the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues A distinction betwixt the Church and the Altar which they possessed but most of these Restitutions were only made to Cathedral Churches and Monasteries though the goods belonged to private Churches Now seeing the Church at that time was distinguished from the Altar Monasteries retained the Churches that is to say the Lands Tithes and other Revenues But because the right of providing these Altars belonged to the Bishops it behoved the Monks to obtain from them that which was called (1) 〈…〉 the Redemption of Altars Godefroi of Vendome and other Authors of the same Age make mention of that right Besides the Council of Clairmont ordained That the Altars which had been given to Chapters or Monasteries by the Vicars whom they called Parâ—ons should return to the Power of the Bishop unless the Bishops had confirmed in writing the Donation made to the Chapters and Monasteries To obtain this confirmation from the Bishop a certain sum of money was required And this abuse caused another for private men would alse have Churches of which they receiveâ— the Profits in imitation of the Canonâ— and Monks and had the cure supplied by Vicars There was no necessity that they who were provided with such Altars should be Priests seeing they substituted Vicars in their places John oâ— Salisbury condemns that abuse (1) Nolunt Sacerdotio enerari an t servire a 〈…〉 de altario vivunt sed personatus qiosdam introduxerunt quorum jure ad alium overa ad alium reseruntur emolumenta and cannot endure that those that did noâ— wait at the Altar should partake with the Altar applying to themselves the Revenues of Churches without rendring any service to the same Churches Yveâ— Bishop of Chartres complains likewise of that corruption in a Letter to Pope Vrban II. wherein he lays open the baâ— Custom that was in France in respect of such Personages which had been authorised by the Bishops his Predecessors Qui altari non serviunt says he de altari vivunt à quo sacrilegio cum eos absterrere velim monedo increpando excommunicando altaria à me redimere volunt sub nomine personae sicut a predecessoribus meis ex prava consuetudine redemerunt Pope Vrban indeed condemned that abuse in a Council held at Clairmont to hinder the Simony that Bishops committed in selling Altars but it seems that they who had bought them from the Bishops gained by their Simony for it was decreed in that Council that such as had for the space of thirty years enjoyed these Altars should not be molested for the future and that the Bishops should exact no more from them but the due which they called redemptio altarium Pope Pascal Successor to Vrban confirmed the same Decree in one of his Epistles to Yves Bishop of Chartres and Ranulphus Bishop of Xantes wherein he speaks to them in these terms Ipsi Arvernensi concilio adfuistis in quo praesidente Praedecessore nostro bonae memoriae Papâ Vrbano consentientibus Galliarum Episcopis decretum est ut altaria quae ab annis triginta sub vicariorum redemptione Monasteria possedisse noscuntur quietè deinceps sine molestiâ qualibet Monasteriis ipsis firma permaneant In this manner did Monasteries and Chapters who were also comprehended in the Decree of the Council of Clairmont retain to perpetuity several Altars which did not all belong to them and they were at the same time exempted from paying to the Bishops the usual dues that were paid after the death of the Vicars for obtaining liberty to put other Vicars in their places It had been me thinks more convenient and agreeable to the Ancient Canons to have left the power of providing for Altars to the Bishops And to prove that that right belonged to them when Laicks were forced to restore to the Church the Tithes and other Church Revenues which they possessed it was decreed in the Council of Melfi under Pope Vrlan II. That no Laick should have Liberty to give to Monasteries or Chapters Tithes Churches or other Ecclesiastical Rights without the consent of the Bishop of the place or the permission of the Pope But it happened that the Bishops abused their Power and permitted Chapters and Monasteries to receive these Rights from Laicks on Condition of a certain sum of money to be paid to the Bishops for granting Liberty of establishing Priests or Vicars who might take upon them the Spiritual care of Churches These decrees of the Popes that were backed with Excommunications frightned many Laicks who instead of restoring the Church Revenues to private Churches to which they belonged restored them to Chapters and Monasteries with the permission of the Bishops The Lay-men liked it much better to restore the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues to Chapters and Monasteries from whom they got money than to private Churches which had none to give And therefore Councils decreed that these Restitutions should not be made without consent of the Bishops thereby to prevent all compacts or agreements betwixt Laicks and Ecclesiastical Communities There were nevertheless a great many Laicks whâ—â— were not startled at the Excommunications of Gregory VII and other succeeding Popes but notwithstanding them kept still the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Revenues They did more for they instituted Priests to take care oâ— Souls without expecting the Institution of the Bishops And that was thâ—â— cause why the Council of Lateran under Alexander III. decreed (1) Con. Later III. cap. 14. Thâ—â— Clerks or Priests that should take upon them the Government of Churches from the hands of Laicks without the Authority of the Bishop of the place should 〈◊〉 excommunicated and that if they persisted they should be deposed from their Ministry Nevertheless the Popes suffered Lay-men still to enjoy the Tither of Churches whereof they were in possession But they granted Chapters and Monasteries Priviledges to geâ— them out of their hands even when the Bishops would not consent to itâ— These kinds of Priviledges which were casily obtained from the Court of Rome brought in great Revenues to Chapters and Monasteries who put Secular Priests into the Government of Churches allowing them such moderate Stipends that the Popes were obliged to condemn that Avarice of the Canons and Monks who denied Priests even a necessary subsistence The vast Rents that Monasteries enjoyed gave umbrage to the Bishops Canons and to Princes themselves to whom it was represented that most part of these Revenues ought rather to belong to secular Priests who served the cures than to Monks who by their Profession were excluded from all Ecclesiastical Functions But seeing the Monks had taken advantage of the ignorance of Secular Priests and that the government of most Churches was committed to them it was a difficult task to turn them out and to re-establish Secular Priests in Churches And therefore there happened great contests betwixt the Canons and Monks especially in England where the Monks had deprived the
THE HISTORY OF THE Original and Progress OF Ecclesiastical Revenues WHEREIN Is handled according to the Laws both Ancient and Modern whatsoever concerns matters Beneficial the Regale Investitures Nominations and other Rights attributed to Princes Written in French by a Learned Priest And now done into English LONDON Printed for Henry Faithorne and John Kersey at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard and Samuel Smith at the Princes Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1685. TO THE READER IT may seem unnecessary to say more of this Treatise than that it proceeds from the famous Pen of Father Simon who hath herein far outgon all who have written on the same Subject even the Learned Father Paul This Work plainly discovers what good Use the Ecclesiastics have made of the Pious Inclinations of the Laity to their own Advantage which may justly reflect on the Church of Rome that great School of Politics but ought not in the least to prejudice the Honourable Esteem and Liberal Endowments which a sound Orthodox Church doth or ought to enjoy in a well-govern'd State A TABLE OF THE Matters contained In this BOOK THE Original of the Community of Goods among the Primitive Christians Page 1 The first Revenues of the Church Page 5 The Original of the Ministers of the Church Page 7 The Original of the great Authority of Bishops Page 9 Of the Government of the Church in the beginning Page 11 The Original of the Ordination of Priests and Bishops Page 13 The Nature of Ecclesiastical Revenues in the beginning ibid. The Original of Lands and immoveable Goods in the Church Page 15 Abuses in the Administration of Church-Revenues Page 17 The Custâ—m of the Western Church different from that of the East Page 20 Disputes about the dividing of Church-Revenues Page 21 Change of Discipline in the Church Page 23 The Office of the Stewards ibid. Whether Church men can retain their Inheritance Page 24 Edicts of Emperours Page 27 The Excessive Covetousness of Church-men ibid. Laws of the Emperours against the Avarice of Church men Page 30 The Original and Progress of Monks Page 32 Clerks that lived in Community differed from Monks Page 33 Monks subject to Bishops Page 34 Canons against Monks Page 36 The Primitive Revenues of Monks ibid. The Original of the Churches of Monks Page 37 Monks in the West before St. Benet Page 38 The difference of Ancient Monks from the Modern ibid. Alterations in Church and State Page 40 Ecclesiastical Revenues in the same condition as Temporal Estates Page 41 A distinction betwixt the Churches and the Altar ibid. The Ruine of Private Church-men Page 42 The Original of Lands and other Revenues belonging to Monasteries Page 44 The Original of Private Masses Page 45 Forms of Ancient Donations Page 47 Means of acquiring Estates amongst the Monks Page 49 An Explication of the Contract called Precarius Page 51 Other ways of Acquisition Page 52 Investitures depending on Princes Page 59 Elections depended not on the Pope no not in Italy Page 60 Elections only free in name Page 63 The Original of the Exemptions of Monasteries Page 64 Differences betwixt the Monks and Curates concerning Tithes Page 66 Distinction of the Church from the Altar Page 67 Disputes betwixt Bishops and Monks Page 73 Ecclesiastical Employments inconsistent with Monks Page 75 Princes ruine the Monks Page 77 The Original of great Power annexed to Churches Page 79 The Authority of the Pope as to Benefices Page 82 Reflections on the Right of Popes Page 87 The Custom of France as to the Reception of Bulls Page 89 Of the Right of the Regale Page 90 Of the Regale under the second Race of the Kings of France Page 92 The Regale under the third Race Page 94 The Regale different from Investiture ibid. Explication of Investiture Page 95 The Regale granted by the Pope Page 97 A more particular Explication of the Regale ibid. A Restriction of the Regale Page 102 The Custom of the Parliaments Page 104 The Regale authorised by a General Council Page 105 The Right of Collation attributed to the Kings of France by the Regale Page 107 The Regale under Philip the Fair. Page 112 Vnder Philip of Valois ibid. Vnder Louis XII ibid. Vnder Henry IV. Page 113 Vnder Louis XIII Page 114 The Regale at present in all the Churches of France ibid. The Monarchy of Sicily Page 116 The Pope's Power in France Page 122 An Explication of the New Canon Law Page 123 The Original of Benefices Page 124 An Augmentation of the New Law Page 126 The Original of the Liberties of France Page 131 The Rules of the French Law and Right Page 134 The Canon or Common Law Page 136 Particular Law or Right Page 137 Laws and Rights of Popes ibid. Reversions or Expectative Graces abrogated Page 138 The Right of Graduates Page 139 Bretagne is not subject to the Prevention Page 140 Lay-Patrons are not subject to Prevention ibid. Elective and Collative Benefices Page 141 Derogations from the Right of Prevention Page 142 The Right of Devolution attributed to the Pope Page 145 Benefices vacant in Curia Page 147 Other Rights of the Popes Page 151 Alienations depend on the Pope Page 153 Concordats depending on the Pope Page 155 Commendums depend on the Pope Page 157 The Rights of Commendatary Abbots Page 158 Of Vnions Page 162 The Pope's Power limited in France Page 164 The Judging of Bishops Page 165 The Power of Legats in France Page 166 The Power of Nuncio's in France Page 168 Of Cardinals Page 169 The Rights of Chapters Page 173 The Original of Parsonages and Dignities without Cure Page 174 The Original of the Rights of Chapters Page 178 The Rights of Chapters during the Vacancy of the See Page 182 The Rights of Patrons Page 185 The Priviledges of Lay-Patrons Page 188 Whence comes the Distinction of Patronages Page 191 Of Huguenot-Patronage Page 193 The Original of Ecclesiastical Patronages Page 198 The Original of Priories Page 199 The Right of Commendatary Abbots as to the nomination to Benefices Page 202 Concordats or Agreements betwixt Abbots and Monks Page 206 To whom it belongs to present to Benefices during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See Page 209 Of Priors amongst Monks Page 211 Cluni and Cisteaux have changed the Ancient Government of Monasteries Page 213 Derogation from the Rights of Commendatary Abbots Page 215 Of Regulars Page 218 A Comparison between Commendatary and Regular Abbots Page 220 A Description of the Lives of Regular Abbots Page 222 Military Orders Page 228 The Original of Commanderies Page 230 A Military Order wherein one may Marry Page 232 Philip II. the richest Prelate in the Church Page 234 Of Hospitals ibid. Derogations from the Rights of Bishops Page 237 The Novelty of Resignations in favorem Page 238 Regulations that derogate from Resignanations Page 240 Of Regress Page 242 Of Permutation or Exchange Page 244 Of Vnions Page 246 Of the Indults or Priviledges of Members of Parliament Page 248 Of Degrees Page 249 Of Exemptions
to say pay the Physician Now seeing the Priest-hood was a Real Employment and Divine Function St. Paul had reason to give it the Title of honour which properly belonged to the Magistrats of States The Church hath not only imitated the Synagogue in the way of distributing its Charity but also The Original of the Ministers of the Church hath followed the Discipline observed amongst the Jews in respect of their Ministers The Synagogues were composed of a Ruler of the Synagogue which the Hellenist Jews called Archi-Synagogus Priests or Elders and Deacons and that was the cause why the Apostles established in Christian Assemblies those three sorts of Ministers under the names of Bishops Priests and Deacons The Bishop in these Assemblies had the same honour as the Ruler of the Synagogue amongst the Jews had in their Synagogues The Superiority of the Rulers of the Synagogue in respect of the Priests or Elders consisted only in some Titles of honour as being the Chief amongst their Brethren And therefore they are all comprehended under the name of Priests or Elders in the Hundred and seventh Psalm where we have these words (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 107.32 Let them also exalt him in the Congregation of the People and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders which was the place of their Meetings So we find in the New Testament that the names of Priest and Bishop are indifferently taken the one for the other and that Assembly or Council of the Elders which was called Presbyterium consisted of the Bishop and the Priests or Elders The Bishop or President as the Ancient Fathers speak had indeed the chief Direction or Superintendency from whence he was called Bishop which word is also found in the Greek of the Septuagint or Hellenists but he made up but one Body with the Elders or Priests who in Quality of Judges had their Jurisdiction jointly with him Hence we may infer that in the beginning of the Church the management of affairs and the Jurisdiction which is now called Episcopal did not depend on the Bishop alone no more than the distribution of the Offerings but on the whole Senate or Assembly of the Priests and this continued so long as there was but one Church in every City one Altar and one Consistory of Priests joined to their Bishop because it was not easy then for the Bishop to become Master of the whole Jurisdiction and Administration of the Revenues But so soon as it was necessary to encrease the number of Churches The Original of the great Authority of Bishops there was some cause to fear lest those who governed the new Churches might attribute to themselves the quality of Bishops finding themselves at the head of a particular Church And therefore the Bishops began to take to themselves authority over them for which it was necessary to appoint that there should be but one Bishop in every City on whom the Elders or Priests should depend who were to take upon them the Government of the new erected Churches which were called Titles St. Jerome strongly maintains this opinion in his Commentaries on the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus where he affirms that before this division each Church was governed by the Common Councel of the Priests but that for avoiding all occasion of Schism one of these Priests or Elders was chosen to be the Chief and to take upon him the care of the whole Church He pretends that the names of Priest and Bishop did not at all differ in the beginning and that therefore St. Paul made use of them indifferently Then he subjoyns (1) Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse majores Hieron com in Epâ—st ad Tit. That it is only Custom which hath made Bishops greater than Priests And this may be confirmed by the authority of St. Paul who writing to the Churches under the name of Elders comprehends both Bishop and Priests It is to be observed however that the Church being encreased hath borrowed many terms and points of Government from the Republicks of Greece and that when there was a necessity of erecting Dioceses it hath in that followed the distinction of Provinces according as they were established in the Empire Of the Government of the Church in its Commencement The Church which in its commencement allowed much to the people grew afterwards more Aristocratical in its Government when by experience it appeared that the multitude of people served only to confound and perplex affairs and then the Polity of Aristocratick Republicks came in vogue Nay we find in the very Acts of the Apostles two sorts of Assemblies as well as in Republicks The one is composed of the Chief amongst the Believers and is called Ecclesia The other admits all indifferently and that the Republicks of Asia named Agoraia which they have always distinguished from the Assembly that they named Ecclesia And therefore the name of Ecclesia or Church hath still been given to Christian Congregations and constantly retained by the Greeks who made the first Ecclesiastical Laws from whence it hath been derived to the Latines who are indebted to the Greeks for all the Ecclesiastical Polity that was setled in the first Ages In this sense we ought to interpret the words of (1) Origen contra Celsum Origen concerning the Form of Church-Government which he explains with relation to the Greek Republicks The Athenians for instance called those Bishops to whom they committed the care of the Towns that depended on their Commonwealth It was long before the Church owned any other name but that of Bishop to distinguish him who had the principal Administration nay when it was even necessary to denote a Bishop who had Jurisdiction over others she called those Bishops (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 33 Apost the First Bishops of a Nation or made use of some other expression without inventing new words We find nevertheless the name of Metropolitan in the Council of Nice but the Greeks whose Language is fruitful in new words invented a great many to express the different Offices of the Ecclesiastick State which were not so soon brought into use in the Latine Church The names of Archbishop Primate and Patriarch are but Titles of Honour and External Jurisdiction whereas the quality of Bishop and that also of Elder or Priest The Original of the Ordination of Bishops and Priests is a Character that marks the Ordination which the Apostles borrowed from the Synagogue that chose its Ministers by the Imposition of hands In that manner Moses laid his hands on Joshua and the other Elders who were presently filled with the Holy Ghost And if we will credit the Authority of the Rabbies the power of Imposing of hands belonged not only to the chief of the Sanhedrim but also to the other Elders which seems likewise to be confirmed by St. Jerom (1) Hier. in Episi ad
Evagr who pretends that the Elders or Priests enjoyed that Right a long time in the Church of Alexandria where the Priests who in imitation of the Apostles were twelve in number chose one from among themselves to be their Bishop on whom they all together laid their hands as the Patriarch Eutychius observes in his Annals of the Church Having now spoken of the Persons who had the care of the Revenues of the Church The nature of Church-Revenues in the beginning and observed wherein those goods did consist it will not be amiss to subjoyn that those Revenues were rather a kind of Subsidies employed for the Relief of the Poor than any real Rents Nor was there need of any solemnity for consecrating them to the Church seeing they were not fixed and the Laws of the Empire permitted not Christians to possess publick Estates After all the Collections which we have mentioned ceased not upon the death of the Apostles for we read in one of the Apologies of St. Justin Martyr (1) St. Just Apol. 2. that in the Publick Assemblies Believers bestowed their Charity after the Communion and that one of the Brethren kept the money to be afterward distributed among those who were in want That Custom was also in use in the time of (2) Tertul. Apo. Tertullian and the Church had no other Revenues but such Alms or Contributions until the time of Constantine who permitted Churches to possess real Estates and to be endowed with Lands and Inheritances (3) Plin. Epist lib. 5. Pliny the younger observes that private persons were prohibited to give their Estates to any Colledge or Society but that they ought to chuse certain and special Heirs and not the Gods in general It is true the Laws made afterwards a Restriction that one might bequeath or give his goods to lawful and allowed Colledges or Societies and that by special Priviledge the Jewish Synagogues which were of the number of those Allowed Societies were nevertheless excluded from that Priviledge And because Christian Assemblies were always rejected under the Pagan Emperours as unlawful Conventicles it is certain the Church never enjoyed any Possessions until the Fourth Century under the Empire of Constantine All these Laws may be seen in the Body of the Civil Law wherein they are inserted It was about that time then The Original of immoveable Estates in the Church that Churches began to be endowed as well as the Pagan Temples because Christian Congregations were no more then considered as Conventicles The Emperour Constantine granted them great Priviledges and permitted People to bestow upon them Possessions of all kinds He ordained also that they should inherit the Estates of the Martyrs Confessors and of those who had been banished when the true Heirs did not appear I speak not here of the Donation which Constantine accord-to some (1) Euseb l. 2. de vita Const cap. 36. Authors made to the Church of Rome because it is notoriously known that the deed is false and that the Successors of Constantine possessed Lands that are mentioned therein It may be affirmed that the Priviledges granted by Constantine to Churches for injoying of Rents have occasioned great disorders Which made St. Jerome say (2) Potentiâ quidem divitiis major sed virtutibus minor facta est Hier. in vita S. Malch that the Church was indeed become more Powerful and Rich under Christian Princes but that it was less Virtuous St. Chrysostom (3) Chrysost homil 86. in Matth. describes at length the sad State of Bishops and other Church men since the Church enjoyed Lands and other fixed Revenues because they forsook their employments to sell their Corn and their Wine and to look after their Glebes and Farms Besides much of their time was spent in Law-suits He wishes that he might see the Church in the State that it was in in the times of the Apostles when it injoyed only the Charity and Oblation of Believers St. Austin was also in the same Opinion and (4) Possid in vita Aug. cap. 24. it is reported in his Life that he often refused the Inheritances which were offered to his Church thinking it fitter that they should be left to the lawful Heirs And in the same Life we read that St Austin would never purchase Houses nor Lands nor any other Possessions for his Church Wherein he shewed his wisdom and prudence for nothing does more obstruct the Charity of Believers towards Churches than when they see that they enjoy vast Estates the Revenues whereof are nevertheless more uncertain than the Alms that are given to a Church that hath not the repute of being Rich. And so it was also that those who knew St. Austins mind sold their Lands and gave him the money which the more willingly they did as being persuaded that the good Bishop bestowed it on pious uses not in making new Purchases for the enriching of his Church Though at that time Abuses in the Administration of Church-Revenues Bishops and Deacons had the care of the Revenues of the Church yet notwithstanding even in the time of Constantine many abuses were committed in the management of them And this made the Fathers of the Council of Gangres to make a Canon against the Eustathians who divided among themselves the Revenues of the Church It was decreed in that Council (1) Conc. Gangr Can. 7. 8. that the Bishop alone and those to whom he did commit the care of the Revenues of the Church should receive and distribute what was bestowed on Churches But it happened not long after (2) Conc. Antioch Can. 25. that the Bishops themselves abused their power For most of them being Poor and charged with Families they reserved part of the Church Rents for their subsistence And all that could be done to put a stop to that corruption was (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 37. to suffer them to give somewhat to their Reâ—â—tions if they were Poor but withal prohibiting them to sell the Estates that belonged to Churches Nay the Fathers were even obliged not to leave the administration of the Revenues of the Church in the power of Bishops Priests and Deacons without giving an account of them For the Council of Antioch ordained that the Bishops should give an account of the administration of those Revenues in the Provincial Synod And that the goods which properly belonged to Bishops might not be confounded with those that appertained to their Churches every Bishop upon his Election (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. Apost 39. gave a list of the Goods and Estate that he possessed which was separated from that of the Church to be disposed by will or otherwise at his pleasure according to the Provision of the Civil Law But notwithstanding all this caution the Bishops made themselves still Masters of the Revenues of the Church and the Fathers were obliged to create Treasurers or Stewards to take the care of them
that so the Bishops might apply themselves entirely to the duties of their Office These Stewards were likewise necessary for preserving the Revenue of the Church which the Bishops and other Church men did not employ according to the Canons But because they were appointed by the Bishops they relapsed again into the same abuse the Poor had cause to complain of the same Bishops who gave them but a very inconsiderable share of the Goods that were destined for their Use Upon all these accounts the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon decreed That for the future the Stewards should be chosen from among the Clergy and that it should be no longer in the power of the Bishops themselves to administer the Revenues of the Church That Office became so considerable in the Church of Constantinople that the Emperours took from the Clergy the nomination of the Stewards and appointed them themselves And this lasted until the time of the Emperour Isaac Comnenus who remitted that right to the disposition of the Patriarch The power of Stewards was not so great in the Western Church The Custom of the Western Church diâ—â—ers from that of the East as in the Eastern for seeing the Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks did not according to equity distribute the Church Revenues and that besides the Churches were meanly endowed there was a necessity of making a particular designation of the use to which these Rents were to be employed And that was adjusted in this manner to wit that the Bishop with consent of his Clergy should divide the whole Revenues of his Church into four parts of which the First should be for himself the Second given to the Church-men the Third to the Poor and the Fourth and last applied to the Fabrick of the Churches (1) Gratian caus 12. qâ—â—â— 2. cap. 23. Gratian relates a letter of Pope Zosimus directed to an Arch-Deacon where that distribution is mentioned but without permitting the Rents of the Church to be dismembred as some Church men pretended who would have had Lands assigned them for their portion St. Gregory answering some Questions that were put to him by Austin the English Bishop confirms that Dividend St. Greg. Pope which had been already approved by several other Popes and withal appoints that the Bishops portion should not only be for himself but for as many as were necessary for his Retinue and for maintaining Hospitality The Bishops wrangled with their Clergy about that distribution pretending that they had no right to the new Acquisitions of the Church A Dispute about the distribution of the Revenues of the Church but the same Pope St. Gregory adjusted the matter in favour of the Clergy The Priests pretended farther that they ought to have two parts of the share that was assigned to the Clergy and that the other Churchmen ought to have but a third of the same That matter was referred to the Bishop who was to give to every one according to his merit and pains Nevertheless St. Gregory who in that followed a Law established in the Churches of the West writing to Austin concerning the Discipline that he was to observe in England tells him that it was more convenient to persist in the Community of Goods in the Church of England than to introduce into it those kinds of dividends And indeed it will appear in the sequel of this Discourse that the dividing of Ecclesiastical Revenues hath been the cause of most of the disorders that have happened in the Church and I dare boldly affirm that the thing that hath preserved a greater purity of the Ancient Discipline in the Eastern Church has been chiefly that the Orientals never made any such partitions None but the Western Church hath put the Estates of the Church into Titles and Livings in the same manner as if private persons were the absolute masters of those Estates The Barbarous Princes A change of Discipline in the Church who seized part of the Empire brought great changes into the Church and the Discipline of the Canons was onely preserved in the East The Greeks nevertheless have sometimes remitted certain Ecclesiastical rights in favour of their Princes But that is nothing if compared with what hath been done under the Barbarous Princes in the West The Stewards of whom we have spoken The Office of the Stewards took upon them not only the care of the Revenues of the Church by order of the Bishops but also preserved them during the vacancy of the See and distributed them among those to whom by right and according to the Canons they belonged But because most part of the Church-men had Estates of their own either by Inheritance or Purchases that they had made there arose great difficulties upon their Death about the distinguishing of those Estates Some there were that pretended that those who lived on the Revenues of the Church could not in conscience retain their own Inheritance St. Jerom who was of that opinion St. Jerom. is positive that the goods of the Church were designed for the Poor which agreed very well with the Edict of Constantine that prohibited the Rich to enter into any Office of the Church Whether Church-men can keep their own Estates though he did it upon Politick Reasons and for the good of the State Most of the other Fathers were also of St. Jeroms mind St. Austin and St. Austin admitted no Clerk into his Church till first he had disposed of all his goods either in favour of the Poor or by Sale He was for having all Clerks really Poor in imitation of the Apostles and for living altogether in common upon the Revenues of the Church Nevertheless it is to be observed that he did not require that of them but as a greater perfection and that he never thought it absolutely necessary for entring into orders and enjoying the allowance of the Church that one must possess nothing at all Otherwise he must have gone against the Ancient Canons which leave Church-men at liberty to dispose of their own Estates as they please It is true these Canons were made in the Eastern Church where most of the Bishops having been Married before their Election had Wives and Children to provide for and where Priests and Deacons might Marry if they pleased And therefore it was not reasonable to take their Estates from them Besides it must be considered that when these Canons were made Churches were but â—oor Nay and some time after Constantine no Churches but those of great Cities were Rich. However these Ancient Canons of the Eastern Church were (1) Caus 12. Quaest 3. renewed in the Church of the West though they had not the same reasons for doing it Church-men were only prohibited to bequeath by Will the Goods which they had got in their Livings because Believers did not give to Churches only to enrich the Church-men If it happened nevertheless that the Bishop died without making a Will and had no heirs
it was impossible for Bishops to hinder them from performing all Ecclesiastical functions in their Monasteries and since that time there have always been disputes betwixt the Bishops and the Monks because the Monks on many occasions refused to submit to the orders of the Bishops which they pretended to be contrary to the Discipline of their Monasteries Though at that time most part of the Monks were in the East Monks in the West before St. Benet yet for all that there were a great many also in the West before St. Benet planted a particular Order there St. Jerom St. Ambrose and St. Gregory make mention of Monks in Italy amongst the Gauls and in several other parts of Europe Besides all the Authors who have written of the beginning of the Christian Religion in several Countries speak of Monks that were there There was this difference The difference betwixt the Ancient and Modern Monks nevertheless betwixt the first Monks that were in Europe before St. Benet and those that came after him that the first were barely Monks without being addicted to any particular Order To be a Monk was sufficient to make them received as such in all Monasteries wheresoever they travelled There was no talk then of particular Rules and Institutions But every Monk laboured to emprove himself by the example of others and to embrace what he thought most perfect in the Monastick life So that it may be said that the Monks both of the East and West were all of one Order having at that time no Mark of distinction amongst them The ancient Rules that have been written by the Primitive Monks ought rather to be lookt upon as different Commentaries upon the Monastick life than different Rules for the intention of those who embraced that kind of life was not to distinguish themselves by particular Rules from the manner of â—iving of other men but to submit themselves by a more particular resignation to the Maxims of the Gospel and to find out all possible ways how they might live up to the Counsels of our Saviour who will have us to wean our hearts altogether from the World that we may follow him alone who is above it I shall not here speak of the Institution of St. Benet which is in the hands of every body but shall only observe by the by that the design of that Saint was not to make any innovations in the Monastick life but to make a Collection of what he found most perfect in the Rules and Institutions of others Matters are much altered since All the several Orders of Monks make now a days so many petty different Republicks in the Church and are so many little States who have all their several interests But let us now return to our Subject concerning the Original and Progress of the Revenues of the Church No sooner were the Barbarous Kings become Masters of a part of the Roman Empire Changes in Church and State but the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws suffered great alterations There was a necessity of complying with the humor and temper of these new Conquerours who medled in the affairs of the Church There was not now as formerly the same liberty in electing of Bishops Princeâ— thought of securing their States by conferring Bishopricks only on such as they could rely upon So that Ecclesiastical dignities began to be looks upon as mere Lay-Offices at the disposal of Princes with which they could Reward those that served them And which was more pernicious to the Church Princes and other great Lords began to make no more distinction betwixt goods consecrated to God and goods Profane The necessity of the times must be born with and the great Wars that Princes were engaged in was the cause that the best part of the Revenues of the Church fell into the hands of Lay-men The Revenues of the Church in the same condidition as temporal Estates They made Contracts of Alienation about them as about other Possessions and these Contracts past for lawful when they were made in the usual forms No body opposed it The Bishops Monks treated often with Laicks about those concerns either by way of Exchange or Purchase The ancient Cartularies or Registers of the Monks are full of such kinds of Contracts wherein it appears that Children succeeded to their Fathers as well in Church livings as in other Estates The Counts or Judges decided the differences that arose amongst private persons about such Estates in the same manner as about other Inheritances and Possessions It is true some scrupulous People made a Distinction betwixt Altars and Churches A distinctio betwixt Churches an Altars comprehending under the name of Churches Lands and other Revenues for which men might contract and assigning a Priest to the Altar who was to have a Salary for saying Mass and performing other Ecclesiastical Functions But some who were not so scrupulous made no such imaginary distinction For in the ancient Cartularies there are to be found forms of deeds of alienation of Churches and Altars with the Bells Chalices Crosses and other Ornaments of the Church This was practised even in Italy before the Popes entred into the cognisance of the goods of the Churches which depended not on their Diocese To these troublesome times we may attribute the total Ruine of private Church men The Ruine of private Church-men who were obliged to take wages from those who possessed the Churches And which is more unhappy the greatest part of those Revenues are fallen into the possession of Cathedral Churches and Monasteries to which they did not at all belong The truth is there are forms of Contracts to be found in the same Cartularies which make it appear that Monks have bought several Churches from Lay-men but part of these Churches had been usurped by the Laicks from the Church-men to whom they ought to have been restored and not sold to the Monks When the administrations of Church Revenues were erected into Benefices or perpetual Titles the Church-Men who were hired by the Chapters of Cathedral Churches by the Monks and even by Laicks became perpetual Vicars and Curats But the best part of the Benefices remained still to the Canons and Monks who took to themselves afterward the Quality of Primitive Curates Besides since private men were not able Princes and other great men bought the Churches from those Church-Men and gave them to the Monks who entertained Secular Priests to take the care of administring the Sacraments to the People all the Revenue and Tithes in the mean time remaining to the Monasteries Wherefore it will not be amiss to explain in this place more particularly the Original and Progress of the Revenues annexed to Monasteries and at the same time to speak of their priviledges and exemptions A great part of what we shall say of Monasteries being also applicable to other Ecclesiasticks We have shown before that Monks having made profession of poverty The Original of Lands and other Revevenues
he may do it without the Ecclesiastical Patron from whose Right he can derogate in case of Permutation but not in pure simple Demissions for the Benefice being then vacant the Ordinary cannot confer it but upon the Presentation of the Patrons whether they be Ecclesiasticks or Laicks V. A Benefice in Lay-Patronage cannot be burdened with a Pension or Annuity and Mr. Charles Du Moulin is of the Opinion that the Popes Rescript cannot be put in execution unless the Patron consent to it or that clause be added Si tamen Patroni consensus accedat But seeing the Pope can Derogate from the right of Presentation of Ecclesiastical Patronss by conferring in full right Benefices that are in their nomination he can upon stronger reason Authorise by his Rescripts Pensions setled upon the Benefices of their Patronage without any necessity of having their consent After all it will not be amiss to observe Whence cometh the distinction of Patronages that the distinction of Patrons Laick and Ecclesiastical is not taken from the difference of persons for a Church Man may be a Laick in respect of his Lands and Inheritance to which the Patronage is annexed But a Lay-Man cannot be an Ecclesiastical Patron because Ecclesiastical Patronage is a right that belongs to a Person or Community by reason of Benefices which they enjoy In a word Benefices are in Ecclesiastical Patronage when they depend on a Church I do not here examine whether the Pope can dispense with a Laick for enjoying a Benefice and still remaining Laick in which case it would be true that a Lay-Person might be an Ecclesiastical Patron It is sufficient that we have examined matters according to the ordinary course of Law and without any farther inquiry into the thing it will be easy to distinguish these two Patronages according to the Principles that we have laid down We must nevertheless observe That it many times happens Lay-Patronages in process of time to become Ecclesiastical and that either by the terms of the Donation or by the Translation and Donation that Lay-Men make of their Lands and Lordships to Churches or Monasteries In the Title of the Foundation of a Church it is sometimes expressed that the Founders reserve to themselves the Right of Patronage only for a certain time and for a limited degree of Kindred and then that failing the Ordinary in full right confers the Benefices that were before in Lay-Patronage Wherefore it is necessary that Bishops examine the Titles of foundations which are sometimes qualified with restrictions in their favours Besides we find that Cathedral Churches and Monasteries enjoying a great many Lordships with Patronages annexed to them these Patronages have changed their nature being become Ecclesiastical by the Lords making of them over to Churches We must nevertheless except great Benefices such as Bishopricks and Abbeys which the Kings of France can never transfer to the Purchasers of Crown Lands The King can only transfer the Patronage of smaller Benefices with the Inheritance and then the Patronage from Royal becomes Ecclesiastical if it be given or transferred to a Church There arise great difficulties in France about Lay-Patrons who make profession of the Reformed Religion Of Huguenot Patronage And seeing Protestants are not treated according to the Rigour of the Ecclesistical Laws which deprive Hereticks of their Estates it would seem that since they are left in possession of their Lands and Lordships they should also enjoy all the fruits and honorary Rights that are annexed to the same Lord ships especially according to the Maxims of the New Law which (1) Collationes sunt in fructious places the Presentation to Benefices in the number of Fruits No man doubts but that Patronage is a real Right annexed to Lands and that by consequent it follows them as being a fruit of the same It would seem then that no regard ought to be had to the Quality of the person in as much as the Right of Patronage is not personal but real and besides the Presentation is but a servitude of the Benefice and not a Spiritual Title Nor doth the Presentation properly give the Benefice But institution must be had from the Ordinary upon the letters of Presentation and in that the Spirituality does really consist The Ordinary may refuse those who are presented by the Patrons if they be not capable and so it remains always in the liberty of Ordinaries not to supply Benefices that are in Huguenot Patronage but with fit and able men The Patrons then if they would cannot abuse their Right and it is impossible that the Church can thereby receive any prejudice if the Ordinaries discharge their duty These and many more reasons that might be brought upon that Subject were the cause that Lay-Patrons professing the Reformed Religion obtained heretofore an Order of Council whereby they were allowed to nominate fit persons who in their place might present to the Benefices of their Patronage but that is not now observed for the Ordinaries in full Right confer such Benefices so long as the Patrons make profession of the Reformed Religion And therefore it is fit we should observe that the Right of Patronage which is real and united to the Land is not lost but only dormant and in suspense so that if the Patrons happen to be reconciled to the Church they enjoy their Right of Patronage in the same manner as if they had never professed the Reformed Religion That Custom is backt with good reasons and though the Right of Patronage be not properly Spiritual it is at least mixt and it is a common saying that it is quid Spirituale annexum Temporali And that it cannot be Sold separately but only with the Land or Inheritance to which it is annexed It is true Patronage is a real Right yet that hinders not but that it is exercised by a person Now it is ridiculous that a man who believeth not in the Church should present to it a person for a Spiritual Right and that that Right should be granted upon his Presentation Grant that the Bishop is free to accept or reject him who is presented and that he is the Judge of his capacity That is not enough For if the Canons prohibit the giving of a Benefice upon the recommendation of an Heretick upon stronger reason it ought not to be given upon his Presentation The Bishop can only Judge of defects that are known to him and it may be the Protestant Patron may present a very capable man but who may have secret engagements with himself It is not strange to see Church-men who have followed their studies at the charge of Protestant Patrons in hopes of procuring them Benefices of their Patronage to the end they may comply with them and do prejudice to the Rights of the Church But these Artifices are so hidden that few can come to the knowledge of them And therefore Patrons who profess the Reformed Religion have with reason been excluded from the
Right of presenting to Benefices which depend on their Patronage It may be doubted whether Bishops in defect of these Patrons who are incapable of presenting to Benefices of their nomination ought in full Right to confer the same Benefices It would seem that that did belong to them by Canon Law because the Patronage which is a kind of servitude tolerated by the Church ceasing the Bishops enter again into their ancient Right But on the other hand seeing Lay-Patrons enjoy not the right of Patronage but because of their Lands and Inheritances there is a great deal of appearance that it belongs to the King who is their Soveraign Lord to supply the defects of his Vassals when they themselves cannot exercise a Right that is annexed to their Fiefs In the same manner as the King in Normandy has the Right of Wards and that by virtue of that Right he is Patron in the place of the Minors who have Lands with right of Patronage until they be of age However It is certain that the Bishops are at present in possession of that right and that they are grounded upon a declaration of the King which they pretend to be in their favours There happened lately a Process betwixt the King and the Arch-Bishop of Rouen concerning the Cure of Oinville which is in Huguenot Patronage and to which both the King and Arch-Bishop had presented which shews plainly enough that the King had a mind to recover his right having referred that matter from his Council to be examined in the great Council After all the Patrons professing the Reformed Religion have found a device to preserve their Right of Patronage For by a counterfeit Contract they sell their Lands with Patronages to some Catholick of their Friends or Relations And so they remain Masters unless the Fraud of their Contracts be discovered But let us now come to Ecclesiastical Patronages Ecclesiastical Patronages derive their Original from the I. Council of Orange The Original of Ecclesiastical Patronages where Bishops that found Churches out of their Dioceses are permitted to present capable Persons to them who are afterward to be ordained by the Diocesan Bishops That Right hath past insensibly to all other Founders And at length regular Communities have also presented to Benefices depending on their Monasteries In their favours the Rule hath been made which bears that Secular Benefices shall be given to Seculars and Regular to Regulars By Law all Benefices ought to belong to Seculars because none but Seculars are by right capable of Ecclesiastick Employments and that the Religious have only got into them by Priviledge and Dispensation But since they have been permitted to possess Lands Nay Fiefs and Lordships they have had many Churches in their disposal which they have governed themselves or committed to Secular Priests They commonly gave parish-Parish-Churches to be governed by Secular Priests allowing them but a very moderate Stipend and had even the power to change them as they pleased But at length they were forced to place Curates or perpetual Vicars in their Churches for preventing a vast number of Abuses and partly from thence we have the Cures to which they present in Quality of Patrons The Original of Priories As to Priories and other Benefices to which they nominate they were at first but Administrations or Manual Benefices which for that reason were called Obediences because the Religious were employed in those Offices by the command of their Abbots or Superiours whom they were obliged to obey and they continued no longer in the Employments than their Superiours pleased They had the name of Praepositi or Obedientiarii and their Care extended more to the Temporal than the Spiritual If Lands lay remote from the Monastery some Religious were to be sent thither to take the care of them And seeing Monks ought not to live alone unless they were Hermites or Anchorites they had Companions assigned them of which one took the Title of Praepositus and the places where they lived were called Cellae Grangiae Obedientiae to distinguish them from the Principal Monastery of which these Houses were but Dependances This is the Original of Priories and other lesser Benefices of Monasteries which in the beginning were Manual and in Rule Nay it seems even contrary to the Institution of the Monastick life that Monks should properly possess Benefices in Title in the manner that they are Established by the New Law for they are the absolute Masters of their Revenue which is in some sense contrary to the Vow of Poverty that they have made In process of time many of these Priories have been conferred on Seculars whether because of the scandalous Lives of the Religious that possessed them or for other reasons and by that means the Benefices are gone out of the Rule Forty years possession is enough to change the nature of Benefices In the mean time the Monks who perceive that these Benefices are by their Foundation regular use all possible Endeavours to recover them again and spare no means to get them out of the hands of the Seculars who possess them being persuaded that they cannot commit Injustice nor Simony in regaining the Lands which they pretend belong to their Church When Benefices are once in possession of Monks it is hard for them to return again to Seculars because as we have observed before after forty years possession they become regular On the contrary it happens often that Benefices possessed by Seculars fall under Rule because Regular Communities compound with Seculars by Pensions Annuities or other ways We have then general Rules for distinguishing Benefices in Rule from those that are not to wit forty years possession and failing that Rule all Benefices of their own nature and by Canon Law are Secular Nothing but the Foundation can prove a Benefice to be in Rule and then the Title of the Foundation derogates from the Ancient Canon Law Though it be certain The Right of Commendatary Abbots in the nomination to Benefices that Religious and Regular Communities present to many Benefices in Quality of Patrons yet there is great difficulty to know to whom that Right of Patronage belongs since the Establishment of perpetual Commendums And there happen many suits upon that account betwixt the Commendatary Abbots and the Monks Yet it is an easy matter to resolve all these difficulties if we lay down some principles that cannot be questioned We must not consider then the Modern Commendums as bare Consignations but as real Titles as all the Bulls of Commendum bear If the Commendums were no more but bare Consignations the Commendataries could not have as is commonly said Jus in re but barely the keeping or Custodiam Commendae and by consequent they could not dispose of Benefices because such kinds of Commendums or Consignations are only for a certain time It is not so with the Commendums now in question because they are ad vitam and retain nothing but the name of Commendum being in
then did the Church succeed to all his Estate The Churches of Spain who had got a Latin Translation of the Ancient Greek Canons imitated the customs of that Church which were likewise propagated in other Churches of the West We may here observe by the by that Gratian is often mistaken Gratian. and that there is no credit to be given to his Citations but when they are found to agree with the Ancient Greek Canons Nor are the very Summaries which he gives of Canons always true as when it is marked in general over the Head of the Canon taken out of the Council of Tarragona that the Estate of the Bishop dying without a Will ought to return to the Church whereas it is barely said in the Council that the Priests and Deacons shall make an Inventory of his Goods and that according to the Greek Canons to the end that what was properly his own might be set apart from that which belonged to his Church But this is not a proper place to correct the faults which occur in the Collection of Gratian. (1) Ammian The Emperour Julian revoked most of the Priviledges granted to Churches by Constantine (2) Zozim Nay he took from them their Endowments alledging for a Pretext that the perfection of Christian Religion consisted in Poverty But Valentinian afterward recalled the Edicts of Julian though he did not confirm all the Grants that Constantine had made to the Church Edicts of Emperours and the Emperours that came after him were more sparing in their Liberality But the Avarice of the Church-men made up what was wanting in the Bounty of the Emperours Excessive Avarice of Church-men For if we give credit to what St. Jerom reports of the Priests and Monks of his time St. Jerom. they spared no Trick nor Artifice whereby they might hook in the Estates of private Persons I shall make no scruple here to produce some proofs of it since Cardinal Baronius hath done the same before me and then it will easily appear that the Anchoret of whom Sulpicius Severus speaks had reason to say (1) Ecclesiam auro non strui sed potius destrui that nothing was more likely to ruine the Church than great Riches Seeing it would be difficult to translate the words of St. Jerom with the same force and elegance Sulpitius Severus in Dialog as they are in the Original I shall only extract some passages in Latine out of his Writings as first in one of his Letters to Eustochium he thus describes what past at Rome among the Church-men (1) Hier. in Epist ad Eustoch Clerici osculantur capita matronarum extentâ manu ut benedicere eos putes velle si nescias pretia accipiunt salutandi quidam in hoc omne studium vitamque posuerunt ut matronarum nomina domos moresque cognoscant ex quibus unum qui hujus artis est princeps breviter describam cum sole festinus exurgit salutandi ei ordo disponitur viarum compendia requiruntur pene usque ad cubicula dormientium senex importunus ingreditur si pulvillum viderit si mantile elegans si aliquid domesticae supellectilis laudat miratur attrectat se his indigere conquerens non tam impetrat quà m extorquet In another of his Letters he describes more to the life the low and sordid Offices which the Priests and Monks of his time rendred to Old Men and Ladies who had no Children that they might catch their Estates and Inheritances Audio says he in senes anus absque liberis quorundam turpe servitium ipsi apponunt matulam obsident lectum purâ—lentiam stomachi phlegmata pulâ—â—onis manu propriâ suscipiunt c. In the Epistles of this holy Doctor we may have a full and lively Representation of the Church-men of his time and he cannot forbear to blame the vanity of Widows of Quality who refusing to marry again that they might not be subject to a Husband liked very well to be courted by Church-men that so they might bear the Rule Illoe interim says that Father quoe Sacerdotes suo viderint indigere proesidio eriguntur in superbiam quia maritorum expertae dominatum viduitatis proeferunt libertatem His Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures are likewise full of the like complaints against the Avarice of Church-men whom he upbraids with their desire of enriching their Relations with the Goods that belong to the Poor I wave a great many other Reproaches that he makes to them which got him the hatred of the Ecclesiasticks and Monks of his Age. And nevertheless he said nothing but what was true and approved by all good men So that when most part of the Priests and Monks censured him as a railing and violent man (1) Sulp. in Dialog Sulpitius Severus undertook his defence and made the same complaints against the Church-men whose unsupportable Vanity he condemns These were not only then the grievances of St. Jerom who in that cannot be accused of Passion since that before him St. Hilary (1) Hilar. comm in Psalm compared the same Church-men to the Scribes and hypocritical Pharisees (2) Comedentes domos viduarum oratione longâ orantes Matth. 23.14 who in appearance made long Prayers and devoured Widows Houses In a word if men condemn St. Jerom of Passion they must also condemn St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Basil St. Ambrose and indeed the greatest Saints of that Age. who could not endure the Covetousness of the Church-men But nothing justifies St. Jerom more than that the Emperours Valentinian Valens and Gratian were obliged to make a Law against those corruptions which is to be found in these words in the Code of Theodosius Codex Theodos Ecclesiastici aut ex Ecclesiasticis vel qui continentium se volunt nomine nuncupari viduarum ac pupillorum domos non adeant Laws of the Emperours against the Avarice of Church-men sed publicis exterminentur Judiciis si posthac eos ad fines earum vel propinqui putaverint deferendos Censemus etiam ut memorati nihil de ejus mulieris cui se privatim sub praetextu religionis adjunxerint liberalitate quâcunque vel extremo Judicio possint adipisci omne in tantum inefficax sit quod alicui horum ab his fuerit derelictum ut nec per subjectam personam valeant aliquid vel donatione vel testamento percipere c. That Law which was directed to Pope Damasus was read in the Church of Rome (1) St. Jerom in his Letter to Nepotian St. Jerom does not accuse the Emperours of Injustice for publishing a Law which seemed contrary to the Liberties of the Church but he accuses the Avarice of Church-men who having slighted the Law of God have been forced to obey the Laws of Men and he asserts that therein the Priests and Monks are inferiour to the Priests of Idols and to the Societies of the infamous who
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
Canons of their Canonships and even obliged Secular Priests to turn Monks if they intended to enjoy their Benefices The Bishops did what lay in their power to remove the Monks from Church Dignities But on the other hand the Monks had their recourse to the Popes who were already become Masters of a great part of the Jurisdiction of Bishops and Princes who were perswaded that Monasteries were grown too Rich favoured the Bishops against the Monks and Popes All the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury had been Monks from the time of Austin whom Pope Gregory sent into England until the Reign of Henry 1. But when under that Prince they came to the Election of an Arch Bishop (1) Hist Sim. Daniel 1123. all the Bishops of England declared publickly that they would have no Monk for their Primate and that amongst the Clergy there were as virtuous men and as fit for the Government of a Church as any in the Monasteries So by degrees they began to take the Government of Churches out of the hands of Monks though they were protected by the Popes Yet they still made a distinction betwixt Regular Canons and Monks which continues to this day for we find but a few Monks that take the Charge of Parish-Churches and perform other Ecclesiastical Functions out of their Monasteries Whereas regular Canons in all places discharge those Offices without being obliged as Monks are to put Secular Priests into their Cures There remain at present but few Cathedral Churches in the hands of Monks though heretofore it was a very common thing to see no other Canons Ecclesiastical Employments inconsistent with Monks in Churches but Monks who at the same time took care both of Churches and Monasteries which was altogether opposit to the Canons even to the Institution of the Monastick life (1) Quisquis autem ex Monasterio ad Ecclesiasticum ordinem pervenerit ulterius illic nec aliquam potestatem nec licentiam habeat manendi St. Gregory indeed allows Monks to enter into holy Orders and to officiate in that capacity when it shall please their Bishop to enjoyn them But then they could no longer continue in their Monasteries being become real Clerks Nevertheless the Monks did the contrary Greg. Papa and remaining still in their Monasteries took upon them the care of Churches We even find in the History of England that the Office of Archdeacon of a Cathedral Church was annexed to the place of Prior of a Monastery The desire they had of enriching their Houses was the true cause why they continued in their Communities though by right they were separated from them because of the Ecclesiastical Employments in which they were engaged and so far from laying aside their Monkish customs when they were associated to the Clergy they introduced into their Churches the Practices and Ceremonies of their Monasteries and that was the thing that made way for the Re-establishment of Secular Priests in Cathedral Churches and other Benefices But nevertheless part of the Revenues that belonged to Private Churches remained still in the possession of Monasteries Besides Princes and Bishops could not endure that Monks should possess Eclesiastical Dignities after that the Popes were grown so powerful that they disposed at their pleasure of the most part of Benefices For the Monks always espoused the Interests of the Popes against Princes and Bishops under pretext of defending the liberty of the Church and seeing Princes refused to submit to the Pope with whom they had continual quarrels they resolved to give no Ecclesiastical Promotions but to those who were devoted to their Service The English History gives us a pretty Instance of this in the Reign of Richard I. Princes ruint the Monks That Prince having assembled the Bishops of his Kingdom could not forbear with Tears to tell them that he was an unfortunate wretch and no King (1) Se miserum esse non regem Chron. Gervasii He complained that the Revenues of his Kingdom were crumbled into infinite parcels of which the least part came to his share and (2) Haec enim illa possident albi Monachi nigri ordinis diversi Canonici that they were possessed by Black Monks White Monks Canons of different Orders Then he upbraided the Secular Priests with their Vices and scandalous debauched lives that were notoriously known to all the World Eleemosynas Populi said that Prince speaking of Secular Priests distrahunt expendunt in pravos usus dum magis cogitant de suarum pannis meretricum quà m de suarum vestimentis vel libris Ecclesiarum tolerabile malum videretur si singuli suas mulierculas observarent saltem thorum non invaderent alienum These corruptions were not peculiar to England alone but were spread over all the Churches of Europe where Priests who were prohibited to Marry according to the Canons of the Western Church made no scruple publickly to keep Concubines And we are obliged to the Monks for the services they rendred to the Church in those days when the Secular Priests were plunged in Ignorance and Vice But their Services were not so considerable when they began to declare for the Popes who pretended alone to have the absolute disposal of all Church Revenues contrary to Ancient Custom King Richard of whom we have been speaking attributes the disorders which the Court of Rome caused in his dominions to the weakness of the Priests of his Kingdom Romani says he Propter debilitatem vestram adeo nobis infesti sunt ut nobis solummodo videantur imperare literulas suaâ—nobis vendunt nec Justitiam quaerunt sed litigia fovent multiplicant appellationes redimunt placitantes et cum solam pecuniam appetunt veritatem confundunt pacemque subvertunt That Prince continuing his complaints told the Bishops of the same assembly that for Remedy to all these evils the Monks must be obliged to shut themselves up within their Monasteries without sharing in Ecclesiastical affairs and the Secular Clergy reformed who would be much more serviceable than the Monks (1) Romanis latronibus si transgrediuntur poterunt obesse in resisting the unjust attempts of the Court of Rome The Kings advice was followed by all the Bishops and it was resolved in that Assembly that the Monks who possessed Cathedral Churches should have their private Churches near to these Cathedrals and that Secular Canons should be settled in their places And in this manner did Princes with assistance of the Bishops endeavour to re-establish Secular Priests in the Churches according to Prescripts of the Canon Law But that was not done without great difficulty because the Monks were protected by the Popes whose authority was become formidable and it is to that time especially that we ought to attribute a great part of the Exemptions which the Monks obtained from Rome that they might not depend on the Bishops who endeavoured their Ruine It was a troublesom thing to Princes The Original of great
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
Church after the death of the Bishop In some Churches the Archdeacons supplied the place of Stewards But in what manner soever that was performed whether by Stewards or Archdeacons it is still true that Princes took no share in the Fruits of vacant Bishopricks since one part of them were employed for the occasions of the Church and the other preserved for the succeeding Bishop It cannot then be affirmed that in that respect the Right of the Regale hath been in use under the first Race of the Kings of France unless one would confound this Right with that of Nomination to Bishopricks which the Kings of the first Race enjoyed But by the Word Regale is meant now a days somewhat quite different from a bare Nomination For the Regale at present attributes to the King the Spiritual and Temporal Fruits of Vacant Bishopricks until the time they be provided which differs from the Ancient Rights of Nomination and Investiture Furthermore Of the Regale under the second Race the same Right of the Regale in the notion we take it here was also unknown under the second Race of the French Kings as appears by a Letter of Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims written to Charles the Bald For that Archbishop sets down the Canon of the Council of Calcedon for a Rule during the Vacancy of the Episcopal See ut post mortem Episcopi reditus Ecclesiae viduatae futuro Episcopo penes Oeconomum ejusdem Ecclesiae integrae conservari jubeantur And in a (1) Ann. 876. Synod Pontigon Synod held under the same Emperour it was appointed according to what had been decreed in the Council of Calcedon that after the Decease of the Bishop the Rents should be preserved for his Successor by the Steward or Treasurer of the Church It is true Charles the Bald acted otherwise after that Ebbo Archbishop of Rheims was deposed from his See For during the Vacancy of the See which continued several years that Prince seized the Rents of the Church and gave part of the Lands thereof in Fee But that Instance does not overthrow the practice of those Times seeing the King promised in the (2) Ann. 845. Synod of Beauvais to Hincmar and the other Bishops that he would restore to the Church of Rheims all the Lands that he had taken from it Besides that was a singular Act and only done by the King for a greater punishment to Archbishop Ebbo who had been deposed Nor can the Right of the Regale be proved by the bad use that Charles Martel made of Church-Lands which he gave in Fee to Laicks for the Capitularies of Charlemain of Louis and Charles the Bald condemn that Dissipation of Church Revenues and attribute it to the necessity of the Times which in some manner obliged Princes to give Church-Lands to their Subjects thereby to endear them to their Service In fine The Regale under the third Race the same Right of the Regale as we understand it was not yet fixt in the beginning of the third Race as appears by a Letter of Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims wherein he recommends it to the Clergy and People to whom he directs his Letter to take care that the Estate of the Bishop deceased be preserved for the succeeding Bishop Sit vestra pervigil cura ut secundum divinas humanas leges res defuncti Episcopi tam mobiles quà m immobiles futuro reserventur Episcopo We must not The Regale different from the Investiture neither confound the Right of Investiture with the Right of the Regale as some Authors have done For it is not to be found in History nor in any Ancient Deed that Emperours and Kings who have had the Investitures of Bishopricks and Abbeys have therefore enjoyed the Revenues of Churches during the Vacancy of the See but application was only made to them for proceeding to a new Election which was not to be made without their consent afterward they gave to Bishopricks and Monasteries the Investiture of Lands or Fiefs which had been left to them in the manner as we have before described Before the Popes disputed the Right of Investiture with Princes An Explication of the Investiture and claimed the Power over Elections the Investiture contained nothing of the Spiritual but only Temporal Rights in respect of Lands Fees in which Bishopricks and Monasteries were invested and the Bishops had full liberty to give the Consecration wherein the Spiritual consisted If Popes had not had a design to take from Princes the Right which they had in Elections they had never thought of reckoning the Investiture among Spiritual things There is nothing worse grounded than that distinction of Investiture which is mentioned in the Agreement that was made betwixt Pope Calixtus II. and the Emperour Henry IV. The Pope grants to Henry that all Elections of Bishops and Abbots shall be made in his presence thereby to prevent disorder and that those who should be elected should receive from the Emperour the Regales or Regalities by the Scepter Henry the Emperour at the same time obliges himself not to give Investitures by the Ring and Staff or Baton and allows the Liberty of Elections But that distinction of Investitures given by the Pastoral Staff and by the Scepter as if the first had been a thing Spiritual and the other meerly Temporal has no ground in the World Investitures were barely given by the Staff and Ring whether that Staff was called Royal or Pastoral Simony consisted not in the form of Investiture but in the Emperours taking of Money from those to whom they gave it and since that was always done before the Election it might be said that the Election was Simoniacal That abuse ought to have been corrected and matters left as they were before In the mean while The Regale granted by the Pope it is very probable that the Agreement made betwixt Pope alixtus and Henry the Emperour â—s the true Original of the Regale For â—n these two Instruments there is menâ—ion made of the Regale (1) Ann. 1122. Electus auâ—em Regalia per sceptrum à te recipiat â—s the Popes Declaration to the Emperour bears That word Regalia compreâ—ended the Sees which Princes had granted to Churches afterward it was extended to all the Revenues that were â—ossessed by the same Churches Now â—ccording to the Laws of the German Emperours it was the nature of Fees that they who enjoyed them became Vassals to the Emperors of whom they held them and were obliged to take an Oath of Allegiance to them A more particular Explication of the Regale Moreover after the Death of the Vassal the Emperour enjoyed his Revenues until his Successor being invested in the same Fees had sworn to him Fealty and Homage That Law reached Church-men because their Churches possessed several Fees And it is the present Custom of France that the Regale begins so soon as the Church is Vacant and does not end till the new Bishop hath sworn
the Regale under King Philip III. the Son 〈◊〉 St. Louis The Custom of the Parliaments for there is to be found in aâ— Ancient Record of the Court of Parliament (2) Ann. 1272. this Decree against the Pretensions of the Kings Officers to the Church of Albi on occasion of the Right of the Regale Reddita per dâ—minum regem procuratoribus Capitâ—â— Albiensis Regalia Ecclesiae Albiensis quâ—mortuo Episcopo Albiensi Senescallus Câ—cassonensis ad manum domini regis cepâ—rat saisinaverat sine causa cum â—â—minus Rex super hee aliâs nunquam usâ—fuisset prout ex aliorum ipsius relâ—tione fuit inventum At that time thâ—â— the Right of the Regale was not deteâ—mined and fixt but Practice and thâ— received Custom was exactly followed insomuch that there were somâ— Churches wholly exempted from thâ— Regale and others only subject to paâ—â— of it In the beginning the Regale reached only Fees that held of Princeâ— and it was after extended to the Reveâ—nues that accrued from Tithes and eveâ— the Collation of Benefices depending oâ— Churches The Churches that retaineâ— the Ancient Right of the Regale were not at all subject to that Right for the Revenues of Tithes and Collation of Benefices and that was the reason why Parliaments adjudged only to the King in some Churches the Regale for the Rents of Lands and other Temporal Possessions of the Churches and left to the Bishops the Revenues arising from the Altars Tithes Offerings and sometime the Collation of Benefices This Right of the Regale (1) Ann. 1274. The Regale authorized by a general Council was confirmed by the Council of Lyons at the Instance of King Philip III. in presence of his Ambassadours But the Council only confirmed the Custom of the Regale in the places where it was already introduced and prohibited the bringing of it into other places (2) Petr. de Marc. â—â—o 8. de coacor c. 24. M. de Marca who relates the Decree of that Council observes that the term Regalia is there taken in a new sense for the keeping and enjoying of all the Fruits and Revenues during the Vacancy of the See And besides he adds that under the name of Fruits the Collations of Benefices are comprehended because of the Constitution of Alexander III. which preceded that Council wherein it is exprest that the Collation of Benefices ought to be reckoned among the Fruits and Profits But it seems to me that the Intention of Pope Gregory X. in that Council was to hinder for the future Lay-men of what Quality soever they were from invading Church-Lands and Revenues during the Vacancy of the See under any pretext that might be alledged either of the Regale Custody or Protection because in effect they who seized the Revenues of Churches after the Death of the Bishops never wanted Reasons for it alledging the pretext of Pretection or Custody The Council comprehends the Right of the Regale which several Princes enjoyed with the other Rights which many great men pretended for possessing the Revenues of Churches during the Vacancy of the See But since the Maxims of the Canon Law are for most part taken from the Civil Pope Gregory thought it fit (1) Tantum prascriptum quantum possessum to leave those Rights to those who were already in possession of them without examining the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Titles because it would have been a difficult matter to have succeeded in it by reason of the long Possession of many Princes which gives a sufficient Title in the Civil Law As to the Collation of Benefices I do not think that the Council intended to comprehend them under the name of Fruits and Revenues as M. de Marca affirms The truth is it is a Maxim received and authorized by Custom since the Introduction of the New Law that Collations are of the number of Fruits (1) Collationes sunt in fructibus But the term Collation is then taken in a larger sense to wit for the Presentation or Nomination to Benefices whereas the Kings of France by the Right of the Regale enjoy a real Collation of Benefices The Right of Collation attributed to the Kings of France by the Regale which the Canonists affirm to have something of the Spiritual For the Kings of France present not barely to Benefices like other Patrons but they conser in full Right by virtue of the Regale in the same manner as Bishops do Nay the Regale gives more Right to the King of France in regard of the Spiritual than Bishops have For it is a Maxim of Canonists that none but the Pope can receive Resignations in favorem and the reason they give is because a Resignation made in favour of another is a kind of Simony and that the Pope alone who is above Ecclesiastical Laws can dispense with it Solus Papa say they purgat à Simonia But they should add Rex Francorum for the King of France receives the Resignations which are called in favorem There are a great many other Rights which the Kings of France enjoy by virtue of the Regale and which are peculiar to that Right The Lawyers and French Canonists have much ado to explain the Original of these Rights which they suppose according to the common Rules of the Canon Law to be Spiritual Rights and by consequent not to belong to Lay-persons unless it be by a special Priviledge granted by Popes to the Kings of France But since no such Priviledge can be made appear and that on the other hand the Kings of France pretend not to hold that Right by Priviledge of the Pope the difficulty grows greater Bonis VIII Pope Boniface VIII in the contest that he had with Philip the Fair failed not to write to that Prince that he accounted those Hereticks who pretended that the Collation of Benefices which he said was a Spiritual Right could belong to Laicks Joan. Paris Johannes Parisiensis who wrote at that time upon the same Subject affirms that there is a difference to be made betwixt Princes and Subjects in that these as being inferiour to others in Knowledge and discerning of Persons proper for Benefices could not but present whereas Princes might confer (1) Habent omnem peritiam inscrinio pectoris as being endowed with a full and entire Knowledge But that Reason does not conclude in the point in hand where the Question is of the Spiritual and not of the Temporal That difficulty nevertheless may easily be resolved if we suppose that the Right of Collation which belongs to Bishops is not properly a Spiritual Right and that therefore Laicks who have enjoyed it by a long Custom cannot be excluded from it It is to be observed then that according to the Rules of the Ancient Canon-Law the Collation of a Benesice was wholly Spiritual because then there was no other Collation but only the Ordination which cannot be given but by the Bishop But since Ordination hath
been distinguished from the Ecclesiastical Function many new terms have been invented and among others that of Collation or Institution and the Right of Collating is attributed only to the Bishops so that Lay-Patrons may name or present to Benefices provided those whom they have presented take Collation or Institution from the Bishops which alone gives the power of performing Spiritual Functions Nevertheless we find in France especially in Normandy many Laicks who in full Right confer Benefices as well as the King There are even Abbesses as the Abbess of Montivillers in the Country of Caux who in full Right confer Cures without any necessity of having recourse to the Ordinary for Collation or Institution I know it will be answered to this that Laicks who enjoy that Right are grounded on Priviledges granted them by the Pope But however it be it is certain that if that Right were necessarily inherent in the Quality of Bishop the Pope could not by a Priviledge grant it to Laicks no more than he can grant the Right of Ordaining wherein the Spiritual really consists And therefore that Collation which succeeds Ordination is not the same Spirituality with the Ordination but it hath been only thought necessary to hinder Persons uncapable from possessing Benefices The Right of conferring Benefices deprives not Bishops of the Right they have of Judging of the Capacity of those who have received Institution or Collation from Laicks For besides that first Institution which is called Collative Institution there is another kind of Institution called Institutio Autorisabilis which gives the Bishops power to examine the Capacity of those on whom Laicks have conferred Benefices that so they may authorize their Collation There is no such great difficulty then as is commonly imagined to conceive the Right of conferring Benefices which the Kings of France enjoy by virtue of the Regale That which is called Spirituality in beneficial matters since the Introduction of the new Canon-Law is far different from that which is truly Spiritual according to the Ancient Canons and that 's a thing not sufficiently minded by the Canonists Nevertheless the same John of Paris whom we mentioned before observes very well that the right of conferring is not properly Spiritual but that it is only annexed to the Spiritual Let us now return to the History of the Regale and see how it was established in France after the Decree of the Council of Lyons (1) Ann. 1302. Thâ—â— Regale unâ—â—â— Philip the Fair. King Philip the Fair made an Edict for authorizing the Regale after it had been confirmed by Pope Gregory in the Council of Lyons But it extended only to Churches where it had been introduced by Custom These are the terms of his Edict Regalias quas nos nostri praedecessores percipere assuevimus habere in aliquibus Ecclesiis regni nostri That Prince conformed his Edict to the Decree of the Council Under Philip of Valois and would have the Rents of Churches preserved and the ordinary Revenues only received in title of Fruits (2) Ann. 1334. The Constitution of Philip of Valois restrains also the Regale to Custom Under Louis XII and to the Churches of the Realm where that Right was established Louis XI (3) Ann. 1499. made a like Edict and besides prohibited his Officers to molest Churches where there was no Right of Regale or Custody And therefore M. de Marca after Ruzee Pasquier and several other French Lawyers who have written about the Regale observes that that Right is not in all the Churches of the Kingdom and that in those where it is settled it is not in all after the same manner He nevertheless confesses that many have pretended the Regale to be a pure Royal Right and therefore that it ought to extend to all the Churches of the Kingdom but that Pasquier the Kings Advocate in the Chamber of Accounts a knowing man in that matter calls those men Court Flatterers It is certain that notwithstanding all the Actions that have been brought upon that Subject in the Parliaments the Kings of France have never taken to themselves the Regale but in certain Churches And we have still (1) Ann. 1606. Under Henry IV. an Edict of Henry IV. wherein he declares That he pretends not to enjoy the Regale but in the manner that he and his Predecessors have without stretching it to the Prejudice of Churches that are exempted from it The late King of France (2) Ann. 1629. made also an Ordinance whereby he declared Under Louis XIII that he would enjoy the Right of the Regale as in times past And seeing these Terms were Ambiguous the Clergy made their Remonstrance that they might have the explication of them Monsieur de Marel Keeper of the Seals and the other of thâ—â— Kings Commissioners who had frameâ— that Ordinance answered That thâ—â— King declared that he would not enjoy thâ—â— Regale in those places where he had â—â— enjoyed it for time past And thus yâ—â— have an abridgment of the History â—â— the Regale in France But at preseâ—â— there is no more regard had to all that neither have I related it but as an Historian and to serve for Instruction Thâ—â— present King hath (1) Ann. 1674. not long since by a Declaration registred in the Parliaments comprehended all the Churches of his Kingdom within the Regale excepting four which are exempted from it on an onerous Title So that there is no more need of consulting the Chamber of Accounts The Regale at present in all the Churches of Frances where the account of the Regales were taken to know how matters went heretofore and what Churches were subject to the Regale for that Declaration prevents a great many law suits Without examining whether the Regale be a Crown right and by consequent unalienable it cannot be denied but that the Sovereign who grants a Priviledge may revoke it and therefore the King might rescind the Priviledges and Exemptions from the Right of the Regale which the Kings his Predecessors had granted to some Churches of the Kingdom The Parliaments had already rescinded most part of these Priviledges of which some were ill grounded I shall not here give a Catalogue of the Churches of the Kingdom which pretend not to be Subject to the Regale because it would be needless and unseasonable Such as would be farther informed as to that may consult the French Lawyers who have handled that Subject Nor shall I speak of the Rights which other Princes have of providing to the Benefices of their Kingdoms For besides that most part of these Rights belong to them in Quality of Patrons or are founded on Priviledges and Concessions granted by Popes and sometimes on Concordats made betwixt them and the Court of Rome these are matters void of my design which is to apply my self more particularly to the Rights whereof France is in Possession than to the Customs of other Kingdoms Yet I cannot silently pass over the
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
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
Benefices jointly with the Abbot they ought still to present during the Vacancy because one of the Presenters is enough in defect of the other But when the Abbot alone nominates to Benefices and he dies the Ordinaries enter again into their Canonical Right and confer in full power because the Patronage or Right of presenting ceases by the death of the Patron That right of Ordinaries or of Religious Communities is not to be called Devolution For Devolution hath no place but when there is a neglect on the part of Patrons or Collators and then their Right is devolved upon the immediat Superiour In the question we now examine there is no neglect and they who say that on those occasions the Right is devolved upon the Ordinary or upon the Chapter of the Monks speak very improperly It is far better said that the Ordinary or Chapter of the Monks provide then to Benefices by the Canon Law and their own Right In vain do the Monks object to Ordinaries their Concordats or the Rights of their Chapter because as we have already observed the Chapter hath no power sede vacante but as to Benefices where they present jointly with the Abbot And as to the Agreement or Concordat there can be none but for what belongs in common to the Abbot and Monks Now the Presentation to Benefices and other honorary Rights being only in the person of the Abbot they cannot fall under a dividend and by consequent no Tranfaction can be made about them To this we may add that Ordinaries have an acquired Right to all the Benefices of their Diocese when there is no Patron for then they confer in full Right and so Abbots cannot give a Right which is not their own What we have said of Commendatary Abbots Of Priors among Monks ought also to be understood of Priors who have Monks in their Priories for the Division of the Rents ought to be made in the same manner It is worth the observing that amongst the Religious there are two sorts of Priors to wit Conventual Priors and Claustral The Claustral Priors govern the Abbey in absence of the Abbot and during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See as it happens to be so long as the Commendum lasts Conventual Priors are the Heads of Houses dependant on Abbeys in regard that as we have said before Monks were sent to take the charge of the Revenues of these Houses and there was one amongst them whom all the rest obeyed from whence at length came the name of Prior. And it is from that that the simple Priories as they are called now adays because they are secularised and Chappels derive their Original Now seeing some of these Priories became considerable they were elective in the same manner as Abbeys were And therefore they are in the Kings Gift as well as the Abbeys and the Pope in providing to them observes this difference only that he bestows Bishopricks and Abbeys in full Consistory and Priories in Chamber I have said that Claustral Priors govern the Abbey during the time that it is in Commendum which is to be understood of the Government in respect of Monastick discipline For though Commendatary Abbots are substituted in the Rights of Regular Abbots yet it hath not been thought fit to subject the Monks to them in what concerns the Rule of their Institution However they take the power of putting in and turning out the Claustral Priors according to the terms of their Bulls which give them full authority over the Monks But that power hath been qualified especially in respect of the Religious who live in Congregation such as are in France the Benedictin Monks of the Congregation of St. Maur who elect their Claustral Priors At first every Abbot was Supream in his own Monastery and Independant of any other The Priors and other Claustral Officers depended solely on him But the Reformations of Cluni and Cisteaux introduced some alteration into the ancient Government Cluni and Cisteaux have changed the Ancient Government of Monasteries The Monasteries that followed that Reformation presently submitted to the Abbots of Cluni and Cisteaux who were like the Generals of all the other Abbots and Priors and by that means they became dependant on them Besides the Heads of Monasteries that they might be independant of the Bishops were exempted from their Jurisdiction which made a kind of New Hierarchy in the Church For whereas before the Monks depended on their Abbot for the Rule and for all the rest on the Bishops in whose Dioceses they lived they made now a particular and distinct Body in the Church which acknowledged no Bishop but the Pope for Superiour and for Government of that Body they established a Form of little Councils which they called General Chapters The Pope having granted to the Heads of these Orders great Priviledges which have in many things derogated from the Jurisdiction of Ordinaries This Reformation hath been found so useful to keep Monks in their Duty that it hath not only been received amongst other Religious who pretended an Exemption from holding such Chapters but is also augmented especially since the Council of Trent which will have Monks live in Congregation In this manner the Reformation which is called the Congregation of St. Maur hath been established in France under the Popes Gregory XV. and Vrban VIII who in their Bulls of Erection gave power to that new Congregation to aggregate thereunto the Monasteries that would accept the Reformation And this hath wonderfully redounded to their profit for they possess at present all the good Abbeys of the Kingdom They depend not at all on the Bishops but immediately on the Pope and they are governed by a General who is chosen every three years according to the Rules of the Canon Law Besides they have Provincials Assistants and Definitors as the other Modern Religious have I mention this that we may not measure the Rights of Commendatary Abbots according to the practice at present observed amongst the Monks but according to the Custom that prevailed before these Reformations The Popes who make Commendatary Abbots have in France taken some Rights from them and given them to the Religious of the Congregation of St. Maur for they give them not only liberty to chuse Claustral Priors independently of the Abbot A Derogation from the Rights of Commondatary Abbots but have also united to the Conventual Mensae the Claustral Offices which the Abbots had Right to dispose of before the Reformation as well as of all the Benefices of their Abbey The power then of Commendatary Abbots over the Monks must be limited according to the Bulls of Popes that have been received in France and we must know wherein they have derogated from the Bull of Commendum which gives Commendataries all power both in Spirituals and Temporals By Spirituals Commendatary Abbots would have meant the Presentation or Collation of Benefices and the Jurisdiction in regard of the Monks They pretended that the appointing of
of Jerasalem from whom descend those that are called Knights of Malta That Order is much different from other Religious and their Benefices differ also from the nature of all other Benefices They are rather the Administrations of Hospitals than Benesices and in effect that Order began by an Hospital that was built at Jerusalem for the reception of those who went to see the holy places The founding of Hospitals for Lodging of Strangers is Ancient enough and there was either in the Bishops House or elsewhere places appointed for that end that the sick might be taken care of and other charitable works performed for which part of the Revenue of every Church was allotted Afterward in process of time they were distinguished from the common Revenue of Churches and many private persons gave Lands and Inheritances to be erected into places of piety in imitation of Monasteries They cannot be said properly to be Benefices because the Rents of them are not designed for Church men but for all men who are in misery and want And therefore there are as many kinds of Hospitals as there are calamities In the beginning the Bishop had the care of these Monasteries because he ought to provide for the necessities of the Poor and of all those who were in misery as well as for the subsistance of Clerks But the Religious of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem made a particular Body in the Church which hath to this day its particular Constitutions To speak properly there is but one Hospital in all the Order and that Hospital is at present reputed to be in Malta All other private Hospitals or Commanderies are but members of that Hospital on which they depend And therefore their Revenue by Right belongs to the common Treasury of the Order I think Commanderies may be compared to the conventual Prieuries of Monks The Original of Commanderies which in the beginning were only administrations of the Revenues of certain places distant from the principal Monastery As Monks were placed in these Houses to taâ—e care of the Rents so also there hath been a necessity of sending Knights into those places where the Order had Lands The name of Commander hath great resemblance with that of Praepositus which was given to Monks who managed the Rents of these remote Houses Besides their administration was called Obedientia because they depended wholly on the Abbot who gave them that Commission It is Just so with the simple Commanders of Malta who are rather Farmers of the Order than Beneficiaries They have nevertheless converted their Commissions or Farms into a kind of Benetices paying a certain acknowledgment to the common Treasury of the Order and that acknowledgement is called Responsion We must put a difference then betwixt Hospitals which are by Foundation Secular and Regular Hospitals that are possessed by Religious such as are the Commanderies we speak of which are appropriated to the Religious of the Order and cannot be possessed by others Nay it is necessary also that those of the Order be qualified for peaceable enjoying of them and their Benefices are not all of the same nature We must therefore observe that there are amongst them Knights Chaplains and serving Brothers and that there are Commanderies or Revenues assigned to these three different qualities There are besides the great Officers the first of whom is he that at present is called the great Master of the Order and is the Head who in the beginning was the Master of the Hospital Under him are the great Officers of the Order who are for most part Military Officers because of the employments to which they are appointed such as the Admiral Mareschal and others I shall not speak here of the Bayliffs or Conventual Priors who are of the great Cross nor of their other Officers because the Institution of their Order and their Laws are Printed I shall only add that it is to be observed that though that Order be composed of so many Nations yet it is but one only Convent divided into several Tongues Every Tongue contains several Provinces and in every province there is a great Prior who from time to time holds Provincial Chapters For obtaining a Commandery one must be of the Nation where the Commandery lies have performed his Caravans which consist in some years Services at Malta and be of the quality requisite for the Commandery being besides bound up by certain Statutes But they are often dispensed with at the Recommendation of Princes who have also made Concordats with the Knights of Malta as well as with the Popes There is another kind of Knights who also enjoy Church Lands A Military Order wherein one may marry and nevertheless seem neither to be Religious not Ecclesiasticks because they are Married They call themselves however Religious and have their Laws as other Religious have In Spain the Commanders of the Orders of St. James of Calatrava and Alcantara are of that nature There are in France also the Knights of St. Lazarus who may Marry It is pretty difficult though to tell upon what Title these Married Religious possess Ecclesiastical Revenues unless it be said that being by Profession Religious they ought to be obliged to Chastity But that the Pope who according to the Maxims of the New Law is Master of the Canons has dispensed with that Obligation and that by an Apostolical Priviledge they may have Wives Which is conform to the opinion of the ablest Divines who think that the Pope may for lawful causes dispense with Monks as to their Vow of Chastity The married Commanders of these Orders must then be reckoned amongst Regulars and they may in conscience enjoy under the Title of Regulars Church Lands that are appropriated to their Order This at least is the opinion (1) Mart. Navar of one the most learned and strict Canonists of our age who calls Philip II. King of Spain the greatest Prelate in the Church next to the Pope because he was the chief or great Master of the three Military Orders of Spain and enjoyed a good part of the Tithes of Churches within his Territories Phil. 11. the richest Prelate of the Church In this quality of Prelate Regular the King of Spain is the richest Beneficiary in his Kingdom And seeing he is not only great Master of the Orders of St. James Calatrava and Alcantara but is also King of Spain he can as King appropriate to his own use the Revenues of his Commanderies at least as much as is necessary to make him live like a King In the same manner as it is lawful according to the Maxims of the New Law for Cardinals Sons of Kings Nobles and men of Letters to possess several Benefices that they may be able to live according to their quality From all that hitherto hath been said it is easy to Judge how much the Ecclesiastical Discipline hath changed in Beneficial matters and how much the present practice differs from Ancient Customs
The Canon Law does indeed give the entire disposal of Church Revenues to the Bishops within their several Dioceses but the new and particular Law takes from them the greatest part of their power Hospitals in the beginning depended on the Bishops as all other goods and Lands that were dedicated to works of Charity they appointed men to take the care of them and the administrators gave account of them But by degrees they have lost that Right and even private persons have possessed Hospitals in Title of Benefice That Abuse hath been corrected by the Councils of Vienne and Trent which revived the Ancient Canon Law But they are not received in France as to that point that the Administrators should give in their accounts before the Ordinaries In effect since the management of these Rents seems not to have any Spiritual relation it has been thought more convenient to give the Administration of them to Laicks who in some manner are in place of Guardians Church-men are excluded from it because they might abuse them and apply them to their own use as Benefices belonging to themselves Nor have the Nobility and publick Officers any share in that affair because it might be feared that they would render themselves Masters of the Revenues assigned to Hospitals And therefore they choose most commonly good and sufficient Citizens and the right of nominating them belongs to the Founders The Edict of Henry II. gave the Oversight and Visitation of all the Hospitals of the Kingdom to the great Almoner of France But Francis I. gave the same power to the Kings Judges of the places where the Hospitals lay It is true the Ordinaries protest against that Edict pretending that it is prejudicial to their Rights But the Parliament of Paris took no notice of their opposition farther then that it was decreed that they might depute one or two on their part to be present with the Kings Judges at the Visitation but with this condition that they could not in any thing contradict them Henry II. made a Second Edict which is wholly conform to that of Francis I. Since that time the Ordinaries have no power over the Revenues of Hospitals only they and other Church men are invited to be present at the making of the accounts It is nevertheless to be observed that there are several Benefices which are real Titles and yet called Hospitals Gods Houses and Alms Houses and which in effect are not Hospitals but so called for some particular reasons which would be too long to relate Besides Hospitals are sometimes given in Title of Benefices when they are no more but Accessories to a more considerable Benefice Having spoken of the persons in whose favour the Maxims of the New Law have derogated from the Canons and Ancient right of Bishops Derogations from the Rights of Bishops it remains now to speak of the things that derogate from the same Right and we shall begin with the Resignations that are called in favorem There are two sorts of Resignations The first which is called a pure and simple Resignation is made in this manner The Beneficiary does purely and simply resign his Benefice into the hands of the Ordinary and then the Benefice is void That Resignation which may also be called Renunciation or Demission is Canonical and we have some instances of it in Antiquity But Bishops did not easily admit of it They made examination whether they who would lay aside Ecclesiastical Employments had reasons that obliged them to that Demission and if no lawful reason appeared their Resignations on Demissions were not received The other Resignation which now-a days is far better known than the former is called Resignation in favorem because he that resigns his Benefice does it only on this condition that it shall be given to him in whose favours he hath made the Demission and that if it be given to another the Collation should be null The Novelty of Resignations in favorem This kind of Resignation is so New that there is no mention made of it in the Body of the Canon Law in the Decretals nor in the Sext. The New Canonists themselves do all agree that it is Simoniacal because it includes a Paction or Condition to wit that the Resignation of the Benefice is not made but that the other may be invested who is named by the Resigner And therefore there was a necessity of having recourse to the Pope to get a Dispensation for the Simony And that is the reason why none but the Pope can receive those Resignations in favorem because he is above the Canons and Positive Law Bishops cannot admit of them in regard their power is limited and that they cannot purge the Simony which is incurred by a compact After all there is nothing that derogates more from the Right of Ordinaries and Patrons than that Resignation in favorem because they who possess Benefices dispose of them in the same manner as of their Inheritances And it surprises me to see it so common that men of greatest integrity make no Scruple by that means to render their Benefices hereditary in their families as if the Popes dispensation acquitted them always of Simony Abbot Trithemius could not endure that the Monks of his time obtained such Dispensations from the Pope (1) Trith de ruina Monast Ord. Nec mihi said he dispensationem Romani Pontificis objicias quam nisi Deus approbet te minimè excusabit Non omnia Deo placent quae per summum Pontificem in terra geruntur Many now a days cry out against the Commendum who nevertheless countenance by their example the Simony of Resignations in favorem We do not find that they resign their Benefices into the hands of Ordinaries to be by them disposed of after a lawful and Canonical way Men are so accustomed to this evil that they don't think it is an evil it is grown so common In the mean time since these Resignations in favorem are Odious and that they are prejudicial to the Rights of Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical Patrons many Regulations have been made to limit them In the first place the Regulation which is called de viginti diebus has been renewed in respect of them Regulations that derogate from Resignations and this was made to hinder Benefices from becoming Hereditary That Regulation is at present called de infirmis Resignantibus And it bears that if a sick person who resigns his Benefice die within twenty days the Benefice is vacant by death and therefore the Collation made upon such a Resignation is null but that Regulation is at present useless because the Popes daily derogate from it in prejudice of Ordinaries None but Cardinals by virtue of their Priviledges and some persons of quality to whom the Pope grants the like indulgences enjoy the benefit of the Regulation de 20. diebus as well in respect of those that are in health as of the sick In the Second place there is another
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
Exemptions are mentioned But these acts agree not for most part with other Copies that are inserted in a more Ancient Cartulary of the same Monastery And which is observable in the Printed Copy which without doubt hath been taken out of a later Manuscript there is an enumeration of many Lands belonging to the Monastery of Casaure as may be seen in the Priviledge which bears this Title (2) Ibid. page 1308. Ludovici II. Imperatoris Augusti privilegium fundationis dotationis Monasterii Sancti Clementis in Piscaria Anno Domini 875. But in the Manuscript Cartulary which I have read there is nothing to be found of that long list of Lands and Possessions They are only named in it in general and not in particular Besides these words of the date which are in the Printed are not in the Manuscript Cartulary Anno Dominicae Incarnationis 875. Because the Emperours at that time made no mention in their Letters of the year of our Lord. The same Catalogue of Lands and Possessions that is to be found in the Printed Priviledge of the Emperour Louis is to be found also in another Priviledge granted by Roger King of Sicily to the same Monastery But the Ancient Manuscript Cartulary contains nothing of that list Whence it is to be inferred that the Monks have made no scruple to Register in their Cartularies Titles in a quite different way from what they were in their Originals The same hath also happened to the Priviledges of Popes which are in the same Cartulary For there are some things in the Printed Copies that are not to be found in the Manuscript Acts and amongst others the Priviledge attributed to Leo IX is shorter in the Manuscript than in Print for the Printed Copy only ends with this clause (1) Ibid. page 1311. Quoniam scriptum est terminos patrum nostrorum nulla authoritate illicitae temeritatis transgredi praesumi quia opportunitatis exigit ratio propter vos transgressores Canonicae correctionis debere fraeno constringi illius insuper spirituali baculo perdat animum cujus temporali gladio Malchus amisit auriculam Qui autem observator extiterit ditetur dono Apostolicae benedictionis c. There is not a word of all this in the same Priviledge as it is inserted in the Manuscript Cartulary Many other instances might be brought of the great liberty that the Compilers of Cartularies have taken in transcribing Originals and even the Copies of their Titles and by consequent they are not much to be credited It is easy to be Collected from what hath been said A distinction betwixt false Titles and falsified Titles that a Title is not altogether false though there be falsities in it Yet I think these kinds of Deeds ought entirely to be rejected for the least falsity that occurs in them because falsaries should never be countenanced in any thing and that the Exemptions whereof we speak are odious and against the Canon Law It is then absolutely necessary that they who pretend to be exempted should produce good Originals to prove their Exemptions at least that these Falsities be not to be found in the Acts that have been approved by Princes or other Superiour Powers and after all they ought to be very carefully examined That we may know the nature of Acts it is to be observed that Monasteries have sometimes got their Titles and Priviledges confirmed by Princes and other Superiours upon Information that the Ancient Titles were so old and worn out that it was hard to read them and then others were substituted in place of the Ancient These Renovations were not always very sincere For the Old writings were sometimes forged and besides they added things that suited not with the times of those who were pretended to have granted the Ancient Priviledges But since he who had power to grant Priviledges himself confirmed them they could not be accused of falsity unless there was surprise in the case and that lies had been alledged in the Petition because it is a general Maxim that every Petition or Supplication ought to be grounded on truth After all these Priviledges which are said to be substituted in place of others more Ancient are not easily to be admitted For that would be to open a door to a great deal of Forgery And Besides a Title cannot be substituted in place of another by way of renewing and confirmation unless the latter make mention of the former and that it be expresly mentioned that that last Priviledge hath only been given in confirmation of the Ancient And thus you have in a few words the Principal Rules that are to be observed in the Examination of Titles which Monasteries and other Churches that pretend to be Exempted or Priviledged produce for Justifying their Exemptions and Immunities Many instances of false Titles might here be alledged which would render the Rules much more intelligible But that matter is not to be handled to the bottom without engaging into a great many inquiries that are wide of our Subject and require a particular Treatise FINIS