⁷ Præcipimus ut in potestate sua Episcopus Ecclesiæ Res habeat――ex iis autem quibus indiget, (si tamen indiget) ad suas necessitates percipiat. _Canons of the Apostles_, 40.――――eas veluti Deo contemplante dispenset; nec ei liceat ex iis aliquid contingere, aut Parentibus propriis (quæ dei sunt) condonare. Quod si Pauperes sunt, tanquam Pauperibus subministret, ne eorum occasione Ecclesiæ Res depredantur, _Canons of the Apostles_, 39. Manifesta sint quæ pertinere videntur ad Ecclesiam cum Notitia Presbiterorum & Diaconorum, ut si contigerit Episcopo migare de Seculo, nec _Res Ecclesiæ_ depereant, nec quæ _propria_ probantur Episcopi, sub occasione Rerum Ecclesiæ pervadantur: justem enim est ut sua Episcopus quibus voluerit, derelinquat, & quæ Ecclesiæ sunt, eidem conservantur Ecclesiæ. _Council of Antioch_, chapter 24. Quicunque Clerici, qui nihil habentes ordinantur, & _tempore Episcopatus_, vel _Clericatus sui_, agros, vel quæcunque predia nomine suo comparant, tanquam Rerum dominiearum _Invisionis Crimini_ teneantur obnoxii, nisi admoniti, Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. (_N. B._) Si autem ipsis proprie aliquid _liberalitate_ alicujus, vel _Successione_ Cognationis obvenerit, faciant, inde quod ipsorum Proposito congruit. Sacerdotes ipsis quoque Filiis suis, quibus paterna debetur Hæreditas, nihil debent derelinquere, nisi quod sibi a Parentibus derelictum est: _Ergo_ qui _ditior est_ Sacerdos, quam venit ad Sacerdotium, quicquid plus habuerit, _non filiis debet dare_, sed Pauperibus, & Sanctis fratribus, ut reddat ea quæ Domini sunt, Domino suo. _Hieronymus on Ezekiel_, chapter 46.
* May it not therefore well be wondered what could provoke Dr. _♦Trapp_ to censure our bishop as a madman, whose whole form of life, and use of his bishoprick, is not only after the model of the first and greatest saints that ever were bishops, but also such as the whole church from the beginning, both in council and out of council, from age to age, hath absolutely required of every beneficed clergyman, who would not be condemned by her, as sacrilegious, and a robber of the poor? They who would see the whole matter set in a clear light, may read an excellent treatise of the learned _Dupin_, wrote near the end of his life, where this truth is by him asserted and incontestably proved, _viz._ That whatever changes have been made in the nature and tenure of the goods and revenues of the church, or however they have been variously divided amongst ecclesiasticks, yet this has remained _always unchangeable and undeniable_, That a clergyman was no proprietor of his benefice; that he could only take so much of it to his own use, as was necessary to his subsistance, and then the remainder, be it what it would, belonged to the poor. This, says he, is strictly maintained by the canons of councils, both before and after the division of ecclesiastical revenues.
♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”
* But if this be the case, if this be an incontestable doctrine, supported by every authority that can be brought for any one doctrine of the gospel, have we not here an utter condemnation of pluralities? Is it not an affront to the gospel, to the plainest maxims of right and wrong, the whole authority of the church, to offer one single word in defence of them? Logical, scholastic distinctions and definitions of the nature of parishes and residence, can signify no more here, where the whole nature of the thing is to be avoided, than the same art of words, when used by _Jesuitical Casuists_, can justify the violation of moral duties. And if Dr. _♦Trapp_ was only to look at this one doctrine, he would have no reason to think it so sad a thing, to see _Pluralists_ coupled with _Cardinals_. “_See_, says the learned _Dupin_, rules which will appear hard to many of the beneficed clergy, but yet, they are true, conformable to natural equity, the laws, custom, and tradition of the church, and the practice of the most holy bishops; and woe be to those that observe them not! _Malheur a Ceux qui ne les suivent pas._”¹ And therefore he concludes thus, “There may be many amongst the beneficed clergy who err in this matter, thro’ an ignorance of that which is required of them; therefore what I have said ought to be taken in good part, as proceeding from charity, and a sincere love of truth.”
♦ “Trap” replaced with “Trapp”
¹ Ibid. p. 442.
SHORT but SUFFICIENT CONFUTATION
Of Bp. WARBURTON’s projected defence (_as he calls it_) of Christianity, in his _divine legation of_ Moses, in a letter to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London.
_My LORD_,
THE reason of my presuming to write to your lordship on the following subject is, because it is a matter on which your lordship has employed your excellent pen, greatly to the benefit of the world.