sequestering themselves is a part of their duty; nay, as I remember,
they have been told so by some of their bishops in their pastoral
letters, particularly by one[3] among them of great merit and
distinction, who yet, in his own practice, hath all his lifetime taken a
course directly contrary. But I am deceived, if an awkward shame and
fear of ill usage from the laity, have not a greater share in this
mistaken conduct, than their own inclinations: However, if the outward
profession of religion and virtue, were once in practice and countenance
at court, as well as among all men in office, or who have any hopes or
dependence for preferment, a good treatment of the clergy would be the
necessary consequence of such a reformation; and they would soon be wise
enough to see their own duty and interest in qualifying themselves for
lay-conversation, when once they were out of fear of being chocqued by
ribaldry or profaneness.

[Footnote 3: Bishop Burnet of Salisbury. See Swift's "Remarks on the
Bishop of Sarum's Introduction." [T.S.]]

There is one further circumstance upon this occasion, which I know not
whether it will be very orthodox to mention: The clergy are the only set
of men among us, who constantly wear a distinct habit from others; the
consequence of which (not in reason but in fact) is this, that as long
as any scandalous persons appear in that dress, it will continue in some
degree a general mark of contempt. Whoever happens to see a scoundrel in
a gown, reeling home at midnight, (a sight neither frequent nor
miraculous), is apt to entertain an ill idea of the whole order, and at
the same time to be extremely comforted in his own vices. Some remedy
might be put to this, if those straggling gentlemen, who come up to town
to seek their fortunes, were fairly dismissed to the West Indies, where
there is work enough, and where some better provision should be made for