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
Pluralities is rather consonant to the first design That as while the Ecclesiastical Revenue of the whole Diocess was possessed in common by the Bishop and his Clergy a double share was allowed to Presbyters of eminent merit So after the Revenues became divided and fixed to those several places in which the Sacred Office was to be performed a Plurality of those places should be allowed to Presbyters of extraordinary Worth and Learning The second design is no more hindred by Pluralities than the first For that was only to provide for the convenience and service of every individual Parish and this is still effected notwithstanding Pluralities At the first division of Parishes and incardination of Presbyters if the Bishop had thought fit to set one Presbyter over two Parishes as the Bishop of Rome did two Presbyters over one Parish here had been no immorality in the thing And what Bishops might then do if they had thought convenient their Successours may now do if they shall judge it expedient for the good of their Diocess in general For that is the rule by which they are to direct themselves The secondary design is but subservient to the first and ought always to give place to it So that if it be more for the general good of that Diocess or of the whole Church that any Presbyter of it should retain Plurality of Benefices or be Non-resident at one or both of them then it is more consonant to the first design of endowment that such Plurality should be allowed and Non-residence dispensed with than otherwise And the good of any one or two Parishes is not so much to be considered as the good of the whole Diocess or Church Now such cases often happen as will hereaâ—ter appear when we shall speak of the Convenience or Inconvenience of Plurality and Non-residence If it seem somewhat harsh to aâ—â—irm That to allow Non-residence in any case can be agreeable to the second design of the endowment of the Clergy which was the Convenience and Service of every individual Parish let it be considered that always in case of Non-residence the Sacred Service of every individual Parish is to be supplied by a Curate to be appointed or allowed by the Bishop So that the design is still maintained every individual Parish being provided for and supplied at least by Vicarial Residence At the first division of Parishes the Bishops might if they had pleased have appointed an inferiour Presbyter to supply the cure of every Parish residing constantly thereon and a Superiour Presbyter to oversee him not obliged to any such constant Residence And what Bishops might then do their Successours may with equal Authority do now if they please the Laws of the Church so permitting as was before said Besides upon some accounts the supplying of Benefices by Curates is more agreeable to this second design For the first incardination of Presbyters in Parochial Churches was not for life they were always nominated by the Bishop and might be removed by him All this the Bishop still doth or may do in the case of Curates whereas at this time Parochial Priests retain their Benefices for life cannot be displaced by the Bishop at pleasure and are most of them nominated by other Patrons by whom if unworthy persons be presented the Bishop shall be compelled to admit them by the Severity of the Laws of the Land whereas he can never be forced to admit an unworthy Curate the Law having left the nomination or approbation of him entirely to his pleasure So that for a Bishop to name a Curate to a Pluralist looks much more like the first institution and design A particular account of the foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches especially in our own Nation will be perhaps more satisfactory than such a general discourse concerning them I will therefore present to the Reader such an Historical account of the foundation 〈◊〉 dotation union alteration and possesâ—ion of Parochial Churches here in England as may be collected out of the ancient Histories and Monumenâ—s of our Nation yet extant and from the ancient Capitulars of the Church and Kings of France For it is certain that our Church was formed after the example and model of the Gallican Church it being easie to observe that the greater part of the Canons and Constitutions of our Church made before the Norman Conquest are taken out of the French Capitulars What the practice of the Ancient British Church was in this matter is not easie to determine through distance of time and want of Records Before the coming of the Saxons the whole Nation on this side the Picts wall seems to have professed Christianity and consequently many auxiliary Churches must be supposed to have been erected in every Diocess for the use of Christians living remote from the Motherâ—Church But whether these Churches were served by certain Priests perpetually affixed to that service or by itinerant Priests sent by turns from the Colledge of Priests residing with the Bishop at the Cathedral Church or by any other method is uncertain No Decree of any General Council had yet appointed any rule herein and as for the Decrees of the Popes of Rome they were of no authority in Britain being no part of the Roman Patriarchate Or if the British Clergy had been disposed to have followed the example altho not to obey the Decrees of the Church of Rome yet would not this Example have directed them to supply the cure of the auxiliary Churches by so many fixed Presbyters since no such practice was yet setled in the Church of Rome That Decree of Pope Dionysius which some alledge That all other Churches should follow quod nos in Romanâ Ecclesiâ nuper egisse cognoscitur Ecclesias verò singulas singulis Presbyteris dedimus Parochias Coemiteria eis divisimus unicuique jus proprium habere statuimus ita ut nullus alterius parochioe terminos invadat sed unusquisque suis terminis sit contentus serveth only to declare the practice of the Church of Rome about the year 800 when the Decretals of the ancient Popes were forged by Isidore Mercator Mr. Selden who in his History of Tithes hath treated largely of this Subject endeavoureth to prove that such a Parochial division obtained among the British Clergy from a passage of Gildas The words are these Sacerdotes habet Bâ—itannia sed insipientes quamplurimos Ministros sed impudentes Clericos sed raptores subdolos Ecclesiae domus habentes sed turpis lucri gratiâ eas adeuntes populos docentes sed praebendo pessima exempla I suppose Mr. Selden conceived the strength of this Testimony to lye in these words Ecclesiae domus habentes But whether by these words are to be understood only the Churches themselves or the Manses of Parish-Priests residing at those Churches or the Collegiate houses of the Clergy of every Diocess cannot easily be determined It is not improbable that the Country being very thinly
inhabited before the coming of the Saxons there was no division of it into Parishes but any pious Priest who designed to instruct the Country people might with the leave of his Biâ—hop in remote places from the Cathedral Church build to himself a Church and therein instruct as many of the neighbouring rusticks as would frequent it This Church became then the proper Possession of that Priest and might by him be sold given demolished or quitted at pleasure This Conjecture for I propose it as no other is countenanced by the 23d Canon of the Council held in Ireland about the year 450 by St. Patrick Auxilius Iserninus and other Bishops which decreeth that Si quis Presbyterorum Ecclesiam â—dificaverit c. If any Presbyter shall build a Church let him not celebrate in it before he bring his Bishop to it that he may consecrate it And in the old Laws of the Northumbrians among whom great number of the conquered Britains still remained altho subject to the Saxons the second is Prohibemus Presbyterum aliquem Ecclesiam alterius emere We forbid one Priest to buy the Church of another and the 22th Law is If any one shall violently eject a Priest out of his Church let him be punished Another passage Mr. Selden produceth to the same purpose out of the ancient little History de Fundatione Ecclesiâ—e Landavensis which is found in the beginning of a famous ancient Register of that Church and is since printed in the English Monasticon The words are these Dubricius being ordained Archbishop of South Wales plures Ecclesiae cum suis dotibus decimis oblationibus sepulturis territoriis liberâ communione datae sunt sibi Ecclesiae Landaviae successoribus suis omnibus à Regibus Principibus Videns aâ—tem Dubricius sibi commissam Ecclesiam partitus est Discipulos mittens quosdam discipulorum suorum per Ecclesiaâ— sibi datas quasdam fundavit Ecclesiaâ— Episcopos coadjutores sibi ordinatis Parochiis suis consecravit Mr. Selden admonisheth that the Author of this History whom I suppose to have writ about the year 1120 speaketh according to the phrase and custom of his own time which may be admitted as to the description of the dotation of the Churches given to Dubricius but the rest I doubt not to be literally true yet from thence cannot conclude any division of Diocesses into certain Parishes or affixing of certain Priests to certain Parishes to have been then instituted or received but only that the Province of South Wales was then divided into several Diocesses and Bishops ordained to every one of them the word Parochia being the ancient Ecclesiastical name of a Diocess As for the supply of Country-Churches this Testimony seems rather to imply that it was performed by itinerant Priests whom Dubricius sent in their turns out of his own College And if any credit is to be given to the ancient Lives and Legends of the British Bishops and Saints this was the practice at that time in the British Church That the Bishops at their Cathedrals and holy Abbots and Doctors in several parts of the Diocess should eduâ—ate and maintain great numbers of Priests in a Collegiate life and preside over them who in their turns should travel about and instruct the Lay Christians in all the circumjacent territories and that beiâ—g done return to the College and give way to others to succeed them in the same imployment Afterwards when the Britains were driven into Wales and were fully setled in it that Country being become populous thereby they found it necessary to divide it into Parishes and to assign Priests to them For in the Laws of Howel Dha King of Wales made about the year 940 there is mention made of the house of the Parish Priest Domus Capellani Villae in every Village Altho the division was yet so imperfect that at this time frequent subdivisions were made as appears from the 35th Law of the same King And the â—ixing of one Parish Priest to every Parochial Church was yet so far from being setled in Wales that some Ages after it was in very few places received For Giraldus Cambrensis describing the obstinacy of the Welchmen in retaining their old Laws and Customs giveth this for one instance of it Ecclesiae verò istorum omnes ferè tot Personas participes habent quot capitalium virorum in parochiâ genera fuerint Vitium hoc genti ab antiquo commune fuit And this giveth a probable account of the original of those sine cure Rectories which in almost all the Churches of North Wales were distinct from the Vicarages of the same and held by distinct proprietors until within this last thirty years they began generally to be united From the uncertain Practice of the ancient British Church I pass to give a more certain account of the institution and division of Parishes in the ancient Saxon or English Church upon which their modern division laws and customs are founded When Augustin the first Archbishop of Canterbury came into England attended with several inferiour Clergy to preach the Gospel King Ethelbert gave to him ample possessions for the maintenance of himself and his Clergy not appointing any Laws to the direction or distribution of it but leaving that entirely to the discretion of the Archbishop A Church was built for him at Canterbury wherein he might fix his Chair and houses appointed wherein himself and Clergy might dwell in common Afterwards when the same pious King by the direction of the Archbishop founded Cathedral Churches at Rochester and London he endowed both with large possessions given for the Honour of God and general good of the Diocesses without giving any further direction The application of these possessions to the use intended was wholly left to the several Bishops In the same manner other Princes proceeded in the foundation and endowment of Cathedral Churches in other parts of the Nation All this is so manifest from Bede and the several Histories of the foundation and dotation of the Cathedral Churches of England that it would be superfluous to give an elaborate proof of it Let it suffice to observe out of Bede that Augustin desiring directions from Pope Gregory in several points of Discipline to be observed in his new Convert Church desireth to receive his Directions De Episcopis qualiter cum suis Clericis conversentur vel de his quae fidelium oblationibus accedunt Altari verâ—io Saxon. quae fideles ad Altaria Ecclesias Dei afferunt quantae debeant fieri portiones To this Question Gregory returns this Answer Quatuor fieri debent portiones una Episcopo familiae suae propter hospitalitatem alia Clero tertia pauperibus quarta Eccleâ—is reparandis Fraternitas tua Monasterii regulis erudita seorâ—im vivere non debet à Clericis suis in Ecclesiâ Anglorum From this Answer it appears 1. That the Bishop and his Clergy lived together at
afterwards but so as to supply in some measure the necessities of every Diocess every part of it having at least some one Church within its neighbourhood to which the People might repair to pay their Devotions and receive instruction Many Canons therefore made about that time insinuate the establishment of Parochial Cures every where and the division of Diocesses into them Thus in the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York the first is Vnusquisque Sacerdos Ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentiâ aedificet For in many places the Patrons endowed the Churches but built not the Edifice leaving that to be done by the Priest out of the Oblations and contribution of the Christians of the vicinage which was easily effected in those times when devotion and piety were very great in all Orders of men The second Constitution directs all Priests to sound the Bells of their Churches at the usual hours of day and night to give notice of the time of prayer and of the several Offices of Religion which were then daily performed by the Priests in publick The sixth enjoyns every Priest carefully to instruct the people committed to him in the Lordâ—s prayer and the Creed This Parochial division was long before introduced in France For the Laws of King Dagobert made in the year 630. direct that Si quis Presbytero vel Diacono quem Episcopus in Parochiâ ordinavit vel qualem plebs sibi recepit ad Sacerdotem injuriam â—ecerit he should be punished in such a manner In England the first Synod of Celcyth held in the year 787. commands Vt omni anno in Synodalibus conventibus ab Episcopis singularum Ecclesiarum Presbyteri qui populum erudire debent de ipsâ fide diligentissimè examinentur And the tenth Canon of the second Synod at Celcyth which was held in the year 816. appoints that at the death of a Bishop Statim per singulas Parochias in singulis quibusq Ecclesiis pulsato signo omnis famulorum Dei coetus ad Basilicam conveniat ibiq pariter triginta Psalmos pro defuncti animâ decantent In proportion to the increase of these Parochial Foundations the necessity of sending itinerant Priests through the Diocess decreased and at last wholly ceased The last mention which I find made of them is in the 9th Canon of the Synod of Clovesho now Cliff held by Archbishop Cuthbert in the year 747 in which it is decreed Vt Presbyteri per loca regiones Laiâ—orum quae sibi ab Episcopis Provinciae insinuata injuncta sunt Evangelicae praedicationis Officium in baptizando docendo ac visitando studeant explere Which confirms my former conjecture that before the year 800. the Parochial division of Diocesses was generally received and that the ordinary instruction of the People was then wholly left to the Parish-Priests For before this time those two reasons which chiefly discouraged the erection and endowment of Parochial Churches had been taken away Of these the first was That all the Lands Tithes Oblations and Ecclesiastical Revenues of the whole Diocess belonged to the disposition of the Bishop so that the particular endowment of any Parish Church did only add so much to the common Treasure of the Diocess This being no small cause of restraining the devotion of Lay-founders the Bishops at last condescended that the whole revenue of the endowment with all other Ecclesiastical profits which should come to the hands of the Priest officiating at such a Church should be taken from the common Treasury of the Diocess and be perpetually annexed to the Church of that Clerk who received it So that the Bishop should not any longer receive those profits nor the Incumbent expect his Salary from the Bishop This the Bishops willingly did as soon as by the erection of many Parish-Priests the necessity of maintaining so many itinerant Priests ceased and their Cathedrals were sufficiently endowed for the maintenance of themselves and their Colledge of Clergy consâ—antly attending the service of the Cathedral Church Yet however they parted with the propriety and immediate dispensation of that part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of their Diocesses they still limited and appointed the uses in which they should be imployed by the Parochial Clergy This appears from several Constitutions before cited upon other occasions and from others which may be alledged to the same purpose as the French Capitular made in the year 779 which orders cap. 7. De Decimis ut unusquisque suam decimam donet atque per jussionem Pontificis dispensentur Another Capitular directs it more expresly in these words Vt Decimae in potestate Episcopi sint qualiter à Presbyteris dispensentur The same is decreed in the Council of Worms cap. 59. and may be found in Regino L. 1. c. 42. This Priviledge of the Bishops continued in England at least until the time of King Alfred who confirmed it by a Law and appointed the Tithes delivered to the Priests to be divided into three parts Vnam partem and Ecclesiae reparationem alteram pauperibus erogandam tertiam verò Ministris Dei qui Ecclesiam ibi curant Which was consonant to the first limitation of their use made when they were first taken from the common Treasure of the Diocess save only that the Bishops had now long since remitted their fourth part which at first they did reserve The other discouragement of the Foundation of Parochial Churches was That the Incumbents of them would often either through levity or the hope of gaining other Churches better endowed or for any other reason quit their Churches and thereby defraud their Patrons of the end which they proposed in the foundation viz. the constant presence of a Priest for their instruction and the performance of Religous duties This therefore was soon remedied and the Parish Priests forbid to quit their Cures without the leave of their Diocesan as well as to accept them without their permission So the National Synod of France held in the year 744. in the presence of Boniface the Popes Lâ—gate decreed cap. 5. De Sacerdotibus qui suos titulos absque licentia Episcopi dimittunt ut tamdiu à communione habeantur alieni quousque ad suos titulos revertantur And cap. 10. Quando Presbyteri vel Diaconi per parochias constituuntur oportet eos Episcopo suo professionem facere The first Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 769. reneweth both these Canons Cap. 9. Nemo accipiat Ecclesiam in Parochiam sine consensu Episcopi sui nec de unâ ad aliam transeat Another Capitular commands those Clergymen to be degraded who forsook their Churches and accepted the Cure of others Presbyter vel Diaconus qui deserit Ecclesiam suam ad aliam transierit deponatur Some Capitulars and Councils apply this to the Bishops as well as the inferiour Clergy and forbid as well them to be translated from one Bishoprick
proceeding in such new foundations the Bishops found it necessary to bestow parochial right on many of these Chappels already founded or afterwards to be founded which they did by conferring on them the right of burial and hallowing Cemiteries near to them for that purpose By this means they were made distinct Parishes and freed from any dependance upon the Churches of the first foundation Yet that the latter might not suffer any great diminution of their former Revenues no more than a third part of the Tithes were allowed to the Incumbents of any Churches of the new foundation But if the Bishop did not grant the right of burial to them they still continued in their former condition and paid their whole Tithe to the Incumbent of the Mother-Church So the Laws of King Edgar made in the year 967. appoint That if any Lord would build a Church in his own Lands within the limits of any Parish he might pay a third part of his Tithes to it Quisque Decimas suas Ecclesiae primariae seu matrici persolvat Si quis autem Thanus Ecclesiam in terrâ propriâ intra Parachiae praedictae limites fundare velit ei Decimarum suarum trientem persolvere possit This Law is confirmed and explained in the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Canutus made about the year 1032. in these words Thanus si in solo suo Templum habuerit cui locus adjaceat Sepulturae destinatus Decimaâ—um suarum trientem in id conferre ei potestas esto Sin circa Templum nullus fuerit designatas humationi locus tum qui est fundi Dominus dato Sacerdoti novem partium reliquarum quantulum ei visum fuerit paying his whole Tithe to the Mother-Church The same method of making any new Church to be Parochial and independent by conferring on it the right of burial was observed before this time in Wales as appears from the Laws of Howel Dha of which the 35th is Si regiâ dante licentiâ in rusticanâ Villâ Ecclesia construatur in eâ Missae celebrentur in atrio illius corpora sepelientur ex tunc libera erit illa villa By this encouragement new Churches and chappels began to be erected so fast as in many places to become inconvenient by impoverishing too much the ancient Revenue of the Churches of the first foundation So that it was found necessary to dissolve or demolish some of them and the execution of this was left to the discretion of the Bishops Before this no new Church could be erected without the Bishops leave much less the right of baptism and burial be given to it by any other than by him So the 7th Canon of the Synod of Veru in the year 755. Publicum baptisterium in nulla Parochiâ esse debet nisi ubi Episcopus constituerit cujus Parochia est Yet the Bishops either through negligence or to gratifie the importunity of Lay-Patrons or encrease their own Revenue by multiplying the number of Synodals and Procurations had in some places permitted too many Churches to be erected and the ancient Parishes to be subdivided too farr Against this the third Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 803. provides cap. 1. that such unnecessary Churches should be demolished De Ecclesiis emendandis ubi uno in loco plures fuerint quà m necesse sit ut destruantur quae necessariae non sunt The Capitular of King Lothaire directs the same to be done altho the Church should be necessary in case it be not endowed Si in uno loco plures Ecclesiae sint quà m necesse sit destruantur Quòd si forte in aliquo loco sit Ecclesia constituta quae tamen necessaria sit nihil dotis habuerit volumus ut à liberis hominibus ibi detur c. Quòd si hoc populus facere noluerit destruatur The Capitular of Charles the Bald made at Tholouse in the year 844. restrains the further multiplication of Parish Churches unless upon evident necessity cap. 7. Episcopi Parochias Presbyterorum propter inhonestum periculosum lucrum non divident Sed si necessitas populi exegerit ut plures fiant Ecclesiae aut statuantur Altaria cum ratione hoc faciant sc ut si longitudo aut periculum aquae aut silvae aut alicujus certae rationis vel necessitatis causa poposcerit ut populus ad Ecclesiam principalem non possit occurrere statuatur Altare c. In England as the first foundation of Parochial Churches and Cures was much later than in France so also the subdivision of them and all the benefits or inconveniencies of it The first complaint which I find to have been made in our Nation of the too great multiplication of Churches of the new foundation is in the Additaments of the Laws of Edward the Confessor wherein it is said that there were now three or four Churches in many places where anciently was but one to the great diminution of the Revenues of the ancient Clergy Multis in locis modò sunt tres vel quatuor Ecclesiae ubi tunc temporis una tantum erat sic decimae singulorum Sacerdotum coeperant minui Long before the time of the Confessor the Parochial division of England was brought to so great perâ—ection that it was known and fixed to which Parish every man did belong So the Ecclesiastical Canons published in the time of King Edgar require that every Priest should present to the Synod the names of such in his Parish as were contumacious or guilty of any heinous sin that he should admonish every one of his Parish quosque per Paraeciam suam to bring their Children to be baptized that no Priest intermeddle in the business of another Priest nec in suâ Ecclesiâ nec in suâ Parochiâ And the Laws of King Canutus command that if any one be buried out of the limits of his Parish extra suae Parochiae fines yet that the fees of his burial should be paid to that Church to which he did of right belong But before the time of the Confessor that very division of Parishes was generally fixed which now obtains in England as appears from Dooms-day Book in which the Towns and Parishes do very near agree to the present division Some Churches indeed were erected and obtained Parochial right after the Conquest but the number of them was not great Before or about the time of the same King most of the Churches of the second foundation seem to have become wholly independent of the Churches of the first foundation and to have received not only a third part but the whole of the Tithe of their several districts whether that happened through the negligence of the Incumbents of the Mother-Churches or by the appointment of the Bishops to settle at last a sufficient maintenance on the Priests of these new Churches or by publick Law is uncertain In France it was first began by the Constitution
dispensing in this case was continued to them In the first Institution of Parochial Churches the Bishops might if they had pleased have committed the care of two Churches to every Presbyter and always in this matter have continued to act as their own prudence and the general good of the Church directed them till their whole power herein was transferred to the Pope by the Lateran Council Before that Council the care of this whole matter was committed to the Bishop that every Church should be supplied by a Priest of its own but that only ubi id fieri facultas providente Episcopo permiserit as saith the Capitular of Ludovicus Pius in the year 816 And not unlike to it is the ninth Canon of the Council of Rhemes in the year 1131. The Bishops might unite divide and direct the cure of Parochial Churches as they thought convenient In time through the negligence of the Bishops such a Plurality crept into the Church as ought not to be permitted Against this a Canon was made in the third Council of Lateran in the year 1179. Can. 13. Quia nonnulli modum avaritiae non ponentes dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas plures Ecclesias Parochiales contra sacrorum Canonum instituta nituntur acquirere ne id de caetero fiat districtive inhibemus declaring the Institution of a second Benefice to be void Quia in tantum jam processit quorundam ambitio ut non duas vel tres sed sex aut plures perhibeantur habere cùm nec duabus possint debitam provisionem impendere At this time then many Clergymen possessed six or more Benefices and their rapaciousness gave occasion to the Canon which for that reason none will deny to have been necessary This Canon not taking its desired effect the famous Canon of the 4th Lateran Council held under Pope Innocent in the year 1215 was made wherein after a recital of the precedent Canon it is decreed Vt quicunque receperit aliquod Beneficium habens curam animarum annexam si prius tale Beneficium obtinebat eo sit jure ipso privatus si fortè illud retinere contenderit alio etiam spolietur Hoc idem in personatibus decernimus observandum addentes ut in eâdem Ecclesia nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat etiamsi curam non habeant animarum Circa sublimes tamen literatas personas quae majoribus sunt beneficiis honorandae cùm ratio postulaverit per sedem Apostolicam poterit dispensari The Council therefore thought it reasonable to permit Pluralities to persons of extraordinary merit and to such the Council allows Can. 5. to hold two Benefices incompatible Such in the Canon Law are those accounted which require residence as all are having cure of Souls annexed Herein the Council allowed no more than was always practised and thought reasonable only the power of Dispensation was now lodged wholly in the Pope which was before common to all Bishops This turned to the great injury of the Church For at the Court of Rome Dispensations were promiscuously granted without any other design than that of getting money whereas Bishops were not wont to grant them but for the general good of their Diocess to entertain persons of eminent worth therein or if they had done otherwise would not have been able to have maintained their reputation in their Diocesses All that was left to the Bishops was the power of forcing Clergymen who enjoyed Pluralities by the Papal Dispensation to reside successively in every one of their Parishes and to maintain Curates when and where they did not personally reside To this purpose a Constitution was made by Richard Bishop of Salisbury in the year 1217. and another by Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter in the year 1287. As for the power of dispensing with residence that de jure communi always belonged to the Bishops and was still continued to them being afterwards confirmed by the 13th Canon of the Council of Lions in the year 1274. in these words Super residentiâ faciendâ possit Ordinarius gratiam dispensativè ad tempus facere prout causa rationabilis id exposcet In virtue of this power Peter Quivil in the Constitution above cited alloweth Non-residence to Rectors of Churches whose absence was supplied per institutos Vicarios by Vicars or Curates allowed by the Bishop or to whose Prebend or Dignity such Churches were annexed Afterwards the Court of Rome encroached upon the right of Bishops in this case also and usurped to it self the sole power of dispensing with residence which had so long remained in the Bishops The Power indeed of dispensing with Pluralities since the Council of Lateran and afterwards with Non-residence was ill placed in the See of Rome because thereby injury was done to all other Bishops and a door was opened to great corruptions But none ever thought it unreasonable that such a power should be lodged somewhere All the Petitions of the Parliament of England made to our Kings before the Reformation against Pluralities and Non-residence did not so much oppose the being of them as the sole granting of them by the Pope which exhausted the Treasure of the Nation and diminished the original Power of the Prelates of the Church For in the Complaint of the Commons made in Parliament 2 H. 4. against Pluralities wherein it was desired that all such as procured any Bulls from Rome for Plurality or Non-residence should incur the pain of Provisoes the Chaplains of Archbishops and Bishops and all Scholars are excepted When therefore the King and Parliament 21 H. 8. forbid any more such Bulls to be obtained from Rome and appointed them to be granted by the Archbishops of the several Provinces they did not confer any new power on the Archbishops but only restored to them their original Power the exercise of which had been long interrupted by Papal Usurpation From what I have said it will be easie to answer a scruple which some have raised viz. That neither a Papal Dispensation before the Statute 21 H. 8. nor an Archiepiscopal Dispensation since could satisfie any Pluralist or Non-resident in point of conscience where there is not a just and sufficient cause Because such a Dispensation is against the chief design of the Laws made against them before that Statute and now against the chief design of that Statute also It hath been already proved that both Plurality and Non-residence are made unlawful only jure humano so that if they be dispensed with by the same authority the Conscience is fully satisfied The Division and Setling of Parishes was first formed by the Authority of the several Diocesans and from them alone proceeded the Obligation to Residence and Singularity of Benefices So that to them de jure communi belonged the power of dispensing with both till it was appropriated to the Pope in the Lateran Council and in England to the Archbishops by the Statute 21 H.
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
Natural Philosophy that a superficial knowledge of it makes Men Atheists but a perfect knowledge of it reduceth them to Religion is fully as true in Ecclesiastical Polity An imperfect view and knowledge of the Constitution and State of our Church makes Men desirous of a Change or Reformation but a thorough knowledge of it makes them not only be content but pleased with her present Constitution only desirous that her excellent Laws and Institutions may be put in practice This case of Pluralities was generally esteemed the most scandalous and inexcusable of all her supposed Corruptions yet upon a strict examination of it it doth now as I hope appear to be neither scandalous nor inconvenient but lawful necessary and advantageous to the Church All the real inconveniencies of it proceed wholly from the ill use of it and from the faults of private persons to which the best Institutions are equally subject and which it is to be hoped their Lordships the Bishops will in time remedy by the due application of that Authority which the Laws of this Church and Nation have already invested in them FINIS ERRATA PAge 6. line 14. for graliâ—iâ—th read gratifieth p. 13. l. 2â— for Asgarvey read Asgardby p. 17. l. 9. for cause r. case p. 23. l. 28. for cause r. case p. 37. l. 3. for true r. truly p. 45. l. 16. for in r. to p. 83. 1. 8. for have founded r. have been founded p. 87. 1. 13. in the Marg. for Alsadi r. Aâ—fredi p. 123. l. 28. for districtive r. districtius p. 124. l. 29. for Clementon r. 〈◊〉 p. 153. l. 28. for derivation r. deviation BOOKS Printed for R. Clavel Publish'd in Michaelmas Term 1691. A Deâ—ence of Pluralities or holding two Benefices with Cure of Souls as now practised in the Church of England The State of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's Government in which their Carriage towards him is Justified and the absolute Necessity of their endeavouring to be freâ—d from his Government and of submitting to their present Majesties is demonstrated Observations on a Journey to Naples being a farther Discovery of the Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks Written by the Author of the former Book Entituled The Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks set forth in Eight Letters L. Annaei Elori Rerum Româ—norum Epitome cum Interpretatione Notis in usum Serenissimi Delphini unà cum Indicibus copiosissimis oppidò necessariis Will be published at the end of this Term. Compendium Graecum Novi Testamenti continens ex 7959 versiculis totius Novi Testamenti tantum versiculos 1900 non tamen integros in quibus omnes universi Novi Test. voces unà cum Versione Latina inveniuntur Auctore Johanne Leusden Editio quinta in qua non tantum Themata Graeca Voces derivatae exprimuntur sed etiam Tempora Verborum adduntur Tandem ne aliquid ubicunque desideretur in hac Novissima Editione Londinensi cuilibet Voci aut Compositae aut Derivatae Radix adjicitur propria in Tyronum gratiam De Presbyteratu Dissertatio Quadriparita Presbyteratûs sacri Origines naturam Titulum Officia Ordines ab ipsis Mundi primordiis usque ad Catholicae Ecclesiae consummatum plantationem complectens in qua Hierarchiae Episcopalis Jus Divinum immutabile ex Auctoritate scriptuaâ—um Canonicè expositarum Eccâ—â—siasticae Traditionis suffragiis brevitèr quidem sed luculentèr asseriter Authore Samuele Hill Diaecesâ—ôs Bathoniensis Wellensis Presbyterio Londini Typis S. Roycrâ—ft L. L. Oriental Typographi Regis Impensis R. Clavel in Coemeterio D. Pauli MDCXCI Sometime since Published for R. Clavel FOrms of Private Devotion for every day in the Week in a Method agreeable to the Liturgy with Occasional Prayers and an Office for the Holy Communion and for the Time of Sickness A Scholastical History of the Primitive and General Use of Liturgies in the Christian Church together with an Answer to David Clarkson's late Discourse concerning Liturgies Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first Four Centuries together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius The Frauds of Romish Monks and Priests set forth in Eight Letters lately written by a Gentleman in his Journey into Italy The Third Edition 〈◊〉 Apol p. 337. XXXIV 2 c. LVI 10. Matth. 1â— 2. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 217. c. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 255. Chron. Hisp. p 〈◊〉 Conc 〈◊〉 paâ— 2. 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 Aâ—t 7. â—om 3. 8. Reports 149. Hist. Eccles. L. 1. c. 1â— Not. in Epiphan in hâ—eresi Aâ—ianâ Hist. Eccl. L. 5. c. 22. Defence of Diocesan Episc p. 47. 〈◊〉 Eccl. L. 7. c. 19. â— Tim. 5. 〈◊〉 Epist. 2. Conc Tom. 1. p. 829. Cap. 9 § â— Epist. Gilâ—â— p. 23. Edit Oxon. Conc. Angl. T. 1. P. 53. Ibid. p 495. Tom. 3â— p. 188. Lâ—x 3. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p 4â—9 Ib p. 413. Descript. â—all L. 2. c. 6. Hist. Eccl. L. I. C. 27. Hiâ— Eccl. â— 3. c. 7. L. 3. c. â—6 in fine Beda Hist. Eccl. L. 4. c. 27. circa med Antiq. Britan p. 52. L 5. c. 4. L. 4. c. â— Conc. Ang. T. 1. p 3â—â— Capitular Edit â— BaLazio T 1 p. 416. L. 5. c. 334. ib. p. 896. Con. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. ibid. p. 41. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitâ—l T. 1. p. 565. Capitular T. 1. p. 1205. L. 7. c. 375. Ib. p. 1104. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Cap. 1. in Capit Franc. T. 2. p. 327. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Tiâ— 1. â— 1â— Capitul T. 1. p. 99. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 293. Ibid. p. 328. Ibid. p. 248. Capitular T. 1. p. 196. Ibid. p 730. Lex Alsâ—di 24. Capitular T. 1. p. 154 Ib p. 192. I. 6. c. 59. Ib. p. 932. Ib. p. 708. sic 8â— L. 1. c. 24. Addit 3 Capit. c. 83. Ib. p. 1172. Can. 14. Can. 20. Capitul â— 5. c. 175. T. 1 p. 857. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Can. 13. Cap. 24. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitular T. 1. p. 416. Ibid. p. 504. V. Selden Hist Decim p 264. Concil Angl Tom. 1. p. 444. Ibid. p. 545. Leâ— 11. Capital Tom. 1. p. 171. Ibid. T. 2. p. 327. c. 1. Ibid. p. 24. Conc. Angl. Tom. 1. p 621. Ibid Tom. 1. p. 448. Can. 6 9 15. Lex 13. Ibid. p. 545. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. L â— c. 149. Capitular T. 1. p. 730. L. 1. c. 24. Capitular L. 7 c. 198. T. 1. p 1067. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 593. Ibid. T. 2. p. 22. Append. ad Conc. Lateran p. 4. c. 4. Conc. Labb T. 10. p. 1569. Hist. Decim c. 9. â—â— Con. Angl. T. 2. p 22. ibid. p. 34. Conc. Angl. Tâ—â— p. 101. Can. 9. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Can. 9. Extrau de Praebend c. Avaritia Ib. cap. Dâ— Monachis Extr. de suppl nâ—glig Praelat c. Sicut Conc. Ang. T. 2. p. 239. Ibid. p. 253. Canc. Ang. T. 2. p. 44. Ib. p. 183. Ib. p. 440. Cap. 28. Ib. p. 374. Ib. p. 158. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 227. Ibid. p. 272. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 183. Ib. p. 272. Ib. p. 297. Ib p. 183. Ib. p. â—â— Append. 1. d L. 4. c. 14. Capitul T. 1. p. 794. Capitul L. 6. c. 73. T. 1. p. 934. L. 6. c. 73. Ibid. Ib. p. 1291. L. 1. c. 254. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. cap. 11. Conc. T. 10. p. 985. Concil T. 10. p. 1516. Hoveden Hist. par â— ad ann 1179. Can. 29. Conc. T. 11. p. 180. Clement on Tit. 2. cap. 3. gloss Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 158. Ibid. p. 369. Conc. Labb T. 11. p. 983. Abridgment of the Records Num. 50. Supra Conc. Ang. T. 2 p. 12. Ibid. p. 281. Ibid. p. 34. Ibid. p. 36 〈◊〉 273. p. 35. Conc Angl. T. 2. p 227. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p 277. Ibid. p. 3â— Hiâ—t Concil â—â—ident p. 217. Vid. Registr Peckhim sol 159. Cap. 13. Capitular T. 1. p. 154. L. 6. c. 59. Ibid p. 932. Con. Angl. T. 2. p 34. Ib. p. 328. Capitular T. â— p. 146. Ib. p. 369. Lex 3. Conc. Ang. T. â— p. 409. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 320. Ib. p. 340 Ex Registro Winchelse f. 34. Pat. 22. E. â— in Turri London Conâ— Angl. T. 2. p. 612. Extr de Testam cap. Cumin off Par. 1. c. 4. 7. The words of the latter Author are included in uncis Pag. 252. Hist. Counc Trent p. 251 252. 1 Cor. 1. 26. Bishop of Worcesters Charge p. 48. Preface to Hist. of Tithes Isa. 49. 2â—
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