BENEFICE. 



BENEFICE. 



70 



alienating as they had been in the habit of doing to the detriment of 

 their successors. (Father Paul's 'Treatise on Ecclesiastical Benefices.') 



The general obscurity that hangs over the history of the middle 

 ages prevents us from ascertaining, with precision, at what period the 

 changes we have alluded to were introduced into the west of Europe. 

 This, however, seems clear, that after the feudal system had acquired a 

 firm footing in the west of Europe, during the 9th and 10th centuries, 

 its principles were soon applied to ecclesiastical as well as lay property. 

 Hence, as the estates distributed in fief by the sovereigns of France 

 and Germany among their favoured nobles, were orignally termed 

 beneficia [BEXEFICIUM], this name was conferred, by a kind of doubtful 

 analogy, upon the temporal possessions of the Church. Thus, the 

 bishoprics were supposed to be held by the bounty of the sovereigns 

 (who having by degrees obtained, had now usurped the right originally 

 vested in the clergy and people, of filling them up when vacant), while 

 the temporalities of the inferior ecclesiastical offices were held of the 

 bishops, in whose patronage and disposal they for the most part then 

 were. The manner of investiture of benefices in those early times was 

 probably the same as that of lay property, by the delivery of actual 

 possession, or of some symbols of possession, as the ring and crozier, 

 which were the symbols of investiture appropriated to bishoprics. 



Benefices being thus endowed, and recognised as a species of private 

 property, their number gradually multiplied during the ages succeed- 

 ing that of Charlemagne. In England especially several causes con- 

 tributed to the rise of parochial churches. " Sometimes (Dr. Burn, 

 ' Eccles. Law,' tit. Appropriation) the itinerant preachers found encou- 

 ragement to settle amongst a liberal people, and by their assistance to 

 raise up a church and a little adjoining manse. Sometimes the kings, 

 in their country vills and seats of pleasure or retirement, ordered a 

 place of worship for their court and retinue, which was the original of 

 royal free chapels. Very often, the bishops, commiserating the igno- 

 rance of the country people, built churches as the only way of planting 

 or keeping up Christianity among them. But the more ordinary 

 method of augmenting the number of churches depended on the piety 

 of the greater lords; who, having large fees and territories in the 

 country, founded churches for the service of their families and tenants 

 within their domains. It was this that gave a primary title to the 

 patronage of laymen, and made the bounds of a parish, in many cases, 

 commensurate to those of a manor : and it was this distinct property 

 of lords and tenants that by degrees allotted new parochial bounds, by 

 the adding of new auxiliary churches." [Aovowsox.] 



It appears, however, that if there were any new fee erected within a 

 lordship, or there were any people within the precinct not dependent 

 on the patron, they were at liberty to choose any neighbouring church 

 or religious house, and to pay their tithes and make their offerings 

 wherever they received the benefits of religion. This by degrees gave 

 rie to the arbitrary appropriation of tithes, which, in spite of positive 

 enactment, continued to prevail till the end of the 12th century, 

 when Innocent III. by a decretal epistle to the archbishop of Can- 

 terbury, enjoined the payment of tithes to the ministers of the respec- 

 tive parishes where every man dwelt. This injunction has been com- 

 plied with ever since, BO that it is now a universal rule of law in 

 England, that tithes are due of common right to the parson of the 

 parish. [TITHES.] 



The 12th century was also the era of an important change in the 

 manner of investiture of ecclesiastical benefices in England. Up to 

 this time the simple donation of the patron was sufficient to confer a 

 legal title to a benefice, provided the person to whom it was given was 

 in holy orders, for otherwise he must be first presented to the bishop, 

 who had power to reject him in case of unfitness ; but the popes, who 

 had in the llth and 12th centuries successfully contended against 

 every other species of ecclesiastical investiture being exercised by 

 laymen, now procured that the presentation of the patron should not 

 b* of itself sufficient to confer an ecclesiastical benefice, even though 

 qualified by the discretionary power of rejection (in case the benefice 

 was given to a layman), which was already vested in the bishop. 

 This was the origin of the ceremonies of institution, which is the mode 

 of investiture of the spiritualities ; and induction, which is the mode of 

 investiture of the temporalities of a benefice. Where the bishop was 

 the patron of the benefice, the two forms of presentation and imtitnli/iii 

 were united in that of collation. But this is not the place to treat of 

 the origin and nature of ecclesiastical patronage in England as a 

 subject of property, the rules of law which apply to it as such, the 

 limitations within which and the forms according to which it must be 

 exercised, or the mode by which it may be vindicated. These, and the 

 respective rights of the bishop, the archbishop, and the crown, in the 

 cam of lapse, are treated of under more appropriate heads. [Anvow- 

 so; QUAKE IMF-EDIT.] 



Although the popes, in denying to laymen the right of ecclesiastical 

 investiture, had still left them in possession of the substantial part of 

 the patronages of benefices, even this privilege was for some centuries 

 not only very much questioned, but in many instances entirely 

 wrested from them by papal encroachment. 



The first attacks by the popes upon the rights of private patrons 

 (which took place towards the latter end of the 12th century) assumed 

 the form of letters of request called ' mandates ' or ' expectatives,' 

 praying that benefices might be conferred on particular individuals. 

 What was first asked an a favour was soon claimed as a right, and rules 



were laid down as to grants and revocations of expectatives. The 

 popes next proceeded to claim the patronage of all benefices vacantia 

 in curia, that is, which fell vacant by the incumbents dying at the 

 court of Rome. The number of these, through the management of 

 that court, which contrived on various pretences to draw ecclesiastics 

 of all ranks to Rome from different parts of Europe, became by degrees 

 very considerable. But Clement V. in the beginning of the 14th cen- 

 tury went beyond all his predecessors, by laying it down broadly as a 

 maxim, that the full and free disposition of all ecclesiastical benefices 

 belonged to the pope. (Clementines, lib. ii. tit. 5, c. 1.) It followed 

 as a consequence from this principle, that the pope could make rever- 

 sionary grants or provisions, as they were called, during the lives of 

 the incumbents ; and that he could reserve such benefices as he thought 

 fit for his own peculiar patronage. At the same time, dispensations 

 from the canons against non-residence and pluralities, and permissions 

 to hold benefices in commendam were freely granted, so that by these 

 and similar means, in some instances fifty or sixty preferments were 

 held by the same person at once. The evils of this (system were felt 

 all over Europe. The best benefices were everywhere filled with 

 Italian priests, ignorant alike of the language and habits of the people 

 to whose spiritual wants they were bound to minister. England in 

 particular suffered so much from papal encroachments during the reign 

 of Henry III., that the English deputies at the Council of Lyon (A.D. 

 1245) complained to the pope that the foreign clergy drew annually 

 from England upwards of 70,000 marks. This remonstrance produced 

 no effect, but the system at length became so intolerable, that a deter- 

 mined plan of opposition to it was gradually formed in the principal 

 nations of western Europe. In this opposition our own ancestors took 

 the lead, and their efforts were in the end completely successful. The 

 parliament, assembled at Carlisle 35 Edw. I., wrote a strong remon- 

 strance to Clement V. against the papal encroachments on the rights 

 of patronage, and the numerous extortions of the court of Rome. 

 This appears to have produced no effect, but it may be cited as a proof 

 of the spirit of the times. The government of Edward II. was too 

 feeble to act; but Edward III. was a prince of very different character. 

 After complaining ineffectually to Clement VI. of the abuse of papal 

 reservations, he procured the famous Statute of Provisors (25 Ed. III. 

 stat. 6) ; which provided that all elections and collations should be free 

 according to law, and that in case any provision, collation, or reserva- 

 tion should be made by the court of Rome of any archbishopric, 

 bishopric, dignity, or other benefice, the king should for that turn have 

 the collation of such archbishopric or other dignities elective, &c. 



This statute was fortified by several others in this and the succeeding 

 reigns, 27 Ed. III. stat. 1, c. 1 ; 38 Ed. III. stat. 1, c. 4; 3 Rich. II. 

 c. 3 ; 7 Rich. II. c. 12 (which enacts that no alien shall be capable of 

 being presented to any ecclesiastical preferment); 12 Rich. II. c. 15; 

 13 Rich. II. stat. 2, cc. 2 & 3; 16 Rich. II. c. 5 ; 2 Hen. IV. c. 8; 

 7 Hen. IV. c. 8; 3 Hen. V. c. 4. These statutes, which inflict very 

 severe penalties on persons endeavouring to enforce the authority of 

 papal bulls and provisions in England, are sometimes called, from the 

 initial words of the writ issued in execution of the process under them, 

 the statutes of praemunm ; and the offence of maintaining the papal 

 power is from this origin usually designated by that term. [PRJSMUNIHE.] 

 The statutes against papal provisions (though not very strictly enforced) 

 remained unrepealed, in spite of the frequent attempts of the popes and 

 their adherents to obtain their abrogation. 



The rights of ecclesiastical patronage having been thus solemnly 

 vindicated by parliament, have, in their fundamental principles, re- 

 mained unaltered to the present time. The ceremonies of presentation 

 and institution in the case of lay patrons, and of collation where the 

 bishop is patron, are still necessary to give a title to all benefices with 

 cure of souls, except those which are technically called perpetual 

 curacies and donatives ; and the title so given is incomplete without 

 corporal induction into possession of the temporalities of the benefices. 

 There are, also, certain acts enjoined either by the canon law or 

 statute, the non-performance of which will subject the incumbent to 

 deprivation of the benefice into which he has been lawfully inducted. 



There is no difference between institution and collation as to the 

 action itself, but they differ somewhat in their respective consequences. 

 Thus, by institution, the church is said to be full against all persons 

 but the crown, and if it has been full for the space of six months, this 

 is a sufficient answer to any action by private persons, or even by the 

 sovereign, where he claims as a private patron and not by royal prero- 

 gative, as in case of lapse, or otherwise. But, by collation, the church 

 is not full, so as to render a plea to that effect available in the temporal 

 courts, except against the collator. Every clerk before institution or 

 collation is required by the canon law to take the oath against simony, 

 and the oath of canonical obedience to the bishop, and to declare by 

 subscription his assent to the doctrine of the royal supremacy, to the 

 Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-nine Articles. The subscrip- 

 tion to the Thirty-nine Articles is also imposed by statute 13 Eliz. 

 e. 12, upon all persons to be admitted to any benefice with cure of 

 souls. Moreover, the statute 1 Eliz. c. 1, and 1 Will. & Mary, c. 8, 

 sec 5, require that every person collated or promoted to any eccle- 

 siastical benefice shall, before he takes upon himself to supply or 

 occupy the same, take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, for 

 which, however, one form of oath has now been substituted. [ALLE- 

 GIANCE.] The statute 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4 (the Act of Uniformity), 



