Prelates in the Council of Trent is produced with ostentation against Pluralities yet I make use of the same History of that Council and therein I find these words The wiser sort of Prelates agreed uniformly to inhibit all of what condition soever to have more than three Befices It is acknowledged that the Pope formerly gave Dispensations for 〈◊〉 without number or measure and presently added that it is not much better now nay far worse Of the truth of this let every man judge Our Church hath confined her Dispensations to the number of two Benefices and the measure to the distance of 30 miles The number is never exceeded the distance very rarely and that only when the Archbishops are over-ruled by an express command from Court which hath not been done in late years Father Paul could have told the Author of this Objection that in the Church of Rome 30 or 40 Benefices in divers places of Christendom were often united in favour of some one person that Bishopricks were often given to men not having the Episcopal Order and that Pope Clement VII did in the year 1534 grant to this Nephew the Cardinal de Medicis all the Benefices and Spiritual Preferments of the whole Christian World Secular and Regular with and without cure being vacant for six months together Or if these Examples will not satisfie let the Practice of Plurality in Archbishop Peckham's time as it was before set down be remembred Will any one now say that such exorbitancy of Pluralities is now practised in our Church After the conviction of this principal article of accusation it will not be necessary to pass on to the consutation of lesser mistakes as that formerly in this Kingdom many Bishopricks and Abbies were injoyed by Foreigners who never saw them Whereas there never were in England above four such Bishops and not one Abbot that I could ever find That Dispensations were then few because they must be had from Rome came slowly c. whereas their Legates and Procurators here resident were wont to grant them That there are ten Dispensations for Pluralities now for one then which is affirmed without any proof or ground and that few of those dispensed with were Non-resident upon both their Livings as now whereas then Bishops and Noblemen were wont to retain in their Families five times as many Chaplains and Clergymen as they do now The last occasion of Scandal pretended to be administred by Pluralities is that it causeth the Clergy to appear worldly-minded whereas they ought rather in imitation of the first Preachers of the Gospel to affect or at least sit down contented with Poverty that they ought only to propose to themselves the glory of God and not their own interest and that it is unevangelical to desire increase of possession These Topicks appear very plausible indeed and were therefore employed against the Secular Clergy formerly by the Mendicant Friers and lately by their successours in hypocrisie the Puritans Yet it was always observed of them that they were more greedy of riches and at the same time more sordid than any other generation of men Whether the Observation be not true of these also let the world judge But to come to the merits of the cause it is a very fallacious argument to infer from the Poverty and Simplicity of the first planters of the Gospel that their Successours ought to be so It may with as much reason be deduced from the community of possessions which obtained among all Christians in the Apostolick times that the goods of all Christians ought to be common now In the beginning of Christianity the Laity as well as Clergy were generally poor For not many wise not many mighty not many noble were called Yet no man thinks it reasonable that the Laity should be now concluded by this example To the first Preachers of the Gospel the Miracles wrought by them created a sufficient regard and reverence but after the ceasing of Miracles that was to be obtained to the Clergy by their Learning and Authority neither of which can be got or maintained without competent riches Certainly God best understood what was fit to be done herein when he founded the Church and State of the Jews Yet he commanded the Clergy to be endowed far in proportion above the Laity Whereas now all that the Clergy desire is that the small remaining part of what was anciently given to them by the munificence of our Princes and which after all raiseth them not equal level with ingenuous persons of the Laity should not be taken from them The envy and malignity wherewith almost all sorts of men look upon the possessions of the Clergy is indeed unaccountable It cannot be denied that they are Englishmen and free-born Subjects as well as others that they have the same Rights and Priviledges with others that what they possess was given to them by the same Authority if not greater by which any Laymen hold their Estates that out of their possessions they contribute as much as any others to the support of the publick nay far more than any others in proportion that they live as soberly and inoffensively to say no more as others do yet a competent Estate invested in them shall be envied and maligned which in the most vicious Layman of the Nation would have escaped without envy or murmur As if a man must be made incapable of all the comforts and blessings of life only because he peculiarly attends the publick Service of God and instructs other men in piety and virtue But it is pretended that they are obliged by their profession to seek only the glory of God and to despise the riches of this World All this other Christians are obliged to do as well as they to seek the glory of God in the first place and to despise Riches when they are not consistent with the preservation of Religion But to imagine that a Clergyman ought in no wise to seek his own temporal good or the encrease of possession is Fanatical Non-sense which no man that ever pretended to it would abide by in his own concern It is not contrary to the Gospel nor the design of the Sacred Office simply to desire riches or encrease of possessions but only by sinister methods to procure or to make an ill use of them Now Pluralists are no more inclined by the nature of Plurality to make an ill use of their revenues or possessions than Unalists are by the nature of one Benefice to do the same Any one may perform the duties of a good Clergy-man and a good conscience or he may neglect them in either case It is therefore the ill use not the being of riches which ought to be blamed in Clergymen But I hope the Clergy are not yet so corrupt that it can be justly said that they make not generally as good use of their revenues as other men I have answered all the pretended inconveniencies of Pluralities and shewn
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
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
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-Church at which the Bishop resided and were accounted as such until at least the middle of the fifth Century The Bishop himself resided at the Mother-Church attended by his Presbyters The auxiliary Churches were served by the Presbyters at the appointment of the Bishop either in common or by turns or in any other method which the Bishop in his prudence should direct If any Bishop thought â—it to appoint certain Presbyters to attend constantly and without change upon certain Churches it was meerly because it was his pleasure Other Bishops took different methods as themselves judged best and might either appoint two Presbyters either co-ordinate or subalâ—ern to serve one Church or one Presbyter to serve two Churches or all Presbyters to take their turns in every Church There was no fixed or determinate rule herein The truth of all this is attested by Sozomen who wrote about the year 430 For he observes it as a singularity in the Diocess of Alexandria that therein Parochial Churches if I may so call those auxiliary Churches before mentioned were appropriated or committed to so many certain fixed Presbyters Petavius indeed contends that the same Custom obtained at this time as well in Rome as in Alexandria but his opinion and authorities are confuted by Valesius in his Notes upon this place of Sozomen and will be further overthrown by that Observation which immediately follows I will only add in this place that even in Alexandria the whole discharge of the Sacred Office was not yet entrusted to the Parochial Clergy but great part of it reserved to be executed only in the Cathedral Church For Socrates affirms that in his time the Presbyters were not permitted to preach at Alexandria It is not improbable that about this time the duty of the Presbyters began at Rome to be fixed
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
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-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
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
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
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
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