case briton against wade a vicarage endow in the time of king John continue  till Henry the six when the priory to which the advowson be appropriate obtain  a bull from the pope that for the future the prior shall appoint a monk to the  cure iremoveable at the will of the prior this be hold a dissolution of the  vicarage for be before it be not within the statute Richard c and Henry c and  SC roll Rep SC palm burn Ec law a vicarage can be dissolve without the act of  the ordinary and assent of the king original it be usual but not necessary  when a church be appropriate to endow a vicar with parcel of the rectory and  be usual do by the pope as supreme ordinary but now by Richard c and Henry c  all appropriation shall be void if a perpetual vicar be not institute and  induct and proper endow but the parson patron and ordinary may create a  vicarage without the king assent appropriation can now be make without the  patron the ordinary the assent of the incumbent and licence from the king the  law presume that all appropriation in lie hand be make with every necessary  circumstance croak James er p since the statute of Henry c a vicarage can be  dissolve the pope never have any power to make a ordinance against a Act of  parliament the pope bull that a prior shall appoint a monk to the cure of a  vicarage belong to the priory who shall be removable ad mutum earlier times do  not dissolve the vicarage the vicarage do not pass by a grant from the king of  the rectory or parsonage the original of vicarages uncertain the parson and  vicar may have the cure of soul the one habitual the other actively cro  Elizabeth Com dig a vicar be spiritual as to the cure and temporal as to the  corporation the king assent be necessary to unite a vicarage to a deanery and  chapter or to dissolve it into a parsonage appropriate a donative can fall in  lapse for want of a donation since the statute Henry c the ordinary can  dissolve a vicarage when the parsonage be in lie hand action of trover and  conversion of two lamb the defendant be find not guilty for one of they and  for the other the jury give a special verdict to this effect croak throw the  prior of Denytre be seize of the advowson of Norton appropriate to their  priory and also of the vicarage of Norton which vicarage be endow with the  altarage and small tithe and this appropriation and endowment be in the time  of king John and so continue until the reign of Henry the six when upon the  prior petition to the pope in regard the priory be poor c the pope grant by  his bull quod de the other the prior shall appoint one of his monk to  officiate the cure who shall be removable ad mutum earlier times c and the  question be whether the vicarage be hereby dissolve George croak and davenport  for the plaintiff say that in regard here be not any act of the ordinarys nor  any licence from the king it may be object that the vicarage shall not thereby  be dissolve crew and Noy for the defendant thereto answer that the want of  either of they can set afoot this vicarage for the ordinarys act or  concurrence be not requisite it be good enough by the pope only because at  that time the pope be Supreme ordinary to who the inferior ordinarys submit  and it be good also without the king licence in regard that the make and endow  be spiritual act and do by the ordinary the patron not have any thing to do  therein then eoden modus quod factum be to take apart as in Henry pl it be say  that the make of a vicar be a spiritual act the statute of Richard c enact  that upon every appropriation c the ordinary of the place shall provide that  the vicar be well and sufficient endow so that the power of the endowment be  give to the ordinary only but in regard the ordinary do not perform that which  be the intent if the statute which be also defective it be afterward provide  by the statute of Henry c that in every church appropriate one shall be ordain  vicar perpetual and be canonical institute and induct and convenient endow by  the discretion of the ordinary so it be plain that the vicar be to be endow by  the ordinary only and the yearbook Edward pl set down how a vicar be make by  the ordinary by the consent of the parson and patron but the book say that the  ordinary may do it by the consent of the parson sole croak James er p and  further that it may be do without licence from the king for he take nothing  from the temperality but only from the spirituality as also that the ordinary  may make restitution to the parson again if the parsonage shall happen to be  too poor and the difference be there take by Mowbray when a layman give land  to one that be a vicar and when the vicar be endow by the ordinary of the  parson land c for in the first case the ordinary have no power to dissolve the  vicarage as to the land but otherwise in the other vide Edward annuity Edward  annuity brook and therefore in regard the ordinary may have dissolve it  without the assent of any the pope then who be Supreme ordinary may have do it  and he agree that to every appropriation the patron assent and the king  licence be necessary for the patronage be a thing croak throw temporal but the  endowment of the vicarage be spiritual and so be the dissolve thereof as it be  say in Grendons case Plowd which full prove this point that that which the  ordinary of the diocese may do the pope may have do who have supreme  jurisdiction over all ordinary therefore in vain fit per more quod become to  be able per pauciora but admit there shall be any defect therein in this case  yet it be find by the jury that in the reputation it be dissolve at the time  of the surrender of the priory and it be also find that the priory receive the  profit to their own use and that at the time of the surrender there be not any  vicarage and that it be then account to be dissolve which whether well or ill  be not now to be dispute for the law presume that all thing necessary thereto  be then do to run together his who in jure to seek again vide   a archbishop  of Canterbury case but it be argue to the contrary on the other side and four  question make in in the case first whether a vicarage perpetual may be  dissolve after the statute of Henry c and they hold t can not for the  appropriation make he to be vicar perpetual which run as well to those which  be appropriate as to those which be not vide the statute the word whereof be  shall from henceforth second admit it may be dissolve yet whether the pope  have any such power to make a ordinance against the statute and it be hold he  can not for he can dispense with a act in the affirmative admit also that the  vicarage may be dissolve by the ordinary yet the pope can not dissolve it for  it appear by diverse statute that the pope have not any right to meddle with  any advowson benefice c vide the statute Edward c Edward of provision and  praemunire vide ass pl Henry pl n b e et and in Henry hankford say that the  pope bull can dispense with the temporal law nor meddle therewith although  they tend in row ad Of as appear Edward Munchensies case a much strong then  not with the statute law and in the statute of Henry c it be say that all  dispensation c from the bishop of Rome be void and of no force contrary to the  law of the land and timorous suffer c then when the law prohibit he to meddle  with benefice he may not dissolve vicarages three admit all the other yet this  instrument be not sufficient for although the rule eastern bandage quo  bookbinding be true yet herein be not any sufficient word for dissolve nor any  which tantamount nor so much as that the prior shall take the profit but only  that the vicar shall be govern and be ad mutum earlier times c fourthly the  jury conclude that if the plaintiff have title then they find for he if not  then for the defendant the plaintiff here have not any title for the king  grant to he the rectory or parsonage and the vicarage can pass from the king  thereby as it shall do in the case of a common person Edward grant croak throw  and whereas it be allege on the other side that the beginning of vicarages be  in the eight year of king John Noy thereto answer that if their beginning be  know it be in the eight year of Henry the three and for that purpose cite  hoveden fol ult de Vita will conq and he say that a parsonage and vicarage be  two distinct ecclesiastical benefice and the parson and vicar both have spear  air the parson habitual the vicar croak James er p actitaliter vide Henry pl  Edward pl Edward quare hinder and that although the vicarage be spiritual yet  the corporation be a thing temporal which the pope can dissolve as himself  have confess for when he dissolve the order of templar he say although hoc de  jure non to be able to will yet de fullness power which be do in Edward yet  they be not dissolve here in England till the Edward and then by authority of  parliament a difference be take when a vicarage be dissolve into a  parsonagepresentative there be not any loss or prejudice to the king for what  be lose by the one be gain in the other and they both grow together but when  it be dissolve into a parsonage appropriatory it be now come in shades of dead  corpse and the king thereby shall for ever lose his title of lapse and  therefore in Trinity term Elizabeth austin case a if there be a union of a  vicarage to a dean and chapter or college it ought to be with the king consent  vide tempt Richard grant Henry pl Edward pl note in the argument of this case  it be say that a donative can fall in lapse but the patron may lose the profit  thereof if he will but if any take the profit from he he can maintain the  action but he ought to put in his clerk and he maintain the action vide Edward  aid Henry pl Edward pl and at another day in argue this case a case be cite  Parry v bank James in the exchequer a parsonage be appropriate to the Deanery  of saint asaph in Henry and a vicarage endow and afterward the bishop in  Elizabeth dissolve the vicarage and Parry pretend that this vicarage be not  dissolve but that it be in the king S hand by lapse obtain a presentation and  it be resolve by the baron of the exchequer that after the statute of Henry c  which make parsonage layfees the ordinary may not dissolve the vicarage when  the parsonage be in a temporal hand for that shall be to destroy the cure but  be in this case appropriate to the dean it so remain in his hand may very well  be dissolve and accord thereto be the opinion of justice Doderidge b croak  throw hilary term James in the king bench sir Edward Montague Knt chief  justice sir John croak Knt sir John Doderidge Knt sir Robert Houghton Knt  justice sir Henry Yelverton Knt attorney general sir Thomas Coventry Knt  solicitor general