to certain Churches But then far from being fixed in that method and order which now generally obtains two Presbyters were appointed to attend the service of every auxiliary or Parish Church in the City and for this purpose a co-ordinate power was given by the Bishop to them both This was first observed by the learned Dr. Maurice Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford who hath evinced his Observation from a passage of Hilary the Roman Deacon in his Comment on 1 Tim. cap. 3. which is published among the Works of St. Ambrose In this place â—ilary speaking of the Order of the Roman Church and comparing it with the Jewish Temple notes that they had twenty four Courses of Priests Nunc autem septem Diaconos esse oportet aliquantos Presbyteros ut bini per Ecclesias unus in Civitate Episcopus But now we must have but seven Deacons for as yet Rome had no more as Sozomen observeth and such a number of Presbyters that there may be two for every Church and over all these one Bishop After all these Parochial Churches were no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother Church and the Presbyters officiating in them no other than Curates to the Bishop employed by him and removable at his pleasure To these the right of administring Baptism and consecrating the Sacred Elements of the Eucharist was not permitted That was reserved solely to the Bishop and the Cathedral Church and not communicated to the auxiliary Churches till after some Ages This was the occasion of that expression so frequent among the ancient Catholicks One Altar one Baptism one Bishop All the Christians of the Diocess were baptized at the Cathedral Church and there only the Sacred Elements of the other Sacrament were consecrated by the Bishop and from thence sent to the Parochial Churches of the Diocess to be communicated to all those who could not come to the Mother-Church This practice continued in the Church of Rome till after the beginning of the fifth Century as appears from the Epistle of Pope Innocent to Decentius Altho in this Popes time the Presbyters of the remoter Parochial Churches in the Country had leave given them to consecrate the Sacred Elements this permission was not yet granted to the City Presbyters So slowly and gradually did the present institution of Parochial Cures or perpetual incardination of certain Presbyters to certain Churches with full power to administer all the Offices of Religion take place in the Church When it was first intirely finisht is not here material to enquire nor indeed can any certain time be fixed to the universal introduction of it since in some Churches it was introduced much sooner or later than in others A particular account of the introduction of it in our National Church belongs to the second head of this Discourse I have now dispatched my first design which was to shew that Plurality is not jure divino unlawful To effect this I have proved That Plurality is not forbidden by the Law of Nature or by the revealed Law of God I have fully examined the Authorities and Reasons produced for the Divine right of Residence upon account of which the enemies to Plurality maintain it to be unlawful and have manifested both to be inconclusive That it is impossible to reduce this jure divino Residence into practice that it is inconsistent with other practices generally allowed and not disallowed even by our Adversaries That such a perpetual Residence is neither required by the nature of the thing nor upon account of the Office annexed to the Benefice That even Bishops in all cases are not bound to maintain such perpetual Residence in one particular Diocess That in the ancient Church Bishops have been allowed to preside over two Diocesses and the same practice hath been all along retained and is still continued in our Church without any contradiction That other Cases and Practices of like nature have been all along and still are allowed and that otherwise the Government of the Church cannot be well maintained And lastly that altho Plurality and Non-residence were by Divine right unlawful to Bishops yet it would not be so to Parochial Priests since the Institution or designation of them to a certain Parish was introduced by humane Authority and not uniformly and but lately in many places and altogether according to the discretion of the Bishop CHAP. II. IN the second place I am obliged to shew That Plurality of Benefices held by one Presbyter is not contrary to the first institution or indowment of Parishes This will easily appear from what hath been premised Before the institution of Parochial Churches it is manifest there could be no indowment of them but it was long before they were instituted and after their institution much longer before any particular indowment of them was made All the Oblations made to them were still transmitted to the Mother-Church and leâ—t to the disposition of the Bishop who generally divided it into four parts took one for his own maintenance assigned another to the Presbyters Deacons and inferiour Clergy a third part to maintain and repair the Edisices of the Church a fourth to the Poor and the entertainment of Strangers All this is so manifest from the Writings of the Ancients that it would be lost time to endeavour to prove it So that at first in all Churches there was no other than a general indowment of the whole Diocess which consisted as well in Lands and Possessions as in voluntary Oblations of the Laity Of this indowment the first and general design was that a competent number of Clergy might be maintained who under the Bishop should supply the service of the whole Diocess in Sacred matters that is to provide for the general Service of the Diocess The secondary design was to provide for the convenience of every individual Parish The first of these was always to be unalterable the second permitted to the direction of the Bishop to be managed or altered at his disâ—retion That Plurality is not contrary to the first design is evident For notwithstanding the permission of Pluralities a competent number of Clergy to supply the Service of the Diocess in Sacris is maintained out of the Revenue of the Church The only seeming Objection is That hereby great inequality is observed in the Stipends of Presbyters which in the first general indowment of the Church may be supposed to have been equal But after all there is as great inequality in the particular indowments of single Benefices and besides this the supposition is not true For the Bishop might if he thought fit give a double share to some Presbyters more than he did to others upon account of greater worth and this both justice and prudence would direct him to do And to this that direction of S. Paul to Timothy Let the Presbyters that rule well be counted worthy of double honour doth not obscurely relate So that the continuance of
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.
Incumbent and were allowed to do it These pensions were not very grievous during the times of the Saxons and the Church thereby found no great inconvenience before the Norman Conquest After the Conquest the Norman Princes generally bestowed the Bishopricks and Abbies of England to those of their own Nation who according to the Spirit of that time oppressed without mercy the poor inferiour English Clergy as the Norman Noblemen did the English Laity The Abbots then began to exact larger Pensions from the Incumbents possessing the Benefices of their donation And what the Norman Abbots began even the English Abbots were forced to follow to support themselves at that time when the Norman Kings continually exacted great Sums of money from them and scarce nominated any but in virtue of a Simoniacal bargain Both these reasons induced the Abbots to increase from time to time the Pensions of their Clerks and to procure to themselves more Advowsons that they might increase the number as well as the value of their Pensions Against these innovations it was decreed in the Council of London in the year 1102. That the Monks should neither obtain any new Advowsons without the leave of the Bishop nor impoverish their Churches by exorbitant Pensions Can. 20. Ne Monachi Ecclesias nisi per Episcopos accipiant neque sibi datas ita spolient suis redditibus ut Presbyteri ibi servientes in aliquo penuriam patiantur This Constitution was renewed in the Council of Westminster in the year 1126. Can. 4. Nullus Abbas Prior Monachus vel Clericus Ecclesiam sive Decimam seu quaelibet Beneficia Ecclesiastica de dono Laici sine proprii Episcopi assensu suscipiat In the mean time most of the Prebends were founded in Cathedral Churches of the old Foundation as we now distinguish them viz. in those which were then held by Secular Canons Of these many were endowed with Tithes or portion of the Tithes of some Benefice the Advowson of which belonged to the Bishop or some other Founder of the Prebends In this case it was lawful to such a Prebendary to serve the cure of the Benefice personally if it could consist with his attendance required at the Cathedral Church or to supply it by a Curate who in time became a Vicar or which was the most ordinary way to reserve to himself a certain Pension appointed by the Bishop and not to be altered without his leave permitting the remaining profits to the Incumbent In all which cases such prudence and moderation was used that I find no complaints of this kind made against the Secular Canons But the oppression and covetousness of the Monks became intolerable notwithstanding all the Decrees made against them they continued their corrupt practice herein and used several artifices to impoverish their Churches and draw the profits of them to themselves Sometimes they would treat with mercenary Priests and hire them from year to year to supply the cure of their vacant Benefices that so none being in real possession of them might be able to claim the profits which they in the mean time usurped to themselves Against this abuse was a Canon made in the Council held at Auranches in Normandy by the Popes Legates in the year 1173 which obliged all the Subjects of the King of England Vt Ecclesiae Vicariis annuis non comittantur that Churches should not be committed to yearly Curates And the Council of Lateran held at that time under Alexander III. directed That if a Clerk were not presented within a certain time the right of Presentation should devolve to the Bishop At other times they obliged the Clerks whom they presented to their Benefices to pay such large Pensions to them as rendred it impossible to their Clerks to subsist with honesty and decency Against this the forementioned Council of Auranches provided That besides the Oblations at least a third part of the Tithes should remain to the Priest who should serve the Church De tertiâ parte Decimarum nihil Presbytero qui servit Ecclesiae auferatur The Popes also of this time published several severe Decrees against this oppression Thus Alexander III. writes to the Monks of the Diocess of York in the year 1170. Intelleximus quod in Ecclesiis vestris de quibus certas portiones consuevistis percipere portiones antiquos reditus minorastis quos Clerici Ecclesiarum istarum habuisse noscuntur Ideoque mandamus quatenus si quas portiones vel antiquos reditus Clericorum sine consensu Archiepiscopi vestri minuere praesumpsisiis ad integritatem pristinam revocetis The same Pope soon after wrote thus to the Bishop of Worcester De Monachis qui Vicarios Ecclesiarum parochialium ita gravaâ—â—â—t hospitalitatem tenere non possint eam providentiam habeas quòd ad praesentionem eorum nullum recipias nisi tantum ei de proventibus Ecclesiae coram te fuerit assignatum â—â—de jura Episcopalia possint persolvere congruam sustentationem habere To the same purpose a Canon was published by this Pope in the Council of Lateran in the year 1179 which may be found Extr. de Praebend cap. Extirpandae Ten years after this Pope Clement made a famous Decree which at last effectually overthrew this artifice of the Monks in these words Cùm Monachi quidam Ecclesias quae ad Praesentationem eorum pertinent propriis usibus deputare nituntur nec volunt ad eas cùm vacaverint vocare personas admissos ita Pensionibus onerantes Mandamus ut nisi praedictae personae intra tempus à Lateranensi Concilio statutum ad vacantes Ecclesias personas idoneas praesentaverint ex tunc liceat Episcopis Diocesanis appellatione remotâ ordinare Rectores qui iis praeesse noverint prodesse The Monks being driven from all these artifices at last sell upon that mischievous design of Appropriation which gave the greatest blow to the Secular Clergy they ever received since the first dotation of the Church By the power of money they obtained of the Court of Rome that the profits of certain Churches whose Advowson belonged to them should be appropriated to themselves and their successors for ever Herein they first began with a few then finding their money to prevail in that corrupt Court proceeded further and at last put no bounds to their covetousness When they first gained these Bulls of Appropriation they pretended the Discipline of their Order to be so far relaxed in virtue of them that they might personally serve the cure of their appropriated Churches and this for some while they took upon them to do converting thereby the entire profits of them to their own use But here the Bishops interposed and since they could do no more applied themselves to reduce the Monks within the bounds of their Cloisters and by several Constitutions forbad them to serve their Churches personally One of these Constitutions made by an unknown Bishop in the reign of Henry
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
the Archbishoprick of York held two Bishopricks and the best Abbey of England In the beginning of the Reformation in England the Papal Power being abolished by Act of Parliament it was found necessary to invest the power of granting Dispensation of Plurality in some person For this purpose the Statute 21 H. 8. was made which restored to the Prelates of the Church their original power of dispensing herein long since taken from them by Papal usurpation only restored it not to every Ordinary to be executed in his own Diocess as was formerly but fixed it wholly in the Archbishop of the Province In this Act the 29th Canon of the fourth Lateran Council is confirmed in relation to Benefices with cure of Souls viz. That if such a second Benefice be taken without Dispensation it shall void the first Then the power and manner of Dispensation is declared and appointed and the persons named who shall be capable of receiving such a Dispensation that is all Chaplains of the King Queen and Royal Family eight Chaplains of every Archbishop six of a Duke or Bishop five of a Marquess or Earl four of a Vicount three of a Baron Lord Chancellour and Knight of the Garter two of a Dutchess Marchioness Countess or Baroness being Widows one of the Chief Justice of the Kings Bench and Warden of the Cinque-ports all Brothers and Sons of Temporal Lords and Knights all Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity or of the Canon Law who shall be admitted to any of those Degrees by either of the Universities These are the only persons capable of receiving Dispensation but as yet they have no right to claim it that is to be acquired by their particular merit of which the Archbishop is made the sole Judge After all no more than two Benefices are allowed to be dispensed with except only in one case that is when any of the Kings Chaplains are sworn of the Kings Council such being made capable of receiving a Dispensation for three Benefices a case which perhaps never happened to any except Dr. Wotton and I am not assured whether he took the advantage of it As for Secretary Boxall and some others in Queen Mary's time when the Popes dispensing power was revived they are not to be accounted for When such a Dispensation is in virtue of this Act granted to any one both the Grant if self and the Câ—nons of the Church limit the use of it that so neither of the Benefices therein personally united may receive any deâ—riment either in spiritual or mixt matters The 41th Canon of the Synod held at London in the year 1603. directs That no Dispensation for keeping more Benefices with cure than one shall be granted to any but such only as shall be thought very well worthy for his learning and very well able and sufficient to discharge his duty c. Provided always that he be by a good and sufficient caution bound to make his personal Residence in each his said Benefices for some reasonable time in every year and that the said Benefices be no more than 30 miles distant asunder and lastly that he have under him in the Benefice where he doth not reside a Preacher lawfully allowed that is able sufficiently to teach and instruct the people The form of the Dispensation which hath been always used since the Reformation begins with a supposal of the great merits of the person to whom it is granted and afterwards adds these Conditions Provided alway that in each of the aforesaid Churches as well that from which you shall be absent for the greater part as the other in which you shall make perpetual and personal residence you preach thirteen Sermons every year according to the Constitutions of the Church of England in that case set forth and therein handle the holy Word of God sincerely religiously and reverently and that in the same Benefice from which you shall be chiefly absent you keep hospitality for two months every year and in that time entertain and relieve the inhabitants of the same Parish especially the poor and needy in proportion to the profits and revenues of the Benefice Provided also always that the cure of that Church from which you shall be chiefly absent be in the mean time well supplied in all things by some fit Minister able to explain and interpret the Principles of the Christian Religion and to preach the Word of God to the people if the revenues of the said Church can coveniently maintain such a Curate and that a competent and sufficient Salary to be limited and appointed by the Bishop of that place according to his discretion or by us or our Successours in case the Diocesan Bishop shall not do his duty herein be given and paid bonâ side to the said Curate Herein it is to be observed That altho no more than two months Residence upon the Benefice less frequented be expressed yet thirteen Sermons are injoyned to be preached yearly at it which being not ordinarily to be performed in distant Parishes as for contiguous Parishes the Pluralist may reside constantly upon both in an Ecclesiastical sense without the residence of as many weeks I have for that reason often said in this Discourse that a Pluralist is bound to reside three months in every year upon that Benefice which he less frequenteth I have now finished the History of Parochial Foundations and Pluralities in this Nation and now dare to appeal to the judgment of the Reader whether the granting of such Pluralities as are now allowed be against the first design of the foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches I fear the same judgment will not be passed concerning some other Cases which have been incidentally mentionâ—d as of the Residence of Bishops at their Cathedral Churches which for the greater good of their Diocesses the Council of London held under Archbishop Lanfranc commanded to be translated to the principal Cities of their Diocesses of the obligation of Prebendaries and Archdeacons to constant Residence of the incompatibility of two such Dignities of the unlawfulness of holding Commendams in another Diocess or being translated from one Diocess to another All these cases were manifested to be consonant to the first design of the Foundation and Endowments of Cathedral Churches yet contrary practices are introduced and no exclamation made against them Other like cases might be named as as that formerly Clergymen if they had proper possessions sufficient to maintain them should receive no allowance from the Church that they were bound to spend all in hospitality and alms or bequeath what remained to the Church whence they got their money or possessions Many of these old customs may be agreeable to the first design of the endowment of the Church yet not necessary and some of them not fit to be continued If any of them do deserve to be revived they are such as may be effected by the old Laws still in force and want no new Laws but only the pleasure
were much to be wished that their Majesties and the Reverend Prelates of the Church would revive the Order to supply the want of the Episcopal Function in those Diocesses which are deprived of the benefit of their proper Bishops either through necessary absence or through age and infirmities And for this there needeth no new Law or Canon I have passed through those Considerations which do particularly relate to the Case of Bishops altho from these an invincible argument for the lawfulness of Plurality and Non-residence in Parish Priests may be raised For if it be lawful for a Bishop to obtain Pluralities and use Non-residence much more will it be lawful to a Priest whose duty is not so strict nor his office of so great concern to the Church But I proceed to prove what I before proposed That altho Plurality and Non-residence were Jure Divino forbid to Bishops yet it would not follow that it is in like manner forbid to Priests They who maintain the Residence of Bishops to be of Divine Right proceed upon this Principle That the Order of Bishops is of Divine Institution and therefore Bishops are Jure Divino obliged to perform their office in their Diocesses which office they suppose cannot be discharged without residence Upon this Principle the Spanish Bishops proceeded when they contended for the Divine Right of Residence in the Council of Trent This Principle we of the Church of England do allow yet it hath been already proved that the Divine Right of Residence in Bishops doth not follow from it But suppose it should necessarily follow from it yet would not this involve Parochial Priests in the same obligation unless their Parochial office also were of Divine right which we do not allow I know the Presbyterians do contend for this as making no distinction in Order or Office between a Bishop and a Presbyter But for a Church of England Divine to aâ—gue the jus divinum of Parish Priests Residence from the jus divinum of Bishops Residence is no other than to betray the cause of the Church and of Episcopacy to the Presbyterians Bishops in the very institution of them were designed by God to preside over the Church in certain Cities and the Territories of them to be assigned to every one of them So that not only the Order but the designation of them to some certain place is of Divine institution The extent of the Territories of that place and consequently the greatness or smalness of his Diocess doth indeed depend upon human Laws and no more The Office and Order of Presbyters is indeed also of Divine institution but not their designation to any certain place They were appointed and ordained to assist the Bishop in governing and instructing his flock not necessarily to preside in any one part of the Bishops Diocess or to take care of any certain number of the faithful but to assist in such a manner and method as the Bishop and the Church should direct So that altho the division of the whole Catholick Church into many Diocesses be of Divine institution yet the division of any Diocess into many Parishes is not so All this will be sufficiently evident if it be proved that the Division of Diocesses into Parishes and assigning those Parishes to the perpetual care of so many Priests was made by meer humane Authority and that in different methods and gradually and not began till some Ages after the time of the Apostles and the Institution of Bishops The proof of this will evince all that hath been laid down by us and not only overthrow the argument of our Adversaries drawn from the supposed jus divinum of Bishops residence but also demonstrate that neither Plurality of Parochial Cures nor Non-residence upon such Cures can be jure divino unlawful to a Presbyter it being absurd that the circumstances of any matter should be of Divine right when the substance of the matter it self is not so And upon this ground Judge Hobart well maintained the lawfulness of Pluralities however another great Lawyer Lord Chief Justice Coke was so far mistaken as to be of a contrary opinion I proceed therefore to prove That the division of Diocesses into Parishes and subjection of every Parish to a peculiar Priest was made by humane Authority long after the Institution of Bishops and foundation of Churches gradually and not uniformly When the Christian Religion was first propagated in the Cities of the Roman Empire for it was very late before it extended to the country villages we may suppose that for some time at least one Church supplied the necessities of all the Christians of that City That the Bishop presided in that one Church none will doubt All this while it is certain there could be no appropriation of certain Presbyters to certain Churches When the number of the Christians in any City or in the neighbouring Country multiplied so far that one Church could not contain them others were erected in the City or Country and the number of these encreased proportionably with the number of Christians of any Diocess These auxiliary Churches were no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother-Church at which the Bishop resided and were accounted as such until at least the middle of the fifth Century The Bishop himself resided at the Mother-Church attended by his Presbyters The auxiliary Churches were served by the Presbyters at the appointment of the Bishop either in common or by turns or in any other method which the Bishop in his prudence should direct If any Bishop thought â—it to appoint certain Presbyters to attend constantly and without change upon certain Churches it was meerly because it was his pleasure Other Bishops took different methods as themselves judged best and might either appoint two Presbyters either co-ordinate or subalâ—ern to serve one Church or one Presbyter to serve two Churches or all Presbyters to take their turns in every Church There was no fixed or determinate rule herein The truth of all this is attested by Sozomen who wrote about the year 430 For he observes it as a singularity in the Diocess of Alexandria that therein Parochial Churches if I may so call those auxiliary Churches before mentioned were appropriated or committed to so many certain fixed Presbyters Petavius indeed contends that the same Custom obtained at this time as well in Rome as in Alexandria but his opinion and authorities are confuted by Valesius in his Notes upon this place of Sozomen and will be further overthrown by that Observation which immediately follows I will only add in this place that even in Alexandria the whole discharge of the Sacred Office was not yet entrusted to the Parochial Clergy but great part of it reserved to be executed only in the Cathedral Church For Socrates affirms that in his time the Presbyters were not permitted to preach at Alexandria It is not improbable that about this time the duty of the Presbyters began at Rome to be fixed