando Coke 2. the Bishop of Winchester's Case Hobart said That the Dean and Chapter are a Body Spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for he said That he-may be a Lay-man and for that the Plaintiff ought to averr That he is a Spiritual person Hutton confessed That the Dean may be a Lay-man as was the Dean of Durham by special License and Dispensation of the King but that is rare and a Special Case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an Example which was also granted by Hobart Chief Justice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted 35. A. Libelled against W. in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Herbâ—ge-Tithe of young Cattel sâ—il for a peny for every one And Hitcham moved for a Prohibition and said that he ought not to have Tithes if they are young Beasts brought up for the Cart or Plough And so it hath been Adjudged As it a Parson prescribe to have Tithes for Hedgingstuff he cannot because that preserves the Land out of which he had Tithes and then a Parson Libels for Tithes of an Orchard for that it was a young Orchard and the Custome of the place was to pay 4 d. for an Orchard Hitcham said There is not any such difference between old and new Orchards for iâ— the Custome be that he shall pay 4 d. for every Orchard it will reach to the new Orchard And then he Libels for a Hearth-peny for the Wood burnt in his house Hutten said The Hearth-peny is more doubtful for it is a Custome in the North parts to give an Hearth-peny for Estovers burnt for
not power to meddle with them 2 It was Resolved That a Reservation by a Lessee for life who Leases for years to A. is not sufficient to bind him in Reversion to pay Tithes according to that rate 3 That a Rent for half a year and afterwards for another half year is a yearly Rent within the meaning of the Decree And note as the same was last Lett is not intended last before the Decree but before the Demand of the Tithes 71. It was found upon a Special Verdict That the Parson of the Parish makes A. Collector of Tithes and that A. had Licensed a Parishioner to carry away his Corn without setting â—orth of Tithes By the Court clearly that License is void vid. 5 E. 3. 63. Plow 104. That a Collector of Rents cannot make an Acquittance and discharge them And a Consultation was awarded 72. Baron and Feme Lessees of a Parsonage c. The Parishioner sets forth the Tithes fraudulently and presently takes them away again as it appears upon the Evidence And the Husband only brought the Action upon 2 Ed. 6. for the treble Dammages And it was Resolved That Debt lies for treble Dammages upon such a fraudulent setting forth of Tithes although that the clause of Treble Dammages speaks nothing of Fraud But 2 it was Resolved That the Husband and Wife ought to have joyned in the Action because it is not a thing in possession And if the Husband dies the Wife shall have the Dammages and not the Executor of the Husband 73. A Prohibition was prayed upon a Surmize That the Tithes for which the Suit was belonged to the Vicar and not to the Parson By the Court That a Consultation shall be granted for the Right of Tithes is confessed And whether they belong to the Parson or the Vicar that is meerly Spiritual And that so it was Ruled in one Bushel's Case the Parson of Pancras and in one Milbray's Case it was Adjudged accordingly 74. By the Court That a Prohibition shall not be granted upon a bare Surmize that he is sued for Tithes by the Parson of D. of Lands in the parish of S. unless it appears in the Pleading in the Spiritual Court For they there shall not be Judges of the bounds of the Parish Vid. 5 H. 5. 10. 22 E. 4. 24. 75. A Prohibition was pray'd upon a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes in kind of a Park now converted into Tillage upon a Surmize de Modo Decimandi to pay a Buck and a Doe for all Tithes And allowed by the Court and agrâ—ed 1 Although they are Ferae naturae yet they may be given for Tithes So to pay Pheasants c. 2 Although they are not Tithable of themselves yet they may be given for Modus Decimandi As a great Tree may be given for Tithe of Trees tithable 3 That that is a discharge of the very Soil and a Park is not but a Liberty and the Owner may furnish it with Game when he please But after a Consultation was granted because the Surmize was not proved within the Six months So Adjudged Hill 6. Jac. C. B. The Vicar of Clare in Suffolk who sued for Hops And there also a Prohibition was granted upon such a Surmize But after a Consultation was granted in that Case For the Modus Decimandi was alledged for Discharge of Tithes of Hay and Herbage and not of all Tithes where the Libel was for Tithes of Hops And Coke Chief Justice vouched one Shibden's Case That such a Modus Decimandi generally for the Park is not good if it be disparked But it shall be particularly for all Acres contained in the Park 76. Upon a Surmize to have Prohibition after Sentence at the Ecclesiastical Court Two Judgments were vouch'd upon the Statute 2 E. 6. for not setting forth of Tithes And 43 Eliz. B. R. a Parishioner privately sets forth his Tithes and takes witness of it and immediately after he carries them away that is not a setting forth within the Statute For the words are truly justly and without fraud or covin Vid. 10 H. 4. 2. 2. 44 Eliz. B. R. Bâ—kâ—r's Case A Parishioner sells his Grain upon his Land and after by the command of the Vendee he takes his Corn being severed without setting forth of the Tithes That the Parson may well have an Action against him upon the Statute and shall not be compelled to Sue the Vendee who it may be was not known to him And it is not Traversable if the Tithes were set forth according to 47 Eliz. It was Resolved in Trin. 7 Jac. B. R. in Brickendine's Case against Denwood 77. If a Vicar hath used by Prescription time out of mind c. to have all the Tithes within the Parish except Corn which the Parson appropriate used to have viz. of Hay and also of Hops from the time it came into England which was in the time of H. 8. and of Woâ—d which is a Dying plant and moreover Rape-seed is sown there in the Parish where never any such Seed was sown before nor in England till of late times yet the Vicar shall have the Tithes of that Rape-seed and not the Parson appropriate for that it is within the Prescription although it be a new thing and therefore could not be prescribed singly and for that the Parson is excluded of all except the Corn 78. If Doubt arise de Decimis Garbarum as what shall be intended by Garba it is said that Garba at the Common Law signifies at this day a Sheaf of Corn and the Civilians say Garba signifies such a thing as is bound together in one bundle 79. In the Case between Reynolls and Green it was Adjudged by the Court That Wood in its own nature is Great Tithes notwithstanding if a Vicar be endowed de Minutis Decimis and by virtue of the said Endowment had of a long time used to have Tithe of Wood not exceeding the yearly value of 6 s. 8 d. the usage of Wood shall pass by the words de Minutis Decimis in that case by reason of the small value thereof 80. Where a Parson had Two parts of the Tithes and the Vicar of the same place had the Third and they by several Leases had demised the Tithes to one In this Case the whole Court except Justice Fenner held That although the Parson and Vicar could not joyn in this Case in a Suit of Tithes because they claim them severally by divided rights yet when both their Tithes are conjoyned in one person viz. the Lessee then the interest of their Title is conjoyned also in one who made but one Action for the whole Tithes in that case yet it was agreed by all the Judges that the Plaintiff-Lessee should recover his Tithes in dammages and shall not demand them again in any Suit after a Recovery in this Action 81. It was Agreed by the
Prescription de non Decimando as to that is good No Tithes shall be paid de jure for Cole Hill 14 Jac. B. R. per Houghton Common of Estovers or the Wood which a man burns in his house doth not pay Tithes Composition Real is one of the waies or means whereby Tithes may be discharged It is where the Incumbent Patron and Ordinary by Deed or Fine do agree that such Lands shall for ever be freed and discharged of all manner of Tithes paying an Annual payment or doing some other thing for the profit or advantage of that Parson or Vicar to whom the Tithes did belong from which Compositions all Prescriptions de Modo Decimandi have or should have had their Original But these Real Compositions so as to oblige the Successor of the Parson or Vicar that made the same seem now to be restrained by the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. whereby they are prohibited from making any Grant for above 21 years or three Lives and that with the accustomed yearly Rent reserved And if the Parson or Vicar make any Composition with his Parishioner without his Patron and Ordinary it shall bind only for the Parsons life and during his Incumbency This Composition is either between Parson and Parishioner or inter Clericos if it be between Parson and Parishioner and it be touching Tithes past the Composition is good though it were without any Consideration at all but if it be touching Tithes to come it may be good as to a payment of Tithes only in part but not good as to a non-payment of any Tithes at all nor is it good in part without the Bishops approbation and confirmation If the Composition be inter Clericos and the Tithes be Personal Tithes it holdeth not but if they be Predial Tithes the Composition holdeth the Approbation of the Bishop of the Diocess being thereunto had So that Composition for the remitting or entirely taking away of Tithes it not good in Law but a Composition with the Parson or Vicar to have but the Thirteenth Sheaf for his Tithe was held to be a good Composition and should bind the Parson Composition may likewise prevent the payment of Tithes in kind and if it be made with a Parson or Vicar to pay a Modus Decimandi which hath continued time out of mind Custome being equivalent to Law it is good and shall bind the Parson and his Successors and although a Modus Decimandi cannot begin at this day but must be by Prescription yet a Composition may be made which shall bind during the life of him that made it The Case was A Vicar did contract with his Parishioner to pay so much for increase of Tithes and died his Successor sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for them A Prohibition in this case was granted by the Court The words of the Contract were inter se convenerunt It was holden that this was not a Real Composition although that the Bishop did call it Realis Compositio for his calling of it so doth not alter the nature of it but it remains a Personal Contract and so shall not bind his Successor although it were confirmed by the Bishop It was said by Mallet Justice in this case A Real Contract although it be made between Spiritual persons and of Spiritual things is only questionable at the Common Law Composition shall bind during the life of him that made it though not his Successors Coneys taken in a Warren shall pay Tithes yet they are not Predial but Personal Tithes Sed Q. whether Tithes shall be paid of them because Berkley Justice They are not Tithable but by Custome 15 Car. B. R. For no Tithes de jure without a Custome ought to be paid for them for they are Ferae naturae Trin. 8. Car. B. R. Worden Bennet's Case after a Prohibition granted a Consultation denied per Curiam for the reason aforesaid Pasch 13 Car. B. R. Sir Jo. Brewen Dr. Bradish's Case per Cur. a Prohibition granted and Hill 13 Car. B. Vincent and Tutt's Case Prohibition granted and for Prohibition pleaded by the Parson to have them by Prescription Mich. 14 Car. B. R. Williams and Wilcock's Case Or if a man steals Coneys out of a Warren he shall pay no Tithes of them because the Law gives him no property in them nor shall the right Owner pay any Tithes of them because he hath no profit by them Corn pays a Predial Tithe as that which comes partly by the Industry of Man and partly of the Earth Mich. 8 Jac. C. B. Magna Charta 649. And if a Custome be alledged That the Parson shall have but the Tenth Sheaf of Wheat for all the Tithes of all manner of Corn and Grain this is no good Custome Yet Corn of all kinds fowed is Tithable according to the Custome of the place and is commonly Tithed by the Tenth Shock Cock or Sheaf where the Custome of the place is not otherwise but not to put the Parsons Tenth up on end in Shocks unless the Custome of the place be so And if the Owner will not cut his Corn before it be spoiled the Parson is without remedy And if he doth change the Corn or Grain fowed in the same ground such change of the Corn so sowed doth change the Tithe to the same kind of that Grain And if a man pay Tithe of Corn he shall not pay any Tithe for the Stubble which grew the same year on that Land Hill 6 Jac. B. pl. 13. Smiths Case per Cur. Case ibid. Pasch 7 Jac. per Cur. Mich. 9 Jac. Baxter Hope for the Aftergrass 2 H. 4. Rot. Par. nu 93. No Tithes for the Agistment in such After-pasture And if the Parson hath Tithes of Corn one year and the Land be left without Seed the next year that so it may be Plowed and made ready for Seed the the third year no Tithes shall be paid the second for by lying fresh the Land is the better and the Parson will have the better Tithes the third year Pasch 7 Jac. Smith's Case By the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. the Parson or Vicar is priviledged to come upon the Land to see the Tithes set forth For by the said Statute it is Enacted That at the Tithing time of Predial Tithes it shall be lawful for any to whom Tithes are payable or for his Deputy or Servant to see the said Tithes to be set forth and severed from the Nine parts and quietly to take and carry them away And as the Parsons Rights are hereby secured from the danger of having his Predial Tithes subtracted so likewise the Law hath provided nor only for the prevention of his being defrauded therein and for his quiet removal and carrying the same away but also for an open free and unmolested way and passage through which to carry the same away as appears by Halsey's Case The Case was
was no Discharge of the Tithes of the Copyhold Lands And in this Case it was also Adjudged That a Farmer of Lands might Prescribe in Modo Decimandi but not in non Decimando The Statute of 31 H. 8. gave all Colledges Dissolved to the Crown in which there is a Clause That the King and his Patentees should hold Discharged of Tithes as the Abbots held Afterwards the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. gave all Colledges to the Crown but there is in it no Clause of the Discharge of Tithes The Parson Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court and the Farmer of the Lands of the Colledge of Maidstone in Kent brought a Prohibition upon the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Court was clear of Opinion That the King had the Lands of the Colledge by the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. and not by the Statute of 31 H. 8. But the Justices doubted the Lands coming to the King by that Statute whether they should be Discharged of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. there being no Clause in the Statute of 1 Ed. 6. for Discharge of Tithes But it was Resolved by the Justices That Unity without Composition or Prescription was a sufficient Discharge of Tithes by the Statute of 31 H. 8. The Templers were Dissolved and their Possessions and Priviledges by Act of Parliament 17 Ed. 2. transferred to St. Johns of Jerusalem and their Possessions by Act of Parliament 32 H. 8. cap. 24. given to the King It was Resolved That the King and his Patentees should pay Tithes of those Lands although the Lands propriis sumptibus excolantur because the Priviledges to be Discharged of Tithes were proper to Spiritual persons and ceased when the person Spiritual was removed And the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Dissolutions did not extend to such Lands as came to the King by Special Act of Parliament as those Lands of St. Johns of Jerusalem did And Mich. 6. Jac. C. B. in a Case de Modo Decimandi it was said That one may be Discharged of Tithes five waies 1 By the Law of the Realm viz. the Common Law as tithes shall not be paid of Coles Quarries Bricks Tiles c. F. N. B. 53. and Reg. 54. nor of the After-pasture of a Meadow c. nor of Rakings nor of Wood to make Pales or Mounds or Hedges c. 2 By the Statutes of the Realm as 31 H. 8. 13. 45. Ed. 3. c. 3 By Priviledge as those of St. Johns of Jerusalem in England the Cistertains Templers c. as appears 10 H. 7. 277. Dyer 4 By Prescription as by Modus Decimandi annual recompence in satisfaction 5 By real Composition By all which it appears that a man may be Discharged of payment of Tithes yet a Lay-man ought not to prescribe in non Decimando albeit the may in modo Decimandi And this in effect agrees with Tho. Aquinas in his Secunda Secundae Quaest 86. art ult vid. Dr. Stu. lib. 2. c. 55. fo 164. And the Causes why the Judges of the Common Law permit not the Ecclesiastical Judges to try Modum Decimandi being pleaded in their Courts is because that if the Recompence which is to be given to the Parson in satisfaction of his Tithes doth not amount to the value of this Tithes in kind they might overthrow the same And that appears by Lindwood Constit Mepham de Decim c. Quoniam propter verb. Consuetudines For this Reason it is said a Prohibition lies and therewith agrees 8 Ed. 4. 14. vid. 7 Ed. 6. Dyer 79. and 18 Eliz. Dyer 349. In a Prohibition upon a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court by the Defendant the Vicar of D. for Tithes A Prohibition prayed upon his Plea thereof a Modus Decimandi to pay so much yearly to the Parson of Dale in Discharge of his Tithes and the same Plea there disallowed The whole Court agreed that this Modus between him and the Parson will not discharge him from payment of Tithes as to the Vicar and therefore by the Rule of the Court a Consultation was granted Also the Court was of Opinion That where a Bishop holds Lands discharged of Tithes and he makes a Feoffment of the Land the Feoffee shall be discharged of Tithes and the like if the King hath ancient Forest Lands discharges of Tithes and the King grants this Land the Grantee is discharged of Tithes And it is a General Rule That he which may have Tithes may be Discharged of Tithes So long as the Land is occupied by him who hath the Fee-simple which did formerly belong to the Order of Cistertians it shall pay no Tithes but if he lett it for years or life the Tenant shall pay Tithes For anciently there were many large Estates wholly exempted from paying Tithes as Land belonging to the said Cistertian Monks to the Knights Templers and Hospitallers As in the Earl of Clanrickard's Case who Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of Hay of a certain Meadow against Dame Denton who pleaded That the Prior of A. was seised of that Meadow as parcel of the Possessions of the Priory and that they held it discharged time out of mind c. whereupon Issue was joyned upon a Prohibition and it was found for the Plaintiff for that the Land was only discharged when it was in the hands of the Priory and not when it was in the hands of their Farmers and they were of the Order of Cistertians whereupon a Consultation was granted And now a new Prohibition was prayed for that in the Ecclesiastical Court they had added to the former Libel when the Statute of 50 Ed. 3. cap. 4. is That whereas a Consultation is duly granted upon a Prohibition that the same Judge may proceed in the same case by virtue of the former Consultation notwithstanding any other Prohibition Provided alwaies that the matter in the Libel of the said cause be not altered enlarged or otherwise changed Dr. Pope Doctor of the Civil Law said That there was not any enlarging or changing in substance of the Libel in question for whereas in the former Libel it was That they had used to pay Tithes time out of mind now in the second Libel is added That although the Prior was discharged yet they viz. the Farmers have paid Tithes for 20 30 or 40 years and time out of mind Montague Ch. Justice said That it seem'd that that was not an alteration but Doderidge and Houghton Justices held That that was an alteration of the Libel for now by that last Libel They could fetch them in for Tithes though they were discharged in the hands of the Abbot and for that the Tithes had been paid for 20 30 or 40 years since the Statute aforesaid the which is a sufficient time to make a Prescription according to the Law of the Civilians they would charge the Land with Tithes in whose soever hands they are when by the Statute it ought to be discharged only in
Prohibition for that the Law shall decide thereupon it was between Dawes and Huddlestone No Tithes shall be paid in kind without a Custome for Fish taken in the high Sea out of any Parish Hill 14 Car. B. R. between Long and Dircell per Curiam and Prohibition granted accordingly And Justice Jones said that on an Appeal to the Delegates out of Ireland in the Lord Desmond's Case it was Agreed That for such Fish so taken only Personal Tithes are due deductis expensis Likewise no Tithes in kind shall be paid de jure for Fish taken in a Common River which is not enclosed as in a Pond enclosed for that they are Ferae naturae although they are taken by one who hath a severed Piscary there and although the place where they are taken be within the Parish of that Parson who claims them for it is a Personal Tithe in which Tithes ought to be paid deductis Expensis Pasch 15 Car B. R. between Gold and Arthur and others Prohibition was granted where the Suit was for Tithes of Salmon in the River of Exe. Mich. 15 Car. between Whislake and the said Arthur and others the like Prohibition granted on the same matter between other parties And in the Case of a Prohibition it was Resolved That Tithe shall be paid for Fish taken in the Sea which is not within any Parish and they shall be paid to the Parson of the Parish where the Fish is landed Flax pays a Predial Tithe payable when dressed up Coke Mag. Char. 649. The Tithes of Flax are Minutae Decimae Mich. 14 Car. B. R. in Noah Webb's Case Forest-Lands that lie in no Parish or between two Parishes and anciently such are not Tithable by the King or his Patentees but if the Forest be in a Parish and Land therein which is Tithe-Free if the Forest happen to be disforested it shall pay Tithes in kind Crompt Jurisd 52. Bacon Chief Justice at Sarum-Assize the Case was A. Lessee for years of the Earl of H. prayed a Prohibition against the Vicar of L. to stay a Suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes because the Lands out of which the Tithes were demanded were parcel of the Forest of B. whereof the King was seised in right of his Crown and he and all his Predecessors held the said Land discharged of Tithes and shewed that the King had granted the said Forest to the Earl of Hertford in Fee and so he ought to have them discharged of Tithes In that Case it was held by the Court That it was only a Priviledge annexed to the Crown during the time that the Land was in the Crown but the Court doubted whether the Patentee might have such Priviledge But yet de bene esse the Prohibition was granted If Tithes do lie in any Forest as in the Forest of Windsor Rockingham Sherwood or other Forest which is not any Parish the King shall have them by his Prerogative and not the Bishop of the Diocess or Metropolitan of the Province as some have thought But yet it seems by 22 Ass 25. if there be cause of Suit for such Tithes against the parties who ought to pay the same such Suit might be brought in the Ecclesiastical Court But if a Stranger takes away such Tithes from the Parson or Vicar there for such Trespass the Suit may be in the Temporal Court as the same may be for taking away other goods in the like case Adjudg 15 Car. B. R. Fowl taken by a Faulkner who hawks for his pleasure shall not pay Tithe but if a Fowler kill Fowl and make a profit of them it hath been held that he shall pay a Personal Tithe for them Pasch 15 Car. Adjudg acc Fruits of Trees as Apples Pears c. are Tithable presently upon their gathering and are Predial Tithes for the subtraction whereof the Parishioner is impleadable Stat. 2 Ed. 6. c. 13. Fruits of Trees Apples Pears c. Mast of Oak Beech c. are Predial Tithes Coke Magn Chart. 649. The Fruits of Orchards and Gardens are Tithable in their proper kinds and to be paid when they are gathered unless there be some Modus or Rate-Tithe paid in lieu thereof Furse is Tithable and pays a Predial Tithe unless the Owner thereof can prescribe or prove a Custome of Tithing Milk or Calves of the Cattle on the ground where the Furse grows Mich. 29. Eliz. B. R. Vid. Heath G GArdens are Tithable as other Lands and therefore the Herbs which grow therein pay Tithes in kind Also Plants Seeds Woad Saffron Hemp Rape c. pay Tithes in kind unless the Parson make an Agreement for the same otherwise the Tenth part must be set forth for the Parson when the Owner receives his Nine parts Mich. 8. Jac. C. B. in Baxter's Case Trin. 9 Jac. B. R. The whole Court Glebe is a portion of Land Meadow or Pasture belonging to or parcel of the Parsonage or Vicarage over and above the Tithes If it be Demised by the Parson to a Lay-man it pays Tithe otherwise if he keep it in his own hands For Glebe kept in the Vicars own hands pays no Tithe to the Parson Impropriate it is otherwise if it be in the hands of his Lessee by whom it is Tithable if lett by a Parson Impropriate And although Glebe-Lands are not properly Tithable because Ecclesia Ecclesiae Decimas non debet solvere yet if Glebe-Lands be leased out the Parson the Lessee shall pay the Small Tithes arising out of such Glebe-Lands to the Vicar that hath Small Tithes upon his endowment as in Blinco's Case And yet in that case the Vicar Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court to have Tithes of the Glebe of the Parson and a Prohibition was granted for that the Glebe shall pay no Tithe Notwithstanding which if a Parson lease his Glebe-Lands and do not withal Grant the Tithes therof the Tenant shall pay the Tithes to the Parson Likewise if a Parson sow his Glebe-Land and then Lease the same the Tenant shall pay the Tithes of this Corn to his Landlord the Parson Yet if a Parson sow his Glebe and die before Severance some have held that his Executors shall not pay Tithes of this Corn. And albeit where Glebe-Lands are leased out by the Parson the Lessee shall as aforesaid pay the Small Tithes thereof to the Vicar that hath the Small Tithes upon his Endowment yet he shall not have the Small Tithes arising upon such of the Parsons Glebe-Lands as the Parson keeps in his own hands Likewise on the other hand it hath been held That the Vicar upon a general Endowment shall not pay Tithes of his Glebe to the Parson or of the Fruits that arise from the same and that for the same reason aforesaid Quia Decimas Ecclesia Ecclessae reddere non debet But the Lessee of the Parsons Glebe shall pay him the Tithes thereof to this purpose the Case was A Parson
leased all his Glebe-Lands with all Profits and Commodities rendring 13 s. 4. d. pro omnibus exactionibus demandis and afterwards Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court against his Lessee for the Tithes thereof It was the Opinion of the Court That Tithes are not things issuing out of Lands nor any Rent or duty but Spiritual and if the Parson doth Release to his Parishioner all demands in his Lands his Tithes are not thereby extinct and therefore a Consultation was granted And so it was Adjudged 32 Eliz. in Babington's Case That such Lessee should pay Tithes to the Parson for that they are due jure divino and cannot be included in Rent As long as the Vicar occupies his Glebe-Lands in his own hands he shall pay no Tithes but if he Demise it unto another the Lessee shall pay Tithes to the Parson that is Impropriate If the Vicar sow the Land and die and his Executor take away the Corn. and doth not set forth his Tithe and the Parson bring his Action of Debt upon the Statute of 2 Ed. 6. In this case the Court seemed to incline that it would lie The Glebe-Lands and Spiritual Revenues of Clergy-men being held in pura perpetus Eleemosyna h. e. in Frankalmoign are exempted from Arraying and Mustering of Men or Horses for the War as appears in a Stat. of 8. H. 4. nu 12. in the unprinted Rolls of that Parliament An Abbot was Parson Imparsonee of the Church where the Abbey and Tithes were the Abbey was Dissolved the King granted the Monastery to one and the Parsonage and Rectory to another It was the opinion of the Justices That if the Land of the Abbey was the Glebe of the Parsonage before the Impropriation that then the Land was discharged of Tithes for it remains Glebe notwithstanding the Appropriation and the Glebe cannot be gained by Prescription nor was ever chargeable to pay Tithes And if the Parson doth make a Lease of his Glebe the Lessee as was there said contrary to what was before said shall not pay Tithes but the Demesns of the Abbey not parcel of the Glebe should be chargeable to pay Tithes if they were not discharged in right of a Composition or perpetual Unity Grass pays a Predial Tithe but if a man cut Grass and before it be made into Hay being only put into Swathes he carry it thence and give it to his Plowing Cattel for their necessary sustenance not having otherwise Food sufficient for them in this case no Tithes shall be paid for the same and Prohibition was granted Mich. 9. Car. B. R. Crawley Wells per Curiam The Case was where J. Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Tithes of the Profits which came of the Grass and herbage of Pasture-Land and upon a Prohibition granted P. suggests That he did feed on that Grass and Pasture with his own Plough-Cattel and with the Plough-Cattle of other man in the same Village Noy Consultation shall be granted for though a mrn shall not pay Tithes for the Cattel of his Cart yet he shall pay Tithes for the Land whereon they do feed Doderidge Justice Where I do agist Cattel and take the Cattel of other men to eat up my Grass and Pasture there I shall pay Tithes for the Grass otherwise it is where the Grass is only such as I do depasture with my own working Cattel Crook cited Sherington and Fleetwood's Case where a man Agists other mens Cattel on his Meadowgrouâ—d whereof he paid Tithe-Hay afore time and it was Resolved in this Case That he shall not pay Tithes for that Meadow-ground now fed with other mens Cattel after Harvest and no more than if he had depastured the Land with his own Cattel Gravel is not Tithable Mich. 19. Eliz. B. R. Pasch 34. Eliz. C. B. Liff and Watt ' s Case Grain is computed among the Predial Tithes which is to be set out according to the Statutes and the usage of the place Brownl 1. 14. which holds true of all sorts of Grain in all grounds within the Parish The Law is the same touching Hay in Meadows Grounds lett to Strangers out of the Parish the Tenth-peny of the Rent is commonly payable to the Parson if no Custome against it Or Ground within the Parish lett to a Stranger without the Parish is Tithable by the Ower of the Cattel unless the Custome there be osherwise Or if the Ground be fed with Cattel that bring no profit to the Parson the Owner thereof must pay Tithes for them Or Ground fed with the Cattel of a Stranger within the Parish which brings no profit to the Parson or Vicar he is to pay Tithes for it the Case therefore seems the same if both the Ground and the Cattel be his own that is the Stranger in case he work them in another Parish But the Studs of Ground or the Meers thereof at the Ends of Land and adjoyning to the Arable-ground are not Tithable where the Land it self pays Tithe unless where being mowed for Hay it hath used to pay Tithes H HAy pays a Predial Tithe and is to be Tithes in Swathes Windrows or Cocks as the Custome of the place is Or if the Custome be to measure out the Tenth part as the Grass grows on the Land for Hay the Custome is good and the Tithe of Hay may be set forth in Grass-Cocks where the Custome doth not oblige to make it into Hay-Cocks And if Hay be put into Ricks on the ground and after sold the Buyer cannot be sued for the Tithe the Seller may in case the Tithe thereof were not paid before Hill 16. Jac. by three Justices in Ashfield's Case And where two Crops of Hay are had from the same ground in the same year Tithe shall be paid as well of the latter as of the former Also Tithe shall be paid of the Hay made of Grass growing in Orchards Co. 2. Instit 652. But no Tithe Hay shall be paid for the Grass growing upon Headlands which are only large enough for the turning of the Plough but not for Grass cut in Meadows to feed the Beasts of the Plough and not made into Hay Trin. 1. Car. B. R. Wells vers Crawly Yet on some Headlands Tithe may be payable of Hay for suppose that in an Arable Field there be much Grass on the Headlands thereof and there be a Prescription to pay the Tenth Shock of Corn there for all the Hay on the Headlands and Rakings of the Corn and for Tying of Horses on the Headlands such Prescription was held good to discharge the Tithe of the Hay upon such Headlands And although a Second Crop of Hay from the same ground the same year is Tithable as aforesaid yet regularly the Hay of the Aftermath pays no Tithe except there be a Special Custome for it the Rule being That Tithes shall be paid Ex annuatis renovantibus simul semel And where the
qualities of the Persons of whom they were begotten 6. The different modes of prosecution of Bastardy in the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts 7. Limitation of Time in reference to Birth and Bastardy by the Civil Law The chast Widow of Paris whose Child born the 14 th Month after her Husbands death was adjudged Legitimate 8. Of a Child born before Marriage or immediately after Marriage or long after Marriage of a Woman whose Husband dyed without Bedding her whether Bastard or not 9. The legal computations of Time touching the Birth of a Child whether Legitimate or not And of such as are begotten after a Divorce 10. The punishment of a Woman having a Bastard that may be chargeable to the Parish 11. How the same Person may in divers respects be both a Bastard or Nullius Filius and yet a Son 12. The Physicians report in Court in a Case at Common Law how long a Woman may go with Child 13. The Bishops Certificate requisite in a Plea of Bastardy indisability of a Plaintiff 14. The power of the Justices of the Peace and of the Sessions in reference to the reputed Fathers of Bastards 15. In an Action for saying such an one had a Bastard a Prohibition to the Ecclesiastical Court because they admitted the Defendants Confession but would not allow of his Justification 16. Who are held as Bastardiz'd at the Common Law 17. What a Mulier is at Common Law 18. Other Descriptions of Muliers and Bastards 19. The difference between the Civil and Common Law in point of Muliers and Bastards 20. What kind of Divorce shall Bastardize the Issue 21. Different Resolutions touching Bastardy 22. A Man is Divorc'd Causa Frigiditatis Marries again hath Issue by the second Wife the first Living Q. Whether that Issue be a Bastard 23. A Case of Remark touching this Subject adjudg'd in Ireland 1. BASTARD Bastardus Nothus Spurius Filius Naturalis Filius Populi Filius nullius Incestuosus Adulterinus illegitimo coitu Progenitus Bastard is a French word Bastardd Brittish yet some are of opinion that the word Bastard hath its derivation from two German words Boes art that is Degeneris ingenii Q. an non è Graec. Bassaris i. e. Meretrix vel Concubina Bastard and Filius Naturalis are both one Bastard is that Male or Female that is begotten and born of any Woman not Married so that the Childs Father is not known by order and judgment of Law for which reason he is called Filius Populi 2. Bastard and Mulier are opposed each to other at the Common Law Otherwise at the Canon Law For at the Common Law by Mulier is meant and understood one that is lawfully begotten and born and therefore where they are compared together we shall find at that Law this addition to them Bastard eigne or Elder and Mulier puisne or Younger and by the Common Law he or she that is born before Marriage celebrated between the Father and Mother is called a Bastard and by that Law a Child begotten and born of a Woman out of Marriage by one who after Marrieth her is said to be not a Mulier but a Bastard This word Mulier seems to be a word corrupt from Melior or the French Melieur signifying at Common Law the lawful issue preferr'd before an Elder Brother born out of Marriage But by Glanvile such Lawful Issue seems rather Mulier than Melior because begotten à Muliere and not ex Concubina for he calls such issue Filios Mulieratos opposing them to Bastards Quia Mulieris appellatione uxor continetur l. Mulieris 13. ibid. gloss De verb. sign 3. Bastardy Bastardia at the Common Law signifieth a defect of Lawful Birth objected to one begotten out of Marriage which Law doth distinguish Bastardy into Special and General The later whereof being only a Certificate from the Bishop of the Diocess to the Kings Justices after just enquiry made whether the Party enquir'd of be Bastard or not upon some question of Inheritance and the former being only a Suit commenced at Common Law against him that calls another Bastard This being called Bastardy special because Bastardy is the principal and special matter in Tryal As the other is called Bastardy General because Inheritance is there the chief thing under debate and in contest By both these significations Bastardy at the Common Law seems to be taken only for an Examination or Tryal whether a Mans Birth be illegitimate and so does but rather imply what it is not than express what it is Which according to a better Definition is an unlawful state of Birth disabling the Partie to succeed in Inheritance 4. It appears by what hath been said that a Bastard is one that is born of any Woman so as the Father be not known according to the order of Law So that if any Woman hath a Child before her Marriage it is a Bastard And though the Father thereof after Marry the Mother yet in the judgment of the Common Law it is still a Bastard but at the Canon Law it is otherwise as aforesaid If one Marry infra gradui Maritagii and hath thereby Issue Q. whether it he a Bastard or Mulier in case Divorce doth after thereupon ensue If there be Issue by a second Husband or Wife the former then living such Issue is a Bastard A Woman Eloping from her Husband and Living in Avoutry her Husband being beyond Sea that he cannot come at her having Issue in this time this Issue seems to be a Bastard But by the Common Law if the Husband be infra quatuor maria he within the Jurisdiction of the King of England and his Wife have Issue in his absence No proof is Admissable to prove the Child a Bastard unless there be an apparent impossibility of Procriation in the Husband in which case such Issue albeit born within Marriage is a Bastard And by the Civil Law if the Husband be so long absent from his Wife or by no possibility of Nature the Child can be his or the Adulterer and Adulteress be so known to keep company together as that by just account of time it cannot fall out to be any other Mans Child but the Adulterers himself it is accounted to be a Bastard And yet in these very cases within this Realm unless the Husband be all the time of the impossibility of Procreation as aforesaid beyond the Seas the Rule of Law will hold true Pater is est quem Nuptiae demonstrant Note in debt upon an obligation by Cook Chief Justice And so was the Opinion of the Civilians That a Disagreement to the Marriage had under the Age of of Consent at the Age it ought to be published in Court otherwise the Issue may be Bastarded For a Disagreement in Writing is not a sufficient Disagreement nor a good Proof 5. The Law hath given several Appellations for the distinction of Bastards according to
had before are Bastards at the Common Law and Muliers by the Civil Law If a Man hath Issue by a Woman and after marry the same Woman the Issue by the Common Law is Bastard and Mulier by the Ecclesiastical Law Likewise if a man espouse a Woman bigg with Child by another Man and within three dayes after she is delivered of Child by the Common Law this is a Mulier and by the Ecclesiastical Law a Bastard If a Woman Elope and hath Issue in Adultery such Issue is a Mulier at the Common Law and a Bastard by the Ecclesiastical Law yet if the Woman continue in Adultery and hath Issue such Issue are Bastards even by the Common Law But by the Law of the Land a man may not be reputed a Bastard who is born after Espousals unless there be some special matter in the Case as aforesaid But if a man who hath a wife doth during her life take another wife and hath Issue by her such Issue are Bastards by both the Laws for the second Marriage is void 20. A Divorce causa Praecontractus doth Bastardize the Issue so also doth a Divorce causa Consaguinitatis likewise if the Divorce be Causa Affinitatis it doth Bastardize the Issue and the Law is the same in case the Divorce be causa Frigiditatis A Man hath Issue a Bastard and after marries the same Woman and hath Issue by her divers Sons and then deviseth all his Goods to his Children Q. whether the Bastard shall take by the devise But if the Mother of the Bastard make such a devise it is clear the Bastard shall take because he is known to be Child of the Mother 21. B. contracted himself to A. afterwards A. was Married to F. and cohabited with him whereupon B. sued A. in the Court of Audience and proved the contract and Sentence was there pronounced that she should Marry the said B. and cohabit with him which she did and they had Issue C. B. and the Father died It was argued by the Civilians that the Marriage betwixt B. and A. was void and that C. B. was a Bastard But it was resolved by the Justices that C. the Issue of B. was legitimate and no Bastard 22. The Case was wherein a Man was divorced causa Fridigitatis and afterwards took another Wife and had Issue it was argued by the Civilians and also by the Justices whether the Issue were Bastard or not it was adjudged that the Issue by the second Wife was not a Bastard For that by the Divorce the Marriage was dissolved à vinculo Matrimonii and each of them might Marry again But admit that the second Marriage was voidable yet it good till it be dissolved and so by consequence the Issue born during the Coverture is a lawful Issue 23. Upon an information in the Castle-chamber in Ireland against the Bishop of K. and C. B. and others that by Practice and Combination and by undue course of proceedings they endeavoured to prove the said C. B. who was ever before reputed a Bastard to be the legitimate or lawful Son and Heir of G. B. Esq to the disherison and defamation of E. B. who was the sole Daughter and Heir of the said G. B. And upon Oier of this cause the Case appear'd to be this viz. About twenty six years before the exhibiting of this Bill the said G. B. had Issue the said C. B. on the Body of one J. D. who during the life of G. B. was not reputed his Wife but his Concubine and the said C. B. for all the time aforesaid was only accounted the natural Son of G. B. but not for legitimate Afterwards viz. sixteen years after the birth of C. B. his Mother being then living G. B. took to Wife a Lady of good Estate and Reputation with the assent of her Friends by whom he had Issue the said E. B. and died After the death of the said G. B. the said C. B. his reputed Son nor his Mother who was yet living said nothing by the space of nine years but at last they practiced and combined with the said Bishop of K. being of their Kin and with many others to prove the legitimation of the said C. B. by an irregular and undue course to the intent to bastardize and disinherit the said E. B. according to which practice and combination the Bishop without any Suit commenced or moved in any of the Kings Temporal Courts or any Writ directed to him to certifie Bastardy or Legitimation in that Case and which is more without any Libel exhibited in his Ecclesiastical Court touching that matter of his own will and pleasure privately and not convocatis convocandis nine years after the death of the said G. B. took the depositions of many Witnesses to prove that the said G. B. twenty nine years before had lawfully Married and took to Wife the said J. D. Mother of the said C. B. and that the said C. B. was the legitimate and lawful Son and Heir of the said G. B. And these depositions so taken the said Bishop caused to be engross'd and reduced into the form of a solemn Act and having put his Signature and Seal to that Instrument delivered the same to C. B. who published it and under colour of that Instrument or Act declared himself to be the Son and lawful Heir of the said G. B. c. And for this practice and misdemeanour the said Bishop of K. and others were censured and thereupon these points were resolved 1. That although all Matrimonial causes have of a long time been determinable in the Ecclesiastical Courts and are now properly within the jurisdiction and cognizance of the Clergy yet ab initio non fuit sic For causes of Matrimony as well as cause Testamentary were heretofore civil Causes and appertaining to the civil Magistrate as is well known to all Civilians until the Christian Emperors and Kings as an honour to the Prelates of the Clergy did grant and allow unto them the cognizance and jurisdiction of these Cases And therefore the King of England who is and of right ever was the Fountain of all Justice and Jurisdiction in all Causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his own Dominions although that he allow the Prelates of the Church to exercise their several Jurisdictions in those Causes which properly appertain to their cognizance yet by the Rules of the Common Law he hath a superintendency over their proceedings with power of direction how they shall proceed and of restraint and correction if they do not proceed duly in some cases as is evident by the Writs of several natures directed to Bishops by which the King commands them to certifie Bastardy Excommunication Profession Accouplement en Loyal Matrimony De admit Clericis de Cautione admittenda c. as also by the Writs of Prohibition Consultation and Attachment upon a Prohibition 2. It was resolved that
if the Parson will plead such Presentation he should be prejudiced and here by the Incumbency the words of the Statute will not be satisfied c. Also it seemeth that if I. S. hath an Adowson and A. purchase the next avoidance to the intent to present B. and the Church becomes void and A. presents B. this is Simony by averment as by good pleading the Presentation of B. shall be adjudged void c. Tanfield accordingly as this Case is here is Simony by the Civil Law and the party had his Benefice by Simony although he be not cognusant thereof Secondly admit here was not Simony by the intendment of the Civil Law yet the Statute hath made an avoidance of the Benefice in this Case although it be not Simony for the Statute speakes not one word of Simony throughout the Act and yet by express words it doth avoid such Presentations as this is and as to the Civil Law such Benefice is to be made void by Sentence Declaratory but it is not void ipso facto as it seems in the Case where a common person was consenting to the Simony but the text of the Civil Law says expresly that the Church ought not to be filled Corruptive or by corruption and the Civil Law expresseth such a person as in this Case by Simoniace promotus and calls him who is Particeps Criminis Simoniacus and he who is Simoniacus is by the Civil Law deprived not only of the Benefice ipso facto but also is deprived to be a Minister and adjudged guilty in culpa poena Petrus Benefieldus saith that if a Friend give money to a Patron to make a promise to him c. and the Incumbent pays it such an Incumbent is Simoniacus by the Civil Law and so if the Incumbent pay the money not knowing it till after the induction yet he is Simoniacus and by him if a Friend give money and the Parson is thereupon presented though the Parson knew not of the money given yet he shall be deprived of the Benefice and this difference was certified by Anderson and Gawdy to the Council-Table upon a Reference made to them by the King touching the filling of Benefices by corrupt means And the Statute of purpose forbears to use the word Simony for avoiding of nice construction in the Civil Law as to that word and therefore the makers of the Act set down plainly the words of the Statute that if any shall be promoted for money c. So that by these words it is not material from whom the money comes and then in such Cases for the avoiding of all such grand Offences a liberal Construction ought to be made as hath been used in such cases c. for which and many other reasons mentioned in this Report he commanded Judgment to be entred for the Plaintiff 15. Sr. George Cary being seised of an Advowson granted the next Avoidance to his second Son and died and after the Son corruptly agreed with I. S. to procure the said I. S. to be presented to this Benefice and the second Brother knowing thereof it was agreed that for the perfecting of the agreement the second Brother should surrender his Grant and Interest to the elder Brother which elder Brother not knowing of the said corrupt agreement presented the said I. S. who was Instituted c. all shall be void for he is here presented by reason of this corrupt agreement between the Patron who then was and the Parson and the elder Brother was only used to convey a bad gift by a good hand and all had reference to the corrupt agreement with the Assent of the Patron who then was 16. The King brought a Quare Impedit against the Archbishop of Canterbury Sr. John Hall and Richard Clark for the Church of M. and declares that Richard White was seised of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged And the 6. Jac. by Indenture he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Wife for their lives and to the heirs of Richard White And after White presents one Boynton and dyes and his Wife marries with Sr. John Hall who the first of June 6. Jac. by deed grants proximam Adocationem to two to this intent that he might receive of such a Parson that he presented all money as should be agreed between Grantor and Grantee And that this was done Bointon lying in extremis And then the 26. Jan. 16. Jac. there was a corrupt agreement between Sr. John Hall and one of the Grantees that for 200 l. to be paid by the Clerk Blundell that the other Grantee should present him And the first of February Blundel pays Sr. John Hall the money and the second day he was Presented Instituted and Inducted accordingly And that upon this it appertained to the King to present The Bishop pleads but as Ordinary Sr. John Hall makes a title and traverses the corrupt agreement The Incumbent pleads by Protestation that there was not any corrupt agreement as it was alledged and not answers whether the money were paid or not but that he is Parson Imparsonee of the Presentment of But 16. Jac. after such an agreement scil 17. Febr. he was presented by the Letters Patents of the King to his Church and never answers to the Simony and it was held by the Court to be naught and only pleaded to hinder the Execution before the Justices of Assize if the trial went against the Patron And further in that Case between Hall and Blundell it was said by Davenport that this Parson being presented by simony is disabled to this Church for ever and cannot be presented to this Church again as it was adjudged in the Lord Windsors Case But it was said by Richardson if he had said absque hoc That he was in ex Presentatione of c. it had been good enough which was granted Henden two exceptions had been taken 1. That the Incumbent doth not shew what Estate or Interest the King had to present him which doth not need if the King brought a Quare Impedit then it is a good answer to say that he is in of his Presenting But if it be brought by a stranger then he ought to shew the title in his Presentment And he alledged the Statute of 25. E. 3. which enables the Incumbent to plead by Writ of the Law 41. Eliz. There was a Quare Impedit brought for the Church of Danell a presentation by the King was pleaded without making a title and it was admitted good And in many Cases it is more safe not to make a title 2. Because that he pleaded a Presentation by the King he is disabled As to that he said that before he be convicted of Simony he may be presented But by Crook in Sathers Case that if he be presented before conviction yet it is a void Presentation And it was so agreed by the Court and they resolved the plea was nought because he
that Court The High Commissioners would put him to his Oath for hearing Mass And a Prohibition was granted for by that he is to lose One hundred pounds by the Staute and a Prohibition was now granted by the Court 23. If a Stranger having no Title present per tort to a Church being void Simoniacally and Six months pass yet the true Patron may after present for the Statute hath made such Presentation Institution and Induction void and so he is no Incumbent nor is the Church full Likewise if a Man be Presented Instituted and Inducted by Simony to a Church although it be void as to the King and as to the Parishioners yet it is not void as to an usurper for he that hath no right shall not present thereunto 24. To avoid the detestable Sin of Simony because buying and selling of Benefices is execrable before God it is therefore ordained by the Injunctions of King Ed. 6. An. 1547. That all such persons as buy any Benefices or come to them by fraud or deceit shall be deprived of such Benefices and be made unable at any time after to receive any other Spiritual promotion And such as do fell them or by any colour do bestow them for their own gain or profit shall lose the right and title of Patronage and Presentment for that time and the gift thereof for that vacation shall appertain to the Kings Majesty 25. The Oath of Simony is as followeth viz. I. A. B. do swear that I have made no Simoniacal Payment Contract or Promise directly or indirectly by my self or by any other to my knowledge or with my consent to any person or persons whatsoever for or concerning the procuring or obtaining of the Rectory or Vicarage of A. in the Diocess of London Nor will at any time hereafter perform or satisfie any such kind of payment contract or promise made by any other without my knowledge or consent So help me God c. 26. P Parson of R. in the County of W. sued for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court before the Ordinary and the Defendant here pleads that the same Parson was presented upon a Simoniacal Contract and for that his Presentation Admission and Institution was void by the Stat. of 31 Eliz. the Simony was for that it was agreed between the said Parson and another that was Brother to the Bishop of L. and C. who was Patron of the same Church that if he should procure three several Grants of three several next Avoidances to them severally granted to surrender their said several Grants and procure the said Bishop to present him when the Church became void it being then full of an old Parson being mortally sick that he would make to him a Lease of parcel of the Tithes of his Rectory and the Brother of the said Bishop procured the said Grantees to surrender their several Grants accordingly the Church being then full And also after when the Church became void he procured the said Bishop to present him according to the first Contract and then the said P. made a Lease to him of the Tenths and after sued others of his Neighbours in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes who pleaded the said Simoniacal Contract and here Nicholas Serjeant suggested that the Judges Ecclesiastical would not allow of this Plea there but the Court would not give credit to this suggestion but said that if the Ecclesiastical Court make exposition of the Statute of 31 H. 8. against the intent of it that then they would grant a Prohibition or if they should deny to allow of this Plea and for that advised him that his Client might offer this Plea another time to them and if they denied to grant that they would grant a Prohibition 27. The Patron of a Benefice may be sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for presenting his Clerk who is also inducted by Simony for the Statute of Simony takes not off the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from punishing the party pro salute animae And where the Parson is party or privy to the Simony he shall be perpertually disabled Also if money or other reward be given for the Presentation be it with or without the agreement or knowledge of the Incumbent yet it shall always disable him from enjoying that Church In Wilsons Case against Bradshaw it was said by Doderidge Justice that Simony is a contract either with the Patron to present or with the Ordinary to institute and if it be not one of these it is not Simony by the Common Law Simoniacus is he which makes such a contract or promise and he is disabled to take any other Benefice and shall be deprived of the Church in which he is But Simoniace promotus is he whose friend without his privity or knowledge gives money to the Patron or Ordinary for his Presentation or Institution and he shall be deprived of the Benefice to which he is corruptly promoted but not incapable of any other nor of that if he shall have it duely again and every corrupt contract for aright to present is Simony 28. In a Prohibition the Case A. seised of the Advowson of the Church of B. the Church being void C. before the general pardon 39. Eliz. contracted with him for the Avoidance who for 100 l. granted it to him and he by colour of this Grant presented his Brother to the avoidance This was held to be Simony in the Grantee the Incumbent although he was not privy to the Simony at the first and Simony was there defined to be Voluntas sive desiderium emendi vel ven dendi spiritualia vel spiritualibus adhaerentia vel anxa Or thus viz The Church being void B. contracted with the Patron for 180 l. to have the Presentation and thereupon presented W. his Brother who knew nothing of the Simoniacal contract till after his Induction notwithstanding he was deprived in the Ecclesiastical Court because he was Simoniace promotus and it was held in this Case that if an usurper present by Simony the Clerk is punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court for the Simony although the Patron doth recover the Advowson and the Presentation 29. In the Case between the King and the Bishop of Norwich and Saker and Cole It was said by Coke Chief Justice that if a Church be void and a stranger without the privity of the after-Incumbent procures the Patron to present him upon a Simoniacal contract although that the Alter-Incumbent be not privy to the contract yet he comes in by Simony and so it is where the Incumbent makes Simoniacal contract with the Friend or Wife of the Patron and the Patron knows not thereof and the Incumbent be presented by the means of him with whom the Contract was made it is Simony within the Statute of 31 Eliz. and the King shall present 30. A man who was presented by Simony Libelled in the Ecclesiastical Court for Tithes The Question was whether the Simony
should be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court or by the Common Law the point was not resolved Note there Simony is defined to be studiosa voluntas emendi vel vendendi Spiritualia vel Spiritualibus annexa and it is either Mentalis vel Conventualis of both which the Ecclesiastical Law may Judge but the Temporal Court only of Conventual Simony 31. In Sir William Boyers Case for a Prohibition to the High Commission Court for their examining there upon Oath in Case of Simony it was said by Coke Chief Justice that Simony is worse than Felony it is an enormous offence if money be paid for to present one to a Benefice although it be not paid to the Patron neither had he any knowledge of it yet the Incumbent for this shall be avoided and the Patron also shall lose his presentation pro hac vice The Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. is so strongly penn'd against the Incumbent that if the Patron be privy unto it he shall also be punished an Action of Debt was brought in the C. B. the Defendant in Barr pleaded that the same was entered for payment of money for Simony yet the Bond was held good and we are not to take any notice of Simony this being punishable in the Ecclesiastical Court and if they there meddle only pro salute Animae they are not then to be prohibited Otherwise it is when they will there examine the person upon an Article tending to the Title of the Patronage there in such case a Prohibition lies 32. In case of the King against Zakar and others It is said that if one be presented by Simony and the same person afterwards obtain a presentation from the King this is not good for he is now a disabled person to take this Benefice he hath a leprosie upon him by the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. Like unto that of Gehazi And Coke Chief Justice there declar'd that notwithstanding the King saith that the said Incumbent shall still continue yet the King shall have the next presentation 33. The Lord Winsor seized of an Advowson granted the next avoidance thereof to Doctor G. the Church void R. F. the Father of H. F. dealt with Doctor G. to permit the Lord Winsor to present H. F. who know not of the agreement who was Presented Instituted and Inducted accordingly Resolved that this was Simony and that the King was to present by the Statute of 31 Eliz. The King presented J. S. who was Instituted and Inducted R. F. the Father sued J. S. before the High Commissioners for Misdemeanors and procured him to be deprived and Ten days after procured a Grant of the next avoidance to J. N. and after the deprivation within Ten days procured the said J. N. to present the said H. F. c. Resolved that the said presentation of the said H. F. was meerly void and that he was a Person disabled by the express words of the Statute to accept of that Benefice 34. For a Prohibition upon a Suit for Tithes supposing the Parson had come in by Simony and thereby the Church void and the Tithes not belonging to him it was resolved by the Court a Prohibition did not lie for that Simony might more aptly be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court 35. The Incumbent of a Church being sick the Father contracts with the Patron in the presence of his Son for the next avoidance for the Son and agreed to give him One hundred pounds The Grant is made the Incumbent died the Son is Presented Instituted and Inducted being sued for Simony in the Ecclesiastical Court he prays a Prohibition and alledges the General Pardon 39 Eliz. which is after the Institution and Induction wherein Simony is not excepted In this Case it was resolved 1. That although the Pardon discharges the punishment of Simony yet he may be examined of it by the Ordinary and deprived for it But it was 2 Resolved in this Case there was no Simony for the Father might buy the next avoidance and present his Son and it is not Simony in any to buy an Advowson therefore the Prohibition was granted 36. In Debt upon an Obligation to perform Covenants That T. B. Son of W. B. should marry A. the Defendants Daughter In consideration of which marriage the Defendant amongst other Covenants Covenanted that he would procure the said T. B. to be Presented Instituted and Inducted into such a Benefice upon the next avoidance of the Church and the breach was assigned for non performance of the said Covenant in procuring him to be Admitted Instituted and Inducted It was demurred to by the Defendant because the Covenant is against Law being a Simoniacal Agreement and a Bond for performance thereof is not good Resolved it it had appeared to have been that in consideration of the Marriage of his Son he would procure him to be Admitted and Instituted into such a Benefice that had been a Simoniacal Contract and had avoided the Obligation but here this Covenant is not in consideration of the former Covenant nor depending thereon but it is a meer distinct Covenant of it self and independent upon the former and without a special averring or shewing that it was a Simoniacal Contract it shall not be intende but it may be a Covenant upon a good consideration And it was adjudged for the Plaintiff 37. In the forsaid Case of the King against Zakar alias Secker and others it was said by Coke Chief Justice that it is put for a Rule in Green's Case that if one presents Simaniace to a Church of the Kings and the King afterwards presents jure Simaniace this is a void Presentment because he hath mistaken his Title but he ought to present jure Patronatus not ratione Simoniace Presentatus And as to the disability of a Simoniacal person by the State of 31 Eliz. cap. 6. Four things are to be observed upon this Statute 1. The Presentation to be void 2. The King to have this Presentment 3. A Fine to be imposed by way of Forfeiture 4 The party presented to be utterly disabled For where there is matter of Simony if there be Fraud in the Incumbent or if Money be given for the Presentation though it be unknown to the Incumbent to this let the Patron look the Incumbent shall be removed In this Case the whole Court agreed clearly in this that the person party presented by Simony the presentation is meerly void and that the so presented is utterly disabled for ever by the Statute of 31 Eliz. c. 6. to take the same Benefice to which he is presented by Simony and that he is incapable to have another presentation to the same Benefice 38. The words Present or Collate in the Stat. of 31 Eliz. c. 6. are not intended says the Lord Coke onely where the person presenting or collating hath right to present or collate but also where any person or persons Bodies politick or corporate do usurp and
He may have a Writ out of Chancery to Absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. And with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2 When he is Excommunicated against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cautione admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in forma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra Jus formam Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and request him to assoil him either because he was Excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have as the Lord Coke sayes an Action sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. Stu. lib. 2. cap. 32. fo 119. 3 If the party be Excommunicated for none of the Causes mentioned in the Act of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is Cited before the Dean of the Arches in cause of Defamation for calling the Plaintiff Whore out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. and the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is Excommunicated and so continues Forty daies and upon Certificate into Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato Capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and Imprisoned thereby That he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called De Cautione admittenda de parendo Mandatis Ecclesiae when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo and to assoil and deliver the Defendant 25. Where the Court of B. R. was moved for the Bailing of one who was taken by force of a Capias de Excommunicato Capiendo upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. and came to the Barr by a Habeas Corpus Williams Justice He that is taken by force of a Capis de Excommunicato Capiendo is not Bailable upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. cap. 23. which Statute doth only dispense with the Forfeiture of the Ten pounds and such a person is not Bailable and as to the other matter the same remains as it was before at the Common Law and the Statute of 5 Eliz. dispenseth only with the penalty of Ten pounds Yelverton Justice of a contrary Opinion and that in this case he is Bailable Flemming Chief Justice This is a Case which doth deserve very good consideration and that therefore he would consider well of it and also of the Statute of 5 Eliz. before he would deliver his Opinion Williams Justice clearly he is not Bailable in this Case Afterwards at another time it was moved again unto the Court to have him Bailed Yelverton Justice That he is Bailable and so was it Resolved in one Keyser's Case where he was taken by a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo brought hither by a Habeas Corpus and upon Cause shewed he was Bailed by the Court de die in diem but neither the Sheriff nor any Justice of Peace in the Countrey can Bail such a one but this Court here may well Bail as in the Case before de die in diem It was further alledged here in this That in the Ecclesiastical Court they would not there discharge such a one being taken and Imprisoned by force of such a Writ De Excommunicato Capiendo without a great Sum of Money there given and a Bond entered into for the same otherwise no discharge there Yelverton Justice and the whole Court The Bishop ought not to 〈◊〉 such a Bond for the performance of their submission The Rule of the Court here in this was That upon their submission they shall be Absolved without any such Bond entred into Flemming Chief Justice They shall Absolve them and if they perform not according to their promise and undertaking they 〈…〉 again by the Writ De Corpore Excommunicato Capiendo but the Bishop is to take no Bond of them for their Absolution to perform their Submission the taking of such Bond by them being against the Law And as to the Bailment all the Judges except Williams Justice did agree that he was Bailable and so by the Order and Rule of the Court he was Bailed vid. Bulstr Rep. par 1. fo 122. Pasch 9 Jac. in Case of Hall vers King CHAP. XLIII Of the Statutes of Articuli Cleri and Circumspecte agatis 1. Several Statute-Laws relating to Ecclesiastical persons and things enacted under the Title of Articuli Cleri in the Ninth year of King Ed. 2. 2. Some other Statute-Laws touching Ecclesiastical matters made the Fourteenth year of King Ed. 3. 3. The Ratification and Confirmation of the 39 Articles of Religion The Subscription required of the Clergy 4. Certain Cases wherein a Prohibition doth not lie to the Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Statute of Circumspecte agatis made the Thirteenth of King Ed. 1. And in what case a Consultation shall be granted 1. THese are certain Statutes made in the time of King Ed. 1. and Ed. 2. touching Persons and Causes Spiritual and Ecclesiastical By the latter of these it is Enacted 1 That upon demand of Tithes Oblations c. under that Name a Prohibition shall not lie unless the demand be of money upon the Sale thereof 2 That upon debate of Tithes amounting to a Fourth part of the whole and arising from the Right of Patronage as also upon demand of a Pecuniary penance a Prohibition may lie Not so in case of demand of money voluntarily accorded unto by way of Redemption of Corporal penance enjoyned 3 That upon demand of money Compounded for in lieu of Corporal penance enjoyned for the Excommunication for laying violent hands on a Clerk a Prohibition shall not lie 4 That notwithstanding any Prohibition the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may take cognizance and correct in Cases of Defamation and the money paid for redeeming the Corporal penance thereon enjoyned may receive notwithstanding a Prohibition be shewed 5 That no Prohibition shall lie where Tithe is demanded of a Mill newly erected 6 That in cases of a Mixt cognizance as in the Case aforesaid of laying violent hands on a Clerk whereby the Kings Peace is broken and such like the Temporal Court may discuss the same matter notwithstanding Judgment given by the Spiritual Court in the case 7 That the Kings Letters may not issue to Ordinaries for the discharge of persons Excommunicate save only in such Cases as wherein the Kings Liberty is prejudiced by such Excommunication 8 That Clerks in the Kings Service if they offend shall be correct by their Ordinaries but Clerks during such time as they are in his Service shall not be oblig'd to Residence at their Benefices 9 That Distresses shall not be taken in the Ancient
a. Owen 3 5 Roll. 2. 368. b. 27 E. 3. 84. b. Co. 7. 28. Dr. Stud. lib. 2. cap 31. Pars Counsel par 1. cap. 2. f Dr. Stu. ubi supr g Co. 6 19. b. Cro. El. 119. Dyer 328. a. h 18 Eliz. Dyer 346. Trin. 41 El. B. R. Baker and Brent's Case Cro. par 3. acc 679. i 13 E. 4. 3. Bâ—ook Plenarty 15 43 E. 3. 11. 11 H. 4. 80. k Mich. 10 Jac. rot 2642. Câ—lt and Glover vers the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield Hob. Rep. p 6 E. 1. Rot. Pat. membr 25. q Co. 6. Cates by 62. r dict 6 E. i. s 5 E. 1. 75. Adjudg Q. Eleanoâ—s case Contra Co. 6. Câ—â—sby 62. b. t 14 H. 7. â—â— Curia 18 H. 7. Kell 50. b. Quaerâ— u D. 15 16. El. 227. 7. per Curiam x 1 H. 7. 9. b. D. 15 16 El. 327. 7. Dr. Stu. 16. 5 E. 4. 3. b. y 38 E. 3. 2. z 18 H. 7. Kell 50. b. Contr. per Frowick a 18 H. 7. Kell 49. b. b Ibid. c Trin. 33 Eliz. B. R. Palmer and the Bishop of Peterburghs Case Cro. par 1. Mich. 27 28 Eliz. C. B. Bâ—verly and Cornwall's Case e Hill 6 Jac. B. R. Cro. par 2. a St 25 Ed. 3. 6. b 14 H. 7. 22. by Kingsmill c 1 Car. B. R. Dickenson and Greenâ—â—â— Case Popâ— 1â—8 d 27 E. 3. 64. e 25 Ed. 3. 6. 1 Ed. 4. f Reg. of Writs fo 31. b. g Pasch 33 Eliz. C. B. The Queen and the Bishop of York ' s Case Leon. Rep. h Mich. 10 Jac. rot 2642. Colt and Glov vers Bish of Cov. and Lichf Hob. Rep. i Hill 17 Jac. rot 1840. Case Gawdy vers Archb. of Canâ— al. Hob. Rep. k Mich. 15 Jac. Brickhead vers Archb. of Yâ—â—k Hob. Rep. l The Form whereof vid. Reg Orig. fo 3â— 2. a. m Terms of Law verb. Presentment n Mich. 31 32 Eliz. C. B. Cripps the Archb. of Canterbury's Case Owen 47. o 11 Jac. C. B. The King and the Bishop of Linc. Case Also Mich. 8 Jac. C. B. Case betwixt the King and the Bishop of Chichester then vouched and affirmed for Law p Stephen Gardener's Case there vouched by Cook Chief Justice Vid. Mich. 3 Car. B. R. Stephens and Potter 's Case Cro. 1. par 70 71. acc Vid Trin. 8 Jac. C. B. rot 18 11. Cro. 2. par 247. the same Case q Tr. 8 Jac. B. R. Starkey and Pole's Case Bulstr 1. par 26 27. Hughes Abr. ver Advowson Sect. 6. §. 13. r Dr. Stu. cap 36. s Dr. Stu. ibid. t Dr. Stu. cap. 30. u Trin. 13 Eliz. C. B. Smalwood vers Bishop of Lichfield Leon. Rep. x Stat. 13 Ed. 1. cap. 5. y Case Evans and Ascough Latch Rep. Z Stoke vers Styles Latch Rep. fo 253. a Case ibid. See this Case in Noy's Rep. b Stokes vers Sykes Latch Rep. c Kitchin vers Calvert Lanes Rep. d Terms of Law verb. Nomination e 21 H. 6. 17. by Fulthorp f 14 Ed. 4. 2. Smith and Clayton's Case g Fitz. N. B. 33. b. h Dict. Cas Lane Rep. i Trin. 7 Jac. in the Exchequer Calv. against Kitchin and Parkinson Lane's Rep. k Servien agaiest the Bishop of Lincoln Noy's Rep. l In Robbino Case Noy's Rep. m Smith agaiest â—â—avis Noy's Rep. n Hill 1 Jac. B. R. rot 601. Fairchild and Gaier o Co. Lit. 601. p Da. 1. 46. b. Roll. Abr. verb. Present lit B. q Trin. 41 Eliz. B. R. Windsor and the Archb. of Cinterb Case Cro. par 1. r 17 E. 3. 40. Adjudg'd s 21 E. 3. 6. b. t 14 H. 3. Quare I. ped 183. Adjudg u Co. Litt. 344. x Co. Litt. ibid. y 50 E. 3. 26. 9 H. 6. 16. b. admit 24 E. 3. 26. b. Curia z 17 E. 3. 40. Adjudg a Rol. Abr. ver Preseâ—um D. m. 2. b 12 E. 3. Quare Imp. 56. per Schard c Liber Parliamentorum 21 E 1. the Prior of Bermuâ—dsey's case adjudg'd in Parl. 24 E. 3. 30. adjudg'd Rol. ubi supr lit E. nu 5. d 11 â— 4. 9. lyâ—all the Justices â— N. B. 34. K. 36. K. 38 E. 3 4. Hob. Rep. 208. e 43 E. 3. 3. f 17 E. 3. 40. b. g Ibid. h 19 E. 2. Qua. Imp. 178. i Rol. Abr. ver Presentm lit L. 4. k Rol. ibid. l Ibid. Hob. 209. m 38 E. 3. 36 b. Rol. Abr. ubi supr lit O. n Vid. Rol. ibid. lit Q. o Ibid. nu 3. p P. 32 El. B. R. Rot. 2065. inter Executors of Smalwood and the Bish of Coventry and Lichfield q Co. 6. Green 29. b. Boswell 50. Co. Lit. 344. r Co. Lit. 120. s 2 E. 1. Rot. Patentium membran 5. t 19 E. 3. Quare Imp. 60. Agree Co. Lit. 120. u Co. 6. Green 29. b. Dubitatur D. 16 El. 327. 6. Co. 6. Green 29. b. adjudg x Dom. Rex vers Emerso Triâ— 8 Jac. rot 1811 Brownâ— Rep. par 1. Act on Qu Imp. y Hill 22 23 Car. 2. C. B. Rot. 680. Shute vers Higden Vaugh. Rep. and Arguments a The King and Bish of Lincoln and King Case More 's Rep. Mich. 5 Eliz. More 's Rep. Pasch 30 Eli. More 's Rep. b M. H. 8 Jac. in Scac. inter Calvert Kitchin peâ—r Cur. c Ibid. D. 12 El. 292. 70. 16 El. 327. 4. d Dubitatur D. 18 El. 348. 12. Co 9. Holt. 132. Said to be Resolved in the said Case of 18 El. D. 20 El. 360. 7. admit e 15 H. 7. 7. b. f Co. 5. Speâ—ot 58. Rol. ibid. g D. 14 El. 3. 4. 54. Rol. ib. lit Y. h 2. D. 14 El. 304. 54. Rol. ibid. i Cronwel vers Lister Brownl Rep. pa. 1. Actions on Qua. Imp. k Mich. 15 Car. B. R. between Phipps and Hayter per Cur. Hutton's Case Hob. Rep. l Hill 40 El. B. R. Leak and the Bishop of Coventry's Case Cro. par 1. Albany and the Bishop of St. Asaph's Case Cro. par 1. Mich. 3. Jac. B. R. Lancaster and Low's Case Cro. par 2. Cro. par 1. Pasch 26 El. B. R. the Bish of Hereford's Case Cro. par 1. a Canon 35. Ecclesiastical b Co. 5. par Specot's Case c Rol. Abr. ver Preseâ—tm lit X. d Co. 2. Specot 58. e 14 H 7. 28. b. Cariae f Pasch 33 Eliz. C. B. 〈◊〉 and the Bishop of Peterborough's Case Leon. 230. g Mich. 15 Jac. C. B. Adjudg'd vid. acc 5 H. 7. 7. Câ— 5. par Specâ—t's Case h â—â—oton against the Bishop of Rochester Hutt Rep. i Rud. vers the Bishop of Lincoln Hutt Rep. k Co. on Lit. fo 334. a. l 3 R. 2. 7 H. 4. 1 H. 5. Rot. Bar. 6 H. 4. nu 48. 4 H. 6. nu 29. m Co 4. par Instit cap. 74. §. Consistory Courts m St. 13 El. cap. 12. n Canon Ecclesiastical 33. o Hill 8 Car B. R.
1 Eliz. And it is not within the Statute and although it be within the Commission yet they have not Jurisdiction The words of the Statute are That such Jurisdictions and Priviledges c. as by any Ecclesiastical power have heretofore been or lawfully may be exercised for the Visitation of Ecclesiastical State and Persons and for reformation of the same and for all manner of Errors Heresies Schisms Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities c. These words extend only to men who stir up Dissentions in the Church as Schisimaticks and new-sangled Men who offend in that kind Henden Serjeant The Suit is there for reformation of Manners and before the new amendment of the Commissions Prohibitions were granted if they meddled with Adultery or in Case of Defamations but now by express words they have power of these matters And that matter is punishable by the Commissioners for two Causes 1 There is within the Act of Parliament by the words annexed all Jurisdictions Ecclesiastical c. 2 It gives power to the Commissioners to exercise that And that is meerly Ecclesiastical being only pro reformatione morum c. The King by his Prerogative having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction may grant Commissions to determine such things 5 Rep. Ecclesiastical Cases fol. 8. And Richardson said The Statute de Articulis Cleri gave cognizance to the Ordinary for laying violent hands on a Clerk But you affirm That all is given to the Commissioners and thereby they should take all power from the Ordinary But by the Court the Commissioners cannot meddle for a stroke in Church-Land nor pro subtractione Decimarum And yet they have express Authority by their Commission for by that course all the Ordinaries in England should be to no purpose And so upon much debate a Prohibition was granted On an Arrest on Christmas-day it was said by Richardson Chief Justice That upon Arresting a man upon Christmas-day going to Church in the Church-yard He who made the Arrest may be censured in the Star-Chamber for such an Offence Quod Nota. It was also said by Richardson that if a man submit himself out of the Diocess to any Suit he can never have a Prohibition because the Suit was not according to the Statute 23 H. 8. commenced within the proper Diocâ—ss as it was Adjudged Quod Nota It the Ecclesiastical Court proceed in a matter that is meer Spiritual and pertinent to their Court according to the Civil Law although their proceedings are against the Rules of the Common Law yet a Prohibition does not lie As if they refuse a single Witness to prove a Will for the cognizance of that belongs to them And Agreed also That if a man makes a Will but appoints no Executor that that is no Will but void But if the Ordinary commits the Administration with that annexed the Legatary to whom any Legacy is devised by such Will may sue the Administrator for their Legacies in the Ecclesiastical Court Note P. 4. Jac. B. R. Peep's Case a Prohibition was denied where they in the Ecclesiastical Court refused a single Witness in proof of payment of a Legacy After Prohibition if the Temporal Judge shall upon sight of the Libel conceive that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the cause he is to award a Consultation And by the Staâ— of 50 E. 3. c. 4. the Ecclesiastical Judge may proceed by vertue of the Consultation once granted notwithstanding any other Prohibition afterwards if the matter in the Libel be not enlarged or changed B. Administrator of A. makes C. his Executor and dies C. is sued in the Ecclesiastical Court to make an Account of the goods of A. the first Intestate And C. now moves for a Prohibition and had it for an Executor shall not be compel'd to an Account But an Administrator shall be compel'd to Account before the Ordinary Resolved by the Court That a Prohibition shall not be awarded to the Admiral or Ecclesiastical Courts after Sentence Also that a Plea was there pleaded and refused which was Triable at Common Law Note A Prohibition was awarded upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. because the party was sued out of the Diocâ—ss And now a Consultation was prayed because the Interiour Court had remitted that Cause to the Arches and their Jurisdiction also yet a Consultation was denied A Suit was in the Ecclesiastical Court and Sentence passed for one with Costs and nine months after the Costs are Assest and Taxed and then comes a Pardon of 21 Jac. which relates before the taxing of the Costs But afterwards the Sentence and that Pardon was pleaded and allowed in discharge of the Costs Then W. who had recovered sues an Appeal and P. brought a Prohibition and well and no Consultation shall be awarded because by the Court that Pardon relating before the Taxation of Cost had discharged them As 5. Rep. 51. Hall's Case B. and Two others sue upon three several Libels in the Ecclesiastical Court and they joyn in a Prohibition And by the Court that is not good But they ought to have had three several Prohibitions and therefore a Consultation was granted Mich. 26 27 Eliz. C. B. If A. Libels against B. for Three things by one Libel B. may have One or Three Prohibitions Note Dyor 171. 13. By the Statute of 25 H. 8. cap. 19. Appeals to Rome being prohibited it is Ordained That for default of Justice in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm c. it shall be lawful to Appeal to the King in his High Court of Chancery and thereupon a Commission shall be granted c. And by a Proviso towards the end of that Statute an Appeal is granted to the King in Chancery on Sentences in places exempt in such manner as was used before to the See of Rome So that this Court grounded on the said Commission is properly as well as vulgarly called The Court of Delegates for that the Judges thereof are Delegated to fit by virtue of the Kings said Commission under his Great Seal upon an Appeal to him in Chancery and that specially in Three Causes 1 When a Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause by the Archbishop or his Official 2 When any Sentence is given in any Ecclesiastical Cause in places exempt 3 When a Sentence is given in the high Court of Admiralty in Suits or Actions Civil and Maritime according to the Civil Law That this Court of Delegates may Excommunicate was Resolved by all the Judges in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Case They may also commit or grant Letters of Administration This Court of Delegates is the highest Court for Civil Affairs that concern the Church for the Jurisdiction whereof it was provided 25 H. 8. That it shall be lawful for any Subject of England in case of defect of Justice in the Courts of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Appeal to the King's Majesty in his Court of Chancery and
that upon such Appeal a Commission under the Great Seal shall be directed to certain persons particularly designed for that business so that from the highest Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury there lies an Appeal to this Court of Delegates Of this Subject of Appeals the Lord Coke says That an Appeal is a Natural defence which cannot be taken away by any Prince or power and in every Case generally when Sentence is given and Appeal made to the Superiour the Judge that did give the Sentence is obliged to obey the Appeal and proceed no further until the Superiour hath examined and determined the cause of Appeal Nevertheless where this Clause Appellatione remota is in the Commission the Judge that gave Sentence is not bound to obey the Appeal but may execute his Sentence and proceed further until the Appeal be received by the Superiour and an Inhibition be sent unto him For that Clause Appellatione remota hath Three notable effects 1 That the Jurisdiction of the Judge à quo is not by the Appeal suspended or stopped for he may proceed the same notwithstanding 2 That for proceeding to Execution or further process he is not punishable 3 That these things that are done by the said Judge after such Appeal cannot be said void for they cannot be reversed per viam Nullitatis But if the Appeal be just and lawful the Superiour Judge ought of right and equity to receive and admit the same and in that case he ought to reverse and revoke all mean Acts done after the said Appeal in prejudice of the Appellant At the Parliament held at Clarendon An. 10 H. 2. cap. 8. the Forms of Appeals in Causes Ecclesiastical are set down within the Realm and none to be made out of the Realm Ne quis appellat ad dominum Papam c. so that the first Article of the Statute of 25 H. 8. concerning the prohibiting of Appeals to Rome is declaratory of the ancient Law of the Realm And it is to be observed says the Lord Coke that the first attempt of any Appeal to the See of Rome out of England was by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury in the Reign of William Rufus and yet it took no effect Touching the power and Jurisdiction of the Court of Delegates Vid. le Case Stevenson versus Wood. Trin. 10 Jac. B. R. Rot. 1491. in Bulstr Rep. par 2. wherein these Three points are specially argued 1 Whether the Judges Delegates may grant Letters of Administration 2 Whether in their person the King be represented 3 Whether the Court of Delegates may pronounce Sentence of Excommunication or not 14. The High Commission-Court in Causes Ecclesiastical was by Letters Patents and that by force and virtue of the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. the Title whereof is An Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical c. the High Commissioners might if they were competent that is if they were Spiritual persons proceed to Sentence of Excommunication What the power of this Court was and whether they might in Causes Ecclesiastical proceed to Fine and Imprisonment is at large examined by the Lord Coke in the Fourth part of his Institutes where he reports the Judgment and Resolutions of the whole Court of Common Pleas thereon Pasch 9 Jac. Reg. upon frequent Conferences and mature deliberation set down in writing by the order and command of King James Likewise whom and in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Courts may examine one upon Oath or not there being a penal Law in the Case and whether the saying Quod nemo tenetur seipsum prodere be applicable thereunto Vid. Trin. 13 Jac. B. R. Burroughs Cox c. against the High Commissioners Bulstr par 3. 15. The Statutes of 24 H. 8. and 25 H. 8. do Ordain That upon certain Appeals the Sentence given shall be definitive as to any further Appeal notwithstanding which the King as Supream Governour may after such definitive Sentence grant a Commission of Review or Ad Revidendum c. Sir Ed. Coke gives two Reasons thereof 1 Because it is not restrained by the Statute 2 For that after a definitive Sentence the Pope as Supream Head by the Canon Law used to grant a Commision Ad Revidendum and what Authority the Pope here exercised claiming as Supream Head doth of right belong to the Crown and by the Statutes of 26 H. 8. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. is annexed to the same Which accordingly was Resolved Trin. 39 Eliz. B. R. Hollingworth's Case In which Case Presidents to this purpose were cited in Michelot's Case 29 Eliz. in Goodman's Case and in Huet's Case 29 Eliz. Also vid. Stat. 8 Eliz. cap. 5. In the Case between Halliwell and Jervoice where a Parson sued before the Ordinary for Tithes and thence he appeals to the Audience where the Sentence is affirmed then the party appeals to the Delegates and there both Sentences are Repealed It was agreed That in such case a Commission Ad Revidendum the Sentences may issue forth but then such a Reviewing shall be final without further Appeal But if the Commissioners do not proceed to the Examination according to the Common Law they shall be restrained by a Prohibition 16. The Court of Peculiars is that which dealeth in certain Parishes lying in several Diocesses which Parishes are exempt from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops of those Diocesses and are peculiarly belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury Within whose Province there are fifty seven such Peculiars for there are certain peculiar Jurisdictions belonging to some certain Parishes the Inhabitants whereof are exempt sometimes from the Archdeacons and sometimes from the Bishops Jurisdiction 17. If a Suit be in the Ecclesiastical Court for a Modus Decimandi if the Desendant plead payment it shall be tryed there and no Prohibition may be granted for that the Original Suit was there well commenced So if payment be pleaded in a Suit depending in the Ecclesiastical Court for any thing whereof they have the original cognizance But if a man sue for Tithes in the Ecclesiastical Court against J. S. and makes Title to them by a Lease made to him by the Parson and J. S. there also makes Title to them by a former Lease made to him by the same Parson so that the Question there is which of the said Leases shall be preferred In this case a Prohibition shall be granted for they shall not try which of the said Leases shall be preferr'd although they have cognizance of the Original for the Leases are Temporal If a man having a Parsonage Impropriate make a Lease for years of part of the Tithes by Deed and the Deed be denied in the Ecclesiastical Court and Issue taken thereon a Prohibition shall be granted If a Parson compound with his Parishioner for his Tithes and by his Deed grant them to him for a certain Sum for one year according to Agreement and after he