Nursing-Fathers and Queens her Nursing-Mothers Which Prophecy may well be expounded to denote among other things the Favour and large Rewards which Secular Princes when converted to the Faith should bestow upon the Ministers of the Church for the increase and continuance of the Faith This was abundantly performed in our Church by the Kings and Queens and Noble Personages of England whose Memory is for ever blessed and the Endowment made by them confirmed by innumerable subsequent Laws Then the Endowment was so large and the number of extraordinary Provisions in Conventual Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and from Chauntries and Oblations so very great that the assistance of Pluralities was not so very necessary to uphold the Honour of Religion and of the Clergy But when by Impropriations at first and afterwards by the Alienation of Abbey and other Church-lands almost all the extraordinary Provisions were taken away and the ordinary Provision reduced to less than half it is impossible to maintain the design of those Endowments that is the flourishing condition of the Church without the assistance of Pluralities In the continuance of this benefit to the Church we doubt not but their present Majesties will imitate the Piety and Devotion of their Ancestors and as they once preserved this Church from eminent danger of Ruin by their Wisdom and Valour will also maintain the well-being and the flourishing estate of it by countenancing and continuing all those Institutions Customs and Practises which are necessary to that end I might insist upon many other Conveniencies and Benefits which accrue to the Church from the use of Pluralities as that hereby young Clergy-men are trained up in Curacies under others more grave and experienced and fitted for the Service of any Parochial Church in their own Right who if at their first admission into Holy Orders the Cure of Souls and Government of Parochial Churches had been committed to them would be apt to commit many indiscreet acts and execute their Trust unskilfully Yet the present circumstances of things make it necessary to admit those who are educated to the Clergy into Orders as soon as their Age permits otherwise the Church would soon want a competent number of Candidates to supply her Service since Fellowships in Colledges do not satisfie for the tenth part of them And from the finishing of their Studies to their Presentation to a Benefice there is no other Provision made for them than by Curacies That by the same benefit Provision is made for Deacons who are incapable of possessing a Benefice themselves That hereby the Cure of Souls in many Parishes is executed by two Persons which is a great advantage to those Parishes and to Religion in general For it may happen that the Incumbent of any one Parish be negligent in his Duty or unlearned but it can scarce happen that in a Parish held by a Pluralist and served alternately by the Incumbent and his Curate that both Incumbent and Curate should be alike negligent or unlearned That hereby Provision is made for Chaplains attending and assisting Bishops in the execution of their Office and Government of their Diocesses or maintaining and preserving Religion and Vertue in the Families of Noblemen CONCLUSION I Have now finished what I had to say in defence of Pluralities and submit the whole to the Consideration of indifferent Judges Having done this I hope I may be allowed to speak to the Pluralist Clergy whose Cause I have all this while defended with all freedom Them I must conjure by the Honour of God and which to ingenuous Persons ought also to be an irresistable Argument by the sense of their Duty to make such use of the favour of Plurality granted to them that Religion and the Church may receive no inconvenience thereby and no just occasion of Scandal may be given by them I have proved indeed that Plurality doth not in its own Nature beget any Inconveniencies or Scandals But if it be not rightly used if the terms of the Dispensation be not fulfilled if they so behave themselves as if they cared not for the Souls of either Parish or if they live wholly at one and seldom visit the other if they think themselves wholly disburthen'd of the Cure of Souls by the delegation of it to a Curate if they put no bounds to their desire of Pluralities hold two by Union a third by Sequestration and perhaps a fourth under the Name of another Man by Simoniacal Contract if they neglect to give Alms and to use Hospitality in both their Benefices according to their Abilities if they suffer their Houses to be dilapidated and have no regard to the good of their Successors much more if without any reasonable Excuse they are continually or frequently absent from both their Cures either to hunâ— after better Preferment elsewhere or to follow their Pleasure and live more at ease in great Cities and Towns If they are not excused by Personal Attendance in the Families of Bishops or Great Men or by prosecution of their Studies in the Universities or by designs of publick Service to the Church more advantageous to Religion in general than the Personal supplying any two Country Cures would be or by indisposition of Body real and not pretended If without any of these Lawful Excuses they absent themselves from the Cure of Souls committed to them or do not immediately betake themselves to the Personal execution of it When any of these Reasons cease which did before excuse them in all these cases Plurality will in them be the occasion of great Inconveniencies to the Church and Scandal to Religion It was never my design to defend such Practises nor can they be excused by any Principles laid down in this Treatise But because all Men will not be perswaded to do their Duty I beg leave in the next place to address my self with all Reverence to the Arch-bishops and Bishops of our Church and entreat them to force such Pluralists to do their Duty This they are empowered to do by the Canons and Laws of our Church and Nation still in force By the due execution of which they may regulate all such disorders and all other corruptions which have crept into the Church It is not the fault of her Constitution which occasions any of these Inconveniencies but the neglect of her Orders and non-execution of her established Discipline If these were vigorously revived if their Lordships would please diligently to attend and inspect their Dâ—ocesses force their Arch-deacons to do their Duty the Chapters of their Cathedral Churches to observe their Statutes the Pluralist Clergy to fulfil the terms of their Dispensations and all their Clergy to obey the Canons and to do their known Duty all that Benefit and Reformation would follow which some not knowing the excellence of the present Constitution propose to obtain by such new Laws and Projects as would perhaps shake and endanger the whole Fabrick of the Church What the Lord Bacon observed concerning
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
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
A DEFENCE OF Pluralities OR Holding two BENEFICES WITH Cure of Souls As now Practised in the Church of ENGLAND LONDON Printed for Robert Clavel at the Peacock in St. Paul's Church-yard 1692. A DEFENCE OF Pluralities Or Holding Two Benefices with Cure of Souls As now Practised in the Church of ENGLAND INTRODUCTION THE Use and Continuance of Pluralities in the Church of England since the Reformation hath been much inveighed against ever since the rise of Puritanism and represented as injurious to Religion and subservient only to the Avarice and Ambition of the Clergy That the Puritans should with so much heat oppose it is not much to be wondered because it was allowed by the Church and the opposition carried with it an apparent shew of religious Zeal To that waspish Generation it was a sufficient ground of opposing any thing if it were practised or permitted by the Church however lawful and indifferent or perhaps decent and necessary and no Artisice was thought unlawful which might create to them an opinion of Sanctity among the People But that an Accusation raised against the Church by her professed Enemies should be continued and prosecuted by her own Members we should have just cause to wonder if we did not know by frequent Examples to what Intemperancies Mankind may be betrayed by the use of false Principles None can be ignorant what Clamours have in late years been raised and carried on against Pluralities what Accusatious have been formed against them in the Writings and Discourse of many otherwise deservedly eminent how they are represented as the great Scandal of the Reformation and the most pernicious Relique of Popery that they are traduced as the Cause of many Evils and Inconveniencies in the Church affirmed to be sinful in the nature of them or little less than such obstructing the good of Souls and destroying the honour and welfare of the Church And to lay the greater load upon them all the violent Exclamations brought formerly by good and zealous men against those enormous Pluralities which obtained in the Church of Rome are applied to the present permission and practice of them in the Church of England as if the same thing were practised among us without any restraint or limitation The Clergy in the mean while assured of the justice of their Cause and impertinence of these Exclamations have remained silent expecting that this unreasonable Accusation should cease with time or at least make no impression upon those whom the solly of Puritanism hath not yet infected But when many Persons of our own Communion engage themselves in the same quarrel and publickly desame the Church upon this account it is not fit the injured Clergy should any longer continue their silence lest it should be thought to imply a Confession of Guilt or give way to all those Inconveniencies which a hasty and imprudent change in this matter might probably produce to the Church I am not insensible what a difficult Province I have undertaken what Opposition and Censures will attend it Many will esteem it a Paradox and most will conclude it a rash Undertaking to oppose Reason to a Popular Cry and to endeavour to defend what almost all men by hearing only one side have been long since induced to condemn Many good men really zealous and concerned for the honour of Religion will perhaps suppose it to be a Scandal to apologize for what they have hitherto believed to be no less than Evil. To these I doubt not to give intire satisfaction if they will judge with Candour and Indifferency Others who are farr the most violent Adversaries only zealous in pretence affecting to gain the Reputation of Extraordinary Piety not really concerned for the Honour of Religion but endeavouring to recommend themselves by the pretence of it will decry the Author of this Apology as an Enemy to Religion and Purity as an ungodly Pluralist who prefers his Interest to the honour of God and the good of others nor will perhaps stop here the effects of their Anger if he be so unfortunate as to be discovered Indeed it is so easy and withal so advantageous a Subject to expose the Faults of others and especially the supposed corruptions of a National Church that the Inclination of Ambitious men to oppose this innocent practice of the Church may easily be accounted for It seems to unwary persons to be an evident Argument of exalted Sanctity to oppugn the received Discipline of any Communion since this insinuates as if they were more religious and knowing than a whole Nation To such men nothing is more grievous than to be tied down to the ordinary Rules of Religion and Government since to be religious in the common way would never distinguish them from other men Somewhat must be continually attempted by them which may make the credulous part of Mankind cry out See a man more religious than all the Clergy who went before or are contemporary with him They all practised or at least allowed a scandalous Custom This man's Piety is extraordinary and qualifieth him beyond others to be a Governour of the Church It is lamentable indeed to consider that the credulity of Mankind should be so easily wrought upon by designing men and that Impostors of this kind should seldom want success Such Exclamations against the received Order and Discipline of the Church have ever since the first Foundation of it been the Common-place to all ambitious Clergy-men desiring to appear zealous Nothing is more easy than to discover vices in another or corruptions in a Society This is a Subject which will afford constant matter to publick Harangues and can never be exhausted At the same time nothing is more popular in that it qualisteth the perverse nature of men who generally love to hear things and persons of publick esteem decried and secureth to the pretended Zealot the reputation of a more elevated Piety than that which appears in any of those whom he opposeth With this Artifice a man may not only create Authority to himself but cover his own Faults however gross and numerous by diverting and fixing the eyes of men upon the Faults of others or if his own Crimes be too notorious to be dissembled compensating for them by a wonderful appearance of Zeal He that will vehemently exclaim against Pluralities and the other supposed Imperfections of the Church may safely neglect all the parts of his own duty may be Non-resident may â—ordidly enrich himself and his Relations may injure his Equals oppress his Inferiours and all this shall be easily forgiven in consideration of his Zeal If I would recommend my self to a Lecture in the City I could take no more successful method than to inveigh against Pluralities to accuse the Clergy of negligence and covetousness The name of a zealous Reformer would set me beyond all competition of real Worth and Learning If I desired to excuse any scandalous Immoralities which cannot be dissembled I would arraign all the Corruptions of the
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
Bishop Williams held with the Bishoprick of Lincoln and afterwards with the Arch-Bishoprick of York the Deanery of Westminster a Residentiaries place in the Church of Lincoln the Prebend of Asgarvey in the same and the Rectory of Walgrave If I might in the last place be allowed to speak freely to the Gentlemen and Lay-men of our Communion whom the popular Cry against Pluralities may have deceived I would desire them to judge of the Reasons which this Apology shall offer without prejudice and in the mean while to cast their Eyes upon those real Pests of the Church Mental Simony and Bonds of Resignation which in time will become her ruine The removal of these Evils will far more become their Zeal and from them only a Remedy can be obtained herein Notwithstanding the seeming difficulty of maintaining what in the opinion of most men is a Paradox notwithstanding the opposition which may be expected from good men prepossessed herein and bad men who by such a Defence may be deprived of one of their Common-places of Declaiming I thought it my duty to undertake this Province being assured that therein I should defend the Honour and the Interest of the Church of Christ which ever since the first Institution of Parishes hath permitted Pluralities and cannot now be well supported without them the wisdom of the Parliaments and the Laws of this Kingdom which have allowed them of the Kings and Queens of this Nation who have confirmed and continue them of the Honourable Peers and Universities of this Realm who have qualified Persons to obtain them the Reputation of many excellent Persons both alive and dead who have granted and enjoyed them of many eminent Divines and Lawyers who have justified them and that I shall hereby free the most Reverend Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and other Bishops residing near the Court for the Service of their Majesties and of the Church from the Imputation of that mortal sin which all who maintain the unlawfulness of Pluralities fix upon Non-residence To the defence of all these Things and Persons I am bound either by respect or duty and if therewith the former practice of some present Oppugners of Pluralities be defended I shall not be sorry altho I should receive no thanks from them The Enemies of Pluralities proceed upon these Heads either that to hold more Benefices than one with Cure of Souls is Jure Divino unlawful or that it is contrary to the first design of Parochial Indowments or that it is highly inconvenient to the Church Against these I shall assert and in order prove these three Propositions I. Plurality of Benefices with Cure of Souls is not Jure Divino unlawful II. It is not contrary to the first Design of Parochial Indowments III. It is not inconvenient to the Church CHAP. I. THAT Pluralities are unlawful by the Law of God some Casuists of the Church of Rome chiefly those of the Mendicant or Jesuit Orders have maintained and many Zealous Oppugners of Pluralities among the Reformers have taken up their Opinion or at least exaggerated the guilt of Pluralities so far as that it can searce otherwise be interpreted If we enquire the Reasons of this heinous Charge it is certain that nothing can be Jure Divino unlawful but either by the Law of Nature or by the Positive Law of God For the first none have been so ridiculous as to pretend that the Law of Nature bath determined any thing in this place That directs no more of Parochial Priests than of Parochial Constables There remains then only the Positive Law of God expressed in Scripture which can fix this guilt upon Pluralities But if we peruse the Bible from one end to the other we shall find no Directions herein no mention being made therein either of Parochial Priests or Parochial Cures nor indeed could be since the institution of them was first made long after the writing of those sacred Oracles as we shall prove hereafter As for Texts which may be supposed to allude thereto which our Reformed Adversaries sometimes alledge they are of no moment in this cause since it is a received Principle among all Protestants that nothing is necessarily to be believed unlawful which is not declared to be such either by the Law of Nature or by the express words of Scripture Yet in this case our Adversaries are not ashamed to betray the Fundamental Principle of the Reformed Church and arraign that as malum in se of which Nature and Scripture are wholly silent In our Dissenters this Opinion is yet much more unpardonable who maintain that nothing ought to be introduced in the Worship of God or in Ecclesiastical Discipline which is not warranted by express words of Scripture For things indifferent in their own nature may still remain so notwithstanding the silence of Scripture but the nature of any thing can never be changed from indifferent to unlawful without express words of Scripture When Scripture cannot be produced our Adversaries fly to Metaphors making great use of a Metaphor frequent in ancient Canons wherein the discharge of the Episcopal or Parochial care is compared to Marriage that as a man cannot have two Wives so neither can he have two Benefices But alas shall Metaphors and tropes and similies condemn a man Hath the Scripture any where said that all the circumstances of Marriage shall be observed in the case of Benefices with Cure of Souls Doth not every one know that nothing is more ordinary than to stretch Similitudes too far or more fallacious than to argue from them Will these men be concluded by the Similitude which themselves bring If so it will be as unlawful to be translated from one Bishoprick to another or from one Benefice to another as it is to change one Wife for another But against this the early and universal practice of the Church hath prevailed as to the Lawfulness of it The too common practice of it was afterwards restrained by Canons And as I suppose none of our Adversaries will maintain such Translations to be unlawful But the chief foundation of their Opinion is the Necessity of Residence which they suppose to be of Divine Right and since Residence cannot be maintained in two different places at the same time that therefore Plurality of Benefices is unlawful If we demand their warrant for this Assertion as in the former case we shall find them very destitute The Law of Nature they do not pretend to herein The Texts of Scripture which they urge are very remote and scarce applicable to our case Such are that reproof of the Shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel Wo to the Shepherds of Israel that feed themselves Sould not the Shepherds feed the flocks Ye eat the fat and ye clothe you with the wooll The diseased have ye not strengthned neither have ye healed that which was sick but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them c. or that description of them in Isaiah His watchmen are blind
more to be continued one year than fifty If it be alledged that they enjoyed not the Temporal Revenues but only the Spiritual Jurisdiction of these Diocesses I answer that this is all which properly belongs to the Episcopal Function and constitutes the Character of a Bishop The Temporalties are no essential part of him If it be said that this was done for the good of the Church I answer that S. Paul pronounceth it unlawful to do evil that good may come of it and that if Plurality be in its nature unlawful no good design can take away the guilt of it It appears then plainly how false and pernicious the Principles are of these Anti-pluralists That they make it impossible to continue the Government or Service of the Church without inevitable sin or to secure the reputation of so many excellent Prelates from partaking in this sin It is much more easie safe and charitable to suppose that in all these cases of Plurality and Non-residence the principle by which every man ought to direct himself is the general good of the Church And this is the true resolution of the Case Bishops and Priests were not ordained only to serve this Diocess or that Parish in particular but the Church of Christ in general Good Order and Discipline indeed require that the exercise of his Office be confined to some certain limits and place but he still remains a Bishop or Priest not of that place only but of the whole Catholick Church and may execute his Office in any part of the Catholick Church out of his own limits if the greater good of the Church shall so require Whether any mans private case be such he ought to judge by rules of right reason taking especial care that he do not flatter and deceive himself herein by a false judgment And after the satisfaction and direction of his own Conscience ought to be directed herein by his Superiours the Priests by their Bishop and the Bishops by their Metropolitan And when such Cases happen the rules of Religion and the Laws of the Church allow Bishops and Priests either to be Non-resident or to retain the administration of more than one Diocess or Parish Thus in times of Persecution it was always thought lawful for Bishops or Priests to be Non-resident and to execute their Office in any part of the Catholick Church where-ever they should come In times of Infection I will not say it was always thought lawful to be Non-resident but I am sure it was always thought lawful for any Parish Priest in that case to take upon him the care of any neighbour Parish deserted by the proper Priâ—â—t Upon occasion of General Patriarchal or Provincial Councils it was always accounted lawful for Bishops to absent themselves from their Diocesses and attend the Council altho it should last for many months or years together All these Cases became lawful for the same reason because the greater good of the Church did so require Upon the same account it is lawful for the Prelates of our Church to attend continually their Majesties in Council or Parliament or any weighty offices or affairs wherein they shall please to employ them and in all these cases to be Non-resident because it is the interest of the Church in general It is more for the advantage of this National Church that the Archbishop of Canterbury should reside near the Court and be always ready to advise their Majesties in matters of Religion and defend the cause of the Church upon all occasions and more readily receive Appeals and give directions to his whole Province than that he should be tied down in constant Residence in his own Diocess For this reason all the Archbishops of Canterbury since the Reformation have for the greater part of the year and all for these sixty years last past during the whole year resided at Lambeth For this reason all the Bishops of the Church are wâ—nt to give attendance in Parliament altho sometimes their Sessions continue a whole year together because the Church reapeth greater benefit by their presence there than it suffers detriment by a temporary absence from their Diocesses For this reason many excellent Prelates have attended whole years together at Court because it is always of greater advantage to the Church in general to secure the favour of the Prince to it and direct his conscience than continually to attend to the care of any particular Diocess On the contrary if this Principle of these Anti-pluralists be allowed if Plurality be always sinful and in its nature if Residence be of Divine Right and consequently in all cases indispensable it will follow That all those holy and learned Bishops who in all Ages have appeared in Councils That all who have absented themselves in time of Persecution or in that and like cases have taken upon them the care of other Diocesses or Parishes That all the Bishops of our Church who have attended Parliaments since the first institution of them That all the Kings Lords and Commons of this Nation who have by publick Laws required their attendance therein That all the Archbishops of Canterbury since the Reformation and other excellent Prelates alive and dead who have absented themselves from their Diocesses to attend the publick Service of the Church at Court have committed mortal sin and do still continue in it That what hath been laid down in the case of Bishops may not be mistaken I will subjoyn That the obligation of Bishops to all the parts and consequences of their duty and particularly as to Residence is far greater than that of Parochial Priests in as much as the right discharge of their Office is of greater concern to the good of the Church and is also imposed on them by Divine Institution If therefore a Priest ought not to neglect his charge much less a Bishop and if the absence of a Parochial Priest ought to be supplied by a Curate much more doth it seem reasonable that the absence of a Bishop if it be long or frequent should be supplied by a Suffragan Bishop It is a fatal mistake to imagine that the care of the Souls of the Laity belongs only to the inferiour Clergy and that the Bishop hath no more to do but only to govern the Clergy or that a Diocess doth not more want the constant presence of a Bishop than any private Parish the presence of a Priest And therefore in the Church of England before the Reformation even in the most corrupt times of Popery the Archbishop of Canterbury and all other Biâ—hops attending at Court or employed by the King in publick Service constantly maintained Suffragan Bishops in their Diocesses This practice was confirmed and intirely setled by an Act of Parliament in the Reign of Henry VIII and from that time Suffragan Bishops were without interruption continued in the Diocess of Canterbury till the end of Queen Elizabeth's Reign and in some Diocesses till the middle of King James It
the Cathedral Church This was not only done by the Roman Bishops and their Disciples and Converts in England according to the direction of Pope Gregory but also by the Scotch Clergy and their disciples in England particularly by Aidan Bishop of the Northumbers as Bede often relates whose Disciples converted the larger part of England 2. That there were at this time several Churches erected in divers parts of the Diocesses which the Converts remote from the Cathedral Church frequented and made their Oblations in them For both the Roman and Scotch Clergy applied themselves with great assiduity to propagate the Faith and finding great zeal and devotion in their Converts were soon enabled by them to erect auxiliary Churches in several parts of the Diocesses Thus Bede relates of Birinus first Bishop of the West Saxons who came into England about thirty years after Augustin that having built and dedicated several Churches in his Diocess of Dorchester and converted much People he made a pious end 3. That as well the Oblations made in these auxiliary Churches as the other Revenues of the Church belonged entirely to the disposition of the Bishop who set apart a certain portion of it to the inferiour Clergy and divided that among them in such proportion as himself pleased the Clergy being obliged to bring with them all the Oblations made in the auxiliary Churches at their return to the Cathedral Church and College after their finishing their course of preaching and serving in these Churches For as yet there were no other than Itinerant Preachers or Priests sent by the Bishop from the Cathedral Church at certain times to celebrate and preach in the Rural Churches of such a division which being done they returned to the Bishop who sent others again to perform the same duty when himself thought convenient That this was the constant received discipline of the English Church about the year 664 Bede expresly witnesseth in these words Si quis Sacerdotum in vicum fortè devenerit mox congregati in unum Vicani Verbum Vitae ab illo expetere curabant Nam neque alia ipsis Sacerdotibus aut Clericis vicos adeundi quà m praedicandi baptizandi infirmos visitandi ut breviter dicam animas curandi causa fuit Vbicunque Clericus aliquis aut Monachus adveniret gaudenter ab omnibus tanquam Dei famulus exciperetur Etiamsi in itinere pergens inveniretur accurrebant verbis horum exhortatoriis diligenter auditum praebebant And to the same purpose in another place Erat quippe moris eo tempore populis Anglorum ut veniente in Villam Clerico vel Presbytero cuncti ad ejus imperium verbum audituri confluerent libenter ea quae dicerentur audirent libentiùs quae andire intelligere poterant operando sequerentur And that the same method was generally practiced at least in the Northern Diocesses of England when Bede finished his History in the year 731. is evident from several places So that at that time there were no other than Pluralist Clergy-men if they may be so called who had not the care of any particular Parish or Parishes committed to them but executed their Office in this or that or all the Churches of the Diocess as the Bishop should direct them It must not be imagined that those Rural Churches which were so early erected had any certain bounds yet assigned to them or were made Parochial properly so called but only served to receive as many of the neighbouring Converts from whatever distance as pleased to frequent them that so they might with convenience receive the benefit of the holy Offices and Sacraments without being obliged to come to the Cathedral Church So that these Rural Churches were in a strict and proper sense no other than Chappels of ease to the Mother or Cathedral Church It is indeed a common errour among our Historians that the division of Diocesses into Parishes in England was made in the time of Archbishop Honorius who presided about thirty years after the death of Augustin For this they are wont to alledge Archbishop Parker in the Life of Honorius where he saith Neque solùm Episcopos super imposuit sed etiam Provinciam suam primus in Parâ—chias dividens inferiores Ministros ordinavit This that learned Archbishop seems to have transcribed from some more ancient Historian who did not so aptly express what he intended to relate The truth is that in the time of Honorius there was made a second division of the Province of Canterbury into Diocesses and Bishops setled in these new Diocesses For in his time the Episcopal Sees of Dorchester and Dunwich were founded which were the only Sees founded since the time of Augustin This division gave occasion to those words of the Historian But as for the division of Diocesses into Parishes that was not yet thought of In this manner then Cathedral Churches were founded and endowed by the Kings of the several parts of the Saxon Heptarchy for the general good of the several Diocesses that is of their several Kingdoms For it is to be observed that in the first foundation of Bishopricks among the Saxons the Diocesses had the same limits with the Kingdoms and so continue at this day as many of them as have not been yet subdivided The first subdivision was made in the Diocess of York by Archbishop Theodore Now as Kings first founded Cathedrals for the good of their whole Kingdoms so great men first founded Parochial Churches for the particular good of themselves their families and Tenants For at that time the great men possessed ample Territories within themselves wherein all the Inhabitants were no other than their Servants tilling their lands and doing other services to them When therefore Christianity began to prevail apace many Laymen of great Estates would desire the constant residence of some Priest among them who might be always ready to instruct themselves their families and adjoyning Tenants either incited by their own devotion or because it was not easie without it to keep their Tenants together Oratories and Churches were for this end erected by them which being consecrated by the Bishop were by the Founders or Patrons endowed with peculiar Maintenance for the Incumbent which should there reside and execute the holy Function within the limits appointed by the Patron which were no other than the bounds or territory of his own demesnes tenancies or neighbouring possessions Some foundations of this kind are mentioned by Bede made about the year 700. as of Puch a Saxon Count who invited John Bishop of Hexham ad dedicandam Ecclesiam in villâ suâ and of Addiâ Saxon Count whoat another time invited the same holy Bishop to perform the like Office for him Not only the Bishops Consecration was necessary to prepare these Rural Churches for the Celebration of Divine Offices therein but his consent also and approbation was necessary to their erection and to the determination of their limits Thus
afterwards but so as to supply in some measure the necessities of every Diocess every part of it having at least some one Church within its neighbourhood to which the People might repair to pay their Devotions and receive instruction Many Canons therefore made about that time insinuate the establishment of Parochial Cures every where and the division of Diocesses into them Thus in the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York the first is Vnusquisque Sacerdos Ecclesiam suam cum omni diligentiâ aedificet For in many places the Patrons endowed the Churches but built not the Edifice leaving that to be done by the Priest out of the Oblations and contribution of the Christians of the vicinage which was easily effected in those times when devotion and piety were very great in all Orders of men The second Constitution directs all Priests to sound the Bells of their Churches at the usual hours of day and night to give notice of the time of prayer and of the several Offices of Religion which were then daily performed by the Priests in publick The sixth enjoyns every Priest carefully to instruct the people committed to him in the Lordâ—s prayer and the Creed This Parochial division was long before introduced in France For the Laws of King Dagobert made in the year 630. direct that Si quis Presbytero vel Diacono quem Episcopus in Parochiâ ordinavit vel qualem plebs sibi recepit ad Sacerdotem injuriam â—ecerit he should be punished in such a manner In England the first Synod of Celcyth held in the year 787. commands Vt omni anno in Synodalibus conventibus ab Episcopis singularum Ecclesiarum Presbyteri qui populum erudire debent de ipsâ fide diligentissimè examinentur And the tenth Canon of the second Synod at Celcyth which was held in the year 816. appoints that at the death of a Bishop Statim per singulas Parochias in singulis quibusq Ecclesiis pulsato signo omnis famulorum Dei coetus ad Basilicam conveniat ibiq pariter triginta Psalmos pro defuncti animâ decantent In proportion to the increase of these Parochial Foundations the necessity of sending itinerant Priests through the Diocess decreased and at last wholly ceased The last mention which I find made of them is in the 9th Canon of the Synod of Clovesho now Cliff held by Archbishop Cuthbert in the year 747 in which it is decreed Vt Presbyteri per loca regiones Laiâ—orum quae sibi ab Episcopis Provinciae insinuata injuncta sunt Evangelicae praedicationis Officium in baptizando docendo ac visitando studeant explere Which confirms my former conjecture that before the year 800. the Parochial division of Diocesses was generally received and that the ordinary instruction of the People was then wholly left to the Parish-Priests For before this time those two reasons which chiefly discouraged the erection and endowment of Parochial Churches had been taken away Of these the first was That all the Lands Tithes Oblations and Ecclesiastical Revenues of the whole Diocess belonged to the disposition of the Bishop so that the particular endowment of any Parish Church did only add so much to the common Treasure of the Diocess This being no small cause of restraining the devotion of Lay-founders the Bishops at last condescended that the whole revenue of the endowment with all other Ecclesiastical profits which should come to the hands of the Priest officiating at such a Church should be taken from the common Treasury of the Diocess and be perpetually annexed to the Church of that Clerk who received it So that the Bishop should not any longer receive those profits nor the Incumbent expect his Salary from the Bishop This the Bishops willingly did as soon as by the erection of many Parish-Priests the necessity of maintaining so many itinerant Priests ceased and their Cathedrals were sufficiently endowed for the maintenance of themselves and their Colledge of Clergy consâ—antly attending the service of the Cathedral Church Yet however they parted with the propriety and immediate dispensation of that part of the Ecclesiastical Revenues of their Diocesses they still limited and appointed the uses in which they should be imployed by the Parochial Clergy This appears from several Constitutions before cited upon other occasions and from others which may be alledged to the same purpose as the French Capitular made in the year 779 which orders cap. 7. De Decimis ut unusquisque suam decimam donet atque per jussionem Pontificis dispensentur Another Capitular directs it more expresly in these words Vt Decimae in potestate Episcopi sint qualiter à Presbyteris dispensentur The same is decreed in the Council of Worms cap. 59. and may be found in Regino L. 1. c. 42. This Priviledge of the Bishops continued in England at least until the time of King Alfred who confirmed it by a Law and appointed the Tithes delivered to the Priests to be divided into three parts Vnam partem and Ecclesiae reparationem alteram pauperibus erogandam tertiam verò Ministris Dei qui Ecclesiam ibi curant Which was consonant to the first limitation of their use made when they were first taken from the common Treasure of the Diocess save only that the Bishops had now long since remitted their fourth part which at first they did reserve The other discouragement of the Foundation of Parochial Churches was That the Incumbents of them would often either through levity or the hope of gaining other Churches better endowed or for any other reason quit their Churches and thereby defraud their Patrons of the end which they proposed in the foundation viz. the constant presence of a Priest for their instruction and the performance of Religous duties This therefore was soon remedied and the Parish Priests forbid to quit their Cures without the leave of their Diocesan as well as to accept them without their permission So the National Synod of France held in the year 744. in the presence of Boniface the Popes Lâ—gate decreed cap. 5. De Sacerdotibus qui suos titulos absque licentia Episcopi dimittunt ut tamdiu à communione habeantur alieni quousque ad suos titulos revertantur And cap. 10. Quando Presbyteri vel Diaconi per parochias constituuntur oportet eos Episcopo suo professionem facere The first Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 769. reneweth both these Canons Cap. 9. Nemo accipiat Ecclesiam in Parochiam sine consensu Episcopi sui nec de unâ ad aliam transeat Another Capitular commands those Clergymen to be degraded who forsook their Churches and accepted the Cure of others Presbyter vel Diaconus qui deserit Ecclesiam suam ad aliam transierit deponatur Some Capitulars and Councils apply this to the Bishops as well as the inferiour Clergy and forbid as well them to be translated from one Bishoprick
8. In the case therefore of a Dispensation granted by the Ordinary before the Lateran Council by the Pope after it and by the Archbishops since the Statute the obligation as to such particular persons is relaxed and annulled by the same Authority by which it was imposed As for the opposition of Dispensations to the chief design of the Canons and Laws made against Plurality and Non-residence the design of a Law is no more to be taken from the former than from the latter part of it It can never be said that any Law did either chiefly or secondarily design to oblige those whom it doth particularly except from its obligation Suppose a Law should be made to oblige all adult persons except Clergymen to take up arms upon some urgent occasion Should the Clergy notwithstanding this exemption esteem themselves obliged in conscience by the Law to take up arms only because the general design of the Law was that all adult persons should enter into arms Certainly in no Law was the former part ever known to annul the latter altho the latter may restrain and qualifie the former It is to be observed that in all the Constitutions and Decrees made against Pluralities which have been already recited no difference is made between Plurality of Bishopricks Prebends Archdeaconries or any other Ecclesiastical preferments and Plurality of Benefices with cure of Souls the same Prohibition lieth against both So the third Council of Lateran Can. 13. Quia nonnulli Dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas c. and the 4th Council of Lateran Can. 29. In eâdem Ecclesiâ nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat c. Nay many Canons do peculiarly concern these which relate not to Parochial cures as the Decree of the Council of Winchester in the year 1076. Nulli liceat duobus Episcopatibus praesidere which was made against the ill example of Stigand who with the Bishoprick of the South-Saxons held that of the East-Angles and afterwards Winchester with Canterbury After this Canon no Bishoprick was held in England with another in Commendam till Cardinal Wolsey Yet since the Reformation we have seen several examples of it In the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon all manner of Commendams are strictly forbidden yet nothing is now more ordinary In the 12th Canon of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1126. it is forbidden Ne uni personae in Ecclesia diversi tribuantur honores that different Dignities in the Church be not given to one person Yet now one Person is sometimes a Bishop an Archdeacon and a Parish Priest Nay which formerly would have been accounted monstrous a Parish Priest in the Diocess of another Bishop In other persons we see the Dignities of a Dean Archdeacon Prebendary and Parish Priest united In the eighth Canon of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1127. it was forbid under an anathema to hold plurality of Archdeaconries Vt nullus Archidiaconus in diversis Episcopatibus diversos Archidiaconatus teneat sub anathemate prohibemus Yet our time hath afforded many examples of the contrary and no censure put upon them In the Council of Lateran it is forbid to the Canons of Cathedral or Collegiate Churches to hold the cure of a Parish-Church together with their Canonry Pope Honorius III. first allowed them to augment their Prebends with the perpetual annexation of Parochial Churches reserving a competent stipend to the Curates All these Canons are securely broken and no exclamation made only because in the Statute 21 H. 8. concerning Pluralities no mention is made of Bishopricks and Preferments without cure of Souls altho that Statute doth not in the least annul the obligation of the ancient Canons concerning them which still remain in their full force as was adjudged in the case of Goodman Dean of Wells who 20 years after the making of that Statute was by virtue of the 29th Canon of the fourth Council of Lateran deprived of his Deanery because he had accepted the Prebend of Wiveliscomb in the same Church As the prohibition of Plurality was extended equally to all Ecclesiastical Preferments so also the obligation to Residence was both by the design of the several foundations and by the Decrees of the Church no more required of one than of the other nay required much more strictly of Bishops Archdeacons and Prebendaries than of Parochial Priests The necessity of Episcopal residence for the benefit and convenience of the Diocess and the conformity of it to the first design of the institution of their Order cannot be called in question In the Church of England they were commanded to reside and celebrate personally at their Cathedral Churches by the Provincial Constitutions of Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury made in the Synod of London in the year 1237. Cap. 22. Archiepiscopi Episcopi moram trahentes apud Cathedrales Ecclesias congruenter ibidem Missas celebrent In the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon they are said to be obliged to personal residence both by Divine and by Ecclesiastical right Episcopi ad personalem residentiam circa gregem Domini sibi commissum tam Divinis quà m Ecclesiasticis praecept is noscuntur astricti Forty years after this Archbishop Peckham renewed the injunction and to some Bishops who would not reside appointed Coadjutors For Archdeacons the design of their institution was that they should be the eye of the Bishop that they should personally visit all the Clergy of the Diocess every year that they should diligently enquire into the behaviour of them examine the state of all the Parochial Churches and signifie the faults or defects of both to the Bishop An institution which if duly maintained and executed as the Canons direct would contribute more to the establishment of good Order and Discipline in the Church and Clergy than all the little projects of private persons For the discharge of this Duty Archdeacons were jure communi obliged to perpetual residence and when that was slighted the obligation was enforced by many Canons and Constitutions and at last it was forbidden to them to exact or receive Procurations from any Churches which they did not personally visit So the Constitutions of Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter cap. 40. and to the same purpose are the Decrees of several Provincial Councils in England Singulis Archidiaconis praecipimus ut ab Ecclesiis quando personaliter non visitant Procurationes exigere vel percipere non praesumant As for Prebendaries it is notorious that it was the design of the foundation and endowment of Cathedral and Collegiaâ—e Churches that they should attend the service of them and this obligation was ever esteemed much stricter than that of residence upon Parochial cures till the middle of the 13th Age. If we may believe Father Paul an Author much admired by the enemies of Pluralities Canons of Churches were first required by Papal Constitutions to reside when other beneficed Clerks were left at liberty Certainly
it conduceth more to the interest honour and support of Religion in general and the good of the whole Diocess in particular that according to the design of those Foundations ten or more Preâ—endaries persons of extraordinary merit and knowledge as they are supposed and ought to be should constantly attend at the Cathedral Church seated in the chief City of the Diocess to see the publick Worship of God performed with decent solemnity to instruct the inhabitants of a populous City and to advise the Bishop upon all occasions than that ten little Country Villages should be supplied by the constant personal attendance of the Incumbents of their Churches Formerly therefore no doubt was made that they were more strictly obliged to attend the service of the Cathedral than any Incumbents were to attend the cure of Parochial Churches insomuch as when they had so far relaxed the obligation of their duty in the tenth Age as to pretend to execute it sometimes by Substitutes or Curates the Kings and great Persons of England would not endure it which the Monks taking advantage of in the time of King Edgar supplanted the Secular Canons and caused them to be ejected out of many Cathedral and Collegiate Churches The crime alledged by Edgar and the Monks against them as a reason of their ejection was that they did not execute their duty personally but per vicarios For some time after this it was thought the indispensable duty of all Prebendaries to give constant attendance upon the Cathedral Church either per se or per alium which obligation continued very long in the Church of England insomuch as frequent examples can be given of Coadjutors assigned to Prebendaries when by old age sickness or any infirmity they were disabled from personal attendance upon the service of the Church to which they belonged Which custom continued at least until the year 1300. All the abovementioned Canons Constitutions and jus commune of the Church concerning the Residence of Bishops and Archdeacons remain still in their full force The Case of Prebendaries is altred by particular Local Statutes and by later Ecclesiastical Constitutions And to the residence of Archdeacons and Prebendaries a new obligation is added by the Statute 21 H. 8. concerning Residence which includes every spiritual person promoted to any Archdeaconry Deanery or Dignity in any Monastery or Cathedral or other Church Conventual or Collegiate as well as Beneficed with any Parsonage or Vicarage To manifest yet more fully that it was never the design of the Church in the first institution of Parochial Cures that they should in all cases be supplied by the Incumbent in person I will add this observation That from the first beginning of Parechial cures Deacons were admitted to possess them alâ—ho it were notorious that they could not execute the Office personally since they could neither absolve penitents nor celebrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist For if we look upon the ancient Church of France by the example of which we have often observed the model of our Church to have been framed there Presbyters and Deacons were alike capable of enjoying Benefices So the tenth Canon of the French National Council held by Boniface the Popes Legate in the year 744. Quando Presbyteri vel Diaconi per Parochias constituuntur oportet eos Episcopo suo professionem facere and in the Capitulars it is decreed That a Priest or Deacon who forsakes his Church and takes another shall be deposed If we enquire particularly into the custom of the Church of England in this matter there the same practice did obtain insomuch as that it was ordered in the Council of Westminster in the year 1126 Can. 8. that none should be ordained Priest or Deacon but to some Title either of Benefice or Prebend Nullus in Presbyterum seu Diaconum nisi ad certum titulum ordinetur Indeed John Peckham Archbishop of Canterbury in the Council held at Lambeth in the year 1280. decreed That all Rectors of Churches having cure of Souls should cause themselves to be promoted to the Order of Priesthood within a year and that for the future none should be admitted to the cure of Souls nisi promotus ad Sacerdotium but a Priest upon pain of Deprivation However it is manifest that this Constitution never did obtain in the Church For Deacons were all along allowed to possess Benefices until the late Act of Vniformity being only obliged to receive the Order of Priesthood when their Age would permit and the Bishop should require it To the same purpose it may be observed That it was always allowed to Princes and Great Persons to retain Chaplains in their Service and in their Family who might possess Benefices conferred on them by their Patrons and consequently must supply the cure of them by Substitutes The Order of Domestick Chaplains in the Families and â— Retinues of Great Men is neither any innovation nor corruption in the Church as some would fancy For the Capitular of Karloman made in a full Synod in the year 742. directs Cap. 2. That every Governour should have a Priest with him Vnusquisque Praefectus unum Presbyterum secum habeat And in the first Capitular of Charles the Great made in the year 802. it is ordered Cap. 21. That the Priests and other Clergymen living in the service of the Counts should be subject to the Bishop according to the Canons Presbyteros ac caeteros Canonicos quos Comites suis in ministeriis habent omnino eos Episcopis suis subjectos exhibeant ut canonica institutio jubet In England in the Saxon times Plegmund Ethelnoth and Edsi were promoted from Domestick Chaplains of the King to the Archbishoprick of Canterbury and Stigand from Domestick Chaplain of Count Harold to the Bishoprick of the East-Angles In Wales the same practice was received early For in the Laws of Howel Dha made in the year 940. it is provided that in the progresses of the King and his Court lodgings for the Chaplain and Clerks of the King shall be taken up at the house of the Parish-Priest and so also for the Chaplain of the Queen In truth if men would judge without prejudice it must be acknowledged That it is more for the interest of the Church and of Religion in general that men of eminent learning and prudence should attend in the Courts of Princes and Noblemen to admonish instruct and advise them their relations and dependants in matters of Religion and publick concern than that the same persons should be obliged to attend personally upon the instruction of a few rusticks who may learn as much as they are capable of from the meanest Curate As for Archbishops and Bishops Chaplains are yet more necessary to them to be subservient to them in the government of the Church And this the Commons of England were so sensible of that in the Petition made in Parliament 2 H. 4. against Pluralities and Non-residence
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