THAT no Person be Authorized to take or hold any more than one Cure of Souls, with as many sine-Cures, Prebends, Deanaries, and other Dignities as a Man's Opportunity, Friendship, or Merits can promote him to. That every Incumbent be immediately compelled to resign his first Cure or Cures to the Bishop of the Diocess, and that the Bishop should appoint able Men to supply during the present Incumbents time, allowing Fifty Pounds per Annum; the Over-plus deposited in some Publick Treasury, towards the purchasing in some of the Impropriations of Corporations and Market-Towns, that are destitute of Salary, and where is most need of Pi­ous and Learned Men.

The Multitude of Men (our Universities abound with) Eminent both for Learning and Piety, may seem to render this Petition very just and reasonable; who (though some whereof are above Twenty, o­thers above Thirty Years standing) could never rise higher than a poor Curacy of twenty pounds a year: Many of them never had the benefit of that, nor could [Page 2]ever have a fair Opportunity or Proposal tendred, wherein they might (with a safe Conscience) have exercised their Talents; Whilst others in the interim engross two or three Livings, (besides an accumula­tion of Dignities) residing upon neither, nor yet al­lowing Competent Salary for others to supply. Through which means Parsonage and Vicarage-Hou­ses fall to decay, Vices are unreproved, the Sick unvi­sited, the Poor unrelieved, with many other Omissi­ons, which occasion Faction, Dissention, and Atheism; and undoubtedly is (though probably is modestly in­serted in the Address) one main ground of the decay of Piety and contempt of the Clergy.

It is fully decided by the De­crees of the Holy Councils, Vid. Tractatus Docto­rum, vol. 9. fol. 3. quòd de jure communi non potest quis habere plura Beneficia Ecclesia­stica curata, Nam in talibus non vi­detur esse jus, Vol. 1. f. 47. &c. That no per­son can expect Shelter or Patro­nage under the Umbrage of the Common-Law, for encroaching Pluralities of Cures of Souls, in one, nor in divers Bishopricks.

Yet they held some Pluralities, or Pluralities in some respects to be lawful; as such as require not Re­sidency by Statute or Custom, Or such that have not Cures of Souls annexed. Such Pluralities (saith Innoc.) may be allowed of; (dummodo non sit nimia multitudo) And he thought, Tract. Doctorum. vol. 9. fol. 3. quòd non sit peccatum ta­lia plura tenere, that it is not a sin to be a Pluralist in such Livings. The consequence that may be inferred, is this; That he thought it a sin to be a Pluralist in Church Preferments that have [Page 3]Cures of Souls. Hence was that saying of St. Ber­nard, Qui non unus sed plures in beneficiis, non unus sed plures in suppliciis: He that is not one but many in be­nefices, shall not be one but many in punishments.

Pluralities were allowed of in these cases. Ibidem. Jo. in d. c. San­ctorum enumerat casus spe­ciales, in quibus potest quis habere plura benef. (viz.) propter Ecclesiarum pau­pertatem quando nulla de se sufficit ministrum susten­tare. Propter Clericorum paucitatem, nam ex hac causa uno Clerico possunt conferri omnia beneficia. Ʋbi una est intitulata, al­tera commendata. Quan­do una dependeat ab altera. Item ex dispensatione Papae.

(1) When the Churches were so poor, that neither by it self could maintain a Minister.

(2) Where there was scar­city of Clerks.

(3) When the one is had by title, the other by commendam.

(4) When two Churches are united, or the one depend upon the other.

And lastly, (which marred all) when the Pope dispensed with them.

For his frequent dispensing with Pluralities and Non-Residencies without num­ber or measure, Sir Sim. Degge. brought the Canons and Decrees of the Councils to no other purpose or effect, than to aug­ment his own Revenues.

Some questioned whether his Holiness's Bulls or dispensations could reach to Pluralities of Benefices or no; it being very improbable he should command Pluralities, Sol. dicit quod mandatum non extenderet ad plura benef. quod non est verisi­mile, quod communiter ve­lit mandare Pluralitatem quae prohibita est regulariter. Cap. ad A­postol. extra de excerpt. which were regularly prohi­bited.

When the Pope was said to be invested with Power to dis­pense with all things in the Po­sitive Law, Plurium Beneficiorum non est de purè bonis, nec de purè malis; quia si ta­lis esset Papa non dispensa­ret: sed de mediis iisque non indifferentibus secun­dum suam naturam, imo plur. beneficiorum est de­mediis quae sunt absolute mala. Tract. Doct. Vol. 11. Fol. 188. the Councills could hardly tell, how to term Plu­ralities of Benefices, or in what ranck to place them; whether amonst things simply good, or simply bad. Though they were too obvious to any mans com­mon Sence and Reason to be ad­judged de pure bonis. Yet they durst not assert the con­trary, for fear of incurring his Holinesses displeasure. For they must never have expected his Holinesses In­dulgence, or Pardon, had they judged them de purè ma­lis, or of things simply evil, in this they would have seemed to charge him, that he dispensed with unjust and evil things: therefore, for the prevention of dan­ger on both sides, they thought it the safest way to determin them to be de mediis, between both: as nei­ther de purè bonis, nor de purè malis. Yet they allow'd them to be such media, or be­tween-boths as were absolutely evil, Quia malum videtur, quod unus habeat plura, cum vir in uno possit servire bene. because it seems not to be good nor just, that one should encroach Pluralities, since he can scarce perform the duties of one throughly and well.

Sir Simon Degge quotes a Ca­non out of the general Council of Lateran, Canons against Plurali­ties. Statutum est quod qui­cunque receperit aliquod beneficium habens curam animarum annexam, si pri­us tale beneficium obtine­bat; eo sit juro ipso priva­tus, & si forte illud retine­re contenderit, alio etiam spolietur, is quo{que} ad quem prioris spectat donatio, illud post receptionem alterius conferat cui merito viderit conferendum. in the year One thou­sand two hundred and fifteen. That whosoever having a Cure of Souls already, shall accept of such another Cure, should be deprived of the first: and in case he should seem unwilling to de­liver it up, being made void by his acceptance of the latter, that he should lose both; and that the Patron may present ano­ther Clark.

By the same Council it was Decreed upon, Cone. Later. sub Alex. tertio, Frederico I. Imp. sedalis inter eos simulta­libus celebrant. Plura Ben ficia non esse uni committenda, nec unum inter duos dividendum. That Plu­ralities of Benefices ought not to be committed to one mans care, &c. And in another place it was determi­ned, Quod qui sufficiens Ecclesiasticum habuerit benefici­um, si de alio Literas Summi Pontificis obtinuerit, prio­ris beneficii non factâ mentione, dignum est eum à Judici­bus non exaudiri: That whosoever having one suffici­ent Church-Preferment, shall procure a Dispensation for another, without making mention of the former, should not be heard.

Sir Simon Degge cites an Act established against Plu­ralities, in the Twelfth year of King Henry the Eighth. That if any Person or Persons having (that is, being Instituted) one Benefice with Cure of Souls, being of the value of Eight pounds or above, shall accept and take another with Cure of Souls, and be instituted and inducted into Possession of the same; that then [Page 6]immediately after such Possession had thereof, the first Benefice should be void.

And that it should be lawful for every Patron ha­ving the advowson thereof, to present another; and the Presentee to have the benefit of the same, as though the Incumbent had died, or resigned; and that any Licence, Union, or other Dispensation contrary to the Act should be void.

Residence by him that hath a Preferment in the Church with Cure of Souls, was held by the grea­ter and better Opinion of the Council of Trent, to be of Divine Right, and that therefore the Pope had no power to dispence with Non-residence. The con­sequence we infer, with Sir Simon Degge, is this, that it is against Divine Right, (or at least, that it is not of Divine Right) for any person to hold more Be­nefices than one with Cure of Souls, because the same person cannot be resident upon two Livings at one and the same time to discharge his duty, which re­quires a constant attendance.

Thus the Ancient Councills, as well as the Canons of England have always complained against Pluralities of Cures and Non-residence, being two (for the most part) inseparable Pests of our Church.

And they have been as much discountenanced at the Com­mon Law, Vide, Si Simon Degge's 4 and 7th. cap. 1 Book. in that the Parlia­ment of England in all Ages most strenuously endeavoured to restrain the Exorbitan­ces of the Pope, and the Court of Rome though he made the endeavours of all good men ineffectual: for several times they brought in several Complaints against these enormities, and stood upon their Prero­gative so much, that they made bold with his Holiness, [Page 7]when his power was in England at the highest, and when the Kings of England were not accounted as Heads of the Church.

We may easily judge how agreeable Pluralities are to Gods service; nay, how prejudicial they are to the advance of Christian Religion, and how unbecoming and dishonourable, especially to the Protestant Mini­sters, were it from no other consideration, than whence they had their Original. For the Council of Lateran (as Sir Simon Degge observes) in the twenty ninth Canon; Cum fuit in hoc Conc. prohibitum, ut nullus diver­sas dignitates Eccles. & Pl. Eccles. Parochiales re­ciper. Et contra Sacrorum Canonum instituta, &c. circa sublimes tamen & literatas personas, quae ma­joribus beneficiis honoran­dae sunt (cum ratio postu­laverit) per sedem Aposto­licam poterit dispensari, &c. reduces all the Qua­lifications to the Pope's Dis­pensations, where it was De­creed, That no person should accept of divers Ecclesiastical Dignities and Pluralities of Pa­rochial Churches, against the Decree and purpose of the ho­ly Canons; yet this was dis­pensed with by the Pope up­on some extraordinary occasi­ons.

Dispensations seem still to carry with them a Tin­cture, and have too near a relation and Analogie with indulgencies which are related to be procured men, whereby they being assured aforehand of their Pardon, have liberty to Transgress; so Dispensations are sought for the same end, (viz.) That Men may freely and without danger of being damnified, hold and act contra­ry to good Councils, Canons, and Statutes.

For Dispensations (like Pardons) suppose Misdemea­nours and Offences intended, if not already commit­ted; the breaches of Statutes, and a Penalty incur­red for those breaches. Therefore as Pardons can­not, [Page 8]so neither can they properly be said to be gran­ted to persons not in fault.

Though we may be the better enabled to judge of the sad and manifold grievances, the Church of En­gland in this juncture labours with, upon the account of Pluralities, by the fruits and ill consequences that necessarily attend them: mar­ked by Sir Simon Degge, Res ipsa loquitur plura Beneficia, potissimum quibus Cura Animarum submissa est, non sine gravi Eccle­siarum damno ab uno ob­tineri; cum unus in plu­ribus Ecclesiis ritè officia persolvere nequeat, aut re­bus earum necessariam cu­ram-impendere. out of another Council. Where it was concluded, that many Be­nefices, especially, having Cures of Souls annexed, could not possibly be held by one, with­out great damage done to the Churches, in that one could not reside upon both at the same time.

Hinc (saith Pope Damasus) Animae negliguntur, Oves pereunt, Morbi crescunt, haereses & scismata prodeunt, Ec­clesue destruuntur, socerdotes vitiantur & reliqua mala pro­veniunt. Hence Mens Souls are neglected, they perish, Diseases grow hot, Haeresie and Schism break forth, Churches fall to decay, Priests are corrupted, and other Mischiefs come about.

Plurality therefore is not one single Pest of our Church, but is always and necessarily attended with a whole Train of Mischiefs. For where is Plurality, there is inevitably Non-residence, and where is Non­residence, there must needs be Omissions of several main duties incumbent upon the Minister; such as the want of a narrow and careful inspection into the Condition of his Flock, and remissness in the due per­formance of Sacred Offices, which a good and faith­ful Shepheard cannot in conscience neglect, for in­deed, [Page 9]with what face or pretence of honesty can any Clergy-man expect his Tithes from his Parishioners, that neglects the welfare of their Souls? upon what account can he suppose them to be his dues? Are not they the just compensations of a Ministers labour and care? And certainly it cannot be expected, but that he; who values not the Sheep, so much as a flock of their Wooll, should let the Sheepfold go to ruine. So that a Pluralist by his Non-residence from one (at least) of his Livings, must prove a Dilapidator: be­ing very improbable he should keep that House in re­pair, which he never makes use of.

Where the Law allows of Plurality, it was done up­on good grounds: and it had been an excellent Law, had it been advanced, but now it produces little more effect, than the transferring the power of Dispensa­tions in this case from the Pope, and scattering it among the Nobility, and others; so that the Churches grie­vance at this day is become greater than ever: for Dispensations were not so numerous formerly, being they were fetch'd all from Rome, came flowly, and were dearly bought. Neither were Persons capable to qualifie Chaplains so numerous in those days as now they are grown.

For there are above a thousand Qualifications now in England by Service only, be­sides Chaplains of the King, Sr. Sim. Degg's First Book. Queen, Princes of the Blood, and Dowagers; and probably there may be as many more qualified by birth and dignities. (1.) Such as are all the Brothers and Sons of temporal Lords and of Knights born in Wedlock. And though in this there seems to be no provision made for the Sons of Popes, Abbots, Priors, &c. Nor for any Bastard, yet some [Page 10]there are, who procure dispensations to have Plurali­ties of Livings, to maintain such.

(2) Such as are dignified in the Universities, as all Doctors and Batchelors of Divinity, Doctors and Bat­chelors of the Common-Law.

If all persons qualified had Pluralities, there would be hardly any left for such that are not qualified; except­ing such Livings which amount not to ten pound a year in the Kings Book, (of which there are above 4300 in England) and these are not thought worthy of Plura­lists acceptance; For they catch not now adays at the least Livings, (though at first they crept into the Church, upon account Churches Revenues were so small, that they were not able singly to maintain a Minister.) And all the best Livings in England are taken up and held by Pluralists; and how many of them are there, that hardly vouchsafe to visit either of their Flocks in a whole year, but such times as they come to take the Fleece? How many commit them to the care of poor, unable, and raw Curates, because they are the cheapest sort of Cattle, (as they call them?)

Whilst they feast abroad at Noble-mens Tables, or take their ease upon their Prebends or Deanaries; how many poor Parishoners (that have a share in the Tithes as well as they) for want of that Hospitality, they should keep, are ready to starve? and what is most of all to be pittied, and lamented, how many poor Souls for want of better instructions, through their negligence, are in danger of Perishing?

Being nature and duty oblige all Children to succour Parents: The Church, having no place else to apply her self to for help and refuge, now in her weakness extends her hands to the Nobility, and as it were lan­guishing, [Page 11]implore their aid, and begs upon her blessing, that they take her Extremities into their Considerati­ons, which undoubtedly with the Benediction of Hea­ven, and the Prayers of the poor Clergy, will attend them and their Posterity; if they prove so kind and dutiful to their Mother, as to become so much self­deniers, as to lay aside the priviledge of qualifying: or in case the Nobility will not lay it aside, she hopes to find remedy and ease in part, if not a cure for the whole, from the Arch-bishops, that have power of the same, or from his Sacred Majesty, who (under Christ) is her Head and Governour; in denying Confirmati­on.

The with-drawing of His Majesties Royal Grace and Favour, and the contracting of their Honours In­fluences, and other ways mixt with severity and sweet­ness, contrived in time, by their Piety and Wisdom, may reclaim these straying persons, and reduce them to themselves. And indeed, their present condition requires it; for they being like Men desperately Fe­verish, often coveting what may feed their Disease, should be stinted and forced to restrain themselves from indulging their appetites in too plentiful and in­jurious a Diet.

For if it be agreeable to the Rules of Common Law, That a Temporal Officer should be deprived of his Commission, and lose his Office for a Non-user, or for unfaithful and disloyal dealing therein: I see no reason why it might not be so in Spiritual Affairs; that the Incumbent should have his Dispensation An­nulled, and lose his Benefice for absenting himself from it; or for being unfaithful in his Charge, whilst he neglects those many poor Souls committed to his care: as it must be necessarily with him, that holds [Page 12]Pluralities, in that he cannot be resident upon both at one and the same time.

And if those Monopolists of many Livings, besides Dignities, apprehend it injurious to be deprived of one or two, I will appeal to any sober Mans Reason; and dare refer it to their own Breasts, whether it be not more inhumane to suffer many hundred of as ingenious and Orthodox Men as themselves, to starve for want of Bread, whilst they wallow and tumble in superflui­ties.

Therefore it is but Reason and Justice, and a singu­lar Act of Charity, that this fatal Liberty should be taken from them, that they might be settled in a Blessed Necessity of adhering faithfully and constantly to one.

It was held a point adverse to Christian Faith, to admit of more Wives than one into ones Bed, and con­trary to the Law of Nature. For it is written, That every Man may have his Wife, but not Wives, Tract. Doctorum vol. 10. Inimicum est fidei Chri­stianae virum habere plures Ʋxores, imo juri naturali contrarium, cum scriptum sit Habeat unusquisque su­am non suas, propter For­nicationem evitandam. Et ideo Papa non posset Dis­pensare ut quis plures ha­beret Ʋxores; quia con­tra fidem Papa non potest dispensare, &c. to avoid Fornica­tion. And the Pope himself could not allow, That any Man should have Pluralities of Wives, be­cause he cannot dispence with things repugnant to Faith. One would judge it as repugnant to a Ministers Principles and Con­science to admit of Pluralities of Benefices into his embra­cings, as Pluralities of Wives into his Bed.

For every Minister, (as he is Christ's Representa­tive,) ought to make his Church his Spouse, as being Consecrated and bound to each other, with a pure and Spiritual tie and union. She would not have the [Page 13]World so much as share with her of his Affections, but would enjoy them entirely to her self.

And to this purpose it was wisely decreed upon in the Council of Lateran and o­thers, Conc. Later. sub Alex. tertio Frederico primo Im­peratore celebratum. held under Alex. the Third; Quod Clerici se immiscere negotiis non debent: That Mini­sters ought not to intermiddle with, nor entangle themselves in secular Affairs, that being freed from such incumbrances, they might give up themselves to their Studies, and wholely devote their time, their Labours, and themselves to the Church. And questionless upon this account God al­low'd the Church that competency in Tithes and Of­ferings for their moderate use and maintenance; that they might not be forced to spend that time in picking their Livelihood, which should be otherwise im­ployed.

By several Councils General it was agreed upon, Quòd clerici villas ad firmam tenere non debent, vel Ec­clesias: nec causa lucri negotiari, vel à laicis villas habere: That they ought not to deal in Farms, nor for Lucre sake, in any manner of Traffick. Yet how many doth our Age afford, that so violently are carried on to serve their own worldly Interest, as in the interim to forget their engagement to the Church? All those promises they made, all those reverential Oaths they took, when they were first enrolled in her Service, are quite for­gotten. She finds her self contemned and put out of fa­vour, whilst they fondly court, hugge, and embrace the World as a new Miss.

Well therefore might the Church grow jealous and call such persons fidelity and constancy to question, [Page 14]when she perceives herself not made a true Spouse, but an Harlot; whilst they commit Spiritual Whoredom, either by seeking Pluralities, as variety, to gratifie their lustful Appetites, or by cashiering her and leaving her destitute, whilst they go abroad a whoring after their own Inventions; whilst they, as it were by divorce­ments, absent themselves and put her off: She must needs betake her self to her mourning Garment, gird her self with Sackcloth, and bewail her loss and mise­ries in her Widow-hood.

Damasus, Qui talia praesumunt, vi­dentur mihi (ait) esse mere­tricibus similes, quae statim ut pariunt, infantes suos nutricibus tradunt educan­dos, ut suas citius libidi­nes expleant. Sic isti In­fantes suos (i. e.) populos sibi commissos aliis educan­dos tradunt, ut suas libi­dines expleant, (i.e.) pro libitu secularibus curis in­hient, &c. one of the better sort of Popes compared such Ministers to Harlots; For, (said he) as Strumpets set out their Infants to Nurse, as soon as they be delivered, that they might the sooner recover themselves to pursue their usual lustful Sports and Games of Iniquity: So they deliver their People o­ver to others care, that they being freed of that trouble, might devote themselves to the Sensualities of the World, and have time to pursue their own Secular Ends.

Neither (saith he) did God teach, nor did the Apo­stles ever institute these things: For, he that under­takes a Cure, ought to perform the Charge of it per­sonally himself, and with his own hands to present his Maniple to God, and not by the Curates Hands. It is said, Take heed to your selves, and to all the Flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Over-seers, &c. Act. 20.25. [Page 15]Hath the Holy Ghost made this Man an Overseer of the Flock, and can be presume to appoint another whom he will?

I would fain be resolved in one thing, that is, Whe­ther the Curate, as he is an Overseer over one of the Plura­list's Flocks, be made an Overseer of that Flock by the Holy Ghost, or by him? I do not know what Monsters they make of their Curates (which they put to no other use than to stop the holes that are picked in their Coats, whilst they think to excuse their own misdemeanours with them) For my own part, I take their Curates and them equally qualified in respect of their Orders, and the one to be as much a Minister as the other in reference to the Call; unless they will assert, That some have not been called by God to the Ministry. In­deed I had reason to suspect such a thing my self; and now they have confirmed me in what I suspected be­fore, I shall think some of them to have had that other by-call. But to return to my Quaere.

If therefore he replyes, That his Curate was not made Overseer by the Holy Ghost, but by him, be­cause he made choice of him, and so came in by his means; he confirms the former Allegation (viz.) That some persons invade and usurp the Ministry, as being not sent by God. Besides, I have him on the same Lock to boot; for in the same sense he cannot be said to be made an Overseer by the Holy Ghost, because he came into his Living by his Patron's means and fa­vour, or by the strength of his Purse.

But I suppose that he will grant that his Curate was made Overseer by the Holy Ghost: If so, Is the Flock the Curates as he is Overseer, or is it his? If it be the Curates, (as it must necessarily be) let him tell me, whom the Fleece of that Flock properly belongs to. I [Page 16]will desire his patience but in one thing more, then I will dismiss him for this time, which is this; Whe­ther he thinks the Holy Ghost appoints any to be O­verseers and not allow them the Overseer's mainte­nance: Or, which is more improbable, Whether he makes one an Overseer or Labourer, and allows ano­ther to reap the Benefit; If he asserts this, the Con­clusion, that may be inferred, will prove of ill conse­quence to him.

If we should offer a word or two by way of enquiry into the Grounds of this Monopoly of Cures of Souls, I wonder what they can alledg. I am certain there is little or no probability of honesty or piety on their side; let their pretence be what it will: They may have some crafty cunning evasions, and false specious Co­lours to irradiate their self-ends, sordid designs and contrivances withal; that is usual; for Vice never appears in her own proper shape and habit.

But we can soon discern true honesty from a pre­tended fictious one. A Vizard soon falls off of it self, or is taken off: If therefore such men with borrowed and adscititious Feathers may happen for a time to cheat our sight, we shall know them at long run by their Flight.

Were such mens designs just and honest, or any ways laudable, then it were lawful; and if so, then the Action likewise, being the result of their Design, would be of the same nature: And if the Design and Action were lawful, then they needed not a Dispensa­tion; for we need not procure Dispensations or Par­dons for the doing of any good and vertuous Action. [Page 17]Therefore they design and act what is neither just, honest, lawful, nor any ways laudable; and conse­quently, what is consistent neither with Vertue, Reli­gion, nor Piety.

Though I own, and would have all acknowledge the Kings Perogative, in that he may, (as he is often graciou­sly pleased) remit the Penalties of the Law; yet they are not to be accounted the less faulty.

A Malefactor, having escaped his Executioners hands by vertue of a Reprieve or a Pardon, cannot say, that he never deserved to be Executed, because he is not: this being others Clemency, not his Deserts.

Though it be a gross Parallel, yet I see but little diffe­rence, but that the one sues not for his Pardon, or Dis­pensation, to escape the Penalty, till he hath transgress­ed; the other before, and so being assured of a good come off, goes on with courage to pursue his Inter­est and self-designes; and I shall leave it for others to determine, which deserves most compassion and is most to be excused; in that the one design­edly, and politickly breaks the Law; the other of­tentimes rashly and inconsiderately.

Yet, not that I hold the Crimes to be equal, or of the same nature, but that, (let them be of what degree or nature soever) to be pardoned or (allowing them their own terme) to have them dispensed with; argues not, that they have not been at all committed. To be freed from the Penalties incurred, absolves not any from the guilt contracted.

Therefore, I would not have any, fondly to flatter up, or willfully delude themselves, (as too many do; especially, when Interest favours the Design) by fancy­ing that to be no breach of Statutes, where is probabi­lity, or assurance of escaping the Penalty. In vain are [Page 18]their endeavours of perswading others to a belief, that they would not have acted contrary thereunto, were not they so assured, thinking thereby to clear themselves; for this makes no escape for them.

In the first place, their procuring leave or Dispensa­tion, (which is the only Shield they usually oppose for their own defence) affords them but little shelter or safety: and indeed, this pretext is so far from defend­ing them, that it argues plainly against them, they have made a Rod for their own backs.

It is fit Impudency should be extreamly shameless, not to blush at so great absurdities. What piece of sauciness could you compare to that of ones asking your leave to break your head; as if a-by your leave Sir, were sufficient satisfaction for the Affront? What greater piece of Impudence can there be produced, than that of requesting leave to commit which one ought not; nay, that (as it shall appear anon) which he knows to be Repugnant to Divine and Human Law? Does not this Impudence aggravate the Offence, and render persons for more criminal than those, whose Pardons are sued and procured for Offences commit­ted, without craving leave?

There is but small hopes of any, when once arrived to this pitch and degree. He is ready qualified for any Attempt, that hath lost all shame, cast off all blushes of Modesty; Vice hath its full career; farewel Vir­tue, for ever adiew to thee, Honesty!

Besides, Actions, which require Pardons and Con­nivances, [Page 19]are supposed to include something of tur­pitude and illegallity, and to have deserved Punish­ment, and they cannot deny some of them, but they have entertained designes in their Minds; which, when put into Action, required Dispensations and Pardons: which were a long time a taking Form, and a Fostering there; and as it were Acted, before they were cast into Actions, and brought into publick view. And when Mischiefs are hatched inwardly, nothing obstructs, or procrastinates their Aera's or Birth, but the lack of fit opportunity, or (rather, unlucky,) a lucky Minute.

The Testimonies not only of Scriptures, but of Hea­thens may be sufficient Arguments to convince shame, and teach some Divines their Lessons. For we learn of them, that the harbouring of a thought within ones self to perpetrate Villany, renders the person guilty of the Fact.

Mischiefs indeed, when thought upon, are even then conceived, and are as it were the Embryo's of greater and more dangerous Events; which though as yet in the Womb, having not attained to their perfect shapes, are not, nor ought not to be accounted less hurtful. For the very Eggs of venomous Creatures are veno­mous.

And as there is not the least Vice, but may be in ca­pacity of admitting daily growths, and fresh accessi­ons, wherein, in process of time it may arrive to its full ripeness and bulk.

So neither is there any Villany grown up to such a rage and maturity, but once had a Beginning, and cry­ed as a Babe in its Cradle.

Nemo repente fuit turpissimus. — Nec quisquam inde caepit, quo incredibile est pervenisse.

Innocency and Integrity shake not off their acquain­tance of a sudden, they leave not a man all at once, but by degrees, Et ne in maximis trepidet audacia, diu vires in minoribus colligit.

I aver therefore thus much, our thoughts are not so free, but we ought to be accountable for them, as well as for our Actions. For what reason is there, that the Actors of Treason should be punished, and the first plotter and contriver should escape? An outward forced compliance is no true real performance of the Laws; nor does it denominate a Subject truly Loyal. Our very thoughts and imaginations must stoop and do them homage. For, ‘— Patitur poenas peccandi sola voluntas.’

The next Quaere is, What End or Design they do or can propose to themselves in desiring, and holding Pluralities, having Cures of Souls annexed to them: Is it the advantage of many Benefices, or the charge, that is their Motive? If for advantage or lucre only they embrace Livings, certainly they had the same End, in taking their Orders; and if so, then their Call was not Lawful, being not from God, and a [Page 21]due Reverence to the Dignity of their Profession, but from sordid worldly by-respects and self-Interest. Then they are Mercenary and Hirelings, making Mer­chandize of Mens precious Souls. Can any think there can be greater Cheats, Jugglers, or Deceivers in the World, than such persons that very solemnly appear in a Pulpit (now and then when they think fit) to put a trick upon God; as if they had been solemnly Or­dained to delude Souls, mock God, deceive the World, and undo Men, for a few hundreds yearly.—

That Person whosoever he be, that is remiss in the due and strict performance of his Office and charge, or performes them for filthy Lucre-sake, and makes a Trade of the Ministry, may be accounted as little wor­thy of the name of a true Minister, as a debauched, irreligious, prophane and Atheistical Person is of the Character of a real true Christian. He can justly claim no more a title and propriety to Tithes and Offerings (being the Benefits or Wages which God hath given to the Church for their use, and only theirs that serve her, though others often usurp and pervert them,) upon the account of his Ordination; than the other can aright and title to the Benefits and advantages of Christ death, (being granted only to the true, faith­ful, and penitent,) upon the account of his Infant-Baptisme.

But I know this sounds so abominable in their Ears, that they will bid an absit to it, and loath it at the first proposal. It is the charge therefore of many Be­nefices they desire, Covetous Hypocrites! Do they know what it is to take the charge of a Cure of Souls; or at least, to take a care of that charge? Do they consi­der, that they are as Shepheards, that must give an account to their Heavenly Master, who delivered so [Page 22]many Souls to their keeping? Is it so easie and slight a busines to watch over a Congregation, as being ac­countable for them, that they should procure more Be­nefices? as if one mans care could not wholly be im­ployed and taken up in one Cure of Souls. Can any presume to say, he can attend one cure of Souls duly and well? especially, if he seriously considers, what it is to answer for an Immortal Soul, being the pur­chase of Christ's Blood. And yet can he in consci­ence desire Pluralities of Livings; when each Living brings so many hundreds of Souls more to his care?

But they think to stop this Gap with another parcel of Curates: These Curates (it seems) are very necessa­ry Cattle, yet dog-cheap; methinks they might afford to bid more for every head than they do, if they stood in no stead but for such Jobs as these.

Though I do not see how they can order them or well take hold of them to put them in, and make them serviceable for their turn in this place, any more than before.

It is said, Because the Shepherds searched not for my Flock, therefore O ye Shepherds, hear the Words of the Lord; thus saith the Lord God, Behold I am against the Shepherds, and I will require my Flock at their hands, nei­ther shall the Shepherds feed themselves any more, for I will deliver my Flock from their mouth, that they may not be Meat for them.

Will therefore the Flock be required at their hands, or at their Curates hands? For either they themselves must stand accountable for those Souls, or deliver them over wholely to the Curates charge, for him to be an­swerable, and be at his own peril for the loss of any.

If the Flock be required at their own hands, what reckoning can they make, what account can they give [Page 23]of those Souls, whereof they seldom or never took any cognizance, when they appear before the Tribunal of God? (if they believe they must appear there:) Un­less they can flatter up themselves, that they can satis­fie their Heavenly Master, with that second hand Ac­count which they receive from their Curates. But they must not think that God will be pleased with such slubber'd accounts, or that he will be so easily satis­fied for so many poor Souls, that perished through their negligence. If they think to excuse and save them­selves by Curates only, why do not they without any more ado, serve God by Curates? It is said, If thou lovest me, then feed my Lambs; but if they feed Christ's Sheep by Curates, they may as well love him by Cu­rates?

Besides, their Commission is, Go ye, and teach all Na­tions, not send your Curates to teach all Nations, and take ye your pleasure. I will appeal to themselves, whether they allow any Servant of theirs the liberty to introduce whom he listeth into their Service, whilst he takes his pleasure abroad: Whether they would not judge it a sufficient reason to turn him off; yet, are not they Servants? And will they presume to bring whom they will to God's Service, whilst they enjoy their ease and pleasure.

But if they deliver them over wholely to their Cu­rates, and discharge themselves from that care and duty, and the Flock be required at the Curates hands; then the Curates are the Labourers, and not they. And yet do they receive the Tythes in consideration of their labour and care over the Flock? (to which, upon any other account they cannot lay claim.)

I am confident, there is hardly one among them, but will be ready to assert, that they earn them dearly; [Page 24]and upon the detainment of the least Mite of their Tithes, their Sermon, though it be a digression from the Text) the next Sunday must certainly be railing against Sacriledge. And that the Labourer is worthy of his hire, is worn thread-bare; being oftner inculca­ted into their Parishioners minds, than any Text in the Scripture; and they will hardly grant the person that believeth not this, the benefit of the Clergy: but with­out any more ado, will be sure to take care, ‘Huic nigrum vitio praefigere Theta.’

If therefore, (I say) the Labourer, and only he, be worthy of the hire; how, or upon what account can a Pluralist claim Title or property to the Tithes of that Parish or People, whereof the Curate is the Minister, and not he himself? and that the Curate is Overseer or Minister of one of the Pluralists Livings, and that too by the holy Ghost's appointment, has been already sufficiently proved.

For though they be of Divine Right, (as Sir. Hen­ry Spelman hath most incomparably proved,) yet they were Dedicated to the Churches use, and cannot be supposed by any sober person to have been designed for any, but such as Personally served the Church. (For I cannot call another mans service or work mine.) So that Tithes are not maintenance for a Minister, qua­tenus Minister, or Man in Orders; but a Maintenance for him only, that performs the duty enjoyned: they are the wages for his work.

Otherwise those many thousands that are Ordained, and want Employment, need not be reduced to such Extremities; nor be so neer starving as they are, but might claim their shares of Tithes, and live either up­on [Page 25]the Publick and other mens Labours, or ex rapto, as many do, invading other Mens Right, whilst they Usurp the profits of more Benefices than of one, for in Conscience they can assert them to belong no more to them, than the farthest person in Rome can to him. For a Ministers Titles or Property can extend no far­ther than his Care or possibility of performing the charge.

And I suppose to procure, the sober and serious part both of Clergy and Laity to agree with me in this; That every one that is a true Minister, and undertakes a Cure takes it, or at least, ought to undertake it with regard only of the right end, which is to watch over his Congregation, for the saving of their Souls; but he that takes his Pro­spect, will find business enough to employ his whole care and studies in one Cure of Souls, to perform it well and throughly. And I will appeal to any impar­tial person, whether he that aimeth not at this end, can be thought deserving of one, or worthy of the name of a Minister. Therefore we may infer, that no true Minister will desire to encroach Pluralities of Cures, or to be Non-resident; or at least, that a Minister can­not do either of these, without bringing himself under suspition of an Impostor.

It is far more tollerable for a man, that has but one Living, to entertain an assistant, than for a Pluralist. For as it is lawful for a Minister to have one Cure of Souls; so it may be as Lawful and Just to keep a Sub­stitute to help him, if he finds the charge of that Cure too much for one Persons performance. But a Plura­list, that serves perhaps one himself, and his other Cures by Assistants, or all by Assistants, cannot alledge the same reason. For he cannot pretend, that he keeps [Page 26]Curates to assist him, because he is not able of himself to perform the duties, there being no necessity impo­sed upon him, of holding more than he is able to go through. Who presses him against his Conscience to embrace Pluralities? who thrusts him under that bur­then, he cannot bear; or lays such Injunctions on him which he is not capable of performing? Were the Liv­ings got out of their hucsters hands, we could find able Men enough to supply them. Why do not they rid themselves of that over-much charge and trouble, by resigning them up, and washing their hands from them, (Judas like, when he delivered up the pieces of Silver he took for betraying Christ?) Their own Consci­ences (were there no other perswasive Motives) should engage them so to do.

But whilst there is profit in the Case, it goes against the Misers to part with them, though they are very sensible, that it is no point of honesly to detain them.

They will venture to Shipwrack Vertue, Truth, Ho­nesty, Credit, Conscience and all, to save a little Pelf. They enjoy themselves in spite of the World, and So­lace themselves in this, that Foxes never fare better than when cursed: bibunt & fruuntur Diis iratis. When mo­ny is in dispute, all other respect is laid aside.

They count every occasion happy, wherein they may pursue their Interest and Ambition, not regard­ing the justice of the Act, but the Reward. Those Livings are theirs they say, because they came by them, by hook or by crook, or by the Silver Hook; it is no matter how, all is Fish that comes into their Net.

Nothing comes amiss to them; they hold all things possible and profitable, to be convenient and legal. And were there as much probability of procuring them, as is of advantage to be made out of them, they would purchase three or four more.

For I declare, that I have the charity to perswade my self to no better an opinion of any person, who be­ing possest of one advantagious Living (which might afford any reasonable moderate man an handsome ho­nest competency) desires the engrossment of more, but that he would (and might with as safe a conscience) daily dispense with new additions of Benefices ad infi­nitum, were they as dispenseable in other respects. For it is as repugnant to a good Conscience, and as disho­nourable to the Profession, to hold three as twenty; in that one man is as little capable of himself to supply three as twenty, and as capable to serve twenty as three by Substitutes.

And it is an ill sign (especially when one's Confines are not too strait) to go to the very utmost of one's Limits, to the very extream inch of one's allotted Li­berty. [Page 28]No thanks to a man that desists in his Progress, when there is no probability either of safety or of ad­vantage to proceed, when a non ultra opposes the cur­rent of his Desire [...] and stops his Careir; and he that touches his Limits seems to transcend them. He that encroaches upon the Landmark, may be suspected to have a mind to go beyond it, and trespass upon his Neighbours Ground.

When a man devours all that is set before him, picks the Bones and scrapes the Dish, would not one judge his insatiated Appetite to crave for more, and that he could dispense with the other Bit or two, could he come at it?

One may have Pluralities, if he takes them not in pursuit of self-interest and covetousness, Tractatus Doctorum Juris vol. 1. f. 47. Potest quis esse I luralis, ubi talis habens non habet propriè concupiscentiam pro­prii commodi, sed solùm tendit ad honorem Dei et u­tilitatem Ecclesiarum, nec attendit honorem, sed on us appetit et laborem admini­strationis; talis potest esse Pluralis, et sine dispensa­tione, dummodo sit bona, industriosa et literata per­sona, quae meliùs regeret plures ecclesias quam alius unam dum, tamen residen­tia non requiratur. but for the publick good: If his Ambition tends only to the Honour of God and the Utility of the Church. If not pro­fit, but the charge be the Mo­tive, that invites him to em­brace them: Such a one (saith Innoc.) may be a Pluralist, (and that without a Dispensation) if he be an Industrious and Learned Person, that can go­vern and guide two Churches, better than another can one: But yet it was with a Proviso, that Residence was not requi­red.

There was not any such thing known as Non-resi­dence in the Western Church, many thousand years after Christ. And indeed Residence was held to be of Divine Right by the major part of the better sort of Ancient Prelates and Fathers of several Councils; and undoubtedly it had been fully determined to be so, had not the Pope made the Endeavours of all those good men ineffectual.

I do not see how a Pluralist upon the acceptance of the second Cure, or any Non-resident persons can ab­solve themselves from Perjury: being every Clerk at his Institution and Induction into a Benefice, that hath Cure of Souls, takes (or ought to take) an Oath to be resident thereupon, unless I am much mistaken: though, if I am, I hope they will pardon my ignorance, since it is not Ignorantia affectata; for truly I could never yet meet with that opportunity of being Instituted and Inducted into a Living, to have any experience of that Oath. We are environ'd with Pluralists, we can hardly tread upon any Glebe-Land, that is not taken up by them. Quid agimus? inquam, undi{que} vallo Plura­lium clausi s [...]mus.

And though qualified and dis­pensed persons are exempted from Penalties, Tractatus Doctorum Juris vol. 11. f. 188. An Dispensatio Papae super pluralitate beneficio­rum incompatibilium red­dat tutum Dispensatum in foro poli et conscientiae: hoc opus et labor. as not being within the Laws; yet they are not, nor ought not to be ex­empted from their Duty. How do they expect to be quitted in the Court of Conscience and Heaven? I question whether these Dispensations will stand good there.

I will leave others to judge, whether any persons, that made conscience of an Oath or dreaded a Deity, could be (as some were) viri scenae servientes, men fra­ming themselves to all times, sordidly complying with all changes and humours, sticking fast to their Livings, when others were cashiered; and certainly they that value not Oaths, can really be of no Religion (let 'em pretend what they will) and consequently are not fit to bear Office in Church or State.

But supposing there were no Oaths to be swallowed, I am sure there are several Canons strictly require Re­sidency; which indeed is so necessary and essential to a Cure of Souls, that take that away, it cannot any lon­ger be called a Cure. Pluralists and persons Non-re­sident make not Cures of their Benefices, but Sine-Cures. And what can be more absurd, than that a Man should have an Office and Title in the Church, and desire to be exempted from his Duty? We may smell them out; it is the Profit, and not the Charge they desire.

They cannot alledg the scarcity of Ministers a reason for their holding Pluralities: For if they can find Cu­rates to supply them, we can as easily find Mini­sters; and that there is good store of them (God be praised for plenty) we cannot deny: And Pluralists themselves can say, Curates are the cheapest Cattle that are going.

Neither can they assert, that there are but few able sufficient men among those many, that have stole into Orders: For if they are able to be Curates and serve for other men, why may they not be as able to take those Cures, and serve them in their own Names and for themselves? Certainly, if they have Parts to preach the Gospel, they may be thought worthy to live by it.

Or if they are insufficient, why were they Ordained? who were the occasion of insufficient and unable Mi­nisters? we know what they drive at; but let them not think to put it off so, and acquit themselves, by accusing the Reverend Bishops, by fastning their Ma­lignity with that dishonour upon their Dignities, be­cause they are not as yet themselves arrived thereunto. For let me tell them by the by, (without any disparage­ment too) that there are as able and Orthodox men as some of their Worships, that pretend to find fault with them, and yet want Bread, whilst others roll in excess and superfluities: whilst some look big with their abundance, and swell with their Preferments; others a [...] Orthodox are forced to be wrapped up in Po­verty, and lose themselves in poor employments. I say as Orthodox, for the wisest men have not always the best fortune attending them. Some have not had the f [...]tune to be Fools or Knaves enough to be her [...] It is natural to Honesty and Ingenuity to be [...].

If therefore Clergy-men thus by Dispensations can make Cures (as in effect generally some make them) be made Sine-Cures, why may it not be as tollerable for any Lay-men, having Livings in their gifts, or pro­cureing them elsewhere, to put in Curates to supply them? for they are served but by Curates, when they are in Pluralists hands; and Lay-men can serve them by Curates as well as they. Neither can they claim more a Title and property to Tithes upon the account only of being Ministers, or capable of performing the Duties, as long as they neglect them; than others, [Page 32]that are utterly incapable for the performance of them. For Tithes are the Wages for ones work.

Therefore I see no reason, why Lay-men may not; provided, they allow competent Salary, (which many Pluralists do not) to ingenious Men, to supply those Cures, who have given Testimony of their sufficiency by real performance of Exercise for their Degrees, which many that are possest with Pluralities never did; nor ever would have attained to their Degrees, had it not been for a Mandamus, or the forfeit of Cau­tion-mony; by virtue whereof, some (Magot-like) have crawled thereunto, who now allow not competency for others to supply, nor think it agreeable with their own health and constitution to Officiate, unless for recreation, (when the Spirit moves them) one part of the day, once a moneth. And many think that too short an interval, for the culling and conning of other mens Writings, that it may be delivered with greater applause, than the Assistants, who for a little livelihood are constrained to Preach twice a day; besides all weekly duties; having not allowance towards the Pur­chasing Books, nor the most necessary rags of Apparel. So that some are ready to Petition for the repealing of the Act for burying in Flannel, that they may have it living, to cover their Nakedness.

Nor is this small pittance to be enjoyed without ma­ny frowns and much slavery: whether Cowley intended his Curse for them, I know not; I am certain they are fallen under it:

He that would be harboured in some Pluralists fa­vours, [Page 33]must learn to Censure and Damn all others for light and rash words, and in the interim admire their enormities as Policy and Prudence, in swallowing so­lemn Oaths contradictory to one another, for the keep­ing of their Benefices in all junctures of times. He that will not resolve to fashion himself to these mens humours, must never expect their influence to be of any long continuance; so that the most necessary qua­lification required in a Curate is, that he frames him­self like unto the Flatterer in the Poet.

None must deny the assertions he pleases to belch, or contradict, what his discretion holds is controula­ble. If he be merry, the Curate must laugh; if he be sad, the other must mourn. The Laws of the ones Countenance must be written in the others forehead.

Thus some persons insolency reduce others to want and contempt; thus a small part of the Ministry (to the Churches shame, that is blessed of God with abun­dance and honour) to the disparagement of true Reli­gion, and discouragement of Learning, reduce the other to small Contributions, poor Dependancies; so uncertain, and so base, that men of ingenious Spirits and Learning, must detest them, who cannot endure, when they do the work to beg for their Wages, and that not without sordid compliances and flatteries with vile avaricious Men in their vilest humours.

They are the Shepheards (they tell us) and we Curates are the Doggs. Neither will they keep such [Page 26]Doggs, and bark themselves. Poor miserable Curs! that are fain to watch the Sheep, Dum Pastor dormit supi­nus, whilst the Sheepheard sleeps void of Care.

Now I am come so far, it will not be amiss, for the Confirmation of this, to record the belches of some Pluralists; who partly occasioned this Discourse. One person having several ingenious men tendring their Services to assist him in his Cures, with much gravity made shift to reply, That he fancied the Common to be over-stock'd—Whether it was his own I know not, I shall leave others to judge, how becoming a Divine was this sentence. He little considered, that such Drones, such an ignavam pecus as himself, (by their engrossment) made the Common bare, and the Cat­tle so cheap: whilst that cannot satisfie one hungry Maw of theirs, which might content many moderate persons; whilst those Preferments are engrossed by one of them, which might handsomely maintain Twenty; whilst those Revenues are profusely squandred away and lost upon the folly, pride, and superfluity of one Family, which might provide for the necessary, and honest occasion of four or five.

Nor was the saying of another, at a Coffee-house, before several Trades-men, that were speaking of a Minister, who Publish'd a Book somewhat tending to Atheism; less absurd and unsavory, where he took an occasion (as justly he might) to inveigh against the Author, but in these words; I wonder, (said he) at his imprudency, that he should cry down his own Trade: for what Mercer, or Draper would discommend and disparage his own ware or fashion, that keeps them employ'd and brings in profit? at which Expressions the whole Comyany blushed, (excepting himself) and from his premises in­ferr'd this consequence, That some Ministers make a [Page 27]Trade of their Function and Religion. Some of the company back'd and confirm'd the same by relating a passage of a grave Doctor, (having now above eight hundred pounds per annum, in Tithes and Offerings, &c.) who though not in capacity to Preach himself, yet would not permit an other to make use of his Pulpit, except he had twenty Shillings for his standing, saying, that his Pulpit was his Market-place.

To these I could adde many more absurd sayings of many, though I shall mention but one person's more, who lately declared, That when his present Assistant went from him, (whom he was resolved to turn off next quarter day) that he would pick one out, that should not be able to say boh to a Goose, besides reading of Prayers, and asking for his Tithes. Far more inge­nious were the expressions of a Sheepheard-boy, upon the sight of four or five Black-coates riding by, cry­ing to his Companion, Locky, locky, the Country is over­run with Parsons. I am sure a few Parsons have over­run all the Parsonages.

This seems to be too remote a digression from the Text, therefore I shall return to my next Argument; (as they say) being taken from the consideration of ma­ny receiving several hundreds yearly in Tithes and Offe­rings, (which is most of all intollerable in Pluralists) without impending scarce any part thereof according to their Primitive Institution.

The resolutions of many ancient Councels, and a multitude of other Fathers, and Doctors of the Church in their several Ages all concur in Opinion, that Tithes are of Divine Right, and belong justly to God, as his demain and inheritance.

According to the Resolutions and Decrees of the same Coun­cels and Fathers, Ʋt ipsi Sacerdotes susci­piant decimas & secundum Authoritatem canonicam dividant coram testibus, & ad ornamentum Ecclesiae primam eligant partem, se­cundam ad usum pauperum at{que} peregrinorum per eo­rum manus miscricorditer cum omni humilitate dispen­sent, tertiam verò sibimet ipsis reservent, &c. Conc. in unum corpus coll. Tom. 17. f. 489. & Tom. 20. f. 298. they were de­signed for three ends: For the Maintenance of the Ministers. For the Reparation and Orna­ment of the Church. And for the Relief of the Poor.

This division was agreed upon and Establish'd by a Canon in the time of King Alfred: and it has been approved of by Canons of our own, for which Sir Simon Degge cites one, Parsons Councellor, Chap. 7. Book. 1. that might put every Clergy-man in mind, that the poor had always a share in Tithes with him.

By the Councils it was ordered, That what person soever, Con. To. 20. f. 459. Item placuit ut Episcopi, Presbiteri, Diaconi & qui­cunque Clerici, qui nil ha­bentes ordinantur, & tem­pore Episcopatûs vel Cleri­catùs sui agros vel quaecun­que praedia nomine suo com­parant, tanquam rerum do­minicarum invasionis cri­mine teneantur, nisi admo­niti in Ecclesia eadem ipsa contulerint. Si autem ip­sis propriè aliquid liberalitate alicujus, vel successione cognationis obve­nerit, faciant inde quod eorum proposito congruit, &c. having nothing before he was Ordained, shall hereaf­ter purchase any thing by the Ministry, should be guilty of In­vading Gods inheritance, unless he took care to restore and an­nexe it to the Church; but if he had any other obventions fallen unto him any other ways, he might dispose of them or to whom he pleased.

In another Council it was De­creed, Con. Later. Sub Alex­tertio, Fred. Primo Imper­const. Clerici de his quae intuitu Ecclesiae acquisie­runt, nullum de jure possunt condere testament. Nec de mobilibus per Ecclesiam adeptis facere liceat Testa­mentum. That Clergy-men should not by a Will dispose of the things they got by their Care and looking after the Church. Neither had they power and freedom so much as at their Death, to bequeath their move­ables acquired this way, to any of their Successors.

Thus Clergy-men were ob­liged in point of gratitude to restore all whence they had first received it, Con. Lat. To. 27. fol. 452. Cum officiis caritatis illis primò teneamur obnoxii, a quibus nos beneficium ac­cepisse cognoscimus: é con­trario Ecclesiastici qui­dam Clerici, cum ab Eccle­siis suis multa bona percepe­rint, bona per Ecclesias ac­quisita, in alios usus trans­ferre praesumant: hoc igitur quia & antiquis Canonibus inhibitum est, nos etiam ni­hilominùs inhibemus. In­demnitati itaque Ecclesiarum providere volentes, sive intestati decesse­rint, sive aliis conferre voluerint, penes Ecclesias bona percipimus re­manere. and least there should be any that might pre­sume to usurp and pervert it, the Canons and Decrees of the holy Councels, always provid­ing and taking care of the Church; strictly enjoyn'd all to be left in the Churches Possession.

Tithes says (St. Augustin) are a tribute due unto needy Souls. God reserved the Tenth part for himself, and he that engrosseth them, invadeth other mens Goods.

Tithes (says Sir Henry Spel­man) are Consecrated to God, Sir Henry Spelman de non temerandis Ecclesiis. and ought not to be prophaned by se­cular use. They are devoted and sanctified unto the Lord, and ought not to return to worldly Employments.

All things offered to God are Consecrated, Con. To. 22. fol. 601. Omnia quae deo offeruntur, consecrata habentur, ut quae Ecclesiae sint, sine du­vio Christi, qui sponsus ejus est sunt. and what belongs to the Church, belongs to Christ as he is the Churches Spouse.

Church Revenues are tear­med Oblations, Res et facultates Eccle­siae oblationes appellantur, quia domino offeruntur: et vota suat fidelium & pauperum patrimonia atque precia peccatorum, si quis illa rapuit, reus est damnationis Annaniae & sappihirae, &c. Ibid. because they are offered to God: They are the Vows of the Faithful, the Pa­trimony of the Poor, &c.

Thus we see that they have been tearmed holy in all Ages, and so ought of right to be esteemed by us; considering the ends and uses, for which they serve: Every devoted thing is most holy to the Lord, Lev. 27.28. They are fastned to the Church, by vertue of their Donation, that they cannot safely be taken away or otherwise disposed of. They being Sacred things and dedicated to Holyness, are corrupted and prophaneed, when not distributed upon pious and charitable ac­counts. And Sir Henry Spelman their best friend assigns those Ministers, that receive more than an handsom competency, no other denomination than that of Sa­criledge: which he himself defines to be a divertion of Holy and Ecclesiastical things to prophane and Secu­lar use.

I do not see by what Law of God or Man a Clergy­man may turn his Tithes into a Secular Estate, or any other private advantage, any more than a Lay-man: without being guilty of annulling the Interest which God and his Church hath in them, and for which they [Page 31]were Instituted, as that hospitallity the sick feeble men may be maintained, Almes given, and other Cha­ritable deeds done: For it is not only the Lay-man in not paying them, that denies God's right and title to them: but the Clergy-man likewise that receiveth them, by usurping and alienating them from the Chur­ches use: for God has Tithes only when they are em­ploy'd in his service.

Let them weigh how God (from whom they claim them) had the Tithes they have and to what intent: let them but think seriously with themselves, what account will be exacted of them, especially, those that receive those Sallaries and Wages: yet totally neglect the duty, and mispend all the Church Revenues up­on their own private occasions; while the Canon of the Apostles would not permit the Bishop to challenge ought to himself, or to dispose among his kindred and friends, but to Administer them tanquam Deo in­tuente, to the Poor and Fatherless. And consonant to this, is that place which Sir Henry Spelman quotes out of Caudrie's Case, where he saith, The Abbot might not dispend the free Almes (much less the Tithes) upon his Se­cular Friend, but in Hospitality for the Poor, the Father­less, and Stranger.

Tithes were never accounted as Temporal, nor were they transferable as other Tem­poral Inheritances were; Huges Parsons Law, ch. 26. & ch. 27. And though they might have been given in exchange for other Temporal Necessaries, and perhaps for Temporal In­heritances; (though the latter was not only much questioned, but strictly interdicted:) yet it is to be noted, That the same was betwixt Religious and Ec­clesiastical Persons, and not betwixt them, and Lay-men.

For before the Statute of 32 H. 8. ch. 7. Meer Lay­men were thought no way capable of Tithes; nor could any man Sue for the same in the Ecclesiastical Court, except he were a Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical Person. And to this purpose Mr. Hughes in his Parsons Law, quotes a place, where it was determined, That no man should Sue for Tithes but the Parson; and that if he joyneth another Lay-man in the suit with him, his suit shall abate. And Godolphin in his Book, Intituled the Abridgment of Ecclesiastical Law, in forms us; Ch. 23. Sect. 6. That none at the Common Law were qualifi'd to receive Tithes, but either an Ecclesiastical person, or a mixt one, as the King.

Thus we see, that Tithes were separated from com­mon uses, without all right or liberty of returning thi­ther again; being fastned to the Church as her dow­ry, were not to be Entailed upon our own Posterities, no more than the Priesthood it self: Sir Henry Spelman. for it is not with us (as with the Jews) Entailed upon Araon and his Sons; but thine, mine, and his, the Sons of Nobles, Gentlemen, and Peasants, while all alike able, are all alike interested in the Churches Pre­ferments, which in our Nation is the sole spur and the only reward for Learning.

Let him look to it, (saith Saint Augustin, in a Sermon of his) for how many Men soever die in the Parish, for hunger of the murthering of so many Men shall he appear Guilty before the Tribunal Seat of the Eternal Judge, because he kept back to his own use what was committed to him by the Lord for the Poor. He therefore that desireth to gain a Reward, or to obtain a Remission of his Sins, let him pay his Tithes, and be careful to give Almes to the Poor out of [Page 33]the other nine parts, but so, that whatsoever remaineth over and above moderate Diet, and convenient Apparel, be not bestowed in Riot, and Carnal Pleasure; but laid up in the Treasury of Heaven by way of Almes to the Poor: for whatsoever God hath given unto us more than we have need of, he hath not given it unto us particularly, but hath committed it over unto us, to be distributed unto others, which if we dispose not accordingly, we spoil and rob them thereof.

Certainly, if Saint Augustin injoyned Lay-men to per­form such Acts of Charity, it cannot be supposed, that Clergy-men were exempted. One would rather judge the stress of this Injunction to lye heavier indeed upon them than any else, as being more obliged than any to lay out whatever exceedeth moderate Diet, and con­venient Apparel, by way of Almes to the Poor, and not squander it in Riot and Carnal Pleasure, or turn­ing it to private advantage; for whatever they receive upon the account of being Ministers, is separated from common use, without any right or liberty of return­ing thither again. God is the owner of Tithes: and Sir Henry Spelman saith, The Ministers are only as his Tru­stees, and as his Almoners that should faithfully dispense them to his Pensioners, the Poor, the Fatherless, the Stran­ger, and the Widow. Now let them enquire, what the duty is, that is incumbent on a Trustee: Let them consider how they have them, and ought to dispose of them. For it is much to be feared, that at the last and general Audit, they will find them great Cloggs to their Accounts.

That God claims the Title and Interest of them to be in him, and not in the Priest, nor in the Levite; is apparent from that, when He saith, Ye have Robbed me of my Tithes and Offerings. This may plainly convince [Page 34]them, Sir Henry Spelman de non temerandis Ecclesiis. that they are but the usu­fructuarii, having the use and profit of them, but not the Titles or Property.

And to this purpose Dr. The Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Law ch. 20. sect. 3. Go­dolphin makes a remark, That such as Impropriators are so denominated, for that now and hereby they are as owners of a Fee-simple, by reason of the perpetuity of their Title, whence called Propri­etarii; whereas the Parsons of any Ecclesiasticla Be­nefice are properly, regularly, and ordinarily accoun­ted but usu-fructuarii: nor were they any other Ori­ginally, and not Domini, as having any right of Fee­simple in them.

It cannot be supposed, that any Statute did either alter or intend to alter the Primitive Nature and use of Tithes. Or if it did design an Alteration; I do not see, since they are things Spiritual, and de jure Divino, how humane Laws should make them Temporal, as they are made when turned to private and secular Estates and advantage, being by these means aliena­ted from the Churches use. For it is not sufficient for the preservation of the Spirituality of Tithes, to be in Ecclesiastical Persons hands and Possessions. For they may be as much prophan'd by them, as by Lay­men, when usurped and not disposed of to those uses they were first designed for. And Sacriledge (being not only the taking away, or stealing some Sacred thing, out of some Publick Sacred Place, as a Church-Bible, or the Calice; but the turning Ecclesiastical and holy things to Prophane and Secular use,) may be as soon committed by the one, by perverting the right and proper end of Tithes; as by the other, by detain­ing [Page 35]them from the Minister: his maintenance being but one of the three ends for which they were de­sign'd. Though this can be no encouragement to any to detract the least from what belongs to the Church, for the with-drawing of Tithes, is a neglecting of our duty to Almighty God, for he calims them as due to him.

Of the same nature (saith Sir Henry Spleman) That Ori­gionally they were of, His Book De non teme­randis Ecclesiis pag. 94. of the same ought they still to continue, ma­nente subjecto, manet Consecratio & Dedicatio; Time, Place, and Persons do not change them. When left to Posterity, they are still holy. Therefore it may be a question, Whether the entailing them upon our Poste­rities be not an alienating from the Church and if so, Whether those persons that make them over from the Church to their Successors, may not be attainted of the same neglect of their duty to God, with them that with-draw them? Or whether the Church may not justly lay claim to Estates Purchased with her obventi­ons, in the behalf of the Poor, her Ministers, and of her own self.

Not but that I hold it Lawful for Ministers to make provision for their Wives and Children, (though there are but few that do it) if they have any: for humani­ty it self obliges us to this duty. But then this Pro­vision must be made by legal honest means; we must not rob Peter to pay Paul, whilst we supply our own Relations wants, by doing some notable prejudice else­where. That is not Charity which is done by uncha­ritable Actions: we must not deplume the Poor for the present, to clad our own Posterity for the future. We must not starve the needy to provide Superfluities [Page 36]for others, nor must we commit Sacriledge in order to the prevention of any ones wants, though he be our dearest and nearest Relation. And though Charity begins at home, yet we should not always confine it within our own Walls, it must take the Air sometimes, and its walks abroad; for Christ teaches us a newer Lesson than what the Proverb suggests unto us; he enjoyns us to suffer our Charity to be equally extended to such as are equally objects thereof.

Thus it is notoriously apparent, how Tithes were first intended, and that they were never designed for purchasing Secular Estates, or to be any wayes perver­ted to any private Interest; much less for the main­tenance of any idle person. For (saith Sir Henry Spel­man) they are vow'd and delivered up into the hands and Possession of the Almighty, (and that not for supersti­tious and idle orders, but meerly for the maintenance of his Divine Worship, and the Ministers thereof;) they are not now arbitrable, nor to be revoked by any, to the detriment of the Church. Where we may take notice by the way, that the Labourer is the Minister; and that Tithes are as little Arbitrable, and to be revoked by one Clergy­man from another, that performs the duty; as by a Lay-man from the Minister: for a Minister may be guil­ty of Usurping them as much as Lay-men, if they re­ceive them, and not do the work of the Ministry. Nei­ther do I indeed conceive any great reason, why any man that performes not this great work (which ought to have been the sole end, and design of his taking Or­ders) can be termed a Minister, for if he is a Minister, he must be a Minister of the Gospel of Christ; and there is no other way to shew, or prove ones self to be such, but by Preaching and (to the utmost of ones pow­er) propagating the same.

It was decreed by the Coun­cils, Conc. To. 35. f. 553. Si quem Clericorum aut Laicorum in tantum malo­rum omnium radix cupidi­tas occupaverit, ut alicujus Ecclesiae seu cujusdam secu­laris beneficii bona, census, fructus, emolumenta, seu quascunque obventiones, quae in ministrorum ac pauperum necessitates converti debent, per se, vel per alios, vi vel timore, seu quacunque arte aut quocunque colore in pro­prios usus convertere et usur­pare presumpserit, seu im­pedire, ne ab aliis, ad quos jure pertinent, percipiantur, is Anathemati tamdiu sub­jaceat, quamdiu bona res, fructu [...], qu [...]s occupaverit, vel qui ad eum quomodocun­{que} etiam ex donatione sup­positae personae pervenerit, Ecclesiae ejusdem admini­stratori integrè restituerit, &c. Clerici qui nefandae hu­jusmodi fraudis et usurpati­onis hujusmodi fabricater seu confentiens fuerit, eis­dem poenis subjaceat, nec non quibuscunque Beneficiis privatus sit, & ad alia Beneficia inhabilis efficatur, &c. That if Avarice had seized upon any Clergy-man, or Lay­man so far, as they should pre­sume any ways or by any pre­tences to turn the profits of Ecclesiastical or Secular Bene­fices, which ought to be imploy­ed in supplying the necessities of the Ministers and Poor, to their own private uses, usurp or detain them from those, to whom of right they do belong, should be liable to those Ana­themata, or Curses against Sa­criledge, with which the Donor bound them against surprizal, untill they washed their hands from them, and restored them to him that served the Church: and that whatsoever Clergy­man shall have a hand in such Usurpation, should be depriv­ed of his Livings, and be inca­pable of holding any more hereafter, &c.

I question whether those persons, that engross Plu­ralities of Livings, may not be guilty of that Crime of Usurpation and Detention; whilst they disseize and wrongfully keep out the Curates of their lawful Rights [Page 38]and Interest to them: for if any man can claim any more right or property to Tithes, than meerly the use of them; certainly it must be he, that performs the duty, for which they were Instituted. And it has been sufficiently proved, That as one person cannot undergo the charge of more Cures of Souls than of one: so neither can one in Conscience lay claim to the profits of more than of one Cure. Every one should drink of the water of his own Well, eat of the milk of his own Flock, shear the wooll of his own Sheep, live by the fruit of his own Vineyard.

It is much therefore (I say) to be questioned, whe­ther by their Engrossments they do not destroy God's Interest in them, whilst they destroy that end for which God hath designed them: (viz.) For the maintenance of him only that performes the duties of that Church, whereunto they belong; and they are allowed to the Ministers, as Wages for their service done to the Church. For it is not the having of a meer Title to a Living or Church, that denominates one truly a Mi­nister; but the faithful undertaking and performance of the charge of that Church.

One Clergy-man therefore by Monopolizing Bene­fices, and turning the profits of them to his own pri­vate advantage, perverts Tithes from the right use, and injures another as much, as a Lay-man can, by not paying them; all is but perverting and corrup­ting them, though by different persons: and Tithes do as little belong to the one, as to the other; if we once remove that consideration of performing the du­ties incumbent upon every Receiver thereof.

Though there is no reason or consequence (and God forbid it should be any mans desire) That the Institu­tion be made Null, because of the succeeding misde­meanors [Page 39]and abuses committed against them; for God is the Proprietary or owner; as it hath been Eviden­ced by several: for as much as he, who is the true owner of such Donation, cannot possibly in any wise offend; whatever his Receivers entrusted under him, do: neither may the gift it self be therefore justly sei­zed upon or taken away.

Now if detention of Tithes be Sacriledge in a Lay­man, can we assign it a milder denomination in a Cler­gy-man? I would willingly allow them their own Be­nefit (I mean that of the Clergy,) yet it will hardly excuse them; for one would be apt to judge the Crime of a higher degree, when committed by the latter, if circumstances (as certainly they do) add to the malig­nity of the Act. If therefore it be inexcusable in the one, how comes it about, that it should be commen­dable and allowed in the other? I will say thus much for our qualified men, That they have one qualification superadded; being capacitated above all others to im­prove Vice (though not Vertue) to a higher species of Evil.

All that they alledge is, That they do allow com­petent Salaries (being poor pittances of their short Be­nevolences) to their Curates; and that they are provi­ded for, answerable to their parts. Truly, I cannot conceive, how they should judge what is sufficient for others, that know not the extent of their own unsa­tiable Appetites. Besides, this is an Opprobrium victis. Is it not a sad thing to have ones miseries thus aug­mented by reproaches? Is not their condition misera­ble enough, in that they are forced to live upon such scant allowances, without being censured, as undeser­ving of any more? Have they Parts for the calling of the Ministry, and have they not parts for the Mainte­nance? [Page 40]Are they worthy to discharge the Cures, and are not they worthy to enjoy them? Some men would fain perswade their Curates to be mear Naturalls, and if they could bring them once to that pass, as to refuse Mony, then they have their own desire: but this they will hardly effect; for Nature hath contrived a cun­ning way to please us all, she supplies our defects of Wit, with a good conceit of our selves; there is scarce one of us, but thinks himself abundantly stocked with Natural Parts; though we make assiduous Invectives against Fortune for dealing so niggardly by us, in the Dispensations of her Gifts. Though in effect it is the same thing as it stands with them now; for they keep the curates so short, that they will hardly afford them the opportunity of a refusal.

Certainly, if Poverty and Ignorance render part of the Clergy contemptible, we may easily guess, who are the cause of their Poverty, and consequently of their Ignorance; having not where-withal to procure Books for their improvement. And that part, which thus make the other despicable, must needs bring up­on themselves an equal Contempt, with an Odium to boot. Do not we see how the People forsake them, as self-seekers? How the Gentry Censure them, as un­conscionable? How some of their own Profession ab­hor them, as Invaders of their Places, and Preferments? The Law can hardly secure them. Authority can scarce protect them from all the affronts and bassles, that ma­lice and fury suggest to an incensed People. The so­ber and serious part both of Clergy and Laity are amazed to see such Covetous Men to make up a part of the Church; who by their irregularities and mis­demeanours, instead of bearing a part in her Harmo­ny and keeping Concord, interrupt it, and cause Dis­cord.

One has strongly endeavou­red to remove the Imputation of contempt from the Clergy, In a Book Intituled, A Vindication of the Cler­gy, &c. or (at least) to prove, That nei­ther Poverty nor Ignorance could infer contempt, but withal ingenuously confesseth, that he himself was never much in love with the former, (though he recommends her to others,) how far he might be engaged to the later, I know not; his Patronizing her, shews somewhat of an Engagement and Obligation; for though he tells us, he intended it not, yet he writes an ample Panegyrique in her commendation; (for which many of us must ac­knowledge our selves to be highly and over-head and ears obliged unto him.) I remember Erasmus, in his Moriae Encomium, introduces Folly, (whose property it is so to do,) making a speech in her own Praise: and for ought I know, Ignorance being nearly allied to her, may presume to claim the same Prerogative.

The same person tells us, That the Church of En­gland is not so rich, fat, and well-liking as She has been, and consequently, not able to settle such plentiful Por­tions upon her younger Children, as She would; where he supposes, all that are destitute of Benefices to be the younger Children, let them be ever so de­serving, and of long standing. Truly a very pretty excuse: I do not see nay likelihood, that the Church should ever be in a capacity to make better provision for them, whilst the Elder take all. Certainly, She never designed to starve her younger Children. It is they that have learned this Turkish Inhumanity, to put the younger Brothers to Death, whilst the Elder Reign.

Pluralities are the ruine of Scholars, as well as of Churches, they necessitate them to dangerous Discour­ses [Page 42]and Thoughts. Must they provoke their Brethren to Discontent, by taking up all the encouragements of their Studies, all their Emploiments and hopes? How many hopeful young men in City and Country are for­ced to want, or which is worse, to live upon their small Pensions, and what is natural to Parts and Inge­nuity to despair their Fortunes, and to envy them? Hence it is, (saith one) That they so readily, hopeless of any Regular favour, apply themselves to Popular ap­plause, that their compliance may gain among the Vul­gar, what their Merits could not among them.

Upon this in short time, must needs ensue great Ig­norance of true Religion, and the service of God; and thereby great decay of Christian Profession: for what encouragement is there left, for any to apply them­selves, or their Sons, or any other that they have in charge, to the Study of Divinity, when after long and painful Studies, they have Prospect of nothing, where­upon to live; especially, when they see themselves brought to that misery, as to be undone by their own Brethren?

Were it not a Sin, methinks the ill consequences of Pluralities might sufficiently disswade them; for they daily sink under Envy. They give occasion to them that seek occasion of censuring them, which disgraces them. The discontent of others endangers them. They incense their best Friends to be enemies, to their Or­ders and Calling. They provoke God, that hitherto upheld them, by abusing the Maintenance, which he al­lows for his Service, and Servants, to their own advan­tage. I shall insist no longer upon this point, having already sufficiently demonstrated, how adverse Plura­lities, especially of Cures, have been in all ages to Ca­nons, Laws, Statutes and Decrees of Councils, ancient [Page 43]Fathers and Doctors of the Church: though for their further satisfaction, I desire them to have recourse to the One and Twentieth Chapter of Hughes Parson's Law. And to the Four and twentieth Chapter of Go­dolphins Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Law, where he tells us, what an ill President the Court of Rome has been, and how mischievous to the Common-wealth of Christendom; in that the Temporal Princes in imi­tation of the Pope have used their Prerogative to dis­pence with their Penal Laws, and Statutes; when as before they caused them to be Religiously observed. Laws were Established with an intent to be strictly kept: and could Men lay aside those Covetous hu­mours of theirs, there need not be such breaches as these in them.

THE reasonableness of this appears from the Mul­titude of raw Youths, who hasten out of the Universities to teach others, when as they themselves are scarce initiated in the first Fundamental Principles of Religion; and little apprehending the danger of Simony and Perjury, run themselves upon Precipices, by embracing Preferments upon unlawful and dishonou­rable Proposals.

It is a great pity, that seve­ral large Parishes, Parson's Councellour, 1 Book, Chap. 7. (as Sir Simon Degge well observes) should be left in many places to the care of some Boys, that came but the other day from School, and perhaps fitter to be there still; whilst the Shep­herd that takes the Fleece, either Feasts it out in his Lord's Family, or takes his Ease upon his Prebend or Deanary.

Though it is not to be questioned, but our Chur­ches Ordination is Legal and Regular in its Circum­stances and proper in its form, being derived from the [Page 45]Primitive Bishops as they were Ordained by the Apo­stles, and they, by Jesus Christ: yet if the great Cal­ling of Ministers be fallen below its Native Glory, and Primitive Reverence, the World cannot impute this decay to any thing, so much, as the solemn Investure of raw Young Men thereunto. They can hardly have any esteem in the World, Men being naturally inclin'd to despise them for their Youth, being (as One saith of them) unstable in their Ways, unsettled in their Minds, weak in their Discourses, unexperienced in their Behaviour, not Even, orderly and stayed in their Conversation; to the grief of all good Men, that high­ly esteem all Ministers for their Works-sake, to the joy of those evil Men, that have ill-will at Sion; who cry, Aha, Aha: so would we have it. And a Preju­dice once fastned upon Mens persons, often renders their Instructions regardless and their Doctrine suc­cesless.

It was Cupids effeminate Face and Youth, made Phae­bus give such a contemptible reply, ‘Quid{que} tibi, Lascive puer, cum fortibus armis?’

The same Lack of Discretion, and Tender Years, that made Phaeton ambitious to drive the Suns Chariot, rendred him incapable, and caused his Father to re­pent of his Promise, and to disswade him.

And it is much to be feared, That want of Discre­tion makes many Striplings so hastily to intrude into Orders, and Repent at their leisure; who for their rashness must expect to be condemned by the People, and to have the same retort from them, by way of Scorn, as Phaeton had from his Father Phaebus, by way of advice.

We could heartily wish, That this Petition were brought to effect; or that there were a stint contri­ved some other ways, till they that are already Or­dain'd could be in some measure provided for. For they are so numerous, that they wish earnestly for War, that might sweep a great parcel of them away; and in case they cannot procure Chaplains places, they are ready to list themselves for Common Soldi­ers, and think it a Preferment too, as the times go with them now; choosing rather to play at a small Game at Sea, than stand out, or starve themselves upon Land.

THe unjust dealings (it seems) of some corrupt Under-Officers, that lately exacted upon some poor Clerks, in demainding above Eight pounds Fees for Institution and Induction, without any Canon or Statute for the fame; caused the preferring this Ad­dress to the Parliament.

It is made a question by some, Whether any thing at all ought to be taken or given for Letters of Orders, Institution, and Induction: and it is thought to be a thing of so long and frequent a Practice, that use only hath made it seem Lawful; by which means, it is swallowed as a due Fee, without any further ex­amination or inquiry into the matter.

Sir Simon Degge quotes De­crees of several Councils, Chap. 5. Book. 1. and Canons, against selling of Or­ders, or the like, which forbid any thing at all to be [Page 51]given for them, and seem to render those Fees we call Ancient and Just, Unjust and Exacted.

We may assign the denomination of a Fee, or what terme we please to what is given for Orders, Insti­tution, and Induction, &c. but thus it is commonly argued, that what cannot be procured gratis, must be supposed to be paid for, but what is paid for is bought, and what is bought by one, must be sold by another. What validity this has in it, I know not; for I see no reason still, why we should not pay for the Instru­ment of Orders, Letters of Institution, &c. therefore we suppose these Fees to be in lieu thereof, and for no other end or design. But then to this Effect, Sir Si­mon Degge quotes Canons of our own, Parsons Councellor, Book 1. Ch. 5. The second Edition. that limit the Clerks Fee to Twelve pence, for Insti­tution and Collation, and Six­pence for Letters of Orders. Now whether those Fees in those days, when these Canons were made, were equivalent to these of ours, I know not.

In the same Chapter, he quotes a Statute, that pu­nishes, as well the Giver, as the Receiver of a grea­ter Fee or Reward, than the ordinary and just Fees for to be Ordained or made Minister, &c. but that the stress of this Punishment is more severe, and lies heavier upon the Clergy-man, than the Officer; in that the Officer forfeits but Forty shillings, the Clergy-man Ten Pounds, besides a Seven years incapa­city of holding Livings, that lies upon him.

Therefore we hope this will not seem beneath the consideration, or unworthy of any persons undertak­ing and promoting it, since it is of no small Impor­tance. For the Officer, (knowing his Penalty to be but light, and payable with what he extorts from the [Page 52]Clerk over and above) if he is minded to be so base and corrupt, may demand what he will, the Clerk be­ing never the wiser; (especially, since Fees vary in eve­ry Diocess,) being not able to contradict him, or per­haps the Circumstances of that Nick of time (as it does often fall out) not permitting him to stand to argue the case, or go to disprove him: so that the Clerk frequently commits Simony unawares to him­self, or against will; and hazards those Penalties men­tioned in the Statute, did any person well know how to question him: which we might easily know, were there such a Table once agreed upon.

THese Appropriations anciently and Originally came from the Pope, afterwards tollerated by Kings. And it was resolved, That none could be capa­ble of an Appropriation, but a Body corporate or Politick-Spiritual which have a successi­on. Godolph. Abridg. of Ec­cles. Law, Ch. 20. s. 8. For that the Effect of an Appropriation, as to the first Institution thereof, was to make the Body Politick perpetual Incumbent, and to have the Rectory, and that he hath the Cure of all Souls of the Parishioners, and therefore he must be a Spiritual Person.

And Sir Henry Spelman saith, De non temerandis Ec­cles. pag. 4, 5. That they were but Parsonages with Cures of Souls annexed, and Appropriated to a perticular Abby, or some re­ligious [Page 54]House. And that one of their own Fraterni­ty did duly officiate the Cure; until the Statute of R. 2. Prohibited the Appropriating any Church, unless a Vicar be conveniently endowed to read Divine Service, and keep Hospitality.

Thus Appropriations were Charg'd with Cures of Souls, and they that had them, were subject to the Burthens, that lie so heavily upon the Head of every Minister: Therefore at their Original, they were made only to Spiritual persons, as were qualified to Admini­ster the Sacramental Ordinances, and perform Divine Service themselves: It being held a thing Abominable, both against the Law of God, and the Law of the Realm, to grant Appropriations to such persons as were not capable of these performances. For Beneficium non da­tur nisi propter officium: and truly it is fit, that he that refuses the Duty, should go without the Benefice.

But since the end and use thereof is changed, (and that for the worse) from what it was at the Original Institution thereof. For though first they were gran­ted only to Ecclesiastical Persons, since the grant there­of has been gradually enlarged and extended to such as were not capable of performing such duties, Abridg. Eccles. Law, ch. 20. Sect. 2. as were required; or at least, to such that would not perform them. Now we see Appropriations are become as Lay-Inheritan­ces, and adapted as well to persons Secular, as well as Ecclesiastical; who take the Profits thereof to their own proper use, hardly maintaining a Vicar upon the place to serve the Cure.

Neither do I see any reason, why the King, by His Letters Patents may not appropriate a Church Parochi­al, which was before Presentative, to a Lay-Corpora­tion, [Page 55]all the members of the Corporation being meer Lay-men, as well as to Spiritual persons, since those Spiritual persons that have them, make them over now to Lay-men. They are now made Lay-Parsonages, and the one may be called a Parson imparsonee, that is Par­son No-Parson, as well as the other.

Though these spiritual Mo­nopolies were not quite sup­pressed, Ibid. Sect. 3. as has bin by several formerly endeavoured; yet there were Laws made that took care in making provision for the Vicar; for it was ordained by the Kings, that in every Licence of Appropriations, it should be expresly appointed, that the Diocesan of the place should take care to provide an annual competency, or convenient sum of Mony, to be yearly issuing and paid out of the Parsonage-Fruits of that Parish, towards the maintenance of the Poor thereof; and for a sufficient subsistance and endow­ment of the Vicar. And those Appropriations were not good in Law, Ibid. Sect. 12. that had not sufficient endowment for the Vicarage, which was appoin­ted by the Ordinaries, as they thought fit.

But now we frequently see others sacrilegiously rob the Church, to enrich themselves, whilst the Vi­cars their Deputies have nothing for their service, but those small offals and refuse of Tithes, as might be well spared out of the weightier Granaries thereof. Thus the poor Vicar shall have something like a cer­tain portion, which is nothing as it were, Ibid. Sect. 2. considering how plentifully the Church is en­dowed, whilst the Abbot and the Covent, and their Lay-Successors shall be the Parsons, and receive the [Page 56]main profits, and so live by the Altar without wait­ing on it, and be Re-baptized by the Law with the name of Parsons Imparsonees.

Therefore upon these Sta­tutes it will concern the owners of Churches Appropriated since 15 Ric. 2. to see, Vide Sir Henry Spelman De non temerandis Eccles. pa. 5. That out of the Profits of the Church, a convenient sum of Mony be yearly paid to the poor Parishioners, and a Vicar Endowed; as the Statute of the 15 of Ric 2. appoints; or else the Statute 4 H. 4. avoids the Appropriation, and then the Church be­comes again Presentative.

Now let them, whether they be Clergy-men or Lay­men; and especially the former, seek and satisfie them­selves; whether they having these Tithes and Appro­priations, are not tyed in Law and Conscience, or in the Law of Conscience, to perform the Duties.

A Lay-man was thought uncapable of having a Church Appropriated to him, because he could not take upon him the Cure of Souls that went always with the Church. But if Spiritual Men omit, and neglect the Charge of those Cures; or not undergo them themselves, they are to be esteemed as unworthy of them, as the other is uncapable.

Sir Henry Spelman saith, Tithes are in Common-Law termed Spiritual things, because they are annex­ed to the Spiritual Office; and not that they belong to Spiritual Men, without any consideration of this Office. Therefore I do not see now any Man, whether Spi­ritual [Page 49]or temporal, can take and Usurp those Tithes, being things annexed to the Office of a Parson, and think himself exempted from that Office. The Sheep must not be without a Shepherd, nor he without the milk of the Flock, and he is the Shepheard that hath the Cure of the Souls. Neither ought any to live by Church allowance, but they that do the Church Duties. Ministers can not, or at least ought not to re­ceive Tithes under pretence only of being in Orders, and for nothing else, any more than Lay-men, for they as little belong to the one as the other, this duty being once removed; owners of Appropriations seem to be ill Presidents to the Owners of Impropriations. Though the former frequently exclaim against the lat­ter; yet I do not see any great difference between an Appropriation and Impropriation, saving only this; the one being obtained from the Crown for ever, the other from some Clergy-men for Lives, or so many years.

If therefore the Impropriators be said to be Sacri­legious (as some have Censured them) because they do not resign up their Right and Title; or because the person that serves the Church and has the Cure of Souls, hath not the Tithes. I do not see how the ow­ners of Appropriations, or Apropriators can free them­selves from the same imputation. For the one partey allows him who serves the Cure as much as the other. And Appropriations, as well as Impropriations, with their Oblations and Tithes are made Lay and Temporal, as long as the Owners thereof make them over to Lay-men by Leases; and they hold the profits ad propri­um suum usum, as much as the Impropriators; besides the one belong as little to the Church as the other, and is as much alienated as the other.

The Church hath no more of the Tithes of either of them, than what is laid out upon him that serves her, or upon the Poor of the Parish.

We heard of several, who were perswaded presently upon the reading of Sir Henry Spelman's Treatise, to restore to the Church their Impropriations; I wish he were yet living to perswade a Restitution of Appropriations.

I shall not be very prolix upon this Head, being it has a relation to the first; nor indeed could I insist any longer upon it, for the Printer interrupted my pen; Otherwise I wold have spoke more at large or perhaps less and more to the purpose. The Time being short I shall only add a word or two (as their usual Phrase is) by way of exhortation to some of them, and conclude as abruptly as themselves, with a so much at this time.

Some men have had the confidence to preach against Pluralists, and Non-resident-persons, when they them­selves [Page 52]were possest of Pluralities of Cures. I would that such persons do apply to themselves what they preach to others.

That they would take beed how they clamber over fences of duty; break through Hedges of right, tres­pass upon hallowed enclosures: how they get wealth into their possession through usurpation or detension of spoil and rapine, which they ought to disgorge.

That they would take heed they do not deem their mite of grace a Talent, their Mole-hill a Mountain, their smoaking-flax, the strong and blazing flame of some mighty Bonfire.

That they take care to pull first the Beams out of their own eyes, that they may with more perspicu­ity discern the Motes that are in others.

That they do apply what they read and preach to their own consciences: as well as boast of laying it home to scare others. That they truly be what they perswade to.

For all their preaching will be of little efficacy, if it be not seconded by Examples: being the nature of man is more apt to be guided by Examples than by Precepts; especially by the Types of men eminently learned, and of great repute for piety and godliness. Such men are as Looking-Glasses to the places where they live, by which most persons dress themselves. They must therefore (as an unknown Author saith) look their lives be such, as may shew they believe themselves, whilst they go about to perswade others. He that shall with never so pressing arguments dehort a man from that sin, which he himself at the next opportunity commits, will never he supposed to have any real ill opinion of it, but rather, so passionate [Page 53]a love, that he is jealous any but himself should have its embraces; and then surely this will be so far from averting, that it will excite the appetite of the other to tast of that which he sees is thought so desirable, as to be Monopolized.

Persons can never bring any to contemn the vanity of worldly greatness by exclaiming against it, if in the mean time, they themselves delight in nothing more, than to be clad in Purple and fine Linnen, and fare de­liciously every day. For the requiring us to contemn this world in hopes of a better, is (as a Learned Di­vine of our Church saith upon another account) just like the commendation of the excellency of fasting at a full meal; and of the conveniency of poverty by one, who makes the greatest hast to be rich.

That persons may not therefore offer so great a con­tradiction to their Doctrine by their Examples, Let them with Christ make choice of a life, remote from all suspicion of designs upon this worlds Goods.

Things that are set in some high and eminent pla­ces, do naturally attract mens eyes to them: so that eminency of condition wherein Ministers are placed, render their actions more observable. They are like the City our Saviour speaks of, set on an hill, and have by that advantagious Scituation, the means of making their light shine farther than other mens. And therefore it ought to be their constant care by the bright lustre of their exact and exemplary conversa­tion, to enlighten the whole Sphaere wherein they move. Would they make this their united design, what a happy constellation of auspicious Stars would they prove, by whose benign aspect the sterility of vulgar minds may be cured, and even those clods be inspirited and rendred capable of excellent producti­ons: [Page 54]for there is a heavenly power and efficacy in their good examples to draw others to Piety. And a com­pulsive power in their ill examples to constrain others to the evil they do. Ministers therefore (especially in these days, ought to take heed lest by any wicked ex­ample or compliance, they build men up in sin, and bring destruction not only upon themselves, but others.

Gods Laws are the good man's rules, and good examples are his motives and encouragements. Men are riveted and more strongly rooted in the truth re­ceived, by reflecting on the sound judgment and spot­less lives of them that publish and maintain it. Such men cannot be ignorant of the Vulgars enquiry, which is more, what Ministers do, than what they say: and the eye has been more operative and affecting than the ear.

There is hardly any that can have compassion on those men that dehort others from the vanities of this world, whilst they themselves are taken (as we say) ipso facto, still labouring in their Avarice. Now if there were no other motives to reduce such persons from those co­vetous humors to themselves, Methinks the serious re­flection upon the judgments that have befallen Estates purchased with Tithes and Offerings, and Families therein concerned; might frighten them to them­selves, (for the fear of Hell hath drove some to Hea­ven.) Those examples might sufficiently mollifie the most obdurate disposition, awaken the most supine and dazle him that is most perspicacious in discerning Motes through Beams; or that is qualified with that blind zeal of inveighing against stealing, whilst guilty of Sacriledge.