of wood, and drawers of water,” are out of all capacity of doing any mischief, if they were ever so well inclined.  Neither are they at all likely to join in any considerable numbers with an invader, having found so ill success when they were much more numerous and powerful; when they had a prince of their own religion to head them, had been trained for some years under a Popish deputy, and received such mighty aids from the French king.

As to that argument used for repealing the Test, that it will unite all Protestants against the common enemy, I wonder by what figure those gentlemen speak who are pleased to advance it:  Suppose in order to increase the friendship between you and me, a law should pass that I must have half your estate; do you think that would much advance the union between us?  Or, suppose I share my fortune equally between my own children, and a stranger whom I take into my protection; will that be a method to unite them?  Tis an odd way of uniting parties, to deprive a majority of part of their ancient right, by conferring it on a faction who had never any right at all, and therefore cannot be said to suffer any loss or injury if it be refused them.  Neither is it very clear, how far some people may stretch the term of common enemy.  How many are there of those that call themselves Protestants, who look upon our worship to be idolatrous as well as that of the Papists, and with great charity put Prelacy and Popery together, as terms convertible?

And, therefore, there is one small doubt, I would be willingly satisfied in before I agree to the repealing of the Test; that is, whether, these same Protestants, when they have by their dexterity made themselves the national religion, and disposed the Church revenues among their pastors or themselves, will be so kind to allow us dissenters, I do not say a share in employments, but a bare toleration by law?  The reason of my doubt is, because I have been so very idle as to read above fifty pamphlets, written by as many Presbyterian divines, loudly disclaiming this idol Toleration, some of them calling it (I know not how properly) a rag of Popery, and all agreeing it was to establish iniquity by law.  Now, I would be glad to know when and where their successors have renounced this doctrine, and before what witnesses.  Because, methinks I should be loth to see my poor titular bishop in partibus, seized on by mistake in the dark for a Jesuit, or be forced myself to keep my chaplain disguised like my butler, and steal to prayers in a back room, as my grandfather[l6] used in those times when the Church of England was malignant.

[Footnote 16:  This is Thomas Swift, vicar of Goodrich, in Herefordshire, “much distinguished by his courage, as well as his loyalty to King Charles the First, and the sufferings he underwent for that prince, more than any person of his condition in England.”  See the “Fragment of Autobiography,” printed by Scott and Forster in their Lives of Swift. [T.S.]]