[Footnote 7: "Eclogues," ix. 30:

  "So may thy bees the poisonous yew forgo."
             ARCHDN. F. WRANGHAM.
  [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: See No. 23, _post._ [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: See Swift's account of the intrigues of the Duke of
Marlborough and Lord Godolphin to secure Harley's dismissal in his
"Memoirs Relating to that Change" (vol. v., pp. 370-371 of present
edition), and "Some Considerations" (vol. v., pp. 421-422, _ibid._).]

[Footnote 10: The "Bill for the Encouragement of Learning" was introduced
in the House of Commons, January 11th, 1709/10, passed March 14th, and
obtained royal assent April 5th, 1710. There were several amendments,
but the "Journals of the House of Commons" throw no light on their
purport. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Anthony Collins (1676-1729), the deist, who wrote "A
Discourse of Free-Thinking" (1713), which received a reply from Swift
(see vol. iii., pp. 163-192 of present edition). The most thorough reply,
however, was made by Bentley, under the pen-name "Phileleutherus
Lipsiensis." Collins's controversies with Dr. Samuel Clarke were the
outcome of the former's thinking on Locke's teaching. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was the author of "The Rights
of the Christian Church Asserted" (1706), a work that created a great
stir at the time, and occasioned many replies. Swift deals with him in
his "Remarks upon a Book, intituled, 'The Rights of the Christian
Church'" (see vol. iii., pp. 79-124, also note on p. 9 of same volume
of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: The pious lawyer was John Asgill (1659-1738), who was
called to the bar in 1692. He was elected to Parliament for Bramber
(1698-1700 and 1702-1707), but was expelled the House of Commons for
blasphemy (see note on p. 9 of vol. iii, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Mrs. Masham, when Abigail Hill, was appointed
bedchamber-woman to the Princess of Denmark. See vol. v., p. 365 of
present edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: The giant Widenostrils had swallowed every pan, kettle,
"dripping-pan, and brass and iron pot in the land, for want of windmills,
which, were his daily food." But he "choked himself with eating a huge
lump of fresh butter at the mouth of a hot oven, by the advice of
physicians."--RABELAIS, iv. 17; Motteux's translation. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 16: Daniel Finch, second Earl of Nottingham (1647-1730), was
Secretary of State (1689-1693 and 1702-1704). He is the Don Diego
Dismallo of "The Tatler" (No. 21). See also vol. v., p. 247, of present
edition of Swift's works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 17: "It is worth while to perish that I may give you pleasure."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 18: The Occasional Conformity Bill was rejected in 1702, and
again in 1703 and 1704. It was, however, passed in 1711; but repealed in
1718. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 19: "The Medley," No. 14 (January 1st, 1710) [_sic_], translates
this story into an account of the Union. It is the same story, in
effect, which gave great offence to the Scotch peers when printed in "The
Public Spirit of the Whigs." The "Medley's" version runs: "England being
bounded on the north by a poor mountainous people called Scots, who were
vassals to that crown, and the English prime minister, being largely
bribed, obtained the Q----'s consent for the Scots to arm and exercise
themselves; and they finding they were now in a condition to be
troublesome, began to insist upon terms, and threatened upon every
occasion to join with the French. Upon which the prime minister, who
began to be in pain about his head, set on foot a treaty to unite the two
kingdoms, which he had the good luck to bring to pass, and from that time
valued himself as author of a most glorious union, which indeed was grown
of absolute necessity by his corruption." [T.S.]]




NUMB. 21.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 14, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 21, 1710.

  _----Pugnacem scirent sapiente minorem._[2]

I am very much at a loss how to proceed upon the subject intended in this
paper, which a new incident has led me to engage in: The subject I mean,
is that of soldiers and the army; but being a matter wholly out of my
trade, I shall handle it in as cautious a manner as I am able.

It is certain, that the art of war hath suffered great changes, almost in
every age and country of the world; however, there are some maxims
relating to it, that will be eternal truths, and which every reasonable
man will allow.

In the early times of Greece and Rome, the armies of those states were
composed of their citizens, who took no pay, because the quarrel was
their own; and therefore the war was usually decided in one campaign; or,
if it lasted longer, however in winter the soldiers returned to their
several callings, and were not distinguished from the rest of the people.
The Gothic governments in Europe, though they were of military
institution, yet observed almost the same method. I shall instance only
here in England. Those who held lands _in capite_ of the king, were
obliged to attend him in his wars with a certain number of men, who
all held lands from them at easy rents on that condition. These fought
without pay, and when the service was over, returned again to their
farms. It is recorded of William Rufus, that being absent in Normandy,
and engaged in a war with his brother, he ordered twenty thousand men to
be raised, and sent over from hence to supply his army;[3] but having
struck up a peace before they were embarked, he gave them leave to
disband, on condition they would pay him ten shillings a man, which
amounted to a mighty sum in those days.

Consider a kingdom as a great family, whereof the prince is the father,
and it will appear plainly that mercenary troops are only servants armed,
either to awe the children at home; or else to defend from invaders, the
family who are otherwise employed, and choose to contribute out of their
stock for paying their defenders, rather than leave their affairs to be
neglected in their absence. The art of making soldiery a trade, and
keeping armies in pay, seems in Europe to have had two originals. The
first was usurpation, when popular men destroyed the liberties of their
country, and seized the power into their own hands, which they were
forced to maintain by hiring guards to bridle the people. Such were
anciently the tyrants in most of the small states in Greece, and such
were those in several parts of Italy, about three or four centuries ago,
as Machiavel informs us. The other original of mercenary armies, seems to
have risen from larger kingdoms or commonwealths, which had subdued
provinces at a distance, and were forced to maintain troops upon them, to
prevent insurrections from the natives: Of this sort were Macedon,
Carthage and Rome of old; Venice and Holland at this day; as well as most
kingdoms of Europe. So that mercenary forces in a free state, whether
monarchy or commonwealth, seem only necessary, either for preserving
their conquests, (which in such governments it is not prudent to extend
too far) or else for maintaining a war at distance.

In this last, which at present is our most important case, there are
certain maxims that all wise governments have observed.

The first I shall mention is, that no private man should have a
commission to be general for life,[4] let his merit and services be ever
so great. Or, if a prince be unadvisedly brought to offer such a
commission in one hand, let him (to save time and blood) deliver up his
crown with the other. The Romans in the height and perfection of their
government, usually sent out one of the new consuls to be general against
their most formidable enemy, and recalled the old one, who often returned
before the next election, and according as he had merit was sent to
command in some other part, which perhaps was continued to him for a
second, and sometimes a third year. But if Paulus Aemilius,[5] or
Scipio[6] himself, had presumed to move the Senate to continue their
commissions for life, they certainly would have fallen a sacrifice to the
jealousy of the people. Caesar indeed (between whom and a certain
general, some of late with much discretion have made a parallel) had his
command in Gaul continued to him for five years, and was afterwards made
perpetual Dictator, that is to say, general for life, which gave him the
power and the will of utterly destroying the Roman liberty. But in his
time the Romans were very much degenerated, and great corruptions crept
into their morals and discipline. However, we see there still were some
remains of a noble spirit among them; for when Caesar sent to be chosen
consul, notwithstanding his absence, they decreed he should come in
person, give up his command, and _petere more majorum._[7]

It is not impossible but a general may desire such a commission out of
inadvertency, at the instigation of his friends, or perhaps of his
enemies, or merely for the benefit and honour of it, without intending
any such dreadful consequences; and in that case, a wise prince or state
may barely refuse it without shewing any marks of their displeasure. But
the request in its own nature is highly criminal, and ought to be entered
so upon record, to terrify others in time to come from venturing to make
it.

Another maxim to be observed by a free state engaged in war, is to keep
the military power in absolute subjection to the civil, nor ever suffer
the former to influence or interfere with the latter. A general and his
army are servants hired by the civil power to act as they are directed
from thence, and with a commission large or limited as the administration
shall think fit; for which they are largely paid in profit and honour.
The whole system by which armies are governed, is quite alien from the
peaceful institutions of states at home; and if the rewards be so
inviting as to tempt a senator to take a post in the army, while he is
there on his duty, he ought to consider himself in no other capacity. I
know not any sort of men so apt as soldiers are, to reprimand those who
presume to interfere in what relates to their trade. When they hear any
of us in a coffeehouse, wondering that such a victory was not pursued,
complaining that such a town cost more men and money than it was worth to
take it; or that such an opportunity was lost, of fighting the enemy;
they presently reprove us, and often with justice enough, for meddling in
matters out of our sphere, and clearly convince us of our mistakes in
terms of art that none of us understand. Nor do we escape so; for they
reflect with the utmost contempt of our ignorance, that we who sit at
home in ease and security, never stirring from our firesides, should
pretend from books, and general reason, to argue upon military affairs;
which after all, if we may judge from the share of intellectuals in some
who are said to excel that way, is not so very profound or difficult a
science. But if there be any weight in what they offer, as perhaps there
may be a great deal; surely these gentlemen have a much weaker pretence
to concern themselves in matters of the cabinet, which are always either
far above, or much beside their capacities. Soldiers may as well pretend
to prescribe rules for trade, to determine points in philosophy, to be
moderators in an assembly of divines, or direct in a court of justice, as
to misplace their talent in examining affairs of state, especially in
what relates to the choice of ministers, who are never so likely to be
ill chosen as when approved by them. It would be endless to shew how
pernicious all steps of this nature have been in many parts and ages of
the world. I shall only produce two at present; one in Rome, and the
other in England. The first is of Caesar, when he came to the city with
his soldiers to settle the ministry, there was an end of their liberty
for ever. The second was in the great rebellion against King Charles the
First. The King and both Houses were agreed upon the terms of a peace,
but the officers of the army (as Ludlow relates it) sets a guard upon the
House of Commons, took a list of the members, and kept all by force out
of the House, except those who were for bringing the King to a trial.[8]
Some years after, when they erected a military government, and ruled the
island by major-generals, we received most admirable instances of their
skill in politics. To say the truth, such formidable sticklers[9] can
have but two reasons for desiring to interfere in the administration; the
first is that of Caesar and Cromwell, of which, God forbid, I should
accuse or suspect any body; since the second is pernicious enough, and
that is, to preserve those in power who are for perpetuating a war,
rather than see others advanced, who they are sure will use all proper
means to promote a safe and honourable peace.

Thirdly, Since it is observed of armies, that in the present age they are
brought to some degree of humanity, and a more regular demeanour to each
other and to the world, than in former times; it is certainly a good
maxim to endeavour preserving this temper among them, without which
they would soon degenerate into savages. To this end, it would be prudent
among other things, to forbid that detestable custom of drinking to the
damnation or confusion of any person whatsoever.

Such desperate acts, and the opinions infused along with them, into heads
already inflamed by youth and wine, are enough to scatter madness and
sedition through a whole camp. So seldom upon their knees to pray, and so
often to curse! This is not properly atheism, but a sort of anti-religion
prescribed by the Devil, and which an atheist of common sense would scorn
as an absurdity. I have heard it mentioned as a common practice last
autumn, somewhere or other, to drink damnation and confusion[10] (and
this with circumstances very aggravating and horrid) to the new ministry,
and to those who _had any hand_ in turning out the old; that is to say,
to those persons whom her Majesty has thought fit to employ in her
greatest affairs, with something more than a glance against the Qu[een]
herself. And if it be true that these orgies were attended with certain
doubtful words of standing by their g[enera]l, who without question
abhorred them; let any man consider the consequence of such dispositions,
if they should happen to spread. I could only wish for the honour of the
Army, as well as of the Qu[een] and ministry, that a remedy had been
applied to the disease, in the place and time where it grew. If men of
such principles were able to propagate them in a camp, and were sure of a
general for life, who had any tincture of ambition, we might soon bid
farewell to ministers and parliaments, whether new or old.

I am only sorry such an accident has happened towards the close of a war,
when it is chiefly the interest of those gentlemen who have posts in the
army, to behave themselves in such a manner as might encourage the
legislature to make some provision for them, when there will be no
further need of their services. They are to consider themselves as
persons by their educations unqualified for many other stations of life.
Their fortunes will not suffer them to retain to a party after its fall,
nor have they weight or abilities to help towards its resurrection. Their
future dependence is wholly upon the prince and Parliament, to which they
will never make their way, by solemn execrations of the ministry; a
ministry of the Qu[een]'s own election, and fully answering the wishes of
her people. This unhappy step in some of their brethren, may pass for an
uncontrollable argument, that politics are not their business or their
element. The fortune of war hath raised several persons up to swelling
titles, and great commands over numbers of men, which they are too apt to
transfer along with them into civil life, and appear in all companies as
if it were at the head of their regiments, with a sort of deportment
that ought to have been dropt behind, in that short passage to Harwich.
It puts me in mind of a dialogue in Lucian,[11] where Charon wafting one
of their predecessors over Styx, ordered him to strip off his armour and
fine clothes, yet still thought him too heavy; "But" (said he) "put off
likewise that pride and presumption, those high-swelling words, and that
vain-glory;" because they were of no use on the other side the water.
Thus if all that array of military grandeur were confined to the proper
scene, it would be much more for the interest of the owners, and less
offensive to their fellow subjects.[12]


[Footnote: 1: No. 20 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Ovid, "Metamorphoses," xiii. 353:

"Well assured, that art
And conduct were of war the better part."
                       J. DRYDEN.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: A.D. 1093. See Matthew Paris. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Lord Campbell, in his "Lives of the Chancellors" (vol. iv.,
p. 322), states that Marlborough, in order to increase the confidence of
the allies, proposed "he should receive a patent as commander-in-chief
for life." On consulting with Lord Chancellor Cowper he was told
that such a proceeding would be unconstitutional. Marlborough, however,
petitioned the Queen, who rejected his application. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: Aemilius Paulus, the celebrated Roman general, and conqueror
of Macedonia, was twice consul, and died B.C. 160. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 6: Scipio Africanus, the greatest of Roman generals and the
conqueror of Carthage, who died _c._ B.C. 184. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Julius Caesar "applied to the Senate to be exempted from the
usual law, and to become a candidate in his absence" ("Dict. of Greek and
Roman Biog."). This was strongly opposed; so that to be a candidate it
was necessary for him "to solicit after the custom of his ancestors."
[T.S.]

The "Examiner" seems to allude to the remarkable, and, to say the least,
imprudent, article in "The Tatler," No. 37. Such a passage, published by
so warm an adherent of Marlborough as Steele, gives credit to
Macpherson's assertion, that there really was some intention of
maintaining the Duke in power, by his influence in the army. It is even
affirmed, that under pretence his commission under the great seal could
not be superseded by the Queen's order of dismissal, it was designed that
he should assemble the troops which were in town, and secure the court
and capital. To prevent which, his commission was superseded by another
under the great seal being issued as speedily as possible. The
industrious editor of "The Tatler," in 1786, is of opinion, that the
article was written by Addison; but the violent counsels which it
intimates seem less congenial to his character than to that of Steele, a
less reflecting man, and bred a soldier. It is worthy of notice, that
the passage is cancelled in all subsequent editions of "The Tatler,"
till restored from the original folio in that of 1786. This evidently
implies Steele's own sense, that more was meant than met the ear; and
it affords a presumptive proof, that very violent measures had at least
been proposed, if not agreed upon, by some of Marlborough's adherents.
[S.]]

[Footnote 8: General Ireton and Colonel Pride placed guards outside the
entrances to the House of Commons "that none might be permitted to pass
into the House but such as had continued faithful to the public interest"
(Ludlow's "Memoirs," vol. i., p. 270). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: The judges of the field, in a formal duel, whose duty it was
to interfere when the rules of judicial combat were violated, were called
sticklers, from the wooden truncheons which they held in their hands.
Hence the verb to _stickle_. [S.]]

[Footnote 10: In his "Journal to Stella" Swift writes, under date
December 13th, 1710: "You hear the havoc making in the army: Meredyth,
Macartney, and Col. Honeywood, are obliged to sell their commands at half
value, and leave the army, for drinking destruction to the present
ministry," etc. (see vol. ii., p. 71, of present edition). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: "Dialogues of the Dead. X. Charon, Hermes, and a number of
Ghosts." Hermes required Lampichus to leave behind him his pride, folly,
insolence, etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: Of this paper "The Medley," No. 14 (January 1st, 1710
[_sic_]), says: "He not only writes whatever he believes or knows to be
false, but plainly shows 'tis his business and duty to do so, and that
this alone is the merit of his service." [T.S.]]



NUMB. 22.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 21, TO THURSDAY DECEMBER 28, 1710.[2]

_Nam et, majorum instituta tueri sacris, ceremoniisque retinendis,
  sapientis est.
                --Ruituraque semper
                Stat (mirum!) moles--_[3]


Whoever is a true lover of our constitution, must needs be pleased to see
what successful endeavours are daily made to restore it in every branch
to its ancient form, from the languishing condition it hath long lain in,
and with such deadly symptoms.

I have already handled some abuses during the late management, and shall
in convenient time go on with the rest. Hitherto I have confined myself
to those of the State; but with the good leave of those who think it a
matter of small moment, I shall now take liberty to say something of the
Church.[4]

For several years past, there hath not I think in Europe, been any
society of men upon so unhappy a foot, as the clergy of England, nor more
hardly treated, by those very persons from whom they deserved much better
quarter, and in whose power they chiefly had put it to use them so ill.
I would not willingly misrepresent facts; but I think it generally
allowed by enemies and friends, that the bold and brave defences made
before the Revolution against those many invasions of our rights,
proceeded principally from the clergy; who are likewise known to have
rejected all advances made them to close with the measures at that time
concerting; while the Dissenters, to gratify their ambition and revenge,
fell into the basest compliances with the court, approved of all
proceedings by their numerous and fulsome addresses, and took employments
and commissions by virtue of the dispensing power, against the direct
laws of the land.[5] All this is so true, that if ever the Pretender comes
in, they will, next to those of his own religion, have the fairest claim
and pretensions to his favour, from their merit and eminent services to
his supposed father, who, without such encouragement, would probably
never have been misled to go the lengths he did. It should likewise be
remembered to the everlasting honour of the London divines, that in those
dangerous times, they writ and published the best collection of arguments
against Popery, that ever appeared in the world. At the Revolution, the
body of the clergy joined heartily in the common cause (except a few,
whose sufferings perhaps have atoned for their mistakes) like men who are
content to go about, for avoiding a gulf or a precipice, but come into
the old straight road again as soon as they can. But another temper had
now begun to prevail. For as in the reign of K. Charles the First,
several well-meaning people were ready to join in reforming some abuses;
while others who had deeper designs, were still calling out for a
thorough reformation, which ended at last in the ruin of the kingdom; so
after the late king's coming to the throne, there was a restless cry from
men of the same principles, for a thorough revolution, which as some were
carrying it on, must have ended in the destruction of the Monarchy and
Church.

What a violent humour hath run ever since against the clergy, and from
what corner spread and fomented, is, I believe, manifest to all men. It
looked like a set quarrel against Christianity, and if we call to mind
several of the leaders, it must in a great measure have been actually so.
Nothing was more common in writing and conversation, than to hear that
reverend body charged in gross with what was utterly inconsistent:
despised for their poverty, hated for their riches; reproached with
avarice, and taxed with luxury; accused for promoting arbitrary power,
and resisting the prerogative; censured for their pride, and scorned for
their meanness of spirit. The representatives of the lower clergy railed
at for disputing the power of the bishops, by the known abhorrers of
episcopacy; and abused for doing nothing in their convocations, by those
very men who helped to bind up their hands. The vice, the folly, the
ignorance of every single man, were laid upon the character; their
jurisdiction, censures and discipline trampled under foot, yet mighty
complaints against their excessive power.[6] The men of wit employed to
turn the priesthood itself into ridicule. In short, groaning every where
under the weight of poverty, oppression, contempt and obloquy. A fair
return for the time and money spent in their education to fit them for
the service of the Altar; and a fair encouragement for worthy men to come
into the Church. However, it may be some comfort for persons of that holy
function, that their Divine Founder as well as His harbinger, met with
the like reception. "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say
he hath a devil; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say,
behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, &c."

In this deplorable state of the clergy, nothing but the hand of
Providence, working by its glorious instrument, the QUEEN, could have
been able to turn the people's hearts so surprisingly in their favour.
This Princess, destined for the safety of Europe, and a blessing to her
subjects, began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church;[7] and
it was hoped the nation would have followed such an example, which
nothing could have prevented, but the false politics of a set of men, who
form their maxims upon those of every tottering commonwealth, which is
always struggling for life, subsisting by expedients, and often at the
mercy of any powerful neighbour. These men take it into their
imagination, that trade can never flourish unless the country becomes
a common receptacle for all nations, religions and languages; a system
only proper for small popular states, but altogether unworthy, and below
the dignity of an imperial crown; which with us is best upheld by a
monarch in possession of his just prerogative, a senate of nobles and
of commons, and a clergy established in its due rights with a suitable
maintenance by law. But these men come with the spirit of shopkeepers to
frame rules for the administration of kingdoms; or, as if they thought
the whole art of government consisted in the importation of nutmegs, and
the curing of herrings. Such an island as ours can afford enough to
support the majesty of a crown, the honour of a nobility, and the dignity
of a magistracy; we can encourage arts and sciences, maintain our bishops
and clergy, and suffer our gentry to live in a decent, hospitable manner;
yet still there will remain hands sufficient for trade and manufactures,
which do always indeed deserve the best encouragement, but not to a
degree of sending every living soul into the warehouse or the workhouse.

This pedantry of republican politics hath done infinite mischief among
us. To this we owe those noble schemes of treating Christianity as a
system of speculative opinions, which no man should be bound to believe;
of making the being and the worship of God, a creature of the state. In
consequence of these, that the teachers of religion ought to hold their
maintenance at pleasure, or live by the alms and charitable collection of
the people, and be equally encouraged of all opinions: that they should
be prescribed what to teach, by those who are to learn from them; and,
upon default, have a staff and a pair of shoes left at their door;[8]
with many other projects of equal piety, wisdom, and good nature.

But, God be thanked, they and their schemes are vanished, and "their
places shall know them no more." When I think of that inundation of
atheism, infidelity, profaneness and licentiousness which were like to
overwhelm us, from what mouths and hearts it first proceeded, and how the
people joined with the Queen's endeavours to divert this flood, I cannot
but reflect on that remarkable passage in the Revelation,[9] where "the
serpent with seven heads cast out of his mouth water after the woman like
a flood, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood: But the
earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up
the flood which the dragon had cast out of his mouth." For the Queen
having changed her ministry suitable to her own wisdom, and the wishes of
her subjects, and having called a free Parliament; at the same time
summoned the convocation, by her royal writ,[10] "as in all times had
been accustomed," and soon after their meeting, sent a most gracious
letter[11] to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be communicated to the
bishops and clergy of his province; taking notice of "the loose and
profane principles which had been openly scattered and propagated among
her subjects: that the consultations of the clergy were particularly
requisite to repress and prevent such daring attempts, for which her
subjects, from all parts of the kingdom, have shown their just
abhorrence. She hopes, the endeavours of the clergy, in this respect,
will not be unsuccessful; and for her part, is ready to give them all fit
encouragement, to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them; and to grant them powers requisite to carry on so good a
work." In conclusion, "earnestly recommending to them, to avoid disputes,
and determining to do all that in her lies to compose and extinguish
them."

It is to be hoped, that this last part of her Majesty's letter, will be
the first she will please to execute; for, it seems, this very letter
created the first dispute.[12] The fact whereof is thus related: The
Upper House having formed an address to the QUEEN, before they received
her Majesty's letter, sent both address and letter together, to the Lower
House, with a message, excusing their not mentioning the letter in the
address, because this was formed before the other was received:[l3] The
Lower House returned them, with a desire, that an address might be
formed, with due regard and acknowledgments for the letter. After some
difficulties, the same address was sent down again with a clause
inserted, making some short mention of the said letter. This the Lower
House did not think sufficient, and sent it back again with the same
request: whereupon the archbishop, after a short consultation with _some_
of his brethren, immediately adjourned the convocation for a month, and
no address at all was sent to the QUEEN.

I understand not ecclesiastical affairs well enough to comment upon this
matter;[14] but it seems to me, that all methods of doing service to the
Church and kingdom, by means of a convocation, may be at any time eluded,
if there be no remedy against such an incident. And if this proceeding be
agreeable to the institution, spiritual assemblies must needs be
strangely contrived, very different from any lay senate yet known in the
world. Surely, from the nature of such a synod, it must be a very unhappy
circumstance, when the majority of the bishops draws one way, and that
of the lower clergy another. The latter, I think, are not at this time
suspected for any principles bordering upon those professed by enemies to
episcopacy; and if they happen to differ from the greater part of the
present set of bishops, I doubt it will call some things to mind, that
may turn the scale of general favour on the inferior clergy's side, who
with a profound duty to her Majesty, are perfectly pleased with the
present turn of affairs. Besides, curious people will be apt to enquire
into the dates of some promotions, to call to mind what designs were then
upon the anvil, and from thence make malicious deductions. Perhaps they
will observe the manner of voting on the bishops' bench, and compare it
with what shall pass in the upper house of convocation. There is,
however, one comfort, that under the present dispositions of the kingdom,
a dislike to the proceedings of any of their lordships, even to the
number of a majority, will be purely personal, and not turned to the
disadvantage of the order. And for my part, as I am a true lover of the
Church, I had rather find the inclinations of the people favourable to
episcopacy in general, than see a majority of prelates cried up by those
who are known enemies to the character. Nor, indeed, hath anything given
me more offence for several years past, than to observe how some of that
bench have been caressed by certain persons; and others of them openly
celebrated by the infamous pens of atheists, republicans and fanatics.

Time and mortality can only remedy these inconveniencies in the Church,
which are not to be cured like those in the State, by a change of
ministry. If we may guess the temper of a convocation, from the choice of
a prolocutor,[15] as it is usual to do that of a House of Commons by the
speaker, we may expect great things from that reverend body, who have
done themselves much reputation, by pitching upon a gentleman of so much
piety, wit and learning, for that office; and one who is so thoroughly
versed in those parts of knowledge which are proper for it. I am sorry
that the three Latin speeches, delivered upon presenting the prolocutor,
were not made public;[16] they might perhaps have given us some light
into the dispositions of each house: and besides, one of them is said to
be so peculiar in the style and matter, as might have made up in
entertainment what it wanted in instruction.


[Footnote 1: No. 21 in the reprint. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Under date January 1st, 1710/1, Swift writes to Stella: "Get
the 'Examiners,' and read them; the last nine or ten are full of the
reasons for the late change, and of the abuses of the last ministry; and
the great men assure me they are all true. They are written by their
encouragement and direction" (vol. ii., p. 88, of present edition).
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 3:

"For it is the part of a wise man to defend the institutions of his
forefathers, and uphold the sacred rites and ceremonies.
                And ever threatening to fall
                The mass--a marvel--stands."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: A pamphlet, ascribed to W. Wotton, was issued in reply to
this paper. It was entitled, "The Case of the Present Convocation
Consider'd; In Answer to the Examiner's Unfair Representation of it, and
Unjust Reflections upon it." 1711.]

[Footnote 5: The Dissenters were at first
disposed to make common cause with the Catholics in favour of the
dispensing power claimed by James II.; and an address from the
Presbyterians went so far as to praise the king for having "restored to
God His empire over conscience." [S.]]

[Footnote 6: "The Case etc. Consider'd," remarks: "The boldest, and the
most insolent book of that sort, is the 'Rights of the Church' ... Yet
how long was Dr. T[inda]ll, then Fellow of All Souls, suffered at Oxford
after the 'Rights' appeared?" Dr. Matthew Tindal, author of "The Rights
of the Christian Church" (1706), was a fellow of All Souls College,
Oxford, from 1678 till his death in 1733. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: "At this time [February, 1703/4] Queen Anne gave up the
_first-fruits_ and _tenths_, which had long been possessed by the crown,
to be appropriated to a fund for the increase of small livings. This fund
is known as Queen Anne's Bounty" (Lathbury's "Hist. of Convocation,"
second edition, p. 386). The Queen's Message to Parliament was dated
February 7th, 1703/4, and the Bill was introduced February 17th, and
received the royal assent April 3rd, 1704. See also Swift's
"Answer" in the following number. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: A hint to withdraw. [T.S.]
This is said to have been the mode in which the governors of a Dutch
province were wont to give intimation to those who intermeddled with
state affairs, that they would do wisely to withdraw themselves from the
state. [S.]]

[Footnote 9: Swift notices his own misquotation in the succeeding number
(_q.v._). See a further reference to the subject in No. 26. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Convocation was assembled on November 25th, and the Latin
sermon preached by Kennet. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: Queen Anne's letter was printed in "The Daily Courant" for
December 19th. It is dated December 12th, and says: "It is with
great grief of heart we observe the scandalous attempts which of late
years have been made to infect the minds of our good subjects by loose
and profane principles openly scattered and propagated among them.
We think the consultations of the clergy particularly requisite to
repress these daring attempts and to prevent the like for the future. The
just abhorrence that our subjects from all parts of the kingdom have
expressed of such wicked principles and their abettors, give us good
ground to hope that the endeavours of the clergy in this respect will
not be unsuccessful. For our part we are ready to give them all fitting
encouragement to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them, and to grant them such powers as shall be thought
requisite," etc. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: The Queen's letter was intended to put an end to disputes
in Convocation. She expressed her hope that her royal intentions would
not be frustrated "by any unseasonable disputes between the two Houses of
Convocation about unnecessary forms and methods of proceeding." She
earnestly recommended that such disputes might cease. The bishops
prepared an address, but the Lower House insisted "on the enlarging the
fourth paragraph, and upon answering the several heads of the Queen's
letter" (Chamberlen's "History of Queen Anne," p. 365, and "Daily
Courant," Dec. 19th). The real reason for the disputes between the two
Houses at this time lay in the fact that the Upper House, owing to
Tenison's influence, was largely Low Church in sympathy, whereas the
Lower House, with Atterbury as its leader, was of the High Church party.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Dr. Smalridge (1662-1719) called for the Queen's letter to
be read. The Archbishop prorogued Convocation for two days, and then
again until January 17th. An address to the Queen was presented on
January 26th (Lathbury's "History of Convocation," second edition,
p. 407). Smalridge was Dean of Carlisle, 1711-13, and Bishop of
Bristol, 1714-19. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: "The Case etc. Consider'd" quotes on the title-page: "Jude
10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: "Dr. Atterbury, in preference to Dr. Kennet, was chosen
prolocutor by a great majority."--TINDAL, iv. 206. [T.S.]]

Footnote 16: The Latin speeches were made on December 6th, when the
prolocutor was presented to the Archbishop, by Dr. Smalridge, Atterbury,
and Tenison. The one speech to which Swift refers may have been
Tenison's, whose style was fairly dull. [T.S.]



NUMB. 23.[1]

FROM THURSDAY DECEMBER 28, TO THURSDAY JANUARY 4, 1710.[2]


_Nullae sunt occultiores insidiae, quam eae quae latent in simulatione
officii, aut in aliquo necessitudinis nomine._[3]

_The following answer is written in the true style, and with the usual
candour of such pieces; which I have imitated to the best of my skill,
and doubt not but the reader will be extremely satisfied with it._

_The Examiner cross-examined, or,
A full Answer to the last Examiner._

If I durst be so bold with this author, I would gladly ask him a familiar
question; Pray, Sir, who made you an Examiner? He talks in one of his
insipid papers, of eight or nine thousand corruptions,[4] while _we_ were
at the head of affairs, yet, in all this time, he has hardly produced
fifty:

_Parturiunt montes, &c._[5]

But I shall confine myself, at present, to his last paper. He tells us,
"The Queen began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church."
Here's priestcraft with a witness; this is the constant language of your
highfliers, to call those who are hired to teach _the religion of the
magistrate_ by the name of the Church.[6] But this is not all; for, in
the very next line he says, "It was hoped the nation would have followed
this example." You see the faction begins already to speak out; this is
an open demand for the abbey-lands; this furious zealot would have us
priest-ridden again, like our popish ancestors: but, it is to be hoped
the government will take timely care to suppress such audacious attempts,
else we have spent so much blood and treasure to very little purpose, in
maintaining religion and Revolution. But what can we expect from a man,
who at one blow endeavours to ruin our trade? "A country" (says he) "may
flourish" (these are his own words) "without being the common receptacle
for all nations, religions, and languages." What! We must immediately
banish or murder the Palatines; forbid all foreign merchants, not only
the Exchange, but the kingdom; persecute the Dissenters with fire and
faggot, and make it high-treason to speak any other tongue but English.
In another place he talks of a "serpent with seven heads," which is a
manifest corruption of the text; for the words "_seven heads_" are not
mentioned in that verse.[7] However, we know what serpent he would mean;
a serpent with fourteen legs; or, indeed, no serpent at all, but seven
great men, who were the best ministers, the truest Protestants, and the
most disinterested patriots that ever served a prince.[8] But nothing is
so inconsistent as this writer; I know not whether to call him a Whig or
a Tory, a Protestant or a Papist; he finds fault with convocations; says,
"they are assemblies strangely contrived;" and yet lays the fault upon
us, that we bound their hands: I wish we could have bound their tongues
too; but as fast as their hands were bound, they could make a shift to
hold their pens, and have their share in the guilt of ruining the
hopefullest party and ministry that ever prescribed to a crown. This
captious gentleman is angry to "see a majority of prelates cried up by
those who are enemies to the character"; now I always thought, that the
concessions of enemies were more to a man's advantage than the praise of
his friends. "Time and mortality," he says, "can only remedy these
inconveniencies in the Church." That is, in other words, when certain
bishops are dead, we shall have others of our own stamp. Not so fast; you
are not yet so sure of your game. We have already got one comfortable
loss in Spain, though by a G[enera]l of our own.[9] For joy of which, our
J[un]to had a merry meeting at the house of their great proselyte, on the
very day we received the happy news. One or two more such blows would,
perhaps, set us right again, and then we can employ "mortality" as well
as others. He concludes with wishing, that "three letters, spoke when the
prolocutor was presented, were made public." I suppose he would be
content with one, and that is more than we shall humour him to grant.
However, I hope he will allow it possible to have grace, without either
eloquence or Latin, which is all I shall say to his malicious innuendo.

Having thus, I hope, given a full and satisfactory answer to the
Examiner's last paper, I shall now go on to a more important affair;
which is, to prove, by several undeniable instances, that the late
m[inist]ry, and their abettors, were true friends to the Church. It is
yet, I confess, a secret to the clergy, wherein this friendship did
consist. For information therefore of that reverend body, that they may
never forget their benefactors, as well as of all others who may be
equally ignorant, I have determined to display _our_ merits to the world
upon that weighty article. And I could wish, that what I am to say were
to be written in brass, for an eternal memorial; the rather, because for
the future, the Church must endeavour to stand unsupported by those
patrons, who expired in doing it their last good office, and will never
rise to preserve it any more.

Let us therefore produce the pious endeavours of these church-defenders,
who were its patrons by their power and authority, as well as ornaments
of it by their exemplary lives.

First, St. Paul tells us, "there must be heresies in the Church, that the
truth may be manifest"; and therefore, by due course of reasoning, the
more heresies there are, the more manifest will the truth be made. This
being maturely considered by these lovers of the Church, they endeavoured
to propagate as many heresies as they could, that the light of truth
might shine the clearer.

Secondly, To shew their zeal for the Church's defence, they took the care
of it entirely out of the hands of God Almighty (because that was a
foreign jurisdiction) and made it their own creature, depending
altogether upon them; and issued out their orders to Tindal, and others,
to give public notice of it.

Thirdly, Because charity is the most celebrated of all Christian virtues,
therefore they extended theirs beyond all bounds; and instead of shutting
the Church against Dissenters, were ready to open it to all comers, and
break down its walls, rather than that any should want room to enter. The
strength of a state, we know, consists in the number of people, how
different soever in their callings; and why should not the strength of a
Church consist in the same, how different soever in their creeds? For
that reason, they charitably attempted to abolish the test, which tied up
so many hands from getting employments, in order to protect the Church.

I know very well that this attempt is objected to us as a crime, by
several malignant Tories, and denied as a slander by many unthinking
people among ourselves. The latter are apt in their defence to ask such
questions as these; Was your test repealed?[10] Had we not a majority?
Might we not have done it if we pleased? To which the others answer, You
did what you could; you prepared the way, but you found a fatal
impediment from that quarter, whence the sanction of the law must come,
and therefore to save your credit, you condemned a paper to be burnt
which yourselves had brought in.[11] But alas! the miscarriage of that
noble project for the safety of the Church, had another original; the
knowledge whereof depends upon a piece of secret history that I shall now
lay open.

These church-protectors had directed a Presbyterian preacher to draw up a
bill for repealing the test; it was accordingly done with great art, and
in the preamble, several expressions of civility to the established
Church; and when it came to the qualifications of all those who were to
enter on any office, the compiler had taken special care to make them
large enough for all Christians whatsoever, by transcribing the very
words (only formed into an oath) which Quakers are obliged to profess by
a former Act of Parliament; as I shall here set them down.[12] "I _A.B._
profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the
true God, and in the Holy Spirit one God blessed for evermore; and do
acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given
by divine inspiration." This bill was carried to the chief leaders for
their approbation, with these terrible words turned into an oath: What
should they do? Those few among them who fancied they believed in God,
were sure they did not believe in Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or one
syllable of the Bible; and they were as sure that every body knew their
opinion in those matters, which indeed they had been always too sincere
to disguise; how therefore could they take such an oath as that, without
ruining their reputation with Tindal, Toland,[13] Coward,[14] Collins,
Clendon,[15] and all the tribe of free-thinkers, and so give a scandal to
weak unbelievers. Upon this nice point of honour and conscience the
matter was hushed, the project for repealing the test let fall, and the
Sacrament left as the smaller evil of the two.

Fourthly, These pillars of the Church, because "the harvest was great,
and the labourers few," and because they would ease the bishops from that
grievous trouble of laying on hands: were willing to allow that power to
all men whatsoever, to prevent that terrible consequence of unchurching
those, who thought a hand from under a cloak as effectual as from
lawn-sleeves. And indeed, what could more contribute to the advancement
of true religion, than a bill of general naturalization for priesthood?

Fifthly, In order to fix religion in the minds of men, because truth
never appears so fair as when confronted with falsehood; they directed
books to be published, that denied the being of a God, the divinity of
the Second and Third Person, the truth of all revelation, and the
immortality of the soul. To this we owe that great sense of religion,
that respect and kindness to the clergy, and that true love of virtue so
manifest of late years among the youth of our nation. Nor could anything
be more discreet, than to leave the merits of each cause to such wise
impartial judges, who might otherwise fall under the slavery of believing
by education and prejudice.

Sixthly, Because nothing so much distracts the thoughts, as too great a
variety of subjects; therefore they had kindly prepared a bill, to
prescribe the clergy what subjects they should preach upon, and in what
manner, that they might be at no loss; and this no doubt, was a proper
work for such hands, so thoroughly versed in the theory and practice of
all Christian duties.

Seventhly, To save trouble and expense to the clergy, they contrived that
convocations should meet as seldom as possible; and when they were
suffered to assemble, would never allow them to meddle with any business;
because they said, the office of a clergyman was enough to take up the
whole man. For the same reason they were very desirous to excuse the
bishops from sitting in Parliament, that they might be at more leisure to
stay at home and look after their clergy.

I shall mention at present but one more instance of their pious zeal for
the Church. They had somewhere heard the maxim, that _Sanguis martyrum
est semen ecclesiae_;[16] therefore in order to sow this seed, they began
with impeaching a clergyman: and that it might be a true martyrdom in
every circumstance, they proceeded as much as possible against common
law,[17] which the long-robe part of the managers knew was in a hundred
instances directly contrary to all their positions, and were sufficiently
warned of it beforehand; but their love of the Church prevailed. Neither
was this impeachment an affair taken up on a sudden. For, a certain great
person (whose Character has been lately published by some stupid and
lying writer)[18] who very much distinguished himself by his zeal in
forwarding this impeachment, had several years ago endeavoured to
persuade the late King to give way to just such another attempt. He told
his Majesty, there was a certain clergyman preached very dangerous
sermons, and that the only way to put a stop to such insolence, was to
impeach him in Parliament. The King enquired the character of the man;
"O, sir," said my lord, "the most violent, hot, positive fellow in
England; so extremely wilful, that I believe he would be heartily glad to
be a martyr." The King answered, "Is it so? Then I am resolved to
disappoint him"; and would never hear more of the matter; by which that
hopeful project unhappily miscarried.