to certain Churches But then far from being fixed in that method and order which now generally obtains two Presbyters were appointed to attend the service of every auxiliary or Parish Church in the City and for this purpose a co-ordinate power was given by the Bishop to them both This was first observed by the learned Dr. Maurice Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford who hath evinced his Observation from a passage of Hilary the Roman Deacon in his Comment on 1 Tim. cap. 3. which is published among the Works of St. Ambrose In this place â—ilary speaking of the Order of the Roman Church and comparing it with the Jewish Temple notes that they had twenty four Courses of Priests Nunc autem septem Diaconos esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini per Ecclesias unus in Civitate Episcopus But now we must have but seven Deacons for as yet Rome had no more as Sozomen observeth and such a number of Presbyters that there may be two for every Church and over all these one Bishop After all these Parochial Churches were no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother Church and the Presbyters officiating in them no other than Curates to the Bishop employed by him and removable at his pleasure To these the right of administring Baptism and consecrating the Sacred Elements of the Eucharist was not permitted That was reserved solely to the Bishop and the Cathedral Church and not communicated to the auxiliary Churches till after some Ages This was the occasion of that expression so frequent among the ancient Catholicks One Altar one Baptism one Bishop All the Christians of the Diocess were baptized at the Cathedral Church and there only the Sacred Elements of the other Sacrament were consecrated by the Bishop and from thence sent to the Parochial Churches of the Diocess to be communicated to all those who could not come to the mother-Mother-Church This practice continued in the Church of Rome till after the beginning of the fifth Century as appears from the Epistle of Pope Innocent to Decentius Altho in this Popes time the Presbyters of the remoter Parochial Churches in the Country had leave given them to consecrate the Sacred Elements this permission was not yet granted to the City Presbyters So slowly and gradually did the present institution of Parochial Cures or perpetual incardination of certain Presbyters to certain Churches with full power to administer all the Offices of Religion take place in the Church When it was first intirely finisht is not here material to enquire nor indeed can any certain time be fixed to the universal introduction of it since in some Churches it was introduced much sooner or later than in others A particular account of the introduction of it in our National Church belongs to the second head of this Discourse I have now dispatched my first design which was to shew that Plurality is not jure divino unlawful To effect this I have proved That Plurality is not forbidden by the Law of Nature or by the revealed Law of God I have fully examined the Authorities and Reasons produced for the Divine right of Residence upon account of which the enemies to Plurality maintain it to be unlawful and have manifested both to be inconclusive That it is impossible to reduce this jure divino Residence into practice that it is inconsistent with other practices generally allowed and not disallowed even by our Adversaries That such a perpetual Residence is neither required by the nature of the thing nor upon account of the Office annexed to the Benefice That even Bishops in all cases are not bound to maintain such perpetual Residence in one particular Diocess That in the ancient Church Bishops have been allowed to preside over two Diocesses and the same practice hath been all along retained and is still continued in our Church without any contradiction That other Cases and Practices of like nature have been all along and still are allowed and that otherwise the Government of the Church cannot be well maintained And lastly that altho Plurality and Non-residence were by Divine right unlawful to Bishops yet it would not be so to Parochial Priests since the Institution or designation of them to a certain Parish was introduced by humane Authority and not uniformly and but lately in many places and altogether according to the discretion of the Bishop CHAP. II. IN the second place I am obliged to shew That Plurality of Benefices held by one Presbyter is not contrary to the first institution or indowment of Parishes This will easily appear from what hath been premised Before the institution of Parochial Churches it is manifest there could be no indowment of them but it was long before they were instituted and after their institution much longer before any particular indowment of them was made All the Oblations made to them were still transmitted to the mother-Mother-Church and leâ—t to the disposition of the Bishop who generally divided it into four parts took one for his own maintenance assigned another to the Presbyters Deacons and inferiour Clergy a third part to maintain and repair the Edisices of the Church a fourth to the Poor and the entertainment of Strangers All this is so manifest from the Writings of the Ancients that it would be lost time to endeavour to prove it So that at first in all Churches there was no other than a general indowment of the whole Diocess which consisted as well in Lands and Possessions as in voluntary Oblations of the Laity Of this indowment the first and general design was that a competent number of Clergy might be maintained who under the Bishop should supply the service of the whole Diocess in Sacred matters that is to provide for the general Service of the Diocess The secondary design was to provide for the convenience of every individual Parish The first of these was always to be unalterable the second permitted to the direction of the Bishop to be managed or altered at his disâ—retion That Plurality is not contrary to the first design is evident For notwithstanding the permission of Pluralities a competent number of Clergy to supply the Service of the Diocess in Sacris is maintained out of the Revenue of the Church The only seeming Objection is That hereby great inequality is observed in the Stipends of Presbyters which in the first general indowment of the Church may be supposed to have been equal But after all there is as great inequality in the particular indowments of single Benefices and besides this the supposition is not true For the Bishop might if he thought fit give a double share to some Presbyters more than he did to others upon account of greater worth and this both justice and prudence would direct him to do And to this that direction of S. Paul to Timothy Let the Presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honour doth not obscurely relate So that the continuance of
Pluralities is rather consonant to the first design That as while the Ecclesiastical Revenue of the whole Diocess was possessed in common by the Bishop and his Clergy a double share was allowed to Presbyters of eminent merit So after the Revenues became divided and fixed to those several places in which the Sacred Office was to be performed a Plurality of those places should be allowed to Presbyters of extraordinary Worth and Learning The second design is no more hindred by Pluralities than the first For that was only to provide for the convenience and service of every individual Parish and this is still effected notwithstanding Pluralities At the first division of Parishes and incardination of Presbyters if the Bishop had thought fit to set one Presbyter over two Parishes as the Bishop of Rome did two Presbyters over one Parish here had been no immorality in the thing And what Bishops might then do if they had thought convenient their Successours may now do if they shall judge it expedient for the good of their Diocess in general For that is the rule by which they are to direct themselves The secondary design is but subservient to the first and ought always to give place to it So that if it be more for the general good of that Diocess or of the whole Church that any Presbyter of it should retain Plurality of Benefices or be Non-resident at one or both of them then it is more consonant to the first design of endowment that such Plurality should be allowed and Non-residence dispensed with than otherwise And the good of any one or two Parishes is not so much to be considered as the good of the whole Diocess or Church Now such cases often happen as will hereaâ—ter appear when we shall speak of the Convenience or Inconvenience of Plurality and Non-residence If it seem somewhat harsh to aâ—â—irm That to allow Non-residence in any case can be agreeable to the second design of the endowment of the Clergy which was the Convenience and Service of every individual Parish let it be considered that always in case of Non-residence the Sacred Service of every individual Parish is to be supplied by a Curate to be appointed or allowed by the Bishop So that the design is still maintained every individual Parish being provided for and supplied at least by Vicarial Residence At the first division of Parishes the Bishops might if they had pleased have appointed an inferiour Presbyter to supply the cure of every Parish residing constantly thereon and a Superiour Presbyter to oversee him not obliged to any such constant Residence And what Bishops might then do their Successours may with equal Authority do now if they please the Laws of the Church so permitting as was before said Besides upon some accounts the supplying of Benefices by Curates is more agreeable to this second design For the first incardination of Presbyters in Parochial Churches was not for life they were always nominated by the Bishop and might be removed by him All this the Bishop still doth or may do in the case of Curates whereas at this time Parochial Priests retain their Benefices for life cannot be displaced by the Bishop at pleasure and are most of them nominated by other Patrons by whom if unworthy persons be presented the Bishop shall be compelled to admit them by the Severity of the Laws of the Land whereas he can never be forced to admit an unworthy Curate the Law having left the nomination or approbation of him entirely to his pleasure So that for a Bishop to name a Curate to a Pluralist looks much more like the first institution and design A particular account of the foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches especially in our own Nation will be perhaps more satisfactory than such a general discourse concerning them I will therefore present to the Reader such an Historical account of the foundation 〈◊〉 dotation union alteration and possesâ—ion of Parochial Churches here in England as may be collected out of the ancient Histories and Monumenâ—s of our Nation yet extant and from the ancient Capitulars of the Church and Kings of France For it is certain that our Church was formed after the example and model of the Gallican Church it being easie to observe that the greater part of the Canons and Constitutions of our Church made before the Norman Conquest are taken out of the French Capitulars What the practice of the Ancient British Church was in this matter is not easie to determine through distance of time and want of Records Before the coming of the Saxons the whole Nation on this side the Picts wall seems to have professed Christianity and consequently many auxiliary Churches must be supposed to have been erected in every Diocess for the use of Christians living remote from the Motherâ—Church But whether these Churches were served by certain Priests perpetually affixed to that service or by itinerant Priests sent by turns from the Colledge of Priests residing with the Bishop at the Cathedral Church or by any other method is uncertain No Decree of any General Council had yet appointed any rule herein and as for the Decrees of the Popes of Rome they were of no authority in Britain being no part of the Roman Patriarchate Or if the British Clergy had been disposed to have followed the example altho not to obey the Decrees of the Church of Rome yet would not this Example have directed them to supply the cure of the auxiliary Churches by so many fixed Presbyters since no such practice was yet setled in the Church of Rome That Decree of Pope Dionysius which some alledge That all other Churches should follow quod nos in Romanâ Ecclesiâ nuper egisse cognoscitur Ecclesias verò singulas singulis Presbyteris dedimus Parochias Coemiteria eis divisimus unicuique jus proprium habere statuimus ita ut nullus alterius parochioe terminos invadat sed unusquisque suis terminis sit contentus serveth only to declare the practice of the Church of Rome about the year 800 when the Decretals of the ancient Popes were forged by Isidore Mercator Mr. Selden who in his History of Tithes hath treated largely of this Subject endeavoureth to prove that such a Parochial division obtained among the British Clergy from a passage of Gildas The words are these Sacerdotes habet Bâ—itannia sed insipientes quamplurimos Ministros sed impudentes Clericos sed raptores subdolos Ecclesiae domus habentes sed turpis lucri gratiâ eas adeuntes populos docentes sed praebendo pessima exempla I suppose Mr. Selden conceived the strength of this Testimony to lye in these words Ecclesiae domus habentes But whether by these words are to be understood only the Churches themselves or the Manses of Parish-Priests residing at those Churches or the Collegiate houses of the Clergy of every Diocess cannot easily be determined It is not improbable that the Country being very thinly
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
more to be continued one year than fifty If it be alledged that they enjoyed not the Temporal Revenues but only the Spiritual Jurisdiction of these Diocesses I answer that this is all which properly belongs to the Episcopal Function and constitutes the Character of a Bishop The Temporalties are no essential part of him If it be said that this was done for the good of the Church I answer that S. Paul pronounceth it unlawful to do evil that good may come of it and that if Plurality be in its nature unlawful no good design can take away the guilt of it It appears then plainly how false and pernicious the Principles are of these Anti-pluralists That they make it impossible to continue the Government or Service of the Church without inevitable sin or to secure the reputation of so many excellent Prelates from partaking in this sin It is much more easie safe and charitable to suppose that in all these cases of Plurality and Non-residence the principle by which every man ought to direct himself is the general good of the Church And this is the true resolution of the Case Bishops and Priests were not ordained only to serve this Diocess or that Parish in particular but the Church of Christ in general Good Order and Discipline indeed require that the exercise of his Office be confined to some certain limits and place but he still remains a Bishop or Priest not of that place only but of the whole Catholick Church and may execute his Office in any part of the Catholick Church out of his own limits if the greater good of the Church shall so require Whether any mans private case be such he ought to judge by rules of right reason taking especial care that he do not flatter and deceive himself herein by a false judgment And after the satisfaction and direction of his own Conscience ought to be directed herein by his Superiours the Priests by their Bishop and the Bishops by their Metropolitan And when such Cases happen the rules of Religion and the Laws of the Church allow Bishops and Priests either to be Non-resident or to retain the administration of more than one Diocess or Parish Thus in times of Persecution it was always thought lawful for Bishops or Priests to be Non-resident and to execute their Office in any part of the Catholick Church where-ever they should come In times of Infection I will not say it was always thought lawful to be Non-resident but I am sure it was always thought lawful for any Parish Priest in that case to take upon him the care of any neighbour Parish deserted by the proper Priâ—â—t Upon occasion of General Patriarchal or Provincial Councils it was always accounted lawful for Bishops to absent themselves from their Diocesses and attend the Council altho it should last for many months or years together All these Cases became lawful for the same reason because the greater good of the Church did so require Upon the same account it is lawful for the Prelates of our Church to attend continually their Majesties in Council or Parliament or any weighty offices or affairs wherein they shall please to employ them and in all these cases to be Non-resident because it is the interest of the Church in general It is more for the advantage of this National Church that the Archbishop of Canterbury should reside near the Court and be always ready to advise their Majesties in matters of Religion and defend the cause of the Church upon all occasions and more readily receive Appeals and give directions to his whole Province than that he should be tied down in constant Residence in his own Diocess For this reason all the Archbishops of Canterbury since the Reformation have for the greater part of the year and all for these sixty years last past during the whole year resided at Lambeth For this reason all the Bishops of the Church are wâ—nt to give attendance in Parliament altho sometimes their Sessions continue a whole year together because the Church reapeth greater benefit by their presence there than it suffers detriment by a temporary absence from their Diocesses For this reason many excellent Prelates have attended whole years together at Court because it is always of greater advantage to the Church in general to secure the favour of the Prince to it and direct his conscience than continually to attend to the care of any particular Diocess On the contrary if this Principle of these Anti-pluralists be allowed if Plurality be always sinful and in its nature if Residence be of Divine Right and consequently in all cases indispensable it will follow That all those holy and learned Bishops who in all Ages have appeared in Councils That all who have absented themselves in time of Persecution or in that and like cases have taken upon them the care of other Diocesses or Parishes That all the Bishops of our Church who have attended Parliaments since the first institution of them That all the Kings Lords and Commons of this Nation who have by publick Laws required their attendance therein That all the Archbishops of Canterbury since the Reformation and other excellent Prelates alive and dead who have absented themselves from their Diocesses to attend the publick Service of the Church at Court have committed mortal sin and do still continue in it That what hath been laid down in the case of Bishops may not be mistaken I will subjoyn That the obligation of Bishops to all the parts and consequences of their duty and particularly as to Residence is far greater than that of Parochial Priests in as much as the right discharge of their Office is of greater concern to the good of the Church and is also imposed on them by Divine Institution If therefore a Priest ought not to neglect his charge much less a Bishop and if the absence of a Parochial Priest ought to be supplied by a Curate much more doth it seem reasonable that the absence of a Bishop if it be long or frequent should be supplied by a Suffragan Bishop It is a fatal mistake to imagine that the care of the Souls of the Laity belongs only to the inferiour Clergy and that the Bishop hath no more to do but only to govern the Clergy or that a Diocess doth not more want the constant presence of a Bishop than any private Parish the presence of a Priest And therefore in the Church of England before the Reformation even in the most corrupt times of Popery the Archbishop of Canterbury and all other Biâ—hops attending at Court or employed by the King in publick Service constantly maintained Suffragan Bishops in their Diocesses This practice was confirmed and intirely setled by an Act of Parliament in the Reign of Henry VIII and from that time Suffragan Bishops were without interruption continued in the Diocess of Canterbury till the end of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and in some Diocesses till the middle of King James It
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-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-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
inhabited before the coming of the Saxons there was no division of it into Parishes but any pious Priest who designed to instruct the Country people might with the leave of his Biâ—hop in remote places from the Cathedral Church build to himself a Church and therein instruct as many of the neighbouring rusticks as would frequent it This Church became then the proper Possession of that Priest and might by him be sold given demolished or quitted at pleasure This Conjecture for I propose it as no other is countenanced by the 23d Canon of the Council held in Ireland about the year 450 by St. Patrick Auxilius Iserninus and other Bishops which decreeth that Si quis Presbyterorum Ecclesiam â—dificaverit c. If any Presbyter shall build a Church let him not celebrate in it before he bring his Bishop to it that he may consecrate it And in the old Laws of the Northumbrians among whom great number of the conquered Britains still remained altho subject to the Saxons the second is Prohibemus Presbyterum aliquem Ecclesiam alterius emere We forbid one Priest to buy the Church of another and the 22th Law is If any one shall violently eject a Priest out of his Church let him be punished Another passage Mr. Selden produceth to the same purpose out of the ancient little History de Fundatione Ecclesiâ—e Landavensis which is found in the beginning of a famous ancient Register of that Church and is since printed in the English Monasticon The words are these Dubricius being ordained Archbishop of South Wales plures Ecclesiae cum suis dotibus decimis oblationibus sepulturis territoriis liberâ communione datae sunt sibi Ecclesiae Landaviae successoribus suis omnibus à Regibus Principibus Videns aâ—tem Dubricius sibi commissam Ecclesiam partitus est Discipulos mittens quosdam discipulorum suorum per Ecclesiaâ— sibi datas quasdam fundavit Ecclesiaâ— Episcopos coadjutores sibi ordinatis Parochiis suis consecravit Mr. Selden admonisheth that the Author of this History whom I suppose to have writ about the year 1120 speaketh according to the phrase and custom of his own time which may be admitted as to the description of the dotation of the Churches given to Dubricius but the rest I doubt not to be literally true yet from thence cannot conclude any division of Diocesses into certain Parishes or affixing of certain Priests to certain Parishes to have been then instituted or received but only that the Province of South Wales was then divided into several Diocesses and Bishops ordained to every one of them the word Parochia being the ancient Ecclesiastical name of a Diocess As for the supply of Country-Churches this Testimony seems rather to imply that it was performed by itinerant Priests whom Dubricius sent in their turns out of his own College And if any credit is to be given to the ancient Lives and Legends of the British Bishops and Saints this was the practice at that time in the British Church That the Bishops at their Cathedrals and holy Abbots and Doctors in several parts of the Diocess should eduâ—ate and maintain great numbers of Priests in a Collegiate life and preside over them who in their turns should travel about and instruct the Lay Christians in all the circumjacent territories and that beiâ—g done return to the College and give way to others to succeed them in the same imployment Afterwards when the Britains were driven into Wales and were fully setled in it that Country being become populous thereby they found it necessary to divide it into Parishes and to assign Priests to them For in the Laws of Howel Dha King of Wales made about the year 940 there is mention made of the house of the Parish Priest Domus Capellani Villae in every Village Altho the division was yet so imperfect that at this time frequent subdivisions were made as appears from the 35th Law of the same King And the â—ixing of one Parish Priest to every Parochial Church was yet so far from being setled in Wales that some Ages after it was in very few places received For Giraldus Cambrensis describing the obstinacy of the Welchmen in retaining their old Laws and Customs giveth this for one instance of it Ecclesiae verò istorum omnes ferè tot Personas participes habent quot capitalium virorum in parochiâ genera fuerint Vitium hoc genti ab antiquo commune fuit And this giveth a probable account of the original of those sine cure Rectories which in almost all the Churches of North Wales were distinct from the Vicarages of the same and held by distinct proprietors until within this last thirty years they began generally to be united From the uncertain Practice of the ancient British Church I pass to give a more certain account of the institution and division of Parishes in the ancient Saxon or English Church upon which their modern division laws and customs are founded When Augustin the first Archbishop of Canterbury came into England attended with several inferiour Clergy to preach the Gospel King Ethelbert gave to him ample possessions for the maintenance of himself and his Clergy not appointing any Laws to the direction or distribution of it but leaving that entirely to the discretion of the Archbishop A Church was built for him at Canterbury wherein he might fix his Chair and houses appointed wherein himself and Clergy might dwell in common Afterwards when the same pious King by the direction of the Archbishop founded Cathedral Churches at Rochester and London he endowed both with large possessions given for the Honour of God and general good of the Diocesses without giving any further direction The application of these possessions to the use intended was wholly left to the several Bishops In the same manner other Princes proceeded in the foundation and endowment of Cathedral Churches in other parts of the Nation All this is so manifest from Bede and the several Histories of the foundation and dotation of the Cathedral Churches of England that it would be superfluous to give an elaborate proof of it Let it suffice to observe out of Bede that Augustin desiring directions from Pope Gregory in several points of Discipline to be observed in his new Convert Church desireth to receive his Directions De Episcopis qualiter cum suis Clericis conversentur vel de his quae fidelium oblationibus accedunt Altari verâ—io Saxon. quae fideles ad Altaria Ecclesias Dei afferunt quantae debeant fieri portiones To this Question Gregory returns this Answer Quatuor fieri debent portiones una Episcopo familiae suae propter hospitalitatem alia Clero tertia pauperibus quarta Eccleâ—is reparandis Fraternitas tua Monasterii regulis erudita seorâ—im vivere non debet à Clericis suis in Ecclesiâ Anglorum From this Answer it appears 1. That the Bishop and his Clergy lived together at
the Cathedral Church This was not only done by the Roman Bishops and their Disciples and Converts in England according to the direction of Pope Gregory but also by the Scotch Clergy and their disciples in England particularly by Aidan Bishop of the Northumbers as Bede often relates whose Disciples converted the larger part of England 2. That there were at this time several Churches erected in divers parts of the Diocesses which the Converts remote from the Cathedral Church frequented and made their Oblations in them For both the Roman and Scotch Clergy applied themselves with great assiduity to propagate the Faith and finding great zeal and devotion in their Converts were soon enabled by them to erect auxiliary Churches in several parts of the Diocesses Thus Bede relates of Birinus first Bishop of the West Saxons who came into England about thirty years after Augustin that having built and dedicated several Churches in his Diocess of Dorchester and converted much People he made a pious end 3. That as well the Oblations made in these auxiliary Churches as the other Revenues of the Church belonged entirely to the disposition of the Bishop who set apart a certain portion of it to the inferiour Clergy and divided that among them in such proportion as himself pleased the Clergy being obliged to bring with them all the Oblations made in the auxiliary Churches at their return to the Cathedral Church and College after their finishing their course of preaching and serving in these Churches For as yet there were no other than Itinerant Preachers or Priests sent by the Bishop from the Cathedral Church at certain times to celebrate and preach in the Rural Churches of such a division which being done they returned to the Bishop who sent others again to perform the same duty when himself thought convenient That this was the constant received discipline of the English Church about the year 664 Bede expresly witnesseth in these words Si quis Sacerdotum in vicum fortè devenerit mox congregati in unum Vicani Verbum Vitae ab illo expetere curabant Nam neque alia ipsis Sacerdotibus aut Clericis vicos adeundi quà m praedicandi baptizandi infirmos visitandi ut breviter dicam animas curandi causa fuit Vbicunque Clericus aliquis aut Monachus adveniret gaudenter ab omnibus tanquam Dei famulus exciperetur Etiamsi in itinere pergens inveniretur accurrebant verbis horum exhortatoriis diligenter auditum praebebant And to the same purpose in another place Erat quippe moris eo tempore populis Anglorum ut veniente in Villam Clerico vel Presbytero cuncti ad ejus imperium verbum audituri confluerent libenter ea quae dicerentur audirent libentiùs quae andire intelligere poterant operando sequerentur And that the same method was generally practiced at least in the Northern Diocesses of England when Bede finished his History in the year 731. is evident from several places So that at that time there were no other than Pluralist Clergy-men if they may be so called who had not the care of any particular Parish or Parishes committed to them but executed their Office in this or that or all the Churches of the Diocess as the Bishop should direct them It must not be imagined that those Rural Churches which were so early erected had any certain bounds yet assigned to them or were made Parochial properly so called but only served to receive as many of the neighbouring Converts from whatever distance as pleased to frequent them that so they might with convenience receive the benefit of the holy Offices and Sacraments without being obliged to come to the Cathedral Church So that these Rural Churches were in a strict and proper sense no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother or Cathedral Church It is indeed a common errour among our Historians that the division of Diocesses into Parishes in England was made in the time of Archbishop Honorius who presided about thirty years after the death of Augustin For this they are wont to alledge Archbishop Parker in the Life of Honorius where he saith Neque solùm Episcopos super imposuit sed etiam Provinciam suam primus in Parâ—chias dividens inferiores Ministros ordinavit This that learned Archbishop seems to have transcribed from some more ancient Historian who did not so aptly express what he intended to relate The truth is that in the time of Honorius there was made a second division of the Province of Canterbury into Diocesses and Bishops setled in these new Diocesses For in his time the Episcopal Sees of Dorchester and Dunwich were founded which were the only Sees founded since the time of Augustin This division gave occasion to those words of the Historian But as for the division of Diocesses into Parishes that was not yet thought of In this manner then Cathedral Churches were founded and endowed by the Kings of the several parts of the Saxon Heptarchy for the general good of the several Diocesses that is of their several Kingdoms For it is to be observed that in the first foundation of Bishopricks among the Saxons the Diocesses had the same limits with the Kingdoms and so continue at this day as many of them as have not been yet subdivided The first subdivision was made in the Diocess of York by Archbishop Theodore Now as Kings first founded Cathedrals for the good of their whole Kingdoms so great men first founded Parochial Churches for the particular good of themselves their families and Tenants For at that time the great men possessed ample Territories within themselves wherein all the Inhabitants were no other than their Servants tilling their lands and doing other services to them When therefore Christianity began to prevail apace many Laymen of great Estates would desire the constant residence of some Priest among them who might be always ready to instruct themselves their families and adjoyning Tenants either incited by their own devotion or because it was not easie without it to keep their Tenants together Oratories and Churches were for this end erected by them which being consecrated by the Bishop were by the Founders or Patrons endowed with peculiar Maintenance for the Incumbent which should there reside and execute the holy Function within the limits appointed by the Patron which were no other than the bounds or territory of his own demesnes tenancies or neighbouring possessions Some foundations of this kind are mentioned by Bede made about the year 700. as of Puch a Saxon Count who invited John Bishop of Hexham ad dedicandam Ecclesiam in villâ suâ and of Addiâ Saxon Count whoat another time invited the same holy Bishop to perform the like Office for him Not only the Bishops Consecration was necessary to prepare these Rural Churches for the Celebration of Divine Offices therein but his consent also and approbation was necessary to their erection and to the determination of their limits Thus
to another as these from one Parish to another So the first Capitular of the year 789. cap. 21. Item in eodem Concilio Chalcedonensi nec non in Sardicensi praecipitur ut nec Episcopus nec Clerici transmigrent de civitate in civitatem This is exprest more fully in another Capitular De titulo minori ad majorem migrare nulli Presbytero licitum sit sed in eo permaneat ad quem ordinatus est Quod si inventus fuerit contra statuta id facere eâdem feriatur sententiâ quâ Episcopus qui de minori ad majorem transmigraverit Civitatem The same Constitution was made in almost the same words by the third Council of Tours and by the second Council of Rhemes But more effectually to prevent this inconvenience it was at length ordered that at their institution or before their ordination the Clergy should promise to remain at that place to the cure of which they were ordained Vt Presbyteri qui in titulis consecrantur secundum Canones antequam ordinentur promissionem stabilitatis loci illius faciant The like Constitutions were made and received in England I will produce but one of them made by Egbert Archbishop of York in the year 750. Nullus Presbyter à sede propriâ sanctae Ecclesiae sub cujus titulo ordinatus fuit ammonitionis causâ ad alienam pergat Ecclesiam sed ibidem de votus usque ad vitae permaneat exitum While the Foundation of Parochial Churches was thus far advanced by Lay-men and the profits of such as were founded by them were limited to their Incumbents the Bishops also in their Mannors and Demesnes and Advowsons both in City and Country built or gave leave to build Parochial Churches and restrained the profits of every one of them to the several Incumbents The same was done by the Kings in their Mannors and the practice being received generally at last an uniformity obtained in this innovation of Parochial right In the mean time the Bishops with their Canons resided at the Cathedral Church and attended the daily service of it The Bishops indeed not so constantly being obliged to frequent the great Councils of the Nation and often employed by the King in Embassies and great Offices but the Canons were bound to perpetual Residence and both Bishop and Canons possessed the Revenues of the Church in common which were received by the Bishop and by him such a portion was allowed to the maintenance of the Canons as he thought fit This community of possession in Cathedral Churches obtained for a long time For I do not find that in any Churches the portion or estate of the Bishops was divided from that of the Canons or Monks till after the Norman Conquest Till that time the first endowment of the Bishoprick remained in the joint possession of the Bishop and his Canons and not only those possessions wherewith the Bishop and all his Clergy were endowed at the first foundation of the Episcopal See but also those which after the institution and particular dotation of Parochial Churches were added to the Cathedral Church by the liberality of following Princes to increase the honour and dignity of the Bishop that he might be enabled to live in a quality equal to the Great men of the Nation For it must not be imagined that the endowments of the Bishopricks were made all at once But in every Age accessions were made to the original endowment of them by the gift of Princes and pious persons even till the end of the 13th Age that so as the riches of the Nation and therewith the state of Great men did gradually encrease the possessions and riches of the Bishops might arise in proportion and enable them to maintain a port equal to the other Peers of the Realm The Parishes into which Diocesses were at first divided were but few in comparison of the present number of them For it may be supposed that altho the Kings or great Lords might possess very large Territories in any country yet they built but one Church for the use of one single Territory Afterwards themselves found it convenient or necessary to build several Churches in several parts of it one perhaps in every Mannor or these large possessions being in time cantoned out and divided into several lesser possessions every one of the new possessors erected Churches or Chappels within their own limits Thus every Parish was divided into many subordinate Parishes and these in procâ—ss of time became distinct Parishes and so by degrees that Parochial division was setled which we now find in England The difference of our present Parishes in quantity and extent arising originally from the difference of the several circuits of the Demesnes or Territories possessed by the Founders For some time these Churches of the second foundation were but Chappels of ease to those of the first foundation During that time the Mother-Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Senior Church and still reserved the sole right of baptism and burial to her self and continued in the possession of all the Tithes and profits which were due to her before the foundation of the Chappels Thus the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York made in the year 750. provide That the ancient Churches should not be deprived of any part of these Tithes and possessions to give them to new Oratories Vt Ecclesiae antiquitùs constitutae nec Decimis nec ullâ aliâ possessione priventur ita ut novis Oratoriis tribuantur A like Constitution is found in the Capitular of Charles the Great made at Salz in the year 804. cap. 3. Quicunque voluerit in fuâ proprietate Ecclesiam aedificare unà cum consensu voluntate Episcopi licentiam habeat Veruntamen omnino providendum est ut aliae Ecclesiae antiquiores propter hanc occasionem nulla tenus suam justitiam aut decimam non perdant sed semper ad antiquiores Ecclesias persolvantur And to the same purpose is the Capitular in the year 813. This Constitution is still observed in as many Churches of the second foundation as yet remain under their first condition and title of Chappels of ease but the other Priviledges of the Mother-Churches viz. the sole right of baptism and burial are now discontinued altho they were so strictly observed in England until the year 1300. that if in any Pleas about the right of particular Churches it could be proved that any Church had from time immemorial right of baptism and burial it should be adjudged to be a Parochial Church and not a Chappel of Ease But to return to the former times the convenience and good of the Church in general requiring such subdivision of Parishes to be made and the Lands and Salaries wherewith the new Patrons had endowed the Churches of the second foundation being not sufficient to maintain their Incumbents without the Tithes and hereby all persons being discouraged from
of Ludovicus Pius made in the year 816. cap. 12. which directed the whole Tithes to be paid to the new erected Churches Sancitum est de villis novis Ecclesiis in illis noviter constructis ut Decimae de illis villis ad easdem Ecclesias conferantur In England I rather suppose the dependence of the new upon the old Churches to have worn off by degrees or to have been taken away by particular compositions between the Patrons or Incumbents of the several Churches made with the leave of the Bishop and the whole to have been effected before the Conquest or shortly after Yet many marks and acknowledgments of the ancient dependance might remain for some Ages however now forgotten Particularly I know a parish-Parish-Church in this Nation the name of which for private reasons I conceal which being founded above a thousand years since did then include all the neighbouring Country within its limits Afterwards yet before the time of the Conquest several new Churches were erected within her bounds which at first might pay the whole and then two third parts of the Tithes to her as was done in other places in like cases But in a short time a composition was made between the several Patrons and Incumbents confirmed by the Bishop That the Incumbents of the new Churches should pay only the tenth part of all their real profits to the Incumbent of the Mother-Church which Composition I find to have been duly observed about the year 1370 altho at this time no such pensions or any other mark of superiority remain to the Mother-Church For some while after the foundation of Parochial Churches and appropriation of the Tithes to them no other limits were set to them than those of the possessions of the Founders who obliged themselves and all their Tenants and dependants to make their Oblations and to pay their Tithes to the Churches founded by them But if any persons lived near to them who were independent from the Patro◠they were at liberty to frequent any other neighbour Church and to pay their Tithes to it Particularly great numbers of Christians were induced by the seeming devotion of the Monasteries to frequent them rather than Parochial Churches and to make their Oblations and pay their Tithes to them and to be buried in their Cemiteries at which time the Oblations made or Legacies left to any Church upon account of burial were very great To prevent this disorder it was at last enacted that the limits of every Parish should be certainly fixed and all persons obliged to pay their Tithes Oblations and Mortuaries to their own Parish Churches So the French Capitulars Vt terminum habeat unaquaeque Ecclesia de quibus Villis Decimas recipiat Which Constitution is sound also in Regino Another Capitular forbids any Priest to perswade the Parishioners of another Priest to frequent his Church and to pay his Tithes to himself Statutum est ut nullus Presbyter fidelibus sanctae Dei Ecclesiae de alterius Presbyteri Parochiâ persuadeat ut ad suam Ecclesiam relictâ propriâ Ecclesiâ conveniant suas Decimas sibi dent This Constitution is verbatim repeated in the Saxon Constitutions whose Author and time are not known altho they seem to have been published about the year 1000 and this clause added to it Sed unusquisque suâ Ecclesiâ populo contentus quod sibi non vult fieri alteri nequaquam faciat The 24th Canon of the Council of London held in the year 1102. provided in the same manner for the burial of Parishioners Ne Corpora defunctorum extra Parochiam suam sepelienda portentur ut Presbyteri Parochiae perdant quod inde illis debeatur It was therefore in the beginning of the twelfth Age that the constitution of Parishes and Parochial rights received its last perfection insomuch as before the end of this Age it was accounted a matter indisputable and the general practice of the Church of England for every man to pay his Tithes to his own Parish Priest For among the Decretals of Pope Alexander III. writ about the year 1179 is one directed to the Bishops of Worcester and Winchester wherein he saith Cum homines de Hortun secundum generalem Ecclesiae Anglicanae institutionem de frugibus suis in automno novem partibus sibi retentis decimas Ecclesiae cujus Parochiani sunt sine diminutione solvere teneantur In Wales the matter was not yet so fully setled but the Great men paid their Tithes to what Religious persons or use themselves pleased yet ever believing themselves obliged to pay them to God and to consecrate them to some religious use To compleat this History of the Institution of Parishes and Parochial rights in England it will be necessary to add somewhat concerning the beginning and occasion of the Vicarages which make up almost one half of the Parishes in England to the great detriment of Religion and impoverishment of the Church In the eighth ninth and tenth Ages the Devotion of Princes and great persons was generally employed in building and endowing Monasteries to which they gave very large possessions and therewith the Advowson of the several Parochial Churches or where no such were the Monks themselves founded and endowed Parochial Churches within their Mannors and in right of the foundation became Patrons of them These Churches or at least as many of them as were near to the Monastery the Monks supplied by themselves either by turns or by lot according to the direction of the Abbot and converted the whole Tithes and profits of them to the use of the Monastery I suppose the number of these not to have been very great As to the great number of Churches said to have been appropriated to the Abbey of Croyland between the years 800 and 950 in the Charters recorded by Ingulphus which Mr. Selden alledgeth in this case all the Charters of Ingulphus before the 〈◊〉 of King Edgar may be proved to be 〈◊〉 In the time of Edgar 〈◊〉 new Monasteries were erected and the ancient Monasteries also then received their chief endowment and both as well as those which were founded after obtained to themselves great number of Advowsons But these Churches they could not now personally supply as formerly since the Reformation of the Monastick Order began by Dunstan about the year 944 and after much difficulty completed by him with the assistance of Edgar Ethelwold and Oswald before the year 980. The strict observation of the Rule of St. Benedict being then introduced the Monks could no longer supply any Parochial Cures being not permitted to be absent from their Cloisters so long and so often as that employment would require They were therefore forced to quit that office entirely to the Secular Clergy whom they presented to the Bishop in the same manner as Lay-Patrons did with this only difference that they generally reserved to themselves some small pension to be paid annually by the
residence was extended at the same time to all Incumbents of Parsonages not exceeding the value of Vicarages that is of five marks and that for the same reason because they were supposed unable to maintain a Curate Thus in the Council of Oxford in the year 1222 it was decreed Quia inhonestum nimis est ut Ecclesiae propâ—er minores redditus Pastoribus maneant desolatae praesenti decreto statuimus ut Ecclesiae quae in redditibus ultra quinque marcas non habent nonnisi talibus personis conferantur qui resideant in eisdem in propriâ personâ ministrent in eisdem For this reason also none but a Priest could be admitted to such a Benefice because none other was capable of executing intirely the ministâ—rial Office and if a Deacon were admitted the poverty of the Beneâ—ice would not permit the substitution of a Curate-Priest To this purpose as a friend of mine hath informed me from a Manuscript William de Bleis Bishop of Worcester published a Canon about the year 1230. Nullus nisi Sacerdos admittatur ad Ecclesiam cujus aestimatio non excedit quinque marcas sed admissus residentiam faciat in eâdem Ecclesiâ Further in consequence of this general design of supplying the religious occasions of every Parish by some means or other it was thought no less unlawful for one Priest alone to manage the cure of too great a Parish than to hold two Benefices and therefore in Parishes of very great extent two Priests or more were ordained to the cure of one Church or at least required to attend the constant service of one Church So little did the first design of these foundations favour that Presbyterian notion of the reciprocal necessity of one Presbyter and one Church At first such large Parishes had two or more Priests ordained to them with equal title and authority but afterwards this being found in many respects inconvenient was discontinued in England and at last wholly forbid in the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon in Wales the practice continued much longer Yet the same number of Priests was still directed to be maintained one being Superiour and retaining the Title the others being Curates or assistants to him For this the Constitution of Walter de Kirkham Bishop of Durham made in the year 1255 is express Si aliqua Ecclesia ab antiquis temporibus divisa aliis temporibus habuerit duos Capellanos postea quacunque occasione eadem Ecclesia fuerit consolidata Rector tot numero Capellanos habeat vel sustineat quot Ecclesia prius divisa necesse habuit sustinere This was also one of the Constitutions of the Provincial Council of Oxford in the year 1222 That in all large Parishes two or more Priests should constantly be maintained their number being proportioned to the largeness of the Parish Statuimus ut in singulis Parochialibus Ecclesiis quarum Parochia est diffusa duo sint vel tres Presbyteri pensatâ pariter magnitudine Parochiae Ecclesiae facultate ne fortè aegrotante uno Presbytero vel debilitato c. Before both the Council of Auranches had in the year 1173 commanded that the Incumbents of the larger Parishes should if they were able maintain another Priest under them Can. 5. Sacerdotes majorum Ecclesiarum quibus ad hoâ— suppetunt facultates alium sub se Presbyterum cogantur habere The design of Parochial Foundations and all the Ecclesiastical Constitutions hitherto mentioned do as well permit two Churches to be held or supplied by one man as one Church by two men if the general design before mentioned be not defeated that is the service of every individual Parish in religious Offices If then two Parishes lye so near that one person may supply the cure of them both this design is as much answered as if the same were done by two persons He cannot indeed reside in both in a Law-sense but in truth and in an Ecclesiastical-sense he resideth at both who constantly supplieth the ordinary duty and is always at hand within convenient distance to supply the extraordinary duty of them both If the greater distance of the two Parishes will not permit this the general design is satisfied if either of them be supplied by a Curate And this ever was and still is provided for in all cases of Plurality After an Historical account of whatsoever concerns the institution endowment and rights of Parishes it will be fit to add an account of the Constitutions and Practice of the Church in râ—lation to Pluralities The ancient Canons forbid a Priest to quit the service of that Church or Diocess wherein he first received Orders which made it unlawful to him to execute his Office in two several Diocesses To this I suppose that Capitular to refer Non liceat Clericum in duabus Civitatibus ministrare nec Abbatibus plura Monasteria aut Cellas habere The latter part of it however forbids Plurality of Abbies to be held by one Abbot which was indeed consonant to the first institution and design of their Order Some Abbots at this time in France held an enormous Plurality of Abbies and if the same licentiousness were then permitted to the Secular Clergy it was but convenient to restrain them by a prohibition Such a prohibition was made in the sixth Council of Paris Placuit omni Synodali conventui ut nullus Presbyterorum amplius quà m unam Ecclesiam sibi vendicare praesumat Another Capitular renews this prohibition and affixeth a reason to it Quia sicut quisque saecularis non amplius quà m unam habere debet uxorem ita unusquisque Presbyter non ampliùs quà m unam habere debet Ecclesiam The same may be found in the Constitutions of Herardus Archbishop of Tours made in the year 858. Cap. 49. These Canons are all expressed in general terms as provisions made against any corruptions are wont to be Yet no more is intended to be forbidden than what is in truth unlawful or inconvenient All these Canons are best explained by Regino who about 100 years after collected the Canons of the Church and Capitular Constitutions then received and practised In him this prohibition of Plurality is thus related Sicut Episcopus non plus potest habere quà m unam civitatem vir unam uxorem ita Presbyter unam tantùm Ecclesiam Itaque nullus Presbyter praesumat plures habere Ecclesias nisi forte alios Presbyteros sub se in unaquaque illarum habeat As a Bishop cannot have more than one City and an Husband no more than one Wife so a Priest no more than one Church Let no Priest therefore presume to hold more Churches unless he hath other Priests or Curates under him in every one of those Churches The chief design then of the former prohibitions was to provide lest the Cure of any Parish should be neglected This being satisfied by substitution of Curates the original power which the Bishops had of
dispensing in this case was continued to them In the first Institution of Parochial Churches the Bishops might if they had pleased have committed the care of two Churches to every Presbyter and always in this matter have continued to act as their own prudence and the general good of the Church directed them till their whole power herein was transferred to the Pope by the Lateran Council Before that Council the care of this whole matter was committed to the Bishop that every Church should be supplied by a Priest of its own but that only ubi id fieri facultas providente Episcopo permiserit as saith the Capitular of Ludovicus Pius in the year 816 And not unlike to it is the ninth Canon of the Council of Rhemes in the year 1131. The Bishops might unite divide and direct the cure of Parochial Churches as they thought convenient In time through the negligence of the Bishops such a Plurality crept into the Church as ought not to be permitted Against this a Canon was made in the third Council of Lateran in the year 1179. Can. 13. Quia nonnulli modum avaritiae non ponentes dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas plures Ecclesias Parochiales contra sacrorum Canonum instituta nituntur acquirere ne id de caetero fiat districtive inhibemus declaring the Institution of a second Benefice to be void Quia in tantum jam processit quorundam ambitio ut non duas vel tres sed sex aut plures perhibeantur habere cùm nec duabus possint debitam provisionem impendere At this time then many Clergymen possessed six or more Benefices and their rapaciousness gave occasion to the Canon which for that reason none will deny to have been necessary This Canon not taking its desired effect the famous Canon of the 4th Lateran Council held under Pope Innocent in the year 1215 was made wherein after a recital of the precedent Canon it is decreed Vt quicunque receperit aliquod Beneficium habens curam animarum annexam si prius tale Beneficium obtinebat eo sit jure ipso privatus si fortè illud retinere contenderit alio etiam spolietur Hoc idem in personatibus decernimus observandum addentes ut in eâdem Ecclesia nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat etiamsi curam non habeant animarum Circa sublimes tamen literatas personas quae majoribus sunt beneficiis honorandae cùm ratio postulaverit per sedem Apostolicam poterit dispensari The Council therefore thought it reasonable to permit Pluralities to persons of extraordinary merit and to such the Council allows Can. 5. to hold two Benefices incompatible Such in the Canon Law are those accounted which require residence as all are having cure of Souls annexed Herein the Council allowed no more than was always practised and thought reasonable only the power of Dispensation was now lodged wholly in the Pope which was before common to all Bishops This turned to the great injury of the Church For at the Court of Rome Dispensations were promiscuously granted without any other design than that of getting money whereas Bishops were not wont to grant them but for the general good of their Diocess to entertain persons of eminent worth therein or if they had done otherwise would not have been able to have maintained their reputation in their Diocesses All that was left to the Bishops was the power of forcing Clergymen who enjoyed Pluralities by the Papal Dispensation to reside successively in every one of their Parishes and to maintain Curates when and where they did not personally reside To this purpose a Constitution was made by Richard Bishop of Salisbury in the year 1217. and another by Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter in the year 1287. As for the power of dispensing with residence that de jure communi always belonged to the Bishops and was still continued to them being afterwards confirmed by the 13th Canon of the Council of Lions in the year 1274. in these words Super residentiâ faciendâ possit Ordinarius gratiam dispensativè ad tempus facere prout causa rationabilis id exposcet In virtue of this power Peter Quivil in the Constitution above cited alloweth Non-residence to Rectors of Churches whose absence was supplied per institutos Vicarios by Vicars or Curates allowed by the Bishop or to whose Prebend or Dignity such Churches were annexed Afterwards the Court of Rome encroached upon the right of Bishops in this case also and usurped to it self the sole power of dispensing with residence which had so long remained in the Bishops The Power indeed of dispensing with Pluralities since the Council of Lateran and afterwards with Non-residence was ill placed in the See of Rome because thereby injury was done to all other Bishops and a door was opened to great corruptions But none ever thought it unreasonable that such a power should be lodged somewhere All the Petitions of the Parliament of England made to our Kings before the Reformation against Pluralities and Non-residence did not so much oppose the being of them as the sole granting of them by the Pope which exhausted the Treasure of the Nation and diminished the original Power of the Prelates of the Church For in the Complaint of the Commons made in Parliament 2 H. 4. against Pluralities wherein it was desired that all such as procured any Bulls from Rome for Plurality or Non-residence should incur the pain of Provisoes the Chaplains of Archbishops and Bishops and all Scholars are excepted When therefore the King and Parliament 21 H. 8. forbid any more such Bulls to be obtained from Rome and appointed them to be granted by the Archbishops of the several Provinces they did not confer any new power on the Archbishops but only restored to them their original Power the exercise of which had been long interrupted by Papal Usurpation From what I have said it will be easie to answer a scruple which some have raised viz. That neither a Papal Dispensation before the Statute 21 H. 8. nor an Archiepiscopal Dispensation since could satisfie any Pluralist or Non-resident in point of conscience where there is not a just and sufficient cause Because such a Dispensation is against the chief design of the Laws made against them before that Statute and now against the chief design of that Statute also It hath been already proved that both Plurality and Non-residence are made unlawful only jure humano so that if they be dispensed with by the same authority the Conscience is fully satisfied The Division and Setling of Parishes was first formed by the Authority of the several Diocesans and from them alone proceeded the Obligation to Residence and Singularity of Benefices So that to them de jure communi belonged the power of dispensing with both till it was appropriated to the Pope in the Lateran Council and in England to the Archbishops by the Statute 21 H.
8. In the case therefore of a Dispensation granted by the Ordinary before the Lateran Council by the Pope after it and by the Archbishops since the Statute the obligation as to such particular persons is relaxed and annulled by the same Authority by which it was imposed As for the opposition of Dispensations to the chief design of the Canons and Laws made against Plurality and Non-residence the design of a Law is no more to be taken from the former than from the latter part of it It can never be said that any Law did either chiefly or secondarily design to oblige those whom it doth particularly except from its obligation Suppose a Law should be made to oblige all adult persons except Clergymen to take up arms upon some urgent occasion Should the Clergy notwithstanding this exemption esteem themselves obliged in conscience by the Law to take up arms only because the general design of the Law was that all adult persons should enter into arms Certainly in no Law was the former part ever known to annul the latter altho the latter may restrain and qualifie the former It is to be observed that in all the Constitutions and Decrees made against Pluralities which have been already recited no difference is made between Plurality of Bishopricks Prebends Archdeaconries or any other Ecclesiastical preferments and Plurality of Benefices with cure of Souls the same Prohibition lieth against both So the third Council of Lateran Can. 13. Quia nonnulli Dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas c. and the 4th Council of Lateran Can. 29. In eâdem Ecclesiâ nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat c. Nay many Canons do peculiarly concern these which relate not to Parochial cures as the Decree of the Council of Winchester in the year 1076. Nulli liceat duobus Episcopatibus praesidere which was made against the ill example of Stigand who with the Bishoprick of the South-Saxons held that of the East-Angles and afterwards Winchester with Canterbury After this Canon no Bishoprick was held in England with another in Commendam till Cardinal Wolsey Yet since the Reformation we have seen several examples of it In the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon all manner of Commendams are strictly forbidden yet nothing is now more ordinary In the 12th Canon of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1126. it is forbidden Ne uni personae in Ecclesia diversi tribuantur honores that different Dignities in the Church be not given to one person Yet now one Person is sometimes a Bishop an Archdeacon and a Parish Priest Nay which formerly would have been accounted monstrous a Parish Priest in the Diocess of another Bishop In other persons we see the Dignities of a Dean Archdeacon Prebendary and Parish Priest united In the eighth Canon of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1127. it was forbid under an anathema to hold plurality of Archdeaconries Vt nullus Archidiaconus in diversis Episcopatibus diversos Archidiaconatus teneat sub anathemate prohibemus Yet our time hath afforded many examples of the contrary and no censure put upon them In the Council of Lateran it is forbid to the Canons of Cathedral or Collegiate Churches to hold the cure of a Parish-Church together with their Canonry Pope Honorius III. first allowed them to augment their Prebends with the perpetual annexation of Parochial Churches reserving a competent stipend to the Curates All these Canons are securely broken and no exclamation made only because in the Statute 21 H. 8. concerning Pluralities no mention is made of Bishopricks and Preferments without cure of Souls altho that Statute doth not in the least annul the obligation of the ancient Canons concerning them which still remain in their full force as was adjudged in the case of Goodman Dean of Wells who 20 years after the making of that Statute was by virtue of the 29th Canon of the fourth Council of Lateran deprived of his Deanery because he had accepted the Prebend of Wiveliscomb in the same Church As the prohibition of Plurality was extended equally to all Ecclesiastical Preferments so also the obligation to Residence was both by the design of the several foundations and by the Decrees of the Church no more required of one than of the other nay required much more strictly of Bishops Archdeacons and Prebendaries than of Parochial Priests The necessity of Episcopal residence for the benefit and convenience of the Diocess and the conformity of it to the first design of the institution of their Order cannot be called in question In the Church of England they were commanded to reside and celebrate personally at their Cathedral Churches by the Provincial Constitutions of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Synod of London in the year 1237. Cap. 22. Archiepiscopi Episcopi moram trahentes apud Cathedrales Ecclesias congruenter ibidem Missas celebrent In the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon they are said to be obliged to personal residence both by Divine and by Ecclesiastical right Episcopi ad personalem residentiam circa gregem Domini sibi commissum tam Divinis quà m Ecclesiasticis praecept is noscuntur astricti Forty years after this Archbishop Peckham renewed the injunction and to some Bishops who would not reside appointed Coadjutors For Archdeacons the design of their institution was that they should be the eye of the Bishop that they should personally visit all the Clergy of the Diocess every year that they should diligently enquire into the behaviour of them examine the state of all the Parochial Churches and signifie the faults or defects of both to the Bishop An institution which if duly maintained and executed as the Canons direct would contribute more to the establishment of good Order and Discipline in the Church and Clergy than all the little projects of private persons For the discharge of this Duty Archdeacons were jure communi obliged to perpetual residence and when that was slighted the obligation was enforced by many Canons and Constitutions and at last it was forbidden to them to exact or receive Procurations from any Churches which they did not personally visit So the Constitutions of Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter cap. 40. and to the same purpose are the Decrees of several Provincial Councils in England Singulis Archidiaconis praecipimus ut ab Ecclesiis quando personaliter non visitant Procurationes exigere vel percipere non praesumant As for Prebendaries it is notorious that it was the design of the foundation and endowment of Cathedral and Collegiaâ—e Churches that they should attend the service of them and this obligation was ever esteemed much stricter than that of residence upon Parochial cures till the middle of the 13th Age. If we may believe Father Paul an Author much admired by the enemies of Pluralities Canons of Churches were first required by Papal Constitutions to reside when other beneficed Clerks were left at liberty Certainly
it conduceth more to the interest honour and support of Religion in general and the good of the whole Diocess in particular that according to the design of those Foundations ten or more Preâ—endaries persons of extraordinary merit and knowledge as they are supposed and ought to be should constantly attend at the Cathedral Church seated in the chief City of the Diocess to see the publick Worship of God performed with decent solemnity to instruct the inhabitants of a populous City and to advise the Bishop upon all occasions than that ten little Country Villages should be supplied by the constant personal attendance of the Incumbents of their Churches Formerly therefore no doubt was made that they were more strictly obliged to attend the service of the Cathedral than any Incumbents were to attend the cure of Parochial Churches insomuch as when they had so far relaxed the obligation of their duty in the tenth Age as to pretend to execute it sometimes by Substitutes or Curates the Kings and great Persons of England would not endure it which the Monks taking advantage of in the time of King Edgar supplanted the Secular Canons and caused them to be ejected out of many Cathedral and Collegiate Churches The crime alledged by Edgar and the Monks against them as a reason of their ejection was that they did not execute their duty personally but per vicarios For some time after this it was thought the indispensable duty of all Prebendaries to give constant attendance upon the Cathedral Church either per se or per alium which obligation continued very long in the Church of England insomuch as frequent examples can be given of Coadjutors assigned to Prebendaries when by old age sickness or any infirmity they were disabled from personal attendance upon the service of the Church to which they belonged Which custom continued at least until the year 1300. All the abovementioned Canons Constitutions and jus commune of the Church concerning the Residence of Bishops and Archdeacons remain still in their full force The Case of Prebendaries is altred by particular Local Statutes and by later Ecclesiastical Constitutions And to the residence of Archdeacons and Prebendaries a new obligation is added by the Statute 21 H. 8. concerning Residence which includes every spiritual person promoted to any Archdeaconry Deanery or Dignity in any Monastery or Cathedral or other Church Conventual or Collegiate as well as Beneficed with any Parsonage or Vicarage To manifest yet more fully that it was never the design of the Church in the first institution of Parochial Cures that they should in all cases be supplied by the Incumbent in person I will add this observation That from the first beginning of Parechial cures Deacons were admitted to possess them alâ—ho it were notorious that they could not execute the Office personally since they could neither absolve penitents nor celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist For if we look upon the ancient Church of France by the example of which we have often observed the model of our Church to have been framed there Presbyters and Deacons were alike capable of enjoying Benefices So the tenth Canon of the French National Council held by Boniface the Popes Legate in the year 744. Quando Presbyteri vel Diaconi per Parochias constituuntur oportet eos Episcopo suo professionem facere and in the Capitulars it is decreed That a Priest or Deacon who forsakes his Church and takes another shall be deposed If we enquire particularly into the custom of the Church of England in this matter there the same practice did obtain insomuch as that it was ordered in the Council of Westminster in the year 1126 Can. 8. that none should be ordained Priest or Deacon but to some Title either of Benefice or Prebend Nullus in Presbyterum seu Diaconum nisi ad certum titulum ordinetur Indeed John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury in the Council held at Lambeth in the year 1280. decreed That all Rectors of Churches having cure of Souls should cause themselves to be promoted to the Order of Priesthood within a year and that for the future none should be admitted to the cure of Souls nisi promotus ad Sacerdotium but a Priest upon pain of Deprivation However it is manifest that this Constitution never did obtain in the Church For Deacons were all along allowed to possess Benefices until the late Act of Vniformity being only obliged to receive the Order of Priesthood when their Age would permit and the Bishop should require it To the same purpose it may be observed That it was always allowed to Princes and Great Persons to retain Chaplains in their Service and in their Family who might possess Benefices conferred on them by their Patrons and consequently must supply the cure of them by Substitutes The Order of Domestick Chaplains in the Families and â— Retinues of Great Men is neither any innovation nor corruption in the Church as some would fancy For the Capitular of Karloman made in a full Synod in the year 742. directs Cap. 2. That every Governour should have a Priest with him Vnusquisque Praefectus unum Presbyterum secum habeat And in the first Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 802. it is ordered Cap. 21. That the Priests and other Clergymen living in the service of the Counts should be subject to the Bishop according to the Canons Presbyteros ac caeteros Canonicos quos Comites suis in ministeriis habent omnino eos Episcopis suis subjectos exhibeant ut canonica institutio jubet In England in the Saxon times Plegmund Ethelnoth and Edsi were promoted from Domestick Chaplains of the King to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury and Stigand from Domestick Chaplain of Count Harold to the Bishoprick of the East-Angles In Wales the same practice was received early For in the Laws of Howel Dha made in the year 940. it is provided that in the progresses of the King and his Court lodgings for the Chaplain and Clerks of the King shall be taken up at the house of the Parish-Priest and so also for the Chaplain of the Queen In truth if men would judge without prejudice it must be acknowledged That it is more for the interest of the Church and of Religion in general that men of eminent learning and prudence should attend in the Courts of Princes and Noblemen to admonish instruct and advise them their relations and dependants in matters of Religion and publick concern than that the same persons should be obliged to attend personally upon the instruction of a few rusticks who may learn as much as they are capable of from the meanest Curate As for Archbishops and Bishops Chaplains are yet more necessary to them to be subservient to them in the government of the Church And this the Commons of England were so sensible of that in the Petition made in Parliament 2 H. 4. against Pluralities and Non-residence
Livings of England are now held by Pluralists who hardly see either of their Livings in a year and served by mean Curates is no better than a calumny To the second Article touching Dilapidations I only answer That Dilapidation is no more incident to a Pluralist than to an Unalist and for this I appeal to Experience as well as the Objector and add that where ever it is found it is the fault of the Bishop and Archdeacon if it be not corrected and amended The third Objection is drawn from the neglect of Alms and Hospitality and to this the former Answer might suffice That Pluralists are no more guilty of this neglect than Unalists But because the Objection is popular I will consider it somewhat further It is said that the Clergy are obliged by the design of the Act 21 H. 8. to maintain Hospitality so were the Laity possessing the Lands of dissolved Abbies not only by the design but by the express words of the Act 31 H. 8. yet no such thing was ever done by them nor required of them It is added that the Decree of Pope Sylvester directeth a fourth part of the goods of the Church to be given to the poor but it is somewhat shameful for a Professor of the Law to cite the Decrees of Pope Sylvester as genuine which were forged almost 500 years after his death As to the Law of King Alfred why are not those Laws as well produced which direct a community of possessions in the Bishop and his Clergy as in the first endowment of the Church May that Clergyman be accursed who doth not give Alms of that he hath and maintain Hospitality among his Neighbours and Parishioners according to his circumstances and ability yet no man can without great ignorance of the change of times imagine the same obligation of alms and hospitality to continue in the Clergy which was formerly Before the Reformation it was the humour of all orders of men in the Nation to maintain an effuse Hospitality to which they were the more induced by the great cheapness of all things consumable and without it no Great man could keep up his Interest or Reputation Now the Lay-Nobility and Gentry have wholly laid it aside and if it could be continued by the Clergy it would be accounted no other than Luxury and Prodigality Then it was a real Charity to make constant Feasts for the inferiour people who lived very meanly and hardly Now they generally live so well that a good entertainment would very little oblige them and would scarce be a work of Charity Then the Revenues of the Clergy were very great no Taxes were imposed on them but by themselves the recovery of their rights and dues was easie being left wholly to the decision of their own Courts their Title for life was secure what ever change in Government happened they were undisturbed they were not obliged to make any provision for Posterity and lastly little Learning was then required or expected of them and consequently few Books necessary to them On the contrary since the Reformation the far greater part of their Revenues have been taken away from them and even of that little which remains a great part is diminished by prevailing modi decimandi and after all it is often not to be obtained but by course of Law and that taken out oâ— the hands of Ecclesiastical Judges in most cases of moment and put into a long costly and difficult method they are burdened with constant ordinary Taxes unknown to Laymen in extraordinary Taxes they are generally forced to pay a much greater proportion than other men who in some places oppress them as they please herein without any remedy concerning the insecurity of their Title it is not necessary to say any thing and the Law hath allowed them to bring up children for the service of the publick and consequently to make a competent provision for them and lastly a great measure of Learning and Knowledge being become necessary to them a much greater number and variety of Books is now requisite than was formerly to them These considerations may perswade any reasonable man that it is not just to expect equal Alms and Hospitality in the present as in the ancient Clergy But after all Plurality is so far from obstructing that it increaseth both Charity and Hospitality in the Clergy enabling them to perform both more freely and plentifully than otherwise they could do and that may be as well performed in the Benefice less frequented as in the other For there is no Benefice so rich which a man may not if he so pleaseth expend wholly in Alms and Hospitality in that three months residence which the Canon requireth As to matter of fact that no such Residence is made if it were true it would be the fault of the Bishop who doth not enforce the Pluralist to observe the terms of his Dispensation But when it is generally affirmed it is no more true than that other charge that no Hospitality is kept by Pluralists For the fourth Accusation raised from the Scandals consequent to Plurality there need no other answer than that since all the disorders and inconveniencies from which the supposed Scandal doth arise are proved to be unjustly charged upon Plurality the imputation of Scandal must fall to the ground If Plurality be neither unlawful in it self nor contrary to the design of the endowment of Churches nor the cause of any notable inconveniencies as hath been largely proved it cannot be the occasion of any Scandal to those who rightly judge It will indeed still be occasion of Scandal to such as have been deceived by the unjust exclamations which have been made against it and refuse to be undeceived but then the fault lyes wholly not in the nature of the thing but in the Authours of the Scandal who represent an innocent practice of the Church as an inexcusable Scandal If the Surplice and Cross be scandalous to any those men only are to be blamed who have perswaded the simple people that they are unlawful or superstitious If the Confession of the Trinity be matter of Scandal to a Socinian he must lay the whole blame upon his own understanding The Church is not obliged to account for these things nor to change her Doctrines Ceremonies and received Practices to please the humour of brainsick men However somewhat must be particularly answered to that violent exclamation whereby they pretend the practice of the Church of England herein to be more corrupt and enormous than it ever was before the Reformation or now is in the Church of Rome It is alledged that the Church of Rome after all her impudence is ashamed of these abuses yet it is well known that the practice is continued and defended by her The Example of France is produced against us but I would fain know what abuse our Church hath in this kind comparable to their Commendatory Abbots The opinion of the greater and better number of the
Bishop Williams held with the Bishoprick of Lincoln and afterwards with the Arch-Bishoprick of York the Deanery of Westminster a Residentiaries place in the Church of Lincoln the Prebend of Asgarvey in the same and the Rectory of Walgrave If I might in the last place be allowed to speak freely to the Gentlemen and Lay-men of our Communion whom the popular Cry against Pluralities may have deceived I would desire them to judge of the Reasons which this Apology shall offer without prejudice and in the mean while to cast their Eyes upon those real Pests of the Church Mental Simony and Bonds of Resignation which in time will become her ruine The removal of these Evils will far more become their Zeal and from them only a Remedy can be obtained herein Notwithstanding the seeming difficulty of maintaining what in the opinion of most men is a Paradox notwithstanding the opposition which may be expected from good men prepossessed herein and bad men who by such a Defence may be deprived of one of their Common-places of Declaiming I thought it my duty to undertake this Province being assured that therein I should defend the Honour and the Interest of the Church of Christ which ever since the first Institution of Parishes hath permitted Pluralities and cannot now be well supported without them the wisdom of the Parliaments and the Laws of this Kingdom which have allowed them of the Kings and Queens of this Nation who have confirmed and continue them of the Honourable Peers and Universities of this Realm who have qualified Persons to obtain them the Reputation of many excellent Persons both alive and dead who have granted and enjoyed them of many eminent Divines and Lawyers who have justified them and that I shall hereby free the most Reverend Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and other Bishops residing near the Court for the Service of their Majesties and of the Church from the Imputation of that mortal sin which all who maintain the unlawfulness of Pluralities fix upon Non-residence To the defence of all these Things and Persons I am bound either by respect or duty and if therewith the former practice of some present Oppugners of Pluralities be defended I shall not be sorry altho I should receive no thanks from them The Enemies of Pluralities proceed upon these Heads either that to hold more Benefices than one with Cure of Souls is Jure Divino unlawful or that it is contrary to the first design of Parochial Indowments or that it is highly inconvenient to the Church Against these I shall assert and in order prove these three Propositions I. Plurality of Benefices with Cure of Souls is not Jure Divino unlawful II. It is not contrary to the first Design of Parochial Indowments III. It is not inconvenient to the Church CHAP. I. THAT Pluralities are unlawful by the Law of God some Casuists of the Church of Rome chiefly those of the Mendicant or Jesuit Orders have maintained and many Zealous Oppugners of Pluralities among the Reformers have taken up their Opinion or at least exaggerated the guilt of Pluralities so far as that it can searce otherwise be interpreted If we enquire the Reasons of this heinous Charge it is certain that nothing can be Jure Divino unlawful but either by the Law of Nature or by the Positive Law of God For the first none have been so ridiculous as to pretend that the Law of Nature bath determined any thing in this place That directs no more of Parochial Priests than of Parochial Constables There remains then only the Positive Law of God expressed in Scripture which can fix this guilt upon Pluralities But if we peruse the Bible from one end to the other we shall find no Directions herein no mention being made therein either of Parochial Priests or Parochial Cures nor indeed could be since the institution of them was first made long after the writing of those sacred Oracles as we shall prove hereafter As for Texts which may be supposed to allude thereto which our Reformed Adversaries sometimes alledge they are of no moment in this cause since it is a received Principle among all Protestants that nothing is necessarily to be believed unlawful which is not declared to be such either by the Law of Nature or by the express words of Scripture Yet in this case our Adversaries are not ashamed to betray the Fundamental Principle of the Reformed Church and arraign that as malum in se of which Nature and Scripture are wholly silent In our Dissenters this Opinion is yet much more unpardonable who maintain that nothing ought to be introduced in the Worship of God or in Ecclesiastical Discipline which is not warranted by express words of Scripture For things indifferent in their own nature may still remain so notwithstanding the silence of Scripture but the nature of any thing can never be changed from indifferent to unlawful without express words of Scripture When Scripture cannot be produced our Adversaries fly to Metaphors making great use of a Metaphor frequent in ancient Canons wherein the discharge of the Episcopal or Parochial care is compared to Marriage that as a man cannot have two Wives so neither can he have two Benefices But alas shall Metaphors and tropes and similies condemn a man Hath the Scripture any where said that all the circumstances of Marriage shall be observed in the case of Benefices with Cure of Souls Doth not every one know that nothing is more ordinary than to stretch Similitudes too far or more fallacious than to argue from them Will these men be concluded by the Similitude which themselves bring If so it will be as unlawful to be translated from one Bishoprick to another or from one Benefice to another as it is to change one Wife for another But against this the early and universal practice of the Church hath prevailed as to the Lawfulness of it The too common practice of it was afterwards restrained by Canons And as I suppose none of our Adversaries will maintain such Translations to be unlawful But the chief foundation of their Opinion is the Necessity of Residence which they suppose to be of Divine Right and since Residence cannot be maintained in two different places at the same time that therefore Plurality of Benefices is unlawful If we demand their warrant for this Assertion as in the former case we shall find them very destitute The Law of Nature they do not pretend to herein The Texts of Scripture which they urge are very remote and scarce applicable to our case Such are that reproof of the Shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel Wo to the Shepherds of Israel that feed themselves Sould not the Shepherds feed the flocks Ye eat the fat and ye clothe you with the wooll The diseased have ye not strengthned neither have ye healed that which was sick but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them c. or that description of them in Isaiah His watchmen are blind
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
considerations are in some sort applicable to the case of Bishops And however I have chosen all along to instance in the case of Parochial Pluralities or Non residences because the examples of them are more frequent and the defence of them the more immediate design of this Apology yet all which hath been hitherto said of Parish Priests I conceive may in some measure be true applied to Bishops But I proceed to examine the case of Bishops separately In the first place strictly speaking Residence cannot be supposed to be enjoyned even to them Jure Divino if it be permitted to one Bishop to hold two Bishopricks together Yet for this we have the example and authority of the Primitive Church For whereas the ordinary discipline of the Church required a Bishop to be placed in every City to govern it and the circumjacent Territory wherever we find that one Bishop presided over two Cities we must conclude that he did in effect govern two Dioceses Now examples of this kind are frequent in the ancient Church Thus in the middle of the third Age the Cities of Leon and Asturia in Spain had but one Bishop as Vasaeus gathers from the Inscription of the 67th Epistle of S. Cyprian In the Council of Ephesus several Bishops were present who governed two Cities as Timotheus Bishop of Telmissus and Eudocias Athanasius Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis In the Province of Europa especially there were many instances of this kind for therein â—eraclea and Panium had but one Bishop so also Bizya and Arcadiopolis Coele and Callipolis Subsadia and Aphrodisias And the Bishops of this Province affirmed in the Council that this was an ancient custom which had obtained of old and from the beginning in the Provinces of Europa that those Cities never had distinct Bishops Vetus mos viget in Provinciis Europae olim ab initio nunquam praedictae Civitates proprios Episcopos acceperunt Such was the Practice of the ancient universal Church In the particular Church of England examples of this kind have been frequent for above a thousand years and are to this day continued For such I account to be all those cases in which two distirct Dioceses have been united and incorporated into one and thenceforward subjected to the government of one Bishop I know that â—rom that time they became but one Bishoprick in the eye of the Law and the common account of the world but in reality in truth and conscience they do still constitute two distinct Bishopricks since no humane Authority can alter the nature of things and dispense with the positive Laws of God such as are supposed by our Adversaries to intervene in the case of Episcopal Residence It is manifest that here is no real change made by this union in the nature of the thing it self All the Souls which were before committed to the care of two Bishops are now subjected to one All the Jurisdiction which was before placed in two Bishops is now invested in one So that if before this Legal union it was malum in se for one Bishop to govern these two Diocesses it will continue so to the end of the world notwithstanding ten thousand Laws and ten thousand years prescription No humane Authority can make that lawful which God or the nature of the thing hath made unlawful no length of time will prescribe against either of these reasons It is therefore vain to imagine that a real union of two Diocesses or Parishes doth any more exempt a man from the supposed guilt of Pluralities than a personal union For it is no more lawful to dispense with the Laws of God concerning Residence or against Plurality for ever than for a certain time and if unlawful to do it for a certain time much more to do it for ever Now the only difference between a real and a personal union is that whereas in the latter Plurality of Diocesses or Benefices and consequently Non-residence upon one of them is dispensed with during the life or possession of some one Incumbent in the former they are dispensed with for ever It therefore undeniably follows that wherever two Diocesses are perpetually united altho by the greatest Authority of the Church and Nation and submitted for ever to the government of one Bishop the Bishops of that double Diocess will be for ever as much guilty of the Sins of Plurality and Non-residence as if no such union had been made In this Nation the present Diocess of Salisbury is made up of the two Diocesses of Sherburn and Ramsbury conjoyned the Bishoprick of Exeter includes the two ancient Bishopricks of Kirton and S. Germans the Bishoprick of Norwich those of Dunwich and Elmham the Bishoprick of Lincoln those of Dorchester Sidnacester and Leicester the Bishoprick of Durham those of Liâ—disfarn and Hexham So that the present Bishops of Salisbury Exeter Norwich Lincoln and Durham do as truly hold Plurality of Bishopricks as any Priest in England doth Plurality of Benefices In the Church of Ireland since the Reformation almost every Bishop administers two Bishopricks yet no Scruple was ever raised of the lawfulness of this practice If our Adversaries alledge that this is done by Authority of the Church and Parliament of that Nation that can never excuse the intrinsick evil of Plurality or Non-residence if any such there be Besides that in our case in England Pluralities are held by the same Authority of the National Church and Parliament If they alledge that these Irish Bishopricks are thus united because of the smalness of the Revenues not sufficient to maintain a Bishop singly I would know why the same reason shall not be allowed in the case of two Benefices united in the person of one Priest Altho if Plurality and Non-residence be in their nature sinful as they pretend this reason ought not to be allowed in either case and both Bishop and Priest ought rather to starve than commit the sin Further upon the Principles of these Anti-Pluralists it would be absolutely unlawful for any Bishop to hold another Bishoprick in Commendam or by way of Administration either for life or for a certain time limited or unlimited Yet such Commendams or Administrations have been always allowed in the Church either because of the poverty of the Bishoprick held in Commendam or to supply the defect of the proper Bishop disabled from performing his Office by age infirmity suspension or deprivation And very lately we had examples of this kind in our Church when the Administration of the Diocess of Wells was committed to the present Bishop of Salisbury that of Norwich to the present Bishop of S. Asaph c. Yet none of our Anti-Pluralists blamed these Reverend Bishops for accepting the Administration of them altho upon their Principles they were really guilty of Plurality therein in presiding over two Bishopricks at the same time If it be answered that this was only for a short time I reply that a sinful act ought no
the second Canon of the Synod of Celcyth held under Archbishop Wulfred in the year 816. directs that Vbi Ecclesia aediâ—icatur à propriae Diocesis Episcopo sanctificetur The Capitular of Charles the Great made at Salz in the year 804. decreeth cap. 3. Quicunque voluerit in suâ proprietate Ecclesiam aedificare uná cum consensu voluntate Episcopi in cujus Parochiâ fuerit licentiam habeat And in this case they were so tender of encroaching upon the Jurisdiction of the Bishop that Princes did not exempt themselves from the same Obligation For so I find in another Capitular Placuit nobis ut nec Capellae in Palatio nostro vel aliubi sine permissu vel jussu Episcopi in cujus est parochiâ fiant To these agree the Constitutions of later Provincial Councils in our Nation as of the Council of London in the year 1102. in which was decreed Can. 15. Ne nova Capella â—iat sine consensu Episcopi and of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1138 in the 12th Canon of which it is ordred Ne quis absque licentiâ Episcopi sui in possessione suâ Ecclesiam vel Oratorium constituat The Bishops approbation was no less necessary in the choice of the Priest who was to officiate in such a private Oratory or Parochial Church and as he could not be admitted without the Bishops consent so neither could he be expelled or dismissed but by him Thus among the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York made about the year 750 the 23th is Vt sine auctoritate vel consensu Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis net constituantur nec expellantur Agreeable to which is the Capitular of the Emperour Ludovicus Pius in the year 816. Cap. 9. Sine auctoritate vel consensâ— Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis nec constituantur nec expellantur The Bishops power and propriety in these new Foundations extended yet much farther namely to the revenues tithes and oblations wherewith they were endowed For the sole power of receiving and disposing the Ecclesiastical Revenues of the whole Diocess being originally lodged in the Bishops they would not for some time diminish it in favour of any particular foundation but reserved to themselves all the profits and possessions of it of which they allowed to the Priest there officiating as much as they thought fit And when some Great Laymen would have appropriated these particular Revenues to the sole use of the Churches founded by them the joynt authority of Church and State interposed and remitted them to the disposition of the Bishop For so one of the ancient Capitulars directs Multi contra Canonum instituta fiâ— Eccleâ—ias quas aediâ—icaverint postulant consecrari ut dotem quam ejus Eccleâ—iae contulerint ceâ—seant ad Episcopi ordinationem non pertinere Quod factum in praeterito displicet in futuro prohibetur Sed omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant Afterwards in some places the Bishops condescended to satisfie themselves with a fourth part of the revenues of these Rural Churches permitting the rest to the Parish-Priest but still directing to what uses it should be imployed by him This appears from another Capitular Instruendi sunt Presbyteri pariterque admonendi quatenus noverint decimas oblationes quas á fidelibus accipiunt non quasi suis sed quasi commendatis uti debere Qualiter verò dispensari debeant Canones sacri instituunt scilicet ut quatuor partes ex omnibus fiant una ad fabricam Ecclesiae relevandam altera pauperibus distribuenda tertia Presbytero cum suis Clericis habenda quarta Episcopo reservanda Et quicquid exinde Pontifex jusserit prudenti consilio est faciendum None of these Private Oratories were allowed to be erected before they were sufficiently endowed for the maintenance of a Priest who might attend the service of them So the 16th Canon of the Council of London in the year 1102 decreeth Ne Ecclesia sacretur donec provideantur necessaria Presbytero Ecclesiae If without such necessary provision a Church were any where erected the Capitular of King Lotharius directs that it be endowed out of the possessions of the Free-men of the place Vt secundum jussionem Domini ac Genitoris nostri unus mansus cum 12 bunuariis de terrâ arabili ibi detur mancipia duo à liberis hominibus qui in eâdem Ecclesia officium debent audire ut Sacerdos ibi posset esse divinus cultus fieri The endowments of those times consisted generally in Glebe or a certain portion of land in Slaves to till that land and in the Oblations of all the Tenants dependants and inhabitants living within the Territories of the Founder As for Tithes they for some while belonged to the common Treasure of the Diocess and seem to have been paid to the Bishop the Christian Converts being taught to pay them as due by divine right and the Priests directed to receive them and account for them to the Bishop as may be gathered out of the fourth and fifth Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York So that they being antecedently due to the Cathedral Church the Founders of Rural Churches were not at liberty to make them any part of the endowment until Cathedral Churches being abundantly endowed in Lands and Mannors by the Munificence of pious Princes the Bishops neglected to claim the Tithes of their Diocess to the use of the common treasure of it or remitted them to the several Parochial Churches to encourage the erection of them After which they were always made part of the endowment of such Churches And all these endowments both of Cathedral and Parochial Churches were made in puram perpetuam eleemosynam as the phrase then was not in the nature of Alms in the ordinary and modern sense of that word as some ignorant persons have pretended but in free and irrevocable tenure if I may so speak without any tye burden claim of service or reserved rent upon them whereby they were distinguished from all grants made to Laymen either by the King or by any Great Lords For to these they never granted any Lands or Possessions without reserving some service military or base to be performed for ever by the Tenants or possessors in lieu of them or at least some mark and acknowledgment of their dependance on them â—nd subjection to them from all which the Lands and Revenues of the Clergy were exempted As Christianity prevailed very fast so these Foundations of private Oratories became very numerous almost every Great Man as soon as he was converted to the Christian Religion building one for the convenience of himself his tenants and dependants Before the year 800 they seem to have founded in all parts of the Nation not indeed in the same number as now obtains for of their Subdivision we shall speak
proceeding in such new foundations the Bishops found it necessary to bestow parochial right on many of these Chappels already founded or afterwards to be founded which they did by conferring on them the right of burial and hallowing Cemiteries near to them for that purpose By this means they were made distinct Parishes and freed from any dependance upon the Churches of the first foundation Yet that the latter might not suffer any great diminution of their former Revenues no more than a third part of the Tithes were allowed to the Incumbents of any Churches of the new foundation But if the Bishop did not grant the right of burial to them they still continued in their former condition and paid their whole Tithe to the Incumbent of the mother-Mother-Church So the Laws of King Edgar made in the year 967. appoint That if any Lord would build a Church in his own Lands within the limits of any Parish he might pay a third part of his Tithes to it Quisque Decimas suas Ecclesiae primariae seu matrici persolvat Si quis autem Thanus Ecclesiam in terrâ propriâ intra Parachiae praedictae limites fundare velit ei Decimarum suarum trientem persolvere possit This Law is confirmed and explained in the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Canutus made about the year 1032. in these words Thanus si in solo suo Templum habuerit cui locus adjaceat Sepulturae destinatus Decimaâ—um suarum trientem in id conferre ei potestas esto Sin circa Templum nullus fuerit designatas humationi locus tum qui est fundi Dominus dato Sacerdoti novem partium reliquarum quantulum ei visum fuerit paying his whole Tithe to the Mother-Church The same method of making any new Church to be Parochial and independent by conferring on it the right of burial was observed before this time in Wales as appears from the Laws of Howel Dha of which the 35th is Si regiâ dante licentiâ in rusticanâ Villâ Ecclesia construatur in eâ Missae celebrentur in atrio illius corpora sepelientur ex tunc libera erit illa villa By this encouragement new Churches and chappels began to be erected so fast as in many places to become inconvenient by impoverishing too much the ancient Revenue of the Churches of the first foundation So that it was found necessary to dissolve or demolish some of them and the execution of this was left to the discretion of the Bishops Before this no new Church could be erected without the Bishops leave much less the right of baptism and burial be given to it by any other than by him So the 7th Canon of the Synod of Veru in the year 755. Publicum baptisterium in nulla Parochiâ esse debet nisi ubi Episcopus constituerit cujus Parochia est Yet the Bishops either through negligence or to gratifie the importunity of Lay-Patrons or encrease their own Revenue by multiplying the number of Synodals and Procurations had in some places permitted too many Churches to be erected and the ancient Parishes to be subdivided too farr Against this the third Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 803. provides cap. 1. that such unnecessary Churches should be demolished De Ecclesiis emendandis ubi uno in loco plures fuerint quà m necesse sit ut destruantur quae necessariae non sunt The Capitular of King Lothaire directs the same to be done altho the Church should be necessary in case it be not endowed Si in uno loco plures Ecclesiae sint quà m necesse sit destruantur Quòd si forte in aliquo loco sit Ecclesia constituta quae tamen necessaria sit nihil dotis habuerit volumus ut à liberis hominibus ibi detur c. Quòd si hoc populus facere noluerit destruatur The Capitular of Charles the Bald made at Tholouse in the year 844. restrains the further multiplication of Parish Churches unless upon evident necessity cap. 7. Episcopi Parochias Presbyterorum propter inhonestum periculosum lucrum non divident Sed si necessitas populi exegerit ut plures fiant Ecclesiae aut statuantur Altaria cum ratione hoc faciant sc ut si longitudo aut periculum aquae aut silvae aut alicujus certae rationis vel necessitatis causa poposcerit ut populus ad Ecclesiam principalem non possit occurrere statuatur Altare c. In England as the first foundation of Parochial Churches and Cures was much later than in France so also the subdivision of them and all the benefits or inconveniencies of it The first complaint which I find to have been made in our Nation of the too great multiplication of Churches of the new foundation is in the Additaments of the Laws of Edward the Confessor wherein it is said that there were now three or four Churches in many places where anciently was but one to the great diminution of the Revenues of the ancient Clergy Multis in locis modò sunt tres vel quatuor Ecclesiae ubi tunc temporis una tantum erat sic decimae singulorum Sacerdotum coeperant minui Long before the time of the Confessor the Parochial division of England was brought to so great perâ—ection that it was known and fixed to which Parish every man did belong So the Ecclesiastical Canons published in the time of King Edgar require that every Priest should present to the Synod the names of such in his Parish as were contumacious or guilty of any heinous sin that he should admonish every one of his Parish quosque per Paraeciam suam to bring their Children to be baptized that no Priest intermeddle in the business of another Priest nec in suâ Ecclesiâ nec in suâ Parochiâ And the Laws of King Canutus command that if any one be buried out of the limits of his Parish extra suae Parochiae fines yet that the fees of his burial should be paid to that Church to which he did of right belong But before the time of the Confessor that very division of Parishes was generally fixed which now obtains in England as appears from Dooms-day Book in which the Towns and Parishes do very near agree to the present division Some Churches indeed were erected and obtained Parochial right after the Conquest but the number of them was not great Before or about the time of the same King most of the Churches of the second foundation seem to have become wholly independent of the Churches of the first foundation and to have received not only a third part but the whole of the Tithe of their several districts whether that happened through the negligence of the Incumbents of the Mother-Churches or by the appointment of the Bishops to settle at last a sufficient maintenance on the Priests of these new Churches or by publick Law is uncertain In France it was first began by the Constitution
Incumbent and were allowed to do it These pensions were not very grievous during the times of the Saxons and the Church thereby found no great inconvenience before the Norman Conquest After the Conquest the Norman Princes generally bestowed the Bishopricks and Abbies of England to those of their own Nation who according to the Spirit of that time oppressed without mercy the poor inferiour English Clergy as the Norman Noblemen did the English Laity The Abbots then began to exact larger Pensions from the Incumbents possessing the Benefices of their donation And what the Norman Abbots began even the English Abbots were forced to follow to support themselves at that time when the Norman Kings continually exacted great Sums of money from them and scarce nominated any but in virtue of a Simoniacal bargain Both these reasons induced the Abbots to increase from time to time the Pensions of their Clerks and to procure to themselves more Advowsons that they might increase the number as well as the value of their Pensions Against these innovations it was decreed in the Council of London in the year 1102. That the Monks should neither obtain any new Advowsons without the leave of the Bishop nor impoverish their Churches by exorbitant Pensions Can. 20. Ne Monachi Ecclesias nisi per Episcopos accipiant neque sibi datas ita spolient suis redditibus ut Presbyteri ibi servientes in aliquo penuriam patiantur This Constitution was renewed in the Council of Westminster in the year 1126. Can. 4. Nullus Abbas Prior Monachus vel Clericus Ecclesiam sive Decimam seu quaelibet Beneficia Ecclesiastica de dono Laici sine proprii Episcopi assensu suscipiat In the mean time most of the Prebends were founded in Cathedral Churches of the old Foundation as we now distinguish them viz. in those which were then held by Secular Canons Of these many were endowed with Tithes or portion of the Tithes of some Benefice the Advowson of which belonged to the Bishop or some other Founder of the Prebends In this case it was lawful to such a Prebendary to serve the cure of the Benefice personally if it could consist with his attendance required at the Cathedral Church or to supply it by a Curate who in time became a Vicar or which was the most ordinary way to reserve to himself a certain Pension appointed by the Bishop and not to be altered without his leave permitting the remaining profits to the Incumbent In all which cases such prudence and moderation was used that I find no complaints of this kind made against the Secular Canons But the oppression and covetousness of the Monks became intolerable notwithstanding all the Decrees made against them they continued their corrupt practice herein and used several artifices to impoverish their Churches and draw the profits of them to themselves Sometimes they would treat with mercenary Priests and hire them from year to year to supply the cure of their vacant Benefices that so none being in real possession of them might be able to claim the profits which they in the mean time usurped to themselves Against this abuse was a Canon made in the Council held at Auranches in Normandy by the Popes Legates in the year 1173 which obliged all the Subjects of the King of England Vt Ecclesiae Vicariis annuis non comittantur that Churches should not be committed to yearly Curates And the Council of Lateran held at that time under Alexander III. directed That if a Clerk were not presented within a certain time the right of Presentation should devolve to the Bishop At other times they obliged the Clerks whom they presented to their Benefices to pay such large Pensions to them as rendred it impossible to their Clerks to subsist with honesty and decency Against this the forementioned Council of Auranches provided That besides the Oblations at least a third part of the Tithes should remain to the Priest who should serve the Church De tertiâ parte Decimarum nihil Presbytero qui servit Ecclesiae auferatur The Popes also of this time published several severe Decrees against this oppression Thus Alexander III. writes to the Monks of the Diocess of York in the year 1170. Intelleximus quod in Ecclesiis vestris de quibus certas portiones consuevistis percipere portiones antiquos reditus minorastis quos Clerici Ecclesiarum istarum habuisse noscuntur Ideoque mandamus quatenus si quas portiones vel antiquos reditus Clericorum sine consensu Archiepiscopi vestri minuere praesumpsisiis ad integritatem pristinam revocetis The same Pope soon after wrote thus to the Bishop of Worcester De Monachis qui Vicarios Ecclesiarum parochialium ita gravaâ—â—â—t hospitalitatem tenere non possint eam providentiam habeas quòd ad praesentionem eorum nullum recipias nisi tantum ei de proventibus Ecclesiae coram te fuerit assignatum â—â—de jura Episcopalia possint persolvere congruam sustentationem habere To the same purpose a Canon was published by this Pope in the Council of Lateran in the year 1179 which may be found Extr. de Praebend cap. Extirpandae Ten years after this Pope Clement made a famous Decree which at last effectually overthrew this artifice of the Monks in these words Cùm Monachi quidam Ecclesias quae ad Praesentationem eorum pertinent propriis usibus deputare nituntur nec volunt ad eas cùm vacaverint vocare personas admissos ita Pensionibus onerantes Mandamus ut nisi praedictae personae intra tempus à Lateranensi Concilio statutum ad vacantes Ecclesias personas idoneas praesentaverint ex tunc liceat Episcopis Diocesanis appellatione remotâ ordinare Rectores qui iis praeesse noverint prodesse The Monks being driven from all these artifices at last sell upon that mischievous design of Appropriation which gave the greatest blow to the Secular Clergy they ever received since the first dotation of the Church By the power of money they obtained of the Court of Rome that the profits of certain Churches whose Advowson belonged to them should be appropriated to themselves and their successors for ever Herein they first began with a few then finding their money to prevail in that corrupt Court proceeded further and at last put no bounds to their covetousness When they first gained these Bulls of Appropriation they pretended the Discipline of their Order to be so far relaxed in virtue of them that they might personally serve the cure of their appropriated Churches and this for some while they took upon them to do converting thereby the entire profits of them to their own use But here the Bishops interposed and since they could do no more applied themselves to reduce the Monks within the bounds of their Cloisters and by several Constitutions forbad them to serve their Churches personally One of these Constitutions made by an unknown Bishop in the reign of Henry
III. may be found among the English Councils Cum inhonestum sit Canoni inimicum ut viri Religiosi quibus concessum est in proprios usus convertere Ecclesias Ecclesiis parochialibus personaliter deserviant statuimus ut in Ecclesiis sic eis concessis perpetuos Vicarios per nos constituant certam competentem Vicariam ad taxationem nostram in dictis Ecclesiis infra 40 dies eis assignent A like Constitution was made by Walter de Cantelou Bishop of Worcester in the year 1240. Praecipimus quòd viri Religiosi Vicarios praesentent ad Ecclesias suas quas habent in proprios usus in quibus nondum sunt Vicarii constituti The same command is almost verbatim repeated in the Constitutions of William de Grenfeld Archbishop of York made in the year 1306 and in those of Gilbert Bishop of Chichester Not only did the Bishops force the Monks to find perpetual Vicars in their appropriated Churches but also appointed the Stipend which they should be obliged to pay them This the Provincial Council of Oxford in the year 1222. taxed at five marks which was the fixed salary of a Curate at that time For so the Constitutions of William de Grenfeld tax it Stipendia Presbyterorum unius anni duximus taxanda quinque marcas And before him Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter in his Canons made in the year 1287. commanded That every perpetual Vicarage should have certain portions of the profits assigned it Valentes ad minus pretium unius Capellani stipendia quinque marcas At this time the names of a Vicar and a Chaplain or a Curate were used indifferently So that in the Constitutions of Richard Bishop of Sarum made in the year 1217. we read Qui Parochialem habet Ecclesiam si in eâ non velit residere ordinet in illâ perpetuum Vicarium Nor was there any difference in their Office until the Vicars or Curates of the Benefices appropriated to the Monks being instead of annual stipends endowed with certain portions of the Tithes which they still retain began to receive Institution from the Bishop and Induction into the profits of their Cures in the same manner as Rectors did into their Benefices The way of appropriating Churches being once opened by the Monks and the method fixed they multiplied daily and were easily obtained It was enough to pretend their Treasure exhausted or their Houses dilapidated or their Abbot put to great expences in a journey to Rome to procure the appropriation of a Church The example was afterwards followed by Nunneries Hospitals Military Orders Confraternities Gilds and even by the Seculars themselves who sometimes procured Churches to be appropriated to Prebends Colledges and Chantries By this means within the space of 300 years above a third part and those generally the richest Benefices in England became appropriated Yet that the Secular Clergy may not be injustly censured herein we must not suppose that all the Appropriations which they now possess were at first procured by them but rather almost all of them were made originally to the Monks and others and after their dissolution conveyed to the Seculars by exchange gift or purchase From this History which I have given of the Foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches in England it may sufficiently appear how grosly they mistake who imagine that the first design of these Foundations require the constant residence of a Beneficiary perpetually tied down to that one place and Benefice From the beginning to the end of it it appears that no more was ever designed than that every Parish should be provided for in Sacris either by alternate or by perpetual Curates Whether those bare the title of Parson Vicar or Curate whether they executed their Office there in their own right or in right of another whether the care of that Parish was solemnly committed or only delegated for a time to the Priest officiating doth in no wise concern the design of the foundation which only required that the service of it should be perpetually supplied in all the Offices of Religion by Priests authorized by the Bishop That this was the sole design may be easily collected from almost every part of this History I will not here recapitulate the whole and form the particular deductions which may be made lest I should seem to question or injure the judgment of the Reader who may with equal exactness make the observations and draw the consequences for his own satisfaction But some things which have not yet been touched and which manifest the same design it will not be unfit to add Of these the first is concerning the Residence required of Vicars the Obligation of which is still continued The Rectors of Parishes were permitted to be absent and to substitute Curates in their place as is evident from the Constitution of Richard Bishop of Sarum before cited but Vicars were from the first institution of them obliged to personal Residence So the tenth Constitution of St. Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Synod of London in the year 1237. Ad Vicariam statuimus nullum admittendum nisi qui renuncians Beneficiis aliis si quae habet curam animarum habentia juret residentiam ibi facere ac eam faciet continuè corporalem This Canon is confirmed in the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon The reason of this is expressed in the 12th Canon of the same Council that so some Priest may be resident at every Church to discharge the cure of Souls Provideant Diocesani ut semper apud Ecclesiam resideat aliquis qui de animarum cura sit sollicitus At this time the Stipend of a Vicar was taxed at five marks and the Stipend of a Curate at as much as was before shewn So that it was supposed a Vicar could not maintain a Curate for if he allowed five marks to him as the Canon required nothing would remain to sustain himself Hence if the Vicar did not make personal residence it was taken for granted that the service of that Church could not be supplied and for this reason residence was enjoyed to them The Canon made no provision for Vicars able to maintain a Curate because there were none such at that time But afterwards when Vicarages exchanged their Stipends for certain portions of Tithes many of them became of considerable value and to the Incumbents of such the design of the Canon doth no less permit substitution of Curates than to the Incumbents of Parsonages and since every Law is best interpreted by the known design of it those Vicars cannot in conscience be impleaded of perjury against their Oath of residence exacted in vertue of this Canon who being Non-resident maintain a Curate constantly residing since they fully satisfie the design of the Canon which was that no Parochial Church should be destitute of the presence of a Priest To justifie this assertion it may be observed that the obligation of personal
they excepted the Chaplains of Archbishops and Bishops as was before said And for the Kings of our Nation their design in the munificent endowment of Churches was as well to provide fit rewards for able persons employed in their own service as to provide persons for the service of those Churches Formerly therefore while the Laity were either wholly unlettered or given to a Military life the King made use of the Service of Clergymen in all the Offices of the Chancery Privy-Seal Secretary in all Courts of Justice and in Embassies And if Clergymen had not then been permitted to serve the King herein none of these Offices could have been duly executed The service of these Clergymen the King rewarded with Benefices and Ecclesiastical Preferments and for the reward of the Masters and Clerks in Chancery fixed many Advowsons in the gift of the Lord Chancellour or Keeper for the time being which still continue altho the reason of it hath long since ceased To return to the History of Pluralities after the power of dispensing with them was taken from the Bishops and fixed wholly in the Pope by the Lateran Council no further care or decency was observed therein but within 60 years they grew so enormous as not to be defended This the Mendicant Friers who in the intermediate time arose and multiplied made great use of in their exclamations against the Secular Clergy and by it made them odious One of this Order John Peckham being promoted to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury applied himself with great zeal to overthrow these Pluralities For which end he made a Canon in the Council of Reading in the year 1279. that all Benefices held by one Clergyman without a Papal Dispensation should be void except the last and that all Clergymen who should hereafter receive more Benefices than one without a Papal Dispensation Seu titulo institutionis seu commendationis seu custodiae should be ipso facto deprived of all and incur the sentence of Excommunication Afterwards in the heat of opposition he proceeded so far as to inveigh against all Plurality of Benefices as a mortal sin and in the Council of Lambeth in the year 1281. after a long invection against the sin of Plurality admonished Primò secundo tertiò omnes hujusmodi pluralitatem damnabiliter occupantes that they should within six months freely and absolutely resign all their Benefices except one into the hands of their Diocesan For disobedience to this injunction or admonition he refused to confirm John de la More elected to the Bishoprick of Winchester and John de Kirkby elected to the Bishoprick of Rochester and notwithstanding all appeals and opposition annulled their Elections ob crimen pluralitatis and caused the one to renounce the right of his Election and the other to be rejected in the Court of Rome to which he had appealed The principle indeed upon which he did proceed was false but the enormity of Pluralities was at that time so great that it became the care of an Archbishop to oppose and reform it I will produce the example of a score of Pluralists who all died while he sat Archbishop that from thence it may be judged how different the case then was from that which now obtains in the Church of England Bogo de Clare held thirteen Benefices with cure of Souls in the Province of Canterbury beside several Prebends But all this was inconsiderable to what he held in the Province of York in which his Spiritual Preferments did according to the tax of those times amount to the yearly value of 1980 Marks as appears by a Certificate of the Archbishop of York in the Register of the Church of York Galfridus Haspal died possessed of fifteen Benefices in the Province of Canterbury Radulphus Fremingham held nine Benefices in the same Province Malcolmus de Harle held five Benefices in the same Province Henricus Sampson held six Benefices in so many several Diocesses of the same Province Adam de Stratton died possessed of twenty three Benefices in the same Province Adam de Walton held seven Benefices in the same Province Petrus de Wynch held eight Benefices in the same Province Adam Pain died possessed of fourteen Benefices in the same Province Hugo de la Penne held seven Benefices in the same Province Willelmus Brumton died possessed of ten Benefices in the same Province Rogerus de la Ley held seven Benefices in the same Province beside several Archdeaconries and Prebends Rogerus Barret held six Benefices in the same Province Willelmus de Monteforti held eight Benefices in the same Province Robertus de Drayton held seven Benefices in the same Province Willelmus de Percy held eight Benefices in both Provinces Hugo de Cressingham held nine Benefices Ricardus de Hengham held fourteen Beneâ—ices Johannes Clarel held fifteen Benefices Hugo de Clos held fourteen Benefices By the vigorous opposition made to these extravagant Pluralities by Archbishop Peckham some Reformation seems to have been made for when Pope Vrban V. in a Bull dated 1365. May 5. after a long invection against Pluralities commanded the names of all the Pluralists in England to be transmitted to him not that he intended to reform the abuse but only to squeeze money from them the Plurality of those times was found to consist not so much in Benefices with cure of Souls as in Prebends of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches of which there was then a far greater number than remains now in England Yet the Pope in his Bull makes no difference between Plurality of Spiritual Promotions with or without cure of Souls but taxeth both alike I have seen the return made to the Pope of all the Pluralists residing at that time in or about London wherein if my memory fails me not I observed no great number of Benefices with cure of Souls held by one man but many examples of great number of Prebends held by one person Among whom is William de Wickham who held thirteen Prebends and Dignities in so many several Churches and but one Benefice with cure of Souls in the Province of Canterbury For by this time almost all the Prebends and Archdeaconries of England were got into the hands of Canonists who quickly found out subtle distinctions quirks and devices whereby to evade the obligation of personal constant residence upon their Dignities As for Benefices with cure of Souls more were then held by several men than is now allowed in the Church of England Whether Pluralities continued in the same state till the Reformation whether in the intermediate time they increased or decreased I cannot certainly affirm but suppose it not unlikely that as the corruptions of the Court of Rome granting Dispensations grew daily more exorbitant so less shame or modesty was observed by her in giving enormous Dispensations of this kind and just before the Reformation flourished in England a more monstrous Pluralist than was ever known before that is Cardinal Wolsey who with
the Archbishoprick of York held two Bishopricks and the best Abbey of England In the beginning of the Reformation in England the Papal Power being abolished by Act of Parliament it was found necessary to invest the power of granting Dispensation of Plurality in some person For this purpose the Statute 21 H. 8. was made which restored to the Prelates of the Church their original power of dispensing herein long since taken from them by Papal usurpation only restored it not to every Ordinary to be executed in his own Diocess as was formerly but fixed it wholly in the Archbishop of the Province In this Act the 29th Canon of the fourth Lateran Council is confirmed in relation to Benefices with cure of Souls viz. That if such a second Benefice be taken without Dispensation it shall void the first Then the power and manner of Dispensation is declared and appointed and the persons named who shall be capable of receiving such a Dispensation that is all Chaplains of the King Queen and Royal Family eight Chaplains of every Archbishop six of a Duke or Bishop five of a Marquess or Earl four of a Vicount three of a Baron Lord Chancellour and Knight of the Garter two of a Dutchess Marchioness Countess or Baroness being Widows one of the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Warden of the Cinque-ports all Brothers and Sons of Temporal Lords and Knights all Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity or of the Canon Law who shall be admitted to any of those Degrees by either of the Universities These are the only persons capable of receiving Dispensation but as yet they have no right to claim it that is to be acquired by their particular merit of which the Archbishop is made the sole Judge After all no more than two Benefices are allowed to be dispensed with except only in one case that is when any of the Kings Chaplains are sworn of the Kings Council such being made capable of receiving a Dispensation for three Benefices a case which perhaps never happened to any except Dr. Wotton and I am not assured whether he took the advantage of it As for Secretary Boxall and some others in Queen Mary's time when the Popes dispensing power was revived they are not to be accounted for When such a Dispensation is in virtue of this Act granted to any one both the Grant if self and the Câ—nons of the Church limit the use of it that so neither of the Benefices therein personally united may receive any deâ—riment either in spiritual or mixt matters The 41th Canon of the Synod held at London in the year 1603. directs That no Dispensation for keeping more Benefices with cure than one shall be granted to any but such only as shall be thought very well worthy for his learning and very well able and sufficient to discharge his duty c. Provided always that he be by a good and sufficient caution bound to make his personal Residence in each his said Benefices for some reasonable time in every year and that the said Benefices be no more than 30 miles distant asunder and lastly that he have under him in the Benefice where he doth not reside a Preacher lawfully allowed that is able sufficiently to teach and instruct the people The form of the Dispensation which hath been always used since the Reformation begins with a supposal of the great merits of the person to whom it is granted and afterwards adds these Conditions Provided alway that in each of the aforesaid Churches as well that from which you shall be absent for the greater part as the other in which you shall make perpetual and personal residence you preach thirteen Sermons every year according to the Constitutions of the Church of England in that case set forth and therein handle the holy Word of God sincerely religiously and reverently and that in the same Benefice from which you shall be chiefly absent you keep hospitality for two months every year and in that time entertain and relieve the inhabitants of the same Parish especially the poor and needy in proportion to the profits and revenues of the Benefice Provided also always that the cure of that Church from which you shall be chiefly absent be in the mean time well supplied in all things by some fit Minister able to explain and interpret the Principles of the Christian Religion and to preach the Word of God to the people if the revenues of the said Church can coveniently maintain such a Curate and that a competent and sufficient Salary to be limited and appointed by the Bishop of that place according to his discretion or by us or our Successours in case the Diocesan Bishop shall not do his duty herein be given and paid bonâ side to the said Curate Herein it is to be observed That altho no more than two months Residence upon the Benefice less frequented be expressed yet thirteen Sermons are injoyned to be preached yearly at it which being not ordinarily to be performed in distant Parishes as for contiguous Parishes the Pluralist may reside constantly upon both in an Ecclesiastical sense without the residence of as many weeks I have for that reason often said in this Discourse that a Pluralist is bound to reside three months in every year upon that Benefice which he less frequenteth I have now finished the History of Parochial Foundations and Pluralities in this Nation and now dare to appeal to the judgment of the Reader whether the granting of such Pluralities as are now allowed be against the first design of the foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches I fear the same judgment will not be passed concerning some other Cases which have been incidentally mentionâ—d as of the Residence of Bishops at their Cathedral Churches which for the greater good of their Diocesses the Council of London held under Archbishop Lanfranc commanded to be translated to the principal Cities of their Diocesses of the obligation of Prebendaries and Archdeacons to constant Residence of the incompatibility of two such Dignities of the unlawfulness of holding Commendams in another Diocess or being translated from one Diocess to another All these cases were manifested to be consonant to the first design of the Foundation and Endowments of Cathedral Churches yet contrary practices are introduced and no exclamation made against them Other like cases might be named as as that formerly Clergymen if they had proper possessions sufficient to maintain them should receive no allowance from the Church that they were bound to spend all in hospitality and alms or bequeath what remained to the Church whence they got their money or possessions Many of these old customs may be agreeable to the first design of the endowment of the Church yet not necessary and some of them not fit to be continued If any of them do deserve to be revived they are such as may be effected by the old Laws still in force and want no new Laws but only the pleasure
Souls if none of them were guilty of Dilapidations Inhospitality c. and upon that account scandalous or if all Pluralists were guilty of these disorders then all such faults might be justly charged upon Plurality But if many Clergymen possessing but one Benefice are Non-redent uncharitable and dilapidators and if many Pluralists do reside at one Living for the greater part and at the other for some considerable part of the year and do neither dilapidate nor neglect alms or hospitality it must be acknowledged that such faults are not the necessary consequences of Plurality but of the vicious and depraved nature of some men which would continue and exert it self as well in the possession of one Benefice as of two As a bad man will be so whether he liveth at London or at York or at both places Such therefore are meerly personal faults and cannot without fraud be charged upon Plurality For a particular Answer to the first Objection I affirm That the Cure of Souls is not neglected by Plurality For in all cases of Plurality the Pluralist either personally supplies the cure of both Livings and in an Ecclesiastical sense resideth upon both being so near to either as to be personally conversant among them and always at hand to satisfie extraordinary occasions or if the greater distance of the Livings will not permit this one of them is supplied by a Curate If he be Non-resident from both that is a case for which I am no more obliged to answer than such are who possessing but one Benefice reside not at it And of this sort there are a much greater number than of those who possessing two Benefices reside at neither Where two Benefices not contiguous are possest by one man we acknowledge that one of them must be supplied by a Curate and that to supply a Benefice by a Curate is not unlawful was before largely proved Besides the Pluralist himself is obliged to reside at that Benefice which he less frequenteth at least three months every year and if he doth not perform this obligation his Superiour is to be blamed who permits it All this while it must be remembred that I account not for such cases where the Incumbent is absolutely Non-resident either for his health or because he is employed by the King or in any publick Station or liveth in the Family of his Lord or attendeth the Service of the Church in general by prosecuting his studies elsewhere or the service of any Cathedral of which he is a member All these Cases are incident as well to Unalists as Pluralists and more frequent in them so that it concerns the one as well as the other to defend them it being unreasonable that the Pluralist should be obliged alone to defend the â—ault common to both if it be indeed a fault This Caution will throw off all those Exclamations against Pluralists of neglecting poor souls of serving the best Livings by mean Curates of the Shepherds taking the Fleece and feasting it out elsewhere of hiring out the Sacred Trust to Mercenaries of committing it to raw Practitioners to Boys c. For all this let them answer who supply their one Benefice by a Curate and what they shall alledge for themselves a Pluralist may much better apply to his Case who resides nine months at one Living and three at the other as the Canon requireth But yet not to dismiss the Objectors thus why must all Curates be esteemed pitiful Mercenaries If because they supply the Cure for a certain sum of money that name may be as well fixed upon all Incumbents themselves who receive Titles to be converted into money but especially upon all the Clergy of the City of London whose Stipends are fixed by Act of Parliament and paid in money The way of making Curates odious by fixing such a name upon them may pass with unthinking men but by the same reason the Enemies of the Church may call all Clergymen and even the Bishops themselves Mercenaries Further why must all Curates be accounted pitiful Mercenaries Boys fitter to be kept still at School and raw Practitioners Many persons now of great rank and character in the Church have been Curates nay far the greater part of the present Incumbents were once Curates and of the present Curates many are persons of great worth and learning most of them very well fitted to direct and instruct such Country-Parishes as are committed to their care And if all be not such it is not the fault of the Pluralist but of the Bishop who ordains them or allows them Not a few of them are older and better Practitioners than the Incumbent himself and then instead of an high Scandal it is an high benefit to the Church for one to receive the Fees and another to supply the Cure If it be asked with what conscience in that case the Incumbent can receive the profits it may be as well asked with what conscience a Landlord can receive rent from any husbandman who bears the whole labour and charge of tilling the ground or with what conscience a Bishop can receive the profits of his Bishoprick who committeth the exercise of almost all his Jurisdiction to Lay-Chancellours and Officials or with what conscience an Incumbent can receive the profits of his Chappels of ease which are necessarily served by Curates or with what concience either Bâ—shop or Layman can receive the profits of an Impropriation which were originally given for the discharge of the cure of that Church I do not hereby inâ—inuate that any of these cases are unlawful but maintain that if it be unlawful for an Incumbent to receive the profits because the Cure is discharged by another it will be difficult to defend these and such other cases As for the charge of hiring out this Sacred Trust to Mercenaries at the cheapest rate I am sorry to see a mistake of that nature The allowance generally made to Curates is very large and plentiful and if it be not so it is the fault of the Bishop in whose power it is to fix the Stipend And for expecting dues from Parishioners without performing personal duty a Parsons Counsellour ought to know that these dues are not the gift of the present Parishioners but of the ancient Princes and Great Men of our Nation and are held by as good a Title as any Lands or Estates in England which all proceeded from the gift of the Crown at sometime or other If it be said that the former were given for personal Sacred Service so were the latter given for personal Military Service which yet hath long since ceased to be paid But after all it is the effect of pure ignorance to imagine that the endowments of the Clergy were given for the personal performance only of Sacred Service by the proper Incumbents at those particular places where the endowments are made as was above sufficiently proved in the historical part of this Treatise Lastly That almost all the greatest and best
that many of the things objected are false some of them not really inconvenient and that as many as are really so are not the consequents of Plurality but common as well to Clergymen holding one Benefice as two and such as may and ought to be remedied by the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours only by executing the Laws and Canons of the Church still in force without any necessity of calling in the assistance of new Laws But supposing that some slight inconveniencies did attend Plurality if still it carries far greater conveniencies along with it it must be acknowledged that the permission aud continuance is not really inconvenient to the Church And that it doth include such conveniencies upon a short view will easily be discovered First then Plurality is not only convenient but even necessary to the Church in its present condition by reason of the great number of Benefices of little value which are found in England the cure of which can no way be provided for but by Plurality In this Nation are some Benefices not exceeding the value of five pounds per annum many hundreds not exceeding twenty pounds and some thousands not exceeding thirty pounds Now in almost all these the Cure of Souls must utterly be neglected if it be not allowed to Clergymen to hold two of them together since one will not afford a subsistence None of the oppugners of Pluralities can deny the reasonableness of this case Yet if those who maintain the sinfulness of them would reason consistently such a Pluralist ought no more to be allowed than of the two greatest Livings in England For if Plurality be sinful in its own nature and Residence due jure divino it would be equally unlawful to hold two Benefices of 20 as of 200 pounds per annum But it is too ordinary a thing for men in their heat not to see the consequences of their own positions Thus Plurality is in many cases necessary to provide to the Clergy even a subsistence as to the necessaries of life and in other cases is necessary to provide for them such a competency of subsistence as is agreeable to their character and order in the world For as an excellent Prelate of our Church hath observed those seem to have very little regard to the flourishing condition of a Church who would confine the sufficiency of a subsistence meerly to the necessaries of life There ought to be sufficient provision made to encourage ingenuous persons to enter into the Clergy to free them from anxious cares when initiated and purchase to them such necessaries as the manner of the service they undertake doth require and to reward such as by extraordinary Worth and Learning shall merit more than others All these provisions are absolutely necessary to the well being of any Church but none of them in the present circumstances of things and poverty of the revenues of the Church can be fully obtained without the permission of Plurality The number of Benefices in England which may singly answer any of the ends above mentioned is very small Did not the hopes of obtaining somewhat more than a bare competence influence Parents and Youth none of good condition or sit for any other imployment would be bred up to the Clergy or enter into holy Orders For here all the Topicks of Evangelical poverty and how a Clergy-man ought not to seek the things of the world or to desire riches would perswade very little Parents would not breed up their sons to the Clergy upon such conditions It is certain that the most frugal person cannot breed his son to the Clergy in the University under the expence of 200 pounds If Pluralities were taken away it would be little less than madness to imagine that any Parent will bring up his son carefully at School and afterwards bestow 200 pounds upon his education in the University only to purchase poverty for him Or if any Parents should be so good natured or zealous as to do it yet it would be impossible to perswade Young men well educated who are naturally aspiring and led by their hopes to enter into a Clerical life in which they can expect no more than a bare competence and not rather take up other professions which will produce to them infinitely more profit with less labour It would be vain in this case to urge to a Young man that in a Clerical life he must be contented with a bare competence that the riches of this World ought to be despised c. He would certainly answer that if things be so he will never enter into that State of life which shall lay such an obligation of self-denial upon him For upon whatever principles men already initiated into the Sacred Office do proceed to execute their duty and continue in it notwithstanding poverty or any other discouragement it is undeniable that it is the hopes of advancement which perswadeth almost all to enter into Orders and it must be great want of understanding to imagine that it can or will be otherwise Young men will never be brought to it when they shall see that others of no better birth parts or education than themselves obtain plentiful Estates by taking up other Professions If Pluralities which encrease the subsistence of the Clergy beyond a bare competence were abolished it would infallibly follow that no Parents of quality would breed up their sons to the Clergy that no Young man of good parts and pregnant hopes would enter into the Clergy that there would remain none for the service of the Church but of the lowest and meanest sort of the people and of those only such as through insuperable dulness could not hope to make their Fortunes in any other Profession Further a bare Competence as to necessaries of Life will not suffice to purchase to the Clergy such other advantages as are absolutely necessary to them in the service of the Church these are Authority Ability to exercise Charity and helps of Learning None of these can be obtained in such a Provision as only supplieth the necessities of Life To begin with the last every Man who knows the World and the business of Learning must confess that the Study of Divinity and those other Sciences which are necessary to a compleat Divine is so vast and diffuse and the number of Books wherewith he ought to be acquainted so very great that a small Estate can never enable him to obtain such as are even necessary to make him useful or considerable in his Profession It is well known that there are ten times more Books required to the Study of Divinity than to any other Profession altho the Rewards and temporal Advantages of other Professions are far Superiour to those of the first and yet no Man murmers at them In the purchase of such Books as are absolutely necessary to a learned Divine a Revenue of six score Pounds per annum which the late Acts of Parliament seem to suppose a
Nursing-Fathers and Queens her Nursing-Mothers Which Prophecy may well be expounded to denote among other things the Favour and large Rewards which Secular Princes when converted to the Faith should bestow upon the Ministers of the Church for the increase and continuance of the Faith This was abundantly performed in our Church by the Kings and Queens and Noble Personages of England whose Memory is for ever blessed and the Endowment made by them confirmed by innumerable subsequent Laws Then the Endowment was so large and the number of extraordinary Provisions in Conventual Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and from Chauntries and Oblations so very great that the assistance of Pluralities was not so very necessary to uphold the Honour of Religion and of the Clergy But when by Impropriations at first and afterwards by the Alienation of Abbey and other Church-lands almost all the extraordinary Provisions were taken away and the ordinary Provision reduced to less than half it is impossible to maintain the design of those Endowments that is the flourishing condition of the Church without the assistance of Pluralities In the continuance of this benefit to the Church we doubt not but their present Majesties will imitate the Piety and Devotion of their Ancestors and as they once preserved this Church from eminent danger of Ruin by their Wisdom and Valour will also maintain the well-being and the flourishing estate of it by countenancing and continuing all those Institutions Customs and Practises which are necessary to that end I might insist upon many other Conveniencies and Benefits which accrue to the Church from the use of Pluralities as that hereby young Clergy-men are trained up in Curacies under others more grave and experienced and fitted for the Service of any Parochial Church in their own Right who if at their first admission into Holy Orders the Cure of Souls and Government of Parochial Churches had been committed to them would be apt to commit many indiscreet acts and execute their Trust unskilfully Yet the present circumstances of things make it necessary to admit those who are educated to the Clergy into Orders as soon as their Age permits otherwise the Church would soon want a competent number of Candidates to supply her Service since Fellowships in Colledges do not satisfie for the tenth part of them And from the finishing of their Studies to their Presentation to a Benefice there is no other Provision made for them than by Curacies That by the same benefit Provision is made for Deacons who are incapable of possessing a Benefice themselves That hereby the Cure of Souls in many Parishes is executed by two Persons which is a great advantage to those Parishes and to Religion in general For it may happen that the Incumbent of any one Parish be negligent in his Duty or unlearned but it can scarce happen that in a Parish held by a Pluralist and served alternately by the Incumbent and his Curate that both Incumbent and Curate should be alike negligent or unlearned That hereby Provision is made for Chaplains attending and assisting Bishops in the execution of their Office and Government of their Diocesses or maintaining and preserving Religion and Vertue in the Families of Noblemen CONCLUSION I Have now finished what I had to say in defence of Pluralities and submit the whole to the Consideration of indifferent Judges Having done this I hope I may be allowed to speak to the Pluralist Clergy whose Cause I have all this while defended with all freedom Them I must conjure by the Honour of God and which to ingenuous Persons ought also to be an irresistable Argument by the sense of their Duty to make such use of the favour of Plurality granted to them that Religion and the Church may receive no inconvenience thereby and no just occasion of Scandal may be given by them I have proved indeed that Plurality doth not in its own Nature beget any Inconveniencies or Scandals But if it be not rightly used if the terms of the Dispensation be not fulfilled if they so behave themselves as if they cared not for the Souls of either Parish or if they live wholly at one and seldom visit the other if they think themselves wholly disburthen'd of the Cure of Souls by the delegation of it to a Curate if they put no bounds to their desire of Pluralities hold two by Union a third by Sequestration and perhaps a fourth under the Name of another Man by Simoniacal Contract if they neglect to give Alms and to use Hospitality in both their Benefices according to their Abilities if they suffer their Houses to be dilapidated and have no regard to the good of their Successors much more if without any reasonable Excuse they are continually or frequently absent from both their Cures either to hunâ— after better Preferment elsewhere or to follow their Pleasure and live more at ease in great Cities and Towns If they are not excused by Personal Attendance in the Families of Bishops or Great Men or by prosecution of their Studies in the Universities or by designs of publick Service to the Church more advantageous to Religion in general than the Personal supplying any two Country Cures would be or by indisposition of Body real and not pretended If without any of these Lawful Excuses they absent themselves from the Cure of Souls committed to them or do not immediately betake themselves to the Personal execution of it When any of these Reasons cease which did before excuse them in all these cases Plurality will in them be the occasion of great Inconveniencies to the Church and Scandal to Religion It was never my design to defend such Practises nor can they be excused by any Principles laid down in this Treatise But because all Men will not be perswaded to do their Duty I beg leave in the next place to address my self with all Reverence to the Arch-bishops and Bishops of our Church and entreat them to force such Pluralists to do their Duty This they are empowered to do by the Canons and Laws of our Church and Nation still in force By the due execution of which they may regulate all such disorders and all other corruptions which have crept into the Church It is not the fault of her Constitution which occasions any of these Inconveniencies but the neglect of her Orders and non-execution of her established Discipline If these were vigorously revived if their Lordships would please diligently to attend and inspect their Dâ—ocesses force their Arch-deacons to do their Duty the Chapters of their Cathedral Churches to observe their Statutes the Pluralist Clergy to fulfil the terms of their Dispensations and all their Clergy to obey the Canons and to do their known Duty all that Benefit and Reformation would follow which some not knowing the excellence of the present Constitution propose to obtain by such new Laws and Projects as would perhaps shake and endanger the whole Fabrick of the Church What the Lord Bacon observed concerning
Natural Philosophy that a superficial knowledge of it makes Men Atheists but a perfect knowledge of it reduceth them to Religion is fully as true in Ecclesiastical Polity An imperfect view and knowledge of the Constitution and State of our Church makes Men desirous of a Change or Reformation but a thorough knowledge of it makes them not only be content but pleased with her present Constitution only desirous that her excellent Laws and Institutions may be put in practice This case of Pluralities was generally esteemed the most scandalous and inexcusable of all her supposed Corruptions yet upon a strict examination of it it doth now as I hope appear to be neither scandalous nor inconvenient but lawful necessary and advantageous to the Church All the real inconveniencies of it proceed wholly from the ill use of it and from the faults of private persons to which the best Institutions are equally subject and which it is to be hoped their Lordships the Bishops will in time remedy by the due application of that Authority which the Laws of this Church and Nation have already invested in them FINIS ERRATA PAge 6. line 14. for graliâ—iâ—th read gratifieth p. 13. l. 2â— for Asgarvey read Asgardby p. 17. l. 9. for cause r. case p. 23. l. 28. for cause r. case p. 37. l. 3. for true r. truly p. 45. l. 16. for in r. to p. 83. 1. 8. for have founded r. have been founded p. 87. 1. 13. in the Marg. for Alsadi r. Aâ—fredi p. 123. l. 28. for districtive r. districtius p. 124. l. 29. for Clementon r. 〈◊〉 p. 153. l. 28. for derivation r. deviation BOOKS Printed for R. Clavel Publish'd in Michaelmas Term 1691. A Deâ—ence of Pluralities or holding two Benefices with Cure of Souls as now practised in the Church of England The State of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's Government in which their Carriage towards him is Justified and the absolute Necessity of their endeavouring to be freâ—d from his Government and of submitting to their present Majesties is demonstrated Observations on a Journey to Naples being a farther Discovery of the Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks Written by the Author of the former Book Entituled The Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks set forth in Eight Letters L. Annaei Elori Rerum Româ—norum Epitome cum Interpretatione Notis in usum Serenissimi Delphini unà cum Indicibus copiosissimis oppidò necessariis Will be published at the end of this Term. Compendium Graecum Novi Testamenti continens ex 7959 versiculis totius Novi Testamenti tantum versiculos 1900 non tamen integros in quibus omnes universi Novi Test. voces unà cum Versione Latina inveniuntur Auctore Johanne Leusden Editio quinta in qua non tantum Themata Graeca Voces derivatae exprimuntur sed etiam Tempora Verborum adduntur Tandem ne aliquid ubicunque desideretur in hac Novissima Editione Londinensi cuilibet Voci aut Compositae aut Derivatae Radix adjicitur propria in Tyronum gratiam De Presbyteratu Dissertatio Quadriparita Presbyteratûs sacri Origines naturam Titulum Officia Ordines ab ipsis Mundi primordiis usque ad Catholicae Ecclesiae consummatum plantationem complectens in qua Hierarchiae Episcopalis Jus Divinum immutabile ex Auctoritate scriptuaâ—um Canonicè expositarum Eccâ—â—siasticae Traditionis suffragiis brevitèr quidem sed luculentèr asseriter Authore Samuele Hill Diaecesâ—ôs Bathoniensis Wellensis Presbyterio Londini Typis S. Roycrâ—ft L. L. Oriental Typographi Regis Impensis R. Clavel in Coemeterio D. Pauli MDCXCI Sometime since Published for R. Clavel FOrms of Private Devotion for every day in the Week in a Method agreeable to the Liturgy with Occasional Prayers and an Office for the Holy Communion and for the Time of Sickness A Scholastical History of the Primitive and General Use of Liturgies in the Christian Church together with an Answer to David Clarkson's late Discourse concerning Liturgies Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first Four Centuries together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius The Frauds of Romish Monks and Priests set forth in Eight Letters lately written by a Gentleman in his Journey into Italy The Third Edition 〈◊〉 Apol p. 337. XXXIV 2 c. LVI 10. Matth. 1â— 2. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 217. c. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 255. Chron. Hisp. p 〈◊〉 Conc 〈◊〉 paâ— 2. 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 Aâ—t 7. â—om 3. 8. Reports 149. Hist. Eccles. L. 1. c. 1â— Not. in Epiphan in hâ—eresi Aâ—ianâ Hist. Eccl. L. 5. c. 22. Defence of Diocesan Episc p. 47. 〈◊〉 Eccl. L. 7. c. 19. â— Tim. 5. 〈◊〉 Epist. 2. Conc Tom. 1. p. 829. Cap. 9 § â— Epist. Gilâ—â— p. 23. Edit Oxon. Conc. Angl. T. 1. P. 53. Ibid. p 495. Tom. 3â— p. 188. Lâ—x 3. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p 4â—9 Ib p. 413. Descript. â—all L. 2. c. 6. Hist. Eccl. L. I. C. 27. Hiâ— Eccl. â— 3. c. 7. L. 3. c. â—6 in fine Beda Hist. Eccl. L. 4. c. 27. circa med Antiq. Britan p. 52. L 5. c. 4. L. 4. c. â— Conc. Ang. T. 1. p 3â—â— Capitular Edit â— BaLazio T 1 p. 416. L. 5. c. 334. ib. p. 896. Con. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. ibid. p. 41. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitâ—l T. 1. p. 565. Capitular T. 1. p. 1205. L. 7. c. 375. Ib. p. 1104. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Cap. 1. in Capit Franc. T. 2. p. 327. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Tiâ— 1. â— 1â— Capitul T. 1. p. 99. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 293. Ibid. p. 328. Ibid. p. 248. Capitular T. 1. p. 196. Ibid. p 730. Lex Alsâ—di 24. Capitular T. 1. p. 154 Ib p. 192. I. 6. c. 59. Ib. p. 932. Ib. p. 708. sic 8â— L. 1. c. 24. Addit 3 Capit. c. 83. Ib. p. 1172. Can. 14. Can. 20. Capitul â— 5. c. 175. T. 1 p. 857. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Can. 13. Cap. 24. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitular T. 1. p. 416. Ibid. p. 504. V. Selden Hist Decim p 264. Concil Angl Tom. 1. p. 444. Ibid. p. 545. Leâ— 11. Capital Tom. 1. p. 171. Ibid. T. 2. p. 327. c. 1. Ibid. p. 24. Conc. Angl. Tom. 1. p 621. Ibid Tom. 1. p. 448. Can. 6 9 15. Lex 13. Ibid. p. 545. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. L â— c. 149. Capitular T. 1. p. 730. L. 1. c. 24. Capitular L. 7 c. 198. T. 1. p 1067. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 593. Ibid. T. 2. p. 22. Append. ad Conc. Lateran p. 4. c. 4. Conc. Labb T. 10. p. 1569. Hist. Decim c. 9. â—â— Con. Angl. T. 2. p 22. ibid. p. 34. Conc. Angl. Tâ—â— p. 101. Can. 9. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Can. 9. Extrau de Praebend c. Avaritia Ib. cap. Dâ— Monachis Extr. de suppl nâ—glig Praelat c. Sicut Conc. Ang. T. 2. p. 239. Ibid. p. 253. Canc. Ang. T. 2. p. 44. Ib. p. 183. Ib. p. 440. Cap. 28. Ib. p. 374. Ib. p. 158. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 227. Ibid. p. 272. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 183. Ib. p. 272. Ib. p. 297. Ib p. 183. Ib. p. â—â— Append. 1. d L. 4. c. 14. Capitul T. 1. p. 794. Capitul L. 6. c. 73. T. 1. p. 934. L. 6. c. 73. Ibid. Ib. p. 1291. L. 1. c. 254. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. cap. 11. Conc. T. 10. p. 985. Concil T. 10. p. 1516. Hoveden Hist. par â— ad ann 1179. Can. 29. Conc. T. 11. p. 180. Clement on Tit. 2. cap. 3. gloss Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 158. Ibid. p. 369. Conc. Labb T. 11. p. 983. Abridgment of the Records Num. 50. Supra Conc. Ang. T. 2 p. 12. Ibid. p. 281. Ibid. p. 34. Ibid. p. 36 〈◊〉 273. p. 35. Conc Angl. T. 2. p 227. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p 277. Ibid. p. 3â— Hiâ—t Concil â—â—ident p. 217. Vid. Registr Peckhim sol 159. Cap. 13. Capitular T. 1. p. 154. L. 6. c. 59. Ibid p. 932. Con. Angl. T. 2. p 34. Ib. p. 328. Capitular T. â— p. 146. Ib. p. 369. Lex 3. Conc. Ang. T. â— p. 409. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 320. Ib. p. 340 Ex Registro Winchelse f. 34. Pat. 22. E. â— in Turri London Conâ— Angl. T. 2. p. 612. Extr de Testam cap. Cumin off Par. 1. c. 4. 7. The words of the latter Author are included in uncis Pag. 252. Hist. Counc Trent p. 251 252. 1 Cor. 1. 26. Bishop of Worcesters Charge p. 48. Preface to Hist. of Tithes Isa. 49. 2â—