Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	humane_a	law_n	positive_a	2,470	5	10.9031	5	false

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

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 ●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 ●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 Li●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

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