Page images

would continue the same person, and the same Xantippe still; save only, I confess, that upon such exchange of bodies with her husband Socrates, she would have more right to wear the breeches than she had before.


This sarcastic illustration of the quences of Sherlock's doctrine is said to have contained an allusion to the particular domestic situation of that divine, who resembled Socrates in the point of matrimonial felicity.

During the heat of this controversy, Dr. T. Burnet published his Archæologia, in which he assails with considerable force the divine authority of the Old Testament. These three divines, forming a Trinity not in unity, excited the sportive wit of some cotemporary poet, who satyrizes them in the following humorous ballad, to the tune of A Soldier and a Sailor, &c.

[merged small][ocr errors]

The Dean, he said that truly,
Since Bluff was so unruly,
He'd prove it to his face, sir,
That he had the most grace, sir;
And so the fight began,
And so the fight began.

When Preb. replied like thunder,
And roar'd out, 'twas no wonder,
Since gods the Dean had three, sir,
And more by two than he, sir ;
For he had got but one,
For he had got but one.


Now while these two were raging,
And in dispute engaging,
The Master of the Charter
Said, Both had caught a Tartar,
For gods, sir, there was none,
For gods, sir, there was none.

That all the books of Moses,
Were nothing but supposes ;
That he deserv'd rebuke, sir,
Who wrote the Pentateuch, sir,
'Twas nothing but a sham,
Twas nothing but a sham.

That as for father Adam,
With Mrs. Eve his madam,
And what the Serpent spoke, sir,
*Twas nothing but a joke, sir,
And well-invented flam,
And well-invented flam.

Thus in this battle royal,
As none would take denial,
The dame for which they strove, sir,
Could neither of them love, sir,
Since all had given offence,
Since all had given offence.

She therefore slily waiting,
Left all three fools a prating:
And being in a fright, sir,
Religion took her flight, sir,
And ne'er was heard of since,
And ne'er was heard of since,


The most eminent writer among the quakers, was born at Edinburgh in 1648. On account of the disturbed state of his country at that period, he was sent, while a youth, by his fan ther, colonel Barclay, to Paris, where his brother, who was then principal of the Scots college, in that city, taking advantage of his tender age, allured him to the Romish faith. His father learning this, sent for him home, where he arrived in 1664, about the age of sixteen.

In the year 1666, his father became a convert to the tenets of quakerism, tenets which the son soon after embraced; though, as it is said, not from the example of his father, but from the conviction of his own mind. He soon became distinguished as the principal ordinary. On the accession of James II. the earl of Clarendon, going lord-lieutenant to Ireland, ofiered him an archbishopric in that island, which he declined, froin a desire to live more privately. The latter part of his life was spent chietly at Islip and Oxford, and sometimes at his paternal estate at Caversham in Oxfordshire, at which places, he employed himself in preparing for the press his very curious and wirty sermons. At the revolution he refused at first to take the oaths to the new government, though he afterwards complied; but it is highly to his credit, that on being offered one of the sees vacated by the non-juring bishops in 1692, he declined it; alledging< 'That notwithstanding he, for' his part, saw nothing that was contrary to the laws of God, and the common practice of all nations, to subo mit to princes in possession of the throne, yet others might have their reasons for a contrary opinion; and he blessed God, that he was neither so ambitious, nor in want of preferment, as for the sake of it, to build his rise upon the ruins of any one father of the church, who for piety, good morals, and strictness of life, which every one of the deprived bishops were famed for, might be said not to have left

« PreviousContinue »