my knowledge or confent: So help me God, through Jefus Chrift."

It is extraordinary, that Bishop Gibson should have thought this oath to be against all promifes whatsoever, when the terms of the oath exprefly reftrain it to fimoniacal promifes; and the law alone must pronounce what promises, as well as what payments, and contracts, are fimoniacal, and, confequently, come within the oath; and what are not fo.

Now the law adjudges to be fimony,

1. All payments, contracts, or promises, made by any perfon, for a benefice already vacant. The advowfon of a void turn, by law cannot be transferred from one patron to another; therefore, if the void turn be procured by money, it must be by a pecuniary influence upon the then fubfifting patron in the choice of his prefentee; which is the very practice the law condemns.

2. A clergyman's purchafing of the next turn of a benefice for himself, " directly or indirectly," that is, by himself, or by another perfon with his money. It does not appear, that the law prohibits a clergyman from purchafing the perpetuity of a patronage, more than any other perfon; but purchafing the perpetuity, and forthwith felling it again, with a refervation of the next turn, and with no other defign than to poffefs himself of the next turn, is in fraudem legis, and inconfiftent with the oath.

3. The procuring of a piece of preferment, by ceding to the patron, any rights, or probable rights, belonging to it. This is fimony of the worst kind; for it is not only buying preferment, but robbing your fucceffor to pay for it.

4. Promifes to the patron of a portion of the profit, of a remiffion of tythes and dues, or other advantage out of the produce of the benefice: which kind of compact is a pernicious condefcenfion in the clergy, independent of the oath; for it tends to introduce a practice which may very foon become ge

neral,

neral, of giving the revenues of churches to the lay patrons, and fupplying the duty by indigent ftipendaries.

5. General bonds of refignation, that is, bonds to refign upon demand.

I doubt not but that the oath is binding upon the confciences of those who take it, though I queftion much the expediency of requiring it. It is very fit to debar public patrons, fuch as the king, the lord chancellor, bishops, ecclefiaftical corporations, and the like, from this kind of traffic, becaufe, from them may be expected fome regard to the qualifications of the perfons whom they promote. But the oath lays a fnare for the integrity of the clergy; and I do not perceive, that the requiring of it, in cafes of private patronage, produces any good effect, fufficient to compenfate for this danger.

Where advowfons are holden along with manors, or other principal eftates, it would be an easy regulation to forbid that they should ever hereafter be feparated; and would, at least, keep church preferment out of the hands of brokers.

CHAP.

144 OATHS TO OBSERVE LOCAL STATUTES.

CHA P. XXI.

OATHS TO OBSERVE LOCAL STATUTES.

M

EMBERS of colleges in the univerfities, and of other ancient foundations, are required to fwear to the obfervance of their refpective ftatutes; which obfervance is become in fome cafes unlawful, in others impracticable, in others incon

venient.

Unlawful directions are countermanded by the authority which made them unlawful.

Impracticable directions are dispensed with by the neceffity of the cafe.

The only question is, how far the members of thefe focieties may take upon themselves to judge of the inconveniency of any particular direction, and make that a reason for laying afide the observation of it.

The animus imponentis, which is the measure of the juror's duty, feems to be fatisfied, when nothing is omitted, but what, from fome change in the circumflances under which it was prescribed, it may fairly be prefumed that the founder himself would have dispensed with.

To bring a cafe within this rule, the inconveniency muft,

1. Be manifeft; concerning which there is no doubt.

2. It must arise from fome change in the circumftances of the inftitution; for let the inconveniency be what it will, if it exifted at the time of the foundation, it must be prefumed, that the founder did not deem the avoiding of it of fufficient importance to alter his plan.

3. The

3. The direction of the ftatute must not only be inconvenient in the general, for fo may the inftitution itself be, but prejudicial to the particular end propofed by the inftitution; for it is this last circumstance which proves that the founder would have difpenfed with it in purfuance of his own purpose.

The ftatutes of fome colleges forbid the fpeaking of any language but Latin, within the walls of the college; direct that a certain number, and not fewer than that number, be allowed the use of an apartment amongst them; that fo many hours of each day be employed in public exercises, lectures, or difputations; and fome other articles of difcipline adapted to the tender years of the ftudents, who in former times reforted to universities. Were colleges to retain fuch rules, nobody now-a-days would come near them. They are laid afide therefore, though parts of the ftatutes, and as fuch included within the oath, not merely because they are inconvenient, but because there is fufficient reafon to believe, that the founders themselves would have difpenfed with them, as fubverfive of their own defigns.

CHA P. XXII.

S

SUBSCRIPTION TO ARTICLES OF RELIGION.

UBSCRIPTION to Articles of Religion, though no more than a declaration of the lub fcriber's affent, may properly enough be confidered in connection with the fubject of oaths, because it is governed by the fame rule of interpretation: Which rule is the animus imponentis.

The inquiry therefore concerning fubfcription will be, quis impofuit, et quo animo.

The bishop who receives the fubfcription, is not the impofer, any more than the cryer of a court, who adminifters the oath to the jury and witneffes, is the perfon that impofes it; nor confequently is the private opinion or interpretation of the bishop of any fignification to the fubfcriber, one way or other.

The compilers of the thirty-nine articles are not to be confidered as the impofers of fubfcription, any more than the framer or drawer up of a law is the person that enacts it.

The legislature of the 13th Eliz. is the impofer, whose intention the fubfcriber is bound to fatisfy.

They who contend, that nothing lefs can justify fubfcription to the thirty-nine articles, than the actual belief of each and every feparate propofition contained in them, muft fuppofe, that the legiflature expected the confent of ten thousand men, and that in perpetual fucceffion, not to one controverted propofition, but to many hundreds. It is difficult to conceive how this could be expected by any, who observed the incurable diverfity of human opinion upon all fubje&s fhort of demonftration.