established Methods of Proceeding agreeable to natural Justice and the Laws of the Land nothing would be more grievous and intolerable than the common Exercise of a Parochial Discipline For 1. It cannot be presumed that there will be competent Judges For every one who hath a Faculty of Preaching hath not a Faculty of Judging in such Cases And where Discretion and a Judgment of Circumstances is wanting an honest Mind will not secure Men from doing Injury and exposing their Judicature to Contempt 2. They have no fixed and established Rules of proceeding as there are in the Ecclesiastical Courts which have been continued down from time to time and allowed by the Laws of the Land And what miserable Disorder must follow an Arbitrary Method when Humour and Will and Passion may over-rule Justice and Equity and Conscience 3. They are not under the Check of the Law as the Ecclesiastical Courts are For if they exceed their Bounds either as to the Nature of the Cause or the Manner of proceeding they are liable to Prohibitions from the King's Courts of Justice but the Law can take no notice of Parochial or Congregational Judicatures and so Men may suffer without Remedy 4. They have no way to judge of Legal Evidence which is very material when a person is accused It is one of the nicest Points in all criminal Proceedings to determine what is good and sufficient Evidence For several things are to be weighed before either Witnesses or Testimonies can be allowed As to Witnesses it is required that they be persons of Reputation and free from Infamy of Law and Fact that they be disinterested and so not liable to the just Suspicion of Partiality that they be Men of Discretion and sane Memory and all reasonable Exceptions are to be allowed against them As to Testimonies they must be by our Law upon Oath and what Authority have such Persons to give an Oath and why shall a Man be liable to suffer by a Testimony without one when the Law requires it They must be deliberate and not given in Passion consistent as to Time Place and other Circumstances They must be certain and positive and not upon Hear-say or the Believing of other persons They must be free from any just Suspicion of Contrivance and Conspiracy or any sort of Corruption or Partiality And now is every parochial Minister or select Congregation fit to judge of these Matters whereon the Reputation and consequently the Interest of every person may be so deeply concerned 5. They have no way to prevent a percipitate and hasty Sentence Suppose a Man be accused by one of Interest and Passion who possesses others with the same Opinion before-hand and the Judges are all prejudiced before the Matter comes to be heard and in popular Assemblies some few men sway the rest what a Case is a person accused unjustly in He hath no Liberty for others that are not of the Congregation altho' more disinterested either to come in to judge or to plead for him He can have no Advocate to defend him or to shew the Weakness or Inconsistency of the Evidence against him In all Ecclesiastical Courts they may sometimes proceed summarily but even then the Fundamental Rules of the Court must be observed as to Proofs and Witnesses or else the Sentence is void but here the Sentence will take place altho' there hath not been the least Colour of Justice in the whole Proceedings 6. Here is no settled Course of Appeals in Case of a wrong Sentence But where Men are liable to Mistake and Passion a Right of Appeal is one of the Fundamental parts of Justice And therefore Independent and Arbitrary Courts of Judicature as all Congregational Churches are are inconsistent with the common Rights of Mankind and that due Subordination which ought to be in all Societies in order to the preserving Order and Justice among Men. But suppose parochial Discipline so settled among us as to allow a Liberty of Appeal how would the Trouble and Vexation and Expence be increased by going from the parochial Sentence to the Bishop's Court and from thence still further So that if there be some Inconveniencies in point of Distance for persons to be summoned to appear at first so far from Home yet there is some Compensation by the less Trouble and Charges if due Care be taken to prevent Delays and unnecessary Expences which ought to be done And those who do make the greatest Clamour against our Courts are rather willing they should continue such as they may have Cause to complain of than to do their Endeavours to reform them Thus I have endeavoured to shew the just Bounds and Limits of parochial Cures II. I now come to consider the just Measure of that Diligence which is required under those Limits For our Church requires Faithful Diligence in Preaching and Sacraments and Prayers and Reading the Holy Scriptures If then we can understand what this Faithful Diligence implies we may come to satisfie our selves whether we do our Duty or not 1. Faithful Diligence implies serious Application of our Minds to the main End and Design of our Holy Function Which is to do good to the Souls of Men especially to those committed to your Charge And an idle careless santering Life or one too busie and distracted with the Cares of the World are not consistent with it I do not go about to take you off from necessary Business and reasonable Allowances as to Health and Studies but that the doing good to your peoples Souls ought to be the principal and chief Design of your Thoughts Studies and Endeavours And if the people be satisfied that this is really your Design among them you will find that your Doctrine will be easier received your Persons esteemed and your Labours valued It is possible you may meet with a froward peevish self-willed people and it is hard when a Man is only set to water and mend a Hedge made up of Briars and Thorns the more pains he takes the more Scratches he may meet with but if it be your Lot be not discouraged from doing your Duty Remember what sort of people the Prophets were sent to and what Usage they had from them what Hardships and Reproaches Christ and his Apostles underwent from a very unkind World but a patient Continuance in well-doing gave them inward Satisfaction in the midst of all and did by degrees gain the Christian Doctrine Access to the Hearts of those who most opposed it 2. It implies an honest and conscientious Care of discharging the known and common Duties of your Function as Preaching Praying Catechizing Administring Sacraments Visiting the Sick c. A diligent Person is one who neglects no good Opportunities of doing his Business but watches for them and studies to improve them to the best Advantage Can those satisfie themselves that they use Faithful Diligence who shamefully neglect their Cures and care not how seldom they come at them nor how they are supplied
and the more Ancient the more Suspicious But the Lord Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared That by the Common Law of England every Bishop in his Diocess and the Archbishops in Convocation may make Canons to bind within the Limits of their Jurisdiction 3. The subordinate Jurisdiction which was lodged in the Bodies of the Clergy resident in Cathedral Churches and of Archdeacons in the several Diocesses I cannot find either of these to have had any Jurisdiction here before the Conquest neither were there any Courts of Justice out of the several Counties before for all Causes were transacted in the County-Courts and Sheriffs Turns and Appeals lay from them to the Supreme Judicature of the King and the Lords But this doth not hinder but these Courts may be founded on the Law of England And so the original Jurisdiction which of Right belonged to the Bishop might by degrees and a gradual Consent come to be committed as to some parts to the Bodies of Cathedral Churches and to the Archdeacons who are saith my Lord Coke Sixty in England We are told in a late Case of Woodward and Fox That there are Archdeaconries in England by Prescription which have no Dependency on the Bishop but are totally exempt And for this Godolphin is cited who refers to the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions f. 27. where we read of some Archdeacons having a customary and limited Iurisdiction separate from the Bishop for which a Prescription lies But this is only for some special Iurisdiction as the Archdeacon of Richmond for Institutions which came first by Grant from the Bishops but that not being to be produced they insist upon Custom and Prescription as the Deans and Chapters do where the Ancient Compositions are lost But none who understand the Ancient Constitution of this Church can suppose either of them to have been Original since the Right to the Jurisdiction of the Diocess was in the Bishop before there were here either Archdeacons or Chapters with Jurisdiction In the Case of Chiverton and Trudgeon it was declared That an Archdeacon might have a peculiar Jurisdiction as to Administration c. as the Dean of St. Paul's had at S. Pancras and so the Archdeacon of Cornwall as to Wills In the case of Gastril and Iones the Chief Justice declared That the Archdeacon is the Bishop's Officer and his Authority subordinate to the Bishops and granted by them but if special Custom be pleaded that must be well proved to which Dodderidge agreed But we must distinguish between Archdeaconries by Prescription for which I can find no Foundation being all derived by Grant from the Bishop and Archdeacons having some kind of Iurisdiction by Prescription which others have not which cannot be denied All the Power which the Archdeacons have by virtue of their Office is per modum scrutationis simplicis as Lyndwood speaks tanquam Vicarius Episcopi Whatever Power they have beyond this is not Iure communi but Iure speciali and depends either upon Grant or Custom which the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions calls a limited Iurisdiction The Archdeacon's Court is declared by the Judges in Woodward ' s Case to have been time out of Mind settled as a distinct Court from which there lies an Appeal to the Bishop's Court by the Statute 24 H. 8. c. 12. And so the Archdeacon's Jurisdiction is founded on an immemorial Custom in Subordination to the Bishops As to Deans and Chapters I observe these things 1. That although Ecclesiastical Bodies in Cathedrals were very ancient yet we read not of any Jurisdiction peculiar to themselves during the Saxon times My Lord. Coke saith There were Chapters as the Bishop's Council before they had distinct possessions And by their Books he saith it appears that the Bishops parted with some of their Possessions to them and so they became Patrons of the Prebends of the Church Such were London York and Litchfield 2. That several of our Chapters were founded and endowed by the Bishops since the Conquest Such was that of Salusbury by Osmund out of his own Estate as appears by his Charter and the Confirmation of H. 2. So was that of Lincoln by Remigius who removed the See from Dorchester thither and placed there a Dean Treasurer Praecentor and Seven Archdeacons as Henry of Huntingdon saith who lived near the time And in following times those of Exeter and Wells were settled as Dean and Chapter for they were Ecclesiastical Bodies before but not under that Denomination 3. That some had the legal Rights of Dean and Chapters as to Election of Bishops and Confirmation of Leases c. but were a Monastick Body consisting of Prior and Convent Such were Canterbury Winchester Worcester after the Expulsion of the Secular Canons for the Monks not only enjoyed their Lands but were willing enough to continue the Name of Dean among them As at Canterbury after Dunstan's time Agelmothas is called Dean in Worcester Wolstan is called Dean when he was Prior and Winsius upon the first Change is said to be placed loco Decani by Florence of Worcester At Norwich Herbert the Bishop founded the Prior and Convent out of his own Possessions in the time of William II. and they became the Chapter of the Bishop by their Foundation Now as to these it is resolved in the Dean and Chapter of Norwich's Case That when the King transferred them from a Prior and Convent the Legal Rights remained the same And in Hayward and Fulcher's Case the Judges declared That an Ecclesiastical Body may surrender their Lands but they cannot dissolve their Corporation but they still remain a Chapter to the Bishop And it was not only then delivered but since insisted upon in a famous Case That it was the Resolution of the Iudges That a Surrender cannot be made by a Dean and Chapter without Consent of the Bishop because he hath an Interest in them 4. That H. 8. endowed some as Chapters to new erected Bishopricks as Chester Bristol Oxford c. 31 H. 8 9. 34 H. 8. 17. and united others as Bath and Wells and Coventry and Litchfield 33 H. 8. 30. 34 H. 8. 15. 5. That where the Custom hath so obtained there may be a Legal-Chapter without a Dean as in the Diocesses of S. David's and Landaff where there is no other Head of the Chapter but the Bishop but they must act as a distinct Body in Elections and Confirmations of Grants by the Bishops 6. That by the Ancient Custom of England there are sole Ecclesiastical Corporations as well as aggregate A sole Ecclesiastical Corporation is where a single Person represents a whole Succession and under that Capacity is impowered to Receive and to Convey an Estate to his Successors As Bishops Deans Archdeacons Parsons c. But Parsons and Vicars are seized only in Right of the Church but as to a Bishop he may have a Writ of
to their Brethren and answer to the Accusations brought against them But suppose they will not and others of the Brethren say they ought not and so fall into Heats and Disputes among themselves about it and make new Parties and Divisions Is not this an admirable Way of preserving Peace and Order and Discipline in a Church And I am as certain this is not the Way of Christ's appointing as I am that God is the God of Order and not of Confusion and that when Christ left the Legacy of Peace to his Church he left a Power in some to see his Will performed But these things can never be objected against us for all are Members of the same Body and are governed by certain and known Rules and if any be guilty of open Violation of it the Way is open to accuse and prosecute them and if they be found guilty the Censures of the Church will render them uncapable of doing it in such a Station or at least to bring them to Confession of their Fault and Promise of future Amendment And now I leave any one to judge whether the Parochial Clergy are not under greater and better Discipline than the Teachers of the separate Congregations II. But the great Complaint of such Men is That we want Parochial and Congregational Discipline so that Faults should be examined and punished where they have been committed but instead of that all Matters are drawn into the Ecclesiastical Court and there Causes are managed so as looks rather like a Design to punish Men in their Purses than for their Faults and the Delays are so great that the Court it self seems to be designed for Penance and grows very uneasie even to those who are the Members of our Church And some think that the proceeding against Men upon Articles of Enquiry not so agreeable to the Rights and Liberties of Mankind In answer to this I shall consider 1. The Proceedings upon Enquiry at Visitations 2. The Method of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts 3. The Inconveniencies of parochial Discipline 1. As to Enquiries at Visitations They were grounded upon one of the main Pillars of our Law viz. an ancient immemorial Custom founded upon good Reason In the first Canons that ever were made in this Church under Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury the second is That every Bishop is to look after the Government of his own Diocess and not to invade anothers And that in so doing they went about their Diocesses in order to an Enquiry and Correction of Miscarriages is evident from the Council under Cuthbert Archbishop of Canterbury Can. 3. 25. the first Council at Calechyth Can. 3. the Constitutions of Odo Archbishop of Canterbury Can. 3. and the Canon of Edgar Can. 3. But in these Saxon times the Visitations were annual which were found inconvenient and therefore in the Norman times the Archdeacons were taken into a part of the Jurisdiction under the Bishop and visited those years the Bishop did not But we meet with no Archdeacons with any kind of Jurisdiction in the Saxon times we read indeed sometimes of the Name of Archdeacons but they had nothing to do in the Diocess but only attended the Bishop at Ordinations and other publick Services in the Cathedral Lanfranc was the first who made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See And Thomas first Archbishop of York after the Conquest was the first who divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries and so did Remigius Bishop of Lincoln his large Diocess into Seven Archdeaconries saith H. of Huntingdon And so it was with the rest of which there were two Occasions 1. The laying aside the Corepiscopi in the Western Parts as assuming too much to themselves 2. The publick Services which the Bishops were more strictly tied to as the King's Barons in the Norman times Which was the Reason not only of taking in Archdeacons but likewise of Archpresbyters or Rural-Deans who had some Inspection into the several Deanaries and assisted the Bishop in such things as they were appointed to do and then came in the other Ecclesiastical Officers as Vicars General Chancellors Commissaries c. for we read not of them here at all in the Saxon times but about the time of Hen. II. the Bishops took them for their Assistance in Dispatch of Causes when the King required their strict Attendance on the publick Affairs in the Supreme Court of Parliament 2. As to the Method of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts it is no other than hath been continued here without Interruption till of late years ever since the Conquest For the Consistory-Court and the Rules of Proceeding there were established by a Law in the time of William the First As far as I can find by King Edward's Laws c. 4. the Bishops did then proceed by the Ecclesiastical Laws although they then sat in the County-Court but this caused so much Confusion that William by a general Consent and a Charter directed to all the People of England doth separate the Ecclesiastical from the Temporal Courts which was enrolled as good Law 2 R. 2. upon occasion of a Suit of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln and therefore the Charter of Remigius Bishop of Lincoln is more mentioned than others but the same was to all the Bishops and Counties of England as appears by other Copies of it Thus the consistory-Consistory-Court was first established as a distinct Court from the county-County-Court which it was not in the Saxon times for then the Bishop sate with the Civil Magistrate in the same Court and Ecclesiastical Causes were first heard and decided there It seems the People wer very unwilling to go to a new Place and therefore the Law is inforced with severe Penalties for Contempt And those who object against the Reasonableness of the Method of Proceeding in those Courts must reflect upon some of the wisest Nations in the World who have gone upon the same Grounds in all that have received the Civil Law and upon some of the greatest Courts at this time in the Kingdom as the Chancery and Admiralty which go by the same Fundamental Rules As to any Objections which arise from the personal Faults of those who are imployed in them that reaches I am afraid to all Courts and it ought to be the Work and Business of those who look after them to do what in them lies to reform them that others Faults may not be laid at their Doors 3. But for those who would have a Parochial or Congregational Discipline set up as much better and more effectual I shall desire them to consider that since Matters of Discipline are such as that in them the Reputation and Interest of Persons is very much concerned they ought not to be left to Arbitrary Proceedings of any Persons but they ought to be managed by the certain and common Rules of Justice since every Man hath a Right to defend himself when he is accused And unless there be known and
Right because the Fee-simple abideth in him and his Chapter and so may a Dean and Master of an Hospital And these are called Bodies Politick by Littleton That the Exercise of the Bishop's Power may be restrained by ancient Compositions as is seen in the two Ancient Ecclesiastical Bodies of St. Paul's and Litchfield Concerning which it is to be observed That where the Compositions are extant both Parties are equally bound to observe their parts Thus by the Remisness and Absence of the Bishops of Litchfield from their See by going to Chester and then to Coventry the Deans had great Power lodged in them as to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction there After long Contests the matter came to a Composition A. D. 1428. by which the Bishops were to visit them but once in Seven Years and the Chapter had Jurisdiction over their own Peculiars So in the Church of Sarum the Dean hath very large Jurisdiction even out of the Bishop's Diocess which makes it probable to have been very ancient but upon contest it was settled by Composition between the Bishop Dean and Chapter A. D. 1391. But where there are no Compositions it depends upon Custom which limits the Exercise although it cannot deprive the Bishop of his Diocesan-Right 4. The Delegate Jurisdiction which was committed to the several Officers of the Bishops Courts and the Manner of their Proceedings is founded upon immemorial Custom In the Saxon times I find no Delegation of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for the Bishops sate in person in the county-County-Courts and there heard Ecclesiastical Causes as appears by the Charter of H. 1. when he pretended to restore the Saxon Laws c. 7. But William I. had settled the consistory-Consistory-Court by as good a Law as any was made at that time distinct from the county-County-Court and required all Ecclesiastical Causes to be there heard and his Son H. 1. did but make a shew of restoring the Saxon Laws and the former Law came to be generally received and so Mr. Selden yields that it grew to be a general Law which shews that it obtained the Force of a Law by Consent as well as by Authority The consistory-Consistory-Courts being thus settled and Numbers of Causes there depending and the Bishops being then by H. 2. in the Constitutions of Clarendon strictly tied to Attendance upon the Supreme Courts of Judicature with other Barons there came a Necessity of taking in other Persons with a delegated Power to hear Causes and to do such other Acts of Jurisdiction as the Bishops should appoint For it was still allowed that Iure communi the Jurisdiction was in the Bishop but Iure speciali in auxilium Episcopi it might be delegated to others And so it hath been here received and not only here but it hath been the general Practice of Christendom As to the manner of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts it is the same in all Parts and built on the same Grounds with those of our Courts of Equity and Admiralty which are as different from those of the Common Law 5. The settling Parochial Rights or the Bounds of Parishes depends upon an ancient and immemorial Custom For they were not limited by any Act of Parliament nor set forth by special Commissioners but as the Circumstances of Times and Places and Persons did happen to make them greater or lesser In some places Parishes seem to interfere when some place in the middle of another Parish belongs to one that is distant but that hath generally happened by an Unity of Possession when the Lord of a Manor was at the Charge to erect a new Church and make a distinct Parish of his own Demesns some of which lay in the Compass of another Parish But now care is taken by Annual Perambulations to preserve those Bounds of Parishes which have been long settled by Custom But the Bounds of Parishes is not allowed to belong to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction II. The next Foundation of Law is a General Practice and Allowance i.e. when things of themselves do not oblige by the Authority of those that made them yet being generally received and allowed they thereby become Law to us This we have in an Act of Parliament 25 H. 8. c. 21. wherein it is said That the People of England are only bound to such Laws as are properly their own being in Subjection to no Foreign Legislative Power But were not many things here received for Laws which were Enacted by a Foreign Authority as the Papal and Legatine Constitutions True say they but it is not by Virtue of their Authority but by the free Consent of the People in the Use and Allowance of them And so they are not observed as the Laws of any Foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as the customed and ancient Laws of this Realm originally established as Laws of the same by the said Sufferance Consent and Custom and no otherwise So that here we have a full and express Declaration by Parliament That such Canons as have been received and allowed by ancient Custom make a part of our Laws and continue to oblige provided that they be not repugnant to the King's Prerogative nor to the Laws Statutes and Customs of the Realm as it is expressed in another Act of the same Parliament 25 H. 8. c. 19. The Ecclesiastical Laws saith my Lord Coke are such as are not against the Laws of the Realm viz. the Common Law and the Statutes and Customs of the Realm And according to such Laws the Ordinary and other Ecclesiastical Iudges do proceed in Causes within their Conusance So that by the Acknowledgement of this great Oracle of the Common Law there are Laws Ecclesiastical in force among us and Causes to be judged by those Laws and Officers appointed by the Law to proceed according to them The Ecclesiastical Laws and Ordinances are owned by the Statute 27 H. 8. c. 20. 32 H. 8. c. 7. 35 H. 8. c. 19. after the Commission appointed for the Review of them 1 E. 6. c. 2. The Ecclesiastical Courts are appointed to be kept by the King's Authority and Process to be issued out in his Name in all Suits and Causes of Instance between Party and Party where the Causes are particularly mentioned which belong to those Courts and no Alteration is made in them as to their powers but only that the Process should be in the King's Name But some persons in our Age who love to be always starting Difficulties to humour such as bear ill Will to our Constitution have 〈…〉 although this Act was 〈…〉 M. 2. yet that Repeal 〈…〉 â—ac 25. n. 48. therefore 〈…〉 Stat. 1 E. 6. is 〈◊〉 But the plain and short Answer is this That there was no need of any Debate about the Repeal of the Statute of E. 6. after the first of Q. Eliz. because then the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 20. was expresly revived wherein the Bishops were impowered to act as before they might have done according to the Laws and
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
Bishop to be translated from that Place he was first Consecrated to as well as to hold another with it But the Good of the Church being the main Foundation of all the Rules of it when that might be better promoted by a Translation it was by a tacit Consent looked on as no unjust Violation of its Rules The Question then is Whether the Churches Benefit may not in some Cases make the Canons against Non-Residence as Dispensible as those against Translations And the Resolution of it doth not depend upon the voiding the particular Obligation of the Incumbent to his Cure but upon some more general Reason with respect to the State of the Church as being imployed in the Service of it which requires a Persons having not a bare Competency for Subsistence but a Sufficiency to provide Necessaries for such Service For those seem to have very little regard to the flourishing Condition of a Church who would confine the Sufficiency of a Subsistence meerly to the Necessaries of Life But it seems to be reasonable that Clergymen should have Incouragement sufficient not only to keep them above Contempt but in some respect agreeable to the more ample Provision of other Orders of Men. And by God's own Appointment the Tribe of Levi did not fall short of any of the rest if it did not very much exceed the Proportion of others We do not pretend to the Privileges they had only we observe from thence that God himself did appoint a plentiful Subsistence for those who attended upon his Service And I do not know what there is Levitical or Ceremonial in that I am sure the Duties of the Clergy now require a greater Freedom of Mind from the anxious Cares of the World than the Imployments of the Priests and Levites under the Law But we need not go so far back if the Church enjoyed all her Revenues as entirely as when the severe Canons against Pluralities were made there would not be such a Plea for them as there is too much Cause for in some Places from the Want of a competent Subsistence But since that time the Abundance of Appropriations since turned into Lay-Fees hath extreamly lessened the Churches Revenues and have left us a great Number of poor Vicarages and Arbitrary Cures which would hardly have afforded a Maintenance for the Nethinims under the Law who were only to be Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water But this doth not yet clear the Difficulty For the Question is Whether the Subsistence of the Clergy can lawfully be improved by a Plurality of Livings Truly I think this if it be allowed in some Cases lawful to be the least desirable way of any but in some Circumstances it is much more excusable than in others As when the Benefices are mean when they lie near each other when great care is taken to put in sufficient Curates with good Allowance when Persons take all Opportunities to do their Duties themselves and do not live at a distance from their Benefices in an idle and careless manner But for Men to put in Curates meerly to satisfie the Law and to mind nothing of the Duties of their Places is a horrible Scandal to Religion and our Church and that which if not amended may justly bring down the Wrath of God upon us For the loosest of all the Popish Casuists look upon this as a very great Sin even those who attributed to the Pope the highest Dispensing Power in this Case But when the great Liberty of Dispensing had made the Ecclesiastical Laws in great measure useless then it was thought fit by our Law-makers to restrain and limit it by a Statute made 21 H. VIII wherein it is Enacted That if any Person or Persons having one Benefice with Cure of Souls being of the yearly Value of Eight Pounds or above accept or take any other with Cure of Souls and be instituted and inducted in Possession of the same that then and immediately after such Possession had thereof the first Benefice shall be adjudged to be void And all Licenses and Dispensations to the contrary are declared to be void and of none effect This one would have thought had been an effectual Remedy against all such Pluralities and Dispensations to obtain them and this no doubt was the primary Design of the Law but then follow so many Proviso's of Qualified Men to get Dispensations as take off a great deal of the Force and Effect of this Law But then it ought well to be consider'd Whether such a License being against the chief Design of a Law can satisfie any Man in point of Conscience where there is not a just and sufficient Cause For if the Pope's Dispensation with the supposed Plenitude of his Power could not satisfie a Man's Conscience without an antecedent Cause as the Casuists resolve much less can such Proviso's do it It is the general Opinion of Divines and Lawyers saith Lessius That no Man is safe in Conscience by the Pope's Dispensation for Pluralities unless there be a just cause for it No Man can with a safe Conscience take a Dispensation from the Pope for more Benefices than one meerly for his own Advantage saith Panormitan and from him Sylvester and Summ. Angelica A Dispensation saith Cardinal To-let secures a Man as to the Law but as to Conscience there must be a good cause for it and that is when the Church hath more Benefit by it than it would have without it But the Pope's Dispensing Power went much farther in point of Conscience in their Opinion than that which is setled among us by Act of Parliament For it is expressed in the Statute of 21 Hen. VIII That the Dispensation is intended to keep Men from incurring the Danger Penalty and Forfeiture in the Statute comprised So that the most qualified Person can only say that the Law doth not deprive him but he can never plead that it can satisfie him in point of Conscience unless there be some Cause for it which is of more Moment to the Church than a Man 's sole and constant Attendance on a particular Cure is But this Statute is more favourable to the Clergy than the Canon Law was before in two Particulars 1. In declaring that no simple Benefices or meer Dignities as the Canonists call them are comprehended under the Name of Benefices having Cure of Souls viz. no Deanary Archdeaconry Chancellorship Treasurership Chantership or Prebend in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church nor Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed nor any Benefice perpetually appropriate But all these before were within the reach of the Canon Law and a Dispensation was necessary for them Which shews that this Law had a particular respect to the necessary Attendance on Parochial Cures and looked on other Dignities and Preferments in the Church as a sufficient Encouragement to extraordinary Merit 2. That no notice is taken of Livings under the Valuation of 8 l. which I suppose is that of 20 E. 1.
Church That no Man can serve two Masters c. but all their Reasons were not of this sort For the Council of Toledo speaks home That one Man cannot perform his Duty to more than one Charge To the same purpose the Sixth Council at Paris and withal That it brings a Scandal on the Christian Church and an Hinderance to Publick Worship and the Good of Souls and savours too much of a worldly Mind which are weighty Arguments The only considerable thing on the other side is That the Bishops are to take care that the Places be duly supplied but whether it be done by Parson Vicar or Curate is not material But this will not hold For 1. the Care of Souls is committed personally to him that doth undertake it And a Regard is had to the Qualifications of the Person for such a Trust by the Patron that presents and the Bishop who admits and institutes the Person so qualified 2. The old Canons were very strict as to personal Residence so as to fix them in their Cures from which they could not go away when they pleased which they called Promissionem stabilitatis Our Saxon Canons are clear as to the personal Cure Can. Egbert 1. 4 6. Populo sibi commisso and no Presbyter could leave his Cure and go to another only for Honour or Profit Can. 13. And none could go from one Bishop to another without his Diocesan's Leave Concil Herudford c. 5. Egbert de Eccles. Instit. p. 97 100. And when the Bishop gives Institution he commits the Care of Souls to the Incumbent and not meerly the Care that Divine Offices be there performed But yet it is well observed by Aquinas That if the having more Benefices than one were a thing evil in it self it could in no case be dispensed with but there are some Actions which in general are irregular yet in some cases may be justified especially if they be extraordinary as to Publick Service and Usefulness c. And to the same purpose Cajetan speaks but he saith The Cases that make it lawful must relate to a Publick and not a Private Good but he mentions these things which excuse from Residence 1. Lawful Impediments as to Health c. 2. Publick Service And others say a Geometrical Proportion ought to be observed in the Distribution of Ecclesiastical Benefices and not an Arithmetical i. e. A Regard ought to be had to the Merits and Capacities of Persons as a Commander hath more Pay than many common Souldiers but this reaches only to the Value and not to the Number of Benefices But the Question still remains Whether a Legal Dispensation take not off the Obligation in Point of Conscience since it is allowed by Law and the Curate appointed by the Bishop who committed the Cure of Souls to him In answer to this we must consider 1. That the Law proposes in Dispensations very allowable Ends as Publick Service Incouragement of Learning Reward of Merit and therefore Doctors by Favour have not the Privilege which others have and in case of Incompetency as it was then judged no Legal Dispensation was needful 2. Some Ancient Canons took care of the Supply of the Place by competent Persons and in that case abated the Rigour of the Canon For Sirmondus saith in the Canon of the Council of Nantz against Pluralities this Clause was added Unless he hath Presbyters under him to supply the Duties of his Place And the same Clause is in Regino l. 1. c. 254. and Regino puts it among the Articles of Enquiry as to the Clergy If any had more Churches than one without Presbyters to assist him And in their old Admonition to them at Visitations it is to the same purpose but in others it is left out Thomassin is of Opinion That the former Enquiry related to those who had Chapels and not to more Churches because then there were none that had Titles upon anothers Benefice but these Words are express as to more Churches It 's true there were no such Titles then for a Title in the old Canon Law was the Relation which a Clergyman stood in to the Bishop of his Diocess being one of his Clergy and so the Greek Canonists understand a Man 's not being ordained without a Title and not having two Churches i. e. not to have Relation to two Diocesses and so sine Titulo is without being owned by some Bishop and this was that which they thought ought to be strictly observed and to which purpose many Canons were made both ancient and later and if any deserted their Bishop they were liable to Deprivation Afterwards the Word Title came to be applied to parochial Churches but there were some who found out that the Ancient Canons had another Sense Thence in the Council of Placentia in the Canon Sanctorum Dist. 70. c. 2. it was decreed That one might have two Churches in the same Diocess but not two Preferments in several Cathedrals And in the Council of Clermont A. D. 1095. the Reason is given because according to the Canons no Man could have-two Titles and every one was bound to hold to the Title to which he was first ordained But after all the Council of Nantz shews plainly that more parochial Titles were then allowed if well provided for by such persons as the Bishop of the Diocess approved Now this very much alters the State of the case for then the Obligation is Real and not Personal 3. It was agreed by the Ancient Canons That where there was an Incompetency of Maintenance they allowed an Union for support now that is but the Bishop's Act in joyning what had been divided supposing a sufficient Subsistence And a reasonable Distance with the Bishop's Allowance hath the same Equity i.e. the Bishop's Act may unite two small Benefices for a Support not by a perpetual Union but so long as he sees cause which our Law doth still allow under such a Value But it is rather a Dispensation than an Union for the Rights continue distinct In the Court of Rome there were Prerogative Unions ad Vitam which were very scandalous and are owned by the best Canonists to be destructive of all Order and invented to defeat the Canons against Pluralities But the Unions which the Law allows are only those where two distinct Benefices are made one for a competent Subsistence and then if the Union be reasonable the Dispensation within due Distance is so too Balsamon saith In the Greek Church Pluralities are not forbidden if they be near and under the same Bishop but they did not allow the same Man to be under two Bishops In the Capitulars that Clause is added That no Man shall have more Livings than one si Facultas suppetit if it affords a reasonable Subsistence And therefore in case of Incompetency of Maintenance of a good Provision for Curates and of
own and were hardly brought to any reasonable Allowance for the Clergy which supplied them These were called Beneficia in the Capitulars and they were to pay Nonae Decimae i.e. a Fifth Part out of them which was obtained with much Difficulty as appears by the many Laws made about them In the Council at Leptins A.D. 743. Carolomannus son to Charles Martel owns the letting out some of the Church Lands sub Precario Censu upon a reserved Rent Can. 2. Capit. l. 5. c. 3. but then it was barely for Life But the consequence was That it was very hard to recover either the Lands or the reserved Rents and they put in Clergy-men and put them out as they pleased because they held these Lands as Beneficiary Tenures from the Crown So that it was the Work of more than an Age to put the Church there in any tolerable Condition But this seems to be very much mistaken when it is brought to prove the Right of Patronage from the Endowment as to the Disposal of Benefices But the Right of Patronage by the first building and endowing the Church is owned by the Civil Law in Iustinian's Novels 123. c. 18. and Two Things were there required 1. A sufficient Maintenance for the Clergy who were nominated 2. The Bishop's Satisfaction as to their Fitness about which he speaks in another Novel 56. Tit. 12. c. 2. And he elsewhere requires that before any Churches were built the Bishop should see that there were sufficient Maintenance for those who were to officiate Novel 66. Tit. 22. The same Right obtained here upon the same Grounds as appears by the Barons Answer to Gregory IX who affirm That they had it ever since Christianity was founded here They mean ever since parochial Churches were endowed by their Ancestors for there could be no such Right of Patronage before And such Patrons were here called Advocati Ecclesiae as appears by Ioh. Sarisbur Ep. 6. 119. and the Ius Advocationis as our Lawyers tell us is a Right which a Person hath to present to a vacant Benefice in his own Name which is agreeable to what Bracton and Fleta had said long before But it doth not appear by them how the Names of Patron and Advocate came to be so applied Among the Romans saith Asconius Pedianus the Patron was he that pleaded the cause of another the Advocate he that appeared in Court on his behalf But this doth not reach to the Ius Advocationis which we are now about In the Ninety seventh Canon of the African Code an Allowance is made for the Churches to have Advocates to solicite their Causes at Court. From hence the greater Churches and Monasteries had their proper Advocates appointed them by the King as Bignonius observes and in the old Charters of Aub. Miraeus several such Advocates are appointed and it appears to have been an honorary Title and great Men were pleased with it Miraeus faith it was accounted a considerable Honour at that time And so by degrees the Founders of Parochial Churches came to have the Title of Patrons and Advocates of them and the Right they injoyed the Right of Advowson as well as Patronage not as some ridiculously talk of Advocat se or Advocat alium because the Trust and Care of those Churches endowed by their Ancestors was fallen to them and they were bound to look after and to defend the Rights of them and so Lyndwood explains it II. The next thing to be considered is the Oblations of the People which in those elder times were so free and large that which may seem incredible now there were Persons who would build Churches on their own Land to have a Share in the Oblations as is affirmed in one of the Spanish Councils and there forbidden with great Severity It was not as the Gloss on the Canon Law understands it to make a Bargain for the Right of Patronage but it is expressed to have an equal Share with the Clergy in the Oblations of the People It is observed by Agabardus That the Devotion of Persons in the first Ages was so great that there was no need to make Laws or Canons for the Supplies of Churches since they were so amply provided for by the Liberality of the People Thence we read of the Deposita pietatis in Tertullian which were voluntary Oblations and out of which were made Divisiones Mensurnae in S. Cyprian and the Sportulae which were the Allowances made to the Clergy out of the common Stock and they who received them and not those who gave them as Mr. Selden fancies were called Sportulantes Fratres and the Allowances were then stiled Stipes Oblationes which were so considerable that St. Cyprian blamed some for their setting their Hearts too much upon them Stipes Oblationes Lucra desiderant quibus prius insatiabiles incubabant which could not be said of any meer necessary Subsistence these they received tanquam Decimas ex fructibus as St. Cyprian speaks in lieu of Tithes at that time when the most of the Christian Church inhabited the Cities and gave out of their Stock to maintain the Church and those who attended upon the Service of it But when Christianity came to spread into the Countries then a more fixed and settled Maintenance was required but so as to retain somewhat of the Ancient Custom in voluntary Oblations No sooner was Christianity settled in France but we read of Lands given to the Church by Clodovaeus after his Conversion these are owned by the first Council of Orleans called in his time A. D. 511. and were put into the Bishop's Hands and to be distributed by him for Repairs of Churches Maintenance of the Clergy and other pious Uses Can. 5. 14 15. But besides these we read still of Oblations made by the people on the Altar both in the Mother-Church and in Parochial Churches If in the Mother-Church one Moiety went to the Bishop the other to the Clergy if in the other only the third Part to the Bishop In the second Council of Mascon Can. 4. we find it required That all the People make an Oblation of Bread and Wine at the Altar and this was A. D. 585. but besides the next Canon insists on the Payment of Tithes as founded on the Law of God and the Ancient Custom of the Church which is thereby reinforced unde statuimus decernimus ut mos antiquus reparetur which Words are not fairly left out by Mr. Selden because they shew that there was only in this Canon a renewing of an Ancient Custom which had obtained but was now growing into Disuse For this Council of Mascon was called on purpose to restore what they found too much declining as to Religion and they begin with the Observation of the Lord's Day and after add this wherein they complain of the Neglect of that which their Predecessors observed as founded on the Law
I come to those who are capable of being argued with such I mean who are unsatisfied in the Point of Law not in general but in particular Cases from whence Suits arise and those are often from these Causes 1. Not duly considering the just Measure and Extent of the Rules of Law for the Payment of Tithes 2. Not attending to the Exemptions or Discharges by Law from the Payment of Tithes The best way I know to prevent troublesome Suits about Tithes is to enquire diligently into these two Things 1. The Rules of Law for the Payment of Tithes One might have justly expected that in a matter of common Right and daily Practice and wherein the Peace and Quiet of the People is so much concerned as well as of the Clergy the Rules of Law should have been plain and clear and liable to as few Exceptions as possible but instead of this there is not one general Rule in this matter but hath several Exceptions and different Opinions have been about them by the great Men of the Law which hath given too much occasion to the Multitudes of Suits which have been in the matter of Tithes so that the Clergy are not so much to blame if they are unavoidably involved in Suits by the Perplexity of the Law and the different Resolutions which have been made about the Cases reported by them This I shall make appear by examining some of the most general Rules of Law and comparing them with the Resolutions which have been made in particular Cases 1. One of the most standing Rules of the Law is That Tithes are only to be paid of things which do annually increase ex annuatis renovantibus simul semel But is this Rule allowed in all Cases 1. From hence Coke concludes That no Tithes are to be paid of Minerals or of what is of the Substance of the Earth and so Stone Turff Tinn Lead Coals Chalk Pots of Earth are denied to be titheable But I find 5 H. 4. n. 65. a Petition of the Commons was denied about being sued in the Ecclesiastical Courts for Tithes of Stone and Slat taken out of their Quarries The Petition was renewed 8 H. 4. and then the King's Answer was That the former Custom should continue And so about Tithes for Sea-Coals 51 E. 3. n. 57. From whence it appears that these things might be tithed by ancient Custom and that was not thought fit to be altered But 34 Eliz. it was resolved in the Kings-Bench That no Tithes are due of Quarries of Slat or Stone in the Case of Lysle and Wats Here was no Regard to Custom and a Reason is given which deserves to be considered viz. That he may have Tithes of the Grass or Corn which groweth upon the Surface of the Land where the Quarry is But how if there be none As Lands where Quarries are seldom afford Tithes But the Note on the Register saith That if Corn do grow there Tithe of it would be due however So that here we have a Rule against an ancient Custom and Rule too But it cannot be denied that Fitz-Herbert and Brook say That there is no Tithe of Quarries or Coals or such things and it was so adjudged 11 Iac. and 14 Iac. and in other Cases since And yet after all Rolls yields That a Custom in these cases is to be allowed so that the general Rule is to be understood so as there be no Custom to the contrary And as to Minerals it is determined by a late Writer That by Custom Tithes may be due of them although they do not annually increase And my Lord Coke mentions King Iohn's Grant to the Bishop of Exeter of the Tithe of his Tinn-Farm And a good Author assures us That in Places of Lead-Mines the Tithe of Lead is the chief Part of the Ministers Maintenance Therefore my Lord Coke concludes his Discourse of Tithes with this general Rule That by Custom a Parson may have Tithes of such things as are not titheable of common Right 2. From hence it is concluded That no Tithe can be due for Houses because they have no annual Increase This was solemnly debated in Dr. Grant's Case 11 Iac. and that there was no Tithe due was proved by the Counsel from the Register Fitz. H. N. B. Brook c. But it was resolved by the Court That although Houses of themselves were not titheable yet there might be a Modus decimandi on the Ground on which the Houses stood and the Houses did not take away the Right before and in most ancient Cities and Burroughs there was such a Modus for the Maintenance of their Minister I grant that there was a certain Modus decimandi upon Houses but not upon the Account of the Ground they stood upon but there was a customary Duty upon Houses in lieu of Tithes and were accounted a sort of Praedial Tithes although they were called Oblationes de Domibus as Lyndwood saith and were distinct from Personal Tithes for the Iews were bound to pay Tithes of Houses but not personal Such was the Rate on Houses in London But in Dr. Layfield's Case it was denied that there could be a Prescription of Tithes upon Houses because they are to be paid only for the Increase of things What is now become of the former Modus decimandi when a Prescription was here insisted upon and denied So that here were different Opinions a special Custom was allowed upon good Reason and here a Prescription disallowed upon such a Reason as would have overthrown the former Custom and yet the Law was the same still 3. From hence it would follow That if this Rule hold things which have not an annual Increase would not be titheable Then no Tithe of Saffron would be due whose Heads are gathered but once in three years nor of Sylva caedua under twenty years and yet this was allowed in Parliament at Sarum saith the Register notwithstanding it was not renewed every year And Rolls saith That Tithes shall be paid of Beeches Hazle Willows Holly Alder Maple even after twenty Years because they are not Timber But what if Willows be used for Timber Then Hobart saith they ought to be excepted If young Trees grow in a Nursery and be sold it is allowed that Tithes shall be paid of them and these are not renewed every year And what becomes now of this General Rule when so many Exceptions are made to it 4. If this Rule hold there can be no Tithes of After-pasture for the Rule is simul semel And my Lord Coke saith It was adjudged 8 Iac. That a Parson shall not have two Tithes of Land in one year and he instances in the Hay and After-pasture c. And yet Rolls affirms That it is due by Law unless there be a Prescription to the contrary and he saith the Iudgment was given upon
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