mination in the sight of God. Covetousness, in the sight of God, is the same as idol-worship. Covetousness, according to the text, signifies a love of money. A Bishop should not love money, nor set his affections upon the sordid things of this world. If he has a heart disposed towards riches; if money, or the pleasures of ease, employ his affections, he is unworthy of the office of a Bishop: for how can he teach others to deny the world, if he himself is a lover of the things thereof. The Heathens considered the love of money, and an anxious pursuit after worldly things, as both wicked and mean: you know, my Lords, that Ovid calls it

"Amor sceleratus habendi ;"

which is a sentiment big with meaning.

It is a palpable sign of covetousness, for any person who enjoys a fortune of his own, sufficient to make any Christian man live comfortably, to thirst after a church living, and undertake an office which he is not either qualified to fulfil, or never intends to discharge. It is a proverb among the common people, that the clergy are always greedy; and, my Lords, I remember a prophet of the Lord added the epithet of dogs to a set of clergy not unlike yourselves. To make you understand covetousness a little better, I shall give the prophet's opinion at large:" His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain from his quarter. Come ye, say they, I will "fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.*”

Those clergymen thus characterized by the prophet were not mean men, nor insignificant country curates, as you may iniagine. They were high-priests, like you, and the very heads of the national establishment; and the Lord, by the prophet, calls them dumb dogs, because they did not speak his word to the people, but lived at ease, and neglected their duty, which they were bound to perform for receiving such large perquisites. When they were living in the absolute neglect of every duty belonging to their office, they could never have enough; and every one of them was zealous in looking after his gain from bis quarter. I will be sorry to say, my Lords, that these Jewish priests were types of you; but there is certainly some resem blance, in the matter of covetousness, between you and them. They were fonder of increasing the revenues of the church, than fulfilling the offices that they were engaged to perform; they tythed every thing, but did nothing, except what they ought not to have done. Instead of watching, they slept; and when they should have fasted and prayed, they rioted in luxury, and

• Isaiah, lvi. 10.

drank

drank wine and strong drink. Covetousness is a naughty quality in any person; but it is altogether unseemly for a Bishop. But lest, by describing the vice of covetousness, I should make some severe strictures upon your Lordships, I shall conclude this Discourse.

SERMON VII.

NUMBERS, Xviii. 24.

But the tythes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit; therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

As the Levites were not allowed to buy lands and hereditary pos

sessions, they were thereby prevented from being covetous; and as the tythes were competent for their maintenance, they sought no more, nor aimed any higher. Were all the priests in England forbidden, by an express law, to purchase lands or estates upon pain of losing their livings, it would prevent, in a great measure, that ruling spirit of covetousness which prevaiis amongst them. The Priests and Levites depended entirely upon providence, and their livings increased or decreased according as the Divine bounty favoured the nation. It was contrary to the law of God, and the constitution of that nation, for any of the Jewish clergy to interfere in secular affairs. It would make a strange catastrophe, if such a law were made in England. My Lords, you would be obliged either to part with your patrimonies as landholders, or give up your claim to the patrimony of the church, which would be a severe trial to many dignified clergymen.

But what I intended to consider on this subject is the doctrine of tythes, as practised in the church of England. In a former discourse it was observed, that tythes are not held by a divine right; and it was hinted, that they are not consistent with the spirit and genius of our free constitution. That they are now confirmed by acts of parliament of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. by William and Mary, and George I. is not denied; but it will be allowed that all the laws which have been made during the reigns of those princes are not exactly consistent with the original and fundamental laws of the kingdom. Some complaisant parliaments have passed bills, which have been formed into laws, that have done little honour to the legislature. Henry VIII. could demand of his parliament what he had a mind; and

it was well known that what be ordered with respect to tythes was what the Pope had done before him; and his new laws of decimation differed nothing from those of Rome, except that he claimed to himself what formerly was given to the Pope. The favourable acts which after princes have passed in behalf of the clergy, concerning the tythes, were passed into laws to oblige them to make them hold their peace, and to prevent them from interfering with matters of state, which they were always ready to do when they were not taken notice of: but such laws, instead of being constitutional deeds, were only prudential temporary acts, which the wisdom of government may alter, without af fecting the constitution. They have no more relation to the constitutional laws of England, than some people may think the Jate Dog-Act has. It is not supposed by any, that all the different acts of parliament which the two Houses contrive when they meet, and persuade the Sovereign to sign, are always consistent with the fundamental laws of these realms. Many of them are temporary expedients designed to answer the present purposes of government, and are often repealed when they are not found to do good by their continuance. And why may not the laws concerning tythes be altered, when they are found to injure the various improvements in agriculture which are carrying on in the nation. As an evidence that the legislature did not consider tythes as the sole property of the church, there are near three thousand parishes whose tythes are impropriate, and in the possession of laymen, who perform no church duties, nor pay any salary, except what they please. Henry VIII. was allowed by his tractable parliament to give the tythes to whom he pleased; so he gave them to his favourites, whether clergy or laymen, according to his own will and pleasure; and they are standing nearly in the same situation he left them. The fundamental laws of the English constitution would not be affected, supposing that all the tythes in the nation were given up for some other consideration; and that, instead of receiving them in kind, a certain modus might be received in lieu of them, which would answer all the purposes for which tythes in England were intended. It is an indisputable point, that tythes were once upon another footing than they are now; for they once belonged to the church, and were applied to religious purposes: but when Henry VIII. differed with the Pope, his Majesty thought proper to take more than the third part of all the tythes of the nation into his own possession, and retailed them out in gifts to his friends and favourites. Thus the foundation of tythes, though secured by act of parliament, appears a little unconstitutional. Your Lordships know that royal grants are not legal tenures. The royal mind may change, and then nullum tempus occurrit Regi is a known maxim, and may be applied to tythes as well Soccages. If the King cannot alienate, as some late court maxims seem to intimate, what was once the property of the crown may

be

be recalled; and why may not these tythes, which were given away by former Princes, be again resumed by their successors? This is, perhaps, what the clergy would desire; for in such a case they would be more likely to return all back again to the church, when they come into the hands of him who is head thereof. But as there has been such a tergiversation in the disposing of tythes, it would argue that there were no fundamental Jaws with regard to their being received in kind. The rights of the church are secured by Magna Charta; but the question is, whether tythes in kind, or tythes at all, be her right? For it appears unreasonable that the church should have so much land of her own, and at the same time have a claim for the tenth part of the produce of what belongs to every other person.

This provision, which is made for the church by tythes in kind, cannot certainly be the intention of the constitution; for it cannot be supposed, that, for the the sake of supporting one body of men, a bar should be put in the way of national improvements, which tend to the advantage of all ranks. No act of parliament was ever intended, however some of them may be expressed, to put a stop to improvements in agriculture, in which the real strength of the nation consists; nor can we suppose that our laws can refer to objects which the legislature who formed them did not so much as conceive would ever exist. The industry of farmers has produced what none of the parliaments which enacted laws concerning tythes ever imagined would exist in Great Britain: and it is certainly unreasonable, that industrious men should sink their money, and bestow their labour, for others, who are at no expence, to carry away the tenth part of their profits. But even the tythes are far from satisfying the avaricious desires of the clergy; for, besides tythes in kind of every thing the earth produces which is profitable, they exact a tax from both the living and the dead. Church fees must be paid both by those who go to church, and those who do not. For marriages, funerals, and Easter reckonings, the clergy receive near another tenth of all our substance. are, my Lords, much obliged to Popery for your large endowments. The whole form of your church emoluments, as well as a great part of your worship, are the manufacture of the Man of Sin. The Jewish clergy, from whom the Roman church and your's would make us believe you take your pattern, had no such privileges as you enjoy: they had no other inheritance except tythes, nor were they allowed to buy lands, or interfere in secular affairs; and every third year they were obliged to divide with the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow;-but after you have divided all the tythes among yourselves, you saddle the public with a poor rate into the bargain. You ought certainly to supply the poor with the tenth part of the nation's substance. Instead of this, the very poorest ranks of people are obliged to contribute to the luxury of the clergy. Every poor day-labourer,

You

with a small family, must pay for his own head, and every one in his house, provided they be sixteen years of age, though they should borrow the money, or their family starve. This is hard, my Lords, very hard; and you ought to consider it.

But suppose you have some patched-up human laws for your tythes, and some other customary offerings, it is unfair to receive wages when you do not work. You ought certainly to do some good for your money. It is true, you sit in parliament; but the Priests who first received tythes did not aspire so high; they did not meddle with civil affairs. The matters of the Lord, and those of the King, were in those days kept distinct. But as the Jewish dispensation is finished, it is amazing that you, who pretend to be Christians, should still retain the Jewish system. Why do you not pursue it throughout, and offer sacrifices, as the priests of the law did? You would have a right to the fat, as they had, if you performed their service; but you can eat the fat, and do no service at all, which is highly unreasonable.

It appears something strange, that a Protestant church should claim the privilege of laws which were intended to establish the church of Rome. Henry I. Edward III. and Henry VIII. ratified no laws in behalf of the church, but with a view to support perfect Popery. It is not a little suspicious in your characters, my Lords, that you should insist on the execution of laws for the payment of tythes, which no Protestant can execute, without first turning Papist. There is not, at this day, a Protestant church under the protection of any government which holds tythes upon the tenure of Popish laws, as your church does; nor do the clergy intermeddle in state affairs, or have any share in the civil government of the nations where they reside. In Denmark and Sweden the clergy assemble in parliament, but do not meet as Lords Spiritual along with the Temporal Lords; their business is only to attend to the affairs of the church, or to advise in things pertaining to religion: but they do not, in the character of Barons and Spiritual Lords, sit with the nobles to determine in civil decisions of the legislature.

But, to conclude this Discourse concerning tythes, it is undoubtedly contrary to the welfare of those lands for the clergy to be rich, or to be paid with tythes in kind. They never can enjoy the love of the landed interest, while they insist upon this mode of decimation. And it must have the appearance of greediness of filthy lucre, for them to prefer tythes to the love of the people. It will be impossible for them to edify those who consider them as selfish interested men, who would not save a single soul from perdition unless they were sure of being extravagantly paid for it.

Prudence ought to direct you, my Lords, to be moderate in this particular; otherwise I may venture to pronounce that your existence will not be long. The laity are become wiser than in

past