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
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
dignities of Cathedral Churches but amongst these dignities the Penitentiary is not reckoned and there is some difficulty also as to the Divinity Lecture though there be Judgments as to that in favours of Graduats III. The right of Graduats has no place but when the Benefices are vacant by death IV. When the Graduate hath a Benefice of 400 Francs a year or an Annuity of the same value which stands him instead of a Benefice he is thought provided and cannot pretend to any Benefice in quality of a Graduate unless he had not that Provision by virtue of his degrees for in that case he may renounce his Benefice or Annuity and have right as before to demand the Benefics appropriated to Graduats The reason why a Graduat having a Benefice of 400 Francs is reckoned provided is that in the Concordat 200 Florins are mentioned which have been valued at 400 Francs But I think at present they ought to be valued at 600. V. When the Benefice that falls in the the month of Graduats is under Rule it cannot be demanded but by a Regular Graduat Just so the Regular cannot demand Secular Benefices VI. In fine if an Indultee or Priviledged person and a Graduat demand one and the same Benefice the Indultee is preferred before the Graduat The Exemptions which Popes have granted to several Churches Of Exemptions as well Regular as Secular have also much derogated from the Canonical Right of Bishops because Abbots and other Patrons confer in full Right the Benefices which are contained in their Exemptions and they failing the Right is devolved on the Pope who is become their immediat Superiour This is not a proper place to handle these exemptions to the full nor to speak of their Original besides we have elsewhere said somewhat as to that Subject I shall only mention what relates to the Custom of France I. The Decree of the Council of Trent that derogats from Exemptions is not received there But the Titles on which the Exemptions are founded are examined and if the Titles be lawful the Priviledges that are expressed are allowed II. Possession alone is not enough to authorise these Priviledges Legal Titles must also be produced in as much as many are in Possession of their Priviledges because their Titles have not been sufficiently examined which most commonly are false and it is not Just that Exemption which is but a Priviledged Right should prejudice the common Right of Bishops unless it be well grounded and granted for lawful causes To this may be added that (1) Fraus nemini debet Patrocinari falshood can never make a Prescription and that a Possession grounded on a bad Title is no true Possession All possible rigour ought to be used then against the Right of Exemption or Priviledge because it derogates from the Common Law and nothing should be granted to the exempted but what is expresly set down in their Title of Exemption And it is absolutely necessary that the Priviledges be mentioned in plain Terms without any ambiguity III. The more ancient the Titles of Exemption are of the less extent are the Priviledges of the Exemptions as appears by Ancient Formularies which hardly contain any thing else in respect of Monasteries but the liberty of chusing the Abbot and the free Disposition of all their Revenues as to the rest they were entirely Subject to the Bishops Exemptions as we find them now a days began only with the Reformations of Cluni and Cisteaux who were exempted from the Jurisdiction of Bishops by the Title of their Foundation Though that happened in a disorderly time yet these Exemptions are not medled with in France seeing they are owned by all men But there is great cause to doubt of the most part of others which are supposed to have been granted by Popes after the Foundation of Monasteries There are but few of them that are true in their full extent which is easily discovered when one sets seriously to work to examin the Titles And in that manner Peter de Blois Arch Deacon of the Church of Bath in England affirms that the Exemptions of Monasteries in his time were examined of which the greatest part were forged by the Monks The Bishop of Salisbury thought the Letters of Exemption of the Abbey of Malmesbury to be false quia in filo Bulla videbantur vitiosae stilumque Romanae curiae minime redolebant Nevertheless the Abbot refusing to submit to his Bishop fell into such a rage against him that the same Peter de Blois complained of it in his letter (1) Petr. Blaes Epist 68. to Pope Alexander III. To whom upon occasion of the Abbot of Malmesbury he represents the abuses of Exemptions take it in his own words Viles sunt Abbates miseri qui potestatem Episcoporum non exterminant cum pro annua Auri uncia plenam à sede Romanâ possint assequi libertatem By this it is apparent enough that Monasteries obtained for Money from the Court of Rome as many Exemptions as they pleased and that Simony was much practised by the Monks especially the Regular Abbots who by that means shook off Obedience to their Bishops that they might more freely squander away the Revenues of their Monasteries and have no Body to check them for their vices (1) Petr. Blaes ibid. Detestantur Abbates habere suorum excessuum correctorem vagam impunitatis licentiam amplectuntur claustralisque militiae jugum relaxant in omnem desiderii libertatem Hinc est quod monasteriorum fere omnium facultates datae sunt in direptienem praedam These and many other reasons which I omit are the cause that no great favour is shewn to the Exemptions of Monasteries in France though they be not wholly rejected there To which may be added that many of these Exemptions especially those of Chapters have been obtained in the times of Schism and it often happened that the Chapter which opposed its Bishop acknowledged one Pope and the Bishop another And that is to be taken notice of in the Titles of Exemptions Rules how to distinguish true Exemptions from false that what was done upon occasion of Schism may not be authorised That true Titles may be the more easily distinguished from such as have been foisted and counterfeited we shall here set down several Rules which are necessary to be known if one would with any exactness make that distinction And that will not only serve to discover the falsity of Priviledges and Exemptions but also to Judge of other Titles I. One must have seen true Titles that are past all exception according to which are to be examined those that are produced The Characters are to be minded if it be an Original Piece for it seldom happens that they who counterfeit Titles do exactly imitate these Characters whether it be that they write too hastily or that they are satisfied to do somewhat that comes near them but which is not altogether like II. The difference of
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
are not debarred from receiving Inheritances The disorders of Ecclesiasticks must at that time have been very great at Rome that Christian Princes were obliged to make such rigorous Laws against them Now seeing Monks come within the compass of the complaints that St. Jerom and the other Fathers have made against Ecclesiasticks it will be pertinent to speak a little of their Original and Progress The Original and Progress of Monks and to shew how they came to have a share in the Revenues and affairs of the Church The Original of Monachism is commonly attributed to St. Paul the Hermite and St. Anthony in imitation of whom Egypt was entirely filled with Monks whereof some were Solitary and others lived in Community That kind of Life afterward got footing in Syria Pontus and the lesser Asia Those of Egypt and Syria have still retained the name of St. Anthony their Founder Whereas the others of the Province of Pontus and the lesser Asia took the name of St. Basil who brought from Egypt into those parts the Rule and Institution of St. Anthony So that St. Basil and St. Anthony have filled the Levant with Monks who at present bear their Names St. Athanasius coming to Rome and having there published the Life of St Anthony many also in Italy embraced that kind of Life which from thence was propagated into the other Provinces We must nevertheless have a care not to confound the Clerks who lived in Community under the direction of their Bishops with Monks Eusebius Euseb Vercel Bishop of Verceil was the first in the West who according to the Testimony of St. Ambrose joined together two things which seemed contrary to wit the Monastick Rule to the manner of the living of Clerks The Clergy that lived in Community differed from Monks It is not to be magined that these Clerks were true Monks no more than those who empraced the same kind of life under St. Martin and St. Austin They borâ—owed only from the Monks their way of living in common being for that â—o less serviceable to the Church whereas in the beginning Monks lived out of Towns were for most part Laicks and so far from performing any publick Ministry in the Church that their Profession wholly debarred them from it All their Employment consisted in Prayer and Labouring with their hands and their study in reading the holy Scriptures It is true Bishops sometimes drew Monks out of their Monasteries and associated them to their Clergy but then they were no longer Monks being reckoned in the number of Clerks St. Jerom always distinguishes those two kinds of life and speaking of himself as a Monk he says (1) Clerici pascunt oves ego pascor Hieron Epist ad Heliod Clerks are Shepherds for my part I am one of the Sheep And he always builds on this principle that it is one thing to be a Monk another thing to be a Clerk Alia monachorum est causa alia clericorum He nevertheless acknowledges that Monks by their profession were not excluded from Ecclesiastical Employments on the contrary that Monachism ought to serve them as a Noviciat in order thereunto when Bishops shall Judge them worthy (2) Sic vive ut Clericus esse merearis quod si populus vel Episcopus te in Clericum eligat age quae sunt Clerici Hieron in Epist ad Rust Monach. Live says he writing to Rusticus the Monk in such 〈◊〉 manner as you may deserve to be a Clerkâ— and if the People or your Bishop 〈◊〉 their eyes upon you for that end 〈◊〉 that which is incumbent on a Clerk The Monks at that time were Subject to Bishops and ordinary Pastors having not so much as distinct place in the Church from the rest of the People Monks subject to Bishops because they were of the number of Laicks But since there happened several heresies in the Eastern Church and that many learned Monks bravely opposed them it was thought convenient to draw them from their great solitudes and to settle them in the Suburbs of Cities that they might be useful to the People And St. Chrysostom thought it even fit to call them into Cities Which was the cause that most of them applying themselves to study aspired to the Clergy and with much precipitation got into holy Orders whereof Pope Zosimus complains in one of his Epistles But seeing they were useful to Bishops not only in Spiritual but Temporal affairs they got into great Reputation and the same Bishops who were glad to have a numerous Clergy and fit persons about them to carry on their designs gave them considerable Offices wherein they behaved themselves excellently well as appeared in the affair of Nestorius But having abused the authority that was put into their hands and growing insupportable to all People even to the Bishops themselves because of their vanity and their medling in all kinds of business without the permission of their Ordinaries the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon thought fit to make Canons against Monks for putting a stop to the disorders which they occasioned in the Church Canons against the Monks Wherefore it was decreed in that Council that for the future Monks should be wholly under the Jurisdiction of Bishops without whose permission they should meddle no more in any affairs whether Civil or Ecclesiasticalâ— that they should not leave their Monsteries to ramble up and down and 〈◊〉 frequent Towns that they should noâ— build any Monastery or Chappel without consent of the Bishop of the place and that they should be secluded from Ecclesiastical Employments unless called thereunto by their Bishops wheâ— they should judge it necessary And thus was the Canon law Re-established in regard of the Monks who had not continued long without shaking it off and they were put into an absolute dependance on Bishops who took care of Monasteries as weâ— for the Spiritual as Temporal As thâ— Monks of that time were but part oâ— the People so they had no other temporal Revenue also The first Revenues of Monks but what they gained by their labour and a sharâ— in the Alms which the Bishop caused to be given unto them if they were in want in the same manner as to the other Poor Besides that the People gave them their Private Alms that they might pray to God for them Some of them nevertheless kept somewhat of their Patrimony St. Jerom. but St. Jerom blames them as counterfeit Monks who followed not the Rules of Evangelical poverty As to the Spiritual they came to the Parish Church with the rest of the People and sometimes they were allowed to send for a Priest to administer the Sacraments unto them At length they were permitted to have a Priest of their own number The Original of the Churches of Monks on condition that he continued Monk and only officiated in the Monastery This gave them occasion of having Churches apart and of making a kind of separate Body After that
right of providing to it a Second time So that in all these cases devolution 〈◊〉 no place and therefore the negligence or excess of ordinary Collators cannot be supplied by the Pope seeing they are not to be imputed to their negligence or excess The Pope on the contrary can give one and the same Benefice to several Persons because his power is not smited as that of Ordinaries and his right cannot be devolved as not having any Superior That right which Popes enjoy is the cause of an infinite number of Law-suits All are welcom at Rome for their Money and yet it is certain that one only can obtain the Benefice though it hath been granted to many Farthermore Benefices vacant in Curia the Popes confer the Benefices of which the Incumbents or Titularies die in Court that is within ten Leagues of Rome That right is a kind of Reservation whereof Pope Clement IV. is the Author The Constitution of that Reservation is mentioned in the Sext the Chapter Licet in these words Collationem tamen Ecclesiarum personatuum dignitatum beneficiorum apud sedem apostolicam vacantium specialius caeteris antiqua consuetudo Romanis pontificibus reservavit But seeing these words Ecclesiarum dignitatum are general the Author of the Gloss upon the Sext who was Secretary to Popâ— Boniface VIII pretends that the Pope hath not comprehended under that constitution Bishopricks and Abbeys and yet the Concordat which serves us for a Rule comprehends under the Benefices that are reserved to the Pope upon account of Vacancy in Curia both Bishopricks and Abbeys Master Charles Du Moulin hath been forced to say Carol. Moulin that there hath been surprise in the Concordat And in Effect the sense of the Constitution of Benefices vacant 〈◊〉 Curia ought not to be extended 〈◊〉 explained according to the intention of the Popes Clement IV. and Bouâ—fiace VIII Who are the Authors of the same And therefore there was reason to say that the Kings Commissioners were surprised and over reached when they suffered that clause of the Concordat to pass For it is certain that the Benefices which are provided by way of Election were not within the compass of the Chapter Licet nor of the Constitution de beneficiis vacantibus in Curia On the other side it is not doubted but that the nomination of the King hath been surrogated in place of Elections and by consequent ought to enjoy all their rights So that the Benefices to which the King Nominates by Virtue of the Concordat ought not to be reserved to the Pope when they are vacant in curia And this the Officers of the King pretend at present in France and the Parliament of Paris hath sufficiently explained it self on that Subject It would seem nevertheless that the King acknowledges that Reservation of the Popes especially when he gives his Grant to those who are not of the Kingdom and who may chance to die at Court He granteth them no Benefices but on condition that they shall obtain from the Pope a Brief de non vacaudo in Curia and after that whether they obtain that Brief or not the Benefices to which they are provided cannot be reckoned to become vacant in Curia Monsieur Doujat hath caused to be Printed the Brief de non vacando in Curia Which Pope Clement IX (1) Ann. 1667. granted to Cardinal Mancini for the Abbeys that he possessed in France Which is directed to the King in these terms Nos ne praedicto Cardinale sorâ—â— apud sedem Apostolicam deeedente majesâ—â— tâ—a impediatur quominus ad Monasâ—â—ria hujusmodi ratione dictorum Concordatorum aut specialis Indulti Apostolici nominare possit opportunè providere volentes supplicationibus ejusdem majestatis tuae nomine nobis super hoc humiliter porrectis inclinati eidem majestati tuae c. It is plain enough by the terms of that Brief that the Pope pretends that all Benefices vacant in Curia are reserved to him even by the Articles of the Concordat and that the King does likewise acknowledge that Reservation by virtue thereof I have seen some other Briefs 〈◊〉 non vacando in Curia which are express in the same manner The Duke of Nenbourg hath obtained (1) Ann. 1673. one for the Abbey of Fescan which is likewise directed to the King Yet the Popes do but seldom grant them and it were to be wished that they never did yea and that it were never desired of them that so a clause of the Concordat might not be authoriz'd which without doubt is vicious and which may be abrogated without any prejudice to the substance of the Concordat it self The New Law received in France gives the Pope many other Powers which they enjoyed not Other Rights of the Popes when the Church was governed according to the Ancient Canons I. The Creation of New Bishopricks and the Erection of Archbishopricks belong to the Pope II. Bishops cannot be translated from one See to another without taking New Bulls from the Pope And if they enjoy Abbeys or other Consistorial Benefices they are also obliged to take new Bulls for all these Benefices and by consequent to pay new Annats or First-fruits But it is still to be supposed that the Pope cannot put this Power in execution without the Kings Permission And even in the Bulls of Translation the consent of the King is mentioned III. The Pope by his Bulls confirms those whom the King hath named to Bishopricks Abbeys and other Consistorial Benefices IV. The King cannot enjoy his Right of Nomination to Bishopricks and Abbeys which are not situated in the places mentioned in the Concordat but the Pope grants him Indults or Priviledges to nominate to those Benefices Seeing France is now of greater extent than it was when the Concordat of Bologna was made betwixt Pope Leo X. and Francis the first of France the Kings of France have been obliged to obtain from the Pope Indults which are called Indulta Rigiae Nominationis of which many forms may be seen printed in the Collection of Monsieur Doujat It is in the mean time in the Liberty of the Pope to grant them for ever or only for a certain time V. It being a general Maxim received and approved of all that Secular Benefices ought to be given to Seculars and Regular Benefices to Regulars the King cannot Emancipate Benefices from the Rule to put them in Commendum unless he have Permission from the Pope because that is one of the Clauses of the Concordat But the King and Pope who have made the Concordat dispense with it daily it being in their Power so to do VI. The Pope who pretends to an absolute Power over all Benefices according to his pleasure Secularises Benefices that are in Rule and so he derogates from that great Maxim Secularia Secularibus Regularia Regularibus in favours of those who for that end send their money to Rome The Monks notwithstanding who are
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
Causes which are called the greater The judging of Bishops for instance the Deposition of Bishops is reserved to the Pope who nevertheless judges not of them at Rome but appoints Judges in France and he is not obliged to delegate a certain number of Bishops as some have pretended nor to chuse the Comprovincials of the Bishop who is accused It is in his power to delegate in partibus such Commissioners as he pleases provided they be of the Kingdom and accepted by the King The Ancient Right of Metropolitans and Comprovincials is now out of doorsâ— and Councils are no more called for that effect The Pope then does all now-a-days by means of his Briefs Bulls and Rescripts which never the less cannot be of force without the Kings Permission And therefore it is that the Deposing of Bishops in France depends absolutely on the Pope and King The Pope names Commissioners to be Judges of the Process and the King accepts them I know a great many oppose that in France but it is in vain to object Law against matters of fact and examples when the Question is about Discipline I shall say nothing of Ancient Customs because I treat only here of what is practised at present Having spoken of the Popes Power in France The Power of Legats in France in reference to beneficial matters it will not be amiss to say somewhat of the Power of his Legats and Nuncio's The Power of Legats which are called à latere is very great because they are as it were the Popes Ambassadors and represent his Person at the Courts of Princes to whom they are sent about Extraordinary Affairs Their Instructions are at length specified in the Letters which the Pope gives them but they are not put in Execution until the King hath approved the Legation And besides the Kings Officers do not Register the aforesaid Letters of Legation but with the Modifications and Restrictions that are added to them according to the pleasure of the King and the Liberties and Customs of the Kingdom The Legats then have almost the same power in all that concerns Benefices as the Popes whom they represent have and therefore they are very troublesom to the Ordinary Collators during the time of their Legation which lasts as long as the King pleases There are nevertheless some things which they cannot perform without special Orders from the Pope such as are the Translations of Bishops Nor can they receive Resignations in favorem unless that be expresly mentioned in their Instructions and not limited or abrogated in the Restrictions that have been made of them and therefore in that case the Bulls of their Legation and the verification of them in Parliament must be consulted Mr Doujat hath Printed some of them in his Collection and amongst others that of Cardinal Chigi which may inform us of their power in France where they exercise both the one and other Jurisdiction that is to say both the voluntary the contentious but still in Quality of the Popes Delegats therefore their Jurisdiction ceases if the Pope happen to die during their Legation Besides these Legates à latere who are but rarely seâ—â— into France there is another Legate à latere at Avignon who exercises his Jurisdiction in the City of Avignon and County of Venisse In the Provinces of Vienne Arles Embrun Aix and Narbonne That Jurisdiction is commonly given to a Cardinal who hath a Sub-Delegat or Vice-Legate who discharges all the duties of it As to the Nuncio's in France The Power of Nuncio's in France they have no Jurisdiction they are looked upon rather as the Popes Envoys for Civil matters than as Church-men Nevertheless there is a Custom introduced which hath been many times and on several occasions condemned to wit that the Popes Nuncio in France receives attestations de vita moribus whereby he takes information of the manners of those who are nominated by the King to Consistorial Benefices But that is an abuse introduced by the very same persons that have been nominated by the King For fearing that their Bulls might not be expeded at Rome they cause an attestation de vita moribus to be made before the Nuncio's whereas that attestation ought to be given by the Bishop of the place where the persons named to Benefices reside Afterward they might be recommended to the Nuncio as the Popes Minister in France which is sometimes practised even by the Kings order But private persons have had their recourse to the Nuncio for their security and that Custom is observed at present notwithstanding all the Remonstrances that have been made to hinder that Jurisdiction of Nuncio's in France It remains now that we speak of the Cardinals of the Court of Rome of Cardinals and of their Priviledges But seeing these Priviledges respect their private persons rather then the right of others that article may be omitted nor shall we touch at it but by the by The name of Cardinal did not in the beginning signify a particular dignity as it does at present but only denoted the difference of Churches and Employments For Instance the Canons of Cathedral Churches were for most part called Cardinals in Italy to distinguish them from the Ecclesiasticks of other inferiour Churches The same name was also given to Priests Deacons and even to Subdeacons when there was occasion to distinguish them from the lower Clergy But it was a Title much inferiour to the quality of a Bishop And therefore when one was made a Bishop he retained no longer the Title of Cardinal Matters are at present much altered The dignity of Cardinal now a days is the next to the Papacy and they are in respect of the Pope as Senatours or Councillors are in relation to him that presides in the Senate Nevertheless since the Papacy is become Monarchical the Pope takes their advice meerly for Ceremony but acts according to his pleasure He makes use still of these Terms De consilio fratrum but it is most commonly to secure his relations after his death especially in regard of the Revenues of the Apostolick Chamber which the Popes dispose of too absolutely the Cardinals not daring to oppose them That which renders the Cardinals more considerable than all other Church-Men is that they chuse the Pope and may themselves be chosen They have stept into the rights of the Ancient Roman Clergy to whom it belonged to chuse their Bishop in the same manner as was observed in other Churches Now since the Jurisdiction of the Pope is much augmented by the New Canon Law the Dignity of the Cardinals also who are his Councillors is become greater and that they may be honoured according to their dignity they have many Priviledges granted them which exempt them from the common Laws and Customs They have six whole Months for bestowing Benefices whereof they are the Collators without any fear of being prevented by the Pope who hath in their favours dispensed with his right
effect real Titles which give to Comendatary Abbots all the Rights which Regular Abbots enjoyed to whom they have succeeded That Principle which is unquestionable being supposed it is plain enough to whom the Right of Patronage belongs whether to the Abbot alone or to the Monks Jointly with him There needs no more for that but to consult the Right of the Regular Abbots of every Order If the Constitutions and Custom of the Order attribute to the Abbot alone the honorary Rights there is no doubt but the Abbot Commendatary ought to enjoy the same Rights If on the contrary the Regular Abbot cannot enjoy these Rights but with consent of the Community and that he be not the absolute Master of them they must be divided betwixt him and his Community in the same manner as temporal goods are For then the Rule gives to the Monks the same power in respect of their Abbot as the Canon Law gives to Canons in regard of their Bishop We must nevertheless take notice that it is not enough to establish the Right of Monks that the Abbots have taken the counsel or even the consent of the Community when there has been occasion of nominating to Benefices for many may have done that without any obligation upon them from their Constitutions But it must besides be made out that their Nominations would have been null without the consent of the Community The reason of that Maxim is because the Canon Law and Popes Bulls give all the honorary Rights to Abbots and so there is no derogating from them but for great reasons It is certain the first Monks were entirely subject to their Abbots in all that concerned their Functions and Employments St. Benet hath also reserved to the Abbot that Superiority over the Religious And when that Order began to receive Lands and that it was necessary to give the charge of them to some Monks in particular the Abbot alone gave them their Commissions which were at first but Administrations though since they are become Benefices I make no doubt but the Popes Bulls which are very favourable to Commendatary Abbots are founded on that Ancient Right of Regular Abbots But as to what concerns Temporal goods the same Bulls of the Pope do not allow them to be alienated because they belong to the whole Community and not to the Abbot alone And therefore when the question is of selling or alienating any Lands or Possessions belonging to the Abbey the Abbot is not then absolute Master but his Community must consent to it For the same reason Commendatary Abbots are obliged to divide the goods and Revenues of the Abbeys with the Monks or to give them Money to the value of their share or Portion And though they are very willing to rest satisfied with a yearly pension yet they have still the same Rights to the Lands and Inheritances It concerns them to have a care that they be not imbazeled in the hands of the Abbot in as much as their Portion diminishing by the diminution of the Revenues of the Abbey their Pension would be lessened at the same time The Abbots themselves cannot hinder the Monks from taking cognisance of the Leases which they make of the Lands of their Abbey and from having always an eye over their actions because they have the same right that the Abbots have of enjoying the Revenues of the Monastery Agreements betwixt Abbots and Monks That common Right of the Abbots and Monks in regard of the Temporal Profits of Abbeys has given occasion to Agreements and Transactions that are made betwixt them for the partition of the same In France the Revenue of the Abbey is divided into three parts of which there is one for the Monks one for the Charges and a third for the Abbot But the Abbots enjoy commonly two parts because they oblige themselves to defray the charges and if they neglect to do it a third part of the Revenue may be sequestrated until it be done Upon that foot it is easy to decide the difficulties that might arise betwixt the Abbot and Monks about the division of the Revenues There needs no more but to give a third part to the Monks and two thirds to the Abbot who is obliged to the reparations of the Fabrick payment of Tenths and other Charges As to the honorary Rights they ought not to fall under a dividend because by the Canon Law they all belong to the Abbot alone who may make them over either in whole or in part to his Monks But that gratuitous Concession does not prejudice the Rights of his Successours because the Abbot can only dispose during his life of the Rights that subsist in his person and the Monks cannot enjoy them after the death of him that hath granted them because that Concession is no more in force It is not the same as to Agreements or Transactions because all Transaction supposes the Right of two Parties who are agreed together and so the agreement will always subsist in respect of the Religious though the Abbot be dead until it be broken off by his Successour In France Abbots may break the Agreements of their Predecessours especially if they think themselves injured We have many instances of that practice And there seems to be reason for so doing because Abbots may make secret Compacts with the Monks and take the advantage of such to the prejudice of their Successours And therefore the Abbots have right to break the Agreements of their Predecessours It is a harder matter to dissolve those Transactions when they have been confirmed at the Court of Rome and in the Parliaments with cognition of the cause for then they become real and by consequent oblige the Successours In that case the Abbots cannot rescind the Concordat or Agreement till they have obtained a Rescript from the Pope and letters from the Parliaments upon a Bill preferred Farthermore we are to take notice that many times the partition of the honorary Rights is inserted in the Concordats with the division of the Revenues and especially the Presentations to Benefices as if that could be divided betwixt the Abbot and Monks It is a vicious clause in the Agreements because it is of the nature of a Concordat that they who Transact have some Right to the thing for which they do Transact otherwise it is not an Agreement but a Concession This Maxim which is undeniable being supposed it is easy to resolve the difficulties that daily happen betwixt Bishops and Religious communities during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See To whom it belongs to present to Benefices during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See The Ordinaries provide to Benefices that are vacant at that time and the Monks also on their side present which daily occasions great suits and it seems that there is nothing as yet fixt and determined as to that But according to the principle which we have laid down there is no doubt but when the Religious Community presents to
or at least of such as are useful to the Church for these Unions still subsist If for instance a Priory or Chappel is so ruined that it is impossible to restore it what remains of the Revenue ought to be united to another Church If the Prebends of a Chapter or Collegiat Church are too small several of them must be joined together If in a Town or Burrough there be too many Cures and they but poor it is convenient to suppress some of them and give the Revenue to others In the same manner a simple Benefice may be joined to a poor cure in a word Monasteries where the Rule hath ceased may be joyned to a Bishoprick that hath not a competent Revenue But in all these Unions the advantage of the Church is always to be regarded and the Rights of Superiours maintained otherwise they are abusive And therefore Unions are not to be made but upon good and necessary information The Bishop hath Right to make these Unions unless it be when the Union is to be made to his own Church because then he cannot be Judge in his own case Moreover the Union of Bishopricks is reserved to the Pope Though Reversions have been abolished Of the Indults or Priviledges of Members of Parliament yet there are in France Priviledges of the Members of Parliament and the degrees of those who have studied a certain time in the Famous Universities of the Kingdom which are a kind of Reversions and by consequent are prejudicial to the Rights of Ordinary Collators of Ecclesiastical Patrons I shall not speak here of the Original of these Priviledges Only we may observe that during the time of Schism Popes granted those favours to Princes to great men that were powerful in the Courts of Princes and to such as might be a hinderance to them in their settlement in the Papacy The Council of Trent hath abolished Indults as well as Apostolical Mandats But since its decisions are not received in France the Priviledges of the Members of Parliament have been still retained To the end a Priviledge whereof we are speaking may have its effect Letters must be procured from the King commanding the Ordinary Collator to confer on him who hath the Priviledge the first vacant Benefice of his Collation Besides these Letters must be intimated before the vacancy of the Benefice and then the hands of the Collator are tied The Indultee or Priviledged person hath six Months to require the Benefice in and the Collator can be charged but with one Priviledge during his life or if it be a Community which dieth not then it is regulated by the life of the King The Collator in the mean time could formerly oblige the Indultee to accept the first vacant Benefice provided it were worth 200 Francs because the Priviledge is de beneficio proximè vacaturo But he cannot at present be obliged to it unless it be worth 600 Francs of yearly Rent In the number of Expectative Graces or Reversions may also be reckoned the Kings nomination for his happy coming to the Crown and his nomination for the Oath of Allegiance which gives him Right to nominate to the New Bishop after the Conclusion of the Regale one for the first vacant Prebend Of Degrees The complaints of the University of Paris against the Bishops who commonly bestowed Benefices on their Domesticks and undeserving persons were the cause that in the Council of Basil it was decreed That the third part of Benefices should be set apart for the Graduats of Famous Universities and that if the Ordinaries gave them to others their Collations should be null The Pragmatick made in the assembly of Bourges ratified that decree of the Council of Basil but with this qualification that the third destin'd for Graduats should be divided into three parts and that two thirds of that third should be appropriated to those who had some notable employment in the University And therefore it was ordered by the same Assembly that the University should name those whom they would have preferred And thence arises the distinction of simple Graduats and Graduats named The Concordat hath preserved that Right of Graduats But because fraud might be committed in the third of Benefices which were given in course one after another they had four Months of the year allotted to them to wit January April July and October and the Benefices that fall during these four Months are appropriated to them January and July are called Months of Rigour because the Collator or Patron is obliged to give the vacant Benefice to the Graduat named who is the Ancientest and hath most Right whereas in the other two Months which are called Months of favour he is free to give the vacant Benefices to such enrolled Graduats as he pleases To be a Graduate it is enough that one hath studied two years Philosophy three years Divinity and taken the degree of Master of Arts. Yet this hinders not but that their Batchelour Graduats Doctor Graduats Graduats in Divinity the Canon Law and Medicine to whom also there is a certain time assigned and in case of competition the most qualified Graduate is preferred before the other though it be sometimes pretty hard to know who ought to be preferred That this Right may take effect the Letters of Degree Attestations of the time of Study and the Universities Letters of Nomination must be signified to the Ecclesiastical Patron or Collator And because Gentlemen have some Priviledge as to the time of Study they ought likewise to produce the proofs of their quality Of all these Instruments and Acts the Patron or Collator ought to keep a Copy They are besides obliged every year in Lent to renew the Register of their names which they may do in the Office of the Ecclesiastical Register When a Benefice falls in the Months that are appropriated to them they ought to demand it within six Months and that being expired they are no longer admitted to make their Requisition If the Pope prevent them before they have made their demand he that hath been provided by the Pope obtains the Benefice And there is no need that the Pope should even mention that the Benefice is destined to Graduats because he is not tied to the Law that is in France in favours of Graduats But the Ordinary ought to specify in his Collations the quality of the Graduat which is the cause for which he gives the Benefice Nevertheless he may still put questions to the Graduats though heretofore they pretended to be exempted from examination But the easiness of obtaining Degrees makes that there are to be found many ignorant vicious Graduats And therefore the Collator and even the Patron have always right to refuse them if they judge them uncapable of the Benefices which they have demanded It is to be observed that all sorts of Benefices are not Subject to Graduats I. Consistorial Benefices and such as are in Lay-Patronage are exempted II. The