JUVENAL observes Sat. 7. that the Practice of the Lawyers in his time was usually propor­tioned to the Figure they made at the Bar; where he that ap­pear'd in the best Equipage was supposed to have the greatest share of Law and sense in him: so that had the Vulgar had any Power in determining Right, a good Cause might oftentimes have been lost for want of fine cloathes to plead it in. Whether any part of this vanity prevails with us, I shall not dispute; however this inference may be fairly allowed, that the Success of Truth depends very much upon the Repu­tation of its Advocate. For the general­lity of Mankind, in regard they are not judicious and impartial enough to pene­trate the bottom of things, are more in­fluenced by show and appearance, than by [Page 2] substance and reallity. And therefore if a mans Person or Office happens to wear an uncreditable Name, and falls under a ge­neral disesteem, though never so undeser­vedly, he must not expect to be persuasive with others, though the nature and proof of what he recommends, may appear suf­ciently evident and weighty to an unpre­judiced mind. For besides that men are not willing to learn Rules of Wisdom and Con­duct from those they contemn, because this looks like a disparagement of them­selves, and sets the despised Person in some measure above them, besides I say, they are not over-willing to be informed by such Instructors; 'tis not often that they think they can: For 'tis generally taken for grant­ed that Discourses cannot rise much above the Character of those that make them; and that 'tis scarce possible for an inconsi­derable man to say any thing that is worth the taking notice of. So that when men have entertained a little opinion of any Per­son, he is under a mighty disadvantage of fixing any good advice upon them. The contemptible notion they have of him gives their judgements an ill tincture, and makes them unindifferent, so that they neither see things in their true colours, nor allow them their proper weight; but are apt to con­clude [Page 3] the reasonings of those they disesteem resemble the insignificancy of their Authors, and so many a good well-meaning argu­ment is turned back and discountenanced, only for keeping suspected unreputable com­pany.

Of the truth of this observation ill men are very apprehensive, who being desirous of enjoying the pleasures of vice, without coming under the discipline of ignominy and restraint, make it their business to mis­represent the Ministers of Religion, depres­sing their Authority, and decrying the use­fulness of their profession; being well assu­red that when they have disarm'd their ad­versaries (as they reckon them) of their Re­putation, they need not fear any considerable disturbance from them.

In pursuance of this design they would fain perswade the world, that the Clergy are so far from deserving any additional e­steem upon the account of their Office, that for this reason they ought to forfeit part of what they had before; as if Orders suppos'd some antecedent crime, and were rather in­flicted than given, and that those who re­ceive them ought to pass for persons De­graded from the priviledges of Birth and E­ducation, or at least not to enjoy them with­out stain and abatement.

[Page 4]Now that there are some Persons, and those not all of the lowest Rank, who seem to be of this unreasonable opinion, is too apparent; and therefore I shall desire them to consider, that those who account the Priesthood a lessening of a mans Quality, must either believe all Religion to be an Imposture, or if they do own the Being of a God, their apprehension of him is so scan­dalous and unworthy, that I think it would be a kindness to them to suppose them A­theists: For 'tis not so monstrous and pro­voking to deny the Existence of a Deity, as to suppose him void of Excellency and Perfection: To imagine him to be so far from being the Fountain of Honour, that He is rather to be accounted a discredit to those who belong to him, and that a per­son of Condition ought to be asham'd of his service; such a Notion of God Almighty as this, besides the absurdity of it, looks like a malicious acknowledgement of his Being, only to make him capable of con­tempt.

But besides, the Function of the Clergy in general is too often misunderstood, (which in such a sceptical and licentious age we need not wonder at,) those who offi­ciate in private houses lie under particular disadvantages: Here the Master of the Fa­mily [Page 5] usually expects an extraordinary ob­servance from the Priest, and returns him less notice in exchange, than to others of the same order and condition. Now one would think in point of reason, that an Ec­clesiastical (as well as a Civil or Military) Officer should be more consider'd within the limits and extent of his employ than else­where, both upon the account of the Juris­diction he hath there, and because of the advantage those he is concern'd with, do or may receive from the execution of his Office.

Now the reason of this unaccountable practice must be resolved into one or both of these pretences; either

• 1. That a Clergyman officiating in a Fa­mily, ought to be entertain'd no otherwise than under the notion of a servant: or
• 2. Because 'tis in the Patrons power to oblige the Priest with Church-Preferment.

It will be therefore the design of these papers to shew,

• 1. That a Priest, or Chaplain in a Family is no servant.
• 2. That whatever fair expectations the Patron may have given the Priest of future advantage, those are no sufficient grounds to justifie an Imperious deportment on the one hand, or a servile submission on the other.

[Page 6]1. I shall prove that a Priest or Chap­lain in a Family is no servant, the contrary of which I believe he is often thought to be, though 'tis not always spoken out. Now in order to the removing this mistake, I shall in the

First place answer those objections, which seem to have given the most pro­bable occasion of its rise.

Secondly, I shall give a short description of the Office of a Chaplain; and shew how much it differs from that of a Servant.

1. I shall answer those Objections, which have given the most probable occa­sion to this mistake; among which we may reckon the Priests being entertained with Diet.

But that eating at anothers Table does not make a man a Servant is plain; for if it did, then every one that visits his friend, if he happens to eat or drink without pay­ing for it, must immediately forfeit his li­berty. If it be said that 'tis not eating now and then upon a visit which brings a man into the Condition of a servant, but doing it constantly, and with the same person: To this I answer, That if eating by the year makes a man a servant for a year, then eating by the day must make him a servant for that day; the only difference in this case [Page 7] is, [...]at the one who eats but a meal or two comes into his Liberty sooner than the other.

But possibly 'tis the Priests contracting for Diet which makes him mistaken for a servant to him that affords it; and here 'tis supposed to come under the notion of Wa­ges, because the Priest is to do something for it. Now because a consideration of this nature, whether it be received in money or diet, or both, is the same thing; I shall prove that a man's receiving money in con­sideration of bestowing his time and pains upon another, does not make him a ser­vant to him that returns him a recompence for his trouble. For example, Lawyers and Physicians have their Fees, or their Wages if you please, and yet I suppose none will say that they are servants to all the Clients and Patients that imploy them, and if not to all, then for the same reason not to a­ny: The Judges have a Fee for every Cause which is tried at the Nisi prius Bar, and a Justice of Peace hath money allow'd him for making a Warrant, which both of them may receive without forfeiting their Autho­ty. The House of Commons likewise have Pensions from their Electors, during the Session of Parliament; I confess 'tis not u­sually paid now, but if they did receive it [Page 8] as formerly they have done, I hope no one would say a Knight of a Shire was servant to a man of Fourty shillings per annum, be­cause he contributed something towards his maintenance. On all these cases a man is engaged in the business of others, and re­ceives a consideration for his employment, and yet hath no reason to be accounted a servant for his pains.

If it be said, that in most of these in­stances the Salaries are assign'd by Law, and consequently that there is no contract be­tween him that receives and him that gives the consideration; I answer, that there is a vertual, though not an express contract, be­cause the people have agreed to consent to whatever their Representatives shall deter­mine.

2^ly, As to the case of the Lawyers, though their Fees are stated by Law, yet every one chooses whom he will make use of, so that the voluntary Retaining any one, is no less than a plain Contract, and the giving him so much money upon condition that he will plead for him.

3^ly, 'Tis not the contracting for money in lieu of some other exchange which makes a man a servant, for then every one that sells for money would be a servant to the buyer, and consequently a Pedlar might [Page 9] make himself Master of the best Merchant in London, if he should happen to be so am­bitious as to be his customer: and which is most to be lamented, if a man could not by way of Contract receive money with one hand, without parting with his Liberty with the other, then the Landlord must be a servant to the Tenant; for the bare contracting for Rent, though he never re­ceiv'd a peny, is enough to bring him un­der; so that according to this opinion, a man cannot let his Farm without Demising and Granting away himself.

But further, That the entertaining the Clergy with Diet and Salary is no argu­ment of their subjection, will appear, if we consider that we are bound to contribute towards the support of our Parents, if they stand in need of it; and yet I suppose it does not follow that this makes us their Superi­ors: 'Tis so far from it, that our assisting them is accounted part of that honour which the Fifth Commandment enjoyns us to pay them, and is so interpreted by our Saviour himself, S^t Matth. 15.4, 5, 6. The commu­nication therefore of part of our wealth to the Clergy officiating in our houses, is in reason nothing but a due respect to their Function, and a gratefull acknowledgement of their care; What the Priest receives from [Page 10] us is in effect offered to God Almighty, be­cause 'tis given upon the account of the Re­lation he hath to him, and the advantages we receive from thence. This is honouring God with our substance, who in regard he stands in need of nothing himself, hath or­der'd those persons (whom he hath set a­part to keep up his Service and Worship) to receive what men present to him in to­ken of his Sovereignty and Providence. Thus what was offer'd to God under the old Te­stament (except what was spent in sacrifi­cing) was the Priests portion, assign'd by the Divine appointment, Numb. 18.8, 9. and in the 20^th verse of that Chapter the reason why the Tribe of Levi was to have no In­heritance in the Land which was to be di­vided, is given, because God promised to be their Inheritance, that is to give them those offerings which were made to him; and that this was a very liberal assignment, and much exceeded the provision which was made for the rest of the Tribes, might easi­ly be made good, were it not foreign to the present argument.

There are many other places in the Old Testament which may be alledg'd for the confirmation of this Truth, as Deut. 18.2. Iosh. 13.14. Ezek. 44.28, &c. And that this practice did not depend upon any Ceremo­nial [Page 11] Constitution, but was founded in the unalterable reason of things, will appear if we look into the New Testament; where St. Paul tells us that God has ordained that those that Preach the Gospel (which every Priest does who reads the New Testament) should live of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9.14. Our Spiritual Governours are Ministers of God to us as well as our Temporal, Rom. 13.4. and therefore the Apostle's inference, v. 6. may, in a qualified sense at least, be applied to them, For this cause pay you Tribute also. And that the same Apostle did not believe that a Consideration of this nature, ought to sub­ject the Clergy to Distance and submissive behaviour, is beyond question; for he plain­ly tells the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 9.11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing, if we shall reap your carnal things? It seems he did not believe this Favour so extraordina­ry, or to have any such commanding qua­lity in it, as to make him their servant, or dependant, if he had received it. Nay he tells them that he had power to eat and to drink; that is, God had given him a right to a Com­petent maintenance out of the Estates of those he instructed; which without que­stion, where the circumstances of the per­son will permit, ought to be proportioned with respect to the person Represented, and [Page 12] to the nature and quality of the Employ. 'Tis plain therefore that the Apostle thought that if Gods Ministers lived out of the For­tunes of their charge, yet they were not so mightily indebted beyond a possibility of Requital; but that the Obligation was full as great on the other side: and the reason why some men now a days are not of the same mind is, because the concerns of the other world have none, or a very slender consideration allow'd them; for otherwise without question men would look upon those as none of their least beneficial Friends, who are appointed by God to guide them securely in their passage to Eternity: but now 'tis the Mode with too many to live as if their souls were the most inconsiderable thing they carried about them.

5. It may be Objected, that every Fa­mily ought to be under the Government of one single person, and because the Priest is confessed not to be the Master, therefore he must be under command, and consequent­ly a servant. Now this is so slender an Ob­jection, that I should have waved the men­tion of it, but that some people seem desi­rous of being imposed upon in this matter; and we know when men are in love with a mistake, the least appearance of a reason is apt to entangle their understandings, and [Page 13] make them overlook the evidence of an as­sertion they are prejudiced against.

To what is objected therefore I answer, that this Argument proves all Boarders ser­vants, though their Office or Quality be never so much above those they sojourn with. I grant the Priest is not to disturb the Master of the house in the Government of his Family, nor to intermeddle in his Af­fairs, (to do this were an unreasonable in­croachment) but the living under his roof makes him no more his servant, then his Father or Mother are, when they reside with him.

There may be several other things urged against the truth of the Proposition I am to defend, but the solving the remaining Objections will fall in more conveniently, after I have given a short description of the Office of a Chaplain, and shown how much it differs from that of a servant, and how inconsistent it is with it; which I shall proceed to.

1. Therefore, The Office of a Clergy­man in a Family, is to Pray for, Bless, and give Absolution to those he is concern'd with; which are all Acts of Authority and Jurisdiction. He is to Counsel, Exhort, and Reprove the Master of the Family himself, upon occasion (though with respect to his [Page 14] station) which Offices are inconsistent with the condition of a servant, and must be very unsuccessfully perform'd by him, as will fur­ther appear afterwards.

2. He does not receive this Commission from the Master of the Family, or from a­ny humane Authority, but from God him­self, whose Deputy he is in things pertain­ing to Religion: He is not entertain'd upon any secular account, or to manage any o­ther business but what relates to another world; and is Consecrated to this Function by the Divine Warrant and appointment, and consequently he is Gods Minister not mans. The place in which he is engaged is his Parish, and the difference between a Parochial Priest and him lies in this, that the extent of his Charge is not so large as that of a Parish-Priest; the one having but only one single Family to take care of, and the other a great many: but the Of­fice is the same, and therefore the one hath no more reason to be accounted a servant than the other.

3. However pride, ignorance, or incon­sideration may sometimes byass mens minds, yet if they would but attend to their own practice, they would see that the concern of a Priest in a Family is no servile employ­ment; because in the absence of a Priest the [Page 15] Master of the Family supplies his place, as far as lawfully he may, that is, in praying and gi­ving thanks at meat; which is a plain confession that men are satisfied that 'tis very improper to employ any of their servants in the performance of Holy Offices; the doing of which would be dishonourable to God, and weaken the force and Majesty of Religion; and therefore when one Consecrated to Holy Ministrations is not present, God ought to be addressed to by a per­son of the greatest consideration in the Family; which implicit confession of theirs, is both a­greeable to the reason of mankind in general, and the practice of the first Ages of the world, when the Civil and Ecclesiastical Authority were united, the same Person being both Priest and Prince in his Family; as appears from A­braham, Isaac, Iacob, and Iob's erecting Altars, and offering sacrifices: and before the Institution of the Mosaick Law (in which God chose a di­stinct Tribe to serve him in Holy Offices) the First-born, among other considerable privi­ledges, had the Priesthood annext to his Birth­right.

4. This notion of a servant destroys the end and design of the Priestly Office, it renders his Person cheap, and his Discourse insignifi­cant, it causes his Reproofs to be look'd upon as presumptuous, and makes a generous free­dom and impartial plainness, to be interpreted [Page 16] a forgetfulness of Distance: and yet this sort of plain-dealing is not more necessary toward any sort of people than those who are wealthy and Honourable, the nature of their circum­stances being such as make them much more apt to flatter themselves, and to be flatter'd by others; which made St. Paul command St. Timothy, to charge those that were rich that they should not be high-minded: The Apostle well knew in how great danger such persons were of taking the height of their condition amiss, and confi­ding too much in it; for to this unhappy mi­stake they have not only the common artifices of self-love to betray them, but several con­federate circumstances from without strike in to carry on the imposture, and to cheat them into a wrong opinion of themselves. They see how they are reverenced and admired by al­most all sort of people, and that men fre­quently resign their ease, their Liberty and conscience too, to purchase fewer conveniencies than they are already possess'd of: They find that wealth and Reputation puts them into a capacity of gratifying their senses, and their humour, gives them many opportunities of obliging their friends and crushing their ene­mies, and makes their will a kind of Law to their Inferiours and Dependants. Now these Advantages, when they are not throughly ex­amined, but rated according to the value which [Page 17] Vulgar estimation sets upon them, are apt to swell them into an unreasonable conceit of themselves; which vanity is still fed and infla­med because they are often so unfortunate, as not to attend, that these worldly accommo­dations are things really distinct from their owners; that these ornamental priviledges are but a decent varnish which enriches no deeper then the surface; and an Impression, which though Royal, cannot alter the mettal: but on the contrary they are apt to fancy their For­tunes and themselves to be all of a piece, that this glorious outside grows out of some intrin­sick Prerogative, and is the genuine lustre and complexion of their nature. And since a flou­rishing condition is thus apt to impose upon men, and hath such a natural tendency to give them a false Idea of their own Excellency, have they not need of a prudent and conscientious Friend, to insinuate that they have no Essential Advantages above the rest of mankind, to a­waken them into right apprehensions of things, and rescue them from that delusion which their own vanity, and the ignorance or design of others often puts upon them. Therefore if men would have their Lives correct and happy, they ought to encourage their Friends (especi­ally those who are particularly concern'd in the Regulation of their Conscience) to tell them of their faults; they should invite them to this [Page 18] freedom, if not by express declaration, yet by affable Deportment, always receiving the per­formance of the nice Office with demonstra­tions of pleasure and satisfaction. Did men consider how slippery and difficultly manage­able an Elevated station is, they would easily discern that it was not the safest way to trust altogether to their own Conduct, but to take in the constant assistance of a Religious Per­son, that so their miscarriages might be repre­sented, their Consciences directed in doubtfull cases, and their minds fortified with defensa­tives proper to the temptations of their condi­tion and temper. Indeed the very converse of such a Guide, if his character were rightly un­derstood, and prudently supported, would help to keep them upon their guard; and by stri­king a kind of Religious awe upon their spirits, make their conversation more staunch and re­gular, and often prevent their falling into a­ny remarkable excesses: But these advantages are all lost upon those who misapprehend the Priests Office, and entertain him upon the same account they do their Footmen, only to gar­nish the Table, and stuff out the Figure of the Family. When a man hath received such a dis­paraging notion of the Priest, and rang'd him amongst his servants, there is small likelihood of his being the better for his company; for this conceit will make his carriage lofty and re­serv'd; [Page 19] his words, gestures, and silence, will all carry marks of Neglect and Imperiousness in them: which are plain and designed Inti­mations that the Priest must not insist upon the priviledges of his Function; that he must not pretend to any Liberty, but what his Patron is pleas'd to allow; with the Direction of whose actions he is not to intermeddle, nor remon­strate against the unreasonableness of any pra­ctice, nor show him the danger of continuing in it: for though all this be done with cau­tion and tenderness, and respect, yet he must look for nothing but disdain and disappoint­ment in requital, for presuming to admonish his Superiours; which is such an Usurpation upon Dominion and Quality as is not to be endur'd; being neither agreeable to the servile Employment of the one, nor consistent with the Honour of the other.

5^ly, This degrading the Priesthood into a servile Office, takes off from that Veneration which is due to the solemn Mysteries of Reli­gion, and makes them look common and con­temptible; by being administred by Persons not sui juris, but obnoxious to the pleasure of those who receive them: God therefore to prevent his Ordinances from falling into con­tempt, and to make them effectual to procure the happiness of Mankind, hath given his Priests Authority over all they are concern'd with; [Page 20] they are to bless the people in his Name, and the Author to the Hebrews tells us, that without contradiction the less is blessed of the better, Hebr. 7.7. They are called the Lords Priests, 1 Sam. 22.17. The Messengers of the Lord of hosts, Mal. 2.7. and in the New Testament, they are stiled the Stewards and Ambassadors of God; and made Over­seers of his Church by the Holy Ghost, 2 Cor. 5.20. Acts 20.28. The sense of which Texts, and partly the words, are by the appointment of our Church applied to those who are ordain'd Priests, to put them in mind of the dignity of their Office, and the great Care they ought to take about the conscientious discharge of it.

I confess 'tis possible for a Priest to make himself a servant; he may 'tis likely be Stew­ard or Clark of the Kitchin if he pleases, (as Bishop Latimer complains some of the Clergy were forced to be in his time, Heylin Hist. Re­for. p. 61.) but as long as he does not engage in any Employment which is intended for State, or the convenience of Life, as long as he keeps to his Priestly Function, so long he may be assured he hath no Master in the House; and for any to suppose he hath, is an unreasonable and absurd mistake; (to say no worse of it) 'tis an inverting that Order which God made between the Priest and people, and denies that Authority which God hath granted for the E­dification of his Church. It endeavours to de­stroy [Page 21] that Honourable Relation which the Priest hath to the Divine Majesty, (to whose service he is appropriated) which God is pleas'd to dig­nifie him with, that he might have the greater Influence upon those he is concern'd with, and be successfull in the Execution of his Office: and therefore for a Patron to account such a Consecrated Person his Priest, as if he belonged to him as a servant, is in effect to challenge Di­vine Honours, and to set up himself for a God: for if he is any thing less, he must own that the service of the Priest does not belong to him; for that in the very terms and notion of it, is intended for no Being inferiour to that which is suppos'd to be Divine.

If it be Objected that the Priest hath obliged himself to remove with the Patron, when and whither he thinks fit, and therefore seems to be in the same condition with the rest of the At­tendants; to this I answer, that this makes him no more a servant than the travelling and am­bulatory way of living among the Tartars, would make the Priests servants to the people, provi­ded they were Christians: To make it plainer, suppose a Bishop Ordain'd over the Company of a Ship, and that his Dioecese lay only in one Bottom; can we imagine that he would lose his Episcopal power, and fall into the Condi­tion of other Seamen, as soon as the Ship was order'd to weigh anchor, and began to make its [Page 22] Voyage from one Port to another: At this rate a man may call a Guardian Angel one of his Domesticks, because for the security and prote­ction of their Charge, these benevolent Spirits are pleas'd to accompany us from one place to another. I grant the Scripture tells us they are sent forth to minister for those who are Heris of Salva­tion, Hebr. 1.14. but then we must allow them to be Gods Ministers not ours; and so likewise are those of whom I am speaking, as among other places may be seen from 2 Cor. 6.4. God hath pleas'd to put the Clergy in joynt Com­mission with the Angels themselves, for the Guidance of, and superintending his Church. When St. Iohn would have worshipped the An­gel which appear'd to him, he is forbid to do it, and the reason alledged is, because I am thy fel­low servant, Rev. 19.10. that is, as Grotius ex­pounds it, we are both Ambassadors of the same King. And although St. Iohn and the rest of the Apostles had priviledges peculiar to them­selves, both in respect of the extent of their Ju­risdiction, the infallibility of their Doctrine, and other miraculous Gifts with which they were endowed, to which Bishops themselves, much less inferiour Priests have no reason to pretend; yet though God was pleas'd for the more speedy and effectual planting of Christi­anity, to qualifie the Apostles in an extraordi­nary manner, and to give them a larger Com­mission [Page 23] than to the Clergy of succeeding Ages, yet they all act by the same Authority, and for the same End; therefore the unfix't and moving Nature of a Cure, does not alter, and degrade the Office of a Priest: He is not less a Shepherd, because the Flock happens sometimes to wan­der unaccountably, from one Pasture to another: He is bound to attend the Charge he hath un­dertaken, and must answer the Neglect of it to God; and when it does not continue in the same place, to accompany its motion, is no more a diminution to his Office, than it is to that of a Judge to go the Circuit, whose Commission is as considerable, though it travels with him from one County to another, as if he had been always fix't in Westminster-Hall.

If it be farther Objected, that the Patron ap­points the hours of Prayer, which seems to im­ply something of command; To this I answer, That in his choosing the time of Prayer, he does not appoint any service for himself, but only declares when he and his Houshold are ready for Gods worship, and desirous of the Priestly absolution, and blessing; which is proper for him to do, because the Family is employed in his business, and under his command; and there­fore without his permission, they have not ma­ny times an opportunity of meeting together for Divine Service: Which is still more reasonable, because the Priest is suppos [...]d only to intend the [Page 24] affairs of Religion, and to be always ready for the performance of his Office, and consequent­ly that time which is most convenient for those under his Care, and in which the assembly is like to be most numerous, he is by vertue of his Office bound to observe, whether his Cure lies in a private Family, or a whole Parish.

But lastly it may be urged that the 33 of Hen. 8. cap. 28. calls the Patrons of Chaplains their Ma­sters; and will any man be so hardy as to que­stion the Judgement and determination of the Parliament? But here we may observe that this Act calls only those Patrons Masters, who can give Qualifications for Pluralities. Having pre­mis'd this observation, I answer, with all due submission and respect to this Legislative Coun­cil; that if the question was concerning any Ci­vil Right, then 'tis confessed 'tis in the Power of the Parliament either to limit, or take it a­way, because the whole Power and Authority of the Kingdom is there, either personally, or by Representation; and therefore they may deprive any Person of his Honour or Estate (the Right of the Succession to the Crown excepted) as far as they please: not that 'tis impossible for them to act unjustly, but only that what they Determine hath the force of a Law, because e­very man is suppos'd to have given his consent to it. But here we must observe, that the Church is a distinct Society from the State, and indepen­dent [Page 25] upon it: The Constitution of the Church is founded in the Appointment of Christ, in that Commission which he gave the Apostles and their Successors, and consequently does not derive its Authority from any Earthly Power. The Civil Magistrate never yet made Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, nor ever can; and therefore we may safely affirm without any injury or dis­respect to him, that he cannot make these Spi­ritual Offices greater or less than they are; there­fore if God hath made the Priests Office (as no­thing is plainer in Scripture then that he hath) an Office of Government, Direction, and su­perintendance over those he is concern'd with, then 'tis not in the Power of the Parliament to make his Condition servile: because no Per­son, or Society of Persons can take away that Power which they never gave: The Parliament may with equal Right Enact that Parents shall be subject to their Children, and that the wife shall be her husband's Mistress without a Com­plement, as make the people the Priests Ma­sters, and give the Flock a Jurisdiction over the Shepherd; they may with the same justice re­peal the most Established Laws of Nature, and invert the Right of the two former Relations, as of this latter; for this hath its Establishment from the same God that the other have, and for Ends, at least equally weighty, and momentous. This Power of their Spiritual Governours they [Page 26] have no more Authority to destroy, than they have to vote down the Canon of Scripture, or to decree Sacrilege to be no sin: 'Tis granted, that all Ecclesiastical Persons, as they are Mem­bers of the State, are subject to its Authority; and that a Priest or Bishop, may properly be a servant to the Magistrate, if he holds any Se­cular Employment under him; because in this case he acts by a Commission from the Civil Government; but this only concerns him as he is a Member of the State, and does not in the least affect his Spiritual Capacity: The Power which results from that, flows from another Fountain; and is given by our Saviour himself, and therefore cannot be weakened or recall'd by any State-Constitution whatever. Men should do well therefore to consider, that as a Prince hath no reason to take it well, if the people should look upon his Officers as their servants; so 'tis not over-respectfull to God Almighty to suppose his Ministers stand in that inferiour Re­lation to those they are concern'd with.

I shall now proceed to the 2^d thing at first propounded, viz. to show, that whatever fair expectations the Patron may have given the Priest, yet these are not sufficient Grounds for an Imperious Carriage on the one hand, or a servlle submission on the other.

1. This sort of Deportment were unreason­able, supposing the Patron had as full and ab­solute [Page 27] a right in Church-Preferment, as he hath in any other part of his Estate. For what can be a more ungenerous and ungentlemanly pra­ctice, than to require that a man should resign up his Liberty, and forfeit the priviledges of his Station, only upon the probability of recei­ving some sort of consideration for it after­wards? How unlike a Benefactour does he look who sets an Excise upon his bare word, and clogs the expectation of future Advantage with present Inconvenience? Thus to anticipate the Revenues of a favour, is like taking Usury for money before 'tis lent, which certainly is one of the worst sorts of extortion, because here a man not only pays for that he hath not, but for that which possibly he may never have.

But 2^ly, Let us suppose the Priest in actual possession of some considerable Preferment, yet being 'tis pretended to be given, it ought cer­tainly to come disencumber'd from all Condi­tions which may abate the kindness of it. He that pretends to give, should chiefly respect the Advantage of him to whom the Favour is grant­ed. He should demean himself towards the ob­liged party, as if the obligation had never been; that it may plainly appear, that his intention in conferring it, was disinterested; that he had no little Designs of Profit or State, to serve in it; but that it proceeded purely from a gene­rous inclination to promote the Happiness of a­nother. [Page 28] Whereas on the contrary, to part with any thing out of a selfish Design, is an exchange, not a Gift, which when 'tis done by a Person of Estate, is an argument of a mean and mer­cenary spirit. But then to pursue a Benefit with superciliousness and contempt, to expect a com­plyance with the most unreasonable humours; to give upbraiding and contumelious signs of the dependance and unworthiness of the Recei­ver; to require a man to relinquish the neces­sary Freedom of one of the most solemn and honourable Professions; this turns an obligation into injury, and affront, and looks like a ma­licious trap set to catch a mans Reputation. Who that hath either Sense or Honesty would turn his Canonical Habit into a Livery, and make himself useless and ridiculous for the great­est consideration whatever? A worthy Person would scorn a Kingdom proffer'd upon such dishonourable terms.

3^ly, If we put the case as 'tis determined by Law, this practice will appear still more unrea­sonable. 'Tis sufficiently known, and were it not for the overgrown prejudices of some Per­sons, it were superfluous to mention, that the Patron is so far from having a full Propriety in Churh-Preferments, that his Right only consists in a power to Nominate who shall enjoy them. Which very Nomination must be made within six Months, and fix't upon a Person Canonically [Page 29] qualified, otherwise 'tis wholly invalid. His Interest in Church Livings only enables him to give them away, not to keep them. He hath no power to enter upon any part of the Glebes, or Tithes, or so much as to sequester the profits for the next Incumbent. He is only a Trustee authorized under certain conditions, to dispose of the Pa­trimony of the Church, which is settled upon it by as good Laws as any he holds his Estate by. That Right which he hath was originally grant­ed in consideration of works of extraordinary Piety, in building or endowing of Churches: which is a Title very few (except the King) can pretend to, either upon their own, or their An­cestors accounts. From all which it appears, that the Patrons giving an Annuity out of his Estate, is a quite different thing from his Presenting to a Living, and therefore his expectations of gra­titude and observance, should not be set so high in this latter case. For here neither Law, nor Religion allow the Donor to be a peny the bet­ter for what he disposes of; he cannot detain the least part of it without Injustice and Sacri­lege, nor confer it upon exceptionable Persons without breach of Fidelity.

The Trust indeed is honourable and weighty, it being in the power of those to whom 'tis com­mitted to encourage Learning, and to provide the people with prudent, and conscientious Guides: but then I must add, that it ought to [Page 30] be discharged accordingly, and that those who do not chiefly aim at these Ends in the exercise of it, have little either of Conscience or Ho­nour in them.

We have reason to believe that when the Church gave this right of Presentation to Lay-Patrons, (for that the Bishops had originally the right of judging the Qualifications of Priests, and fixing them in their respective Cures, with­out being accountable to a Quare impedit for their refusal of the peoples choice, might be made e­vident were it pertinent to the business in hand) When the Church I say parted with this Right, she had no suspicion of the degeneracy of after Ages; but imagined that the integrity, and conscience, if not the Munificence of the first Patrons might have been transmitted to the Heirs, or Purchasers of their Right. The Piety of those times would have made it look uncha­ritable to have been apprehensive of Resigna­tion Bonds, of forced Compositions, and Con­tracts for Farms, or Women. But some people have now learn'd to make bold with God Al­mighty, beyond the imagination, as well as the example of their Predecessors; and to be guilty of those sacrilegious Frauds, which by the late Provision of our Laws against some of them, seem not to have been so much as thought on, in those more Primitive and Religious days.

And here in point of Charity I think my­self [Page 31] obliged to desire those who are concern'd in the Rights of Patronage, to consider before 'tis too late, how great a sin it is to abuse their Power; and through Covetousness, or some o­ther unwarrantable principle, to betray the Church, which hath in some measure made them her Guardian: It imports them very much to reflect how unworthy and unchristian it is to play upon the indigence or irresolution of ano­ther; and take an advantage from the unfortu­nateness of his Condition or Temper, to ob­lige him to mean and sinfull compliances! And what an open and undisguised Affront it is to the Divine Majesty, to endeavour to make his Ministers cheap and insignificant; both before, and after the conferring our pretended favours upon them. To create servile Dependances, and raise our private Grandeur upon the Endow­ments of Religion, is a perfect contradiction to the End and design of them. This makes the Church contemptible by the strength of her own Revenues, and causes the Monuments of our Fore-fathers Piety to be instrumental in un­dermining, and exposing that Faith they there­by intended to secure and advance▪ which who­soever is guilty of, he may be assured he hath a right to the Imprecations, as well as the Patro­nage of the first Endowers of Churches, which dreadfull Legacy they were generally very care­full to settle upon such irreligious Posterity. Spel­man de non temerand. Eccl.

[Page 32]In short, to prostitute so sacred a Trust as this is, to pride and ambition, is in effect to sacri­fice to the Devil with that which is consecrated to God Almighty, and looks like a more provo­king impiety, than Belshazzer's debauching to the Honour of his Idols, in the Vessels of the Tem­ple, Dan. 5.3, 4. for here is not only an abuse of Holy things but persons too, and God is disho­noured in those that Represent him upon a most solemn and important account.

I shall now at last crave leave to desire those of the Clergy, who are engaged in the Families of Secular Persons (for I mean no other) to re­flect of what ill consequence it is to Religion for them not to assert their Office in a prudent defensible way: and how cheap in their per­sons, and unsuccessfull in their Employment, they must necessarily be, if they betray the pri­viledges of their Function, by servile compli­ance and flattery. People will be apt to ima­gine (and not without reason) that those who will cringe below the gravity of their Character, to gain a little of this world, can scarce have any great and Religious apprehensions of the other. Overmuch Ceremony in a Clergyman is frequently misinterpreted, and supposed to proceed not from his Breeding or Humility, but from a consciousness of his meanness; and others are willing to allow him so much sense, as to be a competent judge of his own incon­siderableness; [Page 33] and since he confesses himself con­temptible by his carriage, they think it but just to treat him accordingly. For Men of Figure, excepting those who are very understanding and Religious, are apt to have misapprehensions conveyed into them by over-proportioned re­spect; and to imagine the Distance between him that gives it, and themselves, to be much greater than really it is. Since therefore as things stand, there is some danger lest Churchmen should complement away the usefulness and Authori­ty of their calling; they would do well to de­cline superlative observance, for fear they give others a wrong notion of their Employ, or be thought to have Mens persons in admiration because of advantage. It would be no more than requisite, if they would reserve their Duty for their King, their Bishop and their Parents, and express their gratitude to their Patrons in Language less ly­able to misconstruction, and more proper to the Relation between them. For as they should not be unwilling to own the Distinctions which the Kings Laws have made, as they ought to make some particular acknowledgements for the fa­vours, and civilities of those they are more im­mediately concern'd with, and by inoffensive and agreeable conversation, prevent all reason­able suspicion of their being displeas'd with the superiour Quality, or Fortune of others; So like­wise are they obliged not to be so officiously, or [Page 34] rather parasitically mindfull of the Condition of any Person, as wholly to be forgetfull of their own. For notwithstanding the disadvantages they may sometimes happen to come into the world with; the Constitution of the Govern­ment hath set them upon the same Level with the inferiour Gentry, as a reward of their Edu­cation, and out of regard to their Function: Now that the Laws were not Priest-ridden and superstitiously lavish of their Honour in this case might, were it necessary, be abundantly proved from the reason of the thing, and the general practice of other Countries, both with respect to ancient and modern times. These priviledges therefore being confer'd upon just and publick accounts, a man is sometimes bound to maintain; and to surrender them up to the superciliousness of every assuming or ignorant Pretender, is a Reflection upon the wisdom, and ingratitude to the Religious Bounty of those Kings who grant­ed them: and which is worse, a Churchman by making himself contemptible hath parted with his power of doing good; and consequently disappointed the great End of his Calling. Where­as without doubt 'tis part of the design of these priviledges to exact a sutable Resolution and presence of mind in those that have them, that so their spirit being raised up to their civil sta­tion, their character and deportment may be the better proportioned, and their actions keep a [Page 35] truer decorum with the Nature of their Office; that they might not be overawed, and almost struck dumb with the glitterings of Title, or Fortune; but retain a gracefull Freedom in con­versation, neither Idolizing Greatness, nor neg­lecting it. The intention of the Laws in distin­guishing the Clergy from the Vulgar, besides the consideration of their Merit; was to put them into a better Capacity to maintain the Honour and Interest of Religion among all sorts of Per­sons; that the rich as well as the poor might be advantaged by their Ministery, and when Per­sons of Condition were to be told of their faults, the Priest might be fortified with a convenient courage to give the reproof, and the others dis­pos'd to receive it without disgust and impati­ence. Now to be ready upon all occasions to resent any dishonour done to Religion with a prudent gravity and assurance, carries such a noble Air of greatness & undesigning honesty in it, that it forces a secret Veneration from Enemies themselves; & though a man may happen to be unjustly hated for speaking unacceptable truths; yet he is sure never to be despised. Whereas a diffident and unsupported behaviour in a Cler­gyman, is often suppos'd to proceed from igno­ble qualities, and consequently will be sure to weaken the force of his publick Instructions; it being natural for Ill men especially, to disregard, if not to deride the admonitions of those they [Page 36] believe are afraid of them; and he that cannot talk without concern before a Sinner of Quality any where but in the Pulpit, might almost as good say nothing to him there. For if a Church­mans conversation be servile and designing all the Week, his appearing with a new Set of No­tions upon the Sunday, will be interpreted only a formal compliance with his Profession: His pressing those Doctrines which his Practice con­tradicts, will signifie little either to his own ad­vantage, or theirs that hear him: For though men ought to mind what is said, and not who says it; yet the prejudices of the generality are such, that a good cause usually suffers very much when 'tis pleaded by an improper and exception­able Advocate: How fulsome an Entertainment is it to hear a Coward harang upon Valour, or a Covetous Miser preach up contempt of the world? The man might better have spared his Rhetorick; for his commending those good Qua­lities, he neither hath the honesty, or courage to be Master of, is in effect but a Satyr upon himself, and serves only to make him more de­spicable and ridiculous; and which is worse, the secret disdain the Audience hath for such a Pane­gyrist, often insensibly slides from his Person to his subject; which makes his exhortation nause­ous, & helps to bring Vertue it self into Disgrace.

If it be objected that the poverty of some of the Clergy forces them to suppress their senti­ments [Page 37] in some things, & to suffer whatever an En­croaching Spirit shall think fit to put upon them: To this I answer, that the temptation to this sin ought to have been prevented before their going into Holy Orders: For those who cannot be sup­plied with a competent Fortune by themselves, their Relations, or at least by some creditable in­dependent Preferment, had much better choose some other inferiour Employment, than expose themselves to such apparent danger in this: But if their own or their Friends imprudence, hath sent them unprovided into the Church, 'tis more repu­table, conscientious, & to a generous mind, more easie too, to submit to the inconveniencies of their own poverty, than to the Pride of others; and to prefer a homely, unornamented Liberty, to a splendid Servitude. And as for those (if there be any such) who do not discharge their Office with that plainness, & discreetly managed Resolution which God and the Church expects from them; it will not be improper to remind them of what M^r Herbert hath written upon this occasion, Country Parson p. 5. where he tells us, ‘"That such persons wrong the Priesthood, neglect their duty, and shall be so far from that which they seek by their oversubmissiveness and cringing, that they shall ever be despised."’ Indeed they have no rea­son to expect any better Usage; for as Flattery is deservedly accounted one of the most contempti­ble Vices, so a Clergyman when he is guilty of it is the worst of Flatterers. To which we may add [Page 38] that 'tis hard to conceive how the Oath against Simony can be fairly taken by such persons; for certainly he that purchases his Preferment with the prevarication of his Office, does no less contradict the design of this Oath, then if he had paid down the full value in money for it: He that hath barter'd away his Freedom and Usefulness, (and as much as in him lies the Reputation of his Order) cannot in any reasonable construction be said to be Presented Gratis.

Those therefore who are this way concern'd, should do well to consider how mean it is to be overawed, and how mer­cenary, to be bribed into an Omission of their Duty! What a sordid and criminal persidiousness is it, to betray the Honour of their Function, and the Happiness of their Charge, For handfulls of barley and pieces of bread? Ezek. 13. How ill do they Represent the God of Faithfulness and Truth; who either by verbal or silent Flattery, deceive men into a false perswasion of security, and dissemble their apprehensions of danger, when the mistake is likely to prove Fatal to those that lie under it? Can they that pretend (and that truly, a Commission from our Blessed Saviour, That Good Shepherd, who laid down his Life for the Sheep; Can they have so little Charity for the Souls of Men, as to let them miscarry out of Ceremony and Respect, and ra­ther venture their being damn'd than disobliged▪ How such a Treacherous Observance will be look'd upon in the Great Day of Accounts, is not difficult to foretell, were it not too sad an Argument to dilate upon: However some­thing of the Guilt of it may be conceived by a remarkable Sentence of the forementioned Author, p. 6. which seems to be no less true than severe. ‘"They (says he) who for the hope of Promotion, neglect any necessary Admoni­tion or Reproof, sell, with Iudas, their Lord and Master."’