lity and charity towards others. Yet on these things both their spirit and their fuccefs in doing their duty greatly depend. And therefore how indifferent foever any of us may have caufe to be about our own interefts, we ought to confider qurselves as trustees for our fucceffors. We all blame our predeceffors, if they have not tranfmitted the patrimony of the church undiminished into our hands. Let us think then what others hereafter will fay of us, and with what reafon, if we are guilty of the fame fault; and give away for ever, what we should count it facrilege in any one else to take from us.

Indeed fome perfons imagine or pretend that the only danger is, of the clergy's encroaching on the properties of the laity, not neglecting their own. And we acknowledge there have been times, when that was the danger. But they are long paft; and God forbid we should defire to revive them. Placing exceffive wealth in the hands of ecclefiaftics, would both endanger others and corrupt them: as the examples of paft ages have too fully fhewn. But the parochial clergy of those times, instead of being the authors of this error, were the heaviest sufferers by it. And to renew the attempt in thefe days, would be folly equal to its wickednefs: of which we fhould fo certainly and immediately be made fenfible, indeed we are so univerfally fenfible of it already, that there can be no need of giving cautions on this head. All we wish for is, the unmolefted enjoyment of what clearly belongs to us, and a reasonable allowance of what is confeffedly requifite for us, in order to attain the only ends, of our inftitution, the present and future happiness of mankind. In how many and fad inftances we fail of poffeffing in peace fuch a competent provifion, I need not fay. Let us all behave under whatever ufage we receive, with the innocence and the prudence, which our Master enjoins. But we fhall be wanting in both, if we wrong ourfelves and thofe that will come after us, by improper voluntary diminutions of what is allotted for our fupport: which, through inconfideratenefs and indolence, hath been often done; defignedly, I would hope, but feldom. And we may be guilty of it, either at coming into our benefices, or during our incumbency on them, or when we quit them to which three heads I fhall speak in their order,

Yet

Yet, indeed, as I am now directing my discourse to persons, most of them already poffeffed of benefices, it may seem too late to give cautions refpecting the time of entering upon them. But all who have acted right then, will at least hear with pleasure their conduct approved. If any have acted wrong, which I do not know that any of you have, on being fhown it, they may repent of it, they may confider how far they can undo what they have done, or prevent the bad confequences that are likely to flow from it. And both forts may be influenced more strongly, to take no improper steps on any future occafion, and to warn their friends against such

errors.

I proceed therefore to fay, that benefices ought neither to be given, nor accepted, with any other condition or promise, than that of doing our duty in relation to them, This engagement is always understood, whether it be expreffed or not; and no other should either be required or complied with. For when bishops, originally the fole patrons, to encourage the endowment of parishes, gave others a right of presenting fit perfons to them; or that right was confirmed or granted by the civil power: they must be supposed to give it only to be exercised for the future, as it had been before; when, whoever was appointed to any ftation in the church, enjoyed the benefit of all he was appointed to, fo long as he behaved well. And therefore, attempting to bring the clergy into a worfe condition, is ufurpation; and fubmitting to the attempt, is encouraging ufurpation.

tą

Yet there is a great difference between the things to which our fubmiffion may be demanded. Some are grossly and obviously unlawful. If, for inftance, any perfon, in order to obtain a benefice, promises to give up fuch a part of the income, to connive at such a leffening of it, to accept of fuch a compofition for it, to allow fuch a pension or make such ą payment to any one out of it: these things are, in effect, the fame with laying down beforehand such a sum for it: which is the nearest approach, excepting that of bribing for holy or ders, to his fin, who thought the gifts of God might be purchased with money, and was answered, thy money perish with thee*. Nor ean it take away, if it alleviate the guilt, that the payment

or

*Acts viii. 20

or penfion, thus reférved, is allotted to ufes really charitable. Still it is buying what ought to be freely bestowed: this foreed charity muft disable a man from voluntary almsgiving, in proportion to its amount: and one compliance in a seemingly favourable instance, will only make way for another in a more doubtful cafe, and fo on without end. Another excuse I hope nobody will plead; that obligations of this kind may be safely entered into, fince they are notoriously void. For we can never be at liberty to make an agreement, merely because it is fo bad a one, that neither law nor confcience will let us keep it.

But fuppofing a perfon binds himself to his patron, only that he will quit his benefice when required; even this he ought not to do. For he hath no right to promife it; and no power to perform the promise. Whoever undertakes the care of a living, must continue that care till the law deprives him of it, or his fuperior releases him from it *. Therefore he can only subject himself to a penalty which another may exact at pleasure, unlefs he doth what of himself he is not able to do, and knows not whether he fhall obtain permiffion to do. Can this be prudent? Can it be fit? If he pay the penalty, he gives money to the patron, though not for his first poffeffion of the benefice, yet for his continuance in it: befides that, he must either distress himself, or defraud religion and charity of what he ought to have bestowed on them. If then to avoid paying it, he begs leave to refign, he puts his bishop under very unreasonable difficulties; who, by refufing his requeft, may bring great inconveniences on the poor man: and, by granting it, may loose a minister from a parish, where he was useful, and ought to have continued; may expose himfelf to the many bad confequences of having an improper fucceffor presented to him. At least he will encourage a practice undoubtedly wrong and hurtful in the main, whatever it may be in the inftance before him. And why are not these fufficient grounds for a denial; fince whatever the incumbent fuffers by it, he hath brought upon himself?

Befides, in bonds to refign, where no condition is expreffed, some unfair intention almost always lies hid. For if it were

an

* See Stillingfleet on Bonds of Refignation, in the third volume of his works, page 731.

an honeft one, why should it not be plainly mentioned, and both fides cleared from imputations? Affuredly, unless perfons are to a strange degree inconfiderate, this would be done if it could. The true meaning therefore too commonly is, to enflave the incumbent to the will and pleasure of his patron, whatever it shall happen at any time to be. So that, if he demands his legal dues, if he is not fubfervient to the schemes, political or whatever they are, which he is required to promote; if he reproves fuch and fuch vices; if he preaches, or does not preach, fuch and fuch doctrines; if he stands up for charity and justice to any one when he is forbidden: the ter ror of refignation, or the penalty of the bond, may immediately be fhaken over his head. How fhamefully beneath the dignity of a clergyman is fuch a fituation as this! How grievously doth it tempt a man to unbecoming, and even unlawful compliances! What fufpicions doth it bring upon him, of being unduly influenced when he is not! Or however he may escape himself, what a fnare may his example prove to his poor brethren of weaker minds, or less established charac

ters.

To prevent these mischiefs, both the ancient laws of other churches, and those of our own*, ftill in force, have strictly forbidden fuch contracts +. Particularly the Council of Oxford, held in 1222, prefcribed an oath against Simony, for fo it is entitled, by which every clerk shall swear at his inftitu tion, that he hath entered into no compact in order to be prefented.

* Stillingfleet, in his Letter about Bonds of Refignation in Mifcell. dif. ecurses, p. 42. &c. fhews feveral forts of contracts that are allowed, and objects not against trufts and confidences [as indeed I have been affured that Dr Bentley held a living in truft for the Bishop's fon] nor againft what is done, in confideration of fervice, without a compact: but only against á legal obligation on the party before his presentation, to perform fuch a condition; and if he do not, to refign.

1

The Council of Westminster 1138, appoints, that when any one reeeives Inveftiture from the Bishop, he fhall fwear that he hath neither given nor promised any thing for his Benefice. Spelm. vol. 2. p. 39 apud Gib-. fon Cod. p. 845 •

fented*. And Archbishop Courtney, in his injunctions to all the bishops of his province in 1391, condemns those, as guilty of Simony, who, before presentation, engage to refign when required t; and appoints all perfons inftituted, to be fworn, that they have not given, to obtain prefentation, either oath or promise to refign |. Again, the constitutions of Cardinal Pole, when Archbishop, in 1555, cenfure, as being fimoniacal, all bargains or promises for procuring of benefices; and affert that benefices ought to be given without any condition, and order that the perfon prefented fhall fwear, he hath neither promised, nor given, nor exchanged, nor lent, nor depofited, nor remitted, &. any thing, nor confirmed any thing given before §. And a convocation held under him, two years after, complaining that, of late years, perfons have procured benefices et Prælaturas, [parish priests are prælati: fee index to Lyndwood in Pralatus:] not only vacant, but likely to become fo, non precibus & obfequiis tantum,fed & apertis muneribus, fo that electionum faluberrimæ formæ quæ per canones, liberæ effe deberent, vel fraudibus obtenebratæ funt, vel ad compromiffi neceffitatem redacta: directs, that bishops prevent these things, and take care by themselves and their officers, efpecially quos in prælatorum electionibus tanquam directores & conVOL. IV. fultores

* The words are, quod propter præfentationem illam nec promiserit nec dederit aliquid præfentanti, nec aliquam propter hoc inierit pactionem : where hoc muft naturally refer to negotium præsentationis understood.

See Conc. Oxon. C. 18. in Wilkins, vol. 1. p. 588. and Lyndwood, L. 2. de Jurejurando, cap. præfenti, in Wake's Charge, 1709, p. 34, and Stillingfleet on Bonds, &c. p. 721. and Letter about Bonds, p. 39.

But it appears, by the preamble, that it was defigned only against putting it thus in the patron's power to difpofe of the profits, or turn the Incumbents out, and give pluralities of livings to fuch as he favour⚫ed.

Wilkins, vol. 3. p. 216. Wake, p. 35, 36.

The injunctions of Ed. 6. in 1547, appoint, that such as buy benefices, or come to them by fraud or deceit, fhall be deprived, &c. And fuch as fell them, or by any colour bestow them for their own gain or profit, shall lose their right of prefentment for that time. Wilkins, vol. 4. p. 7, 8.

Wilkins, vol. 4. p. 124, 125.