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.
Yet all this is but friendly dealing, in comparison with what he affords
the clergy upon the same article. He supposes[33] all that reverend
body, who differ from him in principles of church or state, so far from
disliking Popery, upon the above-mentioned motives of perjury, "quitting
their wives, or burning their relations;" that the hopes of "enjoying
the abbey lands" would soon bear down all such considerations, and be an
effectual incitement to their perversion; and so he goes gravely on, as
with the only argument which he thinks can have any force, to assure
them, that "the parochial priests in Roman Catholic countries are much
poorer than in ours, the several orders of regulars, and the
magnificence of their church, devouring all their treasure," and by
consequence "their hopes are vain of expecting to be richer after the
introduction of Popery."
[Footnote 33: Page 46.]
But after all, his Lordship despairs, that even this argument will have
any force with our abominable clergy, because, to use his own words,
"They are an insensible and degenerate race, who are thinking of nothing
but their present advantages; and so that they may now support a
luxurious and brutal course of irregular and voluptuous practices, they
are easily hired to betray their religion, to sell their country, and
give up that liberty and those properties, which are the present
felicities and glories of this nation."[34] He seems to reckon all these
evils as matters fully determined on, and therefore falls into the last
usual form of despair, by threatening the authors of these miseries with
"lasting infamy, and the curses of posterity upon perfidious betrayers
of their trust."[35]
[Footnote 34: Page 47.]
[Footnote 35: Page 47.]
Let me turn this paragraph into vulgar language for the use of the poor,
and strictly adhere to the sense of the words. I believe it may be
faithfully translated in the following manner: "The bulk of the clergy,
and one-third of the bishops, are stupid sons of whores, who think of
nothing but getting money as soon as they can: If they may but produce
enough to supply them in gluttony, drunkenness, and whoring, they are
ready to turn traitors to God and their country, and make their
fellow-subjects slaves." The rest of the period, about threatening
"infamy," and "the curses of posterity upon such dogs and villains," may
stand as it does in the Bishop's own phrase, and so make the paragraph
all of a piece.
I will engage, on the other side, to paraphrase all the rogues and
rascals in the _Englishman_, so as to bring them up exactly to his
Lordship's style: But, for my own part, I much prefer the plain
Billingsgate way of calling names, because it expresses our meaning full
as well, and would save abundance of time which is lost by
circumlocution; so, for instance, John Dunton,[36] who is retained on
the same side with the Bishop, calls my Lord-treasurer and Lord
Bolingbroke, traitors, whoremasters, and Jacobites, which three words
cost our right reverend author thrice as many lines to define them; and
I hope his Lordship does not think there is any difference in point of
morality, whether a man calls me traitor in one word, or says I am one
"hired to betray my religion and sell my country."[37]
[Footnote 36: See note on p. 50 of vol. i. of this edition of Swift's
works. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 37: Page 51.]
I am not surprised to see the Bishop mention with contempt all
Convocations of the Clergy;[38] for Toland, Collins, Tindal,[39] and
others of the fraternity, talk the very same language. His Lordship
confesses he "is not" inclined "to expect much from the assemblies of
clergymen." There lies the misfortune; for if he and some more of his
order would correct their "inclinations," a great deal of good might be
expected from such assemblies, as much as they are now cramped by that
submission, which a corrupt clergy brought upon their innocent
successors. He will not deny that his copiousness in these matters is,
in his own opinion, one of the meanest parts of his new work. I will
agree with him, unless he happens to be more "copious" in any thing
else. However, it is not easy to conceive why he should be so "copious"
upon a subject he so much despises, unless it were to gratify his talent
of railing at the clergy, in the number of whom he disdains to be
reckoned, because he is a Bishop. For it is a style I observe some
prelates have fallen into of late years, to talk of clergymen as if
themselves were not of the number: You will read in many of their
speeches at Dr. Sacheverel's[40] trial, expressions to this or the like
effect: "My lords, if clergymen be suffered," &c. wherein they seem to
have reason; and I am pretty confident, that a great majority of the
clergy were heartily inclined to disown any relation they had to the
managers in lawn. However, it was a confounding argument against
Presbytery, that those who are most suspected to lean that way, treating
their inferior brethren with haughtiness, rigour, and contempt:
Although, to say the truth, nothing better could be hoped for; because,
I believe, it may pass for a universal rule, that in every diocese
governed by bishops of the Whig species, the clergy (especially the
poorer sort) are under double discipline, and the laity left to
themselves. The opinion of Sir Thomas More, which he produces to prove
the ill consequences or insignificancy of Convocations, advances no such
thing, but says, "if the clergy assembled often, and might act as other
assemblies of clergy in Christendom, much good might have come: but the
misfortune lay in their long disuse, and that in his own and a good part
of his father's time, they never came together, except at the command of
the prince."[41]
[Footnote 38: Page 47.]
[Footnote 39: See note, p. 9. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 40: Henry Sacheverell, D.D., was educated at Marlborough and
Oxford. At Magdalen College he was a fellow-student with Addison, and
obtained there his fellowship and doctor's degree. In 1709 he preached
two sermons, one at the Derby Assizes, and the other at St. Paul's, in
which he urged the imminent danger of the Church. For these sermons,
which the parliament considered highly inflammatory, he was, by the
House of Commons, at the instigation of Godolphin, impeached, and tried
before the Lords in 1710. He was found guilty of a misdemeanour, and was
suspended from preaching for three years. The trial made a great stir at
the time, and served but to increase the popularity of a man who, had he
been let alone, would, probably, never have been heard of. He died in
1724, holding the living of St. Andrew, Holborn, to which he was
presented after the expiration of his sentence. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 41: See Sir Thomas More's "Apology," 1533, p. 241.]
I suppose his lordship thinks, there is some original impediment in the
study of divinity, or secret incapacity in a gown and cassock without
lawn, which disqualifies all inferior clergymen from debating upon
subjects of doctrine or discipline in the church. It is a famous saying
of his, that "he looks upon every layman to be an honest man, until he
is by experience convinced to the contrary; and on every clergyman as a
knave, till he finds him to be an honest man." What opinion then must we
have of a Lower House of Convocation:[42] where I am confident he will
hardly find three persons that ever convinced him of their honesty, or
will ever be at the pains to do it? Nay, I am afraid they would think
such a conviction might be no very advantageous bargain, to gain the
character of an honest man with his Lordship, and lose it with the rest
of the world.
[Footnote 42: It must not be forgotten, that, during the reign of Queen
Anne, the body of the clergy were high-church men; but the bishops, who
had chiefly been promoted since the Revolution, were Whiggish in
politics, and moderate in their sentiments of church government. Hence
the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation rarely agreed in sentiment on
affairs of church or state. [T. S.]]
In the famous Concordate that was made between Francis I. of France and
Pope Leo X., the Bishop tells us, that "the king and pope came to a
bargain, by which they divided the liberties of the Gallican Church
between them, and indeed quite enslaved it."[43] He intends, in the
third part of his History which he is going to publish, "to open this
whole matter to the world." In the mean time, he mentions some ill
consequences to the Gallican Church from that Concordate, which are
worthy to be observed; "The church of France became a slave, and this
change in their constitution put an end not only to national, but even
to provincial synods in that kingdom. The assemblies of the clergy
there, meet now only to give subsidies," &c. and he says, "our nation
may see by that proceeding, what it is to deliver up the essential
liberties of a free constitution to a court." [44]
[Footnote 43: Page 53.]
[Footnote 44: Page 53.]