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
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
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