papers escaped the general destruction which Butler ordered by his Will. Some of these were probably in the hands of his nephew Joseph, who also directed by his Will that all his papers should be destroyed unexamined. Mr. Bartlett has printed, at the end of his Memoir, a Sermon on John iii. 8, which is in no way remarkable, and by no means clearly connected with the Bishop. There are five MS. Sermons, apparently in Butler's handwriting, now in the possession of a member of the family. Among them are two which were preached, the one on the Fast-day before, the other on the Thanksgiving-day after the battle of Culloden; probably before different audiences, as they are in substance the same sermon; dwelling upon the advantages to Church and State which flowed from the Hanoverian succession, very much in the terms in which we may suppose that Butler would have spoken. These Sermons, if they are ever given to the public, will require careful editing, as the first of the five is not original, but a copy of one of Isaac Barrow's. The Rev. J. Todd, of North Cowton in Yorkshire, has lately printed a Sermon, which he supposes, with a number of others in his possession, to have been composed by Bishop Butler; beyond a certain similarity of style and matter, however, there seems nothing to connect them with the Bishop. APPENDIX. BISHOP BUTLER'S LETTERS AND WILL. (For the Correspondence with Dr. Clarke, I. TO SIR ROBERT WALPOLE. SIR, Stanhope, August 28, 1738. RECEIVED yesterday, from your own hand (an honour which I ought very particularly to acknowledge) the information that the King had nominated me to the Bishopric of Bristol. I most truly think myself very highly obliged to his Majesty, as much, all things considered, as any subject in his dominions; for I know no greater obligation, than to find the Queen's condescending goodness and kind intentions towards me transferred to his Majesty. Nor is it possible, while I live, to be without the most grateful sense of his favour to me, whether the effects of it be greater or less; for, this must in some measure depend upon accidents. Indeed, the Bishopric of Bristol is not very suitable either to the condition of my fortune or the circumstances of my preferment; nor, as I should have thought, answerable to the recommendation with which I was honoured. But you will excuse me, Sir, if I think of this last with greater sensibility than the conduct of affairs will admit of. But without entering further into detail, I desire, Sir, you will please let His Majesty know, that I humbly accept this instance of his favour with the utmost possible gratitude. I beg leave, also, Sir, to return you my humble thanks for your good offices upon this and all occasions; and for your very obliging expressions of regard to, Sir, Your most obedient, most faithful, and most humble Servant, J. BUTLER. By means of my distance from Durham, I had not yours, Sir, till yesterday, so that this is the first post I could answer it. II.—ON THE POSSESSION OF ABBEY MADAM, LANDS. London, December 22, 1747. YOUR OUR letter of the 14th current, which did not come to hand till the 18th, cannot, indeed, require any sort of apology. I know not how to refuse my judgment, such as it is, to any person that asks it; but I think myself strictly bound to give it to good persons of my own diocese. For I mention only this demand you have upon me, because, upon such an occasion as the present, I do not choose to speak of your rank, Madam, nor of the great civilities I have received from you. The corruption and disorder of human affairs is such as has perplexed the rule of right, and made it hard in some cases to say how one ought to act. But I apprehend there is no such difficulty in the case you put. Property in general is, and must be, regulated by the laws of the community. This, in general, I say, is allowed on all hands. If, therefore, there be any sort of property exempt from these regulations, or any exception to the general method of regulating it, such exception must appear, either from the light of nature, or from revelation. But neither of these do, I think, show any such exception, and therefore we may with a good conscience retain any possessions, church lands, or tithes, which the laws of the state we live under give us a property in. And there seems less ground for scruple here in England than in some other countries; because our ecclesiastical laws agree with our civil ones in this matter. Under the Mosaic dispensation, indeed, God Himself assigned to the Priests and Levites, tithes, and other possessions; and in those possessions they had a Divine right; a property quite superior to all human laws, ecclesiastical as well as civil. But every donation to the Christian Church is a human donation, and no more; and therefore cannot give a Divine right, but such a right only as must be subject in common with all other property to the regulation of human laws. I would not carry you, Madam, into abstruse speculations; but think it might be clearly shown, that no one can have a right of perpetuity in any lands, except it be given by God; as the land of Canaan was to Abraham. There is no other means by which such a kind of property or right can be acquired; and plain absurdities would follow from the supposition of it. The persons then who gave these lands to the Church had themselves no right of perpetuity in them, consequently, could convey no such right to the Church. But all scruples concerning the lawfulness of laymen's possessing these lands go upon supposition that the Church has such a right of perpetuity in them: and therefore, all those scruples must be groundless, as going upon a false supposition. As you do not mention, Madam, in what particular light you consider this matter, I chose to put it in different ones. And having said thus much concerning the strict justice of the case, I think myself obliged to add, that great disorders having been committed at the Reformation, and a multitude of parochial cures left scandalously poor, and become yet poorer by accidental circumstances, I think a man's possession of one of those impoverished cures is not, indeed, an obligation in justice, but a providential admonition, to do somewhat according to his abilities, towards settling some competent maintenance upon it, in one way or another. In like manner, as a person in distress, being my neighbour, dependant, or even acquaintance, is a providential admonition to me in particular, to assist him, over and above the general obligation to charity, which would call upon me to assist such a person, in common with all others who were informed of his case. But I think I ought to say, since I can say it with great truth, that I mention this, not, Madam, as thinking that you want to be |