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.]