« السابقةمتابعة »
extends not to the private chapel of any, though it be fixed EDto the Church; for that must be repaired by him that has K. of Eng. the proper use of it.
The next branch of the statute, for declaring the jurisdiction of the Church, comprehends oblations and tithes. Here Tithes. sir Edward Coke observes, that anciently, and before the making the statute of Westminster the second, disputes concerning tithes were tried in the king's court: before which act, no parson was allowed to demand tithes in Coke, ibid. the court Christian.
18 E. III. c. 7.
4 E. III.
He proves his opinion farther, by Britton's omission of tithes, in his recital of those things which belong to the jurisdiction of the Church. From hence he infers that, in the recital of the statute of the first of Richard II., where it is said, that suit for tithes, of right ought, and of ancient time did, pertain to the spiritual court; these words must be understood by force of former acts of parliament. He means that the cognizance of tithes was a thing annexed to the spirituality by the concessions of the state, and vested in the Church by Westminster the second, by this act before us, by the Articuli Cleri in the next reign, &c. But Mortuaries. after all, he concludes that, at this day, it is without question, E. I. Artithat for substraction of tithes, the conusans by force of divers culi Cleri. acts of parliament does belong to the ecclesiastical court.
W. 2. 13.
18 E. III. c. 1. &c. Coke, ibid.
To proceed with the statute. [If a parson demand mortuaries.] A mortuary is so called, according to Linwood, fol. 490. quia relinquitur ecclesiæ pro anima defuncti; it is commonly defined, a gift left by a man at his death, by way of recompence for all failures in the payment of tithes or oblations. It is called corpse presents, because it was offered Linwood, in behalf of the corpse, or person deceased. The manner of 1. 1. tit. 3. de paying the mortuary was anciently by leading, driving, or dine p. 21. carrying the horse, cow, &c., before the corpse of the de- fol. 491. ceased at his funeral; from whence it appears, that the reason of leading horses before the corpse at the interment of persons of quality, was designed for a mortuary, and not so much for any regard to the military character of the deceased.
Sir Edward Coke observes, that no mortuary is due by law, but only by custom, and proves his opinion from the Coke, ibid. words of this act; viz., as it stands in the Latin, ubi mortu- Britton. fol. ૨ ૧
PECHAM, arium dari consuevit: and then concludes, this act allows Abp. Cant. the conusans thereof to the court Christian.
cil. vol. 1 p. 517.
As for the antiquity of this payment, it seems to run up beyond the Conquest: for in the national council of Engsham, held about the year 1006, there is mention made of mortuaries, and the time when they were to be paid, in these words, as they are translated by Sir Henry Spelman, "sed æquissimum est ut animæ symbolum [quam pecuniam sepulchralem nunc vocant] semper dependatur cum sepulchrum Spel. Con- sit effossum. And thus, the symbolum animæ in the Saxon imports an acknowledgment or consideration paid for the welfare and benefit of the soul; but though the time for the payment of this symbolum animæ is stated by the canon, yet the thing was probably left at discretion by the English Saxon Church. The motive above mentioned seems to have been the first ground of paying mortuaries; though, afterwards, for the greater security of the person, tithes forgotten were thrown into the consideration. After the Norman Conquest, the circumstances of this payment were farther determined, and the second best beast of the deceased ordered to be paid. The reason why the second best beast is pitched upon, is I conceive, because, the best of all was oftentimes due for a heriot to the lord of
the manor. This business is farther regulated by the de Consue- twenty-first of Henry VIII., where the reader may see tudine p. 21. Spel. Glos- where mortuaries ought to be paid, for what persons, how sar. in Ha- much, and in what case there is nothing due. To return 21 H. VIII. to the statute.
Laying violent hands on clerks.
Coke's Institut. fol. 492.
[And for laying violent hands on a clerk.]
Here, the learned sir Edward Coke remarks a difference between the case of churchmen, and goods dedicated to divine service; the one being within the purview of the statute, and the other not: for, as he goes on, for laying violent hands upon the person of any within holy orders, the ecclesiastical court has conusans; but for the violent taking away or consuming the ornaments of the Church, or goods dedicated to divine service, such as the Bible, the service-book, the communion-plate, &c., that court has no conusans, but remedy must be taken at the common law. [And in cause of defamation.]
Here, sir Edward Coke draws an abatement upon the
jurisdiction of the Church, from the words concessum fuit EDalias, it has been granted already. From hence he infers K. of Eng. that the conusans of defamation was granted to the Church by act of parliament, and lays the stress of the point upon the word concessum. Now this argument proves a great deal too much; for, from hence it will follow, that all the liberties and privileges of the subject, mentioned in Magna Charta, were mere acts of grace, and free gift from the crown, and that the subject had no prior claim or title to them; for in the first chapter of Magna Charta, which runs solely in the king's name, the words concessimus et dedimus, are used with reference to all the branches of that statute: and yet historians tell us, and without doubt sir Edward Coke was of the same opinion, that most of the liberties mentioned in Magna Charta were the right of the subject before the making of that act; and, therefore, the words concessum fuit may be only declarative of the Church's right from ancient custom, without any reference to an act of parliament. The rest of sir Edward Coke's restrictions upon this clause are more unexceptionable. He observes, that defamations granted to the conusans of ecclesiastical judges, ought to concern matter merely spiritual, as to call a man heretick, schismatick, or the like. Secondly, It must not be mixed with any matter determinable at the common law. And, thirdly, the complainants cannot sue for any damages upon this score in the court Christian.
1. 5. Tit. 15.
To mention one thing more in the statute. [And likewise Breach of faith. for breaking an oath.] Here the translation in the printed 488. statutes does not reach the meaning of the record exactly. The words of the Latin are pro læsione fidei, which, as Linwood observes, imports breach of faith without an Linwood, oath, as well as with it. And whereas sir Edward Coke p. 315. restrains the jurisdiction implied in this clause to things merely spiritual, it is plain from the late constitutions at the synod at Merton, that the Church pretended to more privilege than this exposition amounts to; and that they looked upon Vide, breach of faith in contracts as a branch of their jurisdic- An. 1258. tion. Since, therefore, the pretensions of the court Chris- Linwood, tian are not barred by express words in the statute, the claim in the Merton provisions seems to be allowed.
This year, pope Honorius IV. gave the king an account
PECHAM, of his election. The letter takes notice of the king's desire Abp. Cant. to receive a tenth from the Church for five years together, towards the service of the Holy Land. It seems the king had requested the pope to grant him this privilege, provided the prelates' consent could be gained to the contribution. The pope excuses himself upon the impracticability of the proposal; that it would undoubtedly prove prejudicial to a third interest, and be a precedent of ill consequence. At the conclusion of the letter, he desires the king not to be surprised to find the bull or seal, without any name subscribed; for it had been the custom of his predecessors not to sign their letters till after consecration. However, we are to observe, that notwithstanding the omission of the popes' names, their bare election gives them a full authority A. D. 1286. in this point; and their bulls are no less valid before conse
Id. p. 300.
cration than after.
tiones, Litom. 11. p.
296. et 427.
Sandford, bishop of Dublin.
Not long after, the pope wrote another letter to the king to recommend John de Sandford, elect of Dublin. This Sandford was an Englishman, and brother of Fulk de Sandford, the last bishop but one of that see. John de Sandford was consecrated at Dublin in the year 1286. King Edward had a great esteem for this prelate, and made him lord justice of Ireland; he was afterwards sent ambassador to the emperor, which employment he discharged to satisfaction. He died immediately after his return. Sir James Ware gives him the character of a learned prelate, and that he was remarkable for capacity and good conduct.
This year, Eleonora, the queen dowager, retired to the nunnery of Amesbury, and was professed there. However, notwithstanding her being a nun, her jointure was secured nast. ad An. by a special privilege from the pope.
Ware de Præsul. Hibern.
The queen dowager takes the
Wikes Chron. Antiquit. Bri
tan. in Pecham.
Heterodoxies condemned by the archbishop of Canterbury.
This year, the archbishop of Canterbury censured eight heretical opinions, as they were called. They were maintained by Richard Knapwell, a Dominican, or preaching friar; I shall mention some of them.
The first article is, that the dead body of our Saviour had not the same substantial form as when living.
The second is little more than the first, differently expressed. The third affirms, that if the eucharistical bread had been consecrated with the sacramental words, hoc est corpus meum; if this had been done during the three days our
Saviour lay in the grave, the bread would have been tran- EDsubstantiated into that new form, or nature, which com- K. of Eng. menced in our Saviour's body at the separation of the
The fourth article asserts, that after the resurrection of our Saviour by the force of the sacramental words, "This is my body," all the bread is transubstantiated into the whole living body of our Saviour: that is, the matter of the bread is converted into the matter of Christ's body, and the form of the bread is converted into the form of his body; that is, into his intellectual soul, so far as it constitutes the form of his body.
The seventh lays down, that in maintaining these points, a man is not bound to rest his faith upon the pope's authority, or be governed by the tenets of Gregory, Augustine, or any other celebrated doctor: for, in these cases, the holy Scriptures, and evident deductions from reason, are the only principles to command our assent.
cil. vol. 2. p.
Lastly, that the rational soul was the only human form; and that a man had no other substantial form belonging to him. This article was looked upon as the capital heterodoxy, and that the other erroneous opinions were only consequences from it. These opinions were all pronounced heretical by the archbishop at Bow-church, in London. And all Ex Registr. university men and others forbidden to defend them in fol. 120. schools, or elsewhere, under the penalty of excommunication. Spel. ConTo this year we may assign the death of Hugo de Bal- 347. sham, bishop of Ely. This prelate was elected by the prior and beneand convent, in the year 1256; but king Henry and Boni-factions of Hugo de face, archbishop of Canterbury, declaring against the elec- Balsham, tion, Hugo thought it necessary to go to Rome, where, bishop of after some opposition, he prevailed with the pope to confirm him he was a great benefactor to the university of Cam- Godwin in Episc. Elibridge, and was the founder of Peter House. This college ens. Angl. was begun by him when he was subprior of Ely, and Sacr. pars p. finished two years before his death.
About this time, the archbishop of Canterbury sent an The archbishop's inorder to all the parish priests in his diocese, or under the junctions to immediate jurisdiction of his see, to observe the articles the clergy of following, by virtue of their oath of canonical obedience.