their Consciences fly in their Faces and they condemn themselves for their evil Actions And then these very Instances are an Argument against Infidelity for we may justly presume that they would shake off their Fears of another World if they could But why should some Instances of this Nature signifie more against Religion than the many Remarkable Examples of a Godly Righteous and Sober Life among the Clergy to a stronger Confirmation of it For they have had greater Occasion of searching into all the Considerable Difficulties about Religion than others can pretend to and I do not know any that have imployed most Time and Pains about it but have had greater Satisfaction as to the Truth and Excellency of it Thus I have endeavoured to remove the most common Prejudices of our Times against our Profession It would now be proper for me to give some particular Directions to you but that is so much the business of the following Discourses that I shall refer you to them and commend you to the Grace and Blessing of Almighty God that you may so carefully discharge your Duties in this World that it may advance your Happiness in another I am Your Affectionate Friend and Brother EDW. WIGORN Hartlebury C. Apr. 23. 1698. ERRATA PReface pag. viii lin 7. read Birinus p. xii l. 7. r. Kington P. 26. l. 21. after fraudes add p. 126. l. 11. r. Birinus p. 129. l. 9. r. Wulstan p. 142. l. 7. r. Flocks they go to p. 157. l. 17. after but insert to perswade you p. 226. l. 5. for more r. meer p. 236. l. 9. for Titles r. Tithes p. 241. l. 9. r. Aâ—bâ—rdus p. 254. l. 17. r. Guthrun p. 256. l. 17. for than r. as THE CONTENTS CASE I. THE Bishop of Worcester's Charge to the Clergy of his Diocess in his Primary Visitation c. p. 1. II. Of the Nature of the Trust committed to the Parochial Clergy c. p. 103. III. Of the particular Duties of the Parochial Clergy c. p. 175. IV. Of the Maintenance of the Parochial Clergy by Law p. 229. V. Of the Obligation to observe the Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions c. p. 325. To which is annexed a Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation c. A Catalogue of Books published by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester and sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. The second Edition Folio Origines Britannicae or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and the Matters therein contained The Fifth Edition corrected and amended Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an impartial Account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolted Protestant wherein a particular Account is given of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entitled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised of the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the Pretence of Infallibility in the Church of Rome in answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. With a particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle Apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book entitled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them A Discourse concerning the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction or the true Reasons of his Sufferings with an Answer to the Socinian Objections and a Preface concerning the true State of the Controversie about Christ's Satisfaction Octavo Second Edition A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity with an Answer to the late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And a Preface concerning the different Explication of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present Socinian Controversie Octavo Second Edition The Bishop of Worcester's Answer to Mr. Locke's Letter concerning some Passages relating to his Essay of Humane Understanding mention'd in the late Discourse in Vindication of the Trinity Octavo The Bishop of Worcester's Answer to Mr. Locke's Second Letter wherein his Notion of Idea's is proved to be inconsistent with it self and with the Articles of the Christian Faith Octavo Sermons preached upon several Occasions in three Volumes in Octavo The Effigies of the Right Reverend Father in God Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester Engraven on a Copper-Plate Price 6 d. THE BISHOP OF WORCESTER'S CHARGE TO THE CLERGY of his DIOCESE In his Primary Visitation begun at Worcester September 11 th 1690. My Brethren THIS being my Primary Visitation I thought it fitting to acquaint my self with the Ancient as well as Modern Practice of Episcopal Visitations and as near as I could to observe the Rules prescribed therein with respect to the Clergy who are now summoned to appear And I find there were two principal Parts in them a Charge and an Enquiry The Charge was given by the Bishop himself and was called Admonitio Episcopi or Allocutio wherein he informed them of their Duty and exhorted them to perform it The Enquiry was made according to certain Articles drawn out of the Canons which were generally the same according to which the Iuratores Synodi as the ancient Canonists call them or Testes Synodales were to give in their Answers upon Oath which was therefore called Iuramentum Synodale for the Bishop's Visitation was accounted an Episcopal Synod The former of these is my present business and I shall take leave to speak my Mind freely to you this first time concerning several things which I think most useful and fit to be
grow more headstrong and insolent by the Indulgence which the Law gives them then observe whether they observe those Conditions on which the Law gives it to them For these are known Rules in Law That he forfeits his Privilege who goes beyond the Bounds of it That no Privileges are to be extended beyond the Bounds which the Laws give them for they ought to be observed as they are given I leave it to be considered whether all such who do not observe the Conditions of the Indulgence be not as liable to the Law as if they had none But there is a very profane Abuse of this Liberty among some as tho' it were an Indulgence not to serve God at all Such as these as they were never intended by the Law so they ought to enjoy no Benefit by it For this were to countenance Profaneness and Irreligion which I am afraid will grow too much upon us unless some effectual Care be taken to suppress it VII There is another Duty incumbent upon you which I must particularly recommend to your Care and that is of Visiting the Sick I do not mean barely to perform the Office prescribed which is of very good Use and ought not to be neglected but a particular Application of your selves to the State and Condition of the Persons you visit It is no hard matter to run over some Prayers and so take leave but this doth not come up to the Design of our Church in that Office For after the general Exhoratation and Profession of the Christian Faith our Church requires That the sick Person be moved to make special Confession of his Sins if he feel his Conscience troubled with any weighty matter and then if the sick Person humbly and heartily desires it he is to be absolved after this manner Our Lord Iesus Christ who hath left Power in his Church to absolve all Sinners who truly repent and believe in him c. Where the power of Absolution is grounded upon the Supposition of true Faith and Repentance and therefore when it is said afterwards And by his Authority committed to me I absolve thee from the same c. it must proceed on the same Supposition For the Church cannot absolve when God doth not So that all the real Comfort of the Absolution depends upon the Satisfaction of the person's Mind as to the Sincerity of his Repentance and Faith in Christ. Now here lies the great Difficulty of this Office how to give your selves and the wounded Conscience Satisfaction as to the Sincerity of those Acts I do not mean as to the Sincerity of his present Thoughts but as to the Acceptableness of his Faith and Repentance with God in order to Remission of Sins But what if you find the Persons so ignorant as not to understand what Faith and Repentance mean What if they have led such careless and secure lives in this World as hardly ever to have had one serious Thought of another Is nothing to be done but to come and pray by them and so dismiss them into their Eternal State Is this all the good you can or are bound to do them I confess it is a very uncomfortable thing to tell Men how they are to begin to live when they are liker to die than to live and the People generally have a strange superstitious Fear of sending for the Minister while there is any hope of Recovery But at last you are sent for and what a melancholy Work are you then to go about You are it may be to make a Man sensible of his Sins who never before considered what they were or against whom they were committed or what eternal Misery he deserves by committing them But I will suppose the best I can in this Case viz. That by your warm and serious Discourse you throughly awaken the Conscience of a long and habitual Sinner what are you then to do Will you presently apply all the Promises of Grace and Salvation to one whose Conscience is awakened only with the Fears of Death and the Terrors of a Day of Judgment This I confess is a hard Case on the one side we must not discourage good Beginnings in any we must not cast an awakened Sinner into Despair we must not limit the infinite Mercy of God But on the other side we must have a great care of incouraging presumptuous Sinners to put off their Repentance to the last because then upon Confession of their Sins they can so easily obtain the Churches Absolution which goes no farther than truly Repenting and Believing But here is the difficulty how we can satisfie our selves that these do truly Repent and Believe who are out of a Capacity of giving Proof of their Sincerity by Amendment of Life I do not question the Sincerity of their present Purposes but how often do we find those to come to nothing when they recover and fall into the former Temptations How then shall they know their own Sincerity till it be tried How can it be tried when they are going out of the State of Trial The most we can do is to encourage them to do the best they can in their present Condition and to shew as many of the Fruits of true Repentance as their Circumstances will allow and with the greatest Humility of Mind and most earnest Supplications to implore the infinite Mercy of God to their Souls But besides these there are many Cases of sick Persons which require very particular Advice and Spiritual Direction which you ought to be able to give them and it cannot be done without some good Measure of Skill and Experience in casuistical Divinity As How to satisfie a doubting Conscience as to its own Sincerity when so many Infirmities are mixed with our best Actions How a Sinner who hath relapsed after Repentance can be satisfied of the Truth of his Repentance when he doth not know but he may farther relapse upon fresh Temptations How he shall know what Failings are consistent with the State of Grace and the Hopes of Heaven and what not What Measure of Conviction and Power of Resistance is necessary to make Sins to be wilful and presumptuous What the just Measures of Restitution are in order to true Repentance in all such Injuries which are capable of it I might name many others but these I only mention to shew how necessary it is for you to apply your selves to Moral and Casuistical Divinity and not to content your selves barely with the Knowledge of what is called Positive and Controversial I am afraid there are too many who think they need to look after no more than what qualifies them for the Pulpit and I wish all did take sufficient care of that but if we would do our Duty as we ought we must inquire into and be able to resolve Cases of Conscience For the Priests Lips should keep this kind of Knowledge and the People should seek the Law at his Mouth for he is the Messenger of the
Ecclesiastical Cases Relating to the DUTIES and RIGHTS OF THE Parochial Clergy STATED and RESOLVED According to the PRINCIPLES OF Conscience and Law By the Right Reverend Father in GOD EDWARD Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1698. To the Reverend CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF WORCESTER My Brethren THE following Discourses do of Right belong to You the Substance of them being contained in what I delivered to You in several Times and Places in the Course of my Visitations In which I endeavoured to lay open the Nature and Dignity of your Function the Rules you are to observe in the Discharge of it and to state and resolve the most Important Cases which Relate to your Duties and Rights according to the Principles both of Law and Conscience For I observed that some had spoken very well of the General Nature of the Ecclesiastical Function without a particular Regard to the Limitations of the Exercise of it by our Laws Others had endeavoured to give Advice and Counsel in Point of Law who meddle not with the Obligation of Conscience And therefore I thought it necessary to joyn both these together that you might have a clear and distinct View of your Duties in both Respects For in a Matter of Positive Institution where only the General Duties are prescribed in Scripture and the Bounds of the Exercise of them depend upon the Laws of the Land I could not see how any Person could satisfie himself in the Discharge of his Duty without a Regard to both For the Care of Souls in General is a Matter of wonderful Weight and Importance and can never be sufficiently considered by those who are concerned in it But no Man among us takes upon him an Indefinite Care of Souls without Regard to Persons or Places for that would produce Confusion and endless Scruples and Perplexities of Conscience about the Nature and Obligation to Particular Duties Which cannot be prevented or removed without a right understanding the different Respect all that have taken our Holy Function upon them do stand in both to the Church in General and to that Particular Cure of Souls which they are admitted to The best way I know to represent them is to consider the Case of Dominion and Property and how far the Vniversal Obligation of Mankind to promote each others Good is consistent with the Care of their own and Families Welfare Adam had in himself the Entire and Original Dominion over all those Things which after became the Subject of particular Property when his Posterity found it necessary to make and allow several Shares and Allotments to distinct Families so as they were not to incroach or break in upon one another But the Law of Nature did not prescribe the Way and Method of Partition but left that to Occupancy or Compact And so the Heads of Families upon their Settlement in any Countrey had a twofold Obligation upon them the first was to preserve the Interest of the whole Body to which they still were bound and were to shew it upon such Occasions as required it The next was to take particular Care of these Shares which belonged to themselves so as to improve them for their Service and to protect them from the Invasion of others And Although this Division of Property was not made by any Antecedent Law yet being once made and so useful to Mankind the Violation of it by taking that which is anothers Right is a manifest Violation of the Law of Nature I do not think that the Distribution of Ecclesiastical Cures for the greater Benefit of the People is of so strict a Nature because the Matter of Property doth not extend to this Case in such a manner But since an Vniversal Good is carried on by such a Division far better than it could be without it there is an Obligation lying on all Persons who regard it to preserve that Order which conduces to so good an End And I cannot see how any Persons can better justifie the Breach of Parochial Communion as such than others can justifie the Altering the Bounds of Mens Rights and Properties because they apprehend that the common Good may be best promoted by returning to the first Community of all things If our Blessed Saviour or his Holy Apostles in the first founding of Churches had determined the Number of Persons or fixed the Bounds of Places within which those who were ordained to so holy a Function were to take care of the Souls committed to them there could have been no Dispute about it among those who owned their Authority But their Business was to lay down the Qualifications of such as were fit to be imployed in it to set before them the Nature of their Duties and the Account they must give of the Discharge of them and to Exhort all such as under took it to a Watchfulness and Diligence in their Places but they never go about to limit the Precincts within which they were to Exercise the Duties incumbent upon them When Churches were first planted in several Countries there could be no such things expected as Parochial Divisions for these were the Consequents of the General spreading of Christianity among the People As is evident in the best Account we have of the Settlement of the Parochial Clergy among us after Christianity was received by the Saxons Which was not done all at once but by several Steps and Degrees It cannot be denied by any that are conversant in our Histories that the Nation was gradually converted from Paganism by the succesful Endeavours of some Bishops and their Clergy in the several Parts of England Not by Commission from one Person as is commonly supposed but several Bishops came from several Places and applied themselves to this Excellent Work and God gave them considerable Success in it Thus Bizinus did great Service among the West Saxons and Felix the Burgundian among the East-Saxons and the Northern Bishops in the Midland-Parts as well as Augustin and his Companions in the Kingdom of Kent And in these Midland-parts as Christianity increased so the Bishops Sees were multiplied Five out of One and placed in the most convenient Distances for the further inlarging and establishing Christianity among the People The Bishops were Resident in their own Sees and had their Clergy then about them whom they sent abroad as they saw cause to those Places where they had the fairest Hopes of Success And according thereto they either continued or removed them having yet no fixed Cures or Titles All the first Titles were no other than being entred in the Bishops Register as of his Clergy from which Relation none could discharge himself without the Bishop's Consent But as yet the Clergy had no Titles to any particular Places there being no fixed Bounds of Parishes wherein any Persons were obliged to be Resident for the better Discharge of their Duties This State of an Vnfixed and
considered and practised by the Clergy of this Diocese For since it hath pleased God by his wise and over-ruling Providence without my seeking to bring me into this Station in his Church I shall esteem it the best Circumstance of my present Condition if he please to make me an Instrument of doing good among you To this end I thought it necessary in the first place most humbly to implore his Divine Assistance that I might both rightly understand and conscientiously perform that great Duty which is incumbent upon me for without his help all our Thoughts are vain and our best Purposes will be ineffectual But God is not wanting to those who sincerely endeavour to know and to do their Duty and therefore in the next place I set my self as far as my Health and other Occasions would permit to consider the Nature and Extent of my Duty with a Resolution not to be discouraged altho I met with Difficulties in the Performance of it For such is the State and Condition of the World That no Man can design to to do good in it but when that crosses the particular Interests and Inclinations of others he must expect to meet with as much Trouble as their unquiet Passions can give him If we therefore consulted nothing but our own Ease the only way were to let People follow their Humours and Inclinations and to be as little concerned as might be at what they either say or do For if we go about to rowze and awaken them and much more to reprove and reform them we shall soon find them uneasie and impatient for few love to hear of their Faults and fewer to amend them But it is the peculiar Honour of the Christian Religion to have an Order of Men set apart not meerly as Priests to offer Sacrifices for that all Religions have had but as Preachers of Righteousness to set Good and Evil before the People committed to their Charge to inform them of their Duties to reprove them for their Miscarriages and that not in order to their Shame but their Reformation Which requires not only Zeal but Discretion and a great Mixture of Courage and Prudence that we may neither fail in doing our Duty nor in the best means of attaining the end of it If we could reasonably suppose that all those who are bound to tell others their Duties would certainly do their own there would be less need of any such Office in the Church as that of Bishops who are to inspect and govern and visit and reform those who are to watch over others But since there may be too great failings even in these too great neglect in some and disorder in others too great proneness to Faction and Schism and impatience of Contradiction from mere Equals therefore St. Ierom himself grants That to avoid these Mischiefs there was a necessity of a Superiour Order to Presbyters in the Church of God ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur as he speaks even where he seems most to lessen the Authority of Bishops But whatever some Expressions of his may be when the Bishop of Ierusalem and the Roman Deacons came into his head his Reasons are very much for the Advantage of Episcopal Government For can any Man say more in point of Reason for it than that nothing but Faction and Disorder followed the Government of Presbyters and therefore the whole Christian Church agreed in the necessity of a higher Order and that the Peace and Safety of the Church depends upon it that if it be taken away nothing but Schisms and Confusions will follow I wish those who magnifie S. Ierom's Authority in this matter would submit to his Reason and Authority both as to the Necessity and Usefulness of the Order of Bishops in the Church But beyond this in several places he makes the Bishops to be Successors of the Apostles as well as the rest of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church have done If the Apostolical Office as far as it concerns the Care and Government of Churches were not to continue after their Decease how came the best the most learned the nearest to the Apostolical Times to be so wonderfully deceiv'd For if the Bishops did not succeed by the Apostles own Appointment they must be Intruders and Usurpers of the Apostolical Function and can we imagine the Church of God would have so universally consented to it Besides the Apostles did not die all at once but there were Successors in several of the Apostolical Churches while some of the Apostles were living Can we again imagine those would not have vindicated the Right of their own Order and declared to the Church That this Office was peculiar to themselves The Change of the Name from Apostles to Bishops would not have been sufficient Excuse for them for the Presumption had been as great in the Exercise of the Power without the Name So that I can see no Medium but that either the Primitive Bishops did succeed the Apostles by their own Appointment and Approbation which Irenaeus expresly affirms Qui ab Apostolis ipsis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis or else those who governed the Apostolical Churches after them out-went Diotrephes himself for he only rejected those whom the Apostles sent but these assumed to themselves the Exercise of an Apostolical Authority over the Churches planted and setled by them But to let us see how far the Apostles were from thinking that this Part of their Office was peculiar to themselves we find them in their own time as they saw occasion to appoint others to take care of the Government of the Churches within such bounds as they thought fit Thus Timothy was appointed by St. Paul at Ephesus to examine the Qualifications of such as were to be Ordained and not to lay hands suddenly on any to receive Accusations if there were cause even against Elders to proceed judicially before two or three Witnesses and if there were Reason to give them a publick Rebuke And that this ought not to be thought a slight matter he presently adds I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the elect Angels that thou observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by partiality Here is a very strict and severe Charge for the Impartial Exercise of Discipline in the Church upon Offenders And although in the Epistle to Titus he be only in general required to set in order the things that are wanting and to ordain Elders in every City as he had appointed him yet we are not to suppose that this Power extended not to a Iurisdiction over them when he had Ordained them For if any of those whom he Ordained as believing them qualified according to the Apostles Rules should afterwards demean themselves otherwise and be self-willed froward given to Wine Brawlers Covetous or any way
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
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
will be the diligent Labours and the exemplary Lives of the Clergy in it But if Men will not regard their own or the Churches Interest in this matter if they will break their Rules in such a manner as to dishonour God and the Church and themselves by it then you are to consider the next thing I was to speak to which is II. What Authority is given to us for the punishing Offenders in our Diocesses by the Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm For this we are to consider That our Authority herein is not derived from any modern Canons or Constitutions of this Church altho' due Regard ought to be shewed to them but from the ancient Common Law Ecclesiastical in this Realm which still continues in force For as there is a Common Law with respect to Civil Rights which depends not on the Feudal Constitutions altho' in many things it be the same with them but upon ancient Practice and general Consent of the People from Age to Age. So I say there is a Common Law Ecclesiastical which altho' in many things it may be the same with the Canon Law which is read in the Books yet it hath not its force from any Papal or Legatine Constitutions but from the Acceptance and Practice of it in our Church I could easily shew if the time would permit that Papal and Legatine Constitutions were not received here altho' directed hither that some Provincial Constitutions never obtained the Force of Ecclesiastical Laws but my business is to shew what did obtain and continue still to have the Force of such Ecclesiastical Laws among us By the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. it is declared That such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial being already made which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customs of this Realm nor to the Damage or Hurt to the King's Prerogative Royal shall now still be used and executed as they were afore the making of this Act c. It 's true a Review was appointed but such Difficulties were found in it as to the shaking the Foundations of the Ecclesiastical Law here that nothing was ever legally established in it and therefore this Law is still in force In the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. it is said That this Realm Recognizing no Superiour under God but the King hath been and is free from Subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been Devised Made and Observed within this Realm for the Wealth of the same or to such other as by the Sufferance of the King and his Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own Consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to Observance of the same not as to the Observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the Customs and ancient Laws of this Realm originally established as Laws of the same by the said Sufferance Consent Custom and none otherwise All that I have now to do is to shew what Authority the Bishops had over the Clergy by the Ancient Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm and what Censuâ—es they were liable to for some particular Offences I. By the Ecclesiastical Law the Bishop is Iudge of the Fitness of any Clerk presented to a Benefice This is confessed by the Lord Coke in these Words And the Examination of the Ability and Sufficiency of the Person presented belongs to the Bishop who is the Ecclesiastical Iudge and in the Examination he is a Iudge and not a Minister and may and ought to refuse the Person presented if he be not Persona idonea But this is plain to have been the Ancient Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm by the Articul Cleri in Edw. II. time De Idoneitate Personae praesentatae ad Beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Examinatio ad Iudicem Ecclesiasticum ita est hactenus usitatum fiat in futurum By the Provincial Constitutions at Oxford in the time of Hen. III. the Bishop is required to admit the Clerk who is presented without Opposition within two Months dum tamen idoneus sit if he thinks him fit So much time is allowed propter Examinationem saith Lyndwood even when there is no Dispute about Right of Patronage The main thing he is to be examined upon is his Ability to discharge his Pastoral Duty as Coke calls it or as Lyndwood saith whether he be commendandus Scientia Moribus As to the former the Bishop may judge himself but as to the latter he must take the Testimonials of others and I heartily wish the Clergy would be more careful in giving them by looking on it as a Matter of Conscience and not meerly of Civility for otherwise it will be impossible to avoid the pestering the Church with scandalous and ignorant Wretches If the Bishop refuses to admit within the time which by the Modern Canons is limited to Twenty eight Days after the Presentation delivered he is liable to a Duplex Querela in the Ecclesiastical Courts and a Quare impedit at Common Law and then he must certifie the Reasons of his Refusal In Specot's Case it is said That in 15 Hen. 7. 7 8. all the Iudges agreed that the Bishop is Iudge in the Examination and therefore the Law giveth Faith and Credit to his Iudgment But because great Inconveniencies might otherwise happen the general Allegation is not sufficient but he must certifie specially and directly and the general Rule is and it was so resolved by the Judges That all such as are sufficient Causes of Deprivation of an Incumbent are sufficient Causes to refuse a Presentee But by the Canon Law more are allowed In the Constitutions of Othobon the Bishop is required particularly to enquire into the Life and Conversation of him that is presented and afterwards that if a Bishop admits another who is guilty of the same Fault for which he rejected the former his Institution is declared null and void By the Canon Law if a Bishop maliciously refuses to admit a fit Person he is bound to provide another Benefice for him but our Ecclesiastical Law much better puts him upon the Proof of the Cause of his Refusal But if the Bishop doth not examine him the Canonists say it is a Proof sufficient that he did it malitiosé If a Bishop once rejects a Man for Insufficiency he cannot afterwards accept or admit of him as was adjudged in the Bishop of Hereford's Case If a Man brings a Presentation to a Benefice the Bishop is not barely to examine him as to Life and Abilities but he must be satisfied that he is in Orders How can he be satisfied unless the other produce them How can he produce them when it may be they are lost What is to be done in this Case The Canon is express That no Bishop shall institute any to a Benefice
all Bargains are so repugnant to the Design of it therefore the Ecclesiastical Law hath fixed that detestable Name upon it For all Contractus non gratuiti in these things savour of turpe Lucrum and tend to bring in turpe Commercium into the Church which would really overturn the whole Design of that Ministry which was designed for the Salvation of Souls And therefore it was necessary that when Persons had received by the Favour of Temporal Princes and other Benefactors who were Founders of Churches such Endowments as might encourage them in their Function that severe Laws should be made against any such sordid and mischievous Contracts And such there were here in England long before the excellent Stat. of 31 Eliz. c. 6. although it seems the Force of them was so much worn out as to make that Statute necessary for avoiding of Simony which is there explained to be Corruption in bestowing or getting Possession of Promotions Ecclesiastical In a Council at London under Lanfranc in the Conqueror's time Simony was forbidden under the Name of Buying and selling of Orders And it could be nothing else before the Churches Revenue was setled But in the time of Henry I. Ecclesiastical Benefices were forbidden to be bought or sold and it was Deprivation then to any Clergyman to be convicted of it and a Layman was to be Out-lawed and Excommunicated and Deprived of his Right of Patronage And this was done by a Provincial Synod of that time In the Reign of Henry II. it was decreed That if any Person received any Money for a Presentation he was to be for ever deprived of the Patronage of that Church and this was not meerly a Provincial Constitution but two Kings were present Hen. II. and his Son and added their Authority to it This was not depriving a Man of his Free-hold by a Canon as a Learned Gentleman calls it for here was the greatest Authority Temporal as well as Ecclesiastical added to it But we are told these Canons were of as little Effect as that of Othobon which made all Simoniacal Contracts void but some of the most judicious Lawyers have held that Simony being contractus ex turpi causâ is void between Parties All that I aim at is to shew that by our old Ecclesiastical Law Simoniacus incurred a Deprivation and Disability before the Stat. 31. Eliz. and therein I have the Opinion of a very Learned Judge concurring with me IV. Dilapidations By which the Ecclesiastical Law understands any considerable Impairing the Edifices Woods and Revenues belonging to Ecclesiastical Persons by Virtue of their Places For it is the greatest Interest and Concernment of the Church to have things preserved for the Good of Successors and it is a part of common Iustice and Honesty so to do And the Lord Coke positively affirms That Dilapidation is a good Cause of Deprivation And it was so resolved by the Judges in the Kings Bench 12 Iac. Not by Virtue of any new Law or Statute but by the old Ecclesiastical Law For which Coke refers to the Year-Books which not only shew what the Ecclesiastical Law then was but that it was allowed by the Common Law of England and we are told that is never given to change but it may be forced to it by a New Law which cannot be pretended in this case And by the Old Constitutions here received the Bishops are required to put the Clergy in mind of keeping their Houses in sufficient Reparations and if they do it not within two Months the Bishop is to take care it be done out of the Profits of the Benefice By the Injunctions of Edw. VI. and Queen Elizabeth all Persons having Ecclesiastical Benefices are required to set apart the Fifth of their Revenue to Repair their Houses and afterwards to maintain them in good condition V. Pluralities By the Ecclesiastical Law which was here received the actual receiving Institution into a second Benefice made the first void ipso Iure and if he sought to keep both above a Month the second was void too Lyndwood observes That the Ecclesiastical Law had varied in this matter And it proceeded by these Steps which are more than Lyndwood mentions I. It was absolutely forbidden to have Two Parishes if there were more than Ten Inhabitants in them because no Man could do his Duty in Both Places And if any Bishop neglected the Execution of it he was to be Excommunicated for Two Months and to be restored only upon promise to see this Canon executed II. The Rule was allowed to hold as to Cities but an Exception was made as to small and remote Places where there was a greater Scarcity of Persons to supply them III. If a Man had Two Benefices it was left to his Choice which he would have but he could not hold both This kind of Option was allowed by the Ecclesiastical Law then in force IV. That if he takes a second Benefice that Institution is void by the Third Council of Lateran under Alexander 3. V. That by taking a second the first is void which is the famous Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council VI. That if he were not contented with the last but endeavour to keep both he should be deprived of both And this was the Ecclesiastical Law as it was declared in our Provincial Constitutions But the general Practice was to avoid the former according to the Lateran Council These were very severe Canons but that one Clause of the Pope's Dispensing Power made them to signifie little unless it were to advance his Power and Revenue For when the Dispensing Power came to be owned the Law had very little Force especially as to the Consciences of Men. For if it were a Law of God how could any man dispense with it unless it were as apparent that he had given a Power in some Cases to Dispense as that he had made the Law Those Casuists are very hard put to it who make Residence Iure Divino and yet say the Pope may dispense with it which at last comes only to this That the Pope can authoritatively declare the sufficiency of the Cause so that the whole matter depends upon the Cause whether there can be any sufficient to excuse from Personal Residence It is agreed on all hands that the habitual Neglect of a Charge we have taken upon our selves is an evil thing and that it is so to heap up Preferments meerly for Riches or Luxury or Ambition but the main Question in point of Conscience is What is a sufficient Cause to justifie any Man's breaking so reasonable and just a Rule as that of Residence is It cannot be denied that the eldest Canons of the Church were so strict and severe that they made it unlawful for any Man to go from that Church in which he first received Orders as well as to take another Benefice in it and so for any
Good as it was before And could they hope it would ever mend by their running away from it Or was their Duty become more easie by declining it I think it was very well for the Church of God that notwithstanding their own many Arguments they took the Sacred Office upon them at last and did God and the Church good Service in it But if Men were to judge by their Writings upon this Argument one would think none but those who had a mind to be damned would undertake it And their great Strains of Wit and Eloquence if they had any Force would keep the best Men out of the Church who were most likely to do God Service in it and we need no other Instances than these very Persons themselves And if all good and humble and conscientious Men should for the sake of the Hardness of the Work decline the Church's Service and take any other lawful Imployment what would become of the Church of God For none that had or intended to keep a good Conscience could undertake the Cure of Souls and so they must be left to such as had no Regard to their own but were either ignorant stupid and senseless Creatures or such as regarded not their own Salvation who durst undertake such a Task as would not only add to their own Guilt but bring the heavy Load of other Mens Faults upon them too What is now to be done in this Case Hath God really imposed such a Task upon all those who enter into this Sacred Function that it is morally impossible for an honest Man to discharge it with a good Conscience How then can any such undertake it But if it may be done what are those Bounds and Rules we are to observe so as a good Man may satisfie himself in a competent Measure that he hath done his Duty II. And this is that which I shall now endeavour to clear For every one who is in Orders hath a double Capacity One with Respect to the Church of God in General another to that particular Flock which is allotted to him by the Constitution of this Church and the Law of the Land For although the Nature of our Duty in general be determined by the Word of God as I have already ready shewed yet the particular Obligation of every one to his own Flock is according to that Power and Authority which by the Rules and Orders of this Church is committed to him and is fully expressed in the Office of Ordination By which it plainly appears that the Care of Souls committed to Persons among us is not an absolute indefinite and unaccountable Thing but is limited as to Place Persons and Duties which are incumbent upon them They are to teach the People committed to their Charge By whom By the Bishop when he gives Institution They are to give private as well as publick Monitions and Exhortations as well to the sick as to the whle What to all No but to those within their Cure They are to banish erroneous Doctrines and to promote Peace and Love especially among them committed to their Charge And last of all they are to Obey those who have the Charge and Government over them These things are so express and plain in the very Constitution of this Church and owned so solemnly by every one that enters into Orders that there can be no Dispute concerning them And from thence we observe several things that tend to the Resolution of the main Point as to the Satisfaction of doing your Duties as Incumbents on your several Places I. That it is a Cure of Souls limited as to Persons and Place i.e. within such a Precinct as is called a Parish II. That it is limited as to Power with Respect to Discipline Therefore I shall endeavour to clear these Two Things I. What the just Bounds and Limits of Parochial Cures are II. What is the Measure of that Diligence which is required within those Bounds As to the former we are to begin with the Limitation as to Place I. That it is a Cure of Souls limited within certain Bounds which are called Parishes which are now certainly known by long Usage and Custom and ought still to be preserved with great Care for otherwise Confusion and Disputes will arise between several Ministers and several Parishes with one another For since the Duties and the Profits are both limited it is necessary that those Bounds should be carefully preserved as they generally are by Annual Perambulations But there are some who will understand nothing of this bounding of Ministerial Duties by distinct Parishes who think they are at liberty to exercise their Gifts where-ever they are called and that it were better that these parochial Inclosures were thrown open and all left at liberty to chuse such whom they liked best and under whom they can improve most These things seem to look plausibly at the first Appearance and to come nearest to the first gathering of Churches before any such thing as Parishes were known But to me this Arguing looks like Persons going about now to overthrow all Dominion and Property in Lands and Estates because it seems not so agreeable with the first natural Freedom of Mankind who according to the Original Right of Nature might pick and chuse what served most to their own Conveniency But although this were the first State of things yet the great Inconveniencies which followed it upon the Increase of Mankind made Division and Property necessary and altho' there be no express Command of God for it yet being so necessary for the Good of Mankind it was not only continued every where but those Persons were thought fit to be punished by severe Laws who invaded the Rights and Properties of others either by open Violence and Rapine or by secret Stealth and Purloining I grant that at first there were no such Parochial Divisions of Cures here in England as there are now For the Bishops and their Clergy lived in Common and before that the Number of Christians was much increased the Bishops sent out their Clergy to preach to the People as they saw Occasion But after the Inhabitants had generally embraced Christianity this Itinerant and Occasional going from Place to Place was found very inconvenient because of the constant Offices that were to be administred and the Peoples knowing to whom they should resort for Spiritual Offices and Directions Hereupon the Bounds of Parochial Cures were found necessary to be settled here by degrees by those Bishops who were the great Instruments of converting the Nation from the Saxon Idolatry But a Work of this Nature could not be done all at once as by a kind of Agrarian Law but several Steps were taken in order to it At first as appears by Bede they made use of any old British Churches that were left standing so Augustin at first made use of St. Martin's near Canterbury and after repaired Christs-Church which were both British Churches But Ethelbert gave all
made the Christian Doctrine ridiculous to found its Fundamental Precepts on extravagant Notions and Mystical Contemplations And so for the Love of our Neighbours to allow only a Love of Benevolence and Charity and not of Delight and Complacency is to make Nice Distinctions where God hath made none But to take away the Love of Complacency in Friends and Relations and the Blessings which God gives for the Comfort of Life is to overthrow the due Sense of God's Goodness in giving them and to take away a great Measure of that Gratitude we owe to God for them But when any seem very fond of such Notions and shew so much Self-Complacency in them it is impossible upon such Principles that they should love their Neighbours as themselves 4. If you would understand the New Testament aright fix in your Minds a true Scheme of the State of the Controversies of that Time which will give you more light into the true knowledge of the Scriptures than large Volumes of Commentators or the best Systems of Modern Controversies As what the Iewish Notions of Justification by Works and Expiation of Sin were and of God's Decrees of Election and Reprobation as to themselves And what the Principles of the Judaizing Christians were as to the joyning the Law and the Gospel and the Pythagorean Superstition together And what the Gnosticks who were professed Libertines held as to Grace Redemption Liberty Government c. All which tend very much to the clearing the Sense of the New Testament 5. Where the Sense appears doubtful and Disputes have been raised about it enquire into the Sense of the Christian Church in the first Ages as the best Interpreter of Scripture as whether the Apostles left Bishops or Presbyters to succeed them in the Government of Churches Whether the Apostles appointed the Lords Day to be observed as the Day of Publick Worship Whether Baptism were not to be Administred to Infants as well as Circumcision both being Seals of God's Covenant Whether Divine Worship doth not belong to Christ and were â—oâ— given to him in the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church and Whether Divine Worship can be given to any Creature Whether the Form of Baptism was not understood so as to imply a Trinity of Persons and Whether all true Christians were not Baptized into this Faith and consequently Whether denying the Trinity be not renouncing Christian Baptism These and many other such Questions of great Importance receive great Light from the Writings of the first Ages But some Rules may be very useful for right judging the Sense of those Times 1. To distinguish the Genuine and Supposititious Writings of that Time This hath been examined with so much Care by Learned Men of this last Age that it is no hard matter to make a true Judgment about them 2. In those that are Genuine to distingush the Sense of the Church delivered by them from their own particular Opinions the Sense of the Church is best known by Publick Acts as by Creeds Sacraments Hymns Prayers and Censures of such as oppose or contradict them 3. To put a Difference between the Authority of private Persons and of the Bishops and Governours of the Church who may be presumed to understand the Sense of the Church and the Doctrine of the Apostles better than the other And so Clemens Ignatius Polycarp Theophilus and Irenaeus are more to be trusted as to the Sense and Practice of the Christian Church than such as Hermes and Papias and Tatianus who had neither the Judgment nor the Authority of the other 4. That may be justly looked on as the Sense of the Church which is owned both by the Friends and the Enemies of it The Enemies of Christianity charged them with many Things which the Apologists utterly denied Now we find Pliny charging the Christians with singing Hymns to Christ as to God several Christian Writers of that time mention this but never go about to soften or to excuse or deny it And so we find Lucian deriding the Christians for the Doctrine of Three and One which the Apologists of that time are so far from denying that they assert and vindicate it as appears by Athenagoras and others But these things I only touch at to shew how the Sense of the Church is to be taken and how from thence the Sense of the Scriptures may be cleared OF THE Particular Duties OF THE PAROCHIAL CLERGY AT A VISITATION October 27 th 1696. My Brethren AS often as it pleases God in his wise Providence to bring me among you in the ordinary Course of my Visitation I cannot satisfie my self that I do my own Duty unless I put you in mind of doing yours We live in an Age wherein the Contempt of the Clergy is too notorious not to be observed but the true Reasons are not so well considered as they ought to be Some to increase the Contempt of the Clergy have given such Reasons of it as seem to make it a light and jesting matter but truly it is very far from being so For the Contempt of Religion is oft-times both the Cause and the Effect of it It is not at all to be wondred at that those who hate to be reformed should hate those whose Duty and Business it ought to be to endeavour to reform them But when Religion is struck at through our Sides we ought with Patience to bear the Wounds and Reproaches we receive in so good a Cause Wo be to us if those who are Enemies to Religion speak well of us For it is a strong Presumption that they take us to be of their side in our Hearts and that we are distinguished only by our Profession which they look on only as our Trade And we give too much occasion for such Suspicions of us if we do not heartily concern our selves for the Honour and Interest of true Religion in the World whatever we may suffer as to our Reputation for the sake of it It is possible that if we go about to humour such Persons in their Infidelity and Contempt of Religion we may escape some hard Words for the present but they cannot but have the greatest inward Contempt and Hatred of all those who live upon Religion and yet have not the Courage to defend it And what Satisfaction can such have when they reflect upon themselves and think what Occasion they have given to confirm such Persons in their Infidelity and to make them think the worse of Religion for their sakes The best thing we can do to recover the Honour of Religion and to set our Profession above Contempt is to apply our selves seriously and conscientiously to do our Duties For if others find that we are in earnest and make it our great Business to do all the Good we can both in the Pulpit and out of it if we behave our selves with that Gravity Sobriety Meekness and Charity which becomes so holy a Profession we shall raise our selves above the common
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
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
to speak more afterwards But in the Saxon times here were other sorts of Oblations As 1 the Cyrycsceat or First-fruits of Corn payable at S. Martin's day Ina LL. 4. 62. Edmund c. 2. and is often mentioned in Doomsday-book and in Fleta l. 2. c. 47. Malmsb. l. 2. c. 11. and the Oblation of Poultrey at Christmas is mentioned in Doomsday under that Title 2. There was here another kind of Oblation called Plow-Alms which was a Peny for every Plow between Easter and Whitsontide This is mentioned in the Laws of King Ethelred and required to be paid Fifteen days after Easter although it be called Eleemosyna Aratralis In the Endowment of the Vicarage of S. Ives Plow-Alms is mentioned besides the Altarage and Obventions But all these Oblations made a very poor Subsistence for the Parochial Clergy III. And therefore I come to the main Legal Support of the Parochial Clergy which is in Tithes Concerning which I shall proceed in this Method I. To consider the Foundation in Law which they stand upon II. The Rules of Law which are to be observed about them I. As to the Foundation they stand upon in point of Law My Lord Coke not only saith That the Parochial Right of Tithes is established by divers Acts of Parliament but he mentions the Saxon Laws before the Conquest for the Payment of Tithes of Edward and Gathrun Ethelstan Edmund Edgar Canutus and King Edward ' s confirmed by William I. Hobart saith That Tithes are things of common Right and do of Right belong to the Church And since Parishes were erected they are due to the Parson except in spiritual regular Cases or Vicar of the Parish In the Register of Writs a Book of great Authority there is a Writ of Consultation for Tithes wherein they are owned to be of common Right as well as immemorial Custom due to the Rector within the Limits of his Parish Lord Chief Justice Dyer saith That Tithes can never be extinguished because they are of common Right The same is affirmed by Justice Dodderidge in the Case of Fosse and Parker In Pieddle and Napper's Case Tithes are said to be an Ecclesiastical Inheritance collateral to the Estate in Land and of their own Nature due to an Ecclesiastical Person And That all Lands of common Right are to pay Tithes Therefore it is said by Hobart in Slade's Case That no Land can be discharged of Tithes although it may be discharged of the actual Payment In Popham's Reports we read That it is a Maxim in Law that all Persons ought to pay Tithes and all Lands shall be charged with them of common Right So that if the Judgment of some of the greatest Men of the Profession may be taken nothing can be more clear and evident than the Legal Right of Tithes But it falls out unhappily among us that nothing hath been the Occasion of so much Difference and Contention between the Incumbents and their Parishioners than the Point of the Payment of Tithes So that some have wished them changed into some other way of Maintenance but I cannot see any Reason why so ancient so legal so just a Maintenance should be changed into any other which would less answer the End and be liable to as many Difficulties if not far more but every Change of this kind where we cannot be secured of the Event is very dangerous especially when it proceeds from Want of Judgment or Ill-will to the Profession both which are to be suspected in this case If the ill Humours of some People could be changed it would signifie far more to the Quiet of the Clergy than altering their legal Maintenance Therefore the best way is to enquire into the Reasons of this Dissatisfaction that we may find out the proper Methods to remove it and thereby to prevent the troublesom and vexatious Suits about them which make the parochial Clergy so uneasie and their Labour often unsuccessful with the People And there is a twofold Dissatisfaction which lies at the bottom of most of these Contentions about Tithes 1. In Point of Conscience 2. In Point of Law 1. In Point of Conscience There is a sort of People among us who are very obstinate in this Matter and will rather chuse to go to Prison and lie there than pay their Tithes I have often thought whence such a Stiffness should arise in a matter of Legal Right If they had opposed all Determinations of Property by Law they had been more consistent with themselves but to allow the Law to determine the Right as to Nine Parts and not as to the Tenth is not to be reconciled For if the Question be concerning the other parts to whom they do belong may not Men as well dispute the matter of Dominion and Property in them May they not say that the Seed is our own and the Labour and Charges our own why then shall I answer to another for the Profit which arises from my Pains and Expence If it be replied That the Law hath given the Property of the Land to one and the Use to another why may they not pretend this to be an unreasonable Law to separate one from the other since Land was given for the Use and the Original Right of Dominion was from what was necessary for Use therefore the separating Right and Use is an Incroachment on the Natural Rights of Mankind And there seems to be more Colour for this than for any to allow the Laws to determine the Right of Nine Parts to belong to the Lord of the Soil but the Tenth by no means to go that way which the Law of the Land hath long since determined it So that the Lord of the Soil either by Descent or Purchase can claim no Right to it for neither did his Ancestors enjoy it nor those who sold the Land to a Purchaser consider it as his own for then he would have had the Value of it The Tenth Part then is set aside in Valuation of Estates as already disposed of and the Question is Whether the same Law which settled the Right to the other shall determine this likewise Is it not a part of natural Injustice to detain that which by Law belongs to another And is not the Law the Measure of Right in Cases of Difference between Man and Man Why then should not the Law fairly and equally determine this matter to whom the Tenth of the Profits belongs But still they say It is against their Conscience and they cannot do it Is it against their Conscience to do Acts of Natural Justice not to detain that from another which of Right belongs to him But it is in vain to argue with people who do not judge of things by the common light of Reason and Justice but by an unaccountable Light within them which none can judge of but themselves and in matter of Interest Men are the worst Judges in their own Case 2. Therefore
the Prescription And therefore he resolves it into a Modus decimandi But he mentions several Judgments that no Tithe is due for After-pasture where Tithe-Hay hath been paid before which must be where there was no Custom to the contrary or else he must contradict himself And so Yelverton saith in the Case of Green and Austen That of common Right Tithe-Hay discharges the Tithe of the After-pasture But Crook saith That in that case the Court went upon the Prescription and allowed it to be good How could it go upon both And Sir S. Degge is positive that if a Meadow affords two Crops the Parson shall have Tithe of both How can these things consist Or what Authority may we rely upon in such Difference of Opinions 2. Another Rule in Law is That things which are ferae Naturae are not tithable But here we are to seek what things are ferae Naturae Whether such things as may be tamed and kept under Custody and become a Man's Property are ferae Naturae Is it not Felony to steal Rabbets or Pigeons if it be they must be some Man's Property and if they be a Man's proper Goods how can they be said to be ferae Naturae For the meaning was That no Man was to pay Tithes for that which was not his own Are not Bees ferae Naturae as much as Pigeons and Rabbets But the Tithe of Bees is allowed to be paid by the Tenth of the Honey and Wax But Rolls saith That it was doubted whether a Tenth Swarm were a good Modus for the Tithe of Bees because they are ferae Naturae The Reason is because they are left wild and under no Custody but if they went into several Hives belonging to the Proprietor they might be tithable by the Hives And so for Pigeons under Custody in a Dove-house they are a Man's Property and therefore tithable As it hath been several times resolved in Courts of Law 14 Iac. in Whately and Fanbor's Case in Iones and Gastrill's Case a Prohibition was denied and Justice Dodderidge declared to whom the Court assented that Tithe was due both of young Pigeons and Conies But the prevailing Opinion hath been That if they are consumed in the House they are not tithable but if sold they are But are they not ferae Naturae as well when they are sold at Market as when they are eaten at home Why then are they tithable in one Case and not in the other If they are tithable at all they are so where-ever they are spent for in tithing the Nature of the thing is to be considered and not the Place of spending it For upon the same Reason there would be no Tithe of Corn spent at home or Pigs Calves c. and therefore I look on the Reason as of worse Consequence than the total denying the Payment For who can tell how far this Reason may be carried in other Cases But it is resolved in many Cases that though they are ferae Naturae yet by Custom they may be tithed and so for Fish Custom it seems hath the Power of reducing things ferae Naturae to the same Condition with other things But as far as I can find these things by our old Constitutions were as tithable as other things but the notion of their being ferae Naturae being started served as a Plea against them where the Custom was not continued and where it was beyond all Dispute then they said they were not tithable in themselves but only by Custom or not by Law but by Custom and yet such Customs make a part of our Law In several ancient Appropriations Fish and Pigeons and Rabbets are expresly mentioned as given together with other Tithes so that in those times both Law and Custom went together For the Lords of Manors were not wont to give Tithes which were not otherwise due 3. But what is to be done with those Lands which might afford Tithe if the Increase of Grass were suffered but the Owners feed Cattel upon it and so there can be no Tithes what Remedy doth the Law afford in this case 1. It is agreed that no Tithe is due if no other Cattel be fed but such as the Owner pays Tithe for or are imployed in plowing or any other way which is for the Benefit of the Incumbent of that Parish where they are fed For otherwise they are but as barren Cattel to him 2. That there is a certain Rate due for the Agistment of barren Cattel Iure communi and so delivered by Hales then Chief Baron according to the Value of the Land unless Custom hath determined otherwise And so for Guest-Horses c. unless the Inn-keeper had paid Tithe-Hay say some or the Custom be otherwise But none for Saddle-Horses for the Use of the Owner One of the Judges dissenting because not intended for Husbandry But for unprofitable Cattel the tenth part of the Bargain is due or according to the Value of the Land and the Owner of the Cattel is compellable to pay 3. If profitable and unprofitable be mixed so as the latter be the greater Number then Herbage must be paid for them and Tithe in kind for the profitable but if the profitable be the greater Number it is questioned whether the other are not excused but no Law or Precedent is produced for it And there seems to be no Reason if Pasturage be due for unprofitable Cattel why they should be excused because there are more profitable unless their Number be inconsiderable These things I have only briefly touched at that you may the better govern your selves in Disputes of this Nature and as you are not to lose the just Rights of the Church so neither is it for your Interest or Honour to be engaged in them where the Law will not bear you out II. The next thing necessary to be considered is the legal Discharges from the Payment of Tithes For although the Reason of the Payment of them be founded on the Law of God and the Settlement of Tithes among us hath been by ancient and unquestionable Laws of the Land yet the Recovery of Tithes when unjustly detained can be no otherwise than by the Law of the Land as it is now in force And if these do allow several Discharges and Exemptions not to be found in the ancient Laws or Practice we shall but involve our selves in fruitless-Contentions if we dispute those Limitations which the Law hath put upon the Payment of Tithes And therefore our Business is to enquire and satisfie our selves as well as we can about the Nature and Extent of these Limitations Now there are four sorts of Discharges of the Payment of Tithes allowed 1. By Appropriations to Monasteries 2. By Privileges of particular Orders 3. By Prescription and real Compositions 4. By Unity and Possession Of
Case of Hitchcock and Hitchcock there was a Contract between the Vicar and Parishioners but it was denied to be a real Composition although confirmed by the Ordinary and affirmed not to be binding to the Successors A Composition by a meer verbal Agreement in the Case of Hawles and Bayfield was declared to be neither binding to the Party nor his Successors But in the Case of Tanner and Small it was declared to hold for Years but not for Life My Lord Coke seems to be of Opinion That if it be a Prescription it must be time out of Memory of Man but that a real Composition may be either before or within Memory of Man but then it must be by Parson Patron and Ordinary It is well observed by Sir Simon Degge in his useful Book about these matters that although real Compositions are supposed in Law to be the Foundation of Prescriptions de Modo decimandi where the Patron Ordinary and Parson did consent to them yet that the most of them have grown up by the Negligence and Carelesness of the Clergy themselves which I am afraid is too true And he is of Opinion That no real Composition can be made now to bind the Successor since the Statute 13 Eliz. c. 10. which restrains all binding Grants to One and twenty Years or Three Lives and if so then the Consent of Patron and Ordinary cannot make it good 2. It must be reasonable and therefore it hath been rejected in these Cases 1. If it be a Prescription to pay a certain Tithe without the Parson's View of the Nine Parts because saith Hobart it is against the Law of Partition in the Case of Wilson and the Bishop of Carlisle 2. If there be no Recompence to the Parson as in the Case of Scory and Barber the Prescription was founded on the Parishioners finding Straw for the Body of the Church 3. If it be for paying only what was due in lieu of other Tithes as in the Case of Ingoldsby and Iohnson that they paid their other Tithes in lieu of Tithes of dry Cattel or in Case a Load of Hay be prescribed for in lieu of Tithe-Hay or Ten Sheafs of Corn for the Tithe of all the rest 4. If it be not for something certain and durable For this saith Hobart shews an Original Weakness in the Composition being of a thing certain and durable for that which is not so IV. The last Exemption or Discharge that is pleaded as to the payment of Tithes is Unity of Possession That is where a Monastery had the Right of Tithes by Appropriation and had other Lands which did not pay Tithes because the owners were to receive them these were actually free at the time of Dissolution and the Question is Whether they are legally so by Virtue of the Statute It cannot be denied that Unity of Possession is in it self no legal Discharge but whether by the Words of the Statute the Judges were divided in Opinion But afterwards in the Case of Green and Bosekin the Judges allowed it so it were not a meer Unity of Estate but of Occupation Hobart saith That after it had been long controverted it was received as the common Opinion Coke That where Unity of Possession gives a Discharge the Title must be clear the Non-payment general and the Prescription time out of Memory but if the Appropriation were made in the time of Ed. 4. H. 6. it could not be discharged by Unity nor if it were a late Abby-prescription Thus I have endeavoured to lay this matter before you as briefly and clearly as I could from the best Light I could get that I might give you such Directions that you may neither run into needless and vexatious Suits nor be run down by frivolous Pretences It is your great Advantage that you have the Law of your side if you understand it a right but have a care of being set on by such whose Interest it is to promote Suits and I am sure it is yours to prevent them if it be possible and as much as lies in you The Church's Right is not to suffer by your Negligence and you are not to make the Church to suffer by your Contentions He that loves going to Law seldom fails of having enough of it he suffers in his Purse in his Reputation in his Interest and the Church suffers by his Means Endeavour to gain as much as may be the Love of your People by a kind modest courteous and peaceable Behaviour which is the best way to prevent or to compose Differences If you are forced to sue for your Maintenance let them see that you are forced to it and that you are always willing to put an end to all such Disputes if the Church's Right be secured which you are bound to preserve OF THE OBLIGATION To observe the Ecclesiastical CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS AT A VISITATION October 29 th 1696. IN speaking clearly and distinctly to this Case there are these two Things to be considered I. By what Authority they do oblige II. In what Way and Manner they oblige I. The first thing to be considered is the Authority by which Ecclesiastical Canons and Constitutions do oblige For if there be not sufficient Authority there cannot be that Obligation on Conscience which supposes a legal Exercise of Power or a just Right to command Our Obedience to the Orders of our Superiours is due by Virtue of that Divine Law which requires us to be subject for Conscience-sake But our Obedience is to be regulated by the Order of Iustice i.e. it ought to be according to Law Therefore it is necessary in the first place to enquire Whether there be among us any such things as Ecclesiastical Laws i.e. such Rules which according to the Constitution of our Government we are bound to observe For we are Members of a Church established by Law and there are legal Duties incumbent on us with respect not only to the Laws of God but of the Realm For although our Office and Authority as Church-men hath a higher Original yet the Limitation of the Exercise of it is within such Bounds as are allowed and fixed by the Law of the Land It is therefore a matter of great Consequence to us to understand how far our Ecclesiastical Constitutions are grounded upon the Law of the Land which cannot be done without searching into the Foundations of our Laws Which lie in three Things 1. Immemorial Custom 2. General Practice and Allowance 3. Authority of Parliament And I shall endeavour to shew how far our Ecclesiastical Constitutions are founded on these 1. Immemorial Custom Our greatest Lawyers allow Ancient Custom to be one of the Foundations of our Laws and my Lord Coke calls it one of the main Triangles of the Laws of England I suppose he means Foundations And another saith That the Common Law of England is
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
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
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