throughout the kingdom, one half of what the laws have made
their due.

[Footnote 10: The late Lord Molesworth.]

As to his lordship's discontent against the Bishops' Courts, I shall not
interpose further than in venturing my private opinion, that the clergy
would be very glad to recover their just dues by a more short, decisive,
and compulsive method, than such a cramped and limited jurisdiction will
allow.

His lordship is not the only person disposed to give the clergy the
honour of being the _sole_ encouragers of all new improvements. If hops,
hemp, flax, and twenty things more are to be planted, the clergy,
_alone_, must reward the industrious farmer, by abatement of the tithe.
What if the owner of nine parts in ten would please to abate
proportionably in his rent, for every acre thus improved? Would not a
man just dropped from the clouds, upon a full hearing, judge the demand
to be, at least, as reasonable?

I believe no man will dispute his lordship's title to his estate; nor
will I the _jus divinum_ of tithes, which he mentions with some emotion.
I suppose the affirmative would be of little advantage to the clergy,
for the same reason that a maxim in law hath more weight in the world
than an article of faith. And yet, I think there may be such a thing as
sacrilege; because it is frequently mentioned by Greek and Roman
authors, as well as described in Holy Writ. This I am sure of; that his
lordship would, at any time, excuse a parliament for not concerning
itself in his properties, without his own consent.

The observations I have made upon his lordship's discourse, have not, I
confess, been altogether proper to my subject: However, since he hath
been pleased therein to offer some proposals to the House of Commons,
with relation to the clergy, I hope he will excuse me for differing from
him; which proceeds from his own principle, the desire of defending
liberty and property, that he hath so strenuously and constantly
maintained.

But the other writer openly declares for a law, empowering the bishops
to set fee-farms; and says, "Whoever intimates that they will deny their
consent to such a reasonable law, which the whole nation cries for, are
enemies to them and the Church." Whether this be his real opinion, or
only a strain of mirth and irony, the matter is not much. However, my
sentiments are so directly contrary to his; that I think, whoever
impartially reads and considers what I have written upon this