Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n evil_a good_a indifferent_a 2,973 5 9.5052 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A65589 A defence of pluralities, or, Holding two benefices with cure of souls as now practised in the Church of England. Wharton, Henry, 1664-1695. 1692 (1692) Wing W1561; ESTC R8846 81,283 204

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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 Pri●●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 w●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 Bi●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
Bishop Williams held with the Bishoprick of Lincoln and afterwards with the Arch-Bishoprick of York the Deanery of Westminster a Residentiaries place in the Church of Lincoln the Prebend of Asgarvey in the same and the Rectory of Walgrave If I might in the last place be allowed to speak freely to the Gentlemen and Lay-men of our Communion whom the popular Cry against Pluralities may have deceived I would desire them to judge of the Reasons which this Apology shall offer without prejudice and in the mean while to cast their Eyes upon those real Pests of the Church Mental Simony and Bonds of Resignation which in time will become her ruine The removal of these Evils will far more become their Zeal and from them only a Remedy can be obtained herein Notwithstanding the seeming difficulty of maintaining what in the opinion of most men is a Paradox notwithstanding the opposition which may be expected from good men prepossessed herein and bad men who by such a Defence may be deprived of one of their Common-places of Declaiming I thought it my duty to undertake this Province being assured that therein I should defend the Honour and the Interest of the Church of Christ which ever since the first Institution of Parishes hath permitted Pluralities and cannot now be well supported without them the wisdom of the Parliaments and the Laws of this Kingdom which have allowed them of the Kings and Queens of this Nation who have confirmed and continue them of the Honourable Peers and Universities of this Realm who have qualified Persons to obtain them the Reputation of many excellent Persons both alive and dead who have granted and enjoyed them of many eminent Divines and Lawyers who have justified them and that I shall hereby free the most Reverend Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and other Bishops residing near the Court for the Service of their Majesties and of the Church from the Imputation of that mortal sin which all who maintain the unlawfulness of Pluralities fix upon Non-residence To the defence of all these Things and Persons I am bound either by respect or duty and if therewith the former practice of some present Oppugners of Pluralities be defended I shall not be sorry altho I should receive no thanks from them The Enemies of Pluralities proceed upon these Heads either that to hold more Benefices than one with Cure of Souls is Jure Divino unlawful or that it is contrary to the first design of Parochial Indowments or that it is highly inconvenient to the Church Against these I shall assert and in order prove these three Propositions I. Plurality of Benefices with Cure of Souls is not Jure Divino unlawful II. It is not contrary to the first Design of Parochial Indowments III. It is not inconvenient to the Church CHAP. I. THAT Pluralities are unlawful by the Law of God some Casuists of the Church of Rome chiefly those of the Mendicant or Jesuit Orders have maintained and many Zealous Oppugners of Pluralities among the Reformers have taken up their Opinion or at least exaggerated the guilt of Pluralities so far as that it can searce otherwise be interpreted If we enquire the Reasons of this heinous Charge it is certain that nothing can be Jure Divino unlawful but either by the Law of Nature or by the Positive Law of God For the first none have been so ridiculous as to pretend that the Law of Nature bath determined any thing in this place That directs no more of Parochial Priests than of Parochial Constables There remains then only the Positive Law of God expressed in Scripture which can fix this guilt upon Pluralities But if we peruse the Bible from one end to the other we shall find no Directions herein no mention being made therein either of Parochial Priests or Parochial Cures nor indeed could be since the institution of them was first made long after the writing of those sacred Oracles as we shall prove hereafter As for Texts which may be supposed to allude thereto which our Reformed Adversaries sometimes alledge they are of no moment in this cause since it is a received Principle among all Protestants that nothing is necessarily to be believed unlawful which is not declared to be such either by the Law of Nature or by the express words of Scripture Yet in this case our Adversaries are not ashamed to betray the Fundamental Principle of the Reformed Church and arraign that as malum in se of which Nature and Scripture are wholly silent In our Dissenters this Opinion is yet much more unpardonable who maintain that nothing ought to be introduced in the Worship of God or in Ecclesiastical Discipline which is not warranted by express words of Scripture For things indifferent in their own nature may still remain so notwithstanding the silence of Scripture but the nature of any thing can never be changed from indifferent to unlawful without express words of Scripture When Scripture cannot be produced our Adversaries fly to Metaphors making great use of a Metaphor frequent in ancient Canons wherein the discharge of the Episcopal or Parochial care is compared to Marriage that as a man cannot have two Wives so neither can he have two Benefices But alas shall Metaphors and tropes and similies condemn a man Hath the Scripture any where said that all the circumstances of Marriage shall be observed in the case of Benefices with Cure of Souls Doth not every one know that nothing is more ordinary than to stretch Similitudes too far or more fallacious than to argue from them Will these men be concluded by the Similitude which themselves bring If so it will be as unlawful to be translated from one Bishoprick to another or from one Benefice to another as it is to change one Wife for another But against this the early and universal practice of the Church hath prevailed as to the Lawfulness of it The too common practice of it was afterwards restrained by Canons And as I suppose none of our Adversaries will maintain such Translations to be unlawful But the chief foundation of their Opinion is the Necessity of Residence which they suppose to be of Divine Right and since Residence cannot be maintained in two different places at the same time that therefore Plurality of Benefices is unlawful If we demand their warrant for this Assertion as in the former case we shall find them very destitute The Law of Nature they do not pretend to herein The Texts of Scripture which they urge are very remote and scarce applicable to our case Such are that reproof of the Shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel Wo to the Shepherds of Israel that feed themselves Sould not the Shepherds feed the flocks Ye eat the fat and ye clothe you with the wooll The diseased have ye not strengthned neither have ye healed that which was sick but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them c. or that description of them in Isaiah His watchmen are blind