Ecclesiastical Cases Relating to Parochial Clergy, Part 5

Ecclesiastical Cases Relating to Parochial Clergy · Part 5

p. 325OF THE OBLIGATION To observe the Ecclesiastical CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS, AT A VISITATION October 29^th. 1696.

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

I. By what Authority they do oblige,

II. In what Way and Manner they oblige.

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

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

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

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

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

p. 3281. Immemorial Custom. Our greatest Lawyers allow Ancient Custom to be one of the Foundations of our Laws; 1 Inst. 11. b. 115. b. 344.and my Lord Coke calls it one of the main Triangles of the Laws of England. I suppose he means Foundations. And another saith, Preface to 4 R.That the Common Law of England is nothing else but the common Custom of the Realm.Sir Iohn Davis Pref. My Lord Chief Justice Hales saith, Hales History and Analysis of the Law, MS.That the common Usage, Custom and Practice of the Kingdom, is one of the main Constituents of our Law.1 Inst. 110. b. Coke quotes Bracton's Authority to prove, That Custom obtains among us the Force of a Law, where it is received and approved by long Use. And of every Custom, he saith, there be two Essential Parts, Time and Usage; Time out of Mind, and continual and peaceable Usage without Interruption. But in Case of Prescription or Custom, he saith, That an Interruption of Ten or Twenty Years hinders not the Title,1 Inst. 114. b. but an Interruption p. 329in the Right; the other is only an actual Suspension for a time.

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

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

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

p. 330But whence is it then, that an immemorial Possession gives Right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 3373. The subordinate Jurisdiction which was lodged in the Bodies of the Clergy resident in Cathedral Churches, and of Archdeacons in the several Diocesses: I cannot find either of these to have had any Jurisdiction here before the Conquest, neither were there any Courts of Justice out of the several Counties before; for all Causes were transacted in the County-Courts and Sheriffs Turns, and Appeals lay from them to the Supreme Judicature of the King and the Lords. But this doth not hinder but these Courts may be founded on the Law of England. And so the original Jurisdiction, which of Right belonged to the Bishop, might by degrees, and a gradual Consent, come to be committed, as to some parts, to the Bodies of Cathedral Churches, and to the Archdeacons, who are, saith my Lord Coke, 1 Inst. ….Sixty in England. We are told in a late Case of p. 338Woodward and Fox, Ventris, II. 189. 269.That there are Archdeaconries in England by Prescription, which have no Dependency on the Bishop, but are totally exempt. And for this Godolphin is cited,Godol. 61, 65. who refers to the Gloss on the Legatine Constitutions, f. 27. where we read of some Archdeacons having a customary and limited Iurisdiction separate from the Bishop, for which a Prescription lies. But this is only for some special Iurisdiction; as the Archdeacon of Richmond for Institutions, which came first by Grant from the Bishops; but that not being to be produced, they insist upon Custom and Prescription, as the Deans and Chapters do, where the Ancient Compositions are lost. But none who understand the Ancient Constitution of this Church, can suppose either of them to have been Original, since the Right to the Jurisdiction of the Diocess was in the Bishop, before there were here either p. 339Archdeacons or Chapters with Jurisdiction.Rolls R. 2. 150. In the Case of Chiverton and Trudgeon, it was declared, That an Archdeacon might have a peculiar Jurisdiction, as to Administration, &c. as the Dean of St. Paul's had at S. Pancras; and so the Archdeacon of Cornwall, as to Wills. In the case of Gastril and Iones the Chief Justice declared, That the Archdeacon is the Bishop's Officer, and his Authority subordinate to the Bishops,443. and granted by them; but if special Custom be pleaded, that must be well proved; to which Dodderidge agreed.

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

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

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

As to Deans and Chapters, I observe these things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But some have objected,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I have already mentioned my Lord Chief Justice Vaughan's Opinion, That the Canons made A. D. 1603. are warranted by 25 H. 8. c. 19. It was urged by the Council in the Case of Grove and Eliot, Ventris Rep. II. 42.22 Carol. 2. That no Canons can alter the Law, which are not confirmed by Act of Parliament. But it was said on the other side, That these Canons had been always allowed, having been confirmed by the King. One of the Judges said, That the King and Convocation cannot make Canons to bind the Laity, but only the Clergy. But Vaughan said, That those Canons are of Force, although never confirmed by Act of Parliament, as no Canons are; and yet, saith he, they are the Laws which bind and p. 373govern in Ecclesiastick Affairs. The Convocation, with the Licence and Assent of the King, under the Great Seal, may make Canons for Regulation of the Church, and that as well concerning Laicks as Ecclesiasticks; and so is Lyndwood. There can be no question in Lyndwood's time, but Ecclesiastical Constitutions were thought to bind all that were concerned in them; and the Ecclesiastical Laws which continue in Force by Custom and Consent, bind all; the only Question then is about making new Canons, and the Power to make them, is by Virtue of an Act of Parliament, to which the Nation consented; and so there need no Representatives of the people in Convocation. And no such thing can be inferred from Moor, 755. for the Judges declared the Deprivation of the Clergy for not conforming to the Canons, to be legal; but they say nothing p. 374of others. But in the Case of Bird and Smith, f. 783. the Chancellor and three Chief Judges declared, That the Canons made in Convocation by the King's Authority, without Parliament, do bind in Ecclesiastical Matters, as an Act of Parliament. And therefore I proceed to shew,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But how can acts of Disobedience make a reasonable Custom?

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

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

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

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

p. 3811. It is certain, that no late Customs brought in by such as have no Authority to oblige, can bind others to follow them. For this were to lay open a Gap to the introducing foolish and superstitious Customs into the Church, which would make Distinctions without cause, and make way for Differences and Animosities, which all wise and good Men will avoid as much as may be.

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

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

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

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

2. The Use of Organical Musick in the Publick Service. If it tends to compose, and settle, and raise the Spirits p. 383of Men in the Acts of Worship, I see no Reason can be brought against it. If it be said to be only a natural Delight, that Reason will hold against David, 2 Chron. 29. 25.2 Chr 29:25who appointed it by God's own Commandment. They who call it Levitical Service, can never prove it to be any of the Typical Ceremonies, unless they can shew what was represented by it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 3851. That where Ecclesiastical Constitutions do inforce any part of the Law of God, although it be not expresly contained therein, they do immediately bind the Consciences of Men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of the text · Edward Stillingfleet, Ecclesiastical Cases Relating to Parochial Clergy (1698)