Spirits Assistance is only in the exciting the Affections and Motions of the Soul towards the things prayed for and if this be allowed it is impossible to give a Reason why the Spirit of God may not as well excite those inward Desires when the Words are the same as when they are different And we are certain that from the Apostles times downwards no one Church or Society of Christians can be produced who held it unlawful to pray by a Set-Form On the other side we have very early Proofs of some common Forms of Prayer which were generally used in the Christian Churches and were the Foundations of those Ancient Liturgies which by degrees were much enlarged And the Interpolations of later times do no more overthrow the Antiquity of the Ground-work of them than the large Additions to a Building do prove there was no House before It is an easie matter to say that such Liturgies could not be St. Iames's or St. Mark 's because of such Errors and Mistakes and Interpolations of Things and Phrases of later times but what then Is this an Argument there were no Ancient Liturgies in the Churches of Ierusalem and Alexandria when so long since as in Origen's time we find an entire Collect produced by him out of the Alexandrian Liturgy And the like may be shewed as to other Churches which by degrees came to have their Liturgies much enlarged by the devout Prayers of some extraordinary Men such as S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in the Eastern Churches But my Design is not to vindicate our use of an excellent Liturgy but to put you upon the using it in such manner as may most recommend it to the People I mean with that Gravity Seriousness Attention and Devotion which becomes so solemn a Duty as Prayer to God is It will give too just a cause of prejudice to our Prayers if the People observe you to be careless and negligent about them or to run them over with so great haste as if you minded nothing so much as to get to the end of them If you mind them so little your selves they will think themselves excused if they mind them less I could heartily wish that in greater places especially in such Towns where there are People more at liberty the constant Morning and Evening Prayers were duly and devoutly read as it is already done with good Success in London and some other Cities By this means Religion will gain ground when the publick Offices are daily performed and the people will be more acquainted with Scripture in hearing the Lessons and have a better esteem of the Prayers when they become their daily Service which they offer up to God as their Morning and Evening Sacrifice and the Design of our Church will be best answered which appoints the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer daily to be said and used throughout the Year VI. As to the Dissenters from the Church the present Circumstances of our Affairs require a more than ordinary Prudence in your Behaviour towards them It is to no purpose to provoke or exasperate them since they will be but so much more your Enemies for it and if you seem to court them too much they will interpret your Kindness to be a liking their Way better than your own so that were it not for some worldly Interest you would be just what they are which is in effect to say you would be Men of Conscience if ye had a little more Honesty For they can never think those honest Men who comply with things against their Consciences only for their temporal Advantage but they may like them as Men of a Party who under some specious Colours promote their Interest For my own part as I do sincerely value and esteem the Church of England and I hope ever shall so I am not against such a due temper towards them as is consistent with the preserving the Constitution of our Church But if any think under a pretence of Liberty to undermine and destroy it we have Reason to take the best care we can in order to its preservation I do not mean by opposing Laws or affronting Authority but by countermining them in the best way i.e. by out-doing them in those things which make them most popular if they are consistent with Integrity and a good Conscience If they gain upon the People by an Appearance of more than ordinary Zeal for the good of Souls I would have you to go beyond them in a true and hearty Concernment for them not in irregular Heats and Passions but in the Meekness of Wisdom in a calm and sedate Temper in doing good even to them who most despitefully reproach you and withdraw themselves and the People from you If they get an Interest among them by Industry and going from Place to Place and Family to Family I hope you will think it your Duty to converse more freely and familiarly with your own People Be not Strangers and you will make them Friends Let them see by your particular Application to them that you do not despise them For Men love to value those who seem to value them and if you once slight them you run the hazard of making them your Enemies It is some Trial of a Christians Patience as well as Humility to condescend to the Weaknesses of others but where it is our Duty we must do it and that chearfully in order to the best End viz. doing the more good upon them And all Condescension and Kindness for such an End is true Wisdom as well as Humility I am afraid Distance and too great Stiffness of Behaviour towards them have made some more our Enemies than they would have been I hope they are now convinced that the Persecution which they complained lately so much of was carried on by other Men and for other Designs than they would then seem to believe But that Persecution was then a popular Argument for them for the complaining side hath always the most Pity But now that is taken off you may deal with them on more equal Terms Now there is nothing to affright them and we think we have Reason enough on our side to perswade them The Case of Separation stands just as it did in Point of Conscience which is not now one jot more reasonable or just than it was before Some think Severity makes Men consider but I am afraid it heats them too much and makes them too violent and refractary You have more Reason to fear now what the Interest of a Party will do than any Strength of Argument How very few among them understand any Reason at all for their Separation But Education Prejudice Authority of their Teachers sway them remove these and you convince them And in order thereto acquaint your selves with them endeavour to oblige them let them see you have no other Design upon them but to do them good if any thing will gain upon them this will But if after all they
nothing else but the common Custom of the Realm My Lord Chief Justice Hales saith That the common Usage Custom and Practice of the Kingdom is one of the main Constituents of our Law Coke quotes Bracton ' s Authority to prove That Custom obtains among us the Force of a Law where it is received and approved by long Use. And of every Custom he saith there be two Essential Parts Time and Usage Time out of Mind and continual and peaceable Usage without Interruption But in Case of Prescription or Custom he saith That an Interruption of Ten or Twenty Years hinders not the Title but an Interruption in the Right the other is only an actual Suspension for a time It may be asked How Time and Usage come to make Laws since Time hath no Operation in Law saith Grotius Not of it self as Grotius there saith but with the Concurrence of other Circumstances it may Bracton saith longa possessio parit jus possidendi and by a long and peaceable Possession Dominion is transferred without either Title or Delivery which he founds on this good Reason That all Claims of Right ought to have a certain Limitation of Time and length of Time takes away any Proof to the contrary Littleton saith That Time out of Memory of Man is said to give Right because no Proof can be brought beyond it And this he calls Prescription at Common Law as it is distinguished from Prescription by the several Statutes of Limitations But whence is it then that an immemorial Possession gives Right Is it from the meer Silence of the Parties concerned to claim it No Silence gives no Consent where Ignorance or Fear may be the Cause of it And is it a Punishment upon the Neglect of the Party concerned So Bracton saith Time doth it per patientiam negligentiam veri Domini But meer Neglect doth not overthrow Right unless there be an antecedent Law to make that Neglect a Forfeiture Is it from a Presumptive Dereliction But that supposes not bare Continuance of Time but some kind of voluntary Act which implies a sort of Consent which doth not appear in this Case And it is a great Mistake in those who think there is no Presumptive Dereliction where there is not a full Consent for it may be where there is the Consent of a mixt Will i.e. partly voluntary and partly involuntary when the Circumstances are such as the Person rather chuses to leave his Right than submit to the lawful Conditions of enjoying it As if a Man would rather quit his Fee than perform the Service which belongs to it Is it from the common Interest of Mankind that some Bounds be fixed to all Claims of Right Because otherwise that Men will be liable to perpetual Disturbance if the Right be permitted to be claimed beyond any possibility of Proof Or is it lastly that in such Nations where immemorial Custom obtains the Force of a Law it seems agreeable to the Foundations of Law that a long continued Possession should carry Right along with it And this was the Case here in England as not only appears by what Bracton hath said but Glanvil makes a great part of our Law to consist of reasonable Customs of long Continuance And St. Germain affirms Ancient general Customs to be one of the principal Foundations of our Law and that they have the Force of Laws and that the King is bound by his Oath to perform them And it is worth our while to observe what general Customs he doth instance in as the Courts of Equity and Law the Hundred Court the Sheriffs Turn the Court Baron c. which depend not upon Acts of Parliament but the Ancient Custom of England which he calls the Common Law And among these Ancient Customs he reckons up Rights of Descent Escheats the different sorts of Tenures Freeholds and the Laws of Property as they are received among us We are now to enquire how far any of our Ecclesiastical Constitutions can be said to be built upon this Foundation and upon immemorial Custom generally received 1. I place 1. the Distribution of this National Church into two Provinces in each whereof there is an Archbishop with Metropolitical Power which lies chiefly in these things 1. The Right of Consecration of his Suffragans 2. The Right of Visitation of every Diocess in such Way and Manner as Custom hath settled it 3. The Right of receiving Appeals from Inferiour Courts of Judicature in Ecclesiastical Matters 4. The Right of presiding in Provincial Councils of the Suffragans of his Province which by the most Ancient Constitutions of this Church were to be held once a Year so it was decreed in the Council under Theodore A. D. 673. but by the Difficulties of the times they were discontinued and so the Authority of examining things through the Province came by a kind of Devolution to the Archbishop and his Courts 5. The Custody of vacant Sees by the Custom of England falls to the Metropolitan if there hath been no Custom or Composition to the contrary And so it hath been upon solemn Debates resolved in our Courts of Common Law Coke thinks that of common Right it belongs to the Dean and Chapter but by Custom to the Archbishop But Panormitan saith There was no Pretence of common Right for them till the time of Boniface VIII 2. The ordinary Jurisdiction of every Bishop over the Clergy of his own Diocess This is as ancient as Christianity among us For no sooner were Churches planted but there were Bishops set over them who had from the Beginning so much Authority that none of the Clergy could either receive or quit his Benefice without their Consent and Approbation and they were all bound to give an Account of their Behaviour at their Visitations and in case of Contempt or other Misdemeamours they were to proceed against them according to the Canons of the Church I do not say the Diocesses were at first all modelled alike or with the same Bounds which they now have which was unreasonable to suppose considering the gradual Conversion of the Nation For at first there was but one Bishop in every one of the Saxon Kingdoms except Kent where was but one Suffragan to the Metropolitan for some time till the Kingdoms came to be united or the Kings consented to an Increase of several Diocesses and uniting them under one Metropolitan which was a Work of Time But in all the Saxon Councils we find no mention of any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but what was in the Bishops themselves Concil Cloveshoo Can. 1 4 5. Concil Cealchyth Can. 1. Egbert Canon c. 45 62. The first who began to seek for Exemptions were the Abbots who were under the Bishop's Jurisdiction who was too near them and therefore they endeavoured to get under the Pope's immediate Jurisdiction by Charters of Exemption which the great Abbies either procured or made
of God So that there can be no doubt of the Custom of paying Tithes in France from the time of receiving Christianity and that this Custom declined as their Religion did In the Council of Nantz about A. D. 658. Oblations and Tithes are mentioned together c. 10. as making up the Churches Stock which was to be divided into Four Parts to the Bishop and to the Clergy and to Repairs and to the Poor But besides the Oblations of the Living it was then common to make Oblations at their Death and these were called Oblationes defunctorum and severe Canons were made against the Detainers of them Concil Vas. I. c. 4. Agath c. 4 13. Q. 2 9 10 11. And so much appears by those Canons which forbid Exactions at Funerals Concil Tribur c. 16. Nannet c. 6. where an Exception is made as to voluntary Gifts either by the Parties deceased or by the Executors But here in the Saxon times there was a Funeral Duty to be paid called Pecunia sepulchralis Symbolum Animae and a Saxon Soul-shot this is required by the Council at Aenham and inforced by the Laws of Canutus c. 14. and was due to the Church the Party deceased belonged to whether he were there buried or not Some take this for the Foundation of Mortuaries but then the Money must be turned into Goods For in Glanvil's time a Freeholder is allowed to make his Will of other things provided that he give his first best thing to his Lord and his second to the Church And this was not originally pro Animâ defuncti as Lyndwood thinks from the Modern Canonists De Consecrat c. 12. but it was a Right of the Church settled on the Decease of a Member of it as appears by the Law of Canutus Others have said That it was in lieu of Tithes substracted and Oblations not duly made So Simon Langham in his Constitution about Mortuaries which was made to explain a former Constitution of Robert Winchelsee because the People were observed not to pay their Tithes and Oblations as they ought But he did not go about to settle a Right which had not been before but to prevent Suits about that which was to be taken for a Mortuary and he declares That where there was a choice of Three or more the Second was to be for the Mortuary De Sepult f. 93. b. So that R. Winchelsee supposes it to be an ancient Right Indeed in the Cotton MS. of the Council of Merton where this Constitution is extant the Reason is given That it was required by way of Compensation for the Neglect of Tithes and Oblations In the Synod of Winchester in his time a Constitution is made for the Uniform Payment of Mortuaries in that Diocess the second best of the Goods or Chattels was to be paid in lieu of Tithes unpaid In the Synod of Exeter of Pet. Quivil 15 E. 1. the Reason is given for the Neglect of all parochial Duties but there it is said That some pleaded Custom against the Payment of them and others as to the Manner and although this Council endeavoured to settle an Uniform Payment yet the Statute of Circumspectè agatis leaves the whole Matter to Custom ubi Mortuarium dari consuevit From whence my Lord Coke inferrs That there is no Mortuary due by Law but only by Custom The true Inference was That the contrary Custom had altered the Law from what it was in the times of Canutus and Glanvil But that the prevailing Custom became the standing Law as to Mortuaries appears by the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 6. which limits the Payment where the Custom continued but allows Liberty for Free Oblations And this Free Oblation was then called Cors presentè and was distinct from the Mortuary in lieu of Tithes as appears by the Instances in Sir W. Dugdale But I return to other Oblations which Lyndwood distinguisheth into those by way of Gift and such as became due For these latter he insists on c. Omnis christianus in the Canon Law De Consecr D. 1. c. 69. which requires that every one who approaches the Altar make some Oblation Where the Gloss saith it is but Counsel at other times but a Command on the Festivals For this 16 Q. 1. c. 55. is produced quas populus dare debet but it is there interpreted of the case of Necessity Hostiensis thinks all are obliged on great Festivals and that the general Custom lays an Obligation but Lyndwood thinks the Custom of particular Churches is to be observed In the Synod of Exter before-mentioned Oblations are said to be of Divine Right and that every Parishioner is obliged to make them but the Time is limited to Christmas Easter the Saints-day of the Church and the Dedication or All-Saints So that four times in the Year they were required to make Oblations after the Age of Fourteen And so Giles Bishop of Sarum debent offerre ex debito quater in anno In the Synod of Winchester none were so obliged till Eighteen and having Goods of their own But I observe that in the ancient Canons here by the Oblations such things were then understood as were for the Support of the Clergy Thence several Canons were made against those who turned them another way So in the Council of London under Archbishop Stratford Oblations are declared to belong only to Ecclesiastical Persons And so Lyndwood saith The Goods of the Church are called Oblations And in case the Mother-Church were appropriated the Oblations and Obventions made in the Chapel of Ease did not belong to the Convent but to the Persons who officiated there These were called by the Name of the Altarage and were generally expressed under that Name in the Endowment of Vicarages but when these were too small for the Maintenance of the Vicar those small Tithes which were joyned with them were comprehended under that Name and so it hath been resolved in the Courts of Law upon a solemn Hearing Iohn de Burgo in his Pupilla Oculi speaking of Oblations saith That persons may be bound to them four Ways 1. By Contract upon the Foundation of the Church which amounts only to a Pension upon Endowment 2. By Promise either living or dying 3. By Necessity when the parochial Minister cannot be supported without it 4. By Custom in the greater Solemnities but he saith the Proportion and Kind are left to Discretion which made Oblations sink so low that the parochial Clergy must have starved if they had nothing else to support them But besides these he mentions Occasional Oblations upon particular Services as at Marriages Christenings Funerals c. concerning which we have several Constitutions against those who went about to hinder them or to reduce them to a small Quantity The Easter-Offerings are none of these Voluntary Oblations but a Composition for Personal Tithes payable at that time of which I may have occasion
Knowledge and Admonition of their Duty For Contempt is Nolle subjici cui oportet subjici and a lesser Fault commited with it is a greater Sin than a greater Fault in it self committed without it i.e. by meer carelesness and inadvertency But where there is an open and customary Neglect there is a Presumption of Contempt unless some great and evident Reason be produced for it I do not say the bare Neglect doth imply Contempt in it self but where there is admonition and a continuance after it there is a down-right and positive Contempt But where the Disuse is general not out of Contempt but upon other Reasons and there is no Admonition by Superiours but a tacit Connivence there is a Presumtion of a Consent towards the laying aside the strict Obligation of the Canons relating to it 2. It must be reasonable i.e. on such Grounds as may abate the Force of the Obligation For there is a Difference between a Custom obtaining the Force of a Law and a Custom abating the Force of a Canon In the former case the Custom must be grounded on more evident Reason than is necessary for the latter Wherein the Casuists allow a Permission of Superiours joyned with reasonable Circumstances to be sufficient But how can acts of Disobedience make a reasonable Custom Cajetan saith They are to blame who began it but not those who follow it when the Custom is general And Suarez saith It is the common Opinion The Canonists say If a Custom be against a Rule the Reason must be plain if only besides the Rule and be not repugnant to the End and Design the Reasonableness when it becomes general is presumed But if the Superiours take notice of it and condemn it it loses the Force of Custom unless a new Reason or higher authority appear for it 3. But what is to be said for Customs taken up without Rules or Canons of what Force are they in Point of Conscience 1. It is certain that no late Customs brought in by such as have no Authority to oblige can bind others to follow them For this were to lay open a Gap to the introducing foolish and superstitious Customs into the Church which would make Distinctions without cause and make way for Differences and Animosities which all wise and good Men will avoid as much as may be It is a Rule among the Casuists That voluntary Customs although introduced with a good Mind can never oblige others to observe them And Suarez yields that a bare frequent Repetition of Acts cannot bind others although it hath been of long continuance 2. If the Customs be such as are derived from the primitive times and continue in practice there is no Reason to oppose but rather to comply with them or if they tend to promote a Delight in God's Service As for instance 1. Worshipping towards the East was a very ancient Custom in the Christian Church I grant that very insufficient Reasons are given for it which Origen would not have Men to be too busie in inquiring into but to be content that it was a generally received Practice even in his time and so doth Clemens Alexandrinus before him who thinks it relates to Christ as the Sun of Righteousness Tertullian and S. Basil own the Custom and give no Reason But of all Customs that of Contention and Singularity where there is no plain Reason against them doth the least become the Church of God 2. The Use of Organical Musick in the Publick Service If it tends to compose and settle and raise the Spirits of Men in the Acts of Worship I see no Reason can be brought against it If it be said to be only a natural Delight that Reason will hold against David who appointed it by God's own Commandment They who call it Levitical Service can never prove it to be any of the Typical Ceremonies unless they can shew what was represented by it I come now to the Measure of the Obligation of the Canons in Force And therein a great Regard is to be had to the Intention of that Authority which enjoyns them and that is to be gathered from three Things 1. The Matter 2. The Words and Sense of the Church 3. The Penalty 1. As to the Matter If it be in it self weighty and tends to promote that which is good and pious and for the Honour of God and Service of Religion it cannot be denied but these Canons do oblige in Conscience Bellarmin distinguishes between Laws of the Church which he saith are very few and pious Admonitions and good Orders which are not intended to oblige Men to sin but only in case of Contempt and Scandal And as to the Feasts and Fasts of the Church which belong to the Laws he saith They have mitissimam Obligationem so any one would think who considers how many are exempted and for what Reasons Gerson saith That no human Constitutions bind as to moral Sin unless it be founded on the Law of God as he confesses the Church's Authority is as to circumstances and then he thinks it obliges in Conscience The Substance of his Opinion which hath been much disputed and controverted by Modern Casuists lies in these things 1. That where Ecclesiastical Constitutions do inforce any part of the Law of God although it be not expresly contained therein they do immediately bind the Consciences of Men. 2. That where they tend to the good of the Church and the Preservation of Decency and Order they do so far oblige that the contempt of Authority therein is a Sin against the Law of God 3. That where the Injunctions of Authority are for no other End but to be obeyed he doth not think that there is any strict Obligation in point of Conscience And so far Cajetan agrees with him And although the other Casuists seem to be very angry with him yet when they require a publick Good and the Order of the Church to be the Reason of Ecclesiastical Laws they do in effect agree with him Now as to the Matter of our Canons which respect the Clergy there are two especially which bind them strictly 1. The Canon about Sobriety of Conversation Can. 75. Yes some may say as far as the Law of God obliges i.e. to Temperance and Sobriety but the Canon forbids resorting to Taverns or Alebouses or playing at Dice Cards or Tables doth this Canon oblige in Conscience in this manner If it were a new thing that were forbidden there were some Plea against the Severity of it but frequenting Publick Houses is forbidden by the Apostolical Canons which are of great Antiquity by the Council of Laodicea and in Trullo and many others since And by the Apostolical Canons any Presbyter playing at Dice and continuing so to do after Admonition is to be deprived The Illiberitan Council makes it Excommunication to play at Dice Not meerly for the Images
scandalous to the Church can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards as to examine them before And what was this Power of Ordination and Iurisdiction but the very same which the Bishops have exercised ever since the Apostles Times But they who go about to Unbishop Timothy and Titus may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them and make them only some particular and occasional Writings as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some particular and occasional Officers But the Christian Church preserving these Epistles as of constant and perpetual use did thereby suppose the same kind of Office to continue for the sake whereof those excellent Epistles were written And we have no greater Assurance that these Epistles were written by St. Paul than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the Apostles in the Care and Government of Churches Having said thus much to clear the Authority we act by I now proceed to consider the Rules by which we are to govern our selves Every Bishop of this Church in the time of his Consecration makes a solemn Profession among other things That he will not only maintain and set forward as much as lies in him quietness love and peace among all Men but that he will correct and punish such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous within his Diocese according to such Authority as he hath by God's Word and to him shall be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm So that we have two Rules to proceed by viz. The Word of God and the Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm 1 By the Word of God and that requires from us Diligence and Care and Faithfulness and Impartiality remembring the Account we must give that we may do it with Ioy and not with Grief And we are not meerly required to correct and punish but to warn and instruct and exhort the Persons under our Care to do those things which tend most to the Honour of our holy Religion and the Church whereof we are Members And for these Ends there are some things I shall more particularly recommend to you 1. That you would often consider the Solemn Charge that was given you and the Profession you made of your Resolution to do your Duty at your Ordination I find by the Provincial Constitution of this Church that the Bishops were to have their solemn Profession read over to them twice in the year to put them in mind of their Duty And in the Legatine Constitutions of Otho 22 H 3. the same Constitution is renewed not meerly by a Legatine Power but by Consent of the Archbishops and Bishops of both Provinces wherein i◠is declared That Bishops ought to visi◠their Diocesses at fit times Correcting and Reforming what was amiss and sowing the Word of Life in the Lords Field and to put them the more in mind of it they were twice in the year to have their solemn Profession read to them It seems then that Profession contained these things in it or else the reading that could not sti◠them up to do these things What the Profession was which Presbyters then made at their Ordination we have not so clear an Account but in the same Council at Oxford 8 H. 3. i◠is strictly enjoined That all Rector◠and Vicars should instruct the People committed to their Charge and Fee◠them Pabulo Verbi Dei with the Food of God's Word and it is introduced with that Expression that they might excite the Parochial Clergy to be more diligent in what was most proper for those times And if they do it not they are there called Canes muti and Lyndwood bestows many other hard Terms upon them which I shall not mention but he saith afterward those who do it not are but like Idols which bear the similitude of a Man but do not the Offices proper to Men. Nay he goes so far as to say That the Spiritual Food of God's Word is as necessary to the Health of the Soul as Corporal Food is to the Health of the Body Which Words are taken out of a Preface to a Canon in the Decretals de Officio Iud. Ordinarii inter caetera But they serve very well to shew how much even in the dark times of Popery they were then convinced of the Necessity and Usefulness of Preaching These Constitutions were slighted so much that in 9 Edw. 1. the Office of Preaching was sunk so low that in a Provincial Constitution at that time great Complaint is made of the Ignorance and Stupidity of the Parochial Clergy that they rather made the People worse than better But at that time the Preaching Friars had got that Work into their Hands by particular Priviledges where it is well observed That they did not go to Places which most needed their help but to Cities and Corporations where they found most Incouragement But what Remedy was found by this Provincial Council Truly every Parochial Priest four times a year was bound to read an Explication of the Creed Ten Commandments the Two Precepts of Charity the Seven Works of Mercy the Seven deadly Sins the Seven principal Vertues and the Seven Sacraments This was renewed in the Province of York which had distinct Provincial Constitutions in the time of Edw. 4. And here was all they were bound to by these Constitutions But when Wickliff and his Followers had awakened the People so far that there was no satisfying them without Preaching then a new Provincial Constitution was made under Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury and the former Constitution was restrained to Parochial Priests who officiated as Curates but several others were Authorized to Preach as 1. The Mendicant Friars were said to be Authorized Iure communi or rather Privilegio speciali but therefore Lyndwood saith it is said to be Iure communi because that Privilege is recorded in the Text of the Canon Law these were not only allowed to preach in their own Churches but in Plateis publicis saith Lyndwood out of the Canon Law wherein those words were expressed and at any hour unless it were the time of preaching in other Churches but other Orders as Augustinians and Carmelites had no such general License Those preaching Friars were a sort of Licensed Preachers at that time who had no Cures of Souls but they were then accounted a kind of Pastors For Io. de Athon distinguisheth two sorts of Pastors Those who had Ecclesiastical Offices and those who had none but were such only Verbo Exemplo but they gave very great disturbance to the Clergy as the Pope himself confesses in the Canon Law 2. Legal Incumbents authorized to preach in their own Parishes Iure scripto All Persons who had Cures of Souls and Legal Titles were said to be missi à Iure ad locum populum curae suae and therefore might preach to their own People without a special
Education of Children must lie upon Parents but yet Ministers ought not only to put them in mind of their Duty but to assist them all they can and by publick Catechizing frequently to instruct both those who have not learned and those who are ashamed to learn any other way And you must use the best means you can to bring them into an Esteem of it which is by letting them see that you do it not meerly because you are required to do it but because it is a thing so useful and beneficial to them and to their Children There is a great deal of difference between Peoples being able to talk over a Set of Phrases about Religious Matters and understanding the true Grounds of Religion which are easiest learned and understood and remembred in the short Catechetical Way But I am truly sorry to hear that where the Clergy are willing to take pains this way the People are unwilling to send their Children They would not be unwilling to hear them instructed as early as might be in the way to get an Estate but would be very thankful to those who would do them such a kindness and therefore it is really a Contempt of God and Religion and another World which makes them so backward to have their Children taught the Way to it And methinks those who have any Zeal for the Reformation should love and pursue that which came into Request with it Indeed the Church of Rome it self hath been made so sensible of the Necessity of it that even the Council of Trent doth not only require Catechizing Children but the Bishops to proceed with Ecclesiastical Censures against those who neglect it But in the old Provincial Constitutions I can find but one Injunction about Catechizing and that is when the Priest doubts whether the Children were Baptized or not and if they be born eight days before Easter and Whitsontide they are not to be Baptized till those days and in the mean time they are to receive Catechism What is this receiving Catechism by Children before they are eight days old It is well Exorcism is joyned with it and so we are to understand by it the Interrogatories in Baptism and Lyndwood saith the Catechism is not only required for Instruction in Faith but propter sponsionem when the Godfather answers De Fidei Observantiâ It is true the Canon Law requires in adult Persons Catechizing before Baptism but I find nothing of the catechizing Children after it and no wonder since Lyndwood saith the Laity are bound to no more than to believe as the Church believes nor the Clergy neither unless they can bear the Charges of studying and have Masters to instruct them This was good Doctrine when the Design was to keep People in Ignorance For Learning is an irreconcilable Enemy to the Fundamental Policy of the Roman Church and it was that which brought in the Reformation since which a just Care hath still been required for the Instruction of Youth and the Fifty ninth Canon of our Church is very strict in it which I desire you often to consider with the first Rubrick after the Catechism and to act accordingly IV. After Catechizing I recommend to you the due Care of bringing the Children of your Parishes to Confirmation Which would be of excellent use in the Church if the several Ministers would take that pains about it which they ought to do Remember that you are required to bring or send in Writing with your Names subscribed the Names of all such Persons in your Parish as you shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed If you take no care about it and suffer them to come unprepared for so great so solemn a thing as renewing the Promise and Vow made in Baptism can you think your selves free from any Guilt in it In the Church of Rome indeed great care was taken to hasten Confirmation of Children all they could Post Baptismum quam citius poterint as it is in our Constitution Provincial in another Synodical the Parochial Priests are charged to tell their Parishioners that they ought to get their Children confirmed as soon as they can In a Synod at Worcester under Walter de Cantilupo in the time of Henry III. the Sacrament of Confirmation is declared necessary for Strength against the Power of Darkness and therefore it was called Sacramentum pugnantium and no wonder then that the Parochial Priests should be called upon so earnestly to bring the Children to Confirmation and the Parents were to be forbidden to enter into the Church if they neglected it for a Year after the Birth of the Child if they had opportunity The Synod of Exeter allowed two Years and then if they were not Confirmed the Parents were to Fast every Friday with Bread and Water till it were done And to the same purpose the Synod of Winchester in the time of Edw. I. in the Constitutions of Richard Bishop of Sarum two Years were allowed but that time was afterwards thought too long and then the Priest as well as the Parents was to be suspended from Entrance into the Church But what preparation was required None that I can find But great care is taken about the Fillets to bind their Heads to receive the Unction and the taking them off at the Font and burning them lest they should be used for Witchcraft as Lyndwood informs us But we have no such Customs nor any of the Reformed Churches We depend not upon the Opus operatum but suppose a due and serious preparation of Mind necessary and a solemn Performance of it I hope by God's Assistance to be able in time to bring the Performance of this Office into a better Method in the mean time I shall not fail doing my Duty have you a care you do not fail in yours V. As to the Publick Offices of the Church I do not only recommend to you a due Care of the Diligent but of the Devout Performance of them I have often wondred how a fixed and stated Liturgy for general Use should become a matter of Scruple and Dispute among any in a Christian Church unless there be something in Christianity which makes it unlawful to pray together for things which we all understand beforehand to be the Subject of our Prayers If our common Necessities and Duties are the same if we have the same Blessings to pray and to thank God for in our solemn Devotions why should any think it unlawful or unfitting to use the same Expressions Is God pleased with the change of our Words and Phrases Can we imagine the Holy Spirit is given to dictate new Expressions in Prayers Then they must pray by immediate Inspiration which I think they will not pretend to lest all the Mistakes and Incongruities of such Prayers be imputed to the Holy Ghost but if not then they are left to their own Conceptions and the
to their Brethren and answer to the Accusations brought against them But suppose they will not and others of the Brethren say they ought not and so fall into Heats and Disputes among themselves about it and make new Parties and Divisions Is not this an admirable Way of preserving Peace and Order and Discipline in a Church And I am as certain this is not the Way of Christ's appointing as I am that God is the God of Order and not of Confusion and that when Christ left the Legacy of Peace to his Church he left a Power in some to see his Will performed But these things can never be objected against us for all are Members of the same Body and are governed by certain and known Rules and if any be guilty of open Violation of it the Way is open to accuse and prosecute them and if they be found guilty the Censures of the Church will render them uncapable of doing it in such a Station or at least to bring them to Confession of their Fault and Promise of future Amendment And now I leave any one to judge whether the Parochial Clergy are not under greater and better Discipline than the Teachers of the separate Congregations II. But the great Complaint of such Men is That we want Parochial and Congregational Discipline so that Faults should be examined and punished where they have been committed but instead of that all Matters are drawn into the Ecclesiastical Court and there Causes are managed so as looks rather like a Design to punish Men in their Purses than for their Faults and the Delays are so great that the Court it self seems to be designed for Penance and grows very uneasie even to those who are the Members of our Church And some think that the proceeding against Men upon Articles of Enquiry not so agreeable to the Rights and Liberties of Mankind In answer to this I shall consider 1. The Proceedings upon Enquiry at Visitations 2. The Method of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. The Inconveniencies of parochial Discipline 1. As to Enquiries at Visitations They were grounded upon one of the main Pillars of our Law viz. an ancient immemorial Custom founded upon good Reason In the first Canons that ever were made in this Church under Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury the second is That every Bishop is to look after the Government of his own Diocess and not to invade anothers And that in so doing they went about their Diocesses in order to an Enquiry and Correction of Miscarriages is evident from the Council under Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury Can. 3. 25. the first Council at Calechyth Can. 3. the Constitutions of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury Can. 3. and the Canon of Edgar Can. 3. But in these Saxon times the Visitations were annual which were found inconvenient and therefore in the Norman times the Archdeacons were taken into a part of the Jurisdiction under the Bishop and visited those years the Bishop did not But we meet with no Archdeacons with any kind of Jurisdiction in the Saxon times we read indeed sometimes of the Name of Archdeacons but they had nothing to do in the Diocess but only attended the Bishop at Ordinations and other publick Services in the Cathedral Lanfranc was the first who made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See And Thomas first Archbishop of York after the Conquest was the first who divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries and so did Remigius Bishop of Lincoln his large Diocess into Seven Archdeaconries saith H. of Huntingdon And so it was with the rest of which there were two Occasions 1. The laying aside the Corepiscopi in the Western Parts as assuming too much to themselves 2. The publick Services which the Bishops were more strictly tied to as the King's Barons in the Norman times Which was the Reason not only of taking in Archdeacons but likewise of Archpresbyters or Rural-Deans who had some Inspection into the several Deanaries and assisted the Bishop in such things as they were appointed to do and then came in the other Ecclesiastical Officers as Vicars General Chancellors Commissaries c. for we read not of them here at all in the Saxon times but about the time of Hen. II. the Bishops took them for their Assistance in Dispatch of Causes when the King required their strict Attendance on the publick Affairs in the Supreme Court of Parliament 2. As to the Method of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts it is no other than hath been continued here without Interruption till of late years ever since the Conquest For the Consistory-Court and the Rules of Proceeding there were established by a Law in the time of William the First As far as I can find by King Edward's Laws c. 4. the Bishops did then proceed by the Ecclesiastical Laws although they then sat in the County-Court but this caused so much Confusion that William by a general Consent and a Charter directed to all the People of England doth separate the Ecclesiastical from the Temporal Courts which was enrolled as good Law 2 R. 2. upon occasion of a Suit of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln and therefore the Charter of Remigius Bishop of Lincoln is more mentioned than others but the same was to all the Bishops and Counties of England as appears by other Copies of it Thus the Consistory-Court was first established as a distinct Court from the County-Court which it was not in the Saxon times for then the Bishop sate with the Civil Magistrate in the same Court and Ecclesiastical Causes were first heard and decided there It seems the People wer very unwilling to go to a new Place and therefore the Law is inforced with severe Penalties for Contempt And those who object against the Reasonableness of the Method of Proceeding in those Courts must reflect upon some of the wisest Nations in the World who have gone upon the same Grounds in all that have received the Civil Law and upon some of the greatest Courts at this time in the Kingdom as the Chancery and Admiralty which go by the same Fundamental Rules As to any Objections which arise from the personal Faults of those who are imployed in them that reaches I am afraid to all Courts and it ought to be the Work and Business of those who look after them to do what in them lies to reform them that others Faults may not be laid at their Doors 3. But for those who would have a Parochial or Congregational Discipline set up as much better and more effectual I shall desire them to consider that since Matters of Discipline are such as that in them the Reputation and Interest of Persons is very much concerned they ought not to be left to Arbitrary Proceedings of any Persons but they ought to be managed by the certain and common Rules of Justice since every Man hath a Right to defend himself when he is accused And unless there be known and
Reproaches of a spiteful World and do what lies in us to stop the Mouths at least if not to gain the Hearts of our Enemies For the Real Esteem which Men have of others is not to be gained by the little Arts of Address and Insinuation much less by complying with them in their Follies but by a steady and resolute Practice of our own Duties joyned with a gentle and easie and obliging Behaviour to others so far as is consistent with them But a proud supercilious morose Behaviour towards our greatest Enemies doth but make them much more so if any thing softens them and makes them more tractable it will be joyning a Firmness of Mind as to our plain Duties with Humility and Kindness in other Matters But what are these Duties we are obliged to so much Care in the Performance of There is a Twofold Obligation lying upon us I. That which is more General from the Nature and Design of our Imployment which is the Cure of Souls and that requires great Diligence and Faithfulness frequent Recollection and Consideration serious Application of our selves to Divine Studies and Imployments a prudent Use of the best Methods for the convincing Reproving Directing and Assisting those who are committed to our Care And all these are implied in the Nature of our Office as it is set forth in holy Scripture wherein we are described as Laborers and therefore must take Pains and not spend our time in vain and idle Company As Teachers and therefore ought to be stored with a good Stock of Knowledge our selves and be ready to communicate it to others As Pastors and so we ought to look after our Flock and not leave them to the careless Management of others who are not so concerned for their Welfare as we ought to be As Ambassadors from Christ and therefore we are bound to look after the Business we are sent upon and the great Weight and Importance of it as to your own Salvation as well as others As Stewards of the Mysteries of God and the first thing required in them is to discharge their Trust honestly and faithfully remembring the Account they must give to God But these you may say are only general Things and do not determine and limit our Duties within certain Bounds what is there which doth fix and determine our Duties as to the Station we have in this Church II. I come therefore to the Special Duties which by the Ancient Constitution of this Church and the Ecclesiastical Laws of it are incumbent upon you And you are to consider that as the Law hath taken Care for your Maintenance and Subsistence in doing your Duties so it doth suppose your careful Performance of them not only in regard to the general Rule of Conscience but to that particular Obligation you are under as Members of this Church And therefore I shall enquire into Two things I. The Duties you are under this Obligation to II. The Incouragement which the Law gives in Consideration of it I. The Duties are of two sorts 1. Publick and Solemn 2. Private and Occasional 1. Publick and Solemn and those either respect the Time or the Duties themselves 1. As to the times of Solemn and Publick Worship which are the Weekly Lord's Days and the other Holy-days 1. I begin with the Observation of the Lord's Days which I shall now make appear to have been set apart for the solemn Worship and Service of God especially by the Clergy from the first Settlement of a Parochial Clergy in this Church In a Provincial Council held at Cloveshoo or Cliff A. D. 747. the King and Nobility being present where the Archbishop and Bishops Assembled for Regulating the Worship of God in Parochial Churches then newly erected in many places the Fourteenth Canon is express That the Lord's Day ought to be celebrated with due Veneration and devoted only to Divine Worship Divino tantum cultui dedicatus and the Presbyters are required to officiate in their several Churches both in Preaching and Praying and the People are required to let alone their common worldly Affairs and to attend the publick Worship of God The Canons of Egbert Archbishop of York are as clear and full for the Northern Province as the other for the Southern Can. 104. That nothing is to be done on the Lord's Day but what tends to the Worship and Service of God And Can. 36. That Christ sanctified the Lord's Day by his Resurrection But because these Canons of Egbert will be often used something ought to be observed to clear their Authority Sir H. Spelman saith there are several Ancient MSS. of them Mr. Selden owns the Cotton MS. to be of the time of H. 1. but he suspects that another made the Collection and put it under his Name But it was no strange thing for the great Bishops to make such a Collection of Canons for so it was done by Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury by Theodulphus of Orleans Isaac Lingonensis Chrodegangus Herardus Hincmarus c. And Egbert was not only a great Man Brother to the King of the Northumbrians but a great Promoter of Learning and Ecclesiastical Discipline as appears by his Dialogue about the latter and the other by Alcuin's Epistles about him and Bede's Epistle to him a little before his death And the Agreement between the Capitulars and these Canons might come from Alcuin's carrying them over into France with him In the Saxon Canons c. 24. it is said that the Lord's Day on which our Saviour rose from the dead is to be devoted wholly to the Service of God excepting only Works of Necessity and Charity These Canons are translated from those of Theodulphus Bishop of Orleans A. D. 786. And it is observable that as the Christian Religion prevailed in these Northern Parts so the Religious Observation of the Lord's Day was enforced as appears by the Canons of the Gallican Church as well as this As in the famous Canon of the Council of Mascon A. D. 585. where the Bishops Assembled complain of the Neglect of the Lord's Day and agree to put the People upon a stricter Observance of it And so before in the Council of Orleans A. D. 538. But in both these Canons they avoid a Iewish Superstition as well as profane Neglect They allowed both Works of Necessity and Conveniency and did not place the Observation in a bare Rest but in Attendance on the Worship of God and forbad all manner of Secular Imployments which were inconsistent with it Nay Theodulphus his Canon goes higher Tantummodo Deo vacandum the whole Day ought to be spent in Religious and Charitable Imployments The greatest Men in our Saxon Churches asserted the same Bede saith That the Apostles appointed the Lord's Day to be observed with Religious Solemnity and therein we ought to devote our selves to the Worship of God tantum divinis cultibus seviamus And to the same purpose speaks Alcuin who was bred up under Egbert
with it since they let go so many Advantages over the People by the Reformation Thanks be to God we have Scripture and Reason and Antiquity of our side but these are dry and insipid things to the common People unless some Arts be used to recommend them But since our main Support lies in the Honesty and Justice of our Cause without Tricks and Devices we ought to look very well to that part of our Profession which keeps up any Reputation among the People and that is Preaching Those who are so weak or lazy as to be glad to have that laid aside too in a great measure never well considered the Design of our Profession or the way to support it It 's true for some time Preaching was an extraordinary thing in the Church and none but Great and Eloquent Men of Authority in the Church were permitted to preach and the greatest Bishops were then the Preachers as appears by the Sermons of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostom S. Augustin c. And even some of the Bishops of Rome whatever Sozomen saith were frequent Preachers as appears by Gregory's Homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels And if it were not then practised he did very ill to complain of the Burden of it and the Danger of neglecting it But in other Churches while the Bishop and the Presbyters lived together before parochial Cures were settled the Presbyters had no constant Office of preaching but as the Bishops appointed them occasionally But afterwards when the Presbyters were fixed in their Cures they were required to be very diligent and careful in preaching or instructing the people committed to their Charge as may be seen in many early Canons of the Gallican Church and so it was here in England Council of Cloveshoo c. 8. 14. Egbert Can. 3. and that not only in the moving way in the Pulpit but in the familiar and instructing way which we call Catechizing Concil Cloveshoo c. 11. Can. Egbert 6. Both ought to be done because they are both very useful The Principles and Foundations of Religion must be well laid to make the people have any Taste or Relish of preaching otherwise it is like reading Mathematicks to those who understand not Numbers or Figures Erasmus observes that the Sense of Religion grows very cold without preaching and that the Countess of Richmond Mother to H. 7. had such a Sense of the Necessity of it in those times that she maintained many Preachers at her own Charges and imployed Bishop Fisher to find out the best qualified for it And since the Reformation the Church of Rome hath been more sensible of the Necessity of it as appears by the Council of Trent Cardinal Borromeo one of the most Celebrated Saints since that time frequently insists upon it gives Directions about it and speaks of it as a thing which tends very much to the Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls And to the same purpose other Great Men among them as Cardinal Palaeotus Godeau Bordenave and others Would it not then be a great Shame for us who pretend to a Zeal for Reformation and the true Religion to neglect or lessen the Reputation of those things which our Adversaries have learnt from us and glory in them and those are Diligence in Preaching and Catechizing Which none can despise who value Religion none can neglect who have any Regard to the Interest or Honour of their Profession 3. The next Duty is the solemn Administration of the Sacraments which ought to be done in the publick Assemblies where there is not a great Reason to the contrary The Saxon Canons are express That Baptism unless in Case of Necessity should be administred only in due Times and Places Egber Can. 10 11. While the Ancient Discipline was kept up and Baptism only celebrated at the great Festivals there was a Necessity of its being publick and the Catechumens underwent several Scrutinies which lasted several days in the Face of the Church as S. Augustin observes after they had been kept under private Examination for some time before But when whole Nations were not only converted but Infants generally baptized the former Method of Discipline was changed But yet the Church retained her Right as to Satisfaction about the due Admission of her Members And that is the true Reason why after private Baptism the Child is required to be brought to the publick Congregation For Baptism is not intended to be done before a select Number of Witnesses but in the Face of the Church which is the regular and solemn Way however the Bishop may dispense in some particular Cases which he judges reasonable At first Baptism was administred publickly as Occasion served by Rivers as Bede saith Paulinus baptized many in the Rivers before Oratories or Churches were built Afterwards the Baptistery was built at the Entrance of the Church or very near it which is mentioned by Athanasius S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Augustin c. The Baptistery then had a large Bason in it which held the Persons to be baptized and they went down by Steps into it Afterwards when Immersion came to be disused Fonts were set up at the Entrance of Churches But still the place was publick But in Case of Necessity there is a Form prescribed and I do not see how any without leave can use the Form of Publick Baptism in private Houses which is against both our Ancient and Modern Canons In the Greek Church it is Deprivation to do it and the Synod under Photius confirms it both as to the Eucharist and Baptism because publick Order is to be preserved But it is there understood to be done in Opposition to the Bishop's Authority whose Consent may make the Case different if they judge it reasonable But Ministerial Officers are not Judges in an equitable Case against a standing Rule 4. Another Duty of the parochial Clergy is to be able and ready to resolve Penitential Cases which relate to the Internal Court of Conscience and not the External and Judiciary Court which respects the Honour of the Church as to scandalous Offences committed by the Members of it And this takes in the Private and Occasional Duties of the parochial Clergy for they ought to inform themselves of the Spiritual Condition of their People that they may be able to give suitable Advice and Directions to them both in Health and Sickness But chiefly to be able to give them safe and seasonable Advice under Troubles of Conscience by reason of wilful Sins Duarenus a very considerable Lawyer thinks the main Business of the Clergy as to the Cure of Souls lies in the Power of Binding and Loosing i. e. in dealing aright with the Consciences of Men as to the Guilt of their Sins And the Rules of the Penitential Court are different from those of the Ecclesiastical Court as well as the End is different In the
Saxon times there were both here There were Ecclesiastical Law which related to Judicial Cases wherein a publick Penance was injoyned in order to the Churches Satisfaction But there were many Cases which were not publick and yet great Care was to be used as to the Direction of Penitents as appears by the Penitentials of Theodore and Bede in the Saxon times Whereby we learn that a Difference was to be observed as to the Nature of Offences and the Circumstances of Persons and Actions and the Measure of Contrition and the particular Method is set down in the penitential Books which was in very material Circumstances different from the Methods used in the Church of Rome But it is a thing necessary for every parochial Minister to be able to settle doubting Consciences and to put them into the best Methods of avoiding Sin for the future without which the Absolution of the Priest signifies nothing For where God doth not absolve the Church cannot 5. Giving a good Example to the People committed to your Charge This is often mentioned in the Saxon Canons Council at Cloveshoo c. 8. Canons of Egbert 14 15 18 19 33. in the Laws of Alfred c. 3. of Edward c. 3. Constit. of Odo c. 4 5. of Edgar 57 58 59 60 61 64. of Canutus c. 26. And in the Conclusion of one Collection of his Laws are these Words Happy is that Shepherd who by his good Life and Doctrine leads his Flock to Eternal and Heavenly Ioys and happy is that Flock that follows such a Shepherd who hath rescued them out of the Devil's Hands and put them into God's 6. Lastly the Performance of all these Duties supposes a constant Residence among your People without which it is impossible to discharge them in such a manner as to give them and your selves full Satisfaction This I am sensible is a very nice and tender Point and the Difficulties of it do arise from these things On one side it is said 1. That there is an Allowance by the Law given to several Persons to hold more Benefices than one and since the Distribution of Benefices is not by the Law of God but by the Law of the Land what Fault is there in making use of the Privileges which the Law gives But there cannot be constant Residence in more Places than one 2. That the general Service of the Church is more to be preferred than taking Care of a particular Parish because the necessary Duties of a Parish may be supplied by persons approved by the Bishop and a single Living seldom affords a sufficient Competency for persons to be capable of publick Service 3. That the way of Subsistence for the Clergy is now much altered from what it was when Celibacy was enjoyned For a Competency was always supposed where Residence was strictly required and what was a Competency to a single person is not so to a Family 4. That the Church hath a power of Relaxing the Severity of Ancient Canons from the different Circumstances of things and when the general Good of the Church may be more promoted therein as in the Removal of Clergymen from one Diocess to another and the Translation of Bishops 5. That the Case is now very different as to Dispensations from what it was in the Church of Rome as to the Number of Benefices and the manner of obtaining them that a great Restraint is laid by our Laws upon Pluralities and our own Metropolitan is the Judge when they are fit to be granted But on the other side it is objected 1. That in the first Constitution of parochial Churches every Incumbent was bound to a strict Residence so in the Canons of Egbert Can. 25. Presbyters are said to be settled in those Churches which had a House and Glebe belonging to them and many Canons were then expresly made That no Person should have more than one Church and it is said in the Capitulars that this had been several times decreed And so it is in Herardus his Collection of Canons Can. 49. in Isaac Lingonensis Tit. 1. c. 24. in Chrodegangus c. 67. in Ivo Carnotensis part 3. c. 51. in Regino l. 1. c. 254. The like we find in the Spanish Churches Concil Tolet. 16. c. 5. and thence in the Canonâ—Law C. 10. Q. 3. c. 3. and in the Greek Churches Concil 7. Can. 15. C. 21. Q. 1. c. 1. And as soon as the Abuse crept in in these Western Churches it was complained of and endeavoured to be redressed Concil Paris 6. c. 49. Concil Aquisgran 2. part 2. c. 5. Concil Metens c. 3. That afterwards not meerly the Mendicant Friars complained of them as some have suggested but some of the greatest Bishops have been zealous against them as Gulielmus Parisiensis Peraldus Archbishop of Lions Iacobus de Vitriaco Bishop of Acon Robert de Câ—orton Cardinal Guiard Bishop of Cambray and Gregory IX declared That he could only dispense with the Penalty of the Law After a solemn Disputation at Paris it was determined against Pluralities if one Benefice be sufficient and all the Divines joyned with the Bishop therein except two so that it seemed to be the current Opinion of the Learned and Pious Men of that Time Aquinas saith It is a doubtful Point but Cajetan is positive against them So that all the Zeal against Pluralities is not to be imputed to the Piques of the Friars against the Secular Clergy although there is no Question but they were so much the more earnest in it but in the Council of Trent the Bishops of Spain were the most zealous as to the Point of Residence and the Friars against it as appears by Catharinus and others 2. Setting aside all Authorities the Argument in Point of Conscience seems the strongest against Non-residence because persons have voluntarily undertaken the Cure of Souls within such Limits and although the Bounds be fixed by Human Authority yet since he hath undertaken such a Charge personally knowing those Bounds it lies upon his Conscience to discharge the Duties incumbent upon him which cannot be done without constant Residence as the Magistrates are bound in Conscience to do their Duty although the Bounds are settled by Human Laws And so in the case of Property Human Laws bind so that it is a Sin to invade what is settled by them And if it be left to a Man's Conscience whether a Man answers his Obligation more by personal Attendance or by a Curate whether the Honour of Religion and the Good of Souls be more promoted and the Peace of his own Mind secured by one or the other it is no hard matter to judge on which side it must go It is impossible to defend all the Arguments used in the old Canons against Pluralities as that Polygamy is unlawful under the Gospel So that as a Bishop hath but one City and a Man but one Wife so a Presbyter ought to have but one
Church That no Man can serve two Masters c. but all their Reasons were not of this sort For the Council of Toledo speaks home That one Man cannot perform his Duty to more than one Charge To the same purpose the Sixth Council at Paris and withal That it brings a Scandal on the Christian Church and an Hinderance to Publick Worship and the Good of Souls and savours too much of a worldly Mind which are weighty Arguments The only considerable thing on the other side is That the Bishops are to take care that the Places be duly supplied but whether it be done by Parson Vicar or Curate is not material But this will not hold For 1. the Care of Souls is committed personally to him that doth undertake it And a Regard is had to the Qualifications of the Person for such a Trust by the Patron that presents and the Bishop who admits and institutes the Person so qualified 2. The old Canons were very strict as to personal Residence so as to fix them in their Cures from which they could not go away when they pleased which they called Promissionem stabilitatis Our Saxon Canons are clear as to the personal Cure Can. Egbert 1. 4 6. Populo sibi commisso and no Presbyter could leave his Cure and go to another only for Honour or Profit Can. 13. And none could go from one Bishop to another without his Diocesan's Leave Concil Herudford c. 5. Egbert de Eccles. Instit. p. 97 100. And when the Bishop gives Institution he commits the Care of Souls to the Incumbent and not meerly the Care that Divine Offices be there performed But yet it is well observed by Aquinas That if the having more Benefices than one were a thing evil in it self it could in no case be dispensed with but there are some Actions which in general are irregular yet in some cases may be justified especially if they be extraordinary as to Publick Service and Usefulness c. And to the same purpose Cajetan speaks but he saith The Cases that make it lawful must relate to a Publick and not a Private Good but he mentions these things which excuse from Residence 1. Lawful Impediments as to Health c. 2. Publick Service And others say a Geometrical Proportion ought to be observed in the Distribution of Ecclesiastical Benefices and not an Arithmetical i. e. A Regard ought to be had to the Merits and Capacities of Persons as a Commander hath more Pay than many common Souldiers but this reaches only to the Value and not to the Number of Benefices But the Question still remains Whether a Legal Dispensation take not off the Obligation in Point of Conscience since it is allowed by Law and the Curate appointed by the Bishop who committed the Cure of Souls to him In answer to this we must consider 1. That the Law proposes in Dispensations very allowable Ends as Publick Service Incouragement of Learning Reward of Merit and therefore Doctors by Favour have not the Privilege which others have and in case of Incompetency as it was then judged no Legal Dispensation was needful 2. Some Ancient Canons took care of the Supply of the Place by competent Persons and in that case abated the Rigour of the Canon For Sirmondus saith in the Canon of the Council of Nantz against Pluralities this Clause was added Unless he hath Presbyters under him to supply the Duties of his Place And the same Clause is in Regino l. 1. c. 254. and Regino puts it among the Articles of Enquiry as to the Clergy If any had more Churches than one without Presbyters to assist him And in their old Admonition to them at Visitations it is to the same purpose but in others it is left out Thomassin is of Opinion That the former Enquiry related to those who had Chapels and not to more Churches because then there were none that had Titles upon anothers Benefice but these Words are express as to more Churches It 's true there were no such Titles then for a Title in the old Canon Law was the Relation which a Clergyman stood in to the Bishop of his Diocess being one of his Clergy and so the Greek Canonists understand a Man 's not being ordained without a Title and not having two Churches i. e. not to have Relation to two Diocesses and so sine Titulo is without being owned by some Bishop and this was that which they thought ought to be strictly observed and to which purpose many Canons were made both ancient and later and if any deserted their Bishop they were liable to Deprivation Afterwards the Word Title came to be applied to parochial Churches but there were some who found out that the Ancient Canons had another Sense Thence in the Council of Placentia in the Canon Sanctorum Dist. 70. c. 2. it was decreed That one might have two Churches in the same Diocess but not two Preferments in several Cathedrals And in the Council of Clermont A. D. 1095. the Reason is given because according to the Canons no Man could have-two Titles and every one was bound to hold to the Title to which he was first ordained But after all the Council of Nantz shews plainly that more parochial Titles were then allowed if well provided for by such persons as the Bishop of the Diocess approved Now this very much alters the State of the case for then the Obligation is Real and not Personal 3. It was agreed by the Ancient Canons That where there was an Incompetency of Maintenance they allowed an Union for support now that is but the Bishop's Act in joyning what had been divided supposing a sufficient Subsistence And a reasonable Distance with the Bishop's Allowance hath the same Equity i.e. the Bishop's Act may unite two small Benefices for a Support not by a perpetual Union but so long as he sees cause which our Law doth still allow under such a Value But it is rather a Dispensation than an Union for the Rights continue distinct In the Court of Rome there were Prerogative Unions ad Vitam which were very scandalous and are owned by the best Canonists to be destructive of all Order and invented to defeat the Canons against Pluralities But the Unions which the Law allows are only those where two distinct Benefices are made one for a competent Subsistence and then if the Union be reasonable the Dispensation within due Distance is so too Balsamon saith In the Greek Church Pluralities are not forbidden if they be near and under the same Bishop but they did not allow the same Man to be under two Bishops In the Capitulars that Clause is added That no Man shall have more Livings than one si Facultas suppetit if it affords a reasonable Subsistence And therefore in case of Incompetency of Maintenance of a good Provision for Curates and of
publick Service the Severity of the Ancient Canons is with Reason abated and a person is supposed to undertake the Cure with those Measures which the Law and Canons allow But every Man who regards the doing his Duty out of Conscience will consider how much lies upon himself and that the original Intention of the Church and Laws was That no Man should undertake more than he was willing and ready to discharge as far as one Man's Abilities could go For in great Cities one great Parish requires more than several Churches in the Countrey and in such Cases an equitable Construction must be put upon such Canons which require personal performance of these Duties OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY BY LAW THE Subject I intend now to consider is the Incouragement which the Parochial Clergy have by Law for the doing their Duties Which are the Manse the Oblations and the Tithes I. The Manse or House and Glebe In the Canons of Egbert it is said Can. 25. That an entire Manse ought to belong to every Church without any other than Ecclesiastical Service By a Manse Mr. Selden saith in the old Charters the same is meant as a Casat or Hyde of Land Bignonius and Sirmondus say So much Glebe as was an Imployment for an Husbandman and two Servants Spelman saith It takes in the House too Lyndwood saith As much Land as would Imploy a Yoke of Oxen and so the Gloss on the Canon Law But in another place the Gloss saith The Manse is the original Endowment of the Church without which it cannot be supplied and without which it could not be consecrated For the Endowment was first to be produced before the Building Collatâ primitùs donatione solemni are the Words of the Canon Law And the same appears by Concil Valent. 3. c. 9. Concil Bracar 2. c. 5. Vit. Udalrici c. 7. Regino l. 1. c. 23 24. which is there explained to be a substantial Sustenance for those who were to attend the Service of that Church And in the Acts of Consecration of a parochial Church in Baluzius the Bishop in the first place declares himself satisfied with the Endowment unde dignè domus Dei sustentaretur And upon this the Original Right of Patronage was founded not upon the Soil which gave no Title where there was not a Church built and endowed with a competent Subsistence So that all Advowsons or Rights of Presentation in private Patrons were at first Appendant to Manors and not in Gross because the Right came from the Endowment out of the Manor And the Name of Patron in the Sense of the Feudal Law is the same with Lord of the Fee and so Beneficium is a Feudal Term and till the Feudal Law prevailed the Name of Patrom is rarely used in this Sense And when it came to be used the Patrons in France would have brought those who had their Benefices to a kind of Feudal Service and to have received Investiture from them This Mr. Selden drives at as though the Patrons had the Right of Investiture belonging to them because some such Practice is often complained of in the French Canons and as often condemned not meerly by Ecclesiastical Canons but by as good Laws as any were then made It cannot be denied that bad Practices are the Occasion of making good Laws but doth it follow that those Practices which were against Law were the Law of that time Yet this is Mr. Selden's way of Arguing he grants That there were Laws made but they were little obeyed Must we therefore conclude those illegal Practices to have been the standing Law and the Laws themselves to be illegal There were two things aimed at by those Patrons 1. To keep the Clergy in a sole Dependance on themselves witout Regard to the Bishop's Authority 2. To make such Bargains with them as they thought fit Both these were thought necessary to be redressed by Laws since the Canons were slighted by them And if the Practice be good against Law in one case why not in the other also Why is not Simony justified as well as the Patron 's absolute Power over the Incumbents but the Laws were severe against both For in the time of Lud. Pius A. D. 816. there was a solemn Assembly of the Estates of the Empire where several Ecclesiastical Laws were passed and among the rest these two 1. That no Presbyters should be put in or put out of Churches without the Authority and Consent of the Bishops and that the Bishops should not refuse those who were presented if they were probabilis Vitae Doctrinae i.e. such as the Bishops could not object against either for Life or Learning 2. That every Church should have an entire Manse belonging to it free from any Feudal Service but if they had other Estates of their own for them they were to answer to the Lords of the Manor as others did And from hence this came into the Collections of Ivo Regino Burchardus and Gratian and passed for a Law generally received As to the former a new Sanction was added to it in another Assembly at Worms A. D. 829. c. 1. and repeated in the Capitulars l. 5. c. 98. Addit 4. c. 95. and the like as to the latter l. 5. c. 100. Capit. A. 829. c. 4. But it seems there were some still continued obstinate in their former Practices and therefore these Laws were reinforced in another Assembly A. D. 869. in the time of Carolus Calvus who mentions the Laws of his Father and Grandfather to the same purpose c. 9. and there takes notice of the Contrivances made use of to defeat the Intention of those Laws and the bottom of all is there said to be abominable Simony Which shews what it was which these Patrons aimed at by claiming Investiture without the Bishop And it was then judged necessary that the Bishop's Consent was required to prevent this Mischief But still some Patrons required Feudal Service for the Glebe they had given to the Church but the Law commands them to restore it free from such Service Capit l. 5. c. 100. Addit l. 4. c. 98 163. And after much struggling Hinomarus who lived at that time saith That these Laws were observed The Patron 's Right by Virtue of the Endowment was not disputed but an Arbitrary Power as to the Incumbents was utterly denied them and they were put under the Bishop's Care who was to receive Complaints against them and to proceed according to the Churches Canons But I am apt to think that all this stir in France did not arise from the pretence of Original Donation and Endowment of Churches but from the Infeodation of Church Lands and Titles by Charles Martel as an old MS. in Filesacus saith and others in France whose Custom it was to give them in Recompence to their Souldiers who then looked on them as their
own and were hardly brought to any reasonable Allowance for the Clergy which supplied them These were called Beneficia in the Capitulars and they were to pay Nonae Decimae i.e. a Fifth Part out of them which was obtained with much Difficulty as appears by the many Laws made about them In the Council at Leptins A.D. 743. Carolomannus son to Charles Martel owns the letting out some of the Church Lands sub Precario Censu upon a reserved Rent Can. 2. Capit. l. 5. c. 3. but then it was barely for Life But the consequence was That it was very hard to recover either the Lands or the reserved Rents and they put in Clergy-men and put them out as they pleased because they held these Lands as Beneficiary Tenures from the Crown So that it was the Work of more than an Age to put the Church there in any tolerable Condition But this seems to be very much mistaken when it is brought to prove the Right of Patronage from the Endowment as to the Disposal of Benefices But the Right of Patronage by the first building and endowing the Church is owned by the Civil Law in Iustinian's Novels 123. c. 18. and Two Things were there required 1. A sufficient Maintenance for the Clergy who were nominated 2. The Bishop's Satisfaction as to their Fitness about which he speaks in another Novel 56. Tit. 12. c. 2. And he elsewhere requires that before any Churches were built the Bishop should see that there were sufficient Maintenance for those who were to officiate Novel 66. Tit. 22. The same Right obtained here upon the same Grounds as appears by the Barons Answer to Gregory IX who affirm That they had it ever since Christianity was founded here They mean ever since parochial Churches were endowed by their Ancestors for there could be no such Right of Patronage before And such Patrons were here called Advocati Ecclesiae as appears by Ioh. Sarisbur Ep. 6. 119. and the Ius Advocationis as our Lawyers tell us is a Right which a Person hath to present to a vacant Benefice in his own Name which is agreeable to what Bracton and Fleta had said long before But it doth not appear by them how the Names of Patron and Advocate came to be so applied Among the Romans saith Asconius Pedianus the Patron was he that pleaded the cause of another the Advocate he that appeared in Court on his behalf But this doth not reach to the Ius Advocationis which we are now about In the Ninety seventh Canon of the African Code an Allowance is made for the Churches to have Advocates to solicite their Causes at Court. From hence the greater Churches and Monasteries had their proper Advocates appointed them by the King as Bignonius observes and in the old Charters of Aub. Miraeus several such Advocates are appointed and it appears to have been an honorary Title and great Men were pleased with it Miraeus faith it was accounted a considerable Honour at that time And so by degrees the Founders of Parochial Churches came to have the Title of Patrons and Advocates of them and the Right they injoyed the Right of Advowson as well as Patronage not as some ridiculously talk of Advocat se or Advocat alium because the Trust and Care of those Churches endowed by their Ancestors was fallen to them and they were bound to look after and to defend the Rights of them and so Lyndwood explains it II. The next thing to be considered is the Oblations of the People which in those elder times were so free and large that which may seem incredible now there were Persons who would build Churches on their own Land to have a Share in the Oblations as is affirmed in one of the Spanish Councils and there forbidden with great Severity It was not as the Gloss on the Canon Law understands it to make a Bargain for the Right of Patronage but it is expressed to have an equal Share with the Clergy in the Oblations of the People It is observed by Agabardus That the Devotion of Persons in the first Ages was so great that there was no need to make Laws or Canons for the Supplies of Churches since they were so amply provided for by the Liberality of the People Thence we read of the Deposita pietatis in Tertullian which were voluntary Oblations and out of which were made Divisiones Mensurnae in S. Cyprian and the Sportulae which were the Allowances made to the Clergy out of the common Stock and they who received them and not those who gave them as Mr. Selden fancies were called Sportulantes Fratres and the Allowances were then stiled Stipes Oblationes which were so considerable that St. Cyprian blamed some for their setting their Hearts too much upon them Stipes Oblationes Lucra desiderant quibus prius insatiabiles incubabant which could not be said of any meer necessary Subsistence these they received tanquam Decimas ex fructibus as St. Cyprian speaks in lieu of Tithes at that time when the most of the Christian Church inhabited the Cities and gave out of their Stock to maintain the Church and those who attended upon the Service of it But when Christianity came to spread into the Countries then a more fixed and settled Maintenance was required but so as to retain somewhat of the Ancient Custom in voluntary Oblations No sooner was Christianity settled in France but we read of Lands given to the Church by Clodovaeus after his Conversion these are owned by the first Council of Orleans called in his time A. D. 511. and were put into the Bishop's Hands and to be distributed by him for Repairs of Churches Maintenance of the Clergy and other pious Uses Can. 5. 14 15. But besides these we read still of Oblations made by the people on the Altar both in the Mother-Church and in Parochial Churches If in the Mother-Church one Moiety went to the Bishop the other to the Clergy if in the other only the third Part to the Bishop In the second Council of Mascon Can. 4. we find it required That all the People make an Oblation of Bread and Wine at the Altar and this was A. D. 585. but besides the next Canon insists on the Payment of Tithes as founded on the Law of God and the Ancient Custom of the Church which is thereby reinforced unde statuimus decernimus ut mos antiquus reparetur which Words are not fairly left out by Mr. Selden because they shew that there was only in this Canon a renewing of an Ancient Custom which had obtained but was now growing into Disuse For this Council of Mascon was called on purpose to restore what they found too much declining as to Religion and they begin with the Observation of the Lord's Day and after add this wherein they complain of the Neglect of that which their Predecessors observed as founded on the Law
and the more Ancient the more Suspicious But the Lord Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared That by the Common Law of England every Bishop in his Diocess and the Archbishops in Convocation may make Canons to bind within the Limits of their Jurisdiction 3. The subordinate Jurisdiction which was lodged in the Bodies of the Clergy resident in Cathedral Churches and of Archdeacons in the several Diocesses I cannot find either of these to have had any Jurisdiction here before the Conquest neither were there any Courts of Justice out of the several Counties before for all Causes were transacted in the County-Courts and Sheriffs Turns and Appeals lay from them to the Supreme Judicature of the King and the Lords But this doth not hinder but these Courts may be founded on the Law of England And so the original Jurisdiction which of Right belonged to the Bishop might by degrees and a gradual Consent come to be committed as to some parts to the Bodies of Cathedral Churches and to the Archdeacons who are saith my Lord Coke Sixty in England We are told in a late Case of Woodward and Fox That there are Archdeaconries in England by Prescription which have no Dependency on the Bishop but are totally exempt And for this Godolphin is cited who refers to the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions f. 27. where we read of some Archdeacons having a customary and limited Iurisdiction separate from the Bishop for which a Prescription lies But this is only for some special Iurisdiction as the Archdeacon of Richmond for Institutions which came first by Grant from the Bishops but that not being to be produced they insist upon Custom and Prescription as the Deans and Chapters do where the Ancient Compositions are lost But none who understand the Ancient Constitution of this Church can suppose either of them to have been Original since the Right to the Jurisdiction of the Diocess was in the Bishop before there were here either Archdeacons or Chapters with Jurisdiction In the Case of Chiverton and Trudgeon it was declared That an Archdeacon might have a peculiar Jurisdiction as to Administration c. as the Dean of St. Paul's had at S. Pancras and so the Archdeacon of Cornwall as to Wills In the case of Gastril and Iones the Chief Justice declared That the Archdeacon is the Bishop's Officer and his Authority subordinate to the Bishops and granted by them but if special Custom be pleaded that must be well proved to which Dodderidge agreed But we must distinguish between Archdeaconries by Prescription for which I can find no Foundation being all derived by Grant from the Bishop and Archdeacons having some kind of Iurisdiction by Prescription which others have not which cannot be denied All the Power which the Archdeacons have by virtue of their Office is per modum scrutationis simplicis as Lyndwood speaks tanquam Vicarius Episcopi Whatever Power they have beyond this is not Iure communi but Iure speciali and depends either upon Grant or Custom which the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions calls a limited Iurisdiction The Archdeacon's Court is declared by the Judges in Woodward ' s Case to have been time out of Mind settled as a distinct Court from which there lies an Appeal to the Bishop's Court by the Statute 24 H. 8. c. 12. And so the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction is founded on an immemorial Custom in Subordination to the Bishops As to Deans and Chapters I observe these things 1. That although Ecclesiastical Bodies in Cathedrals were very ancient yet we read not of any Jurisdiction peculiar to themselves during the Saxon times My Lord. Coke saith There were Chapters as the Bishop's Council before they had distinct possessions And by their Books he saith it appears that the Bishops parted with some of their Possessions to them and so they became Patrons of the Prebends of the Church Such were London York and Litchfield 2. That several of our Chapters were founded and endowed by the Bishops since the Conquest Such was that of Salusbury by Osmund out of his own Estate as appears by his Charter and the Confirmation of H. 2. So was that of Lincoln by Remigius who removed the See from Dorchester thither and placed there a Dean Treasurer Praecentor and Seven Archdeacons as Henry of Huntingdon saith who lived near the time And in following times those of Exeter and Wells were settled as Dean and Chapter for they were Ecclesiastical Bodies before but not under that Denomination 3. That some had the legal Rights of Dean and Chapters as to Election of Bishops and Confirmation of Leases c. but were a Monastick Body consisting of Prior and Convent Such were Canterbury Winchester Worcester after the Expulsion of the Secular Canons for the Monks not only enjoyed their Lands but were willing enough to continue the Name of Dean among them As at Canterbury after Dunstan's time Agelmothas is called Dean in Worcester Wolstan is called Dean when he was Prior and Winsius upon the first Change is said to be placed loco Decani by Florence of Worcester At Norwich Herbert the Bishop founded the Prior and Convent out of his own Possessions in the time of William II. and they became the Chapter of the Bishop by their Foundation Now as to these it is resolved in the Dean and Chapter of Norwich's Case That when the King transferred them from a Prior and Convent the Legal Rights remained the same And in Hayward and Fulcher's Case the Judges declared That an Ecclesiastical Body may surrender their Lands but they cannot dissolve their Corporation but they still remain a Chapter to the Bishop And it was not only then delivered but since insisted upon in a famous Case That it was the Resolution of the Iudges That a Surrender cannot be made by a Dean and Chapter without Consent of the Bishop because he hath an Interest in them 4. That H. 8. endowed some as Chapters to new erected Bishopricks as Chester Bristol Oxford c. 31 H. 8 9. 34 H. 8. 17. and united others as Bath and Wells and Coventry and Litchfield 33 H. 8. 30. 34 H. 8. 15. 5. That where the Custom hath so obtained there may be a Legal-Chapter without a Dean as in the Diocesses of S. David's and Landaff where there is no other Head of the Chapter but the Bishop but they must act as a distinct Body in Elections and Confirmations of Grants by the Bishops 6. That by the Ancient Custom of England there are sole Ecclesiastical Corporations as well as aggregate A sole Ecclesiastical Corporation is where a single Person represents a whole Succession and under that Capacity is impowered to Receive and to Convey an Estate to his Successors As Bishops Deans Archdeacons Parsons c. But Parsons and Vicars are seized only in Right of the Church but as to a Bishop he may have a Writ of
the Convocation by the King 's Writ to the Archbishop could not sit but in Parliament-time although that in all respects be the most proper time for there is not a Word tending that way in the Statute but Provincial Councils having been frequently held here without any Writ from the King and therein treating of Matters prejudicial to the Crown by Virtue of a Legatine Power there was great Reason for the King to resume the ancient Right of the Crown For so William I. declared it in Eadmerus That nothing should be done in Provincial Councils without his Authority But afterwards we find Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury holding a Provincial Council against the King's Prohibition and several Writs were sent to them to prohibit their meddling in Matters of State in Prejudice to the Crown 18 H. 3. under Penalty of the Bishops forfeiting their Baronies and to the like purpose 35 E. 1. 15 E. 2. 6 E. 3. which seems to be a tacit Permission of these Provincial Councils provided they did nothing prejudicial to the Crown And from such Councils came our Provincial Constitutions which Lyndwood hath digested according to the Method of the Canon-Law and hath therein shewed what part of the Canon-Law hath any Force here not by Virtue of any Papal or Legatine Power but by the General Consent of the Nation by which they have been received among us But my business is not now with Canons so received but with Canons made according to the Statute 25 H. 8. 19. for it is ridiculous to imagine those are only negative Words for then they exclude the King's Power of calling a Convocation as well as confirming the Acts of it For to what purpose is the King 's Writ to call them together if being assembled they can do nothing But I have already mentioned my Lord Chief Justice Vaughan's Opinion That the Canons made A. D. 1603. are warranted by 25 H. 8. c. 19. It was urged by the Council in the Case of Grove and Eliot 22 Carol. 2. That no Canons can alter the Law which are not confirmed by Act of Parliament But it was said on the other side That these Canons had been always allowed having been confirmed by the King One of the Judges said That the King and Convocation cannot make Canons to bind the Laity but only the Clergy But Vaughan said That those Canons are of Force although never confirmed by Act of Parliament as no Canons are and yet saith he they are the Laws which bind and govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs The Convocation with the Licence and Assent of the King under the Great Seal may make Canons for Regulation of the Church and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks and so is Lyndwood There can be no question in Lyndwood's time but Ecclesiastical Constitutions were thought to bind all that were concerned in them and the Ecclesiastical Laws which continue in Force by Custom and Consent bind all the only Question then is about making new Canons and the Power to make them is by Virtue of an Act of Parliament to which the Nation consented and so there need no Representatives of the people in Convocation And no such thing can be inferred from Moor 755. for the Judges declared the Deprivation of the Clergy for not conforming to the Canons to be legal but they say nothing of others But in the Case of Bird and Smith f. 783. the Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared That the Canons made in Convocation by the King's Authority without Parliament do bind in Ecclesiastical Matters as an Act of Parliament And therefore I proceed to shew II. In what manner we are obliged to the Observation of these Canons concerning which I shall premise two Things 1. That I meddle not with such Canons as are altered by Laws for all grant that unless it be in Moral Duties their Force may be taken away by the Laws of the Land 2. There are some Canons where the general Disuse in Matters of no great Consequence to the Good of the Church or the Rights of other Persons may abate the Force of the Obligation especially when the Disuse hath been connived at and not brought into Articles of Visitation as Can. 74. about Gowns with standing Collars and Cloaks with Sleeves But the general Reason continues in Force viz. That there should be a decent and comely Habit for the Clergy whereby they should be known and distinguished by the People and for this the ancient Custom of the Church is alledged But here a very material Question arises How far Custom is allowed to interpret and alter the Force of Canons made by a lawful Authority For where a Custom prevails against a standing Rule it amounts to this Whether Practice against Law is to have more Force than the Law And how can there be a reasonable Custom against a Law built upon reasonable Grounds But on the other side if Custom hath no power in this case then all the ancient Canons of the Church do still bind in Conscience and so we must not kneel at our Prayers on Sundays nor between Easter and Whitsontide which were thought to be made upon good Reason at first and so many other Canons which have long grown into a Disuse So that if we do strictly oblige persons to observe all Ecclesiastical Canons made by lawful Authority we run Men into endless Scruples and Perplexities and Gerson himself grants That many Canons of General Councils have lost their Force by Disuse and that the Observation of them now would be useless and impossible But on the other side if meer Disuse were sufficient what would become of any Canons and Constitutions where Persons are refractary and Disobedient This is a Case which deserves to be stated and cleared And we are to distinguish three sorts of Customs 1. Customs generally obtaining upon altering the Reason of ancient Canons 2. Customs allowed upon the general Inconveniency of modern Canons 3. Customs taken up without any Rules or Canons for them 1. As to general Customs against ancient Canons where the Reason is altered I see no Ground for any to set up those Canons as still in Force among us For this must create Confusion and Disorder which those Canons were designed to prevent and the Laws of the Land do certainly supersede ancient Canons wherein the necessary Duties of Religion are not immediately concerned For we must have a care of setting up ancient Canons against the Authority of our Laws which cannot be consistent with our National Obligation nor with the Oath of Supremacy 2. As to Customs relating to Modern Canons if it hath any Force as to altering the Obligation 1. It must be general not taken up by particular dissaffected Persons to our Constitution for the Custom of such Men only shews their wilful Disobedience and Contempt of Authority and all Casuists are agreed That Contempt of lawful Authority is a wilful Sin Which supposes a wilful Neglect upon
Bishop to be translated from that Place he was first Consecrated to as well as to hold another with it But the Good of the Church being the main Foundation of all the Rules of it when that might be better promoted by a Translation it was by a tacit Consent looked on as no unjust Violation of its Rules The Question then is Whether the Churches Benefit may not in some Cases make the Canons against Non-Residence as Dispensible as those against Translations And the Resolution of it doth not depend upon the voiding the particular Obligation of the Incumbent to his Cure but upon some more general Reason with respect to the State of the Church as being imployed in the Service of it which requires a Persons having not a bare Competency for Subsistence but a Sufficiency to provide Necessaries for such Service For those seem to have very little regard to the flourishing Condition of a Church who would confine the Sufficiency of a Subsistence meerly to the Necessaries of Life But it seems to be reasonable that Clergymen should have Incouragement sufficient not only to keep them above Contempt but in some respect agreeable to the more ample Provision of other Orders of Men. And by God's own Appointment the Tribe of Levi did not fall short of any of the rest if it did not very much exceed the Proportion of others We do not pretend to the Privileges they had only we observe from thence that God himself did appoint a plentiful Subsistence for those who attended upon his Service And I do not know what there is Levitical or Ceremonial in that I am sure the Duties of the Clergy now require a greater Freedom of Mind from the anxious Cares of the World than the Imployments of the Priests and Levites under the Law But we need not go so far back if the Church enjoyed all her Revenues as entirely as when the severe Canons against Pluralities were made there would not be such a Plea for them as there is too much Cause for in some Places from the Want of a competent Subsistence But since that time the Abundance of Appropriations since turned into Lay-Fees hath extreamly lessened the Churches Revenues and have left us a great Number of poor Vicarages and Arbitrary Cures which would hardly have afforded a Maintenance for the Nethinims under the Law who were only to be Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water But this doth not yet clear the Difficulty For the Question is Whether the Subsistence of the Clergy can lawfully be improved by a Plurality of Livings Truly I think this if it be allowed in some Cases lawful to be the least desirable way of any but in some Circumstances it is much more excusable than in others As when the Benefices are mean when they lie near each other when great care is taken to put in sufficient Curates with good Allowance when Persons take all Opportunities to do their Duties themselves and do not live at a distance from their Benefices in an idle and careless manner But for Men to put in Curates meerly to satisfie the Law and to mind nothing of the Duties of their Places is a horrible Scandal to Religion and our Church and that which if not amended may justly bring down the Wrath of God upon us For the loosest of all the Popish Casuists look upon this as a very great Sin even those who attributed to the Pope the highest Dispensing Power in this Case But when the great Liberty of Dispensing had made the Ecclesiastical Laws in great measure useless then it was thought fit by our Law-makers to restrain and limit it by a Statute made 21 H. VIII wherein it is Enacted That if any Person or Persons 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 in Possession of the same that then and immediately after such Possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged to be void And all Licenses and Dispensations to the contrary are declared to be void and of none effect This one would have thought had been an effectual Remedy against all such Pluralities and Dispensations to obtain them and this no doubt was the primary Design of the Law but then follow so many Proviso's of Qualified Men to get Dispensations as take off a great deal of the Force and Effect of this Law But then it ought well to be consider'd Whether such a License being against the chief Design of a Law can satisfie any Man in point of Conscience where there is not a just and sufficient Cause For if the Pope's Dispensation with the supposed Plenitude of his Power could not satisfie a Man's Conscience without an antecedent Cause as the Casuists resolve much less can such Proviso's do it It is the general Opinion of Divines and Lawyers saith Lessius That no Man is safe in Conscience by the Pope's Dispensation for Pluralities unless there be a just cause for it No Man can with a safe Conscience take a Dispensation from the Pope for more Benefices than one meerly for his own Advantage saith Panormitan and from him Sylvester and Summ. Angelica A Dispensation saith Cardinal To-let secures a Man as to the Law but as to Conscience there must be a good cause for it and that is when the Church hath more Benefit by it than it would have without it But the Pope's Dispensing Power went much farther in point of Conscience in their Opinion than that which is setled among us by Act of Parliament For it is expressed in the Statute of 21 Hen. VIII That the Dispensation is intended to keep Men from incurring the Danger Penalty and Forfeiture in the Statute comprised So that the most qualified Person can only say that the Law doth not deprive him but he can never plead that it can satisfie him in point of Conscience unless there be some Cause for it which is of more Moment to the Church than a Man 's sole and constant Attendance on a particular Cure is But this Statute is more favourable to the Clergy than the Canon Law was before in two Particulars 1. In declaring that no simple Benefices or meer Dignities as the Canonists call them are comprehended under the Name of Benefices having Cure of Souls viz. no Deanary Archdeaconry Chancellorship Treasurership Chantership or Prebend in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church nor Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed nor any Benefice perpetually appropriate But all these before were within the reach of the Canon Law and a Dispensation was necessary for them Which shews that this Law had a particular respect to the necessary Attendance on Parochial Cures and looked on other Dignities and Preferments in the Church as a sufficient Encouragement to extraordinary Merit 2. That no notice is taken of Livings under the Valuation of 8 l. which I suppose is that of 20 E. 1.
for that of H. 8. was not till five years after that Statute But after that Valuation it was to be judged according to it and not according to the real Value as the Judges declared 12 Car. I. in the Case of Drake and Hill Now here was a regard had to the Poorness of Benefices so far that the Statute doth not deprive the Incumbent upon taking a second Living if the former be under 8 l. The Question that arises from hence is Whether such Persons are allowed to enjoy such Pluralities by Law or only left to the Ecclesiastical Law as it was before It is certain that such are not liable to the Penalty of this Law but before any Person might be deprived by the Ecclesiastical Law for taking a second Benefice without Dispensation of what Value soever the former were now here comes a Statute which enacts That all who take a second Benefice having one of 8 l. without Qualification shall lose his legal Title to the first but what if it be under Shall he lose it or not Not by this Law But suppose the Ecclesiastical Law before makes him liable to Deprivation doth the Statute alter the Law without any Words to that purpose The Bishop had a Power before to deprive where is it taken away The Patron had a Right to present upon such Deprivation how comes he to lose it And I take it for granted That no antecedent Rights are taken away by Implications but there must be express Clauses to that purpose So that I conclude the ancient Ecclesiastical Law to be still in Force where it is not taken away by Statute And thus my Brethren I have laid before you the Authority and the Rules we are to act by I have endeavoured to recommend to you the most useful Parts of your Duty and I hope you will not give me occasion to shew what Power we have by the Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm to proceed against Offenders Nothing will be more uneasie to me than to be forced to make use of any Severity against you And my Hearts desire is That we may all sincerely and faithfully discharge the Duties of our several Places that the blessing of God may be upon us all so that we may save our selves and those committed to our Charge OF THE NATURE OF THE TRUST Committed to the Parochial Clergy At a Visitation at Worcester October 21 st 1696. My Brethren I Have formerly on the like Occasion discoursed to you of the General Duties of your Function and the Obligation you are under to perform them and therefore I shall now confine my Discourse to these Two Things I. To consider the particular Nature of the Trust committed to you II. The Obligation you are under to your Parochial Cures I. The first is necessary to be spoken to for while Persons have only so confused and cloudy Apprehensions concerning it they can neither be satisfied in the Nature of their Duties nor in their Performance of them And there is Danger as well in setting them so high as to make them Impracticable as in sinking them so low as to make not only themselves but their Profession Contemptible For the World let us say what we will will always esteem Men not meerly for a Name and Profession but for the Work and Service which they do There is no doubt a Reverence and Respect due to a Sacred Function on its own Account but the highest Profession can never maintain its Character among the rest of Mankind unless they who are of it do promote the General Good by acting suitably to it And the greater the Character is which any bear the higher will the Expectations of others be concerning them and if they fail in the greatest and most useful Duties of their Function it will be impossible to keep up the Regard which ought to be shew'd unto it We may complain as long as we please of the Unreasonableness of the Contempt of the Clergy in our Days which is too general and too far spread but the most effectual Means to prevent or remove it is for the Clergy to apply themselves to the most necessary Duties with Respect to the Charge and Trust committed to them But here arises a considerable Difficulty which deserves to be cleared viz. concerning the just Measures of that Diligence which is required For there are some who will never be satisfied that the Clergy do enough let them do what they can and it is to no purpose to think to satisfie them who are resolved not to be satisfied But on the other side some care not how little they do and the less the better they are pleased with them and others again have raised their Duties so high that scarce any Man can satisfie himself that he hath done his Duty It is a matter therefore of the highest Consequence to us to understand What Rule and Measure is to be observed so as we may neither wilfully neglect our Duty nor despair of doing it Here we are to consider Two Things 1. How far the Scripture hath determined it 2. What Influence the Constitution of our Church is to have upon us concerning it 1. The Scripture doth speak something relating to it both in the Old and New Testament In the Old Testament we have the Duties enjoyned to the Levitical Priesthood and the extraordinary Commissions given to the Prophets As to the Levitical Priesthood we can only draw some general Instructions which may be of use altho' that Priesthood hath been long since at an end Christ being our High-Priest after another Order viz. of Melchisedeck and our Duty now is to observe his Laws and to offer that Reasonable Service which he requires But even from the Levitical Priesthood we may observe these things 1. That although the main of their Duty of Attendance respected the Temple and Sacrifices yet at other times they were bound to instruct the People in the Law For so Moses leaves it as a special Charge to the Tribe of Levi to teach Iacob his Iudgments and Israel his Law And to incourage them to do it they had a liberal Maintenance far above the Proportion of the other Tribes For by Computation it will be found that they were not much above the Sixtieth part of the People for when the other Tribes were numbred from Twenty years old they made six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty But the Children of Levi were reckoned by themselves from a Month old and they made but Two and twenty thousand so that if the Males of the other Tribes had been reckoned as they were it is agreed by Learned Men who had no Fondness for the Clergy that they did not make above a fiftieth or sixtieth part and yet they had near a fifth of the Profits besides accidental Perquisites as to Sacrifices and Ransoms of the First-born Thus say they God was pleased to enrich that Tribe which was devoted