connivance, which they enjoyed during the whole last reign; nor ever scrupled to reproach another party, under which they pretend to have suffered so much severity.

Upon these considerations, I must confess to have suspended much of my pity toward the great dreaders of popery; many of whom appear to be hale, strong, active, young men; who, as I am told, eat, drink, and sleep heartily; and are very cheerful (as they have exceeding good reason) upon all other subjects. However, I cannot too much commend the generous concern which our neighbours, and others who come from the same neighbourhood, are so kind to express for us upon this account; although the former be farther removed from the danger of popery, by twenty leagues of salt water; but this, I fear, is a digres

sion.

When an artificial report was raised here many years ago, of an intended invasion by the pretender (which blew over after it had done its office) the dissenters argued, in their talk and in their pamphlets, after this manner, applying themselves to those of the church: "Gentlemen, if the pretender had landed, as the law now stands we durst not assist you; and therefore, unless you take off the test, whenever you shall happen to be invaded in earnest, if we are desired to take up arms in your defence, our answer shall be, Pray, gentlemen, fight your own battles; we will lie by quietly; conquer your enemies by yourselves, if you can; we will not do your drudgery." This way of reasoning I have heard from several of their chiefs and abettors, in a hundred conversations; and have read it in twenty pamphlets: and I am confident it will be offered again, if the project should fail to take off the test.

Upon which piece of oratory and reasoning I form the following query: Whether, in case of an invasion from the pretender (which is not quite so probable as from the grand signior) the dissenters can, with prudence and safety, offer the same plea; except they shall have made a previous stipulation with the invaders? And whether the full freedom of their religion and trade, their lives, properties, wives and children, are not, and have not always been reckoned, sufficient motives for repelling invasion; especially in our sectaries, who call themselves the truest protestants, by virtue of their pretended or real fierceness against popery?

Whether omitting or neglecting to celebrate the day of the martyrdom of the blessed king Charles the First, enjoined by act of parliament, can be justly reckoned a particular and distinguishing mark of good affection to the present government?

Whether, in those churches where the said day is observed, it will fully answer the intent of the sad act, if the preacher shall commend, excuse, palliate, or extenuate the murder of that royal martyr; and place the guilt of that horrid rebellion, with all its consequences, the following usurpations, the entire destruction of the church, the cruel and continual persecutions of those who could be discovered to profess its doctrines, with the ensuing Babel of fanaticism, to the account of that blessed king; who, by granting the petition of right, and passing every bill that could be asked for the security of the subject, had, by the confession of those wicked men before the war began, left them nothing more to demand?

Whether such a preacher as I have named (whereof there have been more than one, not

many years past, even in the presence of viceroys) who takes that course as a means for promotion, may not be thought to step a little out of the common road, in a monarchy, where the descendants of that most blessed martyr have reigned to this day?

I ground the reason of making these queries on the title of the act; to which I refer the reader.

SOME FEW THOUGHTS

CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF THE TEST.

THOSE of either side who have written upon this subject of the test, in making or answering objections, seem to fail, by not pressing sufficiently the chief point, upon which the controversy turns. The arguments used by those who write for the church, are very good in their kind; but will have little force under the present corruptions of mankind, because the authors treat this subject tanquam in republicâ Platonis, et non in fæce Romuli.

It must be confessed, that, considering how few employments of any consequence fall to the share of those English who are born in this kingdom, and those few very dearly purchased, at the expense of conscience, liberty, and all regard for the public good, they are not worth contending for and if nothing but profit were in the case, it would hardly cost me one sigh, when I should see those few scraps thrown among every species of fanatics, to scuffle for among themselves.

And this will infallibly be the case, after repealing the test. For every subdivision of sect will, with equal justice, pretend to have a share; and, as it is usual with sharers, will never think they have enough, while any pretender is left unprovided. I shall not except the quakers; because, when the passage is once let open for sects

to partake in public emoluments, it is very probable the lawfulness of taking oaths, and wearing carnal weapons,* may be revealed to the brotherhood: which thought, I confess, was first put into my head by one of the shrewdest quakers in this kingdom. †

The quakers were more likely to admit this relaxation of their peculiar tenets, as, upon their first appearance as a sect, they did not by any means profess the principle of non-resistance, which they afterwards adopted.

The quaker hinted at by Dr Swift was Mr George Rooke, a linen-draper. In a letter to Mr Pope, Aug. 30, 1716, Dr Swift says, "There is a young ingenious quaker in this town, who writes verses to his mistress, not very correct, but in a strain purely what a poetical quaker should do, commending her look and habit, &c. It gave me a hint, that a set of quaker pastorals might succeed, if our friend Gay would fancy it; and I think it a fruitful subject; pray hear what he says." -Accordingly Gay wrote "The Espousal, a sober Eclogue, between two of the Peo ple called Quakers."

"