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.
they are all dumb dogs they cannot bark sleeping lying down loving to slumber c. He must be very acute that can convict Pluralists out of these Texts what is there in all this which may not as well be applied to Priests possessing one Benefice as two Nay what doth this at all concern Parochial Priests as such being directed against the Prophets of Israel many of whom were not Priests and those who were Priests not fixed in distinct Parishes Not to say that he must be blind who sees not that the first passage is directed against the oppression and tyranny of Temporal Governours the second reproveth the cowardice and neglect of the Prophets who did not couragiously oppose Idolatry nor warn the People against it as they ought to have done when wicked Princes endeavoured to introduce it Such dumb dogs were the Presbyterians and other Dissenters in the Reign of the late King who formerly made a violent outcry against Popery in the Reign of other Kings when there was little or no danger of it but when the danger became real and Popery in earnest began tobe introduced were then wholly silent feared to oppose it but rather assisted to introduce it by encouraging that unhappy Prince in the Usurpation of his Dispensing Power I should be thought to trifle if I should give a serious answer to some other Texts which are in this case produced by our Adversaries to no better purpose That Text of S. Matthew alledged by the Puritan Conventicler Abraham begat Isaac whence he observed that Residence was of Divine Right for if Abraham had not resided he could not have begat Isaac is as material as any of them not to except the irrefragable Testimony said to be produced by the Assembly of Divines who in their Annotations on the first Chapter of Genesis having taken notice of all these parts of the World which God is there said to have created subjoyned this worthy note Here is no mention made of Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Officials Pluralists c. Ergo God did not create them This Opinion of the necessity of Residence is chiefly taken from the Spanish Bishops and Divines in the Council of Trent who often and strongly endeavoured to get Residence to be declared to be of Divine Right and consequently indispensable Their Authority in this case never fails to be urged by our Adversaries as if they would represent the Clergy of the Church of England to be worse than those of the Church of Rome However it is somewhat absurd to urge against us the Authority of the minor part of that Council when themselves will not be bound by the Decrees of the major part of it We believe the whole Council to be fallible much more the lesser part They pretend indeed this to have been the more Learned and Honest part of the Council This is spoken gratis and may as easily be denied by us If it were worth the while it could be proved that the Spanish Bishops were not free from sinister and corrupt designs herein and the Divines who disputed on their side were all Dominican Friers and consequently no impartial Judges of the duty of the Secular Clergy But to make the most of their Authority it respecteth not the Case of Parochial Priests but only of Bishops The Pope had usurped to himself the Title of Universal Bishop not only in Name but Office upon pretence of which his Flatterers maintained that all the Pastoral power of the Church was committed originally by Christ to him alone and from him derived to other Bishops who were no other than his Delegates and Commissioners To overthrow this Doctrine and assert their own Authority the Spanish Bishops laboured in the Council to obtain a Declaration of the Divine Right of Residence since if that were allowed it would necessarily follow that their Order also was of Divine Right and not only by Papal permission and Delegation Of this the Pope and his Dependants in the Council being aware quashed their undertaking Now all this relates only to Bishops So that to apply the Opinion of the Spanish Bishops herein to the Case of Parish Priests may be allowed indeed in our Dissenters who make no distinction between the two Orders but is unpardonable in a Writer of the Church of England who cannot but know that altho the Pope hath not original Jurisdiction in toto in solido in any Diocese beside his own yet a Bishop hath in all the Parishes of his Diocese and that altho Episcopacy is of Divine Institution yet Parochial Cures are not so But to clear this matter beyond all doubt I will examine the Case of Residence more strictly and first by such considerations as shall equally concern the Case of Bishops and of Parish Priests Secondly I will prove that the Residence of Bishops is not of Divine Right and lastly shew that although the Residence of Bishops were of Divine Right yet it would not thence follow that the Residence of Parish Priests is of the same kind Of the general Considerations which concern the Cause of both the first shall be that it will be impossible to settle the limits and term of this jure divino Residence Things of this nature appear very plausible in the theory and while they are carried no further seem desirable and excellent but when they are reduced to practice the folly of the speculation will soon appear If therefore the Spanish Bishops had been asked in the Council whether the Residence which they asserted to be of Divine Right included the whole Year or only part of it they could not have agreed in it If Residence of the whole Year were required by the Law of God by what warrant did they appear in that place out of their Diocesses or at any time attend their Prince or his Council or Officers upon the weighty Affairs of Church or State If only partial Residence were required who should define how much God would accept or how much might lawfully be spent out of their Diocesses It might have been alledged against them that it was rash and unwarrantable for any man to define the limits of the time required or rather that since God himself had revealed nothing as to this matter it was an evident argument that he intended no such obligation That if Residence were indeed jure divino necessary no Authority upon earth could dispence with one days absence but if so the interest and necessities and emergencies of the Church could not be managed successfully or supplied Or if 40 or 60 days were allowed for such occasions why not as well 70 or 80 since here was no fixed rule to determine the number beside the occasions and necessities of the Church which might sometimes as well require an absence of the whole 365 days as of sixty And when such cases happen such a total absence would be lawful for the same reasons for which they supposed a partial absence to be so The
residence was extended at the same time to all Incumbents of Parsonages not exceeding the value of Vicarages that is of five marks and that for the same reason because they were supposed unable to maintain a Curate Thus in the Council of Oxford in the year 1222 it was decreed Quia inhonestum nimis est ut Ecclesiae propâ—er minores redditus Pastoribus maneant desolatae praesenti decreto statuimus ut Ecclesiae quae in redditibus ultra quinque marcas non habent nonnisi talibus personis conferantur qui resideant in eisdem in propriâ personâ ministrent in eisdem For this reason also none but a Priest could be admitted to such a Benefice because none other was capable of executing intirely the ministâ—rial Office and if a Deacon were admitted the poverty of the Beneâ—ice would not permit the substitution of a Curate-Priest To this purpose as a friend of mine hath informed me from a Manuscript William de Bleis Bishop of Worcester published a Canon about the year 1230. Nullus nisi Sacerdos admittatur ad Ecclesiam cujus aestimatio non excedit quinque marcas sed admissus residentiam faciat in eâdem Ecclesiâ Further in consequence of this general design of supplying the religious occasions of every Parish by some means or other it was thought no less unlawful for one Priest alone to manage the cure of too great a Parish than to hold two Benefices and therefore in Parishes of very great extent two Priests or more were ordained to the cure of one Church or at least required to attend the constant service of one Church So little did the first design of these foundations favour that Presbyterian notion of the reciprocal necessity of one Presbyter and one Church At first such large Parishes had two or more Priests ordained to them with equal title and authority but afterwards this being found in many respects inconvenient was discontinued in England and at last wholly forbid in the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon in Wales the practice continued much longer Yet the same number of Priests was still directed to be maintained one being Superiour and retaining the Title the others being Curates or assistants to him For this the Constitution of Walter de Kirkham Bishop of Durham made in the year 1255 is express Si aliqua Ecclesia ab antiquis temporibus divisa aliis temporibus habuerit duos Capellanos postea quacunque occasione eadem Ecclesia fuerit consolidata Rector tot numero Capellanos habeat vel sustineat quot Ecclesia prius divisa necesse habuit sustinere This was also one of the Constitutions of the Provincial Council of Oxford in the year 1222 That in all large Parishes two or more Priests should constantly be maintained their number being proportioned to the largeness of the Parish Statuimus ut in singulis Parochialibus Ecclesiis quarum Parochia est diffusa duo sint vel tres Presbyteri pensatâ pariter magnitudine Parochiae Ecclesiae facultate ne fortè aegrotante uno Presbytero vel debilitato c. Before both the Council of Auranches had in the year 1173 commanded that the Incumbents of the larger Parishes should if they were able maintain another Priest under them Can. 5. Sacerdotes majorum Ecclesiarum quibus ad hoâ— suppetunt facultates alium sub se Presbyterum cogantur habere The design of Parochial Foundations and all the Ecclesiastical Constitutions hitherto mentioned do as well permit two Churches to be held or supplied by one man as one Church by two men if the general design before mentioned be not defeated that is the service of every individual Parish in religious Offices If then two Parishes lye so near that one person may supply the cure of them both this design is as much answered as if the same were done by two persons He cannot indeed reside in both in a Law-sense but in truth and in an Ecclesiastical-sense he resideth at both who constantly supplieth the ordinary duty and is always at hand within convenient distance to supply the extraordinary duty of them both If the greater distance of the two Parishes will not permit this the general design is satisfied if either of them be supplied by a Curate And this ever was and still is provided for in all cases of Plurality After an Historical account of whatsoever concerns the institution endowment and rights of Parishes it will be fit to add an account of the Constitutions and Practice of the Church in râ—lation to Pluralities The ancient Canons forbid a Priest to quit the service of that Church or Diocess wherein he first received Orders which made it unlawful to him to execute his Office in two several Diocesses To this I suppose that Capitular to refer Non liceat Clericum in duabus Civitatibus ministrare nec Abbatibus plura Monasteria aut Cellas habere The latter part of it however forbids Plurality of Abbies to be held by one Abbot which was indeed consonant to the first institution and design of their Order Some Abbots at this time in France held an enormous Plurality of Abbies and if the same licentiousness were then permitted to the Secular Clergy it was but convenient to restrain them by a prohibition Such a prohibition was made in the sixth Council of Paris Placuit omni Synodali conventui ut nullus Presbyterorum amplius quà m unam Ecclesiam sibi vendicare praesumat Another Capitular renews this prohibition and affixeth a reason to it Quia sicut quisque saecularis non amplius quà m unam habere debet uxorem ita unusquisque Presbyter non ampliùs quà m unam habere debet Ecclesiam The same may be found in the Constitutions of Herardus Archbishop of Tours made in the year 858. Cap. 49. These Canons are all expressed in general terms as provisions made against any corruptions are wont to be Yet no more is intended to be forbidden than what is in truth unlawful or inconvenient All these Canons are best explained by Regino who about 100 years after collected the Canons of the Church and Capitular Constitutions then received and practised In him this prohibition of Plurality is thus related Sicut Episcopus non plus potest habere quà m unam civitatem vir unam uxorem ita Presbyter unam tantùm Ecclesiam Itaque nullus Presbyter praesumat plures habere Ecclesias nisi forte alios Presbyteros sub se in unaquaque illarum habeat As a Bishop cannot have more than one City and an Husband no more than one Wife so a Priest no more than one Church Let no Priest therefore presume to hold more Churches unless he hath other Priests or Curates under him in every one of those Churches The chief design then of the former prohibitions was to provide lest the Cure of any Parish should be neglected This being satisfied by substitution of Curates the original power which the Bishops had of
sufficient Revenue for a Clergy-Man imposing a Tax in the nature of a mulct upon Pluralists possessing more would contribute very little And if the necessary helps to Learning be denied to the Clergy they cannot maintain the Honour and Well-being of the Church nor defend the cause of Christianity in general or of the reformed Religion in particular as it ought to be What can be expected from a Clergy-man however Learned and Industrious when through want of a proportionable Estate he shall not be able to obtain the Instruments of doing good of performing eminent Service to the Church or to the World when his Library must be reduced to a Concordance a Postil and a Polyanthea and his Purse will reach no further Of these indeed Mr. Selden hath said the Library of a Clergy-man doth consist and from thence taketh occasion to upbraid them of Ignorance The Charge indeed then was false for the Clergy were then in a flourishing condition and had arrived to as great an height of Learning as was ever known in the Christian Church But if by the diminution of the encouragements and revenues of the Clergy their Libraries should be indeed reduced to such a condition they would soon give just occasion to the Enemies of the Church to upbraid them of Ignorance and to make their advantage of it If we call to mind all the famous Writings of our Clergy published since the Reformation to the increase and support of Religion the advancement of Knowledge and the honour of the Nation We shall find that they were almost all written by those who were well preferred in the Church A Soul oppressed with Poverty can never raise itself to attempt any great design in this Nature or if it should attempt it in a condition unable to purchase the necessary helps of Learning the attempt would be but vain I know that the Case of Mr. Hooker will be objected against this Assertion But it is a vulgar Errour which the Author of his Life hath also taken up that he was but meanly preferred For to my certain knowledge at the time when he wrote his celebrated Books of Ecclesiastical Polity he had very great preferments of which he died possessed It is no less necessary to the support of Religion that a Clergy-man be able to give Alms liberally and to maintain some sort of Hospitality in the place where he liveth as well to give Example to the Laity as to oblige the Poorer sort to the Practice of their Duty by that Influence which the Application of Charity to them shall obtain The necessity of this is not indeed so obvious in great Cities But whoever knows the state of Country Parishes and the Conditions and Humours of the Poorer sort there will confess that a sense of Religion can hardly be kept up among them unless it be in the Power of the Parish-Priest to oblige them by Charity and Hospitality Above all it is necessary to the preservation of Religion that the Clergy do not want those helps which will give to them Respect and Authority among the People which a bare Competence can never do unless they be able to maintain themselves in a condition above the common Rank of Men. It is certain that it is not so much the force of Reason or the sense of Duty which maintains Religion among many of the meaner and unlearned sort as the Opinion which they have of their Pastors and the deference which they are taught to pay to their Judgment and Direction If the Clergy should be reduced to a bare Subsistence all this authority would fall to the Ground and their Persons thereby becoming contemptible to the People Religion would be despised with them Even among Persons of greater Knowledge and better Education Piety and Vertue in that case could scarce be maintained when such would scorn to converse with those whose Poverty made them far Inferiour to their Quality Men may frame to themselves what Systems they please in their Closets and in Speculation and imagine that the Clergy however poor will still be honoured for their Works sake that Vertue and a conscientious Discharge of their Duty will procure to them everlasting respect and Authority But when these Systems are reduced to practice Experience demonstrates the Folly of them If an Angel should descend from Heaven and take upon him the Ministerial Office if he abstained from working Miracles he would never be able to procure any great Respect to himself or do eminent Service to the Church and to Religion unless he might converse with the Gentry upon equal ground and were raised a degree above the Commonalty Let any Gentleman fancy himself stript of his large Possessions and reduced to a bare subsistence and then let him imagine if he can that his Vertue will secure that Authority among his Neighbours which a large Estate and Power delegated to him for the sake of it did before procure to him In the last place it is necessary that additional Provisions be made for the Reward of those Clergy-men who by extraordinary Learning and Industry shall deserve more than others For without this the Church would be deprived of the benefit of almost all the extraordinary Labours of her Clergy since scarce any would be found willing to undertake any unnecessary pains if after all there were no hopes of being distinguished from others who labour not so much as well by their Preferment as by their Merit It is commonly said indeed that Prebends and other Dignities in Cathedral Churches were intended for Rewards of extraordinary Merit and are sufficient to that purpose But it is to be considered that those are given promiscuously as Benefices are to Men of ordinary as extraordinary worth and that it never did or can happen otherwise that the Persons of extraordinary worth to whom they are given are generally those who ply next at Court that Rewards of extraordinary Merit ought to be provided for the Clergy of other Diocesses as well as for them that many Bishops have not the gift of one Prebend wherewith to Reward their Chaplains and deserving Clergy and the Arch-Bishop himself of no more than three and consequently that no constant Provision can be made for extraordinary Merit otherwise than by Pluralities Other great inconveniencies which would arise from confining the Revenues of the Clergy to a bare Subsistence might be urged as that it would reflect dishonour upon Religion that it would soon introduce a general Ignorance that it would induce them to follow a Secular Life that it would tempt them to prevaricate to flatter Vice in Rich Men and to betray the Cause of Religion in times of Tryal such as we lately saw These and the above-mentioned Considerations make it absolutely necessary that the Clergy should be endowed with and permitted to enjoy ample Possessions and Revenues God therefore foretold it as the great Blessing of his Church which should be founded among the Gentiles that Kings should be her