power given to Churches to see the Popes dispose at their pleasure of the goods and Lands which Kings their Predecessours had given to Churches at that time when they had the power over them It is certain Princes would never have granted such large Revenues to Churches if they had thought that they should have fallen into the hands of the Popes For to what end was it to give to Churches whole Towns and great Demains with secular Jurisdiction when the same was not to be in their disposal for the future The German Historians attribute chiefly to the Emperours Otho's the enriching the Bishops and Monasteries of Germany with so great Revenues (1) Theodor. de Hiem priv Jur. Imper. Otho primus omnibus penè Cathedralibus Ecclesiis in Italia Gallia Germania Burgundia et Lotharingia constitutis multas civitates castra oppida villas multa alia dominia temporalia Jurisdictiones donavit atque illis omnibus Ecclesiis propria insignia perpetuo deputavit Archiepiscopos quoque episcopos ducatibus comitatibus baroniis communivit quibus nobiles potentes vasallos subjecit ut semper essent ad resistendum manu fortiâ— aganis Hareticis c. That does not altogether agree with the reflexions that Father 2 Paul hath made in his History where he pretends that the Bishops of Germany during the Wars that were betwixt the Emperours and Popes had usurped the Lands which at present they enjoy with the Titles of Peers Marquesses and Counts Though that may indeed be true of some yet it cannot be generally affirmed of all for the Records of those Churches evince the contrary Nevertheless the titles which they produce ought to be well examined because many of them are false Seeing Bishops and Abbots were at that time employed in the greatest affairs of State it was easy for them to obtain what they desired of Princes Besides that they being more capable of business than Laicks the same Princes consided much in them But these great Revenues wherewith Churches have been enriched have only served to kindle War betwixt Popes and Princes every one pretending â—o have a particular right over Ecclesiastical Revenues And that divided the Authors of these times some writing in favour of the rights pretended by Princes and others in favour of the Popes And it is no easy matter at present to reconcile together the rights of those two Powers No man can deny The Authority of the Pope concerning Benefices but that the Pope â—â— Bishop or Metropolitan of Rome Patriarch of the West and Head of thâ—â— Church I shall not now examine by whâ—â— Right Divine or Positive these tither belong to him for that is a Question of Divinity rather than History It moreover certain that the Pope hath 〈◊〉 all these Qualities in vain and that 〈◊〉 very one ought to enjoy some rights thâ—â— are peculiar to him It is not questions but that in quality of Bishop of Rome he may dispose of the Benefices with his Diocese It remains then only to 〈◊〉 inquired into whether he can in qualiâ—â— of Patriarch of the West and Head 〈◊〉 the Church by right provide for all thâ—â— Benefices or Ecclesiastical Dignities 〈◊〉 all Christendom If we consult the matter of fact it is of publick Notoriety that the Church of Rome hath not haâ—â— any Priviledge as to that above other Churches Every one took care of providing what Ministers they wanter without having recourse to Rome anâ—â— when difficulties arose they were adjusted in Provincial Synods No maâ—â— ever wrote before the Establishment oâ—â— the new Law that the Bishop of Rome alone in quality of the Successor of St. Peter had all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and that other Bishops were only his Vicars or Delegates Popes nevertheless do at present pretend that their Authority in respect of Ecclesiastical Revenues is founded on Divine Right and that because they had not for many ages enjoyed it it ought not to be inferred that they had no Right to it A Divine Right say they being essentially inherent in the Person of the Pope can never prescribe And it is a bad consequence to say that Popes have no Right because they have not for a long time enjoyed it nor do at present enjoy it in its full extent Men are sometimes obliged not to make use of their Right or to remit part of it for Peace sake Laws in their rigour are sometimes prejudicial to the repose of the Church and in that case mild ways suitable to the times are to be followed And therefore (1) Innoc. III. de translat Episc tit 7. cap. 1. Pope Innocent III. affirms in one of his Epistles that the Translations of Bishops and other changes of Sees belong by Right to the Church of Rome that Popes enjoy that Priviledge in Quality of thâ—â— Successours of St. Peter and that in that Quality they are above all the Canon Law So that according to his Logick we ought not so much to consider what is decreed by the Canons as what is Commanded by Popes on whom thâ—â— same Canons depend because accordâ— to his Principle all the Canon Law derives its force and Authority from thâ—â— Primacy of St. Peter Pope Innocent who laid down thâ—â— Maxim in favour of his See knew for aâ—â— that that all the Ancient Canon Law is contrary to it and that the Election Translations Demissions or Resignations of Bishops were made in Provincâ—â— Synods and besides that Princes have had a great share in all those matters within their own Kingdoms For instance the Practice of the Church oâ—â— France under the first Race of their Kings was very far different from that pretended Divine Right mentioned in the compilation of the Decretals For we find that the Kings by themselves called Councils for affairs of that nature and that (1) Gâ—â—gor Turon lib. 5. cap. 20 27. in the greatest causes such as the deposing of Bishops they named for Judges what Bishops they pleased within their Kingdom In a word Kings and the Bishops of places handled in Councils the affairs which the Popes now a days pretend to belong to them by Divine Right It is true under the Second Race of the French Kings the Authority of the Popes was greater in France But it was still limited by the Princes without whose consent they could do nothing even in the causes which are called the greater and whereof the decision seemed to be reserved to the Popes As to matters of smaller importance the Bishops had the absolute power over them and the whole disposition of Benefices depended on them The Popes had never dreamt of the right which is now established if private men who disputed one with another about the validity of their Elections had not had their recourse to the chief See for decision of their Controversies We find still in the Eleventh Century instances of the power of Provincial Councils who received Resignations or Demissions made by Bishops and admitted
of that Subjuct And it is for the same reason that I have not said any thing neither of the Original of Tithes because it hath been also well enough handled by Fra. Paolo All men are sufficiently perswaded that under the first Race of the Kings of France that Nation had no recourse to Rome for regulating the affairs of the Church The Popes Power in France Nay and under the Second Race Charlemain who gave a great deal of authority to Popes did not consult them about the Erection of the new Bishopricks and Arch-Bishopricks which he established In Italy it self many Ages after the Princes and Bishops were absolute Masters of all that belonged to Churches The Prince or Judges appointed by him decided the differences that happened betwixt Bishops and Abbots and amongst other Church-Men concerning their Revenues and Priviledges but seeing matters now a days are settled in another manner and that the Discipline of the Church is wholly altered I thought it necessary having observed the original and Progress of Church Revenues to describe in a few words the present State of beneficial matters It would be to no purpose to know the Customs of our Fore-Fathers if we be ignorant of what is at present in use amongst our selves The former serve only for our instruction but the latter will be useful for the conduct of our lives An Explication of the New Canon Law I shall say nothing in this place of the Original of Benefices in the manner that they are established at present for it is very well known that they did nor begin till about the Eleventh Century And whereas in the Ancient Canons there is only mention made of Ordination and the Ministry afterward there was no more talk but of the Portion or Benefice Nevertheless though the manners of expression and a great part of the Ancient Discipline were wholly changed yet in many things the Maxims of the Ancient Law were still observed For Instance heretofore Ordination differed not from the Ministry or Benefice and therefore when by the Introduction of the New Law they were separated that Maxim was still retained That he who can Ordain can also Confer a Benefice and that he who cannot Ordain cannot Confer a Benefice neither But by degrees the Popes have by their Priviledges and Exemptions derogated from the Common Law that was grounded on the Ancient Canons and we see that Abbots exempted from the Jurisdiction of Ordinaries confer in full right Cures and other Benefices Though the Establishment of Benefices be commonly referred to the end of the Tenth Century or beginning of the Eleventh yet some footsteps of them are to be seen long before For about the year 500 under Pope Symmachus to some Church-men Portions of Land were assigned to be enjoyed by them for Life as appears by the terms of (1) Tom. 1. Concil Gal. Ann. 513. the Epistle of that Pope to Caesarius where he prohibits the alienation of Church-Lands unless it be in favours of Clerks who might have merited or of some Monasteries or Hospitals and that only during the Life of those that should enjoy them Possessiones Ib. q. 1. possessiones quas unusquisque Ecclesiae proprio dedit aut reliquit arbitrio alienari quibuslibet titulis atque contractibus vel sub quocunque argumento non patimur nisi forsitan Clericis honorem meritis aut Monasteriis religionis intuitu aut certe peregrinis necessitas largiri suaserit sic tamen ut haec ipsa non perpetuò sed temporaliter donec vixerint perfruantur These words make it manifest enough that even in that time there was some kind of Benefice though the Portion of Revenues was not as yet made to Church-men in particular but that was rare at that time and only granted for extraordinary Causes There are besides some footsteps of the Foundations of Benefices and of the Right of Patronage in the Tenth Canon of (1) Ann. 441. the First Council of Orange but the Custom of that Time was far different from the present Practice The Rules of the New Canon Law which began chiefly under Pope Nicholas I. who lived about the middle of the Ninth Age brought a great alteration in the Affairs of the Church Pope Gregory VII who lived pretty forward in the Eleventh Age 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 Law extended the Rules of that New Law beyond all that his Predecessors had done And the Popes that came after him were so far from remitting any thing of these Novelties that on the contrary they augmented them so that the Law which hath been introduced into the Church since that time deserves better to be called the Popes Law than the Canon Law because in settling this New Law there hath not been so much regard had to the Ancient Laws of the Church as to the Profit of the Popes and Court of Rome And this in process of time occasioned great disorders so that Princes were obliged to make Laws and Prag maticks to hinder those Abuses though it hath not been in their power entirely to abolish them The Compilation which Gratian the Monk (1) Ann. 1150. made of the Canons of Councils the Decretal Epistles of Popes and of many sentences of the Fathers of which he made up a Body of Canon Law contributed much to the authorising of the New Law For that Collection of Canons was publickly taught in Schools and even made use of in deciding Controversies The Fathers and Councils were not studied in their Original but only in the Decrees of Gratian and Men were not knowing enough at that time to perceive that a great many of the Citations of Gratian were false and that he followed not always the Rules of the Ancient Laws having inserted into his Collection several supposititious Pieces Besides that he gave to the Popes Decretals the same Authority as to general Councils and sometimes even perverted the words of the Ancient Canons that he might accommodate them to the Law which was authorized by the Popes of his Time But the Collection of the Decretal Epistles of Popes which (1) Ann. 1230. was made by order of Gregory IX occasioned a far greater Alteration in the Affairs of the Church Nevertheless they were in France publickly read in Schools as well as the Collection of Gratian. These Decretals have been the cause of an infinite number of Law-Suits and though they were received in the Western Church and publickly taught by the Professors of the Canon Law yet there was a necessity of rejecting them on several occasions and having recourse to the Ancient Canons At that time the Compilation of Gratian was called the Ancient Law though it contained a great many Novelties But being compared with the Book of Decretals there was some reason for calling it so The tedious and troublesom Debates which the Kings of France had with the Popes was the cause that the French despised the Collection of the Decretals nor are they at present much esteemed
powerful at Rome because of their Generals that commonly reside there or of their Procurators that live in that Court for the affairs of their Societies hinder as much as they can the Secularisation of Benefices which they pretend does of Right belong to them VII The King cannot Alienate the Church Lands of his Kingdom without the permission and consent of the Pope Alienations depend on the Pope nor can he raise the Tenths of he Clergy which have in process of time been converted into Ordinary Subsidies without obtaining Power from the Pope Heretofore Church-men pretended that their goods were consecrated to God and that so they were not obliged to lay them out for maintaining of Wars or for other publick necessities it being enough that they contributed to them by their Prayers But the specious pretext of holy Wars cured them of that Scruple and it was decreed in the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. That these Tenths should be taken from Ecclesiasticks for the Expeditions of the Holy Land After a Door was once opened to Tenths the Popes and Kings together often raise them But seeing Popes had got a Custom of raising Tenths in France for their own private concerns it was decreed in the Council of Constance Concil Constantiense that they should be no more raised but with consent of the Prelates of the Kingdom and thereby the Popes were excluded from the Liberty of raising them However those that were granted to Kings encreased much and that which in the beginning was very extraordinary hath since turned into a Custom The necessity of maintaining long Wars in France for Religion promoted very much the establishment of Tenths which is at present a kind of Tax upon the Church-men collected by receivers appointed for that purpose We must in the mean time observe that Popes dispose not at their pleasure of Church Revenues as they pretend they have Power They have not the Liberty to sell the Revenues of the Church unless the King and Clergy consent to it and the causes of Alienation be first examined For the Bulls of Permission to alienate are not received in France if they contain these Terms motu proprio sine inquisitione etiam invitis Clericis In a Word for Alienation of Church Lands in France the two Soveraign Powers I mean the Pope and King must concur VIII All Concordats Concordats depending on the Pope Transactions or Pactions in any beneficial matter ought to be confirmed in the Court of Rome because there is a kind of Simony in them private persons not being allowed to dispose of their Benefices under certain Reservations or Conditions and that is the reason why application is made to the Pope for Pensions and Resignations in favorem Ordinaries cannot appoint nor confirm Pensions Nor can they admit of any Resignations in favorem neither unless in the case of Permutation Nay and in that case too private persons many times apply themselves to the Pope There is another kind of Concordat or Transaction which Commendatary Abbots and Monks daily make betwixt themselves for dividing their Revenues without having recourse to Rome But these Concordats are easily broken and their Successors may derogate from them because an Abbot hath no power to oblige and tye up the Will of his Successor He may indeed make over his rights during his life but he cannot dispose of that which belongs to another And therefore though these Concordats were even confirmed in the Court of Rome and in the Parliaments they may still be rescinded if it be found that one of the Parties contracting hath received any notable prejudice In that case he is allowed to seek relief and by stronger reason his Successour ought who is not obliged to stand to all that hath been done by his Predecessor The Pope himself pretends not to prejudice by his Rescripts the acquired right of others nor indeed is it in his power though it should even be inserted in his Rescript that there hath nothing been done without knowledge of the cause because he may have been ill informed Again the Pope hath no power in France over the Temporal of Benefices but only the Spiritual for which recourse is had to him as to a Superiour that he may authorize the Transactions which private persons have made amongst themselves and purge them from Simony IX None but the Pope can give Benefices in perpetual Commendum Commendums depend on the Pope and the French are the more obliged to acknowledge that power of the Popes that there is no Kingdom in Christendom where so many Regular Benefices are Erected in Commendum as in France Now seeing Commendums in the manner that they are at present established more for the advantage of private persons than benefit of the Church are altogether contrary to the Canons none but the Pope can confer in Commendum because he only can dispense with the Canons as well in respect of the incapacity of persons to whom Commendums are given as of incompatibility of Benefices in which the Commendataries are invested And therefore Benefices in Commendum are in some manner reserved to the Pope because they subsist upon a special Priviledge which can be granted by none but him And when the Commendum is void by the death of the Commendatary it is not to be judged vacant by his death but as it was vacant before the Commendum which brings no alteration in matters However the Pope does still give the same Benefice in Commendum by a Priviledge that he continues on so that it may be said that the Priviledge or Dispensation hath wholly derogated from the Canon Law which only subsists in name and the Dispensation stands for Law as to the effect In the mean time though they who possess Commendums have not obtained them but by Priviledge or Dispensation The Rights of Commendatary Abbots yet they still enjoy them and have all the Titles Profits and Honours as if they were Titulars inasmuch as by the Bulls of Commendum the Commendataries are subrogated into the rights of the Titulars and the terms are always used which import that the power of the Commendatary is the same with that of the Titular to whom he is substituted Curam Monasterii ac regimen administrationâ—â—â— tibi in spiritualibus temporalibus plenarâ—è committâ—ndo The Pope gives in some manner by his Bulls the Investiture both of the Spiritual and Temporal and grants the Commendataries liberty to dispose according to their pleasure of the Profits of the Abbeys after they have satisfied the Charges which are always expressed in the same Bulls De residuis fructibus reditibus proventibus disponere ordinare potuerunt ac debuerunt And to make it appear that the Modern Commendums are different from the Ancient which were established in favour of Churches and not of Persons the Popes add in their Bulls that they give the Commendataries power to dispose of the Profits of their Commendums for their
Page 254 Rules to distinguish the true Exemptions from the false Page 258 Of what Authority are Cartularies Page 264 A distinction betwixt false Titles and Titles falsified Page 268 Errata PAge 66. l. 26. r. Ecclesia p. 79. l. 15. r. to the Prescripts p. 82. l. 2. for Venice r. Rome p. 114. l. 6. r. Monsieur de Marillac p. 128. l. 23. r. Moines p. 251. l. 16. for their r. there are THE HISTORY OF THE Original and Progress OF Ecclesiastical Revenues WHat is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles The Original of the Community of goods among the Primitive Christians concerning the Primitive Christians having all things among them in Common is not to be understood as if private persons had been obliged to sell their goods that they might render them common to all believers For that we may not fall into the errour of the Anabaptists there is a great difference to be made betwixt a Custom that happened but accidentally in the Church of Jerusalem and continued not there long and a Divine Law which can never be dispensed with No other Law obliged Believers to it at that time but the Law of Charity and we are at present under the same obligation seeing the goods which we possess become in some manner common to our Brethren when they fall into necessity and want The Apostles were not ignorant of the Laws which Moses made in favour of the Poor to prevent their being reduced to beggary And in that sense we ought to explain the words of the Psalmist (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 37.25 I have not seen the Righteous forsaken nor his seed begging Bread Where we are to observe that the Jews took to themselves the name of Righteous to distinguish themselves from other Nations that Worshipped Idols The Books of Moses contain many Laws which oblige the Rich on several occasions to make their goods common to the Poor and one of the chief is the Law that prohibits the exacting of Usury from their Brethren And that Law is still in force among them in the low condition to which they now are reduced they being perswaded that that charity towards their Brethren is of divine right We are not then to inquire into any other cause of that Community of goods which was in use in the Infancy of Christianity but the Laws of Charity which are still the same though the practice of them differ according to the diversity of occasions For seeing the Primitive Believers lived in Society that there were a great many poor among them those who had estates were obliged to sell them to supply the necessities of their Brethren The Apostles conformed exactly to the Custom which was already established in the Synagogues They made a gathering on the days of their Assemblies in imitation of the Jews and during the week every one laid up what he could to be delivered to those who took the care of collecting their Alms. In the places where Christians met there were (1) Tertul. in Apolog. Boxes as well as in the Synagogues for receiving the Alms of private persons and the money was distributed amongst the Poor the Orphans Widows and Sick Now this distribution was not made indifferently by every one that pleased But as in the Synagogues there were Officers entrusted with that care so likewise the Apostles appointed Deacons or Ministers to whom they gave the same Commission reserving to themselves nevertheless the chief direction and oversight thereof In a word if we consult the Jewish Writers and the present practice of their Synagogues as to what concerns their Charity we shall find that the Apostles have exactly followed their Discipline in that particular They still send their Alms to Jerusalem and to other places in Judea for the relief of the Poor that live in those parts And besides the constant Charity that they give in the Towns where they live to those that are in want they assist Forreign Jews who make application to them in their necessity and for Proof of this it would suffice to shew a Certificate signed by their Rabbies after the same manner as Letters of Recommendation were granted to Believers in the First Ages of the Church which gave Lucian occasion to say that to become rich in a short time there needed no more but to pretend to be a Christian At that time the Ministers of the Church had no other Revenues The first Revenues of the Church but what they gathered from the Charity of believers For as to Tithes First-fruits and other Rights that belonged to the Levites and Priests they were abolished with the Sacrifice Our Saviour having instituted a new form of Ministry appointed also a new way of providing for the necessities of the new Ministers He received the Alms that were given him and put them into the custody of a Steward to be distributed according as need did require St. Paul who speaks often in his Epistles of the duty of Ministers towards the people and of the people towards their Ministers says no more but conform to the words of our Saviour that they who preach the Gospel should also live by the Gospel and that they who serve at the Altar should participate of that which is offered upon the Altar thereby alluding to the Offerings of the Old Testament He never makes mention of Tithes nor of those Dues that were given to the Priests because he supposes that that Priesthood being abolished the rights that from thence accrued to the Priests ought likewise to be abrogated And therefore the Primitive Christians who sold their estates for the relief of the Poor and maintenance of their Ministers thought it not sufficient to bestow the tenth part but freely gave all that was necessary knowing that the right of Tithes and First-fruits were but only Ceremonies and Customs of the Old Testament of which they retained no more but what concerned Morality So that Charity was the Rule of what they were to give to the Ministers of the Gospel And St. Paul who hath made several good Regulations concerning the Administration of these Alms calls the Portion that was given to the Priests and Widows Honoraries This he doth when he recommends to Timothy (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.3 to honour Widows that are Widows indeed For Widows had particular Offices in the Church as well as the priests whom the same St. Paul affirms (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5.17 to be worthy of double honour that is of a double reward In effect the term of honour is used by Lawyers to signify the recompense that is given to the Officers of Justice to Advocates and Physicians and I make no doubt but that St. Paul borrowed it from the Greeks or Hellenists who sometimes make use of it In this sense these words of Ecclesiasticus are to be understood (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles 38.1 Honour a Physician that is
to say pay the Physician Now seeing the Priest-hood was a Real Employment and Divine Function St. Paul had reason to give it the Title of honour which properly belonged to the Magistrats of States The Church hath not only imitated the Synagogue in the way of distributing its Charity but also The Original of the Ministers of the Church hath followed the Discipline observed amongst the Jews in respect of their Ministers The Synagogues were composed of a Ruler of the Synagogue which the Hellenist Jews called Archi-Synagogus Priests or Elders and Deacons and that was the cause why the Apostles established in Christian Assemblies those three sorts of Ministers under the names of Bishops Priests and Deacons The Bishop in these Assemblies had the same honour as the Ruler of the Synagogue amongst the Jews had in their Synagogues The Superiority of the Rulers of the Synagogue in respect of the Priests or Elders consisted only in some Titles of honour as being the Chief amongst their Brethren And therefore they are all comprehended under the name of Priests or Elders in the Hundred and seventh Psalm where we have these words (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 107.32 Let them also exalt him in the Congregation of the People and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders which was the place of their Meetings So we find in the New Testament that the names of Priest and Bishop are indifferently taken the one for the other and that Assembly or Council of the Elders which was called Presbyterium consisted of the Bishop and the Priests or Elders The Bishop or President as the Ancient Fathers speak had indeed the chief Direction or Superintendency from whence he was called Bishop which word is also found in the Greek of the Septuagint or Hellenists but he made up but one Body with the Elders or Priests who in Quality of Judges had their Jurisdiction jointly with him Hence we may infer that in the beginning of the Church the management of affairs and the Jurisdiction which is now called Episcopal did not depend on the Bishop alone no more than the distribution of the Offerings but on the whole Senate or Assembly of the Priests and this continued so long as there was but one Church in every City one Altar and one Consistory of Priests joined to their Bishop because it was not easy then for the Bishop to become Master of the whole Jurisdiction and Administration of the Revenues But so soon as it was necessary to encrease the number of Churches The Original of the great Authority of Bishops there was some cause to fear lest those who governed the new Churches might attribute to themselves the quality of Bishops finding themselves at the head of a particular Church And therefore the Bishops began to take to themselves authority over them for which it was necessary to appoint that there should be but one Bishop in every City on whom the Elders or Priests should depend who were to take upon them the Government of the new erected Churches which were called Titles St. Jerome strongly maintains this opinion in his Commentaries on the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus where he affirms that before this division each Church was governed by the Common Councel of the Priests but that for avoiding all occasion of Schism one of these Priests or Elders was chosen to be the Chief and to take upon him the care of the whole Church He pretends that the names of Priest and Bishop did not at all differ in the beginning and that therefore St. Paul made use of them indifferently Then he subjoyns (1) Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores Hieron com in Epâ—st ad Tit. That it is only Custom which hath made Bishops greater than Priests And this may be confirmed by the authority of St. Paul who writing to the Churches under the name of Elders comprehends both Bishop and Priests It is to be observed however that the Church being encreased hath borrowed many terms and points of Government from the Republicks of Greece and that when there was a necessity of erecting Dioceses it hath in that followed the distinction of Provinces according as they were established in the Empire Of the Government of the Church in its Commencement The Church which in its commencement allowed much to the people grew afterwards more Aristocratical in its Government when by experience it appeared that the multitude of people served only to confound and perplex affairs and then the Polity of Aristocratick Republicks came in vogue Nay we find in the very Acts of the Apostles two sorts of Assemblies as well as in Republicks The one is composed of the Chief amongst the Believers and is called Ecclesia The other admits all indifferently and that the Republicks of Asia named Agoraia which they have always distinguished from the Assembly that they named Ecclesia And therefore the name of Ecclesia or Church hath still been given to Christian Congregations and constantly retained by the Greeks who made the first Ecclesiastical Laws from whence it hath been derived to the Latines who are indebted to the Greeks for all the Ecclesiastical Polity that was setled in the first Ages In this sense we ought to interpret the words of (1) Origen contra Celsum Origen concerning the Form of Church-Government which he explains with relation to the Greek Republicks The Athenians for instance called those Bishops to whom they committed the care of the Towns that depended on their Commonwealth It was long before the Church owned any other name but that of Bishop to distinguish him who had the principal Administration nay when it was even necessary to denote a Bishop who had Jurisdiction over others she called those Bishops (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 33 Apost the First Bishops of a Nation or made use of some other expression without inventing new words We find nevertheless the name of Metropolitan in the Council of Nice but the Greeks whose Language is fruitful in new words invented a great many to express the different Offices of the Ecclesiastick State which were not so soon brought into use in the Latine Church The names of Archbishop Primate and Patriarch are but Titles of Honour and External Jurisdiction whereas the quality of Bishop and that also of Elder or Priest The Original of the Ordination of Bishops and Priests is a Character that marks the Ordination which the Apostles borrowed from the Synagogue that chose its Ministers by the Imposition of hands In that manner Moses laid his hands on Joshua and the other Elders who were presently filled with the Holy Ghost And if we will credit the Authority of the Rabbies the power of Imposing of hands belonged not only to the chief of the Sanhedrim but also to the other Elders which seems likewise to be confirmed by St. Jerom (1) Hier. in Episi ad
that so the Bishops might apply themselves entirely to the duties of their Office These Stewards were likewise necessary for preserving the Revenue of the Church which the Bishops and other Church men did not employ according to the Canons But because they were appointed by the Bishops they relapsed again into the same abuse the Poor had cause to complain of the same Bishops who gave them but a very inconsiderable share of the Goods that were destined for their Use Upon all these accounts the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon decreed That for the future the Stewards should be chosen from among the Clergy and that it should be no longer in the power of the Bishops themselves to administer the Revenues of the Church That Office became so considerable in the Church of Constantinople that the Emperours took from the Clergy the nomination of the Stewards and appointed them themselves And this lasted until the time of the Emperour Isaac Comnenus who remitted that right to the disposition of the Patriarch The power of Stewards was not so great in the Western Church The Custom of the Western Church diâ—â—ers from that of the East as in the Eastern for seeing the Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks did not according to equity distribute the Church Revenues and that besides the Churches were meanly endowed there was a necessity of making a particular designation of the use to which these Rents were to be employed And that was adjusted in this manner to wit that the Bishop with consent of his Clergy should divide the whole Revenues of his Church into four parts of which the First should be for himself the Second given to the Church-men the Third to the Poor and the Fourth and last applied to the Fabrick of the Churches (1) Gratian caus 12. qâ—â—â— 2. cap. 23. Gratian relates a letter of Pope Zosimus directed to an Arch-Deacon where that distribution is mentioned but without permitting the Rents of the Church to be dismembred as some Church men pretended who would have had Lands assigned them for their portion St. Gregory answering some Questions that were put to him by Austin the English Bishop confirms that Dividend St. Greg. Pope which had been already approved by several other Popes and withal appoints that the Bishops portion should not only be for himself but for as many as were necessary for his Retinue and for maintaining Hospitality The Bishops wrangled with their Clergy about that distribution pretending that they had no right to the new Acquisitions of the Church A Dispute about the distribution of the Revenues of the Church but the same Pope St. Gregory adjusted the matter in favour of the Clergy The Priests pretended farther that they ought to have two parts of the share that was assigned to the Clergy and that the other Churchmen ought to have but a third of the same That matter was referred to the Bishop who was to give to every one according to his merit and pains Nevertheless St. Gregory who in that followed a Law established in the Churches of the West writing to Austin concerning the Discipline that he was to observe in England tells him that it was more convenient to persist in the Community of Goods in the Church of England than to introduce into it those kinds of dividends And indeed it will appear in the sequel of this Discourse that the dividing of Ecclesiastical Revenues hath been the cause of most of the disorders that have happened in the Church and I dare boldly affirm that the thing that hath preserved a greater purity of the Ancient Discipline in the Eastern Church has been chiefly that the Orientals never made any such partitions None but the Western Church hath put the Estates of the Church into Titles and Livings in the same manner as if private persons were the absolute masters of those Estates The Barbarous Princes A change of Discipline in the Church who seized part of the Empire brought great changes into the Church and the Discipline of the Canons was onely preserved in the East The Greeks nevertheless have sometimes remitted certain Ecclesiastical rights in favour of their Princes But that is nothing if compared with what hath been done under the Barbarous Princes in the West The Stewards of whom we have spoken The Office of the Stewards took upon them not only the care of the Revenues of the Church by order of the Bishops but also preserved them during the vacancy of the See and distributed them among those to whom by right and according to the Canons they belonged But because most part of the Church-men had Estates of their own either by Inheritance or Purchases that they had made there arose great difficulties upon their Death about the distinguishing of those Estates Some there were that pretended that those who lived on the Revenues of the Church could not in conscience retain their own Inheritance St. Jerom who was of that opinion St. Jerom. is positive that the goods of the Church were designed for the Poor which agreed very well with the Edict of Constantine that prohibited the Rich to enter into any Office of the Church Whether Church-men can keep their own Estates though he did it upon Politick Reasons and for the good of the State Most of the other Fathers were also of St. Jeroms mind St. Austin and St. Austin admitted no Clerk into his Church till first he had disposed of all his goods either in favour of the Poor or by Sale He was for having all Clerks really Poor in imitation of the Apostles and for living altogether in common upon the Revenues of the Church Nevertheless it is to be observed that he did not require that of them but as a greater perfection and that he never thought it absolutely necessary for entring into orders and enjoying the allowance of the Church that one must possess nothing at all Otherwise he must have gone against the Ancient Canons which leave Church-men at liberty to dispose of their own Estates as they please It is true these Canons were made in the Eastern Church where most of the Bishops having been Married before their Election had Wives and Children to provide for and where Priests and Deacons might Marry if they pleased And therefore it was not reasonable to take their Estates from them Besides it must be considered that when these Canons were made Churches were but â—oor Nay and some time after Constantine no Churches but those of great Cities were Rich. However these Ancient Canons of the Eastern Church were (1) Caus 12. Quaest 3. renewed in the Church of the West though they had not the same reasons for doing it Church-men were only prohibited to bequeath by Will the Goods which they had got in their Livings because Believers did not give to Churches only to enrich the Church-men If it happened nevertheless that the Bishop died without making a Will and had no heirs
it was impossible for Bishops to hinder them from performing all Ecclesiastical functions in their Monasteries and since that time there have always been disputes betwixt the Bishops and the Monks because the Monks on many occasions refused to submit to the orders of the Bishops which they pretended to be contrary to the Discipline of their Monasteries Though at that time most part of the Monks were in the East Monks in the West before St. Benet yet for all that there were a great many also in the West before St. Benet planted a particular Order there St. Jerom St. Ambrose and St. Gregory make mention of Monks in Italy amongst the Gauls and in several other parts of Europe Besides all the Authors who have written of the beginning of the Christian Religion in several Countries speak of Monks that were there There was this difference The difference betwixt the Ancient and Modern Monks nevertheless betwixt the first Monks that were in Europe before St. Benet and those that came after him that the first were barely Monks without being addicted to any particular Order To be a Monk was sufficient to make them received as such in all Monasteries wheresoever they travelled There was no talk then of particular Rules and Institutions But every Monk laboured to emprove himself by the example of others and to embrace what he thought most perfect in the Monastick life So that it may be said that the Monks both of the East and West were all of one Order having at that time no Mark of distinction amongst them The ancient Rules that have been written by the Primitive Monks ought rather to be lookt upon as different Commentaries upon the Monastick life than different Rules for the intention of those who embraced that kind of life was not to distinguish themselves by particular Rules from the manner of â—iving of other men but to submit themselves by a more particular resignation to the Maxims of the Gospel and to find out all possible ways how they might live up to the Counsels of our Saviour who will have us to wean our hearts altogether from the World that we may follow him alone who is above it I shall not here speak of the Institution of St. Benet which is in the hands of every body but shall only observe by the by that the design of that Saint was not to make any innovations in the Monastick life but to make a Collection of what he found most perfect in the Rules and Institutions of others Matters are much altered since All the several Orders of Monks make now a days so many petty different Republicks in the Church and are so many little States who have all their several interests But let us now return to our Subject concerning the Original and Progress of the Revenues of the Church No sooner were the Barbarous Kings become Masters of a part of the Roman Empire Changes in Church and State but the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws suffered great alterations There was a necessity of complying with the humor and temper of these new Conquerours who medled in the affairs of the Church There was not now as formerly the same liberty in electing of Bishops Princeâ— thought of securing their States by conferring Bishopricks only on such as they could rely upon So that Ecclesiastical dignities began to be looks upon as mere Lay-Offices at the disposal of Princes with which they could Reward those that served them And which was more pernicious to the Church Princes and other great Lords began to make no more distinction betwixt goods consecrated to God and goods Profane The necessity of the times must be born with and the great Wars that Princes were engaged in was the cause that the best part of the Revenues of the Church fell into the hands of Lay-men The Revenues of the Church in the same condidition as temporal Estates They made Contracts of Alienation about them as about other Possessions and these Contracts past for lawful when they were made in the usual forms No body opposed it The Bishops Monks treated often with Laicks about those concerns either by way of Exchange or Purchase The ancient Cartularies or Registers of the Monks are full of such kinds of Contracts wherein it appears that Children succeeded to their Fathers as well in Church livings as in other Estates The Counts or Judges decided the differences that arose amongst private persons about such Estates in the same manner as about other Inheritances and Possessions It is true some scrupulous People made a Distinction betwixt Altars and Churches A distinctio betwixt Churches an Altars comprehending under the name of Churches Lands and other Revenues for which men might contract and assigning a Priest to the Altar who was to have a Salary for saying Mass and performing other Ecclesiastical Functions But some who were not so scrupulous made no such imaginary distinction For in the ancient Cartularies there are to be found forms of deeds of alienation of Churches and Altars with the Bells Chalices Crosses and other Ornaments of the Church This was practised even in Italy before the Popes entred into the cognisance of the goods of the Churches which depended not on their Diocese To these troublesome times we may attribute the total Ruine of private Church men The Ruine of private Church-men who were obliged to take wages from those who possessed the Churches And which is more unhappy the greatest part of those Revenues are fallen into the possession of Cathedral Churches and Monasteries to which they did not at all belong The truth is there are forms of Contracts to be found in the same Cartularies which make it appear that Monks have bought several Churches from Lay-men but part of these Churches had been usurped by the Laicks from the Church-men to whom they ought to have been restored and not sold to the Monks When the administrations of Church Revenues were erected into Benefices or perpetual Titles the Church-Men who were hired by the Chapters of Cathedral Churches by the Monks and even by Laicks became perpetual Vicars and Curats But the best part of the Benefices remained still to the Canons and Monks who took to themselves afterward the Quality of Primitive Curates Besides since private men were not able Princes and other great men bought the Churches from those Church-Men and gave them to the Monks who entertained Secular Priests to take the care of administring the Sacraments to the People all the Revenue and Tithes in the mean time remaining to the Monasteries Wherefore it will not be amiss to explain in this place more particularly the Original and Progress of the Revenues annexed to Monasteries and at the same time to speak of their priviledges and exemptions A great part of what we shall say of Monasteries being also applicable to other Ecclesiasticks We have shown before that Monks having made profession of poverty The Original of Lands and other Revevenues
Canons of their Canonships and even obliged Secular Priests to turn Monks if they intended to enjoy their Benefices The Bishops did what lay in their power to remove the Monks from Church Dignities But on the other hand the Monks had their recourse to the Popes who were already become Masters of a great part of the Jurisdiction of Bishops and Princes who were perswaded that Monasteries were grown too Rich favoured the Bishops against the Monks and Popes All the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury had been Monks from the time of Austin whom Pope Gregory sent into England until the Reign of Henry 1. But when under that Prince they came to the Election of an Arch Bishop (1) Hist Sim. Daniel 1123. all the Bishops of England declared publickly that they would have no Monk for their Primate and that amongst the Clergy there were as virtuous men and as fit for the Government of a Church as any in the Monasteries So by degrees they began to take the Government of Churches out of the hands of Monks though they were protected by the Popes Yet they still made a distinction betwixt Regular Canons and Monks which continues to this day for we find but a few Monks that take the Charge of Parish-Churches and perform other Ecclesiastical Functions out of their Monasteries Whereas regular Canons in all places discharge those Offices without being obliged as Monks are to put Secular Priests into their Cures There remain at present but few Cathedral Churches in the hands of Monks though heretofore it was a very common thing to see no other Canons Ecclesiastical Employments inconsistent with Monks in Churches but Monks who at the same time took care both of Churches and Monasteries which was altogether opposit to the Canons even to the Institution of the Monastick life (1) Quisquis autem ex Monasterio ad Ecclesiasticum ordinem pervenerit ulterius illic nec aliquam potestatem nec licentiam habeat manendi St. Gregory indeed allows Monks to enter into holy Orders and to officiate in that capacity when it shall please their Bishop to enjoyn them But then they could no longer continue in their Monasteries being become real Clerks Nevertheless the Monks did the contrary Greg. Papa and remaining still in their Monasteries took upon them the care of Churches We even find in the History of England that the Office of Archdeacon of a Cathedral Church was annexed to the place of Prior of a Monastery The desire they had of enriching their Houses was the true cause why they continued in their Communities though by right they were separated from them because of the Ecclesiastical Employments in which they were engaged and so far from laying aside their Monkish customs when they were associated to the Clergy they introduced into their Churches the Practices and Ceremonies of their Monasteries and that was the thing that made way for the Re-establishment of Secular Priests in Cathedral Churches and other Benefices But nevertheless part of the Revenues that belonged to Private Churches remained still in the possession of Monasteries Besides Princes and Bishops could not endure that Monks should possess Eclesiastical Dignities after that the Popes were grown so powerful that they disposed at their pleasure of the most part of Benefices For the Monks always espoused the Interests of the Popes against Princes and Bishops under pretext of defending the liberty of the Church and seeing Princes refused to submit to the Pope with whom they had continual quarrels they resolved to give no Ecclesiastical Promotions but to those who were devoted to their Service The English History gives us a pretty Instance of this in the Reign of Richard I. Princes ruint the Monks That Prince having assembled the Bishops of his Kingdom could not forbear with Tears to tell them that he was an unfortunate wretch and no King (1) Se miserum esse non regem Chron. Gervasii He complained that the Revenues of his Kingdom were crumbled into infinite parcels of which the least part came to his share and (2) Haec enim illa possident albi Monachi nigri ordinis diversi Canonici that they were possessed by Black Monks White Monks Canons of different Orders Then he upbraided the Secular Priests with their Vices and scandalous debauched lives that were notoriously known to all the World Eleemosynas Populi said that Prince speaking of Secular Priests distrahunt expendunt in pravos usus dum magis cogitant de suarum pannis meretricum quà m de suarum vestimentis vel libris Ecclesiarum tolerabile malum videretur si singuli suas mulierculas observarent saltem thorum non invaderent alienum These corruptions were not peculiar to England alone but were spread over all the Churches of Europe where Priests who were prohibited to Marry according to the Canons of the Western Church made no scruple publickly to keep Concubines And we are obliged to the Monks for the services they rendred to the Church in those days when the Secular Priests were plunged in Ignorance and Vice But their Services were not so considerable when they began to declare for the Popes who pretended alone to have the absolute disposal of all Church Revenues contrary to Ancient Custom King Richard of whom we have been speaking attributes the disorders which the Court of Rome caused in his dominions to the weakness of the Priests of his Kingdom Romani says he Propter debilitatem vestram adeo nobis infesti sunt ut nobis solummodo videantur imperare literulas suaâ—nobis vendunt nec Justitiam quaerunt sed litigia fovent multiplicant appellationes redimunt placitantes et cum solam pecuniam appetunt veritatem confundunt pacemque subvertunt That Prince continuing his complaints told the Bishops of the same assembly that for Remedy to all these evils the Monks must be obliged to shut themselves up within their Monasteries without sharing in Ecclesiastical affairs and the Secular Clergy reformed who would be much more serviceable than the Monks (1) Romanis latronibus si transgrediuntur poterunt obesse in resisting the unjust attempts of the Court of Rome The Kings advice was followed by all the Bishops and it was resolved in that Assembly that the Monks who possessed Cathedral Churches should have their private Churches near to these Cathedrals and that Secular Canons should be settled in their places And in this manner did Princes with assistance of the Bishops endeavour to re-establish Secular Priests in the Churches according to Prescripts of the Canon Law But that was not done without great difficulty because the Monks were protected by the Popes whose authority was become formidable and it is to that time especially that we ought to attribute a great part of the Exemptions which the Monks obtained from Rome that they might not depend on the Bishops who endeavoured their Ruine It was a troublesom thing to Princes The Original of great
by them They are of Opinion that that work was only compiled for establishing the Interests of the Pope and overturning the Ancient Law And the Satyrs that were made against the Decretals run still in their minds especially this Proverb which was heretofore so common Depuis que le decret print ales Et Gend armes porterent malles Moins allerent à cheval Jamais le monde n'eut que mal Since the Decrees were pieced with tales And Souldiers put on Coats of Males Since lazy Monks have mounted pad The World 's been plagu'd with all that 's bad But after all as to what concerns the common practice the Decretals are to be preferred before the Decrees seeing most of the Rules of Law which now are in use are taken out of the Book of Decretals and not from the Collection of Gratian. Nor is the sixth Book of Decretals to be slighted which is commonly called the Sext though it was compiled (1) Ann. 1298. by the order of Pope Boniface VIII an enemy of the French because a great part of the Constitutions that are contained in that Collection have been taken out of the Decrees of the Council of Lyons and are observed in France Besides the Decretals which carry the Title of Clementine because that Collection is attributed to Pope Clement V. have been for most part taken out of the Council of Vienne where the Ambassadours of France were present The other Decretals that are contained in the Body of the Canon Law under the name of the Extravagants of John XXII and the common Extravigants seem not to have so great authority in France as the former Decretals Neither do I think that all the new Bulls of which the Bullary is composed are much esteemed there because they have never been received in France Since the great clashings that happened betwixt Boniface VIII And Philip the Fair and betwixt Julius II. and Louis XII The French have been much more cautious in admitting the Bulls of the Pope than they were before The differences likewise that happened in the Council of Trent in respect of France have been also the cause that the French suspect all that comes from Rome and that they submit not easily to its Laws And therefore the Popes Bulla are not received till first they be examined and if it be necessary modified Nay and many times they are not actually received In a word there are but some of the Rules of the Chancery received in France These are now the grounds on which the new Law is founded and which hath been very much qualified in France the knowledge whereof is necessary that we may understand what measures are at present to be taken in Beneficial matters Though France hath submitted to the New Law The Original of the Liberties of France yet hath it still retain'd somewhat of the Ancient Canons And when it hath found the new Laws to be contrary to the Interest of the State it hath had recourse to the Ancient and defended it self by the Canon Law And therefore they have given the name of Priviledges or Liberties of the Gallican Church to that which was no more but the Ancient Canon Law But which hath been called Priviledges or Liberties in respect of the New For instance when the French have been pressed by the Authority of the Decretals they have had recourse to the Ancient Law contained in the Decrees of Gratian but since the Collection of Gratian authorises a great many false Decretals of the first Popes which have introduced a New Law the French Bishops have had recourse to a more Ancient Compilation of Canons when the Authority of these Decretals hath been objected to them Nevertheless for all that France could do the Popes Law hath at length prevailed notwithstanding the Pragmaticks of the Kings who endeavoured the re-establishment of the Ancient Canons The most Ancient Pragmatick of France is attributed (1) Ann. 1268. to St. Louis But there is ground to doubt whether it be his or not though it seems no man hath hitherto questioned it The reason why it is thought to be of St. Louis is because it bears the name of a King called Louis and that the Date proves evidently that it can be of no other Louis but Louis IX Elias of Bourdeille Archbishop of Tours who was afterwards made a Cardinal hath mentioned all the Articles of that Pragmatick in a Writing that he composed in the the time of Louis XI against the Pragmatick Sanction of France It is true he refutes the Pragmatick of St. Louis as if it had been really the Act of that Prince But he seems to have doubted of it not daring absolutely to affirm that he was the Author of it but only (2) Adscribitur ei fecisse pragmaticam that it was ascribed to him The Contemporary Authors who have written his Life speak not a word of it The Popes who have so vigorously opposed whatever they thought contrary to their Interests did not at that time complain of that Pragmatick though it wholly ruined their Interests Is it possible that in the (1) Ann. 1438. Assembly of Bourges where that famous Pragmatick past no mention should have been made of the Pragmatick of St. Louis if there had really been any such Nothing could at that time have been of greater force to authorize that Aslembly There appears nothing more Ancient in favours of the Pragmatick of St. Louis than the Remonstrances made by the Members of Parliament to King Louis XI And there is a great deal of probability that it hath been foisted in about that time (2) Ann. 1461. because it was known that King Louis being then but Dauphin was of Intelligence with the Court of Rome for abrogating the Pragmatick made at Bourges and the Members of Parliament omitted nothing that could make for that Pragmatick There are besides terms somewhat extraordinary in the Pragmatick attributed to St. Louis These words ad perpetuam rei memoriam are not of the stile of Ordinances Nor do we find any where else that St Louis affected that way of speaking that his Crown depended of God alone neither was it at all proper for the affairs that then were in agitation I could bring a great many other Reasons to shew that there is ground to doubt of the Reality of that Pragmatick But besides that that would lead me into a long and tedious digression the Canon Law of France subsists not so much upon the Pragmatick ascribed to St. Louis as upon that of Bourges and the Concordat which hath derogated from several Articles thereof To know then the substance of the Law of France in regard of Beneficial matters The Rules of the French Law We must not wholly rely on the Popes Decretals but it is also necessary to know wherein the Pragmatick Concordat the Edicts of the Kings and the Sentences of Supream Courts differ from the Law established in the Decretals Besides seeing the
own use that they may live more commodiously nay and according to their Quality Vt statum tâ—um juxta gradum tuae nobilitatis decentiùs tenere valeas de alicujus subventionis auxilio providere volentes c. This is not the place to examine whether the Popes can attribute to themselves so great an Authority which seems to overthrow all the Discipline of the Church I only speak at present of what is in practice and of the power that the Popes have in France where the Bulls whereof I have given some abstracts are received and authorised by custom And for that reason also the Canonists say that the Titles of Benefices are only of positive right that so the Popes who have absolute power over that right especially when it hath been voluntarily established by them may dispense with it as they please and in favours of whom they will On this principle are grounded the Dispensations which are obtained from Popes for possessing several Benefices and that they daily derogate from the nature and quality of Benefices in favours of private persons But after all we must still suppose the Maxime which we have already observed that this great power of Popes cannot be executed in France if the King consent not to it and besides that the Court of Rome hath no power over the Possessory right of Benefices X. The Popes give not only Benefices in commendum to Clerks dispensing both with their Age and other Qualities requisite but they dispense also with the Clerkship of Children as yet in the Cradle until they have attained the Age of taking the Tonsure It is enough to declare that the Child is designed for a Church-man Infantem qui ut accepimus in secundo vel tertio suae aetatis anno constitutus ad vitam Ecclesiasticam agendam destinatus existit But since no man can enjoy a Benefice but he that is a Clerk and that on the other hand the Child is not as yet of Age the Popes use these terms in their Bulls Eidem Infanti cum primum Clericali charactere ritè insignitus in aetate legitimâ constitutus seu alias ex concessione dispensatione Apostolicâ ad Monasteria obtinenda capax habilis fuerit per eum quoad vixerit tenenda regenda gubernanda ita ut ex nunc prout ex tunc pro eo affecta destinata sunt ac esse censeantur c. Then the Pope in the same Bull names a Steward who shall take care only of the Temporal until the Child be grown up and shaven N. Administratorem Monasteriorum in temporalibus solum donec praedictus Infans charactere Clericali insignitus fuerit Monasteria sibi per noâ—vel successorem nostrum Romanum Pontificem pro tempore existentem commendari obtinuerit It appears by these 〈◊〉 words that the Child is not as yet properly established Abbot Commendatary by the Bulls because he is not as yet a Clerk but that the Abbey is only assured to him and that in the mean while he shall enjoy the Profits of the Benefice as if he were actually invested in it and that because the Pope by his Bulls gives him the right XI Though Ordinaries may unite smaller Benefices Of Unions yet it only belongs to the Pope to annex Benefices which are called Consistorial nay and many times application is made to him for all sorts of Unions That Power of the Pope of uniting all sorts of Benefices proceeds from the fulness of his Authority whereas that of Ordinaries is limited Nevertheless heretofore they enjoyed that Right But we have already observed that we speak only here of the New Law in the manner that it is at present in force in France without examining the ground of it and if it be contrary to the Ancient Canons It is not for all that to be imagined that the Pope is so much Master of Unions in France that he can make them at his pleasure and without lawful cause For the Unions which are commonly called personal and only made during the lives of some persons are not admitted there because such kinds of Unions are not for the Benefit of the United Churches It is then necessary to make Unions lawful that they be grounded on true causes and not upon pretexts Otherwise they are null conform to the Decree of the Council of Constance which rescinds Unions made by the Pope (1) Si non ex rationalibus causis veris factae fuerint licet Apostolicae sedis auctoritas intervenerit Sess 43. if they be not supported by good reasons It is not sufficient for all that that the Pope in the Bull of Union make use of these words Et ex certa scientia nostrâ But he ought to direct to some Body upon the place a Rescript of Delegation ad effectum unionis That information may be had of the usefulness of the Union Besides those who are concerned in the Union and especially the Patrons of Benefices must be cited who ought to be heard because Union is a kind of Alienation for ever which deprives the Patron of his Right There are many other Formalities to be observed for making Unions valid in France where in reality the plenitude of the Popes Power is acknowledged The Popes Power limited in France but still with reservation of the liberty of limiting it according to the Laws of the Kingdom And upon that ground the Parliaments insist when they rescind Unions that want the Formalities and declare them abusive The Council of Trent (1) Sess 7. Can. 6. hath also declared that Unions made within 40 years should be null unless they had been made in presence of the Ordinaries for just reasons and those who were concerned cited But by the addition of these words (2) Nisi aliter a sede Avostolica declaratum fuerit if the Holy See hath not declared otherwise it renders the Pope absolute Master of Unions which is not received in France where no regard is had to the Prescription of forty years for remedy may be had even after an hundred years against an Union that hath not been made in Form if we believe the French Practitioners in Law The Council of Trent however is not altogether repugnant to that Custom It will have no respect to be had to the Prescription of forty years if the Bulls of Union have been surreptitious or obreptitious That is to say if the Information that hath been given to the Pope be not found to be true and that is common to Apostolick Bulls and Rescripts where that clause is always supposed (1) Si preces veritati nitantur if the Petition declare the truth XII There is another kind of Union that belongs also to the Pope alone to wit the suppression of one Order for uniting it to another or the Disunion of two that had been united Yet that cannot be done without the consent of the King XIII The Decision of
of Prevention Besides the Pope who daily derogates from the Rule de viginti diebus to favour Resignees does never derogate from it in prejudice of Cardinals in respect of Churches whereof they are the ordinary Collators and that is a Priviledge singular to them Neither are they subject to the Indults or Priviledges of the menbers of the Parliament of Paris So that they are not obliged to bestow upon the Indultees or Priviledged the Benefices whereof they are the Collators because they have a Grant from the Pope which gives them power of disposing of their Benefices to whom and in what manner they please Nevertheless the Parliament of Paris hath sometimes pronounced Sentence contrary to those Priviledges of Cardinals and hath favoured the Indultees by virtue of the nomination of the King who they thought ought to be preferred before the Indultees of Cardinals In fine the common Rule which says that Secular Benefices should be given to Seculars and Regular to Regulars is of no force in respect of Cardinals who (1) Habent os apertum ad omnia Beneficia in that quality can receive all kinds of Benefices To have explained the right of the Popes in France in respect of Beneficial matters is not sufficient to discover fully wherein the ancient Canon Law is abrogated which gave Bishops absolute power in the Collation of Benefices we must besides that examine the right of other Collators and Patro us whether Ecclesiastick or Laick In a word it is necessary to know the rights of all who are in present possession of providing to Benefices in what manner soever it be It would seem that none have more reason to challenge that Right The Rights of Chapters than the Chapters of Cathedral Churches for as heretofore they made but one body with the Bishops and were of their Council so they had some share in the Jurisdiction Wherefore when the Revenues were separated at the same time the Jurisdiction was divided especially the gratuitous Jurisdiction or the Right of providing to Benefices and I take that to be the true reason why Chapters are at present the Collators of some Benefices separately from their Bishop They have even made certain Laws among themselves which are different according to the diversity of places Every Canon presents by turn to Benefices that become vacant in his week or in the time that hath been allotted him in the Dividend which they have made among themselves Besides that dignified Canons can provide to Benefices that depend on their Dignities whether in particular or joyntly with other Dignitaries wherein the Custom observed in every Chapter is followed Care is to be taken though that all sorts of Customs be not authorized for it may be that Canons have made Agreements among themselves which are prejudicial to the Rights of private persons and there are but few that mind that Bishops cannot call into question that Right of Chapters The Original of Personages and Dignities without Employment since they have agreed on both sides by Transactions which were in their power to make But that hath given occasion to a very great corruption which hath established in the Church Benefices without any Employment For the Canons are not only separated from their Bishops but they have besides every one taken his Revenue in particular and minded the management of it This is the cause that many Offices which were necessary whilst the Revenues were in common are become useless and instead of suppressing them they are erected into Benefices which are called Dignities that is to say Sine-Cures or Benefices without Office I shall here give some Instances of them that the Original of these Dignities or Benefices may be known of which the Titulars for most part are uncertain whether or not they be obliged to reside on their Benefices I reckon then amongst these Dignities the Provostships of St. Martin of Tours which are pretty numerous These Provostships were heretofore possessed by the Canons of the Chapter who were chosen to take the care of the Temporal of the Church And seeing the Revenues of that Church were in several places the care of them was committed to different persons who had severally the management of the Rents of their distinct Quarters and because of that they were called Praeposiâ—i whence the name of Provost is derived But since the Canons took the care of their Rents every one in particular these Offices are become useless nevertheless they are still retained and are now called Dignities or simple Benefices whereof the Titulars cannot be obliged to Residence as heretofore they were because the obligation to reside proceeded not from the Office of Provost but of the Canonship which they enjoyed with their Provostship that was not then a Benefice but meerly a Commission or Office And in this manner also ought we to consider the dignity of Treasurer in several Cathedrals of the Kingdom which in all likelyhood was but an Office that consisted in taking care of the Revenues of the Church and is at present a Benefice without Office which is called a dignity of honour because it is only by Custom that it hath the name of dignity there being none but the Titles of Arch-Priest and Arch-Deacon that are dignities of right by reason of the Jurisdiction which they have retained It is the same with all other dignities or Sine-cure Parsonages therefore I shall insist no more on that Subject I shall only observe that several Persons do in some manner enjoy two Benenefices though they be not reckoned amongst those who possess plurality of Livings The Deans for Instance of Cathedral Churches and the chief Dignitaries of Collegiat Churches have double the Revenue of the other Canons though they be no more in effect but Canons as the rest are and have nothing over them but a Prerogative of honour But Custom which hath made that and many such other practices familiar to us is the cause why they are not reckoned in the number of those who have several Benefices besides they may alledge for their Justification the words of St. Paul who saith That the Elders who Rule well are counted worthy of double honour 1 Tim. 5.17 After all if the Chapters challenged no more to themselves in Beneficial matters but the rights whereof we have been speaking Bishops would have no cause to complain of them But there are some who have attempted upon the Jurisdiction of the same Bishops and pretend to an Episcopal Jurisdiction as well as they You shall see Canons who have rather out of vanity than necessity a great Vicar an Official and other necessary Officers for exercising Episcopal Jurisdiction as if they had a Diocese to govern Most part of Chapters besides pretend to â—e exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishops and have a little Territory depending on them in regard of which they exercise the functions of Episcopal Jurisdiction and hold the place of inferiour Ordinary Prelates which are
he may do it without the Ecclesiastical Patron from whose Right he can derogate in case of Permutation but not in pure simple Demissions for the Benefice being then vacant the Ordinary cannot confer it but upon the Presentation of the Patrons whether they be Ecclesiasticks or Laicks V. A Benefice in Lay-Patronage cannot be burdened with a Pension or Annuity and Mr. Charles Du Moulin is of the Opinion that the Popes Rescript cannot be put in execution unless the Patron consent to it or that clause be added Si tamen Patroni consensus accedat But seeing the Pope can Derogate from the right of Presentation of Ecclesiastical Patronss by conferring in full right Benefices that are in their nomination he can upon stronger reason Authorise by his Rescripts Pensions setled upon the Benefices of their Patronage without any necessity of having their consent After all it will not be amiss to observe Whence cometh the distinction of Patronages that the distinction of Patrons Laick and Ecclesiastical is not taken from the difference of persons for a Church Man may be a Laick in respect of his Lands and Inheritance to which the Patronage is annexed But a Lay-Man cannot be an Ecclesiastical Patron because Ecclesiastical Patronage is a right that belongs to a Person or Community by reason of Benefices which they enjoy In a word Benefices are in Ecclesiastical Patronage when they depend on a Church I do not here examine whether the Pope can dispense with a Laick for enjoying a Benefice and still remaining Laick in which case it would be true that a Lay-Person might be an Ecclesiastical Patron It is sufficient that we have examined matters according to the ordinary course of Law and without any farther inquiry into the thing it will be easy to distinguish these two Patronages according to the Principles that we have laid down We must nevertheless observe That it many times happens Lay-Patronages in process of time to become Ecclesiastical and that either by the terms of the Donation or by the Translation and Donation that Lay-Men make of their Lands and Lordships to Churches or Monasteries In the Title of the Foundation of a Church it is sometimes expressed that the Founders reserve to themselves the Right of Patronage only for a certain time and for a limited degree of Kindred and then that failing the Ordinary in full right confers the Benefices that were before in Lay-Patronage Wherefore it is necessary that Bishops examine the Titles of foundations which are sometimes qualified with restrictions in their favours Besides we find that Cathedral Churches and Monasteries enjoying a great many Lordships with Patronages annexed to them these Patronages have changed their nature being become Ecclesiastical by the Lords making of them over to Churches We must nevertheless except great Benefices such as Bishopricks and Abbeys which the Kings of France can never transfer to the Purchasers of Crown Lands The King can only transfer the Patronage of smaller Benefices with the Inheritance and then the Patronage from Royal becomes Ecclesiastical if it be given or transferred to a Church There arise great difficulties in France about Lay-Patrons who make profession of the Reformed Religion Of Huguenot Patronage And seeing Protestants are not treated according to the Rigour of the Ecclesistical Laws which deprive Hereticks of their Estates it would seem that since they are left in possession of their Lands and Lordships they should also enjoy all the fruits and honorary Rights that are annexed to the same Lord ships especially according to the Maxims of the New Law which (1) Collationes sunt in fructious places the Presentation to Benefices in the number of Fruits No man doubts but that Patronage is a real Right annexed to Lands and that by consequent it follows them as being a fruit of the same It would seem then that no regard ought to be had to the Quality of the person in as much as the Right of Patronage is not personal but real and besides the Presentation is but a servitude of the Benefice and not a Spiritual Title Nor doth the Presentation properly give the Benefice But institution must be had from the Ordinary upon the letters of Presentation and in that the Spirituality does really consist The Ordinary may refuse those who are presented by the Patrons if they be not capable and so it remains always in the liberty of Ordinaries not to supply Benefices that are in Huguenot Patronage but with fit and able men The Patrons then if they would cannot abuse their Right and it is impossible that the Church can thereby receive any prejudice if the Ordinaries discharge their duty These and many more reasons that might be brought upon that Subject were the cause that Lay-Patrons professing the Reformed Religion obtained heretofore an Order of Council whereby they were allowed to nominate fit persons who in their place might present to the Benefices of their Patronage but that is not now observed for the Ordinaries in full Right confer such Benefices so long as the Patrons make profession of the Reformed Religion And therefore it is fit we should observe that the Right of Patronage which is real and united to the Land is not lost but only dormant and in suspense so that if the Patrons happen to be reconciled to the Church they enjoy their Right of Patronage in the same manner as if they had never professed the Reformed Religion That Custom is backt with good reasons and though the Right of Patronage be not properly Spiritual it is at least mixt and it is a common saying that it is quid Spirituale annexum Temporali And that it cannot be Sold separately but only with the Land or Inheritance to which it is annexed It is true Patronage is a real Right yet that hinders not but that it is exercised by a person Now it is ridiculous that a man who believeth not in the Church should present to it a person for a Spiritual Right and that that Right should be granted upon his Presentation Grant that the Bishop is free to accept or reject him who is presented and that he is the Judge of his capacity That is not enough For if the Canons prohibit the giving of a Benefice upon the recommendation of an Heretick upon stronger reason it ought not to be given upon his Presentation The Bishop can only Judge of defects that are known to him and it may be the Protestant Patron may present a very capable man but who may have secret engagements with himself It is not strange to see Church-men who have followed their studies at the charge of Protestant Patrons in hopes of procuring them Benefices of their Patronage to the end they may comply with them and do prejudice to the Rights of the Church But these Artifices are so hidden that few can come to the knowledge of them And therefore Patrons who profess the Reformed Religion have with reason been excluded from the