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 Churchyard. 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 show 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 form 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 Relic 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 folly of Puritanism hath not yet infected. But when many Persons of our own Communion engage themselves in the same quarrel, and publicly 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 Gild, 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 apologise for what they have hitherto believed to be no less than Evil. To these I doubt not to give entire satisfaction; if they will judge with Candour and Indifferency. Others, who are far 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 Governor 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 Clergymen 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 public 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 public 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 Nonresident, may sordidly enrich himself and his Relations; may injure his Equals, oppress his Inferiors: and all this shall be easily forgiven in consideration of his Zeal. If I would recommend myself 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 Governors, and cry up the necessity of Reformation. To so warm a zeal for public 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 Churchmen 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 Catholic Clergyman, to have sought the favour of the Donatists, to admit and second those heavy Imputations, which they cast upon the Catholics; 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, vilify her Constitution, court the friendship of those who have divided themselves from her Communion, and seek her Ruin? 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 show of Zeal for the good of men's 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 Public Orders of the Church, they would not be tied to them, alleging, 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 ruin 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 Jesuits 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; although the World is no less convinced of their Fraud than of their Predecessors, 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 allege 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, (although 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 hardened Hypocrisy will obstinately persist, although 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 Clergyman 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 Clergymen, those Traditores, who seek to oblige the Enemies of the Church by betraying her Outguards to them. Although 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, 
〈◊〉 Apol. p. 337.  that with insatiable greediness they heaped up Plurality and Multiplicity of prebend's 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 Judgement, the other through a violent Ambition, which prompted him to oppose whatsoever his Rival Archbishop Laud should undertake. Of these Hooper held two Bishoprics, those of Gloucester 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 Bishopric of Lincoln, and afterwards with the Archbishopric 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 Laymen 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 ruin. 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 Archbishop 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 Nonresidence. 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, although 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 Endowments; 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 Endowments.  
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 inquire 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 bathe 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 allege, 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 similes 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 Bishopric 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; 
XXXIV. 2, etc.  Woe to the Shepherds of Israel, that feed themselves. Sold not the Shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye cloth you with the wool. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick— but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them, etc. or that description of them in Isaiah, His watchmen are blind, 
LVI. 10.  they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber, etc. 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 Governors; the second reproveth the cowardice and neglect of the Prophets, who did not courageously 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 alleged by the Puritan Conventicler, 
Matth. 1● 2.  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, subjoined this worthy note, Here is no mention made of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Officials, Pluralists, etc. 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; 
Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 217. etc.  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 Friars, 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, although 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, although 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 show, 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 Dioceses, 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 Dioceses? It might have been alleged 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 dispense 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 Spanish Bishops therefore in the Council of Trent, 
Hist. Conc. Trid. p. 255.  at the same time that they desired Residence of Bishops to be declared to be jure divino, required it to be decreed, That Bishops are bound to reside in their Bishoprics six months in the Year at least. By the same reason that they allowed six months of Nonresidence, others might have allowed eight; since the same authority or reasons, which could dispense with the jus divinum of Residence for one half of the Year, might dispense with it for two thirds; and if for so much, why not for the whole? This uncertainty of opinion, and impossibility of fixing any certainty herein, manifests the whole supposition to want all foundation. Yet it is not unfit to be considered, that if the Opinion of the Spanish Bishops should be allowed, a Dualist might easily observe the conditions of their jure divino Residence, residing six months at one Benefice, and six months at the other. So that their Opinion is not only false, but also impertinent to our purpose, who defend the modern practice of the Church of England, which allows no more than two Benefices to one person.  
Now to dismiss the Spanish Bishops, and consider the intrinsic merits of the Cause, let us inquire upon what grounds Residence can be thus supposed to be necessary. Certainly the Nature of the thing doth not absolutely direct it. For suppose an Incumbents house seated in the extreme limits of his Parish, as is the case of many; the Incumbent living herein will be allowed to observe Residence. Now suppose the Incumbent dwelleth not here, but an hundred yards further in another contiguous Parish; shall this Residence cease to be such as is required jure divino, merely for the difference of the distance of an hundred yards, although he may perhaps be much nearer to his own Church, than many thousand other Incambents who live within the bounds of their own Parishes? I know it is forbidden by our Civil Laws: But that altars not the state of the Question, when we inquire concerning the jus divinum of this Residence. Let us again put the Case of two contiguous Parishes, united in the person of one Priest, who resides in one of them, and of some other Parish, which besides the Mother-Church, hath a Chapel of case annexed to it. I challenge the most acute man in the whole World, to discover any difference as to matter of Conscience or Divine Institution between these two Cases. For although our Law maketh a difference, yet the Law of God and the nature of the thing make none. However none ever doubted the lawfulness of holding a Chapel of case with the Mother-Parish. Nay although the Mother Parish may contain five or seven, or sometimes ten Chapels of ease, no difference is made in the case. Some of these Chapels may be ten miles distant from the Mother-Church; yet here the judgements of men alter not because of such distance. And if ten miles' distance be allowed, why not fifteen, or twenty, or thirty which the Canon allows for the u●most distance of two Benefices to be h●ld by one person? For whether the Chapel or distinct Church be ten or thirty miles distant from the Mother Church or the other distinct Church, at which the Rector of both doth reside; it is certain, that the Sacred Offices of each must be supplied by a Curate; And then the exclamations of the Anti-Pluralists will lie equally against both cases; That here the Sacred trust is hired out to Mercenaries; That one feeds the Flock, and another receives the Fleece. It would be inexcusable folly to allege, that in one case the two Parishes are distinct, in the other case but one. For do we think that God will regard this nicety, when in the nature of the thing there is no real difference? Not to say that Plurality of Benefices is in our Church confined to the number of two; whereas Chapels of ease belonging to one Mother-Church are allowed to be held without number; although in foro conscientiae, one Mother-Church with three Chapels of ease doth as really constitute four distinct Benefices, as one distinct Benefice personally united to another do constitute two Benefices. Yet no scruple is made of the lawfulness of one case, although the crime of it, if there were any, is really double to the other.  
Yet after all, our Adversaries will persist, and without regard to the merit or reason of things, will maintain that Pluralities are unlawful. That they are not unlawful in their nature we have proved; That Nonresidence also in the nature of it is not unlawful, is evinced. They recur therefore to the Sacred Office annexed to the Benefice, and contend that it ought to be executed by personal attendance; that the Incumbents ought not to receive the fee, and commit the work to the care of some inferior or raw Practitioner, but personally watch over the Cure of Souls committed to their charge. Now in the Case of Chapels of ease Curates are and must be employed, yet they condemn not the practice. So that it is not simply evil to discharge this imposed trust by Curates. But to dismiss this Case of Chapels of ease, so grievous to our Anti-Pluralists; it is well known, that the Terms of Dispensations of Pluralities require every Pluralist to reside upon each Benefice some considerable time every year. So that he cannot be said, wholly to commit to Mercenaries the trust imposed on him; since himself doth in each Benefice successively discharge it. To this our Adversaries rejoin, that by the Law of God he is bound to discharge the whole trust in his own person, and not commit any part of it to Mercenaries. Now see the unhappiness of airy Projects. If this be admitted, all the inconveniencies before mentioned in the Case of necessity of perpetual Residence, will return. Or if, to avoid them, they will allow that the Incumbent may sometimes be absent, suppose for two months in every year; then during that time his Office must be supplied by a Substitute. So that for two months' time, it will be lawful for any Incumbent to execute his Office by a Proxy; And if for two months, why not for three, or four, or more? Who shall determine the utmost limit of the allowed time? If it be said, that the Laws of the Country shall determine it, as it hath in our Nation, by the space of two months; I answer, that I inquire not now what may be done jure humano, but divino; besides that this Humane Law hath been dispensed with and relaxed by other Laws, in many particular Cases; and especially in the Case of Pluralities.  
But to forgive all the absurdities, follies and inconveniencies, to which the Opinion of our Adversaries necessarily doth betry them, and proceed to the examination of their remaining arguments: It is generally alleged by them, That the care of Souls, being so great a concern, aught to be managed with the utmost diligence; that it ought not to be delegated to a more unworthy person; that the common good of the Church and of the Souls of men, require this Office should be discharged by the proper and immediate Officer. These things sound very well at the first hearing; but when reduced to practice, are found to be insignificant. for it ofttimes happens, That the Curate is a better Physician of Souls than the Rector; in which case it conduceth to the Spiritual good of such a Parish, that the cure thereof be supplied rather by the Curate, than by the Rector in person. I know our Adversaries will presently cry out, Remove the Rector, and let the Curate take his place. But soft and fair; It would scarce be thought just, that a Layman should be dispossessed, and his Estate given to another upon no other Title▪ than the greater worth of the latter. It is not enough to distinguish our case by reason of the Spiritual concern of it; for the injustice in both cases is alike. In the next place, the Rector, though in●eriour to the Curate in this respect, may in other respects be far superior in merit to him. Lastly, if this were admitted, no quiet or peace in the Church could ever be maintained, as upon the least reflection will be evident beyond contradiction. Further, if we should suppose the Rector to be always the far more worthy person, more skilful to direct the Souls of men, and more diligent in applying such direction; yet would not the opinion of our Adversaries be thence evinced. Rather it would be for the common good of the Church, and the Souls of men, that such a person should be entrusted with the care of two Parishes. For although he ordinarily supplies one Parish by a Curate; yet he is bound to reside at that some considerable time every year, and at all times to inspect and direct his Curate. By which means two Parishes enjoy the benefit of this excellent Guide, which without the permission of Pluralities would have been afforded but to one; the number of such excellent persons being in the judgement of all men far inferior to the number of Parochial Cures in England.  
The last effort of our Adversaries is, That the Ministers of every Parish are bound to give an account to God of the Souls of the persons committed to their charge; that God will not accept this account by any Proxy, but will expect that every Parish Priest should render it in his own person, and according to his own knowledge: That it is not enough to perform the Divine Offices, and repeat Sermons once a week; but they must visit the sick, reprove the scandalous, reconcile differences, teach their flock by constant example as well as doctrine. This argument is plausible, and easy to be improved by an ordinary understanding, that I need not add any more, to give to it its full force. Yet withal it will be found to include nothing of Substance, if it be narrowly examined. As much of it as infers, that God will exact from every Parish Priest a particular account of every single Soul committed to his care, or that he will in no case accept the discharge of this care by a Substitute▪ is false. For no more can be required, than that the Priest should render a general account of his charge, that he hath been diligent in preaching, in administering the Holy Offices, ready to apply this general care to particular persons as opportunity should offer, and exemplary in his Conversation. And then as to a Proxy, if the Priest allegeth, that the same authority of the Bishop, which committed the care of the Parish to him, did disburden him of that care, and imposed it in whole or in part upon a Substitute, there is no reason to believe, that God will not accept this plea. We readily grant that the Cure of Souls is a weighty concern, that great diligence ought to be used in the discharge of it; that the person to whom it is committed, whether Incumbent or Curate, aught to be conversant among his ●lock, and, acquainting himself with the necessities of it, make constant provision for them. The Church had considered this long since; and however our Anti-pluralists be puffed up with an Opinion of their own singular wisdom, had weighed the force of this argument long before them. For this reason, by the constant practice of the Governors of the Church, it hath been provided, that two populous Parishes have not been committed to the care of one person▪ that if one be far more populous than the other, he should make his more constant Residence in the former. These Rules the Arch-Bishops never ●ail to observe in granting Dispensations of Pluralities, and these abundantly obviate all the force of the Objection. For in two contiguous Parishes (which is the most ordinary case of Pluralities) the Incumbent of both, although residing constantly in one of them, may easily minister to the necessities of them both; may inform himself of the behaviour of his flocks; may administer spiritual advice to them; may be exemplary in his life and conversation to ●ach Parish; may be enabled of his own knowledge to give an account of them to the great Shepherd of Souls. The case of two remote Benefices, committed to the care of one Priest is more rare: Yet even in this case the Church hath made sufficient provision for the same advantages, by directing the Pluralist, to reside upon the one the greater part of the year, and upon the other at least three months in the year; and granting to him a Dispensation upon these Conditions. That this three months' Residence upon that Benefice which is less frequented, added to the constant residence of an able Curate upon it, will fully supply the ends abovementioned, will easily appear. No man doubts that a Parish Priest in the City of London, holding one Benefice there, and residing continually upon it, may be able fully and conscientiously to discharge his duty. Now the number of Souls in the Parishes of London, one with another, may be reasonably computed to be about 5000. Scarce any Parish in England, possessed by a Pluralist, upon which he is not bound by the Canon to bestow his more constant Residence, includes 500 Souls: However, suppose that to be the number, in this Parish including 500 Souls, he is obliged to reside three months every year. It is manifest, that in a particular application of the labour and care of the Incumbent to his Parishioners, and a particular enquiry into the state and behaviour of them, and communicating the influence of a good example to all of them, three months will effect as much in relation to 500 as thirty months, and much more than twelve months will do in relation to these 5000. So that if we grant the people of London to be sufficiently provided for in their spiritual concerns, by the constant Residence of their Parish Priests; much more will the three months' Residence of any Rector, added to the constant attendance of his Curate, supply the necessities of any such Country Parish.  
These 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 enjoined even to them Jure Divino, if it be permitted to one Bishop to hold two Bishoprics 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 
Chron. Hisp. p 〈◊〉  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, 
Conc 〈◊〉 pa●. 2. 〈◊〉.  who governed two Cities, as Timotheus Bishop of Telmissus and Eudocias', Athanasius Bishop of Diveltus and Sozopolis. In the Province of Europa especially, 
Ibid. 〈◊〉 A●t. 7.  there were many instances of this kind; for therein ●eraclea and Panium had but one Bishop; so also Bizya and Arcadiopolis, Coele and Callipolis, Subsadia and Aphrodisias. And the Bishops of this Province affirmed in the Council, that this was an ancient custom, which had obtained of old, and from the beginning in the Provinces of Europa, that those Cities never had distinct Bishops. Vetus mos viget in Provinciis Europae— olim & ab initio— nunquam praedictae Civitates proprios Episcopos acceperunt.  
Such was the Practice of the ancient universal Church. In the particular Church of England, examples of this kind have been frequent for above a thousand years, and are to this day continued. For such I account to be all those cases, in which two distirct Dioceses have been united and incorporated into one, and thenceforward subjected to the government of one Bishop. I know that ●rom that time they became but one Bishopric 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 Bishoprics, 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 itself. 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 Dioceses, 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 Dioceses 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 Dioceses or Benefices, and consequently Nonresidence 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 Dioceses are perpetually united, although by the greatest Authority of the Church and Nation, and submitted for ever to the government of one Bishop; the Bishops of that double Diocese will be for ever as much guilty of the Sins of Plurality and Nonresidence, as if no such union had been made. In this Nation, the present Diocese of Salisbury is made up of the two Dioceses of Sherburn and Ramsbury conjoined; the Bishopric of Exeter includes the two ancient Bishoprics of Kirton and S. Germane; the Bishopric of Norwich those of Dunwich and Elmham; the Bishopric of Lincoln those of Dorchester, Sidnacester, and Leicester; the Bishopric of Durham those of Li●disfarn and Hexham. So that the present Bishops of Salisbury, Exeter, Norwich, Lincoln and Durham, do as truly hold Plurality of Bishoprics, as any Priest in England doth Plurality of Benefices.  
In the Church of Ireland since the Reformation almost every Bishop administers two Bishoprics, yet no Scruple was ever raised of the lawfulness of this practice. If our Adversaries allege that this is done by Authority of the Church and Parliament of that Nation; that can never excuse the intrinsic evil of Plurality or Nonresidence, 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 allege that these Irish Bishoprics are thus united because of the smallness 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? Although, if Plurality and Nonresidence 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 Bishopric 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 Bishopric 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 Diocese of Wells was committed to the present Bishop of Salisbury, that of Norwich to the present Bishop of S. Asaph, etc. Yet none of our Anti-Pluralists blamed these Reverend Bishops for accepting the Administration of them; although upon their Principles they were really guilty of Plurality therein, in presiding over two Bishoprics at the same time. If it be answered, that this was only for a short time; I reply, that a sinful act ought no more to be continued one year, than fifty. If it be alleged that they enjoyed not the Temporal Revenues, but only the Spiritual Jurisdiction of these Dioceses; 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; 
●om. 3. 8.  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 easy, safe and charitable to suppose, that in all these cases of Plurality and Nonresidence, 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 Diocese 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 Catholic Church; and may execute his Office in any part of the Catholic Church out of his own limits, if the greater good of the Church shall so require. Whether any man's 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 judgement: And after the satisfaction and direction of his own Conscience, aught to be directed herein by his Superiors; 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 Nonresident, or to retain the administration of more than one Diocese or Parish. Thus in times of Persecution, it was always thought lawful for Bishops or Priests to be Nonresident, and to execute their Office in any part of the Catholic Church, wherever they should come. In times of Infection, I will not say it was always thought lawful to be Nonresident; 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 Pri●●t. Upon occasion of General, Patriarchal or Provincial Councils, it was always accounted lawful for Bishops to absent themselves from their Dioceses▪ and attend the Council, although 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 Nonresident; 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 Diocese. 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 passed, during the whole year, resided at Lambeth. For this reason all the Bishops of the Church are w●nt to give attendance in Parliament, although 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 Dioceses. 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 Diocese.  
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 Dioceses 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 public 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 Dioceses, to attend the public 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 subjoin, 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 inferior Clergy; and that the Bishop hath no more to do but only to govern the Clergy; or that a Diocese 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 Bishops attending at Court, or employed by the King in public Service, constantly maintained Suffragan Bishops in their Dioceses. This practice was confirmed and entirely settled by an Act of Parliament in the Reign of Henry VIII. and from that time Suffragan Bishops were without interruption continued in the Diocese of Canterbury till the end of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and in some Dioceses till the middle of King James. It 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 Dioceses, 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; although from these an invincible argument for the lawfulness of Plurality and Nonresidence in Parish Priests may be raised. For if it be lawful for a Bishop to obtain Pluralities and use Nonresidence; 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 although Plurality and Nonresidence 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 Dioceses, 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 argue the jus divinum of Parish Priests Residence, from the jus divinum of Bishop's 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 smallness of his Diocese, 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 Bishop's Diocese, 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 although the division of the whole Catholic Church into many Dioceses be of Divine institution, yet the division of any Diocese into many Parishes is not so. All this will be sufficiently evident, if it be proved, that the Division of Dioceses into Parishes, and assigning those Parishes to the perpetual care of so many Priests, was made by mere humane Authority; and that in different methods, and gradually, and not begun 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 Bishop's residence, but also demonstrate, that neither Plurality of Parochial Cures, nor Nonresidence 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 itself is not so. And upon this ground Judge Hobart 
Reports, 149.  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 Dioceses 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 increased proportionably with the number of Christians of any Diocese. These auxiliary Churches were no other, than Chapels 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 ●it to appoint certain Presbyters to attend constantly, and without change upon certain Churches; it was merely because it was his pleasure. Other Bishops took different methods, as themselves judged best; and might either appoint two Presbyters (either coordinate or subaltern) 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, 
Hist. Eccles. L. 1. c. 1●.  who wrote about the year 430▪ For he observes it as a singularity in the Diocese 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, 
Not. in Epiphan in h●eresi A●ianâ.  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, 
Hist. Eccl. L. 5. c. 22.  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 coordinate power was given by the Bishop to them both. This was first observed by the learned Dr. Maurice, 
Defence of Diocesan Episc p. 47.  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 ●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, 
〈◊〉 Eccl. L. 7. c. 19  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 Chapels 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 administering 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 Catholics, One Altar, one Baptism, one Bishop. All the Christians of the Diocese were baptised 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 Diocese, 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: Although in this Pope's 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 entirely finished, is not here material to inquire; 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 show, 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 Diocese: That in the ancient Church Bishops have been allowed to preside over two Dioceses; 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 although Plurality and Nonresidence 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 show, That Plurality of Benefices held by one Presbyter is not contrary to the first institution or endowment of Parishes. This will easily appear from what hath been premised. Before the institution of Parochial Churches, it is manifest there could be no endowment of them; but it was long before they were instituted, and after their institution much longer before any particular endowment of them was made. All the Oblations made to them, were still transmitted to the Mother-Church, and le●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 inferior 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 endowment of the whole Diocese; which consisted as well in Lands and Possessions, as in voluntary Oblations of the Laity. Of this endowment 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 Diocese in Sacred matters; that is, to provide for the general Service of the Diocese. 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 discretion.  
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 Diocese 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 endowment of the Church may be supposed to have been equal. But after all▪ there is as great inequality in the particular endowments 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, 
● Tim. 5. 〈◊〉.  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 Diocese 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 hindered 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 Successors may now do, if they shall judge it expedient for the good of their Diocese in general. For that is the rule by which they are to direct themselves. The secondary design is but subservient to the first, and aught always to give place to it. So that, if it be more for the general good of that Diocese, or of the whole Church, that any Presbyter of it should retain Plurality of Benefices, or be Nonresident at one or both of them; than it is more consonant to the first design of endowment, that such Plurality should be allowed, and Nonresidence 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 Diocese or Church. Now such cases often happen, as will hereafter appear, when we shall speak of the Convenience or Inconvenience of Plurality and Nonresidence.  
If it seem somewhat harsh to affirm, That to allow Nonresidence 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 Nonresidence, 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 Bishop's might, if they had pleased, have appointed an inferior Presbyter to supply the cure of every Parish, residing constantly thereon, and a Superior Presbyter to oversee him, not obliged to any such constant Residence. And what Bishops might then do, their Successors 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 possession of Parochial Churches here in England, as may be collected out of the ancient Histories and Monuments 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 form after the example and model of the Gallican Church; it being easy 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 easy 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 Diocese, for the use of Christians living remote from the Mother-church. But whether these Churches were served by certain Priests perpetually affixed to that service, or by itinerant Priests sent by turns from the College 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, although 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 settled in the Church of Rome. That Decree of Pope Dionysius, which some allege, 
Epist. 2. Conc Tom. 1. p. 829.  That all other Churches should follow, quod nos in Romanâ Ecclesiâ nuper egisse cognoscitur; Ecclesias verò singulas singulis Presbyteris dedimus▪ Parochias & Coemiteria eye 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, 
Cap. 9 § ●.  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 B●itannia, 
Epist. Gil●●. p. 23.  sed insipientes; quamplurimos Ministros, 
Edit. Oxon.  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 lie 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 Diocese, cannot easily be determined. It is not improbable, that the Country being very thinly inhabited before the coming of the Saxons, there was no division of it into Parishes; but any pious Priest, who designed to instruct the Country- people, might (with the leave of his Bishop) in remote places from the Cathedral Church, build to himself a Church, and therein instruct as many of the neighbouring rustics, as would frequent it. This Church became then the proper Possession of that Priest, and might by him be sold, given, demolished or quitted at pleasure. 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. P. 53.  This Conjecture (for I propose it as no other) is countenanced by the 23d Canon of the Council held in Ireland about the year 450 by St. Patrick, Auxilius, Iserninus, and other Bishops; which decreeth, that Si quis Presbyterorum Ecclesiam ●dificaverit, etc. If any Presbyter shall build a Church; let him not celebrate in it, before he bring his Bishop to it, that he may consecrate it. And in the old Laws of the Northumbrians (among whom great number of the conquered Britain's still remained, although subject to the Saxons) the second is, 
Ibid. p 495.  Prohibemus Presbyterum aliquem Ecclesiam alterius emere: We forbid one Priest to buy the Church of another; and the 22th Law is, If any one shall violently eject a Priest out of his Church, let him be punished. Another passage Mr. Selden produceth to the same purpose out of the ancient little History de Fundatione Ecclesi●e Landavensis, which is found in the beginning of a famous ancient Register of that Church, 
Tom. 3● p. 188.  and is since printed in the English Monasticon. The words are these, Dubricius being ordained Archbishop of South Wales, plures Ecclesiae cum suis dotibus, decimis, oblationibus, sepulturis, territoriis & liberâ communione, datae sunt sibi, Ecclesiae Landaviae, & successoribus suis omnibus, à Regibus & Principibus— Videns a●tem Dubricius— sibi commissam Ecclesiam, partitus est Discipulos, mittens quosdam discipulorum suorum per Ecclesia● sibi datas; & quasdam fundavit Ecclesia●; & Episcopos coadjutores sibi, ordinatis Parochiis suis consecravit.  
Mr. Selden admonisheth, that the Author of this History (whom I suppose to have writ about the year 1120) speaketh according to the phrase and custom of his own time; which may be admitted as to the description of the dotation of the Churches given to Dubricius; but the rest I doubt not to be literally true: yet from thence cannot conclude any division of Dioceses into certain Parishes, or affixing of certain Priests to certain Parishes, to have been then instituted or received; but only that the Province of South Wales was then divided into several Dioceses, and Bishops ordained to every one of them: the word Parochia being the ancient Ecclesiastical name of a Diocese. As for the supply of Country-Churches, this Testimony seems rather to imply, that it was performed by itinerant Priests, whom Dubricius sent in their turns out of his own College. And if any credit is to be given to the ancient Lives and Legends of the British Bishops and Saints; this was the practice at that time in the British Church: That the Bishops at their Cathedrals, and holy Abbots and Doctors in several parts of the Diocese should educate and maintain great numbers of Priests in a Collegiate life, and preside over them; who in their turns should travel about and instruct the Lay Christians in all the circumjacent territories; and that being done, return to the College, and give way to others to succeed them in the same employment.  
Afterwards when the Britain's were driven into Wales, and were fully settled in it, that Country being become populous thereby, they found it necessary to divide it into Parishes, and to assign Priests to them. For in the Laws of Howel Dha King of Wales, 
L●x 3. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p 4●9.  made about the year 940, there is mention made of the house of the Parish Priest, Domus Capellani Villae, in every Village. Although the division was yet so imperfect, that at this time frequent subdivisions were made; as appears from the 35th Law of the same King: 
Ib p. 413.  And the ●ixing of one Parish Priest to every Parochial Church was yet so far from being settled in Wales, that some Ages after it was in very few places received. For Giraldus Cambrensis, describing the obstinacy of the Welshmen, in retaining their old Laws and Customs, giveth this for one instance of it. Ecclesiae verò istorum omnes ferè tot Personas & participes habent. 
Descript. ●all. L. 2. c. 6.  quot capitalium virorum in parochiâ genera fuerint— Vitium hoc genti ab antiquo commune fuit. And this giveth a probable account of the original of those sine cure Rectories, which in almost all the Churches of North Wales were distinct from the Vicarages of the same, and held by distinct proprietors, until within this last thirty years, they began generally to be united.  
From the uncertain Practice of the ancient British Church, I pass to give a more certain account of the institution and division of Parishes in the ancient Saxon or English Church, upon which their modern division, laws, and customs are founded. When Augustin the first Archbishop of Canterbury came into England, attended with several inferior Clergy, to preach the Gospel, King Ethelbert gave to him ample possessions for the maintenance of himself and his Clergy, not appointing any Laws to the direction or distribution of it, but leaving that entirely to the discretion of the Archbishop. A Church was built for him at Canterbury, wherein he might fix his Chair, and houses appointed, wherein himself and Clergy might dwell in common. Afterwards, when the same pious King, by the direction of the Archbishop founded Cathedral Churches at Rochester and London; he endowed both with large possessions, given for the Honour of God, and general good of the Dioceses, without giving any further direction. The application of these possessions to the use intended, was wholly left to the several Bishops. In the same manner other Princes proceeded in the foundation and endowment of Cathedral Churches in other parts of the Nation. All this is so manifest from Bede and the several Histories of the foundation and dotation of the Cathedral Churches of England, that it would be superfluous to give an elaborate proof of it. 
Hist. Eccl. L. I. C. 27.  Let it suffice to observe out of Bede, that Augustin desiring directions from Pope Gregory, in several points of Discipline to be observed in his new Convert Church; desireth to receive his Directions De Episcopis, qualiter cum suis Clericis conversentur; vel de his quae fidelium oblationibus accedunt Altari (ver●io Saxon. quae fideles ad Altaria & Ecclesias Dei afferunt) quantae debeant fieri portiones? To this Question Gregory returns this Answer, Quatuor fieri debent portiones; una Episcopo & familiae suae propter hospitalitatem, alia Clero, tertia pauperibus, quarta Eccle●is reparandis. Fraternitas tua, Monasterii regulis erudita, seor●im vivere non debet à Clericis suis in Ecclesiâ Anglorum. From this Answer it appears▪  
1. That the Bishop and his Clergy lived together at 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 Northumber's, (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 Dioceses; 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 Dioceses. Thus Bede relates of Birinus first Bishop of the West Saxons, 
Hi●. Eccl. ●. 3. c. 7.  who came into England about thirty years after Augustin; that having built and dedicated several Churches in his Diocese 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 inferior 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 expressly witnesseth in these words. 
L. 3. c. ●6 in fine.  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, quam 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, 
Beda Hist. Eccl. L. 4. c. 27. circa med.  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 practised, at least in the Northern Dioceses 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 Clergymen; 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 Diocese 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 Chapels of ease to the Mother or Cathedral Church. It is indeed a common error among our Historians, that the division of Dioceses into Parishes in England, was made in the time of Archbishop Honorius, who presided about thirty years after the death of Augustin. 
Antiq. Britan. p. 52.  For this they are wont to allege Archbishop Parker in the Life of Honorius where he saith: Neque solùm Episcopos super imposuit; sed etiam Provinciam suam primus in Par●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 Dioceses, and Bishops settled in these new Dioceses. 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 Dioceses into Parishes, that was not yet thought of.  
In this manner than Cathedral Churches were founded and endowed by the Kings of the several parts of the Saxon Heptarchy for the general good of the several Dioceses, that is, of their several Kingdoms. For it is to be observed, that in the first foundation of Bishoprics among the Saxons, the Dioceses 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 Diocese 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 adjoining Tenants; either incited by their own devotion, or because it was not easy 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, 
L 5. c. 4.  ad dedicandam Ecclesiam in villâ suâ and of Addiâ Saxon Count, 
L. 4. c. ●.  whoat another time invited the same holy Bishop, to perform the like Office for him.  
Not only the Bishop's 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 the second Canon of the Synod of Celcyth held under Archbishop Wulfred in the year 816. directs, 
Conc. Ang. T. 1. p 3●●.  that Vbi Ecclesia aedi●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, 
Capitular. Edit. ● BaLazio, T, 1 p. 416.  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, 
L. 5. c. 334. ib. p. 896.  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 
Con. Angl. T. 2. p. 22.  Can. 15. Ne nova Capella ●iat sine consensu Episcopi; and of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1138, 
ibid. p. 41.  in the 12th Canon of which it is ordered, Ne quis absque licentiâ Episcopi sui in possessione suâ Ecclesiam vel Oratorium constituat. The Bishop's 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 Bishop's consent; so neither could he be expelled or dismissed but by him. Thus among the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York, 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258.  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 Emperor Ludovicus Pius in the year 816. Cap. 9 Sine auctoritate vel consens● Episcoporum Presbyteri in quibuslibet Ecclesiis nec constituantur, 
Capit●l. T. 1. p. 565.  nec expellantur.  
The Bishop's 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 Diocese 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 joint 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, 
Capitular. T. 1. p. 1205.  fi● Eccle●ias, quas aedi●icaverint, postulant consecrari; ut dotem, quam ejus Eccle●iae contulerint, ce●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 satisfy 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 employed by him. This appears from another Capitular, 
L. 7. c. 375. Ib. p. 1104.  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, Canon's 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, 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22.  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 Freemen of the place. 
Cap. 1. in Capit. Franc. T. 2. p. 327.  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 Diocese, 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 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258.  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 Manors by the Munificence of pious Princes, the Bishops neglected to claim the Tithes of their Diocese 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 than 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 acknowledgement of their dependence on them ●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 afterwards) but so as to supply in some measure the necessities of every Diocese: 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 Dioceses into them. Thus in the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York, the first is, 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258.  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 public. The sixth enjoins every Priest carefully to instruct the people committed to him in the Lord'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 
Ti●. 1. ●. 1●. Capitul. T. 1. p. 99  Si quis Presbytero vel Diacono, quem Episcopus in Parochiâ ordinavit▪ vel qualem plebs sibi recepit ad Sacerdotem, injuriam ●ecerit, he should be punished in such a manner. In England the first Synod of Celcyth, held in the year 787. commands, 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 293.  Vt omni anno in Synodalibus conventibus, ab Episcopis singularum Ecclesiarum Presbyteri, qui populum erudire debent, 
Ibid. p. 328.  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 Diocese 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, 
Ibid. p. 248.  Vt Presbyteri per loca & regiones Lai●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 Dioceses 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 Diocese 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 Diocese. 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 Diocese, 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 College of Clergy constantly 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 Dioceses; they still limited and appointed the uses, in which they should be employed by the Parochial Clergy. This appears from several Constitutions before cited upon other occasions, and from others which may be alleged to the same purpose: as the French Capitular, 
Capitular. T. 1. p. 196.  made in the year 779, which order cap. 7. De Decimis, ut unusquisque suam decimam donet, atque per jussionem Pontificis dispensentur. Another Capitular directs it more expressly in these words▪ Vt Decimae in potestate Episcopi sint, qualiter à Presbyteris dispensentur. 
Ibid. p▪ 730.  The same is decreed in the Council of Worms, cap. 59 and may be found in Regino▪ L. 1. c. 42. This Privilege of the Bishops continued in England▪ at lest 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, 
Lex Als●di 24.  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 Diocese; 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, 
Capitular. T. 1. p. 154  held in the year 744. in the presence of Boniface the Pope's L●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, 
Ib p. 192.  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. 
I. 6. c. 59 Ib. p. 932.  Presbyter vel Diaconus, qui deserit Ecclesiam suam, & ad aliam transierit, deponatur. Some Capitulars and Councils apply this to the Bishops as well as the inferior Clergy, and forbid as well them to be translated from one Bishopric to another, as these from one Parish to another. So the first Capitular of the year 789. cap. 21. Item in eodem Concilio (Chalcedonensi) nec non & in Sardicensi (praecipitur) 
Ib. p. 708. sic 8● L. 1. c. 24.  ut nec Episcopus nec Clerici transmigrent de civitate in civitatem. This is expressed more fully in another Capitular. 
Addit. 3 Capit. c. 83. Ib. p. 1172.  De titulo minori ad majorem migrare, nulli Presbytero licitum sit; sed in eo permaneat, ad quem ordinatus est: Quod si inventus fuerit contra statuta id facere, eâdem feriatur sententiâ, quâ & Episcopus, qui de minori ad majorem transmigraverit Civitatem. The same Constitution was made, in almost the same words, by the third Council of Tours, 
Can. 14. Can. 20.  and by the second Council of Rheims. But more effectually to prevent this inconvenience, it was at length ordered, that at their institution, or before their ordination, 
Capitul. ●. 5. c. 175. T. 1▪ p. 857.  the Clergy should promise to remain at that place, to the cure of which they were ordained. Vt Presbyteri, qui in titulis consecrantur, secundum Canon's, antequam ordinentur, promissionem stabilitatis loci illius faciant. The like Constitutions were made and received in England, I will produce but one of them, 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258. Can. 13.  made by Egbert Archbishop of York in the year 750. Nullus Presbyter à sede propriâ sanctae Ecclesiae, sub cujus titulo ordinatus fuit, ammonitionis causâ ad alienam pergat Ecclesiam; sed ibidem de votus usque ad vitae permaneat exitum.  
While the Foundation of Parochial Churches was thus far advanced by Laymen, and the profits of such as were founded by them, were limited to their Incumbents; the Bishops also in their Manors, and Demesnes, and Advowsons' both in City and Country, built, or gave leave to build, Parochial Churches; and restrained the profits of every one of them to the several Incumbents. The same was done by the Kings in their Manors: and the practice being received generally, at last an uniformity obtained in this innovation of Parochial right.  
In the mean time the Bishops with their Canons resided at the Cathedral Church, and attended the daily service of it. The Bishops indeed not so constantly, being obliged to frequent the great Councils of the Nation, and often employed by the King in Embassies, and great Offices; but the Canons were bound to perpetual Residence: and both Bishop and Canons possessed the Revenues of the Church in common; which were received by the Bishop, and by him such a portion was allowed to the maintenance of the Canons, as he thought fit. This community of possession in Cathedral Churches obtained for a long time. For I do not find that in any Churches, the portion or estate of the Bishops was divided from that of the Canons or Monks till after the Norman Conquest. Till that time the first endowment of the Bishopric remained in the joint possession of the Bishop and his Canons; and not only those possessions wherewith the Bishop and all his Clergy were endowed at the first foundation of the Episcopal See; but also those, which after the institution and particular dotation of Parochial Churches, were added to the Cathedral Church, by the liberality of following Princes, to increase the honour and dignity of the Bishop, that he might be enabled to live in a quality equal to the Great men of the Nation. For it must not be imagined, that the endowments of the Bishoprics were made all at once. But in every Age accessions were made to the original endowment of them, by the gift of Princes and pious persons, even till the end of the 13th Age: that so, as the riches of the Nation, and therewith the state of Great men, did gradually increase; the possessions and riches of the Bishops might arise in proportion, and enable them to maintain a port equal to the other Peers of the Realm.  
The Parishes, into which Dioceses were at first divided, were but few in comparison of the present number of them. For it may be supposed, that although the Kings, or great Lords, might possess very large Territories in any country, yet they built but one Church for the use of one single Territory. Afterwards themselves found it convenient or necessary, to build several Churches in several parts of it, one perhaps in every Manor; or these large possessions being in time cantoned out, and divided into several lesser possessions; every one of the new possessors erected Churches or Chapels within their own limits. Thus every Parish was divided into many subordinate Parishes, and these in process of time became distinct Parishes; and so by degrees that Parochial division was settled, which we now find in England. The difference of our present Parishes in quantity and extent, arising originally from the difference of the several circuits of the Demesnes or Territories possessed by the Founders.  
For some time these Churches of the second foundation, were but Chapels of ease to those of the first foundation. During that time the Mother-Church was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Signior Church; and still reserved the sole right of baptism and burial to herself; and continued in the possession of all the Tithes and profits, which were due to her before the foundation of the Chapels. Thus the Constitutions of Egbert Archbishop of York, 
Cap. 24. Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 258.  made in the year 750. provide, That the ancient Churches should not be deprived of any part of these Tithes and possessions, to give them to new Oratories. Vt Ecclesiae antiquitùs constitutae, nec Decimis nec ullâ aliâ possessione priventur, ita ut novis Oratoriis tribuantur. A like Constitution is found in the Capitular of Charles the Great, made at Salz in the year 804. cap. 3. Quicunque 
Capitular. T. 1. p. 416.  voluerit in fuâ proprietate Ecclesiam aedificare, unà cum consensu & voluntate Episcopi, licentiam habeat. Veruntamen omnino providendum est, ut aliae Ecclesiae antiquiores propter hanc occasionem nulla tenus suam justitiam aut decimam non perdant; sed semper ad antiquiores Ecclesias persolvantur. And to the same purpose is the Capitular in the year 813. 
Ibid. p. 504.  This Constitution is still observed in as many Churches of the second foundation, as yet remain under their first condition and title of Chapels of ease: but the other Privileges of the Mother-Churches, viz. the sole right of baptism and burial are now discontinued: although they were so strictly observed in England until the year 1300. 
V. Selden Hist Decim p 264.  that if in any Pleas about the right of particular Churches, it could be proved, that any Church had from time immemorial right of baptism and burial, it should be adjudged to be a Parochial Church and not a Chapel of Ease.  
But (to return to the former times) the convenience and good of the Church in general requiring such subdivision of Parishes to be made, and the Lands and Salaries, wherewith the new Patrons had endowed the Churches of the second foundation, being not sufficient to maintain their Incumbents without the Tithes, and hereby all persons being discouraged from proceeding in such new foundations; the Bishops found it necessary to bestow parochial right on many of these Chapels already founded, or afterwards to be founded: which they did by conferring on them the right of burial, and hallowing Cemiteries near to them for that purpose. By this means they were made distinct Parishes, and freed from any dependence upon the Churches of the first foundation. Yet that the latter might not suffer any great diminution of their former Revenues; no more than a third part of the Tithes were allowed to the Incumbents of any Churches of the new foundation. But if the Bishop did not grant the right of burial to them; they still continued in their former condition, and paid their whole Tithe to the Incumbent of the Mother-Church. So the Laws of King Edgar made in the year 967. appoint; That if any Lord would build a Church in his own Lands, within the limits of any Parish, he might pay a third part of his Tithes to it. Quisque Decimas suas Ecclesiae primariae seu matrici persolvat. 
Concil. Angl. Tom. 1. p. 444.  Si quis autem Thanus Ecclesiam in terrâ propriâ intra Parachiae praedictae limites fundare velit; ei Decimarum suarum trientem persolvere possit. This Law is confirmed and explained in the Ecclesiastical Laws of King Canutus, made about the year 1032. 
Ibid. p. 545. Le●. 11.  in these words, Thanus si in solo suo Templum habuerit, cui locus adjaceat Sepulturae destinatus, Decima●um suarum trientem in id conferre ei potestas esto. Sin circa Templum nullus fuerit designatas humationi locus; tum qui est fundi Dominus dato Sacerdoti novem partium reliquarum, quantulum ei visum fuerit; paying his whole Tithe to the Mother-Church. The same method of making any new Church to be Parochial and independent, by conferring on it the right of burial, was observed before this time in Wales, as appears from the Laws of Howel Dha; of which the 35th is, Si regiâ dante licentiâ, in rusticanâ Villâ Ecclesia construatur, & in eâ Missae celebrentur, & in atrio illius corpora sepelientur, ex tunc libera erit illa villa.  
By this encouragement new Churches and chapels began to be erected so fast, as in many places to become inconvenient, by impoverishing too much the ancient Revenue of the Churches of the first foundation; So that it was found necessary, to dissolve or demolish some of them: and the execution of this was left to the discretion of the Bishops. Before this no new Church could be erected without the Bishop's leave, much less the right of baptism and burial be given to it, by any other than by him. So the 7th Canon of the Synod of Veru in the year 755. 
Capital. Tom. 1. p. 171.  Publicum baptisterium in nulla Parochiâ esse debet, nisi ubi Episcopus constituerit, cujus Parochia est. Yet the Bishops, either through negligence, or to gratify the importunity of Lay-Patrons, or increase their own Revenue, by multiplying the number of Synodals and Procurations; had in some places permitted too many Churches to be erected, and the ancient Parishes to be subdivided too far. Against this the third Capitular of Charles the Great, made in the year 803. provides cap. 1. that such unnecessary Churches should be demolished. De Ecclesiis emendandis, 
Ibid. T. 2. p. 327. c. 1.  & ubi uno in loco plures fuerint, quam necesse sit, ut destruantur quae necessariae non sunt. The Capitular of King Lothaire directs the same to be done, although the Church should be necessary, in case it be not endowed. Si in uno loco plures Ecclesiae sint, quam necesse sit, destruantur. Quòd si forte in aliquo loco sit Ecclesia constituta. quae tamen necessaria sit, & nihil dotis habuerit, volumus ut à liberis hominibus ibi detur, etc. Quòd si hoc populus facere noluerit, destruatur. The Capitular of Charles the Bald, 
Ibid. p. 24.  made at Tholouse in the year 844. restrains the further multiplication of Parish Churches, unless upon evident necessity, cap. 7. Episcopi Parochias Presbyterorum propter inhonestum & periculosum lucrum non dividend. Sed si necessitas populi exegerit, ut plures fiant Ecclesiae, aut statuantur Altaria, cum ratione hoc faciant: sc ut si longitudo, aut periculum aquae, aut silvae, aut alicujus certae rationis vel necessitatis causa poposcerit, ut populus ad Ecclesiam principalem non possit occurrere; statuatur Altar, etc.  
In England, as the first foundation of Parochial Churches and Cures, was much later than in France; so also the subdivision of them, and all the benefits or inconveniencies of it. The first complaint which I find to have been made in our Nation, of the too great multiplication of Churches of the new foundation, is in the Additaments of the Laws of Edward the Confessor; 
Conc. Angl. Tom. 1. p 621.  wherein it is said, that there were now three or four Churches in many places, where anciently was but one, to the great diminution of the Revenues of the ancient Clergy. Multis in locis modò sunt tres vel quatuor Ecclesiae, ubi tunc temporis una tantum erat; & sic (decimae singulorum Sacerdotum) coeperant minui.  
Long before the time of the Confessor, the Parochial division of England was brought to so great perfection, that it was known and fixed to which Parish every man did belong. 
Ibid Tom. 1. p. 448. Can. 6, 9, 15.  So the Ecclesiastical Canons published in the time of King Edgar, require that every Priest should present to the Synod the names of such in his Parish, as were contumacious or guilty of any heinous sin; that he should admonish every one of his Parish, quosque per Paraeciam suam, to bring their Children to be baptised: that no Priest intermeddle in the business of another Priest, nec in suâ Ecclesiâ, nec in suâ Parochiâ. And the Laws of King Canutus command, 
Lex. 13. Ibid. p. 545.  that if any one be buried out of the limits of his Parish, extra suae Parochiae fines, yet that the fees of his burial should be paid to that Church, to which he did of right belong. But before the time of the Confessor that very division of Parishes was generally fixed, which now obtains in England; as appears from Doomsday Book; in which the Towns and Parishes do very near agree to the present division. Some Churches indeed were erected, and obtained Parochial right after the Conquest, but the number of them was not great.  
Before or about the time of the same King, most of the Churches of the second foundation seem to have become wholly independent of the Churches of the first foundation; and to have received not only a third part, but the whole of the Tithe of their several districts: whether that happened through the negligence of the Incumbents of the Mother-Churches, or by the appointment of the Bishops, to settle at last a sufficient maintenance on the Priests of these new Churches, or by public Law, is uncertain. In France it was first began by the Constitution of Ludovicus Pius, 
Capitular T. 1. p. 565.  made in the year 816. cap. 12. which directed the whole Tithes to be paid to the new erected Churches. Sancitum est de villis novis, & Ecclesiis in illis noviter constructis, ut Decimae de illis villis ad easdem Ecclesias conferantur. In England I rather suppose the dependence of the new upon the old Churches to have worn off by degrees, or to have been taken away by particular compositions between the Patrons or Incumbents of the several Churches, made with the leave of the Bishop; and the whole to have been effected before the Conquest, or shortly after. Yet many marks and acknowledgements of the ancient dependence might remain for some Ages, however now forgotten. Particularly I know a Parish-Church in this Nation (the name of which for private reasons I conceal) which being founded above a thousand years since, did then include all the neighbouring Country within its limits. Afterwards, yet before the time of the Conquest, several new Churches were erected within her bounds, which at first might pay the whole, and then two third parts of the Tithes to her, as was done in other places in like cases. But in a short time a composition was made between the several Patrons and Incumbents, confirmed by the Bishop; That the Incumbents of the new Churches should pay only the tenth part of all their real profits to the Incumbent of the Mother-Church: which Composition I find to have been duly observed about the year 1370, although at this time, no such pensions, or any other mark of superiority remain to the Mother-Church.  
For some while after the foundation of Parochial Churches, and appropriation of the Tithes to them, no other limits were set to them than those of the possessions of the Founders, who obliged themselves and all their Tenants and dependants to make their Oblations and to pay their Tithes to the Churches founded by them.  
But if any persons lived near to them, who were independent from the Patro●; they were at liberty to frequent any other neighbour Church, and to pay their Tithes to it. Particularly great numbers of Christians were induced by the seeming devotion of the Monasteries, to frequent them rather than Parochial Churches, and to make their Oblations, and pay their Tithes to them, and to be buried in their Cemiteries; at which time the Oblations made, or Legacies left to any Church upon account of burial were very great. To prevent this disorder, it was at last enacted, that the limits of every Parish should be certainly fixed, and all persons obliged to pay their Tithes, Oblations and Mortuaries to their own Parish Churches. So the French Capitulars, 
L ●. c. 149. Capitular. T. 1. p. 730.  Vt terminum habeat unaquaeque Ecclesia, de quibus Villis Decimas recipiat. Which Constitution is sound also in Regino. 
L. 1. c. 24.  Another Capitular forbids any Priest to persuade the Parishioners of another Priest to frequent his Church, and to pay his Tithes to himself. 
Capitular. L. 7 c. 198. T. 1. p 1067.  Statutum est, ut nullus Presbyter fidelibus sanctae Dei Ecclesiae de alterius Presbyteri Parochiâ persuadeat, ut ad suam Ecclesiam, relictâ propriâ Ecclesiâ, conveniant; & suas Decimas sibi dent. This Constitution is verbatim repeated in the Saxon Constitutions, 
Conc. Angl. T. 1. p. 593.  whose Author and time are not known (although they seem to have been published about the year 1000) and this clause added to it, Sed unusquisque suâ Ecclesiâ & populo contentus, quod sibi non vult fieri, alteri nequaquam faciat. The 24th Canon of the Council of London, held in the year 1102. provided in the same manner for the burial of Parishioners, Ne Corpora defunctorum extra Parochiam suam sepelienda portentur, 
Ibid. T. 2. p. 22.  ut Presbyteri Parochiae perdant quod inde illis debeatur. It was therefore in the beginning of the twelfth Age, that the constitution of Parishes and Parochial rights received its last perfection; insomuch as before the end of this Age, it was accounted a matter indisputable, and the general practice of the Church of England, for every man to pay his Tithes to his own Parish Priest. 
Append. ad Conc. Lateran. p. 4. c. 4.  For among the Decretals of Pope Alexander III. writ about the year 1179, 
Conc. Labb. T. 10. p. 1569.  is one directed to the Bishops of Worcester and Winchester, wherein he saith; Cum homines de Hortun secundum generalem Ecclesiae Anglicanae institutionem de frugibus suis in automno, novem partibus sibi retentis, decimas Ecclesiae, cujus Parochiani sunt, sine diminutione solvere teneantur. In Wales the matter was not yet so fully settled; but the Great men paid their Tithes to what Religious persons or use themselves pleased; yet ever believing themselves obliged to pay them to God, and to consecrate them to some religious use.  
To complete this History of the Institution of Parishes and Parochial rights in England, it will be necessary to add somewhat concerning the beginning and occasion of the Vicarages, which make up almost one half of the Parishes in England, to the great detriment of Religion, and impoverishment of the Church. In the eighth, ninth, and tenth Ages, the Devotion of Princes and great persons was generally employed in building and endowing Monasteries, to which they gave very large possessions, and therewith the Advowson of the several Parochial Churches; or where no such were, the Monks themselves founded and endowed Parochial Churches, within their Manors, and in right of the foundation became Patrons of them. These Churches, or at least as many of them as were near to the Monastery, the Monks supplied by themselves, either by turns or by lot, according to the direction of the Abbot; and converted the whole Tithes and profits of them to the use of the Monastery. I suppose the number of these not to have been very great. As to the great number of Churches said to have been appropriated to the Abbey of Croyland between the years 800 and 950, in the Charters recorded by Ingulphus, 
Hist. Decim. c. 9 ●●  (which Mr. Selden allegeth in this case) all the Charters of Ingulphus before the 〈◊〉 of King Edgar, may be proved to be 〈◊〉. In the time of Edgar 〈◊〉 new Monasteries were erected, and the ancient Monasteries also then received their chief endowment; and both, as well as those which were founded after, obtained to themselves great number of Advowsons'. But these Churches they could not now personally supply as formerly, since the Reformation of the Monastic Order began by Dunstan about the year 944, and after much difficulty completed by him, with the assistance of Edgar, Ethelwold and Oswald before the year 980. The strict observation of the Rule of St. Benedict being then introduced, the Monks could no longer supply any Parochial Cures, being not permitted to be absent from their Cloisters so long, and so often, as that employment would require. They were therefore forced to quit that office entirely to the Secular Clergy, whom they presented to the Bishop, in the same manner as Lay-Patrons did, with this only difference, that they generally reserved to themselves some small pension, to be paid annually by the Incumbent, and were allowed to do it. These pensions were not very grievous during the times of the Saxons: and the Church thereby found no great inconvenience before the Norman Conquest.  
After the Conquest, the Norman Princes generally bestowed the Bishoprics and Abbeys of England to those of their own Nation; who according to the Spirit of that time, oppressed without mercy the poor inferior English Clergy, as the Norman Noblemen did the English Laity. The Abbots than began to exact larger Pensions from the Incumbents possessing the Benefices of their donation: And what the Norman Abbots began, even the English Abbots were forced to follow, to support themselves at that time, when the Norman Kings continually exacted great Sums of money from them; and scarce nominated any, but in virtue of a Simoniacal bargain. Both these reasons induced the Abbots to increase from time to time, the Pensions of their Clerks; and to procure to themselves more Advowsons', that they might increase the number, as well as the value of their Pensions. Against these innovations it was decreed in the Council of London, in the year 1102. 
Con. Angl. T. 2. p 22.  That the Monks should, neither obtain any new Advowsons', without the leave of the Bishop; nor impoverish their Churches by exorbitant Pensions. Can. 20. Ne Monachi Ecclesias, nisi per Episcopos accipiant; neque sibi datas ita spolient suis redditibus, ut Presbyteri ibi servientes, in aliquo penuriam patiantur. This Constitution was renewed in the Council of Westminster, 
ibid. p. 34.  in the year 1126. Can. 4. Nullus Abbas, Prior, Monachus, vel Clericus, Ecclesiam sive Decimam, seu quaelibet Beneficia Ecclesiastica, de dono Laici, sine proprii Episcopi assensu suscipiat.  
In the mean time, most of the prebend's were founded in Cathedral Churches of the old Foundation, as we now distinguish them, viz. in those which were then held by Secular Canons. Of these many were endowed with Tithes or portion of the Tithes of some Benefice, the Advowson of which belonged to the Bishop, or some other Founder of the prebend's. In this case it was lawful to such a Prebendary to serve the cure of the Benefice personally, if it could consist with his attendance required at the Cathedral Church; or to supply it by a Curate, who in time became a Vicar; or which was the most ordinary way, to reserve to himself a certain Pension appointed by the Bishop, and not to be altered without his leave; permitting the remaining profits to the Incumbent. In all which cases, such prudence and moderation was used; that I find no complaints of this kind made against the Secular Canons.  
But the oppression and covetousness of the Monks became intolerable; notwithstanding all the Decrees made against them, they continued their corrupt practice herein; and used several artifices to impoverish their Churches, and draw the profits of them to themselves. Sometimes they would treat with mercenary Priests, and hire them from year to year to supply the cure of their vacant Benefices; that so none, being in real possession of them, might be able to claim the profits, which they in the mean time usurped to themselves. Against this abuse was a Canon made in the Council held at Auranches in Normandy by the Pope's Legates, 
Conc. Angl. T●●. p. 101. Can. 9  in the year 1173 (which obliged all the Subjects of the King of England) Vt Ecclesiae Vicariis annuis non comittantur, that Churches should not be committed to yearly Curates: And the Council of Lateran held at that time, under Alexander III. directed, That if a Clerk were not presented within a certain time, the right of Presentation should devolve to the Bishop.  
At other times they obliged the Clerks whom they presented to their Benefices, to pay such large Pensions to them, as rendered it impossible to their Clerks, to subsist with honesty and decency. Against this the forementioned Council of Auranches provided; That, besides the Oblations, 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 22. Can. 9  at least a third part of the Tithes should remain to the Priest, who should serve the Church. De tertiâ parte Decimarum nihil Presbytero, qui servit Ecclesiae, auferatur. The Pope's also of this time published several severe Decrees against this oppression. Thus Alexander III writes to the Monks of the Diocese of York in the year 1170. Intelleximus, quod in Ecclesiis vestris, 
Extrau de Praebend. c. Avaritia.  de quibus certas portiones consuevistis percipere, portiones & antiquos reditus minorastis; quos Clerici Ecclesiarum istarum habuisse noscuntur. Ideoque mandamus, quatenus si quas portiones vel antiquos reditus Clericorum sine consensu Archiepiscopi vestri minuere praesumpsisiis, ad integritatem pristinam revocetis. The same Pope soon after wrote thus to the Bishop of Worcester, De Monachis, 
Ib. cap. D● Monachis.  qui Vicarios Ecclesiarum parochialium ita grava●●●t hospitalitatem tenere non possint eam providentiam habeas, quòd ad praesentionem eorum nullum recipias, nisi tantum ei de proventibus Ecclesiae coram te fuerit assignatum, ●●de jura Episcopalia possint persolvere, & congruam sustentationem habere. To the same purpose a Canon was published by this Pope, in the Council of Lateran in the year 1179, which may be found Extr. de Praebend. cap. Extirpandae. Ten years after this, 
Extr. de suppl. n●glig. Praelat. c. Sicut.  Pope Clement made a famous Decree, which at last effectually overthrew this artifice of the Monks, in these words. cum Monachi quidam Ecclesias, quae ad Praesentationem eorum pertinent, propriis usibus deputare nituntur, nec volunt ad eas, cum vacaverint, vocare personas.— admissos ita Pensionibus onerantes— Mandamus, ut nisi praedictae personae intra tempus à Lateranensi Concilio statutum, ad vacantes Ecclesias personas idoneas praesentaverint: ex tunc liceat (Episcopis Diocesanis) appellatione remotâ ordinare Rectores qui iis praeesse noverint & prodesse.  
The Monks being driven from all these artifices, at last sell upon that mischievous design of Appropriation, which gave the greatest blow to the Secular Clergy they ever received since the first dotation of the Church. By the power of money, they obtained of the Court of Rome, that the profits of certain Churches, whose Advowson belonged to them, should be appropriated to themselves and their successors for ever. Herein they first began with a few; then, finding their money to prevail in that corrupt Court, proceeded further; and at last put no bounds to their covetousness. When they first gained these Bulls of Appropriation, they pretended the Discipline of their Order to be so far relaxed in virtue of them, that they might personally serve the cure of their appropriated Churches: and this, for some while, they took upon them to do, converting thereby the entire profits of them to their own use. But here the Bishops interposed, and, since they could do no more, applied themselves to reduce the Monks within the bounds of their Cloisters; and by several Constitutions forbade them to serve their Churches personally. One of these Constitutions made by an unknown Bishop, in the reign of Henry III 
Conc. Ang. T. 2. p. 239.  may be found among the English Councils. Cum inhonestum sit & Canoni inimicum, ut viri Religiosi, quibus concessum est in proprios usus convertere Ecclesias, Ecclesiis parochialibus personaliter deserviant; statuimus ut in Ecclesiis sic eis concessis perpetuos Vicarios per nos constituant, & certam & competentem Vicariam ad taxationem nostram in dictis Ecclesiis infra 40 dies eis assignent. 
Ibid. p. 253.  A like Constitution was made by Walter de Cantelou Bishop of Worcester in the year 1240. Praecipimus, quòd viri Religiosi, Vicarios praesentent ad Ecclesias suas, quas habent in proprios usus, in quibus nondum sunt Vicarii constituti. The same command is almost verbatim repeated in the Constitutions of William de Grenfeld Archbishop of York, made in the year 1306; and in those of Gilbert Bishop of Chichester. 
Canc. Ang. T. 2. p. 44.  Not only did the Bishop's force the Monks to find perpetual Vicars in their appropriated Churches; but also appointed the Stipend, which they should be obliged to pay them. 
Ib. p. 183.  This the Provincial Council of Oxford in the year 1222. taxed at five marks, which was the fixed salary of a Curate at that time. For so the Constitutions of 
Ib. p. 440.  William de Grenfeld tax it: Stipendia Presbyterorum unius anni duximus taxanda quinque marcas. 
Cap. 28. Ib. p. 374.  And before him Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter, in his Canons made in the year 1287. commanded, That every perpetual Vicarage should have certain portions of the profits assigned it, Valentes ad minus pretium unius Capellani stipendia, quinque marcas. At this time the names of a Vicar and a Chaplain or a Curate, were used indifferently; 
Ib. p. 158.  So that in the Constitutions of Richard Bishop of Sarum, made in the year 1217. we read, Qui Parochialem habet Ecclesiam, si in eâ non velit residere, ordinet in illâ perpetuum Vicarium. Nor was there any difference in their Office, until the Vicars or Curates of the Benefices appropriated to the Monks, being instead of annual stipends, endowed with certain portions of the Tithes (which they still retain) began to receive Institution from the Bishop, and Induction into the profits of their Cures, in the same manner as Rectors did into their Benefices.  
The way of appropriating Churches being once opened by the Monks, and the method fixed; they multiplied daily, and were easily obtained. It was enough to pretend their Treasure exhausted, or their Houses dilapidated, or their Abbot put to great expenses in a journey to Rome, to procure the appropriation of a Church. The example was afterwards followed by Nunneries, Hospitals, Military Orders, Confraternities, Gilds, and even by the Seculars themselves, who sometimes procured Churches to be appropriated to prebend's, Colleges and Chantries. By this means, within the space of 300 years, above a third part, and those generally the richest Benefices in England became appropriated. Yet that the Secular Clergy may not be injustly censured herein, we must not suppose, that all the Appropriations which they now possess, were at first procured by them; but rather almost all of them were made originally to the Monks, and others; and after their dissolution conveyed to the Seculars by exchange, gift, or purchase.  
From this History which I have given of the Foundation and endowment of Parochial Churches in England; it may sufficiently appear, how grossly they mistake, who imagine that the first design of these Foundations, require the constant residence of a Beneficiary perpetually tied down to that one place and Benefice. From the beginning to the end of it, it appears, that no more was ever designed, than that every Parish should be provided for in Sacris either by alternate, or by perpetual Curates. Whether those bore the title of Parson, Vicar, or Curate; whether they executed their Office there in their own right, or in right of another; whether the care of that Parish was solemnly committed, or only delegated for a time to the Priest officiating; doth in no wise concern the design of the foundation: which only required, that the service of it should be perpetually supplied, in all the Offices of Religion, by Priests authorized by the Bishop. That this was the sole design, may be easily collected from almost every part of this History. I will not here recapitulate the whole, and form the particular deductions which may be made; lest I should seem to question or injure the judgement of the Reader, who may with equal exactness make the observations, and draw the consequences for his own satisfaction. But some things, which have not yet been touched, and which manifest the same design, it will not be unfit to add.  
Of these the first is, concerning the Residence required of Vicars, the Obligation of which is still continued. The Rectors of Parishes were permitted to be absent, and to substitute Curates in their place; as is evident from the Constitution of Richard Bishop of Sarum before cited; but Vicars were from the first institution of them obliged to personal Residence, So the tenth Constitution of St. 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 227.  Edmund Archbishop of Canterbury, made in the Synod of London, in the year 1237. Ad Vicariam statuimus nullum admittendum, nisi qui renuncians Beneficiis aliis, si quae habet curam animarum habentia, juret residentiam ibi facere, ac eam faciet continuè corporalem. This Canon is confirmed in 
Ibid. p. 272.  the Legatine Constitutions of Othobon. The reason of this is expressed in the 12th Canon of the same Council, that so some Priest may be resident at every Church, to discharge the cure of Souls. Provideant Diocesani, ut semper apud Ecclesiam resideat aliquis, qui de animarum cura sit sollicitus. At this time the Stipend of a Vicar was taxed at five marks, and the Stipend of a Curate at as much; as was before shown. So that it was supposed a Vicar could not maintain a Curate; for if he allowed five marks to him, as the Canon required, nothing would remain to sustain himself. Hence, if the Vicar did not make personal residence, it was taken for granted, that the service of that Church could not be supplied; and for this reason residence was enjoyed to them. The Canon made no provision for Vicar's able to maintain a Curate, because there were none such at that time. But afterwards, when Vicarages exchanged their Stipends for certain portions of Tithes, many of them became of considerable value; and to the Incumbents of such, the design of the Canon doth no less permit substitution of Curates, than to the Incumbents of Parsonages: and since every Law is best interpreted by the known design of it, those Vicars cannot in conscience be impleaded of perjury against their Oath of residence exacted in virtue of this Canon; who being Nonresident, maintain a Curate constantly residing; since they fully satisfy the design of the Canon, which was, that no Parochial Church should be destitute of the presence of a Priest. To justify this assertion, it may be observed, that the obligation of personal 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, 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 183.  Quia inhonestum nimis est, ut Ecclesiae prop●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 entirely the ministerial Office; and if a Deacon were admitted, the poverty of the Benefice 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, 
Ib. p. 272.  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 Superior, and retaining the Title, the others being Curates or assistants to him. For this the Constitution of Walter de Kirkham 
Ib. p. 297.  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 
Ib p. 183.  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, etc. Before both, the Council of Auranches had in the year 1173 commanded, 
Ib. p. ●●  that the Incumbents of the larger Parishes should, if they were able, maintain another Priest under them, Can. 5. Sacerdotes majorum Ecclesiarum, quibus ad ho● 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 lie 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 relation to Pluralities. The ancient Canons forbid a Priest to quit the service of that Church or Diocese, wherein he first received Orders; which made it unlawful to him to execute his Office in two several Dioceses. To this I suppose that Capitular to refer; Non liceat Clericum in duabus Civitatibus ministrare, nec Abbatibus plura Monasteria aut Cellas habere. 
Append. 1. d L. 4. c. 14. Capitul. T. 1. p. 794.  The latter part of it however forbids Plurality of Abbeys 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 Abbeys; and if the same licentiousness were then permitted to the Secular Clergy, it was but convenient to restrain them by a prohibition. 
Capitul. L. 6. c. 73. T. 1. p. 934.  Such a prohibition was made in the sixth Council of Paris. Placuit omni Synodali conventui, ut nullus Presbyterorum amplius quam unam Ecclesiam sibi vendicare praesumat. Another Capitular renews this prohibition, and affixeth a reason to it. 
L. 6. c. 73. Ibid.  Quia sicut quisque saecularis non amplius quam unam habere debet uxorem; ita & unusquisque Presbyter non ampliùs quam unam habere debet Ecclesiam. The same may be found in the Constitutions of Herardus Archbishop of Tours, 
Ib. p. 1291.  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: 
L. 1. c. 254.  Sicut Episcopus non plus potest habere quam 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 dispensing in this case, was continued to them. In the first Institution of Parochial Churches, the Bishop's might, if they had pleased, have committed the care of two Churches to every Presbyter, and always in this matter, have continued to act, as their own prudence and the general good of the Church directed them; till their whole power herein was transferred to the Pope by the Lateran Council. Before that Council the care of this whole matter was committed to the Bishop, that every Church should be supplied by a Priest of its own, but that only ubi id fieri facultas providente Episcopo permiserit, 
Capitular. T. 1. p. 565. cap. 11.  as saith the Capitular of Ludovicus Pius in the year 816: 
Conc. T. 10. p. 985.  And not unlike to it is the ninth Canon of the Council of Rheims in the year 1131. The Bishops might unite, divide, and direct the cure of Parochial Churches, as they thought convenient.  
In time, 
Concil. T. 10. p. 1516.  through the negligence of the Bishops, 
Hoveden, Hist. par. ●. ad ann. 1179.  such a Plurality crept into the Church, as ought not to be permitted. Against this a Canon was made in the third Council of Lateran in the year 1179. Can. 13. Quia nonnulli, modum avaritiae non ponentes, dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas, & plures Ecclesias Parochiales, contra sacrorum Canonum instituta nituntur acquirere— ne id de caetero fiat, districtive inhibemus (declaring the Institution of a second Benefice to be void) — Quia in tantum jam processit quorundam ambitio, ut non duas vel tres, sed sex aut plures, perhibeantur habere; cum nec duabus possint debitam provisionem impendere. At this time then, many Clergymen possessed six or more Benefices, and their rapaciousness gave occasion to the Canon; which for that reason none will deny to have been necessary. This Canon not taking its desired effect, 
Can. 29. Conc. T. 11. p. 180.  the famous Canon of the 4th Lateran Council, held under Pope Innocent in the year 1215 was made; wherein after a recital of the precedent Canon, it is decreed. Vt quicunque receperit aliquod Beneficium habens curam animarum annexam, si prius tale Beneficium obtinebat, eo sit jure ipso privatus; & si fortè illud retinere contenderit, alio etiam spolietur.— Hoc idem in personatibus decernimus observandum; addentes, ut in eâdem Ecclesia nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat, etiamsi curam non habeant animarum. Circa sublimes tamen & literatas personas, quae majoribus sunt beneficiis honorandae, cum ratio postulaverit, per sedem Apostolicam poterit dispensari. The Council therefore thought it reasonable to permit Pluralities, to persons of extraordinary merit; and to such the Council allows, 
Clement on Tit. 2. cap. 3. gloss.  Can. 5. to hold two Benefices incompatible: Such in the Canon Law are those accounted, which require residence; as all are, having cure of Souls annexed. Herein the Council allowed no more than was always practised, and thought reasonable; only the power of Dispensation was now lodged wholly in the Pope, which was before common to all Bishops. This turned to the great injury of the Church; For at the Court of Rome, Dispensations were promiscuously granted, without any other design than that of getting money; whereas Bishops were not wont to grant them, but for the general good of their Diocese, to entertain persons of eminent worth therein: or if they had done otherwise, would not have been able to have maintained their reputation in their Dioceses. All that was left to the Bishops, was the power of forcing Clergymen, who enjoyed Pluralities by the Papal Dispensation, to reside successively in every one of their Parishes, and to maintain Curates, when and where they did not personally reside. To this purpose a Constitution was made by Richard Bishop of Salisbury in the year 1217. 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 158. Ibid. p. 369.  and another by Peter Quivil Bishop of Exeter in the year 1287. As for the power of dispensing with residence, that de jure communi always belonged to the Bishops, and was still continued to them, being afterwards confirmed by the 13th Canon of the Council of Lions in the year 1274. in these words. Super residentiâ faciendâ possit Ordinarius gratiam dispensatiuè ad tempus facere; 
Conc. Labb. T. 11. p. 983.  prout causa rationabilis id exposcet. In virtue of this power Peter Quivil in the Constitution above cited, alloweth Nonresidence to Rectors of Churches, whose absence was supplied per institutos Vicarios, by Vicars or Curates allowed by the Bishop; or to whose Prebend or Dignity such Churches were annexed. Afterwards the Court of Rome encroached upon the right of Bishops in this case also, and usurped to itself the sole power of dispensing with residence, which had so long remained in the Bishops. The Power indeed of dispensing with Pluralities since the Council of Lateran and afterwards with Nonresidence, was ill placed in the See of Rome; because thereby injury was done to all other Bishops, and a door was opened to great corruptions: But none ever thought it unreasonable that such a power should be lodged somewhere. All the Petitions of the Parliament of England, made to our Kings before the Reformation, against Pluralities and Nonresidence, did not so much oppose the being of them, as the sole granting of them by the Pope; which exhausted the Treasure of the Nation, and diminished the original Power of the Prelates of the Church. 
Abridgement of the Records, Num. 50.  For in the Complaint of the Commons made in Parliament 2 H. 4. against Pluralities, wherein it was desired, that all such, as procured any Bulls from Rome for Plurality or Nonresidence, should incur the pain of Prouisoes; the Chaplains of Archbishops and Bishops, and all Scholars are excepted. When therefore the King and Parliament 21 H. 8. forbid any more such Bulls to be obtained from Rome, and appointed them to be granted by the Archbishops of the several Provinces; they did not confer any new power on the Archbishops, but only restored to them their original Power; the exercise of which had been long interrupted by Papal Usurpation.  
From what I have said, it will be easy to answer a scruple, which some have raised, viz. That neither a Papal Dispensation before the Statute 21 H. 8. nor an Archiepiscopal Dispensation since, could satisfy any Pluralist or Nonresident in point of conscience, where there is not a just and sufficient cause: Because such a Dispensation is against the chief design of the Laws made against them before that Statute, and now against the chief design of that Statute also. It hath been already proved, that both Plurality and Nonresidence are made unlawful only jure humano; so that if they be dispensed with by the same authority, the Conscience is fully satisfied. The Division and Settling of Parishes was first form, by the Authority of the several Diocesans; and from them alone proceeded the Obligation to Residence and Singularity of Benefices: So that to them de jure communi belonged the power of dispensing with both, till it was appropriated to the Pope in the Lateran Council, and in England to the Archbishops by the Statute 21 H. 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 Nonresidence; 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, although the latter may restrain and qualify 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 Bishoprics, prebend's, 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, 
Supra.  Can. 13. Quia nonnulli Dignitates diversas Ecclesiasticas, etc. and the 4th Council of Lateran, Can. 29. In eâdem Ecclesiâ nullus plures Dignitates aut Personatus habere praesumat, etc. 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. 
Conc. Ang. T. 2 p. 12.  Nulli liceat duobus Episcopatibus praesidere; which was made against the ill example of Stigand, who with the Bishopric of the South-Saxons, held that of the East-Angles, and afterwards, Winchester with Canterbury. After this Canon, no Bishopric 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. 
Ibid. p. 281.  In the 12th Canon of the Council of Westminster held in the year 1126. 
Ibid. p. 34.  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 Diocese 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. 
Ibid. p. 36  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 prebend's, 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 Bishoprics, and Preferments without cure of Souls; although 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, 
〈◊〉 273. p. 35.  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, Archdeacon's, and Prebendaries, than of Parochial Priests. The necessity of Episcopal residence for the benefit and convenience of the Diocese, 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, 
Conc Angl. T. 2. p 227.  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 quam Ecclesiasticis precept is noscuntur astricti. 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p 277.  Forty years after this Archbishop Peckham renewed the injunction, and to some Bishops, who would not reside, appointed Coadjutors. For Archdeacon's, 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 Diocese every year; that they should diligently inquire into the behaviour of them, examine the state of all the Parochial Churches, and signify 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, Archdeacon's 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, 
Ibid. p. 3●  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 Collegiate 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. 
Hi●t. Concil. ●●ident. p. 217.  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 Diocese in particular, that according to the design of those Foundations, ten or more Pre●endaries, persons of extraordinary merit and knowledge (as they are supposed, and aught to be) should constantly attend at the Cathedral Church, seated in the chief City of the Diocese; to see the public 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 alleged 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, 
Vid. Registr Peckhim, sol. 159.  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 common of the Church, concerning the Residence of Bishops and Archdeacon's, remain still in their full force. (The Case of Prebendaries is altered, by particular Local Statutes, and by later Ecclesiastical Constitutions.) And to the residence of Archdeacon's and Prebendaries a new obligation is added by the Statute 21 H. 8. 
Cap. 13.  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, although 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. 
Capitular▪ T. 1. p. 154.  So the tenth Canon of the French National Council, held by Boniface the Pope's 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, 
L. 6. c. 59 Ibid p. 932.  and takes another, shall be deposed. If we inquire 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, 
Con. Angl. T. 2. p 34.  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, 
Ib. p. 328.  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 Uniformity; 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 Domestic Chaplains in the Families and ● Retinues of Great Men is neither any innovation, nor corruption in the Church, as some would fancy. For the Capitular of Karloman, 
Capitular. T. ●. p. 146.  made in a full Synod in the year 742. directs, Cap. 2. That every Governor should have a Priest with him: Vnusquisque Praefectus unum Presbyterum secum habeat. And in the first Capitular of Charles the Great, 
Ib. p. 369.  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 Domestic Chaplains of the King to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and Stigand from Domestic Chaplain of Count Harold to the Bishopric 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, 
Lex 3. Conc. Ang. T. ●. p. 409.  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 public concern; than that the same persons should be obliged to attend personally upon the instruction of a few rustics; 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 Nonresidence, they excepted the Chaplains of Archbishops and Bishops, as was before said. And for the Kings of our Nation, their design in the munificent endowment of Churches, was as well to provide fit rewards for able persons employed in their own service, as to provide persons for the service of those Churches. Formerly therefore, while the Laity were either wholly unlettered, or given to a Military life, the King made use of the Service of Clergymen in all the Offices of the Chancery, Privy-Seal, Secretary, in all Courts of Justice, and in Embassies: And if Clergymen had not then been permitted to serve the King herein, none of these Offices could have been duly executed. The service of these Clergymen the King rewarded with Benefices and Ecclesiastical Preferments; and for the reward of the Masters and Clerks in Chancery, fixed many Advowsons' in the gift of the Lord Chancellor or Keeper for the time being; which still continue, although the reason of it hath long since ceased.  
To return to the History of Pluralities, after the power of dispensing with them was taken from the Bishops, and fixed wholly in the Pope by the Lateran Council: no further care or decency was observed therein, but within 60 years they grew so enormous, as not to be defended. This the Mendicant Friars, who in the intermediate time arose and multiplied, made great use of in their exclamations against the Secular Clergy, and by it made them odious. One of this Order, John Peckham being promoted to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, applied himself with great zeal to overthrow these Pluralities. For which end he made a Canon in the Council of Reading in the year 1279. 
Conc. Angl. T. 2. p. 320.  that all Benefices, held by one Clergyman without a Papal Dispensation, should be void except the last: and that all Clergymen who should hereafter receive more Benefices than one, without a Papal Dispensation, Seu titulo institutionis, seu commendationis, seu custodiae, should be ipso facto deprived of all, and incur the sentence of Excommunication. Afterwards in the heat of opposition, he proceeded so far, as to inveigh against all Plurality of Benefices as a mortal sin; and in the Council of Lambeth in the year 1281. 
Ib. p. 340▪  after a long invection against the sin of Plurality, admonished Primò, secundo & tertiò omnes hujusmodi pluralitatem damnabiliter occupantes, that they should within six months, freely and absolutely resign all their Benefices, except one, into the hands of their Diocesan. For disobedience to this injunction or admonition, he refused to confirm John de la More elected to the Bishopric of Winchester, and John de Kirkby elected to the Bishopric of Rochester; and notwithstanding all appeals and opposition, annulled their Elections, ob crimen pluralitatis; and caused the one to renounce the right of his Election, and the other to be rejected in the Court of Rome, to which he had appealed. The principle indeed, upon which he did proceed, was false; but the enormity of Pluralities was at that time so great, that it became the care of an Archbishop to oppose and reform it. I will produce the example of a score of Pluralists, who all died while he sat Archbishop; that from thence it may be judged, how different the case than was, from that which now obtains in the Church of England.  
Bogo de Clare held thirteen Benefices with cure of Souls in the Province of Canterbury, 
Ex Registro Winchelse. f. 34. & Pat. 22. E. ●. in Turri London.  beside several prebend's: But all this was inconsiderable to what he held in the Province of York; in which his Spiritual Preferments did, according to the tax of those times, amount to the yearly value of 1980 Marks; as appears by a Certificate of the Archbishop of York, in the Register of the Church of York.  
Galfridus Haspal died possessed of fifteen Benefices in the Province of Canterbury.  
Radulphus Framingham held nine Benefices in the same Province.  
Malcolmus de Harle held five Benefices in the same Province.  
Henricus Samson held six Benefices in so many several Dioceses of the same Province.  
Adam de Stratton died possessed of twenty three Benefices in the same Province.  
Adam de Walton held seven Benefices in the same Province.  
Petrus de Wynch held eight Benefices in the same Province.  
Adam Pain died possessed of fourteen Benefices in the same Province.  
Hugo de la Penne held seven Benefices in the same Province.  
Willelmus Brumton died possessed of ten Benefices in the same Province.  
Rogerus de la Ley held seven Benefices in the same Province, beside several Archdeaconries and prebend's.  
Rogerus Barret held six Benefices in the same Province.  
Willelmus de Monteforti held eight Benefices in the same Province.  
Robertus de Drayton held seven Benefices in the same Province.  
Willelmus de Percy held eight Benefices in both Provinces.  
Hugo de Cressingham held nine Benefices.  
Ricardus de Hengham held fourteen Benefices.  
Johannes Clarel held fifteen Benefices.  
Hugo de Clos held fourteen Benefices.  
By the vigorous opposition made to these extravagant Pluralities by Archbishop Peckham, some Reformation seems to have been made. for when Pope Vrban V. 
Con●. Angl. T. 2. p. 612.  in a Bull dated 1365. May 5. after a long invection against Pluralities, commanded the names of all the Pluralists in England to be transmitted to him (not that he intended to reform the abuse, but only to squeeze money from them) the Plurality of those times was found to consist, not so much in Benefices with cure of Souls, as in prebend's of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, of which there was then a far greater number than remains now in England. Yet the Pope in his Bull makes no difference between Plurality of Spiritual Promotions with or without cure of Souls, but taxeth both alike. I have seen the return made to the Pope, of all the Pluralists residing at that time in or about London; wherein (if my memory fails me not) I observed no great number of Benefices with cure of Souls held by one man; but many examples of great number of prebend's held by one person. Among whom is William de Wickham, who held thirteen prebend's and Dignities in so many several Churches, and but one Benefice with cure of Souls, in the Province of Canterbury. For by this time almost all the prebend's and Archdeaconries of England, were got into the hands of Canonists, who quickly found out subtle distinctions, quirks and devices, whereby to evade the obligation of personal constant residence upon their Dignities. As for Benefices with cure of Souls, more were then held by several men, than is now allowed in the Church of England. Whether Pluralities continued in the same state till the Reformation; whether in the intermediate time they increased or decreased, I cannot certainly affirm; but suppose it not unlikely, that as the corruptions of the Court of Rome granting Dispensations grew daily more exorbitant, so less shame or modesty was observed by her, in giving enormous Dispensations of this kind; and just before the Reformation, flourished in England a more monstrous Pluralist, than was ever known before, that is, Cardinal Wolsey, who with the Archbishopric of York, held two Bishoprics 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 Diocese, 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 Marquis or Earl, four of a Viscount, three of a Baron, Lord Chancellor and Knight of the Garter, two of a Duchess, Marchioness, Countess or Baroness being Widows; one of the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Warden of the Cinque-ports: all Brothers and Sons of Temporal Lords and Knights; all Doctors and Bachelors 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 King's Chaplains are sworn of the King's 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 Pope's 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 Canon's of the Church limit the use of it; that so neither of the Benefices therein personally united, may receive any de●riment, either in spiritual or mixed 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, etc. 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 always, 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 Successors, 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 although no more than two months' Residence, upon the Benefice less frequented, be expressed, yet thirteen Sermons are enjoined 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 judgement 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 judgement will not be passed concerning some other Cases, which have been incidentally mentioned; as, of the Residence of Bishops at their Cathedral Churches, which for the greater good of their Dioceses, the Council of London held under Archbishop Lanfranc commanded to be translated to the principal Cities of their Dioceses; of the obligation of Prebendaries and Archdeacon's to constant Residence; of the incompatibility of two such Dignities; of the unlawfulness of holding Commendams in another Diocese, or being translated from one Diocese 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, 
Extr▪ de Testam. cap. Cumin off.  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 of Superiors, to put them in execution.  
But supposing Plurality to have been against the first design of Parochial institution and endowment; what wonder is it, that Ecclesiastical Ordinances of humane institution, should in the compass of 1100 years' change and deviate from their first design; when Civil Ordinances do so often change, and therewith sometimes force a change of Ecclesiastical Constitutions, as must necessarily happen in all mixed cases. It is notorious, that in the first design of Parochial Cures, no Quare impedit could be brought against a Bishop; that formerly the persons and goods of Clergymen were not subject to the jurisdiction or cognisance of Laymen; that all Estates and Possessions granted by the Crown to Laymen were in consideration of Military or other Service to be paid by them; that no Taxes could be imposed on the Clergy but by themselves in Convocation; that all Tithes were given, and appropriations of them made for the maintenance of Clergymen, or at least for religious uses; that no place was exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Ordinary by the first institution (which remained entire till the end of the eleventh Age) that the direction of the King's Conscience in deciding Matters of Equity, that is, the execution of the Office of Chancellor, belonged wholly to the Clergy. In all these and many other cases, which might be produced, the first design is wholly changed; and yet no such vehement accusation is brought against the innovations. Perhaps some of these old Institutions may, by the change of circumstances of times, deserve to have been changed; and the change to be continued. For although it be in many things a good rule to reduce matters to their first institution, yet it is not always so. In the first Institution all things were adapted to such circumstances of other things as then obtained; and if in length of time the latter change, reason will direct the former to be changed with them. But it is enough to show that derivation from the first design is not always blamable, and that the charge of it lieth equally against many other cases, which yet are not blamed. I need not add any more concerning this head; since I have showed, that the permission of Pluralities is not contrary to the first design of the division and endowment of Parishes.   

CHAP. III.  
IT remains in the third place to be manifested, That the use of Pluralities, as now practised, is not inconvenient to the Church. These inconveniencies as they are urged and exaggerated by the oppugners of Pluralities (more particularly by a worthy Gentleman, who calls himself the The Parson's Counsellor, 
Par. 1. c. 4. & 7.  and by an eminent Author, whose Character and Worth I reverence too much to name him in this place) may be reduced to these four heads: Neglect of the Cure of Souls; Dilapidations; Disuse of Hospitality and Alms; and Scandal.  
For the first, it is affirmed, 
The words of the latter Author are included in uncis.  That Pluralities are prejudicial to the advancement of Christian Religion; that there are many Pluralists in England, that hardly see either of their Livings in a Year; that almost all the greatest and best Livings in the Kingdom are now held by Pluralists, and served by mean Curates; that hereby many poor Souls are neglected in danger to perish; that in many places two great Parishes are left to the care of two Boys, that came but the other day from School, and perhaps fitter to be there still; while the Shepherd that takes the fleece, either feasts it out in his Lord's family, or takes his ease upon a Prebend or Deanery: That it is no other than [Hiring out the Sacred Trust to pitiful Mercenaries at the cheapest rate; that it is a thing of high scandal for one to receive the Fees, and commit the Work to the care of some inferior or raw Practitioner;] that no Clergyman can with conscience expect his deuce from his Parishioners, that doth not perform his duty in the first place.  
For the second, it is alleged, That Nonresidence and Dilapidations for the most part go hand in hand; that you shall seldom see a Nonresident, but he is also a Dilapidator.  
For the third, it is pretended, That one end of the Law of Residence 21 H. 8. was to maintain Hospitality; that every Clergyman ought to remember, that the poor have a share in the Tithes with him. For which purpose the Decree of Pope Sylvester concerning the quadripartite, and of King Alfred concerning the tripartite division of the Goods of the Church are produced. That generally the best Livings of the Kingdom are served with poor Curates, and no Hospitality kept.  
In the last place, it is urged, That [those who are guilty of such disorder, have much to answer for the reproach they have brought on this Church, and on the Sacred Function by their ill practices; that these are things of so crying a nature, that no wonder if the Wrath of God be ready to break out upon us: that these are abuses, that even the Church of Rome, after all her impudence is ashamed of; and are at this day generally discountenanced all France over: that it is an inexcusable fault, and a scandal that may justly make us blush: that all the honest Prelates at the Council of Trent] the greater and better number of the Prelates and Fathers in that Council, endeavoured to suppress it: that the Pope formerly gave frequent Dispensations to take Pluralities without number or measure; and that thereby in this Kingdom many Bishoprics, Abbeys, Priories, &c were enjoyed (viz. the profits of them) by Foreigners, who never saw them, or took any care of their duties; that it is not much better now: nay, that the grievance is now become as great as ever, and deserves a new and stricter Reformation: that we are now in a far worse condition than before the making this Act (21 H. 8.) for that Dispensations from Rome were costly, came slowly, being far to fetch: that there is ten Dispensations for Pluralities now, for one then; and few of those dispensed with were Nonresident upon both Livings as now they be: that it is scandalous for Clergymen to appear worldly minded or greedy of riches, etc.  
In these Objections the Author first mentioned hath affirmed many things, which are downright false; in other things hath betrayed a gross ignorance. The other Author is a person of too great worth and learning, to be guilty either of fraud or ignorance; but only hath suffered himself to be herein transported, with too much heat and zeal, before he well considered the Case. So that wheresoever in the following Answers I shall charge fraud or ignorance upon the Objections, I desire it may be referred to the first Objector only.  
For a general Answer to these Objections, it may be observed, that neither a neglect of the Cure of Souls, of Charity and Hospitality, nor Dilapidations, nor the Scandal consequent to any of these faults, are a necessary consequence of Plurality. If no Clergymen possessing one Benefice were Nonresident, and in that sense neglected the cure of Souls; if none of them were guilty of Dilapidations, Inhospitality, etc. and upon that account scandalous: or if all Pluralists were guilty of these disorders; then all such faults might be justly charged upon Plurality. But if many Clergymen possessing but one Benefice, are Non-redent, uncharitable and dilapidators; and if many Pluralists do reside at one Living for the greater part, and at the other for some considerable part of the year; and do neither dilapidate, nor neglect alms or hospitality; it must be acknowledged, that such faults are not the necessary consequences of Plurality, but of the vicious and depraved nature of some men, which would continue and exert itself, as well in the possession of one Benefice, as of two: As a bad man will be so, whether he liveth at London or at York, or at both places. Such therefore are merely personal faults, and cannot without fraud be charged upon Plurality.  
For a particular Answer to the first Objection, I affirm, That the Cure of Souls is not neglected by Plurality. For in all cases of Plurality, the Pluralist either personally supplies the cure of both Livings, and in an Ecclesiastical sense resideth upon both, being so near to either as to be personally conversant among them, and always at hand to satisfy extraordinary occasions; or if the greater distance of the Livings will not permit this, one of them is supplied by a Curate. If he be Nonresident from both, that is a case for which I am no more obliged to answer, than such are, who possessing but one Benefice reside not at it. And of this sort there are a much greater number, than of those who possessing two Benefices, reside at neither. Where two Benefices not contiguous are possessed by one man, we acknowledge that one of them must be supplied by a Curate; and that to supply a Benefice by a Curate is not unlawful, was before largely proved. Besides the Pluralist himself is obliged to reside at that Benefice, which he less frequenteth, at least three months every year; and if he doth not perform this obligation, his Superior is to be blamed, who permits it. All this while, it must be remembered, that I account not for such cases, where the Incumbent is absolutely Nonresident, either for his health, or because he is employed by the King, or in any public Station, or liveth in the Family of his Lord, or attendeth the Service of the Church, in general by prosecuting his studies elsewhere, or the service of any Cathedral of which he is a member. All these Cases are incident as well to Unalists as Pluralists, and more frequent in them; so that it concerns the one as well as the other to defend them; it being unreasonable that the Pluralist should be obliged alone to defend the ●ault common to both, if it be indeed a fault. This Caution will throw off all those Exclamations against Pluralists, of neglecting poor souls; of serving the best Livings by mean Curates; of the Shepherds taking the Fleece, and feasting it out elsewhere; of hiring out the Sacred Trust to Mercenaries; of committing it to raw Practitioners, to Boys, etc. For all this let them answer, who supply their one Benefice by a Curate; and what they shall allege for themselves, a Pluralist may much better apply to his Case, who resides nine months at one Living, and three at the other, as the Canon requireth. But yet, not to dismiss the Objectors thus; why must all Curates be esteemed pitiful Mercenaries? If because they supply the Cure for a certain sum of money; that name may be as well fixed upon all Incumbents themselves, who receive Titles to be converted into money; but especially upon all the Clergy of the City of London, whose Stipends are fixed by Act of Parliament, and paid in money. The way of making Curates odious, by fixing such a name upon them, may pass with unthinking men; but by the same reason, the Enemies of the Church may call all Clergymen, and even the Bishops themselves, Mercenaries. Further, why must all Curates be accounted pitiful Mercenaries, Boys, fitter to be kept still at School, and raw Practitioners? Many persons now of great rank and character in the Church, have been Curates; nay far the greater part of the present Incumbents were once Curates; and of the present Curates, many are persons of great worth and learning, most of them very well fitted to direct and instruct such Country-Parishes, as are committed to their care: And if all be not such, it is not the fault of the Pluralist, but of the Bishop who ordains them, or allows them. Not a few of them are older and better Practitioners than the Incumbent himself; and then, instead of an high Scandal, it is an high benefit to the Church, for one to receive the Fees and another to supply the Cure. If it be asked, with what conscience in that case the Incumbent can receive the profits; it may be as well asked, with what conscience a Landlord can receive rend from any husbandman, who bears the whole labour and charge of tilling the ground; or with what conscience a Bishop can receive the profits of his Bishopric, who committeth the exercise of almost all his Jurisdiction to Lay-Chancellours and Officials; or with what conscience an Incumbent can receive the profits of his Chapels of ease, which are necessarily served by Curates; or with what conscience either B●shop or Layman can receive the profits of an Impropriation, which were originally given for the discharge of the cure of that Church. I do not hereby insinuate, that any of these cases are unlawful; but maintain, that if it be unlawful for an Incumbent to receive the profits, because the Cure is discharged by another, it will be difficult to defend these and such other cases.  
As for the charge of hiring out this Sacred Trust to Mercenaries at the cheapest rate: I am sorry to see a mistake of that nature. The allowance generally made to Curates is very large and plentiful; and if it be not so, it is the fault of the Bishop, in whose power it is to fix the Stipend. And for expecting deuce from Parishioners without performing personal duty, a Parson's Counsellor ought to know, that these deuce are not the gift of the present Parishioners, but of the ancient Princes and Great Men of our Nation; and are held by as good a Title as any Lands or Estates in England, which all proceeded from the gift of the Crown at sometime or other. If it be said, that the former were given for personal Sacred Service; so were the latter given for personal Military Service, which yet hath long since ceased to be paid: But after all, it is the effect of pure ignorance to imagine, that the endowments of the Clergy, were given for the personal performance only of Sacred Service by the proper Incumbents at those particular places, where the endowments are made; as was above sufficiently proved in the historical part of this Treatise.  
Lastly, That almost all the greatest and best Livings of England are now held by Pluralists (who hardly see either of their Livings in a year) and served by mean Curates; is no better than a calumny.  
To the second Article, touching Dilapidations, I only answer, That Dilapidation is no more incident to a Pluralist, than to an Unalist; and for this I appeal to Experience, as well as the Objector: and add, that where ever it is found, it is the fault of the Bishop and Archdeacon, if it be not corrected and amended.  
The third Objection is drawn from the neglect of Alms and Hospitality; and to this the former Answer might suffice, That Pluralists are no more guilty of this neglect, than Unalists. But because the Objection is popular, I will consider it somewhat further. It is said, that the Clergy are obliged by the design of the Act 21 H. 8. to maintain Hospitality: so were the Laity possessing the Lands of dissolved Abbeys, not only by the design, but by the express words of the Act 31 H. 8. yet no such thing was ever done by them, nor required of them. It is added, that the Decree of Pope Sylvester directeth a fourth part of the goods of the Church to be given to the poor; but it is somewhat shameful for a Professor of the Law, to cite the Decrees of Pope Sylvester, as genuine, which were forged almost 500 years after his death. As to the Law of King Alfred; why are not those Laws as well produced, which direct a community of possessions in the Bishop and his Clergy, as in the first endowment of the Church? May that Clergyman be accursed, who doth not give Alms of that he hath, and maintain Hospitality among his Neighbours and Parishioners according to his circumstances and ability: yet no man can, without great ignorance of the change of times, imagine the same obligation of alms and hospitality to continue in the Clergy, which was formerly. Before the Reformation, it was the humour of all orders of men in the Nation, to maintain an effuse Hospitality (to which they were the more induced, by the great cheapness of all things consumable); and without it no Great man could keep up his Interest or Reputation. Now the Lay-Nobility and Gentry have wholly laid it aside, and if it could be continued by the Clergy, it would be accounted no other than Luxury and Prodigality. Then it was a real Charity to make constant Feasts for the inferior people, who lived very meanly and hardly. Now they generally live so well, that a good entertainment would very little oblige them, and would scarce be a work of Charity. Then the Revenues of the Clergy were very great; no Taxes were imposed on them, but by themselves; the recovery of their rights and deuce was easy, being left wholly to the decision of their own Courts; their Title for life was secure; what ever change in Government happened, they were undisturbed; they were not obliged to make any provision for Posterity; and lastly little Learning was then required or expected of them, and consequently few Books necessary to them. On the contrary, since the Reformation, the far greater part of their Revenues have been taken away from them, and even of that little which remains, a great part is diminished by prevailing modi decimandi; and after all it is often not to be obtained but by course of Law, and that taken out o● the hands of Ecclesiastical Judges in most cases of moment, and put into a long, costly, and difficult method; they are burdened with constant ordinary Taxes unknown to Laymen; in extraordinary Taxes they are generally forced to pay a much greater proportion than other men, who in some places oppress them as they please herein, without any remedy: concerning the insecurity of their Title, it is not necessary to say any thing, and the Law hath allowed them to bring up children for the service of the public, and consequently to make a competent provision for them; and lastly, a great measure of Learning and Knowledge being become necessary to them, a much greater number and variety of Books is now requisite, than was formerly to them. These considerations may persuade any reasonable man, that it is not just to expect equal Alms and Hospitality, in the present as in the ancient Clergy. But after all, Plurality is so far from obstructing, that it increaseth both Charity and Hospitality in the Clergy; enabling them to perform both more freely and plentifully, than otherwise they could do; and that may be as well performed in the Benefice less frequented, as in the other. For there is no Benefice so rich, which a man may not, if he so pleaseth, expend wholly in Alms and Hospitality, in that three months' residence, which the Canon requireth. As to matter of fact, that no such Residence is made, if it were true, it would be the fault of the Bishop, who doth not enforce the Pluralist to observe the terms of his Dispensation. But when it is generally affirmed, it is no more true, than that other charge, that no Hospitality is kept by Pluralists.  
For the fourth Accusation, raised from the Scandals consequent to Plurality, there need no other answer, than that since all the disorders and inconveniencies, from which the supposed Scandal doth arise, are proved to be unjustly charged upon Plurality, the imputation of Scandal must fall to the ground.  
If Plurality be neither unlawful in itself, nor contrary to the design of the endowment of Churches, nor the cause of any notable inconveniencies, as hath been largely proved; it cannot be the occasion of any Scandal to those who rightly judge. It will indeed still be occasion of Scandal to such as have been deceived by the unjust exclamations, which have been made against it, and refuse to be undeceived: but then the fault lies wholly, not in the nature of the thing, but in the Authors of the Scandal, who represent an innocent practice of the Church as an inexcusable Scandal. If the Surplice and Cross be scandalous to any; those men only are to be blamed, who have persuaded the simple people, that they are unlawful or superstitious. If the Confession of the Trinity be matter of Scandal to a Socinian, he must lay the whole blame upon his own understanding. The Church is not obliged to account for these things, nor to change her Doctrines, Ceremonies and received Practices, to please the humour of brainsick men. However somewhat must be particularly answered to that violent exclamation, whereby they pretend the practice of the Church of England herein, to be more corrupt and enormous, than it ever was before the Reformation, or now is in the Church of Rome. It is alleged, that the Church of Rome, after all her impudence, is ashamed of these abuses: yet it is well known, that the practice is continued and defended by her. The Example of France is produced against us; but I would fain know what abuse our Church hath in this kind, comparable to their Commendatory Abbots? The opinion of the greater and better number of the Prelates in the Council of Trent, is produced with ostentation against Pluralities; yet I make use of the same History of that Council, 
Pag. 252.  and therein I find these words: The wiser sort of Prelates agreed uniformly to inhibit all, of what condition soever, to have more than three Befices. It is acknowledged, that the Pope formerly gave Dispensations for 〈◊〉, without number or measure: and presently added, that it is not much better now, nay far worse. Of the truth of this let every man judge. Our Church hath confined her Dispensations to the number of two Benefices, and the measure to the distance of 30 miles. The number is never exceeded; the distance very rarely, and that only when the Archbishops are overruled by an express command from Court, which hath not been done in late years. 
Hist. Counc. Trent, p. 251, 252.  Father Paul could have told the Author of this Objection, that in the Church of Rome, 30 or 40 Benefices in divers places of Christendom were often united in favour of some one person; that Bishoprics were often given to men not having the Episcopal Order; and that Pope Clement VII. did in the year 1534 grant to this Nephew the Cardinal de Medicis, all the Benefices and Spiritual Preferments of the whole Christian World, Secular and Regular, with and without cure, being vacant, for six months together. Or if these Examples will not satisfy, let the Practice of Plurality in Archbishop Peckham's time (as it was before set down) be remembered. Will any one now say, that such exorbitancy of Pluralities is now practised in our Church? After the conviction of this principal article of accusation, it will not be necessary to pass on to the consutation of lesser mistakes; as that formerly in this Kingdom many Bishoprics and Abbeys were enjoyed by Foreigners, who never saw them: Whereas there never were in England above four such Bishops, and not one Abbot that I could ever find. That Dispensations were then few, because they must be had from Rome, came slowly, etc. whereas their Legates and Procurators here resident were wont to grant them. That there are ten Dispensations for Pluralities now for one then; which is affirmed without any proof or ground: and that few of those dispensed with, were Nonresident upon both their Livings, as now; whereas then Bishops and Noblemen were wont to retain in their Families five times as many Chaplains and Clergymen, as they do now.  
The last occasion of Scandal pretended to be administered by Pluralities, is that it causeth the Clergy to appear worldly-minded; whereas they ought rather in imitation of the first Preachers of the Gospel, to affect, or at least sit down contented with Poverty; that they ought only to propose to themselves the glory of God, and not their own interest; and that it is unevangelical to desire increase of possession. These Topics appear very plausible indeed, and were therefore employed against the Secular Clergy formerly by the Mendicant Friars, and lately by their successors in hypocrisy the Puritans. Yet it was always observed of them, that they were more greedy of riches, and at the same time more sordid, than any other generation of men. Whether the Observation be not true of these also, let the world judge. But to come to the merits of the cause; it is a very fallacious argument, to infer from the Poverty and Simplicity of the first planters of the Gospel, that their Successors ought to be so. It may with as much reason be deduced from the community of possessions, which obtained among all Christians in the Apostolic times, that the goods of all Christians ought to be common now. In the beginning of Christianity, the Laity as well as Clergy were generally poor: 
1 Cor. 1. 26.  For not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble were called. Yet no man thinks it reasonable, that the Laity should be now concluded by this example. To the first Preachers of the Gospel, the Miracles wrought by them created a sufficient regard and reverence; but after the ceasing of Miracles, that was to be obtained to the Clergy by their Learning and Authority, neither of which can be got or maintained without competent riches. Certainly God best understood what was fit to be done herein, when he founded the Church and State of the Jews: Yet he commanded the Clergy to be endowed far in proportion above the Laity. Whereas now, all that the Clergy desire, is that the small remaining part of what was anciently given to them, by the munificence of our Princes; and which after all raiseth them not equal level with ingenuous persons of the Laity; should not be taken from them. The envy and malignity, wherewith almost all sorts of men look upon the possessions of the Clergy, is indeed unaccountable. It cannot be denied, that they are Englishmen and freeborn Subjects as well as others, that they have the same Rights and Privileges with others; that what they possess was given to them by the same Authority (if not greater) by which any Laymen hold their Estates; that out of their possessions they contribute as much as any others to the support of the public, nay far more than any others in proportion; that they live as soberly and inoffensively (to say no more) as others do; yet a competent Estate invested in them, shall be envied and maligned, which in the most vicious Layman of the Nation would have escaped without envy or murmur. As if a man must be made incapable of all the comforts and blessings of life, only because he peculiarly attends the public Service of God, and instructs other men in piety and virtue. But it is pretended, that they are obliged by their profession to seek only the glory of God, and to despise the riches of this World. All this other Christians are obliged to do as well as they; to seek the glory of God in the first place, and to despise Riches, when they are not consistent with the preservation of Religion. But to imagine, that a Clergyman ought in no wise to seek his own temporal good, or the increase of possession, is Fanatical Nonsense; which no man, that ever pretended to it, would abide by in his own concern. It is not contrary to the Gospel nor the design of the Sacred Office, simply to desire riches or increase of possessions; but only by sinister methods to procure, or to make an ill use of them. Now Pluralists are no more inclined by the nature of Plurality, to make an ill use of their revenues or possessions, than Unalists are by the nature of one Benefice to do the same. Any one may perform the duties of a good Clergyman, and a good conscience, or he may neglect them, in either case. It is therefore the ill use, not the being, of riches, which ought to be blamed in Clergymen. But I hope the Clergy are not yet so corrupt, that it can be justly said, that they make not generally as good use of their revenues, as other men.  
I have answered all the pretended inconveniencies of Pluralities, and shown, 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 aught to be remedied by the Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Superiors, 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 and 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, 
Bishop of Worcester's Charge. p. 48.  who would confine the sufficiency of a subsistence merely to the necessaries of life. There aught 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 employment, would be bred up to the Clergy, or enter into holy Orders. For here, all the Topics of Evangelical poverty, and how a Clergyman ought not to seek the things of the world, or to desire riches, would persuade 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 expense 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 persuade 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, etc. 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 persuadeth 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 increase 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 complete 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; although the Rewards, and temporal Advantages of other Professions are far Superior to those of the first, and yet no Man murmurs 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 Clergyman, 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 Wellbeing 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 Clergyman, 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? 
Preface to Hist. of Tithes.  Of these indeed Mr. Selden hath said the Library of a Clergyman 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 Error, 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 Clergyman 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 Judgement 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 Virtue in that case could scarce be maintained; when such would scorn to converse with those, whose Poverty made them far Inferior 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 Virtue 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 stripped of his large Possessions, and reduced to a bare subsistence; and then let him imagine, if he can, that his Virtue 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 Clergymen, 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 prebend's 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, aught to be provided for the Clergy of other Dioceses, 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 Archbishop 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 Trial, such as we lately saw. These and the abovementioned 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 Nursing-fathers', 
Isa. 49. 2●.  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 Practices, 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 Clergymen 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 Colleges do not satisfy 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 Dioceses; or maintaining and preserving Religion and Virtue 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 irresistible 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 disburdened 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 hun● 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 public 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 Practices, nor can they be excused by any Principles laid down in this Treatise.  
But because all Men will not be persuaded to do their Duty, I beg leave in the next place, to address myself, with all Reverence to the Archbishops 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 Dioceses, 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 Fabric of the Church. What the Lord Bacon observed concerning 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 grali●i●th read gratifieth. p. 13. l. 2●. 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. A●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, Published in Michaelmas Term, 1691.  
A De●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' Government, in which their Carriage towards him is Justified, and the absolute Necessity of their endeavouring to be fre●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, Entitled, The Frauds of Romish Priests and Monks, set forth in Eight Letters.  
L. Annaei Elori Rerum Rom●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 scriptua●um Canonicè expositarum & Ecc●●siasticae Traditionis suffragiis, brevitèr quidem sed luculentèr asseriter. Authore Samuele Hill, Diaeces●ôs Bathoniensis & Wellensis Presbyterio. Londini Typis S. Roycr●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.