I was let into a thing which I never understood rightly before, which is that those men who are loudest in the cry of the growth of Popery, and the danger of the Protestant religion, are not really Protestants, but a set of profligate men, of good parts, with some learning, and void of all principles, but pretending to be republicans.
I asked those who told me this what should make these men [Sidenote: _fol._ 368.] so zealous about preferring the Protestant religion, seeing they are not Christians? And was answered that it is in order to recommend themselves to the ministry, which (if they can write pamphlets for them, or get themselves chosen members of Parliament), will be sure to provide amply for them. And the motive to this extraordinary zeal is that they thereby procure to themselves the connivance at least, if not the protection of the Government, while they are propagating their impiety and infidelity.
I hope in God Christianity is not at so low an ebb in this country as this account I have had represents it to be. Yet if I compare what I have formerly seen and heard at Rome, with something I have observed since I have been here, I am afraid there is too much truth in it.
The bishops are as unfair and partial in representing the security of their property as that of their religion, for when they mention it they do not say a word of the vast load of debt (that increases yearly) under which the nation is groaning, and which must be paid (if ever they intend to pay it) out of their property. It is true all this debt has not been contracted [Sidenote: _fol._ 369.] under the prince of this family, but a great part of it has, and the whole might have been cleared by a frugal administration during these thirty years of a profound peace which the nation has enjoyed, had it not been for the immense sums that have been squandered away in corrupting Parliaments and supporting foreign interest that can never be of any service to these kingdoms. I am afraid I have taken up too much of your majesty's time about these sorry mandates, but having mentioned them I was willing to give your majesty my sense of them.
I remember Dr. Wagstaff (with whom I wish I had conversed more frequently, for he always told me truth) once said to me that I must not judge of the clergy of the Church of England by the bishops, who were not preferred for their piety and learning, but for very different talents: for writing pamphlets, for being active at elections, and for voting in Parliament as the ministry directed them. After I have won another battle they will write for me, and answer their own letters.