were much to be wished that their Majesties and the Reverend Prelates of the Church would revive the Order to supply the want of the Episcopal Function in those Diocesses which are deprived of the benefit of their proper Bishops either through necessary absence or through age and infirmities And for this there needeth no new Law or Canon I have passed through those Considerations which do particularly relate to the Case of Bishops altho from these an invincible argument for the lawfulness of Plurality and Non-residence in Parish Priests may be raised For if it be lawful for a Bishop to obtain Pluralities and use Non-residence much more will it be lawful to a Priest whose duty is not so strict nor his office of so great concern to the Church But I proceed to prove what I before proposed That altho Plurality and Non-residence were Jure Divino forbid to Bishops yet it would not follow that it is in like manner forbid to Priests They who maintain the Residence of Bishops to be of Divine Right proceed upon this Principle That the Order of Bishops is of Divine Institution and therefore Bishops are Jure Divino obliged to perform their office in their Diocesses which office they suppose cannot be discharged without residence Upon this Principle the Spanish Bishops proceeded when they contended for the Divine Right of Residence in the Council of Trent This Principle we of the Church of England do allow yet it hath been already proved that the Divine Right of Residence in Bishops doth not follow from it But suppose it should necessarily follow from it yet would not this involve Parochial Priests in the same obligation unless their Parochial office also were of Divine right which we do not allow I know the Presbyterians do contend for this as making no distinction in Order or Office between a Bishop and a Presbyter But for a Church of England Divine to aâ—gue the jus divinum of Parish Priests Residence from the jus divinum of Bishops Residence is no other than to betray the cause of the Church and of Episcopacy to the Presbyterians Bishops in the very institution of them were designed by God to preside over the Church in certain Cities and the Territories of them to be assigned to every one of them So that not only the Order but the designation of them to some certain place is of Divine institution The extent of the Territories of that place and consequently the greatness or smalness of his Diocess doth indeed depend upon human Laws and no more The Office and Order of Presbyters is indeed also of Divine institution but not their designation to any certain place They were appointed and ordained to assist the Bishop in governing and instructing his flock not necessarily to preside in any one part of the Bishops Diocess or to take care of any certain number of the faithful but to assist in such a manner and method as the Bishop and the Church should direct So that altho the division of the whole Catholick Church into many Diocesses be of Divine institution yet the division of any Diocess into many Parishes is not so All this will be sufficiently evident if it be proved that the Division of Diocesses into Parishes and assigning those Parishes to the perpetual care of so many Priests was made by meer humane Authority and that in different methods and gradually and not began till some Ages after the time of the Apostles and the Institution of Bishops The proof of this will evince all that hath been laid down by us and not only overthrow the argument of our Adversaries drawn from the supposed jus divinum of Bishops residence but also demonstrate that neither Plurality of Parochial Cures nor Non-residence upon such Cures can be jure divino unlawful to a Presbyter it being absurd that the circumstances of any matter should be of Divine right when the substance of the matter it self is not so And upon this ground Judge Hobart well maintained the lawfulness of Pluralities however another great Lawyer Lord Chief Justice Coke was so far mistaken as to be of a contrary opinion I proceed therefore to prove That the division of Diocesses into Parishes and subjection of every Parish to a peculiar Priest was made by humane Authority long after the Institution of Bishops and foundation of Churches gradually and not uniformly When the Christian Religion was first propagated in the Cities of the Roman Empire for it was very late before it extended to the country villages we may suppose that for some time at least one Church supplied the necessities of all the Christians of that City That the Bishop presided in that one Church none will doubt All this while it is certain there could be no appropriation of certain Presbyters to certain Churches When the number of the Christians in any City or in the neighbouring Country multiplied so far that one Church could not contain them others were erected in the City or Country and the number of these encreased proportionably with the number of Christians of any Diocess These auxiliary Churches were no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother-Church at which the Bishop resided and were accounted as such until at least the middle of the fifth Century The Bishop himself resided at the Mother-Church attended by his Presbyters The auxiliary Churches were served by the Presbyters at the appointment of the Bishop either in common or by turns or in any other method which the Bishop in his prudence should direct If any Bishop thought â—it to appoint certain Presbyters to attend constantly and without change upon certain Churches it was meerly because it was his pleasure Other Bishops took different methods as themselves judged best and might either appoint two Presbyters either co-ordinate or subalâ—ern to serve one Church or one Presbyter to serve two Churches or all Presbyters to take their turns in every Church There was no fixed or determinate rule herein The truth of all this is attested by Sozomen who wrote about the year 430 For he observes it as a singularity in the Diocess of Alexandria that therein Parochial Churches if I may so call those auxiliary Churches before mentioned were appropriated or committed to so many certain fixed Presbyters Petavius indeed contends that the same Custom obtained at this time as well in Rome as in Alexandria but his opinion and authorities are confuted by Valesius in his Notes upon this place of Sozomen and will be further overthrown by that Observation which immediately follows I will only add in this place that even in Alexandria the whole discharge of the Sacred Office was not yet entrusted to the Parochial Clergy but great part of it reserved to be executed only in the Cathedral Church For Socrates affirms that in his time the Presbyters were not permitted to preach at Alexandria It is not improbable that about this time the duty of the Presbyters began at Rome to be fixed
Church exclaim powerfully against her Governours and cry up the necessity of Reformation To so warm a zeal for publick good private sins would easily be permitted Those who know the Town have seen Examples of both kinds within this year This Air of Popularity hath been the great pest of the Church in all Ages when Church-men employ their Designs not so much to preserve the Honour of Religion as to acquire to themselves a Name and Interest among the Multitude when they apply themselves to obtain the favour of the professed Enemies of the Church and for that end stick not to betray her Constitutions and to be instrumental in her disgrace Doubtless in the ancient Church it would not have been thought any great recommendation of a Catholick Clergy-man to have sought the favour of the Donatists to admit and second those heavy Imputations which they cast upon the Catholicks to call them Brethren and treat the sincere Members of the Church as Enemies How can it ever be expected that the Laity should conscientiously obey the Constitutions of the Church and retain their duty to her when the Clergy make light of her Authority vilifie her Constitution court the friendship of those who have divided themselves from her Communion and seek her Ruine when for their sake they will slight her Sacred Offices mutilate or disuse her Ceremonies prostitute her Honour and betray her Cause It is undeniable that this great Cry against Pluralities was raised by the Enemies of the Church the Puritans in the last Age. Before the Reformation the same Clamours were raised against Pluralities by the Mendicant Orders The Artifices and Hypocrisy of both are so like that they ought not to be passed by without some reflection These Mendicant Orders arose and chiefly infested the Church in the Thirteenth Age. They pretended an extraordinary Call from God to reform the World and correct the Faults of the Secular Clergy To this end they put on a mighty shew of Zeal for the good of mens Souls and of contempt of the World accused the Secular Clergy of famishing the Souls of Men called them dumb Dogs and cursed Hirelings maintained that Evangelical Poverty became the Ministers of the Gospel that it was unlawful for them to possess any thing or to retain propriety in any worldly Goods As for the Publick Orders of the Church they would not be tied to them alledging that themselves being wholly Spiritual could not be obliged to any Carnal Ordinances They broke in every where upon the Parochial Clergy usurped their Office in all populous and rich Places set up Altars of their own withdrew the People from the Communion of their Parish-Priest would scarce allow the hopes of Salvation to any but their own Disciples whom they bewitched with great pretences of Sanctity and assiduity in Preaching These Artifices had raised their Reputation and Interest so high in a few years that they wanted very little to ruine the Secular Clergy and therewith the Church But in less than an Age the cheat of these Impostors became manifest to all men They procured to their Societies incredible Riches built to themselves stately Palaces infinitely surpassed that viciousness of which themselves had perhaps unjustly accused the Secular Clergy and long before the Reformation became the most infamous and contemptible part of the Church of Rome After the decay of their Reputation the Jesuites arose that last and greatest Scourge of the Christian Church who upon the same Principles and Pretences carried on the same Design and still prosecute it in opposition to the Clergy where ever they are planted altho the World is no less convinced of their Fraud than of their Predecessours whom after all their pretences to Evangelical Poverty and Simplicity they have far exceeded in Riches and worldly Interest After all this it may be easily judged how little Authority their Opinion in this matter ought to bear and how unfair it is to alledge the Determinations of the Regulars against the Secular Clergy To cite the Opinions of them in this Case of Pluralities is no other than to produce the Authority of Baxter or Owen against Episcopacy or of Milton and Ferguson against Monarchy Such were the Opposers of Pluralities in our Church before the Reformation I mean the Opposers of the simple use of them as for the Opposers of the great abuse of them many of them were excellent men of which I shall speak hereafter Since the Reformation altho the Abuse of them was not continued they have been vehemently decried by the Puritans whose agreement with the Mendicants in the same Principles and Designs is so evident from the precedent account of the latter that I need not make any minute comparison Every one knows what were the first Pretences and Principles of our Dissenters and what is their modern Practice how they inveighed against our Secular Clergy maintained the unlawfulness of their Possessions set up Altar against Altar withdrew the Laity from their Communion put on a specious appearance of Mortification and unusual Sanctity have long since quitted their precise strictness but still retain the pretence and their quarrel to the Clergy Thus an hardned Hypocrisy will obstinately persist altho it be notorious that the Cheat has been long since discovered by the experience of a more licentious practice of those things which themselves have condemned in others Particularly in this Case of Pluralities it is well known that when the Dissenters had by a successful Rebellion ejected all the Clergy of the Kingdom together with their lawful King and usurped the Authority and Revenues of both their Leaders and Favourites seized on and retained to themselves more Benefices than have been lately united in any Clergy-man of the Church of England And at this day many of the Heads of the Separation hold Plurality of Conventicles as the Presbyterians of Scotland do of Benefices To these open and professed Enemies of the Church I might add those secret ones those unfaithful Clergy-men those Traditores who seek to oblige the Enemies of the Church by betraying her Out-guards to them Altho I would not lay the imputation of Infidelity upon all Some it may be hoped acted upon a mistaken Zeal and false Prejudices But upon whatever Principle they proceeded it was long since observed of them that with insatiable greediness they heaped up Plurality and Multiplicity of Prebends in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and there growing fat inveighed against the Dualities of the Parochial Clergy as a Mortal Sin Among all our Bishops since the Reformation none have so much favoured the Cause of our Dissenters as Hooper and Williams the first through weakness of Judgment the other through a violent Ambition which prompted him to oppose whatsoever his Rival Arch-Bishop Laud should undertake Of these Hooper held two Bishopricks those of Glocester and Worcester for many years together an abuse which this Church had never seen from the time of Stigand to Cardinal Wolsey And
Spanish Bishops therefore in the Council of Trent at the same time that they desired Residence of Bishops to be declared to be jure divino required it to be decreed That Bishops are bound to reside in their Bishopricks six months in the Year at least By the same reason that they allowed six months of Non-residence others might have allowed eight since the same authority or reasons which could dispense with the jus divinum of Residence for one half of the Year might dispense with it for two thirds and if for so much why not for the whole This uncertainty of opinion and impossibility of fixing any certainty herein manifests the whole supposition to want all foundation Yet it is not unfit to be considered that if the Opinion of the Spanish Bishops should be allowed a Dualist might easily observe the conditions of their jure divino Residence residing six months at one Benefice and six months at the other So that their Opinion is not only false but also impertinent to our purpose who defend the modern practice of the Church of England which allows no more than two Benefices to one person Now to dismiss the Spanish Bishops and consider the intrinsick merits of the Cause let us enquire upon what grounds Residence can be thus supposed to be necessary Certainly the Nature of the thing doth not absolutely direct it For suppose an Incumbents house seated in the extreme limits of his Parish as is the case of many the Incumbent living herein will be allowed to observe Residence Now suppose the Incumbent dwelleth not here but an hundred yards further in another contiguous Parish shall this Residence cease to be such as is required jure divino meerly for the difference of the distance of an hundred yards altho he may perhaps be much nearer to his own Church than many thousand other Incambents who live within the bounds of their own Parishes I know it is forbidden by our Civil Laws But that alters not the state of the Question when we enquire concerning the jus divinum of this Residence Let us again put the Case of two contiguous Parishes united in the person of one Priest who resides in one of them and of some other Parish which besides the Mother-Church hath a Chappel of case annexed to it I challenge the most acute man in the whole World to discover any difference as to matter of Conscience or Divine Institution between these two Cases For altho our Law maketh a difference yet the Law of God and the nature of the thing make none However none ever doubted the lawfulness of holding a Chappel of case with the Mother-Parish Nay altho the Mother Parish may contain five or seven or sâ—metimes ten Chappels of ease no difference is made in the case Some of these Chappels may be ten miles distant from the Mother-Church yet here the judgments of men alter not because of such distance And if ten miles distance be allowed why not fifteen or twenty or thirty which the Canon allows for the uâ—most distance of two Benefices to be hâ—ld by one person For whether the Chappel or distinct Church be ten or thirty miles distant from the Mother Church or the other distinct Church at which the Rector of both doth reside it is certain that the Sacred Offices of each must be supplied by a Curate And then the exclamations of the Anti-Pluralists will lye equally against both cases That here the Sacred trust is hired out to Mercenaries That one feeds the Flock and another receives the Fleece It would be inexcusable folly to alledge that in one case the two Parishes are distinct in the other case but one For do we think that God will regard this nicety when in the nature of the thing there is no real difference Not to say that Plurality of Benefices is in our Church confined to the number of two whereas Chappels of ease belonging to one Mother-Church are allowed to be held without number altho in foro conscientiae one Mother-Church with three Chappels of ease doth as really constitute four distinct Benefices as one distinct Benefice personally united to another do constitute two Benefices Yet no scruple is made of the lawfulness of one case altho the crime of it if there were any is really double to the other Yet after all our Adversaries will persist and without regard to the merit or reason of things will maintain that Pluralities are unlawful That they are not unlawful in their nature we have proved That Non-residence also in the nature of it is not unlawful is evinced They recur therefore to the Sacred Office annexed to the Benefice and contend that it ought to be executed by personal attendance that the Incumbents ought not to receive the fee and commit the work to the care of some inferior or raw Practitioner but personally watch over the Cure of Souls committed to their charge Now in the Case of Chappels of ease Curates are and must be imployed yet they condemn not the practice So that it is not simply evil to discharge this imposed trust by Curates But to dismiss this Case of Chappels of ease so grievous to our Anti-Pluralists it is well known that the Terms of Dispensations of Pluralities require every Pluralist to reside upon each Benefice some considerable time every year So that he cannot be said wholly to commit to Mercenaries the trust imposed on him since himself doth in each Benefice successively discharge it To this our Adversaries rejoyn that by the Law of God he is bound to discharge the whole trust in his own person and not commit any part of it to Mercenaries Now see the unhappiness of airy Projects If this be admitted all the inconveniencies before mentioned in the Case of necessity of perpetual Residence will return Or if to avoid them they will allow that the Incumbent may sometimes be absent suppose for two months in every year then during that time his Office must be supplied by a Substitute So that for two months time it will be lawful for any Incumbent to execute his Office by a Proxy And if for two months why not for three or four or more Who shall determine the utmost limit of the allowed time If it be said that the Laws of the Country shall determine it as it hath in our Nation by the space of two months I answer that I enquire not now what may be done jure humano but divino besides that this Humane Law hath been dispensed with and relaxed by other Laws in many particular Cases and especially in the Case of Pluralities But to forgive all the absurdities follies and inconveniencies to which the Opinion of our Adversaries necessarily doth betry them and proceed to the examination of their remaining arguments It is generally alledged by them That the care of Souls being so great a concern ought to be managed with the utmost diligence that it ought not to be delegated to a more unworthy person
afterwards but so as to supply in some measure the necessities of every Diocess every part of it having at least some one Church within its neighbourhood to which the People might repair to pay their Devotions and receive instruction Many Canons therefore made about that time insinuate the establishment of Parochial Cures every where and the division of Diocesses into them Thus in the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York the first is Vnusquisque Sacerdos Ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentiâ aedificet For in many places the Patrons endowed the Churches but built not the Edifice leaving that to be done by the Priest out of the Oblations and contribution of the Christians of the vicinage which was easily effected in those times when devotion and piety were very great in all Orders of men The second Constitution directs all Priests to sound the Bells of their Churches at the usual hours of day and night to give notice of the time of prayer and of the several Offices of Religion which were then daily performed by the Priests in publick The sixth enjoyns every Priest carefully to instruct the people committed to him in the Lordâ—s prayer and the Creed This Parochial division was long before introduced in France For the Laws of King Dagobert made in the year 630. direct that Si quis Presbytero vel Diacono quem Episcopus in Parochiâ ordinavit vel qualem plebs sibi recepit ad Sacerdotem injuriam â—ecerit he should be punished in such a manner In England the first Synod of Celcyth held in the year 787. commands Vt omni anno in Synodalibus conventibus ab Episcopis singularum Ecclesiarum Presbyteri qui populum erudire debent de ipsâ fide diligentissimè examinentur And the tenth Canon of the second Synod at Celcyth which was held in the year 816. appoints that at the death of a Bishop Statim per singulas Parochias in singulis quibusq Ecclesiis pulsato signo omnis famulorum Dei coetus ad Basilicam conveniat ibiq pariter triginta Psalmos pro defuncti animâ decantent In proportion to the increase of these Parochial Foundations the necessity of sending itinerant Priests through the Diocess decreased and at last wholly ceased The last mention which I find made of them is in the 9th Canon of the Synod of Clovesho now Cliff held by Archbishop Cuthbert in the year 747 in which it is decreed Vt Presbyteri per loca regiones Laiâ—orum quae sibi ab Episcopis Provinciae insinuata injuncta sunt Evangelicae praedicationis Officium in baptizando docendo ac visitando studeant explere Which confirms my former conjecture that before the year 800. the Parochial division of Diocesses was generally received and that the ordinary instruction of the People was then wholly left to the Parish-Priests For before this time those two reasons which chiefly discouraged the erection and endowment of Parochial Churches had been taken away Of these the first was That all the Lands Tithes Oblations and Ecclesiastical Revenues of the whole Diocess belonged to the disposition of the Bishop so that the particular endowment of any Parish Church did only add so much to the common Treasure of the Diocess This being no small cause of restraining the devotion of Lay-founders the Bishops at last condescended that the whole revenue of the endowment with all other Ecclesiastical profits which should come to the hands of the Priest officiating at such a Church should be taken from the common Treasury of the Diocess and be perpetually annexed to the Church of that Clerk who received it So that the Bishop should not any longer receive those profits nor the Incumbent expect his Salary from the Bishop This the Bishops willingly did as soon as by the erection of many Parish-Priests the necessity of maintaining so many itinerant Priests ceased and their Cathedrals were sufficiently endowed for the maintenance of themselves and their Colledge of Clergy consâ—antly attending the service of the Cathedral Church Yet however they parted with the propriety and immediate dispensation of that part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of their Diocesses they still limited and appointed the uses in which they should be imployed by the Parochial Clergy This appears from several Constitutions before cited upon other occasions and from others which may be alledged to the same purpose as the French Capitular made in the year 779 which orders cap. 7. De Decimis ut unusquisque suam decimam donet atque per jussionem Pontificis dispensentur Another Capitular directs it more expresly in these words Vt Decimae in potestate Episcopi sint qualiter à Presbyteris dispensentur The same is decreed in the Council of Worms cap. 59. and may be found in Regino L. 1. c. 42. This Priviledge of the Bishops continued in England at least until the time of King Alfred who confirmed it by a Law and appointed the Tithes delivered to the Priests to be divided into three parts Vnam partem and Ecclesiae reparationem alteram pauperibus erogandam tertiam verò Ministris Dei qui Ecclesiam ibi curant Which was consonant to the first limitation of their use made when they were first taken from the common Treasure of the Diocess save only that the Bishops had now long since remitted their fourth part which at first they did reserve The other discouragement of the Foundation of Parochial Churches was That the Incumbents of them would often either through levity or the hope of gaining other Churches better endowed or for any other reason quit their Churches and thereby defraud their Patrons of the end which they proposed in the foundation viz. the constant presence of a Priest for their instruction and the performance of Religous duties This therefore was soon remedied and the Parish Priests forbid to quit their Cures without the leave of their Diocesan as well as to accept them without their permission So the National Synod of France held in the year 744. in the presence of Boniface the Popes Lâ—gate decreed cap. 5. De Sacerdotibus qui suos titulos absque licentia Episcopi dimittunt ut tamdiu à communione habeantur alieni quousque ad suos titulos revertantur And cap. 10. Quando Presbyteri vel Diaconi per parochias constituuntur oportet eos Episcopo suo professionem facere The first Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 769. reneweth both these Canons Cap. 9. Nemo accipiat Ecclesiam in Parochiam sine consensu Episcopi sui nec de unâ ad aliam transeat Another Capitular commands those Clergymen to be degraded who forsook their Churches and accepted the Cure of others Presbyter vel Diaconus qui deserit Ecclesiam suam ad aliam transierit deponatur Some Capitulars and Councils apply this to the Bishops as well as the inferiour Clergy and forbid as well them to be translated from one Bishoprick
they are all dumb dogs they cannot bark sleeping lying down loving to slumber c. He must be very acute that can convict Pluralists out of these Texts what is there in all this which may not as well be applied to Priests possessing one Benefice as two Nay what doth this at all concern Parochial Priests as such being directed against the Prophets of Israel many of whom were not Priests and those who were Priests not fixed in distinct Parishes Not to say that he must be blind who sees not that the first passage is directed against the oppression and tyranny of Temporal Governours the second reproveth the cowardice and neglect of the Prophets who did not couragiously oppose Idolatry nor warn the People against it as they ought to have done when wicked Princes endeavoured to introduce it Such dumb dogs were the Presbyterians and other Dissenters in the Reign of the late King who formerly made a violent outcry against Popery in the Reign of other Kings when there was little or no danger of it but when the danger became real and Popery in earnest began tobe introduced were then wholly silent feared to oppose it but rather assisted to introduce it by encouraging that unhappy Prince in the Usurpation of his Dispensing Power I should be thought to trifle if I should give a serious answer to some other Texts which are in this case produced by our Adversaries to no better purpose That Text of S. Matthew alledged by the Puritan Conventicler Abraham begat Isaac whence he observed that Residence was of Divine Right for if Abraham had not resided he could not have begat Isaac is as material as any of them not to except the irrefragable Testimony said to be produced by the Assembly of Divines who in their Annotations on the first Chapter of Genesis having taken notice of all these parts of the World which God is there said to have created subjoyned this worthy note Here is no mention made of Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials Pluralists c. Ergo God did not create them This Opinion of the necessity of Residence is chiefly taken from the Spanish Bishops and Divines in the Council of Trent who often and strongly endeavoured to get Residence to be declared to be of Divine Right and consequently indispensable Their Authority in this case never fails to be urged by our Adversaries as if they would represent the Clergy of the Church of England to be worse than those of the Church of Rome However it is somewhat absurd to urge against us the Authority of the minor part of that Council when themselves will not be bound by the Decrees of the major part of it We believe the whole Council to be fallible much more the lesser part They pretend indeed this to have been the more Learned and Honest part of the Council This is spoken gratis and may as easily be denied by us If it were worth the while it could be proved that the Spanish Bishops were not free from sinister and corrupt designs herein and the Divines who disputed on their side were all Dominican Friers and consequently no impartial Judges of the duty of the Secular Clergy But to make the most of their Authority it respecteth not the Case of Parochial Priests but only of Bishops The Pope had usurped to himself the Title of Universal Bishop not only in Name but Office upon pretence of which his Flatterers maintained that all the Pastoral power of the Church was committed originally by Christ to him alone and from him derived to other Bishops who were no other than his Delegates and Commissioners To overthrow this Doctrine and assert their own Authority the Spanish Bishops laboured in the Council to obtain a Declaration of the Divine Right of Residence since if that were allowed it would necessarily follow that their Order also was of Divine Right and not only by Papal permission and Delegation Of this the Pope and his Dependants in the Council being aware quashed their undertaking Now all this relates only to Bishops So that to apply the Opinion of the Spanish Bishops herein to the Case of Parish Priests may be allowed indeed in our Dissenters who make no distinction between the two Orders but is unpardonable in a Writer of the Church of England who cannot but know that altho the Pope hath not original Jurisdiction in toto in solido in any Diocese beside his own yet a Bishop hath in all the Parishes of his Diocese and that altho Episcopacy is of Divine Institution yet Parochial Cures are not so But to clear this matter beyond all doubt I will examine the Case of Residence more strictly and first by such considerations as shall equally concern the Case of Bishops and of Parish Priests Secondly I will prove that the Residence of Bishops is not of Divine Right and lastly shew that although the Residence of Bishops were of Divine Right yet it would not thence follow that the Residence of Parish Priests is of the same kind Of the general Considerations which concern the Cause of both the first shall be that it will be impossible to settle the limits and term of this jure divino Residence Things of this nature appear very plausible in the theory and while they are carried no further seem desirable and excellent but when they are reduced to practice the folly of the speculation will soon appear If therefore the Spanish Bishops had been asked in the Council whether the Residence which they asserted to be of Divine Right included the whole Year or only part of it they could not have agreed in it If Residence of the whole Year were required by the Law of God by what warrant did they appear in that place out of their Diocesses or at any time attend their Prince or his Council or Officers upon the weighty Affairs of Church or State If only partial Residence were required who should define how much God would accept or how much might lawfully be spent out of their Diocesses It might have been alledged against them that it was rash and unwarrantable for any man to define the limits of the time required or rather that since God himself had revealed nothing as to this matter it was an evident argument that he intended no such obligation That if Residence were indeed jure divino necessary no Authority upon earth could dispence with one days absence but if so the interest and necessities and emergencies of the Church could not be managed successfully or supplied Or if 40 or 60 days were allowed for such occasions why not as well 70 or 80 since here was no fixed rule to determine the number beside the occasions and necessities of the Church which might sometimes as well require an absence of the whole 365 days as of sixty And when such cases happen such a total absence would be lawful for the same reasons for which they supposed a partial absence to be so The