Therefore, whoever thinks fit to revive that baffled question, “Why was the late ministry changed?” may receive the following answer; That it was become necessary by the insolence and avarice of some about the Qu[een], who in order to perpetuate their tyranny had made a monstrous alliance with those who profess principles destructive to our religion and government:  If this will not suffice, let him make an abstract of all the abuses I have mentioned in my former papers, and view them together; after which if he still remains unsatisfied, let him suspend his opinion a few weeks longer.  Though after all, I think the question as trifling as that of the Papists, when they ask us, “where was our religion before Luther?” And indeed, the ministry was changed for the same reason that religion was reformed, because a thousand corruptions had crept into the discipline and doctrine of the state, by the pride, the avarice, the fraud, and the ambition of those who administered to us in secular affairs.

I heard myself censured the other day in a coffee-house, for seeming to glance in the letter to Crassus,[11] against a great man, who is still in employment, and likely to continue so.  What if I had really intended that such an application should be given it?  I cannot perceive how I could be justly blamed for so gentle a reproof.  If I saw a handsome young fellow going to a ball at court with a great smut upon his face, could he take it ill in me to point out the place, and desire him with abundance of good words to pull out his handkerchief and wipe it off; or bring him to a glass, where he might plainly see it with his own eyes?  Does any man think I shall suffer my pen to inveigh against vices, only because they are charged upon persons who are no longer in power?  Every body knows, that certain vices are more or less pernicious, according to the stations of those who possess them.  For example, lewdness and intemperance are not of so bad consequences in a town rake as a divine.  Cowardice in a lawyer is more supportable than in an officer of the army.  If I should find fault with an admiral because he wanted politeness, or an alderman for not understanding Greek; that indeed would be to go out of my way, for an occasion of quarrelling; but excessive avarice in a g[enera]l, is I think the greatest defect he can be liable to, next to those of courage and conduct, and may be attended with the most ruinous consequences, as it was in Crassus, who to that vice alone owed the destruction of himself and his army.[12] It is the same thing in praising men’s excellencies, which are more or less valuable, as the person you commend has occasion to employ them.  A man may perhaps mean honestly, yet if he be not able to spell, he shall never have my vote for a secretary:  Another may have wit and learning in a post where honesty, with plain common sense, are of much more use:  You may praise a soldier for his skill at chess, because it is said to be a military game, and the emblem of drawing up an army; but this to a tr[easure]r would be no more a compliment, than if you called him a gamester or a jockey.[13]