_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.
I have hitherto confined myself to those endeavours for the good of the
Church, which were common to all the leaders and principal men of our
party; but if my paper were not drawing towards an end, I could produce
several instances of particular persons, who by their exemplary lives and
actions have confirmed the character so justly due to the whole body. I
shall at present mention only two, and illustrate the merits of each by a
matter of fact.
That worthy patriot, and true lover of the Church, whom the late
"Examiner" is supposed to reflect on under the name of Verres,[19] felt a
pious impulse to be a benefactor to the Cathedral of Gloucester, but how
to do it in the most decent, generous manner, was the question. At last
he thought of an expedient: One morning or night he stole into the
Church, mounted upon the altar, and there did that which in cleanly
phrase is called disburthening of nature: He was discovered, prosecuted,
and condemned to pay a thousand pounds, which sum was all employed to
support the Church, as, no doubt, the benefactor meant it.
There is another person whom the same writer is thought to point at under
the name of Will Bigamy.[20] This gentleman, knowing that marriage fees
were a considerable perquisite to the clergy, found out a way of
improving them _cent. per cent._ for the good of the Church. His
invention was to marry a second wife while the first was alive,
convincing her of the lawfulness by such arguments, as he did not doubt
would make others follow the same example: These he had drawn up in
writing with intention to publish for the general good; and it is hoped
he may now have leisure to finish them.[21]
[Footnote 1: No. 22 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: _I. e._ 1710-11. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 3: Cicero, "in Verrem," II. i. 15: "There are no intrigues more
difficult to guard against than those which are concealed under a
pretence of duty, or under the name of some intimate connexion."--C.D.
YONGE. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: See No. 19, _ante_ (not quoted correctly). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: Horace, "Ars Poetica," 139:
"The mountains laboured with prodigious throes."--P. FRANCIS.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: See No. 22, _ante_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: The serpent, or dragon, is said to have seven heads in an
earlier verse of the same chapter. See Rev. xii., 3, 9, 15. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: The Earl of Sunderland and Henry Boyle (Secretaries of
State), Earl of Godolphin (Lord Treasurer), Lord Somers (President of the
Council), Lord Cowper (Lord Chancellor), Duke of Marlborough
(Captain General), and Horatio Walpole (Secretary of War). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 9: General Stanhope, at Brihuega, was surprised and compelled
to surrender on December 9th, 1710. Oldmixon's "Sequel" (p. 452)
remarks: "The misfortune which happened to General Stanhope at
Brihuega, where he was surrounded by the French and Spanish, armies,
and after a most gallant defence, obliged to surrender himself with
several English battalions prisoners of war, was some relief to
high-church; ... they did not stick to rejoice at it." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: The Test Act was passed in 1672 and repealed only in 1828.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: This paper was a pamphlet by Charles Leslie, published
October, 1708, which was condemned to be burnt by the House of Commons in
January, 1709/10. It was entitled, "A Letter from a Gentleman in
Scotland to his Friend in England, against the Sacramental Test."
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: This declaration was prescribed by the Act I William and
Mary, c. 18, s. 13. It was repealed in 1871. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: John Toland, author of "Christianity not Mysterious" (1696)
and other works. See note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: William Coward (1656-1725), physician, was the author of
"Second Thoughts Concerning Human Soul" (1702), and "The Grand Essay;
or A Vindication of Reason and Religion" (1703/4). Both these works
were ordered by the House of Commons to be burnt, March 17th,
1703/4. See also note on p. 9 of vol. iii. of present edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: John Clendon was the author of "A Treatise of the Word
Person" (17-09/10) which the House of Commons ordered to be burnt, March
24, 17-09/10. See also note on p. 185 of vol. iii. of present edition.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 16: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church."
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 17: For preaching a sermon at St. Paul's on "Perils from false
brethren" (November 5th, 1709), Dr. Sacheverell was, on the complaint
of Mr. Dolben (December 13th), impeached in the House of Commons on
December 14th, 1709, and in the House of Lords on December 15th. The
sermon was printed and widely circulated, and Sacheverell received for it
the thanks of the Lord Mayor. Mr. Dolben objected to Godolphin being
referred to as Volpone. Out of this arose the famous Sacheverell trial,
so disastrous in its effect on the Whig ministry. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 18: Lord Wharton. See vol. v., pp. 1-28 of present edition of
Swift's Works. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 19: Lord Wharton. But see correction in No. 25, _post_. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 20: See previous note on Lord Cowper. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 21: Cowper was at this time out of office. [T.S.]]