I am ready enough to believe that all I have said will avail but little. I have the common excuse of other men, when I think myself bound by all religious and civil ties, to discharge my conscience, and to warn my countrymen upon this important occasion. It is true, the advocates for this scheme promise a new world, after this blessed work shall be completed: that all animosities and faction must immediately drop; that the only distinction in this kingdom will then be of Papist and Protestant. For, as to Whig and Tory, High Church and Low Church, Jacobite and Hanoverian, Court and Country party, English and Irish interests, Dissenters and Conformists, New Light and Old Light, Anabaptist and Independent, Quaker and Muggletonian, they will all meet and jumble together into a perfect harmony, at the sessions and assizes, on the bench and in the revenues; and upon the whole, in all civil and military trust, not excepting the great councils of the nation. For it is wisely argued thus, that a kingdom being no more than a larger knot of friends met together, it is against the rules of good manners to shut any person out of the company, except the Papists; who profess themselves of another club.

I am at a loss to know what arts the Presbyterian sect intends to use, in convincing the world of their loyalty to kingly government; which long before the prevalence, or even the birth of their independent rivals, as soon as the King's forces were overcome, declared their principles to be against monarchy, as well as Episcopacy and the House of Lords, even till the King was restored: At which event, although they were forced to submit to the present power, yet I have not heard that they did ever, to this day, renounce any one principle by which their predecessors then acted; yet this they have been challenged to do, or at least to shew that others have done it for them, by a certain doctor,[13] who, as I am told, has much employed his pen in the like disputes. I own, they will be ready enough to insinuate themselves into any government: But, if they mean to be honest and upright, they will and must endeavour by all means, which they shall think lawful, to introduce and establish their own scheme of religion, as nearest approaching to the word of God, by casting out all superstitious ceremonies, ecclesiastical titles, habits, distinctions, and superiorities, as rags of Popery; in order to a thorough reformation; and, as in charity bound, to promote the salvation of their countrymen: wishing with St. Paul, that the whole kingdom were as they are. But what assurance will they please to give, that when their sect shall become the national established worship, they will treat Us Dissenters as we have treated them? Was this their course of proceeding during the dominion of the saints? Were not all the remainders of the Episcopal Church in those days, especially the clergy, under a persecution for above a dozen years, equal to that of the primitive Christians under heathen emperors? That this proceeding was suitable to their principles, is known enough; for many of their preachers then writ books expressly against allowing any liberty of conscience, in a religion different from their own; producing many arguments to prove that opinion; and among the rest one frequently insisted on; that allowing such a liberty would be to establish iniquity by a law: Many of these writings are yet to be seen;[14] and I hear, have been quoted by the doctor above mentioned.

[Footnote 13: Dr. Tisdal, in a tract entitled, "The Case of the Sacramental Test stated and argued." Tisdal died 4th June, 1736. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: See many hundred quotations to prove this, in the treatise called "Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence." [Note in Faulkner's edition, 1738.]]

As to their great objection of prostituting that holy institution, the blessed Sacrament, by way of a test before admittance into any employment; I ask, whether they would not be content to receive it after their own manner, for the office of a judge, for that of a commissioner in the revenue, for a regiment of horse, or to be a lord justice? I believe they would scruple it as little, as a long grace before and after dinner; which they can say without bending a knee; for, as I have been told, their manner of taking bread and wine in their conventicles, is performed with little more solemnity than at their common meals. And, therefore, since they look upon our practice in receiving the elements, to be idolatrous; they neither can, nor ought, in conscience, to allow us that liberty, otherwise than by connivance, and a bare toleration, like what is permitted to the Papists. But, lest we should offend them, I am ready to change this test for another; although, I am afraid, that sanctified reason is, by no means, the point where the difficulty pinches; and only offered by pretended churchmen, as if they could be content with our believing, that the impiety and profanation of making the Sacrament a test, were the only objection. I therefore propose, that before the present law be repealed, another may be enacted; that no man shall receive any employment, before he swears himself to be a true member of the Church of Ireland, in doctrine and discipline, &c., and, that he will never frequent, or communicate with any other form of worship. It shall likewise be further enacted, that whoever offends, &c., shall be fined five hundred pounds, imprisoned for a year and a day, and rendered incapable of all public trust for ever. Otherwise, I do insist that those pious, indulgent, external professors of our national religion, shall either give up that fallacious hypocritical reason for taking off the Test; or freely confess, that they desire to have a gate wide open for every sect, without any test at all, except that of swearing loyalty to the King: Which, however, considering their principles, with regard to monarchy yet unrenounced, might, if they would please to look deep enough into their own hearts, prove a more bitter test than any other that the law hath yet invented.

For, from the first time that these sectaries appeared in the world, it hath been always found, by their whole proceeding, that they professed an utter hatred to kingly government. I can recollect, at present, three civil establishments, where Calvinists, and some other reformers who rejected Episcopacy, possess the supreme power; and, these are all republics; I mean Holland, Geneva, and the reformed Swiss cantons. I do not say this in diminution, or disgrace to commonwealths; wherein, I confess, I have much altered many opinions under which I was educated, having been led by some observation, long experience, and a thorough detestation for the corruptions of mankind: Insomuch, that I am now justly liable to the censure of Hobbes, who complains, that the youth of England imbibe ill opinions, from reading the histories of Ancient Greece and Rome, those renowned scenes of liberty and every virtue.

But, as to monarchs; who must be supposed well to study and understand their own interest; they will best consider, whether those people, who in all their actions, preachings, and writings, have openly declared themselves against regal power, are to be safely placed in an equal degree of favour and trust with those who have been always found the true and only friends to the English establishment. From which consideration, I could have added one more article to my new test, if I had thought it worth my time.

I have been assured by some persons who were present, that several of these dissenting teachers, upon their first arrival hither to solicit the repeal of the Test, were pleased to express their gratitude, by publicly drinking the healths of certain eminent patrons, whom they pretend to have found among us; if this be true, and that the Test must be delivered up by the very commanders appointed to defend it, the affair is already, in effect, at an end. What secret reasons those patrons may have given for such a return of brotherly love, I shall not inquire: "For, O my soul come not thou into their secret, unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united. For in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel."

***** ***** ***** ***** *****



A NARRATIVE

OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF

IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE

SACRAMENTAL TEST.

NOTE.

This tract occupies Nos. iii. and iv. of a periodical paper called "The Correspondent," originally printed at Dublin "by James Hoey in Skinner-Row, 1733." The text here given is that of the original "Correspondent"; that given by Scott and Nichols is evidently taken from the London reprint. It will be seen that the matter as it was originally printed contains much more than was afterwards reprinted. I have indicated in footnotes where Scott's omissions occur. The title of the periodical runs: "The Correspondent, No. iii. [No. iv.] Humbly inscribed to the Conforming Nobility and Gentry of Ireland." Nos. i. and ii. dealt with "Old and New Light Presbyterians"; but these are not by Swift. In Nichols's edition this pamphlet appears in the second volume of the "Supplement to Dr. Swift's Works," 1779, p. 307. See note to the previous pamphlet, where the question of the date of the first publication of this tract is discussed. It may be, as Monck Mason suggests ("History of St. Patrick's," p. 389, note h), that a separate and second edition of this "Narrative" was likewise printed, of the same size as "The Presbyterians' Plea," and bound up, occasionally with that pamphlet; but such an edition I have never seen. The only reprint of the time examined, is that by A. Dodd, of Temple Bar, affixed to the second London edition of "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit," and the date of which may be put down to 1734.

[T.S.]

A NARRATIVE OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

My intention is in this and some following "Correspondents," to vindicate the Test Act, from the insolent aspersions which are thrown upon it, and to answer objections, which are raised against it, particularly by an anonymous author, in a paper entitled, "The Nature and Consequence of the Sacramental Test considered," &c., printed anno 1731, upon the opening of the last session of parliament, and now republished.

As a proper introduction to this, I must take leave to put the conformists in mind, of what (upon recollection) they may very well remember, and which in some measure they have been formerly apprised of, and that is in[1] a narrative of the several attempts, which the Dissenters of Ireland have made, for a repeal of the Sacramental Test.

When the oath of supremacy was repealed which had been the Church's great security since the second of Queen Elizabeth, against both Papists and Presbyterians, who equally refused it, I presume it is no secret now to tell the reader, that the repeal of that oath opened a sluice and let in such a current of dissenters into some of our corporations, as bore down all before them.

[Footnote 1: From the beginning of this paragraph to the word "in" is omitted in the editions issued by Scott and Nichols. The words "A Narrative... Sacramental Test" are used by Scott as part of the sub-title of the tract; but he adds the date, 1731. This is a mistake, since "The Correspondent" appeared in 1733; and if it did appear in the second edition of "The Plea," that edition was published either in the same or in the following year. [T.S.]]

Although the Sacramental Test had been for a considerable time in force in England, yet that law did not reach Ireland, where the Church was more oppressed by dissenters; and where her most sanguine friends were glad to compound, to preserve what legal security she had left, rather than to attempt any new, or even to recover what she had lost: And in truth they had no reason to expect it, at a time when the dissenters had the interest to have a motion made and debated in parliament, that there might be a temporary repeal of all the penal laws against them, and when they were so flushed with the conquest they had made in some corporations, as to reject all overtures of a toleration; and to that end, had employed Mr. Boyse[2] to write against it with the utmost contempt, calling it "a stone instead of bread; a serpent instead of a fish."

[Footnote 2: In his note Scott calls him "Samuel" Boyse, but he is distinctly mentioned further on in the tract as "Jo: Boyse." The Rev. Joseph Boyse was a native of Leeds, who had settled in Dublin in 1683 as joint-pastor with Dr. Daniel Williams. He died in poverty in 1728; and in the same year his works were published in two folio volumes. His son, Samuel Boyse, the poet, died in 1749. [T.S.]]

When the Church was in this situation, the clause of the Sacramental Test was happily sent over from England, tacked to the Popery Bill, which alarmed the whole body of the dissenters to that degree, that their managers began to ply with the greatest artifice, and industry, to prevent its passing into a law. But (to the honour of that parliament be it spoken), the whole body of both Lords and Commons (some few excepted) passed the clause with great readiness, and defended it afterwards with as great resolution.

The immediate consequence of this law was the recovery of several corporations, which the conformists had given to the dissenters, and the preservation of others, to which the "enterprising people" had made very bold and quick approaches.

It was hoped that this signal defeat would have discouraged the dissenters from any further attempts against a law, which had so unanimously passed both houses: But the contrary soon appeared. For, upon meeting of the Parliament, held by the Earl of Pembroke,[3] they quickly reassumed their wonted courage and confidence, and made no doubt, but they should either procure an absolute repeal thereof, or get it so far relaxed, as that they might be admitted to offices of military trust: To this, they apprehended themselves encouraged by a paragraph in his Excellency's speech to both Houses (which they applied to themselves) which was, "That the Queen would be glad of any expedient, for strengthening the interests of her Protestant subjects of Ireland."

[Footnote 3: It will be remembered that the earl's viceroyalty commenced April 7th, 1707. It was in his train that Swift came to England in that year.[T.S.]]

The advocates for the dissenters immediately took hold of this handle, and in order to prepare the way for this expedient, insisted boldly upon their merit and loyalty, charged the Church with persecution, and extolled their signal behaviour in the late Revolution, to that degree, as if by their signal prowess, they had saved the nation.

But all this, was only to prepare the way for the grand engine, which was forming to beat down this law; and that was their expedient addresses.

The first of this kind was, from a provincial synod of the northern dissenters, beginning with high encomiums upon themselves, and as high demands from the public, "for their untainted loyalty in all turns of government," which they said, was "the natural consequence of their known principles"; expressions, which, had they been applied to them by their adversaries, must have been understood as spoken ironically, and indeed to have been the greatest sarcasm imaginable upon them; especially, when we consider the insolent treatment given to her Majesty in the very same address; for immediately after they pass this compliment upon themselves, they tell her Majesty, they deeply regret the Sacramental Test; and frankly declared, that neither the gentlemen, nor people of their persuasion, could (they must mean would) serve her, whatever exigencies might arise, unless that law was repealed.

The managers for the kirk, following this precedent, endeavoured to obtain addresses to the same purpose from the corporations, and though they proved unsuccessful in most, they procured them from several of our most considerable conforming corporations; and that too at a critical juncture, when numbers of Scotch Presbyterians, who had deserved well in the affair of the Union, and could not be rewarded in England (where the Test Act was in force) stood ready to overrun our preferments as soon as the Test should be repealed in Ireland.

But after all when it came to a decisive trial in the House of Commons, the dissenters were defeated.

When the managers found the House of Commons could not be brought into that scheme of an expedient, to be offered by them; their refinement upon this, was, to move for an address, "That the House would accept of an expedient from her Majesty," but this also was rejected; for by this project, the managers would have led the Queen into this dilemma, either to disoblige the whole body of the dissenters, by refusing to name the expedient, or else to give up the conformists to the insults and encroachments of the dissenters, by the repeal of that law, which was declared by the House of Lords, to be the great security of the Established Church, and of the English interest of Ireland.

The next attempt they made against the Test was during the government of Lord Wharton.[4]

[Footnote 4: Wharton was appointed Lord Lieutenant on November 25th, 1708. This Wharton is the Thomas, Lord Wharton, against whom Swift wrote one of his bitterest and most personal attacks. He was the eldest son of Philip, Lord Wharton, and was created a marquis by George I. He died April 12th, 1715. The ballad of "Lillibullero" is attributed to him. [T.S.]]

The dissenters seemed more resolute now than ever, to have the Test repealed, especially when his Excellency had declared from the throne, "that they were neither to be persecuted nor molested." For they who had all along called the Test Act a persecution, might reasonably conclude that grievance would be removed; when they were told by the chief governor, that they were not to be even "molested." But to their great confusion, they were soon undeceived, when they found upon trial, that the House of Commons, would not bear the least motion towards it.

Their movements to repeal the Test Act being stopped this way; the managers were obliged to take several other ways to come at it: And at the time, that some pretended to soothe, others seemed to threaten even the legislature, with a view, (as must be presumed) that those, whom they could not cajole, might be frightened into it.[5]

[Footnote 5: Scott omits the words from "with a view" to the end of the paragraph. [T.S.]]

There happened about the time, when the project of the expedient was on foot, an excellent occasion, to express their resentments against this law, and that was, when great numbers of them refused the oath of allegiance, and to oppose the Pretender; insisting upon a repeal of the Test Act, as the condition of their arming in defence of their Queen and country.

The government was not reduced to such straits, as to submit to that condition; and the Test stood firm, in spite of both the dissenters and the Pretender, until the latter was driven from our coasts: And then, one would have thought the hopes of the former, would have vanished with him.

But it proved quite contrary: For those sons of the earth, rebounding with fresh vigour from their falls, recovered new strength and spirit from every defeat, and the next attempt was bolder (considering the circumstances they were in) than any they had made before.

The case was this: The House of Lords of Ireland had accused them to the Queen of several illegal practices, which highly concerned the safety of our constitution, both in church and state: The particulars of which charge, were summed up in a representation from the Lords to this effect:

"That they (the dissenters) had opposed and persecuted the conformists, in those parts where their power prevailed, had invaded their congregations, propagated their schism in places where it had not the least footing formerly; that they were protected from a legal prosecution by a noli prosequi in the case of Drogheda."

"That they refused to take conforming apprentices, and confined trade among themselves, exclusive of the conformists."

"That in their illegal assemblies they had prosecuted and censured their people for being married according to law."

"That they have thrown public and scandalous reflections upon the Episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the Sacramental Test, and had misapplied the royal bounty of L1,200 per annum, in propagating their schism, and undermining the Church: And had exercised an illegal jurisdiction in their Presbyteries and Synods," &c.

To this representation of the Lords, the dissenters remonstrate in an address to the Queen, or rather an appeal to their own people, in which, although it is evident, they were conscious of those crimes whereof they stood accused, as appears by the evasions they make to this high charge. Yet even under these circumstances (such was their modesty) they pressed for a repeal of the Test Act, by the modest appellation of a grievance and odious mark of infamy, &c. Of which more hereafter. There is one particular in another address which I cannot omit. The House of Lords in their representation, had accused one dissenting teacher in particular (well known to Mr. Boyse). The charge was in these words:

"Nor has the legislature itself escaped the censure of a bold author of theirs, who has published in print, that the Sacramental Test is only an engine to advance a state faction, and to debase religion, to serve base and unworthy purposes."

To this, Mr. Boyse answers, in an address to the Queen, in the year 1712, subscribed only by himself, and five more dissenting teachers, in these words.

"As to this part of their Lordships' complaint, we beg leave to lay before your Majesty the words of that author, which are these.

"'Nor can we altogether excuse those, who turn the holy Eucharist into an engine, to advance a state faction, and endeavour to confine the communion table of our Lord, by their arbitrary enclosures to a party; religion is thereby debased to serve mean and unworthy purposes.' We humbly conceive that the author in that passage, makes no mention of the legislature at all, &c., and we cannot omit on this occasion, to regret it, as the great unhappiness of this kingdom, that dissenters should now be disabled from concurring in the defence of it, in any future exigency and danger, and should have the same infamy put upon them with the Irish Papists.

"We therefore humbly hope, that your Majesty shall consider, how little real grounds there are for those complaints made by their Lordships."

What a mixture of impudence and prevarication is this! That one dissenting teacher accused to his prince of having censured the legislature, should presume, backed only by five more of the same quality and profession, to transcribe the guilty paragraph, and (to secure his meaning from all possibility of being mistaken,) annex another to it; wherein, they rail at that very law, for which he in so audacious a manner censured the Queen and Parliament, and at the same time should expect to be acquitted by her Majesty, because he had not mentioned the word "legislature": 'Tis true the word legislature is not expressed in that paragraph; but let Mr. Boyse[6] say, what other power but the legislature, could in this sense, "turn the holy Eucharist into an engine to advance a state faction, or confine offices of trust, or the communion table of our Lord, by their arbitrary enclosures, to a party." It is plain he can from his principles intend no others, but the legislators of the Sacramental Test; though at the same time I freely own, that this is a vile description of them: For neither have they by this law, made the Sacramental Test an engine to advance, but rather to depress a state faction, nor have they made any arbitrary enclosures, of the communion table of our Lord, since as many as please, may receive the Sacrament with us in our churches; and those who will not, may freely, as before, receive it in their separate congregations: Nor in the last place, is religion hereby debased, to serve mean and unworthy purposes; nor is it any more than all lawgivers do, by enjoining an oath of allegiance, and making that a religious test. For an oath is an act of religious worship as well as the Eucharist.

[Footnote 6: Scott remarks that "Mr. Boyse is here and in other places, spoken of as alive, which was the case, I presume, when the tract first appeared in 'The Correspondent.'" The tract, however, was printed in the periodical in 1733, and Boyse died in 1728. It may be that when Swift first wrote "The Narrative," Mr. Boyse was alive; in that case its date must be put down to an earlier year than either 1733 or even 1731. Or it may be that the style of so referring to Boyse was used for an argumentative effect, to appeal to any reader who was in sympathy with Boyse's opinions. [T.S.]]

Upon the whole, is not this an instance of prodigious boldness in Mr. Boyse, backed with only five dissenting teachers, thus to recriminate upon the Irish House of Lords (as they were pleased to call them in the title of their printed address,) and almost to insist with her Majesty, upon the repeal of a law, which she had stamped with her royal authority, but a few years before?

The[7] next instance, of the resolution of the dissenters, against this law, was the attempt made during the government of the Duke of Shrewsbury.[8]

[Footnote 7: From this paragraph to the end is taken from "The Correspondent," No. iv. The text as given by Scott is considerably altered from that which appeared in the periodical. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: From September, 1713, until the Queen's death in 1714. [T.S.]]

This attack was by the whole compacted body, of their teachers and elders, with a formidable engine, called a "representation of grievances," in which, after they had reviled the Test Act, with the same odious appellations, and insisted upon the same insolent arguments, for the repeal thereof, which they had formerly urged to the Queen: They expressed themselves to his Grace in these words:

"We beg leave to say, that those persons must be inexcusable, and chargeable, with all the bad consequences that may follow, who in such a kingdom as this, disable, disgrace, and divide Protestants; a thing that ought not to be done at any time, or in any place, much less than in this," &c.

Is it possible to conceive any thing more provoking than this humble supplication of these remonstrators? Does not this sound like a demand of the repeal of the Test, at the peril of those, who dare refuse it? Is it not an application with a hat in one hand, and a sword in the other, and that too, in the style of a King of Ulster, to a King of Connaught, —"Repeal the Test, or if you don't........."

But to proceed in this narrative: Notwithstanding the defeat of the dissenters in England, in their late attempt against the Test, their brethren in Ireland, are so far from being discouraged, that they seem now to conceive greater hopes of having it repealed here, than ever.[9] What grounds they have for these hopes, was a secret to us, and I presume, to themselves; however private whispers begin now to grow into general rumours, and their managers proceed with great art and assiduity, from feeling of pulses, to telling of noses.

[Footnote 9: From this word to the end of this paragraph is omitted by Scott.[T.S.]]

In order to prepare necessaries, and furnish topics for this attempt, there was a paper printed upon the opening of last session, and now republished; entitled, "The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test considered, with reasons humbly offered for the Repeal thereof."[10]

[Footnote 10: This pamphlet was reprinted in London in 1732. See note prefixed to "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" [T.S.]]

It is not my intention, to follow this author, through all the mazes and windings of his reasoning upon this subject, which (in truth) seem such incoherent shreds, that it is impossible to tie them together; and therefore, what I purpose is, to answer such objections to the Test, as are advanced either by this author, or any other which have any appearance of reason, or plausibility.

I know it is not prudent to despise an adversary, nor fair to prepossess readers, before I show this bold and insolent writer, in his proper figure and dress; and therefore, however I may take him to be a feeble advocate for the repeal of the Test, in point of reasoning, yet I freely allow him to be a most resolute champion in point of courage, who has, with such intrepidity, attacked, not only the first enactors of this law, but all such, who shall continue it, by giving their negatives to a repeal. I will in this "Correspondent" only transcribe a few quotations from this author, to shew the gallantry of this aggressor.

Page the 19th[11] he says: "the truth is the imposition of the Test, and continuing it in such a state of the kingdom, appears (at first sight,) so great an absurdity in politics, as can never be accounted for."

[Footnote 11: Page 23 in edition London, 1732. [T.S.]]

Who are these absurd politicians? Who first passed, and secondly continue the Sacramental Test, in all the preceding attempts of the Dissenters to repeal it? Are they not the majority of both Houses of Parliament?[12]

[Footnote 12: Omitted by Scott in his edition, 1824. [T.S.]]

But to strengthen his reflections, page 26,[13] he gives the whole legislature to understand, that continuing the Test, does not become the wisdom, and justice of the legislature, under the pretence of its being for the advantage of the state, when it is really prejudicial to it; and further tells us, it infringes on the indisputable rights of the dissenters.

[Footnote 13: Pp. 32-33 in London reprint. Scott places passages here in quotation marks, the original in "The Correspondent" has no such marks, nor are the passages quoted verbatim from the pamphlet referred to.[T.S.]]

Page, the 57th,[14] he says, "The gentlemen of the House of Commons, who framed the bill, to prevent the farther growth of Popery, instead of approving the Test clause which was inserted, publicly declared their dislike to it, and their resolution to take the first opportunity of repealing it, though at that time they unwillingly passed it, rather than lose a bill they were so fond of. This resolution has not been as yet fulfilled, for what reasons, our worthy patriots themselves know best."

[Footnote 14: P. 71 in London reprint [T.S.]]

I should be glad this author would inform us, who, and how many of those members joined in this resolution, to repeal the Test; or where that resolution is to be found, which he mentions twice in the same paragraph; surely not in the books of the House of Commons!

If not, suppose some few gentlemen in the House of Commons, and to be sure very few they were, who publicly declared their dislike to it, or entered into any resolution; this, I think, he should have explained, and not insinuated so gross a reflection on a great majority of the House of Commons, who first passed this law, and have ever since opposed all attempts to repeal it; these are the gentleman whom, in sarcasm and irony, he is pleased to call the "worthy," that is, the unworthy patriots themselves.

But to mention no more, he concludes his notable piece, with these remarkable words, pages 62-63.[15]

[Footnote 15: P. 79 of London reprint. [T.S.]]

"Thus it appears, with regard to the Protestant succession, which has now happily taken place, how reasonable it is to repeal the Sacramental Test, and that granting that favour to the Dissenters," which, by the way, cannot be granted but by parliament; "can be disagreeable to none, who have a just sense of the many blessings we enjoy, by the Protestant succession, in his Majesty's royal family."

I will not trouble the reader with any more quotations, to the same purpose, out of this libel, for so I must now call it, but take leave to make some general observations on those paragraphs I have mentioned.

[Footnote: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

I conceive, it will be readily allowed, that in all applications, either from any body of men, or from any particular subject to the legislature, or any branch thereof, we are to take the highest encomiums as purely complimental; if there be the least insinuation of disrespect or reflection therein, in such cases I say, you are to take the compliments in the lowest sense, but all the reflections in the highest sense the expressions can bear; inasmuch as, the first may be presumed matter of form, the latter must be matter of resentment.

[Footnote: This paragraph is much curtailed by Scott, who combines it with the next paragraph of the present text. [T.S.]]

Now, if we apply this observation, to what this bold adventurer has said, with respect to the legislators, of the Sacramental Test; Does he not directly and plainly charge them with injustice, imprudence, gross absurdity and Jacobitism? Let the most prejudiced reader that is not pre-determined against conviction, say, whether this libeller of the parliament, has not drawn up a high charge against the makers and continuers of this law.

It is readily allowed, that this has been the old style of these champions, who have attacked the Test, as in the instances before mentioned, with this difference, that he descends lower in his charge, and has been more particular than any of his brethren.

[Footnote: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

Notwithstanding my resentment, which to be sure, he does not value, I would be sorry he should bring upon himself the resentment of those he has been so free with, and I cannot help advising him, to take all possible care, and use all effectual means, to conjure the printer, corrector, and publisher of this libel to secrecy; that however the author may be suspected, he may not be discovered. Upon the whole, is not this author, justly to be reputed a defamer, till he produces instances wherein the conforming nobility and gentry of Ireland, have shown their disaffection to the succession of the illustrious House of Hanover?

Did they ever refuse the oath of abjuration, or support any conforming nonjuring teachers in their congregations? Did ever any conforming gentlemen, or common people, refuse to be arrayed, when the militia was raised, upon the invasion of the Pretender? Did any of them ever shew the least reluctance, or make any exception against their officers, whether they were Dissenters or Churchmen?

It may be said, that from these insinuations, I would have it understood, that the dissenters encouraged some of their teachers, who refused the oath of abjuration; and that even in the article of danger, when the Pretender made his attempt in Scotland, our northern Presbyterians shewed great reluctance in taking arms, upon the array of militia.

I freely own it is my intention; and I must affirm both facts to be true, however they have the assurance to deny it.

What can be more notorious, than the protection, countenance, and support, which was continued to Riddall, McBride, and McCrackan,[16] who absolutely refused the oath of abjuration; and yet were continued to teach in their congregations, after they returned from Scotland, when a prosecution was directed, and a council in criminal causes, was sent down to the county of Antrim to prosecute them.

[Footnote 16: Riddall, McBride, and McCrackan were three Presbyterian clergymen who refused to take the oath of abjuring the Pretender. Of Riddall and McCrackan little is known; but John McBride (1651?-1718) (according to the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography") was born in Ulster, and graduated at Glasgow. He was a strong advocate of the Hanoverian succession, but avoided the oath of abjuration, in 1703, by retiring to Glasgow. He returned to Belfast in 1713, and died there. His humorous excuse for non-abjuration is recorded by the writer of the article in the Dictionary, and is worth repeating: "Once upon a time there was a bearn, that cou'd not be persuaded to bann the de'el because he did not know but he might soon come into his clutches." [T.S.]]

With respect to the parliament; did ever any House of Commons shew greater alacrity in raising money, and equipping ships, in defence of the King, than the last House did upon the expected invasion of the Pretender? And did ever any parliament give money with greater unanimity, for the support of the Crown, than the present has done, whatever the wants of their private families might be? And must a very great majority of those persons, be branded with the infamous aspersion of disaffection to the illustrious House of Hanover, should they refuse to give their voices for the repeal of the Test?

I am fully persuaded that this author, and his fellow-labourers, do not believe one word of this heavy charge; but their present circumstances are such, that they must run all hazards.

In many places their congregations are sub-divided, and have chosen an Old and New Light teacher, and consequently those stipends must support two, which were enjoyed by one before.[17]

[Footnote 17: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

A great number of the nonconforming gentlemen daily leave them, though they have not made any convert to their persuasion, among the conforming gentlemen of fortune; many who were nonconformists themselves, and many men whose parents were elders, or rigid nonconformists, are now constant communicants, and justices of peace in their several counties; insomuch, that it is highly probable, should the Test continue twenty years longer, there would not be a gentleman left to solicit a repeal.

I shall hereafter take occasion to shew, how inconsiderable they are, for their numbers and fortunes, who can be served or obliged by this repeal, which number is daily lessening.

The dissenting teachers are sufficiently aware, that the general conformity of the gentlemen, will be followed, by the conformity of numbers of the people; and should it not be so, that they will be but poorly supported by them; that by the continuance of the Test, "their craft will be in danger to be set at nought," and in all probability, will end in a general conformity of the Presbyterians to the Established Church.

So that, they have the strongest reasons in the world, to press for the repeal of the Test; but those reasons, must have equal force for the continuance of it, with all that wish the peace of the Church and State, and would not have us torn in pieces, with endless and causeless divisions.

There is one short passage more, I had like to have omitted, which our author leaves as a sting in the tail of his libel; his words are these, page 59th.[18]

[Footnote 18: P. 74 in London reprint. [T.S.]]

"The truth is, no one party of a religious denomination, in Britain or Ireland, were so united, as they, (the dissenters) indeed, no one, but they, in an inviolable attachment to the Protestant succession." To detect the folly of this assertion, I subjoin the following letter from a person of known integrity, and inviolably attached to the Protestant succession, as any dissenter in the kingdom, I mean Mr. Warreng of Warrengstown, then a member of parliament, and commissioner of array, in the county of Down, upon the expected invasion of the Pretender.

This letter was writ in a short time after the array, of the militia, for the truth of which I refer to Mr. Warreng himself.

"Sir,

"That I may fulfil your desire, by giving you an account, how the dissenters in my neighbourhood behaved themselves, when we were threatened with an invasion of the Pretender. Be pleased to know, that upon an alarm given of his being landed near Derry, none were more zealous and ready in setting watch and keeping guard, than they, to prevent such disorders, as might happen at that time, by ill-designing persons, passing through, and disturbing the peace of the country.

"But when the government thought fit, to have the kingdom arrayed, and sent commissioners into these parts, some time after it appeared, that the dissenters had, by that time, been otherwise instructed, for several who were so forward before, behaved themselves after a very different manner, some refusing, and others with reluctancy, appearing upon the array, to be enlisted, and serve in the militia.

"This behaviour surprised me so much, that I took occasion to discourse several of them, over whom, I thought I had as much influence, as any other person, and found them upon the common argument, of having their hands tied up by a late act of parliament, &c. Whereupon I took some pains to shew the act to them, and wherein they were mistaken. I further pressed their concurrence with us, in procuring the common peace and security of our country, and though they seemed convinced by what I said, yet I was given to understand, their behaviour was according to the sentiments of some persons, whom they thought themselves obliged to observe, or be directed by, &c."

***** ***** ***** ***** *****



QUAERIES

WROTE BY

DR. J. SWIFT, IN THE YEAR 1732.

[RELATING TO THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.]

Very proper to be read (at this Time) by every Member of the Established Church.

NOTE.

The text of this tract is based on that of the original broadside, collated with those given by Faulkner and Scott. In 1733 was also published a broadside with the title: "Queries upon the Demand of the Presbyterians to have the Sacramental Test repealed at this Session of Parliament." These queries seem to be based on those by Swift, though they are not quite the same.

[T.S.]

QUAERIES WROTE BY DR. J. SWIFT, IN THE YEAR 1732.

QUERY.

Whether hatred and violence between parties in a state be not more inflamed by different views of interest, than by the greater or lesser differences between them, either in religion or government?

Whether it be any part of the question, at this time, which of the two religions is worse, Popery, or Fanaticism; or not rather, which of the two, (having both the same good will) is in the hopefullest condition to ruin the Church?

Whether the sectaries, whenever they come to prevail, will not ruin the Church as infallibly and effectually as the Papists?

Whether the prevailing sectaries could allow liberty of conscience to Dissenters, without belying all their former practice, and almost all their former writings?

Whether many hundred thousand Scotch Presbyterians, are not full as virulent against the Episcopal Church, as they are against the Papists; or, as they would have us think, the Papists are against them?

Whether the Dutch, who are most distinguished for allowing liberty of conscience, do ever admit any persons, who profess a different scheme of worship from their own, into civil employments; although they may be forced by the nature of their government, to receive mercenary troops of all religions?

Whether the Dissenters ever pretended, until of late years, to desire more than a bare toleration?

Whether, if it be true, what a sorry pamphleteer asserts, who lately writ for repealing the Test, that the Dissenters in this kingdom are equally numerous with the Churchmen: It would not be a necessary point of prudence, by all proper and lawful means to prevent their further increase?

The great argument given by those whom they call Low Church men, to justify the large tolerations allowed to Dissenters, hath been; that by such indulgencies, the rancour of those sectaries would gradually wear off, many of them would come over to us, and their parties, in a little time, crumble to nothing.

QUERY.

If what the above pamphleteer asserts, that the sectaries, are in equal numbers with conformists, it doth not clearly follow, that those repeated tolerations, have operated directly contrary to what those Low Church politicians pretended to foresee and expect.

Whether any clergyman, however dignified or distinguished, if he think his own profession most agreeable to Holy Scriptures, and the primitive Church, can really wish in his heart, that all sectaries should be upon an equal foot with the Churchmen, in the point of civil power and employments?

Whether Episcopacy, which is held by the Church to be a divine and apostolic institution, be not a fundamental point of religion, particularly in that essential one of conferring holy orders?

Whether, by necessary consequences, the several expedients among the sectaries to constitute their teachers, are not absolutely null and void?

Whether the sectaries will ever agree to accept ordination only from bishops?

Whether the bishops and clergy will be content to give up Episcopacy, as a point indifferent, without which the Church can well subsist?

Whether that great tenderness towards sectaries, which now so much prevails, be chiefly owing to the fears of Popery, or to that spirit of atheism, deism, scepticism, and universal immorality, which all good men so much lament?

Granting Popery to have many more errors in religion than any one branch of the sectaries; let us examine the actions of both, as they have each affected the peace of these kingdoms, with allowance for the short time which the sectaries had to act in, who are in a manner but of yesterday. The Papists in the time of King James II. used all endeavours to establish their superstition; wherein they failed, by the united power of English Church protestants, with the Prince of Orange's assistance. But it cannot be asserted, that these bigotted Papists had the least design to depose or murder their King, much less to abolish kingly government; nor was it their interest or inclination to attempt either.

On the other side the Puritans, who had almost from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, been a perpetual thorn in the Church's side, joining with the Scotch enthusiasts, in the time of King Charles the First, were the principal cause of the Irish rebellion and massacre, by distressing that Prince, and making it impossible for him to send over timely succours. And, after that pious Prince had satisfied his Parliament in every single point to be complained of; the same sectaries by poisoning the minds and affections of the people, with the most false and wicked representations of their King, were able, in the compass of a few years, to embroil the three nations in a bloody rebellion, at the expense of many thousand lives; to turn the kingly power into anarchy; or murder their Prince in the face of the world, and (in their own style) to destroy the Church root and branch.

The account therefore stands thus. The Papists aimed at one pernicious act, which was to destroy the Protestant religion; wherein, by God's mercy, and the assistance of our glorious King William, they absolutely failed. The sectaries attempted the three most infernal actions, that could possibly enter into the hearts of men, forsaken by God; which were, the murder of a most pious King, the destruction of our monarchy, and the extirpation of the Church; and succeeded in them all.

Upon which, I put the following queries. Whether any of those sectaries have ever yet in a solemn public manner, renounced any one of those principles upon which their predecessors then acted?

Whether, considering the cruel persecutions of the Episcopal Church, during the course of that horrid rebellion and the consequences of it, until the happy Restoration; is it not manifest, that the persecuting spirit lieth so equally divided between the Papists and the sectaries, that a feather would turn the balance on either side?

And, therefore, lastly, Whether any person of common understanding, who professeth himself a member of the Church established, although, perhaps, with little inward regard to any religion (which is too often the case) if he loveth the peace and welfare of his country; can, after cool thinking, rejoice to see a power placed again in the hands of so restless, so ambitious, and so merciless a faction, to act over all the same parts a second time?

Whether the candour of that expression, so frequent of late in sermons and pamphlets, of the "strength and number of the Papists in Ireland," can be justified? For as to their number, however great, it is always magnified in proportion to the zeal, or politics, of the speaker and writer; but it is a gross imposition upon common reason, to terrify us with their strength. For Popery, under the circumstances it lieth in this kingdom; although it be offensive, and inconvenient enough, from the consequences it hath to increase the rapine, sloth and ignorance, as well as poverty of the natives; is not properly dangerous in that sense, as some would have us take it; because it is universally hated by every party of a different religious profession. It is the contempt of the wise: The best topic for clamours of designing men: But the real terror only of fools. The landed Popish interest in England, far exceedeth that among us, even in proportion to the wealth and extent of each kingdom. The little that remaineth here, is daily dropping into Protestant hands, by purchase or descent; and that affected complaint of counterfeit converts, will fall with the cause of it in half a generation; unless it be raised or kept alive, as a continual fund of merit and eloquence. The Papists are wholly disarmed. They have neither courage, leaders, money, or inclinations to rebel. They want every advantage which they formerly possessed, to follow that trade; and wherein, even with those advantages, they always miscarried. They appear very easy, and satisfied under that 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 towards 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 further removed from the dangers of Popery, by twenty leagues of salt water: But this, I fear, is a digression.

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 standeth, 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,[1] 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 an 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.

[Footnote 1: See note, p. 40, referring to the poem:

"The Grunters' request To take off the Test." [T.S.]]

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 invasions, 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 said Act; if the preacher shall commend, excuse, palliate, or extenuate the murder of that royal Martyr; and lay 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 even 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.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****



THE ADVANTAGES

PROPOSED BY REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL

TEST,

IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED.

BY THE REV. DR. SWIFT, DEAN OF ST. PATRICK'S,

Dublin, Printed; London, Re-printed for J. Roberts at the Oxford Arms in Warwick Lane. 1732. (Price Six-pence.)

NOTE.

The text here given is that of the London reprint of the original edition, which has been collated with that given by Faulkner (vol. iv., 1735). In 1790 the tract was reprinted by J. Walters, and it is evidently from this reprint that Scott obtained his text; for the two agree in almost every particular.

[T.S.]

THE ADVANTAGES PROPOSED BY REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST, IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED.

Whoever writes impartially upon this subject, must do it not only as a mere secular man, but as one who is altogether indifferent to any particular system of Christianity. And, I think, in whatever country that religion predominates, there is one certain form of worship and ceremony, which is looked upon as the established, and consequently only the priests of that particular form, are maintained at the public charge, and all civil employments are bestowed among those who comply (at least outwardly) with the same establishment.

This method is strictly observed, even by our neighbours the Dutch, who are confessed to allow the fullest liberty to conscience of any Christian state; and yet are never known to admit any persons into religious or civil offices, who do not conform to the legal worship. As to their military men, they are indeed not so scrupulous, being, by the nature of their government, under a necessity of hiring foreign troops of whatever religious denomination, upon every great emergency, and maintaining no small number in time of peace.

This caution therefore of making one established faith, seems to be universal, and founded upon the strongest reasons; the mistaken, or affected zeal of obstinacy, and enthusiasm, having produced such a number of horrible, destructive events, throughout all Christendom. For, whoever begins to think the national worship is wrong, in any important article of practice or belief, will, if he be serious, naturally have a zeal to make as many proselytes as he can, and a nation may possibly have an hundred different sects with their leaders; every one of which hath an equal right to plead; they must "obey God rather than man," must "cry aloud and spare not," must "lift up their voice like a trumpet"

This was the very case of England, during the fanatic times. And against all this, there seems to be no defence, but that of supporting one established form of doctrine and discipline; leaving the rest to a bare liberty of conscience, but without any maintenance or encouragement from the public.

Wherever this national religion grows so corrupt, or is thought to do so by a very great majority of learned[1] people, joined to the governing party, whether prince or senate, or both, it ought to be changed, provided the work might be done without blood or tumults.[2] Yet, whenever such a change shall be made, some other establishment must succeed (although for the worse), allowing all deviations that would break the union to be only tolerated. In this sense, those who affirm, that every law, which is contrary to the law of God, is void in itself, seem to be mistaken. For, many laws in Popish kingdoms and states, many more among the Turks, and perhaps not a few in other countries, are directly against the divine laws; and yet, God knows, are very far from being void in the executive parts.

[Footnote 1: Scott has "landed." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Scott has "confusion." [T.S.]]

Thus, for instance, if the three estates of Parliament in England (whereof the lords spiritual[3] are one) should agree, and obtain the royal assent to abolish Episcopacy, together with the liturgy, and the whole frame of the English church, as "burthensome, dangerous, and contrary to Holy Scripture"; and that Presbytery, Anabaptism, Quakerism, Independency,[4] or any other subdivided sect among us, should be established in its place; without question, all peaceable subjects ought passively to submit, and the predominant sect must become the religion established, the public maintaining no other teachers, nor admitting any persons of a different religious profession, into civil offices; at least, if their intention be to preserve the nation in peace.

[Footnote 3: Scott inserts here the words: "who represent the Church." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Scott inserts here "Muggletonianism, Brownism, Familism." [T.S.]]

Supposing then, that the present system of religion were abolished; and Presbytery, which stands much the fairest, with its synods and classes, and all its forms and ceremonies, essential or circumstantial, were erected into the national worship: Their teachers, and no others, could have any legal claim to be supported at the public charge, whether by stipends or tithes; and only the rest of the same faith to be capable of civil employments.

If there be any true reasoning in what I have laid down, it should seem, that the project now in agitation for repealing the Test Act, and yet leaving the name of an establishment to the present national church, is altogether inconsistent, and may admit of consequences, which those, who are the most indifferent to any religion at all, are possibly not aware of.

I presume, whenever the Test shall be repealed, which obliges all men, who enter into office under the Crown, to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, the way to employments will immediately be left open to all dissenters, (except Papists) whose consciences can suffer them to take the common oaths in such cases prescribed, after which they are qualified to fill any lay station in this kingdom, from that of chief governor, to an exciseman.

Thus of the three judges on each bench, the first may be a Presbyterian, the second a Free-will Baptist, and the third a Churchman; the Lord Chancellor may be an Independent; the revenues may be managed by seven commissioners of as many different sects; and the like of all other employments. Not to mention the strong probability, that the lawfulness of taking oaths may be revealed to the Quakers, who then will stand upon as good a foot for preferment, as any other loyal subject. It is easy[5] to imagine, under such a motley administration of affairs, what a clashing there will be of interests and inclinations, what puttings and haulings backwards and forwards, what a zeal and bias in each religionist, to advance his own tribe, and depress the others. For, I suppose nothing will be readier granted, than that how indifferent soever most men are in faith and morals, yet whether out of artifice, natural complexion, or love of contradiction, none are more obstinate in maintaining their own opinions, and worrying all who differ from them, than those who publicly shew the least sense, either of religion or common honesty.

[Footnote 5: Scott has "obvious." [T.S.]]

As to the latter, Bishop Burnet tells us, that the Presbyterians, in the fanatic times, professed themselves to be above morality; which, as we find in some of their writings, was numbered among the "beggarly elements"; and accordingly at this day, no scruples of conscience with regard to conformity, are in any trade or calling, inconsistent with the greatest fraud, oppression, perjury, or any other vice.

This brings to my memory a passage in Montaigne, of a common prostitute, who, in the storming of a town, when a soldier came up to her chamber, and offered violence to her chastity, rather chose to venture her neck, by leaping out of the window, than suffer a rape; yet still continued her trade of lewdness, whilst she had any customers left.[6]

[Footnote 6: The passage referred to by Swift is to be found in the first chapter of the second book of Florio's translation of Montaigne's "Essays"—"Of the Inconstancie of our Actions." [T.S.]]

I confess, that in my private judgment, an unlimited permission of all sects whatsoever (except Papists) to enjoy employments, would be less pernicious to the public, than a fair struggle between two contenders; because in the former case, such a jumble of principles, might possibly have the effect of contrary poisons mingled together, which a strong constitution might perhaps be able for some time to survive.

But however, I shall take the other, and more probable supposition, that this battle for employments, is to be fought only between the Presbyterians, and those of the church yet established. I shall not enter into the merits of either side, by examining which of the two is the better spiritual economy, or which is most suited to the civil constitution: But the question turns upon this point: When the Presbyterians shall have got their share of employments (which, must be one full half, or else they cannot look upon themselves as fairly dealt with) I ask, whether they ought not by their own principles, and by the strictest rules of conscience, to use the utmost of their skill, power, and influence, in order to reduce the whole kingdom to an uniformity in religion, both as to doctrine and discipline, most agreeable to the word of God. Wherein, if they can succeed without blood (as, under the present disposition of things, it is very possible they may) it is to be hoped they will at last be satisfied: Only I would warn them of a few difficulties. The first is for compromising that important controversy about the Old Light and the New;[7] which otherwise may, after this establishment, split them as wide as Papist and Protestant, Whig and Tory, or Churchmen and Dissenters; and consequently the work will be to begin again. For in religious quarrels, it is of little moment how few or small the differences are, especially when the dispute is only about power. Thus the jealous Presbyterians of the north, are more alienated from the established clergy, than from the Romish priests; taxing the former with idolatrous worship, as disguised Papists, ceremony-mongers, and many other terms of arts, and this for a very powerful reason, because the clergy stand in their way, which the Popish priests do not. Thus I am assured, that the quarrel between Old and New Light men, is managed with more rage and rancour, than any other dispute of the highest importance; and this because it serves to lessen or increase their several congregations, from whom they receive their contributions.

[Footnote 7: See "The Correspondent," Nos. 1 and 2, 1733, and note prefixed to present reprint of "Narrative of Several Attempts for the Repeal of the Sacramental Test" [T.S.]]

Another difficulty which may embarrass the Presbyterians after their establishment, will be how to adjust their claim of the kirk's independency on the civil power, with the constitution of this monarchy; a point so delicate, that it hath often filled the heads of great patriots with dangerous notions of the church-clergy, without the least ground of suspicion.

As to the Presbyterians allowing liberty of conscience to those of Episcopal principles, when their own kirk is predominant, their writers are so universally agreed in the negative, as well as their practice during Oliver's reign, that I believe no reasonable Churchman, (who must then be a dissenter) will expect it.

I shall here take notice, that in the division of employments among the Presbyterians, after this approaching repeal of the Test Act, supposing them, in proper time, to have an equal share, I compute the odds will be three or four to one on their side, in any further scheme they may have towards making their religion national. For I reckon, all those gentlemen sent over from England, whatever religion they profess, or have been educated in, to be of that party: Since it is no mark of prudence, for any persons to oppose the current of a nation, where they are in some sort only sojourners, unless they have it in direction.

If there be any maxim in politics, not to be controlled, it must be the following: That those whose private interest is united with the interest of their country, supposing them to be of equal understanding with the rest of their neighbours, will heartily wish, that the nation should thrive. Out of these are indubitably excepted all persons who are sent from another kingdom, to be employed in places of profit or power; because they can possibly bear no affection to the place where they sojourn, even for life; their sole business being to advance themselves, by following the advice of their principals. I except, likewise, those persons who are taken into offices, although natives of the land, because they are greater gainers while they keep their offices, than they could possibly be by mending the miserable condition of their country.

I except, Thirdly, all hopers, who, by balancing accounts with themselves, turn the scale on the same side; because the strong expectation of a good certain salary, will outweigh the loss by bad rents, received out of lands in moneyless times.

If my lords, the bishops, who, I hear, are now employed in a scheme for regulating the conduct and maintenance of the inferior clergy, shall in their wisdom and piety, and love of the church, consent to this repeal of the Test, I have not the least doubt, that the whole reverend body will cheerfully submit to their spiritual fathers, of whose paternal tenderness for their welfare, they have already found so many amazing instances.

I am not, therefore, under the least concern about the clergy on this account. They will (for some time) be no great sufferers by this repeal; because I cannot recollect among all our sects, any one that gives latitude enough to take the oaths required at an institution to a church-living; and, until that bar shall be removed, the present Episcopal clergy are safe for two years. Although it may be thought somewhat unequal, that in the northern parts, where there may be three Dissenters to one Churchman, the whole revenue should be engrossed by one who hath so small a part of the cure.

It is true, indeed, that this disadvantage, which the Dissenters at present lie under, of a disability to receive church-preferments, will be easily remedied by the repeal of the Test. For the dissenting teachers are under no incapacity of accepting civil and military employments, wherein they agree perfectly with the Popish clergy, among whom great cardinals and prelates have been commanders of armies, chief ministers, knights of many orders, ambassadors, secretaries of state, and in most high offices under the Crown, although they assert the indelible character, which no sectaries among us did ever assume. But, that many, both Presbyterians and Independents, commanders, as well as private soldiers, were professed preachers in the time of their dominion, is allowed by all. Cromwell himself was a preacher, and hath left us one of his sermons in print[8]: So was Col. Howard, Sir George Downing,[9] and several others whose names are on record. I can, therefore, see no reason why a painful Presbyterian teacher, as soon as the Test shall be repealed, may not be privileged, to hold along with his spiritual office and stipend, a commission in the army, or the civil list in commendam: For, as I take it, the Church of England is the only body of Christians, which, in effect, disqualifies those who are employed to preach its doctrine, from sharing in the civil power, further than as senators; which, however, was an institution[10] begun in times of Popery, many hundred years before the Reformation, and woven with the very institution of this limited monarchy.

[Footnote 8: Scott inserts here the words: "exactly in the same style and manner with those of our modern Presbyterian teachers." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Sir George Downing (1623?-1684) born in England, completed his education at Harvard, Mass., U.S.A. In 1650, we hear of him as scout-master general of Cromwell's army in Scotland. He wrote many of the letters in "Mercurius Politicus." Distinguished himself principally as Cromwell's ambassador in France and Holland. Through Thomas Howard, however, he obtained an opportunity while legate in Holland for the Rump Parliament, for ingratiating himself in Charles II.'s favour. This Howard was brother to the Earl of Suffolk. As a consequence of this favour, Downing was made a baronet at the Restoration; and although a man of undoubted ability, his character has come down to us by no means free from taint. Many of his despatches are quoted by Clarendon in that writer's great history. Downing also wrote: "A Reply to the Remarks of the Deputies of the States-General upon Sir G. Downing's Memorial," 1665,; and "Discourses vindicating his Royal Master from a Libel," 1672. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Scott has, instead of "which, however, was an institution," the words, "yet this was a privilege." [T.S.]]

There is indeed another method, by which the stipends of dissenting teachers may be raised, and the farmer much relieved; If it should be thought proper to reward a people so deserving, and so loyal by their principles. Every bishop, upon the vacancy of a church-living, can sequester the profits for the use of the next incumbent. Upon a lapse of half a year, the donation falls to the archbishop, and after a full year to the Crown, during pleasure; therefore it would be no hardship for any clergyman alive, if, in those parts of Ireland, where the number of sectaries much exceed that of the conformists, the profits, when sequestered, might be applied to the support of the dissenting teacher, who hath so many souls to take care of, whereby the poor tenants would be much relieved in these hard times, and in a better condition to pay their rents.

But there is another difficulty in this matter, against which a remedy doth not so readily occur. For, supposing the Test Act repealed, and the Dissenters in consequence fully qualified for all secular employments, the question may still be put, whether those of Ireland will be often the persons on whom they shall be bestowed; because it is imagined, there may be another seminary[11] in view, more numerous and more needy, as well as more meriting, and more easily contented with such low offices, as some nearer neighbours hardly think it worth stirring from their chimney-sides to obtain. And, I am told, it is the common practice of those who are skilled in the management of bees, that when they see a foreign swarm at some distance, approaching with an intention to plunder their hives, these artists have a trick to divert them into some neighbouring apiary, there to make what havoc they please. This I should not have hinted, if I had not known it already, to have gotten ground in many suspecting heads: For it is the peculiar talent of this nation, to see dangers afar off: To all which I can only say, that our native Presbyterians, must, by pains and industry, raise such a fund of merit, as will answer to a birth six degrees more to the north. If they cannot arrive at this perfection, as several of the established church have compassed by indefatigable pains, I do not well see how their affairs will much mend by repealing the Test; for, to be qualified by law for[12] an employment, and yet to be disqualified in fact, as it will much increase the mortification, so it will withdraw the pity of many among their well-wishers, and utterly deprive them of that merit, they have so long made of being a loyal, true Protestant people, persecuted only for religion.

[Footnote 11: Scotland.]

[Footnote 12: Scott has "to accept." [T.S.]]

If this happen to be their case, they must wait maturity of time, till they can by prudent, gentle steps make their faith become the religion established in the nation, after which, I do not in the least doubt, their taking the most effectual methods to secure their power against those who must then be Dissenters in their turn, whereof, if we may form a future opinion from present times, and the disposition of Dissenters, who love to make a thorough reformation, the number and qualities will be very inconsiderable.

Thus I have with the utmost sincerity, after long thinking, given my judgment upon this arduous affair; but with the utmost deference and submission to public wisdom and power.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****



REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE

PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND FOR

REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL

TEST, &C.

NOTE.

In the 4to edition of Swift's works (1755) is given the following note:

"The author having before examined 'The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit' with respect to their own principles and practices, has in this tract put them in the balance against Papists."

In a reprint of this tract in the second volume of "Political Tracts," 2 vols. 8vo, 1738, London, is the following "Advertisement"—neither Scott, Faulkner, nor Hawkesworth give this. Probably it appeared in the first edition; but as I have not been able to come across this, I am not certain.

"In the years 1732, and 1733, an attempt was made for repealing the Test Act in Ireland, introductory of a like attempt in England. The various arguments for it were answered in every shape; but no way more effectually than by examining what pretence the Presbyterians had to share in all the privileges of government, either from their own principles and behaviour, or compared with those of other sectaries. Under the former head they were fully silenced by our author in 'The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit Impartially Examined'. They are now put in the balance with Papists, whom though they have sometimes styled their brethren in adversity, yet when placed in competition, they will hate as brethren likewise. But let them here dispute the preference, and then put in their claim to be part of the establishment." "The arguments pretended to be urged by the Roman Catholics, in this tract," says Monck Mason, "consist partly of true statements and partly of ironical allusions, which are combined together into such a trellis work, as to render it almost unassailable."

The text here given is that from the 4to edition (1755) of Swift's Works, collated with that in the second volume of "Political Tracts" above referred to.

[T.S.]

REASONS Humbly offered to the PARLIAMENT of IRELAND For Repealing the SACRAMENTAL TEST, &c. IN FAVOUR OF THE CATHOLICS, OTHERWISE CALLED ROMAN CATHOLICS, AND BY THEIR ILL-WISHERS PAPISTS.

Drawn partly from Arguments as they are Catholics, and partly from Arguments common to them with their Brethren the Dissenters.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1733.

It is well known, that the first conquerors of this kingdom were English Catholics, subjects to English Catholic kings, from whom, by their valour and success, they obtained large portions of land given them as a reward for their many victories over the Irish: To which merit our brethren the Dissenters of any denomination whatsoever, have not the least pretensions.

It is confessed, that the posterity of those first victorious Catholics were often forced to rise in their own defence, against new colonies from England, who treated them like mere native Irish, with innumerable oppressions; depriving them of their lands, and driving them by force of arms into the most desolate parts of the kingdom. Till in the next generation, the children of these tyrants were used in the same manner by new English adventurers, which practice continued for many centuries. But it is agreed on all hands, that no insurrections were ever made, except after great oppressions by fresh invaders. Whereas all the rebellions of Puritans, Presbyterians, Independents, and other sectaries, constantly began before any provocations were given, except that they were not suffered to change the government in Church and State, and seize both into their own hands; which, however, at last they did, with the murder of their King and of many thousands of his best subjects.

The Catholics were always defenders of monarchy, as constituted in these kingdoms. Whereas our brethren the Dissenters were always republicans, both in principle and practice. It is well known that all the Catholics of these kingdoms, both priests and laity, are true Whigs in the best and most proper sense of the word; bearing as well in their hearts, as in their outward profession, an entire loyalty to the royal house of Hanover in the person and posterity of George II. against the Pretender and all his adherents. To which they think themselves bound in gratitude as well as conscience, by the lenity wherewith they have been treated since the death of Queen Anne, so different from what they suffered in the four last years of that Princess, during the administration of that wicked minister, the Earl of Oxford.

The Catholics of this kingdom humbly hope, that they have at least as fair a title as any of their brother Dissenters, to the appelation of Protestants. They have always protested against the selling, dethroning, or murdering their Kings: Against the usurpations and avarice of the court of Rome: Against Deism, Atheism, Socinianism, Quakerism, Muggletonianism, Fanaticism, Brownism, as well as against all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics. Whereas the title of Protestants assumed by the whole herd of Dissenters (except ourselves) dependeth entirely upon their protesting against archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters, with their revenues; and the whole hierarchy. Which are the very expressions used in The Solemn League and Covenant,[1] where the word Popery is only mentioned ad invidiam; because the Catholics agree with the Episcopal church in those fundamentals.

[Footnote 1: A solemn league and covenant entered into between the Scots and English fanatics, in the rebellion against King Charles I., 1643, by which they solemnly engaged, among other things, "To endeavour the extirpation of prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and all other episcopal officers, depending on that hierarchy." Ḥ]

Although the Catholics cannot deny, that in the great rebellion against King Charles I. more soldiers of their religion were in the Parliament army than in His Majesty's troops; and that many Jesuits and friars went about in the disguise of Presbyterian and Independent ministers, to preach up rebellion; as the best historians of those times inform us; yet the bulk of Catholics in both kingdoms preserved their loyalty entire.

The Catholics have some reason to think it a little hard, when their enemies will not please to distinguish between the rebellious riot committed by that brutal ruffian, Sir Phelim O'Neal[2] with his tumultuous crew of rabble; and the forces raised afterwards by the Catholic lords and gentlemen of the English pale, in defence of the King after the English rebellion began. It is well known, that His Majesty's affairs were in great distraction some time before, by an invasion of the covenanting, Scottish, kirk rebels, and by the base terms the King was forced to accept, that they might be kept in quiet, at a juncture when he was every hour threatened at home by that fanatic party, which soon after set all in a flame. And, if the Catholic army in Ireland fought for their King against the forces sent over by the Parliament, then in actual rebellion against him, what person of loyal principles can be so partial to deny, that they did their duty, by joining with the Marquis of Ormonde, and other commanders, who bore their commissions from the King? For which, great numbers of them lost their lives, and forfeited their estates; a great part of the latter being now possessed by many descendants from those very men who had drawn their swords in the service of that rebellious Parliament which cut off his head, and destroyed monarchy. And what is more amazing, although the same persons, when the Irish were entirely subdued, continued in power under the Rump; were chief confidants, and faithful subjects to Cromwell, yet being wise enough to foresee a restoration, they seized the forts and castles here, out of the hands of their old brethren in rebellion, for the service of the King; just saving the tide, and putting in a stock of merit, sufficient not only to preserve the lands which the Catholics lost by their loyalty; but likewise to preserve their civil and military employments, or be higher advanced.

[Footnote 2: Sir Phelim O'Neill (1604?-1683) one of the most picturesque characters of Irish history. For his share in the rebellion of 1641 he was expelled from the Irish House of Commons. The rebellion was an attempt to assist Charles as against the Parliament, and O'Neill forged a commission, purporting to come from the King, authorizing the Irish to rise in his favour. The Scottish settlers in Ulster, on whom O'Neill relied for aid disappointed him, and he thereupon set to work to reduce all their towns. The famous siege of Drogheda was one of the many incidents of his campaign. He joined forces with his kinsman, Owen Roe O'Neill, but a jealous difference on his part urged Sir Phelim to support Ormonde, in 1640, in that general's endeavours for a peace. Sir Phelim, however, was not included in the benefit of the Articles of Kilkenny, and a price was placed on his head. He was betrayed by Philip Roe McHugh O'Neill, brought to Dublin, and executed as a traitor. [T.S.]]

Those insurrections wherewith the Catholics are charged from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the great English rebellion, were occasioned by many oppressions they lay under. They had no intention to introduce a new religion, but to enjoy the liberty of preserving the old; the very same which their ancestors professed from the time that Christianity was first introduced into this island, which was by Catholics; but whether mingled with corruptions, as some pretend, doth not belong to the question. They had no design to change the government; they never attempted to fight against, to imprison, to betray, to sell, to bring to a trial, or to murder their King. The schismatics acted by a spirit directly contrary; they united in a Solemn League and Covenant, to alter the whole system of spiritual government, established in all Christian nations, and of apostolic institution; concluding the tragedy with the murder of the King in cold blood, and upon mature deliberation; at the same time changing the monarchy into a commonwealth.

The Catholics of Ireland, in the great rebellion, lost their estates for fighting in defence of their King. The schismatics, who cut off the father's head, forced the son to fly for his life, and overturned the whole ancient frame of government, religious and civil; obtained grants of those very estates which the Catholics lost in defence of the ancient constitution, many of which estates are at this day possessed by the posterity of those schismatics: And thus, they gained by their rebellion what the Catholics lost by their loyalty.[3]

[Footnote 3: This paragraph is omitted in edition of 1743, but it is printed in that of 1755. [T.S.]]

We allow the Catholics to be brethren of the Dissenters; some people, indeed, (which we cannot allow) would have them to be our children, because we both dissent from the Church established, and both agree in abolishing this persecuting Sacramental Test; by which negative discouragement we are both rendered incapable of civil and military employments. However, we cannot but wonder at the bold familiarity of these schismatics, in calling the members of the National Church their brethren and fellow Protestants. It is true, that all these sects (except the Catholics) are brethren to each other in faction, ignorance, iniquity, perverseness, pride, and (if we except the Quakers) in rebellion. But, how the churchmen can be styled their fellow Protestants, we cannot comprehend. Because, when the whole Babel of sectaries joined against the Church, the King, and the nobility for twenty years, in a match at football; where the proverb expressly tells us, that all are fellows; while the three kingdoms were tossed to and fro, the churches, and cities, and royal palaces shattered to pieces by their balls, their buffets, and their kicks; the victors would allow no more fellows at football: But murdered, sequestered, plundered, deprived, banished to the plantations, or enslaved all their opposers who had lost the game.

It is said the world is governed by opinion; and politicians assure us, that all power is founded thereupon. Wherefore, as all human creatures are fond to distraction of their own opinions; and so much the more, as those opinions are absurd, ridiculous, or of little moment; it must follow, that they are equally fond of power. But no opinions are maintained with so much obstinacy as those in religion, especially by such zealots who never bore the least regard to religion, conscience, honour, justice, truth, mercy, or common morality, farther than in outward appearance; under the mask of hypocrisy, to promote their diabolical designs. And therefore Bishop Burnet, one of their oracles, tells us honestly, that the saints of those fanatic times, pronounced themselves above morality; which they reckoned among "beggarly elements"; but the meaning of those two last words thus applied, we confess to be above our understanding.

Among those kingdoms and states which first embraced the Reformation, England appears to have received it in the most regular way; where it was introduced in a peaceable manner, by the supreme power of a King,[4] and the three estates in Parliament; to which, as the highest legislative authority, all subjects are bound passively to submit. Neither was there much blood shed on so great a change of religion. But a considerable number of lords, and other persons of quality through the kingdom still continued in their old faith, and were, notwithstanding their difference in religion, employed in offices civil as well as military, more or less in every reign, until the Test Act in the time of King Charles II. However, from the time of the Reformation, the number of Catholics gradually and considerably lessened. So that in the reign of King Charles I. England became, in a great degree, a Protestant Kingdom, without taking the sectaries into the number; the legality whereof, with respect to human laws, the Catholics never disputed: But the Puritans, and other schismatics, without the least pretence to any such authority, by an open rebellion, destroyed that legal Reformation, as we observed before, murdered their King, and changed the monarchy into a republic. It is therefore not to be wondered at, if the Catholics, in such a Babel of religions, chose to adhere to their own faith left to them by their ancestors, rather than seek for a better among a rabble of hypocritical, rebellious, deluding knaves, or deluded enthusiasts.

[Footnote 4: Henry VIII Ḥ]

We repeat once more, that if a national religion be changed by the supreme legislative power, we cannot dispute the human legality of such a change. But we humbly conceive, that if any considerable party of men which differs from an establishment, either old or new, can deserve liberty of conscience, it ought to consist of those who for want of conviction, or of a right understanding the merits of each cause, conceive themselves bound in conscience to adhere to the religion of their ancestors; because they are of all others least likely to be authors of innovations, either in Church or State.

On t'other side; If the reformation of religion be founded upon rebellion against the King, without whose consent, by the nature of our constitution, no law can pass. If this reformation be introduced by only one of the three estates, I mean the Commons, and not by one half even of those Commons; and this by the assistance of a rebellious army: Again, if this reformation were carried on by the exclusion of nobles both lay and spiritual (who constitute the two other parts of the three estates) by the murder of their King, and by abolishing the whole system of government; the Catholics cannot see why the successors of those schismatics, who are universally accused by all parties except themselves, and a few infamous abettors, for still retaining the same principles in religion and government, under which their predecessors acted; should pretend to a better share of civil or military trust, profit and power than the Catholics, who during all that period of twenty years, were continually persecuted with utmost severity, merely on account of their loyalty and constant adherence to kingly power.