account. There is not any one thing more frequently provided against, than that any of the clergy should leave their church, and go to any other church, or live anywhere else without the bishop's leave and consent; nor is there any thing clearer from all the canons of the first ages, than that they considered the clergy of every church as a body of men dedicated to its service; that lived upon the oblations of the faithful, and that was to labour in the several parts of the ecclesiastical ministry, as they should be ordered by the bishop. In the fourth general council at Chalcedon, pluralities do first appear: for they are mentioned and condemned in the tenth canon, which runs thus: No clerk shall at the same time belong to two churches; to wit, to that in which he was first ordained, and that to which, as being the greater, he has gone, out of a desire of vain glory; for such as do so, ought to be sent back to that church in which they were at first ordained, and to serve there only: but if any has been translated from one church to another, he shall receive nothing out of his former church, nor out of any chapel or alms-house belonging to it: and such as shall transgress this definition of this general council, are condemned by it, to be degraded.* I go next to a worse scene of the church, to see what provisions were made in this matter about the eighth century, both in the east and in the west: the worse that those ages and councils were, it makes the argument the stronger; since even bad men in bad times, could not justify or suffer such an abuse. In the year 787, the second council of Nice was held, that settled the worship of images. The 15th canon of it runs thus: "No clerk shall from henceforth be reck * Routh, Script. Eccl. Opusc. vol. ii. p. 407. oned in two churches" (for every church had a catalogue of its clergy, by which the dividends were made), "for this is the character of trafficking, and covetousness, and wholly estranged from the ecclesiastical custom. We have heard from our Saviour's own words, that no man can serve two masters; for he will either hate the one or* love the other, or cleave to the one and despise the other: let every one therefore, according to the apostle's words, continue in the vocation in which he is called, and serve in one church: for those things which filthy lucre has brought into church matters are contrary to God. There is a variety of employments for acquiring the necessary supplies of this life: let every one that pleases, make use of these, for furnishing himself: for the apostle says, 'These hands ministered to my necessities, and to those that were with me.' This shall be the rule in this town, which is guarded by God; but in remote villages an indulgence may be granted, by reason of the want of men." It is upon this that the canonists do found the first of the two reasons, for which only they allow that a dispensation for holding two benefices may be lawful; one is, the want of fit and sufficient men for the service of the church. The foundation of the other will be found in the canon, which I shall next set down. It is the 49th canon of the sixth council at Paris, under Lewis the Good, in the year 829. This council came after a great many that had been held by Charles the Great and his son, for purging out abuses, and for restoring the primitive discipline. These councils sat at Frankfort, Mentz, Aken, Rheims, Chalons, Tours, Arles; and this of Paris was the last that was held + Labbe, vol. xiii. col. 753. * [and] upon that design. In these, all the primitive canons relating to the lives and labours, and the government of the clergy, were renewed. Among others is that of Chalcedon, formerly mentioned; but it seems there was no occasion given to make a special one against pluralities, before this held at Paris, which consisted of four provinces of France, Rheims, Sens, Tours, and Rouen. The canon runs thus :-"As it becomes every city to have its proper bishop; so it is also becoming and necessary that every church dedicated to God, should have its proper priest. Yet covetousness, which is idolatry (of which we are much ashamed), has so got hold of some priests, and caught them captives in its fetters, that they, blinded with it, know neither whither they go, nor what they ought to be or do; so that they being kindled with the fire of covetousness, and forgetful of the priestly dignity, neglecting the care of those churches to which they were promoted, do by some present given or promised, procure other churches not only from clerks, but from laymen, in which they do against law undertake to perform the ministry of Christ. It is not known whether their bishops are consulted in this matter, or not; if they are, without doubt, their bishops become partakers of their sin: but if they presume to do it without consulting them, yet it is to be imputed to the bishop's negligence. There is scarce a priest to be found who warreth worthily and diligently in that church in which he is dedicated, to the divine service: but how much less will he be able to do that worthily in two, three, or more churches ? This practice brings a reproach on the Christian religion, and a confusion on the priestly order. The covetousness of the clergy is censured by their people ; the worship of God is not performed in places consecrated to him; and as was observed in the former chapters, the souls of the people are thereby much endangered. Wherefore, we do all unanimously appoint, that no bishop suffer this to be done in his parish (or diocese, these words being used promiscuously) any more; and we decree that every church that has a congregation belonging to it, and has means by which it may subsist, shall have its proper priest; for if it has a congregation, but has not means by which it may subsist, that matter is left to the bishop, to consider whether it can or ought to be supported or not. But it is specially recommended to their care, to see that under this pretence, no priest may, out of covetousness, hold two or three churches, in which he cannot serve, nor perform the worship of God."*-The last provisions in this canon, are the grounds upon which the canonists found the second just cause of dispensing with pluralities, which is, when a church is so poor, that the profits which arise out of it cannot afford a competent maintenance to a clerk: but then the question arises, What is a competent maintenance? This they do all bring very low, to that which can just maintain him: and they have so clogged it, that no pretence should be given by so general a word, to covetousness, voluptuousness, or ambition. And indeed while we have so many poor churches among us, instead of restraining such pluralities, it were rather to be wished that it were made easier than by law it is at present, either to unite them together, or to make one man capable of serving two churches, when both benefices make but a tolerable subsistence, rather than to be forced to have a * Labbe, vol. xiv. col. 567, 568. greater number of clerks than can be decently maintained; since it is certain, that it is more for the interest of religion, and for the good of souls, to have one worthy man serving two churches, and dividing himself between them, than to have clerks for many benefices, whose scandalous provisions make too many scandalous incumbents, which is one of the greatest diseases and miseries of this church. But a due care in this matter has no relation to the accumulation of livings at great distances (every one of which can well support an incumbent) upon the same person merely for the making of a family, for the supporting of luxury or vanity, or for other base and covetous designs. But I go next to two of the worst councils that ever carried the name of general ones, the third and the fourth of the Lateran, that we may see what was the sense of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in this matter, notwithstanding the corruption of those ages. The thirteenth canon of the third Lateran council runs thus :-" Forasmuch as some, whose covetousness has no bounds, endeavour to procure to themselves divers ecclesiastical dignities, and several parish churches, against the provisions of the holy canons, by which means, though they are scarce able to perform the office of one, they do claim the provisions due to many; we do severely require, that this may not be done for the future: and therefore, when any church or ecclesiastical ministry is to be given, let such a one be sought out for it, as shall reside upon the place, and shall be able to discharge the care in his own person: if otherwise, he who receives any such benefice, contrary to the canons, shall lose it, and he who gave it shall likewise lose his right of patronage."* * Labbe, vol. xxii. col. 225. This |