THE Quaere last Night Propounded: why Licenses to Preach, are so frequently, and vehemently urged to to be taken, and Exhibited, by Incumbents; in our Episcopal Visitations: being then Answered with some haesitation, the help of a few hours Thoughts, gives me the advantage of setting this matter in a clearer Light before you. Which I think (for want of a better Method) may be done by elucidating these Seven ensuing Propositions.

First, That Ordination to Priesthood, gives Authority to the Ordained to Preach.

Secondly, That the Church for 1400 years, never required Incumbents of Benefices, to take Licenses to Preach.

Thirdly, That the Church Canons enjoyned all Incumbents to Preach, under great Penalties.

Fourthly, When Licenses were first Introduced, they did not oblige Incumbents to take them.

Fifthly, If the Canons did ever oblige Incumbents to take Licenses: It was upon an accidental Consideration.

Sixthly, That Licenses add, nor, diminish any thing, to or from the Title to any Benefice.

Seventhly, That the forcing Incumbents to take Licenses (since the first Accidental Occasion) was of no Benefit to the Church, but to gain Fees.

These Propositions made good, will infer the Truth of my Sudden Answer. That these Licenses are pressed upon Incum­bents upon very mean Considerations. I shall therefore apply my self to clear them in Order.

I. First, That Ordination to Priesthood, gives Authority to the Ordained to Preach. A Truth so well known, and believed, that few will List themselves in the Army of Opponents, but such as Gain by it. Most will wonder what Ordination means, if it gives not Authority to Preach. For it was used to fit the Presbyter for his whole Function, of which Preaching was a very Considerable Part.

When our Saviour ordained his Ministry, He bid them go teach all Nations, Math. 28.19. and Baptize them. And in Conformity to Christs Institution, the whole Catholick Church thus prepared Preachers by Ordination. And so doth the Church of England in her Office of Ordination, Require those that are to be or­dained to Promise, That they will give faithful Diligence alwaies to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments— And to teach the People committed to their Charge— And to drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines. Without any previous Condition, If they should be thereunto Licensed. And farther the Ordainer saith, at Imposition, of hands: Be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments. So that he is as much Autho­rized to Preaching, as to Adminster Sacraments. And there­fore may be as well forced to a new License for Administring Sacraments, as for the Preaching. But in truth, both these Fun­ctions are sealed to him, under the most venerable Seal In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

If all this be thought, too little, to Authorize him to Preach, yet sure when the Ordaining Bishop delivers Him the Bible with these Words; Take thou Authority to Preach the Word of God, and to Minister the holy Sacraments, in the Congregation, where Thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto. Who can doubt but that He is as much Authorized to Preach in that Place, as to Administer holy Sacrament. 'That is, as much as all the Licen­ses in the World can give Him. For here the Ordaining Bi­shop, gives Him Authority to Preach and Administer, under the most sacred Circumstances imaginable: being in Cathedra: in the presence of God: and before the Assembly of Saints: at the Holy Altar: and Seals this Character, with the most tre­mendous Body and Blood of Christ. And what can a Scrole called a License do more than This? Is a Bishop greater in his Study?. or Dining Room? than at the Church? or is his Table greater than the Altar? or Himself and Secretary, more venerable than the Congregation? what pitty is it that Ava­rice or other unknown cause, should run men into such Ab­surdities?

But They may say, though this be true, yet the Presbyter hath no Seal to Evidence this; so that He can't make it appear to all People where He comes. This we must Justly deny, for He receives Letters of Orders under the Bishops hand and Seal; by which this Authority is manifested, as much as by the License. So then, we do with good Conscience, and upon plain Evidence affirm, the Presbyter hath License to Preach by his Letters of Orders, and needs no more, if Officers need no Money.

This Authority satisfied the holy Catholick Church for Four­teen Centuries: amongst whose Records we find no Licenses to Preach besides their Letters of Orders.

We, hear of St. Cyprian's Presbyter Didiensis, but read no other Title to Preach besides his Letters of Orders. And when the Laurae were, settled in Aegypt, we yet find nothing but Ordination and the Priests Mission to dwell in a house pla­ced very near the Church: which answers well enough to our Institution.

II. Secondly, That the Church for 1400 years, never required Incumbents on Benifices, to take Licenses to Preach.

This Proposition being negative, admits of no other Proof, than that no notice of any Licenses to Preach, hath come to our hands, after the best Search we could make about them. We see Ordination did Qualify for Preaching in the Church. And find that Bishops did send their Presbyters abroad to ad­minister Religion where they thought convenient. We find also a great many Requisite Forms, or Letters used in many Cases: as the [...] (which also were sometimes called [...] because they did not only commend the Party that had Them, but also contain­ed his dismission in Peace.) There were also Literae Formatae (called so I think from the Form of the Bishops Seal put to them) as also Communicatoriae given to Christians Travelling, that they might be received into the Catholick Communion, where they came. These and a few others, we meet with in the Primitive times, as the Tractoriae which directed the Mes­sengers of Churches, and gave them ready Acceptance where they were sent. And so ancient, that we find the [...] or Commendatory Letters mentioned by S. Paul himself as of common use in his time.2 Cor. 3.1. Can. Anti­och. 7, 8. Witness those words of his [...] And in the Synod of [Page 4] Antioch we see some others; but no where these Letters of License for Preaching. And if there were any such, 'tis to be wonder'd at, that neither Bernardinus Ferarius that treated so minutely of the ancient Rights of Bishops: nor Alcuinus, Ama­larius, or any other of those Antiquaries, that Charles the Great set on work, to search the ancient customs of the Church: nor any other, of those collected by Melchior Hittorpius, should hit on them. We can't suspect those Authors of Ignorance, in the Church Canons and customs seeing it was a known Rule: Nulli Sacerdotum liceat suos Canones ignorare. Grat. nulli dist. 38.

We may add the Probability, that this Church of England, knew nothing of this License to Preach, in the time of Arch­bishop. Stratford An. Dom. 1342,Lyndw. l. 3 tit 22 cap. Saeva & &c. nor at any time before. For his Synod endeavoured to stop the Oppressions of the Clergy; and to Restrain the greedy appetites of the Officers; seeing the inferior Clergy groaning under their burdens, ready to joyn with the Wiclefists in their complaints. And therefore enume­rated all the Seals and Writings then in use: and ascertained the Fees, for them: but makes no mention of any Licenses to Preach as distinct from Letters of Orders. They are thus reckoned. Pro Scriptura Literarum, Inquisitionum, Institutionum, vel Collationum, & Commissionum ad inducendum, vel Certificato­rijs ipsarum in Beneficijs, ultra xij Denarios. Pro Literis vero cu­juslibet Sacri Ordinis, ultra vj Denarios dicti Clerici per se vel per alios, non recipiant quovis modò. And farther to Evidence that the Synod intended to omit nothing then in use, they add that the Sewers, Porters, Grooms, nor Barbers should require no­thing, giving this Reason for it, That the Ordinary ought to maintain his own Servants with fitting Wages. Now can any man (not quite deserted of Reason) imagine this intent Sy­nod forgat these Licenses to Preach? Or may we not more reasonably conclude, there was no Footstep of any such Practice then in use? And yet we shall soon hear of it, even in his time, tho' not required to be taken by any Incumbents.

III. Thirdly, That the Church Canons enjoyned all Incumbents to Preach under great Penalties; which surely they would not do if they were not qualified for it, without Licenses. But the Canons proceed on a Supposition, that Ordination and Institu­tion gave Title enough to furnish out a Preacher for his Cure. It will not be necessary to shew the many Canons of Codex Ec­clesiae universatis, seeing our own Church hath plenty enough. [Page 5]But if any desire it, he may consult Photius his Nomo canon. tit. 8. c. 2. where He may be satisfied.

For the Church of Englands zeal that way, we may consult Stephen Langtons Decree, in the Council holden at Oxford Anno 1222, how earnestly Preaching is urged on all Incumbents Prae­sentis Concilij definitione districte duximus injung endum, ut Rectores & vicarij, Plebes sibi commissas pabulo verbi Dei, secundum quòd fuit ijs inspiratum, informare procurent, ne canes muti meritò judicentur: cùm latratu salubri a Caulis Dominicis Luporum spiritualium morsus non expellunt &c.

So likewise John Peccham in a Constitution made at Lam­beth An. Dom. 1281 Cap. Ignorantia Sacerdotum &c. Imposes this care on the Archdeacon to watch the Clergy concerning Prea­ching. Quoties Archidiaconi invenerint Presbyteros, Institutionem moralem populo minime praedicasse, sen publicasse, toties eos arguant & poena Canonica castigando supplere compellant, quod temere omise­runt.

The same Council also lays this charge on the Clergy. Prae­cipimus, ut quilibet Sacerdos Plebi praesidens, quater in Anno— per. vel per alium exponat populo vulgariter, quatuor decem Fidei Articu­los: Decem mandata Decalogi: Duo Praecepta Evangelij: Septem ope­ra misericordiae: Septem mortalia peccata &c. and gives, them a Me­thod how to do it. By which we may conclude, they were so far from Restraining their Clergy from Preaching; that they urged it by all good means they could. While we strive to embarass that work, till so much money is paid for our leave to do it.

'Tis true indeed, that if a Priest were a Stranger; that came out of Ireland, Wales, or Scotland, and for the same Reason, from any other Foreign Church, such a one was forbidden to cele­brate any Divine Offices in this Church: If he came without Commendatory or Dimissory Letters of his Ordinary (And e­specially if there were any doubt of his Lawful Ordination) Unless He came with a License from the Diocesan. This Con­stitution was made under Walter Reynolds, in the Second Coun­cil at Oxford Anno 1322, in these words Item praecipimus ne Sa­cerdotes ignoti, de quorum Ordinatione non constat ad Divinorum ce­lebrationem diserviendo Ecclesijs admittantur, nisi de Licentia Epis­copi Dioecesani. Nor was it Lawful for the Diocesan to give him that License, without Letters Testimonial and good. Evi­dence that He was lawfully ordained.

Here we see a License mentioned to be given by the Dioce­san, but it was to a Foreigner. 2 To one that was no Incum­bent. 3. To one whose Ordination was doubted. 4. Twas a License ad celebrationem Divinorum, Lynd. de [...]ler. pere­grinat. c. 8 which the Gloss interprets, to celebrate Mass; the Canonical hours: and to administer Sa­craments: so that it was not a bare License to Preach. 5. The Reason of it was, That none below the Dignity of a Bishop, might be trusted with the Judgment of Foreigners Pretences to holy Orders. Which therefore can make nothing to our Licenses to Preach. There is another Provision concerning Chaplains celebration in any of our Churches, after Lollardis­me began to spread it self; made in a Council at Oxford un­der Thomas Arondel Anno 1408. in these words: Nullus Cap­pellanus admittatur ad celebrandum, in aliqua Diaecesi nostrae Cantu­ariensis Provinciae, in quâ Oriundus sive Ordinatus fuerit; nisi deferat secum Literas Ordinum suorum, atque Literas Commendatitias Dioece­sani sui &c. without which Orders and Commendatory Letters of the Bishop, if any Rector, Vicar, or Curate, did permit him to celebrate, Permittens acriter puniatur. On which we may observe, 'Tis a Rule for Chaplains not Incumbents. 2. It enables them to celebrate Divine Service, as well as to Preach, and so accords not with our Licenses.

IIII. Fourthly, When Licenses were first introduced, the Church obliged no Incumbents to take these Licenses to Preach. If they did Require it, we might expect to hear of them, either at Insti­tution, or Induction: but we hear of none in company with either of them.

First we hear of none at Institution. There is a Constituti­on made at Lambeth under Archbishop Peccham, concerning the Institution of an Incumbent, directing the Form of it, in these words: Statuimus u [...] unusquisque Episcopus, Clerico quem ad Ec­clesiam admittat, Literas Patentes super sua Admissione concedat. In­ter alia continentes, in quo consistat Ordine: etiam quo Titulo, ad hu­jusmodi Beneficium admittatur &c. Had that Council then thought Licenses to Preach necessary, no doubt they had order'd them too. Seeing now the Incumbent was going to his Cure, un­der the obligation of the Canons to Preach, and Instruct his People.

It seems the Glossator thought the Letters of Institution thus drawn, were Title good enough, without any farther License [Page 7]to Preach: for He tells us Hae enim Literae in Beneficialibus haben­tur loco Tituli. That this Institution was his Title.

Secondly, nor doth any thing concerning these Licenses ap­pear, when Mandats for Induction were enjoyn'd In the Coun­cil held at Oxford under the afore named John Stratford in the year 1343 (as many reckon) or 1342 (as the Manuscript Co­py in the Bedleian Library hath it) Mandats for Induction are mentioned; and the Rates of them set, to bound the Gripes of Avarice. But no mention is yet made of these Licenses to Preach. The Constitution is Sacro approbante Concilio statuimus, ut hi qui admissos ad Beneficia Ecclesiastica, ad Mandatum Superio­ris tenentur inducere; pro indunctione hujusmodi facienda Sumptibus con­tententur moderatis. Videlicet si Archi Diaconus Inducat xl Denarijs. Si suus Officialis duorum solidorum perceptione. Providing, that if either take more than is there allowed, for the Induction,Const. Provin. [...]3. tit. 6. or propter Literas Certificatorias (meaning the indorsed Certificates of Execution) They are to be suspended ab Officio, et ingressu Ec­clesiae Till they Refund the Extorted money, to the Party wronged.

We may (without doing violence to our Reason) believe, That bounds had been set, to the Rates of Licenses also, had there, been any such things then in use. And the rather because the same Council, under the same Prelate, complain'd heavily of the great Exactions then on the Clergy. And therefore sixt the charge of every Seal then in use, for Incumbents to take,Const. 1.3. tit. 22. as appears by their Constitution Saeva et miserabilis Cupiditas &c. which hath been already touched. In which they Decree against both Bishops, Archdeacons, and their Clerks; That they shall not take for any Writings above twelve pence. Nor for any Let­ters of Orders above six pence. And for Sealing nothing at all. If any Clerk took more, he was to refund double. If he were a Beneficed man, he was suspended ab officio & Beneficio. If a Lay man he was to be suspended ab ingressu Ecclesiae, till satis­faction made.

'Tis very probable, That such Constitutions of our own, and the Catholick Church, caused that Learned and tender Prelate Bishop Bedell, v. Burnets life of Be­del. to write the Letters of Orders and Institutions himself as the worthy Dr. Burnet, the present Bishop of Sarum testifies of him.

The same Council condescended to take notice, That Arch­deacons would not suffer Incumbents, to administer Divine ser­vice, in the Cures they were admitted to, till they had paid them [Page 8]six pence, for matriculation, in their Rolls of Call. Which payment that Council reduced to one penny as formerly it was. And is it probable they should omit a License (if any) that remembred such a Trifle?

And farther to shew the diligence of the Gloss on that De­cree, that nothing be forgotten; It blames those Ordinaries, that will Revise their Clergies Orders, Institutions &c. for be­nefit: though they have perused and satisfied themselves about them before.

Thirdly, In the first appearances of any Licenses to Preach, we find the Incumbents of Churches, not charged to take them. But their Right to Preach, by virtue of their Institution; and their Obligation thereto, is acknowledged.

The first Occasion of forbidding Preaching, without License, that we meet withall, was in regard to Wickliffes Doctrins, then much spread in England: under the name of Lollards. Not so called e Lolio from Durnell, as Godolphin and Lyndwood, and other Civilians fancy. As if they were the plague of the Church, as Darnell is of Wheat. But from one Walter Lollard a German, the first noted to profess those Doctrins, about the year 1315. This Sect spread much in the Reign of Edw. III. and increased to the times of Hen. V. whereof John Wickliffe Rector of Lut­terworth was the greatest Promotor, in England. Of whose Doctrine Forty Five Articles stand condemned in the Eighth Session of the Council of Constance. Pacher. de Concil l. 2. c. 3. As likewise at London An­no 1382. And at length, the Professors of it were condemned to punishment, by Act of Parliament, made 2 Henry V. cap. 7. And Thomas Arondell Arch Bishop of Canterbury, decreed many things against them,Const. l. 5. tit. 5. de hae­ret. in a Council held at Oxford, Anno Dom. 1408. And Pope Martin the Fifth Anno 1429 raised a Crusado against Them, under the Conduct of Henry Cardinal of S. Euse­bius and (if my memory fail not) then Bishop of Winchester.

Now seeing that many Foreigners, and Laymen, Catechizers, and Lecturers, took upon them to Preach these Doctrines; a Constitution was made, in the said Council at Oxford 1408, That none should Preach without License.

The words of the Decree are; Ordinamus quod nullus Soecula­ris aut Regularis, ad praedicandum verbum Dei, a jure Scripto mini­me authorisatus: privilegiove speciali munitus, Officium ceu exercitium proedicationis ejusdem verbi Dei, in se assumat. Populove aut Clero, quovismodò praedicet, in Latino Sermone seu vulgari, in Ecchsia aut Extra &c. Unless He present himself to the Diocesan, and [Page 9]undergo his Examination: and being found fit, he be sent to Preach, to one or more certain Parishes, as the Ordinary shall think fit. And 'tis order'd that no Rector or Vicar is to per­mit any to Preach, unless he show his Mission, or special Privi­ledge; How he appears qualified for the service of Preaching. ‘Or if he come from the Diocesan, He is to shew his Letters under Seal.’ But this concerned those that were not autho­rised Jure Scripto, as all Incumbents were; And Friers Praedicants, and Minors were authorised to Preach by special Priviledg, and the Gloss thinks Augustinians and Carmelites were so too. So that it did not reach them. But it did reach all other Friers, Strangers, Lecturers, Catechisers, and the like.

That Incumbents were not intended, is plain from the Excep­tion, Jure Scripto minimè authorisati, for they had their Authority under Seal, and by the Canons were bound to Preach. And the following Clause cleers it: ‘Curatum vero perpetuum, missum intelligimus a Jure, ad Locum et populum Curae suae. And it farther adds concerning Curates that might be changed; Sacerdotes vero Parochiales seu Vicarii temporales, et non perpetui, in formâ supradictâ non missi, in Ecclesijs illis, in quibus hujusmodi officia gerunt Illa sola simpliciter praedicent, quae in Constitutione Provinciali, a bonae memoriae Johanne Praedecessore nostro, in Capite Ignorantia Sacerdotum continentur expressè.’

Now because men might imagine, this new License to Preach was order'd to be taken, on purpose to get more Fees; 'Tis wisely provided by the Council, that it should be granted, Sine aliquali Exactione pecuniae without any manner of Fee. Celeriter expediunter, et gratis, says the Constitution.

And then the Council provides, If any such Preach, without these Letters: or if any say, the Church hath not power to lay on this Restraint, he incurs the Sentence of the greater Excommunication: and is to be treated as a Heretick, or Shisma­tick having all his goods confiscated. Yea the place where such Preaching is held (if not stopt by the People) is put un­der Interdict.

From this Constitution we may draw these Conclusions, 1 That this was a new Law, not imposed before, to take Licenses to Preach. 2 That Incumbents are declared to have power to Preach Jure Scripto by Law, in their Cures. 3 That some others had Right to Preach, without taking these Licenses Privilegio Speci­ali: as Friers Praedicants, Minors, Augustinians and Carmelites. 4 That these Licenses were to be granted by the Diocesian Bishop, [Page 10]and not per inferiorem Episcopo, namely not by any Archdeacon, Chancellor, Commissary, Official or the like. 5 That. these, Licenses were to be taken by Strangers Lecturers &c. but not by Incumbents, nor their temporary Curates. 6 That these In­cumbents or temporary Curates were to Admit, or Refuse such Preachers, in their Cures as they should find their Licenses to be. 7 That those who were bound to take Licenses to Preach, were not to pay one Farthing for them. This part of the Constitu­tion well observed▪ would end all Disputes, about Parochial Dio­cesan, and Provincial Licenses. 8 It shews where this wise Coun­cil Judged Licenses to Preach necessary: Namely for all that had not perpetual, or temporary Cure of Souls. For to them that had such Cures, Ordination gave them Jus ad Rem. Autho­rity to Preach, in any part of the holy Catholick Church: But Institution gave them Jus in Re, a Right to Preach actu­ally to the People of their Cures: And to the temporary Cu­rates by virtue of the Incumbents Deputation. As also to necessary Assistants in case of Sickness, or necessary Ab­sence.

The Friers Titles are not necessary here to be spoken to, because this Church of England is troubled with none of them, that come to challenge any Right.

V. Fifthly, If the Canons of this Church did ever oblige In­cumbents to take Licenses to Preach. It was upon very ex­traordinary, and Accidental Considerations. Such as also forced the Church to compose books of Homilies, for the use of Incum­bents that could not Preach.

Upon the Reformation, there were great Numbers of In­cumbents, brought into the Church in the time of Popery that were not able to Preach: who yet turned Protestants and con­formed to the Doctrine, and Discipline of this Church as far as they were able; whom the Piety and Charity of those times thought not fit to cast out of their Livings; because they thought fit to give them some Respect for their Conformity: and to save the Parishes from the burthen of their mainte­nance: and those poor Priests from perishing through wants: and because they had not Learned men enough to put into their places: and because they would not willfully force, by their violent treatment, so many men, to act against the Safe­ty of Church and State; which had Enemies enough, both at home and abroad, wherefore they were permitted to continue in [Page 11]their Living, and to celebrate Divine Service: but were never forbid to Preach: yet when the Church found them able (by their Study and Industry, and often hearing Sermons) to Preach; They wisely took that opportunity, to try their Parts, and to bring them under Subscriptions, to use the Protestants method, by requiring them to take Licenses to Preach, when they thought themselves able.

One may justly wonder how such ignorant Men came into the Church:Con. Carth. 6. c. 19. considering how importunate the Primitive Canons are for Priests Preaching: insomuch that the last Council of Carthage enjoyns it every day, or at least every Lords day. And if the Presbyter were sick, the Deacon is order'd to read a Homily to the People. And that S. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustines Works shew that they Preacht all Fasts and Feasts, as well as Sun­days; and often every day, and many times twice a day. But this change must be Attributed to the guidance of the Roman Church, in which Preaching fell early into contempt: for Sozo­men observes the difference of that Church from all others,Soz. l. 7. c. 19. in this matter. [...] which was in the Reign of Valentinian and Theodo­sius. And least any should think Sozomen mistaken in the Pra­ctise of Rome, he may find the same Affirmed by Cassiodore in his Tripartite History, who lived in Rome, and could not be Igno­rant of their services. 'Tis true Valesius thinks this custome alter'd in Pope Leo, who did Preach to the People; but one Swallow makes no Summer: He himself looks Irregular for his pains. You may know that that Church holds Preaching to be no part of the Essence of Priesthood: for they account, Potestatem offerendi verum corpus Christi & remittendi peccata, the power of offering the very body of Christ in the Eucharist, and of Re­mission of Sins, to make up the formality of Priesthood. And accordingly Anathematize such as say, Qui non Praedicant, Cone. Trid. Sess 23. de Sacr. ordin. c. 1. prorsus non esse Sacerdotes: one may be apt to suspect those to be of the same mind, that judge a Priest in his place may not Preach with­out taking out a New License so to do. We deny not but a Man may be a Priest that can't Preach in respect of Age, Sickness, or the like: but deny him to be a Priest of Christs Institution, that hath not power to Preach, if he be able: because Christ order'd all that he sent to Preach and Baptize. And if you read on, the next Session of that Council of Trent, Ib. sess 24. de Refor. cap. 4. they seem more for Preaching than our Protestant Visitors; for they say Praedicationis munus Episcoporum praecipuum est: and command all to Preach saltem [Page 12]omnibus dominicis & sollennibus festis diebus. Et tempore Quadragesi­mali, et Adventus, quotidie vel saltem tribus in hebdomade diebus.

But the History of the Council of Trent will tell you, whence this new Flame, of Preaching was rais'd; intimating that Preach­ing was lost in Cathedrals, &c. nor did any but Regulars keep it up,Hist. Con. Trent. l. 2. p. 173. till Anno 1546, when it was raised again, by certain Rules of Reformation, pass'd in the Trent Council, on June 17th. the same Year; upon the loud Accusations and Complaints of all Peo­ple, both Popish and Protestant for a Reformation.

Yet that Church seems to have an aking Tooth against it to this day, which may be guessed, from the Scornful reproaches cast on the Preachers, by some of them, of whom we shall only instance in Becanus a Jesuite, Bec. c. Gard. pag. 794. seeing his immodesty knows no Bounds in his Dispute with Gardius, he tells him. Quamvis modestiae Pallio se obtegat Gardius, Praedicanticam naturam exuere non posse. Again, Hanc Praerogativam (scilicet ineptiendi) Praedicanti­bus relinquo. So he charges him imperitia novi Praedicantis. Id. 1. c. §. 16. p. 17. Id. § 73. Id. § 170. Id. c. 3. § 117. And farther, Ita antiqui Patres id statuunt: si tu cum vulgo Praedicantium aliter sentis per me licet. Again notae sunt Praedicantium Imposturae, ut facile caveri et contemni queant. So again novellus aliquis Praedi­cans sussuratur argumenta ex Bellarmino. By which and many other such like passages; one may discern their bitterness against Preach­ing, as a most ridiculous Employment; yet S. Paul Magnifies, or rather Glorifies this Office. And tells us by this follishness of Preaching, Rom. 11.13. 1 Cor. 1.21. 1. Cor. 1.17. God intends to save some. And 'twas the Apostles main business, as that great Apostle notes, For Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach the Gospel. By which it appears that Preaching was not only an essential part of a Priest, but is pre­ferred to Sacraments themselves. So that a Jesuite follows Jesus in his Name, but his Sentiments are vastly different, and often contrary; for Christ sent the Preachers, and the Jesuite derides them.

If any doubt of the Ignorance of the Roman Clergy,Id. Con. Hard. A­pol. p. 622. at the Reformation, they may see it proved beyond Exception, in the learned Jewel against Harding; in truth Learning made so great a fall in the sixth Century, that the prime Men of the World, had very little of it. Even Theodorick King of Italy, and Justin in Constantinople, Amarcel in Addit. p. 669. Greg. op. I. 9. ep. [...]9. id. 16. ep. 29. could not write their own Names: as Veles in Ammianus Marcellinus, shews the greatest of Popes Gregory the great, candedly confesses to Eusebius Bishop of Thessaly, that he understood not a word of Greek, nos nec Graecum novimus; so also in another Epistle he says, Graeca Linguae nescius. And some great [Page 13]Men in the Church knew not Latin neither, as Paulus Jovins notes of Riarius the Praesident of the Conclave of Cardinals, Jov. vit. Lev. x. l. 3. p. 127. Long. ad an 1389. that Aetatis honore, Sacerdotijs atque opibus, caeteros omnes anteibat, quan­quam Ei deerant Literae atque eae Virtutes quae Sacerdotem exornant. Boniface the IX. Pope, fuit pane illiteratus says Langius. That Julius 3 understood no more Latin than a Soldier. There fore the Canon calls the Popes Doctores Authoritate non Scientia. Doctors by their place not by their Learning, which gives some colour for the English Proverb; that he can write no more than the Pope of Rome. Poor Heriman Bishop of Babenberg was, says Langius, expers Literarum, and unfortunatly charged by one of his Canons,Lamb. se­net Chro. ad an. 1075. that he could not Construe one verse in the Psalmody, was (says Lambertus Schafnaburgensis) deposed by the Pope from his Bishoprick, but continued a Priest. Yet Grego­ry the great was more indulging, for he confirmed Rusticus Elect Bishop of Ancona, et si Psalmos ignoraret. It seems Popes lookt asquint on Learning as dangerous to their spiritual-worldly Dominion; for Paul II. call'd all that studied Philosophy Here­ticks. And forbad the Citizens of Rome to keep their Chil­dren to School longer than to write and read, Satis esse dicens si legire et scribere didicissent; which Platina notes in his life; the Chronologer remarks,Lang. ad an 1389. That when Chrysolaras Bizantinus came to teach Greek in Rome (which was about 1389) the Greek tongue had been disused there for 700 years last past. St. Francis also (it seems) was a great stickler against Learning for he curst Frier John, for going to Bononia for Learning;Lang. ad an. 1254. saying Se malle Fratres suos, magis orare quam Legere; as Langius reports it of him. One may see to what Barbarity the World was come, by the Canons that were made in favour of Ignorance: as that Sancti loquentes per Barbarimos non sunt irridendi. V. de Consecrat: Dist. 4. c. retulerunt and again Episcopi errantes in Grammatica, non sunt a Sapientibus deridendi. 38 Dist. c. quamvis &c In pursuance of the design, of these and such like Canons, zealous Langius falls fowl on Erasmus, for deriding the well meaning Cardinal Hugo's strange mistakes, about the meaning and derivation of Greek Words: but thereby proves the Barbarity of the times,Lang. ad an. 1250. saying of S. Hugo; In ea tempora incidisset, quae politiores Literas, praecipue Graecas, totam et per Galliam, et per Germaniam, prorsus incompertas & inauditas habuerant. You may guess by this little, how dimm the Light was that guided the World, till the Re­formation, and what wooden Tools those Sr. Johns were that then supplied the place of Burning and shining Lamps.

We will propound but one grave dispute, upon this Subject, and so leave it; that we nauseat not the Reader. The famous Aventine in his Annals of Bavaria, tells us of a Priest of that Country who being wholly ignorant of the Latin Tongue,Avent. An­nal. l. 3. p. mihi 172. did yet baptize In nomine Patria Filia et Spirita Sancta. A Question grew upon it whether it was good Baptism or not? Vargilius the Bishop Justified it: but Boniface of Mentz utterly condemned it. The whole matter referred to Pope Zachary who (alwaies pit­tiful to the Blind) approved it, as done with a good Intention to Baptize.

But here the Reader must beware, That he conclude not that a gross thick darkness covered all the Earth; for there were still some stars in every Horizon, tho' very few. Some sparks of Learning survived the deluge, which have been blown up to the Bonfires we see in all places: but the Professors were Rari nantes in Gurgite vasto. Rare as Phaenixes, one in an Age. The Church required little more than mumming and Massing, and Received less than Required.

Now as there were many illiterate men brought into the Church that Conformed, and were Continued: so the Reformers, had not able men enough, to supply the Places of those Few that laid down their Calling.Can. of 1603 can. 45, 46. They were therefore forced to make plain honest, but Ignorant men Incumbents, who were not then able to Preach, but were admonished to attend their Studies: to Ce­lebrate Divine service; once a month to get an able Preacher in­to their Parishes: and at other times to read a Homily. For their sakes in the present defect, the new Canons were made: That before they ventured to Preach, they should come to their Bishops: undergo an Examination of their Ability: and make their due Subscriptions, and so Receive their Licenses from the Bishops.

This method of dealing with weak Incumbents,'tis probable the Reformers took from the Council of Trent, Sess. 23.24 Hist. trent. l. 2. p. 174. who Decreed much the same Things: as may be seen by comparing the 23 and 24 Sessions of that Council with the History of the Council An­no 1546. where they Require Licenses to be taken for the present Exigent of Affairs. Judging Twilight better then quite Dark, and a Rush Candle to be preferred before none: That the Pro­digal were better Eat Husks, than die for hunger. And the Chil­dren of the houshold of Faith to feed on Coarse Fare, than have no Food at all.

Here we ought to Consider, That the Church at Institution gave Incumbents Authority to Preach in their Cures; and ne­ver prohibited them. But long inveterate Custom of Massing, had taught the Institutor not to regard the Incumbents ability. And the Instituted, not to fit himself for a Duty that none practised. Yet would it appear strange, to bid the Ordained Priest, not to Preach in his Cures seeing he was ordained to that very End, if Christs Minister. But they were satisfied of the Incumbents inability for the present, and so Required it not of him, till better able. 2. That the non Preaching Incumbents, were bound by Canon, to procure Sermons to be Preacht in their Cure once every Month at least. Can. 46. Concionem per Concionatorem legi­time approbatum haberi procurabit &c. But can any man believe, the Church would grant men leave, to procure Sermons, or Preachers, yet would not trust them to preach themselves, had they been able? 'Tis an allow'd Rule Qui facit per Alium, facit per se. So that we may conclude; It was not their not taking Licenses made them uncapable of Preaching; but their inabili­ty to perform it. Insomuch that the Church thought good, to wait their Progress Studies, till they could perform it. 3. It is also plain, that Incumbents were not bound to take Licenses to Preach before these Canons made, because then (some of them at least) had had them before hand; and so need not come before the Bishop for them; which had spoiled the whole Pro­ject. 4. we may perceive too, that the Trent Canons, order'd these Licenses; to be given gratis: as we noted before, of our former Canons, that related not to Incumbents. Had the Ca­nons of 1603 made the same Provision; 'Tis odds that we had heard nothing of them to this Day:Hist. Trent. l. 2.164. Bishops Chancellors and Comissaries would not have quarrelled who should have granted Them: since men are seldom keen, to cut out themselves work, without wages.

It appears therefore upon the whole matter, That if there be any Canons, Requiring Incumbents to take Licenses to Preach, They are grounded upon special Reasons, and particular Occa­sions that are extraordinary, and so can't found an Ordinary Rule. If the Ground fail the Superstructure must also fail. We administer not the same Remedy but where is the same disease. Thanks be to God, the Bishop hath choice of able Preachers as well as able Priests: and can at Institution provide for one as well as the other. Why should that be done at twice that can and ought to be done at once? Frustra fit per plura &c. A [Page 16]Priest implies a man that can Pray and Preach. Why should any put asunder what Christ joyn'd together. By the Canon of Canons a Preist must be apt to teach: 1. Tim. 32. as to pray, and administer Divine Service. Men expect not fresh Grace to every distinct Dish, that comes to Table; it suffices to consecrate the whole Dinner at once. If we will take the Services apart, where will Covetousness end? Why may not Clergy be forc't to take one License to Preach? another to Pray? another to Marry? ano­ther to Bury? &c.

VI. But to Proceed Sixthly, That Licenses to Preach, add not, nor diminish, to or from the Title to any Benefice. This Li­cense is a thing so extrinsick, and useless to a Divine, that he knows not what use to make of it. His Ordination gave him Authority to Preach, and his Institution appointed out the Place: what then doth this License serve for? Is He more an Incum­bent when he hath it, than he was without it? Both Comon Lawyers, and Civilians agree, that the Incumbents Tide is as good without it as with it. So that It gives them License only to pay for it.

It would be tedious without profit, to transcribe, what Co­mon Lawyers say, makes a good Title to a Benifice. We may positively say that they do not so much as name these Licenses in stating the Title: nor do we hear the Civilians introducing them, as necessary to make a Title. To cut this matter short, we will vouch one, with his Nomo Canon, to speak for all; ha­ving joyn'd the Comon Law and Civil together: namely Dr. Godolphin, Reper. Law. cap. 17. §. 4. who in his Repertorium Canonicum twice states the In­cumbents Titles 1 under the Title Parson. He says no man can be a Parson unless 1 He be in holy Orders. 2 four and twenty years, of age. 3 unless he be admitted by Institution. 4 and Inducted. 5 unless he subscribe the use of the book of Comon Prayer, and take the Bishops Certificate of it. 6 un­less he within two months after Institution and Induction, read the 39 Articles in his Church, on some Sunday tempore Di­vinorum, and declare before the Congregation, his unfeigned Assent, and consent, to every thing conteined and required in them. And on the same Sunday read the service of the day. In all which we hear nothing of this License to Preach. And his 5th refers only to Incumbents Aug. 24. 1662.

Again the same Author,Id. c. 28. §. 1. in his Title Incumbent, shews four things Preparatory to the being a Compleat Incumbent. 1 The [Page 17]Patrons Praesentation. 2 The Bishops Admission after Examina­tion, making a Record of his name. 3 The Clerks Institution. 4 The Clerks Induction. These things, and peacable possession for six Months, is a Plenarty pro hâc vice, and barrs any in a Quare Impedit. So that then Licenses are neither antecedently necessary, to the settlement of an Incumbent: nor consequently necessary to continue him in his Cure. What then should move some men to urge these Licenses; but what makes the Mare to go?

Seventhly, That the forcing Incumbents to take Licenses, was of no benefit to the Church: nor to the Officers, but the Fees. This will appear,

1. By considering that Licenses to Preach can't bind from Preaching false Doctrine, more than Subscription to the 39 Arti­cles will do: for what virtue is there in the Bishops, or Chan­cellors hand and wax, more than in our own Subscription and Promise, to keep us Orthodox? Is that an Amulet against He­resy? nor can we see any virtue in it, to restrain Preaching against Conformity or Ceremonies, more than in our Subscription to the three Articles in the 36 Canon, of the Canons made 1603. Besides, the Laws of this Realm back, and enforce the observa­tion of our Subscriptions; but take no notice of these intruded Licenses as arbitrarily imposed on a tame and couching Clergy.

2. The Clergy may as effectually be corrected, and Re­formed from ill, Heretical, or Shismatical Preaching, without Licenses as with them. For the Incumbent may be convened, admonished, Reprov'd; and upon non Amendment, may be suspended; and if contumatious Excommunicated: and standing so for Forty daies, may be deprived. And if he still persist in Heresy or Schism, be diliver'd over to the Secular Arme. If they will give him Liberty of Preaching, they are an­swerable to God for all the Mischeifs he doth, but the Church is clear.

This way must be taken with Licenses too, as well as with­out. For tho' men dote on them, they can no more strangle wicked Preaching than other Seals and Subscriptions: nor so much, being not warranted by Law. And in truth this was the only Remedy the Primitive Church had, to suppress all their Heresies and Schisms: convening the Offender before the Diocesan: if that cured not the malady, then before the Synod; where the Heresy or Schism was declared, and the Party re­formed or Excommunicated: and the People admonished to with­draw from Him.

This Course may be taken still against all sorts of Sectaries, that by Baptism were once made members of our Church. Who either will not take Licenses, or can't be reformed by them.

If it be said that, however Licenses are a more expedite way, because 'tis but taking them away from such as Preach Heresy, or Schism. We may answer. 1 They must first be convicted by due process, before they are punished; for Hallafax Law is not well relished in England. So that the other method will be as nimble as this. 2 If Licenses are durante beneplacito, they are too haughty for any thing less than the Papal Dig­nity to give, and too slavish for a Minister of Christ to re­ceive. 3 If teaching be an essential part of Priesthood, 'tis impossible to take it away, but by deposing the Priest: and that is the punishment directed in the 38 Canon. 4 'Tis pro­bable such ill men would not deliver up their Licenses, nor if they did, would hold themselves thereby disabled to Preach: seeing (generally speaking) all Clergy believe themselves au­thorised to Preach by Ordination: and the place assigned out by Institution: and think Licenses as useless Tools imposed upon Incumbents of Livings: so that the Cure would not be so quick as imagined. 5 Add to this that it would look ill, to see an unpreaching Ministry; neither suspended ab Officio, nor Beneficio, but a parte Officij; a term as uncouth among Civilians, as Chagrine amongst the English.

3. The dreadfull Rebellion of 1640 did give us a sad Ex­perience of the little service these Licenses did the Church. for the Lecturers (to whom they were necessary) were so far from being confined by them, That they were the loudest and shrillest Trumpets of the War. The Lecturers Holy water swell'd the Flouds of the Church and States calamity. Their Pul­pits were the bellowing Drums, on which they beat the Al­larms of War.Burnet Ref. p. 2. lib. 1. pag. 160. They were set up, says the History of the Refor­mation in 1550: and Barrow against Gifford tells you why. ‘The Lecturer was brought in to answer the Geneva Platform, that we may have a Doctor besides a Pastor. He calls him a Sectary Teacher:V. Barrow against Giff. pag. 136. a Roving Stipendiary Predicant— brought in by such of a Parish as have Itching Ears — From these arise the Schisms and Sects in the Church of England— They are Sighers for Reformation, and Conscience Botchers— They se­duce and distract the People, some to this Preacher some to that, from their own Parishes and Churches: calls them bats [Page 19]being neither Laiety, because Ordained; nor Clergy because they had no Benefices.’ Of whom He gives a large (and no doubt a true) Account, having been bred under them, till he turn'd Brownist, and fell into the Rigid Separation.

'Tis probable, that Holy Bishop and Martyr Ridley, foresaw the danger that would arise, from such Licentiates, that He set himself so heartily against them, as the Historian notes, as also did King Edwards wise Privy Council, forbidding the Peo­ple,Burnet ibid. to have any thing but Prayers on the Week daies.

It were not difficult to shew, that the Smectymnuan Party, and many other of those Firebrands of that Rebellion, were men tied by Subscriptions, and yoaked with these Licenses: yet being men of no Consciences, these nor any other Ties could hold them, but like masterless Swine, broke through the Quickest hedges of Laws, and Canons, with these Yoaks about their Necks. Which also proves Barrows Character true of the ‘Lecturers, That they had Counterfeit shews of Holiness,Barrow ib. gravity, austereness of manners, preciseness in trifles: but large Consciences in matters of greatest weight.’ And withall shews, that the very Reason urged for the necessity of Licences, viz. to stop the Preaching of Sedition; doth rather prove the useles­ness of them to that End; by the very Instance given.

Having cleered the Truth of these Seven Particulars, and thereby proved the unreasonableness of urging Incumbents to take Licenses to Preach; There are two Things farther to be spoken to. First, To inquire in what Cases Licenses to Preach may be necessary. Secondly, To Answer the Arguments brought for the taking of Licenses by Incumbents.

First, In what Cases Licenses to Preach may be necessary. Seeing the true End of Licenses, is to bring men, admitted to any teaching Office in the Church, to ingage and Subscribe to Conformity in Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline, practis'd in the Church of England: we judge it Reasonable, that those on­ly be required to take such Licenses, as are not known to have made such Promises, Subscriptions and Ingagements to the Church, at Institution or any other way. Such are

1 Lecturers, that are not Incumbents in the Diocess, where they Preach such Lectures: because the Bishop may not be assu­red of such Subscriptions, Promisses, and Ingagements.Can. 1603 can. 36. This we believe to be the meaning of the 36 Canon, in which the three Articles for Subscription are contained. The words of which are, No Person shall hereafter be received into the Ministry: [Page 20]nor either by Institution, or Collation admitted to any Ecclesiastical Living; nor suffered to Preach, to Catechize, or to be a Lecturer, or Reader of Divinity— except he be Licensed, either by the Archbi­shop or Bishop of the Diocess (where he is to be placed) under their Hands and Seals: or by one of the two Ʋniversities, under their Seal &c. Except he shall First Subscribe to these three Articles following, in such manner and sort as we haw here appointed. From whence we gather, 1 That all Officers in the Church ought to have a License to their Office. 2 That this License ought to be under the Hand and Seal, of some Archbishop or Bishop of the place, or of the University. 3. That this License is in order to en­force their Subscription to the three Articles. 4 That the word License is not determined in its signification, for it may be a License to enter the Ministry, or a License for Institution, or Collation: or a License to Preach: or to Catechize: or to be a Lecturer or Reader in Divinity. The First we call Letters of Ordination: the Second Letters of Institution. The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth, are properly Licenses of Preaching which we inquire after. 5 The License of either University can assign no place for any man to Preach, except amongst themselves: as to the Kings and Margaret Professors; and the Proceeding Graduates in Divinity: with the setling and dispo­sing them (it seems) the Universities are intrusted. Any other License they can give, is but a Commendation of a Professor, for his ability in his Profession: which is to be Reckoned a­mongst the best sort of Testimonials, in all parts of the Christi­an World: but can give no Authority to preach any where, but amongst themselves.

The Lecturer therefore, by this Canon, is oblidged to take a License to Preach: and he should be the more carefully lookt after, that the Church run not twice aground on the same Quick-sands. Nor should the Bishops be over forward to grant such Licenses, without the Consent of the Incumbent; seeing he hath an Intrest in the Cure.Barrow Ib. And (as Barrow observes) their main business was to alienate the Hearts of the People from the Parochial Minister.

We the rather expound the said Canon, for a License of Preaching to Lecturers,Can. 37. because the very next Canon singles out, those that are Licensed to Preach in the former Canon by the restrain'd fence, of Licensed to Preach, Read Lecture, or Catechize. So that we Judge the License to Preach, only referrs to them, and not to any Incumbent.

2. Publick stipendiary Catechizers, ought also to take these Licenses to Preach; as being mentioned in both the Canons, and indeed, Catechizing is one way of Teaching, as Preaching is another. And 'tis meet those men should be Orthodox, and con­formable to the Church, least they should infect young vessels with ill Sents in Religion. The Jews call'd the Catechized Ha­nish from [...] Imbuere, because he receives a Tincture by it, which may be false unless well looked after.

'Tis too true we have but few such now,Mart. Tr. § 2 p. 86. distinct from Paro­chial Ministers; but Martinius hath proved Catechistarum praeter Episcopos & Pastores fuit peculiaris Ordo; and instances in Pantaenus, Clemens, Origen, &c. in the Church of Alexandria. Justin Mar­tyr was Converted by Catechizing;Just. Mar­tir Apol. Cypr. l. 3. ep. 22. which he commends much to the Senate of Rome. And Luther calls himself Discipulum Ca­techismi. Optatus was a Catechist in Carthage in S. Cyprians time. S. Mark is said to turn the great School of Ptolomey Philadelphus in Alexandria, to a School of Catechising. And Pamphilus a Christian Philosopher ordained a famous School in Caesarea for this purpose: which had eminent Teachers in them; we have by S. Pauls a School Catechizationis in London, and in the late Learn­ed Doctor Busby, is said to have set up such an Officer in S. Mar­garets Westminster: 'tis pitty there were not many more, yet without oblidging themselves, by Subscriptions to teach Or­thodoxly, and conformably to the Faith, and Discipline, pro­fessed in the Church, they would only serve to increase Heresy and Schism.

3. We must add to these the Curates, employ'd under Parsons, and Vicars, to supply their Cures, who, should they take no Li­cense to Preach or serve the Cure, would give no Caution to the Church for their good behaviour in it. They would be the only Freemen in it to Preach and practise as they List, being obliged to nothing. The Canon reaches them too, in that it orders none shall be suffered to Preach without being Licensed. The Church hath as much Reason to fear them as any other, because They are commonly young men, hot, and rash, and may hope by overturning the present Establishment to be the true Owners, of what they are now but Trustees. And are apt to Court the People for advantage. And gave some instances, of their helping hand, in the overthrow of the Church, in the fatal Revolution of the great Rebellion. And if there be any others in the like state, they ought to be obliged, by the same methods: for where there is Eadem Ratio, there is to be Idem Jus. As those that have Donative, &c.

We are now to proceed, to Answer the Arguments brought for Incumbents taking of Licenses to Preach.

Obj. 1. Tho' Ordination give Authority to Preach, yet it assigns no place to exercise that Function in, nor no People to whom the Ordained may apply that Office; so that a License must be taken to appoint out the place, or men would run in heaps to the same place, and introduce endless Confusion: in as much as the Priests would not know, which of them ought to Preach; nor the People, which of them they were bound to hear.

Answ. 1. We consent that Ordination assigns no place, to exercise our Authority in; but It refers the Practice in express words, To the Congregation, V. Office of Ordin. of Priests. where Thou shalt be Lawfully appointed thereunto. Which place the Bishop knows before hand, for He is not to Ordain without a Title. It being an ancient Rule in the Com­mon Law of this Realm, That no Bishop may ordain Laymen, to the Order of Clerks, above the number suffizing to serve the Churches, as that old Author hath it, in the mirror of Justice. And the Canons of 1603 shewing that It hath long since been pro­vided, Mir. Just. c. 1. §. 3. p. 14. by many Decrees of ancient Fathers, That none should be ad­mitted either Deacon, or Priest, who had not first some certain place, where he might use his Function— They therefore Decree,Canon 33. That henceforth, no Person shall be admitted into sacred Orders, except he shall at that time, exhibite to the Bishop, of whom he desireth Imposi­tion of hands, a Presentation of himself, to some Ecclesiastical Pre­ferment then void in that Diocess. &c. Providing that if any Bi­shop admit any that hath no Title there enumerated He shall keep, and maintain him with all things necessary, till he do prefer him to some Ecclesiastical Living.

2. Institution is the Instrument, by which the place of Preach­ing, and performing all other Functions of an Incumbent, is Lawfully appointed. For Licenses to Preach are unknown to the Law. Institution avoids all Confusion. And without Institu­tion assign the place of Exercise, of the Ministerial Calling, it is altogether useless.

3. Licenses to Preach, may name a Place, but can assign none: because it is not the legal Instrument to give the Title, nor can we take any Induction upon such License should it be granted, [...] [...]ice [...] [...]er­ [...] [...] [...] [...]y: [...] [...]on [...] [Page 23]gave us power to do these, but assigned no place, and without a certain place, we should run into Confusion; one may with as much Reason urge a new Grace to every Dish of Meat, that comes up at a Dinner. The Argument is fallacia Consequentis; It being a plain non sequitur, That Ordination assigns no place, therefore we must take Licenses. The true Consequence is, therefore we ought to have Institution. In a word he that holds this Argu­ment good, is at home in no Principles but in Popery. For he must believe Preaching to be no essential part of a Priests office; but that the formal Reason of a Priest is, to offer Sacrifice, and to Remit Sins, according to the true notion of the Council of Trent. But to as many as believe the Ratio Formalis of a Priest, is Preaching the Gospel, and celebrating Divine service, and Sacraments: The Argument is a plain Absurdity. Yet God for­bid we should think, those that use it, took it out of the Trent Cloak-bag.

Obj. 2 The Canons of 1603. do Require that Beneficed Men take Licenses to Preach: For the 45 Canon mentions Beneficiati ad Concionandum admissi. And the 46 Benefeciatus ad Concionandum non admissus.

Answ. 1. Those Canons mention no License to Preach. 2. Nor is it the design of them to Require Incumbents, or any other to take such Licenses. 3. Only they may suppose, that the weak Ro­mish converted Incumbents, suffer'd to continue in Benefices: or those weak Men the Reformers at first put in; might be obliged to take Licenses before they Preached. 4. The Canons may res­pect Benefices, that are not Presentative, but Donative; of which there are many in England: and such Incumbents having no Institution, will need Licenses both to Preach and do all other duties of a Minister in their Benefices. 5. Nor is it likely, any thing hinder'd those Beneficed Men from Preaching, but their own inability, seeing the 46 Canon requires and instructs, them, to procure others to Preach for them. Concionem per Corcionato­rem legitimè approbatum haberi procurabit, once every Month at least. For he that appoints whom he pleases, may do it himself if he could. 6. We doubt not but a Church ought to Examine who is fit to Preach, before he be allowed; but this the Roman Church did not require, in their Massing Priests: therefore they exa­mined them not. And 'twas in vain for the Reformers to exa­mine theirs, whom they know to be insufficient for it: But the Bishop ever since, is bound to examine this Ability before the Ordination, and so there is no Room nor Occasion for Licenses [Page 24]to Preach, as distinct from Ordination and Institution, in this present State of the Church. A Helmet may be useful in a Battle, but it shew'd Mark Coleman mad, to wear one every night in his Bed. 7. In short the design of the 45 Canon was to command all men that were able, to Preach one Sermon, in their Cures every Sunday: but because some could do it, and some not, the Canon distinguishes and Requires only them that were admitted to Preach: and the 46 requires those that could not, to procure one that could: and this is the Summ of the matter.

Obj. But it is very Expedient that Incumbents take Licenses to Preach, to prevent Error in the Church, and Sedition in the State.

Answ. Would Licenses to Preach work these mighty Feats, He were to blame, that would not make them Annual: So great a Be­nefit were a cheap Purchase at 10 s. per Annum a man. But alas! men fancy what brings them profit, is profitable also for every Thing. The Mountebanks Pill cures all Diseases. England hath labour'd under more Heresies Schisms and Seditions, since this Antidote was Invented, than ever It did before; as is too evidently Demonstrated in the 7th Proposition. If those Chri­stian Ties, of Subscription to the 39 Articles, with a solemn Promise, in the presence of God, and in the Face of his Con­gregation, to Preach no contrary Doctrine, will not restrain men from Preaching Errors, how should a meer License to Preach effect it?

And he that can Preach against or disuse the Common Prayer, or inveigh against the Discipline of the Church, after Subscrip­tion to the 3 Articles conteined in the 36 Canon, in these words I N. N. do willingly, and ex animo, Subscribe to these 3 Articles above mentioned, and to all things that are conteined in them. There is no hope that any chains but those that are Everlasting will hold that man. Much less can this dull Tool do it, that im­plies no Tye but Authority to Preach. In truth the Church could find no better Links than what men make with Their own Pen: unless they should advance an Inquisition.

But we may well wonder, why those Licenses are no N more earnestly urged than before. Considering 1. The General Li­berty granted by the State to Preach any thing, so they im­pugne not the Doctrine of the Trinity. 2. And the Practise of the several Sects that Preach what they please: and will endure no Obligations to Restrain them, from God nor Man. [Page 25]3. And the Practise of Latitudinarans in the Church, that can explain the Mystery of the Trinity into Tritheism. And shew us that we may worship Gods in a greater, and Gods in a lesser Sence, without believing themselves oblidged to the Contrary, by these Licenses. 4. And that the proper Legal Subjects of Ecclesiastical Power are swept away, namely the High Commission for punishing Heresie, and the Star Chamber for punishing Se­ditious Preaching, and Conventicling to disturb the State. Would they shackle the Clergy, while the Sects cuff out their Eyes. 5. After such Recorded Subscriptions, and solemn Promises, as Incumbents have made, what need they fear their Preaching Heresies and Schisms; unless they believe them Knaves! especi­ally seeing they are the only Banks left to stop the Inundation of Errors that threaten to drown'd all before it. 6. Were Men sincere in their Zeal against Errors, one would think the most probable way to stop them, were, to Intercede with the Govern­ment to shut the Floud-Gates, which they have opened to Liber­tines. 'Tis no small ground of Suspition, that the stopping Er­rors is not the Thing designed: while men pretend to stop Er­rors that are possible only, when they attacque not them that are flaming amongst us. 'Tis certain the Clergy at present have no Liberty to doat upon Questions; having work enough to secure their Parishioners Consciences; from the Infection of such Errors as the Sects broach among them; and to confute their pernicious Pamphlets.

If the matter aimed at, be a Power to out any Incumbent of his Cure, under Pretence of Preaching Error or Sedition. We may say the Bishops of the Church, have power enough to de­prive, for Heresy and Schism, for Disobedience and Incorri­gibleness, as Mr. Nash can tell you in his Case. And for con­tumelious words of the Book of Common Prayer, as Mr. Robert Cawdry can shew in his Case. Mr. Parkers Case also can shew that a man may be deprived for Drunkenness,v. Repert. Can. c. 27. Pars. Law. c. 17, 18. Pars. Coun­sel. lib. 1. c. 9. if he refuse to Reform after Admonition. And in truth (if our Authors de­ceive us not) any Crime may deprive a Man, if the Crimi­nal stand Forty days Contumacious after Excommunication; so it be a Crime of Ecclesiastical Cognizance: and deprivation be its Punishment Canonical: and that the Canon be not con­trary to the known Law of England. And the Fact be not discharged bv some general Act of Pardon. But still if the Party so deprived will bring his Action for Tythes against his [Page 26]Parishioner: the Validity of the Bishops Sentence will come into Question, and must take its Fortune. As it was said in Burtons Case, where the Parson was deprived for Adultery, but a general pardon intervening, He was Restored, without the Ecclesiastical Court,Hab. searle and Will­iams case. f. 293. because the Judgment of Pardons, belong to the Common Law. And so it will be, if the Bishop deprive any, after Revolt from Subscription and License according to the direction of the 38 Canon. However if an Occasion of deprivation be the design, the Clergy ought to be the more wary, of admitting such an Innovation, seeing it hath so sharp Teeth.

As to that Part of the Objection that referrs to Preaching Sedition, we may say 1 Subscription to the three Articles Secures that too. Seeing the First of the three vindicates the Royal Rights. 2 Oaths of Allegiance are much stronger than these imagined Ties 3. There are Laws enough to suppress such Preaching and Punish them. 4. Licenses to Preach, are not pro­per Instruments to hinder Preaching in any kind. 5 Many in 1640. did under these Licenses, Preach Sedition: We find there­fore upon the whole matter, these Licenses to Preach, are ex­pedient for nothing, more than to bring in Fees, which yet, if they must be continued, ought to be given Gratis.

Obj. 4 However Incumbents must take Licenses to Preach, any where but in their own Cures, seeing Institution can Authorise them no farther, than to their own Parishoners.

Answ. We may see by this Objection, that close fisted Avarice, will hold fast its Prey, whilst any (tho' never so weak) Pretence can be made. But we may knock off its Fingers by shewing, that whoever is Ordained a Priest, hath power to Preach, in any part of the Catholick Church, wherever He is lawfully called to it. And who can doubt, but a Bishop may have Lawfull Power to call a Man to Preach at a Visitation, or to the Lord Mayor of London; or before the King; Or any Minister to have power to call any to help him in his own Cure. 'Twas never yet denied but an Incumbent's Authority is sufficient, to inable him to perform by another; what Sickness, Necessary Absence, or any other Lawful Impediment, makes him unable to do in his own Person. 2. Doth not the 46 Canon Authorise, and command him to call in a Preaching Minister once a Month at least; If he cannot do it himself, Men use not to Preach in any Neighbours Church, but at their Request: or [Page 27]in case of vacancy, by a License to serve the Cure. 3. If it be necessary to take a License to Preach in another Parish, is it not necessary, also, to take another Institution, or License to celebrate Divine Service, or Sacraments there? Or if not, may not the Incumbents Intreaty, be as sufficient for Preaching as for Celebration of the Service and Sacraments? Any thing but Avarice would blush at such trifling Objections. In truth he that Preaches, and he that Officiates, in any other place but his own Cure, doth it not by his own immediat Authority, but by the Right of Him that calls him to his assistance. But 4 Let it be supposed that Titius hath no Right to Preach any where, but in his own Cure, will the Bishop grant him a License to Preach in Sempronius's Cure? will not Sempronius think that injury to himself? and Usurpation in the Bishop? will not such a Li­cense introduce all the Confusion complained of? For in many so Licensed, which of them can command the Pulpit? which ought the People to hear, seeing all are alike Licensed to Preach?Otho. const. t. 12. cum sit Ars, & Const. 13. ut. 5, would not the Patron also think himself wronged, by such an Intrusion? yea the Constitutions Provincial forbid it, Exigit namque Ars nostra Catholica, ut unicus in una Ecclesia sit Sacerdos, such also is that of Stephen Langton in the Council at Oxford, Anno. 1222. Nec de caetero plures vicarij in eadem Ecclesia constituantur.

The Canonists indeed say The Pope may Preach in all the world: The Bishop in any place of his Diocess, and the Incum­bent in his own Cure: But none say, the Bishop may Autho­rize two, or more, in the same Cure: which yet must be, upon this supposition. And 'tis very improbable, any man would take a License to Preach; where he hath no particular Intention to Preach; no more than he would take out a Matrimonial License to Marry, where he hath no thoughts to Marry.

Obj. 5 But still 'tis urged; That the Canons imply at least, That In­cumbents ought to take Licenses to Preach: therefore it ought to be done.

Answ. 'Tis true that men have long fancied this, having had the Jaundise of Gold upon Them, they thought the Canons looked yellow on them. Hence one while the Chancellors and Com­missaries challenged the Right, to grant Them: another while the Bishop damns all Theirs, and advances his own. One while the Licenses are Parochial, another while Diocesan, and some­times Provincial, as the Itch of Lucre moves: but in truth tho' there may be some Umbrage, yet there is none that cleerly com­mands the taking of such Licenses by Incumbents, and Burdens [Page 28]cannot be imposed on the Subjects, by probable Implications, without express words, as the best Lawyers generally affirm. The Canons cited to prove the duty of taking such Licenses, are the 45 and 46. The 45 says all beneficed men allowed to Preach, shall Preach one Sermon every Sunday. Where allowed to Preach Is put in, to Excuse those that were not able to Preach,Const. Prov. de off Archi­presb. from this Command. For all were allowed to Preach, that were Instituted, if they were able, by the Constitutions of the Church, That all Rectors and Vicars shall instruct the People committed to their Charge Pabulo verbi Dei. Nor can it be supposed, That any Instituted to a Cure of Souls, was forbidden to Preach, seeing that would be malum in se, and contrary to the Canons, and, destructive to the People: but his inability might be wink't at, till able: and then might be allowed Ore tenus, by kind incouragment: with­out wax and Parchment. Or suppose the Beneficed man were upon a Donative, then he ought to take a License, or would be a Preacher without Subscriptions. But the First seems most agreeable, because the 46 Canon requires That a Beneficed man not allow'd to Preach, should procure a Sermon once a Month: which is best explain'd by being wink't at or excused from Preaching as unable; for else he was not only allow'd, bit Requi­red to Preach Jure Scripto by Virtue of his Institution, if Or­thodox and Able.

The 36th Canon bids fairest for a License to Preach, but cannot be so understood generally. The Words are recited be­fore. No Person shall be received into the Ministery except he be Licensed; this must referr to a License of Ordination, called Letters of Orders. Not admitted by Institution to any Living— except he be Licensed; this we call Letters of Institution. Nor Suffered to Preach, to Catechise, or to be a Lecturer or Reader of Divinity. This we call properly a License to Preach; and so that Canon is accounted for Conformable to the Canons and Practise of the Church. But the other way supposes we must have a License to Preach, before we can be ordained, or be brought into the Ministery.

'Tis probable these Considerations swayed that wise and Learn­ed Man, the present Bishop of Worcester, the true Ornament, and Defender of this Church, to wave pressing of these Li­censes, in his Primary Visitation. And to tell us: All Persons who had Cures of Souls and Legal Titles, Bish. Of Worcester. charg. p. 10. were said to be Missi a jure, ad locum & Populum Curae suae; and therefore might Preach to their own People without a special License.

Upon the whole matter, arises this Question: whether those Officers that have Receiv'd Mony for these Licenses, ought not to Refund it.

To which it may be answered, that they ought to make Resti­tution: because they can have no Conscionable Right to it. For the Fruits of Imposture, Extortion, and Cosenage, are accursed Things. And those that take more than they ought, stand sus­pended,Const. prov. l. 3. c. 6. de Instit. ab ingressu Ecclesiae, donec haec contra recepta, Solventibus Restituantur; & laeso suâ culpâ satisfaciant in praemissis, as John Stratfords Council determins, in 1342. And in another place, the Council determins, if any Require more than is allowed, Ingres­sum Ecclesiae sibi noverint interdictum, quousque de duplo Satisfacti­onem, impenderint solventibus competentem; Id. Conc. l. 3. tit. 22. de censib. v. cap. se­vas. Double Satisfaction the Constitutions in most places impose, upon Extortion of Officers. And so 'tis decreed in Extortions, at Visitations, and Corrections of Incumbents. The Gloss adds, if the Archdeacon receive Pro­curations when he doth not visit, forsan quia Episcopus eodem an­no visitavit, & suspendebat Iurisdictionem Archi Diaconi. Id. ib. cap. Quama is. lex nature.

Now we have shewed before, that tho' Arondell in his Coun­cil at Oxford, Anno, 1408. had Decreed, that Licenses to Preach should be granted, by the Diocesan, Ib. in cap. ut singula. sine aliquali Exacti­one pecuniae, And again celeriter expediantur & gratis, difficultate quacunque semotâ, without any exaction of Fee, Delay, or Di­ficulty; with what Conscience then can Men retain, what they extort from a poor, but humble Clergy,Const. l. 5. tit 5. c. Re­verendissi­mae, &c. almost reduced to Extremety, by other insupportable Burdens. Yea John Anton a Canon of Lincoln, in his notes says: He that grants these Licenses, may take nothing, Etiam si sic Licentiandus gratis volu­erit aliquid solvere: Tho' Men pay it willingly,Gloss. 16. they can't hold it honestly. We will add no more, being perswaded, that if Mens own Rules, will not convince their Consciences; no Reasons will prevail. For we have made it plain from their own Laws, that whether Men ought to take these Licenses, or ought not; yet no Money is to be paid for them: Or if any be paid, that it ought to be Restored again.

If it be urged, that the Officers cannot subsist, by doing the work Gratis, it is already answered by the Constitutions themselves.Const. Prov. l. 3. c. 22. c. saeva. &c. That the Ordinary is bound to provide main­tainance for them, if the allowed Fees will not do it: thus Stratfords Constitution, that assigned the Fees, declared, In cae­teris vero Ordinarij suis: teneantur Ministris stipendia constituers, [Page 30]quibus debeant merito contentari: Stephen Langton in his Council at Ox­ford forbids any thing to be taken for the Paper, or rather Cha­racter of Collations,Canst. Prov. l. 3. t. 6. c. quia jux­ta. Institutions or Induction; but as the Title hath it, Collator Gratis conferat, & se per se, & per suos. The Bishop is to settle any Incumbent or Praebend Gratis, farther than what the Canons allowed. And the Question is there put by Lindwood, whether the Notary, or Secretary may re­ceive nothing, seeing no man is bound to serve in War without Pay, and brings in many saying, quod Episcopus debet talibus scribentibus, de suo providere. And produces another Rule out of the Law. Quod sicut Episcopus Gratis Episcopatum suscepit, it a mem­bra ejusdem Episcopatus Gratis distribuat, which answers that of our Saviour; Freely you have Received, Freely Give, and at length Resolves, that if any thing be taken for the Substance of any thing to be done, in Ordination, Collation, Institution, or Induction; It will be Simony: but if it be not of the Substance of the thing to be done, but mere Writing or the like, they may Recive as much as that labour deserves, and no more.

Thus the Case stood in the Reign of Hen. 5. An. 1422. when the famous Canonist Linwood Dr. in Laws, returned from his Embassy to Spain, and composed the Provincial Constitutions which have ever since been held in great esteem, by Reason of his skill in the Common, and Canon Law of this Kingdom, and accordingly made Dean of the Arches; and after Bishop of St. Davids; And these Canons and Constitutions, as far as they are not contrariant to the Laws of the Kingdom, nor repugnant to the Royal Prerogative, are established to be used and execu­ted, by an Act made in the 25 Hen. 8. chap. 19. Which Act though it were Repealed by Queen Mary; yet was Revived a­gain, 1 Eliz. 1. and so they continue to this day.

To Conclude therefore, it is advisable, before Men grow so eager to vend Licenses to Preach, to consider, what our Lord Christ will think of such Priests, as may Baptize but not Preach: as may Communicate, but not instruct their Charge; seeing a Priest is properly a Minister of Christ, one of the sacred Or­ders: He instituted: [...], the Elders that Priest it well, 1 Tim, 5, 17. are supposed to labour in word and Doctrine: Else should they not be called Priests, but Sacrificers; as the French Tran­slation of the Bible, allways renders the Jewish Ministers, Sa­crificicatours and Sleidan, and many others, call the Popish Mi­nisters Sacrifici. And that such as Christ sent, were to Teach all Nations, as well as to Baptize them. What God hath joyned to­gether, [Page 31]'tis great Confidence in Men to keep asunder, unless there were more to be got by it, than a perishable Fee. Can these two Priests, be both of one Order; Christ's, that could Teach and Baptize? ours that could Baptize, but not Teach, seeing they differ in an Essential part of their Calling.

Secondly, They should consider too, what the Primitive Church would think of such Proceedings: seeing they never heard of any License besides Ordination and Mission: nor of any Priest but what could and ought to Preach as well as Baptize.

Thirdly, They ought also to consider, what Neighbour Church­es and Nations, will Judge of our Ministery; when they shall hear that we Ordain, and Institute Priests, that have not Po­wer to instruct their People.

Fourthly, They might do well also to consider, what the se­veral Parishes of England, may deem, the Church Rulers are about to do, in sending them Ministers, that have no Power to Preach among them. Will not they be apt to suspect, such Ru­lers have little care of the Peoples Souls. And that they are a­bout to settle Sir Johns among them.

Fifthly, Nor is it wholly to be slighted, what the several Sects of this Kingdom, may judge of the National Ministry; may they not take occasion from hence to affirm, our Priests to be no Ministers of Christ, seeing they have not Power to Preach the Gospel, by their Ordination, and Institution; without some farther Authority. We know their Readiness, to Catch at the shadow of an Argument against our Ministry, to give some alleviation to their Schismatical Guilt, and to support their sinking cause. But hereby we seem to thrust a Cudgel into their hands to drub us and our Ministry withall. It had been far better our own Mouths had been shut in this Point, than to Open so many Mouths against us.

Lastly, It may not altogether be unworthy our Consideration, what our Reformers would think of these Licenses to Preach, now urg'd; seeing they changed the very Simbols of Ordination; laying aside the Chalice and Patin, and instead thereof, putting the Testament, or Bible, into the hand of the Priest, in his Or­dination: Requiring, and enabling him to take Authority, to Preach the word of God. Thereby evincing that in their Judgment, Preaching was an Essential part of the Priests Of­fice; and that it was a fault in the Roman Church needing Reformation: That they made only Massing Priests, and took [Page 32]too little Care of the Preaching part. They might suspect by such Licenses, we would deform the Reformation: and Relapse into an Opinion, that Hoc facite makes a Priest: or at least that a License had been a better Simbol, than their Bible, to be delivered in Ordination.

You see (dear Sir) my Thoughts in this Affair, and some of the Reasons of them. And may peradventure guess from hence, that Profit, and; importunity of Officers may blind wel-mean­ing Men. I believe you know my Resolution, to comply with this our common Mother, in every Indifferent thing. But I fear, if this were well sifted, it would appear more Dangerous, than the Sticklers for [...]t are aware of: But I leave the whole to your clear and candid Judgment, to Act according to those Dictates it shall perscribe, Remaining