Church exclaim powerfully against her Governours and cry up the necessity of Reformation To so warm a zeal for publick good private sins would easily be permitted Those who know the Town have seen Examples of both kinds within this year This Air of Popularity hath been the great pest of the Church in all Ages when Church-men employ their Designs not so much to preserve the Honour of Religion as to acquire to themselves a Name and Interest among the Multitude when they apply themselves to obtain the favour of the professed Enemies of the Church and for that end stick not to betray her Constitutions and to be instrumental in her disgrace Doubtless in the ancient Church it would not have been thought any great recommendation of a Catholick Clergy-man to have sought the favour of the Donatists to admit and second those heavy Imputations which they cast upon the Catholicks to call them Brethren and treat the sincere Members of the Church as Enemies How can it ever be expected that the Laity should conscientiously obey the Constitutions of the Church and retain their duty to her when the Clergy make light of her Authority vilifie her Constitution court the friendship of those who have divided themselves from her Communion and seek her Ruine when for their sake they will slight her Sacred Offices mutilate or disuse her Ceremonies prostitute her Honour and betray her Cause It is undeniable that this great Cry against Pluralities was raised by the Enemies of the Church the Puritans in the last Age. Before the Reformation the same Clamours were raised against Pluralities by the Mendicant Orders The Artifices and Hypocrisy of both are so like that they ought not to be passed by without some reflection These Mendicant Orders arose and chiefly infested the Church in the Thirteenth Age. They pretended an extraordinary Call from God to reform the World and correct the Faults of the Secular Clergy To this end they put on a mighty shew of Zeal for the good of mens Souls and of contempt of the World accused the Secular Clergy of famishing the Souls of Men called them dumb Dogs and cursed Hirelings maintained that Evangelical Poverty became the Ministers of the Gospel that it was unlawful for them to possess any thing or to retain propriety in any worldly Goods As for the Publick Orders of the Church they would not be tied to them alledging that themselves being wholly Spiritual could not be obliged to any Carnal Ordinances They broke in every where upon the Parochial Clergy usurped their Office in all populous and rich Places set up Altars of their own withdrew the People from the Communion of their Parish-Priest would scarce allow the hopes of Salvation to any but their own Disciples whom they bewitched with great pretences of Sanctity and assiduity in Preaching These Artifices had raised their Reputation and Interest so high in a few years that they wanted very little to ruine the Secular Clergy and therewith the Church But in less than an Age the cheat of these Impostors became manifest to all men They procured to their Societies incredible Riches built to themselves stately Palaces infinitely surpassed that viciousness of which themselves had perhaps unjustly accused the Secular Clergy and long before the Reformation became the most infamous and contemptible part of the Church of Rome After the decay of their Reputation the Jesuites arose that last and greatest Scourge of the Christian Church who upon the same Principles and Pretences carried on the same Design and still prosecute it in opposition to the Clergy where ever they are planted altho the World is no less convinced of their Fraud than of their Predecessours whom after all their pretences to Evangelical Poverty and Simplicity they have far exceeded in Riches and worldly Interest After all this it may be easily judged how little Authority their Opinion in this matter ought to bear and how unfair it is to alledge the Determinations of the Regulars against the Secular Clergy To cite the Opinions of them in this Case of Pluralities is no other than to produce the Authority of Baxter or Owen against Episcopacy or of Milton and Ferguson against Monarchy Such were the Opposers of Pluralities in our Church before the Reformation I mean the Opposers of the simple use of them as for the Opposers of the great abuse of them many of them were excellent men of which I shall speak hereafter Since the Reformation altho the Abuse of them was not continued they have been vehemently decried by the Puritans whose agreement with the Mendicants in the same Principles and Designs is so evident from the precedent account of the latter that I need not make any minute comparison Every one knows what were the first Pretences and Principles of our Dissenters and what is their modern Practice how they inveighed against our Secular Clergy maintained the unlawfulness of their Possessions set up Altar against Altar withdrew the Laity from their Communion put on a specious appearance of Mortification and unusual Sanctity have long since quitted their precise strictness but still retain the pretence and their quarrel to the Clergy Thus an hardned Hypocrisy will obstinately persist altho it be notorious that the Cheat has been long since discovered by the experience of a more licentious practice of those things which themselves have condemned in others Particularly in this Case of Pluralities it is well known that when the Dissenters had by a successful Rebellion ejected all the Clergy of the Kingdom together with their lawful King and usurped the Authority and Revenues of both their Leaders and Favourites seized on and retained to themselves more Benefices than have been lately united in any Clergy-man of the Church of England And at this day many of the Heads of the Separation hold Plurality of Conventicles as the Presbyterians of Scotland do of Benefices To these open and professed Enemies of the Church I might add those secret ones those unfaithful Clergy-men those Traditores who seek to oblige the Enemies of the Church by betraying her Out-guards to them Altho I would not lay the imputation of Infidelity upon all Some it may be hoped acted upon a mistaken Zeal and false Prejudices But upon whatever Principle they proceeded it was long since observed of them that with insatiable greediness they heaped up Plurality and Multiplicity of Prebends in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and there growing fat inveighed against the Dualities of the Parochial Clergy as a Mortal Sin Among all our Bishops since the Reformation none have so much favoured the Cause of our Dissenters as Hooper and Williams the first through weakness of Judgment the other through a violent Ambition which prompted him to oppose whatsoever his Rival Arch-Bishop Laud should undertake Of these Hooper held two Bishopricks those of Glocester and Worcester for many years together an abuse which this Church had never seen from the time of Stigand to Cardinal Wolsey And
the second Canon of the Synod of Celcyth held under Archbishop Wulfred in the year 816. directs that Vbi Ecclesia aediâ—icatur à propriae Diocesis Episcopo sanctificetur The Capitular of Charles the Great made at Salz in the year 804. decreeth cap. 3. Quicunque voluerit in suâ proprietate Ecclesiam aedificare uná cum consensu voluntate Episcopi in cujus Parochiâ fuerit licentiam habeat And in this case they were so tender of encroaching upon the Jurisdiction of the Bishop that Princes did not exempt themselves from the same Obligation For so I find in another Capitular Placuit nobis ut nec Capellae in Palatio nostro vel aliubi sine permissu vel jussu Episcopi in cujus est parochiâ fiant To these agree the Constitutions of later Provincial Councils in our Nation as of the Council of London in the year 1102. in which was decreed Can. 15. Ne nova Capella â—iat sine consensu Episcopi and of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1138 in the 12th Canon of which it is ordred Ne quis absque licentiâ Episcopi sui in possessione suâ Ecclesiam vel Oratorium constituat The Bishops approbation was no less necessary in the choice of the Priest who was to officiate in such a private Oratory or Parochial Church and as he could not be admitted without the Bishops consent so neither could he be expelled or dismissed but by him Thus among the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York made about the year 750 the 23th is Vt sine auctoritate vel consensu Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis net constituantur nec expellantur Agreeable to which is the Capitular of the Emperour Ludovicus Pius in the year 816. Cap. 9. Sine auctoritate vel consensâ— Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis nec constituantur nec expellantur The Bishops power and propriety in these new Foundations extended yet much farther namely to the revenues tithes and oblations wherewith they were endowed For the sole power of receiving and disposing the Ecclesiastical Revenues of the whole Diocess being originally lodged in the Bishops they would not for some time diminish it in favour of any particular foundation but reserved to themselves all the profits and possessions of it of which they allowed to the Priest there officiating as much as they thought fit And when some Great Laymen would have appropriated these particular Revenues to the sole use of the Churches founded by them the joynt authority of Church and State interposed and remitted them to the disposition of the Bishop For so one of the ancient Capitulars directs Multi contra Canonum instituta fiâ— Eccleâ—ias quas aediâ—icaverint postulant consecrari ut dotem quam ejus Eccleâ—iae contulerint ceâ—seant ad Episcopi ordinationem non pertinere Quod factum in praeterito displicet in futuro prohibetur Sed omnia secundum constitutionem antiquam ad Episcopi ordinationem potestatem pertineant Afterwards in some places the Bishops condescended to satisfie themselves with a fourth part of the revenues of these Rural Churches permitting the rest to the Parish-Priest but still directing to what uses it should be imployed by him This appears from another Capitular Instruendi sunt Presbyteri pariterque admonendi quatenus noverint decimas oblationes quas á fidelibus accipiunt non quasi suis sed quasi commendatis uti debere Qualiter verò dispensari debeant Canones sacri instituunt scilicet ut quatuor partes ex omnibus fiant una ad fabricam Ecclesiae relevandam altera pauperibus distribuenda tertia Presbytero cum suis Clericis habenda quarta Episcopo reservanda Et quicquid exinde Pontifex jusserit prudenti consilio est faciendum None of these Private Oratories were allowed to be erected before they were sufficiently endowed for the maintenance of a Priest who might attend the service of them So the 16th Canon of the Council of London in the year 1102 decreeth Ne Ecclesia sacretur donec provideantur necessaria Presbytero Ecclesiae If without such necessary provision a Church were any where erected the Capitular of King Lotharius directs that it be endowed out of the possessions of the Free-men of the place Vt secundum jussionem Domini ac Genitoris nostri unus mansus cum 12 bunuariis de terrâ arabili ibi detur mancipia duo à liberis hominibus qui in eâdem Ecclesia officium debent audire ut Sacerdos ibi posset esse divinus cultus fieri The endowments of those times consisted generally in Glebe or a certain portion of land in Slaves to till that land and in the Oblations of all the Tenants dependants and inhabitants living within the Territories of the Founder As for Tithes they for some while belonged to the common Treasure of the Diocess and seem to have been paid to the Bishop the Christian Converts being taught to pay them as due by divine right and the Priests directed to receive them and account for them to the Bishop as may be gathered out of the fourth and fifth Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York So that they being antecedently due to the Cathedral Church the Founders of Rural Churches were not at liberty to make them any part of the endowment until Cathedral Churches being abundantly endowed in Lands and Mannors by the Munificence of pious Princes the Bishops neglected to claim the Tithes of their Diocess to the use of the common treasure of it or remitted them to the several Parochial Churches to encourage the erection of them After which they were always made part of the endowment of such Churches And all these endowments both of Cathedral and Parochial Churches were made in puram perpetuam eleemosynam as the phrase then was not in the nature of Alms in the ordinary and modern sense of that word as some ignorant persons have pretended but in free and irrevocable tenure if I may so speak without any tye burden claim of service or reserved rent upon them whereby they were distinguished from all grants made to Laymen either by the King or by any Great Lords For to these they never granted any Lands or Possessions without reserving some service military or base to be performed for ever by the Tenants or possessors in lieu of them or at least some mark and acknowledgment of their dependance on them â—nd subjection to them from all which the Lands and Revenues of the Clergy were exempted As Christianity prevailed very fast so these Foundations of private Oratories became very numerous almost every Great Man as soon as he was converted to the Christian Religion building one for the convenience of himself his tenants and dependants Before the year 800 they seem to have founded in all parts of the Nation not indeed in the same number as now obtains for of their Subdivision we shall speak
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
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 â—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 â—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 Liâ—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
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
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
Pluralities is rather consonant to the first design That as while the Ecclesiastical Revenue of the whole Diocess was possessed in common by the Bishop and his Clergy a double share was allowed to Presbyters of eminent merit So after the Revenues became divided and fixed to those several places in which the Sacred Office was to be performed a Plurality of those places should be allowed to Presbyters of extraordinary Worth and Learning The second design is no more hindred by Pluralities than the first For that was only to provide for the convenience and service of every individual Parish and this is still effected notwithstanding Pluralities At the first division of Parishes and incardination of Presbyters if the Bishop had thought fit to set one Presbyter over two Parishes as the Bishop of Rome did two Presbyters over one Parish here had been no immorality in the thing And what Bishops might then do if they had thought convenient their Successours may now do if they shall judge it expedient for the good of their Diocess in general For that is the rule by which they are to direct themselves The secondary design is but subservient to the first and ought always to give place to it So that if it be more for the general good of that Diocess or of the whole Church that any Presbyter of it should retain Plurality of Benefices or be Non-resident at one or both of them then it is more consonant to the first design of endowment that such Plurality should be allowed and Non-residence dispensed with than otherwise And the good of any one or two Parishes is not so much to be considered as the good of the whole Diocess or Church Now such cases often happen as will hereaâ—ter appear when we shall speak of the Convenience or Inconvenience of Plurality and Non-residence If it seem somewhat harsh to aâ—â—irm That to allow Non-residence in any case can be agreeable to the second design of the endowment of the Clergy which was the Convenience and Service of every individual Parish let it be considered that always in case of Non-residence the Sacred Service of every individual Parish is to be supplied by a Curate to be appointed or allowed by the Bishop So that the design is still maintained every individual Parish being provided for and supplied at least by Vicarial Residence At the first division of Parishes the Bishops might if they had pleased have appointed an inferiour Presbyter to supply the cure of every Parish residing constantly thereon and a Superiour Presbyter to oversee him not obliged to any such constant Residence And what Bishops might then do their Successours may with equal Authority do now if they please the Laws of the Church so permitting as was before said Besides upon some accounts the supplying of Benefices by Curates is more agreeable to this second design For the first incardination of Presbyters in Parochial Churches was not for life they were always nominated by the Bishop and might be removed by him All this the Bishop still doth or may do in the case of Curates whereas at this time Parochial Priests retain their Benefices for life cannot be displaced by the Bishop at pleasure and are most of them nominated by other Patrons by whom if unworthy persons be presented the Bishop shall be compelled to admit them by the Severity of the Laws of the Land whereas he can never be forced to admit an unworthy Curate the Law having left the nomination or approbation of him entirely to his pleasure So that for a Bishop to name a Curate to a Pluralist looks much more like the first institution and design A particular account of the foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches especially in our own Nation will be perhaps more satisfactory than such a general discourse concerning them I will therefore present to the Reader such an Historical account of the foundation 〈◊〉 dotation union alteration and possesâ—ion of Parochial Churches here in England as may be collected out of the ancient Histories and Monumenâ—s of our Nation yet extant and from the ancient Capitulars of the Church and Kings of France For it is certain that our Church was formed after the example and model of the Gallican Church it being easie to observe that the greater part of the Canons and Constitutions of our Church made before the Norman Conquest are taken out of the French Capitulars What the practice of the Ancient British Church was in this matter is not easie to determine through distance of time and want of Records Before the coming of the Saxons the whole Nation on this side the Picts wall seems to have professed Christianity and consequently many auxiliary Churches must be supposed to have been erected in every Diocess for the use of Christians living remote from the Motherâ—Church But whether these Churches were served by certain Priests perpetually affixed to that service or by itinerant Priests sent by turns from the Colledge of Priests residing with the Bishop at the Cathedral Church or by any other method is uncertain No Decree of any General Council had yet appointed any rule herein and as for the Decrees of the Popes of Rome they were of no authority in Britain being no part of the Roman Patriarchate Or if the British Clergy had been disposed to have followed the example altho not to obey the Decrees of the Church of Rome yet would not this Example have directed them to supply the cure of the auxiliary Churches by so many fixed Presbyters since no such practice was yet setled in the Church of Rome That Decree of Pope Dionysius which some alledge That all other Churches should follow quod nos in Romanâ Ecclesiâ nuper egisse cognoscitur Ecclesias verò singulas singulis Presbyteris dedimus Parochias Coemiteria eis divisimus unicuique jus proprium habere statuimus ita ut nullus alterius parochioe terminos invadat sed unusquisque suis terminis sit contentus serveth only to declare the practice of the Church of Rome about the year 800 when the Decretals of the ancient Popes were forged by Isidore Mercator Mr. Selden who in his History of Tithes hath treated largely of this Subject endeavoureth to prove that such a Parochial division obtained among the British Clergy from a passage of Gildas The words are these Sacerdotes habet Bâ—itannia sed insipientes quamplurimos Ministros sed impudentes Clericos sed raptores subdolos Ecclesiae domus habentes sed turpis lucri gratiâ eas adeuntes populos docentes sed praebendo pessima exempla I suppose Mr. Selden conceived the strength of this Testimony to lye in these words Ecclesiae domus habentes But whether by these words are to be understood only the Churches themselves or the Manses of Parish-Priests residing at those Churches or the Collegiate houses of the Clergy of every Diocess cannot easily be determined It is not improbable that the Country being very thinly
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
that many of the things objected are false some of them not really inconvenient and that as many as are really so are not the consequents of Plurality but common as well to Clergymen holding one Benefice as two and such as may and ought to be remedied by the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours only by executing the Laws and Canons of the Church still in force without any necessity of calling in the assistance of new Laws But supposing that some slight inconveniencies did attend Plurality if still it carries far greater conveniencies along with it it must be acknowledged that the permission aud continuance is not really inconvenient to the Church And that it doth include such conveniencies upon a short view will easily be discovered First then Plurality is not only convenient but even necessary to the Church in its present condition by reason of the great number of Benefices of little value which are found in England the cure of which can no way be provided for but by Plurality In this Nation are some Benefices not exceeding the value of five pounds per annum many hundreds not exceeding twenty pounds and some thousands not exceeding thirty pounds Now in almost all these the Cure of Souls must utterly be neglected if it be not allowed to Clergymen to hold two of them together since one will not afford a subsistence None of the oppugners of Pluralities can deny the reasonableness of this case Yet if those who maintain the sinfulness of them would reason consistently such a Pluralist ought no more to be allowed than of the two greatest Livings in England For if Plurality be sinful in its own nature and Residence due jure divino it would be equally unlawful to hold two Benefices of 20 as of 200 pounds per annum But it is too ordinary a thing for men in their heat not to see the consequences of their own positions Thus Plurality is in many cases necessary to provide to the Clergy even a subsistence as to the necessaries of life and in other cases is necessary to provide for them such a competency of subsistence as is agreeable to their character and order in the world For as an excellent Prelate of our Church hath observed those seem to have very little regard to the flourishing condition of a Church who would confine the sufficiency of a subsistence meerly to the necessaries of life There ought to be sufficient provision made to encourage ingenuous persons to enter into the Clergy to free them from anxious cares when initiated and purchase to them such necessaries as the manner of the service they undertake doth require and to reward such as by extraordinary Worth and Learning shall merit more than others All these provisions are absolutely necessary to the well being of any Church but none of them in the present circumstances of things and poverty of the revenues of the Church can be fully obtained without the permission of Plurality The number of Benefices in England which may singly answer any of the ends above mentioned is very small Did not the hopes of obtaining somewhat more than a bare competence influence Parents and Youth none of good condition or sit for any other imployment would be bred up to the Clergy or enter into holy Orders For here all the Topicks of Evangelical poverty and how a Clergy-man ought not to seek the things of the world or to desire riches would perswade very little Parents would not breed up their sons to the Clergy upon such conditions It is certain that the most frugal person cannot breed his son to the Clergy in the University under the expence of 200 pounds If Pluralities were taken away it would be little less than madness to imagine that any Parent will bring up his son carefully at School and afterwards bestow 200 pounds upon his education in the University only to purchase poverty for him Or if any Parents should be so good natured or zealous as to do it yet it would be impossible to perswade Young men well educated who are naturally aspiring and led by their hopes to enter into a Clerical life in which they can expect no more than a bare competence and not rather take up other professions which will produce to them infinitely more profit with less labour It would be vain in this case to urge to a Young man that in a Clerical life he must be contented with a bare competence that the riches of this World ought to be despised c. He would certainly answer that if things be so he will never enter into that State of life which shall lay such an obligation of self-denial upon him For upon whatever principles men already initiated into the Sacred Office do proceed to execute their duty and continue in it notwithstanding poverty or any other discouragement it is undeniable that it is the hopes of advancement which perswadeth almost all to enter into Orders and it must be great want of understanding to imagine that it can or will be otherwise Young men will never be brought to it when they shall see that others of no better birth parts or education than themselves obtain plentiful Estates by taking up other Professions If Pluralities which encrease the subsistence of the Clergy beyond a bare competence were abolished it would infallibly follow that no Parents of quality would breed up their sons to the Clergy that no Young man of good parts and pregnant hopes would enter into the Clergy that there would remain none for the service of the Church but of the lowest and meanest sort of the people and of those only such as through insuperable dulness could not hope to make their Fortunes in any other Profession Further a bare Competence as to necessaries of Life will not suffice to purchase to the Clergy such other advantages as are absolutely necessary to them in the service of the Church these are Authority Ability to exercise Charity and helps of Learning None of these can be obtained in such a Provision as only supplieth the necessities of Life To begin with the last every Man who knows the World and the business of Learning must confess that the Study of Divinity and those other Sciences which are necessary to a compleat Divine is so vast and diffuse and the number of Books wherewith he ought to be acquainted so very great that a small Estate can never enable him to obtain such as are even necessary to make him useful or considerable in his Profession It is well known that there are ten times more Books required to the Study of Divinity than to any other Profession altho the Rewards and temporal Advantages of other Professions are far Superiour to those of the first and yet no Man murmers at them In the purchase of such Books as are absolutely necessary to a learned Divine a Revenue of six score Pounds per annum which the late Acts of Parliament seem to suppose a
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
Natural Philosophy that a superficial knowledge of it makes Men Atheists but a perfect knowledge of it reduceth them to Religion is fully as true in Ecclesiastical Polity An imperfect view and knowledge of the Constitution and State of our Church makes Men desirous of a Change or Reformation but a thorough knowledge of it makes them not only be content but pleased with her present Constitution only desirous that her excellent Laws and Institutions may be put in practice This case of Pluralities was generally esteemed the most scandalous and inexcusable of all her supposed Corruptions yet upon a strict examination of it it doth now as I hope appear to be neither scandalous nor inconvenient but lawful necessary and advantageous to the Church All the real inconveniencies of it proceed wholly from the ill use of it and from the faults of private persons to which the best Institutions are equally subject and which it is to be hoped their Lordships the Bishops will in time remedy by the due application of that Authority which the Laws of this Church and Nation have already invested in them FINIS ERRATA PAge 6. line 14. for graliâ—iâ—th read gratifieth p. 13. l. 2â— for Asgarvey read Asgardby p. 17. l. 9. for cause r. case p. 23. l. 28. for cause r. case p. 37. l. 3. for true r. truly p. 45. l. 16. for in r. to p. 83. 1. 8. for have founded r. have been founded p. 87. 1. 13. in the Marg. for Alsadi r. Aâ—fredi p. 123. l. 28. for districtive r. districtius p. 124. l. 29. for Clementon r. 〈◊〉 p. 153. l. 28. for derivation r. deviation BOOKS Printed for R. Clavel Publish'd in Michaelmas Term 1691. A Deâ—ence of Pluralities or holding two Benefices with Cure of Souls as now practised in the Church of England The State of the Protestants of Ireland under the late King James's Government in which their Carriage towards him is Justified and the absolute Necessity of their endeavouring to be freâ—d from his Government and of submitting to their present Majesties is demonstrated Observations on a Journey to Naples being a farther Discovery of the Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks Written by the Author of the former Book Entituled The Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks set forth in Eight Letters L. Annaei Elori Rerum Româ—norum Epitome cum Interpretatione Notis in usum Serenissimi Delphini unà cum Indicibus copiosissimis oppidò necessariis Will be published at the end of this Term. Compendium Graecum Novi Testamenti continens ex 7959 versiculis totius Novi Testamenti tantum versiculos 1900 non tamen integros in quibus omnes universi Novi Test. voces unà cum Versione Latina inveniuntur Auctore Johanne Leusden Editio quinta in qua non tantum Themata Graeca Voces derivatae exprimuntur sed etiam Tempora Verborum adduntur Tandem ne aliquid ubicunque desideretur in hac Novissima Editione Londinensi cuilibet Voci aut Compositae aut Derivatae Radix adjicitur propria in Tyronum gratiam De Presbyteratu Dissertatio Quadriparita Presbyteratûs sacri Origines naturam Titulum Officia Ordines ab ipsis Mundi primordiis usque ad Catholicae Ecclesiae consummatum plantationem complectens in qua Hierarchiae Episcopalis Jus Divinum immutabile ex Auctoritate scriptuaâ—um Canonicè expositarum Eccâ—â—siasticae Traditionis suffragiis brevitèr quidem sed luculentèr asseriter Authore Samuele Hill Diaecesâ—ôs Bathoniensis Wellensis Presbyterio Londini Typis S. Roycrâ—ft L. L. Oriental Typographi Regis Impensis R. Clavel in Coemeterio D. Pauli MDCXCI Sometime since Published for R. Clavel FOrms of Private Devotion for every day in the Week in a Method agreeable to the Liturgy with Occasional Prayers and an Office for the Holy Communion and for the Time of Sickness A Scholastical History of the Primitive and General Use of Liturgies in the Christian Church together with an Answer to David Clarkson's late Discourse concerning Liturgies Roman Forgeries in the Councils during the first Four Centuries together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius The Frauds of Romish Monks and Priests set forth in Eight Letters lately written by a Gentleman in his Journey into Italy The Third Edition 〈◊〉 Apol p. 337. XXXIV 2 c. LVI 10. Matth. 1â— 2. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 217. c. Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 255. Chron. Hisp. p 〈◊〉 Conc 〈◊〉 paâ— 2. 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 Aâ—t 7. â—om 3. 8. Reports 149. Hist. Eccles. L. 1. c. 1â— Not. in Epiphan in hâ—eresi Aâ—ianâ Hist. Eccl. L. 5. c. 22. Defence of Diocesan Episc p. 47. 〈◊〉 Eccl. L. 7. c. 19. â— Tim. 5. 〈◊〉 Epist. 2. Conc Tom. 1. p. 829. Cap. 9 § â— Epist. Gilâ—â— p. 23. Edit Oxon. Conc. Angl. T. 1. P. 53. Ibid. p 495. Tom. 3â— p. 188. Lâ—x 3. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p 4â—9 Ib p. 413. Descript. â—all L. 2. c. 6. Hist. Eccl. L. I. C. 27. Hiâ— Eccl. â— 3. c. 7. L. 3. c. â—6 in fine Beda Hist. Eccl. L. 4. c. 27. circa med Antiq. Britan p. 52. L 5. c. 4. L. 4. c. â— Conc. Ang. T. 1. p 3â—â— Capitular Edit â— BaLazio T 1 p. 416. L. 5. c. 334. ib. p. 896. Con. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. ibid. p. 41. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitâ—l T. 1. p. 565. Capitular T. 1. p. 1205. L. 7. c. 375. Ib. p. 1104. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Cap. 1. in Capit Franc. T. 2. p. 327. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Tiâ— 1. â— 1â— Capitul T. 1. p. 99. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 293. Ibid. p. 328. Ibid. p. 248. Capitular T. 1. p. 196. Ibid. p 730. Lex Alsâ—di 24. Capitular T. 1. p. 154 Ib p. 192. I. 6. c. 59. Ib. p. 932. Ib. p. 708. sic 8â— L. 1. c. 24. Addit 3 Capit. c. 83. Ib. p. 1172. Can. 14. Can. 20. Capitul â— 5. c. 175. T. 1 p. 857. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Can. 13. Cap. 24. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Capitular T. 1. p. 416. Ibid. p. 504. V. Selden Hist Decim p 264. Concil Angl Tom. 1. p. 444. Ibid. p. 545. Leâ— 11. Capital Tom. 1. p. 171. Ibid. T. 2. p. 327. c. 1. Ibid. p. 24. Conc. Angl. Tom. 1. p 621. Ibid Tom. 1. p. 448. Can. 6 9 15. Lex 13. Ibid. p. 545. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. L â— c. 149. Capitular T. 1. p. 730. L. 1. c. 24. Capitular L. 7 c. 198. T. 1. p 1067. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 593. Ibid. T. 2. p. 22. Append. ad Conc. Lateran p. 4. c. 4. Conc. Labb T. 10. p. 1569. Hist. Decim c. 9. â—â— Con. Angl. T. 2. p 22. ibid. p. 34. Conc. Angl. Tâ—â— p. 101. Can. 9. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Can. 9. Extrau de Praebend c. Avaritia Ib. cap. Dâ— Monachis Extr. de suppl nâ—glig Praelat c. Sicut Conc. Ang. T. 2. p. 239. Ibid. p. 253. Canc. Ang. T. 2. p. 44. Ib. p. 183. Ib. p. 440. Cap. 28. Ib. p. 374. Ib. p. 158. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 227. Ibid. p. 272. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 183. Ib. p. 272. Ib. p. 297. Ib p. 183. Ib. p. â—â— Append. 1. d L. 4. c. 14. Capitul T. 1. p. 794. Capitul L. 6. c. 73. T. 1. p. 934. L. 6. c. 73. Ibid. Ib. p. 1291. L. 1. c. 254. Capitular T. 1. p. 565. cap. 11. Conc. T. 10. p. 985. Concil T. 10. p. 1516. Hoveden Hist. par â— ad ann 1179. Can. 29. Conc. T. 11. p. 180. Clement on Tit. 2. cap. 3. gloss Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 158. Ibid. p. 369. Conc. Labb T. 11. p. 983. Abridgment of the Records Num. 50. Supra Conc. Ang. T. 2 p. 12. Ibid. p. 281. Ibid. p. 34. Ibid. p. 36 〈◊〉 273. p. 35. Conc Angl. T. 2. p 227. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p 277. Ibid. p. 3â— Hiâ—t Concil â—â—ident p. 217. Vid. Registr Peckhim sol 159. Cap. 13. Capitular T. 1. p. 154. L. 6. c. 59. Ibid p. 932. Con. Angl. T. 2. p 34. Ib. p. 328. Capitular T. â— p. 146. Ib. p. 369. Lex 3. Conc. Ang. T. â— p. 409. Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 320. Ib. p. 340 Ex Registro Winchelse f. 34. Pat. 22. E. â— in Turri London Conâ— Angl. T. 2. p. 612. Extr de Testam cap. Cumin off Par. 1. c. 4. 7. The words of the latter Author are included in uncis Pag. 252. Hist. Counc Trent p. 251 252. 1 Cor. 1. 26. Bishop of Worcesters Charge p. 48. Preface to Hist. of Tithes Isa. 49. 2â—