UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. JOHN M1LNER, M.A. F.S.A. 
 
 AUTHOR OF THE 
 CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 HISTORY OF WINCHESTER, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY HIS 
 
 FALSE AND ILLIBERAL ASPERSIONS ON THE 
 MEMORT AND WRITINGS OF 
 
 Dr. BENJAMIN HOADLY, 
 
 FORMERLY BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. 
 
 Br ROBERT HOADLY ASHE, D.D. 
 
 His mihi dileflum nomen ; Manefque verendos, 
 His faltem accumulem donis, et fungar araico 
 Munere ! Non totus, raptus licet, optime Prasful, 
 Eriperis : redit os placidum, morefque benignij 
 Et venit ante oculos, et peftore vivit imago. 
 
 JOR.TIN. in Vita Erafmi, vol. II. p. 41. 
 
 LONDON, 
 Printed by J. NICHOLS: 
 
 And fold by R. BICKERSTAFF. Corner of Efiex.ftreet, Strand; 
 B. Lotto, Winchefter; J. CooKE, Oxford; J. DE GHTON, 
 Cambridge; B- COLLINS, Salifbury ; .MefTrs. CRUTTWELC, 
 
 Sberboroc} W. MfiYifi&^Bath; and T.SKEL TON, Southampton, 
 1799. 
 
 5242 8
 
 H4 A* 
 A LETTER, &c. &c. &c. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 >: THE Literary World muft for ever ac- 
 ~ knowledge its obligations to you for your 
 u two volumes containing the Hiftory of 
 h Winchefter. For moft of the Hiftorians, 
 w who have hitherto attempted to give us 
 < the Antiquities of our* venerable and Royal 
 * City, feem, like fwallows, to Ikim along 
 \ the furface without dipping fcarce a fea- 
 ther in the ftream. But you, Sir, drink 
 deep of the dream ; and whoever has once 
 ^ tafted of that fountain of knowledge, 
 which your pen has opened, cannot but 
 : thirft for more. And had you not already 
 CE been admitted a Fellow of the Society of 
 
 * The expreffion of our city efcaped from my pen- 
 but I will not erafe it for, although I had not the ho- 
 nour of being born In Winchefter, I cannot perfuade my- 
 felf that I am an allen t as both my families refided there 
 fo many years juft as my bud of life began to open. 
 You muft allow me to exclaim, in the language of a 
 Roman poet, 
 
 " Nefcio qua natale folum dulcedine captat ! ! !" 
 
 B Anti-
 
 ( O 
 
 Antiquaries, that learned and refpe&able 
 body of men would have reflected credit 
 upon themfelves by thus rewarding you 
 for your indefatigable labours. 
 
 This, Sir, is not the language of adu- 
 lation. Nor am I anxious to conciliate 
 your good opinion before I begin my de- 
 fence of that great champion of civil a'ld 
 religious liberty -, Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, 
 formerly Biihop of Winchefter. I will 
 candidly confefs that, when I firft took 
 up your book, I was naturally prejudiced 
 againft the writer, as I had been informed 
 that you had attacked the memory and 
 writings of my worthy relation. 
 
 In my different advertifements, and in 
 the title-page to this letter, I have called 
 your afperfions on Bifhop Hoadly falje and 
 illiberal. Feeling, as I do, the poignancy 
 of your fatire^ I can ufe no fofter lan- 
 guage. How far I am juftified in apply- 
 ing fuch harjh -founding epithets to you, 
 let every liberal and unprejudiced reader 
 determine. 
 
 To enable the publick to form a juft 
 and true opinion of the matter in quef- 
 
 tion,
 
 ( 3 ) 
 
 tion, I (hall prefent them with faithful 
 extracts from fuch parts of your Hiftory 
 of Winchefter as I may have occafion to 
 examine in justification of my injured 
 friend. 
 
 I begin with your reflections on the mo- 
 nument of Bi/hop Hoadly, vol. II. p. 32 : 
 
 " Having furveyed the South tranfept, 
 " it will be proper to return into the nave 
 " of the church, to the fteps leading into 
 " the choir. In this fituation we cannot 
 " fail admiring the elegant fcreen of the 
 " Compofite order, faid to have been 
 " railed by Inigo Jones, in the reign of 
 " feharles I. which, though a defect in 
 " the general building, is highly beautiful 
 " in itfelf ; as like wife the two bronze 
 " ftatues of the fame prince, and of his 
 " father, James I. which fill the two 
 " nitches in it. Nor can the eye, in this 
 " fituation, be "restrained from fixing on 
 " that inimitable medallion of Biihop 
 " Hoadly, againft the pillar on the left 
 " hand, over his tomb and epitaph. The 
 " hard ftone here afluines-the foft foldings 
 " of the Prelate's filken ornaments, an4 
 B 2 " the
 
 ( 4) 
 
 " the cold marble is animated with his 
 " living, f peaking features. 
 
 " But what an incongruous afTociation 
 " of emblems dp we here find crowded in 
 " the margin ! The democratic pike and 
 " cap is mfaltire, with the paftoral crofter % 
 " Magna Chart a is blended with the new 
 " Scripture, as equally the fubject of the 
 " Bifhop's meditations. In vain, how- 
 *' ever, we look for the mafk and dagger, 
 " to record the dramatic labours of the de- 
 " ceafed, from which he is certainly enti- 
 " tied to as much honour as from moft of 
 " his other writings. One remark more 
 will ftrike us before we lofe fight of this 
 monument. The column againft which 
 it is placed has been cut away to a con- 
 fiderable depth, in order to make place 
 " for it, evidently to the weakening of the 
 " whole fabrick. Thus it may be faid, 
 "with truth, of Dr. Hoadly, that, both 
 " living and dying^ he undermined the 
 " Church of which he was a prelate." 
 
 In copying this paflage, Sir, from your 
 work, I have been fo fcrupuloufly exacT: as 
 to preferve a trifling miftake in the fpel- 
 
 ling
 
 ( 5) 
 
 ling of one word, viz. nitches (line 9), in- 
 flead of niches ; and alfo two grammatical 
 errors, fuch as " cannot fail admiring" 
 (line 4), which the nature of the Englifh 
 language will not bear, and (line 33) 
 " both living and dying" You, no doubt, 
 meant to have written " help admiring? or 
 "fail TO admire." I afk, how could Dr. 
 Hoadly undermine the Church by dying? In 
 the plenitude of your wrath and Indigna- 
 tion againft him, you feem not to have 
 conveyed your meaning with your ufual 
 perfpicuity. I do not hefitate to fay, that, 
 in a future edition (if you fhould be fo //- 
 liberal as to retain the fame fentiments, 
 and not be difpofed " parcere Jepultis"}, it 
 will be necefTary to correct the paffage 
 thus : " that, both living, and even after 
 " his deceafe, he" &c. &c. 
 
 Perhaps, in the cool hour of reflection, 
 you may convince yourfelf that, by cafling 
 illiberal afperfions againft a Hfelefs monu- 
 ment, you will add as little to your own 
 character as Achilles has done to his by 
 dragging the cold remains of his enemy 
 around the walls of Troy. 
 
 But
 
 But I haften to contrafl your account of 
 the emblematical ornaments on the monu- 
 ment of Bifhop Hoadly with a much more 
 fatisfaftory Account, written by his fon, 
 Dr. John Hoadly. As my uncle creeled 
 this monument, he certainly knew the con- 
 ceptions of his own mind as well as yourfelfi 
 and he, therefore, will be the bell inter- 
 preter of his own dejigns. The original 
 manufcript is in my poffeiTion ; and I will 
 here fubjoin it for the infpec~lion of the 
 curious, and, I hope, for your private fa- 
 tisfaftion. 
 
 "A monument is erec"led to the memory 
 " of Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, the late Bifhop 
 " of Winchefler, in a confpicuous part of 
 " the Weft ifle of that cathedral, as near 
 " as poflible to the place of his interment. 
 '* It confifls, principally, of a medallion 
 " of the Bilhop, as big as the life, very 
 <c well taken from a fmall one of Mr. Gof- 
 " feft, efteemed, by the family and his 
 " moft intimate friends, an exaft and cha- 
 " ra6leriftic refemblance of his Lordfhip. 
 " The outline of the head is very happily 
 " marked, as it is of the whiteft ftatuary 
 
 ** marble,
 
 ( 7) 
 
 " marble, let into a ground of dove co- 
 " lour. This medallion refts againft the 
 " mantle of the Garter (of which order the 
 Bifhops of Winchefter a*e prelates), 
 which, being fufpended above from the 
 arms and crejl, flows down in noble 
 " folds of filk and velvet, nicely diftin- 
 " guiihed by the ftatuary, and forms a 
 "beautiful back ground to the whole. 
 " The mantle returns again in front un- 
 " der the medallion, with its rich cords 
 " and tafTels, and falls eafily over the 
 " architecture, of dove-coloured marble, 
 " which is raifed from the ground, and 
 " fupports the work. On the circular 
 "front of it are two tablets of white mar- 
 " ble, on which are engraven two infcrip- 
 " tions, the former written by the Bifliop 
 " himfelf. About the medallion, on the- 
 " top of the architecture, lie a few emble- 
 matical ornaments, the crojier, the rod, 
 and cap of liberty, two rolls of old MSS. 
 the one of the New 'Tejlament, and the 
 " other of Magna^Charta, infcribed with 
 " fome letters from each in the old Greek 
 " and Latin characters, ail interwoven 
 
 " and
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 i* and bound together by the cords of the 
 " mantle above, and by a fcroll on which, 
 " in large chara6lers, is his Lordfhip's 
 " conftant motto, VERITAS ET PATRIA, 
 " Truth and my Country. The whole 
 " is beautifully executed by Mr. Wilton." 
 Now, Sir, I will venture to fay, that 
 the two different accounts juft given 
 will ftrike every reader. They appear, 
 indeed, like two diftincl: views of the 
 fame object feen, alas ! through a dif- 
 ferent medium. I forgat to mention that 
 my uncle Hoadly inferted his Accr.unt 
 in the London Chronicle, November 
 12 15, 1763; and alfo in feveral other 
 periodical productions. To prevent the 
 poflibility of a mifiake, I have compared 
 my Manufcript with all of them, and find 
 it correfponding in every refpect. If then 
 my uncle's ftatement be true and cor- 
 rect, it mufl of neceflity follow that your 
 ftatement is falfe and erroneous : to fay 
 nothing, at prefent, of fome mijlakes which 
 you have Unfortunately fallen into by not 
 confining yourfclf to matters of fa6l. In 
 your Preface, you indeed profefs to be 
 
 guided
 
 (9-) 
 
 guided by the golden rule which Tully 
 has prelcribed to every Hiftorian Ne 
 quid falfi dlcere andeat, ne quid veri non 
 audeat "Not even to dare to utter a 
 "falfehood, and to be bold in averting the 
 ** truth." Of this fentence you feem to 
 be particularly enamoured ; for, it oc- 
 
 curs aifo in vour fecond volume, where 
 j 
 
 you triumph over 4 the late Bifhop Lowth 
 and the late Poet Laureate Warton, and 
 talk of your friends Socrates and Plato, 
 and of your attachment to truth Ami- 
 cm Socrates, amicus Plato, fed magis arnica 
 Veritas*. After fuch profeflions, I am afto- 
 nifhed to find that you have not religioujly 
 obeyed the facred laws of Truth; and 
 cannot but afk you the fame queftion that 
 Sophocles^ puts into the mouth of Neo- 
 ptolemus, **when Ulyffes tempts him to 
 fpeak a falfehood, in order to circumvent 
 Philoctetes : 
 
 TC& 
 
 Philocl:. V. 109. 
 Do you not think it bafe to fpcak things folfe ? 
 
 * With thofe divine teachers of morality it is pleafant 
 " Inter filvas Academi quawere Fcrum." HOR. 
 And who does not venerate Epamimauias, that " ne joco qui- 
 dera mentiretur?" 
 
 C If
 
 If it be disgraceful to fpeak fuch lan- 
 guage, how much more difgraceful is it 
 in a grave writer to pollute his Hi/lory 
 with what is not true ? 
 
 I have a right to enquire upon what 
 authority you aflert (vol. II. p. 32) "that 
 *' Bt/hop Hoadly is entitled to as much ho- 
 " nour from his dramatic labours as from 
 " mod of his other writings ?" 
 
 Pray, Sir, what dramatic compojitions 
 have you met with, in the courfe of your 
 extenfive reading, that were really written 
 by his pen ? What are the PARTICULAR 
 plays which, in your opinion, entitle him 
 to fo much honour ? I will thank you to 
 point them out to me, as I have never feen, 
 or even heard of, any. Is it the comedy of 
 the Sufpicious Hufband to which you attach 
 fuch confiderable merit ? That elegant 
 comedy reflects great credit upon the au- 
 thor, and will continue to do fo when the 
 fungous growth of pantomimical tragi-co- 
 medics (which now difgrace the Britifh 
 itage) (hall wither, and be no more feen. 
 That play was certainly written by Dr. 
 Benjamin Hoadly, and publifhed in 1747. 
 
 But
 
 But it was the production of Dr. Benjamin 
 Hoadly, a doctor of phyfick, and not of 
 Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, the Bifhop of Win- 
 chefter. 
 
 The writer of the Sufpiclous Hujland 
 was the eldeft fon of the Bifhop ; he had 
 the honour of being phyjtclan, not only to 
 the houfehold of King George II. but alfo 
 (at the fame time) to his Royal Highnefs 
 the Prince of Wales : a circumftance 
 which ought to be mentioned in his fa- 
 vour, becaufe the contending parties of the 
 day had broken and dijfched the tender ties 
 of filial and parental affection, and divided 
 the Houfe of Hanover againfl itfelf. 
 
 But I am wandering from my prefent 
 defign, which was, to point out what has, 
 probably, occafioned your miftake, viz. 
 that this comedy being published by Dr. 
 Benjamin Hoadly, you either did not, or 
 would not, dlfllngulfh between Dr. Benja- 
 min Hoadly the phyfician, and his father 
 who was a doctor of divinity ; although 
 you might have prevented this miftake, 
 either by a reference to the true and im- 
 partial account of the Biihop's life, pub- 
 C 2 lifhed
 
 lifted by his fon ; or elfe by confultirrg 
 the dedication to the King that is prefixed 
 to the Suspicious Hujband. This dedication 
 was meant as an humble tribute of grati- 
 tude to bis Majefty George II. for this very 
 honourable office conferred on the author 
 in the royal houiehold. 
 , ^f you doubt the truth of thefe aflertions, 
 I could with to refer you to the Printer of 
 this htter for additional fatisfaction. But 
 perhaps. Sir, you have already APPLIED to 
 him on the fubjecl;, with the fond hope 
 of feeing a long lift of Bithop Hoadly's 
 dramatic compontions. Unfortunately for 
 you, Mr. Nichols (beneath ivhoje roof all 
 the Biihop's Works were published) can 
 prove to you that Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, 
 the hi/hop, never wrote a Jingle drama. 
 
 What then becomes of your illiberal 
 afperjion on Biihop Hoadly, by which you 
 have mfinuated that he fpcnt his time in 
 writing plays ? It muft return, like dull 
 caft againft the wind, into your own bo- 
 fom. Unleis, therefore, you have more 
 authentic documents than thofe regularly 
 conveyed tp me by his Lordfhip's family, 
 
 you
 
 ( '3 ) 
 
 I 
 
 you cannot but acknowledge that you are 
 guilty of a MISTAKE, and that you have 
 confounded together two different per- 
 fons. 
 
 It appears to me, from a perufal of the 
 various manufcripts in my pofleflion, that 
 the Bihhop was very uneafy at the early 
 attachment of his two* fons to theatrical 
 compofitions. Now, if his Lordihip had 
 betra\ed a fimilar tafte, it is natural to 
 fuppofe that he would have encouraged 
 them in their purfuit after " that bubble 
 " reputation" on the ftage, rather than 
 have laboured to wean them from it. The 
 two brothers, Benjamin and John, certainly 
 wrote many of the dramatic pieces which 
 were acled at the theatre in Lincoln*s Inn 
 Fields in the year 1731. At that time the 
 
 * The dJeft (Benjamin) was bom February the loth, 
 170^-6, and the youngejt (John) was born O6tober the 8th, 
 1711. They both received their claffical education from 
 the learned Dr. Newcome, and by their extraordinary abi- 
 lities added a luftre even to the School of Hackney. From the 
 cuftom of acting plays in our public ieminaries (upon which 
 occafions the brothers diftiaguifhed themfelves, particularly 
 in the plays of Terence and Hughes-'s Siege of Damafcus), 
 they might have formed this early attachment. 
 
 youngeil
 
 ( H) 
 
 youngeft of the two brothers had but juft 
 attained to the i9th year of his age. 
 They were patterns for FRATERNAL imi- 
 tation they were lovely in their "lives," 
 and in their STUDIES they were not di- 
 vided. To their UNITED PRODUCTIONS Mr. 
 Rich was indebted for many overflowing 
 houfes. " The Contra/1 was a6led at the 
 ** clofe of the feafon, in May 1731, for 
 " five fucceffive nights, with univerfal 
 " applaufe. This play, written by my 
 " brother and me, was defigned as a fatire 
 " upon the conduct and language* of 
 " modern plays. The particular occafion 
 " of its dif continuance was a very good 
 " letter in the Grub Street Journal, hu- 
 " mouroufly reprefenting the propriety of 
 making the AUTHORS who had not 
 fcrupled to ridicule the belt dramatic 
 writers, ancient and modern, their great 
 
 * Mr. John Hoadly, in his introJufiion to the Contrafl, 
 gives the above account in the fourth volume of his Manu- 
 fcripts. His friend Mr. Garrick frequently begged and en- 
 treated him to favour the world with fome of his dramatic 
 compofitionsj but his conftant anfwer was, " My brother 
 " and I made a folcmn promife to the good Bifliop never to 
 " pubiifb any more plays I cannot violate it." 
 
 " foes,
 
 ( '5) 
 
 " foes, and who had acted fo profefledly 
 " as friends, HONORARY MEMBERS of that 
 " Society. This letter, not only mention- 
 " ing AUTHORS (in the plural number), 
 " but being figned SALISBURY STEE- 
 " PLE, alarmed my brother fo much, 
 " that, without flaying to confult me 
 " (who had gone out of town to Cam- 
 " bridge on purpofe, the better to avoid 
 " fufpicion), he thought it mod advife- 
 " able to go directly to the BISHOP of 
 " SALISBURY, and let him into the fecret 
 " before it came to be univerfally known, 
 " or might reach his ears with a worfe 
 " grace, and make him uneafy without 
 " the poflibility of a remedy. This infor- 
 " mation alarmed my father exceedingly 
 " it affecled his health andjleep ; and, on his 
 " feeling great uneafmefs at thinking what 
 " a neft of hornets it would naturally draw 
 " about our ears, and remembering what 
 " a clamour the name of Hoadly had raifed, 
 " my brother, without the leaft hefitation, 
 *' complied with his father 's defire, that 
 " the whole fhould be inftantly quafhed. 
 " At the firft mention of it to Mr. Rich, 
 
 " WITH
 
 " 
 
 I .6 ) 
 
 
 
 WITH THESE REASONS, he very honour- 
 ably ordered the play-houfe copy and 
 all the parts to be called in and re- 
 " turned into my brother's own hands. 
 " He gave up the whole to his father. 
 " And no more was heard of it until 
 "1761, at the good Bilhop's death, I 
 " found the copy in a corner of his 
 " drawers at Cheliea, written on, with his 
 " own hand -to be burned which, as he 
 " himfelf never did in thirty years, I have 
 " ventured to tranfcribe it (with a few 
 " alterations, which I then thought im- 
 " provements.) as a private amufement 
 " for a few friends." 
 
 I forbear to make any comment on the 
 long narrative here given. The facts will 
 fpeak for themfelves. Having, at length, 
 regained* pofleflion of all my Hoadleian 
 
 Manufcripts, 
 
 * Here it may be proper to offer my apologies for the 
 length of time which has elapfed fince I intimated, by an 
 advertifement, my intention of defending the charafter, &c. 
 &c. of Bijhop Hoattly. However extraordinary it may appear, 
 I DECLARE, Sir, that I never heard of your Hiftory of Win- 
 chefter before the clofe of the laft year. That its fame mould 
 not have extended to Southampton until after the lid vo- 
 
 lume
 
 Manuscripts, I could adduce other colla- 
 teral proofs, if neceflary, to Ihevv " that 
 ** Eijhop Hoadly never wrote, orcompofed, 
 *' any one drama" Although you are 
 pleafcd to admit him to the honour of a 
 fitting in the Temple of Fame, I rather 
 think, that his Lordfhip would not have 
 been ambitious of fuch an honour. And 
 as it appears, from his theological and po- 
 lemical writings, that he had no claim or 
 title to the majk and dagger (which you fo 
 anxioufly looked for), I leave THEM to 
 your own difpofal the former HE never 
 wore, and the latter HE never ufed for 
 the only force he ever employed againfl 
 his bitter enemies was force of argument. 
 Indeed, arguments in his hands were like 
 arrows in the hands of a giant ; and his 
 
 lume was published is wonderful ! ! ! The firft intelligence 
 of your attack upon the Bijkop of Wmchefter was announced 
 to me by the Dean and Chapter, when I attended their AUDIT 
 in. December 1/98. I was then informed, that_)<0 hail certain 
 pi oof > that Billiop Hoadly was the writer of the Sufpicious Hi<f- 
 band, and of many other dramatic competitions. Unfortu- 
 nately for me, all my books and papers have been packed up 
 (previous to my removal from Hampihire) forfeveral months; 
 aud I have but jujl opened the boxes at Eltham in Kent 
 April 26. 
 
 D quiver
 
 ( '8 ) 
 
 quiver was full of them. His tongue was 
 a ftrangcr to fuch cruel and harfh expref- 
 fions as you make ufe of againft him ; nor 
 iv&uld his nature fuffer him to dip even his 
 pen in gall. 
 
 It has juft occurred to me, that you may 
 have been deceived in the character of 
 Bi/hop Hoadly by the hafty account given 
 of him in the Biographia Britannica an 
 account very unworthy of HIM, and by no 
 means founded on facts, nis, his fon, 
 Dr. John Hoadly, controverted, in a Sup- 
 plement to that Work. The Editor of 
 the Britt/h Biography (Vol. IX. p. 167), 
 who has given a true and impartial ac- 
 count of Hoadly's Life and Writings^ 
 feems, in a note, to fpeak of bh talent for 
 POETICAL COMPOSITIONS in a manner that 
 a prejudiced writer might mlfconftrue. 
 
 You, probably, may have heard of the 
 particular compofition alluded to. And, 
 when I add that it is of a dramatic nature, 
 you will, no doubt, exult in the difcovery, 
 and fancy that you have brought me to a 
 confejjion. If this fhould appear to be the 
 cafe, after I have fubmitted the Manufcript 
 
 to
 
 to your perufal, I will readily do penance 
 for my folly. You muft allow me to be a 
 generous adverfary, as I am furnilhing 
 you with arguments againft myfelf. Be 
 it In. The refult of the enquiry may ter- 
 minate widely dfFerent from your expect- 
 ations ; and the caufe of my friend may 
 thus appear in a new light The Manu- 
 fcript, as contained in Volume the Xth, 
 p. 65, runs thus 
 
 " I am willing to preferve here an hafty 
 prologue to All J or Love, as an UNIQUE, 
 written by my father (and, as far as is 
 known, the only copy of verfes written by 
 him), and now copied by me from his own 
 hand-writing* 
 
 In the fummer of the year 1718, Blfhop 
 Hoadly, and Dr. Samuel Clarke, and Sir 
 Richard Steele, made a vifit of fome days, 
 by invitation, at Blenh^im-houfe ; where 
 he found the ladies and gentlemen of the 
 family, and a few of the neighbourhood, 
 had got up the tragedy of All for Love, 
 to entertain his Grace the Duke of Marl- 
 borough, who had had, before this, fome 
 appearances of that paralytic ftroke which 
 D 2 weakened
 
 weakened his ferifes, and at laft brought 
 on a total decay, and his diffolution. La- 
 dy Bateman (one of his Grace's grand' 
 daughters, by the Earl of Sunderland), 
 who played the part of Cleopatra, had in 
 vain applied to Sir Richard Steele for a 
 prologue on that extraordinary occafion, 
 and feemed much chagrined at the difap- 
 pointment. At night, when the family 
 retired, the Biiliop defired fome pen, ink, 
 and paper, might be brought to his cham* 
 ber ; and, the next morning, atbreakfaft, 
 prefented to Lady Bateman the following 
 prologue, which he fpake, the fame even- 
 ing, to the Duke and Dutchefs the Duke 
 fhedding tears at the unexpected compli-. 
 ment from a favourite grand-child." 
 
 A HASTY
 
 A HASTY PROLOGUE TO 
 
 ALL FOR LOVE, 
 
 ACTED AT BLENHEIM-HOUSE 
 
 WRITTEN BY Btftop Hoadfy, 
 
 AND SPOKEN BY LADY BATEMAN. 
 
 Whilft antlent dames and heroes in us live, 
 And fcenes of Love and War we here revive, 
 Greater in both, in both more fortunate. 
 Than all that ever ages paft call'd great j 
 O Marlbro', think not wrong that I thee name, 
 And firft do homage to thy brighter fame. 
 
 Beauty and Virtue with each other ftrove 
 To move and recompenfe thy early love ; 
 Beauty *, which Egypt's Queen could never boaft, 
 And Virtue flie ne'er knew, or quickly loft ! 
 A foul fo form'd and cloth'd, Heaven muft defiga 
 For fuch a foul, and fuch a form, as thine. 
 
 But, call'd from foft repofe, and beauty's charms, 
 Thy louder fame is fpoke in feats of arms. 
 The FABLED ftories of great Philip's fon 
 By REAL deeds die -worlJ haih SEEN outdone. 
 
 * Of the beauty of the Dutchefs of Marlborough, if we 
 had no other teftimony, no other would he wanting than 
 her portrait, by Kneller, and engraved by Smith j and the 
 Puke was diftinguifhed, jn the French army under Marihal 
 Turenne., by the name of the handfome Englishman. 
 
 The
 
 The Csf.irs that Rome boafted yield their bays, 
 And vim in juftice thy fuperior praife ; 
 They fought, the empire of tjie world to gain ; 
 But Thou, to break the haughty tyrant's chain : 
 They fought, t' enflave mankind ; but thou, to free 
 Whole nations from deteftcd flavery, 
 " Their guilty paths to grandeur taught to hate 
 " By virtue, nor to blufh for being great *." 
 
 This heap of ftones, which Blenheim's palace fame, 
 Rofe, in this form, a monument to thy name : 
 This heap of ftones mufi crumble into fand ; 
 But thy great name fhall through all ages (land f. 
 In Fate's dark book 1 faw thy loug-liv'd name, 
 And thus the certain prophecy proclaim : 
 " One \ fhall arife who will thy deeds rehearfe, 
 '' Not in arch'd roofs, or in fufpe&ed verfe ; 
 " But in plain annals of each glorious year, 
 " With pomp of truth, the ftory fhall appear. 
 tf Long after Blenheim's walls fhall moulder'd lie, 
 " Or, blown by winds, to diftant countries .fly, 
 " By him fhall thy great actions all furvive, 
 " And by thy name fhall his be taught to live." 
 
 O ! cherifh the remains of life j furvey 
 Thofe years of glory which can ne'er decay : 
 Enjoy the beft reward below allow'd, 
 The memory of paft actions great and good \ 
 
 * See Dryden's Aureng-zfhe, A. 5, S. i. 
 
 f Dr. Campbell, in his life of the Duke, " in Biographic 
 Britannica',*' exprefles the fame idea, with equal elegance, 
 in profe, vol. II. p. 1352. 
 
 * It is probable, that his Lordfhip alluded to his friend, 
 v/ho then fat next to him for, Sir Richard Steele, in the 
 6th number of a paper called the Reader (dated May the jd, 
 7714), had intimated a defign of writing " A Hiftory of the 
 War in Flanders." 
 
 Xow,
 
 Now, Sir, fuppofmg that you bad 
 gleaned fome imperfeft account of this pro- 
 logue, you might eafily have periuaded 
 yourfelf that Bilhop Hoadly wrote the 
 play that was formerly acted at Blenheim, 
 if I had not been able to mention the very 
 play (All for LoveJ that was THEN, and 
 THERE, acted which play, it is needlefs 
 to obferve, was compofed by Dry den. I 
 have unfolded to your view every particu- 
 lar circumftance connected with this the- 
 atrical exhibition, as recorded by his fon. 
 His veracity is unqueftionabie ; and I 
 doubt not but that you are already con- 
 vinced of the FALLIBILITY of ORAL TC- 
 
 ports. With refpect to the prologue itfelf, 
 I (hall only obferve, that the mofl male- 
 volent critic will find it difficult to draw 
 any inference from it prejudicial to the 
 memory of the writer. It can be confi- 
 dered only as an eulogium on the BRITISH 
 ALEXANDER compofed for a private oc- 
 cafion at the earned felicitation of a fa- 
 vourite child, who was anxious to pour 
 the oil of comfort into the wounds of an 
 expiring parent. As an unique, it is cer- 
 tainly
 
 tainly a literary curiofity but as a 
 Jition it claims but little merit, and can 
 fcarcely be called a dramatic compofition. 
 If, however, you fhould attach that title 
 to it, you have too good a tafte to pafs 
 fuch encomiums upon it as you have 
 done upon his Lordfhip's SUPPOSED dra- 
 matic writings. It remains, therefore, (as 
 I before obferved) for YOU to point them 
 out^ or to acknowledge this part of your 
 invidious attack on Eijhop Hoadly to have 
 been founded upon a miflake. 
 
 What has been advanced in the former 
 part of this epiftle muft have convinced 
 you, that any attempt at fuch a difcovery 
 muft be fruitlcfs. And the Publick will 
 infer, from the candid and open manner 
 in which I have laid this unique compofi- 
 tion before them, that he never wrote any 
 OTHER dramatic compofition. Indeed, the 
 filence of co-temporary writers upon this 
 fubjecl is an additional argument in fup- 
 port of the fat which I am anxious to 
 eftabliih. For, itiben Envy and Malice 
 followed Hoadly, like his own ihadow 
 *' when (to borrow his own language) 
 
 a torrent
 
 rt a torrent of angry zeal began to pour it ft if 
 u out upon HIM," is it poilible, amongft 
 the numerous hoft ot bis profeffed enemies, 
 that not one of them fliould have discovered 
 this/#/>/>0/ft/tafte for writing plays ? The 
 diicovcry might have been of ufe in raifing 
 a laugh againjt him, more efpecially when 
 their argumentative powers began to fail. 
 Think you not that Snape, Stebbing, Sher- 
 lock, Hare, Potter, Law, &c. &c. &c. would 
 have rejoiced ill fuch a difcovery ? Believe 
 me, there were fome amongft the convoca- 
 tion^ who, having perfecutcd him with a 
 u zeal not according to knowledge," 
 would have turned their (hafts of ridicule 
 againft his dramatic utrriings, when they 
 found HIM invulnerable on that holy ground 
 Whereon he flood triumphant. 
 
 As they did not, and you cannot, produce 
 any evidence of this kind againft him, let 
 the appeal be made to the tribunal of pub- 
 lick opinion ; and I will venture to antici- 
 pate a verdifl; in His favour, 
 
 But there is ftill another heavy charge 
 brought by you againft him. It however 
 feems to reft upon a very weak foundation ; 
 
 E and
 
 and I rather think that you will be com- 
 pelled to Jhift your ground. I beg leave 
 to remind you of your own words " One 
 " remark more will ftrike us before we 
 " lofe fight of this monument. The co- 
 " lumn againft which it is placed has 
 " been cut away to a confiderable depth, 
 <c in order to make place for it, evidently 
 " to the weakening of the whole fabric. 
 " Thus it may be faid with truth of Dr. 
 " Hoadl^y, that, both living and dying, 
 " he UNDERMINED the church of which he 
 " was a. prelate" 
 
 Soon after I read the above (fome time 
 in January, 1799)5 I vifited Winchefter, 
 to fatisfy myfelf how far the Dean and 
 Chapter (not Dr. Hoadl^y) had undermined 
 the Cathedral, by REMOVING this monument 
 to its prefent pofition. The circumftance 
 of its removal was perhaps unknown to you- 
 It was originally connected with the column 
 below the fteps leading up to the choir* 
 That fituation, indeed, was not fo favour- 
 able for the difpky of its beauties. Yet 
 its charafteriflic ornaments (which you are 
 pleafed to call incongruous emblems) were 
 
 then
 
 then protected, by iron rails, againft facri- 
 legious hands. 
 
 If the column had really been injured, 
 the furveyor of the works, who attended 
 its removal, ought to be refponjible. But 
 I have too high an opinion of the Dean 
 and Prebendaries, to fuppofe, even for a* 
 moment, that they would have fuffered 
 their Cathedral to be injured upon that, 
 or on any other, occafion. The meaneft 
 artificer, whofe right hand has little cun- 
 ning to forget, is capable of confuting this 
 fart of your charge, by applying his line 
 and rule to the column itfelf. 
 
 I have, however, higher authority to 
 produce, viz. a letter from a Mr. Samuel 
 Walldin, an architect in Winchefter, in 
 anfwer to a letter of inquiry from me. 
 The following is a true and faithful copy : 
 
 " Sir, 
 
 *' Mr. Kernot, a few days fince, having 
 " put your letter into my hands, as Stoner 
 < mafon to the Cathedral, I have, agree.- 
 ** able to your directions, taken a furvey 
 " of the late Bifhop Hoadly's monument. 
 
 3 " Fron\
 
 From, a Jlrift examipation of the piU 
 M lar againft which the \monument i$ 
 " erected, although it was evidently cut 
 " away for the purpofe, yet I cannot pet- 
 " ceive t\\Q f mall eft appearance of its having 
 " fufl dined ANY INJURY. 
 
 " The height of the pillar cannot be 
 " afcertained without much difficulty. 
 " The diameter I found to be ten feet, and[ 
 "Jour inches^ The girt, or circumference, 
 4< I imagine to have been (before cut away) 
 " 30 feet, 8 inches, from the oppofite half, 
 *' which is entire, girting 1 5 feet, 4 inches ; 
 v but that cannot poflibly be afcertained 
 " with precifion, as the part cut away, 
 " from appearance, feems to have been 
 *' different from the remaining oppojite Jide. 
 
 Signed, " SAMUEL WA^LDIN," 
 Winchefter, Thurfday. 
 
 The writer of the above omitted the 
 date ; but, as he will at any time confirm, 
 his opinion, viva voce (when queftioned 
 by you), it is of no confequence. If his 
 profcjjional ftatement be true, I need not 
 
 alk
 
 aik you, " how it is poflible, for a fmall 
 *' monument, fattened by little cranks in- 
 " to a huge Gothic, OR Norman column* 
 M (whole diameter is 10 feet, 4. inches, 
 " and circumference 30 feet, 8 inches) 
 M to endanger the whole fabric . ? *' When 
 a GRAVE HISTORIAN writes thus, I cannot 
 believe that he is ferious. And yet, if the 
 charge be introduced as a pun, I am forry 
 to fay, that it is a pun which a Winchefter 
 boy would be ajhamed of. 
 
 How could Bijhop Hoadly (whom the 
 Hiftorian of Winchefter trampled in ima- 
 gination beneath his feet) undermine this 
 pillar, when his remains were at peace at 
 fome diftance from it ? Luckily for you, 
 they were at peace. Had the Bilhop pof- 
 fefled, when alive, the fatirical talent of 
 Archilochus, you would have been fearful 
 of approaching even his tomb. The fame 
 caution would have been neceflary as is in-* 
 
 v 1 
 
 * Does not Mr. W 's account of this very column rnilitate 
 pgainft your mafmic dofirine, in Vol. II. p. 18 ? " The ori- 
 " ginal Not man pillars may be traced at the fteps leading up 
 " to the choir, where there was no occafion of cafing them." 
 Jn due deference to BOTH I have called // Gothic o*. Norman, 
 
 fcribed
 
 fcrited on the monument of the Greek Sa 
 tirift by Jut i anus, 
 
 wort 
 
 With cautious ftep, O ! traveller, pafs this tomb 
 For there 's a peft of hornets in it's womb. 
 
 Forgive, Sir, this feemiog digrefllon. 
 I have been led into it by your nervous 
 and pi&urefque ftyle of writing ; *' the col<J. 
 *' marble is animated by his living^ fpeakingj 
 <v feature$." In thi$ we perfectly agree; for, 
 
 r-ffc ille oculos, fie ora ferebat. 
 
 Methinks I fee him in my mind's eye. And, 
 u-hilft I am writing this letter in the pre- 
 fence of the very figure of the Bijhop, which 
 the chiffel of Wilton has transferred to the 
 monument, I cannot lofc the opportunity 
 of a dramatic converfation. 
 
 t 
 
 H. Speak, I am bound to hear. 
 
 Gh. So art thou to revenge, when thou, 
 fhalt hear 
 
 v*#***#*##**#** 
 
 Adieu adieu adieu remember me.
 
 ( 3' ) 
 
 If I did not remember him^ I (liould be 
 Unworthy to retain that name which His 
 PRESENT MAJESTY, by PARTICULAR IN- 
 DULGENCE, allowed me to PREFIX to my 
 own. But, if I were to harbour a wifh 
 of revenge againft you, or even to " fpeak 
 44 daggers," I fhould degenerate from the 
 dijlinguijhingcharacleriftic of all />// writings. 
 And as you haye " pledged yourfelf (in 
 44 the preface to your ift vol. p. 17) not 
 " only to abandon , but alfo to difavow, all 
 4 * fuch errors, &c. &c, as are pointed out 
 " to you with candour, and proved by 
 " folid arguments ;" I conclude, that 
 you will not fcruple to acknowledge that 
 you have been entirely mifinformtd refpedfc- 
 ing Bifhop Hoadly's dramatic compojjtions. 
 You wifely fay, " errare humanum eft." 
 To err is certainly human. To forgive is 
 divine. In writing, as well as in human 
 life, we find, alas ! that there is " nemo 
 "fine vitiis" but yet, " optimus ille qui 
 * minimis urgetur." Every one has his 
 fault but he is the beft who has the 
 feweft to account for.
 
 ( 3* ) 
 
 Of the gigantic column which you face* 
 tkujly, not Jerioujly^ lay, " is undermined 
 " by Dr. Hoadly," too much has already 
 been faid. Let us leave // to fpeak for it- 
 felf; which, I hope, it will continue to 
 do, not only for the fake of the Dean and 
 Chapter (who muft be at the expence or" 
 building it up again//* it Jhould f<illj > 
 but for the fake Qtyourjriend Bifhop Mor- 
 ley, who is accidentally buried on the other 
 fide of it, and might therefore fufpecl Bi- 
 fhop Hoadly * to have had a hand in 
 pufhing it down. But" amoto guteramus 
 "feria ludo" 
 
 Far be it from me to difturb the afties 
 of the dead, or to caft any reflections on 
 the memory of Morley. All his fucceflbrS 
 have been indebted to him (and amongfl 
 them Hoadly) for the three epifcopal pa* 
 
 * Vol. II. p. 75. Your meditations and reflections, whilft 
 ftanding Aetween the tombs of tbefe two prelates, may induce 
 fome of your readers to fuppofe, that your Hiftory was writ- 
 ten to ferve a. particular caufe. I, however, adopt your opinion; 
 " that there never were men more oppojite in their rettgiaut ancfc 
 ''political principles than the MWP Bijkepsuf this fee, wlio here 
 " U,e together" 
 
 laces
 
 (33) 
 
 laces \vhich they have enjoyed at Wolve- 
 fey, Farnham-caftle, and Chelfea-houfe. 
 The former of thefe arofe, under his hands, 
 from the ruins of the old-demolifhed caflle; 
 the fecond he repaired at an immenfe ex- 
 pence ; and the latter he purcbafed, and 
 bequeathed to the fee of Winchefter. And 
 many widows of the clergy of that diocefe 
 have found an afylum in his little college 
 near the Cathedral, where they have fpent 
 the evening of their lives in peace. Of 
 thefe particulars it was natural for you 
 to fpeak in your hiftory. Had you been 
 content with paffing due encomiums upon 
 Morley without an invidious comparifon 
 between him and Hoadly^ I would have 
 fubfcribed, with pleafure, to your opinion. 
 But your partial preference in favour of the 
 former is but too vifible ; and it is remark- 
 able, that you cannot difguife it when 
 fpeaking of their refpective monuments. 
 From your own words let the reader draw 
 his inference. " We now pafs behind the 
 pillar againft which Bifhop Hoadly's 
 monument refts, adjoining to which, 
 at the bottom of the Heps, is the fepul- , 
 F " chre
 
 ('34) 
 
 11 chre of that Jlaunch * old prelate Mor- 
 " ley, with an interejiing epitaph, com- 
 " pofed by himfelf, which, however, boa/is 
 " of nothing but his attachment to the 
 " caufe of royalty. It is enclofed in iron 
 '* rails ; and over it hangs, by his own ap- 
 tl point me nt, his mitre and crojier" 
 
 As you have thought proper to bring 
 thefc two prelates- together, I cannot lofe 
 fight of; them without aiking you a few 
 queftions^ 
 
 * May not fome of your readers think that you are rather 
 TOO 'FAMILIAR With your friend Morley, \rhen you apply the 
 epithet STANCH to a Bifhop ? and a(k you the queftiort 
 which Hazael did, " what ! // thy fervant a DOG ?" The 
 cxpreffion would have been more appropriate! had you been 
 fpeaking of one of King Charles's POINTERS or BLOOD- 
 HOUNDS. And do you not, in effeft, call the Preftyterian Mi- 
 niftrya. PACK OP HOUNDS, when you fay (Vol. I. p. 416), 
 " that they GROWLSD for more abfolute power ?/' &c. &c. 
 A dog is unqueftionably an emblem of fidelity. Pope, in 
 one of his letters to H. Cromwell, Efq. " gives us a modern- 
 " inftance of gratitude TO a dog. He informs us, that the 
 " chief Order of Denmark (now injurioufly called the Order 
 " of the Elephant) was instituted in memory of the fidelity 
 " of a dog, named W~ild-brat, to one of their Kings, who 
 " ha^ been defeated by his fubjects -. he gave his Order this 
 " motto (or to this effe6t), Wild-brat was faithful:' 
 
 But you lameiU (p. 419), " that mankind are foinconfift- 
 cnt aud unfeeling, as to attooh ignominy to a dog !" 
 
 Ift
 
 { 35 ) 
 
 Is it not extraordinary that you fhould 
 fuffer the pajioral crofter and mitre to hang 
 quietly over the fepulchre of M y, when 
 you treat with fuch infolent indignation 
 the charafterijlic emblems on H y's monu- 
 ment ? Tou may believe, that M y was 
 " clothed with humility ;" but I contend, 
 that this very Jimple fepulchre betrays ftrong 
 marks oifpiritual pridt. Have you not told 
 us, that tbofe vifible proofs of epifcopacy^ the 
 MITRE and crofter* were fufpended there by 
 his OWN APPOINTMENT ? And what oc- 
 cafion was there for a Bifhop to found his 
 own praifes ? The trump of fame more 
 properly belongs to the Hiftorian than the 
 deceafed. Why ihould M y, like a 
 proud Pharifee, boaft of himfelf ? What 
 merit was there in his being fo flrongly 
 attached to the caufe of royalty, when he 
 had received fuch accumulated marks of 
 regal favour, and " bore his blulhing ho- 
 " nours fo thick upon him ?" Had he 
 lived four years longer, until 1688,- and 
 ftill enjoyed the quiet pofTeflion of his cro- 
 fier and mitre under William and Mary, are 
 certain, that he would not have taken 
 F 2 the
 
 the oaths of allegiance to them ? He might, 
 perhaps, have been too far advanced in 
 years to have taken any active part in the 
 civil and political revolution which was 
 then effected ; but, if HE had ever DE- 
 VOUTLY MEDITATED On MAGNA CHARTA, 
 
 or PROPERLY underftood the NEW SCRIP- 
 TURE, he would have rejoiced, like old 
 Simeon, that his eyes had lived to fee that 
 glorious light fpringing up amongft the 
 Gentiles, which, in confequence of the 
 RELIGIOUS revolution in the minds of men, 
 may be confidered as the greateft of all Na- 
 tional blejjjings. 
 
 Your fentiments upon this occajion are, 
 no doubt, different from mine. But I beg 
 leave to remind you of an excellent remark 
 of your own *, that " Religion was the 
 " hinge upon which moft publick tranf- 
 " actions, and even the fate of kingdoms, 
 " turned in the laft century f . All men 
 
 " were 
 
 * Vol. I, p. 437. 
 
 f And why may not this remark be extended to the pre~ 
 fent century? For, the good feed of Religion, which was 
 fown in this Country at the Revolution, did not produce fruit 
 to pcrfcfiion until Reafoa and Chrlftianity formed an indifloluble 
 
 imiom
 
 (37) 
 
 " were then violently zealous for fome 
 44 fyftem or another, though, even in this, 
 " they were generally influenced by party 
 " principles, not by motives of confci- 
 " ence." 
 
 Whether or not Morley was ever influ- 
 enced by party principle -s, I (hall not flop to 
 enquire. Nor do I mean to infmuate, that 
 the portrait which you have given us of 
 him in your hiftory is not an exacl refem- 
 blance of him, or that it is too highly co- 
 loured by your flattering pencil. I am 
 only forry, that HE thought it neceflary to 
 proclaim aloud his loyalty upon his own 
 tomb. If Hoadly had written fuch an in- 
 ttrcftinf epitaph on HIMSELF, would he 
 have efcaped the cenfure of your pen ? 
 No. It would have been " all vanity and 
 " vexation of fpirit .' ! !" And yet he was 
 as frmly attached to the caufe of Royalty^ 
 under the different fovereigns whom he 
 
 union under thtproteflantfucceffion; WHEN the cation found 
 it abfolutely neceflary to SHAKE OFF the chains of ANTI- 
 CHRIST, and to fend bigotry and fuperjlition into PERPE- 
 TUAL EXILE. 
 
 had 
 
 . \ *~ 
 
 *l c ' O/* '? 
 
 >*> ty^
 
 (38 ) 
 
 had the honour to ferve, as ever Moriey 
 was to the Houfe of Stuart t both in THEIR 
 profperity and adverjity. 
 
 Even Envy herfelf muft allow that the 
 epitaph which Bifhop Hoadly wrote for 
 HIS grave breathes nothing but the lan- 
 guage of humility. I have fubftituted the 
 word " grave" (from the authority of his 
 Lordfhip's ORIGINAL MS.) inftead of mo- 
 nument. His inftru&ions are conveyed as 
 follows. " If I die at Chelfea (which is 
 " mod likely), I appoint my burial to be 
 " at Streatham *, in Surry, near the place 
 
 " which 
 
 * Streatham was always his beloved retreat during his life, 
 and, if he had been buried there, his REMAINS might have 
 found a fafe retreat beyond the reach of the (l jilngs and ar- 
 rows" of the Hiftorian of Wiuchefter CATHEDRAL. His 
 predilection for Streatham may be eafily accounted for. Th 
 manner in which he became pofleffed of that living reflects 
 equal credit upon the perfon who GAVE it, as well as upon him 
 who RECEIVED it. And it would be injufvice to the memory 
 of his patronefs (Mrs. HawlanJ, g r arid-mothcr of the two 
 laft Dulies of Bedford, &c. &c.), not to infert here Mr. Hoad- 
 ly's acknowledgement to her for this fmgular obligation. 
 " This excellent lady, in the year 1710, when Fury fecmed 
 " to be let loole, and to diftinguim me particularly, fhe her- 
 " felf, unaflted, unapplied to, without my ever having feen 
 
 " her,
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 " which I once fixed upon with Dr. Bui* 
 " lock, the Rector, who will remember 
 " it. No monument but a handfome 
 " fiat marble near the grave with the 
 "following infcription engraved upon it, 
 " and without the addition of one word 
 " of character." His modeft wifh did not 
 even extend to a monument nay, he ex- 
 preflly Jorbadt it and his only furviving 
 fon (the late worthy Chancellor of the 
 Diocefe) thought it necejfary to make an 
 apology, in the Account of his Fathers 
 Life (Vol. I. p. u, folio edit.), "for 
 " having difobeyed HIM by erecting but a 
 " decent monument to his memory." But 
 on this fubject you have entertained a dif- 
 ferent opinion:' and my uncle, without 
 any intention, feems likewife to have 
 given offence to you. For, although " your 
 words" (when fpeaking of the medallion)- 
 may appear, to an indifferent reader, 
 " fmoother than oil," when / read your 
 
 " her, or been feen by her, chofe, by prefenting me to the 
 " Re&ory of Streatham, then juft vacant, to ihew, ia her 
 *' own exprefiion, " thatjke was neither a/hameet, nor afraid t 
 " to give me that froof of her fublick regard at that eriticaltime." 
 
 farcajlick
 
 ( 40) 
 
 farcaftick ejaculations on viewing the em- 
 blems which adorn it, I FEEL them to be 
 " VERY SWORDS." 
 
 Still, however, I am difpofed to think, 
 that you would not have ufed fuch harfh 
 and cruel exprefiions (as now difgrace 
 your Hiftory) if you had previoufly feert 
 the account which my uncle has given of 
 his OWN DESIGN, when he caufed the 
 various emblems to be affixed to his Fa- 
 ther's monument. If there be any ground 
 for cenfure, it fhould attach to him. And, 
 with what eagernefs would he have ex- 
 claimed to all the enemies of Hoadly in 
 the words of the GENEROUS Nifus 
 
 ME, ME, (adfum qui feci) in me tonvertitt ferrum ! ! ! I 
 
 If the reader will have the goodnefs to 
 turn back (to p. 4), he may convince 
 himfelf, that THE INCONGRUOUS ASSOCIA- 
 TION of emblems (which you complain of) 
 depends entirely upon YOUR not clearly 
 underftanding their appropriate fignifica- 
 t^on. The pajloral crofter and mitre re- 
 quire no comment : they are the injignia 
 qf every Bilhop. All the OTHER emblems 
 
 the
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 ttae wand and 'cap of Liberty the f.v 
 ROLLS of old manufcripts, infcribcd in 
 old Greek and Roman characters from 
 the NEW TESTAMENT, and alfo from 
 MAGNA CHARTA, have rcfpect to bis 
 conftant motto, Peril as et P atria (TRUTH 
 and his COUNTRY), and to the ARMS * of 
 the Hoaaly family. If you afk, " What 
 " is TRUTH r" I anfwer li THE GOSPEL." 
 
 ^ _ - 
 
 And, if you afk again what Hoadly meant 
 by " Pdtrta", bis Country? I muft anfwer 
 for him in two words, " Magna Chart a." 
 But, on viewing thefe charaEisrlftic emblems 
 of Religious and Civil Liberty, you are 
 pleafed to fay, " that the NEW SCRIPTURE 
 
 * If Mr. Milne-r will take the trouble of looking into the 
 Archivet which are depolited in the College of Heralds, he 
 may there fee a literary curiofity, viz. an original letter, 
 written by King Charles II. to the grandfather of Bifhop 
 Hoadly " expreffl-ve of his gratitude, for his fervices in ef- 
 ' fe6liug his reftoration ; and, in token of his Royal favour, 
 ' his Majefty was graciouily pleafed to delire, that all per- 
 ' fons, hereafter bearing or ufing the arms of Hoadly, 
 ' would attach, as a creft to the faid arhis, a dove, with an 
 olive branch in its mouth, as a perpetual emblem of his Re- 
 ' faration ! .' /" This dove (if you had feen it) might have 
 been ranked amongft the ir.congrufos emblems and the peli- 
 can, in the arms, would alfo have been an objecfc of your 
 vy. See p. 45. 
 
 G "and
 
 " and MAGXA CHARTA were equauy the 
 " jecl: of the Bifhbp's meditations." 1 will 
 meet your illiberal infinuation in its fullefk 
 force, and acknowledge, that they WERE 
 equally the fubjecl of HIS meditations,- 
 whenever they \vere equally in danger 
 from the fecret and open attempts of the 
 numerous Enemies both to CHURCH and 
 STATE. And fufely thole Great Pillars 
 of the Br/ti/b Conjiitution, upon which our 
 prefent and future happinefs muft for ever 
 reft, were never in greater danger of being 
 levelled to the ground than at CERTAIN 
 well-known PERIODS in the prefent cen- 
 tury. For, the very foundations thereof 
 were fappsd and undermined by fuch. doc- 
 trines as were propagated by that incen- 
 diary SacheverelL And his friend After- 
 bury (although Bijhop of Rochefter) was 
 fo attached to the interefts of the CHURCH 
 of Rome, that he would, like Samfon, 
 have pulled down the pillars of OUR 
 Temple, &c. &c. &c. even if HE had been 
 certain of perilhing beneath the rums. 
 Luckily for thefe Kingdoms, the enemies 
 of the Eftablifhed Government, by their 
 
 DOCTRINE
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 DOCTRINE of NON-RESISTANCE, and by 
 
 their PRACTICE of NON-ASSISTANCE, kept 
 the balance pretty even. Hoadly^ by (top- 
 ping the progress of fuch doctrines, faved 
 his country, and received, as a reward for 
 his labours, a publick mark of HER appro- 
 ballon, which i lliall interweave with my 
 iubfequent remarks on your general attack 
 upon his writing* in the firjl volume of 
 your Hiftory. 
 
 To commemorate his firv ices in the^>#- 
 llck caufe^ what emblem more proper than 
 the wand of 'Liberty to be- placed on his 
 tomb ? But this you have called by the 
 odious title of the DEMOCRATIC PIKE * an 
 
 inftrument 
 
 * Here, for once, your clajfical knowledge leerns to have 
 failed you. The iniand and cap of liberty are fpoken of by 
 the learned Spence, in his Polymetis (fol. edit. p. 147). 
 " Liberty you may eaiily know by her cap and wand." To 
 this luand (or rid) Horace alludes, Ep. I. 
 
 dqnatumjam rude 
 
 aqd Perfius (Sat. V. y. 82.) fpeaks of the cap of liberty 
 hanc nobispilea donant. 
 
 On which laft-cited pafiage, an author, who tranflated Per- 
 fius in 1673, makes the following curious obfervation 
 " At the manumiflion of a flave, his head was Jbavcn (or 
 
 G a " cropped),
 
 infh'ument of modern invention, and which 
 is to be found in a neighbouring king- 
 dom where, alas ! many thousand de- 
 luded wretches daily kifs thofe CONSE- 
 CRATED pikes, which they are bound to. 
 plunge into the breads of his Majefty's pro- 
 teftant fbbjects, whenever France CAN af- 
 ford them an opportunity of rijlng in a 
 mafs. By the epithet democratic, you would, 
 no doubt, infmuate that Hoadly was a re- 
 publican in his political principles. He 
 certainly was a whig, upon the true and 
 folid principles of the Revolution. He 
 was a lover of liberty yet firmly attached 
 to monarchy and a zealous advocate for 
 the fettlement of it in the proteflant line. 
 He wifhed to fee UNIVERSAL liberty, if it 
 were compatible with National f of ety. But 
 he conftantly reminds his readers of this 
 
 , and then he wore the cap of liberty. The co- 
 " lour of it was wAite." See Bnrten Hoiyday's Tranllation 
 of Juvenal and Periius, p. 332. The DEMOCRATIC PIKE is 
 more properly a character} ftic emblem of the Gallic goddfj's 
 Liberty ; and the colour of her cap is now dyed nd t to remind 
 ytaries of their oaiverfal call 
 
 to wade through Slaughter to a throne, 
 And {hut the gates of Mercy on mankind ! ! ! 
 
 great
 
 (45 ) 
 
 great national truth , 4i that our Church 
 44 was laved by the Revolution, and can 
 44 be iupported only by the protejtant fuc- 
 44 cej/ion *." Thofe who dare to call the 
 Bijhop cither a democrat or a republican are 
 total ftrangers both to his PUBLICK and 
 PRIVATE character, and to the general 
 tendency of his works. Thcfe appella- 
 tions were cant expreflions, ufcd by the 
 Jacobites (in 17^5 and 1745) to revile and 
 lejfen the defenders of Publick Liberty. 
 But, in the prefent age, the expreilions of 
 democrats and republicans-^ (if we may judge 
 from their love of liberty, as exemplified by 
 French practices,) are fynonymous terms 
 for plunderers of the world, and murderers 
 of the human race. 
 
 Whilft you was exclaiming againft the 
 INCONGRUOUS affociation of emblems, how 
 came you not to attack the PELICAN, which 
 is in the DEXTER QUARTER of the arms of 
 Hoadly ? Perhaps, Sir, you could not 
 bear to fee IT amongil his fepulchral or- 
 
 * Vol I. p. 618. 
 
 f Amongft fuch monfters, God forbid that the name of 
 Hoadly fliould ever be mentioned ! ! 
 
 naments
 
 naments BECAUSE Fox (Bifhop of Win* 
 cheftcr in the time of Henry VII.) SE- 
 LECTED that bird as his FAVOURITE E^, 
 BLEM. Your remarks upon this occafion, 
 are too romantic to efcape notice. Thus, 
 in defcribing Fox's works in the Cathe- 
 dral* u WHERE WE VIEW THE BREATH- 
 
 ' ING STATUE OF THE PIOUS FOUNDER, 
 " RESTING UPON HIS CHOSEN EMBLEM, THE 
 
 '* PELICAN." Again, p. 56, * The ciel- 
 " ing is rich with the founder's arms and 
 
 ** CHOSEN DEVICE, the PELICAN. This W3S 
 
 " intended by him to exprefs his ARDENT 
 " DEVOTION to the facrament of the air 
 " tar"" HENCE," you fay, his mag- 
 46 nificent College at Oxford was denomi- 
 " nated Corpus Chrijli, the BODY of Chrift." 
 So alfo, fpeaking of the altar-piece, p. 39. 
 44 In the centre is the CHARACTERISTICAI, 
 " pelican" becaufe " this bird makes life 
 " of its beak to tear open its own bread, 
 * fc for the purpofe of feeding its young 
 " ones with its blood." When I faw thefe 
 paffages, 1 fancied that I was reading a 
 Hiltory that was written in the ifth or 
 
 * Vol. II. P. JO. 
 
 1 6th
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 i6th century. Bifliop Fox might INNO- 
 CENTLY ufe thtfclifafl, and I mean not to 
 ceafure him for his choice. He was de- 
 ceived by the prevailing tafle for hierogly- 
 phicks. But I fcruple not to fay, that 
 thri very bird (which you have, in a man- 
 ner, confecrated to him, and which you 
 ieem to view almojl with the eye of adora- 
 tion) is an emblem unworthy of a ProteJIant 
 Church* if it be received according to 
 YOUR interpretation of its fymbolical mean- 
 ing. Nay, it is unworthy even of your 
 own Church. For, let us fuppofe that a 
 perfon ihould dare to erect an abfurd, im- 
 pure, or unclean image over one of your 
 altars would you not have him excommu- 
 nicated? Certainly. Now, Sir, it appears 
 from Leviticus, chap. xi. v. 18, and Deu- 
 teronomy, chap. xiv. v. 17, that this very 
 pelican is an IMPURE or UNCLEAN bird, and, 
 as fuch, forbidden to be EATEN by the Jew-. 
 ifh Law. Is it not abfurd ? is it not impi- 
 ous ? is it not blafphemous ? to reprefent 
 the Saviour of the World fhedding his 
 blood upon the crofs by a PELICAN, feed- 
 ing its young with its blood ! I cannot 
 
 help
 
 help exclaiming, in the words of Horace* 
 
 Quodcunque OSTENDJS mihi sic incredulus odi. 
 
 No corporeal emblem can give us an ade- 
 quate idea of his love and fufferings for 
 mankind. The one which you have fe- 
 lecled is, of all others, the moft impro- 
 per. I have proved already, that // was 
 always looked upon as an unclean bird. 
 And I am forry to tell you, that the cir- 
 cumftance of the pelican s feeding her 
 young ones with blood is nothing more 
 than a romantick fable. Of this unwel- 
 come truth, you may be convinced, by re- 
 ferring to Parkhurft's Lexicon, under the 
 Hebrew root Np vomere, as a noun, with a 
 formative fi final, fitfp a fpecies of unclean- 
 bird. It appears, from Edwards's Natural 
 Hiftory of Birds (part. 2. p. 92), and from 
 Shaw's Travels, p. 428, that the pelican, 
 like the camel, being frequently an inha- 
 bitant of the wildernefs, " (where no wa- 
 " ter is)," has " a large bag or pouch under 
 * its lower chap, which ferves, not only as 
 " a REPOSITORY for its food, &c. but as a 
 " net to catch it. In feeding its young 
 ** ones (whether this bag be loaded with 
 7 " water
 
 ( 49) 
 
 " water or folid food), the onocrotalus, or 
 " pelican, SQUEEZES the contents of it into 
 " their mouths, by drongly COMPRESSING 
 44 it upon its bread with its bill ; an action, 
 " which might well give occafion to the 
 " received tradition, that the pelican, in 
 " feeding her young, pierced her own 
 " bread, and nourifhed them with her 
 *' own blood." What then becomes of 
 your c h ar aft eri flic al emblem f I fhould not 
 expe6l to find fuch an hieroglyphick NOW 
 in veneration, even in the land of Egypr, 
 notwithdanding what the Roman Satirid 
 fays of the Religion of the Nile 
 
 Quis nefcit -' ; qualia demeni 
 
 /Egyptus portenta colat ? Crocodilon adorat 
 Pars haec : ilia pavet faturam lerpentibus ibin. 
 Effigies facrl nltet aureaPelicani * 
 
 Juvenal, Sat. XV. 
 
 If your perfuaflve pen fhould induce any 
 of your readers to adopt your opinions, a 
 
 * I have ventured to fubftitute pelicani for the word in 
 the original, which fignifies a fpecies of ape. Philo Judaeus 
 de Decalogo has a ftriking remark. ZEH<TI juvroi K;eno)nXar> 
 XBVOI?, ai\8Jj, >VX.H$, <BTTjya, I'stfctf xcii tfox*j. " They make Cro- 
 " codiles, Dogs, Cats, Wolves, Birds, Ibis, and Hawks, 
 " the objefls of their adwatitn" 
 
 H worfe
 
 ( So) 
 
 worfe than Egyptian darknefs would foort 
 overlhadow this land. 
 
 If you fhould feel an inclination to rank 
 the pelican amongft the incongruous aj/ocia- 
 tion of emblems on Hoadly's monument, 
 &c. I muft beg you to transfer your far- 
 caftical reflections to the College of He- 
 ralds, and cenfure them for allowing our 
 family to ufe it in their arms. FicJion is 
 the very eflence of heraldry, as well as of 
 poetry. It was intended by their arbitrary 
 laws to reprefent a true patriot: no man 
 ever deferved that title more than Hoadly ; 
 and, I truft, that it will ever be looked 
 upon as a lively emblem^ to infpire us to 
 jhed our blood m defence of our RELIGION, 
 KING, and COUNTRY * ; and, in fuch a 
 caufe, if there be one 
 
 " Pro patria timidus perire," 
 Who fears to die for his dear Country's rights, 
 
 he would be unworthy the name of a Bri- 
 ton. By infinuating that the Bifhop was 
 
 * THESE are, like the Order of the Bath, " Tria junda 
 ." in uno." They appear to be joined together by God j and I 
 hope, that no Britify Catiline will, under the malk of pa- 
 trio tifm, dare to put them ajunckr, 
 
 a de-
 
 a democrat or republican, you wifh to rob 
 him of his good name but in vain. For, 
 he proved to a demonflration, that patriot- 
 ifm and loyalty MAY be united. But I will 
 reprefs my rifing indignation and will 
 " not fet down aught in malice." When 
 the reader is informed, that the Hiftorian 
 of Winchefter is a Romifh Prieft, he will 
 ceafe to wonder at the manner in whicU 
 YOU have attacked the memory and writings 
 of Hoadly. Tour f eft look upon him as an 
 heretic Biihop. You have accufed him of 
 UNDERMINING the Church of which he was 
 a prelate. If this accufation could be 
 fupported by even the fhadow of an ar- 
 gument, he would have deferred your grate- 
 ful acknowledgments, rather than your/7- 
 liberal afperfions. But all Europe is con- 
 vinced, that Hoadly contributed more, 
 than any other writer, to UNDERMINE the 
 fandy foundations of the Church of Rome, 
 and to guard the P rot eft ant fuccejfion, as it 
 were, with a (hield againft the fiery darts 
 of their enemies. 
 
 After the intimation given above, the 
 mind of the reader will be fufficiently pre- 
 11 2 pared
 
 ( 5* ) 
 
 pared for your partial criticifm on Hoadly's 
 writings, which I (hall immediately copy 
 from your^/y? volume, p. 445. 
 
 " The only Bifhop who was raifed to 
 " the fee of Winchefter by George II. was 
 " the famous Dr. Benjamin Hoadly, the 
 " great champion of, what is called, the 
 " low Church. This party gives up all 
 " pretenfions to divine jurifdiction, the 
 " power of the keys, the neceflity of mir- 
 " nifterial fucceflion, the authority of the 
 <l convocation, together with the certainty 
 " of the 39 articles, and every other tenet 
 " which the eftablifhed Bifhops of the laft 
 " century had confidered as eileptial to the 
 *' idea cf a Church. It is plain the admi- 
 *' niftratlon, then in place, favoured this 
 ** fyftem, which diiarmed the Church, 
 " and made it a mere tool of the State, by 
 " the fucceflive preferments which its great 
 t hero met with, namely, the fees of Ban* 
 " gor, Hereford, Saliibury, and laftly that 
 " of Winchefter, upon the death of Dr. 
 '* Willis ; as alfo by its taking advantage 
 " ef his conccilions to diilolve the convq- 
 
 *' cation,
 
 (53) 
 
 * c cation, which has never been allowed 
 '* by government to proceed to any bufi- 
 " nefs fmce his time," 
 
 Thefe remarks are of the fame kind as 
 your illiberal afperfions on the monument 
 of my friend ; and I muft be allowed to 
 fay, that you have not confined yourfelf 
 to matters of fadl. What your object 
 may be, in reviving the invidious dif- 
 tinction between the High and Loiv- 
 Cburcb *, I cannot pretend to determine. 
 The " moderation" of the Eftablifhed 
 Church is now " made known unto all 
 *'men:" and Hoadly, by his well-timed 
 writings, is univerfajly acknowledged to 
 have given the death-ftroke to the principle* 
 of Civil and Ecc/e/iajtica/ tyranny. It was 
 my intention to have written a long de- 
 fence pf his character and writings ; but, 
 
 * " Think not the worfe of apy man, becaufe he is called 
 " a Lvw-Churchman, or moderate man. Thei'e are names made 
 " uTe of to revile thofe who are the finneft friends to the late 
 41 revolution, and are always endeavouring to keep both Church 
 f and State fiom being ruined, either by the heats and vio- 
 ." lences of Proteftants, or by the arms and ftratagems of Pa- 
 f pifts." Deadly 's Works, Vol. I. p. 622, 
 
 I was
 
 ( 54) 
 
 I was fearful of being thought prejudiced 
 in favour of both. And, the nearer view 
 I take of either, the more I am inclined 
 to fufpect myfelf of partiality. I fhall, 
 therefore, adopt the fentiments of co-tem- 
 porary writers, and occafionally interweave 
 felec"t parTages from his own works. And 
 I truft, that you will not, like an unjuft 
 Judge, pafs fentence of condemnation upon 
 him, without allowing him to fpeak in his 
 own defence. 
 
 Before we can form a juft opinion of any 
 writer, it is abfolutely necefiary to fend 
 our imaginations back to the age in which 
 he lived and wrote. Without this clue to 
 conduct our wandering fteps, we may be 
 in danger of lofing ourielves in the laby- 
 rinths of error. From a want of recollect- 
 ing, that Biihop Hoadly lived during thofe 
 two rebellions in 1715 and 1745, which con- 
 vulfed'the Eritijh Empire to its bafe, many 
 writers have fufpectcd him of favouring 
 republican principles. He faw and dreaded 
 the poflibility of an union then between the 
 Papijls and the Diffcnters ; and therefore 
 invited the latter to unite with the Church 
 
 6 of
 
 ( 55 ) 
 
 of England. He wifhed to convince them, 
 that their prejudices againft us were moft 
 of them imaginary ; and he pointed out to 
 them the neceflity of joining in the com- 
 mon caufe ; and (hewed the reafonablcnefs 
 of their conformity to the Church of Eng- 
 land. He repeatedly requefts, that his 
 readers would not extend his arguments 
 to other times. " I defire it may be re- 
 " membercd, that I confine myfelf to the 
 " prefent times ; and to thofe Diflenters 
 " only who continue to feparate from the 
 " Church, for the reafons there repre- 
 " fented *." His mode of treating this 
 fubjecl:, in another part of his works, does 
 equal honour both to his head and heart )-. 
 " Are fome men to be reprefented to you 
 " as enemies to the Church, becaufe they 
 " are zealous for the toleration of Proteft- 
 " ant DiiTenters. Now, I entreat you to 
 
 " confider. 
 
 * Reafonablenefs of Conformity, Vol. I. p. 187. 
 
 f See (Vol. I. p. 619) his ferious advice to the good peo- 
 ple of England, " fhewing their truc'inttreft, and their true 
 " friends." Every page of this letter (which is not fufficieatljr 
 known) might be read with profit in the prefent poliure of 
 affairs. It clearly eftabliihes this important national trutli, 
 
 " tbat
 
 16 corifider. Thofe who are fo unhappy 
 ' as to differ in opinion from the Church 
 " E.ftablijhed, muft either be borne with, 
 " or they muft be perfecuted. The bear- 
 * 6 ing with them hath reconciled the con- 
 ** fciences of many to our worfhip. The 
 " dealing hardly with them hath eftranged 
 " their minds from us. If you would have 
 " them ever reconciled to the Church, no- 
 " thing but mild methods can do this. 
 " And then, I farther befeech you, do 
 " not confult your pafllons, your anger, 
 " and your hatred, on this occafion ; but, 
 " look into the Gofpel, and read the New 
 ** Teftament. See if you can meet with 
 ** any thing there of molefting, and in- 
 " juring, and ruining, your neighbours, 
 
 " that a general union is the. beft way to repel the common dan- 
 tc ger" Commune periculum concordiil propulfandum, fay 
 Tacitus words worthy to be written in letters of gold ! J 
 Cannot but join with the. Scholiaft, in his exclamations upon 
 thefe words. O ! verba aurea ! utinam imbibamus ! Nempe 
 hoc eft quod Hermocrates ille Syracuianus pulchcrrime mo- 
 nuit, apud Thucyd. Jib. IV. T$ Ji AAAOOYAOYS 
 
 Exlrancos advcnientes, 
 liipimus, jun<5ti repellemus. Quoniam finguli etiam fi 
 4inutr t univerfi periclitamur.
 
 ( 57 ; 
 
 '* in order to make them profefs the fame 
 " doctrines, or worfhip God after the 
 " fame manner that you do." 
 
 Are thefe the fentiments of a democrat 
 or republican ? Impoflible. And yet it 
 was from fuch pafiages as thefe, that his 
 enemies drew inferences fo prejudicial to 
 his real character. It will be difficult for 
 you, or any other perfon, to felect any 
 part of Hoadly's voluminous works to 
 which the dangerous doctrines of repub- 
 lican princif lei may be attached. On the 
 contrary, he was remarkable for his loy- 
 alty and attachment to four fuccefllve fove- 
 reigns, viz. Queen Anne, King George I. 
 George II. and George HI. And the fa- 
 ther of his prefent Majefty (when Prince 
 of Wales) was fo well convinced of the 
 Bifhop's LOYAL and PATRIOTIC ex- 
 ertions, that his Royal Highnefs was 
 pleafed to fignify his gracious approba- 
 tion in a manner too flattering to be con- 
 cealed from the publick eye. His Royal 
 Highnefs' s letter * is dated 
 
 * The original is in my pofleffion. 
 
 I Leicefter-
 
 ( 5* ) 
 
 Leicefter-Houfe, June 27, 1746. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 In anfwer to your letter, I will tell you 
 with truth, that I am glad to have had it 
 in my power to give you a TOKEN of 
 my GRATITUDE for the fervices done 
 formerly to my family. 
 
 Believe me 
 
 Your affectionate 
 
 FREDERICK P. 
 
 When thefon of a King, then upon the 
 Throne, and the father of his prefent Ma- 
 jefty, condefcends to write THUS to an in* 
 dividual who can be fo weak as to fup- 
 pofe, that thefe grateful acknowledgements 
 were made to Hoadly for difleminating de- 
 mocratlck principles ?' principles which 
 would have undermined the Houfe of Ha- 
 nover, and mufl eventually have deftroyed 
 the very cauie he was anxious to fupport. 
 His zealous labours in defence of Civil 
 and Religious liberty (on principles dia- 
 metrically
 
 (59) 
 
 fcnetrically oppofite to thofe which have 
 been abfcribed to him) entitled him to 
 very different treatment formerly* 
 
 It appears, from Burnet's Hiftory of the 
 Reign of Queen Anne *, that " many fe- 
 " ditious books were written againft the 
 " Queen's title by the pens, no doubt, of the 
 " Jacobites of the day. Whilft thefe fedi- 
 " tious writings had free courfe for many 
 *' years, and were much fpread and mag- 
 " nified, one Hoadly, a pious and judici- 
 " ous divine, being called on to preach 
 44 before the Lord Mayor, chofe, for his 
 ' text, the firft verfe of the i3th chapter 
 "to the Romans -f, and fairly explained 
 *' thefe words of St. Paul " Let every 
 " foul be fubjccl: to the Higher Powers" 
 44 that they were to be underftood only 
 
 * Vol. IV. p. 278. 
 
 I Bifhop Hoadly told his fon, the Chancellor of Winchef- 
 ter, that, when he preached this fermon before Sir Owen 
 Buckingham (viz. Sep. 29, 1705), he thought it the moft 
 inoffenfive fermon in the world } but he foon found that it 
 would give offence. Bifhop Bradford, who was prefent, 
 faid to him, in the Veftry " Young man, every word of 
 " what you have faid is TRUE j but I \vilh it may not give 
 " you a great deal of trovtte." 
 
 1 2 " againft
 
 (6o) 
 
 " againft refifting good governors upoii 
 " Jewifh principles, but that they had 
 " no relation to bad and cruel governors. 
 " And he aflerted, that it was not only law- 
 " ful, but a duty incumbent upon all men, 
 41 to refift fuch ; concluding all with a vin- 
 " dication of the Revolution, and of the 
 prefent Government. Upon this, a 
 great outcry was raifed, as if he had 
 preached up rebellion. Several books 
 were written againft him ; and he jufli- 
 fied hitnfelf with a vifible fuperiority of 
 argument to them all. It was eafier to 
 keep up a clamour than to write a folid 
 *' anfwer." 
 
 To the testimony of Bifhop Burnet, I 
 beg leave to add that of Smollett, in his 
 Hiftory of England *. 
 
 " Hoadly was a clergyman of found 
 " underftanding, unblemiihed character, 
 " and uncommon moderation ; who, in 
 a Sermon preached before the Lord 
 Mayor of London, had demonftrated 
 
 * Vol. X. p. 83. 
 
 " the 
 
 "
 
 ( 61 ) 
 
 " the lawfulnefs of refifling wicked and 
 " cruel governors ; and vindicated the 
 '* late Revolution. By avowing fuch doc- 
 ** trines, he incurred the refentment of 
 " the HIGH-CHURCHMEN, who ac- 
 " cufed him of having preached up rebel- 
 44 lion. Many books were written againft 
 *' the maxims he profefled. Thefe he an* 
 " fwered ; and, in the courfe of the con- 
 44 troverfy, acquitted himfelf with fupe* 
 44 rior temper, judgment, and folidity of 
 " argument." 
 
 But, there is a teilimony upon record 
 far fuperior to the language of all the 
 Hiftorians that ever lived I allude to the 
 vote of the Houfe of Commons* in his 
 favour, too honourable to be omitted. 
 
 i. *' Refolved, that the Rev. Mr. Benja- 
 " min Hoadly, Rector of St. Peter's Poor, 
 44 London, for having often ftrenuoufly 
 "juftified the principles, on which her 
 
 * This vote was paffed Dec. 14, 1709, immediately after 
 the publication of his book on Civil Government. See 
 Journals of the Houfe of Commons, vol. XVI. p. 242. 
 
 * k Majcfty
 
 " Majefty and the Nation proceeded in 
 " the late happy Revolution, hath juftly 
 " merited the FAVOUR and RECOMMEND* 
 " ATION of this Houfe. 2. That an hum- 
 " ble addrefs be prefented to her Majefty, 
 " that (he would be gracioufly pleafed to 
 " beflow fome dignity in the Church on 
 " Mr. Hoadly, for his eminent fervices 
 " both in Church and State." 
 
 A greater honour Hoadly could not have 
 received ; as it was the approbation of his 
 Country, declared by its reprefentatives, 
 one of the mod auguft ailemblies upon 
 earth, and which will remain, in the re- 
 cords thereof, an eternal monument to his 
 memory a monument more glorious and 
 lading, than pillars of marble, and tri- 
 umphal arches a monument which En- 
 vy, Hatred, and Malice, cannot under- 
 mine, and dare not attempt to deface. 
 
 Whoever accufes Hoadly of propagating 
 democratical principles, in any of his writ- 
 ings which were then publifhed, is guilty 
 of a kind of libel againft his reputation, if 
 
 not
 
 not againft the dignity of the Houfe of 
 Commons. 
 
 His ecclefiaftical adverfaries were thun- 
 derftruck, for a time, by this NOBLE RE- 
 SOLUTION. Yet thofe HIGH PRIESTS were 
 foon moved with indignation againft him, 
 for his fermon, preached before the King 
 March 31, 17171 " On the nature of 
 " Chrift's Kingdom.*' Herein he proved, 
 beyond all contradiction, that Chrift's 
 Kingdom was not of this world ; a doc- 
 trine new and furprifing to the greateft 
 part of the clergy of THAT age, who feemed 
 to have been contending " WHICH OF THEM 
 
 *' SHOULD BE THE GREATEST." To tell 
 
 fuch bigots that Chrift's Kingdom did not 
 confift in Mitres, Lordfhips, Deaneries, 
 Veftments, Ceremonies, Spiritual Courts, 
 Abfolutions, Perfections, &c. &c. c. 
 was a crime of fuch a nature as Hoadly 
 never could expect to have forgiven. You 
 are pleafed to mention the Rev. Charles 
 Norris as the reconciler of THIS BAN- 
 GORIAN CONTROVERSY. But, in felecling 
 this gentleman to fupport tenets which 
 you wiih to attach to the Bijhof of Eangor 
 
 (Hoadly),
 
 (Hoadly), you certainly have fallen into 
 another miftake ; for, he entered into 
 THAT SPIRITUAL WARFARE as a literary 
 champion, ON THE SIDE of Hoadly 
 AGAINST Dr. Sherlock. A ftronger 
 proof cannot be adduced than Mr. Nor- 
 ris's OTHER production ; in which he expofes 
 the inconfijlency of Sherlock's writings, 
 even in the very TITLE-PAGE : ** A Dia- 
 " logue between Dr. Sherlock, Dean of 
 " Chichejler * ; and Dr. Sherlock, Majler 
 " of the Temple. Publifhed from Original 
 *' Words. Being a juftification of Mr. 
 " Sykes' Charge f, and a full Reply to 
 
 what 
 
 * The DEAN did not at all approve of his writings againft 
 Bifhop Hoadly ; and, in his later years, told a friend, " that 
 " he was a young man when he wrote them, and he would 
 " never have them collected into a volume." Biograph. Brit. 
 vol. VI. part II. Suppl. p. 231. And Dr. Flexman has the 
 means of proving, " that Sherlock ordered all MS papers on 
 that controverfy, and foine printed tracts not publifhed, to, 
 be lurnty to prevent any pofthumous publication." 
 
 f It is evident, from the former note, that Sherlock never 
 could reconcile bimfelfnnto klmfelf. And, when Sykes (hewed 
 in his rirft letter " that Dr. Sherlock had taught ibefame dot- 
 " trints which he condemned in the Bifliop of Bang or," multi- 
 tudes fairly acknowledged thofe tenets could not be right and 
 defenfible by him, which were/^r and herttlcul when main- 
 tained
 
 " what the Dean of Chichefter has offered 
 " to reconcile himfelf unto hlmfelf* By 
 " Charles Norris, M. A." 
 
 Let any impartial reader judge, " whe- 
 " ther it is probable that Mr. N. (who 
 *' wrote the above wqrk) fhould advance 
 " any thing in his mode of RECONCILING 
 " the Bangorian contrqverfy AGAINST 
 "Hoadly?" But fuppofing, what you 
 CANNOT prove, that he was guilty of fuch 
 duplicity, are we to pay an implicit regard 
 to his decifion, without liftening to the 
 
 tained by his Lordfliip. Yet, what was to be done ? Dr. 
 Sherlock was the only man that was able, by a plaufible 
 glofs, to repreient the proceedings againft that Bilhop as 
 warrantable. What remained therefore, but that thofe, who 
 freely condemned him at firft, Ihouldhave the complaifance 
 to be convinced by him, that it is the TEACHER, not the DOC- 
 TRINE, which is Ijeretjcal, and by all means to be fuppreffed ? 
 Thefe two Jiitrarcbical heroes might have addreficd each other 
 In the words of Virgil 
 
 Mutemus clypeqs, Danaumque infignia nobis 
 Aptemus : dolus an virtus quis in hofte requirat ? 
 
 " Let each in Argive arms his limbs difguife, 
 " And wield the bucklers that the foe fupplies ; 
 " For, if fuccefs an enemy attends, 
 " Who ajki, if fraud or valour gain'd his ends ?" 
 
 K voices
 
 ( 66 ) 
 
 voices of others, who were fo loud in his 
 praifes ? The names of Tenifon, Pyle, 
 or Ealguy, were a credit to any cauic? 
 which they undertook to efpoufe. And 
 the Rev. Mr. Herne, formerly of Merton 
 College, Oxford, concludes his ftatement 
 of this difpute, by faying, '*. I need not tell 
 " you which fide has plainly had the {u- 
 " periority in the controverfy" and con- 
 cludes his reflections with the higheft pof- 
 fible compliments to Hoadly, " for his 
 " glorious endeavours to deliver our PROPER- 
 *' TIES and CONSCIENCES from SLAVERY *." 
 The event of this controverfy is well 
 known : but you have imputed the diflb- 
 lution of the Convocation, or Ecclejiajlical 
 Parliament, to a wrong caufe. This mif- 
 take ihall be pointed out, ^yhen I have 
 examined your other charges againft the 
 Bifhop, in which you accufe him, in GE- 
 NERAL terms, with his SUPPOSED brethren 
 of the Low-Church, u of giving up all 
 " pretenfions to divine jurifdiffion" From 
 what part of Hoadly's works do you prove, 
 that he gives up ALL divine jurifdicticin r 
 
 * Sec Vol. II. p. 397. 
 
 He
 
 He admits drift himfelf to be King in his 
 own Kingdom and to ALONE have a di- 
 vine jurifdiclion, or authority, over his 
 true fubje6ls. He was mindful of that DI- 
 VINE CAUTION, which Chrift gave in his 
 Gofpel, " call no MAN YOUR FATHER 
 44 upon the Earth;*' for want of attending 
 to which caution, " Spiritual wickednefs" 
 has been often vifible in high places. '* The 
 " only poflible way to prevent this evil 
 " {a friend * of Hoadly's informs us) is, 
 " to tonjider, that this ASSUMED AUTHOR- 
 " ITY OF MEN, in matters of FAITH, pre- 
 " vailed, from time to time, more and more, 
 " till at length it ended in the ESTABLISH- 
 " MENT of that KINGDOM OF THIS 
 " WORLD* which we call POPISH RE- 
 *' LIGION. And here 1 cannot omit to 
 c * obferve, that the word POPE, the ori- 
 " ginal of which is the old Greek word 
 " ra7T7r, fignifies FATHER ; and it fignifies 
 " father in that very fenfe, wherein the 
 " text forbids us to CALL ANY MAN FA- 
 " THER UPON EARTH. For, by calling a 
 
 * Dr. Clarke, vol. II. p. 64. His whole fermon on 
 Matthew, c. xxiii. v. 9. is worthy of attention. 
 
 K 2 " man
 
 ( 68 ) 
 
 " man FATHER here, our Saviour plainly 
 " means, HAVING regard to HUMAN, in 
 " matters of FAITH, or in dottrines of 
 " RELIGION. The APOSTLES THEM-' 
 " SELVES did not take upon them to 
 " exceed their mailer's inftru6lions. Much 
 " more inexcufable are vain men, who in 
 " LATER ages have been guilty of fo great 
 " and high a prefumptioii." 
 
 Tou next accufe Hoadly of " giving up 
 " the power of the keys" I am really af- 
 tonifhed to think, that a fenfible writer 
 ihould bring fuch a weak accufation. You 
 furely cannot be SERIOUS. I muft beg 
 leave to afk fome foollfh queftions. What 
 power ? what keys ? Do you mean the 
 KEYS of the Church ? or, the KEYS which 
 he inherited, and bore in his ARMS, as Bi- 
 ihop of Winchester ? If he had not DE- 
 FENDED the ESTABLISHED CHURCH 
 \vith the fword of the Spirit (or Gofpel), 
 againft her enemies, his Lordfhip would 
 loon have loft the KEYS and SWORD too, 
 which are in SALTIRE, in his epijcopal 
 arms. And, with what exultation would 
 . 7 Bifhop
 
 ( 69 ) 
 
 Atterbury have carried trie keys of 
 our Church, and depofited them at the 
 feet of the Pope ! His Holinefs would have 
 condefcended to have fufpended them in 
 his fantturn fanttorum, BENEATH the 
 GOLDEN * Keys, which (fome think) 
 were regularly handed down from St. Pe- 
 ter. Had the KEYS thus been " given up," 
 Hoadly might have knocked at the door, 
 but YOUR St. Peter would not have 
 opened it unto him. And, it would have 
 been too late> for all fuch heretic^ to cry 
 
 * I am aware, that Milton reprefents ONE of St. Peter'* 
 keys as being made with iron. Lycidas, v. 108. 
 
 Laft came, and laft did go, 
 
 The pilot of the Galilean lake, 
 Two mafly keys he bore of metals twain, 
 (The golden opes, the iron fhuts amain) 
 He fhook his mitred locks, &c. &c. 
 
 The whole is a beautiful pifturc in poetry. l*lic allujnn to 
 Matt. c. xvi. v. 19. is finely imagined. 
 
 The Commentator on this paflage remarks, " that Mil- 
 <f ton finely raifes the character of St. Peter, by making him 
 " the PILOT of the lake of Gennezareth, in Galilee" and 
 that he " hath likewife PAINTED POETICALLY the 
 " TWO KEYS. But the MITRE, which has fo fine an effect 
 " in this picture," he adds, " Milton would NOT have AL- 
 " IOWED him a very few years afterwards" 
 
 out,
 
 but, " Woe unto you, LAWGIVERS,- 
 " for, ye have taken away the key of 
 44 knowledge : ye entered not in your- 
 " felves : and them that were entering in 
 " ye hindered." In an age fo enlightened 
 as the prefent, it is not necefTary tb ob- 
 ferve, that the keys of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven* given to St. Peter, can only be 
 underftbod in a metaphorical fenfe. No 
 man, furely, ever thought Chrift to be a 
 DOOR, or a VINE, in the LITERAL fenfe of 
 thofe words. And yet he has, in the New 
 Teftament, declared himfelf to be fo. 
 Thus St. Peter may be faid to have OPENED 
 the DOOR of Chriflianity, becaufe he was the 
 jirft who preached the Gofpel of Chrifh 
 All the other apoflles, no doubt, received 
 a fimilar commijjton from their GREAT MAS- 
 TER. All THOSE, fmce their time, who 
 have confcientioufly preached the fame 
 Gofpel (without adding thereto, or dimi- 
 nifhing therefrom), have equally fulfilled 
 their truft, by thus opening, the Kingdom 
 of Heaven to all true believers. Uniefs you 
 can prove, that HOADLY has abufed this 
 truit, by preaching, or writing, do&rines 
 
 contrary
 
 ( 7' ) 
 
 contrary to the fundamental truths of the 
 Gofpel, this part of your accufation will 
 never affedt his reputation, as a minifler. 
 Neither will any perfon, who has read 
 Hoadly's Defence of Epifcopal Ordina- 
 tion *, believe, that he " gives up the 
 " necejjity of MINISTERIAL SUCCESSION." 
 Neither did he deny the AUTHORITY of 
 Con-vocations. It fo happened, that a CER- 
 TAIN CONVOCATION, by abufing their cc- 
 clefiaftical trufts, undermined their own au- 
 thority. SUCH charges carry their own 
 confutation. But we now meet with an 
 accumulation of charges, which SEEM to 
 be of a more ferious nature. THESE are 
 levelled againft the whole body of MODE- 
 RATE or LOW-CHURCH men ; but more 
 pointedly againft Hoadly, whom you are 
 pieafed to call THEIR GREAT CHAMPION. 
 You accufe them of giving up " the car- 
 " tamty of the 39 articles, and every other 
 '* tenet which the ejlabllfhed Bifhops of the 
 *' laft century confidered as ejjentlal tp the 
 < idea of a Church" 
 
 * Vol.. I. p. 395. 
 
 Thefe,
 
 C r~ ) 
 
 Thefe, indeed, are railing accufatlom* 
 which you bring againft him ; but, in- 
 ftead of bringing them in this GENERAL 
 way, I wiih you had referred your readers 
 to the PARTICULAR paflages upon which 
 you ground your aflertions. But I forget 
 myfelf ; your opinion muft have been given 
 by PROXY *, as you could not trujl yourfelf 
 to read the works of an author, who had 
 dared to addrefs a letter to Pope Clement 
 XL on the IMPERFECTIONS of the 
 Church of Rome, Yet, in the fame letter, 
 he certainly fpeaks freely of many imper- 
 f eel ions in the Church of England ; for, 
 OUR Church, at the beginning of the pre- 
 font century, had no great pretenfions to 
 INFALLIBILITY. To the Bifhops of 
 the loft century, JJoe was indebted for fram- 
 
 * You, perhaps, adopted the fcandalous opinion of the 
 anonymous Editors of the New and General Biographical 
 Dictionary, vol. VIII. p. 142. " In his tenets, Hoadly was 
 * e far from adhering ftri&ly to the doftrines of the Church : 
 " fo far, indeed, that it is a little to be wondered, on what 
 " principles he continued, throughout life, to profefs con- 
 " formity." This paflage, which I confider as a libel on the 
 Bifhop, the Editors will probably condefcend to alter, in their 
 next Edition, &c. 
 
 ing
 
 ( 73) 
 
 ing many falntary laws, and nece{Tary 
 articles, for the common caufe of Pro- 
 teftant Chriftianity. They wifely {hut the 
 door of the SHEEP-FOLD againft all thofe 
 wolves in fheeps-clothing, who MIGHT 
 wiili for another opportunity of devour- 
 ing the flock. Thofe able reformers 
 wrought a good work : they employed 
 " the axe" as Milton ftroagly exprefles 
 himfelf, " of God's reformation, in hewing 
 " at the old and hollow trunk of Papacy.'* 
 But, they thought many tenets ejfential to 
 the idea of a Church, which are no longer 
 found to be fo. And they appear to have 
 been as anxious for the vifionary forms of 
 godlinefs, as for the fubjiantial powers 
 thereof. 
 
 " Men were at that time," fays an OR- 
 THODOX Divine *, who was brought up in 
 the SCHOOL OF HOADLY, " in fome 
 *' meafure new to the fubject of Church- 
 " Eftabliihments : THEY had NOT formed 
 
 * The prefent Chancellor of the Diocefe of Winchefter, 
 Dr. Sturges. S"ee his letter to the late Bifliop of London, 
 p. 28. The world will, I hope, foon be favoured with a 
 new Edition of it, as it breathes the true fpirit of CHRISTIAN 
 
 XI&TT. 
 
 L " JUST
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 " JUST notions of RELIGIOUS LIBER- 
 " TY; and Toleration was neither under- 
 < flood, nor praclifed. Thefe topics have 
 " been fince difcufled with freedom and 
 " anility ; religious prejudices have worn 
 " off; and the prefent modes of thinking 
 " are become more liberal and tolerant. 
 " *fhey did a's much as could be expected 
 " from them." 
 
 Hoadly defended the Eftablijhed Church 
 in every point wherein fhe would with to 
 be defended. -And what over-zealous High' 
 Churchman can do more ? JLet any per- 
 fon, who doubts my aflertions, convince 
 himfelf, by looking into his Anfwer to the 
 Dean of Worcefter's * Sermon on CHURCH- 
 AUTHORITY vindicated ; and his Pbjlfcript 
 to the Eifhop of Oxford's -]- Charge to his 
 Clergy. He refcues the Articles of the 
 Church of England from interpretations, 
 \vhich others wiilied to put upon them, 
 by proving clearly, that SOME writers were 
 defirous of impofing heavy burdens, which 
 neither " they themfelves, nor their fa- 
 
 * Dr. Hare. 
 
 f Dr. Potter, afterwards Archbiiliop of Canterbury. 
 
 ' thers,
 
 " thers, were able to bear." His' writings, 
 on the Reaibnableneis of Conformity to 
 the Church of England (addreffed parti- 
 cularly to the Laity) will for ever prove 
 his zeal in her true caufe ; for, he difli- 
 pates, in a moment, every fhadow of ob- 
 jedtion. And his doctrine of the neceflity 
 
 of a MINISTERIAL CONFORMITY * he illuf- 
 
 trated by a long life of REGULAR PASTORAL 
 LABOURS. No parochial minifter ever dif- 
 charged his duty more confcientioufly, or 
 was ever more beloved by his parifliioners. 
 And, when their Majefties George I. and 
 George II. were pleaied to fulfil THAT PRO- 
 MISE, which Queen Anne had pledged 
 herfelf to perform, in confequence of the 
 UNANIMOUS ADDRESS of the Houfe of 
 Commons -f, by raifmg him to the Sees of 
 
 Bangor, 
 
 * Vol. I. p. 183. 
 
 f See Journals of the Houfe of Commons, vol. XVI. p; 
 246. This deviation from her royal intention I have ever 
 imputed to the fecret influence of Atterbury, Bilhop of 
 Rochefter, who viewed Hoadly with a jealous eye. Their 
 notions of Religious and Civil Liberty were as oppolite as 
 light and darkneis : the former panted for facerdotal empire, 
 and favoured the caufe of fuperftition ; the latter was a de- 
 
 L a clared
 
 , Hereford, ^alijbury, and Winchef- 
 /<?r, he did not plume himielf upon his 
 epifcopal elevation, but was almofh adored 
 by the clergy in his refyettive dwcefes. How 
 
 clared enemy to ecclefiaftical tyranny, and was anxious to free 
 Re/ig'ox from fujerjiithn. It was natural for Atterbury, who 
 was the boafted champion of die High Church, to beaf an an- 
 tipathy to Hoadly, who had more than once foiled him, in 
 fingle combat, even with his own weapons. And, of 
 courfe, Atterbury would oppofe the advancement of Hoadly 
 in the Church, His honeyed eloquence often caught the too 
 credulous ear of Queen Anne : he was, like the devil in MiU 
 ton'i Paradife Loll, frequently 
 
 -found 
 
 Squat, like a toad, clofe at the ear of Eve, 
 Allaying by his dcvilim art to reach 
 The organs of her fancy, and with them forge 
 Jlluiions as he lift, phantafms and dreams. 
 
 B. IV. p. 799. 
 
 The ingenious author of the Memoirs of Sir Robert Wai* 
 pole * proves, from moft authentic documents, " that Queen 
 " Anne was fecretjy inclined to favour the right of her bro- 
 " ther, the Pretender, to the Crown of England ; and her 
 " intriguing favourite, Mrs. Maflv.ni, made no fcrupJe to 
 ft declare to the French mjiufter, whom Louis XIV. fent to 
 " treat for peace, that the Hanover 'family was all their aver- 
 " Jion." The conduft of Sinhop Atterburjv upon every occa- 
 fion where there was a gleam of hope that the Stuart family 
 might reaffume the throne, requires no comment. 
 
 * Rqj. Mr. Coxe, vol. I, pp. 46, 47. 
 
 UNIFORMLY
 
 ( 77) 
 
 UNIFORMLY and CONSCIENTIOUSLY he dif- 
 charged his paftoral duties, in his different 
 flations of life, may be collected from his 
 Charge to the Clergy of the Diocefe, on 
 his tranflation, in 1736, to Winchefter. I 
 /hall extract only fuch parts as contradict 
 the general afperfions caft on his charac- 
 ter ; and which he thought neceifary to 
 ilate to HIS BRETHREN, who might have 
 been deceived by the controverfial writers 
 at that time, respecting his Religious te* 
 
 nets. 
 
 
 
 " There is a neceffity for me to fpeak 
 " plainly upon this occafion. I have been 
 " fo open and fmcere, through my life, as 
 ' not to make it any fecret, that I differ, 
 " in many points, from thofe with whom 
 " both inclination and intereft would have 
 " led me to agree, if I could. In this part 
 ** of my conduct, I have followed what 
 " appeared to me, after the beft inquiry, 
 " to be the will of God, and the Gofpel 
 *' of Chrift. The reproaches and ill treat- 
 *' ment I have met with, I can moft eafily 
 " fubmit to, and bear. The confequences 
 
 " which
 
 ( 78 ) 
 
 " which others have drawn for me, from 
 words of mine, in fome of my writings, 
 particularly a late one, and the opinions 
 they have arbitrarily imputed to me ; 
 " fome of them I abhor ; others I am as 
 " utter a ftranger to, as any of themielves y 
 " and can as fmcerely difown as they can. 
 " However unfavourably I have been re- 
 ** prefented in other refpects, this I can 
 " truly fay, that as my conformity to the 
 " CHURCH ESTABLISHED was found- 
 " ed at firft upon my inward conviction of 
 " its excellency above any other that I 
 " knew of; ib, if I had, fmce that time, 
 " difcovered any reafon to repent, or any 
 " fufficient objection, in point of confci- 
 " ence, which ought to have prevented 
 ** my firfb entering into it, I (hould think 
 *' myfelf obliged to give up all the TEM- 
 " PORAL ADVANTAGES, great as they ap- 
 " pear, which I have reaped from it. I 
 *' have not one principle within me that 
 " can induce me to confent to any thing 
 ** that may hurt its ESTABLISHMENT ; not 
 *' from my thinking it all perfection, and 
 ** incapable ot amendment ; but from my 
 
 " perfuafion,
 
 it 
 
 - ( 79 ) 
 
 perfuafion, that nothing better is likely 
 in this imperfect (late of ignorance and 
 paflion, to be put in the place of it. 
 " In the execution of my office amongft 
 " you, I Ihall ftrictly govern myfelf by 
 " thole laws which have entrufted me with 
 " fuch an AdminiOration. In matters 
 " plainly determined by authority, I Ihall 
 " expect, from all under my intpection, 
 " the moft EXACT CONFORMITY to the RU- 
 " BRICK and RULES they have folemnly pro- 
 " mifed to obferve. As / can truly fay, 
 " that I PUNCTUALLY, without ad- 
 " dition or diminution, practifed them 
 *' myfelf, in former ftations of life ; fo, I 
 " (hall faithfully and impartially require 
 " the fame from others *." 
 
 Is this, Sir, the language of a REPUB- 
 LICAN Eijhop f Are thefe the fentiments 
 of a Heterodox Preacher of the LOW 
 CHURCH ? How groffly then have you 
 mifreprefented Him !!! And how many 
 maybe deceived by your mifreprefentation, 
 who have not an opportunity of con- 
 
 * See Vol. III. p. 491, 492. 
 
 vincing
 
 vlncing themfelves of the contrary by a 
 perufal of the Bilhop's voluminous pub- 
 lications. 
 
 Thofe who are converfant with his 
 writings will find in every page arguments 
 to confute your malicious infmuations ; 
 and his actions always correfponded with 
 his publick profeflions. 
 
 His SUCCESSIVE preferments in theChurch 
 were fo many proofs that thofe Sovereigns, 
 whom he had the honour of ferving, were 
 truly fenfible of his fervices. The AD- 
 MINISTRATION then in being felt their 
 obligations to Hoadly for his indefatigable 
 zeal in defence of Church and State. You 
 complain, that the ADMINISTRATION 
 made the CHURCH a MERE TOOL of 
 the State : the affertion is not, however, 
 ftri&ly true. 'The STATE wifely difarmed 
 the CHURCH of that iron fceptre with 
 which ihe had formerly ruled the land. 
 The ROMISH Church, on the contrary, 
 has always MADE A TOOL of Govern- 
 ment. Religion may exift without Govern- 
 ment ; but a Government cannot fubfift 
 without Religion, I adopt the opinion of 
 
 a writer
 
 ( 8i ) 
 
 a writer* not UNKNOWN to you, who 
 fays, that " there certainly is a confider- 
 " able connection between a Civil Govern* 
 '* ment and an ESTABLISHED CHURCH : they 
 " have a mutual influence, and the form 
 " of the one ought to be, and generally is, 
 adapted to the other. Church-Govern- 
 ment will have a relation to political 
 principles : it is UNNECESSARY to fay, 
 " that it has had in our own country. 
 " The Conftitution of our CHURCH is ana- 
 " logous, is adapted to our CIVIL CONSTI- 
 " TUTION : the PRINCIPLES of the DIS- 
 " SENTERS concerning Church-Govern- 
 " ment are ill-adapted, are UNFA VOUR- 
 " ABLE f, to fome parts of it. 1 ' 
 
 If 
 
 * The Rev. Dr. Sturges's Letter to Bilhop Lowth, p. 46. 
 
 f How much more UNFAVOURABLE muft they be, both 
 to CHURCH and STATE, if what the author of the Purfuits 
 of Literature aflferts be true ! He feems to point at an un- 
 natural UNION between a certain defcription of Di/entert 
 and Papijii. 
 
 " There is an enthujfafm, an otfya<r^o^, in the profeflbrs of 
 " Popery, which, I know, never forfakei them. It is adtive, 
 " where it can hardly be fuppofed. IT is faid even to PBX- 
 
 " VADE THE SQUABBLES OF A SOCIETY, SET APART FOR THE 
 " PRESERVATION OF NATIONAL ANTIftUITY. RoMISH BA- 
 
 M " RONXTS
 
 If there ever was an occafion for the 
 Church and State mutually to fupport each 
 other, the Hiftory of Hoadly's times will 
 convince you, " that the Protejlant Re It* 
 " gion could only be fupported by the Pro- 
 " tejiant fuccej/ion in the Houfe of Hanovtr." 
 When the affairs of this Nation were " on 
 " the utmoft edge of hazard," he flood 
 forth as the champion of THE RIGHTS OF 
 THE THRONE, and thole of Englijhmen. He 
 called on Britonx to awake^ and to remem- 
 ber the words of King William, in his laft 
 fpeech " Let there be no other diftin&ion 
 *' heard amongft us, for the future, but of 
 " thofe who are for the Protejlant Religion 
 " and the prefent eftablilhment, and of 
 " thofe who mean a POPISH PRINCE and 
 
 4< a FRENCH GOVERNMENT." 
 
 , 
 
 From fuch pafTages as the foregoing, it 
 is natural to account for YOUR afperfions 
 
 wi LJ, BE BUSY ; AND ROMISH PRIESTS \\ill meddle. 
 " The Secretary of that Society knows whether thefe hints 
 arf- true." , Preface, p. 25. 
 
 From fuch a MIXED BREED, perhaps, that mt'i/ier MUTINV 
 might fpring, both HERK AND IN IRELAND. But we, for- 
 tunately, have a watchful and a&ivc MINISTER, who will 
 firike off the UTDKA'S HEADS as often as they fpring up. 
 
 6 on
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 on the writer. But nothing can juftify 
 the MISTAKES already pointed out, but a 
 publick acknowledgment, that you have been 
 mifinformed ; which you have pledged 
 yourfelf to do in your Preface. 
 
 I could \viih alfo to know, on what au- 
 thority you have aflerted, u That the AD- 
 
 " .MINISTRATION, THEN IN BEING, TOOK 
 " ADVANTAGE OF HOADLY's COHCefflons tO 
 
 " dijfolve the Convocation, which has never 
 " been allowed by Government to proceed to 
 " any bufinefs SINCE." The bed anfwer to 
 this calumny fhall be given in Hoadly's 
 OWN words to the Reprefentation, drawn up 
 by the Committee of the Lower Houje of 
 Convocation, concerning feveral dangerous 
 pojitiom and docJrines in the Bifhop of Ban- 
 ker's Sermon, &c. &c. 
 
 D 
 
 ** I had no other thought, defire, or re- 
 " folution, but to anfwer, in my place, 
 ** before the fame Houfe, to which this 
 *' accufation was defigned to be brought ; 
 " and before thofe ivorthy Prelates' to 
 " whom the appeal was to be made. But 
 ** it was thought proper (out of a fmcere 
 M 2 " regard,
 
 " regard, as I verily believe, to the inte- 
 " reft of our Conftitution in Church and 
 " State,) to put a flop to the fitting of 
 44 the Convocation ; which (becaufe it has 
 " been UNKINDLY AND INDUSTRIOUSLY RE- 
 
 44 PRESENTED AS THE EFFECT OF MY SOLI- 
 
 11 CITATION, and an argument of my fear, 
 44 and what I fled to for refuge, I AM 
 
 44 OBLIGED TO DECLARE BEFORE T.HE WORLD) 
 
 " was done, not only WITHOUT MY SEEK- 
 " ING, but without fo much as MY KNOW- 
 " LEDGE, or even SUSPICION, OF ANY SUCH 
 *' DESIGN, until it was aftually refolved 
 44 and ordered. As to the prorogation of 
 44 the Convocation, it neither tends to 
 44 hinder any light from appearing, which 
 44 poflibly can be procured, nor can it 
 44 have fuch an effe6l, in its natural con- 
 44 fequences ; but the contrary ; for, the 
 44 debate is, by this means, taken from the 
 " bar of human authority, and brought 
 44 to that of Reafon and Scripture ; re- 
 " moved from a trial by majority of voices 
 " (which cannot be a trial to be contended 
 44 for, either by truth, or by the Church 
 44 of England), and brought to that of ar- 
 
 44 gument
 
 t 
 
 " gument only. And certainly no Chriftian 
 
 " or Proteftant can juftly, and confidently, 
 " find fault with this." 
 
 The above ftatement evidently proves 
 the falsehood of your aflertion, " that the 
 " Convocation * was difiblved in confe- 
 " quence of his concefTions," &c. &c. 
 
 But 
 
 * The report of the SELECT COMMITTEE of the Lower 
 Houfe of Convocation, refpefting the Bifhop of Bangor's Ser- 
 mon, &rc. mentions in the TITLE-PAGE, " That it was 
 '-' KB AD in the Lower Houie May 10, 1717, and VOTED, 
 " nemine contradicente, to be read and entered upon the books 
 " of the Houfe." This was a palpable forgery, calculated to 
 bias the minds of the publick againft Hoadly ; for, it appears, 
 " That it never was approved of by the Lower Houfe, fo as to 
 " be an ACT of the Convocation." A. proteft againft the 
 proceedings of the Committee (not of the Convocation) will un- 
 fold this DARK BUSINESS to the publick view. 
 
 " Being perfuaded, in my own mind, that the word of 
 " God is the only fufficient foundation, upon which a true 
 " Proteftant can build his Religion j and that the dodriues 
 " contained in the Bifhop's Sermon, preached before hi$ 
 " Majefty on Sunday the 316 of March, 1/17, and pub- 
 " liihed by his Majefty's fpecial command, are true Pro- 
 " teftant doctrines, and fo perfectly agreeable to the word 
 " of God, revealed to us in the Bible, that there feems no 
 / juft caufe for the complaints made againft them which 
 " complaints probably never would have been thought of, 
 
 " had
 
 (86 ) 
 
 But the teflimonies of two other writers 
 fhall be added. The firjl, given by Mr. 
 G. Coade, of Exeter and the other, from 
 the pen of Balguy. 
 
 " The attention of the publick was 
 ** AGAIN engaged * ; and perfons of the 
 " higheft rank were extremely folicitous 
 " for your protection. 
 
 " And here, alfo, your Lordfhip had 
 " the honour to have one of the belt, the 
 " wifeft, and bravelt men that ever the 
 " world produced, appear in your behalf: 
 " I mean, the late King George ; who was 
 " gracioufly pleafed, by his royal writ to 
 " the Archbifhop of Canterbury, to pro- 
 " rogue the Convocation ; whereby the 
 
 " had not fome men, whilft they were making open profef- 
 " fions of their loyal intentions, fecretly defigned to caft a 
 "" blot and contempt on the Regal authority 5 and, under a 
 " plaufible pretence of doing fervice to the Church, laid 
 " hold of an opportunity of ihewing their perfonal hatred 
 " and refentment againil the Bilhop. 
 
 " Subscribed Feb. 14, i7-rf 
 
 " EDWARD TENISON f." 
 * Alludes to the vote of the Houfe of Commons. 
 
 f Archdeacon of Carmarthen, afterwards Bifhop of Offorjr. 
 
 *' defigns
 
 I 8 7 ) 
 
 " defigns of your enemies were at once de- 
 " featcd a noble inftancc of royal juftice, 
 " and paternal affection to his fubjec~ls ! 
 " a ftrange phenomenon in the political 
 44 world ! A monarch exerting himfelf in 
 " defence of his fubje&s' liberties, which 
 " multitudes of themfelves were eager to 
 " betray ! an example highly deferving 
 " the imitation of every fovereign, but 
 " hardly to be paralleled! His generous 
 " foul was influenced by all thofe fenti- 
 " ments of humanity and companion, with 
 " which Chriftianity never fails to infpire 
 44 its real votaries. He could not forbear, 
 " voluntarily and unalked, to inter pofe in 
 " behalf of an innocent and abufed fubjecl:. 
 * This fingle inftance of his royal virtue 
 " will ever be recorded in the Britifh an- 
 " nals, to his immortal honour ; for 
 " which, generations to come will call 
 
 " him blefied." 
 
 
 Balguy's character of my injured friend 
 is painted in colours too glaring for^/o to 
 look on but the refemb lance to the Bifhop 
 will ftrike thofe who knew the great original. 
 
 '* I may
 
 ( 88 ) 
 
 | 
 
 " I may fafely take upon me to affirm, 
 '* that nothing was more remote from 
 46 your LORDSHIP'S DESIGN, than ANARCHY 
 " of any kind ; that moft certainly yon 
 " never meant to oppofe order and juft 
 " rule, but merely ufurpation and mif- 
 " rule ; that, far from intending to break 
 " down the fences of Religion and Go- 
 " vernment, your fole aim was to preferve 
 " men from force and oppreffion, fetters 
 " and bondage. And how laudable are 
 f * thefe views ! how glorious fuch pur- 
 *' fuits ! I may add, how grievous, ob- 
 " noxious, and perplexing I Whoever 
 " engages in them muft never expect a 
 " gentle tafk. Difcountenance, malevo- 
 *' lence, oppofition, and mifconftruc~lion, 
 * l are fure to be his fate. But conftancy 
 " and patience furmonnt all difficulties; 
 " and, while err6rs and prejudices are dy- 
 " ing every day, TRUTH is IMMORTAL. 
 " Of this nature were my original fenti- 
 ** ments, PUBLISHED LONG AGO, and even 
 44 fome years before you DISCOVERED, o* 
 " CONJECTURED, FROM WHENCE they came. 
 44 Let me be excufed, if I obferve, in re- 
 
 " lation
 
 ( 8? ) 
 
 " 
 
 lation to your Lordfhip, that the ac- 
 " quaintance which I have been fince ho- 
 " noured with has been fo far from alter- 
 *' ing my ideas, that it has confirmed and 
 " fixed them ; and whoever has the fame 
 <c opportunity will certainly receive the 
 " fame imprefllon. Let him think as he 
 " may of your books and writings ; Jor 
 " them, or againjl them ; I alfu redly 
 " know what he mud think of the au- 
 ** thor. Concerning the former^ let POS- 
 " TERITY determine ; concerning the lat- 
 *', ter, they are beft able to judge, who 
 '* have been moil intimate with your Lord- 
 < fhip. 
 
 ** I have now the pleafure of finding 
 " your Lordihip tranflated to the fee of 
 " Winchefter. 
 
 " Should either you, or your enemies, 
 *' think, that the foregoing Jketch of a cha- 
 ** raster is overdrawn, or carried too far 
 " in any refpecl: ; why may not I refer 
 " both you and them to this DECISIVE 
 " EVENT ? How could I have wilhed for 
 u a more authentick ttftimony of the 
 
 N "juftice
 
 juftice of my caufe, and the truth of my 
 ' aflertions ? or, what fanclion, in the 
 " eyes of all unprejudiced men, can be 
 4< thought furer or ftronger ? And yet 
 " I would not take refuge even under this 
 *' authority, high as it is ; were it not con- 
 " fefledly founded on wifdew* more than 
 " on power ; and were it not, at the fame 
 "time, an open demonftration, both of your 
 
 ' Lordfllip's FIDELITY TO THE CROWN*, 
 
 " acting under its prefent happy limita- 
 ' tions for the PUBLICK GOOD ; and, if I 
 *' may prefume to mention it, of the fin- 
 " cere regard of the Crown to the true liberty 
 *' of the fubjeflt fo often, and fo zealoujly^ 
 ' defended by your Lordihip." 
 
 * To the fame catife may be afcribed the royal favour 
 which his prefent Majefty, George III. was gracioufly 
 pleafed to Ihew to my uncle Hoadly, by permitting him to 
 
 DEDICATE IS FATHER'S WORKS TO HIM. Thus, did the 
 
 jlluftrious repr.efentative of the whole Houfe of Hanover 
 give a PROTECTION to the POSTHUMOUS FAME of -Bjfliop 
 Jioadly vuhofe works contributed, more than once, to fnp-> 
 port the tottering throne, when UNDERMINED by the SE- 
 CRET and PEN attacks of Popery; and WHOSE ACTIONS 
 prove him to have been a JVBLICK BENEFACTOR TO HFS 
 <;jHC AN$ CQUNT&V. 
 
 The
 
 (** 
 
 The reader is at liberty to draw his own 
 inference ; and, I prefumc, that he will 
 not expect any farther evidence, refpedl- 
 ing a circumftance which occurred ib long 
 ago as the year 1717. Even you, Sir, can- 
 not controvert the folemn declaration of the 
 Bifhop of Bangor himfelf (already dated), 
 or the teftimonies of two credible witnej/Jes, 
 who publickly declared *, in their writings, 
 " That George I. without any folicitations 
 " from Hoadly, diflblved the Convocation'* 
 And you will find it alfo recorded in the 
 Britifh Biography -f, that the King was fo 
 difpleafed at the conduct of SOME of the 
 Committee of the Lower Houfe, that he 
 would not fufFer them to continue amongft 
 the number of his Royal Chaplains. If Hoadly 
 cpuld have been MEAN \ enough (which 
 
 * The Letter in defence of Hoadly, written by Mr. Coade 
 of Exeter, was publiflied without the Bifhop's knowledge. 
 
 f Vol. IX. p. 215. 
 
 J He appears, upon this occasion, as well as upon all 
 others, to have preferred a magnanimity, which is the na- 
 tural attendant upon" innocence, and rectitude of conduct. 
 He deferved the motto of the Archbimop of 'Canterbury 
 ( ' ! c-iiifon) , " Rupe iwmobilioi' who was .called, Ly all the 
 friends .of liberty, the ' Old Rock" from the ftesdinefs of 
 ' his conduft in THOSE DAYS OF TRXAL'/'iri fpite of all the arts 
 qf the Tories. 
 
 N 2 j.wiU
 
 I will never allow) to have folicited the 
 ROYAL INTERFERENCE to fhelter him from 
 the impending ftorms, he would not have 
 wiihed his bittcreji enemies to have been 
 thus marked with dif grace upon his account. 
 It is univerfally allowed, that every man 
 is the befl interpreter of his own actions ; 
 becaufe he alone knows the impulfe of that 
 mind which gave birth to thofe actions. 
 And furely every author may claim an ex- 
 clufive right to put his own interpretation 
 upon his own words. You would wifh, 
 no doubt, for this indulgence yourfelf: 
 Let therefore Bifhop Hoadly be allowed to 
 fpeak for himfelf. 
 
 " The only inferences in my own favor, 
 " which I wifh to be drawn from what I 
 " have publifhed, are, that I never omit- 
 " ted any one public opportunity, in 
 proper time and place, of defending 
 and (lengthening the true and only 
 foundation of all our Civil and Religious 
 " Liberties, when it was every day moft 
 44 zealoiilTy attacked ; and of doing all in 
 " my power, that all the fubjetts of this 
 
 *' Government,
 
 (93 ) 
 
 " Government, and MsRoya 
 " underftand, and approve of, thofc/r/n- 
 " ciples, upon which alone their happineft 
 " is fixed, and without which it could ne- 
 " ver have heen rightfully eftablillied, and 
 " muft, in time, fall to the ground. And 
 *' alfo, that I was ready, whenever occa- 
 " fion was offered, hy the writings and 
 " attacks of unbelievers, and by the abfurd 
 " reprefentations of others, to defend a Reli- 
 " gion, moft amiable in all its precepts, 
 " and moft beneficial to human fociety^ in 
 " the only way proper ; by fhewing it, in 
 *' its native light, with which it iliines in 
 " the New Teftament itfelf, free from all 
 " the falfe paint with which fame, or the 
 " undeferved dirt with which others, have 
 4< covered it." 
 
 Thefe are the leading features by which 
 we may diftinguiih his writings. Many of 
 his Biographers have pafled their judgement 
 upon him, and upon his works, without 
 afufficient acquaintance with either. What 
 wonder then is it, if we fliould find his 
 character mifreprefented, and dotfrines a- 
 
 fcribed
 
 ( 94 ) 
 
 fcrib&i to him which he never taught ? As 
 to the age in which he lived, it was, in 
 fome refpects, unworthy of him. He might 
 have exclaimed*, in the language of Mil- 
 ton, that he was " falTn on evil days'* 
 yet, 
 
 " On evil days though fall'n, and evil tongues" 
 
 lie filenced them all. T heir jlanders, ca- 
 himnles, and falilioods, he forgave -J- : 
 their real arguments and mifreprefent- 
 atiops he folidly confuted. Thus, ( as a 
 champion for Truth, Religion, and L/- 
 berty, he hath laid the greateft obliga- 
 tions \ on his Countrymen, as Men, 
 Chriftians, ' and Britons. 
 
 After 
 
 * In one of his PRINTED letters (No. II.) to Lady Sun- 
 don, he exclaims, " How few are there in the world, who 
 t* would take the part upon them, of interefting themfelvea 
 " for a man not in fafliion !" And in ANOTHER Letter (not 
 YET publiihed) he expreiTes himleJf thus to his conhdeatial 
 friend " And you may remember, that the princefs fpake 
 . " of me to yourielf (before you^ let her right), as of a man, 
 " who was mt at... XCH M AJJ fo much as in profeffion, Sec. &c.'' 
 . f Biog. Brit. vo,. IX. p. 158. 
 
 William Glanville, Kfq. one of the chief Clerks of the 
 Treafury, left his Lordllup'a legacy, in his l;ifl' will ; and, a 
 
 . 
 
 'Qtieeu Ca'rolin after Wards." 
 
 few
 
 ( 95 ) 
 
 After producing uich teftimonies in 
 port of Hoadly's MEMORY and WRITINGS, 
 and after having, I hope, convinced you 
 of Jome MATERIAL MISTAKES concerning 
 BOTH (which you have haftily adopted, 
 cither from the ILLIBERAL O FIN IONS OF 
 OTHERS, or from PREJUDICES of youf^ 
 own), any panegyrick, from a pen like 
 mine, would be iuperfluous and unnecef- 
 fary. Befides, 1 have already afllgned my 
 reaions for declining fuch an invidious talk; 
 and ihall, therefore, prefer giving you my 
 real fentiments in the very language with 
 which he has fpoken of Bijhop Burnet. 
 
 few hours before his death, was pleafed to affign the follow- 
 ing reafons for it : 
 
 " As to the legacy I have given to the Lord-Blfliop of 
 *' Bangor, I declare the lame to be in teftimony of the re- 
 " fpecl: I bear him, in defending the liberty of his Country -j 
 " and for his love to mankind ; and for his endeavouring to . 
 " free Religion from fuperftition and tyranny (which worldly 
 *' Jntereft and ambition have blended with it), and to reftore 
 " it to that Simplicity and ufefulnefs which was the defign of 
 " its blefled author : for which his labour of love, he has 
 " jultly merited the efteem and regard of all good men, in- 
 " ftead of that load of infamy and fcandal, which thepaffions 
 <f of defigning men have fo maliciouily and uncharitably 
 thrown upon him. 
 
 ' WILLIAM GLAKVILLE." 
 
 "To
 
 . 
 
 To his fervices this Nation ows an 
 " ETERNAL MONUMENT. I have a 
 " paffion for HIS GREAT NAME ; but 
 " no WORDS of MINE ought to be joined 
 " to it. I would pay^Tome tribute to a mc- 
 " mory, dear to Liberty and Religion, if 
 " any thing, I could fay, could add to a 
 " REPUTATION and CHARACTER, acquired, 
 " fupported, and enlarged, by PASTORAL 
 "LABOURS, unintermitted, from his ear- 
 61 liefl youth, to his lateft old age ; and by 
 *-' WRITINGS, which will give LIFE to the 
 " name of HOADLY, long after the 
 " names of his ENEMIES (hall ceafe to be 
 " remembered. YOUR Church hath ever 
 " paid him the refpeft of fear ; and the 
 *' world will, in AGES to come, pay to 
 " his MEMORY that love and admiration, 
 " which the UNGRATEFUL of his OWN 
 *' age denied to himfelf." 
 
 1 have the honour to fubfcribe myfelf, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 Your obedient humble fervant, 
 ROBERT HOADLY ASHE. 
 
 F'thnm, Kent, 
 
 8
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 HOY IB 
 
 aim -1,' 41 (1122)
 
 BX 
 5199 
 
 H6A8