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. Histoire de l'origine & du progrés des revenues ecclésiastiques. English Simon, Richard, 1638-1712. 1685 Approx. 350 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 143 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A60247 Wing S3802 ESTC R19448 12115273 ocm 12115273 54276

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A60247) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 54276) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 824:2) 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. Histoire de l'origine & du progrés des revenues ecclésiastiques. English Simon, Richard, 1638-1712. [14], 271 p. Printed for Henry Faithorne and John Kersey ... and Samuel Smith ..., London : 1685. Reproduction of original in Huntington Library. "This treatise ... proceeds from the famous pen of Father Simon." -- To the reader. Attributed to Richard Simon. cf. BM. Table of contents: p. [5]-[12] Errata: p. [13]

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Church history -- Early works to 1800. Church finance -- Early works to 1800. Monarchy -- Religious aspects. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-06 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-07 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2011-08 Sampled and proofread 2011-08 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

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

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

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

TO THE READER.

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

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

A TABLE OF THE Matters contained In this BOOK. THE Original of the Community of Goods among the Primitive Chriſtians. Page 1 The firſt Revenues of the Church. Page 5 The Original of the Miniſters of the Church. Page 7 The Original of the great Authority of Biſhops. Page 9 Of the Government of the Church in the beginning. Page 11 The Original of the Ordination of Prieſts and Biſhops. Page 13 The Nature of Eccleſiaſtical Revenues in the beginning. ibid. The Original of Lands and immoveable Goods in the Church. Page 15 Abuſes in the Adminiſtration of Church-Revenues. Page 17 The 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 Monks in the Weſt before St. Benet. Page 38 The difference of Ancient Monks from the Modern. ibid. Alterations in Church and State. Page 40 Eccleſiaſtical Revenues in the ſame condition as Temporal Eſtates. Page 41 A diſtinction betwixt the Churches and the Altar. ibid. The Ruine of Private Church-men. Page 42 The Original of Lands and other Revenues belonging to Monaſteries. Page 44 The Original of Private Maſſes. Page 45 Forms of Ancient Donations. Page 47 Means of acquiring Eſtates amongſt the Monks. Page 49 An Explication of the Contract called Precarius. Page 51 Other ways of Acquiſition. Page 52 Inveſtitures depending on Princes. Page 59 Elections depended not on the Pope, no not in Italy. Page 60 Elections only free in name. Page 63 The Original of the Exemptions of Monaſteries. Page 64 Differences betwixt the Monks and Curates concerning Tithes. Page 66 Diſtinction of the Church from the Altar. Page 67 Diſputes betwixt Biſhops and Monks. Page 73 Eccleſiaſtical Employments inconſiſtent with Monks. Page 75 Princes ruine the Monks. Page 77 The Original of great Power annexed to Churches. Page 79 The Authority of the Pope as to Benefices. Page 82 Reflections on the Right of Popes. Page 87 The Cuſtom of France as to the Reception of Bulls. Page 89 Of the Right of the Regale. Page 90 Of the Regale under the ſecond Race of the Kings of France. Page 92 The Regale under the third Race. Page 94 The Regale different from Inveſtiture. ibid. Explication of Inveſtiture. Page 95 The Regale granted by the Pope. Page 97 A more particular Explication of the Regale. ibid. A Reſtriction of the Regale. Page 102 The Cuſtom of the Parliaments. Page 104 The Regale authoriſed by a General Council. Page 105 The Right of Collation attributed to the Kings of France by the Regale. Page 107 The Regale under Philip the Fair. Page 112 Ʋnder Philip of Valois. ibid. Ʋnder Louis XII. ibid. 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 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 Concordats or Agreements betwixt Abbots and Monks. Page 206 To whom it belongs to preſent to Benefices during the Vacancy of the Abbatial See. Page 209 Of Priors amongſt Monks. Page 211 Cluni and Ciſteaux have changed the Ancient Government of Monaſteries. Page 213 Derogation from the Rights of Commendatary Abbots. Page 215 Of Regulars. Page 218 A Compariſon between Commendatary and Regular Abbots. Page 220 A Deſcription of the Lives of Regular Abbots. Page 222 Military Orders. Page 228 The Original of Commanderies. Page 230 A Military Order wherein one may Marry. Page 232 Philip II. the richeſt Prelate in the Church. Page 234 Of Hoſpitals. ibid. Derogations from the Rights of Biſhops. Page 237 The Novelty of Reſignations in favorem. Page 238 Regulations that derogate from Reſignanations. Page 240 Of Regreſs. Page 242 Of Permutation or Exchange. Page 244 Of 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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. 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 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 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 1 Tim. 5.17. to be worthy of double honour, that is, of a double reward. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Pſal. 107.32. Let them alſo exalt him in the Congregation of the People, and praiſe him in the Aſſembly of the Elders; which was the place of their Meetings. So we find in the New Teſtament, that the names of Prieſt and Biſhop are indifferently taken the one for the other; and that Aſſembly or Council of the Elders, which was called Presbyterium, conſiſted of the Biſhop, and the Prieſts or Elders. The Biſhop, or Preſident, as the Ancient Fathers ſpeak, had indeed the chief Direction or Superintendency; from whence he was called Biſhop. which word is alſo found in the Greek of the Septuagint or Helleniſts, but he made up but one Body with the Elders or Prieſts, who in Quality of Judges, had their Juriſdiction jointly with him. Hence we may infer that in the beginning of the Church, the management of affairs, and the Juriſdiction which is now called Epiſcopal, did not depend on the Biſhop alone, no more than the diſtribution of the Offerings, but on the whole Senate or Aſſembly of the Prieſts; and this continued ſo long as there was but one Church in every City, one Altar, and one Conſiſtory of Prieſts joined to their Biſhop, becauſe it was not eaſy then, for the Biſhop to become Maſter of the whole Juriſdiction and Adminiſtration of the Revenues. But ſo ſoon as it was neceſſary to encreaſe the number of Churches,The Original of the great Authority of Biſhops. there was ſome cauſe to fear, leſt thoſe who governed the new Churches, might attribute to themſelves the quality of Biſhops, finding themſelves at the head of a particular Church. And therefore the Biſhops began to take to themſelves authority over them, for which it was neceſſary to appoint, that there ſhould be but one Biſhop in every City, on whom the Elders or Prieſts ſhould depend, who were to take upon them the Government of the new erected Churches, which were called Titles. St. Jerome ſtrongly maintains this opinion in his Commentaries on the Epiſtle of St. Paul to Titus, where he affirms that before this diviſion, each Church was governed by the Common Councel of the Prieſts; but that for avoiding all occaſion of Schiſm, one of theſe Prieſts or Elders was choſen to be the Chief, and to take upon him the care of the whole Church. He pretends that the names of Prieſt and Biſhop did not at all differ in the beginning, and that therefore St. Paul made uſe of them indifferently: Then he ſubjoyns,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 in that followed the diſtinction of Provinces, according as they were eſtabliſhed in the Empire.Of the Government of the Church in its Commencement. The Church which in its commencement allowed much to the people, grew afterwards more Ariſtocratical in its Government, when by experience it appeared, that the multitude of people ſerved only to confound and perplex affairs; and then the Polity of Ariſtocratick Republicks came in vogue. Nay we find in the very Acts of the Apoſtles, two ſorts of Aſſemblies, as well as in Republicks, The one is compoſed of the Chief amongſt the Believers, and is called Eccleſia. The other admits all indifferently; and that the Republicks of Aſia named Agoraia, which they have always diſtinguiſhed from the Aſſembly that they named Eccleſia. And therefore the name of Eccleſia or Church hath ſtill been given to Chriſtian Congregations, and conſtantly retained by the Greeks, who made the firſt Eccleſiaſtical Laws, from whence it hath been derived to the Latines, who are indebted to the Greeks for all the Eccleſiaſtical Polity that was ſetled in the firſt Ages. In this ſenſe we ought to interpret the words 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. 33 Apoſt. the Firſt Biſhops of a Nation; or made uſe of ſome other expreſſion, without inventing new words. We find nevertheleſs the name of Metropolitan in the Council of Nice; but the Greeks, whoſe Language is fruitful in new words, invented a great many, to expreſs the different Offices of the Eccleſiaſtick State, which were not ſo ſoon brought into uſe in the Latine Church. The names of Archbiſhop, Primate and Patriarch, are but Titles of Honour and External Juriſdiction; whereas the quality of Biſhop, and that alſo of Elder or Prieſt,The Original of the Ordination of Biſhops and Prieſts. is a Character that marks the Ordination, which the Apoſtles borrowed from the Synagogue, that choſe its Miniſters by the Impoſition of hands. In that manner Moſes laid his hands on Joſhua, and the other Elders, who were preſently filled with the Holy Ghoſt: And if we will credit the Authority of the Rabbies, the power of Impoſing of hands belonged not only to the chief of the Sanhedrim, but alſo to the other Elders; which ſeems likewiſe to be confirmed by St. Jerom, Hier. in Epiſi. ad Evagr. who pretends that the Elders or Prieſts enjoyed that Right a long time in the Church of Alexandria, where the Prieſts, who in imitation of the Apoſtles, were twelve in number, choſe one from among themſelves to be their Biſhop, on whom they all together laid their hands; as the Patriarch Eutychius obſerves in his Annals of the Church.

Having now ſpoken of the Perſons who had the care of the Revenues of the Church,The nature of Church-Revenues in the beginning. and obſerved wherein thoſe goods did conſiſt, it will not be amiſs to ſubjoyn that thoſe Revenues were rather a kind of Subſidies employed for the Relief of the Poor, than any real Rents. Nor was there need of any ſolemnity for conſecrating them to the Church, ſeeing they were not fixed, and the Laws of the Empire permitted not Chriſtians to poſſeſs publick Eſtates. After all, the Collections which we have mentioned, ceaſed not upon the death of the Apoſtles; for we read in one of the Apologies of St. Juſtin Martyr, 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 afterwards a Reſtriction, that one might bequeath or give his goods to lawful and allowed Colledges or Societies, and that by ſpecial Priviledge the Jewiſh Synagogues, which were of the number of thoſe Allowed Societies, were nevertheleſs excluded from that Priviledge: And becauſe Chriſtian Aſſemblies were always rejected under the Pagan Emperours, as unlawful Conventicles, it is certain the Church never enjoyed any Poſſeſſions, until the Fourth Century under the Empire of Conſtantine. All theſe Laws may be ſeen in the Body of the Civil Law, wherein they are inſerted.

It was about that time then,The Original of immoveable Eſtates in the Church. that Churches began to be endowed, as well as the Pagan Temples, becauſe Chriſtian Congregations were no more then conſidered as Conventicles. The Emperour Conſtantine, granted them great Priviledges, and permitted People to beſtow upon them Poſſeſſions of all kinds. He ordained alſo that they ſhould inherit the Eſtates of the Martyrs, Confeſſors, and of thoſe who had been baniſhed, when the true Heirs did not appear. I ſpeak not here of the Donation which Conſtantine, 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, that he often refuſed the Inheritances which were offered to his Church, thinking it fitter that they ſhould be left to the lawful Heirs. And in the ſame Life we read, that St Auſtin would never purchaſe Houſes nor Lands, nor any other Poſſeſſions for his Church: Wherein he ſhewed his wiſdom and prudence; for nothing does more obſtruct the Charity of Believers towards Churches, than when they ſee that they enjoy vaſt Eſtates, the Revenues whereof are nevertheleſs more uncertain, than the Alms that are given to a Church that hath not the repute of being Rich. And ſo it was alſo, that thoſe, who knew St. Auſtins mind, ſold their Lands, and gave him the money; which the more willingly they did, as being perſuaded, that the good Biſhop beſtowed it on pious uſes, & not in making new Purchaſes for the enriching of his Church.

Though, at that time,Abuſes in the Adminiſtration of Church-Revenues. Biſhops and Deacons had the care of the Revenues of the Church, yet notwithſtanding even in the time of Conſtantine many abuſes were committed in the management of them. And this made the Fathers of the Council of Gangres, to make a Canon againſt the Euſtathians, who divided among themſelves the Revenues of the Church. It was decreed in that 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Can. Apoſt. 39. gave a liſt of the Goods and Eſtate, that he poſſeſſed, which was ſeparated from that of the Church, to be diſpoſed by will or otherwiſe at his pleaſure, according to the Proviſion of the Civil Law. But notwithſtanding all this caution, the Biſhops made themſelves ſtill Maſters of the Revenues of the Church, and the Fathers were obliged to create Treaſurers or Stewards to take the care of them, that ſo the Biſhops might apply themſelves entirely to the duties of their Office. Theſe Stewards were likewiſe neceſſary for preſerving the Revenue of the Church, which the Biſhops and other Church men did not employ according to the Canons. But becauſe they were appointed by the Biſhops, they relapſed again into the ſame abuſe, & the Poor had cauſe to complain of the ſame Biſhops, who gave them but a very inconſiderable ſhare of the Goods that were deſtined for their Uſe. Upon all theſe accounts the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon decreed, That for the future the Stewards ſhould be choſen from among the Clergy, and that it ſhould be no longer in the power of the Biſhops themſelves to adminiſter the Revenues of the Church. That Office became ſo conſiderable in the Church of Conſtantinople, that the Emperours took from the Clergy the nomination of the Stewards, and appointed them themſelves. And this laſted until the time of the Emperour Iſaac Comnenus, who remitted that right to the diſpoſition of the Patriarch.

The power of Stewards was not ſo great in the Weſtern Church,The Cuſtom of the Weſtern Church 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 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 aſſigned to the Clergy; and that the other Churchmen ought to have but a third of the ſame. That matter was referred to the Biſhop, who was to give to every one according to his merit and pains. Nevertheleſs St. Gregory. who in that followed a Law eſtabliſhed in the Churches of the Weſt, writing to Auſtin concerning the Diſcipline that he was to obſerve in England, tells him that it was more convenient to perſiſt in the Community of Goods in the Church of England, than to introduce into it thoſe kinds of dividends. And indeed it will appear in the ſequel of this Diſcourſe, that the dividing of Eccleſiaſtical Revenues, hath been the cauſe of moſt of the diſorders that have happened in the Church; and I dare boldly affirm, that the thing that hath preſerved a greater purity of the Ancient Diſcipline in the Eaſtern Church, has been chiefly, that the Orientals never made any ſuch partitions. None but the Weſtern Church hath put the Eſtates of the Church into Titles and Livings, in the ſame manner as if private perſons were the abſolute maſters of thoſe Eſtates.

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

The Stewards of whom we have ſpoken,The Office of the Stewards. took upon them not only the care of the Revenues of the Church, by order of the Biſhops, but alſo preſerved them during the vacancy of the See, and diſtributed them among thoſe to whom by right, and according to the Canons, they belonged. But becauſe moſt part of the Church-men had Eſtates of their own, either by Inheritance or Purchaſes that they had made, there aroſe great difficulties upon their Death about the diſtinguiſhing of thoſe Eſtates: Some there were that pretended, that thoſe who lived on the Revenues of the Church, could not in conſcience retain their own Inheritance. St. Jerom who was of that opinion,St. Jerom. is poſitive, that the goods of the Church were deſigned for the Poor; which agreed very well with the Edict of Conſtantine, that prohibited the Rich to enter into any Office of the Church,Whether Church-men can keep their own Eſtates. though he did it upon Politick Reaſons, and for the good of the State. Moſt of the other Fathers were alſo of St. Jeroms mind, St. Auſtin. and St. Auſtin admitted no Clerk into his Church, till firſt he had diſpoſed of all his goods, either in favour of the Poor, or by Sale. He was for having all Clerks really Poor, in imitation of the Apoſtles, and for living altogether in common upon the Revenues of the Church. Nevertheleſs it is to be obſerved, that he did not require that of them but as a greater perfection, and that he never thought it abſolutely neceſſary for entring into orders, and enjoying the allowance of the Church, that one muſt poſſeſs nothing at all. Otherwiſe he muſt have gone againſt the Ancient Canons, which leave Church-men at liberty to diſpoſe of their own Eſtates as they pleaſe. It is true theſe Canons were made in the Eaſtern Church, where moſt of the Biſhops having been Married before their Election, had Wives and Children to provide for; and where Prieſts and Deacons might Marry if they pleaſed. And therefore it was not reaſonable to take their Eſtates from them. Beſides, it muſt be conſidered, that when theſe Canons were made, Churches were but 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 againſt Eccleſiaſticks, it will be pertinent to ſpeak a little of their Original and Progreſs,The Original and Progreſs of Monks. and to ſhew how they came to have a ſhare in the Revenues and affairs of the Church. The Original of Monachiſm is commonly attributed to St. Paul the Hermite, and St. Anthony; in imitation of whom Egypt was entirely filled with Monks, whereof ſome were Solitary, and others lived in Community. That kind of Life afterward got footing in Syria, Pontus and the leſſer Aſia. Thoſe of Egypt and Syria have ſtill retained the name of St. Anthony their Founder: Whereas the others of the Province of Pontus and the leſſer Aſia, took the name of St. Baſil, who brought from Egypt into thoſe parts the Rule and Inſtitution of St. Anthony. So that St. Baſil and St. Anthony have filled the Levant with Monks, who at preſent bear their Names. St. Athanaſius coming to Rome, and having there publiſhed the Life of St Anthony, many alſo in Italy embraced that kind of Life, which from thence was propagated into the other Provinces.

We muſt, nevertheleſs, have a care, not to confound the Clerks who lived in Community under the direction of their Biſhops, with Monks. Euſebius, Euſeb. Vercel.Biſhop of Verceil, was the firſt in the Weſt, who according to the Teſtimony of St. Ambroſe, joined together two things which ſeemed contrary, to wit, the Monaſtick Rule to the manner of the living of Clerks.The Clergy that lived in Community differed from Monks. It is not to be magined that theſe Clerks were true Monks, no more than thoſe who empraced the ſame kind of life, under St. Martin and St. Auſtin. They 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 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 oppoſed them, it was thought convenient to draw them from their great ſolitudes, and to ſettle them in the Suburbs of Cities, that they might be uſeful to the People. And St. Chryſoſtom thought it even fit to call them into Cities. Which was the cauſe that moſt of them, applying themſelves to ſtudy, aſpired to the Clergy, and with much precipitation got into holy Orders, whereof Pope Zoſimus complains in one of his Epiſtles. But ſeeing they were uſeful to Biſhops, not only in Spiritual, but Temporal affairs, they got into great Reputation; and the ſame Biſhops who were glad to have a numerous Clergy, and fit perſons about them to carry on their deſigns, gave them conſiderable Offices, wherein they behaved themſelves excellently well, as appeared in the affair of Neſtorius. But having abuſed the authority that was put into their hands, and growing inſupportable to all People, even to the Biſhops themſelves, becauſe of their vanity and their medling in all kinds of buſineſs without the permiſſion of their Ordinaries, the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon thought fit to make Canons againſt Monks, for putting a ſtop to the diſorders which they occaſioned in the Church.Canons againſt the Monks. Wherefore it was decreed in that Council, that for the future, Monks ſhould be wholly under the Juriſdiction of Biſhops, without whoſe permiſſion they ſhould meddle no more in any affairs whether Civil or 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 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 they pretended to be contrary to the Diſcipline of their Monaſteries.

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

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

No ſooner were the Barbarous Kings become Maſters of a part of the Roman Empire,Changes in Church and State. but the Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Laws ſuffered great alterations. There was a neceſſity of complying with the humor and temper of theſe new Conquerours, who medled in the affairs of the Church. There was not now, as formerly, the ſame liberty in electing of Biſhops. 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 the great Wars that Princes were engaged in, was the cauſe that the beſt part of the Revenues of the Church, fell into the hands of Lay-men.The Revenues of the Church in the ſame condidition, as temporal Eſtates.They made Contracts of Alienation about them, as about other Poſſeſſions; and theſe Contracts paſt for lawful, when they were made in the uſual forms. No body oppoſed it. The Biſhops & Monks treated often with Laicks about thoſe concerns, either by way of Exchange or Purchaſe. The ancient Cartularies or Regiſters of the Monks are full of ſuch kinds of Contracts; wherein it appears that Children ſucceeded to their Fathers as well in Church livings, as in other Eſtates. The Counts or Judges decided the differences that aroſe amongſt private perſons about ſuch Eſtates, in the ſame manner as about other Inheritances and Poſſeſſions.

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

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

We have ſhown before, that Monks having made profeſſion of poverty,The Original of Lands and other Revevenues 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 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 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, 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, &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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 •• 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 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 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 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 Eccleſiaſtical Rights, without the conſent of the Biſhop of the place, or the permiſſion of the Pope. But it happened that the Biſhops abuſed their Power, and permitted Chapters and Monaſteries to receive theſe Rights from Laicks, on Condition of a certain ſum of money to be paid to the Biſhops, for granting Liberty of eſtabliſhing Prieſts or Vicars who might take upon them the Spiritual care of Churches. Theſe decrees of the Popes that were backed with Excommunications, frightned many Laicks, who inſtead of reſtoring the Church Revenues to private Churches, to which they belonged, reſtored them to Chapters and Monaſteries, with the permiſſion of the Biſhops. The Lay-men liked it much better to reſtore the Tithes, and other Eccleſiaſtical Revenues, to Chapters and Monaſteries, from whom they got money, than to private Churches, which had none to give. And therefore Councils decreed that theſe Reſtitutions ſhould not be made without conſent of the Biſhops, thereby to prevent all compacts or agreements betwixt Laicks and Eccleſiaſtical Communities. There were, nevertheleſs, a great many Laicks, 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 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 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, 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 from them, becauſe of the Eccleſiaſtical Employments in which they were engaged; and ſo far from laying aſide their Monkiſh cuſtoms, when they were aſſociated to the Clergy, they introduced into their Churches the Practices and Ceremonies of their Monaſteries; and that was the thing that made way for the Re-eſtabliſhment of Secular Prieſts, in Cathedral Churches and other Benefices. But nevertheleſs, part of the Revenues that belonged to Private Churches remained ſtill in the poſſeſſion of Monaſteries.

Beſides, Princes and Biſhops could not endure that Monks ſhould poſſeſs Ecleſiaſtical Dignities, after that the Popes were grown ſo powerful that they diſpoſed at their pleaſure of the moſt part of Benefices. For the Monks always eſpouſed the Intereſts of the Popes againſt Princes and Biſhops, under pretext of defending the liberty of the Church; and ſeeing Princes refuſed to ſubmit to the Pope, with whom they had continual quarrels, they reſolved to give no Eccleſiaſtical Promotions, but to thoſe who were devoted to their Service. The Engliſh Hiſtory gives us a pretty Inſtance of this, in the Reign of Richard I.Princes ruint the Monks. That Prince having aſſembled the Biſhops of his Kingdom, could not forbear with Tears to tell them, that he was an unfortunate wretch, and no King.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 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 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 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 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 •• 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Stewards. But in what manner ſoever that was performed, whether by Stewards, or Archdeacons, it is ſtill true that Princes took no ſhare in the Fruits of vacant Biſhopricks, ſince one part of them were employed for the occaſions of the Church, and the other preſerved for the ſucceeding Biſhop. It cannot then be affirmed, that in that reſpect the Right of the Regale hath been in uſe under the firſt Race of the Kings of France, unleſs one would confound this Right with that of Nomination to Biſhopricks, which the Kings of the firſt Race enjoyed. But by the Word Regale, is meant now a days ſomewhat quite different from a bare Nomination: For the Regale at preſent attributes to the King, the Spiritual and Temporal Fruits of Vacant Biſhopricks, until the time they be provided; which differs from the Ancient Rights of Nomination and Inveſtiture.

Furthermore,Of the Regale under the ſecond Race. the ſame Right of the Regale, in the notion we take it here, was alſo unknown under the ſecond Race of the French Kings, as appears by a Letter of Hincmar Archbiſhop of Rheims, written to Charles the Bald, For that Archbiſhop ſets down the Canon of the Council of Calcedon, for a Rule during the Vacancy of the Epiſcopal See: ut poſt mortem Epiſcopi reditus Eccleſiae viduatae futuro Epiſcopo penes Oeconomum ejuſdem Eccleſiae integrae conſervari jubeantur. And in 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 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 done. For it is not to be found in Hiſtory, nor in any Ancient Deed, that Emperours and Kings, who have had the Inveſtitures of Biſhopricks and Abbeys, have therefore enjoyed the Revenues of Churches, during the Vacancy of the See: but application was only made to them for proceeding to a new Election, which was not to be made without their conſent; afterward they gave to Biſhopricks and Monaſteries, the Inveſtiture of Lands or Fiefs which had been left to them; in the manner as we have before deſcribed.

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

In the mean while,The Regale granted by the Pope. it is very probable, that the Agreement made betwixt Pope (alixtus and Henry the Emperour, 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 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 〈◊〉 it Ann. 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 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, and Ann. 1219. confirmed his firſt Conſtitution, y a Second which he addreſſed to Pope Honorius III. Theſe Conſtitutions are entioned by Goldaſtus in the following 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 •• 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 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 which is pretty ſurprizing, upon a difficulty that was ſtarted Ann. 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 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 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 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 they give is, becauſe a Reſignation made in favour of another, is a kind of Simony; and that the Pope alone, who is above Eccleſiaſtical Laws, can diſpenſe with it: Solus Papa, ſay they, purgat à Simonia: But they ſhould add, & Rex Francorum; for the King of France receives the Reſignations which are called in favorem.

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

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

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, 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 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 hath Ann. 1674. not long ſince by a Declaration regiſtred in the Parliaments, comprehended all the Churches of his Kingdom within the Regale, excepting four, which are exempted from it on an onerous Title. So that there is no more need of conſulting the Chamber of Accounts,The Regale at preſent in all the Churches of Frances where the account of the Regales were taken, to know how matters went heretofore, and what Churches were ſubject to the Regale; for that Declaration prevents a great many law ſuits. Without examining whether the Regale be a Crown right and by conſequent unalienable, it cannot be denied but that the Sovereign who grants a Priviledge, may revoke it, and therefore the King might reſcind the Priviledges and Exemptions from the Right of the Regale, which the Kings his Predeceſſors had granted to ſome Churches of the Kingdom. The Parliaments had already reſcinded moſt part of theſe Priviledges, of which ſome were ill grounded. I ſhall not here give a Catalogue of the Churches of the Kingdom, which pretend not to be Subject to the Regale, becauſe it would be needleſs and unſeaſonable. Such as would be farther informed as to that, may conſult the French Lawyers who have handled that Subject.

Nor ſhall I ſpeak of the Rights, which other Princes have of providing to the Benefices of their Kingdoms: For beſides that moſt part of theſe Rights belong to them in Quality of Patrons, or are founded on Priviledges, and Conceſſions granted by Popes, and ſometimes on Concordats, made betwixt them and the Court of Rome; theſe are matters void of my deſign, which is to apply my ſelf more particularly to the Rights, whereof France is in Poſſeſſion, than to the Cuſtoms of other Kingdoms. Yet I cannot ſilently paſs over the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 now a days are ſettled in another manner, and that the Diſcipline of the Church is wholly altered, I thought it neceſſary, having obſerved the original and Progreſs of Church Revenues, to deſcribe in a few words the preſent State of beneficial matters. It would be to no purpoſe to know the Cuſtoms of our Fore-Fathers, if we be ignorant of what is at preſent in uſe amongſt our ſelves. The former ſerve only for our inſtruction, but the latter will be uſeful for the conduct of our lives.An Explication of the New Canon Law. I ſhall ſay nothing in this place of the Original of Benefices, in the manner that they are eſtabliſhed at preſent; for it is very well known that they did nor begin till about the Eleventh Century: And whereas in the Ancient Canons there is only mention made of Ordination and the Miniſtry, afterward there was no more talk but of the Portion or Benefice. Nevertheleſs, though the manners of expreſſion, and a great part of the Ancient Diſcipline were wholly changed, yet in many things the Maxims of the Ancient Law were ſtill obſerved. For Inſtance, heretofore Ordination differed not from the Miniſtry or Benefice; and therefore when by the Introduction of the New Law, they were ſeparated, that Maxim was ſtill retained, That he who can Ordain, can alſo Confer a Benefice; and that he who cannot Ordain, cannot Confer a Benefice neither. But by degrees the Popes have by their Priviledges and Exemptions derogated from the Common Law that was grounded on the Ancient Canons; and we ſee that Abbots exempted from the Juriſdiction of Ordinaries, confer in full right, Cures and other Benefices. Though the Eſtabliſhment of Benefices be commonly referred to the end of the Tenth Century, or beginning of the Eleventh, yet ſome footſteps of them are to be ſeen long before. For about the year 500 under Pope Symmachus, to ſome Church-men Portions of Land were aſſigned, to be enjoyed by them for Life, as appears by the terms 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 ſhould enjoy them. Poſſeſſiones, Ib. q. 1. poſſeſſiones. quas unuſquiſque Eccleſiae proprio dedit aut reliquit arbitrio, alienari quibuſlibet titulis atque contractibus, vel ſub quocunque argumento non patimur; niſi forſitan Clericis honorem meritis, aut Monaſteriis, religionis intuitu, aut certe peregrinis neceſſitas largiri ſuaſerit; ſic tamen ut haec ipſa non perpetuò, ſed temporaliter, donec vixerint perfruantur. Theſe words make it manifeſt enough, that even in that time there was ſome kind of Benefice, though the Portion of Revenues was not as yet made to Church-men in particular; but that was rare at that time, and only granted for extraordinary Cauſes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To know then the ſubſtance of the Law of France in regard of Beneficial matters.The Rules of the French Law. We muſt not wholly rely on the Popes Decretals; but it is alſo neceſſary to know wherein the Pragmatick, Concordat, the Edicts of the Kings, and the Sentences of Supream Courts differ from the Law eſtabliſhed in the Decretals. Beſides, ſeeing the the Concordat or Treaty that paſt Ann. 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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, becauſe the Preſentation alone gives not the Benefice; it is neceſſary that Ʋt 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 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 be ſupplied by the Pope, ſeeing they are not to be imputed to their negligence or exceſs. The Pope, on the contrary, can give one and the ſame Benefice to ſeveral Perſons, becauſe his power is not ſmited, as that of Ordinaries, and his right cannot be devolved, as not having any Superior. That right which Popes enjoy is the cauſe of an infinite number of Law-ſuits. All are welcom at Rome for their Money; and yet it is certain that one only can obtain the Benefice, though it hath been granted to many.

Farthermore,Benefices vacant in Curia. the Popes confer the Benefices of which the Incumbents or Titularies die in Court, that is, within ten Leagues of Rome. That right is a kind of Reſervation, whereof Pope Clement IV. is the Author. The Conſtitution of that Reſervation is mentioned in the Sext the Chapter Licet, in theſe words, Collationem tamen Eccleſiarum, perſonatuum, dignitatum & beneficiorum apud ſedem apoſtolicam vacantium, ſpecialius caeteris antiqua conſuetudo Romanis pontificibus reſervavit: But ſeeing theſe words, Eccleſiarum & dignitatum, are general, the Author of the Gloſs upon the Sext, who was Secretary to 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 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 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 obtained Ann. 1673. one for the Abbey of Feſcan, which is likewiſe directed to the King: Yet the Popes do but ſeldom grant them; and it were to be wiſhed that they never did, yea and that it were never deſired of them, that ſo a clauſe of the Concordat might not be authoriz'd, which without doubt is vicious, and which may be abrogated, without any prejudice to the ſubſtance of the Concordat it ſelf.

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

I. The Creation of New Biſhopricks, and the Erection of Archbiſhopricks, belong to the Pope. II. Biſhops cannot be tranſlated from one See to another, without taking New Bulls from the Pope: And if they enjoy Abbeys or other Conſiſtorial Benefices, they are alſo obliged to take new Bulls for all theſe Benefices, and by conſequent to pay new Annats or Firſt-fruits. But it is ſtill to be ſuppoſed that the Pope cannot put this Power in execution without the Kings Permiſſion: And even in the Bulls of Tranſlation the conſent of the King is mentioned. III. The Pope by his Bulls confirms thoſe whom the King hath named to Biſhopricks, Abbeys and other Conſiſtorial Benefices. IV. The King cannot enjoy his Right of Nomination to Biſhopricks and Abbeys which are not ſituated in the places mentioned in the Concordat; but the Pope grants him Indults or Priviledges to nominate to thoſe Benefices. Seeing France is now of greater extent, than it was when the Concordat of Bologna, was made betwixt Pope Leo X. and Francis the firſt of France, the Kings of France have been obliged to obtain from the Pope Indults, which are called Indulta Rigiae Nominationis, of which many forms may be ſeen printed in the Collection of Monſieur Doujat. It is in the mean time in the Liberty of the Pope to grant them for ever, or only for a certain time. V. It being a general Maxim received and approved of all, that Secular Benefices ought to be given to Seculars, and Regular Benefices to Regulars, the King cannot Emancipate Benefices from the Rule, to put them in Commendum, unleſs he have Permiſſion from the Pope, becauſe that is one of the Clauſes of the Concordat: But the King and Pope, who have made the Concordat, diſpenſe with it daily, it being in their Power ſo to do. VI. The Pope, who pretends to an abſolute Power over all Benefices, according to his pleaſure Seculariſes Benefices, that are in Rule; and ſo he derogates from that great Maxim, Secularia Secularibus, Regularia Regularibus, in favours of thoſe, who for that end ſend their money to Rome. The Monks notwithſtanding, who are powerful at Rome, becauſe of their Generals that commonly reſide there, or of their Procurators that live in that Court for the affairs of their Societies, hinder as much as they can the Seculariſation of Benefices, which they pretend does of Right belong to them. VII. The King cannot Alienate the Church Lands of his Kingdom without the permiſſion and conſent of the Pope;Alienations depend on the Pope. nor can he raiſe the Tenths of he Clergy, which have in proceſs of time, been converted into Ordinary Subſidies, without obtaining Power from the Pope. Heretofore 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 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 not at their pleaſure of Church Revenues, as they pretend they have Power. They have not the Liberty to ſell the Revenues of the Church, unleſs the King and Clergy conſent to it, and the cauſes of Alienation be firſt examined: For the Bulls of Permiſſion to alienate are not received in France, if they contain theſe Terms, motu proprio, ſine inquiſitione, etiam invitis Clericis. In a Word, for Alienation of Church Lands in France, the two Soveraign Powers, I mean, the Pope and King muſt concur. VIII. All Concordats,Concordats depending on the Pope. Tranſactions or Pactions in any beneficial matter, ought to be confirmed in the Court of Rome, becauſe there is a kind of Simony in them, private perſons not being allowed to diſpoſe of their Benefices under certain Reſervations or Conditions; and that is the reaſon why application is made to the Pope for Penſions and Reſignations in favorem. Ordinaries cannot appoint, nor confirm Penſions: Nor can they admit of any Reſignations in favorem neither, unleſs in the caſe of Permutation; Nay and in that caſe too private perſons many times apply themſelves to the Pope. There is another kind of Concordat, or Tranſaction, which Commendatary Abbots, and Monks, daily make betwixt themſelves, for dividing their Revenues, without having recourſe to Rome. But theſe Concordats are eaſily broken, and their Succeſſors may derogate from them, becauſe an Abbot hath no power to oblige and tye up the Will of his Succeſſor. He may, indeed, make over his rights during his life; but he cannot diſpoſe of that which belongs to another. And therefore, though theſe Concordats were even confirmed in the Court of Rome, and in the Parliaments, they may ſtill be reſcinded, if it be found that one of the Parties contracting hath received any notable prejudice: In that caſe he is allowed to ſeek relief, and by ſtronger reaſon his Succeſſour ought, who is not obliged to ſtand to all that hath been done by his Predeceſſor. The Pope himſelf pretends not to prejudice by his Reſcripts the acquired right of others; nor indeed is it in his power, though it ſhould even be inſerted in his Reſcript, that there hath nothing been done without knowledge of the cauſe, becauſe he may have been ill informed. Again, the Pope hath no power in France over the Temporal of Benefices, but only the Spiritual, for which recourſe is had to him as to a Superiour, that he may authorize the Tranſactions which private perſons have made amongſt themſelves, and purge them from Simony. IX. None but the Pope can give Benefices in perpetual Commendum; Commendums depend on the Pope. and the French are the more obliged to acknowledge that power of the Popes, that there is no Kingdom in Chriſtendom where ſo many Regular Benefices are Erected in Commendum, as in France. Now ſeeing Commendums, in the manner that they are at preſent eſtabliſhed, more for the advantage of private perſons, than benefit of the Church, are altogether contrary to the Canons; none but the Pope can confer in Commendum, becauſe he only can diſpenſe with the Canons, as well in reſpect of the incapacity of perſons to whom Commendums are given, as of incompatibility of Benefices, in which the Commendataries are inveſted. And therefore Benefices in Commendum are in ſome manner reſerved to the Pope, becauſe they ſubſiſt upon a ſpecial Priviledge, which can be granted by none but him: And when the Commendum is void by the death of the Commendatary, it is not to be judged vacant by his death, but as it was vacant before the Commendum, which brings no alteration in matters. However, the Pope does ſtill give the ſame Benefice in Commendum by a Priviledge that he continues on; ſo that it may be ſaid, that the Priviledge or Diſpenſation hath wholly derogated from the Canon Law, which only ſubſiſts in name, and the Diſpenſation ſtands for Law as to the effect. In the mean time, though they who poſſeſs Commendums have not obtained them but by Priviledge or Diſpenſation,The Rights of Commendatary Abbots. yet they ſtill enjoy them, and have all the Titles, Profits and Honours, as if they were Titulars, inaſmuch as by the Bulls of Commendum the Commendataries are ſubrogated into the rights of the Titulars, and the terms are always uſed, which import that the power of the Commendatary is the ſame with that of the Titular, to whom he is ſubſtituted: Curam Monaſterii ac regimen & 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 Diſcipline of the Church. I only ſpeak, at preſent, of what is in practice, and of the power that the Popes have in France, where the Bulls, whereof I have given ſome abſtracts, are received and authoriſed by cuſtom. And for that reaſon alſo, the Canoniſts ſay, that the Titles of Benefices are only of poſitive right, & that ſo, the Popes who have abſolute power over that right, eſpecially when it hath been voluntarily eſtabliſhed by them, may diſpenſe with it as they pleaſe, and in favours of whom they will. On this principle are grounded the Diſpenſations which are obtained from Popes, for poſſeſſing ſeveral Benefices, and that they daily derogate from the nature and quality of Benefices in favours of private perſons. But after all we muſt ſtill ſuppoſe the Maxime which we have already obſerved, that this great power of Popes cannot be executed in France, if the King conſent not to it; and beſides, that the Court of Rome, hath no power over the Poſſeſſory right of Benefices. X. The Popes give not only Benefices in commendum to Clerks, diſpenſing both with their Age, and other Qualities requiſite; but they diſpenſe alſo with the Clerkſhip of Children as yet in the Cradle, until they have attained the Age of taking the Tonſure. It is enough to declare, that the Child is deſigned for a Church-man: Infantem qui, ut accepimus, in ſecundo vel tertio ſuae aetatis anno conſtitutus, & ad vitam Eccleſiaſticam agendam deſtinatus exiſtit. But ſince no man can enjoy a Benefice, but he that is a Clerk; and that on the other hand, the Child is not as yet of Age, the Popes uſe theſe terms in their Bulls: Eidem Infanti, cum primum Clericali charactere ritè inſignitus, & in aetate legitimâ conſtitutus, ſeu alias ex conceſſione & diſpenſatione Apoſtolicâ ad Monaſteria obtinenda capax & habilis fuerit, per eum, quoad vixerit, tenenda; regenda & gubernanda, ita ut ex nunc, prout ex tunc, pro eo affecta & deſtinata ſunt ac eſſe cenſeantur, &c. Then the Pope, in the ſame Bull, names a Steward, who ſhall take care only of the Temporal, until the Child be grown up and ſhaven. N. Adminiſtratorem Monaſteriorum in temporalibus ſolum, donec praedictus Infans charactere Clericali inſignitus fuerit, & Monaſteria ſibi per 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 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 PopeSi non ex rationalibus cauſis & veris factae fuerint, licet Apoſtolicae ſedis auctoritas intervenerit. Seſſ. 43. if they be not ſupported by good reaſons. It is not ſufficient, for all that, that the Pope in the Bull of Union make uſe of theſe words, Et ex certa ſcientia noſtrâ: But he ought to direct to ſome Body upon the place a Reſcript of Delegation ad effectum unionis. That information may be had of the uſefulneſs of the Union. Beſides, thoſe who are concerned in the Union, and eſpecially the Patrons of Benefices muſt be cited, who ought to be heard, becauſe Union is a kind of Alienation for ever, which deprives the Patron of his Right. There are many other Formalities to be obſerved, for making Unions valid in France, where in reality the plenitude of the Popes Power is acknowledged;The Popes Power limited in France. but ſtill with reſervation of the liberty of limiting it according to the Laws of the Kingdom. And upon that ground the Parliaments inſiſt when they reſcind Unions that want the Formalities, and declare them abuſive. The Council of Trent 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 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 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 the Letters which the Pope gives them; but they are not put in Execution, until the King hath approved the Legation: And beſides, the Kings Officers do not Regiſter the aforeſaid Letters of Legation, but with the Modifications and Reſtrictions that are added to them according to the pleaſure of the King, and the Liberties and Cuſtoms of the Kingdom. The Legats then have almoſt the ſame power in all that concerns Benefices, as the Popes whom they repreſent have; and therefore they are very troubleſom to the Ordinary Collators during the time of their Legation, which laſts as long as the King pleaſes. There are nevertheleſs, ſome things which they cannot perform without ſpecial Orders from the Pope, ſuch as are the Tranſlations of Biſhops. Nor can they receive Reſignations in favorem, unleſs that be expreſly mentioned in their Inſtructions, and not limited or abrogated in the Reſtrictions that have been made of them; and therefore in that caſe the Bulls of their Legation, and the verification of them in Parliament, muſt be conſulted. Mr Doujat hath Printed ſome of them in his Collection, and amongſt others that of Cardinal Chigi, which may inform us of their power in France, where they exerciſe both the one and other Juriſdiction, that is to ſay, both the voluntary & the contentious, but ſtill in Quality of the Popes Delegats, & therefore their Juriſdiction ceaſes, if the Pope happen to die during their Legation. Beſides theſe Legates à latere who are but rarely 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 of the manners of thoſe who are nominated by the King to Conſiſtorial Benefices. But that is an abuſe introduced by the very ſame perſons that have been nominated by the King. For, fearing that their Bulls might not be expeded at Rome, they cauſe an atteſtation de vita & moribus, to be made before the Nuncio's; whereas that atteſtation ought to be given by the Biſhop of the place where the perſons named to Benefices reſide. Afterward they might be recommended to the Nuncio, as the Popes Miniſter in France; which is ſometimes practiſed even by the Kings order. But private perſons have had their recourſe to the Nuncio for their ſecurity, and that Cuſtom is obſerved at preſent, notwithſtanding all the Remonſtrances that have been made to hinder that Juriſdiction of Nuncio's in France.

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

They have ſix whole Months for beſtowing Benefices whereof they are the Collators, without any fear of being prevented by the Pope, who hath in their favours diſpenſed with his right of Prevention. Beſides, the Pope who daily derogates from the Rule de viginti 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 their Clergy. Biſhops, nevertheleſs, at preſent queſtion moſt part of their rights, and accuſe the Canons Ʋſurpatae 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 cannot be put in execution, unleſs the Patron conſent to it, or that clauſe be added, Si tamen Patroni conſenſus accedat. But ſeeing the Pope can Derogate from the right of Preſentation of Eccleſiaſtical Patronss by conferring in full right Benefices that are in their nomination; he can upon ſtronger reaſon, Authoriſe by his Reſcripts, Penſions ſetled upon the Benefices of their Patronage, without any neceſſity of having their conſent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beſides, the Heads of Monaſteries, that they might be independant of the Biſhops, were exempted from their Juriſdiction, which made a kind of New Hierarchy in the Church: For whereas before the Monks depended on their Abbot, for the Rule, and for all the reſt, on the Biſhops in whoſe Dioceſes they lived, they made now a particular and diſtinct Body in the Church, which acknowledged no Biſhop but the Pope for Superiour; and for Government of that Body they eſtabliſhed a Form of little Councils, which they called General Chapters: The Pope having granted to the Heads of theſe Orders great Priviledges, which have in many things derogated from the Juriſdiction of Ordinaries. This Reformation hath been found ſo uſeful to keep Monks in their Duty, that it hath not only been received amongſt other Religious, who pretended an Exemption from holding ſuch Chapters, but is alſo augmented, eſpecially ſince the Council of Trent, which will have Monks live in Congregation. In this manner the Reformation which is called the Congregation of St. Maur, hath been eſtabliſhed in France, under the Popes Gregory XV. and 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 the Revenue of every Church was allotted: Afterward in proceſs of time they were diſtinguiſhed from the common Revenue of Churches, and many private perſons gave Lands and Inheritances to be erected into places of piety in imitation of Monaſteries. They cannot be ſaid properly to be Benefices, becauſe the Rents of them are not deſigned for Church men, but for all men who are in miſery and want. And therefore there are as many kinds of Hoſpitals as there are calamities. In the beginning the Biſhop had the care of theſe Monaſteries, becauſe he ought to provide for the neceſſities of the Poor, and of all thoſe who were in miſery, as well as for the ſubſiſtance of Clerks. But the Religious of the Hoſpital of St. John of Jeruſalem made a particular Body in the Church, which hath to this day its particular Conſtitutions. To ſpeak properly there is but one Hoſpital in all the Order, and that Hoſpital is at preſent reputed to be in Malta. All other private Hoſpitals or Commanderies, are but members of that Hoſpital, on which they depend: And therefore their Revenue by Right, belongs to the common Treaſury of the Order.

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

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

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

Having ſpoken of the perſons in whoſe favour the Maxims of the New Law have derogated from the Canons and Ancient right of Biſhops,Derogations from the Rights of Biſhops. it remains now to ſpeak of the things that derogate from the ſame Right, and we ſhall begin with the Reſignations that are called in favorem. There are two ſorts of Reſignations. The firſt which is called a pure and ſimple Reſignation is made in this manner: The Beneficiary does purely and ſimply reſign his Benefice into the hands of the Ordinary; and then the Benefice is void. That Reſignation, which may alſo be called Renunciation or Demiſſion, is Canonical, and we have ſome inſtances of it in Antiquity; But Biſhops did not eaſily admit of it: They made examination whether they who would lay aſide Eccleſiaſtical Employments, had reaſons that obliged them to that Demiſſion; and if no lawful reaſon appeared, their Reſignations on Demiſſions were not received. The other Reſignation which now-a days is far better known than the former, is called Reſignation in favorem; becauſe he that reſigns his Benefice, does it only on this condition, that it ſhall be given to him in whoſe favours he hath made the Demiſſion: and that if it be given to another the Collation ſhould be null.The Novelty of Reſignations in favorem. This kind of Reſignation is ſo New, that there is no mention made of it in the Body of the Canon Law, in the Decretals, nor in the Sext. The New Canoniſts themſelves do all agree that it is Simoniacal, becauſe it includes a Paction or Condition, to wit, that the Reſignation of the Benefice is not made but that the other may be inveſted who is named by the Reſigner. And therefore there was a neceſſity of having recourſe to the Pope to get a Diſpenſation for the Simony: And that is the reaſon why none but the Pope can receive thoſe Reſignations in favorem, becauſe he is above the Canons and Poſitive Law. Biſhops cannot admit of them, in regard their power is limited, and that they cannot purge the Simony which is incurred by a compact. After all, there is nothing that derogates more from the Right of Ordinaries and Patrons, than that Reſignation in favorem, becauſe they who poſſeſs Benefices, diſpoſe of them in the ſame manner as of their Inheritances: And it ſurpriſes me to ſee it ſo common, that men of greateſt integrity make no Scruple by that means to render their Benefices hereditary in their families, as if the Popes diſpenſation acquitted them always of Simony. Abbot Trithemius could not endure that the Monks of his time obtained ſuch Diſpenſations from the 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Right to make theſe Unions, unleſs it be when the Union is to be made to his own Church, becauſe then he cannot be Judge in his own caſe. Moreover the Union of Biſhopricks is reſerved to the Pope.

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

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

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

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

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

Exemptions, as we find them now a days, began only with the Reformations of Cluni and Ciſteaux, who were exempted from the Juriſdiction of Biſhops by the Title of their Foundation. Though that happened in a diſorderly time, yet theſe Exemptions are not medled with in France, ſeeing they are owned by all men. But there is great cauſe to doubt of the moſt part of others, which are ſuppoſed to have been granted by Popes after the Foundation of Monaſteries. There are but few of them that are true in their full extent, which is eaſily diſcovered when one ſets ſeriouſly to work to examin the Titles: And in that manner Peter de Blois Arch Deacon of the Church of Bath in England affirms, that the Exemptions of Monaſteries in his time were examined, of which the greateſt part were forged by the Monks. The Biſhop of Salisbury thought the Letters of Exemption of the Abbey of Malmesbury to be falſe, quia in filo & Bulla videbantur vitioſae, ſtilumque Romanae curiae minime redolebant. Nevertheleſs the Abbot refuſing to ſubmit to his Biſhop, fell into ſuch a rage againſt him, that the ſame Peter de Blois complained of it in his 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Title Ibid. page 1308. Ludovici II. Imperatoris Auguſti privilegium fundationis & dotationis Monaſterii Sancti Clementis in Piſcaria, Anno Domini. 875. But in the Manuſcript Cartulary which I have read, there is nothing to be found of that long liſt of Lands and Poſſeſſions: They are only named in it in general, and not in particular. Beſides, theſe words of the date which are in the Printed are not in the Manuſcript Cartulary, Anno Dominicae Incarnationis. 875. Becauſe the Emperours at that time made no mention in their Letters of the year of our Lord. The ſame Catalogue of Lands and Poſſeſſions that is to be found in the Printed Priviledge of the Emperour Louis, is to be found alſo in another Priviledge granted by Roger King of Sicily to the ſame Monaſtery. But the Ancient Manuſcript Cartulary contains nothing of that liſt: Whence it is to be inferred, that the Monks have made no ſcruple to Regiſter in their Cartularies, Titles in a quite different way from what they were in their Originals. The ſame hath alſo happened to the Priviledges of Popes which are in the ſame Cartulary: For there are ſome things in the Printed Copies, that are not to be found in the Manuſcript Acts, and amongſt others the Priviledge attributed to Leo IX. is ſhorter in the Manuſcript, than in Print, for the Printed Copy only ends with this clauſe; Ibid. page 1311. Quoniam ſcriptum eſt, terminos patrum noſtrorum nulla authoritate illicitae temeritatis tranſgredi praeſumi, & quia opportunitatis exigit ratio propter vos & tranſgreſſores Canonicae correctionis debere fraeno conſtringi, illius inſuper ſpirituali baculo perdat animum, cujus temporali gladio Malchus amiſit auriculam: Qui autem obſervator extiterit, ditetur dono Apoſtolicae benedictionis, &c. There is not a word of all this in the ſame Priviledge, as it is inſerted in the Manuſcript Cartulary. Many other inſtances might be brought of the great liberty that the Compilers of Cartularies have taken in tranſcribing Originals, and even the Copies of their Titles; and by conſequent they are not much to be credited.

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

FINIS.