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.