esire, in spite of their
hypocritical cant. If it were not for the quarterly contributions, there
would be no longer schism or separation." He asks how it can be imagined
that, while "they are maintained like gentlemen by the breach they will
ever preach up healing doctrines?"--Brown's Amusements, Serious and
Comical. Some curious instances of the influence exercised by the chief
dissenting ministers may be found in Hawkins's Life of Johnson. In the
Journal of the retired citizen (Spectator, 317.) Addison has indulged in
some exquisite pleasantry on this subject. The Mr. Nisby whose opinions
about the peace, the Grand Vizier, and laced coffee, are quoted with so
much respect, and who is so well regaled with marrow bones, ox cheek,
and a bottle of Brooks and Hellier, was John Nesbit, a highly popular
preacher, who about the time of the Revolution, became pastor of a
dissenting congregation in flare Court Aldersgate Street. In Wilson's
History and Antiquities of Dissenting Churches and Meeting Houses in
London, Westminster, and Southwark, will be found several instances of
nonconformist preachers who, about this time, made handsome fortunes,
generally, it should seem, by marriage.]

[Footnote 90: See, among many other tracts, Dodwell's Cautionary
Discourse, his Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, his Defence of
the Vindication, and his Paraenesis; and Bisby's Unity of Priesthood,
printed in 1692. See also Hody's tracts on the other side, the
Baroccian MS., and Solomon and Abiathar, a Dialogue between Eucheres and
Dyscheres.]

[Footnote 91: Burnet, ii. 135. Of all attempts to distinguish between
the deprivations of 1559 and the deprivations of 1689, the most
absurd was made by Dodwell. See his Doctrine of the Church of England
concerning the independency of the Clergy on the lay Power, 1697.]

[Footnote 92: As to this controversy, see Burnet, ii. 7, 8, 9.; Grey's
Debates, April 19. and 22. 1689; Commons' Journals of April 20. and 22.;
Lords' Journals, April 21.]

[Footnote 93: Lords' Journals, March 16. 1689.]

[Footnote 94: Burnet, ii. 7, 8.]

[Footnote 95: Burnet says (ii. 8.) that the proposition to abolish the
sacramental test was rejected by a great majority in both Houses. But
his memory deceived him; for the only division on the subject in the
House of Commons was that mentioned in the text. It is remarkable
that Gwyn and Rowe, who were tellers for the majority, were two of the
strongest Whigs in the House.]