bargain than his contemporary Francis, who divided the liberties of the
church between himself and the Pope, while the King of England seized
them all to himself. But how comes he to number the want of synods in
the Gallican church among the grievances of that Concordate, and as a
mark of their slavery, since he reckons all Convocations of the Clergy
in England to be useless and dangerous? Or what difference in point of
liberty was there between the Gallican Church under Francis, and the
English under Harry? For, the latter was as much a papist as the former,
unless in the point of obedience to the see of Rome; and in every
quality of a good man, or a good prince, (except personal courage
wherein both were equal) the French monarch had the advantage by as many
degrees as is possible for one man to have over another.
Henry VIII. had no manner of intention to change religion in his
kingdom; he still continued to persecute and burn Protestants after he
had cast off the Pope's supremacy, and I suppose this seizure of
ecclesiastical revenues (which Francis never attempted) cannot be
reckoned as a mark of the church's liberty. By the quotation the Bishop
sets down to show the slavery of the French church, he represents it as
a grievance, that "bishops are not now elected there as formerly, but
wholly appointed by the prince; and that those made by the court have
been ordinarily the chief advancers of schisms, heresies, and
oppressions of the church." [45] He cites another passage from a Greek
writer, and plainly insinuates, that it is justly applicable to Her
Majesty's reign: "Princes choose such men to that charge [of a bishop]
who may be their slaves, and in all things obsequious to what they
prescribe; and may lie at their feet, and have not so much as a thought
contrary to their commands." [46]
[Footnote 45: Page 55.]
[Footnote 46: Page 55.]
These are very singular passages for his Lordship to set down in order
to show the dismal consequences of the French Concordate, by the slavery
of the Gallican Church, compared with the freedom of ours. I shall not
enter into a long dispute, whether it were better for religion that
bishops should be chosen by the clergy, or people, or both together: I
believe our author would give his vote for the second (which however
would not have been of much advantage to himself, and some others that I
could name). But I ask, Whether bishops are any more elected in England
than in France? And the want of synods are in his own opinion rather a
blessing than a grievance, unless he will affirm that more good can be
expected from a popish synod than an English Convocation. Did the French
clergy ever receive a greater blow to their liberties, than the
submission made to Henry VIII., or so great a one as the seizure of
their lands? The Reformation owed nothing to the good intentions of K.
Henry: He was only an instrument of it, (as the logicians speak) by
accident; nor doth he appear through his whole reign to have had any
other views than those of gratifying his insatiable love of power,
cruelty, oppression, and other irregular appetites. But this kingdom as
well as many other parts of Europe, was, at that time, generally weary
of the corruptions and impositions of the Roman court and church, and
disposed to receive those doctrines which Luther and his followers had
universally spread. Cranmer the archbishop, Cromwell, and others of the
court, did secretly embrace the Reformation; and the King's abrogating
the Pope's supremacy, made the people in general run into the new
doctrines with greater freedom, because they hoped to be supported in it
by the authority and example of their prince, who disappointed them so
far that he made no other step than rejecting the Pope's supremacy as a
clog upon his own power and passions, but retained every corruption
beside, and became a cruel persecutor, as well of those who denied his
own supremacy, as of all others who professed any Protestant doctrine.
Neither hath any thing disgusted me more in reading the histories of
those times, than to see one of the worst princes of any age or country,
celebrated as an instrument in that glorious work of the Reformation.
The Bishop having gone over all the matters that properly fall within
his Introduction, proceeds to expostulate with several sorts of
people;[47] First with Protestants who are no Christians, such as
atheists, deists, freethinkers, and the like enemies to Christianity.
But these he treats with the tenderness of a friend, because they are
all of them of sound Whig principles in church and state. However, to do
him justice, he lightly touches some old topics for the truth of the
Gospel; and concludes by wishing that the freethinkers would consider
well, if (_Anglice,_ whether) they think it possible to bring a nation
to be without any religion at all, and what the consequences of that may
prove; [48] and in case they allow the negative, he gives it clearly for
Christianity.
[Footnote 47: Page 56.]
[Footnote 48: Page 59.]
Secondly, he applies himself (if I take his meaning right) to Christian
papists "who have a taste of liberty," and desires them to "compare the
absurdities of their own religion with the reasonableness of the
reformed:" [49] Against which, as good luck would have it, I have
nothing to object.
[Footnote 49: Page 59.]
Thirdly, he is somewhat rough against his own party, "who having tasted
the sweets of Protestant liberty, can look back so tamely on Popery
coming on them; it looks as if they were bewitched, or that the devil
were in them, to be so negligent. It is not enough that they resolve not
to turn papists themselves: They ought to awaken all about them, even
the most ignorant and stupid, to apprehend their danger, and to exert
themselves with their utmost industry to guard against it, and to resist
it. If after all their endeavours to prevent it, the corruption of the
age, and the art and power of our enemies, prove too hard for us, then,
and not until then, we must submit to the will of God, and be silent,
and prepare ourselves for all the extremity of suffering and of
misery:"[50] with a great deal more of the same strain.
[Footnote 50: Pages 60, 61.]
With due submission to the profound sagacity of this prelate, who can
smell Popery at 500 miles distance, better than fanaticism just under
his nose; I take leave to tell him, that this reproof to his friends,
for want of zeal and clamour against Popery, slavery, and the Pretender,
is what they have not deserved. Are the pamphlets and papers, daily
published by the sublime authors of his party full of any thing else?
Are not the Queen, the ministers, the majority of Lords and Commons,
loudly taxed in print with this charge against them at full length? Is
it not the perpetual echo of every Whig coffeehouse and club? Have they
not quartered Popery and the Pretender upon the peace, and treaty of
commerce; upon the possessing, and quieting, and keeping, and
demolishing of Dunkirk? Have they not clamoured because the Pretender
continued in France, and because he left it? Have they not reported,
that the town swarmed with many thousand papists, when upon search there
were never found so few of that religion in it before? If a clergyman
preaches obedience to the higher powers, is he not immediately traduced
as a papist? Can mortal man do more? To deal plainly, my Lord, your
friends are not strong enough yet to make an insurrection, and it is
unreasonable to expect it from them, until their neighbours are ready.
My Lord, I have a little seriousness at heart upon this point, where
your Lordship affects to show so much. When you can prove, that one
single word has ever dropped from any minister of state, in public or
private, in favour of the Pretender, or his cause; when you can make it
appear, that in the course of this administration, since the Queen
thought fit to change her servants, there hath one step been made toward
weakening the Hanover title, or giving the least countenance to any
other whatsoever; then, and not until then, go dry your chaff and
stubble, give fire to the zeal of your faction, and reproach them with
lukewarmness.
Fourthly, the Bishop applies himself to the Tories in general. Taking it
for granted, after his charitable manner, that they are all ready
prepared to introduce Popery, he puts an excuse into their mouths, by
which they would endeavour to justify their change of religion. That
"Popery is not what it was before the Reformation: Things are now much
mended; and further corrections might be expected, if we would enter
into a treaty with them: In particular, they see the error of proceeding
severely with heretics; so that there is no reason to apprehend the
returns of such cruelties as were practised an age and a half ago."[51]
[Footnote 51: Page 62.]
This, he assures us, is a plea offered by the Tories in defence of
themselves, for going about at this juncture to establish the Popish
religion among us: What argument does he bring to prove the fact itself?
"Quibus indiciis, quo teste, probavit?
Nil horum: verbosa et grandis epistola venit" [52]
[Footnote 52: Juvenal, "Sat." x. 70-71. [T. S.]]
Nothing but this tedious Introduction, wherein he supposes it all along
as a thing granted. That there might be a perfect union in the whole
Christian Church, is a blessing which every good man wishes, but no
reasonable man can hope. That the more polite Roman Catholics have in
several places given up some of their superstitious fopperies,
particularly concerning legends, relics, and the like, is what nobody
denies. But the material points in difference between us and them are
universally retained and asserted, in all their controversial writings.
And if his Lordship really thinks that every man who differs from him,
under the name of a Tory in some church and state opinions, is ready to
believe transubstantiation, purgatory, the infallibility of pope or
councils, to worship saints and angels, and the like; I can only pray
God to enlighten his understanding, or graft in his heart the first
principles of charity; a virtue which some people ought not by any means
wholly to renounce, "because it covers a multitude of sins."
Fifthly, the Bishop applies himself to his own party in both Houses of
Parliament, whom he exhorts to "guard their religion and liberty against
all danger at what distance soever it may appear. If they are absent and
remiss on critical occasions," that is to say, if they do not attend
close next sessions, to vote upon all occasions whatsoever against the
proceedings of the Queen and Her Ministry; "or, if any views of
advantage to themselves prevail on them." [53] In other words, if any of
them vote for the Bill of Commerce, in hopes of a place or a pension, a
title, or a garter; "God may work a deliverance for us another way."
That is to say, by inviting the Dutch. "But they and their families,"
(id est) those who are negligent or revolters, "shall perish." By which
is meant; they shall be hanged as well as the present ministry and their
abettors, as soon as we recover our power. "Because they let in
idolatry, superstition, and tyranny." Because they stood by and suffered
the peace to be made, the Bill of Commerce to pass, and Dunkirk to lie
undemolished longer than we expected, without raising a rebellion.
[Footnote 53: Pages 67, 68.]
His last application is to the Tory clergy, a parcel of "blind,
ignorant, dumb, sleeping, greedy, drunken dogs."[54] A pretty artful
episcopal method is this, of calling his brethren as many injurious
names as he pleases. It is but quoting a text of Scripture, where the
characters of evil men are described, and the thing is done; and at the
same time the appearances of piety and devotion preserved. I would
engage, with the help of a good Concordance, and the liberty of
perverting Holy Writ, to find out as many injurious appellations, as the
_Englishman_ throws out in any of his politic papers, and apply them to
those persons "who call good evil, and evil good;" to those who cry
without cause, "Every man to his tent, O Israel! and to those who curse
the Queen in their hearts!"
[Footnote 54: This is the bishop's reference to the Tory clergy: "But,
in the last place, Those who are appointed to be the watchmen, who ought
to give warning, and to lift up their voice as a trumpet, when they see
those wolves ready to break in and devour the flock, have the heaviest
account of all others to make, if they neglect their duty; much more if
they betray their trust. If they are so set on some smaller matters, and
are so sharpened upon that account, that they will not see their danger,
nor awaken others to see it, and to fly from it; the guilt of those
souls who have perished by their means, God will require at their hands.
If they, in the view of any advantage to themselves, are silent when
they ought to cry out day and night, they will fall under the character
given by the prophet, of the watchmen in his time: 'They are blind, they
are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to
slumber: Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough. And
they are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own
way, every one for his gain from his quarter; that say, come, I will
fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; to-morrow
shall be as this day, and much more abundant.'"--BURNET'S _History of
the Reformation_, vol. iii. p. xxii. [T. S.]]
These decent words he tells us, make up a "lively description of such
pastors, as will not study controversy, nor know the depths of Satan."
He means I suppose, the controversy between us and the papists; for as
to the freethinkers and dissenters of every denomination, they are some
of the best friends to the cause. Now I have been told, there is a body
of that kind of controversy published by the London divines, which is
not to be matched in the world. I believe likewise, there is a good
number of the clergy at present, thoroughly versed in that study; after
which I cannot but give my judgment, that it would be a very idle thing
for pastors in general to busy themselves much in disputes against
Popery. It being a dry heavy employment of the mind at best, especially
when, God be thanked, there is so little occasion for it, in the
generality of parishes throughout the kingdom, and must be daily less
and less by the just severity of the laws, and the utter aversion of our
people from that idolatrous superstition.
If I might be so bold as to name those who have the honour to be of his
Lordship's party, I would venture to tell him, that pastors have much
more occasion to study controversies against the several classes of
freethinkers and dissenters; the former (I beg his Lordship's pardon for
saying so) being a little worse than papists, and both of them more
dangerous at present to our constitution both in church and state. Not
that I think Presbytery so corrupt a system of Christian religion as
Popery; I believe it is not above one-third as bad: but I think the
Presbyterians, and their clans of other fanatics of freethinkers and
atheists that dangle after them, are as well inclined to pull down the
present establishment of monarchy and religion, as any set of Papists in
Christendom, and therefore that our danger as things now stand, is
infinitely greater from our Protestant enemies; because they are much
more able to ruin us, and full as willing. There is no doubt, but
Presbytery, and a commonwealth, are less formidable evils than Popery,
slavery, and the Pretender; for if the fanatics were in power, I should
be in more apprehension of being starved than burned. But there are
probably in England forty dissenters of all kinds, including their
brethren the freethinkers, for one papist; and, allowing one papist to
be as terrible as three dissenters, it will appear by arithmetic, that
we are thirteen times and one-third more in danger of being ruined by
the latter than the former.
The other qualification necessary for all pastors, if they will not be
"blind, ignorant, greedy, drunken dogs," &c., is, "to know the depths of
Satan." This is harder than the former; that a poor gentleman ought not
to be parson, vicar, or curate of a parish, except he be cunninger than
the devil. I am afraid it will be difficult to remedy this defect for
one manifest reason, because whoever had only half the cunning of the
devil, would never take up with a vicarage of £10 a-year, "to live on at
his ease," as my Lord expresseth it; but seek out for some better
livelihood. His Lordship is of a nation very much distinguished for that
quality of cunning (though they have a great many better) and I think he
was never accused for wanting his share. However upon a trial of skill I
would venture to lay six to four on the devil's side, who must be
allowed to be at least the older practitioner. Telling truth shames him,
and resistance makes him fly: But to attempt outwitting him, is to fight
him at his own weapon, and consequently no cunning at all. Another thing
I would observe is, that a man may be "in the depths of Satan," without
knowing them all, and such a man may be so far in Satan's depths as to
be out of his own. One of the depths of Satan, is to counterfeit an
angel of light. Another, I believe, is, to stir up the people against
their governors, by false suggestions of danger. A third is to be a
prompter to false brethren, and to send wolves about in sheep's
clothing. Sometimes he sends Jesuits about England in the habit and cant
of fanatics, at other times he has fanatic missionaries in the habits of
----. I shall mention but one more of Satan's depths, for I confess I
know not the hundredth part of them; and that is, to employ his
emissaries in crying out against remote imaginary dangers, by which we
may be taken off from defending ourselves against those which are real
and just at our elbows.
But his Lordship draws towards a conclusion, and bids us "look about, to
consider the danger we are in, before it is too late;" for he assures
us, we are already "going into some of the worst parts of popery;"[55]
like the man who was so much in haste for his new coat, that he put it
on the wrong side out. "Auricular confession, priestly absolution, and
the sacrifice of the mass," have made great progress in England, and
nobody has observed it: several other popish points "are carried higher
with us than by the papists themselves."[56] And somebody, it seems,
"had the impudence to propose a union with the Gallican church."[57] I
have indeed heard that Mr. Lesley[58] published a discourse to that
purpose, which I have never seen; nor do I perceive the evil in
proposing an union between any two churches in Christendom. Without
doubt Mr. Lesley is most unhappily misled in his politics; but if he be
the author of the late tract against Popery[59], he has given the world
such a proof of his soundness in religion, as many a bishop ought to be
proud of. I never saw the gentleman in my life: I know he is the son of
a great and excellent prelate, who upon several accounts was one of the
most extraordinary men of his age. Mr. Lesley has written many useful
discourses upon several subjects, and hath so well deserved of the
Christian religion, and the Church of England in particular, that to
accuse him of "impudence for proposing an union" in two very different
faiths, is a style which I hope few will imitate. I detest Mr. Lesley's
political principles as much as his Lordship can do for his heart; but I
verily believe he acts from a mistaken conscience, and therefore I
distinguish between the principles and the person. However, it is some
mortification to me, when I see an avowed nonjuror contribute more to
the confounding of Popery, than could ever be done by a hundred thousand
such Introductions as this.
[Footnote 55: Page 70.]
[Footnote 56: Page 70.]
[Footnote 57: Swift here disowns a charge loudly urged by the Whigs of
the time against the high churchmen. There were, however, strong
symptoms of a nearer approach on their part to the church of Rome.
Hickes, the head of the Jacobite writers, had insinuated, that there was
a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist; Brett had published a Sermon on the
"Doctrine of Priestly Absolution as essential to Salvation;" Dodwell had
written against Lay-Baptism, and his doctrine at once excluded all the
dissenters (whose teachers are held as lay-men) from the pale of
Christianity; and, upon the whole, there was a general disposition
among the clergy to censure, if not the Reformation itself, at least the
mode in which it was carried on. [S.]]
[Footnote 58: Charles Lesley, or Leslie, the celebrated nonjuror. He
published a Jacobite paper, called the "Rehearsal," and was a strenuous
assertor of divine right; but he was also so steady a Protestant, that
he went to Bar-le-Duc to convert the Chevalier de St George from the
errors of Rome. [S.] See note on p. 63. [T. S.]]
[Footnote 59: "The Case stated between the Church of Rome and the Church
of England," 1713.]
His Lordship ends with discovering a small ray of comfort. "God be
thanked there are many among us that stand upon the watch-tower, and
that give faithful warning; that stand in the breach, and make
themselves a wall for their church and country; that cry to God day and
night, and lie in the dust mourning before him, to avert those judgments
that seem to hasten towards us. They search into the mystery of iniquity
that is working among us, and acquaint themselves with that mass of
corruption that is in popery."[60] He prays "that the number of these
may increase, and that he may be of that number, ready either to die in
peace, or to seal that doctrine he has been preaching above fifty years,
with his blood."[61] This being his last paragraph, I have made bold to
transcribe the most important parts of it. His design is to end after
the manner of orators, with leaving the strongest impression possible
upon the minds of his hearers. A great breach is made; "the mystery of
popish iniquity is working among us;" may God avert those "judgments
that are hastening towards us!" I am an old man, "a preacher above fifty
years," and I now expect and am ready to die a martyr for the doctrines
I have preached. What an amiable idea does he here leave upon our minds,
of Her Majesty and her government! He has been poring so long upon Fox's
Book of Martyrs, that he imagines himself living in the reign of Queen
Mary, and is resolved to set up for a knight-errant against Popery. Upon
the supposition of his being in earnest, (which I am sure he is not) it
would require but a very little more heat of imagination, to make a
history of such a knight's adventures. What would he say, to behold the
"fires kindled in Smithfield, and all over the town," on the 17th of
November; to behold the Pope borne in triumph on the shoulders of the
people, with a cardinal on the one side, and the Pretender on the other?
He would never believe it was Queen Elizabeth's day, but that of her
persecuting sister: In short, how easily might a windmill be taken for
the whore of Babylon, and a puppet-show for a popish procession?
[Footnote 60: Page 71]
[Footnote 61: Page 72]