case the queen against page and the bishop OF London S it a dispensation to  hold a plurality need not use the word dispensamU be sufficient to say to go  anneximus Elizabeth ncorporamus ante hob Com dig quare hinder and make her  title by lapse by the Henry c for that that incumbent have take a second  henefice the defendant plead that he be and wag chaplain to Lord Morley and  plead a dispensation from the archbishop of Canterbury accord to the statute  and the confirmation c upon oyer demand thereof and enter in hcec word it be  demurrer in law because that in the letter of dispensatioii the word be  mention the two benefice to he of small value to go anneximus et incorporamus  the second benefice to the first without the word of dispensam for the take  thereof and whether these word shall enure to a dispensation be the question  and after argument by the sergeant it be argue by doctor steward day and  Farrington that it can enure to be a dispensation for the purpose of he who  make it be to make a union and that this shall a ante cro car   croak  Elizabeth er p enure as a union and it can be a union for that ought to be  always by the ordinary of the diocese and the patron and when it fail in the  principal intent it be void in all and the purpose to make it a union appear  for that the word be incor poramus c which be not use in a dispensation and  that he shall hold it without licentid diocesand and that after the incumbent  death it shall revert to his proper nature which croak Elizabeth be not the  word of a dispensation and although he have power to make a dispensation that  will not enure thereto for v oluntate et potestate a contradiction all be void  and a union and dispensation be of diverse nature for a union make of two  church one but a dispensation leaves they as before and such dispensation of  plurality be call in the civil law gratice et strich in odiosce are and  therefore where a dispensation be to retain a second benefice de donation  disposition seu proesentatione pron  interrog  and a college have a advowson  which become void and they use by election to make a nomination thereto and  they choose he who have this dispensation who be present be institute and  induct this dispensation be not sufficient to retain because he have not the  word election therein but on the other side it be argue by doctor Crompton and  fountain that this be a good dispensation for there be difference between a  perpetual union and a temporary pro vild incumhentis for in the first it can  be without the patron and ordinary because thereby a loss accrue unto they but  in the second it may be without they by the metropolitan for there they are  not at any loss for the one have his presentation the other his admission  hefbre that union and after his death it shall revert to the first estate and  such a union in their law be call clad in a pallium management and that such a  union may be appear by the express word of the statute of Henry c that one  shall not retain a second benefice fancy licence union or dispensation foe the  contrary c and there it isnot intend a perpetual union for by such a unjon two  church be but one and in such a case he may take a second henefice without a  dispensation c and afterward all the justice except Anderson resolve that it  wds a sufficient dispensation for it S not of necessity to have the word  dispensation but the matter be whether it he in effect a dispensation and if  the circumstance prove it it be sufficient and although union be proper where  there be a annexion of one henefice to another perpetual yet it be also when  there be a unity of they in one person which be temporary and that be here  although not so proper as the other wherefore it be adjudge for the defendant