contempt with which they treated foreigners, who took sanctuary among us.
This requires a recapitulation, with some remarks. First, I do affirm, that in every hundred of professed atheist, deists, and socinians in the kingdom, ninety-nine at least are staunch thoroughpaced whigs, entirely agreeing with his lordship in politicks and discipline; and therefore will venture all the fires of Hell, rather than singe one hair of their beards in Smithfield. Secondly, I do likewise affirm, that those whom we usually understand by the appellation of tory or high church clergy, were the greatest sticklers against the exorbitant proceedings of king James the Second, the best writers against popery, and the most exemplary sufferers for the established religion. Thirdly, I do pronounce it to be a most false and infamous scandal upon the nation in general, and on the clergy in particular, to reproach them for treating foreigners with haughtiness and contempt. The French hugonots are many thousand witnesses to the contrary; and I wish they deserved the thousandth part of the good treatment they have received.
Lastly, I observe, that the author of a paper called the Englishman, has run into the same cant, gravely advising the whole body of the clergy not to bring in popery; because that will put them under a necessity of parting with their wives, or losing their livings.
The bulk of the kingdom, both clergy and laity, happen to differ extremely from this prelate, in many principles both of politicks and religion. Now I ask, whether, if any man of them had signed his name to a system of atheism, or popery, he could
