THE HISTORY OF THE Original and Progress OF Ecclesiastical Revenues: WHEREIN Is handled according to the Laws, both Ancient and Modern, whatsoever con­cerns matters Beneficial, the Regale, Investitures, Nominations, and other Rights attributed to Princes.

Written in French by a Learned Priest. And now done into English.

LONDON, Printed for Henry Faithorne and John Kersey, at the Rose in St. Paul's Church-Yard, and Samuel Smith at the Princes Arms in St. Paul's Church-Yard. 1685.

TO THE READER.

IT may seem unne­cessary to say more of this Treatise, than that it proceeds from the famous Pen of Fa­ther Simon; who hath herein far outgon all who have written on the same Subject, even the Learned Father Paul.

This Work plainly [Page]discovers what good Use the Ecclesiastics have made of the Pi­ous Inclinations of the Laity, to their own Ad­vantage: which may justly reflect on the Church of Rome, that great School of Poli­tics; but ought not in the least to prejudice the Honourable Esteem, and Liberal Endow­ments, which a sound Orthodox Church doth or ought to enjoy in a well-govern'd State.

A TABLE OF THE Matters contained In this BOOK.

  • THE Original of the Community of Goods among the Primitive Chri­stians. Page 1
  • The first Revenues of the Church. Page 5
  • The Original of the Ministers of the Church. Page 7
  • The Original of the great Authority of Bishops. Page 9
  • Of the Government of the Church in the beginning. Page 11
  • [Page]The Original of the Ordination of Priests and Bishops. Page 13
  • The Nature of Ecclesiastical Revenues in the beginning. ibid.
  • The Original of Lands and immoveable Goods in the Church. Page 15
  • Abuses in the Administration of Church-Revenues. Page 17
  • The Cust [...]m of the Western Church diffe­rent from that of the East. Page 20
  • Disputes about the dividing of Church-Revenues. Page 21
  • Change of Discipline in the Church. Page 23
  • The Office of the Stewards. ibid.
  • Whether Church men can retain their In­heritance. Page 24
  • Edicts of Emperours. Page 27
  • The Excessive Covetousness of Church­men. ibid.
  • Laws of the Emperours against the Ava­rice of Church men. Page 30
  • The Original and Progress of Monks. Page 32
  • Clerks that lived in Community differed from Monks. Page 33
  • Monks subject to Bishops. Page 34
  • Canons against Monks. Page 36
  • The Primitive Revenues of Monks. ibid.
  • The Original of the Churches of Monks. Page 37
  • [Page]Monks in the West before St. Benet. Page 38
  • The difference of Ancient Monks from the Modern. ibid.
  • Alterations in Church and State. Page 40
  • Ecclesiastical Revenues in the same con­dition as Temporal Estates. Page 41
  • A distinction betwixt the Churches and the Altar. ibid.
  • The Ruine of Private Church-men. Page 42
  • The Original of Lands and other Reve­nues belonging to Monasteries. Page 44
  • The Original of Private Masses. Page 45
  • Forms of Ancient Donations. Page 47
  • Means of acquiring Estates amongst the Monks. Page 49
  • An Explication of the Contract called Precarius. Page 51
  • Other ways of Acquisition. Page 52
  • Investitures depending on Princes. Page 59
  • Elections depended not on the Pope, no not in Italy. Page 60
  • Elections only free in name. Page 63
  • The Original of the Exemptions of Mo­nasteries. Page 64
  • Differences betwixt the Monks and Curates concerning Tithes. Page 66
  • Distinction of the Church from the Altar. Page 67
  • Disputes betwixt Bishops and Monks. Page 73
  • [Page]Ecclesiastical Employments inconsistent with Monks. Page 75
  • Princes ruine the Monks. Page 77
  • The Original of great Power annexed to Churches. Page 79
  • The Authority of the Pope as to Bene­fices. Page 82
  • Reflections on the Right of Popes. Page 87
  • The Custom of France as to the Reception of Bulls. Page 89
  • Of the Right of the Regale. Page 90
  • Of the Regale under the second Race of the Kings of France. Page 92
  • The Regale under the third Race. Page 94
  • The Regale different from Investiture. ibid.
  • Explication of Investiture. Page 95
  • The Regale granted by the Pope. Page 97
  • A more particular Explication of the Regale. ibid.
  • A Restriction of the Regale. Page 102
  • The Custom of the Parliaments. Page 104
  • The Regale authorised by a General Council. Page 105
  • The Right of Collation attributed to the Kings of France by the Regale. Page 107
  • The Regale under Philip the Fair. Page 112
  • Ʋnder Philip of Valois. ibid.
  • Ʋnder Louis XII. ibid.
  • [Page]Ʋnder Henry IV. Page 113
  • Ʋnder Louis XIII. Page 114
  • The Regale at present in all the Churches of France. ibid.
  • The Monarchy of Sicily. Page 116
  • The Pope's Power in France. Page 122
  • An Explication of the New Canon Law. Page 123
  • The Original of Benefices. Page 124
  • An Augmentation of the New Law. Page 126
  • The Original of the Liberties of France. Page 131
  • The Rules of the French Law and Right. Page 134
  • The Canon or Common Law Page 136
  • Particular Law or Right. Page 137
  • Laws and Rights of Popes. ibid.
  • Reversions or Expectative Graces abro­gated. Page 138
  • The Right of Graduates. Page 139
  • Bretagne is not subject to the Preven­tion. Page 140
  • Lay-Patrons are not subject to Preven­tion. ibid.
  • Elective and Collative Benefices. Page 141
  • Derogations from the Right of Preven­tion. Page 142
  • The Right of Devolution attributed to the Pope. Page 145
  • [Page]Benefices vacant in Curia. Page 147
  • Other Rights of the Popes. Page 151
  • Alienations depend on the Pope. Page 153
  • Concordats depending on the Pope. Page 155
  • Commendums depend on the Pope. Page 157
  • The Rights of Commendatary Abbots. Page 158
  • Of Ʋnions. Page 162
  • The Pope's Power limited in France. Page 164
  • The Judging of Bishops. Page 165
  • The Power of Legats in France. Page 166
  • The Power of Nuncio's in France. Page 168
  • Of Cardinals. Page 169
  • The Rights of Chapters. Page 173
  • The Original of Parsonages and Dignities without Cure. Page 174
  • The Original of the Rights of Chapters. Page 178
  • The Rights of Chapters during the Vacan­cy of the See. Page 182
  • The Rights of Patrons. Page 185
  • The Priviledges of Lay-Patrons. Page 188
  • Whence comes the Distinction of Patro­nages. Page 191
  • Of Huguenot-Patronage. Page 193
  • The Original of Ecclesiastical Patronages. Page 198
  • The Original of Priories. Page 199
  • The Right of Commendatary Abbots as to the nomination to Benefices. Page 202
  • [Page]Concordats or Agreements betwixt Ab­bots and Monks. Page 206
  • To whom it belongs to present to Bene­fices during the Vacancy of the Abba­tial See. Page 209
  • Of Priors amongst Monks. Page 211
  • Cluni and Cisteaux have changed the Ancient Government of Monasteries. Page 213
  • Derogation from the Rights of Commen­datary Abbots. Page 215
  • Of Regulars. Page 218
  • A Comparison between Commendatary and Regular Abbots. Page 220
  • A Description of the Lives of Regular Abbots. Page 222
  • Military Orders. Page 228
  • The Original of Commanderies. Page 230
  • A Military Order wherein one may Mar­ry. Page 232
  • Philip II. the richest Prelate in the Church. Page 234
  • Of Hospitals. ibid.
  • Derogations from the Rights of Bishops. Page 237
  • The Novelty of Resignations in favorem. Page 238
  • Regulations that derogate from Resigna­nations. Page 240
  • [Page]Of Regress. Page 242
  • Of Permutation or Exchange. Page 244
  • Of Ʋnions. Page 246
  • Of the Indults or Priviledges of Mem­bers of Parliament. Page 248
  • Of Degrees. Page 249
  • Of Exemptions. Page 254
  • Rules to distinguish the true Exemptions from the false. Page 258
  • Of what Authority are Cartularies. Page 264
  • A distinction betwixt false Titles, and Titles falsified Page 268

Errata.

PAge 66. l. 26. r. Ecclesia. p. 79. l. 15. r. to the Prescripts. p. 82. l. 2. for Venice, r. Rome. p. 114. l. 6. r. Monsieur de Marillac. p. 128. l. 23. r. Moines. p. 251. l. 16. for their, r. there are.

THE HISTORY OF THE Original and Progress OF Ecclesiastical Revenues.

WHat is mentioned in the Acts of the Apo­stles,The Original of the Com­munity of goods among the Primitive Christians. concerning the Primitive Christi­ans having all things among them in Common, is not to be understood, as if private persons had been obliged to sell their goods, that they might ren­der them common to all believers. For, that we may not fall into the errour of the Anabaptists, there is a great dif­ference to be made betwixt a Custom [Page 2]that happened but accidentally in the Church of Jerusalem, and continued not there long, and a Divine Law, which can never be dispensed with. No other Law obliged Believers to it at that time, but the Law of Charity; and we are at present under the same obli­gation, seeing the goods which we possess, become in some manner com­mon to our Brethren, when they fall into necessity and want. The Apostles were not ignorant of the Laws which Moses made in favour of the Poor, to prevent their being reduced to beggary. And in that sense we ought to explain the words of the Psalmist, [...]. Psal. 37.25. I have not seen the Righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging Bread. Where we are to observe that the Jews took to themselves the name of Righteous, to distinguish themselves from other Nations that Worshipped Idols. The Books of Moses contain many Laws which oblige the Rich, on several occasions, to make their goods common to the Poor, and one of the chief is the Law that prohi­bits the exacting of Usury from their Brethren. And that Law is still in force among them, in the low condition to [Page 3]which they now are reduced, they being perswaded, that that charity to­wards their Brethren, is of divine right. We are not then to inquire into any other cause of that Community of goods which was in use, in the Infancy of Chri­stianity, but the Laws of Charity, which are still the same, though the practice of them differ according to the diversity of occasions. For seeing the Primitive Believers lived in Society, & that there were a great many poor among them, those who had estates were obliged to sell them, to supply the necessities of their Brethren.

The Apostles conformed exactly to the Custom which was already esta­blished in the Synagogues. They made a gathering on the days of their Assem­blies, in imitation of the Jews, and during the week every one laid up what he could, to be delivered to those who took the care of collecting their Alms. In the places where Christians met, there wereTertul. in Apolog. Boxes, as well as in the Synagogues, for receiving the Alms of private persons, and the money was distributed amongst the Poor, the Orphans, Widows, and Sick. [Page 4]Now this distribution was not made in­differently by every one that pleased: But as in the Synagogues, there were Officers entrusted with that care, so likewise the Apostles appointed Dea­cons, or Ministers, to whom they gave the same Commission, reserving to themselves, nevertheless, the chief direction and oversight thereof. In a word, if we consult the Jewish Wri­ters, and the present practice of their Synagogues, as to what concerns their Charity, we shall find that the Apostles have exactly followed their Discipline in that particular. They still send their Alms to Jerusalem, and to other places in Judea, for the relief of the Poor that live in those parts: And besides the constant Charity that they give in the Towns where they live, to those that are in want, they assist Forreign Jews, who make application to them, in their necessity; and for Proof of this, it would suffice to shew a Cer­tificate signed by their Rabbies, after the same manner, as Letters of Recom­mendation, were granted to Believers in the First Ages of the Church; which gave Lucian occasion to say, that to [Page 5]become rich in a short time, there needed no more but to pretend to be a Christian.

At that time the Ministers of the Church had no other Revenues,The first Re­venues of the Church. but what they gathered from the Charity of believers: For as to Tithes, First-fruits, and other Rights that belonged to the Levites and Priests, they were abo­lished with the Sacrifice. Our Saviour having instituted a new form of Mini­stry, appointed also a new way of providing for the necessities of the new Ministers. He received the Alms that were given him, and put them into the custody of a Steward, to be distributed according as need did require. St. Paul, who speaks often in his Epistles of the duty of Ministers towards the people, and of the people towards their Mini­sters, says no more, but conform to the words of our Saviour, that they who preach the Gospel, should also live by the Gospel, and that they who serve at the Altar, should participate of that which is offered upon the Al­tar; thereby alluding to the Offerings of the Old Testament He never makes mention of Tithes, nor of those Dues [Page 6]that were given to the Priests, because he supposes that, that Priesthood being abolished, the rights that from thence accrued to the Priests, ought likewise to be abrogated. And therefore, the Primi­tive Christians, who sold their estates, for the relief of the Poor, and mainte­nance of their Ministers, thought it not sufficient to bestow the tenth part, but freely gave all that was necessary, knowing that the right of Tithes and First-fruits, were but only Ceremonies, and Customs of the Old Testament; of which they retained no more, but what concerned Morality. So that Charity was the Rule of what they were to give to the Ministers of the Gospel. And St. Paul who hath made several good Regulations, concerning the Administration of these Alms, calls the Portion that was given to the Priests and Widows, Honoraries. This he doth, when he recommends to Timothy, [...], 1 Tim. 5.3. to honour Widows that are Widows indeed: For Widows had particular Offices in the Church, as well as the priests, whom the same St. Paul affirms [...]. 1 Tim. 5.17. to be worthy of double honour, that is, of a double re­ward. [Page 7]In effect the term of honour is used by Lawyers, to signify the recom­pense that is given to the Officers of Justice, to Advocates and Physicians; and I make no doubt but that St. Paul borrowed it from the Greeks or Hellenists, who sometimes make use of it. In this sense these words of Ecclesia­sticus are to be understood, [...]. Eccles. 38.1. Honour a Physician, that is to say, pay the Phy­sician. Now seeing the Priest-hood was a Real Employment, and Divine Functi­on, St. Paul had reason to give it the Title of honour, which properly be­longed to the Magistrats of States.

The Church hath not only imita­ted the Synagogue in the way of di­stributing its Charity, but also,The Original of the Mini­sters of the Church. hath followed the Discipline observed amongst the Jews, in respect of their Ministers. The Synagogues were com­posed of a Ruler of the Synagogue, which the Hellenist Jews called Archi-Synagogus, Priests or Elders, and Dea­cons; and that was the cause, why the Apostles established in Christian Assemblies, those three sorts of Mini­sters under the names of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The Bishop in [Page 8]these Assemblies, had the same ho­nour as the Ruler of the Synagogue a­mongst the Jews, had in their Syna­gogues. The Superiority of the Ru­lers of the Synagogue, in respect of the Priests or Elders, consisted only in some Titles of honour, as being the Chief amongst their Brethren. And therefore they are all comprehended under the name of Priests or Elders in the Hundred and seventh Psalm, where we have these words: [...]. Psal. 107.32. Let them also exalt him in the Congregation of the People, and praise him in the Assembly of the Elders; which was the place of their Meetings. So we find in the New Testament, that the names of Priest and Bishop are indifferently ta­ken the one for the other; and that As­sembly or Council of the Elders, which was called Presbyterium, consisted of the Bishop, and the Priests or Elders. The Bishop, or President, as the Ancient Fathers speak, had indeed the chief Direction or Superintendency; from whence he was called Bishop. which word is also found in the Greek of the Septuagint or Hellenists, but he made up but one Body with the Elders [Page 9]or Priests, who in Quality of Judges, had their Jurisdiction jointly with him. Hence we may infer that in the begin­ning of the Church, the management of affairs, and the Jurisdiction which is now called Episcopal, did not depend on the Bishop alone, no more than the distribution of the Offerings, but on the whole Senate or Assembly of the Priests; and this continued so long as there was but one Church in every Ci­ty, one Altar, and one Consistory of Priests joined to their Bishop, because it was not easy then, for the Bishop to become Master of the whole Juris­diction and Administration of the Re­venues. But so soon as it was necessary to encrease the number of Churches,The Original of the great Authority of Bishops. there was some cause to fear, lest those who governed the new Churches, might attribute to themselves the quali­ty of Bishops, finding themselves at the head of a particular Church. And therefore the Bishops began to take to themselves authority over them, for which it was necessary to appoint, that there should be but one Bishop in every City, on whom the Elders or Priests should depend, who were to [Page 10]take upon them the Government of the new erected Churches, which were called Titles. St. Jerome strongly main­tains this opinion in his Commenta­ries on the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus, where he affirms that before this divi­sion, each Church was governed by the Common Councel of the Priests; but that for avoiding all occasion of Schism, one of these Priests or Elders was chosen to be the Chief, and to take upon him the care of the whole Church. He pretends that the names of Priest and Bishop did not at all differ in the beginning, and that therefore St. Paul made use of them indifferently: Then he subjoyns,Episcopi noverint se, magis consue­tudine, quam dispositionis do­minicae verita­te, Presbyteris esse majores. Hieron. com. in Ep [...]st. ad Tit. That it is only Custom which hath made Bishops greater than Priests. And this may be confirmed by the authority of St. Paul, who writing to the Churches, under the name of Elders, comprehends both Bishop and Priests.

It is to be observed, however, that the Church being encreased, hath bor­rowed many terms and points of Go­vernment from the Republicks of Greece, and that when there was a necessity of erecting Dioceses, it hath [Page 11]in that followed the distinction of Pro­vinces, according as they were esta­blished in the Empire.Of the Go­vernment of the Church in its Com­mencement. The Church which in its commencement allowed much to the people, grew afterwards more Aristocratical in its Government, when by experience it appeared, that the multitude of people served only to confound and perplex affairs; and then the Polity of Aristocratick Republicks came in vogue. Nay we find in the very Acts of the Apostles, two sorts of Assemblies, as well as in Republicks, The one is composed of the Chief a­mongst the Believers, and is called Ecclesia. The other admits all in­differently; and that the Republicks of Asia named Agoraia, which they have always distinguished from the Assembly that they named Ecclesia. And therefore the name of Ecclesia or Church hath still been given to Chri­stian Congregations, and constantly retained by the Greeks, who made the first Ecclesiastical Laws, from whence it hath been derived to the Latines, who are indebted to the Greeks for all the Ecclesiastical Polity that was setled in the first Ages. In this sense we [Page 12]ought to interpret the words ofOrigen contra Celsum. Ori­gen concerning the Form of Church-Government, which he explains with relation to the Greek Republicks. The Athenians, for instance, called those Bishops, to whom they committed the care of the Towns that depended on their Commonwealth.

It was long before the Church owned any other name but that of Bishop, to distinguish him who had the principal Administration; nay, when it was even necessary to denote a Bishop, who had Jurisdiction over others, she called those Bishops, [...]. Can. 33 Apost. the First Bishops of a Nation; or made use of some other expression, without in­venting new words. We find never­theless the name of Metropolitan in the Council of Nice; but the Greeks, whose Language is fruitful in new words, invented a great many, to ex­press the different Offices of the Ec­clesiastick State, which were not so soon brought into use in the Latine Church. The names of Archbishop, Primate and Patriarch, are but Titles of Honour and External Jurisdiction; whereas the quality of Bishop, and that [Page 13]also of Elder or Priest,The Original of the Ordi­nation of Bi­shops and Priests. is a Character that marks the Ordination, which the Apostles borrowed from the Syna­gogue, that chose its Ministers by the Imposition of hands. In that manner Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and the other Elders, who were presently fil­led with the Holy Ghost: And if we will credit the Authority of the Rab­bies, the power of Imposing of hands belonged not only to the chief of the Sanhedrim, but also to the other El­ders; which seems likewise to be con­firmed by St. Jerom, Hier. in Episi. ad E­vagr. who pretends that the Elders or Priests enjoyed that Right a long time in the Church of A­lexandria, where the Priests, who in imitation of the Apostles, were twelve in number, chose one from among themselves to be their Bishop, on whom they all together laid their hands; as the Patriarch Eutychius observes in his Annals of the Church.

Having now spoken of the Persons who had the care of the Revenues of the Church,The nature of Church-Revenues in the begin­ning. and observed wherein those goods did consist, it will not be amiss to subjoyn that those Revenues were rather a kind of Subsidies em­ployed [Page 14]for the Relief of the Poor, than any real Rents. Nor was there need of any solemnity for consecrating them to the Church, seeing they were not fixed, and the Laws of the Empire permitted not Christians to possess pub­lick Estates. After all, the Collections which we have mentioned, ceased not upon the death of the Apostles; for we read in one of the Apologies of St. Ju­stin Martyr, St. Just. Apol. 2. that in the Publick Assemblies Believers bestowed their Charity after the Communion, and that one of the Brethren kept the mo­ney, to be afterward distributed a­mong those who were in want. That Custom was also in use in the time ofTertul. Apo. Tertullian, and the Church had no other Revenues, but such Alms or Contributions, until the time of Con­stantine, who permitted Churches to possess real Estates, and to be endowed with Lands and Inheritances.Plin. Epist. lib. 5. Pliny the younger observes, that private persons were prohibited to give their Estates to any Colledge or Society, but that they ought to chuse certain and special Heirs, and not the Gods in general. It is true, the Laws made [Page 15]afterwards a Restriction, that one might bequeath or give his goods to lawful and allowed Colledges or Societies, and that by special Priviledge the Jewish Synagogues, which were of the number of those Allowed Societies, were nevertheless excluded from that Priviledge: And because Christian As­semblies were always rejected under the Pagan Emperours, as unlawful Conventicles, it is certain the Church never enjoyed any Possessions, until the Fourth Century under the Empire of Constantine. All these Laws may be seen in the Body of the Civil Law, wherein they are inserted.

It was about that time then,The Original of immove­able Estates in the Church. that Churches began to be endowed, as well as the Pagan Temples, because Christi­an Congregations were no more then considered as Conventicles. The Em­perour Constantine, granted them great Priviledges, and permitted People to bestow upon them Possessions of all kinds. He ordained also that they should inherit the Estates of the Mar­tyrs, Confessors, and of those who had been banished, when the true Heirs did not appear. I speak not here of the [Page 16]Donation which Constantine, accord­to someEuseb. l. 2. de vita Const. cap. 36. Authors, made to the Church of Rome, because it is noto­riously known that the deed is false, and that the Successors of Constantine possessed Lands that are mentioned therein. It may be affirmed that the Priviledges granted by Constantine to Churches, for injoying of Rents, have occasioned great disorders: Which made St. Jerome sayPotentiâ quidem & di­vitiis major, sed virtutibus minor facta est. Hier. in vita S. Malch. that the Church was indeed become more Powerful and Rich under Christian Princes, but that it was less Virtuous. St. Chrysostom, Chrysost. homil. 86. in Matth. describes at length the sad State of Bishops and other Church men, since the Church enjoy­ed Lands and other fixed Revenues, because they forsook their employ­ments, to sell their Corn and their Wine, and to look after their Glebes and Farms: Besides much of their time was spent in Law-suits. He wishes that he might see the Church in the State that it was in in the times of the Apostles, when it injoyed only the Charity and Oblation of Believers. St. Austin was also in the same Opini­on, andPossid. in vita Aug. cap. 24. it is reported in his Life, [Page 17]that he often refused the Inheritances which were offered to his Church, thinking it fitter that they should be left to the lawful Heirs. And in the same Life we read, that St Austin would never purchase Houses nor Lands, nor any other Possessions for his Church: Wherein he shewed his wisdom and prudence; for nothing does more obstruct the Charity of Be­lievers towards Churches, than when they see that they enjoy vast Estates, the Revenues whereof are neverthe­less more uncertain, than the Alms that are given to a Church that hath not the repute of being Rich. And so it was also, that those, who knew St. Austins mind, sold their Lands, and gave him the money; which the more willingly they did, as being persuaded, that the good Bishop bestowed it on pious uses, & not in making new Pur­chases for the enriching of his Church.

Though, at that time,Abuses in the Admini­stration of Church-Re­venues. Bishops and Deacons had the care of the Revenues of the Church, yet notwithstanding even in the time of Constantine many abuses were committed in the management of them. And this made the Fathers [Page 18]of the Council of Gangres, to make a Canon against the Eustathians, who divided among themselves the Re­venues of the Church. It was decreed in that CouncilConc. Gangr. Can. 7. & 8. that the Bishop alone, and those to whom he did com­mit the care of the Revenues of the Church, should receive and distribute what was bestowed on Churches. But it happened not long afterConc. An­tioch. Can. 25. that the Bishops themselves abused their power: For most of them being Poor▪ and charged with Families, they reserved part of the Church Rents for their sub­sistence. And all that could be done, to put a stop to that corruption, was [...]. Can. Apost. 37. to suffer them to give some­what to their Re [...]tions, if they were Poor, but withal prohibiting them to sell the Estates that belonged to Churches. Nay, the Fathers were even obliged, not to leave the administration of the Revenues of the Church in the power of Bishops, Priests, and Dea­cons, without giving an account of them: For the Council of Antioch or­dained, that the Bishops should give an account of the administration of those Revenues, in the Provincial Synod. [Page 19]And that the goods which properly be­longed to Bishops, might not be confounded with those that appertain­ed to their Churches, every Bishop upon his Election [...]. Can. Apost. 39. gave a list of the Goods and Estate, that he posses­sed, which was separated from that of the Church, to be disposed by will or otherwise at his pleasure, according to the Provision of the Civil Law. But notwithstanding all this caution, the Bishops made themselves still Masters of the Revenues of the Church, and the Fathers were obliged to create Treasurers or Stewards to take the care of them, that so the Bishops might apply themselves entirely to the du­ties of their Office. These Stewards were likewise necessary for preserving the Revenue of the Church, which the Bishops and other Church men did not employ according to the Canons. But because they were appointed by the Bishops, they relapsed again into the same abuse, & the Poor had cause to complain of the same Bishops, who gave them but a very inconsiderable share of the Goods that were destined for their Use. Upon all these accounts [Page 20]the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon decreed, That for the future the Ste­wards should be chosen from among the Clergy, and that it should be no longer in the power of the Bishops themselves to administer the Revenues of the Church. That Office became so considerable in the Church of Constan­tinople, that the Emperours took from the Clergy the nomination of the Ste­wards, and appointed them themselves. And this lasted until the time of the Emperour Isaac Comnenus, who remit­ted that right to the disposition of the Patriarch.

The power of Stewards was not so great in the Western Church,The Custom of the We­stern Church di [...]ers from that of the East. as in the Eastern; for seeing the Bishops and o­ther Ecclesiasticks did not according to equity distribute the Church Revenues, and that besides the Churches were meanly endowed, there was a neces­sity of making a particular designation of the use, to which these Rents were to be employed: And that was ad­justed in this manner; to wit, that the Bishop with consent of his Clergy, should divide the whole Revenues of his Church into four parts, of which [Page 21]the First should be for himself; the Se­cond given to the Church-men; the Third to the Poor; and the Fourth and last applied to the Fabrick of the Churches.Gratian caus. 12. q [...]. 2. cap. 23. Gratian relates a letter of Pope Zosimus directed to an Arch-Deacon, where that distribution is men­tioned, but without permitting the Rents of the Church to be dismem­bred, as some Church men pretend­ed, who would have had Lands assign­ed them for their portion St. Gregory answering some Questions that were put to him by Austin the English Bishop, confirms that Dividend,St. Greg. Pope. which had been already approved by several other Popes, and withal appoints that the Bishops portion, should not only be for himself, but for as many as were necessary for his Retinue, and for maintaining Hospitality. The Bi­shops wrangled with their Clergy a­bout that distribution, pretending that they had no right to the new Acquisi­tions of the Church;A Dispute a­bout the di­stribution of the Revenues of the Church. but the same Pope St. Gregory adjusted the matter in fa­vour of the Clergy. The Priests pre­tended farther, that they ought to have two parts of the share that was [Page 22]assigned to the Clergy; and that the other Churchmen ought to have but a third of the same. That matter was re­ferred to the Bishop, who was to give to every one according to his merit and pains. Nevertheless St. Gregory. who in that followed a Law established in the Churches of the West, writing to Austin concerning the Discipline that he was to observe in England, tells him that it was more convenient to persist in the Community of Goods in the Church of England, than to introduce into it those kinds of dividends. And in­deed it will appear in the sequel of this Discourse, that the dividing of Ecclesi­astical Revenues, hath been the cause of most of the disorders that have happen­ed in the Church; and I dare boldly affirm, that the thing that hath pre­served a greater purity of the Ancient Discipline in the Eastern Church, has been chiefly, that the Orientals never made any such partitions. None but the Western Church hath put the Estates of the Church into Titles and Livings, in the same manner as if private per­sons were the absolute masters of those Estates.

The Barbarous Princes,A change of Discipline in the Church. who seiz­ed part of the Empire, brought great changes into the Church, and the Dis­cipline of the Canons was onely pre­served in the East. The Greeks, never­theless, have sometimes remitted certain Ecclesiastical rights in favour of their Princes. But that is nothing if compared with what hath been done under the Barbarous Princes in the West.

The Stewards of whom we have spoken,The Office of the Stewards. took upon them not only the care of the Revenues of the Church, by order of the Bishops, but also pre­served them during the vacancy of the See, and distributed them among those to whom by right, and according to the Canons, they belonged. But be­cause most part of the Church-men had Estates of their own, either by Inheritance or Purchases that they had made, there arose great difficulties up­on their Death about the distinguish­ing of those Estates: Some there were that pretended, that those who lived on the Revenues of the Church, could not in conscience re­tain their own Inheritance. St. Jerom [Page 24]who was of that opinion,St. Jerom. is positive, that the goods of the Church were de­signed for the Poor; which agreed very well with the Edict of Constan­tine, that prohibited the Rich to enter into any Office of the Church,Whether Church-men can keep their own Estates. though he did it upon Politick Reasons, and for the good of the State. Most of the other Fathers were also of St. Jeroms mind,St. Austin. and St. Austin admitted no Clerk into his Church, till first he had disposed of all his goods, either in fa­vour of the Poor, or by Sale. He was for having all Clerks really Poor, in imitation of the Apostles, and for liv­ing altogether in common upon the Revenues of the Church. Nevertheless it is to be observed, that he did not re­quire that of them but as a greater perfection, and that he never thought it absolutely necessary for entring into or­ders, and enjoying the allowance of the Church, that one must possess nothing at all. Otherwise he must have gone against the Ancient Canons, which leave Church-men at liberty to dispose of their own Estates as they please. It is true these Canons were made in the Eastern Church, where most of the [Page 25]Bishops having been Married before their Election, had Wives and Children to provide for; and where Priests and Deacons might Marry if they pleased. And therefore it was not reasonable to take their Estates from them. Be­sides, it must be considered, that when these Canons were made, Churches were but [...]oor; Nay and some time af­ter Constantine, no Churches but those of great Cities were Rich.

However, these Ancient Canons of the Eastern Church, wereCaus. 12. Quaest. 3. renewed in the Church of the West, though they had not the same reasons for do­ing it. Church-men were only prohi­bited to bequeath by Will, the Goods which they had got in their Livings, because Believers did not give to Churches, only to enrich the Church-men. If it happened, nevertheless, that the Bishop died without making a Will, and had no heirs, then did the Church succeed to all his Estate. The Churches of Spain, who had got a Latin Translation of the Ancient Greek Canons, imitated the customs of that Church, which were likewise propa­gated in other Churches of the West. [Page 26]We may here observe by the by, that Gratian is often mistaken;Gratian. and that there is no credit to be given to his Citations, but when they are found to agree with the Ancient Greek Canons Nor are the very Summaries which he gives of Canons always true, as when it is marked in general, over the Head of the Canon taken out of the Council of Tarragona, that the Estate of the Bishop dying without a Will, ought to return to the Church; whereas it is barely said in the Council, that the Priests and Deacons shall make an In­ventory of his Goods, and that accord­ing to the Greek Canons; to the end that what was properly his own, might be set apart from that which be­longed to his Church. But this is not a proper place to correct the faults which occur in the Collection of Gratian.

Ammian. The Emperour Julian revoked most of the Priviledges granted to Churches by Constantine. Zozim. Nay, he took from them their Endowments, alledging for a Pretext, that the per­fection of Christian Religion consisted in Poverty. But Valentinian after­ward [Page 27]recalled the Edicts of Julian; though he did not confirm all the Grants that Constantine had made to the Church;Edicts of Em­perours. and the Emperours that came after him, were more sparing in their Liberality. But the Avarice of the Church-men made up what was wanting in the Bounty of the Empe­rours:Excessive Avarice of Church-men. For if we give credit to what St. Jerom reports of the Priests and Monks of his time,St. Jerom. they spared no Trick nor Artifice whereby they might hook in the Estates of private Persons. I shall make no scruple here to produce some proofs of it, since Cardinal Baronius hath done the same before me; and then it will easily ap­pear that the Anchoret of whom Sul­picius Severus speaks, had reason to say,Ecclesiam auro non strui, sed potius de­strui. that nothing was more likely to ruine the Church, than great Riches. Seeing it would be difficult to translate the words of St. Jerom with the same force and elegance,Sulpitius Se­verus in Dia­log. as they are in the Original, I shall only extract some passages in Latine out of his Writings; as first in one of his Letters to Eustochium, he thus describes what past at Rome among the Church-men. [Page 28] Hier. in Epist. ad Eu­stoch. Clerici—osculantur capita matro­narum, & extentâ manu, ut benedicere eos putes velle, si nescias, pretia acci­piunt salutandi: —quidam in hoc om­ne studium vitam (que) posuerunt, ut ma­tronarum nomina, domos mores (que) cog­noscant; ex quibus unum, qui hujus artis est princeps, breviter describam. —cum sole festinus exurgit, salutandi ei ordo disponitur, viarum compendia requiruntur, & pene usque ad cubicula dormientium senex importunus in­greditur; si pulvillum viderit, si mantile elegans, si aliquid domesticae supellectilis, laudat, miratur, attre­ctat, & se his indigere conquerens, non tam impetrat quàm extorquet. In another of his Letters, he describes more to the life, the low and sordid Offices, which the Priests and Monks of his time rendred to Old Men and Ladies who had no Children, that they might catch their Estates and In­heritances. Audio, says he, in senes & anus absque liberis quorundam turpe servitium, ipsi apponunt matulam, obsi­dent lectum, pur [...]lentiam stomachi, & phlegmata pul [...]onis manu propriâ susci­piunt, &c. In the Epistles of this holy [Page 29]Doctor, we may have a full and live­ly Representation of the Church-men of his time; and he cannot forbear to blame the vanity of Widows of Qua­lity, who refusing to marry again, that they might not be subject to a Hus­band, liked very well to be courted by Church-men, that so they might bear the Rule. Illoe interim, says that Father, quoe Sacerdotes suo viderint indigere proesidio, eriguntur in super­biam, & quia maritorum expertae do­minatum, viduitatis proeferunt liber­tatem. His Commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures are likewise full of the like complaints against the Ava­rice of Church-men, whom he up­braids with their desire of enriching their Relations with the Goods that belong to the Poor. I wave a great many other Reproaches that he makes to them, which got him the hatred of the Ecclesiasticks and Monks of his Age. And nevertheless he said nothing but what was true, and approved by all good men: So that when most part of the Priests and Monks censured him as a railing and violent man, Sulp. in Dialog. Sulpitius Severus undertook his [Page 30]defence, and made the same complaints against the Church-men, whose unsup­portable Vanity he condemns. These were not only then the grievances of St. Jerom, who in that cannot be accu­sed of Passion, since that before him St. Hilary Hilar. comm. in Psalm. compared the same Church-men to the Scribes and hypocritical Pharisees,Comeden­tes domos vi­duarum, & oratione longâ orantes. Matth. 23.14. who in appearance made long Prayers, and devoured Widows Houses. In a word, if men condemn St. Jerom of Passion, they must also condemn St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ba­sil, St. Ambrose, and indeed the greatest Saints of that Age. who could not en­dure the Covetousness of the Church-men. But nothing justifies St. Je­rom more, than that the Emperours Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian, were obliged to make a Law against those corruptions, which is to be found in these words in the Code of Theodosius. Codex Theodos. Ecclesiastici, aut ex Ecclesiasticis, vel qui continentium se volunt nomine nun­cupari, viduarum ac pupillorum domos non adeant; Laws of the Emperours against the Avarice of Church-men. sed publicis exterminen­tur Judiciis, si posthac eos ad fines ea­rum, vel propinqui putaverint defe­rendos. Censemus etiam, ut memorati [Page 31]nihil de ejus mulieris, cui se privatim sub praetextu religionis adjunxerint, li­beralitate quâcunque vel extremo Judi­cio possint adipisci, & omne in tantum inefficax sit, quod alicui horum ab his fuerit derelictum, ut nec per subjectam personam valeant aliquid, vel donatione, vel testamento percipere, &c. That Law, which was directed to Pope Damasus, was read in the Church of Rome. St. Jerom in his Letter to Nepotian. St. Jerom does not accuse the Em­perours of Injustice, for publishing a Law which seemed contrary to the Liberties of the Church; but he ac­cuses the Avarice of Church-men, who having slighted the Law of God, have been forced to obey the Laws of Men; and he asserts, that therein the Priests and Monks are inferiour to the Priests of Idols, and to the Societies of the infamous, who are not debarred from receiving Inheritances. The disorders of Ecclesiasticks must at that time have been very great at Rome, that Christian Princes were obliged to make such rigorous Laws against them.

Now seeing Monks come within the compass of the complaints that St. Je­rom and the other Fathers have made [Page 32]against Ecclesiasticks, it will be perti­nent to speak a little of their Original and Progress,The Original and Progress of Monks. and to shew how they came to have a share in the Revenues and affairs of the Church. The Origi­nal of Monachism is commonly attri­buted to St. Paul the Hermite, and St. Anthony; in imitation of whom Egypt was entirely filled with Monks, where­of some were Solitary, and others lived in Community. That kind of Life afterward got footing in Syria, Pontus and the lesser Asia. Those of Egypt and Syria have still retained the name of St. Anthony their Founder: Whereas the others of the Province of Pontus and the lesser Asia, took the name of St. Basil, who brought from Egypt into those parts the Rule and Institution of St. Anthony. So that St. Basil and St. Anthony have filled the Levant with Monks, who at present bear their Names. St. Athanasius com­ing to Rome, and having there pub­lished the Life of St Anthony, many also in Italy embraced that kind of Life, which from thence was propagat­ed into the other Provinces.

We must, nevertheless, have a care, [Page 33]not to confound the Clerks who lived in Community under the direction of their Bishops, with Monks. Eusebius, Euseb. Vercel.Bishop of Verceil, was the first in the West, who according to the Testimony of St. Ambrose, joined together two things which seemed contrary, to wit, the Monastick Rule to the manner of the living of Clerks.The Clergy that lived in Community differed from Monks. It is not to be magined that these Clerks were true Monks, no more than those who em­praced the same kind of life, under St. Martin and St. Austin. They bor­ [...]owed only from the Monks, their way of living in common, being for that [...]o less serviceable to the Church; whereas in the beginning, Monks liv­ed out of Towns, were for most part Laicks; and so far from performing any publick Ministry in the Church, that their Profession wholly debarred them from it. All their Employment consist­ed in Prayer, and Labouring with their hands, and their study in reading the holy Scriptures. It is true, Bishops sometimes drew Monks out of their Monasteries, and associated them to their Clergy; but then they were no longer Monks, being reckoned in the [Page 34]number of Clerks. St. Jerom always distinguishes those two kinds of life, and speaking of himself as a Monk, he says,Clerici pas­cunt oves, ego pascor. Hieron. Epist. ad Heliod. Clerks are Shepherds, for my part, I am one of the Sheep; And he always builds on this principle, that it is one thing to be a Monk, ano­ther thing to be a Clerk. Alia mona­chorum est causa, alia clericorum. He nevertheless acknowledges that Monks by their profession were not excluded from Ecclesiastical Employments; on the contrary, that Monachism ought to serve them as a Noviciat in order thereunto, when Bishops shall Judge them worthy.Sic vive, ut Clericus esse merearis: quod si populus vel Episcopus te in Clericum eli­gat, age quae sunt Clerici. Hieron. in Epist. ad Rust. Monach. Live, says he, writing to Rusticus the Monk, in such [...] manner as you may deserve to be a Clerk [...] and if the People or your Bishop, [...] their eyes upon you for that end, [...] that which is incumbent on a Clerk.

The Monks at that time were Sub­ject to Bishops, and ordinary Pastors, having not so much as distinct place in the Church from the rest of the Peo­ple,Monks sub­ject to Bi­shops. because they were of the number of Laicks. But since there happened several heresies in the Eastern Church, and that many learned Monks bravely [Page 35]opposed them, it was thought conve­nient to draw them from their great solitudes, and to settle them in the Suburbs of Cities, that they might be useful to the People. And St. Chryso­stom thought it even fit to call them into Cities. Which was the cause that most of them, applying themselves to study, aspired to the Clergy, and with much precipitation got into holy Or­ders, whereof Pope Zosimus complains in one of his Epistles. But seeing they were useful to Bishops, not only in Spi­ritual, but Temporal affairs, they got into great Reputation; and the same Bishops who were glad to have a nu­merous Clergy, and fit persons about them to carry on their designs, gave them considerable Offices, wherein they behaved themselves excellently well, as appeared in the affair of Nesto­rius. But having abused the autho­rity that was put into their hands, and growing insupportable to all Peo­ple, even to the Bishops themselves, because of their vanity and their med­ling in all kinds of business without the permission of their Ordinaries, the Fa­thers of the Council of Calcedon [Page 36]thought fit to make Canons against Monks, for putting a stop to the dis­orders which they occasioned in the Church.Canons a­gainst the Monks. Wherefore it was decreed in that Council, that for the future, Monks should be wholly under the Jurisdiction of Bishops, without whose permission they should meddle no more in any af­fairs whether Civil or Ecclesiastical [...] that they should not leave their Mon­steries to ramble up and down, and [...] frequent Towns; that they should no [...] build any Monastery or Chappel, with­out consent of the Bishop of the place and that they should be secluded from Ecclesiastical Employments, unless called thereunto by their Bishops, whe [...] they should judge it necessary.

And thus was the Canon law Re­established in regard of the Monks who had not continued long without shaking it off, and they were put into an absolute dependance on Bishops who took care of Monasteries as we [...] for the Spiritual as Temporal. As th [...] Monks of that time were but part o [...] the People, so they had no other tem­poral Revenue also,The first Re­venues of Monks. but what they gained by their labour, and a shar [...] [Page 37]in the Alms, which the Bishop caused to be given unto them, if they were in want, in the same manner as to the other Poor. Besides that, the People gave them their Private Alms, that they might pray to God for them. Some of them, nevertheless, kept somewhat of their Patrimony;St. Jerom. but St. Jerom blames them, as counterfeit Monks, who followed not the Rules of Evangelical poverty. As to the Spi­ritual, they came to the Parish Church with the rest of the People, and some­times they were allowed to send for a Priest to administer the Sacraments unto them. At length they were per­mitted to have a Priest of their own number,The Origi­nal of the Churches of Monks. on condition that he continued Monk, and only officiated in the Mo­nastery. This gave them occasion of having Churches apart, and of making a kind of separate Body. After that it was impossible for Bishops to hin­der them from performing all Eccle­siastical functions in their Monasteries; and since that time there have always been disputes betwixt the Bishops and the Monks, because the Monks on many occasions refused to submit to the orders of the Bishops, which [Page 38]they pretended to be contrary to the Discipline of their Monasteries.

Though at that time most part of the Monks were in the East,Monks in the West before St. Benet. yet for all that, there were a great many also in the West, before St. Benet planted a par­ticular Order there. St. Jerom, St. Am­brose and St. Gregory make mention of Monks in Italy, amongst the Gauls and in several other parts of Europe. Besides, all the Authors who have written of the beginning of the Chri­stian Religion in several Countries, speak of Monks that were there. There was this difference,The diffe­rence betwixt the Ancient and Modern Monks. neverthe­less, betwixt the first Monks that were in Europe before St. Benet, and those that came after him, that the first were barely Monks, without being addicted to any particular Order. To be a Monk was sufficient, to make them received as such, in all Monasteries wheresoever they travelled. There was no talk then of particular Rules and In­stitutions But every Monk laboured to emprove himself by the example of o­thers, and to embrace what he thought most perfect in the Monastick life. So that, it may be said, that the Monks both of the East and West were all of [Page 39]one Order, having at that time no Mark of distinction amongst them. The ancient Rules that have been written by the Primitive Monks, ought rather to be lookt upon as different Commentaries upon the Monastick life, than different Rules; for the intention of those who embraced that kind of life, was not to distinguish themselves by particular Rules from the manner of [...]iving of other men, but to submit themselves by a more particular re­signation to the Maxims of the Gospel, and to find out all possible ways how they might live up to the Counsels of our Saviour, who will have us to wean our hearts altogether from the World, that we may follow him alone who is above it.

I shall not here speak of the Insti­tution of St. Benet, which is in the hands of every body; but shall only observe by the by, that the design of that Saint was not to make any inno­vations in the Monastick life, but to make a Collection of what he found most perfect in the Rules and Institu­tions of others. Matters are much al­tered since. All the several Orders of Monks make now a days so many [Page 40]petty different Republicks in the Church, and are so many little States who have all their several interests. But let us now return to our Subject concerning the Original and Progress of the Revenues of the Church.

No sooner were the Barbarous Kings become Masters of a part of the Ro­man Empire,Changes in Church and State. but the Civil and Eccle­siastical Laws suffered great alterations. There was a necessity of complying with the humor and temper of these new Conquerours, who medled in the affairs of the Church. There was not now, as formerly, the same li­berty in electing of Bishops. Prince [...] thought of securing their States, by conferring Bishopricks only on such as they could rely upon. So that Eccle­siastical dignities began to be looks upon, as mere Lay-Offices, at the dis­posal of Princes, with which they could Reward those that served them. And which was more pernicious to the Church, Princes and other great Lords began to make no more di­stinction betwixt goods consecrated to God, and goods Profane. The necessity of the times must be born with; and [Page 41]the great Wars that Princes were en­gaged in, was the cause that the best part of the Revenues of the Church, fell into the hands of Lay-men.The Reve­nues of the Church in the same condi­dition, as temporal Estates.They made Contracts of Alienation about them, as about other Possessions; and these Contracts past for lawful, when they were made in the usual forms. No body opposed it. The Bishops & Monks treated often with Laicks about those concerns, either by way of Exchange or Purchase. The ancient Cartularies or Registers of the Monks are full of such kinds of Contracts; wherein it ap­pears that Children succeeded to their Fathers as well in Church livings, as in other Estates. The Counts or Judges decided the differences that arose a­mongst private persons about such Estates, in the same manner as about other Inheritances and Possessions.

It is true some scrupulous People made a Distinction betwixt Altars and Churches;A distinctio betwixt Churches an Altars. comprehending under the name of Churches, Lands, and o­ther Revenues for which men might contract; and assigning a Priest to the Altar, who was to have a Salary for saying Mass and performing other [Page 42]Ecclesiastical Functions. But some who were not so scrupulous made no such imaginary distinction. For in the ancient Cartularies there are to be found forms of deeds of alienation of Churches and Altars, with the Bells, Chalices, Crosses and other Ornaments of the Church. This was practised even in Italy, before the Popes entred into the cognisance of the goods of the Churches, which depended not on their Diocese. To these troublesome times we may attribute the total Ruine of private Church men,The Ruine of private Church-men. who were oblig­ed to take wages from those who possessed the Churches. And which is more unhappy, the greatest part of those Revenues are fallen into the possession of Cathedral Churches and Monasteries, to which they did not at all belong. The truth is there are forms of Contracts to be found in the same Cartularies, which make it ap­pear that Monks have bought several Churches from Lay-men; but part of these Churches had been usurped by the Laicks from the Church-men, to whom they ought to have been re­stored, and not sold to the Monks.

When the administrations of Church Revenues were erected into Benefices, or perpetual Titles, the Church-Men who were hired by the Chapters of Cathedral Churches, by the Monks, and even by Laicks, became perpetual Vicars and Curats. But the best part of the Benefices remained still to the Canons and Monks, who took to themselves afterward the Quality of Primitive Curates. Besides, since pri­vate men were not able, Princes and other great men bought the Churches from those Church-Men, and gave them to the Monks, who entertained Secular Priests, to take the care of administring the Sacraments to the People; all the Revenue and Tithes in the mean time remaining to the Monasteries. Wherefore, it will not be amiss to explain in this place more particularly, the Original and Progress of the Revenues annexed to Monaste­ries, and at the same time to speak of their priviledges and exemptions. A great part of what we shall say of Mo­nasteries, being also applicable to other Ecclesiasticks.

We have shown before, that Monks [Page 44]having made profession of poverty,The Original of Lands and other Reve­venues be­longing to Monasteries. lived only by their labour, and the Alms they received as being poor. And since they were not employed in Ecclesiastical Functions, they could not apply to themselves these words of St. Paul, They which wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar. And therefore it seems they ought ne­ver to pretend to the enjoyment of Church Revenues, which according to Natural & Evangelical Law, belong to none but the Ministers of the Church. The contrary notwithstanding hath come to pass; For most part of Church-Men have been deprived of the Reve­nues that belonged to them, and the Monks endowed therewith. It hath been already observed that Monks ap­plied themselves much to Prayer, and that that got them the Charity of ma­ny private persons. But since Bishops allowed them to have Oratories or Churches for their own use, this Cha­rity was doubled and People began to leave their Parish Churches, and flock to their Chappels. Nay there were some Monks that made Fonts in their Mo­nasteries, in the same manner as there [Page 45]are in Baptismal Churches. The Bishops did, indeed, forbid them to admini­ster any Sacraments, but to those of their Monastery, and denied them Baptismal Churches. But though they were at that time subject to them in all things, even in what concerned the Monastick Discipline, yet it was not in their Power to hinder the People from giving them Charity. There were, nevertheless, some Bishops who would have reduced them to the ob­servance of the Ancient Canons, and not suffered them to have Priests among them: But Pope Gregory, who was favourable to the Monks, wrote in their behalf to one of his Suffragans, that he should permit them to Cele­brate Mass in their Monastery;The Original of private Masses. and that was chiefly the Original of private Masses, which have been very useful to the Monks, and bring at present some profit to most Religious Socie­ties.

It is to be seen in Ancient Manuscript Missals, that in that which they call the Canon of the Mass, mention was made of the Alms which the Priests received: For whereas the Priest says [Page 46]only these words, Remember Lord thy Servants and Hand-maids, and all who are present; He heretofore said, Re­member, Lord thy Servants and Hand­maids, who make me subsist by their Alms. Memento domine famulo­rum famula­rumque tuarum, & omnium cir­cumstantium. Memento do­mine, famulo­rum famula­rumque tuarum quorum eleemo­synis sustentor. Can. Missal. MS. With many other words which are not at present, in the Canon of the Mass. As it hath always been the belief of the Church, that Prayers, and especially those of the Sacrifice, were very advantageous to the dead; so the Monks quickly found the benefit of having Priests among them, thereby to attract the Charity of the People, which turned to very good account to them. To them may likewise be At­tributed the Original of Private Chap­pels, and the multiplication of Altars, for celebrating several Masses, at one and the same time: For, according to Ancient Custom, it was not law­ful to say more than one Mass, at which all assisted, and it was even a thing un­heard, that many should celebrate Mass the same day, upon the same Altar: Which Custom is still observed in the Eastern Church.

In the Formularies of Marculphus, many Deeds of Cessions or Donations, [Page 47]in favour of Monasteries are to be found. The most Common form was expressed in these Terms: JN. the Son of N. give to such a Monastery Pro reme­dio animae meae. for the remedy of my Soul, such & such goods. Children made the like Donations to Churches, and especially to Monaste­ries, for the repose of the Soul of their Father or Mother.The form of Ancient Do­nations. It was enough for most part, to put these Terms in ge­neral into the deed,Pro merce­de animae meae, vel genitoris & genitricis meae. For the reme­dy of my Soul, or of the Soul of my Fa­ther or Mother, without particulari­sing the Number of Masses, as it is practised at present. And by that means they might receive all the Foundati­ons that presented, without being ob­liged to encrease the Number of Priests. It is true, there are other Forms of Pious Legations, which are larger, and wherein, besides these terms, pro remedio animae nostrae, it is likewise added, ut pius deus & dominus noster, Ann. 1061. Jesus Christus peccata nostra dimittere & minuere dignetur, & paradisi portas nos gaudentes introire jubeat; & ut in ultimo tremendo Judicio non inter hoedos ad sinistram, sed inter oves ad dex­tram aggregari mereamur consortio, [Page 48]&c. But in these Deeds there is only mention made of Prayers in General. There are nevertheless pretty Ancient Forms, wherein mention is made of particular obligations, wherewith the Founders or Benefactors charge the Monasteries: But these Deeds are very rare, and even sometimes suppo­sititious. The Emperour Lovis II. Son of Lotharius, in a Priviledge which he granted to the Abbey of Casaur, seated in the Abruzzo, of which he was the Founder, obliges the Monks to say daily three Masses for him, to sing the Hundred and twentieth Psalm in all the Offices and Hymns of Vespers and Matins; and that for the ransom or remedy of his Soul. This priviledge is Printed at the end of the sixth Tome of the Book Entituled, Italia Sacra; and though the Author hath taken it out of some Cartularies, yet there ap­pear several Additions and Marks of Forgery, which I found by comparing it with an Ancient Cartularie of that Monastery, where the same Priviledge is written without all these Additions. It is true the Number of the Masses, and the other Obligations that are in [Page 49]Print, are likewise in the Manuscript, but seeing in that Cartulary, there are many other Priviledges of the same Emperour, in favour of the Monastery for the same thing, where these Con­ditions are not to be found, there is ground to doubt of the truth of that Priviledge; besides that in the first Deed of the Foundation, there is no­thing of it mentioned. However it be, it is certain that those kinds of Grants contained nothing commonly, but Obligations for Prayers, and some­times for Masses, and that but in gene­ral: Which hath much contributed to the augmenting of the Revenues of Monasteries, because the Monks could still receive new Foundations & Pious Legacies, without obliging themselves for all that to any new Obligations; and private Persons who were perswaded, that the Prayers of the Monks would be available to them, made no difficulty of giving their goods to Monasteries.Means of ac­quiring E­states among the Monks.

By this means the Monks have ac­quired great Estates in Lands, which because they would not labour them themselves, they let out by a kind of Leases or Copy-holds, which they [Page 50]called convenientiae. There was no no­tice taken at that time of the Canon Laws, which prohibit the Alienation, or Farming out of Church Lands, for a long term of years; they were then, as all other Goods and Estates, subject to the Civil Laws, and Customs o [...] places. Bishops and Abbots sold and exchanged the Rents of their Churches, without consulting the Pope. The Lease, which they termer convenientia or agreement, was for a certain number of lives; so that the Lands were engaged for many year on Condition of a yearly Reven [...] paid to the Abbey: And for greaten security it was specified in the DeedAnn. 970. Ad usum fru­ondi per na­strum praesti­tum, cultandi, & exfructan­di, non venden­di, nec donan­di, nec concam­biondi, &c. That so much Land was let by way of loan, to the third Generation, to be laboured and emproved, and the profi [...] thereof enjoyed, without permission to sell, exchange, or any ways engage the same This way of letting of Leases is still in use in England; and the Monks made use of it heretofore, as all other Church men, having the same liberty as they had to purchase, sell and ex­change: Whereas in the beginning they made a scruple, of enjoying the [Page 51]property of any Lands, only they sometimes laboured and manured Lands, that no body claimed a right to, for their own subsistence.

There is mention made in the trea­tise of matters Beneficiary attributed to Father Paul, An Explica­tion of the Contract cal­led Precarius. of a form of a Contract cal­led Precaria, which hath much enrich­ed Monasteries. The Old Cartularies, are full of such kinds of Deeds, which consisted in a Donation made by pri­vate Persons, of their Estates to Church­es, which they obtained back again from the same Churches, by Letters which they call'd Precarias, or Precato­rias to be possessed by a kind of Copy­hold, or Lease for Lives; for most part granted a Lease for five, six, and even for seven Lives, on condition of paying a yearly Revenue to the Monastery. People bestowed their Lands more willingly upon the Church, when they perceived that they still reserved the profits of them for many years. And I have seen in ancient Cartularies forms of Precarious Contracts, wherein pri­vate Persons sold their Estates to a Monastery, and afterward obtainedLiteras precarias us (que) in quint im gi­nerationem Under Lonis 11 Son of Lotharius. Letters or Leases of them to the [Page 52]Fifth Generation: So that after the Fifth Life, the Monasteries could dis­pose of the Lands, whereof they had the property, from the date of the Con­tract, the sellers enjoying only the Profits, upon Condition of paying year­ly a certain sum of Money, and oblig­ing themselves to cultivate (2) and improve the Lands, without any Po­wer to sell, give, engage or exchange the same according to the tenour of the Contract or Deed.Beneficiali ordine usu fru­endi, cultandi, laborandi, me­liorandi, non ve­rò vendendi, nec donandi, nec concambi­endi, &c. In those days there were many other Deeds of the like na­ture, which were authorised by the Civil Law, and Customs of Countries; and no distinction was made betwixt Secular and Church Lands. Monks were allowed to purchase and sell, in the same manner as Lay-men.

Those who embraced a Monastick Life,Other means of Acquisi­tion. contributed much also to the en­riching of Monasteries: For it com­monly happened that they who made choice of that Profession, thought it not enough to give themselves to God, unless likewise they offered all they had; of which they made a Conveyance, according to the forms used in seve­ral Countries. The Tenour of that [Page 53]Deed, is to be found in the Ancient Cartulare of Casaure in these terms: I. N. Son of N. in such a year of the Em­perour N. and of the Count N. offer and give, of my own free will and motion, this present day, my proper Person, and all the goods which I possess in such and such places, to such a Monastery, where I intend to live the rest of my days. And for the greater solemnity of this offering, it was made in the Church, where the Person laying his hand up­on the Altar, was, with all his Estate, offered to God. It is also to be observ­ed, that the profession of a Monastick Life, hindred not the Monks from in­heriting the goods of their Relations, which they might dispose of in favour of their Monastery. Besides, Widows, who having taken the Veil from the Hand of the Bishop, could not Marry again, gave part of their Estates to the Mo­nastery or other Churches, of which a Deed past in the following Tenour: I. N. Daughter of N. the Servant of God, who have taken the Veil of Reli­gion, give to N. Abbot, or to such a Monastery, such and such goods for the remedy of my Soul, and of the Soul of my Husband.

Besides all these ways that have brought great wealth to Monasteries, it is to be observed, that the Consti­tutions of the Order of St. Benet, al­lowed a Monk to leave the Society of his Monastery, that he might live So­litary and an Anchorite, which was called,De Clau­strensi fieri Ar­choritam. of a cloystered Monk to be­come Anchorite. These Anchorites, who retired from the Monastery, with the permission of their Abbot, went and lived in some neighbouring place; and they were not so Solitary, but that they were visited by the People, that came to recommend themselves to their Prayers. They received large Alms, as being esteemed holier than the rest; and took all kinds of Dona­tions, whether in Lands, or Movea­bles. When they were grown Rich in one place, they went to another, where they met with the same Chari­ty from the People. The Estate which they had acquired belonged to them, and before their death they made it over to the Monastery, out of which they came. And that their Donation might be in form, an Act past upon it in these terms:Cartuiary of Casiure. Am. 10, [...]. J. N. Priest and [Page 55]Monk of such a Monastery, out of which I came with Permission of the Abbot, that I might lead a more retired Life, give to my Abbot N. for the repose of my Soul, all the goods which I possess, and which I have purchased with his Permission. The Deed of Donation contained a list of Goods, Lands and Churches, which these Anchorites left to their Monaste­ries, and at the same time they delivered up the Deeds of private Donations, which were kept among the other Records.

Besides all this, Monasteries made no difficulty to sell the Ornaments, and consecrated Vessels of their Churches. There is mention sometimes made in An­cient Cartularies, of Chalices and Silver Crosses given in payment for Lands bought from private Persons, when there was no necessity for it. But what is more surprizing, Monks bought in­differently from all sorts of men, and often enough from those who had abu­sed their Authority in seizing the Goods of the Poor: Which gave encourage­ment to many great men, to usurp the Estates of their Neighbours, because they were sure to find Monks, to whom they could sell them, we find a very [Page 56]considerable Instance of this in the Car­tulary of the Abbey of Mire in Suisser­land, which hath been Printed. The Monk who compiled the Acts of that Monastery, having reckoned up the Lands and Possessions which lawfully belonged to the Abbey, gives afterwards an account of goodsQuae cum injustitià & rapinâ, aut vi­olentiâ congre­gata, aut ac­quisita sunt. that had been acquired by unjust means. That good Monk says, that he was obliged to pub­lish to the World, those unjust Acquisi­tions, that he might therewith acquaint his Brethren; and discharge his own Conscience: Then he mentions a Gol­den Chalice, enriched with Pretious Stones, and two Silver Crosses, with which and coined Silver, they bought some Lands which had been by a Per­son of Quality unjustly taken from Poor Country People: And in fine, hav­ing represented the injustice of such kind of Purchases, he subjoyns, that men should take heed, not to mind their Body with so much care, as to lose their Souls, by injoying unlawful and usurped goods.Dum unus­quis (que) boc solum altendere de­beat, ne ita cor­pus nutriat, ut animam per­dat, cogitetque quid prosit, si l [...]tro rapiat, & [...]onachus co­ [...]. Nevertheless after these reslexions, he spares not to reckon up the ill purchased Goods, as well as the rest. For it is very rare for Religious Com­munities [Page 57]to make restitution; no man in particular thinking himself obliged to it.

The Priviledges granted by Princes to Monasteries, hath also much contribu­ted to the preservation, and encrease of their Revenues. Those Priviledges, which were called Charters of Freedom and Royal CommandsCartae li­bertatis & praecepta rega­lia. exempted Monasteries from ordinary Taxes; and Princes having once taken them into Protection, no man durst molest them. Nay when they had any suit with their Neighbours about controverted Lands, it happened very seldom that they lost the cause; because the Judges Com­missionated by Princes, most common­ly favoured the Monks, who were looked upon as men belonging to the same Princes, and whose Lands were in some sort reckoned of their Demain, especially when Princes were the Found­ers of the Monasteries. The Original of Investitures, which have caused so much trouble in the Church betwixt Princes & the Pope, proceeds from such Founda­tions, & in the beginning they signified no more, than the Letters whereby the Prince revested or invested a Church, to speak in the Language of those times. [Page 58]Nay the very deeds that private Men made contained the term Invest, which signified giving, and putting men in Possession of Lands. Now that this might be made more solemn, some ceremonies were added, which may be called Fictiones juris, Fictions of Law.

I have found in an Ancient form of Investiture made under the Emperour Louis II. That the Judges, and other Lords commissionated by the Prince, gave Investitures in his absence, of which an Instrument was left, spe­cifying the year of the Emperours Reign, and the years of the Count or Judge of the places, which was signed by the other Judges, and Witnesses pre­sent at the Ceremony. The form was conceived in these terms,Cartulary of Casaure. N.N. investierunt per demandationem Augusti, per colonnam de curte, &c. N. abbatem. In other forms of Investitures we find per annulum. In effect, the custom was to make use sometimes of a staff, some­times of a Ring, and most commonly of both together. When these Investi­tures were made by Princes, that staff was called the Royal Staff, in the same manner as their Priviledges were cal­led [Page 59] Carta re­galis, praecep­tum regale, Jussio regalis, defensio regalis. Royal Charter, Royal Com­mand, Royal Jussion, Royal Protection; And at length it was calledSceptrum regale. Royal Scepter. The Investitures of Bishopricks were gi­ven per sceptrum regale, as it is mentioned [...]n some Authors, & Ancient Cartularies.

Although Charlemain and his Suc­cessors referred the Election of Bishops to the Clergy and Monks, according to the ancient Canons, yet they were ne­ver made without the consent of Prin­ces,Investitures depending on Princes. who most commonly designed those who were to be chosen; and the Ele­ctors durst not do otherwise, because from them must be obtained the Investi­ture of Lands, Priviledges and Immu­ [...]ities. This was not only observed in France and Germany, but even in Italy. It is to be found in the Ancient Cartulary, of the Abby of Casau­re, founded by the Emperour Louis II. That the Monks of it took al­ways the Investiture from the Empe­rours and Kings, without ever having recourse to the Popes, until the Wars that happened betwixt the Popes and German Emperours. For then, as it is observed by the Monk who wrote the Chronicle joyned to that Cartulary, Ann. 1073. [Page 60]the Canons and Monks were obliged t [...] apply themselves to the Popes, for ob­taining priviledges, and permission [...] proceed to a New Election,Cum non pos­sent ad Impera­torem iye, quia jam discordia & dissidium inter Roma­nam Ecclesiam & Imperato­rem Teuthoni­corum paraba­tur, ad praesen­tiam Apostoli­ [...] sedis acces­serunt. in respect that the Wars hindered them from a [...] dressing themselves to the Emperour That happened in Italy under the Po [...] ­tificat of Gregory VII. who with [...] much vigour attacked the Investiture Princes. And although the Mon [...] of Casaure had already obtained from Pope Leo IX. A Priviledge like those which they obtained from the E [...] ­perours, yet they complained that t [...] Wars hindred them from having reco [...] to the same Emperours, as if they [...] only owned the Popes for the right Investiture, because they were constra [...] ­ed to do so by the necessity of the time.

The same History informs us, that t [...] Canons and Monks did not chuse the Bishops and Abbots, before they had a quainted the Emperours and Kings. A [...] therefore in the Elections of Bishops a Abbots which were made by the what Body of the Canons,The Elections depended not on the Pope, no not in Italy. and Monks, [...] consent of Princes was always menti [...] ­ed, but not a word of the Pope, who that time did not concern himself [Page 61]these Elections, no not in Italy as ap­pears manifestly by the Cartulary of Ca­saure, & the Manuscript Chronicle annex­ed to it. This was still observed under the Emperour Henry III. For that Chroni­ [...]le makes mention of aDominicus electus in Ab­batem, ab omni congregatione, consensu Impe­ratoris Hen­rici venerabilis Churradi filii. Ann. 1047. Monk na­med Dominick, who was chosen by the whole Community, with consent of the same Emperour. The act of that Ele­ction is mentioned at length in the Car­ [...]ulary with the Subscriptions of all the Monks who chose Dominick; and it is specified in the beginning of that Act, [...]hat they all with one voice, from the highest to the lowest, chose Dominick [...] Monk & Priest: then he adds, that that was done with the consent of Elelin Chancellour to the Emperour Henry. The same Monks in that Chronicle affirm besides, that they were obliged to have recourse to Pope Ʋrban II. Be­cause the Normans suffered them not to apply themselves to the Emperour. The Author of the Chronicle adds, that their Abbot Grimualdus, went to Pope Ʋrban, to declare to him the sad con­dition to which the Wars had reduced the Abbey, and that since that time, itSub prote­ctione Romanae Ecclesiae, quam hactenus Ab­batia sancti Clementis ig­noraverat; quia ab Imperatori­bus gubernaba­tur, meruit collocari. began to be under the Protection of [Page 62]the Roman Church, having alway been before under the protection of the Emperours.

But it is more observable what he say in the same ChronicleGrimual­due primus ab Ʋrbano in Ab­batem consecra­tus, baculum pastoralem in loco Sceptri re­calis quod An­tecessores sui & Epse ex dono Imperatoris in dexter a porta­bant suscepit. that the Abbey Grimauldus was the first that made use [...] the Pastoral Staff which he received fro [...] the Pope for the Investiture of the Abbey & that all the other Abbots his predece­ssors, had carried a Royal Scepter, which the Emperours gave them. And there fore the Monk who wrote the Cartu­lary of that Abbey represents on the one side Pope Ʋrban, and on the other, the Abbot Grimuald, in whose hand the Pope puts a Crosier, whereas he had represen­ted the rest with a Staff, and makes Pope Ʋrban speak these Verses to the Abb [...]

Caesaris ob sceptrum baculum tibi porrigo dextrum,
Quo bene sis fretus, plus Caesare dat tibi Petrus.

But the Monks soon learnt by expe­rience, that the Popes Pastoral Staff di [...] not defend them like the Royal Bator [...] And therefore the Author of that Chre­nicleAbbatia quae hactenus fuit Imperialis camera, modo datur pro pre­tio, sicut à mercatoribus venditur vilis ancillula. Ʋbi sunt fastus re­cales? ubi Sceptri mag­nificentia? deplores the misery to which his Monastery was reduced at that time and regrets the loss it sustained, in be­ing [Page 63]no longer protected by the Em­perours.

I mention this, to shew how little power the Popes had before that time in the Elections of Bishops and Abbots, and that it was wholly in the hands of Princes. However the Monks got always these words put into the Im­munities or Priviledges, that Princes granted them; That they should have li­berty to chuse an Abbot of their Society according to the Institution of St. Benet. Yet after all,The Election [...] were only free in name. they durst not chuse any Abbot, but with consent of the same Princes, who named to them most commonly, those who were to be cho­sen, not observing even the order, which appointed the Abbot always to be ta­ken of the house whereof he was to be Abbot. Liberty of Election remained only in inconsiderable Abbeys, and even there, in the beginning, the permission of the Bishop in whose Diocese it lay, was necessary. Before the Institution of St. Benet, the Monks were in all things Subject to the Bishops, and could do nothing without their consent. But the clause of that Institution concerning the Election of Abbots, which is to be [Page 64]made by the Monks of the Communi­ty served them for a Pretext, by de­grees to exempt themselves from the Jurisdiction of Bishops.Original of the Exempri­tions of Mo­nasteries. It is true that Monks who depended on Bishops, e­ven for the observation of their Institu­tion, could not chuse a new Abbot, before they had obtained the permission of their Bishops. But as they represent­ed their Rule, they were not hindered to follow it; and so they obtained from the Bishops power to chuse their Abbots according to the tenour of their Constitu­tions. There was no need afterward [...] to have recourse to Bishops for a new Election, for they themselves left to the Abbot and Monks all that concern­ed their Rule, and they began to make a difference betwixt the Juris­diction of the Bishops, and the Mona­stick discipline. The Monks went even a little farther, and obtained from their Bishops exemptions from episcopal Ju­risdiction. And so soon as the Popes had in the Diocefes of other Bishops, got the power which they have at present, the Authority of Bishops was greatly diminished. For the Popes granted to Monks, most commonly for Money, [Page 65]as many exemptions as they pleased. We must, however, take notice, that the Primitive Exemptions of Monks are not so large, as those of later times, and that the more the Authority of Popes has been advanced, the Priviled­ges of Monks have encreased propor­tionably. After all, these Exemptions have been very advantageous to Mona­steries, and very uneasy to Church­men that depended on them. For, see­ing the Abbots had all power in Spiri­tuals as well as in Temporals, the de­bates which they had with Church-men were always decided in favour of the Monastery.

Besides, the Abbots most commonly compounded with those to whom they gave the administration of Churches, and cut off part of their Stipend for the use of the Monastery. And for the bet­ter succeeding in this, they pretended that their Monastery had the right of a Baptismal Church, and by consequent the Tithes and other Church Dues be­longed to it. If the Priests objected that they had always received the Tithes, and that therefore their Church ought to be accounted Baptismal; then [Page 66]the Monks defended themselves other [...] ways, affirming that the Priests only en­joyed the Tithes, by the charitable bene­volence of their Abbots, & that by right they belonged to the Monastery.A difference betwixt the Monks and Curats about Tithes. Thus the Monks of the Abbey of Mire here­tofore pretended, that the Tithes of the Churches which depended on their Mo­nastery, belonged to them. I shall here relate the terms inserted in the Acts o [...] the Foundation of that Abbey that every one may Judge of the right that Monas­teries have often usurped over Church [...] that depended on them, without any title.The Act of the foundation of the Abbey of Mire, De decimis vero, quas cler [...] antea hîc à nostris agris accipiebant, c [...] ­dendum est antecessoribus nostris hoc p [...] ­tius pro charitate, vel ad solatium victis quam projustitia & subditione sanxisse & in potestate abbatis est, utrum velit a [...] dare, aut sibimet habere, admonition sunt à modo omnes qui secesserint huc [...] habitandum, ne unquam consentiant [...] clericus curam ab Episcopo, sed Abba [...] accipiat, quod istud monasterium est mal [...] Ecclesiae. To which may be added that the Abbots gave frequently enough the Government of Churches to some of their Monks, who discharged th [...] [Page 67]Office of Curate, instead of secular Priests; and then it was easy to attribute to the Monastery, the Tithes which belonged to the Curates. There was, indeed, sometimes debates betwixt the Bishops and Monks; but the Bishops were easily gained by money, to suffer them to appoint Vicars or Curates in the Churches, which they pretended did depend on their Monasteries.

That we may better understand the Custom of that time, it is to be observed, that Gregory VII. and other succeeding Popes, made several Constitutions to oblige Laicks to restore to the Church the Tithes and other Ecclesiastical Re­venues,A distinction betwixt the Church and the Altar. which they possessed; but most of these Restitutions were only made to Cathedral Churches and Monasteries, though the goods belonged to private Churches. Now seeing the Church at that time was distinguished from the Altar, Monasteries retained the Churches, that is to say, the Lands, Tithes and other Revenues: But because the right of pro­viding these Altars, belonged to the Bishops, it behoved the Monks to ob­tain from them; that which was called, [...]. the Redemption of Altars, Godefroi [Page 68]of Vendome, and other Authors of the same Age, make mention of that right. Besides, the Council of Clairmont or­dained, That the Altars which had been given to Chapters or Monasteries by the Vicars, whom they called Par [...]ons, should return to the Power of the Bishop, unless the Bishops had confirmed in writing the Donation made to the Chapters and Mo­nasteries. To obtain this confirmation from the Bishop, a certain sum of mo­ney was required. And this abuse caused another; for private men would alse have Churches, of which they receive [...] the Profits in imitation of the Canon [...] and Monks, and had the cure supplied by Vicars. There was no necessity that they who were provided with such Al­tars should be Priests, seeing they sub­stituted Vicars in their places. John o [...] Salisbury condemns that abuseNolunt Sa­cerdotio enera­ri, ant servire a [...] de altario vivunt, sed personatus qiosdam intro­duxerunt, quo­rum jure ad alium overa, ad alium reserun­tur emolumen­ta. and cannot endure that those that did no [...] wait at the Altar should partake with the Altar, applying to themselves the Re­venues of Churches, without rendring any service to the same Churches. Yve [...] Bishop of Chartres complains likewise of that corruption, in a Letter to Pope Ʋrban II. wherein he lays open the ba [...] [Page 69]Custom that was in France, in respect of such Personages which had been au­thorised by the Bishops his Predecessors: Qui altari non serviunt, says he, de altari vivunt, à quo sacrilegio cum eos absterrere velim, monedo, increpando, excommu­nicando, altaria à me redimere volunt sub nomine personae, sicut a predecessori­bus meis ex prava consuetudine redeme­runt.

Pope Ʋrban, indeed, condemned that abuse in a Council held at Clairmont, to hinder the Simony that Bishops committed in selling Altars: but it seems that they who had bought them from the Bishops, gained by their Simony; for it was decreed in that Council, that such as had for the space of thirty years enjoyed these Altars, should not be molested for the future, and that the Bishops should exact no more from them, but the due, which they called redemptio altarium. Pope Pascal Successor to Ʋrban, confirmed the same Decree in one of his Epistles, to Yves Bishop of Chartres, and Ranul­phus Bishop of Xantes, wherein he speaks to them in these terms: Ipsi Arvernensi concilio adfuistis, in quo praesidente Prae­decessore [Page 70]nostro bonae memoriae Papâ Ʋrbano, consentientibus Galliarum Epis­copis, decretum est ut altaria quae ab annis triginta sub vicariorum redemptione Monasteria possedisse noscuntur, quietè deinceps & sine molestiâ qualibet Mona­steriis ipsis firma permaneant.

In this manner did Monasteries and Chapters, who were also comprehended in the Decree of the Council of Clair­mont, retain to perpetuity several Al­tars which did not all belong to them; and they were at the same time exempt­ed from paying to the Bishops the usual dues, that were paid after the death of the Vicars; for obtaining liberty to put other Vicars in their places. It had been, me thinks, more convenient and agreeable to the Ancient Canons, to have left the power of providing for Altars to the Bishops. And to prove that that right belonged to them, when Laicks were forced to restore to the Church the Tithes and other Church Revenues which they possessed, it was decreed in the Council of Melfi under Pope Ʋrlan II. That no Laick should have Liberty to give to Monasteries or Chapters, Tithes Churches, or other [Page 71]Ecclesiastical Rights, without the consent of the Bishop of the place, or the per­mission of the Pope. But it happened that the Bishops abused their Power, and permitted Chapters and Monaste­ries to receive these Rights from Laicks, on Condition of a certain sum of money to be paid to the Bishops, for granting Liberty of establishing Priests or Vicars who might take upon them the Spiri­tual care of Churches. These decrees of the Popes that were backed with Excommunications, frightned many Laicks, who instead of restoring the Church Revenues to private Churches, to which they belonged, restored them to Chapters and Monasteries, with the permission of the Bishops. The Lay-men liked it much better to restore the Tithes, and other Ecclesiastical Re­venues, to Chapters and Monasteries, from whom they got money, than to private Churches, which had none to give. And therefore Councils decreed that these Restitutions should not be made without consent of the Bishops, thereby to prevent all com­pacts or agreements betwixt Laicks and Ecclesiastical Communities. There were, [Page 72]nevertheless, a great many Laicks, wh [...] were not startled at the Excommunica­tions of Gregory VII. and other succeed­ing Popes, but notwithstanding them kept still the Tithes and other Ecclesi­astical Revenues. They did more, for they instituted Priests to take care o [...] Souls, without expecting the Institu­tion of the Bishops. And that was th [...] cause why the Council of Lateran un­der Alexander III. decreedCon. La­ter. III. cap. 14. Th [...] Clerks or Priests that should take upon them the Government of Churches, from the hands of Laicks without the Autho­rity of the Bishop of the place, should [...] excommunicated; and that if they per­sisted, they should be deposed from their Ministry. Nevertheless the Popes suffer­ed Lay-men still to enjoy the Tither of Churches whereof they were in possession. But they granted Chapters and Monasteries Priviledges to ge [...] them out of their hands, even when the Bishops would not consent to it [...] These kinds of Priviledges which were casily obtained from the Court of Rome, brought in great Revenues to Chapters and Monasteries, who put Secular Priests into the Government of [Page 73]Churches, allowing them such moderate Stipends, that the Popes were obliged to condemn that Avarice of the Canons and Monks, who denied Priests even a neces­sary subsistence.

The vast Rents that Monasteries en­joyed gave umbrage to the Bishops, Canons, and to Princes themselves, to whom it was represented, that most part of these Revenues ought rather to belong to secular Priests who served the cures, than to Monks, who by their Profession were excluded from all Eccle­siastical Functions But seeing the Monks had taken advantage of the ignorance of Secular Priests, and that the govern­ment of most Churches was committed to them, it was a difficult task to turn them out, and to re-establish Secular Priests in Churches. And therefore there happened great contests betwixt the Canons and Monks, especially in England, where the Monks had de­prived the Canons of their Canonships, and even obliged Secular Priests to turn Monks, if they intended to enjoy their Benefices. The Bishops did what lay in their power to remove the Monks from Church Dignities. But on the [Page 74]other hand the Monks had their recourse to the Popes, who were already become Masters of a great part of the Juris­diction of Bishops; and Princes who were perswaded that Monasteries were grown too Rich, favoured the Bishops against the Monks and Popes. All the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury had been Monks, from the time of Austin, whom Pope Gregory sent into England, until the Reign of Henry 1. But when under that Prince, they came to the Election of an Arch Bishop,Hist. Sim. Daniel. 1123. all the Bishops of England declared publickly, that they would have no Monk for their Primate, and that amongst the Clergy there were as virtuous men, and as fit for the Go­vernment of a Church, as any in the Monasteries: So by degrees they began to take the Government of Churches out of the hands of Monks, though they were protected by the Popes. Yet they still made a distin­ction betwixt Regular Canons and Monks, which continues to this day; for we find but a few Monks that take the Charge of Parish-Churches, and perform other Ecclesiastical Fun­ctions out of their Monasteries, [Page 75]Whereas regular Canons in all places discharge those Offices, without being ob­liged, as Monks are, to put Secular Priests into their Cures.

There remain at present but few Cathedral Churches in the hands of Monks, though heretofore it was a very common thing to see no other Canons,Ecclesiastical Employments incon­sistent with Monks. in Churches, but Monks, who at the same time took care both of Churches and Monasteries; which was altogether op­posit to the Canons, & even to the Insti­tution of the Monastick life.Quisquis autem ex Mo­nasterio ad Ec­clesiasticum or­dinem pervene­rit, ulterius il­lic nec aliquam potestatem, nec licentiam ha­beat manendi. St. Gre­gory indeed, allows Monks to enter into holy Orders, and to officiate in that ca­pacity, when it shall please their Bishop to enjoyn them: But then they could no longer continue in their Monasteries, be­ing become real Clerks. Nevertheless the Monks did the contrary,Greg. Papa. and remaining still in their Monasteries, took upon them the care of Churches. We even find in the History of England, that the Of­fice of Archdeacon of a Cathedral Church was annexed to the place of Prior of a Monastery. The desire they had of en­riching their Houses, was the true cause why they continued in their Communi­ties though by right they were separated [Page 76]from them, because of the Ecclesiastical Employments in which they were en­gaged; and so far from laying aside their Monkish customs, when they were associated to the Clergy, they introduced into their Churches the Practices and Ceremonies of their Monasteries; and that was the thing that made way for the Re-establishment of Secular Priests, in Cathedral Churches and other Benefices. But nevertheless, part of the Revenues that belonged to Private Churches remained still in the posses­sion of Monasteries.

Besides, Princes and Bishops could not endure that Monks should possess Ec­lesiastical Dignities, after that the Popes were grown so powerful that they disposed at their pleasure of the most part of Benefices. For the Monks always espoused the Interests of the Popes against Princes and Bishops, under pretext of defending the liberty of the Church; and seeing Princes refused to submit to the Pope, with whom they had continual quarrels, they resolved to give no Ecclesiastical Promotions, but to those who were devoted to their Service. The English History gives us [Page 77]a pretty Instance of this, in the Reign of Richard I.Princes ruint the Monks. That Prince having assembled the Bishops of his Kingdom, could not forbear with Tears to tell them, that he was an unfortunate wretch, and no King.Se miserum esse, non regem. Chron. Ger­vasii. He complained that the Revenues of his Kingdom were crumbled into infinite parcels, of which the least part came to his share, andHaec enim & illa possi­dent albi Mo­nachi & nigri, & ordinis di­versi Canonici. that they were possessed by Black Monks, White Monks, & Canons of different Orders. Then he upbraided the Secular Priests with their Vices, and scandalous & debauched lives that were notoriously known to all the World. E­leemosynas Populi, said that Prince speak­ing of Secular Priests, distrahunt, & ex­pendunt in pravos usus, dum magis cogi­tant de suarum pannis meretricum, quàm de suarum vestimentis vel libris Ecclesia­rum — tolerabile malum videretur, si singuli suas mulierculas observarent, & saltem thorum non invaderent alie­num.

These corruptions were not peculiar to England alone, but were spread over all the Churches of Europe, where Priests who were prohibited to Marry according to the Canons of the Western [Page 78]Church, made no scruple publickly to keep Concubines. And we are obliged to the Monks, for the services they rendred to the Church, in those days when the Secular Priests were plunged in Ignorance and Vice: But their Servi­ces were not so considerable, when they began to declare for the Popes, who pretended alone to have the abso­lute disposal of all Church Revenues contrary to Ancient Custom. King Ri­chard, of whom we have been speaking attributes the disorders which the Court of Rome caused in his dominions to the weakness of the Priests of his Kingdom Romani says he, Propter debilitatem ve­stram, adeo nobis infesti sunt, ut nobis so­lummodo videantur imperare, literulas sua [...] ­nobis vendunt, nec Justitiam quaerunt, sed litigia fovent, multiplicant appellationes, redimunt placitantes et cum solam pe­cuniam appetunt, veritatem confundunt pacemque subvertunt. That Prince con­tinuing his complaints, told the Bi­shops of the same assembly, that for Remedy to all these evils, the Monks must be obliged to shut themselves up within their Monasteries; without sharing in Ecclesiastical affairs; and [Page 79]the Secular Clergy reformed, who would be much more serviceable than the MonksRomanis latronibus si transgrediun­tur, poterunt obesse. in resisting the unjust at­tempts of the Court of Rome. The Kings advice was followed by all the Bishops, and it was resolved in that As­sembly, that the Monks who possessed Cathedral Churches, should have their private Churches near to these Cathe­drals, and that Secular Canons should be settled in their places. And in this manner did Princes with assistance of the Bishops endeavour to re-esta­blish Secular Priests in the Churches according to Prescripts of the Canon Law. But that was not done without great difficulty, because the Monks were protected by the Popes, whose au­thority was become formidable; and it is to that time especially, that we ought to attribute a great part of the Exemp­tions which the Monks obtained from Rome, that they might not depend on the Bishops who endeavoured their Ruine.

It was a troublesom thing to Princes,The Original of great power given to Churches. to see the Popes dispose at their plea­sure of the goods and Lands, which Kings their Predecessours had given to [Page 80]Churches, at that time when they had the power over them. It is certain Princes would never have granted such large Revenues to Churches, if they had thought that they should have fallen into the hands of the Popes. For, to what end was it to give to Churches whole Towns, and great Demains, with secular Jurisdiction, when the same was not to be in their disposal for the future? The German Historians attri­bute chiefly to the Emperours Otho's the enriching the Bishops and Monasteries of Germany with so great RevenuesTheodor. de Hiem. priv. & Jur. Imper. Otho primus omnibus penè Cathedralibus Ecclesiis in Italia, Gallia, Germania, Bur­gundia et Lotharingia constitutis, multas civitates, castra, oppida, villas, & mul­ta alia dominia temporalia, & Jurisdicti­ones donavit, atque illis omnibus Eccle­siis propria insignia perpetuo deputavit. Archiepiscopos quoque & episcopos duca­tibus, comitatibus & baroniis communivit, quibus nobiles & potentes vasallos subje­cit, ut semper essent ad resistendum & manu forti [...] aganis Hareticis, &c. That does not altogether agree with the re­flexions that Father (2) Paul hath made in his History, where he pretends that [Page 81]the Bishops of Germany, during the Wars that were betwixt the Emperours and Popes, had usurped the Lands which at present they enjoy with the Titles of Peers, Marquesses and Counts. Though that may indeed, be true of some, yet it cannot be generally affirmed of all; for the Records of those Churches evince the contrary. Nevertheless the titles which they produce ought to be well examined, because many of them are false. Seeing Bishops and Abbots were at that time employed in the greatest affairs of State, it was easy for them to obtain what they desired of Princes: Besides that, they being more capable of business than Laicks, the same Princes consided much in them. But these great Revenues wherewith Churches have been enriched, have only served to kindle War betwixt Popes and Princes, every one pretending [...]o have a particular right over Ecclesi­astical Revenues. And that divided the Authors of these times, some writing in favour of the rights pretended by Princes, and others in favour of the Popes. And it is no easy matter at pre­sent to reconcile together the rights of those two Powers.

No man can deny,The Authori­ty of the Pope con­cerning Be­nefices. but that the Pope [...] Bishop or Metropolitan of Rome, Pa­triarch of the West, and Head of th [...] Church. I shall not now examine by wh [...] Right, Divine or Positive, these tither belong to him; for that is a Question of Divinity rather than History. It moreover certain that the Pope hath [...] all these Qualities in vain, and that [...] very one ought to enjoy some rights th [...] are peculiar to him. It is not questions but that in quality of Bishop of Rome he may dispose of the Benefices with his Diocese. It remains then only to [...] inquired into, whether he can in quali [...] of Patriarch of the West, and Head [...] the Church, by right provide for all th [...] Benefices or Ecclesiastical Dignities [...] all Christendom. If we consult the mat­ter of fact, it is of publick Notoriety that the Church of Rome hath not ha [...] any Priviledge as to that, above other Churches. Every one took care of pro­viding what Ministers they wanter without having recourse to Rome; an [...] when difficulties arose, they were ad­justed in Provincial Synods. No ma [...] ever wrote before the Establishment o [...] [Page 83]the new Law, that the Bishop of Rome alone in quality of the Successor of St. Peter, had all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and that other Bishops were only his Vicars, or Delegates. Popes, neverthe­less, do at present pretend that their Authority in respect of Ecclesiasti­cal Revenues is founded on Divine Right, and that because they had not for many ages enjoyed it, it ought not to be inferred that they had no Right to it. A Divine Right, say they, being essentially inherent in the Person of the Pope, can never prescribe: And it is a bad consequence to say, that Popes have no Right, because they have not for a long time enjoyed it, nor do at present enjoy it in its full extent. Men are sometimes obliged not to make use of their Right, or to remit part of it for Peace sake. Laws in their rigour are sometimes prejudicial to the repose of the Church, and in that case, mild ways, suitable to the times, are to be followed. And thereforeInnoc. III. de translat. Episc tit. 7. cap. 1. Pope Inno­cent III. affirms in one of his Epistles, that the Translations of Bishops and other changes of Sees belong by Right to the Church of Rome; that Popes [Page 84]enjoy that Priviledge in Quality of th [...] Successours of St. Peter; and that in that Quality they are above all the Canon Law. So that according to his Logick we ought not so much to consider what is decreed by the Canons, as what is Commanded by Popes, on whom th [...] same Canons depend; because accord [...] to his Principle, all the Canon Law derives its force and Authority from th [...] Primacy of St. Peter.

Pope Innocent, who laid down th [...] Maxim in favour of his See, knew, for a [...] that, that all the Ancient Canon Law is contrary to it, and that the Election Translations, Demissions or Resignati­ons of Bishops, were made in Provinc [...] Synods, and besides, that Princes have had a great share in all those matters within their own Kingdoms. For in­stance the Practice of the Church o [...] France under the first Race of their Kings, was very far different from that pretended Divine Right mentioned in the compilation of the Decretals: For we find that the Kings by themselves, called Councils for affairs of that nature, and thatG [...]gor. Turon. lib. 5. cap. 20, 27. in the greatest causes, such as the deposing of Bishops, they nam­ed [Page 85]for Judges what Bishops they pleased within their Kingdom. In a word, Kings and the Bishops of places handled in Councils, the affairs which the Popes now a days pretend to belong to them by Divine Right. It is true, under the Second Race of the French Kings, the Authority of the Popes was greater in France; But it was still limited by the Princes, without whose consent they could do nothing, even in the causes, which are called the greater, and whereof the decision seemed to be re­served to the Popes. As to matters of smaller importance, the Bishops had the absolute power over them, and the whole disposition of Benefices depended on them. The Popes had never dreamt of the right which is now established, if private men who disputed one with another about the validity of their Elections, had not had their recourse to the chief See for decision of their Con­troversies. We find still in the Eleventh Century, instances of the power of Pro­vincial Councils, who received Resigna­tions or Demissions made by Bishops, and admitted Translations from one See to another, without having recourse [Page 86]to the Pope for it. And there is nothing more novel than the provisions to Bishopricks in the manner they are made at present by the Popes Bulls which confirm the Elections in those places where they are still in force, o [...] the nominations of Princes who enjoy that Right. But since private Person have given occasion to the establish­ment of the New Law, it hath no [...] been difficult for Canonists to defen [...] it.

To make it out, that the Pope [...] Master of all Benefices, they say tha [...] he is the Collatour of Collatours, an [...] the Ordinary of Ordinaries, not only in the Western Church, where of h [...] is Patriarch, but also over the whole World, because he is the Patriarch o [...] Patriarchs, and Chief of the Universa [...] Church. They farther add, that the Church of Rome hath founded all o­ther Churches; and by consequent, can dispose of them as Founder and Patron. It is certain that the Patriarchs o [...] Alexandria and Antioch ordained the Bishops that were within the extent of their Patriarchship, and that the Pope did the same in regard of the Bishops [Page 87]who are in the Regions which were called Suburbicau. On the other side the Canonists prove by the Testimonies of St. Leo, St. Gregory and of some other Fathers, that St. Peter founded the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, which are the three chief Patriar­chal Churches from which the others have sprung.

And this is the ground upon which the Canonists pretend that the Pope hath the disposal of all the Churches in the World. They are nevertheless obliged to confess that that Right was unknown to the Ancients, and that it is no where contained but in the Book of the Decretals. Nay I dare be bold to affirm that the Decretals contain but part of that new right whereof the Pope is at present in Possession, and that since the Collection of the Decre­tals, the Court of Rome hath made ma­ny discoveries in Beneficiary matters, of which I shall not speak in this place. It shall be enough for me to observe here, that nothing is esteemed at Rome, but the present Maxims; that the Decrees of Gratian are not valued there, because they contain for most part nothing but [Page 88]Old Customs, which are out of Doors [...] and that the Books of Decretals are not received neither, but so far as they sui [...] with the present times. The great Prin­ciple of the Court of Rome is, that the Pope is above the Laws, that it belong to him alone to make Canons for the Government of the Church, and tha [...] it is in his power to change the Anci­ent; and to introduce New ones, accord­ing to the necessity of times, places and occasions. If it happen that Princes op­pose the Execution of their Bulls, they easily take up the matter by Concordats or other means, without any prejudic [...] at all to their pretensions; because a [...] they say, there are two sorts of Laws [...] to wit, jus strictum, otherways the Law of rigour, which for most part cannot be put in Execution; and jus remissum, which is a Law somewhat favourable and remiss, which may be also called the Law of Oeconomy and Prudence, which the Church hath often made use of, to comply with the humour of those with whom she hath had to do.

The Popes are always on that lock with Princes, and what they cannot ob­tain at one time, they hope to obtain on [Page 89]another occasion. On this Maxim are founded all the Concordats, and other Accommodations which they have made with several Princes. And there­fore the Arguments whichP. Paolo tratt. delle mat. benef. Fa­ther Paul draws from the nature of Concordats, to prove that Popes have not by right an absolute Power over the Revenues of the Church, are not altogether conclusive; because Popes will pretend that these Concordats, are only made by Provision, and for a time, till they be able to exercise their right in its full extent. That hath been a very advantageous Maxim to the Court of Rome, which hath obtained at one time, what was impossible to be obtained at another. They indeed propose matters according to the rigour, and their pre­tensions; but they suffer Princes to mo­derate them according to the Customs received in their Kingdoms.The Custom of France in the reception of Bulls. And that is the reason why several of the Popes Bulls are not received in France, and that they are not registred, till first they be examined, to see whether they con­tain any thing contrary to the Liber­ties of the Gallican Church. Besides, they are not registred but with certain [Page 90]Clauses and Modifications, that they may be made agreeable to the Customs of the Countrey; whereas at Rome they are registred in their full extent, and without any restrictions. The Spani­ards do the same also, but with less noise than the French do. They receive all the Popes Bulls with great respect, then they examine them in Council; and if they find that there is reason no [...] to put them in Execution, they inform the Holy Father of it by a supplica­tion, and so the Bulls remain without effect.

Though Popes have done all that lay [...] in their power, to get the absolute dis­posal of the Revenues of all the Churches in the World, they could never as yet hinder Princes from taking to themselves certain Rights or Privi­ledges,Of the Right of the Regale. which they enjoy at present. These Rights differ according to the diversity of Countreys; but I shall on­ly treat in this place of the Rights of the Regale, of which the Kings of France are in Possession. Many pretend that the Right of the Regale is as Ancient as the Crown of France: But that cannot be, if we consider that Right as it is esta­blished [Page 91]at present. For it comprehends not only the Collation of Benefices which have no Cure of Souls, for which the King provides by his absolute pow­er, during the vacancy of the Episco­pal See; but besides that, the King hath the Administration and disposal of all the Revenues of the Bishoprick, until the See be filled. Now it is certain, that under the first Race of the French Kings, the Rents and Profits of Vacant Churches were managed by the Clergy and Arch deacon, as appears by the Council of Orleans, held under King Childebert, and by the Council of Paris, held under King Clotair II. where it is decreed,Councils of Orleans and Paris. Ab Archidia­cono & clero in omnibus defen­sentur & con­serventur, quod si quis ausu te­merario res ip­sas ingressus fuerit, & [...]e dominatione Ecclesiae ab­stulerit, ut ne­cator paupe­rum communio­ne privetur. That the goods of the Bishop deceased, shall be defended and preserved entire by the Arch-deacon and Clergy; and that they who shall dare to seize or usurp them, shall be Excommuni­cated.

At that time the Gallican Church ob­served the Canons of the Council of Calcedon concerning the Stewards or Treasurers, who were to take the care of the Revenues of the Church after the death of the Bishop. In some Churches the Archdeacons supplied the place of [Page 92]Stewards. But in what manner soever that was performed, whether by Ste­wards, or Archdeacons, it is still true that Princes took no share in the Fruits of vacant Bishopricks, since one part of them were employed for the occasions of the Church, and the other preserved for the succeeding Bishop. It cannot then be affirmed, that in that respect the Right of the Regale hath been in use under the first Race of the Kings of France, unless one would confound this Right with that of Nomination to Bi­shopricks, which the Kings of the first Race enjoyed. But by the Word Regale, is meant now a days somewhat quite different from a bare Nomination: For the Regale at present attributes to the King, the Spiritual and Temporal Fruits of Vacant Bishopricks, until the time they be provided; which differs from the Ancient Rights of Nomination and Investiture.

Furthermore,Of the Regale under the se­cond Race. the same Right of the Regale, in the notion we take it here, was also unknown under the second Race of the French Kings, as appears by a Letter of Hincmar Archbishop of Rheims, written to Charles the Bald, [Page 93]For that Archbishop sets down the Ca­non of the Council of Calcedon, for a Rule during the Vacancy of the Episco­pal See: ut post mortem Episcopi reditus Ecclesiae viduatae futuro Episcopo penes Oeconomum ejusdem Ecclesiae integrae con­servari jubeantur. And in aAnn. 876. Synod. Ponti­gon. Synod held under the same Emperour, it was appointed according to what had been decreed in the Council of Calcedon, that after the Decease of the Bishop, the Rents should be preserved for his Suc­cessor by the Steward or Treasurer of the Church. It is true, Charles the Bald acted otherwise, after that Ebbo Arch­bishop of Rheims was deposed from his See: For during the Vacancy of the See, which continued several years, that Prince seized the Rents of the Church, and gave part of the Lands thereof in Fee. But that Instance does not over­throw the practice of those Times, see­ing the King promised in theAnn. 845. Synod of Beauvais to Hincmar, and the other Bishops, that he would restore to the Church of Rheims, all the Lands that he had taken from it: Besides, that was a singular Act, and only done by the King, for a greater punishment to [Page 94]Archbishop Ebbo, who had been de­posed. Nor can the Right of the Re­gale be proved by the bad use that Charles Martel made of Church-Lands, which he gave in Fee to Laicks; for the Capitularies of Charle­main of Louis, and Charles the Bald, condemn that Dissipation of Church Revenues, and attribute it to the neces­sity of the Times, which in some man­ner obliged Princes to give Church-Lands to their Subjects, thereby to en­dear them to their Service.

In fine,The Regale under the third Race. the same Right of the Regale, as we understand it, was not yet fixt in the beginning of the third Race, as ap­pears by a Letter of Gerbert Archbishop of Rheims, wherein he recommends it to the Clergy and People, to whom he directs his Letter, to take care that the Estate of the Bishop deceased be preser­ved for the succeeding Bishop: Sit ve­stra pervigil cura, ut secundum divinas & humanas leges, res defuncti Episcopi, tam mobiles quàm immobiles, futuro re­serventur Episcopo.

We must not,The Regale different from the In­vestiture. neither, confound the Right of Investiture, with the Right of the Regale, as some Authors have [Page 95]done. For it is not to be found in History, nor in any Ancient Deed, that Emperours and Kings, who have had the Investitures of Bishopricks and Abbeys, have therefore enjoyed the Revenues of Churches, during the Vacancy of the See: but application was only made to them for proceeding to a new Election, which was not to be made without their consent; after­ward they gave to Bishopricks and Mo­nasteries, the Investiture of Lands or Fiefs which had been left to them; in the manner as we have before de­scribed.

Before the Popes disputed the Right of Investiture with Princes,An Explica­tion of the Investiture. and claim­ed the Power over Elections, the In­vestiture contained nothing of the Spi­ritual, but only Temporal Rights, in re­spect of Lands & Fees in which Bishop­ricks and Monasteries were invested, and the Bishops had full liberty to give the Consecration wherein the Spiritual consisted. If Popes had not had a design to take from Princes the Right which they had in Elections, they had never thought of reckoning the Investiture among Spiritual things. There is no­thing [Page 96]worse grounded, than that distin­ction of Investiture which is mentioned in the Agreement that was made betwixt Pope Calixtus II. and the Emperour Henry IV. The Pope grants to Henry, that all Elections of Bishops and Ab­bots, shall be made in his presence, thereby to prevent disorder; and that those who should be elected, should receive from the Emperour, the Regales or Regalities by the Scepter. Henry the Emperour at the same time obliges himself, not to give Investitures by the Ring and Staff or Baton, and allows the Liberty of Elections. But that distin­ction of Investitures given by the Pa­storal Staff, and by the Scepter, as if the first had been a thing Spiritual, and the other meerly Temporal, has no ground in the World. Investitures were barely given by the Staff and Ring whether that Staff was called, Royal or Pastoral. Simony consisted not in the form of Investiture, but in the Empe­rours taking of Money, from those to whom they gave it; and since that was always done before the Election, it might be said that the Election was Simoniacal. That abuse ought to have [Page 97]been corrected, and matters left as they were before.

In the mean while,The Regale granted by the Pope. it is very proba­ble, that the Agreement made betwixt Pope (alixtus and Henry the Emperour, [...]s the true Original of the Regale: For [...]n these two Instruments there is men­ [...]ion made of the Regale: Ann. 1122. Electus au­ [...]em Regalia per sceptrum à te recipiat, [...]s the Popes Declaration to the Empe­rour bears. That word Regalia compre­ [...]ended the Sees which Princes had granted to Churches; afterward it was extended to all the Revenues that were [...]ossessed by the same Churches. Now [...]ccording to the Laws of the German Emperours, it was the nature of Fees, that they who enjoyed them, became Vassals to the Emperors of whom they held them; and were obliged to take an Oath of Allegiance to them.A more par­ticular Ex­plication of the Regale. Moreover, after the Death of the Vassal, the Em­perour enjoyed his Revenues, until his Successor being invested in the same Fees, had sworn to him Fealty and Homage. That Law reached Church-men, because their Churches possessed several Fees: And it is the present Custom of France, that the Regale be­gins [Page 98]so soon as the Church is Vacant and does not end, till the new Bishop hath sworn Allegiance to the King and be admitted by Law. Louis th [...] Young is the first King of France Ann. 1161. who hath made mention of this Right of the Regale: For speaking of the Bishop­rick of Paris, he uses these words, Episcopatus & Regale in manus nostr [...] ­venit. There is mention also made [...] itAnn. 1190. in the last Will and Testamen [...] of Philip the August, wherein tha [...] Prince saith: Nos verò, tam canonic [...] quàm monachos monemus, ut talem past [...] rem eligant, qui deo placeat & utili [...] sit regno. Regina autem & Archiepisc [...] ­pus tamdiu Regalia in manu sua te [...] ­ant, donec electus consecratus sit vel be [...] ­dictus; & tunc Regalia sine contradicti­one ei reddantur.

We find in the Histories of England that the Right of the Regale was established in that Kingdom, at the same time it was in France, and that it occasioned many troubles there. [...] proceeded even to the Churches of Ire­land; and it appears by a Letter of Pope Innocent III. directed to a Car­dinal, Legate in that Countrey, that the [Page 99]Custom of the Regale, was in the Church of Armagh; and the Pope in his Letter makes use of the Word Re­galia. Nay he speaks of that Right, as of a thing received and authorised by Custom: And to hinder Princes from enjoying too long the Revenues of Churches, he shortens the time of the Vacancy of the See, ordering the Me­ [...]ropolitans remote from Rome, to enter in­to the Administration of their Churches, before they had obtained their confir­mation: Quia, says that Pope, si tanto [...]empore quo usque posset Electus, confir­ [...]ationem cum pallio à sede Apostolicâ ob­ [...]inere, Regalia non reciperet; Ecclesia [...]uoe interim administratione careret, non [...]odicum incurreret detrimentum.

Many other Popes have also confirm­ed by Bulls, the same Right of the Regale, which the Kings of France en­ [...]y. But the Emperour Frederick II.Ann. 1215. made a Constitution against the Regales, as if they had been Contrary [...]o the immunities of the Church, andAnn. 1219. confirmed his first Constitution, [...]y a Second which he addressed to Pope Honorius III. These Constitutions are [...]entioned by Goldastus in the following [Page 100]words: Dimittimus & refutamus abusum, quem in occupandis decedentium Praelato­rum, aut etiam Ecclesiarum vacantium, no­stri consueverunt Antecessores committere. That Prince remits to the Pope and other Bishops, the Right which was called the Regales, as a Spiritual Right which belonged not to the EmperoursLib. 8. de concord. cap. 18. M. de Marca, produces also many Authorities of Popes and Councils, t [...] prove that the Revenues of Vacan [...] Churches in the Gallican Church, did no [...] belong to Princes, and that the Decre [...] of the Council of Calcedon, which appoin [...] the Revenues to be kept for Successo [...] should be observed there as well as [...] other Churches. Most of these pro [...] are to be found in the Decrees of Grati [...] and thence it appears, that that abuse [...] very Ancient, and practised long before the Regale was established, and tolera [...] ­ed by Popes. Wherefore Councils pr [...] ­hibited Princes and other Laicks to i [...] ­vade the Goods and Revenues of Church-men after their Death. That wick [...] Custom of seizing the Estates of Bishop [...] so soon as they were dead, was sprea [...] over the whole Church: For [...] read that it was no less in use in the E [...] [Page 101]than in the West.Ann. 1150. The Empe­rour Manuel Comnenus prohibited his Magistrats, to seize for his Exche­quer the immoveable goods of Vacant Churches.

Ann. 1137. Raymond Count of Barcelona, made the same Prohibition also to his Officers: And to prevent the Revenues of Vacant Churches from being dissi­pated, he himself took upon him the custody of them, by an Authentick Declaration, which he made by way of Priviledg to the Church of Barcelona; and that Priviledg is not only extend­ed to all the Profits of the Bishoprick, even during the Life of the Bishops, but to all the other Churches of the Pro­vince of Tarragona. The same Privi­ledges were also granted to the Church of Narbonne: But notwithstanding that, Laicks still continued to seize the Estates of Bishops after their Death, and retained them under pretext of pre­serving them, and hindring dissipation. Nevertheless the Popes who vigorously opposed that usurpation of the Laicks, seem at the same time to have approved the Right of the Regale which the Kings of France enjoyed in Relation [Page 102]to several Bishopricks of their King­dom.Ann. 1238. Pope Gregory IX. in o [...] of his Epistles directed to the Arch­bishop of Narbonne, and to the Bishop [...] of Magalone and Elne, complains that the Stewards and Bailiffs of the King of France, in the Province of Narbonne contrary to all right and reason, sei [...] ­ed the Revenues of Bishops, during th [...] Vacancy of the See: Then he add [...] Quod nul­lo tempore prae­decessoribus ip­sius regis, vel aliis, occasione Regalium, vel alia extitit at­tentatum. that the Predecessors of the King had never done it under pretext of th [...] Regale, or any other Right.

The Popes, as appears by the Letter of Gregory IX. condemned not th [...] Right of the Regale, which the Kings o [...] France had in several Churches of their Kingdom, as a matter of injustice an [...] usurpation; and the History of the Life of St Louis informs us,A Restriction of the Regale. that St. Louis made no Scruple in imitation of his Predecessors, to make use of it in those places, where Custom had authorised the same, wherefore the Kings of France Tantum pr [...]scriptum, [...]tum pos­session. have not extended that Right, but to Churches where it was already esta­blished. Heretofore the Parliaments decided all matters concerning the Regale, meerly by possession; and [Page 103]which is pretty surprizing, upon a dif­ficulty that was startedAnn. 1258. in the Par­liament of Paris, concerning the Re­gale of the Bishoprick of Puy, there was but one part of the Regale of that Church adjudged to the King, because after having examined the Reasons on both sides, it was found that the King had enjoyed but a part of the Regale du­ring other Vacancies of that See. And because it was evident that the King had not enjoyed the Forts of the Town, and several Castles, it was decreed that the Church of Puy should not be mo­lested in these and several other points, which the King did not claim by virtue of the Regale, because he was not in possession of them. When the Question is of Imposing a Servitude or Burden upon any whosoever, good Titles must be shewn, or long Possession prov'd: And therefore the King, who did not think that by the Right of the Regale he could take the Forts and Castles of that Town,Ann. 1259. made a Declaration, where­by he reserves to himself the power of taking into his hands the aforesaid Forts and Castles by Right of Superio­rity, when the Interest of his Service re­quired it.

The Parliaments observed the same Rule for deciding the matter of the Re­gale under King Philip III. the Son [...] St. Louis: The Custom of the Parlia­ments. for there is to be found in a [...] Ancient Record of the Court of Parlia­ment,Ann. 1272. this Decree against the Pre­tensions of the Kings Officers to the Church of Albi, on occasion of the Right of the Regale; Reddita per d [...] ­minum regem procuratoribus Capit [...] Albiensis Regalia Ecclesiae Albiensis, qu [...] ­mortuo Episcopo Albiensi, Senescallus C [...] ­cassonensis ad manum domini regis cep [...] ­rat, & saisinaverat sine causa, cum [...] ­minus Rex super hee aliâs nunquam us [...] ­fuisset, prout ex aliorum & ipsius rel [...] ­tione fuit inventum. At that time th [...] the Right of the Regale was not dete [...] ­mined and fixt, but Practice, and th [...] received Custom was exactly followed insomuch that there were som [...] Churches wholly exempted from th [...] Regale, and others only subject to pa [...] of it. In the beginning, the Regale reached only Fees that held of Prince [...] and it was after extended to the Reve [...] ­nues that accrued from Tithes; and eve [...] the Collation of Benefices depending o [...] Churches. The Churches that retaine [...] [Page 105]the Ancient Right of the Regale, were not at all subject to that Right for the Revenues of Tithes, and Collation of Benefices; and that was the reason why Parliaments adjudged only to the King in some Churches, the Regale for the Rents of Lands and other Temporal Possessions of the Churches, and left to the Bishops the Revenues arising from the Altars, Tithes, Offerings, and sometime the Collation of Bene­fices.

This Right of the Regale Ann. 1274. The Regale authorized by a general Council. was confirmed by the Council of Lyons at the Instance of King Philip III. in pre­sence of his Ambassadours: But the Council only confirmed the Custom of the Regale in the places where it was already introduced, and prohibited the bringing of it into other places.Petr. de Marc. [...]o. 8. de coacor. c. 24.M. de Marca, who relates the Decree of that Council, observes that the term Regalia is there taken in a new sense, for the keeping and enjoying of all the Fruits and Revenues during the Vacan­cy of the See: And besides, he adds, that under the name of Fruits, the Col­lations of Benefices are comprehended, because of the Constitution of Alexan­der [Page 106]III. which preceded that Council, wherein it is exprest, that the Collation of Benefices ought to be reckoned a­mong the Fruits and Profits. But it seems to me that the Intention of Pope Gregory X. in that Council, was to hin­der for the future, Lay-men of what Quality soever they were, from in­vading Church-Lands and Revenues, du­ring the Vacancy of the See, under any pretext that might be alledged, either of the Regale, Custody or Protection; because, in effect, they who seized the Revenues of Churches after the Death of the Bishops, never wanted Reasons for it, alledging the pretext of Pre­tection or Custody. The Council com­prehends the Right of the Regale, which several Princes enjoyed, with the other Rights which many great men pre­tended for possessing the Revenues of Churches during the Vacancy of the See. But since the Maxims of the Ca­non Law are for most part taken from the Civil, Pope Gregory thought it fitTantum prascriptum, quantum pos­sessum. to leave those Rights to those who were already in possession of them, without examining the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the Titles; because it [Page 107]would have been a difficult matter to have succeeded in it, by reason of the long Possession of many Princes, which gives a sufficient Title in the Civil Law.

As to the Collation of Benefices, I do not think that the Council intended to comprehend them under the name of Fruits and Revenues, as M. de Marca affirms. The truth is, it is a Maxim received and authorized by Custom since the Introduction of the New Law, that Collations are of the number of Fruits:Collatio­nes sunt in fru­ctibus.But the term Collation is then taken in a larger sense, to wit, for the Presen­tation or Nomination to Benefices; whereas the Kings of France by the Right of the Regale, enjoy a real Col­lation of Benefices,The Right of Collation at­tributed to the Kings of France by the Regale. which the Canonists affirm to have something of the Spiri­tual. For the Kings of France present not barely to Benefices like other Pa­trons; but they conser in full Right by virtue of the Regale, in the same man­ner as Bishops do. Nay, the Regale gives more Right to the King of France in regard of the Spiritual, than Bishops have: For it is a Maxim of Canonists, that none but the Pope can receive Re­signations in favorem; and the reason [Page 108]they give is, because a Resignation made in favour of another, is a kind of Simo­ny; and that the Pope alone, who is above Ecclesiastical Laws, can dispense with it: Solus Papa, say they, purgat à Simonia: But they should add, & Rex Francorum; for the King of France re­ceives the Resignations which are cal­led in favorem.

There are a great many other Rights which the Kings of France enjoy by vir­tue of the Regale, and which are pecu­liar to that Right. The Lawyers and French Canonists have much ado to ex­plain the Original of these Rights, which they suppose according to the common Rules of the Canon Law to be Spiritual Rights, and by consequent not to belong to Lay-persons, unless it be by a special Priviledge granted by Popes to the Kings of France: But since no such Priviledge can be made appear, and that on the other hand, the Kings of France pretend not to hold that Right by Priviledge of the Pope, the difficulty grows greater.Bonis. VIII. Pope Boniface VIII. in the contest that he had with Philip the Fair, failed not to write to that Prince, that he accounted those Hereticks who [Page 109]pretended that the Collation of Bene­fices, which he said was a Spiritual Right, could belong to Laicks.Joan. Paris. Johan­nes Parisiensis, who wrote at that time upon the same Subject, affirms that there is a difference to be made betwixt Princes and Subjects, in that these as being inferiour to others in Knowledge, and discerning of Persons proper for Benefices, could not but present; where­as Princes might confer,Habent om­nem peritiam inscrinio pe­ctoris. as being endowed with a full and entire Know­ledge. But that Reason does not con­clude in the point in hand, where the Question is of the Spiritual, and not of the Temporal.

That difficulty nevertheless may ea­sily be resolved, if we suppose that the Right of Collation which belongs to Bishops, is not properly a Spiritual Right; and that therefore Laicks who have enjoyed it by a long Custom, can­not be excluded from it. It is to be ob­served then, that according to the Rules of the Ancient Canon-Law, the Collation of a Benesice was wholly Spi­ritual, because then there was no other Collation, but only the Ordination, which cannot be given but by the [Page 110]Bishop. But since Ordination hath been distinguished from the Ecclesiastical Function, many new terms have been invented; and among others, that of Collation or Institution, and the Right of Collating is attributed only to the Bishops; so that Lay-Patrons may name or present to Benefices, provided those whom they have presented, take Col­lation or Institution from the Bishops, which alone gives the power of perform­ing Spiritual Functions. Nevertheless, we find in France, especially in Norman­dy, many Laicks, who in full Right confer Benefices, as well as the King There are even Abbesses, as the Abbess of Montivillers, in the Country of Caux, who in full Right confer Cures, with­out any necessity of having recourse to the Ordinary for Collation or Institu­tion. I know it will be answered to this, that Laicks, who enjoy that Right, are grounded on Priviledges granted them by the Pope. But however it be, it is certain, that if that Right were necessarily inherent in the Quality of Bishop, the Pope could not by a Pri­viledge grant it to Laicks, no more than he can grant the Right of Ordain­ing, [Page 111]wherein the Spiritual really consists. And therefore that Collation which suc­ceeds Ordination, is not the same Spi­rituality with the Ordination; but it hath been only thought necessary to hin­der Persons uncapable from possessing Benefices. The Right of conferring Be­nefices deprives not Bishops of the Right they have of Judging of the Ca­pacity of those who have received Insti­tution or Collation from Laicks: For besides that first Institution, which is called Collative Institution, there is ano­ther kind of Institution called Institutio Autorisabilis, which gives the Bishops power to examine the Capacity of those, on whom Laicks have conferred Benefices, that so they may authorize their Collation. There is no such great difficulty then, as is commonly imagin­ed, to conceive the Right of conferring Benefices, which the Kings of France en­joy by virtue of the Regale. That which is called Spirituality in beneficial mat­ters since the Introduction of the new Canon-Law, is far different from that which is truly Spiritual according to the Ancient Canons; and that's a thing not sufficiently minded by the Cano­nists. [Page 112]Nevertheless the same John of Paris, whom we mentioned before, ob­serves very well, that the right of con­ferring is not properly Spiritual, but that it is only annexed to the Spiritual. Let us now return to the History of the Regale, and see how it was established in France after the Decree of the Coun­cil of Lyons.

Ann. 1302. Th [...] Regale un [...] Philip the Fair. King Philip the Fair made an Edict for authorizing the Regale, after it had been confirmed by Pope Gregory in the Council of Lyons: But it extended only to Churches, where it had been in­troduced by Custom. These are the terms of his Edict; Regalias quas nos & nostri praedecessores percipere assuevimus & habere in aliquibus Ecclesiis regni no­stri. That Prince conformed his Edict to the Decree of the Council,Under Philip of Valois. and would have the Rents of Churches preserved, and the ordinary Revenues only recei­ved in title of Fruits.Ann. 1334. The Constitu­tion of Philip of Valois restrains also the Regale to Custom,Under Louis XII. and to the Churches of the Realm, where that Right was established. Louis XI.Ann. 1499. made a like Edict, and besides, prohi­bited his Officers, to molest Churches, [Page 113] where there was no Right of Regale or Custody. And therefore M. de Marca after Ruzee, Pasquier, and several other French Lawyers, who have written a­bout the Regale, observes that that Right is not in all the Churches of the Kingdom, and that in those where it is settled, it is not in all after the same manner. He nevertheless confesses, that many have pretended the Regale to be a pure Royal Right; and therefore that it ought to extend to all the Churches of the Kingdom; but that Pasquier, the Kings Advocate in the Chamber of Accounts, a knowing man in that mat­ter, calls those men Court Flatterers.

It is certain, that notwithstanding all the Actions that have been brought up­on that Subject in the Parliaments, the Kings of France have never taken to themselves the Regale but in certain Churches: And we have stillAnn. 1606. Under Hen­ry IV. an Edict of Henry IV. wherein he declares, That he pretends not to enjoy the Regale, but in the manner that he and his Prede­cessors have, without stretching it to the Prejudice of Churches that are exempted from it. The late King of France Ann. 1629. made also an Ordinance, whereby he [Page 114]declared,Under Louis XIII. that he would enjoy the Right of the Regale, as in times past: And seeing these Terms were Ambiguous, the Clergy made their Remonstrance that they might have the explication of them. Monsieur de Marel Keep­er of the Seals, and the other of th [...] Kings Commissioners who had frame [...] that Ordinance, answered, That th [...] King declared that he would not enjoy th [...] Regale, in those places where he had [...] enjoyed it for time past. And thus y [...] have an abridgment of the History [...] the Regale in France. But at prese [...] there is no more regard had to all that neither have I related it but as an Histo­rian, and to serve for Instruction. Th [...] present King hathAnn. 1674. not long since by a Declaration registred in the Par­liaments, comprehended all the Churches of his Kingdom within the Regale, ex­cepting four, which are exempted from it on an onerous Title. So that there is no more need of consulting the Cham­ber of Accounts,The Regale at present in all the Churches of Frances where the account of the Regales were taken, to know how matters went heretofore, and what Churches were subject to the Regale; for that Declaration prevents a great [Page 115]many law suits. Without examining whether the Regale be a Crown right and by consequent unalienable, it cannot be denied but that the Sovereign who grants a Priviledge, may revoke it, and therefore the King might rescind the Pri­viledges and Exemptions from the Right of the Regale, which the Kings his Pre­decessors had granted to some Churches of the Kingdom. The Parliaments had already rescinded most part of these Priviledges, of which some were ill grounded. I shall not here give a Catalogue of the Churches of the Kingdom, which pretend not to be Subject to the Regale, because it would be needless and unsea­sonable. Such as would be farther in­formed as to that, may consult the French Lawyers who have handled that Subject.

Nor shall I speak of the Rights, which other Princes have of providing to the Benefices of their Kingdoms: For be­sides that most part of these Rights be­long to them in Quality of Patrons, or are founded on Priviledges, and Con­cessions granted by Popes, and some­times on Concordats, made betwixt them and the Court of Rome; these [Page 116]are matters void of my design, which is to apply my self more particularly to the Rights, whereof France is in Possession, than to the Customs of other Kingdoms. Yet I cannot silently pass over the Right which the Kings of Spain injoy in Sicily, and which i [...] Commonly called the Monarchy of Si­cily, Monarchy of Sicily. because it is the greates Spiritual Right, that Princes ever took to them­selves. It even suprasses that which Henry VIII. Of England boldly took when he separated from the Church of Rome. The King of Spain in Quali­ty of King of Sicily, pretends to be Le­gate à latere, and born Legat of th [...] Holy See; so that he and his Vice-roys in his absence, have the same power over the Sicilians as to the Spiritual that a Legate à latere could have. And therefore they who execute that Juris­diction in Sicily, for the King of Spain, have power to absolve, punish and ex­communicate all sorts of Persons, whe­ther Laicks or Ecclesiasticks, Monks, Priests, Abbors, Bishops, and even Cardinals themselves, that reside in the Kingdom. They acknowledge not the Popes Authority, being Soveraign [Page 117]Monarchs as to the Spiritual. They confess that the Pope hath heretofore given them that Priviledge; but at the same time they pretend that it is not in his Power to recal it: And so they acknowledge not the Pope for head, to whose Tribunal no Appeal can be made, because their King has no Supe­riour as to the Spiritual Moreover, that Right of Superiority is not con­sidered as delegated, but as proper; and the King of Sicily, or they who hold that Jurisdiction in his place, and who are Lay-men, take the Title of Beatissimo & Santissimo padre, attribut­ing to themselves in effect, in respect of Sicily, what the Pope takes to himself in regard of the whole Church; and they Preside in Provincial Councils.

It was a matter of astonishment, that in our Age, Queen Elizabeth took the Title of Head of the Church of England: But seeing in the Kingdom of Sicily, the Female Succeeds as well as in Eng­land, a Princess may take the Title of Head of the Church of Sicily, and of Beatissimo & Santissimo Padre. Nay it hath happened so already in the time of Jean of Arragon and Castile, the Mo­ther [Page 118]of Charles V. the Sicilians ground this Right of Supremacy in Spirituals, upon a Bull of Pope Ʋrban II. granted to Roger and his Successours, wherein are these words: Quae per legatum actur [...] sumus per vestram industriam, legat [...] ­vice cohiberi volumus. Cardinal Bare­nius who in hisTome II. Ann. 1097. Annals resutes that pretended Spiritual Monarchy, thinks that that Bull was granted by the Anti­pope Anacletus, and that it hath not been faithfully related. But it is far more pro­bable that it is false, and that it hath been forged during that time, that Sicily had no Communication with the Church of Rome, from which it was separated, refusing to acknowledge the Holy See, either in Spirituals or Temporals. It was an easy matter an that time, for the Kings Officers, to foist in that Bull, and to put it in executi­on; for Sicily continued ninety years under an Interdict, from the year 1282. until the Second year of the Pontificat of Gregory II. who took off the Inter­dict. During that time, Martin King of Arragon, made great attempts upon the Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction, and or­dained that Bishops themselves might [Page 119]not Excommunicate any without his Permission, or the Permission of his Vice-roy, but Sicily being in possession of that Spiritual Monarchy, the Kings of Spain, who take the Title of Catho­lick Kings, have rather encreased than diminished it. Charles V. caused an exact search to be made, to find out Titles to Justify this pretended Monarchy; but it was no where found save in the Book of the Pandects that was printed in the year 1526. and confirmed by Charles V. the seventh of December the same year. Afterward, in the year 1556. there was a Book published, called the Monarchy, wherein are contained the Rights of that Jurisdiction. And that this Book might be rendered the more Authentick, it was signed by all of the sacred Col­ledge, that is to say, the Council of the Kingdom. One Copy of it is preserved in the Royal Chancery of Sicily, and another Copy was sent to the King.

The Bull of Ʋrban II. which is the Basis of the Sicilian Monarchy, is related at length by Fazelle in hisDecad. 2. lib. 7. cap. 1. History of Sicily Printed at Palermo in the year 1558. But historians who wrote before him have made no mention of it; And it is [Page 120]very probable, that Fazelle took it from John Lucas Barberius a Sicilian, who about the Year 1513. composed in fa­vours of King Ferdinand, a Volume of all the Priviledges and Titles of the Kingdom of Sicily, which he called caput Brevium; and in that Volume he inserted the Bull of Ʋrban II. As if the Original had been in the Chancery. It is not to be imagined how much the word Mo­narchy hath displeased the Court of Rome. Baron. Ann. 1097. n. 28. Nomen hactenus inauditum, says Cardinal Baronius, tunc proclamater infaustum, adscribitur chartis, & memorie perpetuae consecratur, jam regiis cusumly­pis, & imperatorio promulgatum Edicto. And he adds, that the Kings of Spain in quality of Kings of Sicily, take a Title that Tyrants and the greatest Enemies of the Church of Rome durst never claim.Ibid. n. 30. Quod nunquam à piis re­gibus, nec à Tyrannis ipsis Romanae Eccle­siae perduellibus, neque ipsis acerbissimis Romanae Ecclesiae persecutoribus Friderieo filio atque nepotibus, ejusmodi Monar­chiae nomen expugnatum ullatenus reperi­tur. In fine the Cardinal pretends that to atrribute to Sicily a Spiritual Monarchy, is to overthrow Divine [Page 121]Laws, and that it is only to the Church of Rome to which our Saviour hath given that Title. But the Kings of Spain slight all the complaints of the Court of Rome as to that, and persist in the en­joyment of the Rights of their Spiritual Monarchy in Sicily, where they ac­knowledge no other Pope but the King, or such as he does commissionate in his place. So that it may be said, there are two Popes and two Sacred Colledges in the Church, to wit, the Pope of Rome, and the Pope of Sicily, to whom also may be added the Pope of England, for the King of England takes the Title also of Supream over the Churches with­in his Dominions.

Thus far we have shewn the Origi­nal and Progress of Ecclesiastical Reve­nues, how they have been administred, and in what manner they have come into the Possession of Chapters and Mo­nasteries. We have, besides, spoken of the power of Bishops and Princes, and of the Pope also, over such Revenues. It would be now time to shew more particularly, by what ways Popes have made themselves almost absolute Masters of the goods of the Church, and to ob­serve [Page 122]the quarrels they have had with Princes upon that account. But since Fra. Paolo hath handled that in his History, and that it is sufficient to read the Decretals, to be informed in what manner their authority hath been by degrees established, I shall speak no more of that Subjuct. And it is for the same reason, that I have not said any thing neither of the Original of Tithes, because it hath been also well enough handled by Fra. Paolo. All men are suf­ficiently perswaded, that under the first Race of the Kings of France, that Nation had no recourse to Rome for regulating the affairs of the Church.The Popes Power in France. Nay and un­der the Second Race, Charlemain who gave a great deal of authority to Popes, did not consult them about the Erection of the new Bishopricks and Arch-Bishop­ricks which he established. In Italy it self, many Ages after, the Princes and Bishops were absolute Masters of all that belonged to Churches. The Prince or Judges appointed by him, decided the differences that happened betwixt Bishops and Abbots, and amongst other Church-Men, concerning their Revenues and Priviledges: but seeing matters [Page 123]now a days are settled in another man­ner, and that the Discipline of the Church is wholly altered, I thought it necessary, having observed the original and Progress of Church Revenues, to describe in a few words the present State of beneficial matters. It would be to no purpose to know the Customs of our Fore-Fathers, if we be ignorant of what is at present in use amongst our selves. The former serve only for our instruction, but the latter will be useful for the conduct of our lives.An Explica­tion of the New Canon Law. I shall say nothing in this place of the Ori­ginal of Benefices, in the manner that they are established at pre­sent; for it is very well known that they did nor begin till about the Ele­venth Century: And whereas in the An­cient Canons there is only mention made of Ordination and the Ministry, afterward there was no more talk but of the Portion or Benefice. Neverthe­less, though the manners of expression, and a great part of the Ancient Disci­pline were wholly changed, yet in ma­ny things the Maxims of the Ancient Law were still observed. For Instance, heretofore Ordination differed not from [Page 124]the Ministry or Benefice; and there­fore when by the Introduction of the New Law, they were separated, that Maxim was still retained, That he who can Ordain, can also Confer a Benefice; and that he who cannot Ordain, cannot Confer a Benefice neither. But by de­grees the Popes have by their Privi­ledges and Exemptions derogated from the Common Law that was grounded on the Ancient Canons; and we see that Abbots exempted from the Juris­diction of Ordinaries, confer in full right, Cures and other Benefices. Though the Establishment of Benefices be commonly referred to the end of the Tenth Century, or beginning of the Eleventh, yet some footsteps of them are to be seen long before. For about the year 500 under Pope Symmachus, to some Church-men Portions of Land were assigned, to be enjoyed by them for Life, as appears by the terms ofTom. 1. Concil. Gal. Ann. 513. the Epistle of that Pope to Caesarius, where he prohibits the alienation of Church-Lands, unless it be in favours of Clerks who might have merited, or of some Monasteries or Hospitals, and that only during the Life of those that [Page 125]should enjoy them. Possessiones, Ib. q. 1. pos­sessiones. quas unusquisque Ecclesiae proprio dedit aut reliquit arbitrio, alienari quibuslibet ti­tulis atque contractibus, vel sub quocun­que argumento non patimur; nisi forsitan Clericis honorem meritis, aut Monasteriis, religionis intuitu, aut certe peregrinis necessitas largiri suaserit; sic tamen ut haec ipsa non perpetuò, sed temporaliter, donec vixerint perfruantur. These words make it manifest enough, that even in that time there was some kind of Be­nefice, though the Portion of Revenues was not as yet made to Church-men in particular; but that was rare at that time, and only granted for extraordi­nary Causes.

There are besides some footsteps of the Foundations of Benefices, and of the Right of Patronage in the Tenth Canon ofAnn. 441. the First Council of Orange; but the Custom of that Time was far dif­ferent from the present Practice. The Rules of the New Canon Law, which began chiefly under Pope Nicholas I. who lived about the middle of the Ninth Age, brought a great alteration in the Affairs of the Church. Pope Gre­gory VII. who lived pretty forward in [Page 126]the Eleventh Age, [...] of [...] Law. extended the Rules of that New Law, beyond all that his Predecessors had done: And the Popes that came after him were so far from remitting any thing of these Novelties, that on the contrary, they augmented them; so that the Law which hath been introduced into the Church since that time, deserves better to be called the Popes Law, than the Canon Law; because in settling this New Law, there hath not been so much regard had to the Ancient Laws of the Church, as to the Profit of the Popes and Court of Rome. And this in process of time oc­casioned great disorders; so that Princes were obliged to make Laws and Prag maticks to hinder those Abuses; though it hath not been in their power entirely to abolish them.

The Compilation which Gratian the MonkAnn. 1150. made of the Canons of Councils, the Decretal Epistles of Popes, and of many sentences of the Fathers, of which he made up a Body of Canon Law, contributed much to the authori­sing of the New Law: For that Col­lection of Canons was publickly taught in Schools, and even made use of in de­ciding [Page 127]Controversies. The Fathers and Councils were not studied in their Ori­ginal, but only in the Decrees of Gra­tian; and Men were not knowing e­nough at that time, to perceive that a great many of the Citations of Gratian were false, and that he followed not al­ways the Rules of the Ancient Laws, having inserted into his Collection se­veral supposititious Pieces. Besides that, he gave to the Popes Decretals the same Authority as to general Councils, and sometimes even perverted the words of the Ancient Canons, that he might ac­commodate them to the Law which was authorized by the Popes of his Time. But the Collection of the De­cretal Epistles of Popes, whichAnn. 1230. was made by order of Gregory IX. occasion­ed a far greater Alteration in the Affairs of the Church: Nevertheless, they were in France publickly read in Schools, as well as the Collection of Gratian. These Decretals have been the cause of an infinite number of Law-Suits; and though they were received in the Western Church, and publickly taught by the Professors of the Canon Law, yet there was a necessity of re­jecting [Page 128]them on several occasions, and having recourse to the Ancient Canons. At that time the Compilation of Gra­tian was called the Ancient Law, though it contained a great many Novelties: But being compared with the Book of Decretals, there was some reason for calling it so. The tedious and trouble­som Debates which the Kings of France had with the Popes, was the cause that the French despised the Collection of the Decretals; nor are they at present much esteemed by them. They are of Opinion that that work was only com­piled, for establishing the Interests of the Pope, and overturning the Ancient Law. And the Satyrs that were made against the Decretals run still in their minds, especially this Proverb which was heretofore so common.

Depuis que le decret print ales
Et Gend armes porterent malles,
Moins allerent à cheval,
Jamais le monde n'eut que mal.
Since the Decrees were pieced with tales,
And Souldiers put on Coats of Males;
Since lazy Monks have mounted pad,
The World's been plagu'd with all that's bad.

But after all, as to what concerns the common practice, the Decretals are to be preferred before the Decrees, seeing most of the Rules of Law which now are in use, are taken out of the Book of Decretals, and not from the Collection of Gratian. Nor is the sixth Book of Decretals to be slighted, which is commonly called the Sext, though it was compiledAnn. 1298. by the order of Pope Boniface VIII. an enemy of the French; because a great part of the Constitutions that are contained in that Collection have been taken out of the Decrees of the Council of Lyons, and are observed in France, Besides, the Decretals which carry the Title of Clementine, because that Collection is attributed to Pope Clement V. have been for most part taken out of the Council of Vienne, where the Ambassadours of France were present. The other Decre­tals that are contained in the Body of the Canon Law under the name of the Extravagants of John XXII. and the common Extravigants, seem not to [Page 130]have so great authority in France, as the former Decretals; Neither do I think that all the new Bulls of which the Bul­lary is composed, are much esteemed there, because they have never been re­ceived in France.

Since the great clashings that hap­pened betwixt Boniface VIII. And Phi­lip the Fair, and betwixt Julius II. and Louis XII. The French have been much more cautious in admitting the Bulls of the Pope, than they were before. The differences likewise that happened in the Council of Trent, in respect of France, have been also the cause that the French suspect all that comes from Rome, and that they submit not easily to its Laws. And therefore the Popes Bulla are not received till first they be exa­mined, and, if it be necessary, modified; Nay and many times they are not actually received. In a word, there are but some of the Rules of the Chancery received in France. These are now the grounds on which the new Law is founded, and which hath been very much qualified in France, the knowledge whereof is necessary, that we may understand what measures are [Page 131]at present to be taken in Beneficial matters.

Though France hath submitted to the New Law,The Original of the Liber­ties of France. yet hath it still retain'd some­what of the Ancient Canons: And when it hath found the new Laws to be con­trary to the Interest of the State, it hath had recourse to the Ancient, and de­fended it self by the Canon Law. And therefore they have given the name of Priviledges or Liberties of the Gallican Church, to that which was no more but the Ancient Canon Law; But which hath been called Priviledges or Liberties in respect of the New. For instance, when the French have been pressed by the Authority of the Decretals, they have had recourse to the Ancient Law contained in the Decrees of Gratian; but since the Collection of Gratian au­thorises a great many false Decretals of the first Popes, which have introduced a New Law, the French Bishops have had recourse to a more Ancient Compilation of Canons, when the Authority of these Decretals hath been objected to them. Nevertheless, for all that France could do, the Popes Law hath at length prevailed, notwithstanding the Pragma­ticks [Page 132]of the Kings, who endeavoured the re-establishment of the Ancient Canons.

The most Ancient Pragmatick of France is attributedAnn. 1268. to St. Louis: But there is ground to doubt whether it be his or not, though it seems no man hath hitherto questioned it. The reason why it is thought to be of St. Louis, is be­cause it bears the name of a King called Louis, and that the Date proves evi­dently that it can be of no other Louis, but Louis IX. Elias of Bourdeille Archbishop of Tours, who was after­wards made a Cardinal, hath mention­ed all the Articles of that Pragmatick in a Writing that he composed in the the time of Louis XI. against the Prag­matick Sanction of France. It is true, he refutes the Pragmatick of St. Louis, as if it had been really the Act of that Prince: But he seems to have doubted of it, not daring absolutely to affirm that he was the Author of it, but onlyAdscribi­tur ei fecisse pragmaticam. that it was ascribed to him. The Contemporary Authors who have writ­ten his Life, speak not a word of it. The Popes who have so vigorously op­posed whatever they thought contrary [Page 133]to their Interests, did not at that time complain of that Pragmatick, though it wholly ruined their Interests. Is it pos­sible that in theAnn. 1438. Assembly of Bourges, where that famous Pragmatick past, no mention should have been made of the Pragmatick of St. Louis, if there had really, been any such? Nothing could at that time have been of greater force to authorize that Aslembly. There appears nothing more Ancient in favours of the Pragmatick of St. Louis, than the Remonstrances made by the Members of Parliament to King Louis XI. And there is a great deal of probability that it hath been foisted in about that timeAnn. 1461. because it was known that King Louis, being then but Dauphin, was of Intelligence with the Court of Rome, for abrogating the Pragmatick made at Bourges; and the Members of Parliament omitted no­thing that could make for that Pragma­tick. There are besides, terms some­what extraordinary in the Pragmatick attributed to St. Louis. These words, ad perpetuam rei memoriam, are not of the stile of Ordinances. Nor do we find any where else, that St Louis affected [Page 134]that way of speaking that his Crown depended of God alone; neither was it at all proper for the affairs that then were in agitation. I could bring a great many other Reasons, to shew that there is ground to doubt of the Reality of that Pragmatick: But be­sides that that would lead me into a long and tedious digression, the Canon Law of France subsists not so much upon the Pragmatick ascribed to St. Louis, as upon that of Bourges, and the Con­cordat which hath derogated from seve­ral Articles thereof.

To know then the substance of the Law of France in regard of Beneficial matters.The Rules of the French Law. We must not wholly rely on the Popes Decretals; but it is also ne­cessary to know wherein the Pragma­tick, Concordat, the Edicts of the Kings, and the Sentences of Supream Courts differ from the Law established in the Decretals. Besides, seeing the the Concordat or Treaty that pastAnn. 1516. betwixt Leo X. and Francis I. hath abo­lished several Articles of the Pragmatick, there is no more of the Pragmatick to be retained, but what hath not been re­scinded [...] qualified by the Concordat; nor [Page 135]does the Concordat it self entirely sub­sist at present, because the Popes and Kings of France have by mutual consent derogated from it in many heads. Nei­ther must we insist too much on Ordi­nances; for there are some of them, especially those that were made in the States assembled at Orleans, which have not been received into practice. In fine, the Jurisprudence of Decrees hath not always been the same, and does still vary daily; and which is observable, Courts do not agree among themselves in their decisions; not only Courts in different Provinces, where it is hard that Judgments can be the same, by rea­son of the different Customs on which they are grounded, rather than the Law; but even in Paris, where the Maxims of Parliament differ from those of the great Council, and many times the Council of State hath Prejudications which agree not with those that are fol­lowed in the Parliament, and in the great Council. It were to be desired, that there might be an uniformity in Judgments, which would not be diffi­cult to be put in practice. These are the Principles of the French, which I have [Page 136]trac'd with all possible Exactness. In the sequel of this Discourse, I shall treat of the Customs of France in respect of Be­neficial matters.

According to the Rules of the Canon Law,The Canon Law. every Bishop ought to provide for the Benefices of his Diocese. Here­tofore none but the Bishops could give liberty to build Churches and Chappe [...] in their Dioceses, and appoint Priests to govern them; and therefore a [...] Churches depended on them: And a [...] the Pope ordained none without the li­mits of his Diocese, so could he not give Ecclesiastick Employments, which no [...] a days are called Benefices, but with [...] the bounds of the same Diocese. That is expresly set down in the XVII. Canon [...] the first Council of Orleans, where [...] was decreedOmnes Be­silicae, quae per diversa loca constructae sunt, vel quo­tiaie constru­untur, placuit secundum Ca­nonum regu­lam, ut in ejus Episcopi, in cujus territorio sitae sunt, pe­testate cons­stant. Tom. 1. Concil. Gall. Ann. 511. that all Churches th [...] should be built, should be in the power of the Bishop, according to the Rules of the Ancient Law. But the Bishops can­not now have the benefit of that Ancient Law, as being abolished by a new and particular right. There are at present Patrons both Ecclesiastick and Laick, who have a special right of presenting to the Churches which they have founded: [Page 137]And besides, the Pope in quality of Universal Bishop, hath taken to himself a full power over all the Churches in the World. And therefore Bishops can have no advantage of the Ancient Canon Law,Particular Law. but when the new and special Law hath no place; for then the Canon Law is again of force. This is necessa­ry to be observed, if we would exactly know, to whom it doth belong to con­fer Benefices, which are to be present­ed according to the Rules of the Canon Law, that (2) gives the Bishop Power over all the Churches of his Diocese;Episcopus de jure commu­ni fundatus est in liberâ admi­nistratione om­nium Ecclesia­rum suae Diae­cesis. or otherwise according to the Prescript of the new and particular Law: Inferiores non possunt Jurisdictio­nem Episcopalem vendicare, nisi de Jure Speciali. It is therefore pertinent to know what that special Right is, which Derogats from the Common and Gene­ral Law. Let us begin with the Right of Popes.

The Pope may concur with the Or­dinaries,The Rights of Popes. because he is the Ordinary of Ordinaries, and that his Jurisdiction extends over all the Churches in the World, for which Reason he may also prevent them. He pretends to a fulness [Page 138]of Power, which he hath not renoun­ced, by communicating the same to o­thers; whence it follows, that without overthrowing the right of Ordinaries he may prevent them; and he that pre­sents first, has the advantage. I speak here, according to the Maxims of the New Law, without examining whe­ther they be true or false, because that would be needless in regard of the pra­ctice which is the matter in hand. The Pope may then in full right confer Be­nefices by Prevention; but seeing Pre­vention is very prejudicial to the Colla­tions of Ordinaries, it is qualified in se­veral Heads.

1. Prevention hath no place at pre­sent but for Vacant Benefices, and the Pope cannot now dispose of Benefices before they be Vacant, as he did hereto­fore, reserving them to his own disposal. Mental Reservations and Expectatives or Reversions have been abolished by the Council of Trent. Reversions abrogated. And therefore since that Council the Article of the Concordat, which authorized Mandats, or Mandamus's from the Popes, that were a kind of Reversions, is abrogated. it is to no purpose to enlarge upon the [Page 139]nature and manner of executing these Mandats, since they are abolished. The sameSess. 24. Can. 19. & Sess. 25. Can. 9. Council of Trent hath abo­lished all other Expectatives or Rever­sions, comprehending therein the Grants or Indulgences made to the Chancellour of France, the Masters of Requests, Presi­dents, Councillors, and some other Offi­cers of the Parliament of Paris: But in that the Authority of the Council is not admitted; On the contrary Pope Cle­ment IX. Hath augmented the Privi­ledges of the indulged. There is ano­ther kind of Reversion in being in France though the Council of Trent hath also abrogated it, to wit, the Priviled­ges granted to those who have studied a certain number of years in any Famous University of the Kingdom, who are cal­led Graduats. That right of Graduats,The Right of Graduats. which is founded on the Pragmatick and Concordat, is so owned in France, that some French Lawyers, nay even some Parliaments pretend that the Prevention of the Pope cannot be prejudicial to Graduats; but the most received custom of France admits the Popes Prevention in prejudice of the Graduats and in­dulged.

II. The right of prevention is not in all parts of France, and it would even be wholly rejected there, if they received the Decrees of the Council of Trent. Bretagne, Bretagne is not subject to the Preven­tion. which is not comprehended within the Concordat, is not subject to the Prevention; but the Pope divides the Collation of Benefices with the Or­dinaries. He confers them in full right during the Months of January, March, May, July, September, and November; The Ordinaries confer them during the other six Months. And when the See of Rome is vacant, the Benefices that fall in the Popes Months, cannot be provided by the Ordinaries, because in that case the right of Devolution hath no place; but the Collation is reserved to the fu­ture Pope. Before the Reign of Henry II. the Pope conferred Benefices during eight Months of the Year.

III.Lay-Patrons are not sub­ject to Pre­vention. The Popes Prevention cannot hurt Lay-Patrons, who always retain their right of Presentation, unless they themselves derogate from it; and then the Pope ought to specifie it in his Re­script, adding these words, Accedente Patroni Laici consensu. And that upon better reason is observed in respect of [Page 141]Benefices, which are in the nomination of the King, and such as are subject to the Regale.

IV.Elective and Collative Be­nefices. Some distinguish Benefices into purely Elective, Elective Collative, and purely Collative; and they pretend that the first which are purely Elective, are not subject to the Prevention of the Pope, because they stand in need of the Confir­mation or Collation of the Superiour; that in regard of the others which are Collative, the Pope may bestow them, because of his right of Prevention: But the more common practice is, that the Popes Prevention takes place in all Benefices, except those, to which, as we have said, the King nominates, and to those that are subject to the Regale: And as to Elective Benefices, none but the Heads of Orders are exempted from the Prevention; for the Deanries of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches may at present be resigned in favorem, and conferred by the Pope. We must ne­vertheless, except the Deanries that are Elective upon the Title of Laick Foun­dation; for then the Rule is the same, as of Lay-Patrons, from whose rights the Pope never derogates. There are [Page 142]besides, certain Benefices wherein the Popes Prevention has no place, because they require certain conditions that are annexed to them: As for instance, the Theological Penitentiary, and other Be­nefices that are assigned to Musicians, or which demand certain Qualities, that are inseparable from them. Now seeing these Qualities are perso­nal; the Pope cannot supply them by Prevention. Besides that, it is easie to hinder the Popes Prevention in Ele­ctive Benefices; for, to tye the Popes Hands, there needs no more, but to be­gin the Election.

V.Derogations from the Right of Pre­vention. There are many things that hin­der the Popes Prevention from taking effect.

I. If the Ordinary hath conferred the same Benefice before him, though the Collation be null and void, yet it hin­ders the effect of Prevention; so that in that case nothing produces somewhat; and it is held for an undoubted Maxim, that Collatio Ordinarii, etiam nulla & invalida, impedit preventionem Papa. We must, in the mean while, observe that the bare Presentation of the Pa­tron is not sufficient to hinder the Pre­vention, [Page 143]because the Presentation alone gives not the Benefice; it is necessary thatƲt saltent tang at aures Collatoris. it be notified to the Collator. Nevertheless, many are of opinion that the bare Presentation of the Patron is sufficient to hinder the Popes Preven­tion from taking effect; and they are grounded on this, that the Right of Pre­vention is odious, and therefore ought not to be favoured. On the other hand, it is acknowledged by all, that the Popes Prevention hath only place, quan­do res sunt integrae, when matters are entire. Now, say they, it cannot be affirmed that matters continue still in an entire Condition, when the Patron hath given his Presentation, which ac­quires a Right to him that is pre­sented; and it is certain thatJuri quae­sito Papa non potest derogare. the Pope cannot derogate from an acquired Right. Notwithstanding all these Rea­sons, and many more which are alledg­ed in favours of Presentations, that are pretended ought to hinder the Popes Prevention, yet it is the Common Opi­nion at present, that the single Pre­sentation of the Patron, does not hin­der the effect of Prevention, unless it hath been intimated to the Ordinary Collator.

II. The Indulged and Graduats hinder the Popes Prevention, when they have made their demand in form; for then res non censentur integrae.

III. The Pope himself hath derogat­ed from his right of Prevention in favours of Cardinals, to whom he hath granted Priviledges or Immunities, that they shall not be prevented by him. There are likewise some Persons of Quality that obtain the same Priviledge from the Pope; and so they have the whole six Months for providing to their benefices, according to the Rules of the Canon Law, without any danger of be­ing prevented.

IV. To the end the Popes Prevention may obtain its effect, there must be neither fraud nor surprise in it; where­fore the Rule of the Chancery de verisi­mili notitia, is received in France; and it is necessary, that betwixt the death of the Beneficiary and the Collation of the Pope, a sufficient time must intervene for carrying to Rome the news of the Vacancy of the Benefice if the contrary be proved the Prevention is Judged frau­dulent and Anticipated, and by conse­quent null.

Besides the right of Prevention, the Pope hath also the right of Devolution in quality of Superiour; and in that case by common Law he may confer all Benefices after a certain time. The Or­dinary hath six Months to provide for the Benefices that depend on him, and these six Months are reckoned from the day that he might have had knowledge of the Vacancy. If he provide not within these six Months, the right is devolved on the immediate Superiour; for instance from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, from the Metropolitan to the Primate, if the Primate enjoy that right, and from the Primate to the Pope, following in that the order of Jurisdiction. But the right of Devolution is of no great use to the Pope, because it is swallowed up in the right of Prevention; and besides Benefices must continue vacant for the space of a year or two, before that he could confer them by devolution, unless it be in respect of Collators who depend immediatly upon himself. If it happen nevertheless, that the ordinary Collator hath provided amiss, his right devolves instantly upon the immediate Superior, and the Ordinary hath no more right [Page 146]of conferring the Benefice for that time. In that kind of devolution, application [...] commonly made to Rome, and the Pope becomes the ordinary Collator. We must however take notice, that there are cer­tain cases wherein the Ordinaries may vary in their Collations, and that it is not always true, that when they ha [...] once conferred they lose their right [...] for they may give the same Benefice [...] several Persons upon different conside­rations. For instance, if they have be­stowed a benefice which fell in the Months assigned to Graduats, to [...] that is not Graduat, they may afterward give the same Benefice to a Graduat th [...] demands it. Besides, if the Ordinary hath in full right conferred a Benefi [...] that is in Patronage, he may again con [...] it of new upon the Presentation of th [...] Patron. If he had also conferred a Bene­fice, and it be found afterward that [...] was not vacant, or that he to whom [...] had granted it would not accept th [...] same, he would not therefore lose [...] right of providing to it a Second time So that in all these cases devolution [...] no place; and therefore the negligence or excess of ordinary Collators cannot [Page 147]be supplied by the Pope, seeing they are not to be imputed to their negligence or excess. The Pope, on the contrary, can give one and the same Benefice to several Persons, because his power is not smited, as that of Ordinaries, and his right cannot be devolved, as not having any Superior. That right which Popes enjoy is the cause of an infinite num­ber of Law-suits. All are welcom at Rome for their Money; and yet it is certain that one only can obtain the Be­nefice, though it hath been granted to many.

Farthermore,Benefices va­cant in Curia. the Popes confer the Benefices of which the Incumbents or Titularies die in Court, that is, within ten Leagues of Rome. That right is a kind of Reservation, whereof Pope Cle­ment IV. is the Author. The Constitu­tion of that Reservation is mentioned in the Sext the Chapter Licet, in these words, Collationem tamen Ecclesiarum, personatuum, dignitatum & beneficiorum apud sedem apostolicam vacantium, specia­lius caeteris antiqua consuetudo Romanis pontificibus reservavit: But seeing these words, Ecclesiarum & dignitatum, are general, the Author of the Gloss upon [Page 148]the Sext, who was Secretary to Pop [...] Boniface VIII. pretends that the Pope hath not comprehended under that con­stitution Bishopricks and Abbeys, and yet the Concordat which serves us for a Rule, comprehends under the Benefi­ces that are reserved to the Pope, upon account of Vacancy in Curia, both Bishopricks and Abbeys. Master Charles Du Moulin hath been forced to say,Carol. Moulin. that there hath been surprise in the Concordat. And in Effect the sense of the Constitution of Benefices vacant [...] Curia ought not to be extended, [...] explained according to the intention of the Popes Clement IV. and Bou [...] ­fiace VIII. Who are the Authors of the same. And therefore there was reason to say that the Kings Commissioners were surprised and over reached, when they suffered that clause of the Concor­dat to pass: For it is certain, that the Benefices, which are provided by way of Election, were not within the com­pass of the Chapter Licet, nor of the Constitution de beneficiis vacantibus in Curia.

On the other side it is not doubted but that the nomination of the King [Page 149]hath been surrogated in place of Ele­ctions, and by consequent ought to enjoy all their rights. So that the Bene­fices to which the King Nominates by Virtue of the Concordat, ought not to be reserved to the Pope when they are vacant in curia. And this the Officers of the King pretend at present in France, and the Parliament of Paris hath suffi­ciently explained it self on that Sub­ject.

It would seem nevertheless, that the King acknowledges that Reservation of the Popes, especially when he gives his Grant to those who are not of the King­dom, and who may chance to die at Court. He granteth them no Bene­fices, but on condition that they shall obtain from the Pope a Brief, de non vacaudo in Curia; and after that, whe­ther they obtain that Brief or not, the Benefices to which they are provided cannot be reckoned to become vacant in Curia. Monsieur Doujat hath caused to be Printed the Brief de non vacando in Curia. Which Pope Clement IX.Ann. 1667. granted to Cardinal Mancini for the Abbeys that he possessed in France. Which is directed to the King in these [Page 150]terms: Nos, ne praedicto Cardinale sor [...] apud sedem Apostolicam deeedente, majes [...] t [...]a impediatur, quominus ad Monas [...] ­ria hujusmodi, ratione dictorum Concor­datorum; aut specialis Indulti Apostolici nominare possit, opportunè providere vo­lentes, supplicationibus ejusdem majestatis tuae nomine nobis super hoc humiliter por­rectis inclinati, eidem majestati tuae, &c. It is plain enough by the terms of that Brief, that the Pope pretends that all Benefices vacant in Curia, are reserved to him, even by the Articles of the Con­cordat, and that the King does likewise acknowledge that Reservation by virtue thereof. I have seen some other Briefs [...] non vacando in Curia, which are express in the same manner. The Duke of Nen­bourg hath obtainedAnn. 1673. one for the Abbey of Fescan, which is likewise di­rected to the King: Yet the Popes do but seldom grant them; and it were to be wished that they never did, yea and that it were never desired of them, that so a clause of the Concordat might not be authoriz'd, which without doubt is vicious, and which may be abrogated, without any prejudice to the substance of the Concordat it self.

The New Law received in France gives the Pope many other Powers which they enjoyed not,Other Rights of the Popes. when the Church was governed according to the Ancient Canons.

  • I. The Creation of New Bishopricks, and the Erection of Archbishopricks, be­long to the Pope.
  • II. Bishops cannot be translated from one See to another, without taking New Bulls from the Pope: And if they enjoy Abbeys or other Consistorial Benefices, they are also obliged to take new Bulls for all these Benefices, and by consequent to pay new Annats or First-fruits. But it is still to be supposed that the Pope cannot put this Power in execution without the Kings Per­mission: And even in the Bulls of Translation the consent of the King is mentioned.
  • III. The Pope by his Bulls confirms those whom the King hath named to Bishopricks, Abbeys and other Con­sistorial Benefices.
  • IV. The King cannot enjoy his Right of Nomination to Bishopricks and Abbeys which are not situated in the places mentioned in the Concor­dat; [Page 152]but the Pope grants him Indults or Priviledges to nominate to those Benefices. Seeing France is now of greater extent, than it was when the Concordat of Bologna, was made be­twixt Pope Leo X. and Francis the first of France, the Kings of France have been obliged to obtain from the Pope Indults, which are called Indulta Rigiae Nominationis, of which many forms may be seen printed in the Collection of Monsieur Doujat. It is in the mean time in the Liberty of the Pope to grant them for ever, or only for a cer­tain time.
  • V. It being a general Maxim re­ceived and approved of all, that Secular Benefices ought to be given to Secu­lars, and Regular Benefices to Regu­lars, the King cannot Emancipate Be­nefices from the Rule, to put them in Commendum, unless he have Permissi­on from the Pope, because that is one of the Clauses of the Concordat: But the King and Pope, who have made the Concordat, dispense with it daily, it being in their Power so to do.
  • VI. The Pope, who pretends to an absolute Power over all Benefices, ac­cording [Page 153]to his pleasure Secularises Be­nefices, that are in Rule; and so he derogates from that great Maxim, Se­cularia Secularibus, Regularia Regula­ribus, in favours of those, who for that end send their money to Rome. The Monks notwithstanding, who are powerful at Rome, because of their Generals that commonly reside there, or of their Procurators that live in that Court for the affairs of their Societies, hinder as much as they can the Secu­larisation of Benefices, which they pretend does of Right belong to them.
  • VII. The King cannot Alienate the Church Lands of his Kingdom with­out the permission and consent of the Pope;
    Alienations depend on the Pope.
    nor can he raise the Tenths of he Clergy, which have in process of time, been converted into Ordinary Subsidies, without obtaining Power from the Pope. Heretofore Church­men pretended that their goods were consecrated to God, and that so, they were not obliged to lay them out for maintaining of Wars, or for other pub­lick necessities; it being enough that they contributed to them by their [Page 154]Prayers. But the specious pretext of holy Wars cured them of that Scruple, and it was decreed in the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. That these Tenths should be taken from Ecclesiasticks, for the Expeditions of the Holy Land. After a Door was once opened to Tenths, the Popes and Kings together often raise them. But seeing Popes had got a Custom of raising Tenths in France for their own private concerns, it was decreed in the Council of Constance,
    Concil. Con­stantiense.
    that they should be no more raised, but with consent of the Prelates of the Kingdom; and thereby the Popes were excluded from the Liberty of raising them. However, those that were granted to Kings encreased much, and that which in the beginning was very extraordinary, hath since turned into a Custom. The necessity of main­taining long Wars in France for Re­ligion, promoted very much the esta­blishment of Tenths, which is at pre­sent a kind of Tax upon the Church­men, collected by receivers, appoint­ed for that purpose. We must, in the mean time, observe that Popes dispose [Page 155]not at their pleasure of Church Re­venues, as they pretend they have Power. They have not the Liberty to sell the Revenues of the Church, unless the King and Clergy consent to it, and the causes of Alienation be first examined: For the Bulls of Permission to alienate are not received in France, if they contain these Terms, motu proprio, sine in­quisitione, etiam invitis Clericis. In a Word, for Alienation of Church Lands in France, the two Soveraign Powers, I mean, the Pope and King must concur.
  • VIII. All Concordats,
    Concordats depending on the Pope.
    Transactions or Pactions in any beneficial matter, ought to be confirmed in the Court of Rome, because there is a kind of Simo­ny in them, private persons not being allowed to dispose of their Benefices under certain Reservations or Condi­tions; and that is the reason why ap­plication is made to the Pope for Pen­sions and Resignations in favorem. Or­dinaries cannot appoint, nor confirm Pensions: Nor can they admit of any Resignations in favorem neither, un­less in the case of Permutation; Nay [Page 156]and in that case too private persons many times apply themselves to the Pope. There is another kind of Concor­dat, or Transaction, which Commen­datary Abbots, and Monks, daily make betwixt themselves, for dividing their Revenues, without having recourse to Rome. But these Concordats are easily broken, and their Successors may derogate from them, because an Abbot hath no power to oblige and tye up the Will of his Successor. He may, in­deed, make over his rights during his life; but he cannot dispose of that which belongs to another. And there­fore, though these Concordats were even confirmed in the Court of Rome, and in the Parliaments, they may still be rescinded, if it be found that one of the Parties contracting hath received any notable prejudice: In that case he is allowed to seek relief, and by stron­ger reason his Successour ought, who is not obliged to stand to all that hath been done by his Predecessor. The Pope him­self pretends not to prejudice by his Rescripts the acquired right of others; nor indeed is it in his power, though it should even be inserted in his Rescript, [Page 157]that there hath nothing been done with­out knowledge of the cause, because he may have been ill informed. Again, the Pope hath no power in France over the Temporal of Benefices, but only the Spiritual, for which recourse is had to him as to a Superiour, that he may authorize the Transactions which pri­vate persons have made amongst them­selves, and purge them from Simony.
  • IX. None but the Pope can give Be­nefices in perpetual Commendum;
    Commendums depend on the Pope.
    and the French are the more obliged to acknow­ledge that power of the Popes, that there is no Kingdom in Christendom where so many Regular Benefices are Erected in Commendum, as in France. Now seeing Commendums, in the manner that they are at present established, more for the advantage of private per­sons, than benefit of the Church, are al­together contrary to the Canons; none but the Pope can confer in Commendum, because he only can dispense with the Canons, as well in respect of the inca­pacity of persons to whom Commendums are given, as of incompatibility of Be­nefices, in which the Commendataries are invested. And therefore Benefices in [Page 158] Commendum are in some manner reser­ved to the Pope, because they subsist upon a special Priviledge, which can be granted by none but him: And when the Commendum is void by the death of the Commendatary, it is not to be judg­ed vacant by his death, but as it was vacant before the Commendum, which brings no alteration in matters. How­ever, the Pope does still give the same Benefice in Commendum by a Priviledge that he continues on; so that it may be said, that the Priviledge or Dispensa­tion hath wholly derogated from the Canon Law, which only subsists in name, and the Dispensation stands for Law as to the effect. In the mean time, though they who possess Commendums have not obtained them but by Privi­ledge or Dispensation,
    The Rights of Commen­datary Ab­bots.
    yet they still en­joy them, and have all the Titles, Pro­fits and Honours, as if they were Ti­tulars, inasmuch as by the Bulls of Com­mendum the Commendataries are subro­gated into the rights of the Titulars, and the terms are always used, which import that the power of the Commendatary is the same with that of the Titular, to whom he is substituted: Curam Mona­sterii [Page 159]ac regimen & administration [...] tibi in spiritualibus & temporalibus ple­nar [...]è committ [...]ndo. The Pope gives in some manner by his Bulls the Investi­ture both of the Spiritual and Tempo­ral, and grants the Commendataries liberty to dispose according to their pleasure of the Profits of the Abbeys, after they have satisfied the Charges which are always expressed in the same Bulls: De residuis fructibus, reditibus & proventibus disponere & ordinare po­tuerunt ac debuerunt. And to make it appear that the Modern Commendums are different from the Ancient, which were established in favour of Churches, and not of Persons, the Popes add in their Bulls, that they give the Com­mendataries power to dispose of the Profits of their Commendums for their own use, that they may live more com­modiously, nay and according to their Quality: Ʋt statum t [...]um juxta gradum tuae nobilitatis decentiùs tenere valeas, de alicujus subventionis auxilio provi­dere volentes, &c. This is not the place to examine whether the Popes can at­tribute to themselves so great an Autho­rity, which seems to overthrow all the [Page 160]Discipline of the Church. I only speak, at present, of what is in practice, and of the power that the Popes have in France, where the Bulls, whereof I have given some abstracts, are recei­ved and authorised by custom. And for that reason also, the Canonists say, that the Titles of Benefices are only of positive right, & that so, the Popes who have absolute power over that right, especially when it hath been voluntari­ly established by them, may dispense with it as they please, and in favours of whom they will. On this principle are grounded the Dispensations which are obtained from Popes, for possessing several Benefices, and that they daily derogate from the nature and quality of Benefices in favours of private persons. But after all we must still suppose the Maxime which we have already ob­served, that this great power of Popes cannot be executed in France, if the King consent not to it; and besides, that the Court of Rome, hath no power over the Possessory right of Bene­fices.
  • X. The Popes give not only Bene­fices in commendum to Clerks, dispen­sing [Page 161]both with their Age, and other Qualities requisite; but they dispense also with the Clerkship of Children as yet in the Cradle, until they have at­tained the Age of taking the Tonsure. It is enough to declare, that the Child is designed for a Church-man: Infantem qui, ut accepimus, in secundo vel tertio suae aetatis anno constitutus, & ad vitam Ecclesiasticam agendam destinatus existit. But since no man can enjoy a Benefice, but he that is a Clerk; and that on the other hand, the Child is not as yet of Age, the Popes use these terms in their Bulls: Eidem Infanti, cum primum Cle­ricali charactere ritè insignitus, & in ae­tate legitimâ constitutus, seu alias ex concessione & dispensatione Apostolicâ ad Monasteria obtinenda capax & habi­lis fuerit, per eum, quoad vixerit, tenen­da; regenda & gubernanda, ita ut ex nunc, prout ex tunc, pro eo affecta & destinata sunt ac esse censeantur, &c. Then the Pope, in the same Bull, names a Steward, who shall take care only of the Temporal, until the Child be grown up and shaven. N. Administratorem Mo­nasteriorum in temporalibus solum, donec praedictus Infans charactere Clericali in­signitus [Page 162]fuerit, & Monasteria sibi per no [...] ­vel successorem nostrum Romanum Ponti­ficem pro tempore existentem, commenda­ri obtinuerit. It appears by these [...] words, that the Child is not as yet pro­perly established Abbot Commendatary by the Bulls, because he is not as yet a Clerk; but that the Abbey is only assu­red to him, and that in the mean while, he shall enjoy the Profits of the Bene­fice, as if he were actually invested in it, and that because the Pope by his Bulls gives him the right.
  • XI. Though Ordinaries may unite smaller Benefices,
    Of Unions.
    yet it only belongs to the Pope to annex Benefices which are called Consistorial, nay and many times application is made to him for all sorts of Unions. That Power of the Pope, of uniting all sorts of Benefices, proceeds from the fulness of his Autho­rity; whereas that of Ordinaries is li­mited. Nevertheless heretofore they en­joyed that Right. But we have already observed, that we speak only here of the New Law, in the manner that it is at present in force in France, without ex­amining the ground of it. and if it be contrary to the Ancient Canons. It is [Page 163]not, for all that, to be imagined that the Pope is so much Master of Unions in France, that he can make them at his pleasure, and without lawful cause: For the Unions which are commonly called personal, and only made during the lives of some persons, are not admitted there, because such kinds of Unions are not for the Benefit of the United Churches. It is then necessary to make Unions lawful, that they be grounded on true causes, and not upon pre­texts? Otherwise they are null, conform to the Decree of the Council of Con­stance, which rescinds Unions made by the Pope
    Si non ex rationalibus causis & veris factae fuerint, licet Apostolicae sedis auctori­tas intervene­rit. Sess. 43.
    if they be not supported by good reasons. It is not sufficient, for all that, that the Pope in the Bull of Union make use of these words, Et ex certa scientia nostrâ: But he ought to direct to some Body upon the place a Rescript of Delegation ad effectum uni­onis. That information may be had of the usefulness of the Union. Besides, those who are concerned in the Union, and especially the Patrons of Benefi­ces must be cited, who ought to be heard, because Union is a kind of Alie­nation for ever, which deprives the Pa­tron [Page 164]of his Right. There are many other Formalities to be observed, for making Unions valid in France, where in reality the plenitude of the Popes Power is acknowledged;
    The Popes Power li­mited in France.
    but still with reservation of the liberty of limiting it according to the Laws of the Kingdom. And upon that ground the Parliaments insist when they rescind Unions that want the Formalities, and declare them abusive. The Council of Trent
    Sess. 7. Can. 6.
    hath also declared, that Unions made within 40 years should be null, unless they had been made in presence of the Ordinaries, for just reasons, and those who were concerned cited. But by the addition of these words,
    Nisi aliter a sede Avosto­lica declara­tum fuerit.
    if the Holy See hath not declared otherwise, it renders the Pope absolute Master of Unions; which is not received in France, where no re­gard is had to the Prescription of forty years; for remedy may be had even after an hundred years against an Union that hath not been made in Form, if we believe the French Practitioners in Law. The Council of Trent however is not altogether repugnant to that Custom. It will have no respect to be had to the Prescription of forty years, if the Bulls [Page 165]of Union have been surreptitious or ob­reptitious: That is to say, if the Infor­mation that hath been given to the Pope, be not found to be true; and that is common to Apostolick Bulls and Rescripts, where that clause is al­ways supposed,
    Si preces veritati nitan­tur.
    if the Petition de­clare the truth.
  • XII. There is another kind of Union that belongs also to the Pope alone, to wit, the suppression of one Order for uniting it to another, or the Disunion of two that had been united. Yet that cannot be done without the consent of the King.
  • XIII. The Decision of Causes which are called the greater,
    The judging of Bishops.
    for instance, the Deposition of Bishops, is reserved to the Pope, who, nevertheless, judges not of them at Rome, but appoints Judges in France; and he is not obliged to de­legate a certain number of Bishops, as some have pretended, nor to chuse the Comprovincials of the Bishop who is accused. It is in his power to delegate in partibus such Commissioners as he pleases, provided they be of the King­dom, and accepted by the King.

The Ancient Right of Metropolitans [Page 166]and Comprovincials is now out of doors [...] and Councils are no more called for that effect. The Pope then, does all now-a-days, by means of his Briefs, Bulls and Rescripts, which, never the less cannot be of force without the Kings Permission. And therefore it is, that the Deposing of Bishops in France, depends absolutely on the Pope and King. The Pope names Commissioners to be Judges of the Process, and the King accepts them. I know a great many oppose that in France; but it is in vain to object Law against matters of fact and examples, when the Question is about Discipline. I shall say nothing of Ancient Customs, because I treat on­ly here of what is practised at present.

Having spoken of the Popes Power in France, The Power of Legats in France. in reference to beneficial mat­ters, it will not be amiss to say some­what of the Power of his Legats and Nuncio's. The Power of Legats which are called à latere, is very great, because they are, as it were, the Popes Ambas­sadors, and represent his Person at the Courts of Princes, to whom they are sent about Extraordinary Affairs. Their Instructions are at length specified in [Page 167]the Letters which the Pope gives them; but they are not put in Execution, until the King hath approved the Legation: And besides, the Kings Officers do not Register the aforesaid Letters of Lega­tion, but with the Modifications and Restrictions that are added to them ac­cording to the pleasure of the King, and the Liberties and Customs of the King­dom. The Legats then have almost the same power in all that concerns Be­nefices, as the Popes whom they repre­sent have; and therefore they are very troublesom to the Ordinary Collators during the time of their Legation, which lasts as long as the King pleases. There are nevertheless, some things which they cannot perform without special Orders from the Pope, such as are the Translations of Bishops. Nor can they receive Resignations in favorem, unless that be expresly mentioned in their Instructions, and not limited or abro­gated in the Restrictions that have been made of them; and therefore in that case the Bulls of their Legation, and the verification of them in Parlia­ment, must be consulted. Mr Doujat hath Printed some of them in his Col­lection, [Page 168]and amongst others that of Car­dinal Chigi, which may inform us of their power in France, where they exercise both the one and other Juris­diction, that is to say, both the voluntary & the contentious, but still in Quality of the Popes Delegats, & therefore their Ju­risdiction ceases, if the Pope happen to die during their Legation. Besides these Legates à latere who are but rarely se [...] into France, there is another Legate à la­tere at Avignon, who exercises his Jurisdiction in the City of Avignon and County of Venisse, In the Provinces of Vienne, Arles, Embrun, Aix, and Narbonne That Jurisdiction is common­ly given to a Cardinal, who hath a Sub-Delegat or Vice-Legate who discharges all the duties of it.

As to the Nuncio's in France, The Power of Nuncio's in France. they have no Jurisdiction; they are looked upon rather as the Popes Envoys for Civil matters, than as Church-men. Nevertheless there is a Custom intro­duced, which hath been many times, and on several occasions condemned, to wit, that the Popes Nuncio in France, receives attestations de vita & mo­ribus, whereby he takes information [Page 169]of the manners of those who are nomi­nated by the King to Consistorial Be­nefices. But that is an abuse introduced by the very same persons that have been nominated by the King. For, fearing that their Bulls might not be expeded at Rome, they cause an at­testation de vita & moribus, to be made before the Nuncio's; whereas that attestation ought to be given by the Bishop of the place where the persons named to Benefices reside. Afterward they might be recommended to the Nuncio, as the Popes Minister in France; which is sometimes practised even by the Kings order. But private persons have had their recourse to the Nuncio for their security, and that Custom is observed at present, notwithstanding all the Remonstrances that have been made to hinder that Jurisdiction of Nun­cio's in France.

It remains now that we speak of the Cardinals of the Court of Rome, of Cardinals. and of their Priviledges: But seeing these Priviledges respect their private persons, rather then the right of o­thers, that article may be omitted; nor shall we touch at it but by the by. The [Page 170]name of Cardinal did not in the be­ginning signify a particular dignity, as it does at present, but only denoted the difference of Churches and Employ­ments: For Instance, the Canons of Cathedral Churches were for most part called Cardinals in Italy, to distin­guish them from the Ecclesiasticks of other inferiour Churches. The same name was also given to Priests, Dea­cons, and even to Subdeacons, when there was occasion to distinguish them from the lower Clergy: But it was a Title much inferiour to the quality of a Bishop: And therefore when one was made a Bishop he retained no lon­ger the Title of Cardinal. Matters are at present much altered; The dignity of Cardinal now a days, is the next to the Papacy, and they are in respect of the Pope, as Senatours, or Councillors, are in relation to him that presides in the Senate. Nevertheless since the Papacy is become Monarchical, the Pope takes their advice meerly for Cere­mony, but acts according to his plea­sure. He makes use still of these Terms, De consilio fratrum, but it is most commonly to secure his rela­tions [Page 171]after his death, especially in re­gard of the Revenues of the Aposto­lick Chamber, which the Popes dis­pose of too absolutely, the Cardinals not daring to oppose them. That which renders the Cardinals more con­siderable than all other Church-Men is, that they chuse the Pope, and may themselves be chosen. They have stept into the rights of the Ancient Ro­man Clergy, to whom it belonged to chuse their Bishop, in the same manner as was observed in other Churches. Now, since the Jurisdiction of the Pope is much augmented by the New Canon Law, the Dignity of the Cardinals also who are his Councillors, is become greater, and that they may be honoured according to their dignity, they have many Priviledges granted them, which exempt them from the common Laws and Customs.

They have six whole Months for bestowing Benefices whereof they are the Collators, without any fear of being prevented by the Pope, who hath in their favours dispensed with his right of Prevention. Besides, the Pope who daily derogates from the Rule de vi­ginti [Page 172]diebus to favour Resignees, does never derogate from it in prejudice of Cardinals in respect of Churches where­of they are the ordinary Collators; and that is a Priviledge singular to them. Neither are they subject to the Indults or Priviledges of the menbers of the Parliament of Paris: So that they are not obliged to bestow upon the Indul­tees or Priviledged the Benefices where­of they are the Collators, because they have a Grant from the Pope, which gives them power of disposing of their Bene­fices to whom, and in what manner they please. Nevertheless the Parlia­ment of Paris hath sometimes pro­nounced Sentence contrary to those Priviledges of Cardinals, and hath fa­voured the Indultees, by virtue of the nomination of the King, who they thought ought to be preferred before the Indultees of Cardinals. In fine, the common Rule, which says that Secular Benefices should be given to Seculars, and Regular to Regulars, is of no force in respect of Cardinals whoHabent os apertum ad omnia Benefi­cia. in that quality can receive all kinds of Be­nefices.

To have explained the right of the [Page 173]Popes in France in respect of Beneficial matters, is not sufficient to discover fully wherein the ancient Canon Law is abrogated, which gave Bishops abso­lute power in the Collation of Benefi­ces; we must besides that examine the right of other Collators, and Patro us whether Ecclesiastick or Laick; In a word, it is necessary to know the rights of all who are in present possession of providing to Benefices, in what manner soever it be. It would seem that none have more reason to challenge that Right,The Rights of Chapters. than the Chapters of Cathedral Churches; for as heretofore they made but one body with the Bishops, and were of their Council, so they had some share in the Jurisdiction. Wherefore, when the Revenues were separated, at the same time the Jurisdiction was di­vided, especially the gratuitous Juris­diction, or the Right of providing to Benefices; and I take that to be the true reason why Chapters are at present the Collators of some Benefices sepa­rately from their Bishop. They have even made certain Laws among them­selves, which are different according to the diversity of places. Every Canon [Page 174]presents by turn to Benefices that be­come vacant in his week, or in the time that hath been allotted him in the Di­vidend which they have made among themselves. Besides that, dignified Canons can provide to Benefices that depend on their Dignities, whether in particular, or joyntly with other Digni­taries; wherein the Custom observed in every Chapter is followed. Care is to be taken though, that all sorts of Customs be not authorized; for it may be, that Canons have made Agreements among themselves, which are prejudicial to the Rights of private persons; and there are but few that mind that Bishops cannot call into question that Right of Chapters,The Original of Persona­ges and Dig­nities with­out Employ­ment. since they have agreed on both sides by Transactions which were in their power to make. But that hath given occasion to a very great corrup­tion, which hath established in the Church Benefices without any Employ­ment: For the Canons are not only se­parated from their Bishops, but they have, besides, every one taken his Re­venue in particular, and minded the management of it. This is the cause that many Offices which were necessary [Page 175]whilst the Revenues were in common, are become useless; and instead of sup­pressing them, they are erected into Benefices, which are called Dignities, that is to say, Sine-Cures or Benefices without Office. I shall here give some Instances of them, that the Original of these Dig­nities or Benefices may be known, of which the Titulars for most part are un­certain whether or not they be obliged to reside on their Benefices I reckon then amongst these Dignities, the Provost­ships of St. Martin of Tours, which are pretty numerous. These Provostships were heretofore possessed by the Ca­nons of the Chapter, who were chosen to take the care of the Temporal of the Church: And seeing the Revenues of that Church were in several places, the care of them was committed to diffe­rent persons, who had severally the management of the Rents of their di­stinct Quarters; and because of that, they were called Praeposi [...]i, whence the name of Provost is derived. But since the Canons took the care of their Rents every one in particular, these Offices are become useless; nevertheless they are still retained, and are now called [Page 176]Dignities, or simple Benefices, whereof the Titulars cannot be obliged to Resi­dence, as heretofore they were, because the obligation to reside proceeded not from the Office of Provost, but of the Canonship which they enjoyed with their Provostship, that was not then a Benefice, but meerly a Commission or Office. And in this manner also ought we to consider the dignity of Treasurer in several Cathedrals of the Kingdom, which in all likelyhood, was but an Of­fice that consisted in taking care of the Revenues of the Church, and is at present a Benefice without Office, which is called a dignity of honour, because it is only by Custom that it hath the name of dignity, there being none but the Titles of Arch-Priest and Arch-Deacon that are dignities of right, by reason of the Jurisdiction which they have re­tained.

It is the same with all other digni­ties or Sine-cure Parsonages, & therefore I shall insist no more on that Subject. I shall only observe, that several Persons do in some manner enjoy two Bene­nefices, though they be not reckoned amongst those who possess plurality of [Page 177]Livings. The Deans, for Instance, of Cathedral Churches, and the chief Dig­nitaries of Collegiat Churches, have double the Revenue of the other Ca­nons, though they be no more in effect, but Canons as the rest are, and have nothing over them but a Prerogative of honour. But Custom, which hath made that and many such other practi­ces familiar to us, is the cause why they are not reckoned in the number of those who have several Benefices; besides, they may alledge for their Justification, the words of St. Paul, who saith. That the Elders who Rule well are counted worthy of double honour. 1 Tim. 5.17.After all, if the Chapters challenged no more to themselves in Beneficial matters, but the rights whereof we have been speaking, Bishops would have no cause to complain of them: But there are some who have attempt­ed upon the Jurisdiction of the same Bishops, and pretend to an Episcopal Jurisdiction. as well as they. You shall see Canons who have rather out of vanity, than necessity, a great Vicar, an Official and other necessary Officers, for exercising Episcopal Jurisdiction, as [Page 178]if they had a Diocese to govern. Most part of Chapters, besides, pretend to [...]e exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishops, and have a little Territory depending on them, in regard of which they exercise the functions of Episcopal Jurisdiction, and hold the place of infe­riour Ordinary Prelates, which are mentioned in the Decretals.

To know upon what ground the Canons build that Episcopal Juris­diction,The Original of the Rights of Chapters. which gives them power of conferring several Benefices, we are to observe that all the Rights and Pri­viledges of Chapters can only derive their Original from the Bishops whose Brethren the Canons call themselves. Before their Rents were separated they governed the Churches jointly with the Bishops: And so it is not to be thought strange, that after their separation they have retained part of the Jurisdiction that belongs to them by the Canon Law, if they be in possession of it. And there­foreCar. Moulin Reg. de Infer. resign.Mr. Charles du Moulin affirms that the Collation of Canonships and Prebends of Cathedral Churches belongs by common right to the Bishops and Chapters. It is true, that seems to [Page 179]establish several Heads in one and the same Diocese, but seeing these Heads are subordinate to Bishops, Canonists do agree, that besides Bishops, inferiour Prelates may be owned for Ordinaries, and they think thatNom [...] Episcopi, In [...] ­riores Jura E­pis [...]lia ha­bent [...], in his quae [...]ur [...]sdi­c [...]ionem coucer­nunt, compre­benduntur. under the name of Bishop inferiour Prelats who are in possession of Episcopal Jurisdiction are likewise to be comprehended. Accord­ing to that maxim, Chapters may be Ordinary Prelats, praelati seorsim ab Episcopo; And the New Law is the more favourable to them, in what con­cerns the Collation of Benefices in full right, that CollationNon est Ordinis, sed Jurisdictionies belongs not at present to the Orders, but to the Juris­diction. So that, reserving still to the Bi­shop all that concerns Orders, the Chap­ters may perform the other functions that respect Jurisdiction.

It is true that according to the An­cient Canon Law, the Clerks of Cathe­drals, who have since been called Ca­nons depended on their Bishops, as well as the rest of the Church-men: But that hindred them not from being the Bishops Counsellers, who in the begin­ning did nothing considerable without the Counsel, nay even the consent of [Page 180]their Clergy. Bishops, nevertheless, at present question most part of their rights, and accuse the CanonsƲsurpatae alienae Juris­dictionis. of usurpation. The Parliaments favour the Bishops, because they are perswaded that the Jurisdiction which is called Episcopal, belongs by the Canon Law to the Bishop alone, and that the Canons can have no ground but the Exemptions and Privledges which they have obtain­ed from Popes, or which they enjoy by virtue of transactions made with Bishops, who could not do prejudice to the rights of their Successours in what concerned Episcopal Jurisdiction, because it cannot be communicated to others than Bishops, and that in every Church there is but one Episcopal Chair,Nulla est eathedra nisi Episcopalis. the Seats of Canons being but Benches in the Quire for the perfor­mance of Divine Service. But in my Judgment, Chapters which are founded on the Canon Law, have not Justice enough done them in that particular; and the Seats of Canons or Ancient Clerks were not in the beginning bare Benches for singing in the Quire, but Chairs of Jurisdiction, since the Fa­thers give them the name of Senators, [Page 181]comparing the Assembly of a Bishop with his Clergy to a Senate. The tran­sactions therefore, that they have made with their Bishops ought to be consi­dered, as agreements which they had power to make, and not as mere con­descensions of Bishops in favours of Chapters. Besides, the Exemptions that Chapters have obtained from Popes, ought to be preferred before all other Exemptions, because these Priviledges are very many times but a confirma­tion of their right. I know that the Council of Trent hath derogated from the transactions of Chapters with their Bishops, unless they have been con­firmed by Popes, and that it hath also annulled their exemptions: But besides that the Council of Trent is not re­ceived in France, where Exemptions grounded on good Titles are still in force, it may be said that the Bishops in that Council have not done the Ca­nons Justice, and that as to the Concor­dats and Agreements which they have made with Bishops concerning Juris­diction, they had right and power to make them. And therefore it was not in the Bishops power to annul the [Page 182]same, but only to ordain a review, that it might be examined whether any thing had been done in them con­trary to the Canons, and whether they have not been Simoniacal.

If the Rule of the Canon Law were exactly observed,The Rights of Chapters during the Vacancy of the See. it would be easie to regulate the Rights of Chapters during the Vacancy of the See; because the Jurisdiction being common to the Bishop and Chapter, it must needs be that the Chapter succeed to the whole Jurisdiction after the death of the Bishop, and that by consequent it pre­sent to all Benefices until the See be filled. But the contrary is practised: for the Benefices which the Bishop confers with his Chapter, are distin­guished from the Benefices to which he presents alone. In regard of the first, as the Chapter bestows them joyntly with the Bishop, so does it retain the Right of conferring them alone, during the Vacancy of the See: But it dispo­ses not of others, as it is expresly men­tioned in the 31th Book of the Decre­talsTit. 9. cap. 2. Cum nusquam inveniatur cau­tum in Jure, quod capitulum, vacante se­de, fungatur vice Episcopi in collationi­bus [Page 183]praebendarum: That is to be under­stood of Collations that belong to the Bishop alone, and it is even extended to those where he would be obliged to take the Advice and Consent of his Chapter. The reason of that practice is, because the Right of conferring pas­ses then to the next Superiour; and it cannot be said, that the Chapter is su­periour, nor even equal to its Bishop, in the Benefices to which the Bishop pre­sents alone. However, I think, if mat­ters had been examined to the bottom, the Chapters might confer all Benefices, sede vacante, because then they would re-enter into their Ancient Right after the death of their Bishop. It hath not been minded, that that Decretal was made for the profit of the Pope, who happens often enough during the Va­cancy of the See, to be immediate Su­periour; and so in some sense he be­comes Ordinary. There is in the Bul­lary a Constitution of Pius V. whereby he reserves to himself all the Benefices depending on Bishops sede vacante; but most of the Constitutions in the Bullary are not received in France. It is certain that Chapters are in place of the Bishops [Page 184]during the Vacancy of the See, for all Collations which are called necessary: and therefore they collate upon the Pre­sentation of Patrons, and the Nomina­tion of Graduats. Vacant Cures, though they be in the Collation of the Bishop alone, ought to be reckoned in the num­ber of necessary Collations: But many are not of that Opinion as to this last Right, for the reasons which I men­tioned before. It belongs to the Chap­ter also to confirm not only those who are presented by Patrons, but those also who are chosen. The reason which many able Canonists give for autho­rizing that Right of Chapters, is be­cause there is difference to be made betwixt free, and necessary Collations;Conferre est li [...]erae vo­luntatis; at instituere prae­sentatum, aut confirmare Electum, est necessitatis. the first are favours that absolutely depend on the Bishop; but in the others he has not the same power, seeing he cannot reject those who have been cho­sen, or presented, if they be found ca­pable. It would be then necessary, ac­cording to that Maxim, to reserve all the Collations which are called free, to the Bishop who is to succeed; but that is not observed in France, where the King hath his Right of the Regale, and [Page 185]presents to all Benefices that have no Cure of Souls, until the See be legally filled; and for other Benefices they are provided to in the manner as I have just now mentioned.

We are now to explain the Rights of Pa­trons,The Rights of Patrons. which have also derogated much from the Ancient Right of Bishops, on whom all the Churches of their Dio­ceses depended absolutely, and without any restriction. They are called Pa­trons of a Church, who have founded, or endowed it; so that there may be several Patrons of one and the same Church, because of different Benefits, for which the Church is obliged to dif­ferent persons, whether for having built it, or for having bestowed the Ground whereon it is founded, or for having allotted Lands or Possessions, for Maintenance of the Ministers that serve the Cure of the same. All these things acquire to the Benefactors a Right which is called the Right of Patronage; and though it doth not clearly appear by the Deed of the Foundation, that they have reserved to themselves that Right, yet still they have it, provided they have not renounced the same. [Page 186]The Patrons enjoy several Honours and Priviledges by virtue of their Patro­nage; the chief is the Right of pre­senting to the Bishop, or other Ordina­ry Collator Clerks to be provided to the Benefices whereof they are the Pa­trons: And if they whom they present be capable, the Collator cannot refuse them; he is obliged to give to the Presentees Collation or Institution upon the Letters of Presentation: And if it happen that slighting the Patrons, they give the Benefices to others, the Provi­sions are null. Now, that Presentation which is the chief advantage of Patro­nage, hath been granted long before the Establishment of the New Law, and of Benefices, to those who founded Churches, and maintained Ministers: For Bishops Ordained for the same Churches, those who were recommend­ed to them by the Founders, when they were capable of the Ministry to which they were called.Novell. Ju­stinian. That is expresly mentioned by Justinian in the No­vel 126. chap. 18. where it is said; Si quis Oratorii domum fabricaverit, & voluerit in ea Clericos ordinare aut ipse, aut ejus haeredes, si expensas ipsis Cle­ricis [Page 187]ministrant, & dignos denominant, denominatos Ordinari. Si verò qui ab eis eliguntur, tanquam indignos prohibent sacrae regulae ordinari; tunc sanctissimus Episcopus quoscunque putaverit meliores ordinari procuret. The Ancient Canons make mention also of that Right of Nomination granted to Patrons or Foun­ders of Churches.

Gratian, who16. q. 7. c. 10. alledges the Canon of the first Council of Orleans, to prove that all the Churches of every Diocese are in the power of the Bishop16. q. 7. c. 32. makes in the same place several Re­strictions in favours of those who have founded Churches: And amongst o­thers he asserts their Right of Nomina­tion upon the Authority of a Council of Toledo. And therefore Bishops or other Ordinary Collators can never derogate from the Right of Patronage, though they look upon it as a kind of servitude annexed to Benefices, which, for all that, depend wholly on them, because of the Right of Collation or Institution which belongs to them. Yet that hin­ders not Patrons from considering it as an honourable Right: And though it be the Institution or Collation that pro­perly [Page 188]invests the Beneficiaries in their Benefices, quia praesentatio non est pars substantifica Institutionis, sed est tantum quaedam servitus beneficii; yet it is al­ways true that the Institution or Colla­tion of Bishops, is not altogether in their own power in respect of Bene­fices that are in Patronage, because they are limited to give the Institution to those who are presented to them by the Patrons.

There are two sorts of Patrons, Laick, and Ecclesiastical; and though the right of Nomination to Benefices whereof they are the Patrons, be common to both, yet they differ in many things, and Lay Patrons have even some ad­vantage over the Ecclesiastical.

  • I.
    The Privi­ledges of Lay-Patrons.
    The Pope nor his Legate can never derogate from the right of Lay Patrons and they who favour the Court of Rome say only that the Pope might abso­lutely, if he would, do it, seeing he is Master of all Benefices, but that he ne­ver will. And therefore neither the Pope nor his Legate, can ever prevent Lay-Patrons, who have four Months entire for presenting to Benefices. 'Tis true Ecclesiastical Patrons have fix [Page 189]Months, for providing to the Bene­fices of their Patronage; but that is useless to them in France, where the Prevention of the Pope takes place. In Normandy Lay Patrons have full six Months to present in, as well as Eccle­siasticks: But that Priviledge is found­ed on Custom, and not on Law, that only allows four Months to Lay-Pa­trons, which being expired they lose their right of Presentation for that time, the same being devolved on the Ordina­ry, who bestows the Benefice on whom he pleases.
  • II. The King cannot derogate from the right of Lay-Patrons by his right of the Regale, because the Regale gives him no more right, than the Papacy gives the Pope. Now it is certain, the Pope, as we have observed, can do nothing in prejudice of Lay-Patrons: On the con­trary, the King can derogate from the right of Ecclesiastical Patrons during the Regale, and confer the livings that depend on them, without any necessity of having their consent: And as the Regale gives the King right to receive Resignations in favorem, in the same manner as the Pope enjoys it, so [Page 190]upon such Resignations, he can con­fer Benefices Vacant within the Regale.
  • III. The Lay Patron has liberty to alter. If he hath presented an unwor­thy person, he can name another; which is not granted to an Ecclesiastick, who cannot accumulate Presentation upon Presentation, as a Lay Patron can. The reason of that difference is chiefly, because the ignorance of a Lay Patron is to be excused, but not of an Ecclesiastick, who, in such a case, forfeits his right, for that time, after the first Pre­sentation.
  • IV. The Ordinary cannot admit of Presentations without the consent of the Lay Patron: Whereas he may do it with­out the Ecclesiastical Patron, from whose Right he can derogate in case of Permu­tation, but not in pure & simple Demis­sions; for the Benefice being then vacant, the Ordinary cannot confer it, but up­on the Presentation of the Patrons, whe­ther they be Ecclesiasticks, or Laicks.
  • V. A Benefice in Lay-Patronage cannot be burdened with a Pension or Annuity and Mr. Charles Du Moulin is of the Opinion, that the Popes Rescript [Page 191]cannot be put in execution, unless the Patron consent to it, or that clause be added, Si tamen Patroni consensus acce­dat. But seeing the Pope can Derogate from the right of Presentation of Eccle­siastical Patronss by conferring in full right Benefices that are in their nomi­nation; he can upon stronger reason, Authorise by his Rescripts, Pensions setled upon the Benefices of their Pa­tronage, without any necessity of having their consent.

After all, it will not be amiss to ob­serve,Whence cometh the distinction of Patronages. that the distinction of Patrons Laick and Ecclesiastical, is not taken from the difference of persons; for a Church Man may be a Laick in respect of his Lands and Inheritance, to which the Patronage is annexed: But a Lay-Man cannot be an Ecclesiastical Patron, because Ecclesiastical Patronage is a right that belongs to a Person or Com­munity, by reason of Benefices which they enjoy. In a word, Benefices are in Ecclesiastical Patronage, when they depend on a Church. I do not here examine, whether the Pope can dis­pense with a Laick for enjoying a Be­nefice, and still remaining Laick; in [Page 192]which case it would be true, that a Lay-Person might be an Ecclesiastical Pa­tron. It is sufficient that we have exa­mined matters according to the ordi­nary course of Law; and without any farther inquiry into the thing, it will be easy to distinguish these two Patrona­ges, according to the Principles that we have laid down. We must, never­theless, observe, That it many times happens Lay-Patronages, in process of time, to become Ecclesiastical; and that either by the terms of the Donation or by the Translation and Donation that Lay-Men make of their Lands and Lordships to Churches or Monaste­ries. In the Title of the Foundation of a Church, it is sometimes expressed that the Founders reserve to themselves the Right of Patronage, only for a certain time, and for a limited degree of Kin­dred; and then that failing, the Ordi­nary in full right confers the Benefices that were before in Lay-Patronage. Wherefore it is necessary that Bishops examine the Titles of foundations, which are sometimes qualified with re­strictions in their favours. Besides, we find that Cathedral Churches and [Page 193]Monasteries enjoying a great many Lordships with Patronages annexed to them, these Patronages have changed their nature, being become Ecclesiasti­cal by the Lords making of them over to Churches. We must nevertheless, except great Benefices, such as Bishop­ricks and Abbeys, which the Kings of France can never transfer to the Pur­chasers of Crown Lands. The King can only transfer the Patronage of smaller Benefices with the Inheritance; and then the Patronage from Royal becomes Ecclesiastical, if it be given or transferred to a Church.

There arise great difficulties in France about Lay-Patrons who make profession of the Reformed Religion.Of Huguenot Patronage.And seeing Protestants are not treated according to the Rigour of the Ecclesi­stical Laws, which deprive Here­ticks of their Estates, it would seem that since they are left in possession of their Lands and Lordships, they should also enjoy all the fruits and honorary Rights that are annexed to the same Lord ships especially according to the Maxims of the New Law, whichCollationes sunt in fru­ctious. places the Pre­sentation to Benefices in the number of [Page 194]Fruits. No man doubts but that Patro­nage is a real Right annexed to Lands, and that by consequent it follows them as being a fruit of the same. It would seem, then, that no regard ought to be had to the Quality of the person; in as much as the Right of Patronage is not personal, but real; and besides, the Pre­sentation is but a servitude of the Be­nefice, and not a Spiritual Title. Nor doth the Presentation properly give the Benefice. But institution must be had from the Ordinary upon the letters of Presentation; and in that the Spiritua­lity does really consist. The Ordinary may refuse those who are presented by the Patrons, if they be not capable; and so it remains always in the liberty of Ordinaries not to supply Benefices that are in Huguenot Patronage but with fit and able men. The Patrons, then, if they would, cannot abuse their Right, and it is impossible, that the Church can thereby receive any prejudice, if the Ordinaries discharge their duty.

These and many more reasons that might be brought upon that Subject, were the cause that Lay-Patrons pro­fessing [Page 195]the Reformed Religion obtained heretofore an Order of Council, whereby they were allowed to nominate fit per­sons, who in their place might present to the Benefices of their Patronage; but that is not now observed; for the Or­dinaries, in full Right confer such Benefices, so long as the Patrons make profession of the Reformed Religion. And therefore it is fit we should ob­serve, that the Right of Patronage, which is real and united to the Land, is not lost, but only dormant and in suspense; so that if the Patrons happen to be reconciled to the Church, they enjoy their Right of Patronage, in the same manner as if they had never professed the Reformed Religion. That Custom is backt with good reasons; and though the Right of Patronage be not properly Spiritual, it is, at least, mixt, and it is a common saying, that it is quid Spirituale annexum Temporali. And that it cannot be Sold separately, but only with the Land or Inheritance to which it is annexed. It is true, Patro­nage is a real Right; yet that hinders not but that it is exercised by a per­son. Now it is ridiculous, that a man [Page 196]who believeth not in the Church, should present to it a person for a Spi­ritual Right, and that that Right should be granted upon his Presentation. Grant that the Bishop is free to accept or reject him who is presented, and that he is the Judge of his capacity. That is not enough: For if the Canons prohibit the giving of a Benefice upon the recommendation of an Heretick, upon stronger reason, it ought not to be given upon his Presentation. The Bishop can only Judge of defects that are known to him, and it may be the Protestant Pa­tron may present a very capable man, but who may have secret engagements with himself. It is not strange to see Church­men who have followed their studies at the charge of Protestant Patrons, in hopes of procuring them Benefices of their Patronage, to the end they may comply with them, and do prejudice to the Rights of the Church. But these Artifices are so hidden, that few can come to the knowledge of them. And there­fore Patrons who profess the Reformed Religion, have with reason been excluded from the Right of presenting to Benefices which depend on their [Page 197]Patronage. It may be doubted, whe­ther Bishops in defect of these Patrons, who are incapable of presenting to Benefices of their nomination, ought in full Right to confer the same Benefices. It would seem, that that did belong to them by Canon Law, because the Patro­nage which is a kind of servitude tolera­ted by the Church, ceasing, the Bishops enter again into their ancient Right. But on the other hand, seeing Lay-Patrons enjoy not the right of Patronage, but because of their Lands and Inheritances, there is a great deal of appearance, that it belongs to the King who is their So­veraign Lord, to supply the defects of his Vassals, when they themselves can­not exercise a Right that is annexed to their Fiefs; In the same manner as the King in Normandy has the Right of Wards, and that by virtue of that Right he is Patron in the place of the Minors, who have Lands with right of Patro­nage, until they be of age. However, It is certain that the Bishops are at pre­sent in possession of that right, and that they are grounded upon a declaration of the King, which they pretend to be in their favours. There happened lately [Page 198]a Process betwixt the King and the Arch-Bishop of Rouen concerning the Cure of Oinville, which is in Huguenot Patronage, and to which both the King and Arch-Bishop had presented; which shews plainly enough, that the King had a mind to recover his right, having referred that matter from his Council to be examined in the great Council. After all, the Patrons professing the Reformed Religion, have found a device to pre­serve their Right of Patronage; For by a counterfeit Contract they sell their Lands with Patronages to some Catho­lick of their Friends or Relations; And so they remain Masters, unless the Fraud of their Contracts be discovered. But let us now come to Ecclesiastical Pa­tronages.

Ecclesiastical Patronages derive their Original from the I. Council of O­range, The Original of Ecclesiasti­cal Patrona­ges. where Bishops that found Churches out of their Dioceses, are permitted to present capable Persons to them, who are afterward to be or­dained by the Diocesan Bishops. That Right hath past insensibly to all other Founders: And at length, regular Com­munities have also presented to Benefices [Page 199]depending on their Monasteries. In their favours the Rule hath been made, which bears that Secular Benefices shall be gi­ven to Seculars, and Regular to Regu­lars. By Law all Benefices ought to belong to Seculars, because none but Secu­lars are by right capable of Ecclesiastick Employments, and that the Religious have only got into them by Priviledge and Dispensation. But since they have been permitted to possess Lands; Nay Fiefs and Lordships, they have had many Churches in their disposal, which they have governed themselves, or committed to Secular Priests. They commonly gave Parish-Churches to be governed by Secular Priests, allowing them but a very moderate Stipend; and had even the power to change them as they pleased. But at length they were forced to place Curates, or perpetual Vicars in their Churches, for prevent­ing a vast number of Abuses; and part­ly from thence we have the Cures to which they present in Quality of Pa­trons.The Original of Priories.As to Priories and other Bene­fices to which they nominate, they were at first but Administrations, or Manual Benefices, which, for that rea­son, [Page 200]were called Obediences, because the Religious were employed in those Offices by the command of their Ab­bots or Superiours, whom they were obliged to obey; and they continued no longer in the Employments, than their Superiours pleased. They had the name of Praepositi, or Obedientiarii, and their Care extended more to the Tem­poral than the Spiritual. If Lands lay remote from the Monastery, some Reli­gious were to be sent thither to take the care of them: And seeing Monks ought not to live alone, unless they were Hermites or Anchorites, they had Com­panions assigned them, of which one took the Title of Praepositus, and the places where they lived were called Cellae, Grangiae, Obedientiae, to distinguish them from the Principal Monastery of which these Houses were but Depen­dances. This is the Original of Priories, and other lesser Benefices of Monaste­ries, which in the beginning were Ma­nual and in Rule. Nay, it seems even contrary to the Institution of the Mo­nastick life, that Monks should proper­ly possess Benefices in Title, in the man­ner that they are Established by the [Page 201]New Law; for they are the absolute Masters of their Revenue, which is in some sense contrary to the Vow of Poverty that they have made. In pro­cess of time, many of these Priories have been conferred on Seculars, whe­ther because of the scandalous Lives of the Religious that possessed them, or for other reasons; and by that means the Benefices are gone out of the Rule. Forty years possession is enough to change the nature of Benefices. In the mean time the Monks who perceive that these Benefices are by their Foun­dation regular, use all possible Endea­vours to recover them again, and spare no means to get them out of the hands of the Seculars who possess them, be­ing persuaded that they cannot commit Injustice nor Simony in regaining the Lands which they pretend belong to their Church. When Benefices are once in possession of Monks, it is hard for them to return again to Seculars, be­cause, as we have observed before, after forty years possession they become re­gular. On the contrary, it happens often, that Benefices possessed by Secu­lars, fall under Rule, because Regular [Page 202]Communities compound with Seculars, by Pensions, Annuities, or other ways. We have then general Rules for distin­guishing Benefices in Rule, from those that are not, to wit, forty years pos­session; and failing that Rule, all Bene­fices of their own nature, and by Canon Law, are Secular. Nothing but the Foundation can prove a Benefice to be in Rule; and then the Title of the Foundation derogates from the Ancient Canon Law.

Though it be certain,The Right of Commenda­tary Abbots in the nomi­nation to Be­nefices. that Religious, and Regular Communities present to many Benefices in Quality of Patrons, yet there is great difficulty, to know to whom that Right of Patronage belongs since the Establishment of perpetual Com­mendums: And there happen many suits upon that account betwixt the Com­mendatary Abbots and the Monks. Yet it is an easy matter to resolve all these difficulties, if we lay down some princi­ples that cannot be questioned. We must not consider then the Modern Commendums as bare Consignations, but as real Titles, as all the Bulls of Commendum bear. If the Commendums were no more but bare Consignations, [Page 203]the Commendataries could not have, as is commonly said, Jus in re, but barely the keeping, or Custodiam Com­mendae; and by consequent they could not dispose of Benefices, because such kinds of Commendums or Consignations are only for a certain time. It is not so with the Commendums now in question, because they are ad vitam, and retain nothing but the name of Commendum, being in effect, real Titles, which give to Comendatary Abbots all the Rights which Regular Abbots enjoyed, to whom they have succeeded. That Principle, which is unquestionable, being supposed, it is plain enough to whom the Right of Patronage belongs, whe­ther to the Abbot alone, or to the Monks Jointly with him. There needs no more for that, but to consult the Right of the Regular Abbots of every Order. If the Constitutions and Custom of the Order attribute to the Abbot alone the honorary Rights, there is no doubt but the Abbot Commendatary ought to enjoy the same Rights. If, on the con­trary, the Regular Abbot cannot enjoy these Rights but with consent of the Community, and that he be not the ab­solute [Page 204]Master of them; they must be divided betwixt him and his Commu­nity, in the same manner as temporal goods are: For then the Rule gives to the Monks the same power in respect of their Abbot; as the Canon Law gives to Canons in regard of their Bishop. We must, nevertheless, take notice, that it is not enough to establish the Right of Monks, that the Abbots have taken the counsel, or even the consent of the Community, when there has been oc­casion of nominating to Benefices, for many may have done that, without any obligation upon them from their Constitutions: But it must besides, be made out, that their Nominations would have been null without the consent of the Community. The rea­son of that Maxim is, because the Canon Law and Popes Bulls give all the honorary Rights to Abbots; and so there is no derogating from them but for great reasons. It is certain, the first Monks were entirely subject to their Ab­bots in all that concerned their Functions and Employments. St. Benet hath also reserved to the Abbot that Superiority over the Religious: And when that [Page 205]Order began to receive Lands, and that it was necessary to give the charge of them to some Monks in particular, the Abbot alone gave them their Commis­sions which were at first but Admini­strations, though since they are become Benefices. I make no doubt but the Popes Bulls, which are very favourable to Commendatary Abbots, are founded on that Ancient Right of Regular Ab­bots: But as to what concerns Tempo­ral goods, the same Bulls of the Pope do not allow them to be alienated, be­cause they belong to the whole Commu­nity, and not to the Abbot alone. And therefore when the question is of selling or alienating any Lands or Possessions belonging to the Abbey, the Abbot is not then absolute Master, but his Community must consent to it. For the same reason Commendatary Abbots are obliged to divide the goods and Revenues of the Abbeys with the Monks or to give them Money to the value of their share or Portion: And though they are very willing to rest satisfied with a yearly pension, yet they have still the same Rights to the Lands and Inhe­ritances. [Page 206]It concerns them to have a care that they be not imbazeled in the hands of the Abbot, in as much as their Portion diminishing by the diminution of the Revenues of the Abbey, their Pension would be lessened at the same time. The Abbots themselves cannot hinder the Monks from taking cogni­sance of the Leases which they make of the Lands of their Abbey, and from having always an eye over their actions, because they have the same right that the Abbots have of enjoying the Revenues of the Monastery.Agreements betwixt Ab­bots and Monks.

That common Right of the Abbots and Monks in regard of the Temporal Profits of Abbeys has given occasion to Agreements and Transactions that are made betwixt them for the partition of the same. In France the Revenue of the Abbey is divided into three parts, of which there is one for the Monks, one for the Charges, and a third for the Abbot. But the Abbots enjoy com­monly two parts, because they oblige themselves to defray the charges; and if they neglect to do it, a third part of the Revenue may be sequestrated, un­til it be done. Upon that foot, it is [Page 207]easy to decide the difficulties that might arise betwixt the Abbot and Monks about the division of the Revenues: There needs no more, but to give a third part to the Monks, and two thirds to the Abbot, who is obliged to the re­parations of the Fabrick, payment of Tenths, and other Charges. As to the honorary Rights, they ought not to fall under a dividend, because by the Canon Law they all belong to the Abbot alone, who may make them over either in whole or in part to his Monks. But that gratuitous Concession does not pre­judice the Rights of his Successours, because the Abbot can only dispose during his life, of the Rights that sub­sist in his person; and the Monks cannot enjoy them after the death of him that hath granted them, because that Conces­sion is no more in force. It is not the same as to Agreements or Transactions, because all Transaction supposes the Right of two Parties who are agreed together; and so the agreement will always subsist in respect of the Religi­ous, though the Abbot be dead, until it be broken off by his Successour. In France, Abbots may break the Agree­ments [Page 208]of their Predecessours, especially if they think themselves injured. We have many instances of that practice: And there seems to be reason for so do­ing, because Abbots may make secret Compacts with the Monks; and take the advantage of such, to the prejudice of their Successours: And therefore the Abbots have right to break the Agree­ments of their Predecessours. It is a har­der matter to dissolve those Transactions when they have been confirmed at the Court of Rome, and in the Parliaments, with cognition of the cause; for then they become real, and by consequent oblige the Successours. In that case, the Abbots cannot rescind the Con­cordat or Agreement, till they have obtained a Rescript from the Pope, and letters from the Parliaments upon a Bill preferred.

Farthermore, we are to take notice that many times the partition of the ho­norary Rights is inserted in the Concor­dats with the division of the Revenues and especially the Presentations to Be­nefices, as if that could be divided be­twixt the Abbot and Monks. It is a vicious clause in the Agreements, be­cause [Page 209]it is of the nature of a Concordat, that they who Transact have some Right to the thing for which they do Transact; otherwise it is not an Agree­ment, but a Concession. This Maxim, which is undeniable, being supposed, it is easy to resolve the difficulties that daily happen betwixt Bishops and Re­ligious communities during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See.To whom it belongs to present to Benefices du­ring the Va­cancy of the Abbatial See. The Ordinaries pro­vide to Benefices that are vacant at that time, and the Monks also on their side, present; which daily occasions great suits, and it seems that there is nothing as yet fixt and determined as to that. But according to the principle which we have laid down, there is no doubt but when the Religious Community presents to Benefices jointly with the Abbot, they ought still to present during the Vacancy, because one of the Presenters is enough in defect of the other. But when the Abbot alone nominates to Benefices, and he dies, the Ordinaries enter again into their Canonical Right, and confer in full power, because the Patronage or Right of presenting ceases by the death of the Patron.

That right of Ordinaries, or of Re­ligious [Page 210]Communities, is not to be called Devolution: For Devolution hath no place, but when there is a neglect on the part of Patrons or Collators; and then their Right is devolved upon the immediat Superiour. In the question we now examine, there is no neglect; and they who say that on those occasions the Right is devolved upon the Ordi­nary, or upon the Chapter of the Monks, speak very improperly. It is far better said, that the Ordinary, or Chapter of the Monks provide then to Benefices by the Canon Law, and their own Right. In vain do the Monks object to Ordinaries, their Concordats, or the Rights of their Chapter, because, as we have already observed, the Chap­ter hath no power sede vacante, but as to Benefices where they present jointly with the Abbot: And as to the Agree­ment or Concordat, there can be none but for what belongs in common to the Abbot and Monks. Now the Presentation to Benefices and other ho­norary Rights being only in the person of the Abbot, they cannot fall under a dividend, and by consequent no Tran­faction can be made about them. To [Page 211]this we may add, that Ordinaries have an acquired Right to all the Benefices of their Diocese, when there is no Pa­tron; for then they confer in full Right; and so Abbots cannot give a Right which is not their own.

What we have said of Commenda­tary Abbots,Of Priors a­mong Monks. ought also to be understood of Priors, who have Monks in their Priories; for the Division of the Rents ought to be made in the same manner. It is worth the observing, that amongst the Religious there are two sorts of Priors, to wit Conventual Priors, and Claustral. The Claustral Priors govern the Abbey in absence of the Abbot, and during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See, as it happens to be so long as the Commendum lasts. Conventual Priors are the Heads of Houses dependant on Abbeys, in regard, that, as we have said before, Monks were sent to take the charge of the Revenues of these Houses; and there was one amongst them whom all the rest obeyed, from whence at length, came the name of Prior. And it is from that that the simple Priories, as they are called now adays, because they are secularised, and Chappels, derive [Page 212]their Original. Now seeing some of these Priories became considerable, they were elective in the same manner as Abbeys were. And therefore they are in the Kings Gift, as well as the Abbeys; and the Pope in providing to them ob­serves this difference only, that he be­stows Bishopricks and Abbeys in full Consistory, and Priories in Chamber. I have said that Claustral Priors govern the Abbey during the time that it is in Commendum; which is to be understood of the Government in respect of Mona­stick discipline: For though Commen­datary Abbots are substituted in the Rights of Regular Abbots, yet it hath not been thought fit to subject the Monks to them, in what concerns the Rule of their Institution. However, they take the power of putting in and turn­ing out the Claustral Priors, according to the terms of their Bulls, which give them full authority over the Monks. But that power hath been qualified e­specially in respect of the Religious who live in Congregation, such as are in France the Benedictin Monks of the Congregation of St. Maur, who elect their Claustral Priors. At first, every [Page 213]Abbot was Supream in his own Mo­nastery, and Independant of any o­ther. The Priors and other Clau­stral Officers depended solely on him: But the Reformations of Cluni and Cisteaux introduced some alteration into the ancient Government.Cluni and Ci­steaux have changed the Ancient Go­vernment of Monasteries.The Mo­nasteries that followed that Reforma­tion presently submitted to the Abbots of Cluni and Cisteaux, who were like the Generals of all the other Abbots and Priors, and by that means they became dependant on them.

Besides, the Heads of Monasteries, that they might be independant of the Bishops, were exempted from their Ju­risdiction, which made a kind of New Hierarchy in the Church: For whereas before the Monks depended on their Abbot, for the Rule, and for all the rest, on the Bishops in whose Dioceses they lived, they made now a particular and distinct Body in the Church, which acknowledged no Bishop but the Pope for Superiour; and for Government of that Body they established a Form of little Councils, which they called Ge­neral Chapters: The Pope having granted to the Heads of these Orders [Page 214]great Priviledges, which have in many things derogated from the Jurisdiction of Ordinaries. This Reformation hath been found so useful to keep Monks in their Duty, that it hath not only been received amongst other Religious, who pretended an Exemption from holding such Chapters, but is also augmented, especially since the Council of Trent, which will have Monks live in Congre­gation. In this manner the Reforma­tion which is called the Congregation of St. Maur, hath been established in France, under the Popes Gregory XV. and Ʋrban VIII. who in their Bulls of Erection gave power to that new Con­gregation, to aggregate thereunto the Monasteries that would accept the Re­formation. And this hath wonderfully redounded to their profit; for they pos­sess at present all the good Abbeys of the Kingdom. They depend not at all on the Bishops, but immediately on the Pope, and they are governed by a General who is chosen every three years according to the Rules of the Canon Law. Besides, they have Provincials, Assistants and Definitors, as the other Modern Religious have.

I mention this, that we may not measure the Rights of Commendatary Abbots according to the practice at present observed amongst the Monks, but according to the Custom that pre­vailed before these Reformations. The Popes, who make Commendatary Ab­bots, have in France taken some Rights from them, and given them to the Re­ligious of the Congregation of St. Maur; for they give them not only liberty to chuse Claustral Priors independently of the Abbot,A Deroga­tion from the Rights of Commonda­tary Abbots. but have also united to the Conventual Mensae the Claustral Offices, which the Abbots had Right to dispose of before the Reformation, as well as of all the Benefices of their Abbey. The power then of Commendatary Abbots over the Monks must be limited ac­cording to the Bulls of Popes that have been received in France; and we must know wherein they have derogated from the Bull of Commendum, which gives Commendataries all power both in Spirituals and Temporals. By Spi­rituals Commendatary Abbots would have meant the Presentation or Colla­tion of Benefices, and the Jurisdiction in regard of the Monks. They pretend­ed [Page 216]that the appointing of Claustral Priors depended on them, that the Right of visiting and correcting belong­ed to them; and in a word, that being substituted into the Rights of Regular Abbots, they ought to have the same Authority and Jurisdiction.Prosper Fag­nani. But Fagnani relates a Bull of Innocent X. in favours of the Monks of Cisteaux against a Com­mendatary Abbot, who took to him­self all the Rights that we have just now mentioned. By that Bull it is or­dained, that Commendatary Abbots shall exercise no Jurisdiction over the Monks; that the Abbot of Cisteaux, and other Regular Abbots of that Order, shall visit every one his own District, or Commissionate Visitors; and that the Spiritual Jurisdiction over Monks shall not be administred by Commen­datary Abbots. It meddles not with the Nomination or Collation of Bene­fices, because without doubt that be­longs to the Commendatary Abbot, as it did before to the Regular, who in the beginning had a Soveraign Autho­rity over the Monks; and they, on the contrary, had none over him, as appears by a Letter of Pope Pelagius related by [Page 217] Gratian, against the Monks, who under pretext that they had elected their Abbots, would needs turn them out, and chuse others in their place who might comply with their manner of living.Gratian. 18. q. 2. C. nullam. Nullam potestatem de caetero, says Pope Pelagius, nullam licentiam Monachis relinquimns pro arbitrio suo aut Abbates expellere, aut sibimet alios ordinare, quia nulla autoritas remanebit Abbati, si Monachorum potestati coeperit subjacere, ut de caetero fideliter & stu­diosè universa quae vel ad divini cultus reverentiam, vel ad utilitatem ejusdem Monasterii pertinerent, Abbatis sollici­tudo, ad quem potestas tota pertinere con­venit, debeat adimplere. These words are chiefly to be observed. Abbatis sollicitudo, ad quem potestas tota perti­nere convenit. And the Commendatary Abbots, who by Dispensations from Popes have succeeded to the Rights of Regular Abbots, have by common Law the same absolute power, and ought by consequent dispose of all the Bene­fices of the Abbey, without any oppo­sition from the Monks, unless there be a contrary Custom that derogates from the Canon Law, which gives the whole [Page 218]power to the Abbot, and not to the Monks.

I shall say nothing in this place of the other Religious,Of Regulars. who are commonly called Regulars, because much of what we have observed may be easily applied to them It is true in the Canon Law Monks and Regulars are pretty often distinguished, but they are also many times comprehended under the same Rules; and that which makes them dif­ferent is not considerable as to the mat­ter we treat of. The Canons themselves who are called Regular, and who take the Title of Regular Clerks, lead at pre­sent a life that resembles more that of Monks, than that of Clerks: For they live separately in their Monasteries, and are subject to their Abbots or Priors. They are no more in the Cathedral Churches under the direction of their Bishops, and so far from being employed by them in Ecclesiastical Functions, they depend entirely on their Regular Supe­riours, who dispose of their Persons and Employments. And therefore it ought not to be thought strange, that we reckon all Regulars in the number of Monks, because they differ not from [Page 219]them, as the learnedest Canonists have observedHostien. Panorm. unless in certain Cases expressed in the Law, exceptis casibus in Jure expressis. This makes me think, that the Abbots or Priors of Canon Regulars ought by common Right, as well as Abbots amongst Monks, to have all the government both in Spiri­tuals and Temporals, and that therefore it belongs to them to dispose of all the Benefices and Offices of their Commu­nities: But they have followed the Re­formation, that subjects them to Consti­tutions, wholly opposite to the anci­ent common Right of Abbots. We see that the Abbot of St. Genevieve in Paris is elective, and that every three years they make a new Election. In a word, they live in Congregation, and have ge­neral Chapters, for ordering the more important affairs of their Order: Which differs much from the Ancient Rights of Abbots. Nor is it to be ima­gined, that if the Abbey of St. Gene­vieve returned into Commendum, the Commendatary Abbots ought to be obliged to share their Jurisdiction with the Religious: But they ought to reas­sume the Ancient Right of Abbots, and [Page 220]only consider wherein the Popes have derogated from it in favours of the Reli­gious who live in Congregation. But as it hath been already observed, there is nothing take from Commendatary Abbots, but the Jurisdiction that con­cerned Monastick Discipline. Though I have often spoken of Commendatary Abbots, and of the Rights that belong to them, yet I thought it not proper to examine particularly, whether their Title be Canonical, because that would have carried me from my subject; it be­ing sufficient that the New Law hath esta­blished it.

It is true in the beginning,A comparison betwixt Com­mendatary Abbots and Regular. there was great crying out against Commendums; And there are still a great many that cannot approve of them: But if a History were made of Regular Abbots as there has been of Commendataries, we would find that there have been greater abuses in the Church under Re­gular Abbots, than there are at present un­der Commendatary. Commendatary Ab­bots have but the third part of the Re­venues of their Abbeys in their disposal: The second part is appointed for the maintenance of the Monks, and the [Page 221]third for the charges of the Monasteries. The Regular Abbots, on the contrary, had the disposal of all the Revenues of their Abbeys, they starved their Monks, and squandered away the Rents of the Monasteries, by leading lives altogether inconsistent with their profession. The difference then betwixt Abbots Com­mendatary and Regular is, that the former enjoy but a third of the Abbey, and the whole was for the use of the o­thers. It is true Regular Abbots had not Bulls assigning them the Revenues of their Abbeys in utilitatem personae; but notwithstanding they disposed of them as if they had been properly their own: Whereas the Bulls of Commen­datary Abbots appoint the best part of the Revenue of Abbeys for the use of the Poor, the Monks and Churches. I am perswaded that the Monks desire not that Regular Abbots should be re­stored with the same power they had before. If it were so, the Thirds which now they enjoy peaceably without any charges, would no longer be at their disposal, but in the power of the Abbot, who would govern them ac­cording to his humour. I assert nothing [Page 222]but what hath been said before me by the most zealous Benedictine Monks, who have often complained of the Ri­gour wherewith their Abbots treated them, and of the profuse dissipation of the Revenues of their Abbeys. That I may not be tedious,A Descrip­tion of the Life of Regu­lar Abbots. I shall only here report some words of the Abbot Trithe­mius upon that subject, and refer the Reader to the works that he hath made for the Reformation of his Order, and especially of the Regular Abbots of his time.

It is well known that John Trithemi­ous was a Religious Benedictine, and one of the most famous Regular Abbots of his Order. He was at many General Chapters, and presided in some, in which some Harangues that he made are still extant, wherein he describes at length the disorders of his Brethren, who lived in a more secular way than Abbots Commendatary do at present.Trith. Orat. 2. Ann. 1492.He upbraids them with want both of knowledge and piety, that they were wholly addicted to the World, and minded nothing but Riches & Pleasure. He lays before them the holiness and o­ther virtues of their Forefathers,Orat. 2. Ann. 1493. and [Page 223]at the same time shews how much their Order was corrupted, after this manner bespeaking them in an assembly: O vos Abbates idiotae, & scientiae salutaris inimici, qui diem obscaenis amoribus consu­mitis, qui vinum in saturitate bibitis, qui terrenis lucris intenditis, qui ad tabulam stolidi luditis; quid respondebitis Deo & legislatori vestro benedicto? That corruption was so univesal, that he affirms that of Ten Thousand Monaste­ries, there were not a thousand that any way observed the Rule of their Institu­tion; but that the Abbots were wholly plunged in debauchery, voluptatibus carnis submersi, and he applies these verses to them.

Neglecto Superum cultu, spreto (que) tonantis
Imperio, Baccho, indulgent, Veneri (que) ministrant,
Sacra ferunt Auro, numinis Altaria Vendunt,
Auro vina libant, Auro laquearia fulgent.
Scorta tegunt gemmis, canibus convivia ponunt,
Exuviis inopum culti dites (que) rapinis,
Successu elati Superos Acheronta (que) rident.

This is the description that the Abbot Trithemius makes of the Re­gular [Page 224]Abbots of his time in a Harangue that he spoke in their presence; and in the same place he addsQui nomi­ne reformati, re autem ipsâ deformati sunt. that they who called themselves reformed were no better than the rest. The same Abbot in another Harangue describes at lengthOrat. 4. Ann. 1496. the rigourousness of Abbots to­wards their Monks, whom they obliged to fast, whil'st they themselves feasted with those whom they invited to their Tables, and exempted themselves from the usual Fasts under pretext of Hospita­lity. He upbrards them that they were not true Abbots, seeing they were not in place of Fathers to their Monks, to whom they denied what was necessary: Necessaria fratribus tuis alimenta subtra­his, vilia & insipida largiris; tu optimo vino stomachum tuum satias, fratribus quod deterius est subministras. This be­ing well considered, I don't think that the Monks who at present live under Commendatary Abbots, desire to be again governed by Regular, who have used them more like Slaves than Chil­dren. And it is not to be imagined that that abuse reigned only in the time of Ab­bot Trithemius: But that learned Abbot was moved with the disorders whereof [Page 225]he was a witness, and not being able to suffer them, he wrote a letter which bears this Title, Liber penthicus de ruina Monastici Ordinis. Wherein he deplores the lamentable state to which the Or­der of St. Benet was reducedTrith. de ruina Monist. Ord. cap. 2. ut brevtter di­cam quid sen tio, nec M [...]a­chis Ecclesiae, nec Ecclesis Monachi aigni sunt. he says freely, that the Church had no need of Monks: And seeing many Monks forsook their Profession to become Ca­nons, he calls them Apostates, notwith­standing the Dispensations they had re­ceived from the Pope. Most part of these evils in Monasteries proceeded from the Elections, becauseQuales Monachi, talis Abbas, Mona­nachorum. wicked Monks could not but chuse a wicked Abbot.

In fine so excessive was the vanity of Monks and Abbots at that time, that as the same Author informs us, Monks would not be called Monks. They ab­horred so Sacred a name: Sanctum no­men quasi stultitiam abominantur. Nor would the Abbots be termed Abbots, they thought they were affronted, when that Title was given them. Abbatis nostri nomen suum tanquam indignum ju­dicantes, gratiosi domini vocantur; & si contigerit eos similiter appellari domi­nos Abbates, indignantur, & vocantem se [Page 226]aspernantur & avertuntur tanquam mag­nam passi injuriam. Besides, the Regu­lar Abbots of that time fell into a passion when they were called, My Lord Abbot; And at present Church men of quality look upon that as a very honourable Title. But what is stranger, they had more men in their Retinue, than the wealthiest Bishops had; and it many times happened that a poor wretch who had been chosen Abbot, had the Train of an Arch Bishop: Ʋideres, continues Abbot Trithemius, famulos eorum flectere genua, deponere capucia sua & se incli­nare; non Abbates, sed Archiepiscopos putares. O vanitas insana! Filius pau­peris sutoris Abbas factus, dominus gra­tiosus nominatur. And that nothing might be wanting to the diversion of Regular Abbots, they went to baths with great equipage, and in good company, as the same Abbot upbraids them in one of his Harangues;Trith. Orat. 4. Ad Thermas sumptuosè properas, socios & socias vocas. This was the condition of Monasteries and Regular Abbeys, when Commendataries were established: And I leave it to the Reader to make the comparison betwixt them. I pre­tend [Page 227]not, for all that, to Justify the Commendum, nor the vices of Commen­datary Abbots. But it is my design only to shew that we must not always Judge of things, by the abuse that men make of them; and that if the History of the Abbot Regular were made pub­lick, as it hath been intended, all men would be perswaded that Regular Ab­bots have been no better men than Commendataries; and that it would be, in fine, a very bad Reformation in the Church, to reduce Abbeys again under Rule, in the manner as they have been formerly. It might be said then erit novissimus error pejor priore. To make a profitable reformation to the Church, it would be necessary to go back to the most Ancient Canon Law, which subjects Monks to the Jurisdiction of Bishops, and at the same time establishes an independance amongst the Houses, as it was in the beginning. Every Monastery should obey a Superiour or Abbot, and the Superiours or Abbots should obey the Bishops, who ought to visit them as well for the Spiritual as Temporal. That would be the means to hinder [Page 228]disorder and the dissipation of Revenues, of which a great part is spent in need­less Journeys, and in holding general Chapters. But it is to no purpose to enlarge any more on this mat­ter, which requires a particular treatise.

Besides the Monks and Regulars we have spoken of,Military Or­ders. there is another sort of Religious, who according to their Institution, bear the name of St. John of Jerasalem, from whom descend those that are called Knights of Malta. That Order is much different from other Religious, and their Benefices differ also from the nature of all other Bene­fices. They are rather the Admi­nistrations of Hospitals, than Be­nesices, and in effect, that Order be­gan by an Hospital that was built at Jerusalem, for the reception of those who went to see the holy places. The founding of Hospitals for Lodg­ing of Strangers, is Ancient enough and there was either in the Bishops House or elsewhere, places appointed for that end, that the sick might be taken care of, and other charitable works performed, for which part of [Page 229]the Revenue of every Church was al­lotted: Afterward in process of time they were distinguished from the com­mon Revenue of Churches, and many private persons gave Lands and Inhe­ritances to be erected into places of piety in imitation of Monasteries. They cannot be said properly to be Benefices, because the Rents of them are not de­signed for Church men, but for all men who are in misery and want. And therefore there are as many kinds of Hospitals as there are calamities. In the beginning the Bishop had the care of these Monasteries, because he ought to provide for the necessities of the Poor, and of all those who were in misery, as well as for the subsistance of Clerks. But the Religious of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem made a particular Body in the Church, which hath to this day its particular Constitu­tions. To speak properly there is but one Hospital in all the Order, and that Hospital is at present reputed to be in Malta. All other private Hospitals or Commanderies, are but members of that Hospital, on which they depend: And therefore their Revenue by Right, [Page 230]belongs to the common Treasury of the Order.

I think Commanderies may be com­pared to the conventual Prieuries of Monks,The Original of Comman­deries. which in the beginning were only administrations of the Revenues of certain places distant from the principal Monastery. As Monks were placed in these Houses to ta [...]e care of the Rents, so also there hath been a necessity of sending Knights into those places where the Order had Lands. The name of Commander hath great resemblance with that of Praepositus, which was given to Monks who managed the Rents of these remote Houses. Besides, their admini­stration was called Obedientia, because they depended wholly on the Abbot, who gave them that Commission. It is Just so with the simple Commanders of Malta, who are rather Farmers of the Order than Beneficiaries They have, nevertheless converted their Commis­sions or Farms into a kind of Benetices, paying a certain acknowledgment to the common Treasury of the Order; and that acknowledgement is called Re­sponsion.

We must put a difference then, be­twixt [Page 231]Hospitals which are by Founda­tion Secular, and Regular Hospitals that are possessed by Religious, such as are the Commanderies we speak of, which are appropriated to the Religious of the Order, and cannot be possessed by others. Nay it is necessary also, that those of the Order be qualified for peaceable enjoying of them, and their Benefices are not all of the same nature. We must therefore observe, that there are amongst them Knights, Chaplains, and serving Brothers, and that there are Commanderies, or Revenues assign­ed to these three different qualities. There are besides the great Officers, the first of whom is he that at present is cal­led the great Master of the Order, and is the Head; who in the beginning was the Master of the Hospital: Under him are the great Officers of the Order, who are for most part Military Officers because of the employments to which they are appointed, such as the Ad­miral, Mareschal and others. I shall not speak here of the Bayliffs or Con­ventual Priors who are of the great Cross, nor of their other Officers, be­cause the Institution of their Order and [Page 232]their Laws are Printed. I shall only add that it is to be observed, that though that Order be composed of so many Na­tions, yet it is but one only Convent divided into several Tongues. Every Tongue contains several Provinces, and in every province there is a great Prior who from time to time holds Provin­cial Chapters. For obtaining a Com­mandery one must be of the Nation where the Commandery lies, have per­formed his Caravans, which consist in some years Services at Malta, and be of the quality requisite for the Com­mandery, being besides bound up by certain Statutes; But they are often dispensed with at the Recommendation of Princes, who have also made Concor­dats with the Knights of Malta, as well as with the Popes.

There is another kind of Knights who also enjoy Church Lands,A Military Order where­in one may marry. and neverthe­less seem neither to be Religious not Ecclesiasticks, because they are Married. They call themselves, however, Religi­ous, and have their Laws as other Religi­ous have. In Spain the Commanders of the Orders of St. James, of Calatrava and Alcantara are of that nature. [Page 233]There are in France also the Knights of St. Lazarus who may Marry. It is pret­ty difficult though, to tell upon what Title these Married Religious possess Ecclesiastical Revenues; unless it be said, that being by Profession Religious, they ought to be obliged to Chastity: But that the Pope who according to the Maxims of the New Law, is Master of the Canons, has dispensed with that Obligation, and that by an Aposto­lical Priviledge they may have Wives: Which is conform to the opinion of the ablest Divines, who think that the Pope may for lawful causes dispense with Monks as to their Vow of Chastity. The married Commanders of these Orders must then be reckoned amongst Regulars, and they may in conscience enjoy, under the Title of Regulars, Church Lands that are appropriated to their Order. This, at least, is the opi­nionMart. Na­var. of one the most learned and strict Canonists of our age, who calls Philip II. King of Spain, the greatest Prelate in the Church next to the Pope, because he was the chief or great Master of the three Military Orders of Spain, and enjoyed a good part of the Tithes [Page 234]of Churches within his Territories.Phil. 11. the richest Pre­late of the Church. In this quality of Prelate Regular, the King of Spain is the richest Beneficiary in his Kingdom: And seeing he is not only great Master of the Orders of St. James, Calatrava and Alcantara, but is also King of Spain, he can, as King, ap­propriate to his own use the Revenues of his Commanderies, at least as much as is necessary to make him live like a King. In the same manner as it is law­ful, according to the Maxims of the New Law, for Cardinals, Sons of Kings, Nobles and men of Letters to possess se­veral Benefices, that they may be able to live according to their quality.

From all that hitherto hath been said, it is easy to Judge how much the Ec­clesiastical Discipline hath changed in Beneficial matters, and how much the present practice differs from Ancient Customs. The Canon Law does, indeed give the entire disposal of Church Revenues to the Bishops within their several Dioceses; but the new and particular Law takes from them the greatest part of their power. Hospitals in the beginning depended on the Bishops, as all other goods and Lands [Page 235]that were dedicated to works of Charity; they appointed men to take the care of them, and the administrators gave account of them. But by degrees they have lost that Right, and even private persons have possessed Hospi­tals in Title of Benefice. That Abuse hath been corrected by the Councils of Vienne and Trent, which revived the Ancient Canon Law: But they are not received in France, as to that point that the Administrators should give in their accounts before the Ordinaries. In ef­fect, since the management of these Rents seems not to have any Spiritual relation, it has been thought more con­venient to give the Administration of them to Laicks, who in some manner are in place of Guardians. Church-men are excluded from it, because they might abuse them, and apply them to their own use as Benefices belonging to themselves. Nor have the Nobility and publick Officers any share in that affair, because it might be feared that they would render themselves Masters of the Revenues assigned to Hospitals. And therefore they choose most com­monly good and sufficient Citizens, and [Page 236]the right of nominating them belongs to the Founders. The Edict of Henry II. gave the Oversight and Visitation of all the Hospitals of the Kingdom to the great Almoner of France: But Francis I. gave the same power to the Kings Judges of the places where the Hospi­tals lay. It is true the Ordinaries pro­test against that Edict, pretending that it is prejudicial to their Rights: But the Parliament of Paris took no notice of their opposition, farther then that it was decreed, that they might depute one or two on their part, to be present with the Kings Judges at the Visitation, but with this condition, that they could not in any thing con­tradict them. Henry II. made a Se­cond Edict, which is wholly conform to that of Francis I. Since that time the Ordinaries have no power over the Revenues of Hospitals, only they and other Church men are invited to be present at the making of the accounts. It is, nevertheless, to be observed that there are several Benefices which are real Titles, and yet called Hospitals, Gods Houses, and Alms Houses, and which in effect are not Hospitals, but [Page 237]so called for some particular reasons which would be too long to relate. Be­sides, Hospitals are sometimes given in Title of Benefices, when they are no more but Accessories to a more considerable Benefice.

Having spoken of the persons in whose favour the Maxims of the New Law have derogated from the Canons and Ancient right of Bishops,Derogations from the Rights of Bishops. it remains now to speak of the things that dero­gate from the same Right, and we shall begin with the Resignations that are called in favorem. There are two sorts of Resignations. The first which is cal­led a pure and simple Resignation is made in this manner: The Beneficiary does purely and simply resign his Be­nefice into the hands of the Ordinary; and then the Benefice is void. That Re­signation, which may also be called Renunciation or Demission, is Canoni­cal, and we have some instances of it in Antiquity; But Bishops did not easily admit of it: They made examination whether they who would lay aside Ec­clesiastical Employments, had reasons that obliged them to that Demission; and if no lawful reason appeared, their [Page 238]Resignations on Demissions were not received. The other Resignation which now-a days is far better known than the former, is called Resignation in favorem; because he that resigns his Benefice, does it only on this condition, that it shall be given to him in whose favours he hath made the Demission: and that if it be given to another the Collation should be null.The Novel­ty of Resig­nations in fa­vorem. This kind of Resignation is so New, that there is no mention made of it in the Body of the Canon Law, in the Decretals, nor in the Sext. The New Canonists them­selves do all agree that it is Simoniacal, because it includes a Paction or Con­dition, to wit, that the Resignation of the Benefice is not made but that the other may be invested who is named by the Resigner. And therefore there was a necessity of having recourse to the Pope to get a Dispensation for the Simony: And that is the reason why none but the Pope can receive those Resignations in favorem, because he is above the Canons and Positive Law. Bishops cannot admit of them, in re­gard their power is limited, and that they cannot purge the Simony which is [Page 239]incurred by a compact. After all, there is nothing that derogates more from the Right of Ordinaries and Patrons, than that Resignation in favorem, because they who possess Benefices, dispose of them in the same manner as of their In­heritances: And it surprises me to see it so common, that men of greatest in­tegrity make no Scruple by that means to render their Benefices hereditary in their families, as if the Popes dispensa­tion acquitted them always of Simony. Abbot Trithemius could not endure that the Monks of his time obtained such Dispensations from the PopeTrith. de ruina Monast. Ord. Nec mihi, said he, dispensationem Romani Pontificis objicias, quam nisi Deus appro­bet, te minimè excusabit, Non omnia Deo placent, quae per summum Pontificem in terra geruntur. Many now a days, cry out against the Commendum, who never­theless countenance by their example, the Simony of Resignations in favorem. We do not find that they resign their Benefices into the hands of Ordinaries, to be by them disposed of after a lawful and Canonical way. Men are so ac­customed to this evil, that they don't think it is an evil, it is grown so com­mon. [Page 240]In the mean time, since these Resignations in favorem are Odious, and that they are prejudicial to the Rights of Ordinaries and Ecclesiastical Patrons, many Regulations have been made to limit them.

In the first place, the Regulation which is called de viginti diebus has been renewed in respect of them;Regulations that derogate from Resig­nations. and this was made to hinder Benefices from becoming Hereditary. That Regulation is at present called, de infirmis Resig­nantibus. And it bears, that if a sick person who resigns his Benefice, die within twenty days, the Benefice is vacant by death, and therefore the Col­lation made upon such a Resignation is null, but that Regulation is at present useless, because the Popes daily dero­gate from it in prejudice of Ordinaries. None but Cardinals by virtue of their Priviledges, and some persons of quali­ty, to whom the Pope grants the like indulgences, enjoy the benefit of the Regulation de 20. diebus, as well in respect of those that are in health, as of the sick. In the Second place, there is another Regulation which is called de publicandis Resignationibus which is [Page 241]in force in France, and hath been made to prevent Benefices from becoming Hereditary. By that Regulation the Resignee is obliged to publish his Resig­nation within the space of six Months; & if within that time he take not Posses­sion of the Benefice, and the Resigner die, the Benefice is vacant per obitum. How­ever the Right of the Resignee does not prescribe till after three years, whil'st the Resigner is alive, and he hath all that time for taking possession of the Bene­fice that hath been resigned to him. In the third place, there are many con­ditions required to make a Resignation in favorem valid. Seeing they cannot be admi [...]ted but by the Pope, they can­not be made but by Proxy. And that the Procuration may be good, it ought to be made before an approved Notary, whether Apostolical or Royal, and signed by two Witnesses. It ought be­sides to be special, and for such a Be­nefice: And if it take not effect within a year, it is presumed to be revoked. The Resigner may also revoke his Re­signation before it hath taken Effect, and that Revocation ought to be legally intimated to the Resignee, or to the Proxy.

There are also some certain Cases,Of Regress. where­in the Resigner may re-enter into his Be­nefice, by a way which is called Regress. It is not easy to determine when the Regress ought to take place: and there­fore the Courts of Justice disser much amongst themselves in the Judgments they pronounce about that matter; and many times one and the same Par­liament varies as to the matter of Re­gress. In that case Equity is more ob­served than the Rigour of Justice: For it is commonly thought the sick person hath made a tacit Compact with him to whom he hath resigned his Benefice, that his Resignation shall be null, in case he recover his health. Seeing that Compact looks very much like confi­dence, it is thought to produce a kind of natural obligation, and that the Resignee ought to be condemned as a perfidious person. Upon that principle the Parliament of Normandy insisted not long since, in deciding a difference that happened betwixt two Church-men concerning the Cure of holy Cross in Rouen. The Resigner Recovering his health would have entred again into his Benefice at the desire of his Parishio­ners [Page 243]who sollicited him. On the other hand the Resignee had taken Possession of the Cure, by virtue of his Legal Col­lation from Rome upon the Resignation. Nevertheless the Resignee was main­tained in his Possession, and it was Judged that Regress ought to take place in that case. Perhaps it would be more convenient to assign an Ali­mentary Annuity to him that hath re­signed his Benefice, than so easily to admit Regress. At least they ought not to take place, when the Resigners reserve to themselves an Annuity. Be­sides, by countenancing Regress, Resig­nations in favorem are also countenan­ced, which are odious, & Simoniacal, be­cause many would not resign their Be­nefices, if they did not hope to enter again by way of Regress. And there­fore Regress ought not to be granted but very rarely, and for weighty rea­sons, for instance, because of Nonage; It being to be presumed that when a Beneficiary who is under age, resigns his Benefice without the consent of his Father or Guardian, he hath been per­swaded to do it by some trick So that Regress then takes place, and the Minor [Page 244]is restored to his Benefice without any New Collation.

There is another kind of Resignation in favorem, Of Exchange. which is called Permuta­tion or Exchange, and is likewise pre­judicial to the Right of Ordinaries, and more to that of Patrons: It is in the Ordinaries power, nevertheless to ad­mit or reject them, that depending on him. He ought never to allow Exchan­ges unless for lawful and Canonical reasons: But so great is the corruption now a days in Beneficial matters, that nothing occurs oftener than instances of Exchanges without any cause; and Bishops grant them easily, when Bene­fices are in Patronage, and they confer them not in full Right. Permutation, then, is nothing else but the Exchange of one Benefice for another, made in the hands of the Superiour: And seeing it is supposed to be made for true reasons, and that by consequent there is no Si­mony in the case, it may be admitted by the Ordinary's, in as much as there is no need of a Dispensation. To the end an Exchange may be valid, the Exchangers must resign their Bene­fices in the hands of the Ordinary [Page 245]or Ordinaries, if they be of different Dioceses, and the Ordinary gives them New Collations, according to their de­mands, for he is bound, and cannot dis­pose of the Benefices, but in favours of the Exchangers. If he doth it the Col­lations are null, and each continues in his Benefice. Besides, they must mu­tually take Possession of the Benefices, otherwise nothing is done, and things remain as they were before. If one onely of the Exchangers had taken Possession, and the other die, the Benefice of him that dies is vacant per obitum, and the other keeps his Benefice, because the Exchange was not compleated. This hath been appointed by the New Ordinances and the Decla­ration of insinuations, to prevent a dis­order that was much in use. For it hap­pened very often, that a Beneficiary being ready to die, exchanged his Benefice with another Beneficiary, and the latter took Possession of his Benefice with whom he had exchanged; where­by the Permutation was accomplished on his part, so that the Benefice belong­ed to him: Afterward the sick person dying without having taken Possession of the Benefice that was given him in [Page 246]Exchange, the surviver kept his former Benefice; and so he enjoyed two at the same time, by that fetch which Mr. Charles du Moulin, in his Commentary upon the Regulation de publicandis, calls speciem furti. Nevertheless the pra­ctice continued long after him in the Parliaments, and that was called gau­dere de bona fortuna. But the New Ordinances have reformed that abuse, and there is no more now of gaudeat de bona fortuna.

The frequent Unions of Benefices,Of Unions. which were made in the times of Schism and disorder, have also done great pre­judice to Ordinary Collators, and to the Pope himself, because by that means many Titles have been suppressed. They have nevertheless been profitable to Bi­shops and Chapters, who have made use of these occasions for uniting to their Benefices, inferiour Livings & Cures: But these kinds of Unions are not now in use, unless it be sometimes in favour of Communities who enjoy by that means several Benefices: yet there is grea­ter care taken of that at present, than there was in times past; and if it were not well lookt after, a great part of Be­nefices would fall into the hands of [Page 247]Regular and Secular Communities: Which would be very prejudicial to Col­lators and Patrons, and even to private Church-men, who can no longer pre­tend to Benefices which are united in that manner. I speak not here of neces­sary Unions, or at least, of such as are useful to the Church; for these Unions still subsist. If, for instance, a Priory or Chappel is so ruined, that it is impossible to restore it; what remains of the Re­venue ought to be united to another Church: If the Prebends of a Chapter or Collegiat Church are too small, several of them must be joined together: If in a Town or Burrough there be too many Cures, and they but poor, it is conve­nient to suppress some of them, and give the Revenue to others. In the same manner a simple Benefice may be joined to a poor cure; &, in a word, Monasteries where the Rule hath ceased, may be joy­ned to a Bishoprick that hath not a com­petent Revenue: But in all these Unions the advantage of the Church is always to be regarded, and the Rights of Su­periours maintained; otherwise they are abusive. And therefore Unions are not to be made but upon good and neces­sary information. The Bishop hath [Page 248]Right to make these Unions, unless it be when the Union is to be made to his own Church, because then he cannot be Judge in his own case. Moreover the Uni­on of Bishopricks is reserved to the Pope.

Though Reversions have been abolish­ed,Of the In­dults or Pri­viledges of Members of Parliament. yet there are in France Priviledges of the Members of Parliament, and the degrees of those who have studied a cer­tain time in the Famous Universities of the Kingdom, which are a kind of Re­versions, and by consequent are pre­judicial to the Rights of Ordinary Col­lators, & of Ecclesiastical Patrons. I shall not speak here of the Original of these Priviledges. Only we may observe, that during the time of Schism, Popes granted those favours to Princes, to great men that were powerful in the Courts of Princes, and to such as might be a hinderance to them in their settlement in the Papacy. The Council of Trent hath abolished Indults as well as Apostolical Mandats. But since its decisions are not received in France, the Priviledges of the Members of Parliament have been still retained. To the end a Priviledge whereof we are speaking may have its effect, Letters must be pro­cured from the King, commanding the [Page 249]Ordinary Collator, to confer on him who hath the Priviledge the first vacant Benefice of his Collation. Besides, these Letters must be intimated before the va­cancy of the Benefice: and then the hands of the Collator are tied. The Indultee or Priviledged person hath six Months to require the Benefice in, and the Col­lator can be charged but with one Pri­viledge during his life: or if it be a Community which dieth not, then it is regulated by the life of the King. The Collator, in the mean time, could for­merly oblige the Indultee to accept the first vacant Benefice, provided it were worth 200 Francs, because the Privi­ledge is de beneficio proximè vacaturo. But he cannot at present be obliged to it, unless it be worth 600 Francs of yearly Rent. In the number of Expecta­tive Graces, or Reversions, may also be reckoned the Kings nomination for his happy coming to the Crown, and his nomination for the Oath of Allegiance, which gives him Right to nominate to the New Bishop after the Conclusion of the Regale, one for the first vacant Pre­bend.Of Degrees.

The complaints of the University of [Page 250] Paris against the Bishops, who com­monly bestowed Benefices on their Domesticks and undeserving persons, were the cause that in the Council of Basil, it was decreed, That the third part of Benefices should be set apart for the Graduats of Famous Universities, and that if the Ordinaries gave them to others, their Collations should be null. The Pragmatick made in the assembly of Bourges, ratified that decree of the Council of Basil, but with this qualifi­cation, that the third destin'd for Gra­duats should be divided into three parts, and that two thirds of that third should be appropriated to those who had some notable employment in the University. And therefore it was ordered by the same Assembly, that the University should name those whom they would have preferred. And thence arises the distinction of simple Graduats, and Gra­duats named. The Concordat hath preserved that Right of Graduats: But because fraud might be committed in the third of Benefices which were given in course one after another, they had four Months of the year allotted to them, to wit, January, April, July, and October, [Page 251]and the Benefices that fall during these four Months are appropriated to them. January and July are called Months of Rigour, because the Collator or Patron is obliged to give the vacant Benefice to the Graduat named, who is the Anci­entest, and hath most Right; whereas in the other two Months which are called Months of favour, he is free to give the vacant Benefices, to such en­rolled Graduats as he pleases. To be a Graduate, it is enough that one hath studied two years Philosophy, three years Divinity, and taken the degree of Master of Arts. Yet this hinders not but that their Batchelour Graduats, Doctor Graduats, Graduats, in Divinity, the Canon Law and Medicine, to whom also there is a certain time assigned; and in case of competition the most qualified Graduate is preferred be­fore the other, though it be some­times pretty hard to know who ought to be preferred. That this Right may take effect, the Letters of De­gree, Attestations of the time of Study and the Universities Letters of Nomina­tion, must be signified to the Ecclesiasti­cal Patron or Collator. And because [Page 252]Gentlemen have some Priviledge as to the time of Study, they ought likewise to produce the proofs of their quality. Of all these Instruments and Acts the Patron or Collator ought to keep a Co­py. They are besides obliged every year in Lent to renew the Register of their names, which they may do in the Office of the Ecclesiastical Register. When a Benefice falls in the Months that are appropriated to them, they ought to demand it within six Months; and that being expired they are no longer admitted to make their Requisition. If the Pope prevent them before they have made their demand, he that hath been provided by the Pope obtains the Be­nefice; And there is no need that the Pope should even mention that the Bene­fice is destined to Graduats, because he is not tied to the Law that is in France in favours of Graduats. But the Ordinary ought to specify in his Collations the quality of the Graduat, which is the cause for which he gives the Benefice. Never­theless he may still put questions to the Graduats, though heretofore they pre­tended to be exempted from examina­tion. But the easiness of obtaining De­grees [Page 253]makes, that there are to be found many ignorant & vicious Graduats. And therefore the Collator, and even the Pa­tron, have always right to refuse them, if they judge them uncapable of the Be­nefices which they have demanded.

It is to be observed that all sorts of Benefices are not Subject to Graduats I. Consistorial Benefices and such as are in Lay-Patronage are exempted. II. The dignities of Cathedral Churches; but amongst these dignities the Peniten­tiary is not reckoned; and there is some difficulty also as to the Divinity Le­cture, though there be Judgments as to that in favours of Graduats. III. The right of Graduats has no place but when the Benefices are vacant by death. IV. When the Graduate hath a Bene­fice of 400 Francs a year, or an Annu­ity of the same value, which stands him instead of a Benefice, he is thought pro­vided, and cannot pretend to any Bene­fice in quality of a Graduate, unless he had not that Provision by virtue of his degrees; for in that case he may renounce his Benefice or Annuity, and have right as before, to demand the Be­nefics. appropriated to Graduats. The [Page 254]reason why a Graduat having a Benefice of 400 Francs is reckoned provided is, that in the Concordat 200 Florins are mentioned, which have been valued at, 400 Francs: But I think, at present they ought to be valued at 600. V. When the Benefice that falls in the the month of Graduats is under Rule, it cannot be demanded but by a Regu­lar Graduat Just so, the Regular can­not demand Secular Benefices. VI. In fine, if an Indultee or Priviledged person, and a Graduat, demand one and the same Benefice, the Indultee is prefer­red before the Graduat.

The Exemptions which Popes have granted to several Churches,Of Exemp­tions. as well Re­gular as Secular, have also much deroga­ted from the Canonical Right of Bishops, because Abbots and other Patrons con­fer in full Right the Benefices which are contained in their Exemptions; and they failing, the Right is devolved on the Pope, who is become their immediat Superiour. This is not a proper place to handle these exemptions to the full, nor to speak of their Original; besides, we have elsewhere said somewhat as to that Subject. I shall only men­tion [Page 255]what relates to the Custom of France.

  • I. The Decree of the Council of Trent that derogats from Exemptions is not received there; But the Titles, on which the Exemptions are founded, are exa­mined; and if the Titles be lawful, the Priviledges that are expressed are al­lowed.
  • II. Possession alone is not enough to authorise these Priviledges: Legal Titles must also be produced, in as much as many are in Possession of their Privi­ledges, because their Titles have not been sufficiently examined, which most com­monly are false and it is not Just that Exemption, which is but a Priviledged Right, should prejudice the common Right of Bishops, unless it be well grounded, and granted for lawful causes: To this may be added, that
    Fraus ne­mini debet Pa­trocinari.
    [fal­shood can never make a Prescription, and that a Possession grounded on a bad Title, is no true Possession. All possible rigour ought to be used then against the Right of Exemption or Priviledge, be­cause it derogates from the Common Law; and nothing should be granted to the exempted, but what is expresly set [Page 256]down in their Title of Exemption: And it is absolutely necessary that the Privi­ledges be mentioned in plain Terms, without any ambiguity.
  • III. The more ancient the Titles of Exemption are, of the less extent are the Priviledges of the Exemptions, as appears by Ancient Formularies, which hardly contain any thing else in respect of Monasteries, but the li­berty of chusing the Abbot, and the free Disposition of all their Revenues; as to the rest they were entirely Subject to the Bishops.

Exemptions, as we find them now a days, began only with the Reformations of Cluni and Cisteaux, who were exempted from the Jurisdiction of Bishops by the Title of their Foundation. Though that happened in a disorderly time, yet these Exemptions are not medled with in France, seeing they are owned by all men. But there is great cause to doubt of the most part of others, which are supposed to have been granted by Popes after the Foundation of Monasteries. There are but few of them that are true in their full extent, which is easily discovered when one sets [Page 257]seriously to work to examin the Titles: And in that manner Peter de Blois Arch Deacon of the Church of Bath in England affirms, that the Exemp­tions of Monasteries in his time were examined, of which the greatest part were forged by the Monks. The Bishop of Salisbury thought the Letters of Exemption of the Abbey of Malmesbury to be false, quia in filo & Bulla vide­bantur vitiosae, stilumque Romanae curiae minime redolebant. Nevertheless the Abbot refusing to submit to his Bishop, fell into such a rage against him, that the same Peter de Blois complained of it in his letterPetr. Blaes. Epist. 68. to Pope Alex­ander.

III. To whom, upon occasion of the Abbot of Malmesbury, he represents the abuses of Exemptions; take it in his own words: Ʋiles sunt Abbates & miseri qui potestatem Episcoporum non exterminant, cum pro annua Auri uncia plenam à sede Romanâ possint assequi li­bertatem. By this it is apparent enough, that Monasteries obtained for Money from the Court of Rome, as many Exemptions as they pleased, and that Simony was much practised by the [Page 258]Monks, especially the Regular Abbots, who by that means shook off Obedience to their Bishops, that they might more freely squander away the Revenues of their Monasteries, and have no Body to check them for their vices.Petr. Blaes. ibid. Detestantur Abbates, habere suorum ex­cessuum correctorem, vagam impunitatis licentiam amplectuntur, claustralisque militiae jugum relaxant in omnem deside­rii libertatem. Hinc est quod monasterio­rum fere omnium facultates datae sunt in direptienem & praedam. These and many other reasons which I omit, are the cause that no great favour is shewn to the Exemptions of Monasteries in France, though they be not wholly rejected there: To which may be added, that many of these Exemptions, especially those of Chapters, have been obtained in the times of Schism; and it often happened, that the Chapter which opposed its Bishop, acknowledged one Pope, and the Bishop another. And that is to be taken notice of in the Titles of Exemptions,Rules how to distinguish true Exemp­tions from false. that what was done upon occasion of Schism may not be authorised.

That true Titles may be the more [Page 259]easily distinguished from such as have been foisted and counterfeited, we shall here set down several Rules, which are necessary to be known, if one would with any exactness make that distin­ction: And that will not only serve to discover the falsity of Priviledges and Exemptions, but also to Judge of other Titles.

  • I. One must have seen true Titles that are past all exception, according to which are to be examined those that are produced. The Characters are to be minded if it be an Original Piece; for it seldom happens, that they who coun­terfeit Titles, do exactly imitate these Characters, whether it be that they write too hastily, or that they are sa­tisfied to do somewhat that comes near them, but which is not altogether like.
  • II. The difference of stile that occurs betwixt true pieces and counterfeit, is very useful for distinguishing the one from the other: for instance, one must know in what manner Princes in diffe­rent times began their Letters, and how they finished them; for it is certain, the stile hath not been always the same. [Page 260]Besides, they have also expresied them­selves in different manners in several times, as to the Body and Contents of their Letters.
  • III. The way of dating Letters hath much varied; and that is a thing that hath not been always minded by those who have counterfeited false I rivi­ledges: They have for most part, fol­lowed the Custom of their times.
  • IV. Chronology and [...]he Subscrip­tions of the Writing or Deed are to be minded, examining if they who have subscribed it lived all in that time, and if they could probably be all together in the place spoken of; or if the matters of fact reported suit with the Customs and Practice of those times.
  • V. One must not be ignorant of the time when certain ways of speaking began to be in use. For it is easily perceived that a Piece is New, when it contains New terms and expres­sions.
  • VI. It is necessary to be acquainted with History and especially what con­cerns the Rights of Popes, to know whether the Writing do not attribute [Page 261]to the Pope who grants the Priviledged some Rights which he did not as yet enjoy: And that happens commonly in Ancient Priviledges, because they who have counterfeited them, have squ [...]red themselves according to their own times, and not the times of the Popes whose names they have bor­rowed
  • VII. One ought to know Chro­nology, History, the manner of be­ginning and dating of Writings, the diversity of Stile and of Subscriptions, not only in respect of different Times, but also of different Places and Per­sons: For it is certain, that these things have varied according to the diversity of Places and Persons. Princes do not always agree in that with Popes and Bishops; and Princes differ also among themselves. For in­stance, the manner of beginning the year hath not been uniform in all places, nor in all times, Dates and Sub­scriptions are very different according to the diversity of Places and Persons. And that has made those who have been ignorant of those different Cu­stoms, fall into such gross faults, that [Page 262]the falsity of the Deeds which they have counterfeited stares in ones face.
  • VIII. There is nothing more com­mon than to see counterfeit Marks or Monograms. And therefore it is conve­nient to have true ones, to make a distinction of the real from the false; which is also to be observed in Seals, that have been often counterfeited. It must not, for all that, be concluded that a Deed is good, because nothing seems wanting to the Subscription, nor to the Seal: For there was nothing more easy heretofore than to remove the Seal from one Deed to another. Seeing the Seal was fastened to the Parchment, and that there was no Counter-Seal, the Seal was easily taken off without hurting the Impression, by heating the Parchment a little. It is true in after times that falsisication was remedied by means of a Counter-Seal, and a little string that tied the Seal to the Parchment: But for all the care that could be taken it is impossible alto­gether to prevent falsification. There is nothing more easy than to keep the Subscription and Seal entire, and [Page 263]with some Waters or Essences to wash out all the writing, and to suppose another Title in what manner one pleases. The reality then of the Sub­scription and Seal is not a sufficient proof; but it will be convenient also to consider, whether the Parchment has not received some alteration, or whether the Ink be not too new; or different from that wherewith the Sub­scription has been made.
  • IX. The counterfeiting of a Deed hath sometimes been found out by the newness of the Parchment, that had some Mark to make it known by. On the contrary, they who have af­fected to have Titles too Ancient, and have for that end written their Priviledges on the Barks of Trees, have rendered themselves ridiculous, because it is easy to be made out, that at that time when they are supposed to have been written, there was no use made of the rind of Trees, at least in Europe.
  • X. They also who have joined many dates together, thinking thereby to render their Titles more Authen­tick, marking the years of Princes and [Page 264]Emperours with the Indictions and such other things as were contrary to the Custom of the places and times wherein they lived, thought to have imposed on others by an odd and un­seasonable exactness.

Did I not fear to be too tedious, I would give instances for confirmation of all these Rules: But that deserves a separate work. I shall only add some Remarks concerning Cartularies, because I perceive men too credulously be­lieve them, and mind not, that part of the Titles which are contained in Cartularies, are either false or cor­rupted.

Cartularies are the Rolls or Registers of Churches or Monasteries,Of what Au­thority are Cartularies. wherein are recorded the Contracts of Buy­ing, Selling, Exchange, Priviledges, Im­munities, Exemptions and other Deeds and Charters. These Cartularies, are long posteriour to most part of the Acts contained in them, and they are only made for preservation of the Acts, and that Posterity may have recourse [...] to them. But there are strong reasons to doubt of the fidelity of those who have compiled the Cartularies, be­cause [Page 265]a vast Number of false or cor­rupted Titles are to be found in them.

In the first place, seeing in the begin­ning the Custom of writing Titles, or Acts of Foundations, and Immunities or Priviledges, was not as yet intro­duced, the Compilers of Cartularies who saw that they enjoyed several Lands, and that they were in Posses­sion of some Priviledges, without ha­ving any Titles for them, have not failed to make, and to insert them in their Cartularies. I believe it is for that reason, that the Titles which are in the Cartularies, attributed to the Kings of France of the first Race, are almost all false; and for the same reason also, we ought to mistrust the Primitive Exemptions, which are the more to be suspected, that they appear the more Ancient. The Law­suits that Bishops have had with the Abbots of Monasteries, have also much contributed to the Augmen­tation of false Titles: For to back their several causes, they spared no pains in falsifying of Deeds.

In the Second place, the Com­pilers [Page 266]of Cartularies have not always inserted the acts as they were in the Original Writing: Which is easily proved by comparing the Origi­nals with the Copies that are Regi­stred in the Cartularies, or even by comparing Ancient Cartularies, with others more Modern; for the la­ter they are, of the greater extent they are. We find, for instance, the Foundation of the Monastery of Ca­saure, otherwise called of St. Clement, in theItal. Sacr. Tom. 6. sixth Volume of the History of the Bishops of Italy, and in the Title of that Foundation, some Charters of Immunities, Priviledges, and Exemptions are mentioned. But these acts agree not for most part with other Copies that are inserted in a more Ancient Cartu­lary of the same Monastery. And, which is observable, in the Printed Copy, which without doubt hath been taken out of a later Manuscript, there is an enumeration of many Lands belonging to the Monastery of Ca­saure, as may be seen in the Privi­ledge which bears this TitleIbid. page 1308. Lu­dovici II. Imperatoris Augusti privi­legium fundationis & dotationis Mona­sterii [Page 267]Sancti Clementis in Piscaria, Anno Domini. 875. But in the Manuscript Cartulary which I have read, there is nothing to be found of that long list of Lands and Possessions: They are only named in it in general, and not in particular. Besides, these words of the date which are in the Printed are not in the Manuscript Cartulary, Anno Dominicae Incarna­tionis. 875. Because the Emperours at that time made no mention in their Letters of the year of our Lord. The same Catalogue of Lands and Possessions that is to be found in the Printed Priviledge of the Empe­rour Louis, is to be found also in ano­ther Priviledge granted by Roger King of Sicily to the same Monastery. But the Ancient Manuscript Cartulary con­tains nothing of that list: Whence it is to be inferred, that the Monks have made no scruple to Register in their Cartularies, Titles in a quite diffe­rent way from what they were in their Originals. The same hath also happened to the Priviledges of Popes which are in the same Cartulary: For there are some things in the [Page 268]Printed Copies, that are not to be found in the Manuscript Acts, and a­mongst others the Priviledge attri­buted to Leo IX. is shorter in the Manuscript, than in Print, for the Print­ed Copy only ends with this clause;Ibid. page 1311. Quoniam scriptum est, terminos patrum nostrorum nulla authoritate illicitae temeritatis transgredi prae­sumi, & quia opportunitatis exigit ratio propter vos & transgressores Canonicae correctionis debere fraeno constringi, illius insuper spirituali baculo perdat animum, cujus temporali gladio Malchus amisit auriculam: Qui autem observator ex­titerit, ditetur dono Apostolicae bene­dictionis, &c. There is not a word of all this in the same Priviledge, as it is inserted in the Manuscript Cartulary. Many other instances might be brought of the great liberty that the Compilers of Cartularies have taken in transcribing Originals, and even the Copies of their Titles; and by consequent they are not much to be credited.

It is easy to be Collected from what hath been said,A distinction betwixt false Titles, and falsified Titles. that a Title is not altogether false, though there be falsities in it. Yet I think these kinds of Deeds [Page 269]ought entirely to be rejected, for the least falsity that occurs in them, because falsaries should never be countenanced in any thing, and that the Exemptions whereof we speak are odious and a­gainst the Canon Law. It is then ab­solutely necessary, that they who pre­tend to be exempted should produce good Originals to prove their Exemp­tions, at least that these Falsities be not to be found in the Acts that have been approved by Princes or other Superiour Powers; and after all, they ought to be very carefully examined. That we may know the nature of Acts, it is to be observed, that Monasteries have sometimes got their Titles and Priviledges confirmed by Princes and other Superiours, upon Information that the Ancient Titles were so old and worn out, that it was hard to read them; and then others were sub­stituted in place of the Ancient. These Renovations were not always very sincere: For the Old writings were sometimes forged, and besides they added things that suited not with the times of those who were pretended to have granted the Ancient Privi­ledges. [Page 270]But since he who had power to grant Priviledges himself, confirm­ed them, they could not be accused of falsity, unless there was surprise in the case, and that lies had been alledged in the Petition; because it is a general Maxim, that every Peti­tion or Supplication ought to be grounded on truth. After all, these Priviledges which are said to be sub­stituted in place of others more An­cient, are not easily to be admit­ted: For that would be to open a door to a great deal of Forgery; And Besides, a Title cannot be sub­stituted in place of another, by way of renewing and confirmation, un­less the latter make mention of the former, and that it be expresly men­tioned, that that last Priviledge hath only been given in confirma­tion of the Ancient. And thus you have in a few words the Principal Rules that are to be observed in the Examination of Titles, which Mo­nasteries and other Churches that pretend to be Exempted or Privi­ledged, produce for Justifying their Exemptions and Immunities. Many [Page 271]instances of false Titles might here be alledged which would render the Rules much more intelligible: But that matter is not to be handled to the bottom, without engaging into a great many inquiries that are wide of our Subject, and require a particular Treatise.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.