Chapter VI: Part 6

Page 288. "As everything is persecution, which puts a man in a worse condition than his neighbours." It is hard to think sometimes whether this man is hired to write for or against dissenters and the sects. This is their opinion, although they will not own it so roundly. Let this be brought to practice: Make a quaker lord chancellor, who thinketh paying tithes unlawful. And bring other instances to shew that several employments affect the Church.

_Ibid_. "Great advantage which both Church and state have got by the kindness already shewn to dissenters." Let them then be thankful for that. We humour children for their good sometimes, but too much may hurt. Observe that this 64th paragraph just contradicts the former. For, if we have advantage by kindness shewn dissenters, then there is no necessity of banishment, or death.

Page 290. "Christ never designed the holy Sacrament should be prostituted to serve a party. And that people should be bribed by a place to receive unworthily." Why, the business is, to be sure, that those who are employed are of the national church; and the way to know it is by receiving the sacrament, which all men ought to do in their own church; and if not, are hardly fit for an office; and if they have those moral qualifications he mentioneth, joined to religion, no fear of receiving unworthily. And for this there might be a remedy: To take an oath, that they are of the same principles, &c. for that is the end of receiving; and that it might be no bribe, the bill against occasional conformity would prevent entirely.

_Ibid_. "Preferring men not for their capacity, but their zeal to the Church." The misfortune is, that if we prefer dissenters to great posts, they will have an inclination to make themselves the national church, and so there will be perpetual struggling; which case may be dangerous to the state. For men are naturally wishing to get over others to their own opinion: Witness this writer, who hath published as singular and absurd notions as possible, yet hath a mighty zeal to bring us over to them, &c.

Page 292. Here are two pages of scurrilous faction, with a deal of reflections on great persons. Under the notion of High-Churchmen, he runs down all uniformity and church government. Here is the whole Lower House of Convocation, which represents the body of the clergy and both universities, treated with rudeness by an obscure, corrupt member, while he is eating their bread.

Page 294. "The reason why the middle sort of people retain so much of their ancient virtue &c. is because no such pernicious notions are the ingredients of their education; which 'tis a sign are infinitely absurd, when so many of the gentry and nobility can, notwithstanding their prepossession, get clear of them." Now the very same argument lies against religion, morality, honour, and honesty, which are, it seems, but prejudices of education, and too many get clear of them. The middle sort of people have other things to mind than the factions of the age. He always assigneth many causes, and sometimes with reason, since he maketh imaginary effects. He quarrels at power being lodged in the clergy: When there is no reasonable Protestant, clergy, or laity, who will not readily own the inconveniences by too great power and wealth, in any one body of men, ecclesiastics, or seculars: But on that account to weed up the wheat with the tares; to banish all religion, because it is capable of being corrupted; to give unbounded licence to all sects, &c.--And if heresies had not been used with some violence in the primitive age, we should have had, instead of true religion, the most corrupt one in the world.

Page 316. "The Dutch, and the rest of our presbyterian allies, &c." The Dutch will hardly thank him for this appellation. The French Huguenots, and Geneva Protestants themselves, and others, have lamented the want of episcopacy, and approved ours, &c. In this and the next paragraph, the author introduceth the arguments he formerly used, when he turned papist in King James's time; and loth to lose them, he gives them a new turn; and they are the strongest In his book, at least have most artifice.

Page 333. "'Tis plain, all the power the bishops have, is derived from the people, &c." In general the distinction lies here. The permissive power of exercising jurisdiction, lies in the people, or legislature, or administrator of a kingdom; but not of making him a bishop. As a physician that commenceth abroad, may be suffered to practise in London or be hindered; but they have not the power of creating him a doctor, which is peculiar to a university. This is some allusion; but the thing is plain, as it seemeth to me, and wanteth no subterfuge, &c.

Page 338. "A journeyman bishop to ordain for him." Doth any man think, that writing at this rate, does the author's cause any service? Is it his wit or his spleen that he cannot govern?

Page 364. "Can any have a right to an office without having a right to do those things in which the office consists?" I answer, the ordination is valid. But a man may prudentially forbid to do some things. As a clergyman may marry without licence or banns; the marriage is good; yet he is punishable for it.

Page 368. "A choice made by persons who have no right to choose, is an error of the first concoction." That battered simile again; this is hard. I wish the physicians had kept that a secret, it lieth so ready for him to be witty with.

Page 370. "If prescription can make mere nullities to become good and valid, the laity may be capable of all manner of ecclesiastical power, &c." There is a difference; for here the same way is kept, although there might be breaches; but it is quite otherwise, if you alter the whole method from what it was at first. We see bishops: There always were bishops: It is the old way still. So a family is still held the same, although we are not sure of the purity of every one of the race.

Page 380. "It is said, That every nation is not a complete body politic within itself as to ecclesiasticals. But the whole church, say they, composes such a body, and Christ is the head of it. But Christ's headship makes Christians no more one body politic with respect to ecclesiasticals than to civils." Here we must shew the reason and necessity of the Church being a corporation all over the world: To avoid heresies, and preserve fundamentals, and hinder corrupting of Scripture, &c. But there are no such necessities in government, to be the same everywhere, &c. It is something like the colleges in a university; they all are independent, yet, joined, are one body. So a general council consisteth of many persons independent of one another, &c.

However there is such a thing as _jus gentium_, &c. And he that is doctor of physic, or law, is so in any university of Europe, like the _Respublica Literaria_. Nor to me does there seem anything contradicting, or improper in this notion of the Catholic Church; and for want of such a communion, religion is so much corrupted, and would be more, if there were [not] more communion in this than in civils. It is of no import to mankind how nations are governed; but the preserving the purity of religion is best held up by endeavouring to make it one body over the world. Something like as there is in trade. So to be able to communicate with all Christians we come among, is at least to be wished and aimed at as much as we can.

Page 384. "In a word, if the bishops are not supreme, &c." Here he reassumeth his arguments for Popery, that there cannot be a body politic of the Church through the whole world, without a visible head to have recourse to. These were formerly writ to advance Popery, and now to put an absurdity upon the hypothesis of a Catholic Church. As they say in Ireland, in King James's time, they built mass-houses, which we make very good barns of.

Page 388. "Bishops are, under a _premunire_ obliged to confirm and consecrate the person named in the _congé d'Élire_." This perhaps is complained of. He is permitted to do it. We allow the legislature may hinder if they please; as they may turn out Christianity, if they think fit.

Page 389. "It is the magistrate who empowers them to do more for other bishops than they can for themselves, since they cannot appoint their own successors." Yes they could, if the magistrate would let them. Here is an endless splutter, and a parcel of perplexed distinctions upon no occasion. All that the clergy pretend to, is a right of qualifying men for the ministry, something like what a university doth with degrees. This power they claim from God, and that the civil power cannot do it as pleasing to God without them; but they may choose whether they will suffer it or no. A religion cannot be crammed down a nation's throat against their will; but when they receive a religion, it is supposed they receive as their converters give it; and, upon that foot, they cannot justly mingle their own methods, that contradict that religion, &c.

Page 390. "With us the bishops act only ministerially and by virtue of the regal commission, by which the prince firmly enjoins and commands them to proceed in choosing, confirming, and consecrating, &c." Suppose we held it unlawful to do so: How can we help it? but does that make it rightful, if it be not so? Suppose the author lived in a heathen country, where a law would be made to call Christianity idolatrous; would that be a topic for him to prove it so by, &c.? And why do the clergy incur a _pre-munire;_--To frighten them--Because the law understandeth, that, if they refuse, the chosen cannot be a bishop: But, if the clergy had an order to do it otherwise than they have prescribed, they ought and would incur an hundred rather.

Page 402. "I believe the Catholic Church, &c." Here he ridicules the Apostles' Creed.--Another part of his scheme.--By what he says in these pages, it is certain, his design is either to run down Christianity, or set up Popery; the latter it is more charitable to think, and, from his past life, highly probable.

Page 405. "That which gave the Papists so great advantage was, clergymen's talking so very inconsistent with themselves, &c." State the difference here between our separation from Rome, and the dissenters from us, and shew the falseness of what he sayeth. I wish he would tell us what he leaveth for a clergyman to do, if he may not instruct the people in religion, and if they should not receive his instructions.

Page 411. "The restraint of the press a badge of Popery." Why is that a badge of Popery? Why not restrain the press to those who would confound religion, as in civil matters? But this toucheth himself. He would starve, perhaps, &c, Let him get some honester livelihood then. It is plain, all his arguments against constraint, &c. favour the papists as much as dissenters; for both have opinions that may affect the peace of the state.

Page 413. "Since this discourse, &c." And must we have another volume on this one subject of independency? Or, is it to fright us? I am not of Dr. Hickes's mind, _Qu'il venge_. I pity the readers, and the clergy that must answer it, be it ever so insipid. Reflect on his sarcastic conclusion, &c.

***** ***** ***** *****

A

PREFACE

TO THE

B---P OF S----M'S

INTRODUCTION, &c.

NOTE.

AT the time of writing this scathing piece of invective, Swift was busy dealing out to an old friend a similar specimen of his terrible power of rejoinder. Steele, in the newly established "Guardian," as Mr. Churton Collins well puts it, "drunk with party spirit, had so far forgotten himself as to insert ... a coarse and ungenerous reflection on Swift." Swift sought an explanation through Addison, but Steele's egotism was stronger than the feeling of friendship, and the insult remained for Swift to wipe out in "The Importance of the 'Guardian' Considered." Probably this severance from his friend, due to political differences--for Steele glowed in Whiggism--deepened, if possible, his hatred to Whigs of whatever degree; and in Burnet he found another object for his wit. But apart from such a suggestion, there was enough in the Bishop's attitude towards the Tories to rouse Swift to his task. It was not enough that Burnet should accuse his political opponents of sympathy with the French, Jacobitism, and Popery, but he must needs flaunt his vanity in issuing, in advance, for purposes of advertisement, the introduction to a work which was to come later. This was enough for Swift, and the prelate who "could smell popery at five hundred miles distance better than fanaticism under his nose," became the recipient of one of the most amusing and yet most virulent attacks which even that controversial age produced. "The whole pamphlet," Mr. Collins truly says, "is inimitable. Its irony, its humour, its drollery, are delicious."

It must not, however, be imagined that Swift's opinion of Burnet is only that which can be gathered from this "Preface." He fully appreciated the sterling qualities of scholarship and good nature, since in his "Remarks" on Burnet's "History of My Own Time," he says: "after all he was a man of generosity and good nature, and very communicative; but in his last ten years was absolutely party-mad, and fancied he saw Popery under every bush." Lord Dartmouth has left an excellent sketch of Burnet's character in a note to the "History of My Own Time": "Bishop Burnet was a man of the most extensive knowledge I ever met with; had read and seen a great deal, with a prodigious memory, and a very indifferent judgment: he was extremely partial, and readily took everything for granted that he heard to the prejudice of those he did not like: which made him pass for a man of less truth than he really was. I do not think he designedly published anything he believed to be false. He had a boisterous, vehement manner of expressing himself, which often made him ridiculous, especially in the House of Lords, when what he said would not have been thought so, delivered in a lower voice, and a calmer behaviour. His vast knowledge occasioned his frequent rambling from the point he was speaking to, which ran him into discourses of so universal a nature, that there was no end to be expected but from a failure of his strength and spirits, of both which he had a larger share than most men; which were accompanied with a most invincible assurance." (Note to the Preface of Burnet's "History of My Own Time," vol. i. p. xxxiii, Oxford, 1897.)

It may not be altogether out of place to give here a short biographical sketch of Bishop Burnet.

Gilbert Burnet was born at Edinburgh in 1643. He studied first at Aberdeen and then in Holland. In 1665, after he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, he entered holy orders, became vicar of Saltoun, and, in 1669, professor of divinity at Glasgow. The year 1673 found him in London, engaged on his "History of the Reformation," and fulfilling the duties of chaplain to the king, preacher to the Rolls, and lecturer of St. Clement's. The "Reformation" appeared in three folio volumes; the first in 1679, the second in 1681, and the third in 1714. He had already written the "Lives of the Dukes of Hamilton," the "Life of Sir Matthew Hale," and a "Life of the Earl of Rochester." Getting into some political trouble he was deprived of his offices, and left England for the continent. After travelling in France he settled in Holland, and married a Dutch lady. When the Prince of Orange came to England to assume the government of the country, Burnet accompanied him, and in 1689 was installed into the bishopric of Salisbury. Evidently he had too zealous a sentiment for William and Mary, for his pastoral letter to the clergy of his diocese, commenting on the new sovereign, was condemned by the parliament, and ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. He married again, on the death of his Dutch wife, a rich widow, Mrs. Berkeley, who was his third spouse--hence Swift's caustic reference. He died March 17th, 1714-15. In addition to his histories of the Reformation and his own times, he wrote an "Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles" (1699), the "Life of Bishop Bedell" and the other lives already named, and several sermons and controversial pieces.

The text of this pamphlet is that of the first edition, collated with, those given by Faulkner, Hawkesworth, the "Miscellanies" of 1745, and Scott. It was originally published in 1713.

[T.S.]

A
PREFACE[1]
T O T H E
B--p of S--r--m's
INTRODUCTION
To the Third Volume of the
History of the Reformation
of the
Church of _England_.

_By GREGORY MISOSARVM._

_----Spargere voces
In vulgum ambiguas; & quaerere confcius arma._

The Second Edition

_LONDON_:

Printed for _John Morphew, _near _Stationers Hall_. 1713. Price _6d_.

THE PREFACE.[2]

MR. MORPHEW,

Your care in putting an advertisement in the _EXAMINER_ has been of great use to me. I do now send you my Preface to the B----p of S----r----m's INTRODUCTION to his third volume, which I desire you to print in such a form, as in the bookseller's phrase will make a sixpenny touch; hoping it will give such a public notice of my design, that it may come into the hands of those who perhaps look not into the B----p's Introduction. I desire you will prefix to this a passage out of Virgil, which does so perfectly agree with my present thoughts of his L----dsh----p, that I cannot express them better, nor more truly, than those words do.

I am, Sir,

Your most humble servant,

G. MISOSARUM.

[Footnote 1: Mr. Nichols quotes from the "Speculum Sarisburianum," "That the frequent and hasty repetitions of such prefaces and introductions, no less than three new ones in about one year's time, beside an old serviceable one republished concerning persecution--are preludes to other practical things, beside pastoral cares, sermons, and histories." [T. S.]]

[Footnote 2: This preface "to the bookseller" is in imitation of the bishop's own preface to the bookseller in the "Introduction," which was signed "G. Sarum." [T. S.]]

This way of publishing introductions to books that are, God knows when, to come out, is either wholly new, or so long unpractised, that my small reading cannot trace it. However we are to suppose, that a person of his Lordship's great age and experience, would hardly act such a piece of singularity without some extraordinary motives. I cannot but observe, that his fellow-labourer, the author of the paper called _The Englishman_,[3] seems, in some of his late performances, to have almost transcribed the notions of the Bishop: these notions, I take to have been dictated by the same masters, leaving to each writer that peculiar manner of expressing himself, which the poverty of our language forces me to call their style. When the _Guardian_ changed his title, and professed to engage in faction, I was sure the word was given, that grand preparations were making against next sessions; that all advantages would be taken of the little dissensions reported to be among those in power; and that the _Guardian_ would soon be seconded by some other piqueerers[4] from the same camp. But I will confess, my suspicions did not carry me so far as to conjecture that this venerable champion would be in such mighty haste to come into the field, and serve in the quality of an _enfant perdu_,[5] armed only with a pocket pistol, before his great blunderbuss could be got ready, his old rusty breastplate scoured, and his cracked headpiece mended.

[Footnote 3: Steele.]

[Footnote 4: Piqueerer = pickeerer (modern) = a marauder, a skirmisher in advance of an army. From French _picorer_ = to maraud. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: _Enfant perdu_, one of the advanced guard; or, as Hawkesworth notes it, "one of the forlorn hope." [T.S.]]

I was debating with myself, whether this hint of producing a small pamphlet to give notice of a large folio, was not borrowed from the ceremonial in Spanish romances, where a dwarf is sent out upon the battlements to signify to all passengers, what a mighty giant there is in the castle; or whether the Bishop copied this proceeding from the _fanfarronade_ of Monsieur Boufflers, when the Earl of Portland and that general had an interview. Several men were appointed at certain periods to ride in great haste toward the English camp, and cry out, _Monseigneur vient, Monseigneur vient:_ Then, small parties advanced with the same speed and the same cry, and this foppery held for many hours, until the mareschal himself arrived. So here, the Bishop (as we find by his dedication to Mr. Churchill the bookseller) has for a long time sent warning of his arrival by advertisements in _Gazettes_, and now his Introduction advances to tell us again, _Monseigneur vient:_ In the mean time, we must gape and wait and gaze the Lord knows how long, and keep our spirits in some reasonable agitation, until his Lordship's real self shall think fit to appear in the habit of a folio.

I have seen the same sort of management at a puppet-show. Some puppets of little or no consequence appeared several times at the window to allure the boys and the rabble: The trumpeter sounded often, and the doorkeeper cried a hundred times till he was hoarse, that they were just going to begin; yet after all, we were forced sometimes to wait an hour before Punch himself in person made his entry.

But why this ceremony among old acquaintance? The world and he have long known one another: Let him appoint his hour and make his visit, without troubling us all day with a succession of messages from his laqueys and pages.

With submission, these little arts of getting off an edition, do ill become any author above the size of Marten[6] the surgeon. My Lord tells us, that "many thousands of the two former parts of his History are in the kingdom,"[7] and now he perpetually advertises in the gazette, that he intends to publish the third: This is exactly in the method and style of Marten: "The seventh edition (many thousands of the former editions having been sold off in a small time) of Mr. Marten's book concerning secret diseases," &c.

[Footnote 6: This is John Marten, the author of two treatises on the gout, and a "Treatise of all the Degrees and Symptoms of the Venereal Disease" (1708?-9). His notoriety brought on him the ire of a "licens'd practitioner in physick and surgery," one J. Spinke, who, in a pamphlet entitled "Quackery Unmask'd" (1709), dealt Marten some most uncourteous blows. From the pamphlet, it is difficult to judge whether Spinke or Marten were the greater quack; we should judge the former. Certainly Marten deserves our sympathy, if only for Spinke's virulence. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Page 26.]

Does his Lordship intend to publish his great volume by subscription, and is this Introduction only by way of specimen? I was inclined to think so, because, in the prefixed letter to Mr. Churchill, which introduces this Introduction, there are some dubious expressions: He says, "the advertisements he published were in order to move people to furnish him with materials, which might help him to finish his work with great advantage." If he means half-a-guinea upon the subscription, and t'other half at the delivery, why does he not tell us so in plain terms?

I am wondering how it came to pass, that this diminutive letter to Mr. Churchill should understand the business of introducing better than the Introduction itself; or why the Bishop did not take it into his head to send the former into the world some months before the latter; which would have been a greater improvement upon the solemnity of the procession?

Since I writ these last lines, I have perused the whole pamphlet (which I had only dipped in before) and found I have been hunting upon a wrong scent; for the author hath in several parts of his piece, discovered the true motives which put him upon sending it abroad at this juncture; I shall therefore consider them as they come in my way.

My Lord begins his Introduction with an account of the reasons why he was guilty of so many mistakes in the first volume of his "History of the Reformation:" His excuses are just, rational, and extremely consistent. He says, "he wrote in haste,"[8] which he confirms by adding, "that it lay a year after he wrote it before it was put into the press:"[9] At the same time he mentioned a passage extremely to the honour of that pious and excellent prelate, Archbishop Sancroft, which demonstrates his Grace to have been a person of great sagacity, and almost a prophet. Dr. Burnet, then a private divine, "desired admittance to the Cotton library, but was prevented by the archbishop, who told Sir John Cotton, that the said doctor was no friend to the prerogative of the crown, nor to the constitution of the kingdom." This judgment was the more extraordinary, because the doctor had not long before published a book in Scotland, with his name prefixed, which carries the regal prerogative higher than any writer of the age:[10] however, the good archbishop lived to see his opinion become universal in the kingdom.

[Footnote 8: Page 6.]

[Footnote 9: Page 10.]

[Footnote 10: This was Burnet's "Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland," dedicated to the Duke of Lauderdale, and published in 1672. The dedication contains an eulogium of the duke, and the work a defence of episcopacy and monarchy against Buchanan and his followers. At a later period, the author did not probably recollect this juvenile publication with, much complacence.

It is somewhat remarkable to see the progress of this story. In the first edition of this "Introduction," it should seem, "he was prevented by the Archbishop," &c. When the "Introduction" was reprinted a year after with the "History," it stands: "A great prelate had been beforehand and possessed him [Sir John Cotton] against me--That unless the Archbishop of Canterbury would recommend me--he desired to be excused--The Bishop of Worcester could not prevail on the Archbishop to interpose." This is somewhat less than preventing, unless the Archbishop be meant by the "great prelate." Which is not very probable. 1. Because in the Preface to this very third volume, p. 4, he says, "It was by Archbishop Sancroft's order he had the free use of everything that lay in the Lambeth Library." 2. Because the Author of "Speculum Sarisburianum" (p. 6), tells us, "His access to the Library was owing solely to the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft, as I have been informed by some of the family." 3. Because Bishop Burnet, in his "History of My Own Times," vol. i. p. 396, says it was "Dolben, Bishop of Rochester (at the instigation of the Duke of Lauderdale), that diverted Sir John Cotton from suffering me to search his Library." ["Miscellanies," vol. viii. 1745.]]

The Bishop goes on for many pages, with an account of certain facts relating to the publishing of his two former volumes of the Reformation, the great success of that work, and the adversaries who appeared against it. These are matters out of the way of my reading; only I observe that poor Mr. Henry Wharton,[11] who has deserved so well of the commonwealth of learning, and who gave himself the trouble of detecting some hundreds of the Bishop's mistakes, meets with very ill quarter from his Lordship. Upon which I cannot avoid mentioning a peculiar method which this prelate takes to revenge himself upon those who presume to differ from him in print. The Bishop of Rochester[12] happened some years ago to be of this number. My Lord of Sarum in his reply ventured to tell the world, that the gentleman who had writ against him, meaning Dr Atterbury, was one upon whom he had conferred great obligations; which was a very generous Christian contrivance of charging his adversary with ingratitude. But it seems the truth happened to be on the other side; which the doctor made appear in such a manner as would have silenced his Lordship for ever, if he had not been writing proof. Poor Mr. Wharton in his grave is charged with the same accusation, but with circumstances the most aggravating that malice and something else could invent[13]; and which I will no more believe than five hundred passages in a certain book of travels[14]. See the character he gives of a divine, and a scholar, who shortened his life in the service of God and the church. "Mr. Wharton desired me to intercede with Tillotson for a prebend of Canterbury. I did so, but Wharton would not believe it; said he would be revenged, and so writ against me. Soon after he was convinced I had spoke for him, said he was set on to do what he did, and, if I would procure any thing for him, he would discover every thing to me[15]." What a spirit of candour, charity, and good nature, generosity, and truth, shines through this story, told of a most excellent and pious divine, twenty years after his death, without one single voucher[16]!

[Footnote 11: Henry Wharton (1664-1694-5), a divine, born at Worstead, Norfolk, and educated at Cambridge. Became chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft in 1688, and then rector of Chartham. Wrote "A Treatise on the Celibacy of the Clergy;" "The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in the Life of Ignatius Loyola;" "A Defence of Pluralities;" "Specimen of Errors in Burnet's 'History of the Reformation;'" "Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Historiarum;" and "History of Archbishop Laud." The criticism on Burnet's "History" was written under the _nom de guerre_ of Anthony Farmar. [T. S.]]

[Footnote 12: Dr. Atterbury.]

[Footnote 13: Page 22.]

[Footnote 14: Burnet's "Travels."]

[Footnote 15: Page 23.]

[Footnote 16: Burnet's account of this matter was reprinted in the Preface to his "History of the Reformation," and it contains also the bishop's rejoinder against Wharton's method of criticism in the "Specimen": "He had examined the dark ages before the Reformation with much diligence, and so knew many things relating to those times beyond any man of the age; he pretended that he had many more errors in reserve, and that this specimen was only a hasty collection of a few, out of many other discoveries he could make. This consisted of some trifling and minute differences in some dates and transactions of no importance, upon which nothing depended; so I cannot tell whether I took these too easily from printed books, or if I committed any errors in my notes taken in the several offices. He likewise follows me through the several recapitulations I had made of the state of things before the Reformation, and finds errors and omissions in most of these; he adds some things out of papers I had never seen. The whole was writ with so much malice, and such contempt, that I must give some account of the man, and of his motives. He had expressed great zeal against popery, in the end of King James's reign, being then chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft, who, as he said, had promised him the first of those prebends of Canterbury that should fall in his gift: for when he saw that the archbishop was resolved not to take the oaths, but to forsake the post, he made an earnest application to me, to secure that for him at Archbishop Tillotson's hands. I pressed him in it as much as was decent for me to do, but he said he would not encourage these aspiring men, by promising any thing, before it should fall; as indeed none of them fell during his time. Wharton, upon this answer, thought I had neglected him, looking on it as a civil denial, and said he would be revenged; and so he published that specimen: upon which, I, in a letter that I printed, addressed to the present Bishop of Worcester, charged him again and again to bring forth all that he pretended to have reserved at that time, for, till that was done, I would not enter upon the examination of that specimen. It was received with contempt, and Tillotson justified my pressing him to take Wharton under his particular protection so fully, that he sent and asked me pardon. He said he was set on to it; and that, if I would procure any thing for him, he would discover any thing to me. I despised that offer, but said that I would at any price buy of him those discoveries that he pretended to have in reserve. But Mr. Chiswell (at whose house he then lay) being sick, said he could draw nothing of that from him, and he believed he had nothing. He died about a year after."--BURNET'S _History of the Reformation_ III, vii. [T. S.]]

Come we now to the reasons, which moved his lordship to set about this work at this time. He "could delay it no longer, because the reasons of his engaging in it at first seem to return upon him[17]." He was then frightened with "the danger of a popish successor in view, and the dreadful apprehensions of the power of France. England has forgot these dangers, and yet is nearer to them than ever[18]," and therefore he is resolved to "awaken them" with his third volume; but in the mean time, sends this Introduction to let them know they are asleep. He then goes on in describing the condition of the kingdom[19], after such a manner as if destruction hung over us by a single hair; as if the Pope, the devil, the Pretender, and France, were just at our doors.

[Footnote 17: Page 27.]

[Footnote 18: Page 28.]

[Footnote 19: Page 28.]

When the Bishop published his History, there was a popish plot on foot, the Duke of York a known papist was presumptive heir to the crown, the House of Commons would not hear of any expedient for securing their religion under a popish prince, nor would the King or Lords, consent to a bill of exclusion: The French King was in the height of his grandeur, and the vigour of his age. At this day the presumptive heir, with that whole illustrious family, are Protestants, the Popish Pretender excluded for ever by several acts of Parliament, and every person in the smallest employment, as well as the members in both Houses, obliged to abjure him. The French King is at the lowest ebb of life; his armies have been conquered and his towns won from him for ten years together, and his kingdom is in danger of being torn by divisions during a long minority. Are these cases parallel? Or are we now in more danger of France and popery than we were thirty years ago? What can be the motive for advancing such false, such detestable assertions? What conclusions would his Lordship draw from such premises as these? If injurious appellations were of any advantage to a cause, (as the style of our adversaries would make us believe) what appellations would those deserve who thus endeavour to sow the seeds of sedition, and are impatient to see the fruits? "But," saith he[20], "the deaf adder stops her ear let the charmer charm never so wisely." True, my Lord, there are indeed too many adders in this nation's bosom, adders in all shapes, and in all habits, whom neither the Queen nor parliament can charm to loyalty, truth, religion, or honour.

[Footnote 20: Page 28.] Among other instances produced by him of the dismal condition we are in, he offers one which could not easily be guessed. It is this: That the little factious pamphlets written about the end of King Charles II's reign, "lie dead in shops, are looked on as waste paper, and turned to pasteboard." How many are there of his Lordship's writings which could otherwise never have been of any real service to the public? Has he indeed so mean an opinion of our taste, to send us at this time of day into all the corners of Holborn, Duck Lane, and Moorfields, in quest after the factious trash published in those days by Julian Johnson, Hickeringil, Dr. Oates, and himself[21]?

[Footnote 21: The Rev. Samuel Johnson, degraded from his clerical rank, scourged, and imprisoned, for a work called "Julian's Arts to undermine Christianity," in which he drew a parallel between that apostate and James, then Duke of York. [S.]

Edmund Hickeringil, a fanatic preacher at Colchester. He appears, from the various pamphlets which he wrote during the reigns of Charles II. and his brother, to have been a meddling crazy fool. He was born in Essex, 1630, and was educated at Cambridge. He entered the army, and went to Jamaica, of which place he wrote a very curious account. Afterwards he entered holy orders, and became rector of All Saints, Colchester. He was a most eccentric individual. [T. S.]]

His Lordship, taking it for a _postulatum_, that the Queen and ministry, both Houses of Parliament, and a vast majority of the landed gentlemen throughout England are running headlong into Popery, lays hold on the occasion to describe "the cruelties in Queen Mary's reign, an inquisition setting up faggots in Smithfield, and executions all over the kingdom. Here is that" (says he) "which those that look toward a popish successor must look for."[22] And he insinuates through his whole pamphlet, that all who are not of his party, "look toward a popish successor." These he divides into two parts, the Tory laity, and the Tory clergy. He tells the former, though they have no religion at all, but "resolve to change with every wind and tide; yet they ought to have compassion on their countrymen and kindred."[23] Then he applies himself to the Tory clergy, assures them, that "the fires revived in Smithfield, and all over the nation, will have no amiable view; but least of all to them, who if they have any principle at all, must be turned out of their livings, leave their families, be hunted from place to place into parts beyond the seas, and meet with that contempt with which they treated foreigners who took sanctuary among us."

[Footnote 22: Page 36.]

[Footnote 23: Page 36.]

This requires a recapitulation, with some remarks. First, I do affirm, that of every hundred professed atheists, deists, and socinians in the kingdom, ninety-nine at least are staunch thorough-paced Whigs, entirely agreeing with his Lordship in politics and discipline; and therefore will venture all the fires of hell, rather than singe one hair of their beards in Smithfield. Secondly, I do likewise affirm, that those whom we usually understand by the appellation of Tory or high-church clergy, were the greatest sticklers against the exorbitant proceedings of King James, the best writers against popery, and the most exemplary sufferers for the established religion. Thirdly, I do pronounce it to be a most false and infamous scandal upon the nation in general, and on the clergy in particular, to reproach them for "treating foreigners with haughtiness and contempt:" The French Huguenots are many thousand witnesses to the contrary; and I wish they deserved a thousandth part of the good treatment they have received.[24]

[Footnote 24: Swift's disparaging reference to the Huguenots must be put down to the fact that he included them among Dissenters, on account of their Calvinism. [T. S.]]

Lastly, I observe that the author of the paper called _The Englishman_, hath run into the same cant, gravely advising the whole body of the clergy not to bring in Popery, because that will put them under a necessity of parting with their wives, or losing their livings.

The bulk of the kingdom, both clergy and laity, happens to differ extremely from this prelate, in many principles both of politics and religion: Now I ask, whether if any man of them had signed his name to a system of atheism, or Popery, he could have argued with them otherwise than he does? Or, if I should write a grave letter to his Lordship with the same advice, taking it for granted that he was half an atheist, and half a papist, and conjuring him by all he held dear to have compassion upon all those who believed a God, "not to revive the fires in Smithfield," that he must either forfeit his bishopric, or not marry a fourth wife;[25] I ask whether he would not think I intended him the highest injury and affront?

[Footnote 25: Bishop Burnet had already been married three times. [T. S.]]

But as to the Tory laity; he gives them up in a lump for abandoned atheists: They are a set of men so "impiously corrupted in the point of religion, that no scene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it [Popery] and perhaps acting such a part in it, as may be assigned them."[26] He therefore despairs of influencing them by any topics drawn from religion or compassion, and advances the consideration of interest, as the only powerful argument to persuade them against Popery.

[Footnote 26: Page 37.]

What he offers upon this head is so very amazing from a Christian, a clergyman, and a prelate of the Church of England, that I must in my own imagination strip him of those three capacities, and put him among the number of that set of men he mentions in the paragraph before; or else it will be impossible to shape out an answer.

His Lordship, in order to dissuade the Tories from their design of bringing in Popery, tells them, "how valuable a part of the whole soil of England, the abbey lands, the estates of the bishops, of the cathedrals, and the tithes are;"[27] how difficult such "a resumption would be to many families; yet all these must be thrown up; for sacrilege in the church of Rome, is a mortal sin." I desire it may be observed, what a jumble here is made of ecclesiastical revenues, as if they were all upon the same foot, were alienated with equal justice, and the clergy had no more reason to complain of the one than the other. Whereas the four branches mentioned by him are of very different consideration. If I might venture to guess the opinion of the clergy upon this matter, I believe they could wish that some small part of the abbey lands had been applied to the augmentation of poor bishoprics, and a very few acres to serve for glebes in those parishes where there are none; after which I think they would not repine that the laity should possess the rest. If the estates of some bishops and cathedrals were exorbitant before the Reformation, I believe the present clergy's wishes reach no further than that some reasonable temper had been used, instead of paring them to the quick: But as to the tithes, without examining whether they be of divine institution, I conceive there is hardly one of that sacred order in England, and very few even among the laity that love the Church, who will not allow the misapplying of those revenues to secular persons, to have been at first a most flagrant act of injustice and oppression: Though at the same time, God forbid they should be restored any other way than by gradual purchase, by the consent of those who are now the lawful possessors, or by the piety and generosity of such worthy spirits as this nation sometimes produceth. The Bishop knows very well that the application of tithes to the maintenance of monasteries, was a scandalous usurpation even in popish times: That the monks usually sent out some of their fraternity to supply the cures; and that when the monasteries were granted away by Henry VIII., the parishes were left destituted, or very meanly provided of any maintenance for a pastor: So that in many places, the whole ecclesiastical dues, even to mortuaries, Easter-offerings, and the like, are in lay hands, and the incumbent lies wholly at the mercy of his patron for his daily bread. By these means there are several hundred parishes in England under £20 a year, and many under ten. I take his Lordship's bishopric to be worth near £2,500 annual income; and I will engage at half a year's warning to find him above 200 beneficed clergymen who have not so much among them all to support themselves and their families; most of them orthodox, of good life and conversation, as loth to see the fires kindled in Smithfield, as his Lordship, and at least as ready to face them under a popish persecution. But nothing is so hard for those who abound in riches, as to conceive how others can be in want. How can the neighbouring vicar feel cold or hunger, while my Lord is seated by a good fire in the warmest room in his palace, with a dozen dishes before him? I remember one other prelate much of the same stamp; who when his clergy would mention their wishes that some act of parliament might be thought of for the good of the Church, would say, "Gentlemen, _we_ are very well as _we_ are; if they would let _us_ alone, _we_ should ask no more."[28]

[Footnote 27: Page 38.]

[Footnote 28: Scott, in a note, thinks this reflection on Burnet to be unjust, because of that prelate's zeal "in forwarding a scheme in 1704 for Improving the livings of the poorer clergy." [T. S.]]

"Sacrilege" (says my Lord) "in the church of Rome, is a mortal sin;"[29] and is it only so in the church of Rome? Or is it but a venial sin in the Church of England? Our litany calls fornication a deadly sin; and I would appeal to his Lordship for fifty years past, whether he thought that or sacrilege the deadliest? To make light of such a sin, at the same moment that he is frighting us from an idolatrous religion, should seem not very consistent. "_Thou_ that sayest, a man should not commit adultery, dost _thou_ commit adultery? _Thou_ that abhorrest idols, dost _thou_ commit sacrilege?"

[Footnote 29: Page 38.]

To smooth the way for the return of Popery in Queen Mary's time, the grantees were confirmed by the Pope in the possession of the abbey lands. But the Bishop tells us, that "this confirmation was fraudulent and invalid" I shall believe it to be so, though I happen to read in his Lordship's history: But he adds, that although the confirmation had been good, the priests would have got their land again by these two methods; "first,[30] the Statute of Mortmain was repealed for 20 years, in which time no doubt they reckoned they would recover the best part of what they had lost; besides that, engaging the clergy to renew no leases, was a thing entirely in their own power, and this in forty years time would raise their revenues to be about ten times their present value." These two expedients for increasing the revenues of the Church, he represents as pernicious designs, fit only to be practised in times of Popery, and such as the laity ought never to consent to: Whence, and from what he said before about tithes, his Lordship has freely declared his opinion, that the clergy are rich enough, and that the least addition to their subsistence would be a step toward Popery. Now it happens, that the two only methods, which could be thought on, with any probability of success, toward some reasonable augmentation of ecclesiastical revenues, are here rejected by a Bishop, as a means for introducing Popery, and the nation publicly warned against them. The continuance of the Statute of Mortmain in full force, after the Church had been so terribly stripped, appeared to Her Majesty and the kingdom a very unnecessary hardship; upon which account it was at several times relaxed by the legislature. Now as the relaxation of that statute is manifestly one of the reasons which gives the Bishop those terrible apprehensions of Popery coming on us; so I conceive another ground of his fears, is the remission of the first-fruits and tenths. But where the inclination to Popery lay, whether in Her Majesty who proposed this benefaction, the parliament which confirmed, or the clergy who accepted it, his Lordship hath not thought fit to determine.

[Footnote 30: Page 39.]

The other popish expedient for augmenting church-revenues, is "engaging the clergy to renew no leases."[31] Several of the most eminent clergymen have assured me, that nothing has been more wished for by good men, than a law to prevent (at least) bishops from setting leases for lives. I could name ten bishoprics in England whose revenues one with another do not amount to £600 a-year for each; and if his lordship's, for instance, would be above ten times the value when the lives are expired, I should think the overplus would not be ill disposed toward an augmentation of such as are now shamefully poor. But I do assert, that such an expedient was not always thought popish and dangerous by this right reverend historian. I have had the honour formerly to converse with him; and he has told me several years ago, that he lamented extremely the power which bishops had of letting leases for lives, whereby, as he said, they were utterly deprived of raising their revenues, whatever alterations might happen in the value of money by length of time: I think the reproach of betraying private conversation will not upon this account be laid to my charge. Neither do I believe he would have changed his opinion upon any score, but to take up another, more agreeable to the maxims of his party; that "the least addition of property to the Church, is one step toward Popery."

[Footnote 31: Page 39.]

The Bishop goes on with much earnestness and prolixity to prove that the Pope's confirmation of the church lands to those who held them by King Henry's donation, was null and fraudulent: Which is a point that I believe no Protestant in England would give threepence to have his choice whether it should be true or false: It might indeed serve as a passage in his history, among a thousand other instances, to detect the knavery of the court of Rome; but I ask, where could be the use of it in this Introduction? Or why all this haste in publishing it at this juncture; and so out of all method apart, and before the work itself? He gives his reasons in very plain terms; we are now, it seems, "in more danger of Popery than toward the end of King Charles II.'s reign. That set of men (the Tories) is so impiously corrupted in the point of religion, that no scene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it, and perhaps from acting such a part in it as may be assigned them."[32] He doubts whether the High-Church clergy have any principles, and therefore will be ready to turn off their wives, and look on the fires kindled in Smithfield as an amiable view. These are the facts he all along takes for granted, and argues accordingly; therefore, in despair of dissuading the nobility and gentry of the land from introducing Popery by any motives of honour, religion, alliance or mercy, he assures them, that "the Pope has not duly confirmed their titles to the church lands in their possession," which therefore must infallibly be restored, as soon as that religion is established among us.

[Footnote 32: Page 37.]

Thus, in his Lordship's opinion, there is nothing wanting to make the majority of the kingdom, both for number, quality and possession, immediately embrace Popery, except a "firm bull from the Pope," to secure the abbey and other church lands and tithes to the present proprietors and their heirs; if this only difficulty could now be adjusted, the Pretender would be restored next session, the two Houses reconciled to the church of Rome against Easter term, and the fires lighted in Smithfield by Midsummer. Such horrible calumnies against a nation are not the less injurious to decency, good-nature, truth, honour, and religion, because they may be vented with safety. And I will appeal to any reader of common understanding, whether this be not the most natural and necessary deduction from the passages I have cited and referred to.