[³] Quoniam quicquid habent Clerici, Pauperum est—Qui bonis Parentum & opibus sustentari possent, si quod Pauperum est, accipiunt, Sacrilegium profecto committunt, & per Abusionem Talium, Judicium sibi manducant, & bibunt, Hieronymus, Epistle to Pope Damasus.
[⁴] Episcopus vilem Suppellectilem, & Mensam, ac Victum Pauperem, habeat, & Dignitatis, sua Authoritatum Fide & Vitæ meritis quærat, Council of Carthage, 4.
[⁵] Memento quod Pauperem Vitam Sacerdos gerere debet, & ideo si superbiam habet, si magno gaudet Beneficio, præter victum & vestitum quod sperest, Pauperibus dare non differat, quia omnia pauperum sunt. Augustine, Sermon 37 to the Brethren.
[⁶] Hujus tu e vicino sectare Vestigia, & cæterorum, qui Virtutum illius similes sunt, quos Sacerdotium & humiliores facit & pauperes. Hieronymus Epistle 4. to Rufinus.
[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.