[Footnote 20: "Reformation" in 4to and 8vo editions, but Tindal's word
is "Restoration." [T.S.]]

Set forth at large the necessity of union in religion, and the
disadvantage of the contrary, and answer the contrary in Holland, where
they have no religion, and are the worst constituted government in the
world to last. It is ignorance of causes and appearances which makes
shallow people judge so much to their advantage. They are governed by
the administration and almost legislature of Holland through advantage
of property; nor are they fit to be set in balance with a noble kingdom,
&c. like a man that gets a hundred pounds a year by hard labour, and one
that has it in land.

Page 280. "It may be worth enquiring, whether the difference between the
several sects in England, &c." A noble notion started, that union in the
Church must enslave the kingdom: reflect on it. This man hath somewhere
heard, that it is a point of wit to advance paradoxes, and the bolder
the better. But the wit lies in maintaining them, which he neglecteth,
and formeth imaginary conclusions from them, as if they were true and
uncontested.

He adds, "That in the best constituted Church, the greatest good which,
can be expected of the ecclesiastics, is from their divisions." This is
a maxim deduced from a gradation of false suppositions. If a man should
turn the tables, and argue that all the debauchery, atheism,
licentiousness, &c. of the times, were owing to the poverty of the
clergy, &c. what would he say? There have been more wars of religion
since the ruin of the clergy, than before, in England. All the civil
wars before were from other causes.

Page 283. "Prayers are made in the loyal university of Oxford, to
continue the throne free from the contagion of schism. See Mather's
sermon on the 29th of May, 1705." Thus he ridicules the university while
he is eating their bread. The whole university comes with the most loyal
addresses, yet that goes for nothing. If one indiscreet man drops an
indiscreet word, all must answer for it.

Page 286. "By allowing all, who hold no opinions prejudicial to the
state, and contribute equally with their fellow-subjects to its support,
equal privileges in it." But who denies that of the dissenters? The
Calvinist scheme, one would not think, proper for monarchy. Therefore,
they fall in with the Scotch, Geneva, and Holland; and when they had
strength here, they pulled down the monarchy. But I will tell an opinion
they hold prejudicial to the state in his opinion; and that is, that
they are against toleration, of which, if I do not shew him ten times
more instances from their greatest writers, than he can do of passive
obedience among the clergy, I have done.

"Does not justice demand, that they who alike contribute to the burden,
should alike receive the advantage?" Here is another of his maxims
closely put without considering what exceptions may be made. The Papists
have contributed doubly (being so taxed) therefore by this rule they
ought to have double advantage. Protection in property, leave to trade
and purchase, &c. are enough for a government to give. Employments in a
state are a reward for those who entirely agree with it, &c. For
example, a man, who upon all occasions declared his opinion of a
commonwealth to be preferable to a monarchy, would not be a fit man to
have employments; let him enjoy his opinion, but not be in a capacity of
reducing it to practice, &c.

Page 287. "There can be no alteration in the established mode of Church
discipline, which is not made in a legal way." Oh, but there are several
methods to compass this legal way, by cunning, faction, industry. The
common people, he knows, may be wrought upon by priests; these may
influence the faction, and so compass a very pernicious law, and in a
legal way ruin the state; as King Charles I. began to be ruined in a
legal way, by passing bills, &c.

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.