has no cognisance1 for in a case involving the supreme penalty he cannot nor ought  he to judge, lest he commit an irregularity. Cognisance therefore belongs, as is evident,  to the secular judge and execution of the judgment to the ecclesiastical judge,2  because a secular judge can no more degrade than he can promote to higher orders,  as was said briefly above.
When and in what matters a prohibition does not lie.
 We must explain when and in what matters a prohibition does not lie. It is clear that  it will not lie in court christian with respect to any spirituality or anything annexed  thereto, whether the action is between clerks or between a clerk and a layman; or  where the action is testamentary or matrimonial, or relates to a matter in which  penance is to be enjoined for sin. Nor will it lie if the action in court christian is concerned  with a tenement which is sacred and dedicated by priests to God, as abbeys,  priories, monasteries and their cemeteries. Nor if they are quasi-sacred, because annexed  to a spirituality, as lands given to churches at the time of their dedication with  the buildings included in them and their appurtenances. Hence if a monastery or  church is despoiled of such land given in dower or of its3 appurtenances, as common of  pasture and the like, a prohibition will not lie if an action for restitution is brought in  the ecclesiastical court, which must not be understood to apply to free alms, though  they are pure.4 On this there is matter [in the roll] of Easter term in the fifteenth year  of king Henry in the county of Somerset, [the case] of Richard, parson of Lideford,5  and an express holding [in the roll] of Hilary term in the seventh year of king Henry,  in the county of Bedford, [the case] of Gilbert, parson of Deene.6 Nor does a prohibition  lie if there is an action in the ecclesiastical forum [this by reason of the persons,]  with respect to the chattels of clerks taken from them by force, as [in the roll]  of Hilary term in the eighth year of king Henry in the county of Cornwall, [the case]  of Everwin de la Launde.7 Nor will it lie if it is a matter of tithes, [or if there is an  error in the form of the prohibition, as where it refers to debts when it ought to refer  to chattels, or conversely, as in [the roll] of Hilary term in the sixth year of king  Henry in the county of Warwick, [the case] of a certain percentor of Lincoln.]8 But  there is a case to the contrary with respect to tithes, that a prohibition lies if tithes  are claimed or their value in consequence of a sale, as [in the roll] of Michaelmas  term in the ninth and the beginning of the tenth years of king Henry in the county  of York, [the case] of Richard, parson of Mapelton.9 But the contradiction is resolved  thus, that in the first case,