THIS being my Primary Visi­tation, I thought it fitting to acquaint my self with the Ancient as well as Modern Practice of Episcopal Visitations, and as near as [Page 2] I could, to observe the Rules prescri­bed therein, with respect to the Cler­gy, who are now summoned to ap­pear. And I find there were two prin­cipal Parts in them, a Charge and an Enquiry.

The Charge was given by the Bishop himself, Regino. l. 2. p. 205. and was called Admonitio E­piscopi, or Allocutio; wherein he in­formed them of their Duty, Hispan. Con­cil. p. 29. and ex­horted them to perform it.

The Enquiry was made according to certain Articles drawn out of the Canons, which were generally the same; Regino Collect. Canon. lib. 2. p. 204. according to which the Iura­tores Synodi (as the ancient Canonists call them; Burchard. l. 1. c. 91, 92. or Testes Synodales) were to give in their Answers upon Oath; Gratian 35. q. 5. c. 7. which was therefore called Iuramen­tum Synodale; for the Bishop's Visitation was accounted an Episcopal Synod.

The former of these is my present business; and I shall take leave to speak my Mind freely to you, this [Page 3] first time, concerning several things which I think most useful, and fit to be considered and practised by the Clergy of this Diocese.

For, since it hath pleased God, by his wise and over-ruling Providence, (without my seeking) to bring me into this Station in his Church, I shall esteem it the best Circumstance of my present Condition, if he please to make me an Instrument of doing good among you. To this end, I thought it neces­sary in the first place, most humbly to implore his Divine Assistance, that I might both rightly understand, and conscientiously perform that great Duty which is incumbent upon me; for without his help, all our Thoughts are vain, and our best Purposes will be ineffectual. But God is not want­ing to those who sincerely endeavour to know, and to do their Duty; and therefore in the next place, I set my self (as far as my Health and o­ther [Page 4] Occasions would permit) to con­sider the Nature and Extent of my Duty; with a Resolution not to be discouraged, altho I met with Diffi­culties in the Performance of it. For such is the State and Condition of the World, That no Man can design to to do good in it; but when that cros­ses the particular Interests and Inclina­tions of others, he must expect to meet with as much Trouble as their unquiet Passions can give him.

If we therefore consulted nothing but our own Ease, the only way were to let People follow their Humours and Inclinations, and to be as little concerned as might be, at what they either say or do. For if we go about to rowze and awaken them, and much more to reprove and reform them, we shall soon find them uneasie and impatient; for few love to hear of their Faults, and fewer to amend them.

[Page 5] But it is the peculiar Honour of the Christian Religion, to have an Or­der of Men set apart, not meerly as Priests, to offer Sacrifices (for that all Religions have had) but as Preachers of Righteousness, to set Good and E­vil before the People committed to their Charge; to inform them of their Duties, to reprove them for their Miscarriages; and that, not in order to their Shame, but their Reformati­on: Which requires not only Zeal, but Discretion, and a great Mixture of Courage and Prudence, that we may neither fail in doing our Duty, nor in the best means of attaining the end of it.

If we could reasonably suppose, that all those who are bound to tell others their Duties, would certainly do their own, there would be less need of any such Office in the Church as that of Bishops; who are to inspect, and govern, and visit, and reform [Page 6] those who are to watch over others. But since there may be too great fail­ings even in these; too great neglect in some, and disorder in others; too great proneness to Faction and Schism, and impatience of Contradiction from mere Equals; therefore St. Ierom himself grants, That to avoid these Mischiefs, there was a necessity of a Superiour Order to Presbyters in the Church of God; Hieron Com­ment. ad Ti­tum. ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, Epist. ad [...] & Schismatum semina tollerentur; as he speaks, even where he seems most to lessen the Authority of Bishops. But whatever some Ex­pressions of his may be, (when the Bishop of Ierusalem and the Roman Deacons came into his head) his Rea­sons are very much for the Advan­tage of Episcopal Government. For can any Man say more in point of Reason for it, than that nothing but Faction and Disorder followed the Go­vernment of Presbyters, and therefore [Page 7] the whole Christian Church agreed in the necessity of a higher Order, Advers. Luci­ferian. and that the Peace and Safety of the Church depends upon it; that if it be taken away, nothing but Schisms and Confusions will follow. I wish those who magnifie S. Ierom's Authority in this matter, would submit to his Reason and Authority both, as to the Necessity and Usefulness of the Order of Bishops in the Church.

But beyond this, in several places, Hier. in Psal. ad Evagr. he makes the Bishops to be Successors of the Apostles, Ad Marcel. Cyprian. as well as the rest of the most Eminent Fathers of the Church have done. Ep. 3 66. Aug. in Ps. 44. 44. If the Apostolical Office, Ambros. ad Eph. 4. 11. as far as it concerns the Care and Government of Churches, 1 Cor. 12. 28. were not to continue after their Decease, Theod. ad 1 Tim. 1. 3. how came the best, the most learned, the nearest to the Apostolical Times, to be so wonderfully deceiv'd? For if the Bishops did not succeed by the Apostles own Appointment, they must be Intruders and Usurpers of the Apo­stolical [Page 8] Function; and can we ima­gine the Church of God would have so universally consented to it? Be­sides, the Apostles did not die all at once; but there were Successors in several of the Apostolical Churches, while some of the Apostles were living: Can we again imagine, those would not have vindicated the Right of their own Order, and declared to the Church, That this Office was peculi­ar to themselves? The Change of the Name from Apostles to Bishops, would not have been sufficient Ex­cuse for them; for the Presumption had been as great in the Exercise of the Power without the Name. So that I can see no Medium, but that either the Primitive Bishops did suc­ceed the Apostles by their own Appoint­ment and Approbation, Iren. l. 3. c. 3. (which Ire­naeus expresly affirms, Qui ab Apostolis ipsis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis) or else those who governed the Apo­stolical [Page 9] Churches after them, out­went Diotrephes himself; for he only rejected those whom the Apostles sent; but these assumed to themselves the Exercise of an Apostolical Authority o­ver the Churches planted and setled by them. 3 Iohn 9, 10.

But to let us see how far the Apo­stles were from thinking that this Part of their Office was peculiar to themselves, we find them in their own time, as they saw occasion, to appoint others to take care of the Government of the Churches, with­in such bounds as they thought fit. Thus Timothy was appointed by St. Paul at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 3. 2, 3, &c. to examine the Qua­lifications of such as were to be Or­dained; and not to lay hands suddenly on any; to receive Accusations, 5. 22. if there were cause, 19. even against Elders; to proceed judicially before two or three Witnesses: and if there were Reason, to give them a publick Rebuke. 20. And [Page 10] that this ought not to be thought a slight matter, 21. he presently adds, I charge thee before God, and the Lord Iesus Christ, and the elect Angels, that thou observe these things, without pre­ferring one before another, doing no­thing by partiality. Here is a very strict and severe Charge for the Im­partial Exercise of Discipline in the Church upon Offenders. And al­though in the Epistle to Titus, Titus 1. 5. he be only in general required to set in order the things that are wanting, and to ordain Elders in every City, as he had appointed him; yet we are not to sup­pose, that this Power extended not to a Iurisdiction over them when he had Ordained them. For if any of those whom he Ordained (as belie­ving them qualified according to the Apostles Rules) should afterwards demean themselves otherwise, and be self-willed, froward, given to Wine, Brawlers, Covetous, or any way scanda­lous [Page 11] to the Church, can we believe that Titus was not as well bound to correct them afterwards, as to exa­mine them before? And what was this Power of Ordination and Iurisdicti­on, but the very same which the Bi­shops have exercised ever since the A­postles Times? But they who go a­bout to Unbishop Timothy and Titus, may as well Unscripture the Epistles that were written to them; and make them only some particular and occasi­onal Writings, as they make Timothy and Titus to have been only some par­ticular and occasional Officers. But the Christian Church preserving these Epi­stles, as of constant and perpetual use, did thereby suppose the same kind of Office to continue, for the sake whereof those excellent Epistles were written: And we have no great­er Assurance that these Epistles were written by St. Paul, than we have that there were Bishops to succeed the [Page 12] Apostles in the Care and Government of Churches.

Having said thus much to clear the Authority we act by, I now pro­ceed to consider the Rules by which we are to govern our selves.

Every Bishop of this Church, in the time of his Consecration makes a solemn Profession, among other things, ‘That he will not only maintain and set forward, as much as lies in him, quietness, love and peace among all Men; but that he will correct and punish such as be unquiet, disobedient, and crimi­nous within his Diocese, accor­ding to such Authority as he hath by God's Word, and to him shall be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm.’

So that we have two Rules to pro­ceed by, viz. The Word of God, and the Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm.

[Page 13] (1) By the Word of God; and that requires from us, Diligence, and Care, and Faithfulness, and Impartiality, remembring the Account we must give, that we may do it with Ioy and not with Grief. And we are not meerly requi­red to correct and punish, but to warn and instruct, and exhort the Persons under our Care, to do those things which tend most to the Ho­nour of our holy Religion, and the Church whereof we are Members. And for these Ends there are some things I shall more particularly re­commend to you.

(1.) That you would often con­sider the Solemn Charge that was gi­ven you, and the Profession you made of your Resolution to do your Duty at your Ordination.

I find by the Provincial Constitution of this Church, De voto & vo­ti Redempt. Lyndw. f. 103. that the Bishops were to have their solemn Profession read over to them twice in the year, to put them [Page 14] in mind of their Duty. And in the Legatine Constitutions of Otho, Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. f. 182. (22 H ▪ 3.) the same Constitution is renew­ed, not meerly by a Legatine Power, but by Consent of the Archbishops, and Bishops of both Provinces; Constit. Othon. f. 292. wherein i [...] is declared, Concil. Angl. vol. 2. f. 227. That Bishops ought to visi [...] their Diocesses at fit times, Correcting and Reforming what was amiss, and sowing the Word of Life in the Lords Field; and to put them the more in mind of it, they were twice in the year to have their solemn Profession read to them. It seems then, that Profession contained these things in it; or else the reading that could not sti [...] them up to do these things. What the Profession was which Presbyters then made at their Ordination, we have not so clear an Account, but in the same Council at Oxford, Constit. Pro­vinc. De Offi­cio Archi-Presbyteri, f. 33. Concil. Anglic. vol. 1. p. 183. 8 H. 3. i [...] is strictly enjoined, That all Rector [...] and Vicars should instruct the People committed to their Charge, and Fee [...] [Page 15] them, Pabulo Verbi Dei, with the Food of God's Word; and it is intro­duced with that Expression, that they might excite the Parochial Clergy to be more diligent in what was most proper for those times. And if they do it not, they are there called Canes muti: and Lyndwood bestows many other hard Terms upon them, Lyndw. v. la­tratuf. 33. V. Pabulo V. Dei. which I shall not mention; but he saith afterward, those who do it not, are but like Idols, which bear the similitude of a Man, but do not the Offices proper to Men. Nay, he goes so far as to say, That the Spi­ritual Food of God's Word is as neces­sary to the Health of the Soul, as Cor­poral Food is to the Health of the Body. Which Words are taken out of a Preface to a Canon in the Decretals de Officio Iud. Ordinarii, inter caetera. But they serve very well to shew how much even in the dark times of Po­pery, they were then convinced of the Necessity and Usefulness of Preach­ing. [Page 16] These Constitutions were slighted so much, that in 9 Edw. 1. the Office of Preaching was sunk so low, that in a Prov. Con­stit. De Offic. Arch-Presbyt. f. 282. Provincial Constitution at that time, great Complaint is made of the Ignorance and Stupidity of the Pa­rochial Clergy, Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. p. 332. that they rather made the People worse than better. But at that time the Preaching Friars had got that Work into their Hands by par­ticular Priviledges, where it is well observed, That they did not go to Places which most needed their help, but to Cities and Corporations, where they found most Incouragement. But what Remedy was found by this Provincial Council? Truly, every Parochial Priest four times a year was bound to read an Explication of the Creed, Ten Commandments, the Two Precepts of Charity, the Seven Works of Mercy, the Seven deadly Sins, the Seven prin­cipal Vertues, Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. p. 700, 707. and the Seven Sacraments. This was renewed in the Province of [Page 17] York, (which had distinct Provincial Constitutions) in the time of Edw. 4. And here was all they were bound to by these Constitutions.

But when Wickliff and his Follow­ers had awakened the People so far, that there was no satisfying them without Preaching, Concil. Anglic. 2 vol. p. 649. then a new Pro­vincial Constitution was made under Arundel, Constit. de hae­ret. f. 156. Archbishop of Canterbury; and the former Constitution was re­strained to Parochial Priests who of­ficiated as Curates; but several others were Authorized to Preach; as (1.) The Mendicant Friars were said to be Authorized Iure communi, or rather Privilegio speciali, (but there­fore Lyndwood saith, Lyndw. f. 156. it is said to be Iure communi, because that Privilege is re­corded in the Text of the Canon Law) these were not only allowed to preach in their own Churches, but in Plateis publicis, C. Dudum. Clem. de Se­pulturis. saith Lyndwood, out of the Canon Law (wherein those [Page 18] words were expressed) and at any hour, unless it were the time of preaching in other Churches; but other Orders, as Augustinians and Carmelites, had no such general Li­cense. Those preaching Friars were a sort of Licensed Preachers at that time, who had no Cures of Souls; but they were then accounted a kind of Pastors. Io. de Athon. in Constitut. Othobon. f. 46. For Io. de Athon. distin­guisheth two sorts of Pastors; Those who had Ecclesiastical Offices, and those who had none, but were such only Verbo & Exemplo; but they gave very great disturbance to the Clergy, C. Dudum de Sepulturis. as the Pope himself confes­ses in the Canon Law. (2.) Legal Incumbents authorized to preach in their own Parishes Iure scripto. All Persons who had Cures of Souls, and Legal Titles, were said to be missi à Iure ad locum & populum curae suae, and therefore might preach to their own People without a special License; [Page 19] but if any one preached in other parts of the Diocess, or were a Stran­ger in it, then he was to be examin­ed by the Diocesan, and if he were found tam Moribus quam Scientia ido­neus, he might send him to preach to one or more Parishes, as he thought meet; and he was to shew his License to the Incumbent of the Place, before he was to be permitted to preach, under the Epi­scopal Seal. And thus, as far as I can find, the Matter stood as to Preaching, before the Reformation.

After it, when the Office of Ordi­nation was reviewed and brought nearer to the Primitive Form; and instead of delivering the Chalice and Patten, with these words, Accipe po­testatem offerre Deo Sacrificium, &c. the Bishop delivered the Bible with these words, Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to Mini­ster the Holy Sacraments in the Congre­gation, [Page 20] &c. The Priests Exhortation was made agreeable thereto, where­in he exhorts the Persons in the ‘Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to consider the Weight and Im­portance of the Office and Charge they are called to; not barely to instruct those who are already of Christ's Flock, but to endeavour the Salvation of those who are in the midst of this naughty World. And therefore he perswades and charges them from a due regard to Christ, who suffered for his Sheep, and to the Church of Christ, which is so dear to him, to omit no Labor, Care or Diligence in instructing and reforming those who are com­mitted to their Charge. And the better to enable them to perform these things, there are some Duties especially recommended to them, viz. Prayer, and Study of the Ho­ly Scriptures, according to which [Page 21] they are to instruct others, and to order their own Lives, and of those who belong to them. And that they might the better attend so great a Work, they are required to forsake and set aside (as much as they may) all worldly Cares and Studies, and apply them­selves wholly to this one thing, that they may save themselves and them that hear them.’ After which follows the solemn Profession, wherein they undertake to do these things.

This is that, my Brethren, which I earnestly desire of you, that you would often consider. You are not at liberty now, whether you will do these things or not; for you are under a most solemn Engagement to it. You have put your Hands to the Plough, and it is too late to think of looking back; and you all know the Husbandman's Work is laborious [Page 22] and painful, and continually return­ing. It is possible after all his Pains, the Harvest may not answer his Ex­pectation; but yet if he neither plows nor sows, he can expect no Return; if he be idle and careless, and puts off the main of his Work to others, can he reasonably look for the same Success? Believe it, all our Pains are little enough to a­wake the sleepy and secure Sinners, to instruct the Ignorant, to re­claim the Vitious, to rebuke the Pro­fane, to convince the Erroneous, to satisfie the Doubtful, to confirm the Wavering, to recover the Lapsed; and to be useful to all, according to their several Circumstances and Con­ditions. It is not to preach a Sermon or two in a Weeks Time to your Parishioners, that is the main of your Duty; that is no such diffi­cult Task, if Men apply their minds as they ought to do to Divine Mat­ters, [Page 23] and do not spend their Retire­ments in useless Studies; Non potest esse Pastoris excusatio, si lupus oves comedit, & Pastor nescit. Extr. de Reg. Juris c. 10. but the great Difficulty lies in Watching over your Flock, i. e. knowing their Con­dition, and applying your selves uitably to them. He that is a Stran­ger to his Flock, and only visits them now and then, can never be said to watch over it; he may watch over the Fleeces, but he understands little of the State of his Flock, viz. of the Distempers they are under, and the Remedies proper for them.

The Casuists say, Reginald. Praxis, l. 30. tr. 3. c. 5. p. 52. That the Reason why there is no Command for Personal Residence in Scripture, is, because the Nature of the Duty requires it; for if a Person be required to do such things which cannot be done without it, Residence is implied. As a Pilot to a Ship, needs no Command to be in his Ship; for how can he do the Office of a Pilot out of it? Let none think to excuse themselves by saying, [Page 24] that our Church only takes them for Cu­rates, and that the Bishops have the Pa­storal Charge; Constit. Pro­vinc. de Cleri­cis non Resid. c. quum hostis. for by our old Pro­vincial Constitutions (which are still in force so far as they are not repug­nant to the Law of the Land) even those who have the smallest Cures are called Pastors; and Lyndwood there notes, that Parochialis Sacerdos dicitur Pastor; and that not meerly by way of Allusion, but in respect of the Care of Souls. But we need not go so far back. For what is it they are admitted to? Is it not ad curam Ani­marum? Did not they promise in their Ordination, To teach the People committed to their Care and Charge?

The Casuists distinguish a three­fold Cure of Souls. 1. In foro inte­riori tantum, and this they say is the Parochial Cure. 2. In foro exteriori tantum, where there is Authority to perform Ministerial Acts, as to sus­pend, excommunicate, absolve, (sine [Page 25] Pastorali Curâ:) and this Archdeacons have by Virtue of their Office. 3. In utroque simul, where there is a special Care, together with Jurisdiction: this is the Bishops. And every one of these, say they, secundum commune Ius Canonicum, is obliged to Resi­dence, i. e. by the common Law Ec­clesiastical; of which more afterwards. The Obligation is to perpetual Re­sidence, but as it is in other positive Duties, there may other Duties inter­vene, which may take away the pre­sent force of it; as care of Health, necessary Business, Ioh. Athon. ad Constit. Othon. f. 14. publick Service of the King or Church, &c. But then we are to observe that no Dispensa­tion can justifie a Man in point of Conscience, unless there be a suffici­ent Cause; and no Custom can be sufficient against the natural Equity of the Case, whereby every one is bound from the Nature of the Office he hath undertaken. Reginald. ib. n. 53.

[Page 26] I confess the case in Reason is dif­ferent, where there is a sufficient Pro­vision by another fit Person, and approved by those who are to take care that Places be well supplied, and where there is not; but yet, this doth not take off the force of the Personal Obligation, arising from undertaking the Cure themselves, which the Ecclesiastical Law under­stands to be, Can. Relatum Ex. de Cleri­ [...]is non Resid. not meerly by Pro­mise, but cum effectu, as the Cano­nists speak; which implies personal Residence. Not that they are never to be away; Non sic amarè intelligi debet, ut nunquam inde recedat, saith Lyndwood; Lyndw. in c. [...]uum hostis. Residcant cum effectu. but these Words are to be understood civili modo, as he expres­ses it, i. e. not without great Reason. There must not be, Ioh. de Athon. in Constit. O­thon. f. 14. Continui. saith he, callida Interpretatio, sed talis ut cessent fraudes negligentiae, i. e. There must be no Art used to evade the Law, nor any gross Neglect of it. It's true, the [Page 27] Canonists have distinguished between Rectories and Vicarages, as to Perso­nal Residence; but we are to consi­der these things. Can. Extir­pand. De Prae­bend. & Dign. 1. The Canon Law strictly obliges every one that hath a Parochial Cure to perpetual Residence, and excepts only two Cases, when the Living is annexed to a Prebend or Dignity; and then he who hath it, is to have a perpetual Vicar in­stituted, with a sufficient Mainte­nance. 2. After this Liberty obtain­ed for dignified Persons to have Vi­cars endowed in their Places, the Point of Residence was strictly en­joined to them: and we find in the Provincial Constitutions a Diffe­rence made between Personatus and Vicaria; De Praesumpt. f. 55. 2. but this was still meant of a Vicarage endowed. This was in the time of Stephen Langton, De Cleri [...] non Resident. cum hostis, &c. Archbishop of Canterbury; and in another Con­stitution he required an Oath of Per­sonal Residence from all such Vicars, [Page 28] altho' the Place were not above the Value of Five Marks; which, as appears by Lyndwood elsewhere, Lyndw. f. 34. Ioh. de Athon. in Constit. O­thon. f. 12. was then sufficient for Maintenance and Hospitality. And to cover the shame­ful Dispensations that were common­ly granted to the higher Clergy, un­der pretence of the Papal Power, the poor Vicars by a Constitution of O­tho, Otho de Instit. Vic. f. 14. Othobon. f. 46. were bound to take a strict Oath of continual Residence; and with­out it their Institution was declared to be Null. But even in that case the Gloss there saith, That they may be some time absent for the Benefit of the Church or State; but not for their own particular Advantage. 3. The Obligation in point of Con­science remains the same, but Dis­pensing with Laws may take away the Penalty of Non-residence in some ca­ses. Ioh. de Athon. in Constit. Othon. Ioh. de Athon. Canon of Lincoln, who wrote the Glosses on the Lega­tine Constitutions, doth not deny, but [Page 29] that Rectors are as well bound to Residence as Vicars; but these are more strictly tied by their Oath; and because a Vicar cannot appoint a Vicar, but a Parson may. And altho' that Name among some be used as a Term of Reproach, yet in former Ages Personatus and Dignitas were the same thing; Can. Quia nonnulli de Clericis non Resid. and so used here in England in the time of Henry II. but afterwards it came to be ap­plied to him that had the Possession of a Parochial Benefice in his own immediate Right; Quadril. 1. 1. c. 5. and was therefore bound to take care of it. For the Obligation must in Reason be sup­posed to go along with the Advan­tage; however Local Statutes may have taken off the Penalty.

II. When you have thus consider­ed the Obligation which lies upon you, to take care of your Flock, let me in the next place recommend to you a plain, useful, and practical [Page 30] Way of Preaching among them. I mean such as is most likely to do good upon them (which certainly ought to be the just Measure of Preaching.) I do not mean therefore a loose and careless way of Talk­ing in the Pulpit, which will neither profit you, nor those that hear you. He that once gets an ill Habit of speaking extempore, will be tempted to continue it by the Easiness of it to him­self, and the Plausibleness of it to less judicious People. There is on the other side, a closeness and Strength of Reasoning, which is too elabo­rate for common Understandings; and there is an affected Fineness of Expression which by no means be­comes the Pulpit: but it seems to be like stroaking the Consciences of Peo­ple by Feathers dipt in Oil. And there is a way of putting Scripture-Phrases together without the Sense of them, which those are the most apt [Page 31] to admire, who understand them least: But for those who have not improved their Minds by Education, the plainest way is certainly the best and hardest, provided, it be not flat, and dry, and incoherent, or desul­tory, going from one thing to ano­ther, without pursuing any particu­lar Point home to Practice, and ap­plying it to the Consciences of the Hearers. And give me leave to tell you, That meer general Discourses have commonly little Effect on the Peoples Minds; if any thing moves them, it is particular Application as to such things which their Consciences are concerned in.

And here I must recommend to you the pursuing the Design of His Majesties Letter, which hath been some time since communicated to you; by it you are required to Preach at some Times on those par­ticular Vices which you observe to [Page 32] be most prevalent in the Places you relate to, such as Drunkenness, Whore­dom, Swearing, Profaning the Lord's Day, &c. If ever we hope to reform them, you must throughly convince them, that what they do is displea­sing to God.

And there are two sorts of Men you are to deal with,

1. Profane Scoffers at Religion. These seldom trouble you; but if any good be to be done upon them, it is by plain and evident Proofs of the Good and Evil of Moral Actions. For, as long as they think them in­different, they will never regard what you say, as to the Rewards or Punishments of them.

2. Stupid and senseless People, whose Minds are wholly sunk into the Affairs of the World, buying and selling and getting Gain. It is a very hard thing to get a Thought into them above these Matters. And what­ever [Page 33] you talk of meer Religion, and another Life, is like Metaphysicks to them; they understand you not, and take no care to do it: but if you can convince them, that they live in the Practice of great Sins, which they shall certainly suffer for, if they do not Repent, they may possibly be awakened this way; if not, nothing but immediate Grace can work up­on them; which must work on the Will, whatever becomes of the Un­derstanding.

III. After preaching, let me intreat you to look after Catechizing and in­structing the Youth of your Parishes. He that would reform the World to purpose, must begin with the Youth; and train them up betimes, in the Ways of Religion and Virtue. There is far less probability of prevailing on those who have accustomed themselves to vicious Habits, and are hardened in their Wickedness. It [Page 34] seems strange to some, that consi­dering the shortness of Human Life, Mankind should be so long before they come to Maturity; the best Ac­count I know of it, is, that there is so much longer time for the Care of their Education, to instill the Prin­ciples of Virtue and Religion into them, thereby to soften the Fierceness, to direct the Weakness, to govern the Inclinations of Mankind. It is truly a sad Consideration, that Chri­stian Parents are so little sensible of their Duties, as to the Education of their Children; when those who have had only natural Reason to di­rect them, have laid so much Weight upon it. Plato de Leg. l. 6. Without it, Plato saith, that Mankind grew the most unruly of all Creatures. Arist. Polit. l. 1. c. 2. Aristotle, That as by Na­ture they are capable of being the best, so being neglected, they become the worst of Animals, i. e. when they are brought up without Virtue. Nicom. l. 2. c. 1. 7. c. 7. Education and [Page 35] Virtue, saith he, is a great thing, yea, it is all in all, and without it they will be much worse than Beasts. The main Care of the Education of Children must lie upon Parents; but yet Mi­nisters ought not only to put them in mind of their Duty, but to as­sist them all they can, and by pub­lick Catechizing, frequently to in­struct both those who have not learn­ed, and those who are ashamed to learn any other way. And you must use the best means you can to bring them into an Esteem of it; which is by letting them see, that you do it, not meerly because you are required to do it, but because it is a thing so useful and beneficial to them, and to their Children. There is a great deal of difference between Peoples being able to talk over a Set of Phrases, about Religious Matters, and under­standing the true Grounds of Reli­gion; which are easiest learned, and [Page 36] understood, and remembred in the short Catechetical Way. But I am truly sorry to hear, that where the Clergy are willing to take pains this way, the People are unwilling to send their Children. They would not be unwilling to hear them in­structed, as early as might be, in the way to get an Estate, but would be very thankful to those who would do them such a kindness; and there­fore it is really a Contempt of God and Religion, and another World, which makes them so backward to have their Children taught the Way to it. And methinks those who have any Zeal for the Reformation, should love and pursue that which came into Request with it. Indeed the Church of Rome it self hath been made so sensible of the Necessity of it, that even the Council of Trent doth not only require Catechizing Children, [...]. 24. de [...] c. 4▪ but the Bishops to proceed with Ecclesia­stical [Page 37] Censures against those who neglect it. But in the old Provincial Constitutions I can find but one Injun­ction about Catechizing; and that is when the Priest doubts whether the Chil­dren were Baptized or not; Lyndw. Pr [...]v. C [...]st. f. 134, 135. and if they be born eight days before Easter and Whitsontide, Concil. Anglic. 2 Vol. 324, 330. they are not to be Baptized till those days, and in the mean time they are to receive Catechism. What is this receiving Catechism by Children, be­fore they are eight days old? It is well Exorcism is joyned with it; and so we are to understand by it the Interrogatories in Baptism: De C [...]nse [...]r. Dist. 4. c. 54, 57. and Lynd­wood saith, the Catechism is not only required for Instruction in Faith, but propter sponsionem, when the Godfather answers, De Fidei Observantiâ.

It is true, the Canon Law requires in adult Persons Catechizing before Bap­tism; but I find nothing of the cate­chizing Children after it; Lynd. f. 1. 11. Sciat. and no won­der, since Lyndwood saith, the Laity [Page 38] are bound to no more than to believe as the Church believes; Si enim habe­ant expensas & magistros, peccarent, nisi plus sciant quam Laici. nor the Clergy nei­ther, unless they can bear the Charges of studying, and have Masters to in­struct them. This was good Doctrine, when the Design was to keep Peo­ple in Ignorance. For Learning is an irreconcilable Enemy to the Fun­damental Policy of the Roman Church; and it was that which brought in the Reformation, since which a just Care hath still been required for the Instruction of Youth; and the Fifty ninth Canon of our Church is very strict in it, which I desire you often to consider with the first Rubrick af­ter the Catechism, and to act accord­ingly.

IV. After Catechizing, I recommend to you the due Care of bringing the Children of your Parishes to Confirmation. Which would be of ex­cellent use in the Church, if the se­veral Ministers would take that pains [Page 39] about it, which they ought to do. Remember that you are required to bring or send in Writing, with your Names subscribed, the Names of all such Persons in your Parish, as you shall think fit to be presented to the Bi­shop to be confirmed. If you take no care about it, and suffer them to come unprepared for so great, so solemn a thing, as renewing the Pro­mise and Vow made in Baptism, can you think your selves free from any Guilt in it? In the Church of Rome indeed great care was taken to hasten Confirmation of Children all they could: Provine. Con­stit. Post Baptismum quam citius poterint, De Sacra Vnct. f. 18. as it is in our Constitution Provincial; Concil. Angl. 2. Vol. p. 353. in another Synodical, the Parochial Priests are charged to tell their Parishioners, that they ought to get their Children confirmed as soon as they can. In a Synod at Worcester, under Walter de Cantilupo, in the time of Henry III. the Sacrament of Con­firmation [Page 40] is declared necessary for Strength against the Power of Darkness; and therefore it was called Sacramen­tum pugnantium: C [...]cil. Angl. [...]2. p. 14 [...], 1 [...]. and no wonder then that the Parochial Priests should be called upon so earnestly to bring the Children to Confirmation; and the Parents were to be forbidden to enter into the Church, if they neglect­ed it for a Year after the Birth of the Child, if they had opportunity. The Synod of Exeter allowed two Years, [...]. and then if they were not Confirm­ed, the Parents were to Fast every Fri­day, with Bread and Water, till it were done. And to the same purpose, the Synod of Winchester in the time of Edw. p. 44 [...]. I. in the Constitutions of Richard, Bishop of Sarum, two Years were al­lowed, but that time was afterwards thought too long; and then the Priest as well as the Parents was to be su­spended from Entrance into the Church. [...]. 143. But what preparation was [Page 41] required? None that I can find: But great care is taken about the Fillets to bind their Heads to receive the Uncti­on, and the taking them off at the Font, and burning them, lest they should be used for Witchcraft, Lyndw. f. 19. as Lyndwood in­forms us. But we have no such Cu­stoms, nor any▪ of the Reformed Churches: We depend not upon the Opus operatum, but suppose a due and serious preparation of Mind ne­cessary, and a solemn Performance of it. I hope, by God's Assistance, to be able, in time, to bring the Per­formance of this Office into a better Method; in the mean time I shall not fail doing my Duty; have you a care you do not fail in yours.

V. As to the Publick Offices of the Church, I do not only recommend to you a due Care of the Diligent, but of the Devout Performance of them. I have often wondred how a fixed and stated Liturgy for gene­ral [Page 42] Use, should become a matter of Scruple and Dispute among any in a Christian Church, unless there be something in Christianity which makes it unlawful to pray together for things which we all understand beforehand to be the Subject of our Prayers. If our common Necessities and Duties are the same; if we have the same Blessings to pray, and to thank God for in our solemn Devotions, why should any think it unlawful or un­fitting to use the same Expressions? Is God pleased with the change of our Words and Phrases? Can we imagine the Holy Spirit is given to dictate new Expressions in Prayers? Then they must pray by immediate Inspiration (which I think they will not pretend to, lest all the Mistakes and Incongruities of such Prayers be imputed to the Holy Ghost) but if not, then they are left to their own Conceptions, and the Spirits Assist­ance [Page 43] is only in the exciting the Affe­ctions and Motions of the Soul to­wards the things prayed for; and if this be allowed, it is impossible to give a Reason why the Spirit of God may not as well excite those inward Desires, when the Words are the same as when they are different. And we are certain, that from the Apostles times downwards, no one Church or Society of Christians can be pro­duced, who held it unlawful to pray by a Set-Form. On the other side, we have very early Proofs of some common Forms of Prayer, which were generally used in the Christian Churches, and were the Foundations of those Ancient Liturgies, which, by degrees were much enlarged. And the Interpolations of later times, do no more overthrow the Antiquity of the Ground-work of them, than the large Additions to a Building, do prove there was no House before. It [Page 44] is an easie matter to say, that such Liturgies could not be St. Iames's or St. Mark's, because of such Errors and Mistakes, and Interpolations of Things and Phrases of later times; but what then? Is this an Argument there were no Ancient Liturgies in the Churches of Ierusalem and Alexan­dria, when so long since, as in Origen's time we find an entire Collect pro­duced by him out of the Alexandrian Liturgy? Orig. in Iur. H [...]m. 14. p. 14. Ed. [...]. And the like may be shew­ed as to other Churches, which by degrees came to have their Liturgies much enlarged by the devout Prayers of some extraordinary Men, such as S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in the Eastern Churches.

But my Design is not to vindicate our use of an excellent Liturgy, but to put you upon the using it in such manner, as may most recommend it to the People. I mean with that Gravity, Seriousness, Attention, and [Page 45] Devotion, which becomes so solemn a Duty as Prayer to God is. It will give too just a cause of prejudice to our Prayers, if the People observe you to be careless and negligent a­bout them; or to run them over with so great haste, as if you mind­ed nothing so much as to get to the end of them. If you mind them so little your selves, they will think themselves excused, if they mind them less. I could heartily wish, that in greater places, especially in such Towns where there are People more at liberty, the constant Morning and Evening Prayers were duly and de­voutly read; as it is already done with good Success in London, and some other Cities. By this means Religion will gain ground, when the publick Offices are daily performed; and the people will be more ac­quainted with Scripture, in hearing the Lessons, and have a better esteem [Page 46] of the Prayers, when they become their daily Service, which they offer up to God as their Morning and Evening Sacrifice; and the Design of our Church will be best answered, which appoints the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer daily to be said, and used throughout the Year.

VI. As to the Dissenters from the Church; the present Circumstances of our Affairs require a more than ordinary Prudence in your Behaviour towards them. It is to no purpose to provoke or exasperate them, since they will be but so much more your Enemies for it; and if you seem to court them too much, they will in­terpret your Kindness to be a liking their Way better than your own; so that were it not for some worldly In­terest, you would be just what they are; which is in effect to say, you would be Men of Conscience, if ye had a little more Honesty. For they [Page 47] can never think those honest Men, who comply with things against their Consciences, only for their tempo­ral Advantage; but they may like them as Men of a Party, who under some specious Colours, promote their Interest. For my own part, as I do sincerely value and esteem the Church of England (and I hope ever shall) so I am not against such a due tem­per towards them, as is consistent with the preserving the Constitution of our Church. But if any think, under a pretence of Liberty, to un­dermine and destroy it, we have Reason to take the best care we can, in order to its preservation. I do not mean by opposing Laws, or affront­ing Authority, but by countermining them in the best way, i.e. by out­doing them in those things which make them most popular, if they are consistent with Integrity and a good Conscience. If they gain up­on [Page 48] the People by an Appearance of more than ordinary Zeal for the good of Souls, I would have you to go beyond them in a true and hearty Concernment for them; not in irre­gular Heats and Passions, but in the Meekness of Wisdom, in a calm and sedate Temper; in doing good even to them who most despitefully reproach you, and withdraw themselves and the People from you. If they get an Interest among them by Industry, and going from Place to Place, and Family to Family; I hope you will think it your Duty to converse more freely and familiarly with your own People. Be not Strangers, and you will make them Friends. Let them see by your particular Application to them, that you do not despise them. For Men love to value those who seem to value them; and if you once slight them, you run the hazard of making them your Enemies. It is [Page 49] some Trial of a Christians Patience, as well as Humility, to condescend to the Weaknesses of others; but where it is our Duty, we must do it, and that chearfully, in order to the best End, viz. doing the more good upon them. And all Condescension and Kindness for such an End, is true Wisdom as well as Humility. I am a­fraid Distance and too great Stiffness of Behaviour towards them, have made some more our Enemies than they would have been. I hope they are now convinced, that the Perse­cution which they complained lately so much of, was carried on by other Men, and for other Designs than they would then seem to believe. But that Persecution was then a popular Argument for them; for the com­plaining side hath always the most Pity. But now that is taken off, you may deal with them on more equal Terms. Now there is nothing to af­fright [Page 50] them, and we think we have Reason enough on our side to per­swade them. The Case of Separa­tion stands just as it did in Point of Conscience, which is not now one jot more reasonable or just than it was before. Some think Severity makes Men consider; but I am a­fraid it heats them too much, and makes them too violent and refracta­ry. You have more Reason to fear now, what the Interest of a Party will do, than any Strength of Argument. How very few among them under­stand any Reason at all for their Se­paration! But Education, Prejudice, Authority of their Teachers sway them; remove these, and you con­vince them. And in order thereto, acquaint your selves with them, en­deavour to oblige them, let them see you have no other Design upon them, but to do them good; if any thing will gain upon them, this will.

[Page 51] But if after all, they grow more headstrong and insolent by the In­dulgence which the Law gives them; then observe, whether they observe those Conditions on which the Law gives it to them. For these are known Rules in Law, 11. Q. 3. c. 63. Lyndw. ad L. de Poenis. f. 161. That he forfeits his Privilege who goes beyond the Bounds of it; Extr. de Priv. c. Porro in Gloss. That no Privileges are to be ex­tended beyond the Bounds which the Laws give them; for they ought to be observed as they are given. I leave it to be considered, whether all such who do not observe the Conditions of the In­dulgence, be not as liable to the Law, as if they had none.

But there is a very profane Abuse of this Liberty among some, as tho' it were an Indulgence not to serve God at all. Such as these, as they were never intended by the Law, so they ought to enjoy no Benefit by it: For this were to countenance Profaneness and Irreligion, which I [Page 52] am afraid, will grow too much up­on us, unless some effectual Care be taken to suppress it.

VII. There is another Duty in­cumbent upon you, which I must particularly recommend to your Care, and that is, of Visiting the Sick. I do not mean barely to perform the Office prescribed, which is of very good Use, and ought not to be neglected; but a particular Applica­tion of your selves to the State and Condition of the Persons you visit. It is no hard matter to run over some Prayers, and so take leave; but this doth not come up to the Design of our Church in that Office: For, after the general Exhoratation and Profes­sion of the Christian Faith, our Church requires, That the sick Person be moved to make special Confession of his Sins, if he feel his Conscience trou­bled with any weighty matter; and then if the sick Person humbly and heartily [Page 53] desires it, he is to be absolved after this manner, Our Lord Iesus Christ, who hath left Power in his Church to ab­solve all Sinners who truly repent and believe in him, &c. Where the power of Absolution is grounded upon the Supposition of true Faith and Repen­tance; and therefore when it is said afterwards, And by his Authority com­mitted to me, I absolve thee from the same, &c. it must proceed on the same Supposition. For the Church cannot absolve when God doth not. So that all the real Comfort of the Absolu­tion depends upon the Satisfaction of the person's Mind, as to the Sinceri­ty of his Repentance and Faith in Christ. Now here lies the great Dif­ficulty of this Office; how to give your selves and the wounded Con­science Satisfaction, as to the Since­rity of those Acts; I do not mean as to the Sincerity of his present Thoughts, but as to the Acceptable­ness [Page 54] of his Faith and Repentance with God, in order to Remission of Sins. But what if you find the Persons so ignorant, as not to understand what Faith and Repentance mean? What if they have led such careless and se­cure lives in this World, as hardly ever to have had one serious Thought of another? Is nothing to be done but to come and pray by them, and so dismiss them into their Eternal State? Is this all the good you can, or are bound to do them? I confess it is a very uncomfortable thing to tell Men how they are to begin to live, when they are liker to die than to live (and the People generally have a strange superstitious Fear of sending for the Minister, while there is any hope of Recovery.) But at last you are sent for; and what a melancholy Work are you then to go about? You are, it may be, to make a Man sensible of his Sins, who [Page 55] never before considered what they were, or against whom they were committed, or what eternal Misery he deserves by committing them. But I will suppose the best I can in this Case, viz. That by your warm and serious Discourse, you throughly awaken the Conscience of a long and habitual Sinner; what are you then to do? Will you presently apply all the Promises of Grace and Salvation to one whose Conscience is awakened only with the Fears of Death, and the Terrors of a Day of Judgment? This, I confess, is a hard Case; on the one side, we must not discou­rage good Beginnings in any; we must not cast an awakened Sinner in­to Despair; we must not limit the infinite Mercy of God: But on the other side, we must have a great care of incouraging presumptuous Sinners to put off their Repentance to the last, because then upon Con­fession [Page 56] of their Sins, they can so easily obtain the Churches Absolution, which goes no farther, than truly Repenting and Believing. But here is the difficulty, how we can satisfie our selves that these do truly Repent and Believe, who are out of a Capacity of giving Proof of their Sincerity by Amendment of Life? I do not que­stion the Sincerity of their present Purposes; but how often do we find those to come to nothing, when they recover and fall into the former Temptations? How then shall they know their own Sincerity till it be tried? How can it be tried, when they are going out of the State of Trial? The most we can do, is to encourage them to do the best they can in their present Condition, and to shew as many of the Fruits of true Repentance as their Circumstances will allow; and with the greatest Humility of Mind, and most earnest [Page 57] Supplications to implore the infinite Mercy of God to their Souls. But besides these, there are many Cases of sick Persons, which require very particular Advice, and Spiritual Di­rection, which you ought to be able to give them, and it cannot be done without some good Measure of Skill and Experience in casuistical Divini­ty. As, How to satisfie a doubting Conscience, as to its own Sincerity, when so many Infirmities are mixed with our best Actions? How a Sin­ner who hath relapsed after Repen­tance, can be satisfied of the Truth of his Repentance, when he doth not know, but he may farther relapse up­on fresh Temptations? How he shall know what Failings are consistent with the State of Grace, and the Hopes of Heaven, and what not? What Measure of Conviction and Power of Resistance is necessary to make Sins to be wilful and presumptuous? What [Page 58] the just Measures of Restitution are in order to true Repentance, in all such Injuries which are capable of it? I might name many others, but these I only mention to shew how neces­sary it is for you to apply your selves to Moral and Casuistical Divinity, and not to content your selves barely with the Knowledge of what is cal­led Positive and Controversial. I am afraid there are too many who think they need to look after no more than what qualifies them for the Pulpit; (and I wish all did take suf­ficient care of that) but if we would do our Duty as we ought, we must inquire into, and be able to resolve Cases of Conscience. For the Priests Lips should keep this kind of Know­ledge; and the People should seek the Law at his Mouth; for he is the Messen­ger of the Lord of hosts, Mal. 2. 7. If this held in the Levitical Priesthood, much more certainly under the Go­spel, [Page 59] where the Rates and Measures of our Duties are not to be deter­mined by Levitical Precepts, but by the general Reason and Nature of Moral Actions.

VIII. Among the Duties of Pub­lick Worship, I must put you in mind of a Frequent Celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is generally too great a Neglect of this, which is the most proper part of Evangelical Worship. The Duties of Prayers and Praises, are excellent and becoming Duties, as we are Creatures with respect to our Maker and Preserver. The Duty of hearing the Word of God read and explained, is consequent upon our owning it to be the Rule of our Faith and Manners; and all who de­sire to understand and practise their Duty, can never despise or neglect it. But that solemn Act of Worship wherein we do most shew our selves Christians, is the celebrating the Holy [Page 60] Eucharist. For, therein we own and declare the infinite Love of God in send­ing his Son into the World to die for Sinners, in order to their Salvation; and that this is not only a true Saying, but worthy of all Men to be credited. Therein, we lift up our Hearts, and give Thanks to our Lord God; we joyn with Angels and Archangels in lauding and magnifying his glorious Name. There­in, we not only commemorate the Death and Sufferings of our Lord, but are made Partakers of his Body and Blood, after a Real, but Sacra­mental Manner. Therein we offer up our selves to God, to be a Reasonable, Holy and Lively Sacrifice unto him. Therein we Adore and Glorifie the ever Blessed Trinity; and humbly implore the Grace and Assistance of our ever Blessed Mediator. And what now is there in all this, which is not very agreeable to the Faith, Hope and Charity of Christians? [Page 61] Nay, what Duty is there, which so much expresses all these together, as this doth? Nor, whereby we may more reasonably expect greater Sup­plies of Divine Grace to be bestowed upon us? What then makes so ma­ny to be so backward in this Duty, which profess a Zeal and Forward­ness in many others? If we had that Warmth and Fervor of Devotion, that Love to Christ, and to each other, which the primitive Christians had, we should make it as constant a part of our publick Worship, as they did; but this is not to be ex­pected. Neither did it always con­tinue in the Primitive Church, when Liberty, and Ease, and worldly Tem­ptations made Persons grow more remiss and careless in the solemn Du­ties of their Religion.

S. Chrysostom takes notice in his time of the different Behaviour of Persons, In [...] 17. In Ephes. Hem. 3. with respect to the holy [...] ­charist. [Page 62] There were some who pre­tended to greater Holiness and Au­sterity of Life than others, who with­drew from the common Conversa­tion of Mankind, and so by degrees from joining in the Acts of publick Worship with them. Which did unspeakable Mischief to Christianity; for then the Perfection of the Chri­stian Life, was not supposed to con­sist in the Active Part of it, but in Retirement and Contemplation. As tho' our highest Imitation of Christ lay in following him into the Wilderness to be tempted of the Devil; and not in walking as he walked, who frequented the Synagogues, and went about doing good.

But this way of Retirement hap­pening to be admired by some great Men, the Publick Worship came to be in less esteem; and others upon Reasons of a different Nature, with­drew themselves from such Acts of [Page 63] Devotion as required a stricter At­tendance, and a more prepared Tem­per of Mind. And there were some who did abstain, because they were not so well satisfied with themselves as to their own Preparations; and such as these S. Chrysostom seems to favour, rather than such who came often without due care, as to the whole Course of their Lives; only out of custom, or out of regard to the Orders of the Church. From hence many thought it better to for­bear, as long as they did it not out of Contempt. And so by degrees the People were content to look on it as a Sacrifice for them to be performed by others, rather than as an Office, wherein they were to bear a part themselves; at least, they thought once or thrice a Year sufficient for them. And to this, as appears by our old Provincial Constitutions, Concil. Angl. Tom. 2. p. 144, 166, 299. they were forced by severe Canons.

[Page 64] When the Reformation began, this Disuse of this holy Sacrament was looked on, by the chief Reformers, as a great Abuse and Corruption crept into the Church, which ought by all means to be reformed; and the frequent Celebration of it set up in the Reformed Churches. Calvin. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. n. 44. Pet. Martyr. L. C. l. 4. c. 10. n. 48. But un­reasonable Scruples in some, and Misapprehensions in others, and a general Coldness and Indifference, In 1 Cor. 11. p. 55. as to Matters of Religion, Bucer in Matth. 16. p. 186. have hitherto hindered the Reviving this Primitive Part of Devotion among us.

I do not go about to determine the Frequency in your Parishes, which the Scripture doth not as to the Chri­stian Church, but supposes it to be often done; but I may require you to take care that Christ's Institution be observed among you; and that with your utmost care, both as to the Decency and Purity of it.

[Page 65] The last thing I recommend to you all, is, To have a great care of your Conversations. I do not speak it out of a distrust of you; I hope you do it already: and your Case will be so much worse, if you do it not, be­cause you very well know how much you ought to do it. For the Honour of God and Religion, and the Suc­cess of your Ministry, as well as your own Salvation, depend very much upon it. Lead your Flock by your Example, as well as by your Do­ctrine, and then you may much bet­ter hope that they will follow you; for the People are naturally Spies up­on their Ministers, and if they observe them to mind nothing but the World all the Week, they will not believe them in earnest, when on the Lords Days they perswade them against it. And it takes off the Weight of all Re­proof of other Mens Faults, if those they reprove have reason to believe [Page 66] them guilty of the same. I do not think it enough for a Preacher of Righ­teousness merely to avoid open and scandalous Sins, but he ought to be a great Example to others in the most excellent Virtues which adorn our Profession, not only in Temperance and Chastity, in Iustice and ordinary Charity, but in a readiness to do good to all, in forgiving Injuries, in loving Enemies, in evenness of Temper, in Humility and Meekness, and Patience, and Submission to God's Will, and in frequent Retirements from the World, not meerly for Study, but for Devotion. If by these and such things you shine as Lights among your People, they will be more rea­dy to follow your Conduct; and in probability you will not only stop their Mouths, but gain their Hearts. For among all the Ways of advancing the Credit and Interest of the Church of England, one of the most succes­ful [Page 67] will be the diligent Labours, and the exemplary Lives of the Clergy in it.

But if Men will not regard their own, or the Churches Interest in this matter; if they will break their Rules in such a manner, as to dishonour God, and the Church, and themselves by it; then you are to consider the next thing I was to speak to, which is,

II. What Authority is given to us for the punishing Offenders in our Diocesses by the Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm. For this we are to con­sider, That our Authority herein is not derived from any modern Canons or Constitutions of this Church (altho' due Regard ought to be shewed to them) but from the ancient Common Law Ecclesiastical in this Realm, which still continues in force. For as there is a Common Law with respect to Civil Rights, which depends not on the Feudal Constitutions, altho' in many [Page 68] things it be the same with them; but upon ancient Practice, and general Con­sent of the People from Age to Age. So, I say, there is a Common Law Ec­clesiastical, which altho' in many things it may be the same with the Canon Law, which is read in the Books; yet it hath not its force from any Papal or Legatine Constitutions, but from the Acceptance and Practice of it in our Church. I could easily shew (if the time would permit) that Papal and Legatine Constitutions were not re­ceived here, altho' directed hither; that some Provincial Constitutions ne­ver obtained the Force of Ecclesiastical Laws; I [...]t. 632. but my business is to shew what did obtain and continue still to have the Force of such Ecclesiastical Laws among us.

By the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. it is declared, ‘That such Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Sy­nodals Provincial being already [Page 69] made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws, Sta­tutes, and Customs of this Realm, nor to the Damage or Hurt to the King's Prerogative Royal, shall now still be used and executed as they were afore the making of this Act, &c.’ It's true, a Review was appointed, but such Difficulties were found in it, as to the shaking the Foundations of the Ecclesiastical Law here, that nothing was ever legally established in it; and therefore this Law is still in force.

In the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 21. it is said, ‘That this Realm Recogni­zing no Superiour under God but the King, hath been, and is free from Subjection to any Man's Laws, but only to such as have been Devised, Made, and Observed within this Realm, for the Wealth of the same: or to such other, as by the Sufferance of the King and his [Page 70] Progenitors, the People of this Realm have taken at their free Li­berty, by their own Consent, to be used amongst them, and have bound themselves by long Use and Custom to Observance of the same, not as to the Observance of the Laws of any Foreign Prince, Po­tentate, or Prelate, but as to the Customs and ancient Laws of this Realm, originally established, as Laws of the same by the said Sufferance, Consent, Custom, and none otherwise.’

All that I have now to do; is to shew what Authority the Bishops had over the Clergy by the Ancient Eccle­siastical Law of this Realm; and what Censu [...]es they were liable to for some particular Offences.

I. By the Ecclesiastical Law the Bi­shop is Iudge of the Fitness of any Clerk presented to a Benefice. This is confessed by the Lord Coke in these [Page 71] Words: 2 Inst. 632. And the Examination of the Ability and Sufficiency of the Person pre­sented, belongs to the Bishop, who is the Ecclesiastical Iudge, and in the Exami­nation he is a Iudge, and not a Minister, and may and ought to refuse the Person presented, if he be not Persona idonea. But this is plain to have been the An­cient Ecclesiastical Law of this Realm, by the Articul. Cleri in Edw. II. time, De Idoneitate Personae praesentatae ad Beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertinet Exa­minatio ad Iudicem Ecclesiasticum, & ita est hactenus usitatum, & fiat in fu­turum.

By the Provincial Constitutions at Oxford in the time of Hen. III. Provinc. Cons. quum secund. f. 71. the Bishop is required to admit the Clerk who is presented, without Oppositi­on, within two Months, dum tamen idoneus sit, if he thinks him fit. So much time is allowed, propter Exa­minationem, saith Lyndwood; even when there is no Dispute about [Page 72] Right of Patronage. The main thing he is to be examined upon, is his A­bility to discharge his Pastoral Duty, as Coke calls it; or as Lyndwood saith, whether he be commendandus Scientia & Moribus. As to the former, the Bi­shop may judge himself; but as to the latter, he must take the Testimo­nials of others; and I heartily wish the Clergy would be more careful in giving them, by looking on it as a Matter of Conscience, and not meerly of Civility; for otherwise it will be impossible to avoid the pestering the Church with scandalous and igno­rant Wretches. If the Bishop refuses to admit within the time (which by the Modern Canons is limited to Twenty eight Days after the Presen­tation delivered) he is liable to a Duplex Querela in the Ecclesiastical Courts, Can. 95. and a Quare impedit at Com­mon Law; and then he must certifie the Reasons of his Refusal. In Spe­cot's [Page 73] Case it is said, That in 15 Hen. 7. 7, 8. all the Iudges agreed, 5 Rep. 57. that the Bishop is Iudge in the Examination, and therefore the Law giveth Faith and Cre­dit to his Iudgment. But because great Inconveniencies might other­wise happen, the general Allegation is not sufficient, but he must certifie specially and directly; and the general Rule is, and it was so resolved by the Judges, That all such as are suf­ficient Causes of Deprivation of an In­cumbent, are sufficient Causes to refuse a Presentee. But by the Canon Law Multa im­pediunt pro­movendum, quae non de­ [...]iciunt. Gloss. in c. 15. de Vit. & Honest. Cleric.more are allowed. In the Consti­tutions of Othobon, the Bishop is re­quired particularly to enquire into the Life and Conversation of him that is presented; and afterwards, that if a Bishop admits another who is guilty of the same Fault for which he rejected the former, C. Christiano, f. 63. his Institution is declared null and void. De Iure Pa­tron. c. Pasto­ralis Officii. By the Canon Law, if a Bishop maliciously [Page 74] refuses to admit a fit Person, he is bound to provide another Benefice for him; but our Ecclesiastical Law much better puts him upon the Proof of the Cause of his Refusal. But if the Bishop doth not examine him, the Canonists say it is a Proof suffici­ent that he did it malitiosé. Gloss. in Can. & malitiose. If a Bi­shop once rejects a Man for Insuffi­ciency, he cannot afterwards accept or admit of him; as was adjudged in the Bishop of Hereford's Case. If a Man brings a Presentation to a Bene­fice, Moor 26 El. 3. 3 Cr. 27. the Bishop is not barely to ex­amine him as to Life and Abilities, but he must be satisfied that he is in Orders. How can he be satisfied, unless the other produce them? How can he produce them, when it may be they are lost? What is to be done in this Case? Can. 39. The Canon is express, That no Bishop shall institute any to a Benefice, who hath been Or­dained by any other Bishop, (for if [Page 75] he Ordained him himself, he cannot after reject him, because the Law supposes him to have examined and approved him) except he first shew unto him his Letters of Orders, and bring him a sufficient Testimony of his fo [...]mer good Life and Behaviour, if the Bishop shall require it; and lastly, shall appear upon due Examination to be worthy of the Ministry. But yet in Palmes and the Bishop of Peterbo­rough's Case, it was adjudged, That no Lapse did accrue by the Clerk's not shewing his Orders, for the Bishop upon his not coming to him again, collated after six Months. But the Court agreed, 3 Cr. 341. 1 Leon. 230. That the Clerk ought to make Proof of his Orders; but they differed about the manner of their Proof. Anderson said, The Bi­shop might give him his Oath. But if a Proof were necessary, and the Clerk did not come to make Proof, it seems to me to be a very hard Judgment.

[Page 76] II. The Bishop by the Ecclesiasti­cal Law, Regino l. 1. c. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. Baluz. ad Re­ginon. p. 531. is to visit his Diocess, and to take an account of the Clergy how they behave themselves in the Duties of their Places. By the eldest Canons I can find, the Bishops Vi­sitation is supposed as a thing implied in his Office; whereby he is obliged to look after the good Estate of his whole Diocess, and especially of the Clergy in it. Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. f. 124. In the time of Hubert Arehbishop of Canterbury, in the be­ginning of King Iohn's time, Care is taken in the Canons then made, That B [...]shops should not be burdensom to the Clergy in the Number of the Atten­dants in their Visitations, which then were Parochial, and the Number allowed of Twenty or Thirty Horse, was too heavy for the Clergy to bear. And there­fore by degrees it was thought fit to turn that Charge into a Certainty, which was the Original of Procura­tions. By the Fourth Council of To­ledo, [Page 77] the Bishop was to visit his whole Diocess, c. 10. q. 1. Episcopum, Regino. l. 1. c. 7. Parochially, every Year. The Gloss saith, if there were occa­sion for it; and that the Bishop may visit as often as he sees cause; but if he be hindered, the Canon saith, he may send others (which is the Ori­ginal of the Arch-Deacon's Visitation) to see not only the Condition of the Chur­ches, but the Lives of the Ministers. The Council of Braga in the latter end of the Sixth Century, Concil. Braga. 2. c. 1. 10. q. 1. Placait. makes this the first Canon, That all Bishops should visit their Diocesses by Pa­rishes, and there should first examine the Clergy, and then the People; and in another Canon he was requi­red to receive only his Cathedraticum, i. e. a certain Sum in lieu of Enter­tainment; which came to be setled by Prescription. The Council of Cavailon in France, Concil. Cabil. 2. c. 14. A. D. 831. fixed no Sum, but desired the Bishops to be no Burdens to the Clergy in their [Page 78] parochial Visitations. Lyndwood saith, the Ancient Procuration here, was a Day and Nights Entertainment; De Censibus, f. 121. which after came to be a customary Pay­ment: De Officio Vi­carii c. quo­niam V. Pro­curari. But however it was paid, it is an evident Proof of the Right of the Bishops Visitations by the Ancient Ecclesiastical Law; and by such a Custom as is allowable by the Rules of our Common Law.

III. There are some Faults which make the Clergy liable to Depriva­tion by Virtue of the Ecclesiastical Law, which was here received. I shall name only some of them, and con­clude; these being sufficient for my present purpose.

I. Excessive Drinking. All drinking (ad Potus aequales) was absolutely forbidden to Clergymen, Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. 140, 200. on pain of Suspension after Admonition; not only by a Synodical, but by a Provincial Constitution under Edmund, Archbishop [Page 79] of Canterbury. The Canon Law saith in that case, ab Officio vel Beneficio suspendatur: Extr. de Vita & Honestat. Cleric. c. 14. But our Constitution is more severe, à Beneficio & Officio. The Council of Oxford not only strictly forbids all Clergymen what­ever tends to Gluttony and Drunken­ness; Prov. Cont. f. 61. but it requires the Bishops to proceed strictly against those who are guilty, according to the Form of the General Council, i. e. the Late­ran, 4. viz. by Admonition first, and then Suspension. Lyndwood complains, That this was not so much looked after as it should be, because it brought no Profit; I hope that Reason will not hold among those who pretend to Reformation; which will be very defective, if it extend not to our Lives as well as our Doctrines: For there can be no greater Reproach than to see those loose and dissolute in their Conversations, who think it their Honour to be Ministers of a Re­formed [Page 80] Church. It was a stinging Reflection upon our Church by the Archbishop of Spalato, (who was no very strict Man himself) That he saw nothing Reformed among us but our Doctrines. Epist. ad Ios. Hall. I hope there was more of Satyr than of Truth in it; for I do not question, but there were many then (as there are now) of Exem­plary Lives, and Unblameable Con­versations; but if there be any others, it will be the more shame not to proceed against them; since even before the Reformation, the Canons were so strict and severe in this mat­ter. In the Council at Westminster in Henry II. time, under Richard, Arch­bishop of Canterbury, all Clergymen are forbidden going into Taverns to eat or drink, unless upon Travelling; and the Sanction of this Canon is, aut cesset, Concil. Anglic. 2 vol. 104. aut deponatur. The same was forbidden in the Council at York, in the time of Richard I. f. 122. in the Council [Page 81] at London under Hubert, in the time of King Iohn. 126. And since the Refor­mation the same Canon is renewed, That no Ecclesiastical Persons shall at any time, Can. 78. other than for their honest Ne­cessities, resort to any Taverns or Ale­houses. And there have been Instan­ces of the Severity of our Ecclesiasti­cal Censures against Drunkenness in Clergymen.

In 8 Iac. Parker was deprived of his Benefice for Drunkenness, Brownlow's Rep. f. 37. and moved for a Prohibition, but it was denied him.

In 9 Iac. another was deprived for the same Fault; and the Judges at Common Law allowed the Sen­tence to be good.

No doubt there are other Instan­ces, Id. f. 70. but we had not known of these, if they had not been preserved in Books of Reports.

II. Incontinency. Lyndw. f. 9. Lyndwood saith, Those who are proved to be guilty [Page 82] of it, are ipso Iure privati; but he thinks a Declaratory Sentence of the Ecclesiastical Judges necessary for the Execution of it. 6 C. 14. Hob. 293. Owen 87. 1 Cr. 41. 789. Since the Refor­mation, we have Instances of Depri­vation for Adultery in our Law Books. One 12 Eliz. another 16 Eliz. a third 27 Eliz. These are enough to shew that the Ecclesiastical Law is allowed by the Judges of Common Law, to continue in sufficient Force for De­privation in this Case.

III. Simony. Which is the Name given by the Ecclesiastical Law, to all Contracts for Gain in the dispo­sing or obtaining any Ecclesiastical Promotion or Ministry. It is true, these do not come up to the very Sin of Simon Magus, Officium Curae animarum est praecipuum a [...] spiritualissi­mum Dei Donum. Ca [...]e­tan. in Act. 8. which related to the immediate Gifts of the Holy Ghost; but because the whole Ministerial Of­fice in all the parts of it (especially the Cure of Souls) is of a Spiritual Nature; and all Bargains are so re­pugnant [Page 83] to the Design of it, there­fore the Ecclesiastical Law hath fix­ed that detestable Name upon it: For, all Contractus non gratuiti in these things, savour of turpe Lucrum, and tend to bring in turpe Commercium in­to the Church; which would really overturn the whole Design of that Ministry, which was designed for the Salvation of Souls. And therefore it was necessary, that when Persons had received (by the Favour of Tem­poral Princes and other Benefactors, who were Founders of Churches) such Endowments as might encou­rage them in their Function, that se­vere Laws should be made against any such sordid and mischievous Con­tracts. And such there were here in England long before the excellent Stat. of 31 Eliz. c. 6. although it seems the Force of them was so much worn out, as to make that Statute necessa­ry for avoiding of Simony; which [Page 84] is there explained to be Corruption in bestowing or getting Possession of Promo­tions Ecclesiastical.

In a Council at London under Lan­franc, Concil. Anglic. vol. 2. p. 8, 10. in the Conqueror's time, Si­mony was forbidden, under the Name of Buying and selling of Or­ders. And it could be nothing else before the Churches Revenue was set­led: p. 35. But in the time of Henry I. Ecclesiastical Benefices were forbidden to be bought or sold, and it was De­privation then to any Clergyman to be convicted of it; and a Layman was to be Out-lawed, and Excommunicated, and Deprived of his Right of Patro­nage. And this was done by a Pro­vincial Synod of that time.

In the Reign of Henry II. it was decreed, p. 105. Constit. Prov. 152. That if any Person received any Money for a Presentation, he was to be for ever deprived of the Pa­tronage of that Church; and this was not meerly a Provincial Constitution, [Page 85] but two Kings were present (Hen. II. and his Son) and added their Au­thority to it. Parsons Councellor, Sect. 5. This was not depri­ving a Man of his Free-hold by a Ca­non, as a Learned Gentleman calls it; for here was the greatest Au­thority, Temporal as well as Eccle­siastical added to it.

But we are told, these Canons were of as little Effect as that of Othobon, which made all Simoniacal Contracts void; but some of the most judicious Law­yers have held, that Simony being contractus ex turpi causâ, Hob. 167. is void be­tween Parties.

All that I aim at is to shew, that by our old Ecclesiastical Law, Si­moniacus incurred a Deprivation and Disability before the Stat. 31. Eliz. and therein I have the Opinion of a very Learned Judge concurring with me. 1 Rolls 237.

[Page 86] IV. Dilapidations. By which the Ecclesiastical Law understands any considerable Impairing the Edifices, Woods, Io. de Athon. in Constit. O­thob. f. 55. 2. 35. E. 1. and Revenues belonging to Ecclesiastical Persons, by Virtue of their Places. For it is the great­est Interest and Concernment of the Church to have things preserved for the Good of Successors; and it is a part of common Iustice and Ho­nesty so to do. [...] R. 72. [...]Inst. 204. [...]oo [...] 917. Godbolt 279. Rolls 813. 29. E. 3. 16. 2 Hen. 4. 3. 11 Hen. 6. 20. 9. E. 4. 34. And the Lord Coke positively affirms, That Dilapidation is a good Cause of Deprivation. And it was so resolved by the Judges in the Kings Bench, 12 Iac. Not by Virtue of any new Law or Statute, but by the old Ecclesiastical Law. For which Coke refers to the Year-Books, which not only shew what the Ecclesiastical Law then was, but that it was allowed by the Com­mon Law of England; Constit. O­thob. f. 55. 2. and we are told, that is never given to change; but it may be forced to it by a [Page 87] New Law, which cannot be pre­tended in this case. And by the Old Constitutions here received, the Bishops are required to put the Cler­gy in mind of keeping their Houses in sufficient Reparations, Othob. f. 55. 2. and if they do it not within two Months, the Bi­shop is to take care it be done out of the Profits of the Benefice. By the Injunctions of Edw. VI. and Queen Elizabeth, all Persons having Ecclesiastical Benefices, are required to set apart the Fifth of their Re­venue to Repair their Houses; and afterwards to maintain them in good condition.

V. Pluralities. Provinc. Con­stit. f. 59. By the Ecclesiastical Law, which was here received, the actual receiving Institution into a second Benefice made the first void ipso Iure; and if he sought to keep both above a Month, the second was void too. Lyndwood observes, That the Ecclesiastical Law had [Page 88] varied in this matter. And it pro­ceeded by these Steps, (which are more than Lyndwood mentions.) Lyndw. ib. V. sit content.

I. It was absolutely forbidden to have Two Parishes, 10. q. 3. c. Vnio. if there were more than Ten Inhabitants in them, because no Man could do his Duty in Both Places. And if any Bishop neglected the Execution of it, Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 5. he was to be Excommunicated for Two Months, and to be re­stored only upon promise to see this Canon executed.

II. The Rule was allowed to hold, as to Cities, but an Exception was made as to small and remote Places, 21. q. 1. c. 1. Clericus. where there was a greater Scarcity of Persons to supply them.

III. If a Man had Two Bene­fices, Ex. de Praeb. c. referente. it was left to his Choice, which he would have: but he could not hold both. This kind of Option was allowed by the Ecclesiastical Law then in force.

[Page 89] IV. That if he takes a second Be­nefice, Ex. de Cleric. Non-Resident. c. quia non­nulli. that Institution is void, by the Third Council of Lateran, under Alexander 3.

V. That by taking a second, Ex. de Praeb. c. de Multa. the first is void; which is the fa­mous Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council.

VI. That if he were not con­tented with the last, but endeavour to keep both, he should be depri­ved of both. And this was the Ecclesiastical Law as it was declared in our Provincial Constitutions. But the general Practice was to avoid the former, according to the Late­ran Council. These were very se­vere Canons, but that one Clause of the Pope's Dispensing Power, made them to signifie little, unless it were to advance his Power and Reve­nue. For when the Dispensing Power came to be owned, the Law had very little Force; especially as to [Page 90] the Consciences of Men. For if it were a Law of God, how could any man dispense with it? unless it were as apparent that he had gi­ven a Power in some Cases to Dispense, as that he had made the Law. Those Casuists are very hard put to it, who make Residence Iu­re Divino, and yet say the Pope may dispense with it; which at last comes only to this, That the Pope can authoritatively declare the sufficiency of the Cause: so that the whole matter depends upon the Cause; whether there can be any sufficient to excuse from Personal Re­sidence.

It is agreed on all hands, that the habitual Neglect of a Charge we have taken upon our selves, is an evil thing, and that it is so to heap up Preferments meerly for Riches, or Luxury, or Ambition; but the main Question in point of Con­science [Page 91] is, What is a sufficient Cause to justifie any Man's breaking so reasonable and just a Rule as that of Residence is.

It cannot be denied, that the el­dest Canons of the Church were so strict and severe, that they made it unlawful for any Man to go from that Church in which he first recei­ved Orders; as well as to take ano­ther Benefice in it: and so for any Bishop to be translated from that Place he was first Consecrated to; as well as to hold another with it. But the Good of the Church being the main Foundation of all the Rules of it; when that might be better promoted by a Translation, it was by a tacit Consent looked on, as no unjust Violation of its Rules. The Question then is, Whether the Churches Benefit may not in some Cases make the Canons against Non-Residence as Dispensible, as [Page 92] those against Translations? And the Resolution of it doth not depend upon the voiding the particular Obligation of the Incumbent to his Cure; but upon some more gene­ral Reason with respect to the State of the Church; as being imployed in the Service of it, which requires a Persons having (not a bare Com­petency for Subsistence, but) a Suf­ficiency to provide Necessaries for such Service: For those seem to have very little regard to the flourishing Condition of a Church, who would confine the Sufficiency of a Sub­sistence, meerly to the Necessaries of Life. But it seems to be reason­able, that Clergymen should have Incouragement sufficient, not only to keep them above Contempt, but in some respect agreeable to the more ample Provision of other Or­ders of Men. And by God's own Appointment the Tribe of Levi [Page 93] did not fall short of any of the rest, if it did not very much exceed the Proportion of others. We do not pretend to the Privileges they had, only we observe from thence, that God himself did appoint a plenti­ful Subsistence for those who at­tended upon his Service. And I do not know what there is Levitical or Ceremonial in that. I am sure the Duties of the Clergy now re­quire a greater Freedom of Mind from the anxious Cares of the World, than the Imployments of the Priests and Levites under the Law. But we need not go so far back; if the Church enjoyed all her Revenues as entirely, as when the severe Canons against Pluralities were made, there would not be such a Plea for them, as there is too much Cause for in some Places, from the Want of a competent Sub­sistence. But since that time, the [Page 94] Abundance of Appropriations (since turned into Lay-Fees) hath extream­ly lessened the Churches Revenues, and have left us a great Number of poor Vicarages, and Arbitrary Cures, which would hardly have afforded a Maintenance for the Ne­thinims under the Law, who were only to be Hewers of Wood, and Drawers of Water. But this doth not yet clear the Difficulty: For the Question is, Whether the Subsistence of the Clergy can lawfully be im­proved by a Plurality of Livings? Truly, I think this (if it be allow­ed in some Cases lawful) to be the least desirable way of any; but in some Circumstances it is much more excusable than in others. As when the Benefices are mean, when they lie near each other, when great care is taken to put in sufficient Cu­rates with good Allowance; when Persons take all Opportunities to do [Page 95] their Duties themselves, and do not live at a distance from their Bene­fices in an idle and careless manner. But for Men to put in Curates meer­ly to satisfie the Law, and to mind nothing of the Duties of their Pla­ces, is a horrible Scandal to Reli­gion and our Church, and that, which if not amended, may justly bring down the Wrath of God up­on us. For the loosest of all the Popish Casuists look upon this as a very great Sin, even those who at­tributed to the Pope the highest Dis­pensing Power in this Case.

But when the great Liberty of Dispensing had made the Ecclesiastical Laws in great measure useless, then it was thought fit by our Law­makers to restrain and limit it by a Statute made 21 H. VIII. wherein it is Enacted, ‘That if any Person or Persons having one Benefice with Cure of Souls, being of the [Page 96] yearly Value of Eight Pounds, or above, accept, or take any other with Cure of Souls, and be in­stituted, and inducted in Possession of the same, that then, and im­mediately after such Possession had thereof, the first Benefice shall be adjudged to be void. And all Licenses and Dispensations to the contrary are declared to be void and of none effect.’

This, one would have thought, had been an effectual Remedy a­gainst all such Pluralities and Dis­pensations to obtain them; and this, no doubt, was the primary Design of the Law; but then follow so many Proviso's of Qualified Men to get Dispensations, as take off a great deal of the Force and Effect of this Law. But then it ought well to be consider'd, Whether such a License being against the chief De­sign of a Law, can satisfie any Man [Page 97] in point of Conscience, where there is not a just and sufficient Cause? For, if the Pope's Dispensation, with the supposed Plenitude of his Power, could not satisfie a Man's Conscience without an antecedent Cause, as the Casuists resolve, much less can such Proviso's do it.

It is the general Opinion of Divines and Lawyers, Less. l. 2. c. 34. Dub. 27. saith Lessius, That no Man is safe in Conscience by the Pope's Dispensation for Pluralities, unless there be a just cause for it.

No Man can with a safe Conscience, Pan. c. du. lu [...]. 2. de Elect. Sylv. Benef. 4. Sum. Angel. Ben. 35. take a Dispensation from the Pope for more Benefices than one, meerly for his own Advantage, saith Panormitan; and from him Sylvester and Summ. Angelica.

A Dispensation, Tolet Summa Casim. 5. [...]. 82. saith Cardinal To-let, secures a Man as to the Law; but as to Conscience there must be a good cause for it; and that is, when the Church hath more Benefit by it, than it would have without it.

[Page 98] But the Pope's Dispensing Power went much farther in point of Con­science in their Opinion, than that which is setled among us by Act of Parliament. For it is expressed in the Statute of 21 Hen. VIII. That the Dispensation is intended to keep Men from incurring the Danger, Penalty, and Forfeiture in the Statute comprised. So that the most qualified Person can only say, that the Law doth not de­prive him; but he can never plead that it can satisfie him in point of Conscience, unless there be some Cause for it, which is of more Moment to the Church, than a Man's sole and constant Attendance on a particular Cure is. But this Statute is more favourable to the Clergy, than the Canon Law was be­fore, in two Particulars.

1. In declaring that no simple Be­nefices, or meer Dignities, as the Ca­nonists call them, are comprehended [Page 99] under the Name of Benefices, having Cure of Souls, viz. no Deanary, Arch­deaconry, Chancellorship, Treasurership, Chantership, or Prebend in any Cathe­dral or Collegiate Church, nor Parsonage that hath a Vicar endowed, nor any Be­nefice perpetually appropriate. But all these before were within the reach of the Canon Law, and a Dispen­sation was necessary for them: Which shews, that this Law had a particular respect to the necessary Attendance on Parochial Cures, and looked on other Dignities and Preferments in the Church, as a sufficient Encou­ragement to extraordinary Merit.

2. That no notice is taken of Li­vings under the Valuation of 8 l. which, I suppose, is that of 20 E. 1. for that of H. 8. was not till five years after that Statute. But after that Valua­tion it was to be judged according to it, and not according to the real Value, as the Judges declared 12 Car. I. [Page 100] in the Case of Drake and Hill. Cr. Car. f. 456. Now here was a regard had to the Poor­ness of Benefices, so far, that the Statute doth not deprive the Incum­bent upon taking a second Living, if the former be under 8 l. The Que­stion that arises from hence is, Whe­ther such Persons are allowed to en­joy such Pluralities by Law; or only left to the Ecclesiastical Law, as it was before? C. 4. 75. Hol­land's Case. It is certain, that such are not liable to the Penalty of this Law; but before any Person might be deprived by the Ecclesiastical Law for taking a second Benefice without Dispensation, of what Value soever the former were; now here comes a Statute, which enacts, That all who take a second Benefice, having one of 8 l. without Qualification, shall lose his legal Title to the first; but what if it be under? Shall he lose it or not? Not by this Law. But suppose the Ecclesiastical Law [Page 101] before makes him liable to Depriva­tion; doth the Statute alter the Law without any Words to that purpose? The Bishop had a Power before to deprive, where is it taken away? The Patron had a Right to present upon such Deprivation; how comes he to lose it? And I take it for grant­ed, That no antecedent Rights are taken away by Implications; but there must be express Clauses to that purpose. So that I conclude, the an­cient Ecclesiastical Law to be still in Force, where it is not taken away by Statute.

And thus, my Brethren, I have laid before you the Authority and the Rules we are to act by; I have en­deavoured to recommend to you, the most useful Parts of your Duty, and I hope you will not give me occasion to shew what Power we have by the Ecclesiastical Law of this [Page 102] Realm to proceed against Offenders. Nothing will be more uneasie to me, than to be forced to make use of any Severity against you. And my Hearts desire is, That we may all sincerely and faithfully discharge the Duties of our several Places, that the blessing of God may be upon us all; so that we may save our selves, and those committed to our Charge.

I Have formerly, on the like Oc­casion, discoursed to you of the General Duties of your Fun­ction, and the Obligation you are under to perform them; and there­fore [Page 104] I shall now confine my Dis­course to these Two Things:

I. To consider the particular Na­ture of the Trust committed to you.

II. The Obligation you are under to your Parochial Cures.

I. The first is necessary to be spoken to; for while Persons have only so confused and cloudy Ap­prehensions concerning it, they can neither be satisfied in the Nature of their Duties, nor in their Perfor­mance of them. And there is Dan­ger as well in setting them so high as to make them Impracticable, as in sinking them so low as to make, not only themselves, but their Pro­fession Contemptible. For the World (let us say what we will) will al­ways esteem Men, not meerly for a Name and Profession, but for the [Page 105] Work and Service which they do. There is, no doubt, a Reverence and Respect due to a Sacred Function on its own Account; but the high­est Profession can never maintain its Character among the rest of Man­kind, unless they who are of it, do promote the General Good, by act­ing suitably to it. And the greater the Character is, which any bear, the higher will the Expectations of others be concerning them; and if they fail in the greatest and most useful Duties of their Function, it will be impossible to keep up the Re­gard which ought to be shew'd un­to it. We may complain as long as we please of the Unreasonableness of the Contempt of the Clergy in our Days, (which is too general, and too far spread) but the most effe­ctual Means to prevent or remove it, is for the Clergy to apply them­selves to the most necessary Duties, [Page 106] with Respect to the Charge and Trust committed to them.

But here arises a considerable Dif­ficulty, which deserves to be cleared; viz. concerning the just Measures of that Diligence which is required. For, there are some who will never be satis­fied that the Clergy do enough, let them do what they can; and it is to no purpose to think to satisfie them who are resolved not to be satisfied: But on the other side, some care not how little they do, and the less, the better they are pleased with them; and others again, have raised their Duties so high, that scarce any Man can satisfie himself that he hath done his Duty.

It is a matter therefore of the high­est Consequence to us, to understand, What Rule and Measure is to be ob­served, so as we may neither wilfully neglect our Duty, nor despair of do­ing it.

[Page 107] Here we are to consider Two Things;

1. How far the Scripture hath de­termined it.

2. What Influence the Constitu­tion of our Church is to have upon us concerning it.

1. The Scripture doth speak some­thing relating to it, both in the Old and New Testament.

In the Old Testament we have the Duties enjoyned to the Levitical Priesthood, and the extraordinary Commissions given to the Prophets.

As to the Levitical Priesthood, we can only draw some general Instru­ctions, which may be of use, altho' that Priesthood hath been long since at an end; Christ being our High-Priest after another Order, viz. of Melchisedeck; and our Duty now is to observe his Laws, and to offer that Reasonable Service which he re­quires.

[Page 108] But even from the Levitical Priest­hood, we may observe these things.

1. That although the main of their Duty of Attendance respected the Temple and Sacrifices; yet at other times they were bound to in­struct the People in the Law. For so Moses leaves it as a special Charge to the Tribe of Levi, Deut. 33. 10. to teach Iacob his Iudgments, Levit. 10. 11. and Israel his Law. And to incourage them to do it, they had a liberal Maintenance, far above the Proportion of the other Tribes. For, by Computation it will be found, that they were not much above the Sixtieth part of the People; for when the other Tribes were numbred from Twenty years old, Numb. 1. 3, 46. they made six hundred thousand, and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. But the Children of Levi were reckoned by themselves from a Month old; [...]. 15, 39. and they made but Two and twenty thousand; so that if the [Page 109] Males of the other Tribes had been reckoned, as they were, it is agreed by Learned Men, Selden's Re­view, p. 456. who had no Fond­ness for the Clergy, that they did not make above a fiftieth or sixtieth part; and yet they had near a fifth of the Profits, besides accidental Perquisites, as to Sacrifices, and Ransoms of the First-born. Thus, say they, God was pleased to enrich that Tribe which was devoted to his Service. But it was not certainly, that they should spend their time in Idleness and Luxury, but that they might with the greater freedom apply themselves to the Study of the Law, that they might instruct the People. For the Cities of the Levites were as so many Colleges dispersed up and down in the several Tribes, to which the People might upon oc­casion, more easily resort.

2. That if the People erred thro' Ignorance of the Law, God himself laid the Blame on those who were [Page 110] bound to instruct them. My People, saith God by the Prophet, Hosea 4. 6. are destroy­ed for lack of Knowledge. If People are resolved to be ignorant, who can help it? Had they not the Law to inform them? But it is observable, that the Peoples Errors are laid to the Charge of the Priests, and the Punishment is denounced against them. Because thou hast rejected Know­ledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no Priest unto me. It seems the Priests were grown careless and negligent, as to their own Improve­ments; they did not know to what purpose they should take so much pains in studying the Law, and the difficult Points of it; they were for a freedom of Conversation, and hoped to keep up their Interest a­mong the People that Way. There­fore Isaiah call them Shepherds that cannot understand; Isa. 56. 11. but were very in­tent upon their Profits, they all look [Page 111] to their own Way, every one for his Gain from his Quarter. But this was not all, for the Prophet charges them with a Voluptuous, Careless, Dis­solute Life. Come ye, say they, I will fetch Wine, 12. and we will fill our selves with strong Drink, and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abun­dant. Was not this a very agree­able life for those who were to in­struct the People in the Duties of Sobriety and Temperance? It was Death for the Priests by the Law to drink Wine or strong Drink, Levit. 10. 8, 9. when they went into the Tabernacle of the Congre­gation; and the Reason given is, That ye may put a difference between holy and unholy, 10. and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the Children of Israel all the Statutes, 11. which the Lord hath spoken to thee by the Hand of Mo­ses. Which implies, That those who are given to drinking Wine or strong Drink, are very unfit to instruct o­thers [Page 112] in the Law of God. And God looked on them as such a Dishonour to his Worship, that he threatens im­mediate Death to them that approach­ed to his Altar, when they had drank Wine; and the Iews say, that was the Reason why Nadab and Abihu were destroyed. And then God said, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me. Levit. 10. 3. All Nations have abhor­red sottish and drunken Priests, as most unfit to approach to God when they were not themselves; or to of­fer Sacrifices for others, when they made Beasts of themselves. But this was not all; for God required from them who were to teach others the Law, that they should be always in a Capacity of understanding and practising it themselves.

But if we proceed to the Prophets, nothing can be more dreadful, than what God saith to Ezekiel, That if he did not warn the People as he [Page 113] commanded them, Ezek. 3. 18, 20. their Blood will I require at thy hand. 33. 7. Is this Charge now lying upon every one of you, as to every Person under your Care? Who would not rather run into a Wil­derness, or hide himself in a Cave, than take such a Charge upon him?

But we must distinguish what was peculiar to the Prophet's immediate Commission to go to any particu­lar Person in God's Name, from a General Charge to inform Persons in their Duties, and to tell them the Danger of continuing in their Sins. If any fail for want of Information, when you are bound to give it, the Neglect must fall heavy, and there­fore you are bound to take all just Opportunities in publick and private to inform those under your Care of such Sins as you know them to be guilty of; not with a Design to up­braid, but to reform them.

[Page 114] In the New Testament the Charge is General to feed the Flock of God; and to do it willingly, 1 Pet. 5. 2, 3. not for filthy Lu­cre, but of a ready mind; and to be Examples to the Flock. But St. Peter, who gives this Advice, doth not de­termine who belong to the Flock; nor within what Bounds it is to be limited; and there were many Flocks in the Iewish Dispersion, and many Elders scattered up and down a­mong them in Pontus, Asia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia; so that here we have only general and excellent Advice for such who had Care of the several Flocks, to carry themselves towards them with great Humility and Tenderness, with Charity and Goodness, as those that made it their business to do good among them, and conduct them in the Way to Heaven.

St. Paul, in his Charge to those whom he sent for to Miletus, tells them, [Page 115] That they must take heed to themselves, Acts 20. 28. and to all the Flock, over which the Ho­ly Ghost hath made them Overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. It's pos­sible here might be a particular De­signation of the Flock they were to oversee, by the Direction of the Holy Ghost; but yet the Charge is general to take heed to themselves and to the Flock, and to promote the good of the Church of God, which Christ hath purchased with his own Blood. Which are the most weighty Con­siderations in the World to excite us to the utmost Care and Diligence in Discharge of our Duties.

In the Epistle to the Thessalonians they are said to be over them in the Lord, 1 Thess. 5. 12. and to admonish them. In that to the Hebrews, Heb. 13. 17. to watch for their Souls, as they that must give an Account. No doubt, very great Care and Watchfulness is required in all that [Page 116] take so great and solemn an Office upon them; but where are the Bounds and Limits set, as to the People, and Nature of the Duties required from them? Must every Man be left to his own Conscience and Judgment, what, and how far he is to go? Or can we suppose all Men equally care­ful of doing their Duties, if no par­ticular Obligation be laid upon them? Some of the Eloquent Fathers of the Church, as St. Chrysostom, St. Ie­rom, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and o­thers, have allowed themselves so much in the Flights of Fancy, and Figures of speaking about the Height and Dignity of the Sacred Function, as if they had a mind to discourage all Men of modest and humble Dispo­sitions from undertaking it. I do not wonder that they ran into Solitudes, and withdrew from the World up­on it; but I do wonder how they came from thence and undertook [Page 117] the same Charge afterwards, with­out giving an Answer to their own Arguments. For the World re­mained just as it was when they left it. Mankind were still as impatient of being governed, or told of their Faults, as sickle and humoursom, as prone to Evil, and untractable to Good, as it was before. And could they hope it would ever mend by their running away from it? Or, was their Duty become more easie by declining it; I think it was very well for the Church of God, that, notwithstanding their own many Ar­guments, they took the Sacred Of­fice upon them at last, and did God and the Church good Service in it. But if Men were to judge by their Writings upon this Argument, one would think none but those who had a mind to be damned, would un­dertake it. And their great Strains of Wit and Eloquence, if they had [Page 118] any Force, would keep the best Men out of the Church, who were most likely to do God Service in it; and we need no other Instances than these very Persons themselves. And if all good, and humble, and con­scientious Men should for the sake of the Hardness of the Work, decline the Church's Service, and take any other lawful Imployment, what would become of the Church of God? For none that had, or intended to keep a good Conscience, could un­dertake the Cure of Souls; and so they must be left to such as had no Regard to their own; but were either ignorant, stupid and senseless Crea­tures, or such as regarded not their own Salvation, who durst undertake such a Task, as would not only add to their own Guilt, but bring the heavy Load of other Mens Faults upon them too.

[Page 119] What is now to be done in this Case? Hath God really imposed such a Task upon all those who enter into this Sacred Function, that it is morally impossible for an honest Man to discharge it with a good Conscience? How then can any such undertake it? But if it may be done, what are those Bounds and Rules we are to observe, so as a good Man may satisfie himself in a competent Measure, that he hath done his Duty?

II. And this is that which I shall now endeavour to clear. For every one who is in Orders, hath a double Capacity: One with Respect to the Church of God in General; another to that particular Flock which is al­lotted to him, by the Constitution of this Church, and the Law of the Land. For although the Nature of our Duty in general be determined by the Word of God, as I have al­ready [Page 120] ready shewed, yet the particular Ob­ligation of every one to his own Flock, is according to that Power and Authority, which by the Rules and Orders of this Church is com­mitted to him, and is fully expressed in the Office of Ordination. By which it plainly appears, that the Care of Souls committed to Persons among us, is not an absolute, in­definite, and unaccountable Thing; but is limited, as to Place, Persons, and Duties, which are incumbent upon them. They are to teach the People committed to their Charge; By whom? By the Bishop when he gives Institution.

They are to give private as well as publick Monitions and Exhortations, as well to the sick, as to the whle: What, to all? No, but to those within their Cure.

They are to banish erroneous Do­ctrines, and to promote Peace and Love, [Page 121] especially among them committed to their Charge.

And last of all, they are to Obey those who have the Charge and Govern­ment over them.

These things are so express and plain in the very Constitution of this Church, and owned so solemnly by every one that enters into Orders, that there can be no Dispute concerning them.

And from thence we observe se­veral things that tend to the Resolu­tion of the main Point, as to the Sa­tisfaction of doing your Duties, as Incumbents on your several Places.

I. That it is a Cure of Souls li­mited as to Persons and Place, i.e. within such a Precinct as is called a Parish.

II. That it is limited as to Power, with Respect to Discipline.

[Page 122] Therefore I shall endeavour to clear these Two Things:

I. What the just Bounds and Li­mits of Parochial Cures are.

II. What is the Measure of that Diligence which is required within those Bounds.

As to the former, we are to be­gin with the Limitation as to Place.

I. That it is a Cure of Souls li­mited within certain Bounds which are called Parishes, Ad proban­dam Ecclesi­am Parochia­lem, primo est necesse quod habeat locum certis finibus constitutum, in quo degat populus illi Ec­clesiae deputa­tu [...]. Rebuff. ad Concord. de Collat. Sect. Stat. n. 2. which are now certainly known by long Usage and Custom, and ought still to be pre­served with great Care; for other­wise Confusion and Disputes will a­rise between several Ministers, and se­veral Parishes with one another. For since the Duties and the Profits are both limited, it is necessary that those Bounds should be carefully pre­served, as they generally are by An­nual Perambulations.

[Page 123] But there are some who will un­derstand nothing of this bounding of Ministerial Duties by distinct Pa­rishes, who think they are at liberty to exercise their Gifts where-ever they are called; and that it were better that these parochial Inclosures were thrown open, and all left at liberty to chuse such whom they liked best, and under whom they can improve most.

These things seem to look plausi­bly at the first Appearance, and to come nearest to the first gathering of Churches, before any such thing as Parishes were known.

But to me this Arguing looks like Persons going about now to over­throw all Dominion and Property in Lands and Estates, because it seems not so agreeable with the first natural Freedom of Mankind; who accord­ing to the Original Right of Nature, might pick and chuse what served [Page 122] [...] [Page 123] [...] [Page 124] most to their own Conveniency. But although this were the first State of things, yet the great Inconvenien­cies which followed it, upon the In­crease of Mankind, made Division and Property necessary; and altho' there be no express Command of God for it, yet being so necessary for the Good of Mankind, it was not only continued every where, but those Persons were thought fit to be punished by severe Laws, who in­vaded the Rights and Properties of others, either by open Violence and Rapine, or by secret Stealth and Pur­loining

I grant, that at first there were no such Parochial Divisions of Cures here in England, as there are now. For the Bishops and their Clergy lived in Common; and before that the Number of Christians was much increased, the Bishops sent out their Clergy to preach to the People, as [Page 125] they saw Occasion. But after the Inha­bitants had generally embraced Chri­stianity, this Itinerant and Occasio­nal going from Place to Place, was found very inconvenient, because of the constant Offices that were to be administred; and the Peoples know­ing to whom they should resort for Spiritual Offices and Directions. Hereupon the Bounds of Parochial Cures were found necessary to be settled here by degrees, by those Bi­shops who were the great Instruments of converting the Nation from the Saxon Idolatry. But a Work of this Nature could not be done all at once, as by a kind of Agrarian Law, but se­veral Steps were taken in order to it.

At first, Bed. l. 1. c. 26. as appears by Bede, they made use of any old British Churches that were left standing; so Augustin at first made use of St. Martin's near Canterbury, c. 33. and after repaired Christs-Church, [Page 126] which were both British Churches. But Ethelbert gave all In­couragement both to repair Old Chur­ches and to build New. However, the Work went on slowly; Augustin consecrated but two Bishops, which were setled at London and Rochester, where Ethelbert built and endowed two Churches for the Bishops and their Clergy to live together. L. 2. c. 3. In the Western Parts Bicinus built several Churches about Dorchester, L. 3. c. 7. where his See was fixed. Wilfred converted the South-Saxons, and settled Presbyters in the Isle of Wight, but they were but two. L. 4. c. 13, 16. In the Kingdom of Mercia there were five Diocesses made in Theodore's time; and Putta, Bishop of Rochester, being driven from his See, he obtained from Saxulphus, L. 4. c. 12. a Mercian Bishop, a Church with a small Glebe, and there he ended his Days. In the Northern Parts we read of two Churches built by two Noblemen, L. 5. c. 4, 5. [Page 127] (Puch and Addi) upon their own Manors. And the same might be done elsewhere; but Bede would ne­ver have mentioned these, if the thing had been common. But in his Epistle to Egbert, Bed. Epist. ad Egbert. p. 64. Archbishop of York, a little before his Death he in­timates the great Want of Presbyters and Parochial Settlements, and there­fore earnestly perswades him to pro­cure more. Egbert. Can. 1, 2, 3, 4. And if Egbert's Canons be genuine (of which there are seve­ral Ancient MSS.) the Duties of Presbyters in their several Churches are set down: However, the Work went not on so fast, but in his Suc­cessor Eanbaldus his time, Concil. Anglie. 1. 293. the Bishops were required to find out convenient places to build Churches in; and the same passed in the Southern Parts by general Consent. In the Council of Cloveshoo, we read of Presbyters placed up and down by the Bishops in the Manors of the Laity, 1. p. 248. and in several [Page 128] Parts distinct from the Episcopal See; and there they are exhorted to be di­ligent in their Duties. Can. 9. In the times of Edgar and Canutus, we read of the Mother Churches, which had the Ori­ginal Settlement of Tithes, Concil. Anglic [...] 1. 444. (after they were given to the Church by se­veral Laws) and of the Churches built upon their own Lands by the Lords of Manors; to which they could only apply a third Part of the Tithes. P. 544, 545. But in the Laws of Canutus, we find a fourfold Distinction of Churches. 1. The Head Church, or the Bishop's See. P. 540. 2. Churches of a second Rank, which had Right of Sepulture, and Baptism, and Tithes. 3. Churches that had Right of Se­pulture, but not frequented. 4. Field-Churches or Oratories, which had no Right of Burial. The second sort seem to be the Original Parochial Churches which had the Endow­ment of Tithes, and were so large, [Page 129] that several other Churches were ta­ken out of them by the Lords of Manors; and so the Parishes came to be multiplied so much, that in the Laws of Edward the Confessor, c. 9. it is said, That there were then Three or Four Churches, where there had been but One before. In this Dio­cess I find by an Epistle of Wulston, Bishop of Worcester, Ansclm. Episi. l. 4. Ep. 3. to Anselm, that before the Conquest there were Chur­ches in Vills, or upon particular Manors that were consecrated. And if William the Conqueror demolished Six and thirty Parish Churches in the Compass of the New Forest, as is commonly said, there must be a very great Number before the Con­quest; although so few are said to appear in Doomsday Book; (yet there are many parochial Churches of this Diocess in it, above twenty in two Deanaries) but the Normans almost ruined the parochial Clergy, by [Page 130] seizing the Tithes, and making Ap­propriations of them. But in the Saxon times the Number still encrea­sed, as Lords of Manors and others were willing to erect new Churches, and to have a settled Parochial Mi­nister among them, who was to take Care of the Souls of the people within such a Precinct, as hath ob­tained the Name of a Parish. But Parishes now are of a very different Extent and Value; but the Obliga­tion which the Law puts upon them, is the same; only where the Main­tenance is greater they may have the more Assistants. And from hence came the Difference among the Pa­rochial Clergy; for, those whose Pa­rishes were better endowed, could maintain inferior Clerks under them, who might be useful to them in the publick Service, and assist them in the Administration of Sacraments. And this was the true Original of [Page 131] those we now call Parish-Clerks; but were at first intended as Clerks-As­sistant to him that had the Cure; and therefore he had the Nomination of them, as appears by the Ecclesia­stical Law, both here and abroad. And Lyndwood saith, Ioh. de Athon: in Const. O­thob. p. 59. Every Vicar was to have enough to serve him, and One Clerk or more; and by the Canon-Law, no Church could be founded, where there was not a Maintenance for Assisting-Clerks. Extr. de Iure Patron. c. 30. In the Synod of Wor­cester, under Walter Cantelupe, in Hen­ry the Third's time, they are called Capellani Parochiales, and the Rectors of Parishes were required to have such with them. Lyndw. f. 34. 167. And the Canon Law doth allow a Rector to give a Title to another to receive Orders as an Assistant to him; De Vit. & Honest. c. 3. Gloss. and this with­out any prejudice to the Patron's Right; C. 1. q. 2. C. 1. Concil. Anglic. 11. 253. because but One can have a Legal Title to the Cure. Lynw. f. 53. 2. 167. 72. 2. But Lynd­wood observes very well, That those [Page 132] who gives Titles to others, as their As­sistants or Curates, are bound to maintain them if they want. These are called Vicarii Parochiales, & Stipendiarii; but Conductitii Presbyteri, who are forbid­den, Extr. Ne Praeter vices, &c. c. 3. were those who took Livings to farm, without a Title. But after Appropriations came in, then there were another sort of Vicars called Perpetui, and were endowed with a certain Portion of the Temporalities, and were admitted ad Curam Anima­rum: Lyndw. de Consert. E. Stat. c. Rect. But such could not Personam Ecclesiae sustinere in an Action at Law about the Rights of the Church, Athon. f. 13. but as to their own Right they might. But still there is another sort of Vi­cars, who are Perpetual, but not En­dowed any otherwise than the Bishop did allow a congrua Portio; and this was in Appropriations where the Bishop consented only upon those Terms, as they generally were so made, till the Neglect made the [Page 133] Statutes necessary, 15 R. 2. 6. and 4 H. 4. 12. The Bishops were to make, or enlarge the Allowance, say the Canonists, Ext. de Praeb. c. de Mona­chis. after Presentation, and before Institution, and were to see that it were a sufficient Subsistence.

But there were some Cures which had Chapels of Ease belonging to them; Lyndw. d [...] O [...] ­ficio [...] c. qu [...] and they who offiuated in them, were called Capellani, and had their Subsistence out of the Oblati­ons and Obventions, Thorn. c. 2▪ Sect. 8. and were often Perpetual and Presentative. And where the Incumbents had several Cha­pels of Ease, and only Assistants to supply them, Extr. de [...]Ordin. the Canon Law doth not call them Rectores, Azor. p. 2. l. c. 19. but Plebani; who had a sort of peculiar Jurisdiction in lesser Matters; Barbosa de Officio Paro­chial. c. 1. n. 9. but still they were under the Bishops Authority in Visi­tations and other Ecclesiastical Cen­sures, because the Care of the whole Diocess belonged to him Iure Com­muni; and so it was taken for granted [Page 134] in all Parts of the Christian World: And especially in this Kingdom, where Parochial Episcopacy was never heard of till of late years. For, no­thing can be plainer in our History, than what is affirmed in two of our Laws, Stat. of Carlisle, 25 E. 1. and the Stat. of Provisors, 25 E. 3. That the Church of England was founded in Prelacy, or Diocesan Episcopacy. For our first Bishops were so far from be­ing confined to one Church or Town, that at first in the Saxon-Division of Kingdoms, every Bishop had his Diocess equal with the Extent of the Kingdom, except in Kent, where one Suffragan to the Archbishop at Ro­chester was confirmed.

The first Conversion of the Eng­lish Nation to Christianity from Pa­ganism, was by the Diocesan Bi­shops, who were sent hither from several Parts, and the Presbyters im­ployed by them; and as the Number [Page 135] of Christians increased, the Number of Bishops did so too; so that in the Parts of Mercia one Diocess was divided into five, that they might the better look after the Government of them; and every Bishop, as ap­pears by the Saxon-Councils, was bound to see parochial Churches built, and the Clergy to be settled in them to attend upon the Duties of their Function among the people committed to their Charge.

That which I have aimed at in this Discourse, was to shew, That the Original Constitution of this Church, was Episcopal; but yet that the Bishops did still design to fix a Parochial Clergy under them, as Chur­ches could be built and endow­ed.

It remains now to shew, That this Constitution of a Parochial Clergy, is more reasonable, than that of an un­fixed, and unsettled Clergy by Law; [Page 136] which will easily appear, if we con­sider,

1. The greater Advantage as to Unity, and real Edification among the People. For this makes them to be as one Body within certain Bounds: And the People know whither to re­sort for publick Worship and Sacra­ments; and the Inconveniencies, as to the difference of Mens Abilities, is not so great, as the Inconveniency of a broken, divided people, as to Religion; which always creates Sus­picions and Jealousies, and general­ly Contempt and Hatred of each other. And I think every wise and good Christian will consider, that which tends to Peace and Unity, is really more Edifying than a far bet­ter Talent of Elocution, or the most moving Way of exciting the Fancies and Passions of Hearers. For, S. Paul tells us, Charity is beyond miraculous Gifts. It is easie to observe, that the [Page 137] wisest Methods are seldom the most popular; because the generality of Mankind do not judge by Reason, but by Fancy, and Humour, and Prejudices of one kind or other. From hence the Heats of Enthusiasm, and odd Gestures, and vehement Expressions, with no deep or cohe­rent Sense, take much more with ordinary and injudicious people, than the greatest Strength and clearness of Reason, or the soundest Doctrine, and the most pious Exhortation, if they be not set off in such a Way as strikes their Imaginations, and raises their Passions. And this is that which such do commonly call the most Edifying Way of Preaching, which is like the coming up of the Tide with Noise and Violence, but leaves little Effect; whereas the other is like a constant Stream which goes on in a steady and even Course, and makes the Earth more fruitful. The one is [Page 138] like a Storm of Thunder and Light­ning, which startles, and confounds, and amuses more; but the other is like a gentle Rain which softens and mellows the Ground, and makes it more apt to produce kindly and lasting Fruit. We are to judge of true Edification, not by the sudden Heat and Motion of Passions, but by producing the genuine Effects of true Religion; which are fixing our Minds on the greatest and truest Good, and calming and governing our disorderly Passions, and leading a godly, righteous and sober Life. But we too often find violent and boi­sterous Passions, an ungovernable Temper, Envy, Strife and Uncha­ritableness, growing up with greater Pretences to Zeal, and better Ways of Edification.

I never expect to see the World so wise, as to have Persons and Things universally esteemed accord­ing [Page 139] to their Real Worth. For there will be a Tincture in most persons, from Temper, and Inclination, and the Principles of Education; but ge­nerally speaking Matters of Order and Decency, and Things which tend to a publick Good, affect those most, who have the best Judgment and Temper; and irregular Heats, and disorderly Methods of praying and preaching, those whose Religion makes more Impression upon their Fancies, than their Judgments, and is seen more in the inflaming their Passions, than in keeping them in their due Order.

2. There is a greater Advantage as to Discipline: For, if among the Teachers they are under no Bounds nor Subjection to a Superiour Au­thority, it is very easie to avoid any kind of Censure for the most cor­rupt Doctrines or Practices. We cannot boast much of the strict [Page 140] Exercise of Discipline among us; and one great Reason is, That many have more mind to complain of the Want of it, than to do their En­deavour to amend it. We hear of many Complaints of the Clergy in general, and sometimes by those who have more mind to have them thought guilty, than to prove them so, for fear they should acquit them­selves, or at least the Church should not bear the blame of their Mis­carriages. But we cannot proceed arbitrarily, we must allow them timely notice, and summon them to appear, and a just Liberty of Defence; but if upon Proof, and sufficient Evidence we have not proceeded a­gainst them with the just Severity of the Law, then we ought to bear the Blame, but not otherwise. But whatsoever personal Neglects or Faults there have been, or may be, my Business is to shew, that our Way [Page 141] is much better fitted for the just Exercise of Discipline, than that of Independant Congregations, altho' the Managers of them pick and cull out the best they can for their Purpose; and one would think, when they had made choice of Mem­bers to their mind, and bound them together by an Explicit Covenant, they should be very easie, and tra­ctable, and submissive to their own Discipline. But they have found the contrary by their sad Experience; they grow too heady and wilful to bear any such thing as strict Disci­pline; for when they had the Cou­rage to exercise it, their Congrega­tions were soon broken to pieces, and the several divided Parts were for setting up new Heads one against a­nother, till at last they found it was much easier to be Teaching than to be Ruling Elders. And so they have let the Reins of Discipline fall to [Page 142] keep their Congregations together. But suppose the Teachers should fall out among themselves; as, to give a fresh and late remarkable Instance: Suppose some set up Antinomianism, and preach such Doctrines to the People or Flocks before you, which others think of dangerous Conse­quence, What is to be done in such a Case? They may send some Bre­thren to enquire whether the Mat­ters of fact be true. Suppose they find them true, What then? What is to be done next? It may be, some would have them come up to their Brethren and answer to the Ac­cusations brought against them. But suppose they will not; and others of the Brethren say, they ought not; and so fall into Heats and Disputes among themselves about it, and make new Parties and Divisions: Is not this an admirable Way of pre­serving Peace, and Order, and Disci­pline [Page 143] in a Church? And I am as certain, this is not the Way of Christ's appointing, as I am, that God is the God of Order, and not of Con­fusion; and that when Christ left the Legacy of Peace to his Church, he left a Power in some to see his Will performed. But these things can never be objected against us; for all are Members of the same Body, and are governed by certain and known Rules; and if any be guilty of open Violation of it, the Way is open to accuse and prosecute them; and if they be found guilty, the Censures of the Church will render them un­capable of doing it in such a Station; or at least, to bring them to Confession of their Fault, and Promise of future Amendment. And now I leave any one to judge, whether the Pa­rochial Clergy are not under greater and better Discipline, than the Teachers of the separate Congregations.

[Page 144] II. But the great Complaint of such Men is, That we want Parochial and Congregational Discipline, so that Faults should be examined and pu­nished where they have been com­mitted; but instead of that, all Mat­ters are drawn into the Ecclesiastical Court, and there Causes are managed so, as looks rather like a Design to punish Men in their Purses, than for their Faults; and the Delays are so great, that the Court it self seems to be designed for Penance, and grows very uneasie, even to those who are the Members of our Church. And some think that the proceeding against Men upon Articles of En­quiry, not so agreeable to the Rights and Liberties of Mankind. In an­swer to this, I shall consider, (1.) The Proceedings upon Enquiry at Visita­tions. (2.) The Method of Proceed­ing in the Ecclesiastical Courts. [Page 145] (3.) The Inconveniencies of parochial Discipline.

1. As to Enquiries at Visitations. They were grounded upon one of the main Pillars of our Law, viz. an an­cient, immemorial Custom founded upon good Reason: In the first Ca­nons that ever were made in this Church under Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury; Concil. Angls 1. p. 183. the second is, That every Bishop is to look after the Govern­ment of his own Diocess, and not to invade anothers. And that in so doing they went about their Diocesses in order to an Enquiry and Correction of Miscarriages, is evident from the Council under Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, Can. 3. 25. the first Council at Calechyth, Can. 3. the Constitutions of Odo, Archbishop of Canterbury, Can. 3. and the Canon of Edgar, Can. 3. But in these Saxon times, the Visitations were annual, which were found inconvenient; [Page 146] and therefore in the Norman times, the Archdeacons were taken into a part of the Jurisdiction under the Bi­shop, and visited those years the Bishop did not. But we meet with no Archdeacons with any kind of Ju­risdiction in the Saxon times; we read indeed sometimes of the Name of Archdeacons, but they had nothing to do in the Diocess, but only at­tended the Bishop at Ordinations, and other publick Services in the Ca­thedral. Lanfranc was the first who made an Archdeacon with Jurisdiction in his See. Angl. Sacr. 1. 150. And Thomas first Arch­bishop of York, after the Conquest, was the first who divided his Diocess into Archdeaconries; Stub. Vit. Arch. and so did Re­migius, Bishop of Lincoln, his large Diocess into Seven Archdeaconries, saith H. of Huntingdon: H. Hunting­in Angl. Sacr. And so it was with the rest; of which there were two Occasions, 1. The laying aside the Corepiscopi in the Western [Page 147] Parts, as assuming too much to themselves. 2. The publick Servi­ces which the Bishops were more strictly tied to, as the King's Ba­rons in the Norman times: Which was the Reason not only of taking in Archdeacons, but likewise of Arch­presbyters or Rural-Deans, who had some Inspection into the several Deanaries, and assisted the Bishop in such things, as they were appointed to do; and then came in the other Ecclesiastical Officers, as Vicars Gene­ral, Chancellors, Commissaries, &c. for we read not of them here at all in the Saxon times; but about the time of Hen. II. the Bishops took them for their Assistance in Dispatch of Causes, when the King required their strict Attendance on the publick Affairs in the Supreme Court of Parlia­ment.

2. As to the Method of Proceed­ing in the Ecclesiastical Courts, it is [Page 148] no other than hath been continued here without Interruption, till of late years, ever since the Conquest. For the Consistory-Court, and the Rules of Proceeding there, were establish­ed by a Law in the time of William the First. As far as I can find by King Edward's Laws, c. 4. the Bishops did then proceed by the Ecclesiasti­cal Laws, although they then sat in the County-Court; but this caused so much Confusion, that William, by a general Consent, and a Charter di­rected to all the People of England, Concil. Angl. 11. 14. doth separate the Ecclesiastical from the Temporal Courts; which was enrolled as good Law, 2 R. 2. upon occasion of a Suit of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln; and therefore the Charter of Remigius, Bishop of Lin­coln, is more mentioned than others, but the same was to all the Bishops and Counties of England, Seld. 14. 1. 4 l [...]st. 259. as appears by other Copies of it. Thus the [Page 149] Consistory-Court was first establish­ed, as a distinct Court from the County-Court, which it was not in the Saxon times, for then the Bishop sate with the Civil Magistrate in the same Court; Tit. H. 1. c. [...]. and Ecclesiastical Cau­ses were first heard and decided there. It seems the People wer very un­willing to go to a new Place; and therefore the Law is inforced with severe Penalties for Contempt. And those who object against the Rea­sonableness of the Method of Pro­ceeding in those Courts, must reflect upon some of the wisest Nations in the World, who have gone upon the same Grounds, in all that have received the Civil Law, and upon some of the greatest Courts at this time in the Kingdom, as the Chancery and Admiralty, which go by the same Fundamental Rules. As to any Ob­jections which arise from the personal Faults of those who are imployed in [Page 150] them, that reaches, I am afraid, to all Courts; and it ought to be the Work and Business of those who look after them, to do what in them lies, to reform them, that others Faults may not be laid at their Doors.

3. But for those who would have a Parochial or Congregational Discipline set up, as much better, and more effectual, I shall desire them to con­sider, that since Matters of Discipline are such, as that in them the Repu­tation and Interest of Persons is very much concerned, they ought not to be left to Arbitrary Proceedings of any Persons, but they ought to be managed by the certain and com­mon Rules of Justice; since every Man hath a Right to defend himself, when he is accused. And unless there be known and established Methods of Proceeding agreeable to natural Justice, and the Laws of the Land, [Page 151] nothing would be more grievous and intolerable than the common Exercise of a Parochial Discipline. For,

1. It cannot be presumed, that there will be competent Judges. For every one who hath a Faculty of Preaching, hath not a Faculty of Judging in such Cases. And where Discretion and a Judgment of Cir­cumstances is wanting, an honest Mind will not secure Men from do­ing Injury, and exposing their Judi­cature to Contempt.

2. They have no fixed and esta­blished Rules of proceeding, as there are in the Ecclesiastical Courts, which have been continued down from time to time, and allowed by the Laws of the Land. And what mi­serable Disorder must follow an Ar­bitrary Method, when Humour, and Will, and Passion may over-rule Ju­stice, and Equity, and Conscience?

[Page 152] 3. They are not under the Check of the Law, as the Ecclesiastical Courts are. For, if they exceed their Bounds, either as to the Nature of the Cause, or the Manner of pro­ceeding, they are liable to Prohibi­tions from the King's Courts of Ju­stice; but the Law can take no no­tice of Parochial or Congregational Judicatures, and so Men may suffer without Remedy.

4. They have no way to judge of Legal Evidence, which is very ma­terial when a person is accused. It is one of the nicest Points in all cri­minal Proceedings to determine what is good and sufficient Evidence. For several things are to be weighed, be­fore either Witnesses or Testimonies can be allowed. As to Witnesses, it is required that they be persons of Reputation, and free from Infamy of Law and Fact; that they be disinte­rested, and so not liable to the just [Page 153] Suspicion of Partiality; that they be Men of Discretion and sane Memory; and all reasonable Exceptions are to be allowed against them. As to Testimonies; they must be by our Law upon Oath; and what Autho­rity have such Persons to give an Oath, and why shall a Man be lia­ble to suffer by a Testimony, with­out one, when the Law requires it? They must be deliberate, and not given in Passion, consistent as to Time, Place, and other Circumstan­ces: They must be certain and po­sitive, and not upon Hear-say, or the Believing of other persons: They must be free from any just Suspicion of Contrivance and Conspiracy, or any sort of Corruption or Partiality. And now is every parochial Mini­ster, or select Congregation fit to judge of these Matters, whereon the Reputation, and consequently the In­terest of every person may be so deep­ly concerned?

[Page 154] 5. They have no way to prevent a percipitate and hasty Sentence. Sup­pose a Man be accused by one of Interest and Passion, who possesses others with the same Opinion before­hand, and the Judges are all preju­diced before the Matter comes to be heard; and in popular Assemblies some few men sway the rest, what a Case is a person accused unjustly in? He hath no Liberty for others that are not of the Congregation, altho' more disinterested, either to come in to judge, or to plead for him: He can have no Advocate to defend him, or to shew the Weakness, or Inconsistency of the Evidence against him. In all Ecclesiastical Courts, they may sometimes proceed summa­rily, but even then the Fundamental Rules of the Court must be obser­ved, as to Proofs and Witnesses, or else the Sentence is void; but here the Sentence will take place, altho' [Page 155] there hath not been the least Colour of Justice in the whole Proceed­ings.

6. Here is no settled Course of Appeals in Case of a wrong Sentence. But where Men are liable to Mistake and Passion, a Right of Appeal is one of the Fundamental parts of Ju­stice. And therefore Independent and Arbitrary Courts of Judicature, as all Congregational Churches are, are inconsistent with the common Rights of Mankind, and that due Subordination which ought to be in all Societies in order to the preser­ving Order and Justice among Men. But suppose, parochial Discipline so settled among us, as to allow a Liberty of Appeal, how would the Trouble, and Vexation, and Ex­pence be increased, by going from the parochial Sentence to the Bishop's Court, and from thence still further? So that if there be some Inconvenien­cies [Page 156] in point of Distance, for per­sons to be summoned to appear at first so far from Home, yet there is some Compensation by the less Trouble and Charges, if due Care be taken to prevent Delays, and un­necessary Expences; which ought to be done: And those who do make the greatest Clamour against our Courts, are rather willing they should continue such as they may have Cause to complain of, than to do their Endeavours to reform them.

Thus I have endeavoured to shew the just Bounds and Limits of paro­chial Cures.

II. I now come to consider the just Measure of that Diligence which is required under those Limits. For our Church requires Faithful Dili­gence in Preaching, and Sacraments, and Prayers, and Reading the Holy Scriptures. If then we can under­stand [Page 157] what this Faithful Diligence im­plies, we may come to satisfie our selves whether we do our Duty or not.

1. Faithful Diligence implies se­rious Application of our Minds to the main End and Design of our Holy Function: Which is to do good to the Souls of Men, especially to those committed to your Charge. And an idle, careless, santering Life; or one too busie and distracted with the Cares of the World, are not consistent with it. I do not go about to take you off from necessary Business, and reasonable Allowances, as to Health and Studies; but that the doing good to your peoples Souls, ought to be the principal and chief Design of your Thoughts, Studies and Endeavours. And if the people be satisfied that this is really your Design among them, you will find, that your Doctrine will be [Page 158] easier received, your Persons esteem­ed, and your Labours valued. It is possible, you may meet with a froward, peevish, self-willed people; and it is hard when a Man is only set to water and mend a Hedge made up of Briars and Thorns; the more pains he takes, the more Scratches he may meet with; but if it be your Lot, be not discouraged from doing your Duty: Remember what sort of people the Prophets were sent to, and what Usage they had from them; what Hardships and Reproaches Christ and his Apostles underwent from a very unkind World; but a patient Continuance in well-doing, gave them inward Satisfaction in the midst of all, and did by degrees gain the Christian Doctrine Access to the Hearts of those who most op­posed it.

2. It implies an honest and con­scientious Care of discharging the [Page 159] known and common Duties of your Function, as Preaching, Praying, Ca­techizing, Administring Sacraments, Visiting the Sick, &c. A diligent Person is one who neglects no good Opportunities of doing his Business, but watches for them, and studies to improve them to the best Advan­tage. Can those satisfie themselves that they use Faithful Diligence, who shamefully neglect their Cures, and care not how seldom they come at them, nor how they are supplied, if they make a good Bargain for their own Advantage? I cannot deny, but that according to the Laws of the Land, and the Canons of this Church, some Persons are allowed to have two several Cures, which must im­ply a Non-residence for some time at least, upon one of them. But they still suppose, that there are per­sons Resident upon them, who are allowed by the Bishop to be sufficient [Page 160] to discharge the necessary Duties of the place, and not to be taken up like Post-horses, the next that comes, and to be turned off at the next Stage. I think it a very great Fault in those who have Pluralities, that they look no more after the Curates they im­ploy, and that they do not bring them to the Bishop to be approved, and to have their Allowance fixed, before they imploy them. They think no more is required but to pay the Fees for a Licence; but I have, and shall endeavour to con­vince the Clergy of this Diocess, that Licences are not to be taken as St. Peter took the Fish that first came with Money in the Mouth of it; I hope to be able to satisfie them, that it is not the Fees that we aim at, but at Persons doing their Duties. And our Canons are express, Can. 48. That no Curate is to be allowed in any Cure of Souls, that hath not been exa­mined [Page 161] and admitted by the Bishop or Ordinary having Episcopal Juris­diction, and attested by the Hand and Seal of the Bishop. How then come Curates to officiate without ever coming to the Bishop at all, or undergoing any Examination by him? This is a plain Breach of the Canon, and ought to be reformed. I do not say, that such Licences as have customarily passed without the Bishop's Hand and Seal, are void; but I do say, That they are irregu­lar and voidable, and none ought to be allowed, which are not accord­ing to the Canon; and that no In­cumbent ought to take any one for his Curate till the Bishop hath al­lowed and approved him under his Hand and Seal. And this Remedy the Law gives us against the Incon­veniencies which attend Pluralities by weak and insufficient Curates; But [Page 162] no Man is excused either by Law or Canons from attending the Duties of his Place at some times in his own Person, Can. 41. and that good Part of the Year; in which time he ought to do the Duties of his Place with Diligence and Care; and to acquaint himself with his Parishioners, in order to the better Discharge of his Duty towards them. They have very mean Thoughts of their holy Function, that think the main Part of it lies on­ly in the Pulpit (I wish even that were minded more) but all the Ways you can do good among your People, is within the Compass of your Duty; not meerly to instruct them in Religion, but to prevent Quarrels, and Contentions, and Meet­ings for Debauchery, which tend to corrupt Mens Minds, and draw them off from the Principles as well as Practice of true Religion: It [Page 163] is your Duty to endeavour to make them live like good Christians and good Neighbours, and to set Pat­terns your selves of Sobriety, Meek­ness, Charity, and of every thing Praise-worthy.

3. Faithful Diligence implies filling up your vacant Hours with the most useful Studies, as to the main End of your Function. For in your Ordi­nation you solemnly promise to lay aside the Study of the World and the Flesh, and to apply your selves to the Study of the Scriptures, and such Stu­dies as help to the Knowledge of the same.

But it may be seasonably asked by some, What Method and Course of Studies will best conduce to that End?

To this I shall endeavour to give a short Answer so far as it concerns the main End of your Function, [Page 164] which it is most proper for me to consider at this time.

1. Look well to the Temper of your Minds, that it be humble, so­ber, and religious. For a vain, af­fected and self-opinionated Person can never have an inward and hearty Relish of Divine Truths. The Scri­ptures will appear to him either too plain and easie, or too obscure and intricate; some things will seem low and flat, and others too lofty and Poetical. Those who read not with a good Mind, will have always some­thing or other to cavil at. It is a mighty Advantage in all Spiritual Knowledge to come to it with an un­biassed Mind, free from the Power of Prejudice and evil Inclinations. For these give a strange Tincture to the Mind, and hinder the clear and distinct Perception of Revealed Truths, as above the Natural Facul­ties [Page 165] which God hath given us. Some are therefore so fond of Philosophi­cal Speculations, that unless the Let­ter of the Scripture suits with them, they are ready to despise it, and only Shame and Fear keep up any Reve­rence for it in them. Some are al­together for Mathematical Evidence and Demonstration, as though the Way to Salvation were to be shewed by Lines and Figures; Why do they not first run down all Laws and History, because they are not capable of Mathematical Evidence. And it argues a far greater Measure of true Understanding to know when to be satisfied, than to be always disputing and cavilling. The plain­ness of Scripture in some places, is no more an Offence to one that wisely considers the Design of it, than a beaten Road is to a Traveller who desires to know which is the true [Page 166] Way to his Journeys End, and the plainer it is, the more he is satisfied with it. But the Scripture wants not its Depths, which require a very Attentive and Considering Mind, and will afford Matter for Exer­cise of Thoughts, and frequent and serious Meditation. The Excellen­cy of the Scripture is, That all necessary things are plain; and such as are not so, although they are not necessary to be known for Salvation, yet require our Dili­gence to understand them; and give great Satisfaction as far as we can know them.

2. Not to perplex your Minds with Difficulties above your Reach, as in what relates to the Eternal Decrees, and the particular Man­ner of that Unity of the Godhead which is consistent with the Tri­nity of Persons. For since the [Page 167] Scripture doth assert both, we may safely be contented with what the Scripture reveals, although the Man­ner of it be incomprehensible. And as to the other the Scripture is clear and positive, as to the Moral Parts of our Duties; and if we are to seek how to reconcile them with Gods Decrees, we have this certain Rule to go by, That with­out doing our Duty, we cannot be happy; but we may without understanding how the Freedom of our Wills is consistent with the Divine Prescience and Decrees.

3. Not to fix plain and neces­sary Duties upon new and un­accountable Theories. As for in­stance; There are no Duties of greater Consequence, than the Love of God and our Neighbour: But it would be unspeakable Mischief to Religion to fix the Love of [Page 168] God upon so absurd a Principle as his being the immediate Cause of all Sensation in us. And it would have made the Christian Doctrine ridiculous to found its Fundamen­tal Precepts on extravagant Notions, and Mystical Contemplations. And so for the Love of our Neigh­bours to allow only a Love of Benevolence and Charity, and not of Delight and Complacency, is to make Nice Distinctions, where God hath made none. But to take away the Love of Complacency in Friends and Relations, and the Blessings which God gives for the Comfort of Life, is to overthrow the due Sense of God's Goodness in giving them; and to take a­way a great Measure of that Gra­titude we owe to God for them. But when any seem very fond of such Notions, and shew so [Page 169] much Self-Complacency in them; it is impossible upon such Prin­ciples that they should love their Neighbours as themselves.

4. If you would understand the New Testament aright, fix in your Minds a true Scheme of the State of the Controversies of that. Time, which will give you more light into the true knowledge of the Scriptures, than large Volumes of Commentators, or the best Sy­stems of Modern Controversies. As what the Iewish Notions of Justification by Works, and Expi­ation of Sin, were; and of God's Decrees of Election and Repro­bation as to themselves: And what the Principles of the Judaizing Chri­stians were, as to the joyning the Law and the Gospel, and the Py­thagorean Superstition together. And what the Gnosticks, who were pro­fessed [Page 170] Libertines, held, as to Grace, Redemption, Liberty, Government, &c. All which tend very much to the clearing the Sense of the New Testament.

5. Where the Sense appears doubtful, and Disputes have been raised about it, enquire into the Sense of the Christian Church in the first Ages, as the best Inter­preter of Scripture; as whether the Apostles left Bishops or Pres­byters to succeed them in the Go­vernment of Churches; Whether the Apostles appointed the Lords Day to be observed as the Day of Publick Worship; Whether Bap­tism were not to be Administred to Infants as well as Circumci­sion, both being Seals of God's Covenant; Whether Divine Wor­ship doth not belong to Christ, and were [...]o [...] given to him in [Page 171] the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church; and, Whether Divine Worship can be given to any Creature; Whether the Form of Baptism was not understood so, as to imply a Trinity of Per­sons; and, Whether all true Chri­stians were not Baptized into this Faith; and consequently, Whether denying the Trinity be not re­nouncing Christian Baptism. These and many other such Questions of great Importance, receive great Light from the Writings of the first Ages.

But some Rules may be very useful for right judging the Sense of those Times.

1. To distinguish the Genuine and Supposititious Writings of that Time. This hath been examined with so much Care by Learned [Page 172] Men of this last Age, that it is no hard matter to make a true Judg­ment about them.

2. In those that are Genuine, to distingush the Sense of the Church, delivered by them, from their own particular Opinions; the Sense of the Church is best known by Publick Acts, as by Creeds, Sacraments, Hymns, Pray­ers and Censures of such as op­pose or contradict them.

3. To put a Difference between the Authority of private Persons, and of the Bishops and Governours of the Church, who may be pre­sumed to understand the Sense of the Church, and the Doctrine of the Apostles better than the other. And so Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, Theophilus, and Irenaeus are more to be trusted, as to the Sense and Practice of the Christian Church, [Page 173] than such as Hermes, and Papias, and Tatianus, who had neither the Judgment nor the Authority of the other.

4. That may be justly look­ed on as the Sense of the Church, which is owned both by the Friends and the Enemies of it. The Enemies of Christianity charged them with many Things, which the Apolo­gists utterly denied. Now we find Pliny charging the Christians with singing Hymns to Christ, as to God; several Christian Writers of that time mention this, but ne­ver go about to soften, or to ex­cuse, or deny it. And so we find Lucian deriding the Christians for the Doctrine of Three and One; which the Apologists of that time are so far from denying, that they assert and vindicate it, as appears by Athenagoras and others.

[Page 174] But these things I only touch at, to shew how the Sense of the Church is to be taken, and how from thence the Sense of the Scrip­tures may be cleared.

AS often as it pleases God in his wise Providence to bring me among you in the or­dinary Course of my Visitation, I cannot satisfie my self that I do my own Duty, unless I put you in mind of doing yours. We live in an Age, wherein the Contempt of the Clergy [Page 176] is too notorious not to be observed; but the true Reasons are not so well considered as they ought to be. Some, to increase the Contempt of the Cler­gy, have given such Reasons of it, as seem to make it a light and jest­ing matter; but truly it is very far from being so: For the Con­tempt of Religion is oft-times both the Cause and the Effect of it. It is not at all to be wondred at, that those who hate to be reformed, should hate those whose Duty and Business it ought to be to endeavour to re­form them. But when Religion is struck at through our Sides, we ought with Patience to bear the Wounds and Reproaches we receive in so good a Cause. Wo be to us, if those who are Enemies to Religion, speak well of us: For it is a strong Presumption that they take us to be of their side in our Hearts, and that we are distin­guished only by our Profession, [Page 177] which they look on only as our Trade. And we give too much occa­sion for such Suspicions of us, if we do not heartily concern our selves for the Honour and Interest of true Religion in the World, whatever we may suffer, as to our Reputation, for the sake of it. It is possible, that if we go about to humour such Persons in their Infidelity and Con­tempt of Religion, we may escape some hard Words for the present, but they cannot but have the greatest in­ward Contempt and Hatred of all those who live upon Religion, and yet have not the Courage to defend it. And what Satisfaction can such have, when they reflect upon them­selves, and think what Occasion they have given to confirm such Persons in their Infidelity, and to make them think the worse of Religion for their sakes.

[Page 178] The best thing we can do to reco­ver the Honour of Religion, and to set our Profession above Contempt, is to apply our selves seriously and conscientiously to do our Duties. For if others find that we are in earnest, and make it our great Business to do all the Good we can, both in the Pulpit, and out of it; if we behave our selves with that Gravity, Sobrie­ty, Meekness and Charity which be­comes so holy a Profession, we shall raise our selves above the common Reproaches of a spiteful World; and do what lies in us to stop the Mouths at least, if not to gain the Hearts of our Enemies.

For the Real Esteem which Men have of others, is not to be gained by the little Arts of Address and In­sinuation, much less by complying with them in their Follies; but by a steady and resolute Practice of our own Duties, joyned with a gentle, [Page 179] and easie, and obliging Behaviour to others, so far as is consistent with them. But a proud, supercilious, morose Behaviour towards our great­est Enemies, doth but make them much more so; if any thing softens them, and makes them more tractable, it will be, joyning a Firmness of Mind, as to our plain Duties, with Humility and Kindness in other Matters.

But what are these Duties we are obliged to so much Care in the Per­formance of?

There is a Twofold Obligation lying upon us.

I. That which is more General from the Nature and Design of our Imployment; which is the Cure of Souls; and that requires great Dili­gence and Faithfulness, frequent Re­collection and Consideration, serious Application of our selves to Divine Studies and Imployments; a prudent [Page 180] Use of the best Methods for the con­vincing, Reproving, Directing and Assisting those who are committed to our Care. And all these are im­plied in the Nature of our Office, as it is set forth in holy Scripture; wherein we are described as Labo­rers, and therefore must take Pains, and not spend our time in vain and idle Company: As Teachers, and therefore ought to be stored with a good Stock of Knowledge our selves, and be ready to communicate it to others: As Pastors, and so we ought to look after our Flock, and not leave them to the careless Manage­ment of others, who are not so con­cerned for their Welfare, as we ought to be: As Ambassadors from Christ, and therefore we are bound to look after the Business we are sent upon and the great Weight and Impor­tance of it, as to your own Salva­tion as well as others: As Stewards [Page 181] of the Mysteries of God, and the first thing required in them, is to dis­charge their Trust honestly and faith­fully, remembring the Account they must give to God.

But these, you may say, are only general Things, and do not deter­mine and limit our Duties within certain Bounds; what is there which doth fix and determine our Duties, as to the Station we have in this Church?

II. I come therefore to the Spe­cial Duties, which by the Ancient Constitution of this Church, and the Ecclesiastical Laws of it, are in­cumbent upon you. And you are to consider, that as the Law hath taken Care for your Maintenance and Subsistence in doing your Du­ties; so it doth suppose your careful Performance of them, not only in regard to the general Rule of Con­science, but to that particular Obli­gation [Page 182] you are under, as Members of this Church. And therefore I shall enquire into Two things:

I. The Duties you are under this Obligation to.

II. The Incouragement which the Law gives in Consideration of it.

I. The Duties are of two sorts:

1. Publick and Solemn. 2. Pri­vate and Occasional.

1. Publick and Solemn; and those either respect the Time, or the Duties themselves.

1. As to the times of Solemn and Publick Worship, which are the Weekly Lord's Days, and the other Holy-days.

1. I begin with the Observation of the Lord's Days; which I shall now make appear to have been set apart for the solemn Worship and Ser­vice [Page 183] of God, especially by the Cler­gy, from the first Settlement of a Parochial Clergy in this Church.

In a Provincial Council held at Cloveshoo or Cliff, Concil. Angl. 1. 249. A. D. 747. the King and Nobility being present (where the Archbishop and Bishops Assembled for Regulating the Worship of God in Parochial Chur­ches then newly erected in many places) the Fourteenth Canon is ex­press, That the Lord's Day ought to be celebrated with due Veneration, and devoted only to Divine Wor­ship (Divino tantum cultui dedicatus) and the Presbyters are required to officiate in their several Churches, both in Preach­ing and Praying; and the People are required to let alone their common worldly Affairs, and to attend the publick Wor­ship of God.

The Canons of Egbert, Archbishop of York, are as clear and full for the Northern Province, as the other for [Page 184] the Southern, Can. 104. That nothing is to be done on the Lord's Day, but what tends to the Worship and Ser­vice of God. And Can. 36. That Christ sanctified the Lord's Day by his Resurrection. But because these Ca­nons of Egbert will be often used, something ought to be observed to clear their Authority. Concil. Angl. I. 258. Sir H. Spelman saith, there are several Ancient MSS. of them. Mr. Selden owns the Cotton MS. to be of the time of H. 1. but he suspects that another made the Collection, and put it under his Name. But it was no strange thing for the great Bishops to make such a Collection of Canons; for so it was done by Theodore, Archbishop of Can­terbury; by Theodulphus of Orleans; Isaac Lingonensis, Chrodegangus, He­rardus, Hincmarus, &c. And Egbert was not only a great Man, Brother to the King of the Northumbrians, but a great Promoter of Learning and [Page 185] Ecclesiastical Discipline, Egbert. Dial. de Eccles. In­stit. cum Bedae Epistol. ad Egbert. Dub­lin, 1664. as appears by his Dialogue about the latter, and the other by Alcuin's Epistles about him, and Bede's Epistle to him a little before his death. And the A­greement between the Capitulars and these Canons, might come from Al­cuin's carrying them over into France with him.

In the Saxon Canons, Concil. Angl. 1. 600. c. 24. it is said, that the Lord's Day on which our Saviour rose from the dead, is to be devoted wholly to the Service of God, excepting only Works of Ne­cessity and Charity.

These Canons are translated from those of Theodulphus, Bishop of Or­leans, A. D. 786. And it is observa­ble, that as the Christian Religion prevailed in these Northern Parts, so the Religious Observation of the Lord's Day was enforced, as appears by the Canons of the Gallican Church, as well as this. As in the famous [Page 186] Canon of the Council of Mascon, A. D. 585. where the Bishops Assembled, complain of the Neglect of the Lord's Day, and agree to put the People upon a stricter Observance of it. And so before in the Coun­cil of Orleans, A. D. 538. But in both these Canons they avoid a Iewish Su­perstition as well as profane Neglect. They allowed both Works of Ne­cessity and Conveniency, and did not place the Observation in a bare Rest, but in Attendance on the Wor­ship of God; and forbad all manner of Secular Imployments which were inconsistent with it. Nay, Theodul­phus his Canon goes higher, Tan­tummodo Deo vacandum, the whole Day ought to be spent in Religious and Charitable Imployments.

The greatest Men in our Saxon Churches asserted the same. Bed. T. 7. p. 639. Bede saith, That the Apostles appointed the Lord's Day to be observed with Religious So­lemnity, [Page 187] and therein we ought to devote our selves to the Worship of God; tan­tum divinis cultibus seviamus. And to the same purpose speaks Alcuin, Alcuin. de Offic c. 27. who was bred up under Egbert, Arch­bishop of York, and calls Bede the greatest Master of his Time; and in another place he saith, Epist. 5. 49. One Seventh Day is set apart among Christians, as another had been among the Iews for the Service of God; and that therein we ought to attend to the Care of our Souls, De Off. c. 40, and to lead a spi­ritual Life.

Bede distinguishes between the Patriarchal and Iewish Sabbath. The latter he calls a Carnal, and the other a Spiritual Sabbath; Bed. T. IV. 586. the former lay in a strict Abistnence from Labour, but the other in Prayer, and Devo­tion, and Spiritual Contemplations. V. 583. The Iewish Rest, II. 310. he saith, was inutile, [...], & luxuriosum. For the [...] [...]llowed Recreations and Sports VIII. 930. [Page 188] on their Sabbaths; vacant ab opere bono, saith he, non ab opere nugatorio. Vacant ad nugas, August. in Psal. 91. in Psal. 32. 11. 6. saith S. Augustin; but he saith, they had better plow or dig, than dance on that Day, or sit in the Theater. De 10 Chor­dis. And he tells us, That the Heathens objected against the Iews, That they spent one Day in the Week in Idleness. For they supposed the bare Rest to be the Sanctification of the Day which was commanded; and the spending any part of it in the publick Worship, to be volun­tary Devotion. But the better sort of the Iews thought the Rest was appointed for the Knowledge of the Law, and Spiritual Imployments. So Philo, Euseb. Praep. l. 8. c. 7. Iosephus, Aben-Ezra, Kimchi, and Menasseh ben Israel. Ioseph. 2. c. Appion. It seems most reasonable in this Case to di­stinguish between the Legal Rest strictly required by the Fourth Com­mandment, Aben-Ezra in Exod. Kimchi ad Psal. 92. and the Original Rest in Remembrance of God's resting from Menass. Con­cil. in Exod. Q. 35. [Page 189] the Work of Creation. The for­mer was a Sign between God and the People of Israel, as it is often cal­led in Scripture; and the other was a Commemorative Sign, but such as excited them to the Worship of the Creator; and therefore the Patriar­chal Sabbath, as Bede observes, was of a spiritual Nature. And such a spiritual Sabbath, Aug. c. Faust. l. 6. c. 4. c. Adimant. c. 2. 16. as S. Augustin calls it, ought to be observed by Christi­ans in the Duties of God's Worship, De Genes. ad lit. c. 11. 13. as well as in spiritual and holy Thoughts. Epist. ad Ian. 119. c. 13. But the Iewish Sabbath, he often-saith, doth not oblige Chri­stians. I the rather mention him, be­cause Bede followed his Doctrine here­in; and that of Gregory I. who was the great Instrument of promoting the Conversion of our Ancestors to Christianity. And he declares him­self fully, both as to the Cessation of the Iewish Sabbath, and the reli­gious Observation of the Lord's day. [Page 190] It seems there were some then, as there are among us now, who were for the strict Observation of the Sa­turday-Sabbath. Greg. Epist. l. 11. c. 3. But Gregory saith, They might as well insist upon Cir­cumcision and Sacrifices, as the Iewish Sabbath. But yet he adds, We ought on the Lord's day to abstain from worldly Imployments, and devote our selves unto Prayers, that we may make some Amends for the Weeks Negligence, by the Devotions on that Day. And this devoting the Lord's day to the Service of God, De Consecr. Dist. 3. c. 16. is entred into the Body of the Canon Law; and taken out of Ivo, Conc. Narbon. Can. 4. and by him from the Canons of the Gallican Church, Concil. Cabil. c. 18. as appears by several Councils. Aquisgran. c. 81. Arelat. VI. Can. 16. Rhem. 2. c. 35. Paris. VI. l. 3. c. 5.

Our Lyndwood mentions that Ca­non as in force here, De Officio Archipresbyt. f. 29. 2. Die Dominicâ nihil aliud agendum, nisi Deo vacandum. And he takes some Pains to explain it, by distinguishing,

[Page 191] 1. Works servile materially and for­mally, as Plowing, Sowing, Markets, Law-days, &c. these are generally forbidden.

2. Acts spiritual materially and fi­nally, as all Acts of Piety and De­votion, and these we ought to at­tend upon with Care and Dili­gence.

3. Acts not servile in themselves, but done for a servile End, as Studies and Designs for Gain.

4. Acts servile in themselves, but not so in their End; as the Man's taking up his Couch on the Sabbath­day, whom Christ cured.

He affirms, that there is a Moral Part in the Fourth Commandment, which, he saith, is a spiritual Rest, or a Time set apart for God's Service: Which he takes from Aquinas, Aquin. in Sent. l. 3. Dist. 37. Qu. 1. Art. 2. who saith the Substance of the Command is Moral; but he doth not make it to be One day in Seven, but some [Page 192] determinate time, which, he saith, the Church may appoint; but then it must be imployed in the Service of God ( vacare rebus divinis) as things were said to be sanctified under the Law, 2. 2. 122. 4. which were applied to God's Service. But notwithstanding this Judgment of Aquinas, some great Men in the Church of Rome have thought One day in Seven, Moral; and that the Proportion which God himself had appointed, cannot be lessened. For altho' Mankind could not by natural Reason find out the Proportion, yet being once revealed, it doth not cease to oblige, unless something figurative and symbolical, [...] 2. Q. 100. 1. or peculiar to the Iewish Nation be discovered in it.

Bellarmin makes that the Reason of the Institution of the Lord's day, Bell de Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 11. because God's Law required that One day in Seven should be set apart for the Worship of God; but the Apostles [Page 193] thought it not fit to observe the Iewish Sabbath, and therefore changed it into the Lord's day.

Covarruvias saith, Covarruv. Car. Resol. l. 4. c. 19. That all Divines agree with Aquinas, That there is something Moral in the Fourth Com­mand, which continues to oblige; and that the Lord's day is of Divine Institution. And to him the Roman Editors of the Canon Law referr, as to this matter.

Azorius confesseth, Azor. T. 2. C. 2. Q. 2. That the Ob­servation of the Lord's day hath something of the Divine and Natu­ral Law in it, which requires One day in a Week should be consecrated to the Service of God, and that it is most agreeable to Reason. And he adds, That Panormitan, Sylvester, and other Canonists held the Lord's day to be of divine Institution.

Suarez saith, Suarez de Rel. Tr. 2. l. 2. c. 1. n. 15. c. 4. n. 8, 9. That the Church doth observe One day in Seven by Virtue of the divine Law; that Pro­portion [Page 194] being so agreeable to Natu­ral Reason, that it cannot be al­tered.

Thomas Waldensis, Waldens. T. 3. Tit. 16. c. 140. who lived here in the time of H. 5. observes, That even then there were two Extreams in Mens Opinions about the Observation of the Lord's Day; some allowed no kind of Work, and others, any. But he shews, That the Law of Nature requires some Solemn Days for Divine Worship; and that then there ought to be a Rest from other Labours, because they hinder the Mind from that Attention necessary to the Service of God: And necessary Works are left to a few, that others may be more at Liberty.

In the Saxon Laws we find many Ina LL. c. 3. against the Profanation of the Lord's day by slavish Imployments, Withred. c. 10. by Markets and Trading, Alfred. c. 10, 11. by Folkmotes and Law-suits, Athelst. c. 9. &c. Edgar. c. 19. So that great care was taken then, Ethelred. c. 15. that the Lord's day should be duly observed. Canut. c. 15.

[Page 195] After the Norman times, we have several Constitutions to inforce the strict Observation of the Lord's day. In the time of H. 6. Concil. Angl. II. 238, 372, 599. Hubert de Burgo saith, That Custom may derogate from other Holy-days, but not from the Lord's day; because they are not commanded by God, as that is.

Since the Reformation our Book of Homilies goes upon the same Grounds which were used in the Saxon times, Pupill. Oculi, part. 9. c. 6. viz. Homily of the Place and Time of Pray­er. That the Iewish Sabbath doth not oblige us; but however to observe the like Propor­tion of time, and devote it to the Service of God.

Mr. Hooker saith, Eccles. Polity, l. 5. n. 70. That we are to account the Sanctification of one day in Seven a Duty which God's im­mutable Law doth exact for ever.

But what is meant by this Sancti­fication of One day in Seven? If it be understood according to the old Canons, it will fill scrupulous Minds [Page 196] with more Doubts and Fears about the right Observation of it.

Origen saith, Orig. in Nu­mer. Hom. 23. c. 28. The Observation of the Christian Sabbath lies in these things; 1. A Forbearance of world­ly Business. 2. Attendance on the Publick Worship. 3. Divine Medi­tation on Things invisible and fu­ture. Haec est observatio Sabbati Chri­stiani. Hom. 9. in Levit. 16. And in another place, he re­quires besides Publick Worship, private Meditation and Reading the Holy Scriptures.

S. Chrysostom insists very much upon the same in several places, Chrysost. Hom. 5. in Matth. and on different Occasions. 2 Hom. in Ioh. Hom. 5. ad Pop. Antioch. And altho' it be in his popular Sermons, Hom. 10. in Gen. yet he would certainly not put them up­on any thing, but what he thought very fit to be done. And they must have a mean Opinion of him, who think his Eloquence carried him too far in this matter.

[Page 197] I shall conclude with the Opinion of Lyndwood, De Officio Archipresbyt. v. Sanctifices. a Learned and Judicious Canonist; and he observes a Three­fold Sanctification of the Lord's day. 1. By Abstinence from Sin, which is necessary at all times. 2. By Absti­nence from such bodily Labours as hinder the Mind's Attendance up­on God's Service. 3. By the whole Imployment of our Minds in Divine Matters; and this he calls the per­fect Observation of it.

These things I have the more large­ly insisted upon, to shew, That the Religious Observation of the Lord's day, is no Novelty started by some late Sects and Parties among us, but that it hath been the general Sense of the best part of the Christian World, and is particularly inforced upon us of the Church of England, not only by the Homilies, but by the most ancient Ecclesiastical Law among us.

[Page 198] But this is not all, for the Ancient as well as Modern Canons require the Observation of Holy-days like­wise. The Canons of Egbert require not only Prayers, but Preaching then, Can. 1. 3.

The Council of Cloveshoo, Can. 13. distinguishes the Holy-days relating to our Saviour, from the rest; and saith, They are to be observed in a solemn and uniform Manner, and the rest according to the Roman Mar­tyrology; Alcuin. de Offic. c. 40. Which, I suppose, were those repeated then in the Diptychs of the Church; Wilt [...]em. in Diptych. which Custom continued longer at Rome, Leod. c. 8. than in other Chur­ches; but it was generally disused before the time of Charles the Great.

The Custom in Rome, in Gregory's time, was to observe the Saints Days with the solemn Service at one Church, as appears by his Homilies on the Evangelists, which were ma­ny of them preached on those Occa­sions; [Page 199] as of S. Felicitas, Hom 3. S. Agnes, Hom. 11, 12. S. Felix, Hom. 13. S. Pancrace, Hom. 27. &c. and of o­thers who were Roman Martyrs; and therefore had a particular So­lemnity appointed for them. But as to other Saints Days, it appears by the Antiphonarius and Sacramentary of Gregory I. that they had particular Anthems and Collects proper for them in the Offices of the Day; but I do not find that the Generality of the People were so strictly tied up, when the Offices were over, as they were on the Lord's days, and the greater Festivals relating to our Sa­viour. In the Council of Cloveshoo, Can. 13. I observe, that the Natalitia Sanctorum, i.e. the Anniversary Saints Days, were observed with particular Psalmody and Anthems; and Can. 17. the Days of Gregory and Augustin, the Two great Instruments of con­verting the Nation, were only to be [Page 200] kept as Holy-days by the Clergy, without any particular Obligation on all the People. So that the Holy-days of strict Observation then, seem to have been no other than those which relate to our Saviour, called Dominicae Dispensationis in carne Festi­vitates; the rest had some proper Offices which were performed on their Days; but the People were to attend them, as well as they could; but after there was not this strictness required, as upon the greater Holy-days; and as it was in the Church of Rome afterwards, when they made the Obligation of Conscience to ex­tend to all Holy-days appointed by the Church. But it is observable, (1.) That this Obligation is taken from those Canons which mention only the Lord's day, as appears by Bellarmin. De Cultu Sanct. l. 3. c. 10. (2.) That they kept up the Distinction of greater and lesser Holy-days. (3.) That they allow [Page 201] the Bishop to dispense, as to some Works on Holy-days. De Feriis, f. 52. Lyndwood ob­serves, that the Abstinence from Work is not alike, but as the Church hath required it; and that if a Bi­shop's Licence cannot be had, a less will serve. Our Church, Can. 13. requires Holy-days to be observed with Works of Piety, Charity, and Sobriety; but gives no Rule as to Abstinence from Works, or the strict Obligation of Conscience.

2. I now come to the particular Duties of the Clergy on the Days which are solemnly devoted to the Service of God.

1. The constant and devout At­tendance upon, and solemn Reading the Prayers of the Church, as they are appointed. Concil. Angl. I. 247. In the old Saxon Canons the Presbyters are required to officiate constantly at Prayers in their Chur­ches; so in the Council at Cloveshoo; [Page 202] Can. 8. the Canons of Egbert, Can. 2. Canons of Edgar, Can. 45.

But how if the People will not come to the Prayers? You ought, what lies in you, to remove the Causes of such Neglect; which a­rises generally from these things; either a gross Stupidity and Regard­lesness of Religion, which is too common in the World, or from Prejudice and Principles of Educati­on, or the Interest of a Party; or from not Reading the Prayers with that Attention and Devotion which is fit to raise an Esteem of them. The other two, you ought to do what you can to remove; but this is your own Fault if you do it not. We are not to please the Fancies of People by an affected Variety of Expressions in Prayers; but we ought to do what we can to excite their Af­fections, which is done as much by the due manner of Reading, as by [Page 203] Figures in Speaking. And the Peo­ple are uneasie at staying, when they see the Minister read them so fast, as though he minded nothing so much as to be at the end of them; or when he mangles them so, as if he had a mind to make the People out of love with them.

2. The next Duty is Preaching; and truly that need to be looked af­ter, when the Esteem of our Profes­sion depends so much upon it. We have none of those Methods which those on both sides make so much use of; we can neither comply with the People in Gestures, and Phrases, and Enthusiastick Heats, nor with the Superstitious Devotions and Priest-craft of others. Of all Chur­ches ours hath the least Reason to be charged with it, since they let go so many Advantages over the People by the Reformation. Thanks be to God, we have Scripture, and Reason, [Page 204] and Antiquity of our side; but these are dry and insipid things to the common People, unless some Arts be used to recommend them. But since our main Support lies in the Honesty and Justice of our Cause, without Tricks and Devices, we ought to look very well to that part of our Profession which keeps up any Reputation among the People; and that is Preaching. Those who are so weak or lazy, as to be glad to have that laid aside too, in a great mea­sure, never well considered the De­sign of our Profession, or the way to support it. It's true, for some time Preaching was an extraordinary thing in the Church; and none but Great and Eloquent Men of Autho­rity in the Church were permitted to preach, and the greatest Bishops were then the Preachers, as appears by the Sermons of S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustin, &c. And even [Page 205] some of the Bishops of Rome, what­ever Sozomen saith, Soz. l. 7. c. 19. were frequent Preachers, as appears by Gregory's Homilies on Ezekiel and the Gospels. And if it were not then practised he did very ill to complain of the Burden of it, Regest. l. 1. 24. and the Danger of neglecting it. But in other Churches while the Bishop and the Presbyters lived together, before parochial Cures were settled, the Presbyters had no constant Office of preaching, but as the Bishops appointed them occasio­nally. But afterwards, when the Presbyters were fixed in their Cures, they were required to be very dili­gent and careful in preaching, or in­structing the people committed to their Charge, as may be seen in ma­ny early Canons of the Gallican Church; Concil. Vasens. 2. c. 2. and so it was here in Eng­land: Turon. 3. c. 17. Arel. 6. c. 10. Capitul. 1. 160. Council of Cloveshoo, c. 8. 14. Egbert, Reginold. 1. 205. Can. 3. and that not only in the moving way in the Pulpit, Capit. 11. c. 5. but [Page 206] in the familiar and instructing way, which we call Catechizing; Concil. Cloveshoo, c. 11. Can. Egbert. 6. Both ought to be done, because they are both very useful. The Principles and Foundations of Religion must be well laid, to make the people have any Taste or Relish of preaching; otherwise it is like reading Ma­thematicks to those who under­stand not Numbers or Figures. Eras­mus observes, Erasm. Prae­fat. ad Eccles. that the Sense of Re­ligion grows very cold without preaching; and that the Countess of Richmond, Mother to H. 7. had such a Sense of the Necessity of it in those times, that she maintained many Preachers at her own Charges, and imployed Bishop Fisher to find out the best qualified for it. And since the Reformation the Church of Rome hath been more sensible of the Necessity of it, as appears by the Council of Trent. Sess. 24. c. 4. de Reform. Cardinal Borro­meo, [Page 207] one of the most Celebrated Saints since that time, frequently in­sists upon it, gives Directions about it, and speaks of it as a thing, which tends very much to the Glory of God, and the Salvation of Souls. And to the same purpose other Great Men among them, Act. Eccles. Mediol. 44 [...], 450. as Cardinal Pa­laeotus, Palaeot. de Administr. Godeau, Bordenave, and others. Would it not then be a great Shame for us, Eccles. Bonon. part. 2. p. 34. who pretend to a Zeal for Re­formation and the true Religion, Godeau sur les Ordres, p. 458. to neglect or lessen the Reputation of those things which our Adversaries have learnt from us, Bordenave des Eglis. Cathe­dral. p. 670. and glory in them; and those are Diligence in Preaching and Catechizing? Which none can despise who value Religion, none can neglect who have any Re­gard to the Interest or Honour of their Profession.

3. The next Duty is the solemn Administration of the Sacraments, which ought to be done in the pub­lick [Page 208] Assemblies, where there is not a great Reason to the contrary. The Saxon Canons are express, That Bap­tism, unless in Case of Necessity, should be administred only in due Times and Places, Egber. Can. 10, 11. While the Ancient Discipline was kept up, Tertul. de Baptis. c. 19. and Baptism only cele­brated at the great Festivals, Leo Ep. 78. there was a Necessity of its being publick; Ambros. Serm. 61. and the Catechumens underwent se­veral Scrutinies, Theodulph. de Ordine Bap­tism. c. 8. which lasted several days in the Face of the Church, Alcuin. de Bapt. Cerem. p. 1151. as S. Augustin observes, August. de Symbol. ad Catech. l. 2. c. 1. after they had been kept under private Examina­tion for some time before. De Fide & Oper. c. 6. But when whole Nations were not only con­verted, August. Serm. 160. but Infants generally bapti­zed, the former Method of Discipline was changed. But yet the Church retained her Right as to Satisfaction about the due Admission of her Members. And that is the true Rea­son why, after private Baptism, [Page 209] the Child is required to be brought to the publick Congregation. For Baptism is not intended to be done before a select Number of Witnesses, but in the Face of the Church, which is the regular and solemn Way; however, the Bishop may dispense in some particular Cases, which he judges reasonable. At first Baptism was administred publickly, as Oc­casion served, by Rivers; as Bede saith, Paulinus baptized many in the Rivers, Bed. l. 2. c. 1 [...] before Oratories or Churches were built. Afterwards the Baptistery was built at the Entrance of the Church, or very near it; which is mentioned by Athanasius, S. Chrysostom, S. Am­brose, S. Augustin, &c. The Baptiste­ry then had a large Bason in it, which held the Persons to be bapti­zed, and they went down by Steps into it. Afterwards when Immersion came to be disused, Fonts were set up at the Entrance of Churches: [Page 210] But still the place was publick. But in Case of Necessity there is a Form prescribed; and I do not see how any, without leave, can use the Form of Publick Baptism in private Hou­ses; which is against both our An­cient and Modern Canons. In the Greek Church it is Deprivation to do it; Concil. in Trullo, Can. 31, 59. and the Synod under Photius confirms it, both as to the Eucharist and Baptism, Syn. A. & B. Can. 12. because publick Order is to be preserved. But it is there understood to be done in Opposi­tion to the Bishop's Authority, whose Consent may make the Case diffe­rent, if they judge it reasonable. But Ministerial Officers are not Judges in an equitable Case against a stand­ing Rule.

4. Another Duty of the parochial Clergy is, to be able and ready to resolve Penitential Cases, which re­late to the Internal Court of Con­science, and not the External and Ju­diciary [Page 211] Court, which respects the Honour of the Church, as to scan­dalous Offences committed by the Members of it. And this takes in the Private and Occasional Duties of the parochial Clergy; for they ought to inform themselves of the Spiritual Condition of their People, that they may be able to give suitable Advice and Directions to them both in Health and Sickness: But chiefly to be able to give them safe and sea­sonable Advice under Troubles of Conscience by reason of wilful Sins. Duarenus, Duaren. de Benef. l. 2. c. 7▪ a very considerable Law­yer, thinks the main Business of the Clergy, as to the Cure of Souls, lies in the Power of Binding and Loo­sing, i. e. in dealing aright with the Consciences of Men, as to the Guilt of their Sins. And the Rules of the Penitential Court, are different from those of the Ecclesiastical Court, as well as the End is different. In the [Page 212] Saxon times, there were both here. There were Ecclesiastical Law which related to Judicial Cases, Concil. Angl. I. p. 194. wherein a publick Penance was injoyned in or­der to the Churches Satisfaction. Theod. Capit. 55, 57.

But there were many Cases which were not publick, L. L. Canut. c. 22, 23. and yet great Care was to be used, L. L. Edmund. Cap. 4. as to the Direction of Penitents, as appears by the Peni­tentials of Theodore and Bede in the Saxon times. Theod. Capit. c. 13. Whereby we learn that a Difference was to be observed, as to the Nature of Offences, and the Circumstances of Persons and Actions, and the Measure of Contrition; and the particular Method is set down in the penitential Books, Regino I, 300. which was in very material Circumstances diffe­rent from the Methods used in the Church of Rome. But it is a thing necessary for every parochial Mini­ster to be able to settle doubting Consciences, and to put them into the best Methods of avoiding Sin [Page 213] for the future, without which the Ab­solution of the Priest signifies no­thing. For where God doth not ab­solve, the Church cannot.

5. Giving a good Example to the People committed to your Charge. This is often mentioned in the Saxon Canons: Council at Cloveshoo, c. 8. Canons of Egbert, 14, 15, 18, 19, 33. in the Laws of Alfred, c. 3. of Edward c. 3. Constit. of Odo, c. 4, 5. of Edgar, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64. of Canutus, c. 26. And in the Conclusion of one Collection of his Laws are these Words, Happy is that Shep­herd, who by his good Life and Doctrine leads his Flock to Eternal and Hea­venly Ioys; and happy is that Flock that follows such a Shepherd, who hath re­scued them out of the Devil's Hands, and put them into God's.

6. Lastly the Performance of all these Duties supposes a constant Residence among your People; without which [Page 214] it is impossible to discharge them in such a manner, as to give them and your selves full Satisfaction. This, I am sensible, is a very nice and tender Point; and the Difficulties of it do arise from these things: On one side it is said,

1. That there is an Allowance by the Law given to several Persons to hold more Benefices than one; and since the Distribution of Bene­fices is not by the Law of God, but by the Law of the Land, what Fault is there in making use of the Pri­vileges which the Law gives? But there cannot be constant Residence in more Places than one.

2. That the general Service of the Church is more to be preferred than taking Care of a particular Pa­rish; because the necessary Duties of a Parish may be supplied by per­sons approved by the Bishop, and [Page 215] a single Living seldom affords a sufficient Competency for persons to be capable of publick Service.

3. That the way of Subsistence for the Clergy, is now much altered from what it was when Celibacy was enjoyned. For a Competency was always supposed where Residence was strictly required; and what was a Competency to a single person, is not so to a Family.

4. That the Church hath a pow­er of Relaxing the Severity of An­cient Canons from the different Cir­cumstances of things; and when the general Good of the Church may be more promoted therein; as in the Removal of Clergymen from one Diocess to another, and the Trans­lation of Bishops.

5. That the Case is now very different, as to Dispensations, from what it was in the Church of Rome, as to the Number of Benefices, and the [Page 216] manner of obtaining them; that a great Restraint is laid by our Laws upon Pluralities, and our own Me­tropolitan is the Judge when they are fit to be granted.

But on the other side it is ob­jected,

1. That in the first Constitution of parochial Churches, every Incum­bent was bound to a strict Residence; so in the Canons of Egbert, Can. 25. Presbyters are said to be settled in those Churches, which had a House and Glebe belonging to them; and many Canons were then expresly made, That no Person should have more than one Church; and it is said in the Capitulars, Capit. l. 6. c. 73, 75. that this had been several times decreed. Addit. 2. c. 10. And so it is in Herardus his Collection of Canons, Can. 49. in Isaac Lingonen­sis, Tit. 1. c. 24. in Chrodegangus, c. 67. [Page 217] in Ivo Carnotensis, part. 3. c. 51. in Regino, l. 1. c. 254. The like we find in the Spanish Churches, Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 5. and thence in the Ca­non [...]Law, C. 10. Q. 3. c. 3. and in the Greek Churches, Concil. 7. Can. 15. C. 21. Q. 1. c. 1. And as soon as the Abuse crept in in these Western Chur­ches, it was complained of, and en­deavoured to be redressed, Concil. Paris. 6. c. 49. Concil. Aquisgran. 2. part. 2. c. 5. Concil. Metens. c. 3. That afterwards, not meerly the Mendi­cant Friars complained of them, as some have suggested, but some of the greatest Bishops have been zea­lous against them, Gul. Paris. de Collat. Benef. c. 6. as Gulielmus Pa­risiensis, Peraldus, Archbishop of Lions, Iacobus de Vitriaco Bishop of Acon, Perald. Sum. Vit. To. 2. de Avarit. c. 11 Sect. 1. Robert de C [...]orton Cardinal; Guiard Bishop of Cambray; Cantiprat. de Apibus l. 1. c. 19. n. 5. and Gregory IX. declared, That he could only dis­pense with the Penalty of the Law. Hist. univer­sit. Paris. Se­cul. 5. p. 164. After a solemn Disputation at Paris, [Page 218] it was determined against Pluralities, if one Benefice be sufficient; and all the Divines joyned with the Bi­shop therein, except two; so that it seemed to be the current Opinion of the Learned and Pious Men of that Time. Aquin. Quaest. Quodlibet. Aquinas saith, It is a doubtful Point, Q. 9. Art. 15. Caj. ad 2. 2. q. 185. R. 5. but Cajetan is positive against them. So that all the Zeal against Pluralities, is not to be imputed to the Piques of the Friars against the Secular Clergy; although there is no Question but they were so much the more earnest in it; but in the Coun­cil of Trent the Bishops of Spain were the most zealous, as to the Point of Residence, and the Friars against it, as appears by Catharinus and others.

2. Setting aside all Authorities, the Argument in Point of Consci­ence, seems the strongest against Non-residence; because persons have voluntarily undertaken the Cure of Souls within such Limits; and al­though [Page 219] the Bounds be fixed by Hu­man Authority, yet since he hath undertaken such a Charge personally, knowing those Bounds, it lies upon his Conscience to discharge the Du­ties incumbent upon him, which can­not be done without constant Resi­dence, as the Magistrates are bound in Conscience to do their Duty, al­though the Bounds are settled by Human Laws: And so in the case of Property, Human Laws bind so that it is a Sin to invade what is settled by them. And if it be left to a Man's Conscience, whether a Man answers his Obligation more by personal Attendance, or by a Curate; whe­ther the Honour of Religion, and the Good of Souls be more promoted, and the Peace of his own Mind secured by one or the other, it is no hard matter to judge on which side it must go. It is impossible to defend all the Arguments used in the [Page 220] old Canons against Pluralities, as that Polygamy is unlawful under the Gospel: So that, as a Bishop hath but one City, and a Man but one Wife, so a Presbyter ought to have but one Church: That no Man can serve two Masters, &c. but all their Reasons were not of this sort. For, the Coun­cil of Toledo speaks home, Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 5. C. 10. Q. 3. c. 3. That one Man cannot perform his Duty to more than one Charge. Concil. Paris. 6. c. 49. To the same pur­pose the Sixth Council at Paris; and withal, That it brings a Scandal on the Christian Church, and an Hinderance to Publick Worship, and the Good of Souls, and savours too much of a worldly Mind; which are weighty Arguments.

The only considerable thing on the other side, is, That the Bishops are to take care that the Places be duly supplied; but whether it be done by Par­son, Vicar or Curate, is not material. But this will not hold. For, (1.) the Care of Souls is committed personal­ly [Page 221] to him that doth undertake it. And a Regard is had to the Qualifi­cations of the Person for such a Trust, by the Patron that presents, and the Bishop who admits and institutes the Person so qualified. (2.) The old Canons were very strict as to personal Residence, Capit. l. 5. c. 108. so as to fix them in their Cures from which they could not go away when they pleased, which they called Promissionem stabili­tatis. Our Saxon Canons are clear, as to the personal Cure, Can. Egbert. 1. 4, 6. Populo sibi commisso; and no Presby­ter could leave his Cure and go to another only for Honour or Profit, Capit. l. 6. c. 200. l. 7. c. 245. Can. 13. And none could go from one Bishop to another, without his Diocesan's Leave, Concil. Herudford. c. 5. Egbert. de Eccles. Instit. p. 97, 100. And when the Bishop gives In­stitution, he commits the Care of Souls to the Incumbent, and not meerly the Care that Divine Offices be there performed.

[Page 222] But yet it is well observed by A­quinas, That if the having more Bene­fices than one were a thing evil in it self, it could in no case be dispensed with; but there are some Actions which in gene­ral are irregular, yet in some cases may be justified; especially, if they be extra­ordinary, as to Publick Service and Use­fulness, &c.

And to the same purpose Cajetan speaks; Cajet. Sum. V. Benef. 1. 6. but he saith, The Cases that make it lawful, must relate to a Pub­lick, and not a Private Good; but he mentions these things which excuse from Residence; In. 2. 2. q. 185. R. 5. 1. Lawful Impedi­ments, as to Health, &c. 2. Publick Service. And others say, a Geometrical Proportion ought to be observed in the Distribution of Ecclesiastical Bene­fices, and not an Arithmetical, i. e. A Regard ought to be had to the Me­rits and Capacities of Persons; Filliuc. Tr. 41. c. 7. n. 6. as a Commander hath more Pay than many common Souldiers; but this [Page 223] reaches only to the Value, and not to the Number of Benefices.

But the Question still remains, Whether a Legal Dispensation take not off the Obligation in Point of Conscience, since it is allowed by Law, and the Curate appointed by the Bishop, who committed the Cure of Souls to him?

In answer to this, we must con­sider,

1. That the Law proposes in Dis­pensations very allowable Ends, as Publick Service, Incouragement of Learn­ing, Reward of Merit; and therefore Doctors by Favour have not the Privi­lege which others have; and in case of Incompetency, as it was then judg­ed, no Legal Dispensation was need­ful.

2. Some Ancient Canons took care of the Supply of the Place by competent Persons, and in that case abated the Rigour of the Canon. For [Page 224] Sirmondus saith in the Canon of the Council of Nantz, Concil. Nanet. c. 8. against Pluralities, this Clause was added, Unless he hath Presbyters under him to supply the Du­ties of his Place: And the same Clause is in Regino, Regino Inqui­sit. Art. 46. l. 1. c. 254. and Regino puts it among the Articles of Enquiry, as to the Clergy, Baluz. Ap­pend. ad Re­gin. 604, 608, 612. If any had more Churches than one without Presbyters to assist him. And in their old Admo­nition to them at Visitations it is to the same purpose, but in others it is left out. Thomassin, Part. 3. c. 42. n. 9. Thomassin is of Opinion, That the former Enquiry related to those who had Chapels, and not to more Churches; because then there were none that had Titles upon an­others Benefice; but these Words are express as to more Churches. It's true, there were no such Titles then; for a Title in the old Canon Law, was the Relation which a Clergyman stood in to the Bishop of his Diocess, being one of his Clergy; and so the [Page 225] Greek Canonists understand a Man's not being ordained without a Title, and not having two Churches; i. e. not to have Relation to two Diocesses, and so sine Titulo, is without being own­ed by some Bishop; and this was that which they thought ought to be strictly observed; Can. Apost. 19. and to which purpose many Canons were made, Nicen. c. 16. both ancient and later; Antioch. 3. and if any deserted their Bishop, Laodic. 42. they were liable to Deprivation. Calced. 10, 20. Afterwards the Word, Cod. Afric. c. 54. Title, came to be applied to parochial Churches; Cresc. Coll. Tit. 17. but there were some who found out, Concil. Herudf, c. 5. that the Ancient Canons had another Sense. Can. Edgar. 8. Egbert. Can. 13. Thence in the Council of Placentia in the Canon Sanctorum Dist. 70. c. 2. Capitul. l. [...]. c. 175. it was decreed, That one might have two Churches in the same Diocess, but not two Preferments in several Cathe­drals. And in the Council of Cler­mont, A. D. 1095. the Reason is given, because according to the Canons no Man [Page 226] could have-two Titles; and every one was bound to hold to the Title to which he was first ordained. But after all, Concil. Nan­net. c. 8. the Council of Nantz shews plainly, that more parochial Titles were then allowed, if well provided for, by such persons as the Bishop of the Diocess approved. Now this very much alters the State of the case; for then the Obligation is Real, and not Personal.

3. It was agreed by the Ancient Canons, Concil. Tolet. 16. c. 4. That where there was an In­competency of Maintenance, C. 10. Q. 3. c. Vnio. they al­lowed an Union for support; now that is but the Bishop's Act in joyn­ing what had been divided, supposing a sufficient Subsistence: And a rea­sonable Distance with the Bishop's Allowance, hath the same Equity; i.e. the Bishop's Act may unite two small Benefices for a Support, not by a perpetual Union, but so long as he sees cause, which our Law doth [Page 227] still allow, under such a Value. But it is rather a Dispensation than an Union; for the Rights continue di­stinct. In the Court of Rome there were Prerogative Unions ad Vitam, Compegins de Vnion. n. 1, 8, 10, &c. which were very scandalous, and are owned by the best Canonists to be destructive of all Order, Azor. p. 2. l. 6. c. 28. and invent­ed to defeat the Canons against Plu­ralities. Flam. Paris. de Resign. l. 12. c. 3. n. 49. But the Unions which the Law allows, are only those where two distinct Benefices are made one for a competent Subsistence; and then if the Union be reasonable, the Dispensation within due Distance is so too. Balsamon saith, In the Greek Church Pluralities are not forbidden, if they be near, and under the same Bishop; but they did not allow the same Man to be under two Bishops. In the Capitulars that Clause is added, Addit. 2. n. 10. That no Man shall have more Li­vings than one, si Facultas suppetit, if it affords a reasonable Subsistence.

[Page 228] And therefore in case of Incom­petency of Maintenance, of a good Provision for Curates, and of pub­lick Service, the Severity of the An­cient Canons is with Reason abated, and a person is supposed to undertake the Cure, with those Measures which the Law and Canons allow. But every Man who regards the doing his Duty out of Conscience, will con­sider how much lies upon himself; and that the original Intention of the Church and Laws, was, That no Man should undertake more than he was willing and ready to discharge, as far as one Man's Abilities could go. For, in great Cities, one great Parish requires more than several Churches in the Countrey; and in such Cases an equitable Construction must be put upon such Canons, which require personal performance of these Du­ties.

THE Subject I intend now to consider, is the Incourage­ment which the Parochial Clergy have by Law for the doing their Duties: Which are the Manse, the Oblations, and the Tithes.

I. The Manse, or House and Glebe. In the Canons of Egbert it is said, Can. 25. Baluz. ad Capit. 1148 That an entire Manse ought to belong to every Church, without any [Page 230] other than Ecclesiastical Service. By a Manse, Selden of Tithes, p. 53. Mr. Selden saith, in the old Charters the same is meant as a Casat or Hyde of Land. Bignon. ad Form. Marc. p. 980. Bignonius and Sir­mondus say, So much Glebe as was an Imployment for an Husbandman and two Servants. Sirmond. ad Capit. p. 768. Spelman saith, It takes in the House too. Lyndw. f. 44. Extr. de Cen­sib. c. 1. Lyndwood saith, As much Land as would Imploy a Yoke of Oxen; and so the Gloss on the Canon Law. But in another place the Gloss saith, The Manse is the original Endowment of the Church, C. 23. Q. 8. c. 24. without which it cannot be supplied: and without which it could not be consecrated. De Consecr. D [...]st. 1. c. 9. For the Endowment was first to be produ­ced before the Building, C. 16. Q. 7. c. 26. Collatâ primi­tùs donatione solemni, are the Words of the Canon Law. And the same appears by Concil. Valent. 3. c. 9. Con­cil. Bracar. 2. c. 5. Vit. Udalrici c. 7. Regino l. 1. c. 23, 24. which is there explained to be a substantial Suste­nance for those who were to attend the [Page 231] Service of that Church. And in the Acts of Consecration of a parochial Church in Baluzius, Baluz. Ap­pend. ad Re­ginon. p. 622. the Bishop in the first place declares himself satis­fied with the Endowment, unde dignè domus Dei sustentaretur. And upon this the Original Right of Patronage was founded, Ent. de Ec­cles. aedific. c. ad Audien­tium. not upon the Soil, which gave no Title, where there was not a Church built and endow­ed with a competent Subsistence. So that all Advowsons or Rights of Presentation in private Patrons, were at first Appendant to Manors, and not in Gross; because the Right came from the Endowment out of the Manor: And the Name of Patron in the Sense of the Feudal Law, is the same with Lord of the Fee, and so Beneficium is a Feudal Term; and till the Feudal Law prevailed, the Name of Patrom is rarely used in this Sense. And when it came to be used, the Patrons in France would have brought [Page 232] those who had their Benefices to a kind of Feudal Service, and to have received Investiture from them. This Mr. Selden drives at, Seld. 85, 86. as though the Patrons had the Right of Investiture belonging to them, because some such Practice is often complained of in the French Canons, and as often condemned, not meerly by Ecclesi­astical Canons, but by as good Laws as any were then made. It cannot be denied that bad Practices are the Occasion of making good Laws; but doth it follow that those Practices which were against Law, were the Law of that time? Yet this is Mr. Selden's way of Arguing; he grants, F. 89. That there were Laws made, but they were little obeyed. Must we there­fore conclude those illegal Practices to have been the standing Law, and the Laws themselves to be illegal? There were two things aimed at by those Patrons. 1. To keep the Cler­gy [Page 233] in a sole Dependance on them­selves, witout Regard to the Bi­shop's Authority. 2. To make such Bargains with them as they thought fit. Both these were thought necessary to be redressed by Laws, since the Canons were slighted by them. And if the Practice be good against Law in one case, why not in the other also? Why is not Simo­ny justified, as well as the Patron's absolute Power over the Incumbents? but the Laws were severe against both. For in the time of Lud. Pius, A. D. 816. there was a solemn As­sembly of the Estates of the Empire, where several Ecclesiastical Laws were passed, and among the rest, these two: Capit. 816. c. 9. 1. That no Presbyters should be put in, Capit. 1, 84, 141. or put out of Churches, with­out the Authority and Consent of the Bishops; and that the Bishops should not refuse those who were presented, if they were probabilis Vitae & Doctrinae, i.e. [Page 234] such as the Bishops could not ob­ject against either for Life or Learn­ing. 2. That every Church should have an entire Manse belonging to it, free from any Feudal Service; but if they had other Estates of their own, for them they were to answer to the Lords of the Manor, as others did. And from hence this came into the Collections of Ivo, Ivo p. 3. c. 55, 174. Regino, Burchardus, and Gra­tian, and passed for a Law generally received. Regino l. 1. c. 24. As to the former, a new Sanction was added to it in another Assembly at Worms, Burch. l. 3. c. 52. A. D. 829. c. 1. and repeated in the Capitulars, C. 23. q. 8. c. 24. 25. l. 5. c. 98. Addit. 4. c. 95. and the like as to the latter, l. 5. c. 100. Capit. A. 829. c. 4.

But it seems there were some still continued obstinate in their former Practices, and therefore these Laws were reinforced in another Assembly, A. D. 869. in the time of Carolus Calvus, who mentions the Laws of [Page 235] his Father and Grandfather to the same purpose, c. 9. and there takes notice of the Contrivances made use of to defeat the Intention of those Laws; and the bottom of all is there said to be abominable Simony. Which shews, what it was which these Pa­trons aimed at, by claiming Investi­ture without the Bishop. And it was then judged necessary, that the Bishop's Consent was required to prevent this Mischief. But still some Patrons required Feudal Service for the Glebe they had given to the Church; but the Law commands them to re­store it free from such Service, Capit l. 5. c. 100. Concil. Labb. T. 8. p. 1815. Addit. l. 4. c. 98, 163. And af­ter much struggling, Hinomarus, who lived at that time, saith, That these Laws were observed. The Patron's Right by Virtue of the Endowment, was not disputed; but an Arbitrary Power, as to the Incumbents, was utterly de­nied them; and they were put un­der [Page 236] the Bishop's Care, who was to receive Complaints against them, and to proceed according to the Chur­ches Canons. But I am apt to think that all this stir in France did not arise from the pretence of Original Donation and Endowment of Chur­ches, but from the Infeodation of Church Lands and Titles, by Charles Martel (as an old MS. Filesaci Opus. p. 846, &c. in Filesacus saith) and others in France, whose Custom it was to give them in Recom­pence to their Souldiers, Fragment. de Majoribus Pal. who then look­ed on them as their own, Du Chesn. T. 1. and were hardly brought to any reasonable Allowance for the Clergy which supplied them. These were called Beneficia in the Capitulars, Capit. l. 1. 157. and they were to pay Nonae & Decimae, i.e. a Fifth Part out of them, which was obtained with much Difficulty, as appears by the many Laws made about them. Regin. l. 1. 43, 45, 46, 47. In the Council at Lep­tins, A.D. 743. Carolomannus, son to [Page 237] Charles Martel, owns the letting out some of the Church Lands sub Pre­cario & Censu, upon a reserved Rent, Can. 2. Capit. l. 5. c. 3. but then it was barely for Life. But the consequence was, That it was very hard to re­cover either the Lands or the reser­ved Rents, and they put in Clergy­men, and put them out as they pleased, because they held these Lands as Beneficiary Tenures from the Crown. So that it was the Work of more than an Age to put the Church there in any tolerable Conditi­on. But this seems to be very much mi­staken, when it is brought to prove the Right of Patronage from the Endow­ment, as to the Disposal of Benefices.

But the Right of Patronage by the first building and endowing the Church, is owned by the Civil Law in Iustinian's Novels, 123. c. 18. and Two Things were there required; 1. A sufficient Maintenance for the [Page 238] Clergy who were nominated. 2. The Bishop's Satisfaction as to their Fitness; about which he speaks in another Novel, 56. Tit. 12. c. 2. And he elsewhere requires, that before any Churches were built, the Bishop should see that there were sufficient Maintenance for those who were to officiate, Novel, 66. Tit. 22.

The same Right obtained here upon the same Grounds, as appears by the Barons Answer to Gregory IX. who affirm, That they had it ever since Christianity was founded here. They mean, ever since parochial Churches were endowed by their An­cestors; for there could be no such Right of Patronage before. And such Patrons were here called Advo­cati Ecclesiae, as appears by Ioh. Saris­bur. Ep. 6. 119. and the Ius Advoca­tionis, as our Lawyers tell us, 1 Inst. 17. b. is a Right which a Person hath to pre­sent to a vacant Benefice in his own [Page 239] Name; which is agreeable to what Bracton and Fleta had said long be­fore.

But it doth not appear by them how the Names of Patron and Ad­vocate came to be so applied. Among the Romans, saith Asconius Pedianus, the Patron was he that pleaded the cause of another; the Advocate, he that appeared in Court on his be­half. But this doth not reach to the Ius Advocationis which we are now about. In the Ninety seventh Canon of the African Code, an Al­lowance is made for the Churches to have Advocates to solicite their Causes at Court. Capit. l. 7. c. 392. From hence the greater Churches and Monasteries had their proper Advocates appointed them by the King, Bignon. in Marculph. l. 1. c. 21. as Bignonius ob­serves; and in the old Charters of Aub. Miraeus, several such Advocates are appointed; and it appears to have been an honorary Title, and [Page 240] great Men were pleased with it. Miraeus faith, Aub. Mirae. Cod. Donat. l. 1. c. 136. it was accounted a con­siderable Honour at that time. And so by degrees the Founders of Pa­rochial Churches came to have the Title of Patrons and Advocates of them; and the Right they injoyed, the Right of Advowson as well as Pa­tronage (not as some ridiculously talk of Advocat se, P. Roverii Reomaus, p. 614. or Advocat alium) because the Trust and Care of those Churches, endowed by their An­cestors, was fallen to them, and they were bound to look after, De Foro Com­pet. f. 50. C. 56. q. 7. n. 32. and to de­fend the Rights of them; and so Lynd­wood explains it.

II. The next thing to be con­sidered, is the Oblations of the People, which in those elder times were so free and large, that (which may seem incredible now) there were Persons who would build Churches on their own Land to have a Share [Page 241] in the Oblations, as is affirmed in one of the Spanish Councils, Concil. Brac. 3. c. 6. and there forbidden with great Severity. It was not, De Consecr. 1. c. 10. as the Gloss on the Ca­non Law understands it, to make a Bargain for the Right of Patro­nage, but it is expressed to have an equal Share with the Clergy in the Oblations of the People.

It is observed by Agabardus, Agabard. de Dispens. c. 20. That the Devotion of Persons in the first A­ges was so great, that there was no need to make Laws or Canons for the Sup­plies of Churches, since they were so am­ply provided for by the Liberality of the People. Thence we read of the De­posita pietatis in Tertullian, Tertul. Apolog. c. 39. which were voluntary Oblations; and out of which were made Divisiones Mensurnae in S. Cyprian, Cypr. Ep. 34. and the Sportulae, which were the Allowances made to the Clergy out of the common Stock; and they who received them, and not those who gave them (as Mr. [Page 242] Selden fancies) were called Sportu­lantes Fratres; and the Allowances were then stiled Stipes & Oblationes, Ep. 66. which were so considerable, that St. Cyprian blamed some for their setting their Hearts too much upon them; Ep. 64. Stipes, Oblationes, Lucra desiderant, quibus prius insatiabiles incubabant; which could not be said of any meer necessary Subsistence; these they re­ceived tanquam Decimas ex fructibus, as St. Cyprian speaks, in lieu of Tithes at that time, when the most of the Chri­stian Church inhabited the Cities, and gave out of their Stock to main­tain the Church, and those who at­tended upon the Service of it. But when Christianity came to spread into the Countries, then a more fixed and settled Maintenance was required, but so as to retain somewhat of the Ancient Custom in voluntary Obla­tions.

[Page 243] No sooner was Christianity settled in France, but we read of Lands gi­ven to the Church by Clodovaeus after his Conversion; these are owned by the first Council of Orleans called in his time, A. D. 511. and were put into the Bishop's Hands, and to be di­stributed by him for Repairs of Chur­ches, Maintenance of the Clergy, and other pious Uses, Can. 5. 14, 15. But besides these, we read still of Oblati­ons made by the people on the Altar, both in the Mother-Church, and in Pa­rochial Churches. If in the Mother-Church one Moiety went to the Bishop, the other to the Clergy; if in the other, only the third Part to the Bishop.

In the second Council of Mascon, Can. 4. we find it required, That all the People make an Oblation of Bread and Wine at the Altar; and this was A. D. 585. but besides, the next Ca­non insists on the Payment of Tithes, as founded on the Law of God, and [Page 244] the Ancient Custom of the Church, which is thereby reinforced; unde statuimus & decernimus ut mos antiquus repare­tur; which Words are not fairly left out by Mr. Selden, Selden of Tithes, c. 5. n. 5. p. 58. because they shew that there was only in this Canon a renewing of an Ancient Custom, which had obtained, but was now grow­ing into Disuse. For this Council of Mascon was called on purpose to restore what they found too much declining, as to Religion; and they begin with the Observation of the Lord's Day, and after, add this, wherein they complain of the Neglect of that which their Predecessors obser­ved, as founded on the Law of God. So that there can be no doubt of the Custom of paying Tithes in France, from the time of receiving Christianity; and that this Custom declined as their Religion did. In the Council of Nantz, about A. D. 658. Oblations and Tithes are men­tioned [Page 245] together, c. 10. as making up the Churches Stock, which was to be divided into Four Parts, to the Bishop, and to the Clergy, and to Repairs, and to the Poor.

But besides the Oblations of the Living, it was then common to make Oblations at their Death; and these were called Oblationes defuncto­rum, and severe Canons were made against the Detainers of them, Concil. Vas. I. c. 4. Agath. c. 4, 13. Q. 2, 9, 10, 11. And so much appears by those Canons which forbid Exacti­ons at Funerals, Concil. Tribur. c. 16. Nannet. c. 6. where an Exception is made as to voluntary Gifts, either by the Parties deceased, or by the Ex­ecutors. But here, in the Saxon times there was a Funeral Duty to be paid, called Pecunia sepulchralis & Symbolum Animae, and a Saxon Soul­shot; this is required by the Council at Aenham, Spelm. Con. p. 517. and inforced by the Laws [Page 246] of Canutus, c. 14. and was due to the Church the Party deceased belong­ed to, whether he were there buried or not. Some take this for the Foun­dation of Mortuaries; but then the Money must be turned into Goods. For in Glanvil's time, Glanvil. l. 7. c. 5. a Freeholder is allowed to make his Will of other things, provided that he give his first best thing to his Lord, and his second to the Church. And this was not originally pro Animâ defuncti, as Lyndwood thinks, from the Modern Canonists De Consecrat. c. 12. but it was a Right of the Church settled on the Decease of a Member of it, as appears by the Law of Canutus. O­thers have said, That it was in lieu of Tithes substracted, and Oblations not duly made. So Simon Langham in his Constitution about Mortuaries, which was made to explain a for­mer Constitution of Robert Winchelsee, because the People were observed [Page 247] not to pay their Tithes and Obla­tions as they ought. But he did not go about to settle a Right which had not been before, but to prevent Suits about that which was to be ta­ken for a Mortuary; and he declares, That where there was a choice of Three or more, the Second was to be for the Mortuary, De Sepult. f. 93. b. So that R. Winchelsee supposes it to be an ancient Right. Indeed in the Cotton MS. Spelm. Concil. II. p. 433. of the Council of Merton, where this Constitution is extant, the Reason is given, That it was required by way of Compen­sation for the Neglect of Tithes and Oblations. In the Synod of Winche­ster, in his time, a Constitution is made for the Uniform Payment of Mortuaries in that Diocess, the second best of the Goods or Chattels was to be paid in lieu of Tithes unpaid. P. 453. In the Synod of Exeter of Pet. Quivil, 15 E. 1. P. 391. the Reason is given for [Page 248] the Neglect of all parochial Duties; but there it is said, That some plead­ed Custom against the Payment of them, and others, as to the Manner; and although this Council endea­voured to settle an Uniform Pay­ment, yet the Statute of Circumspectè agatis, leaves the whole Matter to Custom, ubi Mortuarium dari consue­vit. 2 Inst. 491. From whence my Lord Coke inferrs, That there is no Mortuary due by Law, but only by Custom. The true Inference was, That the con­trary Custom had altered the Law from what it was in the times of Ca­nutus and Glanvil. But that the pre­vailing Custom became the standing Law, as to Mortuaries, appears by the Statute of 21 H. 8. c. 6. which limits the Payment where the Custom continued, but allows Liberty for Free Oblations: And this Free Obla­tion was then called Cors presentè, and was distinct from the Mortuary in [Page 249] lieu of Tithes, as appears by the In­stances in Sir W. Dugdale. Warwick­shire, p. 470, &c. But I re­turn to other Oblations, which Lynd­wood distinguisheth into those by way of Gift, and such as became due. For these latter, he insists on c. Omnis christianus in the Canon Law, De Con­secr. D. 1. c. 69. which requires that every one who approaches the Altar, make some Oblation. Where the Gloss saith, it is but Counsel at other times, but a Command on the Festivals. For this 16 Q. 1. c. 55. is produced, quas populus dare debet; but it is there interpreted of the case of Necessity: Hostiensis thinks all are obliged on great Festivals, and that the general Custom lays an Obligation; but Lyndwood thinks the Custom of par­ticular Churches is to be observed.

In the Synod of Exter before­mentioned, Spelm. II. p. 393. Oblations are said to be of Divine Right, and that every Pa­rishioner is obliged to make them; [Page 250] but the Time is limited to Christ­mas, Easter, the Saints-day of the Church and the Dedication, or All-Saints. So that four times in the Year they were required to make Oblations after the Age of Fourteen. And so Giles, Bishop of Sarum, P. 303. debent offerre ex debito quater in anno.

In the Synod of Winchester, none were so obliged till Eighteen, P. 452. and having Goods of their own.

But I observe, that in the ancient Canons here, by the Oblations, such things were then understood, as were for the Support of the Clergy: Thence several Canons were made against those who turned them ano­ther way. So in the Council of Lon­don under Archbishop Stratford, P. 410. Obla­tions are declared to belong only to Ecclesiastical Persons. P. 585. And so Lynd­wood saith, Lyndw. f. 12. The Goods of the Church are called Oblations. And in case the Mother-Church were appro­priated, [Page 251] the Oblations and Obventi­ons made in the Chapel of Ease, Spelm. II. p. 393. did not belong to the Convent, but to the Persons who officiated there. These were called by the Name of the Altarage, and were generally expres­sed under that Name in the Endow­ment of Vicarages; but when these were too small for the Maintenance of the Vicar, those small Tithes which were joyned with them, were comprehended under that Name; and so it hath been resolved in the Courts of Law upon a solemn Hear­ing. Spel. Gloss. c. Altarage.

Iohn de Burgo, in his Pupilla Oculi, speaking of Oblations, saith, That per­sons may be bound to them four Ways:

1. By Contract upon the Foun­dation of the Church, which amounts only to a Pension upon Endow­ment.

[Page 252] 2. By Promise either living or dying.

3. By Necessity, when the paro­chial Minister cannot be supported without it.

4. By Custom, Ioh. de Burgo Pupill. Oculi, f. 118. b. in the greater So­lemnities; but he saith, the Propor­tion and Kind are left to Discretion; which made Oblations sink so low, that the parochial Clergy must have starved, if they had nothing else to support them.

But besides these, he mentions Oc­casional Oblations upon particular Ser­vices, as at Marriages, Christenings, Fu­nerals, &c. concerning which we have several Constitutions against those who went about to hinder them, Spelm. II. 495, 410. or to reduce them to a small Quantity. The Easter-Offerings are none of these Voluntary Oblations, Pupilla Oculi, Part. 5. c. 21. but a Composi­tion for Personal Tithes payable at that time; of which I may have occasion to speak more afterwards. But in [Page 253] the Saxon times here were other sorts of Oblations; As (1) the Cyrycsceat or First-fruits of Corn payable at S. Mar­tin's day, Ina LL. 4. 62. Edmund. c. 2. and is often mentioned in Doomsday-book, and in Fleta l. 2. c. 47. Malmsb. l. 2. c. 11. and the Oblation of Poultrey at Christmas is mentioned in Doomsday, under that Title. (2.) There was here another kind of Oblation called Plow-Alms, which was a Peny for every Plow between Easter and Whitsontide. This is men­tioned in the Laws of King Ethelred, Spel. Concil. [...] 517, 527. and required to be paid Fifteen days after Easter, although it be called E­leemosyna Aratralis. In the Endow­ment of the Vicarage of S. Ives, Plow-Alms is mentioned besides the Altarage and Obventions. Mon. I. 256.

But all these Oblations made a very poor Subsistence for the Paro­chial Clergy.

[Page 254] III. And therefore I come to the main Legal Support of the Parochial Clergy, which is in Tithes. Con­cerning which I shall proceed in this Method;

I. To consider the Foundation in Law which they stand upon.

II. The Rules of Law which are to be observed about them.

I. As to the Foundation they stand upon in point of Law. My Lord Coke not only saith, [...]. Inst. 642. That the Paro­chial Right of Tithes is established by divers Acts of Parliament; but he men­tions the Saxon Laws before the Con­quest for the Payment of Tithes of Ed­ward and Gathrun, Ethelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Canutus, and King Edward' s, confirmed by William I. Hob. R. 296. Hobart saith, That Tithes are things of common Right, and do of Right belong to the Church. And since Parishes were erected, they [Page 255] are due to the Parson (except in spiritual regular Cases) or Vicar of the Pa­rish.

In the Register of Writs, a Book of great Authority, Regist. f. 46. there is a Writ of Consultation for Tithes, wherein they are owned to be of common Right, as well as immemorial Custom, due to the Rector within the Limits of his Parish.

Lord Chief Justice Dyer saith, Moor. f. 50. That Tithes can never be extinguished, be­cause they are of common Right.

The same is affirmed by Justice Dodderidge in the Case of Fosse and Parker. Bustrod. 3. 243.

In Pieddle and Napper's Case, 11 R. 13. Tithes are said to be an Ecclesia­stical Inheritance collateral to the Estate in Land, and of their own Nature due to an Ecclesiastical Per­son: And, That all Lands of common Right are to pay Tithes. Therefore it is said by Hobart in Slade's Case, Hob. 298. 44. [Page 256] That no Land can be discharged of Tithes, although it may be discharged of the actual Payment.

In Popham's Reports we read, Rolls R. 2. 174. That it is a Maxim in Law, that all Persons ought to pay Tithes, Poph. R. 156. and all Lands shall be charged with them of com­mon Right. So that if the Judgment of some of the greatest Men of the Profession may be taken, nothing can be more clear and evident than the Legal Right of Tithes. But it falls out unhappily among us, that nothing hath been the Occasion of so much Difference and Contention between the Incumbents and their Parishioners, than the Point of the Payment of Tithes. So that some have wished them changed into some other way of Maintenance; but I cannot see any Reason why so an­cient, so legal, so just a Maintenance should be changed into any other, which would less answer the End, [Page 257] and be liable to as many Difficulties, if not far more; but every Change of this kind, where we cannot be secured of the Event, is very dange­rous, especially when it proceeds from Want of Judgment or Ill-will to the Profession; both which are to be su­spected in this case. If the ill Hu­mours of some People could be chang­ed, it would signifie far more to the Quiet of the Clergy, than altering their legal Maintenance.

Therefore the best way is to en­quire into the Reasons of this Dissa­tisfaction, that we may find out the proper Methods to remove it, and thereby to prevent the troublesom and vexatious Suits about them, which make the parochial Clergy so uneasie, and their Labour often unsuccessful with the People.

And there is a twofold Dissatisfacti­on which lies at the bottom of most of these Contentions about Tithes.

[Page 258] 1. In Point of Conscience.

2. In Point of Law.

1. In Point of Conscience. There is a sort of People among us, who are very obstinate in this Matter, and will rather chuse to go to Prison and lie there, than pay their Tithes. I have often thought whence such a Stiffness should arise in a matter of Legal Right. If they had opposed all Determinations of Property by Law, they had been more consistent with themselves; but to allow the Law to determine the Right as to Nine Parts, and not as to the Tenth, is not to be reconciled. For if the Question be concerning the other parts, to whom they do belong, may not Men as well dispute the matter of Dominion and Property in them? May they not say, that the Seed is our own, and the Labour and Char­ges [Page 259] our own; why then shall I an­swer to another for the Profit which arises from my Pains and Expence? If it be replied, That the Law hath given the Property of the Land to one, and the Use to another, why may they not pretend this to be an unreasonable Law to separate one from the other, since Land was gi­ven for the Use; and the Original Right of Dominion was from what was necessary for Use; therefore the separating Right and Use, is an In­croachment on the Natural Rights of Mankind. And there seems to be more Colour for this, than for any to allow the Laws to determine the Right of Nine Parts to belong to the Lord of the Soil, but the Tenth by no means to go that way, which the Law of the Land hath long since determined it. So that the Lord of the Soil either by Descent or Purchase, can claim no Right to [Page 260] it; for neither did his Ancestors en­joy it, nor those who sold the Land to a Purchaser consider it as his own, for then he would have had the Value of it. The Tenth Part then is set aside in Valuation of Estates, as already disposed of; and the Question is, Whether the same Law which settled the Right to the other, shall determine this likewise? Is it not a part of natural Injustice to detain that which by Law belongs to another? And is not the Law the Measure of Right in Cases of Dif­ference between Man and Man; Why then should not the Law fairly and equally determine this matter, to whom the Tenth of the Profits belongs?

But still they say, It is against their Conscience, and they cannot do it. Is it against their Conscience to do Acts of Natural Justice, not to detain that from another, which of Right [Page 261] belongs to him? But it is in vain to argue with people, who do not judge of things by the common light of Reason and Justice, but by an un­accountable Light within them, which none can judge of but themselves; and in matter of Interest Men are the worst Judges in their own Case.

2. Therefore I come to those who are capable of being argued with; such, I mean, who are unsatisfied in the Point of Law, not in general, but in particular Cases, from whence Suits arise, and those are often from these Causes:

1. Not duly considering the just Measure and Extent of the Rules of Law for the Payment of Tithes.

2. Not attending to the Exem­ptions, or Discharges by Law from the Payment of Tithes.

The best way I know to prevent troublesome Suits about Tithes, is to [Page 262] enquire diligently into these two Things:

1. The Rules of Law for the Payment of Tithes. One might have justly expected, that in a matter of common Right and daily Practice, and wherein the Peace and Quiet of the People is so much concerned, as well as of the Clergy, the Rules of Law should have been plain, and clear, and liable to as few Excepti­ons as possible; but instead of this, there is not one general Rule in this matter, but hath several Exceptions; and different Opinions have been a­bout them by the great Men of the Law, which hath given too much occasion to the Multitudes of Suits which have been in the matter of Tithes; so that the Clergy are not so much to blame, if they are unavoid­ably involved in Suits by the Per­plexity of the Law, and the different Resolutions which have been made [Page 263] about the Cases reported by them.

This I shall make appear by exa­mining some of the most general Rules of Law, and comparing them with the Resolutions which have been made in particular Cases.

1. One of the most standing Rules of the Law, Law of Tithes, c. 12. p. 214. is, That Tithes are only to be paid of things which do annually increase, ex annuatis renovantibus simul & semel.

But is this Rule allowed in all Cases?

1. From hence Coke concludes, That no Tithes are to be paid of Minerals, 2 Inst. 651. Select [...]. 16. or of what is of the Substance of the Earth; and so Stone, Turff, Tinn, Lead, Coals, Chalk, Pots of Earth, are denied to be titheable. But I find, 5 H. 4. n. 65. a Petition of the Commons was de­nied about being sued in the Ecclesi­astical Courts for Tithes of Stone and Slat taken out of their Quarries. The Petition was renewed, 8 H. 4. [Page 264] and then the King's Answer was, That the former Custom should continue. And so about Tithes for Sea-Coals, 51 E. 3. n. 57. From whence it ap­pears, that these things might be tithed by ancient Custom, and that was not thought fit to be altered. But, 34 Eliz. it was resolved in the Kings-Bench, Moor 908. That no Tithes are due of Quarries of Slat or Stone, in the Case of Lysle and Wats. [...]. El. 277. Here was no Regard to Custom, and a Rea­son is given, which deserves to be considered, viz. That he may have Tithes of the Grass or Corn which groweth upon the Surface of the Land where the Quarry is. But how if there be none? As Lands where Quarries are, seldom afford Tithes. But the Note on the Register saith, [...]. That if Corn do grow there, Tithe of it would be due however. So that here we have a Rule against an ancient Custom and Rule too. But it cannot be denied, [Page 265] that Fitz-Herbert and Brook say, F. N. B. 53. B. 241. That there is no Tithe of Quarries, or Coals, or such things; and it was so adjudged, 11 Iac. and 14 Iac. and in other Ca­ses since. Rolls 637. And yet after all, Rolls yields, March 58▪ That a Custom in these cases is to be allowed; so that the general Rule is to be understood so, as there be no Custom to the contrary. And as to Minerals, it is determined by a late Writer, Law of Tithes▪ 214. That by Custom Tithes may be due of them, although they do not annually increase. And my Lord Coke mentions King Iohn's Grant to the Bishop of Exeter of the Tithe of his Tinn-Farm. 4 Inst. 232. 1 Rolls, 637. And a good Author assures us, That in Places of Lead-Mines, Cosin's Apo [...]. p. 38. the Tithe of Lead is the chief Part of the Ministers Maintenance. Therefore my Lord Coke concludes his Discourse of Tithes with this gene­ral Rule, That by Custom a Parson may have Tithes of such things as are not titheable of common Right. 2 Inst. 664. [Page 266] 2. From hence it is concluded, That no Tithe can be due for Houses, because they have no annual Increase. This was solemnly debated in Dr. Grant's Case, 11 R. 15, 16. Rolls 1. 636. 11 Iac. and that there was no Tithe due, was proved by the Counsel from the Register, Fitz. H. N. B. Brook, &c. But it was resol­ved by the Court, That although Houses of themselves were not tithe­able, yet there might be a Modus de­cimandi on the Ground on which the Houses stood, and the Houses did not take away the Right before; and in most ancient Cities and Bur­roughs there was such a Modus for the Maintenance of their Minister. I grant that there was a certain Modus decimandi upon Houses, but not upon the Account of the Ground they stood upon; but there was a custo­mary Duty upon Houses in lieu of Tithes, and were accounted a sort of Praedial Tithes, although they were [Page 267] called Oblationes de Domibus, Lyndw. de Decimis. c. Sanct c. Negotiat. as Lynd­wood saith, and were distinct from Personal Tithes, for the Iews were bound to pay Tithes of Houses, but not personal. Such was the Rate on Houses in London: But in Dr. Layfield's Case it was denied, Selden of Tithes, 244. that there could be a Prescription of Tithes upon Houses, because they are to be paid only for the Increase of things. Cr. Car. 596. What is now become of the former Modus decimandi, when a Pre­scription was here insisted upon and denied? Hob. 1. 11. So that here were different Opinions, a special Custom was al­lowed upon good Reason; and here a Prescription disallowed upon such a Reason as would have overthrown the former Custom, and yet the Law was the same still.

3. From hence it would follow, That if this Rule hold, things which have not an annual Increase would not be titheable: Then no Tithe of [Page 268] Saffron would be due, whose Heads are gathered but once in three years, nor of Sylva caedua, under twenty years; and yet this was allowed in Parliament at Sarum, Regist. 49. saith the Regi­ster, notwithstanding it was not re­newed every year. Rolls 1. 640. And Rolls saith, That Tithes shall be paid of Beeches, Hazle, Willows, Holly, Alder, Ma­ple, even after twenty Years, because they are not Timber. But what if Willows be used for Timber? Then Hobart saith, Hob. 219. they ought to be excepted. If young Trees grow in a Nursery, Cr. Car. 526. and be sold, Rolls 1. 637. it is al­lowed that Tithes shall be paid of them, Iones 416. and these are not renewed every year. Hardres 381. And what becomes now of this General Rule, when so many Exceptions are made to it?

4. If this Rule hold, there can be no Tithes of After-pasture, for the Rule is simul & semel. And my Lord Coke saith, 2 Inst. 652. It was adjudged, [Page 269] 8 Iac. That a Parson shall not have two Tithes of Land in one year; and he instances in the Hay and After-pasture, &c.And yet Rolls affirms, Rolls 1. 640. That it is due by Law, unless there be a Pre­scription to the contrary; and he saith, the Iudgment was given upon the Pre­scription. And therefore he resolves it into a Modus decimandi. 648. But he men­tions several Judgments, that no Tithe is due for After-pasture, where Tithe-Hay hath been paid before; which must be where there was no Custom to the contrary, or else he must contradict himself. Yelv. 86. And so Yelverton saith in the Case of Green and Austen, That of common Right, Tithe-Hay dis­charges the Tithe of the After-pasture. But Crook saith, Cr. Iac. 116. That in that case the Court went upon the Prescription, and allowed it to be good. How could it go upon both? And Sir S. Degge is positive, Law of Tithes, 190. c. 3. that if a Meadow affords two Crops, the Parson shall have Tithe [Page 270] of both. How can these things con­sist? Or what Authority may we re­ly upon in such Difference of O­pinions?

2. Another Rule in Law is, That things which are ferae Naturae, 2 Inst. 651. Law of Tithes c. 8. are not tithable. But here we are to seek what things are ferae Naturae? Whe­ther such things as may be tamed and kept under Custody, and become a Man's Property, are ferae Naturae? Is it not Felony to steal Rabbets or Pigeons? if it be, they must be some Man's Property; and if they be a Man's proper Goods, how can they be said to be ferae Naturae? For the meaning was, That no Man was to pay Tithes for that which was not his own. Are not Bees ferae Naturae, as much as Pigeons and Rabbets? But the Tithe of Bees is allowed to be paid by the Tenth of the Honey and Wax. Cr. Car. 559. But Rolls saith, Iones, 447. F. N. B. 51. Rolls. 1. 651. That it was doubted whether a Tenth Swarm [Page 271] were a good Modus for the Tithe of Bees, because they are ferae Naturae. The Reason is, because they are left wild, and under no Custody; but if they went into several Hives be­longing to the Proprietor, they might be tithable by the Hives. And so for Pigeons under Custody in a Dove-house, they are a Man's Property, and therefore tithable: As it hath been several times resolved in Courts of Law, 14 Iac. in Whately and Fan­bor's Case, Rolls, 1. 635. in Iones and Gastrill's Case, a Prohibition was denied; and Justice Dodderidge declared, to whom the Court assented, that Tithe was due both of young Pigeons and Conies. Rolls, R. 2. 2. But the prevailing Opinion hath been, That if they are consumed in the House, Hetley, 147. they are not tithable, Littleton, 3. n. 40. but if sold, they are. Rolls, 1. 644. But are they not ferae Naturae as well when they are sold at Mar­ket, as when they are eaten at home? Why then are they tithable in one [Page 272] Case, and not in the other? If they are tithable at all, they are so where­ever they are spent; for in tithing, the Nature of the thing is to be con­sidered, and not the Place of spend­ing it. For upon the same Reason there would be no Tithe of Corn spent at home, or Pigs, Calves, &c. and therefore I look on the Reason as of worse Consequence, than the total denying the Payment. For who can tell how far this Reason may be carried in other Cases?

But it is resolved in many Cases, March, 56. that though they are ferae Naturae, Hetley, 13. yet by Custom they may be tithed; Rolls, 1. 635, 636. and so for Fish. Custom it seems hath the Power of reducing things ferae Naturae to the same Condition with other things. Palmer, 527. But as far as I can find, these things by our old Constitutions, Cr. Car. 264, 339. were as tithable as other things; but the notion of their being ferae Na­turae being started, Lyndw. 101. Spel. II. 503. served as a Plea [Page 273] against them, where the Custom was not continued; and where it was be­yond all Dispute, Hardr. 188. then they said, they were not tithable in themselves, Kebl. 2. 452. but only by Custom; 1 Inst. 115. 6. 244. or not by Law, but by Custom; and yet such Cu­stoms make a part of our Law.

In several ancient Appropriations, Monast. I. 577. 646. 1002. Fish, and Pigeons, and Rabbets are expresly mentioned, as given toge­ther with other Tithes; so that in those times both Law and Custom went together. II. 4. 658. For the Lords of Manors were not wont to give Tithes which were not otherwise due.

3. But what is to be done with those Lands which might afford Tithe, if the Increase of Grass were suffered but the Owners feed Cattel upon it, and so there can be no Tithes, what Remedy doth the Law afford in this case?

[Page 274] 1. It is agreed that no Tithe is due, Lynd. f. 99. if no other Cattel be fed, F. N. B. 53. but such as the Owner pays Tithe for, 2 Inst. 651. or are imployed in plowing, or any other way which is for the Benefit of the Incumbent of that Parish where they are fed. For otherwise they are but as barren Cattel to him.

2. That there is a certain Rate due for the Agistment of barren Cattel, Hardres, 184. Iure communi, and so deliver­ed by Hales then Chief Baron, ac­cording to the Value of the Land, unless Custom hath determined other­wise. And so for Guest-Horses, &c. unless the Inn-keeper had paid Tithe-Hay, Poph. 142. say some, or the Custom be otherwise: Rolls, 1. 641, 650. But none for Saddle-Horses for the Use of the Owner. Bulst. 1. 171. One of the Judges dissenting, Rolls, 1. 641. because not intend­ed for Husbandry. Poph. 126, 197. But for unpro­fitable Cattel the tenth part of the Bargain is due, or according to the Value of the Land, and the Owner [Page 275] of the Cattel is compellable to pay. Hardr. 184.

3. If profitable and unprofitable be mixed, so as the latter be the greater Number, then Herbage must be paid for them, and Tithe in kind for the profitable; Law of Tithes 200. but if the profit­able be the greater Number, it is questioned whether the other are not excused; but no Law or Precedent is produced for it: And there seems to be no Reason, if Pasturage be due for unprofitable Cattel, why they should be excused because there are more profitable, unless their Number be inconsiderable.

These things I have only briefly touched at, that you may the better govern your selves in Disputes of this Nature; and as you are not to lose the just Rights of the Church, so neither is it for your Interest or Ho­nour to be engaged in them, where the Law will not bear you out.

[Page 276] II. The next thing necessary to be considered, is, the legal Discharges from the Payment of Tithes. For, although the Reason of the Payment of them be founded on the Law of God, and the Settlement of Tithes among us hath been by ancient and unquestionable Laws of the Land, yet the Recovery of Tithes when un­justly detained, can be no otherwise than by the Law of the Land, as it is now in force. And if these do al­low several Discharges and Exem­ptions not to be found in the ancient Laws or Practice, we shall but in­volve our selves in fruitless-Conten­tions, if we dispute those Limitati­ons which the Law hath put upon the Payment of Tithes. And there­fore our Business is to enquire and satisfie our selves, as well as we can, about the Nature and Extent of these Limitations.

[Page 277] Now there are four sorts of Dis­charges of the Payment of Tithes allowed.

1. By Appropriations to Mona­steries.

2. By Privileges of particular Or­ders.

3. By Prescription and real Com­positions.

4. By Unity and Possession.

Of these I shall discourse in order, so as to clear the greatest Difficulties, with respect to them.

1. As to Appropriations. By the Statute of Dissolution, 31 H. 8. 13. the new Possessors are to enjoy their Parsonages appropriated, Tithes, Pen­sions, and Portions, and all other Lands belonging to them, discharged and acquitted of the Payment of Tithes, as freely, and in as ample a [Page 278] manner as they were enjoyed be­fore.

32 H. 8. 7. It is Enacted, That no persons shall be compelled, or otherwise sued to yield, give or pay any manner of Tithes for any Man­nors, Lands, Tenements, or other Hereditaments, which by Laws or Statutes of this Realm are discharged, or not chargeable with the payment of any such Tithes. So that we must enquire into the State of Parsona­ges appropriated before the Dissolu­tion, and how the payment of Tithes stood then.

I will not deny that there were Churches appropriated to Monaste­ries in the Saxon times; but if Mr. Selden's Doctrine hold good, as to the Arbitrary Consecration of Tithes till the Twelfth Century, those Churches can­not carry the Tithes along with them, but only such Glebe and Oblations as belonged to them. For how could [Page 279] the Tithes pass with the Churches, if they were not then annexed to them? But he confesses, Hist. of Tithes, 370. That the mention of Tithes with Churches in Appropriations, was rare, or not at all till after the Normans. The Reason might be, that the Separation of Tithes from the Churches, was not known till the Norman times. For the Norman Nobility took little notice of the Saxon Laws about Tithes; but find­ing Tithes paid out of the Lands within their Manors, they thought they did well, if they gave the whole Tithes, or a Portion and Share of them, as they thought fit, to some Monastery either abroad or at home. And this I take to be the true Account of the beginning of Appropriations among us. It were endless to give an Account of the Appropriations made by the Normans, M [...]n. 1. 31 [...]punc; for the Mo­nasticon is full of them. William I. gave several Churches with their [Page 280] Tithes to Battle-Abbey. William Ru­fus added more. H. 1. to the Mona­stery of Reading, several Churches in like-manner; 417. and H. 2. more. Hugh Earl of Chester, gave the Tithes of se­veral Manors to the Monastery of St. 202. Werburg, in the time of William I. Of which kind the Instances are too many to be mentioned; instead there­of, I shall set down the State of the parochial Clergy under these Ap­propriations, which was very mean, and intended so to be, being supplied by the English Clergy.

1. Where the Churches and Tithes were appropriated to a Monastery, the Vicar had only such a Competen­cy as the Bishop thought fit to al­low, till Vicarages came to be en­dowed: For right understanding this matter of Appropriations, as it stood here in England, these things are to be considered.

[Page 281] 1. That there was a parochial Right of Tithes settled in the Saxon times: Which I infer from the Laws of Edgar and Canutus, where the Tithes are required to be paid to the Mother-Church; L. L. Saxon. and if the Lord of a Manor have a Church on his own Free-land, Wh. p. 62. he may retain a third part of the Tithes for the Use of it. Spelm. Concil. 444. These Laws are so plain and clear, L. L. Canut. c. 8, 10, 11. that Mr. Selden does not deny them; Seld of Tithes, p. 262. and he confesses, the first Limitation of Profits to be contained in them. But what is to be understood by the Mo­ther-Church to which the Tithes were given? Mr. Selden would have it the Monastery or Mother-Church; but afterwards he grants, P. 264. That a Parochi­al Right to Incumbents was hereby settled; Which is the first legal Settlement of Tithes in a parochial Manner: But these Laws of Edgar and Canutus were so solemnly Enacted, that, as Mr. Selden observes, P. 224. they were particular­ly [Page 282] called, Leges Anglicae, the old Eng­lish Laws in the old Latin MSS. It is a commonly received Opinion a­mong the Lawyers of the best Rank, 2 R. 44. That before the Lateran Council there was no Parochial Settlement of Tithes here. 2 Inst. 641. My Lord Coke found no such Decree of the Lateran Council un­der Alexander 3. 5 H. Dyer, 84. 2. A. D. Brook, 241. 1179. Cr. Car. 422. and therefore he refers it to a De­cretal of Innocent 3. Palmer, 220. As to the Late­ran Selden, 293. Council which Lyndwood menti­ons, Lyndw. 81. b. it plainly speaks of Feudal Tithes, which a person enjoyed by the Churches Grant, and such might be­fore that Council, be given to what Church the person pleased. But is there no Difference between Feudal and Parochial Tithes? And what Proof is there of any Ancient Infeoda­tions of Tithes here? Selden, 404. Mr. Selden him­self thinks Lyndwood applies the Cu­stom of other Countries to his own. But as to the parochial Right of [Page 283] Tithes among us, it stands thus: By the Saxon Laws the parochial was settled. After the Norman Invasion these Laws were neglected and slighted by the Normans; H. I. by his Charter restored them, H. 1. c. 11. and the very Words of the Laws of Edgar and Canutus are repeated. The Normans went on notwithstanding, and so these Laws were discontinued in Practice. But Hadrian 4. who was an Englishman by Birth, observing the disorderly Payments of Tithes here, published a Constitution to require the parochial Payment of them, as is observed by P. Pithaeus, a very learned and impartial Man. After him Alexander 3. in a Decretal di­rected to the Archbishop of Canter­bury and his Suffragans, Not. in De­cret. l. 3. c. 30. n. 4. complains, That whereas the Parishioners had for­merly paid their Tithes entirely where they ought to pay them, the contrary Custom had obtained; and some withdrew [Page 284] the Tithe of Wooll, Fish, and Mills; therefore he requires the strict Pay­ment of them to the Churches to which they were due. The latter part only is in the Canon Law, but the former is added from the Ancient Copies by Pithaeus.

As to the Decretal of Innocent III. to which my Lord Coke refers, and Mr. Selden thinks was mistaken for the Lateran Council, being brought into England with it; Innocent. 3. there is such an Epi­stle extant in the Collection of his E­pistles, Epist. 2. c. 114. but not put into the Canon Law, and was nothing but an In­forcement of the former Laws, and a declaring the contrary Custom void, which had too much obtain­ed since the Norman times. But in a Decretal extant in the Canon Law, De Decim. c. 29. he acknowledges the parochial payment of Tithes to be due by common Right, Cum perceptio Decimarum ad Paroeciales Ecclesias de [Page 285] Iure communi pertineat. Can any thing be plainer than that the parochial Right could not depend upon his Decretal Epistle, when himself con­fesses that they were due by common Right?

We do not deny that he inforced the payment which had been so grosly neglected in the Norman times, and the most they would be brought to in many places, was to pay only a third part to the Parish-Priest who officiated, and gave the rest to Mo­nasteries, and often appropriated the whole Tithes to them, either at home or abroad, as will abundantly appear by the Monasticon; from whence it is plain, that they looked on Tithes in general, as due to the Church, as appears by very many of their An­cient Charters; Monast. I. 112, 114, 201, 202, 327, 590, 436. but they thought they did very well when they appropri­ated them to Monasteries of their own Erection, II. 50, 81. or others, as they [Page 286] thought fit. But this Humour took so much among the Norman Nobi­lity, and served so many Purposes of Honour and Devotion, as they thought (besides Reason of State) that the parochial Clergy were re­duced to so poor a Condition, that Alexander IV. Du Fresn. e. Appropr. complained of it as the Bane of Religion, and Destruction of the Church, and as a Poison which had spread over the whole Nation. And it must be very scandalous indeed, when the Pope complained of it: For the Monks that were able, gene­rally got their Appropriations confirm­ed in the Court of Rome.

2. There was a Competency to be settled on the parochial Clergy by the Bishops Consent, which was required in order to the confirming an Appropriation; Monast. I. 369, 399. as may be seen in Multitudes of them in the Mona­sticon, II. 58, 208, 656, 881. besides those which are preser­ved in the Churches Registers. III. 32, 36. Some­times [Page 287] the Endowment is expressed, and at other times it is reserved in the Bishop's power to do it as he sees Cause. But the Bishops were either so remiss in those Times, or the Monks so powerful at Rome, that the poor Vicars fared so hardly, that in the time of H. 2. Alexander III. Extr. de Praeb. c. De Monachis. sent a Reprimand to the Bishops for favouring the Monks too much, and the Clergy too little; and therefore requires the Bishops to take care that the Vicar had a competent Subsi­stence, so as to be able to bear the Burden of his Place, and to keep Ho­spitality. This was directed to the Bishop of Worcester; for it seems so long since the poor Vicars here were hardly provided for. And yet I have seen several Forms of Appropriations made by the Bishops here, after the Conquest, wherein there is a two­fold Salvo; one for the Bishop's Right, and another for a sufficient Mainte­nance [Page 288] for the Curate, although the Church were appropriated ad com­munem usum Monachorum, as of Wol­stan, Roger, and of William in the time of Hen. II. when Alexander III. lived, and of Walter de Grey, Sylvester, &c. But it seems where a compe­tent Subsistence had been decreed, Ext. de Praeb. c. Avar. the Monks took the first Opportunity to lessen it; which occasioned another Decretal in the Canon Law, wherein any such thing is forbidden, without the Bishop's Consent. Ext. de Praeb. c. Extirp. In other Pla­ces they pleaded Custom for it; thence came another Decree of the Lateran Council, to void all such Customs by whomsoever introduced, where there was not a competent Subsi­stence for him that served the Cure.

The Monks were still refractary in this matter; Extr. de Mo­nachis, ubi su­pra. and because the Bi­shops had Power to refuse any per­son presented by the Monks, unless they did consent to such a reasonable [Page 289] Allowance as the Bishop thought fit; therefore they grew sullen, and would not present; Ext. de Sup­plend. Neglig. Prael. Sicut nobis. in which Case another Decretal was made to give the Bi­shop Power to present.

And after all, Clement V. De Iure Patron. c. 1. reinforced the former Decretals, and injoyned the Dioce­sans in the strictest manner, not to admit any person presented to a Cure, where the Church was appropriated, unless sufficient Allowance were made by the Bishop's Consent and Appro­bation, and all Custom and Privi­leges to the contrary are declared to be void.

But how far doth this hold among us now, since the Appropriations are become Lay-Fees, and the Bishop's Power is not mentioned in the Statute of Dissolution? To this I shall give a clear Answer, but I doubt not sa­tisfactory, to all Parties concerned. For as Necessity and Power, so some [Page 290] Mens Interest and Reason live very near one another.

1. The Statute of Dissolution leaves all matters of Right as to persons interested just as they were before. For by the Surrender the King was to have the Monasteries and Tithes in as large and ample a man­ner as the Abbots then had them in Right of their Houses, and in the same State and Condition as they then were, or of Right ought to have been: And so res transit cum suo o­nere. But this is not all: For there is an Express Salvo for all Rights, Claims, Interests, &c. of all Persons and Bodies Politick. So that if by the Law of England there was such an Antecedent Right in the Vicar to his Allowance, and in the Bishop to as­sign it, it is not taken away by this Statute, nor any other.

2. By the Law of England the Bi­shop had a Right to provide a com­petent [Page 291] Maintenance for supplying the Cure upon an Appropriation. We are told by an unquestionable Au­thority in point of Law, that 9 Car. 1. this Point was brought before the Kings Bench, Rolls, 2. 337. in the Case of Thorn­burgh and Hitchcot. The Vicar com­plained, that the Church was appro­priated, and that he wanted a com­petent Maintenance; a Prohibition was prayed, but denied upon this Reason, That the Vicar had Reason for his Suit, and that the Ordinary might compel the Impropriator to make it greater; because in all Ap­propriations that Power was reserved to the Ordinary. And so in the Year-Books it is allowed, That the Or­dinary may increase or diminish the Vi­car's Portion, 40 E. 3. Cas. 15. f. 28. Pro. Const. de Offic. Vic. c. quoniam. By our Provincial Constituti­ons, the Bishop is to take care that the Vicar have a competent Allow­ance; which at that time was set [Page 292] at Five Marks; but Lyndwood ob­serves, that as the Price of things rose, so the Allowance was increased, and in Stipendiaries it was then advanced to Eight or Ten Marks; which, ac­cording to Sir H. Spelman's Compu­tation, Of Tithes, p. 153. comes to above Sixty Pounds per Annum. But some have told us, That by some old Statutes, Miscel Parl. 183. even bene­ficed Persons were not by Law to have above Six Marks per Annum; for this was the Sum allowed to Parish Priests; which is so gross a Mistake in any that pretend to Law or Antiquity, that it is to be wondred how they could fall into it.

The Truth of the Case was this; the parochial Chaplains or Priests were complained of, 36 E. 3. n. 23. that they could not be gotten to attend after the Plague, Birchington, l. 42. but at excessive Rates; upon this a Provincial Con­stitution was made, extant in the Par­liament Rolls, wherein they are [Page 293] obliged to demand no more than Six Marks. Lyndw. f. 32. Sacerdos Pa­rochialis op­posed to Bene­ficiatus. But who were these Parish-Priests? Not such as had the legal Endowments, but those who depended on the Good-Will of the Parson or People, and were hired to officiate in Chapels of Ease, or to perform Offices for the Dead, which were so frequent at that time. And these were called Annual Chap­lains, or Masse Chaplains, and were distinguished from Domestick Chaplains who officiated in great Mens Houses in their private Oratories, Lyndw. f. 1 and from Beneficed Persons, as appears by many Constitutions. But whatever was un­derstood by the Act of Parliament then, it was repealed 21 Iac. 1. 28.

3. The Law of England, as to a competent Subsistence for the Vicars or Curates in appropriated Churches, is founded on very good Reason. For the Tithes were originally given for [Page 294] the Service of the Church, and not for the Use of Monasteries. And this was a hard Point for the Monks to get over, since the Tithes were gi­ven for the Maintenance of the Cler­gy, and they were none of the Cler­gy, how they came to have a Right to the Tithes. It is certain, that the State of the Clergy and the Monastick State were different; and the Offices of the Clergy and of the Monks were inconsistent, if they held to their Rules; how then came the Monks to take the Maintenance which be­longed to the Clergy for other Offices, as though they were originally in­tended for them? For which there is no Colour or Pretence. This Point was debated between two Great Men of their times, S. Bernard and Petrus Cluniacensis: The former a Cistertian Monk, declared himself unsatisfied with the Monks taking the Mainte­nance of the parochial Clergy from [Page 295] them, which was given on purpose to attend the Cure of Souls. But, said Petrus Cluniacensis, Petr. Cluniac. Ep. l. 1. 21. do we not pray for their Souls? But the Cure of Souls is another thing; and by the Canons of the Church the Monks were for­bidden to meddle in parochial Offi­ces of Preaching, D. 55. c. 1. C. 16. Q. 1. c. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11. Baptizing, Visiting the Sick. So that it might bear a Question in Law, Whether a Mona­stery were capable of an Appropri­ation, since by the Ecclesiastical Law, they are not an Ecclesiastical Body? and for that Reason Hobart saith, a Nunnery is not; and the same Reason will hold for the other.

The Cistertian Order was at first very scrupulous in this matter, when they came hither, Mon. I. 699. and pretended to live only on their own Lands, and dis­liked Appropriations, Rolls, R. 2. 480. as great Injuries to the Clergy, and called it Sacrilege to take their Tithes away from them. This was wisely done of them at first [Page 296] to ingratiate themselves with the Clergy, and to get as good Lands as they could. But after a while they abated their Zeal, and then they pretended to do nothing without the Bishops Consent; Mon. I. 736. till at last they were as ready as any, and got as large Privileges to exempt their Lands from Payment of Tithes, un­der which the Clergy suffer to this day.

But to return to the Beginning of Appropriations among us.

After the Normans coming, they stood upon no Niceties of Law, or Original Grants, but they took Pos­sessions of the Tithes of their Manors, and disposed them as they pleased. The poor parochial Clergy were English, whom they hated, and cared not how poor they were; the Bishops were Normans, as fast as they could make them; and the business of the Great Men, was to incourage the [Page 297] Norman Monks that came over, and to build and endow Monasteries for them to pray for their Souls, which they minded so little themselves; and this I take to be the true Account of the Beginning and Increase of Ap­propriations in England, which at first were only permitted, but are con­firmed by the Law since the Statute of Dissolution.

II. In some Appropriations there were Vicarages endowed, and here the Difficulty lies in distinguishing the Tithes which belong to one from the other. Before the Statutes for Endowment of Vicarages, in case of Appropriations, 15 R. 2. 6. 4 H. 4. 12. there were Endowments made, where the Bishops took care of it; but they were generally so remiss in it, that those Statutes were thought very necessary; and one, it [...] seems, was not sufficient. For they eluded [Page 298] the former by appointing Vicars out of their own Body; but the latter Statute requires, That the Vicar shall be a Secular Person, and made Spiritual Vicar, and have such an Endowment as the Ordinary should think fit, otherwise the Appropriation to be void.

The Scandal of the Appropriati­ons was made so great by the Gree­diness of the Monks, and Easiness of the Bishops, that I find in the Parlia­ment Rolls 2 H. 4. 51. a Petition of the Commons, that no Appro­priations should be made for the fu­ture; but afterwards they came to that Temper which is expressed in the Statute 4 H. 4.

And that before those Statutes, there was no Necessity of the En­dowment of a Vicarage, is plain from the Occasion of making them; and so it hath been agreed in the Courts of Law in the Case of Britton Rolls, R. 2. 99. Cr. 2. 518. [Page 299] and Ward. But the main Difficulty is, to state the Tithes which belonged to the Vicarage and to the Appropri­ation; because there was no certain Limitation either as to Quantity or Kind, although generally the great Tithes of Corn and Hay went with the Parsonage, and the small Tithes and Obventions, and Altarage with the Vicarage.

The best Rules I can find to be satisfied in this matter, Yelv. 86. are the En­dowment, or Prescription. And where the Endowment is found, yet there may be a Prescription for Tithes not mentioned; because the Bishop had a Power reserved to increase the Allowance: As in the Case of the Vicar of Gillingham, who sued for customary Tithes not mentioned in the Endowment; and he recovered them on this Presumption, Hardr. 328. That the Vicarage might be augmented with those Tithes; and in case of long [Page 300] Possession, it is there said to have been often so held and ruled. Some­times there is a Difficulty in the Sense of the Words of the Endowment, as in the Case of Barksdale and Smith, whether Decima Garbarum in W. im­plied Tithe-Hay; Cr. El. 633. but it was resol­ved, that although Garba seems to relate to Corn, de omni Annonâ deci­ma Garba Deo reddenda est. L. Edw. Confess. c. 8. at least, to something bound up; and so Lyndwood applies it to Faggots; yet the Custom was thought sufficient to extend it to Tithe-Hay; and for Tithe-Wood in Renoulds and Green's Case. Bulstr. 2. 27. But the greatest Difficulty hath been about small Tithes, which is the common Endowment of Vicarages. In the Case of Ward and Britton, one Point was, Palmer, 219. Cr. [...]ac. 516. Whether Lambs were small Tithes or not. Noy pleaded Custom for it. The Councel on the other side said, That small Tithes were such [Page 301] as grew in Gardens; but Lambs were a sort of Praedial Tithes; how­ever, it was yielded, that Custom might bring them under small Tithes.

Another Point about small Tithes, was about Saffron growing in a Corn-Field, Cr. Eliz. 467. in the Case of Bedingfield and Freak, Moor, 909. and it was resolved to be small Tithes. Hutton, 78. But the Ground of that Resolution was questioned in the Case of Udal and Tyndal; Owen, 74, some said it was, because Saffron was small Tithes where-ever it grew: Others, That by the Endowment, Cr. Car. 28. the Parson had only reserved the Tithe of Corn and Hay.

But suppose whole Fields be plant­ed with Woad, which grows in the Nature of an Herb, is this to be reckoned among small Tithes? Crook seems to deliver the Sense of the Court so, in the former Case; but Hutton reports it, that it might come to be majores Decimae and Praedial, Hutton▪ 78. if [Page 302] it came to be the main Profits of the Place. And the like may hold as to Hemp, Hops, Wooll and Lambs. It's there said, that all these new things, as Saffron, Hemp, Woad, Tobacco, &c. are to be reckoned among small Tithes, unless there be some material Circumstance to the contrary. But who is to be Judge of that? And what Proportion chan­ges small Tithes into greater? But what if the Endowment be so expres­sed, that only Tithes of Corn and Hay be reserved to the Parson? Then Rolls thinks all the rest falls to the Vicar by Construction of Law. Rolls, A. 2. 331.

By the Word Altarage, it was re­solved in the Exchequer, upon a so­lemn Hearing, 21 Eliz. and after confirmed in the Case of Wood and Greenwood, not meer Oblations are to be understood, but whatever Cu­stom hath comprehended under it. Littleton, 244. Hetley, 135. And I find in the Settlement of the [Page 303] Altarage of Cockerington by Rob. Grost­head, Bishop of Lincoln, not only Ob­lations and Obventions, but the Tithes of Wooll and Lamb were comprehended under it. Mon. II. 604

II. The next Discharge of Tithes, is by the Privileges of particular Orders allowed by our Law. For it is, to be observed, that no Bulls of Popes make a legal Discharge; but in such Cases where the Law allows them, and my Lord Coke thinks it cannot be insisted upon without danger of a Praemunire. 2 Inst. 653. For when the Cistertians had procured new Bulls to inlarge their Privileges, as to their Lands in the Hands of Far­mers, a Law was passed against it, 2 H. 4. c. 4. which was grounded on a Petition in Parliament shewing the Novelty and Mischief of it. Rot. Parl. 2 H. 4. 41. Mon. II. 511.

It was affirmed by our great Law­yers, Cr. 2. 578. that the Pope's Act in dissol­ving [Page 304] the Body of the Templars, which was done, 5 E. 2. had no Effect here till the 17 E. 2. when the Parliament gave their Lands to the Hospitallers. Palm. 222. Walsingh. 1325.

And that the Pope could not by his Bull dissolve a Vicarage after they were made perpetual by the Statute; Cr. 2. 517. Pal. 222. so that our own Law is to govern in this matter.

But what Orders had Exemption from Tithes by our Law? At first most of the Orders of Monks had it for Lands in their own Hands. This by Hadrian IV. was restrained to the Cistertians, Templars and Hospitallers, which is owned in the Canon Law by a Decretal of Alexander III. Extr. de De­ [...]imis. c. 10. who de­clares it not to be intended for Lands let out to farm.

Innocent III. restrains it to such Lands as they were then in possession of; but my Lord Coke makes the Grant to be from Innocent III. 2 Inst. 652. in the [Page 305] Council of Lateran, 17 John; but he adds, That it extends only to the Lands which they had before; which was all that was done then. But he saith, That this Privilege was allowed by the general Consent of the Realm; however that were, it is certain that the Late­ran Council made no Restriction to the three Orders.

But what shall we say to the Prae­monstratenses, of whom he saith, That they were discharged by a Bull of In­nocent III. This Point was disputed in the Case of Dickenson and Green­how. Popham▪ [...]56. It was not denied, that they had obtained such a Bull, but it was denied that it was ever received here. On the other side, it was said, that their Bulls were confirmed; which doth not appear, nor that any Judg­ment was given in the Case. There is a Bull extant in the Collection of Innocent's Epistles, to exempt the Praemonstratenses from the Tithes of [Page 306] Lands in their own Hands; but this was granted in the first year of In­nocent III. sometime before the Late­ran Council, Innocent. 3. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 331. and they might enjoy the same Privileges with the Cister­tians, if it could be proved, that they were as generally received, which hath not yet been done. As to the Cistertians themselves, there are con­siderable Limitations of their Privi­leges.

1. They must relate to Lands in their Possession before the Lateran Council, A. D. 1215. 17 of King Iohn. And in matters against com­mon Right, the Proof in Reason ought to be on those who pretend to particular Privilege. But it's cer­tain the Cistertian Order hath had many Lands in England since that time (and it were no hard matter to find them out.) But, suppose they were actually discharged at the Dissolution, and the Proprietaries [Page 307] were to enjoy them in the State they found them, is not this a sufficient Discharge? Yes, if it be a legal Dis­charge; for the Statute only puts them into the same legal Capacity they were in before; but if they were Lands given since the Lateran Coun­cil, they were not in a Capacity to be discharged by Law; for it was not otherwise received.

2. This Privilege doth not ex­clude ancient Compositions, as to their Demesn Lands. For these Privi­leges did not go down so easily, but where there were Rectors able to contest it, they brought even the Cistertians to Compositions. And the Pope himself appointed Commissi­oners here to compound the matter: As between the Monastery of Pipe­wel and Hugh Patesbul Rector of Eltyndon, which ended in a Compo­sition of six Marks per Annum for the Tithes of their Demesns. And [Page 308] another between the Vicar of Dun­church and the same Monastery; and between the Rector of Wynswick for the Tithes of Ten Yard-Lands in Colds-Abbey. All which I have per­used in the Register of that Monastery MS.

3. The Privilege doth not hold where the Monasteries were under Va­lue, Coke R. 2. 47. and came to the King by the Statute 27 H. 8. unless they were continued, Moor, 420. and came within the Sta­tute of Dissolution, Cr. Car. 424. 31 H. 8. And it ought to be proved that they conti­nued separate; for if their Lands were given to the greater Monaste­ries, they did not retain the Privi­lege upon Dissolution.

But there is a much harder point concerning the Hospitallers (who had the Lands of the Templers after 17 E. 2.) Their Lands were not given to the King by the Statute of Dis­solution, 31 H. 8. but 32 H. 8. c. [Page 309] 24. and the Clause of Exemption was left out of the Grant. Upon which a great Question hath risen, Whether their Lands are exempt or not? And Judgment was given against them in the Case of Cornwallis, Cr. 2. 58. or Quarles and Spurling. Moor, 913. But in the Case of Whiston and Weston, Iones, 186 it was argued, That the King had the same Privi­leges which the Hospitallers had. But it was replied, That other Lands given to the King after that Act, had not those Privileges, as Chanteries, &c. It was said, that it was, because they were not regular Ecclesiastical Bodies: Bridgm. 33. Which was a strange Answer, con­sidering what sort of Ecclesiastical Bodies the Hospitallers made, Latch. 89. when only the Grand Master and two Chaplains are bound to be Ecclesia­sticks; Rolls. R. 2. 40▪ and in Foreign Judicatures they were denied to be any part of the Clergy, Selden [...]Tithes, 12▪ being only an Order of Knights under some particular Regu­lations.

[Page 310] But suppose them capable of Ap­propriations of Tithes, yet when the Body is dissolved, the Appropriation falls of it self, unless continued by Act of Parliament, as those of the Templars were to them; and those of the Monasteries by 31 H. 8. but where there is no Clause to continue the Appropriation, it must be under­stood to be left to the natural Course of things, and so the Appropriation sinks.

III. The third legal Exemption is from Prescription, and ancient Com­positions. This seems a difficult Case, because something less than the real Value is to be taken, and the Rule in Lyndwood is, Lynd. f. 101. non valet consuetudo, ut minus quam Decima solvatur; but in all such Prescriptions and Composi­tions there is less than the true Value.

To clear this matter, I shall shew,

[Page 311] 1. That by our Ecclesiastical Law, all Compositions are not condemn­ed.

2. That by the Common Law all Prescriptions are not allowed. And if these things be made out, it will follow, that where the Compositions and Prescriptions are legal, the Cler­gy may with good Conscience sub­mit to them, as they do in other mat­ters of Law.

1. As to the Ecclesiastical Law, Lyndwood himself makes these Limi­tations;

1. In case of personal Tithes. Lynd. f. 97. b. c. Consuc [...] f. 99. He grants that as to them, a Man may with a good Conscience observe the Custom although it be under the real Value. Now these are founded on the same Laws that Praedial and Mixt Tithes are; and by the Stat. 2 E. 6. c. 13. they are reduced to a customary Payment before Easter, [Page 312] as it had been used Forty Years be­fore: But besides these there were Offerings to be compounded for, and the Easter Duties are a kind of Composition for personal Tithes.

2. In small Tithes, the customary Payment is allowed. The Payment in Lyndwood's time, was 6 ob. for Six Lambs, because it was the Tenth of the Value at that time of a Lamb of a year old; Lynd. f. 98. the Seventh Lamb was to be paid in kind, for which 3 ob. were to be paid back, because three Lambs were wanting of the Number Ten. But can any one believe that 5 d. was the true Value then of a Lamb of a year old? And Lyndwood doth not suppose it be the exact Value; but it was such as the Provincial Constitution determined, and he allows Compositions super mi­nutis Decimis. Lynd. f. 97. b.

3. Compositions were allowed with the Bishop's Consent with Lay-persons [Page 313] for their Tithes. As to what is past, there was no doubt; but for the future he saith, it doth not hold sine Iudicis auctoritate; which implies, that by his Consent it may. And if so, then a Modus decimandi so quali­fied, is allowed by the Ecclesiastical Law. Such Compositions as these were entred into the Bishop's Regi­stries, and if they were then made upon a valuable Consideration at that time, I doubt the Force of Cu­stom will get the better of the Rea­son that may be taken from the great Difference of Valuation of things.

2. Let us now consider what Pre­scriptions and Compositions are not allowable at Common Law.

1. No Prescription de non deciman­do, is allowed among Lay-persons, because none but spiritual Persons are by the Law capable of Tithes in their own Right. A Lay-man, saith Mr. Selden, cannot be discharged of all Pay­ment [Page 314] by meer Prescription, Selden of Tithes, p. 409. unless he begin the Prescription in a Spiritual Person. And to the same purpose our great Lawyers speak. Coke R. 2. 44. But in the famous Case of Pigot and Hern, Cr. 2. 47. a Distinction was found out, Rolls, 653. which may prove of dangerous Conse­quence, Moor, 531, 425. viz. Hob. 297. That although the Lord of a Manor cannot prescribe for Tithes, because he is not capable of them by our Law, yet he may pre­scribe for a tenth Shock, Cr. El. 599. as a Profit apprendre, as a thing appurtenant to his Manor; and so he may have de­cimam garbam, but not Decimas gar­barum. Upon which Resolution it is said in the Bishop of Winchester's Case, 2 R. 45. That the Lord of a Manor may have Tithes as appurtenant to his Manor: For which there is no Foundation in our Ancient Laws or Customs, that I can find, and is in­consistent with what is before ac­knowledged, that none but Spiritual [Page 315] persons are capable of Tithes. But in plain Truth, this Case is not truly represented; and my Lord Chief Justice Hobart, Hob. 300. a person of great Judgment and Learning in the Law, hath told the World, That this fa­mous Reporter hath sometimes given his own Opinion, and that sudden, instead of the Resolution of the Court, which must take much off from the Authority of his Reports; especially when the Case is differently reported by others; as it falls out in this Case. For Serjeant Moor, who was of Councel in that Case, saith, That the Defendant pleaded a Modus decimandi in Satisfaction for Tithes, Moor, 483. which was 6 s. per Annum: But as to the other point, Whether such an Ancient Modus being made with the Lord of a Manor, binds the Copy­holders, it is out of our way; but sure­ly there ought to be good Proof, that the Modus was made before the Copy­holds [Page 316] holds were granted, which is not offered, but only that it might be so; which deserves no other Answer, but that it might not be so. And it is hard indeed, when Judgments are gi­ven upon Possibilities. And for the Distinction of decima Garba and Deci­mae Garbarum, Moor, 278. in a Composition for Tithes, Seld. p. 398. is the same thing. Mr. Selden, as to this Case of Pigot and Hern, saith, It was an Inheritance of Tithes from immemorial time, by Virtue of an Ancient Composition. And he would not understand the Judges in any other Sense: For no kind of Infeoda­tion of Tithes is allowable here, he saith, so as to create in Lay-men a perpetual Right to them (except only by the Statute of Dissolution of Monasteries) unless it be derived from some Ancient Grant of Dis­charge from the Parson, Patron and Ordinary, with a Consideration of Recompence to the Parson; and that [Page 317] either from time immemorial, or Ancient Composition. And to the same purpose he speaks in another place, P. 285. where he owns, that by our Law every Parson had a common Right to the Tithes of all annual In­crease (Praedial or Mixt) within the limits of his Parish; and any Title or Discharge must be specially plead­ed.

2. Where a Prescription is pleaded de Modo decimandi, the actual Recom­pence by Composition must be shew­ed. For, as my Lord Coke saith, a Mo­dus decimandi is intended as a yearly Sum in way of Satisfaction for the Tithes to the Parson; Select Cases, 43. which Rolls calls the Actual Recompence.

In the Register the Account of the Modus decimandi is thus set down: 1. There was a real Composition, Registr. 38. b. as Four Acres of Land for some small Tithes. 2. There was an Agreement in Writing, by the Consent of Ordinary and Patron.

[Page 318] But my Lord Coke saith, 2 Inst. 490. the Mo­dus may as well be for a Sum of Mo­ney as for Land.

Suppose no Ancient Composition in Writing can be produced, how far doth a Prescription hold?

1. It must be immemorial, Bulst. 2. 238. or time out of mind. Here a great Point arises fit to be considered: Suppose the thing it self hath been within Me­mory, as Improvements by Hops, Fruit-trees, &c. doth not a Compo­sition bind in this Case?

I answer, that we are to distinguish Personal Contracts from Real Composi­tions. March, 87. In the Case of Hitchcock and Hitchcock, there was a Contract be­tween the Vicar and Parishio­ners, but it was denied to be a real Composition, although confirmed by the Ordinary, and affirmed not to be binding to the Successors.

A Composition by a meer verbal Agreement in the Case of Hawles and Hob. 176. [Page 319] Bayfield was declared to be neither binding to the Party nor his Succes­sors. But in the Case of Tanner and Small it was declared to hold for Years, Yelv. 94, 95. but not for Life.

My Lord Coke seems to be of O­pinion, That if it be a Prescription, it must be time out of Memory of Man; 2 Inst. 653. but that a real Composition may be either before, Select Cases, 40. or within Me­mory of Man; but then it must be by Parson, 2 Inst. 655. Patron, Loon. 1. 151. and Ordinary.

It is well observed by Sir Simon Degge in his useful Book about these matters, Parson's Coun. that although real Compo­sitions are supposed in Law to be the Foundation of Prescriptions de Modo decimandi, Part. 2. c. 20. where the Patron, Ordinary and Parson did consent to them; yet that the most of them have grown up by the Negligence and Carelesness of the Clergy them­selves, which, I am afraid, is too true.

[Page 320] And he is of Opinion, That no real Composition can be made now to bind the Successor, since the Sta­tute, 13 Eliz. c. 10. which restrains all binding Grants to One and twen­ty Years, or Three Lives; and if so, then the Consent of Patron and Or­dinary cannot make it good.

2. It must be reasonable, and therefore it hath been rejected in these Cases:

1. If it be a Prescription to pay a certain Tithe without the Parson's View of the Nine Parts, because, saith Hobart, Hob. 107. it is against the Law of Par­tition, Rolls, 647. in the Case of Wilson and the Bishop of Carlisle.

2. If there be no Recompence to the Parson, Rolls, 649. as in the Case of Scory and Barber, Cr. El. 276. the Prescription was founded on the Parishioners finding Straw for the Body of the Church. March, 65.

3. If it be for paying only what was due in lieu of other Tithes; as [Page 321] in the Case of Ingoldsby and Iohnson, Cr. Eliz. 786. that they paid their other Tithes in lieu of Tithes of dry Cattel; C. Select Ca­ses, 45. or in Case a Load of Hay be prescribed for in lieu of Tithe-Hay, Bulst. 2. 238. or Ten Sheafs of Corn for the Tithe of all the rest.

4. If it be not for something cer­tain and durable. Hob. 40. For this, saith Ho­bart, shews an Original Weakness in the Composition; being of a thing certain and durable for that which is not so.

IV. The last Exemption or Dis­charge that is pleaded as to the pay­ment of Tithes, is Unity of Pos­session: That is, where a Monastery had the Right of Tithes by Appro­priation, and had other Lands which did not pay Tithes, because the owners were to receive them, these were actually free at the time of Dis­solution; and the Question is, Whe­ther [Page 322] they are legally so by Virtue of the Statute? It cannot be denied, that Unity of Possession is in it self no le­gal Discharge; but whether by the Words of the Statute the Judges were divided in Opinion. Moor, 47. But afterwards in the Case of Green and Bosekin the Judges allowed it, 420. so it were not a meer Unity of Estate, but of Occu­pation. C. R. 2. 47. Hobart saith, Moor, 533. That after it had been long controverted, Mob. 298. it was received as the common Opinion. Coke, 11 R. 14. That where Unity of Possession gives a Discharge, the Title must be clear, the Non-payment general, and the Prescription time out of Memory; but if the Appropriation were made in the time of Ed. 4. H. 6. it could not be discharged by Unity; nor if it were a late Abby-prescription.

Thus I have endeavoured to lay this matter before you as briefly and clearly as I could, from the best [Page 323] Light I could get, that I might give you such Directions, that you may neither run into needless and vexati­ous Suits, nor be run down by frivo­lous Pretences. It is your great Ad­vantage that you have the Law of your side, if you understand it a right; but have a care of being set on by such, whose Interest it is to pro­mote Suits; and I am sure it is yours to prevent them, if it be possible, and as much as lies in you. The Church's Right is not to suffer by your Negligence; and you are not to make the Church to suffer by your Contentions. He that loves going to Law, seldom fails of having e­nough of it; he suffers in his Purse, in his Reputation, in his Interest, and the Church suffers by his Means. Endeavour to gain, as much as may be, the Love of your People by a kind, modest, courteous and peace­able Behaviour, which is the best [Page 324] way to prevent, or to compose Diffe­rences. If you are forced to sue for your Maintenance, let them see that you are forced to it, and that you are always willing to put an end to all such Disputes, if the Church's Right be secured, which you are bound to preserve.

IN speaking clearly and distinct­ly to this Case, there are these two Things to be considered;

I. By what Authority they do oblige,

II. In what Way and Manner they oblige.

[Page 326] I. The first thing to be consider­ed, is the Authority by which Ec­clesiastical Canons and Constitutions do oblige. For, if there be not suf­ficient Authority, there cannot be that Obligation on Conscience, which supposes a legal Exercise of Power, or a just Right to command. Our Obedience to the Orders of our Superiours, is due by Virtue of that Divine Law which requires us to be subject for Conscience-sake: But our Obedience is to be regulated by the Order of Iustice, i.e. it ought to be according to Law. Therefore it is necessary, in the first place, to en­quire, Whether there be among us any such things as Ecclesiastical Laws, i.e. such Rules, which according to the Constitution of our Government, we are bound to observe.

For we are Members of a Church established by Law; and there are legal Duties incumbent on us, with [Page 327] respect, not only to the Laws of God, but of the Realm. For, although our Office and Authority, as Church­men, hath a higher Original; yet the Limitation of the Exercise of it, is within such Bounds as are allow­ed and fixed by the Law of the Land.

It is therefore a matter of great Consequence to us to understand how far our Ecclesiastical Constitutions are grounded upon the Law of the Land, which cannot be done with­out searching into the Foundations of our Laws.

Which lie in three Things: 1. Im­memorial Custom. 2. General Pra­ctice and Allowance. 3. Authority of Parliament.

And I shall endeavour to shew how far our Ecclesiastical Constitu­tions are founded on these.

[Page 328] 1. Immemorial Custom. Our greatest Lawyers allow Ancient Custom to be one of the Foundations of our Laws; 1 Inst. 11. b. 115. b. 344. and my Lord Coke calls it one of the main Triangles of the Laws of England. I suppose he means Foundations. And another saith, Preface to 4 R. That the Common Law of England is nothing else but the com­mon Custom of the Realm. Sir Iohn Da­vis Pref. My Lord Chief Justice Hales saith, Hales Histo­ry and Analy­sis of the Law, MS. That the common Usage, Custom and Practice of the Kingdom, is one of the main Constituents of our Law. 1 Inst. 110. b. Coke quotes Bracton' s Authority to prove, That Custom obtains among us the Force of a Law, where it is received and approved by long Use. And of every Custom, he saith, there be two Essential Parts, Time and Usage; Time out of Mind, and continual and peaceable Usage with­out Interruption. But in Case of Pre­scription or Custom, he saith, That an Interruption of Ten or Twenty Years hinders not the Title, 1 Inst. 114. b. but an Interruption [Page 329] in the Right; the other is only an actual Suspension for a time.

It may be asked, How Time and Usage come to make Laws, since Time hath no Operation in Law, Grot. de J. B. & P. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 1. saith Grotius?

Not of it self, as Grotius there saith, but with the Concurrence of other Circumstances it may.

Bracton saith, Bract. l. 1. c. 3. longa possessio parit jus possidendi; and by a long and peaceable Possession Dominion is transferred, without either Title or Delivery; which he founds on this good Reason, L. 2. c. 22. n. 1. That all Claims of Right ought to have a certain Limi­tation of Time, L. 4. c. 17. n. 5. c. 40. and length of Time takes away any Proof to the contra­ry. Littleton saith, Littl. Ten. Sect. 170. That Time out of Memory of Man, is said to give Right, because no Proof can be brought beyond it. And this he calls Prescription at Common Law, as it is distinguished from Prescription by the several Statutes of Limitations.

[Page 330] But whence is it then, that an im­memorial Possession gives Right?

Is it from the meer Silence of the Parties concerned to claim it? No, Silence gives no Consent, where Ig­norance or Fear may be the Cause of it. And is it a Punishment upon the Neglect of the Party concern­ed? So Bracton saith, Time doth it per patientiam & negligentiam veri Domini. But meer Neglect doth not overthrow Right, unless there be an antecedent Law to make that Neglect a Forfeiture?

Is it from a Presumptive Derelicti­on? But that supposes not bare Con­tinuance of Time, but some kind of voluntary Act, which implies a sort of Consent which doth not ap­pear in this Case. And it is a great Mistake in those, who think there is no Presumptive Dereliction, where there is not a full Consent; for it may be, where there is the Consent [Page 331] of a mixt Will, i.e. partly voluntary, and partly involuntary; when the Circumstances are such, as the Per­son rather chuses to leave his Right, than submit to the lawful Conditions of enjoying it: As if a Man would rather quit his Fee than perform the Service which belongs to it.

Is it from the common Interest of Mankind, that some Bounds be fixed to all Claims of Right? Because o­therwise that Men will be liable to perpetual Disturbance, if the Right be permitted to be claimed beyond any possibility of Proof.

Or is it, lastly, that in such Na­tions where immemorial Custom obtains the Force of a Law, it seems agreeable to the Foundations of Law, that a long continued Posses­sion should carry Right along with it.

And this was the Case here in England, as not only appears by [Page 332] what Bracton hath said, Glanv. Prol. but Glanvil makes a great part of our Law to consist of reasonable Customs of long Continuance. And St. Germain affirms Ancient general Customs to be one of the principal Foundations of our Law; Dr. and St. c. 7. and that they have the Force of Laws, and that the King is bound by his Oath to perform them. And it is worth our while to observe what general Customs he doth instance in; as the Courts of Equity and Law, the Hundred Court, the Sheriffs Turn, the Court Baron, &c. which depend not upon Acts of Parliament, but the Ancient Cu­stom of England, which he calls the Common Law. And among these Ancient Customs, he reckons up Rights of Descent, Escheats, the different sorts of Tenures, Freeholds, and the Laws of Property, as they are received among us.

[Page 333] We are now to enquire, how far any of our Ecclesiastical Constitu­tions can be said to be built upon this Foundation; and upon imme­morial Custom generally received.

1. I place (1.) the Distribution of this National Church into two Pro­vinces, in each whereof there is an Archbishop with Metropolitical Pow­er, which lies chiefly in these things, (1.) The Right of Consecration of his Suffragans. (2.) The Right of Visitation of every Diocess in such Way and Manner as Custom hath settled it. (3.) The Right of recei­ving Appeals from Inferiour Courts of Judicature in Ecclesiastical Mat­ters. (4.) The Right of presiding in Provincial Councils of the Suffra­gans of his Province; which by the most Ancient Constitutions of this Church, were to be held once a Year; so it was decreed in the Council under Theodore, Spel. Con. I. p. 153. A. D. 673. [Page 334] but by the Difficulties of the times, they were discontinued; and so the Authority of examining things through the Province, came by a kind of Devolution to the Arch­bishop and his Courts. (5.) The Custody of vacant Sees, by the Cu­stom of England, falls to the Metro­politan, if there hath been no Cu­stom or Composition to the con­trary. And so it hath been upon so­lemn▪ Rolls, 2. 322. Debates resolved in our Courts of Common Law. Bulst. 3. 176. Coke thinks that of common Right it belongs to the Dean and Chapter, Brownl. 1. 43. but by Custom to the Archbishop. Keble, 3. 91. But Panormitan saith, Panor. in c. Cum olim. There was no Pretence of common Right for them, till the time of Boniface VIII.

2. The ordinary Jurisdiction of every Bishop over the Clergy of his own Diocess. This is as ancient as Christianity among us. For no sooner were Churches planted, but there [Page 335] were Bishops set over them; who had from the Beginning so much Authority, that none of the Clergy could either receive or quit his Benefice without their Consent and Approbation; and they were all bound to give an Account of their Behaviour at their Visitations; and in case of Contempt, or other Misde­meamours, they were to proceed a­gainst them according to the Ca­nons of the Church. I do not say the Diocesses were at first all mo­delled alike, or with the same Bounds which they now have; which was unreasonable to suppose, considering the gradual Conversion of the Na­tion. For at first there was but one Bishop in every one of the Saxon Kingdoms, except Kent, where was but one Suffragan to the Metropo­litan for some time, till the King­doms came to be united; or the Kings consented to an Increase of [Page 336] several Diocesses, and uniting them under one Metropolitan, which was a Work of Time. But in all the Saxon Councils we find no mention of any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but what was in the Bishops themselves, Concil. Cloveshoo, Can. 1, 4, 5. Concil. Cealchyth. Can. 1. Egbert Canon. c. 45, 62. The first who began to seek for Exemptions, were the Abbots, who were under the Bishop's Juris­diction, who was too near them; and therefore they endeavoured to get under the Pope's immediate Juris­diction by Charters of Exemption, which the great Abbies either pro­cured or made; and the more Ancient the more Suspicious. But the Lord Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared, Moor, R. 783. That by the Common Law of England, every Bishop in his Dio­cess, and the Archbishops in Convo­cation may make Canons to bind within the Limits of their Jurisdiction.

[Page 337] 3. The subordinate Jurisdiction which was lodged in the Bodies of the Clergy resident in Cathedral Churches, and of Archdeacons in the several Diocesses: I cannot find either of these to have had any Juris­diction here before the Conquest, neither were there any Courts of Ju­stice out of the several Counties be­fore; for all Causes were transacted in the County-Courts and Sheriffs Turns, and Appeals lay from them to the Supreme Judicature of the King and the Lords. But this doth not hinder but these Courts may be founded on the Law of England. And so the o­riginal Jurisdiction, which of Right belonged to the Bishop, might by degrees, and a gradual Consent, come to be committed, as to some parts, to the Bodies of Cathedral Churches, and to the Archdeacons, who are, saith my Lord Coke, 1 Inst. [...]. Sixty in England. We are told in a late Case of [Page 338] Woodward and Fox, Ventris, II. 189. 269. That there are Archdeaconries in England by Pre­scription, which have no Dependency on the Bishop, but are totally exempt. And for this Godolphin is cited, Godol. 61, 65. who refers to the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions, f. 27. where we read of some Archdeacons having a customary and limited Iurisdiction separate from the Bishop, for which a Prescription lies. But this is only for some special Iurisdiction; as the Archdeacon of Richmond for Institutions, which came first by Grant from the Bishops; but that not being to be produced, they insist upon Custom and Prescription, as the Deans and Chapters do, where the Ancient Compositions are lost. But none who understand the An­cient Constitution of this Church, can suppose either of them to have been Original, since the Right to the Juris­diction of the Diocess was in the Bishop, before there were here either [Page 339] Archdeacons or Chapters with Jurisdi­ction. Rolls R. 2. 150. In the Case of Chiverton and Trudgeon, it was declared, That an Archdeacon might have a peculiar Jurisdiction, as to Administration, &c. as the Dean of St. Paul's had at S. Pancras; and so the Archdeacon of Cornwall, as to Wills. In the case of Gastril and Iones the Chief Justice declared, That the Archdeacon is the Bishop's Officer, and his Autho­rity subordinate to the Bishops, 443. and granted by them; but if special Cu­stom be pleaded, that must be well proved; to which Dodderidge a­greed.

But we must distinguish between Archdeaconries by Prescription, for which I can find no Foundation (being all derived by Grant from the Bishop) and Archdeacons having some kind of Iurisdiction by Prescription, which others have not; which cannot be denied. All the Power which the [Page 340] Archdeacons have by virtue of their Office, is per modum scrutationis sim­plicis, De Offic. Archdiac. as Lyndwood speaks, tanquam Vicarius Episcopi: Whatever Power they have beyond this, is not Iure communi, but Iure speciali, and depends either upon Grant or Custom; which the Gloss on the Legatine Con­stitutions calls a limited Iurisdiction. Gloss. in Const. Oth. p. 27.

The Archdeacon's Court is declared by the Judges in Woodward' s Case, Ventris, II. 269. to have been, 4 Inst. 339. time out of Mind, settled as a distinct Court, from which there lies an Appeal to the Bishop's Court, by the Statute, 24 H. 8. c. 12.

And so the Archdeacon's Jurisdicti­on is founded on an immemorial Custom, in Subordination to the Bishops.

As to Deans and Chapters, I observe these things:

1. That although Ecclesiastical Bodies in Cathedrals were very an­cient, yet we read not of any Juris­diction [Page 341] peculiar to themselves, during the Saxon times. 3 R. 75. My Lord. Coke saith, There were Chapters, as the Bi­shop's Council, before they had distinct possessions. And by their Books, he saith, it appears, that the Bishops parted with some of their Possessions to them, and so they became Patrons of the Prebends of the Church: Such were London, York and Litchfield.

2. That several of our Chapters were founded and endowed by the Bishops since the Conquest: Such was that of Salusbury by Osmund out of his own Estate, as appears by his Charter, and the Confirmation of H. 2. So was that of Lincoln by Re­migius, who removed the See from Dorchester thither, and placed there a Dean, Treasurer, Praecentor, and Seven Archdeacons, as Henry of Hun­tingdon saith, who lived near the time. And in following times those of Exeter and Wells were settled as [Page 342] Dean and Chapter; for they were Ec­clesiastical Bodies before, but not under that Denomination.

3. That some had the legal Rights of Dean and Chapters, as to Election of Bishops, and Confirmation of Leases, &c. but were a Monastick Body consisting of Prior and Con­vent: Such were Canterbury, Winche­ster, Worcester, after the Expulsion of the Secular Canons; for the Monks not only enjoyed their Lands, but were willing enough to continue the Name of Dean among them As at Canterbury, after Dunstan's time, Agelmothas is called Dean; in Worce­ster Wolstan is called Dean when he was Prior; [...]. I. 140. and Winsius, upon the first Change, is said to be placed loco Decani, [...]. A. 969. by Florence of Worcester. At Norwich, Herbert the Bishop founded the Prior and Convent out of his own Possessions in the time of William II. and they became the Chapter of the [Page 343] Bishop by their Foundation. Anderson, II. 120. Now as to these, it is resolved in the Dean and Chapter of Norwich's Case, That when the King transferred them from a Prior and Convent, the Legal Rights remained the same. 1 Inst. 102. b. And in Hayward and Fulcher's Case, 3 R. 75. the Judges declared, Palmer, 501. That an Ecclesiastical Body may surrender their Lands, but they cannot dissolve their Corporation, Iones, 168. but they still remain a Chapter to the Bishop. And it was not only then delivered, but since insisted upon in a famous Case, Quo Warran­to, 14. That it was the Resolution of the Iudges, That a Sur­render cannot be made by a Dean and Chapter, without Consent of the Bi­shop, because he hath an Interest in them.

4. That H. 8. endowed some as Chapters to new erected Bishopricks, as Chester, Bristol, Oxford, &c. 31 H. 8, 9. 34 H. 8. 17. and united others, as Bath and Wells, and Coventry and [Page 344] Litchfield, 33 H. 8. 30. 34 H. 8. 15.

5. That where the Custom hath so obtained, there may be a Legal-Chapter without a Dean; as in the Diocesses of S. David's and Landaff, where there is no other Head of the Chapter but the Bishop; but they must act as a distinct Body in Electi­ons and Confirmations of Grants by the Bishops.

6. That by the Ancient Custom of England, there are sole Ecclesiasti­cal Corporations as well as aggre­gate. A sole Ecclesiastical Corpora­tion, is, where a single Person re­presents a whole Succession, and un­der that Capacity is impowered to Receive and to Convey an Estate to his Successors: As Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, [...] Parsons, &c. But Par­sons and Vicars are seized only in Right of the Church, but as to a Bishop, he may have a Writ of Right, [Page 345] because the Fee-simple abideth in him and his Chapter; Sect. 645. and so may a Dean and Master of an Hospital: Sect. 413. And these are called Bodies Politick by Littleton.

That the Exercise of the Bishop's Power may be restrained by ancient Compositions, as is seen in the two Ancient Ecclesiastical Bodies of St. Paul's and Litchfield. Concerning which, it is to be observed, That where the Compositions are extant, both Parties are equally bound to observe their parts. Thus by the Remisness and Absence of the Bishops of Litchfield from their See, by going to Chester, and then to Coventry, the Deans had great Power lodged in them, as to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction there. After long Contests, the mat­ter came to a Composition, A. D. 1428. by which the Bishops were to visit them but once in Seven Years, and the Chapter had Jurisdiction o­ver their own Peculiars. So in the [Page 346] Church of Sarum the Dean hath ve­ry large Jurisdiction, even out of the Bishop's Diocess; which makes it probable to have been very ancient; but upon contest, it was settled by Composition between the Bishop, Dean, and Chapter, A. D. 1391. But where there are no Compositi­ons, it depends upon Custom, which limits the Exercise, although it can­not deprive the Bishop of his Dio­cesan-Right.

4. The Delegate Jurisdiction which was committed to the several Officers of the Bishops Courts, and the Manner of their Proceedings, is founded upon immemorial Cu­stom. In the Saxon times I find no Delegation of Ecclesiastical Juris­diction; for the Bishops sate in person in the County-Courts, and there heard Ecclesiastical Causes, as appears by the Charter of H. 1. [Page 347] when he pretended to restore the Saxon Laws, c. 7. But William I. had settled the Consistory-Court by as good a Law as any was made at that time, distinct from the County-Court, and required all Ecclesiastical Causes to be there heard; and his Son H. 1. did but make a shew of restoring the Saxon Laws, and the former Law came to be generally received; and so Mr. Selden yields, Selden of Tithes, p. 413. that it grew to be a general Law; which shews that it obtained the Force of a Law by Consent, as well as by Authority. The Consistory-Courts being thus settled, and Numbers of Causes there de­pending, and the Bishops being then by H. 2. in the Constitutions of Cla­rendon strictly tied to Attendance up­on the Supreme Courts of Judica­ture, with other Barons, there came a Necessity of taking in other Per­sons with a delegated Power to hear Causes, and to do such other Acts of [Page 348] Jurisdiction as the Bishops should appoint. For it was still allowed that Iure communi, [...]ordenave, f. 69. the Jurisdiction was in the Bishop; but Iure speciali, & in auxilium Episcopi, it might be dele­gated to others. And so it hath been here received, and not only here, but it hath been the general Practice of Christendom. As to the manner of Proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts, it is the same in all Parts, and built on the same Grounds with those of our Courts of Equity and Admiralty, which are as different from those of the Common Law.

5. The settling Parochial Rights, or the Bounds of Parishes depends upon an ancient and immemorial Custom. For they were not limited by any Act of Parliament, nor set forth by special Commissioners; but as the Circumstances of Times, and Places, and Persons did happen [Page 349] to make them greater or lesser.

In some places Parishes seem to in­terfere, when some place in the mid­dle of another Parish belongs to one that is distant; but that hath general­ly happened by an Unity of Posses­sion, when the Lord of a Manor was at the Charge to erect a new Church, and make a distinct Parish of his own Demesns, some of which lay in the Compass of another Parish. But now care is taken by Annual Per­ambulations to preserve those Bounds of Parishes, which have been long settled by Custom. But the Bounds of Parishes is not allowed to belong to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.

II. The next Foundation of Law is a General Practice, and Al­lowance i.e. when things of them­selves do not oblige by the Au­thority of those that made them; yet being generally received and al­lowed, [Page 350] they thereby become Law to us. This we have in an Act of Parliament, 25 H. 8. c. 21. wherein it is said, That the People of England are only bound to such Laws as are properly their own, being in Subje­ction to no Foreign Legislative Power. But were not many things here received for Laws, which were Enacted by a Foreign Authority, as the Papal and Legatine Constitutions? True, say they, but it is not by Vir­tue of their Authority, but by the free Consent of the People in the Use and Allowance of them: And so they are not observed as the Laws of any Fo­reign Prince, Potentate, or Prelate, but as the customed and ancient Laws of this Realm, originally established as Laws of the same, by the said Sufferance, Con­sent and Custom, and no otherwise.

So that here we have a full and express Declaration by Parliament; That such Canons as have been re­ceived [Page 351] and allowed by ancient Cu­stom, make a part of our Laws, and continue to oblige, provided that they be not repugnant to the King's Prerogative, nor to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of the Realm, as it is expressed in another Act of the same Parliament, 25 H. 8. c. 19.

The Ecclesiastical Laws, saith my Lord Coke, 1 Inst. 344. are such as are not against the Laws of the Realm, viz. the Common Law, and the Statutes and Customs of the Realm: And according to such Laws the Ordinary and other Ecclesiastical Iudges do proceed in Causes within their Conusance.

So that by the Acknowledgement of this great Oracle of the Common Law, there are Laws Ecclesiastical in force among us, and Causes to be judged by those Laws, and Officers appointed by the Law to proceed ac­cording to them.

[Page 352] The Ecclesiastical Laws and Ordi­nances are owned by the Statute, 27 H. 8. c. 20. 32 H. 8. c. 7. 35 H. 8. c. 19. after the Commission appoint­ed for the Review of them. 1 E. 6. c. 2. The Ecclesiastical Courts are appointed to be kept by the King's Authority, and Process to be issued out in his Name in all Suits and Cau­ses of Instance between Party and Party, where the Causes are particu­larly mentioned, which belong to those Courts, and no Alteration is made in them, as to their powers, but only that the Process should be in the King's Name.

But some persons in our Age, who love to be always starting Diffi­culties to humour such as bear ill. Will to our Constitution, have [...] although this Act was [...] M. 2. yet that Repeal [...] [...]ac. 25. n. 48. there­fore [...] Stat. 1 E. 6. is [...]

[Page 353] But the plain and short Answer is this, That there was no need of any Debate about the Repeal of the Sta­tute of E. 6. after the first of Q. Eliz. because then the Statute, 25 H. 8. c. 20. was expresly revived, wherein the Bishops were impowered to act as be­fore they might have done, according to the Laws and Customs of the Realm. By which no less Men of the Law than Coke, C. 12. 8. Popham, and other Judges did think the Stile of the Court, and Manner of their Proceedings was com­prehended. And the Ancient Episcopal Iurisdiction is declared to be according to Law, by the Stat. 1 El. c. 1. and all Foreign Iurisdiction is abolished, and the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction annexed to the Crown of this Realm; which is owned by every Bishop when he takes the Oath of Supremacy. How then can it be imagined, that he should do any more to the Prejudice of the Crown, by the Process being in the Bishop's [Page 354] Name, than the Lord of a Manor doth, when he keeps his Courts in his own Name? To suppose that it is owning a Foreign Iurisdiction, is ri­diculous; for the Bishops of England never pretended to act as Ordinaries, by Virtue of a Jurisdiction from the Pope, but by Virtue of their Origi­nal Authority which they had by the Laws of the Realm, as to their ex­terior Jurisdictions. And the Autho­rity they then acted by from the Pope, was in Cases extraordinary, when they were delegated by particular Commission. And if there had been any real Derogation from the King's Prerogative, in the Process being in the Bishop's Name, can any Man of Sense imagine, that it would have been permitted in such jealous times as to Supremacy, as the latter end of H. 8. and the whole Reign of Q. Eli­zabeth were, wherein the Bishops wanted not Enemies, but their Ma­lice [Page 355] would have been too apparent, if they had insisted on such Objecti­ons? But to proceed in shewing that the Ecclesiastical Laws have been owned by Acts of Parliament since the Reformation, 2 E. 6. c. 13. n. 13. The Ecclesiastical Iudges are required to proceed according to the King's Ecclesia­stical Laws.

And to the same purpose, 1 El. c. 2. n. 23.

Accordingly my Lord Coke fre­quently owns the Ecclesiastical Laws and Iurisdiction, 1 Inst. 11. 4 Inst. 321. Prooem. to 4 Inst. so they be bounded by the Laws of the Realm; of which there can be no Question. For deciding of Controversies, and for distribution of Iu­stice, 1 Inst. 96. saith he, there be within this Realm two distinct Iurisdictions; the one Ec­clesiastical, limited to certain spiritual and particular Cases; the other secular and general, for that it is guided by the com­mon and general Law of the Realm.

[Page 356] And to the same purpose my Lord Chief Justice Hales in several places in a MS. Discourse of the Hi­story and Analysis of the Common Law, ch. 1, and 2. But here the great Dif­ficulty lies in finding out what these Canons and Constitutions are, which have been so received and allowed by our Laws.

For it is certain, that several Ca­nons made by Popes, were not re­ceived here, Stat. de Mer­ton. c. 9. as in the Statute of Mer­ton, about Legitimation of Children born before Marriage, Stat. Mert. c. 9. where the Lords declared they would not alter the old Laws for a new Canon. For Alexander III. in the time of Hen. II. had made a Canon to that purpose; Glanvil. l. 7. [...]. 15. but as Glanvil saith, it was contra jus & consuetudinem Regni.

The Canon to take away the Be­nefit of the Clergy from Bigami, Stat. de Bi­gamis. c. 5. was debated in Parliament how far it should be received, and the Sense [Page 357] there declared, which was complain­ed of, 51 E. 3. and taken away, 1 E. 6. c. 12.

The Canon against Investiture of Bishops by a Lay-hand, was never here received; for although H. 1. af­ter a long Contest gave it up, yet it was resumed by his Successors.

The Canons for Exemption of the Clergy, were never fully received here. Popham, 157. Some Lawyers say, it was ne­ver observed; I suppose they mean, according to the Canons, but that they had legal Privileges here, al­though not a total Exemption, can­not be denied by any one versed in our Laws from the Saxon times. Spel. Conc [...] 2. 342.

The Pope's Canon for the Cler­gy not being taxed without his con­sent, was never received, as appears by the Contests about it in the time of E. 1. and their Submission after­wards.

[Page 358] The Pope's Canons about Ap­peals, Provisors, Dispensations, &c. were never received by such a gene­ral Consent as to make them Laws; they were sometimes practised by Connivence, and the Kings, when it served their purposes, let them alone; but as often as there was occasion, they were contested and denied, and Statutes made against the Execution of them.

Some Canons I find disputed, whe­ther they were received by the Law of England or not.

As the Canon against Clergy mens Sons succeeding their Fathers in their Benefices immediately, De Eili [...] Presbyt. cum à jure sit in­hibit. Lyndw. f. 32. without a Papal Dispensation; is not only a part of the Canon Law, but enter'd in our Provincial Constitutions. But in the Case of Stoke against Sykes, it was held by Dodderidge and Iones, two learned Judges, That this Canon was not received here. Latch. 191. And Dodderidge [Page 359] instanced in two other Canons not received; as against a Man's marrying a Woman he had committed Adultery with; and a Lay-man's not revoking his first Presentation. And Sir Iohn Davis mentioned reckoning the Months for Pre­sentation by Weeks, Popham, 157. and not by the Calen­dar. But both these are disputable Points.

For some say, Leon. I. 156. Hugh's Pars. Law, c. 12. Lyndw. f. 119. Leon. I. 39. as to the former, That none but the King can revoke a Presentation. But the Canonists think a private Patron may vary with the Bishop's Consent.

And as to the way of computing the Months, it hath been differently re­solved; but in Catesbie's Case, it was determined to be Calendar-Months for many Reasons. 6 R. 61. But in the ancient Resolution in the time of E. II. the Tempus semestre was reckoned from Notice to the Patron, and not from the Death of the Incumbent. Rolls A. [...] 363. Rolls saith, By our Law it is from the time [Page 360] the Patron might have notice, with re­gard to the distance of the Place where the Incumbent died: Which leaves the matter uncertain. But the Register reckons from the Vacancy.

In many other Cases the foreign Ca­nons were not received, Reg. 42. b. for they allow but Four Months to a Lay-Patron, 2 Inst. 361. but our Law Six Months; they deny any Sale of a Right of Advowson, but our Law allows it, and a Separation of it from the Inheritance, which the Canon Law allows not; and so in other particulars, but these are suffi­cient to my purpose.

It is observable, that after the Council of Lions, where the Pope was present, Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, Spel. Concil. II. 329. called a Provincial Coun­cil, wherein he mentions the diffe­rence of our Customs from all o­thers, and a Temperament to be made suitable to them. And our Judges in the great Case of Evans Iones, 160. [Page 361] and Ayscough, declared, That no Ca­nons bind here, but such as are recieved by the Realm. Latch. 234. And Dodderidge said, Plamer, 458. That our Ecclesiastical Law doth not consist of the Pope's Decretals, but is an Extract out of the Ancient Canons, General and National. But the Judges agreed, That when they are received, they become part of our Law. 469.

Lord Chief Justice Vaughan saith, Vaugh. 21. That if Canon Law be made a part of the Law of the Land, then it is as much the Law of the Land, and as well, and by the same Authority, as any other part of the Law of the Land.

In another place, That the Ancient Canon Law received in this Kingdom, is the Law of the Kingdom in such Cases. 132.

In a third, That a lawful Canon, is the Law of the Kingdom, 327. as well as an Act of Parliament.

[Page 362] III. I now come to the third thing, viz. The Power of making Canons by Act of Parliament.

This is founded on the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 19. The Words are, That no Canons, Constitutions and Ordinances, Provincial or Synodal, shall be made, promulged and executed without the King's Royal Assent or Licence.

Canons so made, and authorized by the King's Letters Patents, according to the Form of the Statute, are said by Lord Chief Justice Vaughan, Vaugh. 327. to be Canons warranted by Act of Parliament. And such he affirms the Canons of A. D. 1603. to be.

But some have objected,

That these are only Negative Words, Bagshaw's Arg. about the Canons, p. 10. and are not an Introduction of a new Law, but a Declaration of what the Law was before.

But my Lord Coke with far greater Judgment, 4 Inst. 323. limits that Expression, That what was then passed, was decla­ratory [Page 363] of the Common Law, to that Clause, That no Canons should be in Force, which were repugnant to the Laws of the Realm.

But as to the making of new Canons, he only saith, That their Iurisdiction and Power is much limited, because they must have licence to make them, and the King's Royal Assent to allow them, before they be put in Execution. But he never imagined the Sense of the Statute to be, That no Canons could be made but in Parliament, or that the King had not a Power to con­firm new Canons made by the Con­vocation.

As to the Law, as it stood be­fore, we must distinguish these two things;

1. Convocations called by the King's Writ to the Bishops, and the body of the Clergy, could never assemble without it. But the Writ for the Convocation to sit with the Parlia­ment, [Page 364] (not together in Place, but at the same time) is contained in the Writ to the Bishop, and begins with the Clause, Praemunientes. And it is most probable, that it began on the same Ground that the Attendance of Burgesses did, viz. That when they were brought into the Pay­ment of Subsidies, they ought to give their Consent. For I find, that in the time of H. 3. A. R. 39. the In­feriour Clergy complained, Annal. Bur­ [...]on, 356. That they were taxed without their Consent.

2. Convocations called by the King's Writ to the Archbishops; and in this Province the Archbishop sends his Mandate to the Bishop of London, who is to summon all the Bishops, &c. to appear at a certain Time and Place, and to act as they receive Authority from the King.

The not distinguishing these two Writs, hath caused so much Confu­sion in some Mens Minds, about the [Page 365] Rights of the Convocation: For they imagine that the Convocation, as it treats of Ecclesiastical Matters, sits by Virtue of the first Writ, which is in the Bishops Summons to Parlia­ment; but that related to them as one of the three Estates of the Realm, whose Consent was then required to their own Subsidies, which were di­stinctly granted, but confirmed by the other Estates.

But the other Writ was directed to the Archbishop, by which the Bi­shops and Inferiour Clergy were strict­ly required to appear, and then to understand the King's further Plea­sure, as appears by the most ancient. Writs for a Convocation. Which shews, that the Convocation, proper­ly so called, is an Occasional Assem­bly for such purposes as the King shall direct them when they meet. And this was the true Foundation upon which the Statute, 25 H. 8. was [Page 366] built. For it cannot be denied, that in Fact there had been Convocations for Ecclesiastical Purposes called without the Kings Writ, by Virtue of the Archbishop's Legatine Power, which was permitted to be exercised here, although it were an Usurpa­tion upon the King's Right. So even in the time of H. 8. although there were a Convocation summoned by the King's Writ to the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet Cardinal Wolsley, by Virtue of his Legatine Power, su­periour to that of the Archbishop, removed the Convocation to another place, and presided in it: Which was as great an Affront to the King's as well as the Archbishop's Autho­rity, as could well be imagined. But this was then patiently born: Where­fore the Statute is to be understood of Legal, and not of Legatine Convo­cations.

[Page 367] But when H. 8. was sufficiently provoked by the Court of Rome, he resolved to resume the ancient and legal Rights of the Crown, how soever disused by modern Usurpa­tions. And among these he claimed this of summoning the Convocati­on, and directing the Proceedings therein.

The Difference of these Writs will best appear by the Instance of the Convocation, A. D. 1640.

In the Year, 1639. about the first of February the Parliament Writ was issued out to the Bishops for calling their Clergy to Parliament; and this is only ad consentiendum iis quae tunc ibidem de communi Concilio Regni nostri contigerint ordinari.

The other Writ for the Convoca­tion to the Archbishops was issued out the twentieth of February, and had this Clause, ad tractandum, con­sentiendum, & concludendum super prae­missis [Page 368] & aliis quae sibi clarius exponen­tur ex parte meâ.

The Parliament at that time being dissolved, it's certain the Convocation sitting by Virtue of the Writ to the Bishops must fall with it: But a great Question arose, Whether the Convo­cation sitting by the Writ to the Arch­bishops, was dissolved, or not? And the greatest Judges and Lawyers of that time were of Opinion it was not. But those were not times to venture upon such Points, when people were disposed to find Fault, as they did, to purpose when the next Parliament met; who made use of the Sitting of this Convocation and the Canons then pass'd, as one of the popular Themes to declaim upon against the Bishops, and to inflame the Nation against the whole Order.

The greatest Objection in Point of Law, was, That the Commission had a Respect to the Convocation [Page 369] sitting in Parliament-time, which be­gan 13 April 1640. and the Com­mission bore Date April 15. the Par­liament was dissolved May 5. and the 12th of May a new Commission was granted, which made void that of the fifteenth of April; and so what was done by Virtue of that, must be done out of Parliament, and so not in Convocation, according to 25 H. 8. 19. although these Canons were confirmed by the King's Au­thority the thirtieth of Iune the same Year.

After the King's Restoration, an Act of Parliament passed for Resto­ring the Bishops Ordinary Jurisdicti­on; 13 Car. 2. c. 12. wherein a Clause is added, That this Act did not confirm those Canons of 1640. but left the Ecclesiastical Laws as they stood 1639. which Act being passed by the King's Assent, it voids the former Confirma­tion of them, and so leaves them [Page 370] without Force. But the Alteration of our Law by the Act, 25 H. 8. c. 19. lay not in this, that the Con­vocation by the King's Writ to the Archbishop, could not sit but in Parliament-time (although that in all respects be the most proper time) for there is not a Word tending that way in the Statute; but Provincial Councils having been frequently held here, without any Writ from the King, and therein treating of Matters prejudicial to the Crown, by Vir­tue of a Legatine Power, there was great Reason for the King to resume the ancient Right of the Crown. For so William I. declared it in Eadmerus, Eadmer. Hist. p. 6. That nothing should be done in Pro­vincial Councils without his Authority. But afterwards we find Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, holding a Provincial Council against the King's Prohibition; Hoveden, p. 806. and several Writs were sent to them to prohibit their med­dling [...]pel. II. 123. [Page 371] in Matters of State in Prejudice to the Crown, 18 H. 3. under Pe­nalty of the Bishops forfeiting their Baronies; and to the like purpose, 35 E. 1. 15 E. 2. 6 E. 3. which seems to be a tacit Permission of these Provincial Councils, provided they did nothing prejudicial to the Crown. And from such Councils came our Provincial Constitutions, which Lynd­wood hath digested according to the Method of the Canon-Law, and hath therein shewed what part of the Ca­non-Law hath any Force here; not by Virtue of any Papal or Legatine Power, but by the General Consent of the Nation, by which they have been received among us.

But my business is not now with Canons so received, but with Canons made according to the Statute, 25 H. 8. 19. for it is ridiculous to imagine those are only negative Words, for then they exclude the King's Power [Page 372] of calling a Convocation, as well as confirming the Acts of it. For to what purpose is the King's Writ to call them together, if being assembled they can do nothing?

But I have already mentioned my Lord Chief Justice Vaughan's Opi­nion, That the Canons made A. D. 1603. are warranted by 25 H. 8. c. 19. It was urged by the Council in the Case of Grove and Eliot, Ventris Rep. II. 42. 22 Carol. 2. That no Canons can alter the Law, which are not confirmed by Act of Par­liament. But it was said on the other side, That these Canons had been al­ways allowed, having been confirmed by the King. One of the Judges said, That the King and Convocation cannot make Canons to bind the Laity, but only the Clergy. But Vaughan said, That those Canons are of Force, al­though never confirmed by Act of Parlia­ment, as no Canons are; and yet, saith he, they are the Laws which bind and [Page 373] govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs. The Convocation, with the Licence and Assent of the King, under the Great Seal, may make Canons for Regulation of the Church, and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks; and so is Lyndwood. There can be no question in Lyndwood's time, but Ecclesiasti­cal Constitutions were thought to bind all that were concerned in them; and the Ecclesiastical Laws which continue in Force by Custom and Consent, bind all; the only Que­stion then is about making new Canons, and the Power to make them, is by Virtue of an Act of Par­liament, to which the Nation con­sented; and so there need no Repre­sentatives of the people in Convo­cation. And no such thing can be inferred from Moor, 755. for the Judges declared the Deprivation of the Clergy for not conforming to the Ca­nons, to be legal; but they say nothing [Page 374] of others. But in the Case of Bird and Smith, f. 783. the Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared, That the Canons made in Convocation by the King's Authority, without Par­liament, do bind in Ecclesiastical Matters, as an Act of Parliament. And therefore I proceed to shew,

II. In what manner we are obliged to the Observation of these Canons; concerning which I shall premise two Things;

1. That I meddle not with such Canons as are altered by Laws; for all grant, that unless it be in Moral Duties, their Force may be taken a­way by the Laws of the Land.

2. There are some Canons, where the general Disuse in Matters of no great Consequence to the Good of the Church, or the Rights of other Persons, may abate the Force of the Obligation; especially when the [Page 375] Disuse hath been connived at, and not brought into Articles of Visita­tion, as Can. 74. about Gowns with standing Collars, and Cloaks with Sleeves. But the general Reason continues in Force, viz. That there should be a decent and comely Habit for the Clergy, whereby they should be known and distinguished by the People; and for this, the ancient Custom of the Church is alledged.

But here a very material Question arises, How far Custom is allowed to interpret and alter the Force of Canons made by a lawful Autho­rity: For where a Custom prevails against a standing Rule, it amounts to this, Whether Practice against Law, is to have more Force than the Law. And how can there be a reasonable Custom against a Law built upon reasonable Grounds? But on the other side, if Custom hath no power in this case, then all [Page 376] the ancient Canons of the Church do still bind in Conscience, and so we must not kneel at our Prayers on Sundays, nor between Easter and Whit­sontide, which were thought to be made upon good Reason at first; and so many other Canons which have long grown into a Disuse. So that if we do strictly oblige persons to observe all Ecclesiastical Canons made by lawful Authority, we run Men into endless Scruples and Per­plexities; Gers [...] de Vit. Spirit. Lect. 4. Cor. 13. and Gerson himself grants, That many Canons of General Councils have lost their Force by Disuse, and that the Observation of them now would be useless and impossible. But on the other side, if meer Disuse were suffi­cient, what would become of any Canons and Constitutions, where Persons are refractary and Disobe­dient?

This is a Case which deserves to be stated and cleared. And we are [Page 377] to distinguish three sorts of Cu­stoms.

1. Customs generally obtaining upon altering the Reason of ancient Canons.

2. Customs allowed upon the ge­neral Inconveniency of modern Ca­nons.

3. Customs taken up without any Rules or Canons for them.

1. As to general Customs against ancient Canons where the Reason is altered; I see no Ground for any to set up those Canons, as still in Force, among us: For this must create Con­fusion and Disorder, which those Canons were designed to prevent; and the Laws of the Land do certainly supersede ancient Canons, wherein the necessary Duties of Religion are not immediately concerned. For we must have a care of setting up ancient [Page 378] Canons against the Authority of our Laws, which cannot be consistent with our National Obligation, nor with the Oath of Supremacy.

2. As to Customs relating to Mo­dern Canons, if it hath any Force, as to altering the Obligation.

1. It must be general; not taken up by particular dissaffected Persons to our Constitution; for the Custom of such Men only shews their wilful Disobedience and Contempt of Au­thority; and all Casuists are agreed, That Contempt of lawful Authority, is a wilful Sin: Which supposes a wilful Neglect upon Knowledge and Admonition of their Duty. For Contempt is, Cajet. Sum. in Verb. Nolle subjici cui oportet subjici; and a lesser Fault commited with it, is a greater Sin than a grea­ter Fault in it self committed without it, i.e. by meer carelesness and inad­vertency. But where there is an open and customary Neglect, there is a [Page 379] Presumption of Contempt, unless some great and evident Reason be produced for it. I do not say the bare Neglect doth imply Contempt in it self, but where there is admo­nition and a continuance after it, there is a down-right and positive Contempt. But where the Disuse is general, not out of Contempt, but upon other Reasons; and there is no Admonition by Superiours, but a tacit Connivence; there is a Presum­tion of a Consent towards the laying aside the strict Obligation of the Ca­nons relating to it.

2. It must be reasonable▪ i.e. on such Grounds as may abate the Force of the Obligation. For there is a Difference between a Custom ob­taining the Force of a Law, and a Custom abating the Force of a Ca­non: In the former case the Custom must be grounded on more evident Reason than is necessary for the lat­ter. So [...]o de Iust. l. 1. Q. 7. [Page 380] Wherein the Casuists allow a Permission of Superiours joyned with reasonable Circumstances, Art. 2. ad 2. to be suf­ficient. Sayr. Clavis Reg. l. 3. c. [...]. n. 12.

But how can acts of Disobedience make a reasonable Custom?

Cajetan saith, Caj. ad 1. 2. They are to blame who began it, Q. 97. Art. 3. but not those who fol­low it, when the Custom is general.

And Suarez saith, Suar. de Leg. l. 4. c. 16. n. 9. It is the com­mon Opinion.

The Canonists say, If a Custom be against a Rule, the Reason must be plain; if only besides the Rule, and be not repugnant to the End and Design, the Reasonableness when it becomes general, is presumed. But if the Superiours take notice of it, Roch. Curt. de Statut. and condemn it, Sect. 2. n. 20, 34. it loses the Force of Custom, Sect. 7. n. 5, 11, 12, 13. unless a new Reason or high­er authority appear for it.

3. But what is to be said for Cu­stoms taken up without Rules or Canons; of what Force are they in Point of Conscience?

[Page 381] 1. It is certain, that no late Cu­stoms brought in by such as have no Authority to oblige, can bind others to follow them. For this were to lay open a Gap to the introducing foolish and superstitious Customs in­to the Church, which would make Distinctions without cause, and make way for Differences and Ani­mosities, which all wise and good Men will avoid as much as may be.

It is a Rule among the Casuists, Soto, l. 1. Q. 7. Art. 2. That voluntary Customs, although introduced with a good Mind, can never oblige others to observe them. And Suarez yields, that a bare fre­quent Repetition of Acts cannot bind others, Suarez, de LL. l. 7. c. 15. 10, 11. although it hath been of long continuance.

2. If the Customs be such as are derived from the primitive times, and continue in practice, there is no Reason to oppose, but rather to com­ply [Page 382] with them; or if they tend to promote a Delight in God's Service. As for instance:

1. Worshipping towards the East, was a very ancient Custom in the Christian Church. I grant that very insufficient Reasons are given for it; which Origen would not have Men to be too busie in inquiring into, Origen. in Numer. Hom. 5. but to be content that it was a generally received Practice, even in his time; and so doth Clemens Alexandrinus be­fore him, Clem. Alex. Str. l. 7. who thinks it relates to Christ, as the Sun of Righteousness. Tertullian and S. Basil own the Cu­stom, Tertul. Apol. c. 16. and give no Reason. Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 27.

But of all Customs that of Con­tention and Singularity, where there is no plain Reason against them, doth the least become the Church of God.

2. The Use of Organical Musick in the Publick Service. If it tends to com­pose, and settle, and raise the Spirits [Page 383] of Men in the Acts of Worship, I see no Reason can be brought against it. If it be said to be only a natural Delight, that Reason will hold against David, 2 Chron. 29. 25. who appointed it by God's own Commandment. They who call it Levitical Service, can never prove it to be any of the Typical Ceremonies, unless they can shew what was represented by it.

I come now to the Measure of the Obligation of the Canons in Force.

And therein a great Regard is to be had to the Intention of that Autho­rity which enjoyns them; and that is to be gathered from three Things;

1. The Matter. 2. The Words and Sense of the Church. 3. The Penalty.

1. As to the Matter. If it be in it self weighty, and tends to promote that which is good and pious, and for the Honour of God, and Service [Page 384] of Religion, it cannot be denied but these Canons do oblige in Conscience.

Bellarmin distinguishes between Laws of the Church, Bell. de R. D. l. 14. c. 18. which, he saith, are very few, and pious Admonitions and good Orders, which are not in­tended to oblige Men to sin, but only in case of Contempt and Scan­dal. And as to the Feasts and Fasts of the Church, which belong to the Laws, he saith, They have mitissimam Obligationem; so any one would think, who considers how many are ex­empted, and for what Reasons.

Gerson saith, De Vit. Spir. Lect. 4. Cor. 1. That no human Con­stitutions bind as to moral Sin, un­less it be founded on the Law of God; as he confesses the Church's Autho­rity is, as to circumstances; and then he thinks it obliges in Consci­ence. Coroll. 6. The Substance of his Opini­on, which hath been much disputed and controverted by Modern Ca­suists, lies in these things:

[Page 385] 1. That where Ecclesiastical Con­stitutions do inforce any part of the Law of God, although it be not ex­presly contained therein, they do im­mediately bind the Consciences of Men.

2. That where they tend to the good of the Church, and the Preser­vation of Decency and Order, they do so far oblige, that the contempt of Authority therein, is a Sin against the Law of God.

3. That where the Injunctions of Authority are for no other End, but to be obeyed, he doth not think that there is any strict Obligation in point of Conscience.

And so far Cajetan agrees with him. Cajet. Sum. 6. Contempt. &c. Clerico [...] rum.

And although the other Casuists seem to be very angry with him, yet when they require a publick Good, and the Order of the Church to be the Reason of Ecclesiastical Laws, [Page 386] they do, in effect, agree with him.

Now as to the Matter of our Canons which respect the Clergy, there are two especially which bind them strictly;

1. The Canon about Sobriety of Conversation, Can. 75. Yes, some may say, as far as the Law of God obliges, i.e. to Temperance and So­briety; but the Canon forbids re­sorting to Taverns, or Alebouses, or playing at Dice, Cards, or Tables; doth this Canon oblige in Conscience in this manner? If it were a new thing that were forbidden, there were some Plea against the Severity of it; but frequenting Publick Houses is forbid­den by the Apostolical Canons, Can. Apost. 54. which are of great Antiquity, by the Council of Laodicea, and in Trullo, and many others since. Laodicea, 24. In Trullo, 9. Carthag. 43. Dist. 44. 2, 3, 4. Aquisgr. c. 14. Francf. c. 19. Aquisgr. 2. c. 60. Extr. de Vit. & Honest. Cleric. c. 15. Conc. West­ [...]n. c. 2. Spelm. II. 192. Lynd. l. 3. c. 1.

And by the Apostolical Canons any Presbyter playing at Dice, and [Page 387] continuing so to do after Admoni­tion, Concil. Illiber. Can. 79. is to be deprived. The Illibe­ritan Council makes it Excommuni­cation to play at Dice. Not meerly for the Images of the Gentile Gods upon them, as Albaspinaeus thinks, but because the thing it self was not of good Report, even among the Gentiles themselves; as appears by Cicero, Cicero Phil. 3. Ovid de A. A. l. 3. Ovid, Suetonius, &c. as giving too great Occasion for indecent Pas­sions, Suet. in Aug▪ c. 71. and of the loss of time. Ho­stiensis reckons up Sixteen Vices that accompany it, Hostiens. Sum. D. 5. de Ex­cess. Praelat. which a Clergyman especially ought to avoid. D. de Aleat. l. 2. And play­ing at Dice was infamous by the Ci­vil Law.

Iustinian forbids Clergymen not only playing, Cujac. Observ. l. 9. c. 28. but being present at it. It was forbidden in the old Articles of Visitation here, C. de Episcop. Audient. and in several Dio­cesan Synods, Spelm. II. 192, 252, 298, 367, 450. So that there can be no Reason to complain of the [Page 388] Severity of this Canon, which so ge­nerally obtained in the Christian Church.

II. The Canons which relate to Ministers discharging the several Du­ties of their Function, in Preaching, Praying, Administring Sacraments, Catechizing, Visiting the Sick, &c. which are intended to inforce an An­tecedent Duty; which we can never press you too much or too earnest­ly to; considering that the Honour of Religion, and the Salvation of your own and the Peoples Souls de­pend upon it.

(2.) The next way of judging the Church's Intention, is by the Words and Sense of the Church. Caj. & Prae­ [...]ept. Cajetan thinks the general Sense is the best Rule. Navar. Man. c. 23. n. 50, &c. Navarr saith to the same purpose, although some Words are stricter than others. Suarez de LL. l. 4. c. 18. Suarez, That the main Obligation depends on the [Page 389] matter, but the Church's Intention may be more expressed by special Words of Command. Tolet. Sum [...] l. 8. c. 19. n. 3. Tolet relies most upon the Sense of the Church: But the Sense of the Church must be understood, whether it be Approving, or Recommending, or strictly Com­manding, according to the Obligati­on of Affirmative Precepts, which makes a reasonable Allowance for Circumstances. And so our Church in some cases expresly allows reaso­nable Impediments. And in Precepts of Abstinence, we must distinguish the Sense of the Church, as to Mo­ral Abstinence, i.e. subduing the Flesh to the Spirit; and a Ritual Ab­stinence in a meer Difference of Meats, which our Church lays no Weight upon; and a Religious Abstinence for a greater Exercise of Prayer and Devotion, which our Church doth particularly recommend at particu­lar Seasons, which I need not mention.

[Page 390] (3.) By the Penalties annexed, which you may find by reading over the Canons, which you ought to do frequently and seriously, in order to your own Satisfaction about your Duties, and the Obligation to per­form them.

But some may think, that such Penal Canons oblige only to undergo the Punishment.

To which I answer, That the case is very different in an Hypothetical Law, as Suarez calls it; when Laws are only conditional and disjunctive, either you must do so, or you must undergo such Penalty, which is then looked on as a legal Recom­pence; and Ecclesiastical Constitu­tions, where Obedience is chiefly in­tended, and the Penalty is annexed only to inforce it, and to deterr others from Disobedience. For no Man can imagine that the Church aims at any Man's Suspension or Depri­vation [Page 391] for it self, or by way of com­pensation for the Breach of its Con­stitutions.

And now give me leave not only to put you in mind, but to press earnestly upon you the diligent Per­formance of those Duties, which by the Laws of God and Man, and by your own voluntary Promises when you undertook the Cure of Souls, are incumbent upon you. It is too easie to observe, That those who have the Law on their side, and the Advantage of a National Settlement, are more apt to be remiss and care­less when they have the Stream with them, than those who row a­gainst it, and therefore must take more pains to carry on their De­signs. As those who force a Trade must use much more Diligence, than those who go on in the common Road of Business. But what Dili­gence others use in gaining Parties, [Page 392] do you imploy in the saving their Souls: Which the People will never believe you are in earnest in, unless they observe you are very careful in saving your own by a conscientious Discharge of your Duties. They do not pretend to Fineness of Thoughts, and Subtilty of Reasoning, but they are shrewd Judges whether Men mean what they say, or not; and they do not love to be imposed up­on by such a sort of Sophistry, as if they could think that they can have such a Regard to their Souls, who shew so little to their own. There­fore let your unblameable and holy Conversations, your Charity and good Works, your Diligence and Constancy in your Duties, convince them that you are in earnest; and they will hearken more to you, than if you used the finest Speeches, and the most eloquent Harangues in the Pulpit to them. These, the People [Page 393] understand little, and value less; but a serious, convincing, and affecti­onate way of Preaching, is the most likely way to work upon them. If there be such a thing as an­other World, as no doubt there is, what can you imploy your Time, and Thoughts, and Pains better a­bout, than preparing the Souls of your People for a happy Eternity? How mean are all other laborious Trifles, and learned Impertinencies, and busie Inquiries, and restless Thoughts, in comparison with this most valuable and happy Imploy­ment, if we discharge it well? And happy is that Man, who enjoys the Satisfaction of doing his Duty now, and much more happy will he be whom our Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing.