"told Sir John Cotton, that the faid Doctor was no "friend to the prerogative of the crown, or to the "conftitution 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. However, the good Archbishop lived to fee his opinion become universal in the kingdom.

THE Bishop goes on, for many pages, with an account of certain facts relating to the publishing his two former volumes of the reformation; the great fuccefs of that work, and the adverfaries who appeared against it. These are matters out of the way of my reading; only I obferve, that poor Mr Henry Wharton, who hath deferved fo well of the commonwealth of learning, and who gave himself the trouble of detecting fome 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 thofe who prefume to differ from him in print. The Bishop of Rochefter * happened fome 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 Chriftian contrivance of charging his adverfary with ingratitude. But it seems the truth happened to be on the other fide; which the Doctor made appear in fuch a manner, as would have filenced his Lordship for ever, if he had not T 2 been

1. Because, in the preface to this very third volume, p. 4. he fays "It was by Archbishop Sancroft's order he had the free ufe of every thing that lay in the Lambeth library." 2. Because the author of Speculum Sarisburianum, p. 6. tells us, "His accefs to the library was owing SOLELY to the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft, as I have been informed (fays the author) by some of "the family." 3. Because Bishop Burnet, in his history of bis own times, vol. 1. p. 396. fays it was " DOLBEN, Bifhop of Rochester, [at the inftigation of the Duke of Lauderdale,] that diverted Sir John Cotton from fuffering him to fearch his library."

66

• Dr Atterbury.

been writing-proof. Poor Mr Wharton in his grave, is charged with the fame accufation, but with circumftances the most aggravating that malice and fomething elfe could invent; and which I will no more believe than five hundred paffages in a certain book of travels *. See the character he gives of a divine and a scholar, who fhortned his life in the fervice of God and the church. "Mr Wharton defired me to intercede with Tillotfon "for a prebend of Canterbury. I did fo, but Wharton "would not believe it; faid, he would be revenged; " and fo writ against me. Soon after he was convinced "I had fpoke for him; faid, he was fet on to do what "he did; and if I would procure any thing for him, "he would discover every thing to me." What a spirit of candour, charity, and good-nature, generofity, and truth, fhines through this ftory, told of a moft excellent and pious divine twenty years after his death, without one fingle voucher !

COME we now to the reafons which moved his Lordfhip to fet about this work at this time. "He could "delay it no longer, because the reasons of his enga"ging in it at first seemed to return upon him." He was then frightened with the danger of a Popish fuc"ceffor in view, and the dreadful apprehenfions of the "power of France." England bath forgot thefe dangers, and yet is nearer to them than ever, and therefore he is refolved 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 defcribing the condition of the kingdom after fuch a manner as if deftruction hung over us by a fingle hair; as if the Pope, the devil, the pretender, and France were just at our doors.

WHEN the Bishop published his hiftory there was a Popish plot on foot: The Duke of York, a known Pa-` pift, was prefumptive heir to the crown; the house of Commons would not hear of any expedient for fecuring their religion under a Popish prince, nor would the King, or Lords, confent to a bill of exclufion; the French King was in the height of his grandeur, and the vi

Burnet's travels.

gour

gour of his age. At this day the prefumptive heir, with that whole illuftrious family, are Proteftants; the Popifh pretender excluded for ever by feveral acts of parliament; and every person in the fmallest employment, as well as the members of 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 dans ger of being torn by divifions during a long minority. Are thefe cafes 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 fuch false, fuch deteftable affertions? What conclufions would his Lordfhip draw from fuch premiffes as these? If injurious appellations were of any advantage to a cause, (as the ftyle of our adverfaries would make us believe), what appellations would those deserve, who thus endeavour to sow the feeds of fedition, and are impatient to see the fruits ? "But, (faith he), the deaf adder stoppeth her ears, let "the charmer charm never fo wifely." True, my Lord, there are indeed too many adders in this nation's bofom; adders in all fhapes and in all habits, whom neither the Queen nor parliament can charm to loyalty, truth, reli gion, or honour.

AMONG other instances produced by him of the dismal condition we are in, he offers one which could not eafily be gueffed. It is this, “That the little factious pam"phlets written about the end of King Charles II.'s

reign lie dead in fhops, are looked on as waste paper. "and turned to pafteboard." How many are there of his Lordship's writing, which could otherwife never have been of any real fervice to the public? Hath he indeed fo mean an opinion of our taste to fend us at this time of day into all the corners of Holbourn, Duke-lane, and Moorfields, in queft after the factious trash published in those days by Julian Johnfon, Hickeringill, Dr Oates, and himself?

His Lordship taking it for a poftulatum, that the Queen and miniftry, both houfes of parliament, and a vast majority of the landed gentlemen throughout England, are running headlong into Popery, layeth hold on the occafion to defcribe" the cruelties in Queen Mary's "reign;

T 3

"reign; an inquifition setting up faggots in Smithfield, "and executions all over the kingdom. Here is that," fays he, "which those that look towards a Popish fuc"ceffor, must look for." And he infinuates thro' his whole pamphlet, that all who are not of his party, look towards a Popish fucceffor. These he divides into two parts, the Tory laity, and the Tory clergy. He tells the former, "altho' they have no religion at all, but refolve to change "with every wind and tide; yet they ought to have

compaffion on their countrymen and kindred." Then he applies himself to the Tory clergy; affures 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 principles at all, must be "turned out of their livings, leave their families, be "hunted from place to place into parts beyond the "feas, and meet with that contempt with which they "treated foreigners, who took fanctuary among us."

THIS requires a recapitulation, with fome remarks. First, I do affirm, that in every hundred of professed Atheifts, Deifts, and Socinians, in the kingdom, ninetynine at least are stanch, thorough paced Whigs, entirely agreeing with his Lordship in politics and difcipline; and therefore will venture all the fires of hell, rather than finge one heir of their beards in Smithfield. Secondly, I do likewife affirm, that, thofe whom we ufually understand by the appellation of Tory, or high-church clergy, were the greateft fticklers against the exorbitant proceedings of King James II. the best writers against Popery, and the moft exemplary fufferers for the established religion. Thirdly, I do pronounce it to be a moft falfe and infamous fcandal upon the nation in general, and on the clergy in particular, to reproach them for treating, foreigners with haughtiness and contempt. The French Hugonots are many thousand witneffes to the contrary; and I wish they deferved the thousandth part of the good treatment they have received.

LASTLY, I obferve, that the author of a paper called The Englishman hath run into the fame cant, gravely advifing the whole body of the clergy not to bring in Pope

ry;

ry; because that will put them under a neceffity of parting with their wives, or lofing their livings.

THE bulk of the kingdom, both clergy and laity, hap pen to differ extremely from this prelate in many principles both of politics and religion. Now I ask, whe ther, if any man of them had figned his name to a fyftem of Atheism, or Popery,, he could have argued with them otherwife than he doth or, if I fhould write a grave letter to his Lordship with the fame advice, taking it for granted that he was half an Atheist and half a Papift, and conjuring him by all he held dear to have compaffion upon all those who believed a God; not to revive the fires in Smithfield; that he must either forfeit his bishoprick, or not marry a fourth wife; I afk, whether he would not think I intended him the highest injury and affront?

BUT as to the Tory laity, he gives them up in a lump for abandoned Atheists: They are a fet of men fo " im"piously corrupted in the point of religion, that no "fcene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it, "[Popery], and perhaps acting fuch a part in it as may "be affigned them." He therefore defpairs of influencing them by any topics drawn from religion or com→ paffion; and advances the confideration of intereft, as the only powerful argument to persuade them against Popery.

WHAT he offers upon this head is fo very amazing, from a Chriftian, a clergyman, and a prelate of the church of England, that I must in my own imagination ftrip him of those three capacities, and put him among the num→ ber of that Jet of men he mentions in the paragraph before; or else it will be impoffible to fhape out an answer.

HIS Lordship, in order to diffuade the Tories from their defign of bringing in Popery, tells them, "how " valuable a part of the whole foil of England the abbey"lands, the estates of the bishops, of the cathedrals, "and the tithes, are;" how difficult fuch a refumption would be to many families': yet all these must be "thrown up; for facrilege in the church of Rome is "a mortal fin." I defire it may be observed, what a jumble here is made of ecclefiaftical revenues, as if they were all upon the fame foot, were alienated with

equal