BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY
THE PROSE WORKS
OF
JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.
EDITED BY
TEMPLE SCOTT
WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION BY
THE RT. HON. W.E.H. LECKY, M.P.
VOL. IV
[Illustration]
LONDON
GEORGE BELL AND SONS
1898
CHISWICK PRESS:--CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
SWIFT'S
WRITINGS ON RELIGION
AND THE CHURCH
VOL. II
[Illustration]
CONTENTS.
TRACTS ON THE SACRAMENTAL TEST:
A Letter Concerning the Sacramental Test
The Presbyterian's Plea of Merit
Narrative of Attempts for the Repeal of the Sacramental Test
Queries relating to the Sacramental Test
Advantages proposed by Repealing the Sacramental Test
Reasons for Repealing the Sacramental Test in Favour of the Catholics
Some Few Thoughts concerning the Repeal of the Test
Ten Reasons for Repealing the Test Act
SERMONS:
On Mutual Subjection
On the Testimony of Conscience
On the Trinity
On Brotherly Love
On the Difficulty of Knowing One's Self
On False Witness
On the Wisdom of this World
On Doing Good
On the Martyrdom of King Charles I
On the Poor Man's Contentment
On the Wretched Condition of Ireland
On Sleeping in Church
APPENDICES:
I. Remarks on Dr. Gibbs's Paraphrase of the Psalms
II. Proposal for Preventing the further Growth of Popery
III. Swift and Serjeant Bettesworth
IV. A True and Faithful Narrative of what passed in London
INDEX TO THE WRITINGS ON RELIGION AND THE CHURCH
NOTE.
The portrait which forms the frontispiece to this volume is taken, by
permission, from the painting in the possession of the Earl of Howth,
K.P.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
A LETTER
FROM A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN IRELAND TO
A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN ENGLAND
CONCERNING THE
SACRAMENTAL TEST.
WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.
NOTE.
In the "foreword" to the reprint of this tract in the "Miscellanies" of
1711, Swift remarks: "I have been assured that the suspicion which the
supposed author lay under for writing this letter absolutely ruined him
with the late ministry." The "late ministry" was the Whig ministry of
which Godolphin was the Premier. To this ministry the repeal of the Test
Act was a matter of much concern. To test the effect of such a repeal it
was determined to try it in Ireland first. There the Presbyterians had
distinguished themselves by their loyalty to William and the Protestant
succession. These, therefore, offered a good excuse for the introduction
of such a measure, particularly when, in 1708, an invasion was rumoured,
they were the first to send in loyal addresses to the Queen. Swift
likened this method to "that of a discreet physician, who first gives a
new medicine to a dog, before he prescribes it to a human creature."
Further, the Speaker of the Irish House had come over to England to
agitate for the repeal. On this matter Swift wrote to Archbishop King,
under date April 15th (the letter was first published by Mr. John
Forster in his "Life of Swift," p. 246), as follows: "Some days ago my
Lord Somers entered with me into discourse about the Test clause, and
desired my opinion upon it, which I gave him truly, though with all the
gentleness I could; because, as I am inclined and obliged to value the
friendship he professes for me, so he is a person whose favour I would
engage in the affairs of the First Fruits.... If it became me to give
ill names to ill things and persons, I should be at a loss to find bad
enough for the villainy and baseness of a certain lawyer of Ireland
[Speaker Brodrick, afterwards Lord Midleton], who is in a station the
least of all others excusable for such proceedings, and yet has been
going about most industriously to all his acquaintance of both houses
towards the end of the session to show the necessity of taking off the
Test clause in Ireland by an act here, wherein you may be sure he had
his brother's assistance. If such a project should be resumed next
session, and I in England, unless your grace send me your absolute
commands to the contrary, which I should be sorry to receive, I could
hardly forbear publishing some paper in opposition to it, or leaving one
behind me, if there should be occasion." In August of the same year the
agitation for the repeal was renewed, and in December Swift published
his "Letter on the Sacramental Test," writing as if from Dublin and as a
member of the Irish House of Commons. When he writes to King in the
following month he makes a mild attempt to convince the Archbishop that
the pamphlet was not of his authorship. "The author has gone out of his
way to reflect on me as a person likely to write for repealing the test,
which I am sure is very unfair treatment. This is all I am likely to get
by the company I keep. I am used like a sober man with a drunken face,
have the scandal of the vice without the satisfaction." But King was not
deceived. In his reply to Swift he simply remarks: "You need not be
concerned: I will engage you will lose nothing by that paper." Swift,
however, lost more than the Archbishop thought; for "that paper" led to
his severance from the Whigs, and, in after life, to much contumely cast
on his character for being a political renegade. Because "he was not
Whig enough;" because he would not forsake his Church for his party,
critics and biographers have thought fit to make little of him, and to
compare him to his discredit with contemporaries whose intellects he
held in the palm of his hand, and to whom he might have stood as a moral
exemplar.
Swift refers to this tract in his "Memoirs relating to the change in the
Queen's Ministry," as follows:--"It was everybody's opinion, that the
Earl of Wharton would endeavour, when he went to Ireland, to take off
the test, as a step to have it taken off here: upon which I drew up and
printed a pamphlet, by way of a letter from a member of parliament here,
shewing the danger to the Church by such an intent. Although I took all
care to be private, yet the Lieutenant's chaplain, and some others
guessed me to be the author, and told his Excellency their suspicions;
whereupon I saw him no more until I went to Ireland."
The tract is one of the most favourable specimens of Swift's
controversial method and trenchant satire. The style is
excellent--forcible and pithy; while the arguments are like most of
Swift's arguments, aptly to the point with yet a potentiality of
application which fits them for the most general statement of the
principles under discussion. Scott considers the pamphlet "as having
materially contributed to the loss of the bill for repeal of the Test Act
during the Earl of Pembroke's vice-royalty." In the same year Swift
wrote "A Letter to a Member of Parliament in Ireland on choosing a new
Speaker there." This short tract bears also on the question of the Test;
but it is not included in this volume, since it was intended as an
electioneering pamphlet.
I have been unable to obtain access to a copy of the first edition of
the "Letter on the Sacramental Test." The text here given is that of the
"Miscellanies" of 1711, collated with that given in the "Miscellanies,"
1728, and with those printed by Faulkner, Hawkesworth, and Scott.
[T.S.]
A LETTER CONCERNING THE
SACRAMENTAL TEST.
_ADVERTISEMENT._[1]
[Footnote 1: This "Advertisement" is taken from "Miscellanies in Prose
and Verse," printed for John Morphew, 1711. On page 314 of that volume
it forms a "foreword" to "A Letter concerning the Sacramental Test." It
is omitted from the reprint in the "Miscellanies" of 1728. The page
which Swift says he has taken leave to omit cannot be identified.
Probably this was another of Swift's manoeuvres for concealing the
identity of the author. The "Advertisement" of George Faulkner to his
edition of Swift's Works (vol. iv., 1735) is as follows:
"In the second volume of Doctor Swift's and Mr. Pope's 'Miscellanies,' I
found the following treatise, which had been printed in London, with
some other of the Dean's works, many years before, but at first came out
by itself in the year 1708, as the date shews: And it was at a juncture
when the Dissenters were endeavouring to repeal the Sacramental Test, as
by common fame, and some pamphlets published to the same purpose, they
seem to be now again attempting, with great hope of success. I have,
therefore, taken the liberty to make an extract out of that discourse,
omitting only some passages which relate to certain persons, and are of
no consequence to the argument. But the author's weight of reasoning
seems at present to have more weight than it had in those times, when
the discourse first appeared.
"The author, in this letter, personates a Member of Parliament here
[Dublin], to a Member of Parliament in England.
"The Speaker mentioned in this letter was Allen Broderick, afterwards
Chancellor and Lord Middleton; and the prelate was Dr. Lyndsay,
afterwards Lord Primate," [T.S.]]
_The following letter is supposed by some judicious persons to be of the
same author, and, if their conjectures be right, it will be of no
disadvantage to him to have it revived, considering the time when it was
writ, the persons then at the helm, and the designs in agitation,
against which this paper so boldly appeared. I have been assured that
the suspicion which the supposed author lay under for writing this
letter, absolutely ruined him with the late ministry. I have taken leave
to omit about a page which was purely personal, and of no use to the
subject._
Dublin, Dec. 4, 1708.
Sir,
I received your letter, wherein you tell me of the strange
representations made of us on your side of the water. The instance you
are pleased to mention is that of the Presbyterian missionary, who,
according to your phrase, hath been lately persecuted at Drogheda for
his religion: But it is easy to observe, how mighty industrious some
people have been for three or four years past, to hand about stories of
the hardships, the merits, the number, and the power of the
Presbyterians in Ireland, to raise formidable ideas of the dangers of
Popery there, and to transmit all for England, improved by great
additions, and with special care to have them inserted with comments in
those infamous weekly papers that infest your coffee-houses. So, when
the clause enacting a Sacramental Test was put in execution, it was
given out in England, that half the justices of peace through this
kingdom had laid down their commissions; whereas upon examination, the
whole number was found to amount only to a dozen or thirteen, and those
generally of the lowest rate in fortune and understanding, and some of
them superannuated. So, when the Earl of Pembroke was in Ireland and the
Parliament sitting, a formal story was very gravely carried to his
Excellency by some zealous members, of a priest newly arrived from
abroad to the north-west parts of Ireland, who had publicly preached to
his people, to fall a-murdering the Protestants; which, though invented
to serve an end they were then upon, and are still driving at, it was
presently handed over, and printed with shrewd remarks by your worthy
scribblers. In like manner, the account of that person who was lately
expelled our university for reflecting on the memory of King William,
what a dust it raised, and how foully it was related, is fresh enough in
memory.[2] Neither would people be convinced till the university was at
the pains of publishing a Latin paper to justify themselves. And, to
mention no more, this story of the persecution at Drogheda, how it hath
been spread and aggravated, what consequences have been drawn from it,
and what reproaches fixed on those who have least deserved them, we are
already informed. Now if the end of all this proceeding were a secret
and mystery, I should not undertake to give it an interpretation, but
sufficient care hath been taken to give it sufficient explanation.[3]
First, by addresses artificially (if not illegally) procured, to shew
the miserable state of the dissenters in Ireland by reason of the
Sacramental Test, and to desire the Queen's intercession that it might
be repealed. Then it is manifest that our Speaker, when he was last year
in England, solicited, in person, several members of both Houses, to
have it repealed by an act there, though it be a matter purely national,
that cannot possibly interfere with the trade and interest of England,
and though he himself appeared formerly the most zealous of all men
against the injustice of binding a nation by laws to which they do not
consent. And lastly, those weekly libellers, whenever they get a tale by
the end relating to Ireland, without ever troubling their thoughts about
the truth, always end it with an application against the Sacramental
Test, and the absolute necessity there is of repealing it in both
kingdoms. I know it may be reckoned a weakness to say anything of such
trifles as are below a serious man's notice; much less would I disparage
the understanding of any party to think they would choose the vilest and
most ignorant among mankind, to employ them for assertors of a cause. I
shall only say, that the scandalous liberty those wretches take would
hardly be allowed, if it were not mingled with opinions that _some men_
would be glad to advance. Besides, how insipid soever those papers are,
they seem to be levelled to the understandings of a great number; they
are grown a necessary part in coffee-house furniture, and some time or
other may happen to be read by customers of all ranks, for curiosity and
amusement; because they lie always in the way. One of these authors (the
fellow that was pilloried I have forgot his name)[4] is indeed so grave,
sententious, dogmatical a rogue, that there is no enduring him; the
_Observator_[5] is much the brisker of the two, and I think farther gone
of late in lies and impudence, than his Presbyterian brother. The reason
why I mention him, is to have an occasion of letting you know, that you
have not dealt so gallantly with us, as we did with you in a parallel
case: Last year, a paper was brought here from England, called, "A
Dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Higgins," which we
ordered to be burnt by the common hangman, as it well deserved; though
we have no more to do with his Grace of Canterbury[6] than you have with
the Archbishop of Dublin[7]; nor can you love and reverence your prelate
more than we do ours, whom you tamely suffer to be abused openly, and by
name, by that paltry rascal of an _Observator_; and lately upon an
affair wherein he had no concern; I mean the business of the missionary
at Drogheda, wherein our excellent primate was engaged, and did nothing
but according to law and discretion. But because the Lord Archbishop of
Dublin hath been upon several occasions of late years, misrepresented in
England, I would willingly set you right in his character. For his great
sufferings and eminent services he was by the late King promoted to the
see of Derry. About the same time, he wrote a book to justify the
Revolution, wherein was an account of King James's proceedings in
Ireland, and the late Archbishop Tillotson recommended it to the King as
the most serviceable treatise that could have been published at such a
juncture.[8] And as his Grace set out upon those principles, he has
proceeded so ever since, as a loyal subject to the Queen, entirely for
the succession in the Protestant line, and for ever excluding the
Pretender; and though a firm friend to the Church, yet with indulgence
toward dissenters, as appears from his conduct at Derry, where he was
settled for many years among the most virulent of the sect; yet upon his
removal to Dublin, they parted from him with tears in their eyes, and
universal acknowledgments of his wisdom and goodness. For the rest, it
must be owned, he does not busy himself by entering deep into any party,
but rather spends his time in acts of hospitality and charity, in
building of churches, repairing his palace, in introducing and
preferring the worthiest persons he can find, without other regards; in
short, in the practice of all virtues that can become a public or
private life. This and more, if possible, is due to so excellent a
person, who may be justly reckoned among the greatest and most learned
prelates of his age, however his character may be defiled by such mean
and dirty hands as those of the _Observator_ or such as employ him.[9]
[Footnote 2: The Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, had
lately expelled Edward Forbes for the cause mentioned in the text. [S.]]
[Footnote 3: Faulkner prints: "But sufficient care hath been taken to
explain it." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: Daniel Defoe (1663?-1731), the son of a Cripplegate
butcher. Entered business as a hosier, but failed. In 1695 he was
appointed one of the commissioners for duties on glass. Wrote "The True
Born Englishman" (1701); "The Shortest Way with the Dissenters," for
which he was pilloried, fined, and imprisoned; and numerous other works,
including "Robinson Crusoe;" "Life of Captain Singleton;" "History of
Duncan Campbell;" "Life of Moll Flanders;" "Roxana;" "Life of Colonel
Jack;" "Journal of the Plague;" "History of the Devil;" and "Religious
Courtship." He edited a paper called "The Review," to which Swift here
refers, and against which Charles Leslie wrote his "Rehearsals." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 5: John Tutchin, a virulent writer of the reign of James II.
For a political work in defence of Monmouth he was sentenced by Judge
Jefferies to be whipped through several market towns. He wrote the
"Observator" (begun April, 1702), and suffered at the hands of the
Tories for his writings. He died in great poverty in 1708, at the age of
forty-seven. He was also the author of a play entitled, "The Unfortunate
Shepherd." Pope refers to these punishments meted out to Defoe and
Tutchin, in the second book of the "Dunciad":
"Earless on high, stood unabashed De Foe,
And Tutchin flagrant from the scourge below." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 6: Dr. Thomas Tenison (1636-1715), born at Cottenham,
Cambridgeshire. For his attacks on the Roman Catholics he was in 1691
created Bishop of Lincoln. He was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1694.
He wrote a "Discourse of Idolatry," an answer to Hobbes, and published
several sermons. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: Dr. William King. See vol. iii., p. 241, note. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: Dr. King was twice imprisoned in the castle of Dublin
after the landing of King James in Ireland in 1699, and narrowly escaped
assassination. The title of the work alluded to is: "The State of the
Protestants in Ireland under the late King James's Government, in which
their carriage towards him is justified, and the absolute necessity of
their endeavouring to be freed from his Government, and of submitting to
their present Majesties, is demonstrated." [S.]]
[Footnote 9: The portion of this paragraph beginning with "The reason
why I mention him," to the end, "such as employ him," is omitted by
Faulkner. [T.S.]]
I now come to answer the other part of your letter, and shall give you
my opinion freely about repealing the Sacramental Test; only whereas you
desire my thoughts as a friend, and not as I am a member of parliament,
I must assure you they are exactly the same in both capacities.
I must begin by telling you, we are generally surprised at your
wonderful kindness to us on this occasion, it being so very industrious
to teach us to see our interest in a point where we are so unable to see
it ourselves. This hath given us some suspicion; and though in my own
particular, I am hugely bent to believe, that whenever you concern
yourselves in our affairs, it is certainly for our good, yet I have the
misfortune to be something singular in this belief, and therefore I
never attempt to justify it, but content myself to possess my own
opinion in private, for fear of encountering men of more wit or words
than I have to spare.
We at this distance, who see nothing of the spring of actions, are
forced by mere conjecture to assign two reasons for your desiring us to
repeal the Sacramental Test: One is, because you are said to imagine it
will be one step towards the like good work in England: The other more
immediate, that it will open a way for rewarding several persons who
have well deserved upon a great occasion, but who are now unqualified
through that impediment.
I do not frequently quote poets, especially English, but I remember
there is in some of Mr. Cowley's love verses, a strain that I thought
extraordinary at fifteen, and have often since imagined it to be spoken
by Ireland:
"Forbid it Heaven my life should be
Weigh'd with her least conveniency:"
In short, whatever advantage you propose to yourselves by repealing the
Sacramental Test, speak it out plainly, 'tis the best argument you can
use, for we value your interest much more than our own: If your little
finger be sore, and you think a poultice made of our vitals will give it
any ease, speak the word and it shall be done; the interest of our whole
kingdom is at any time ready to strike to that of your poorest fishing
towns; it is hard you will not accept our services, unless we believe at
the same time that you are only consulting our profit, and giving us
marks of your love. If there be a fire at some distance, and I
immediately blow up my house before there be occasion, because you are a
man of quality, and apprehend some danger to a corner of your stable;
yet why should you require me to attend next morning at your levee with
my humble thanks for the favour you have done me?
If we might be allowed to judge for ourselves, we had abundance of
benefit by the Sacramental Test, and foresee a number of mischiefs would
be the consequence of repealing it, and we conceive the objections made
against it by the dissenters are of no manner of force: They tell us of
their merits in the late war in Ireland, and how cheerfully they engaged
for the safety of the nation; that had they thought they had been
fighting only other people's quarrels, perhaps it might have cooled
their zeal; and that for the future, they shall sit down quietly and let
us do our work ourselves; nay, that it is necessary they should do so,
since they cannot take up arms under the penalty of high treason.
Now supposing them to have done their duty, as I believe they did, and
not to trouble them about the _fly on the wheel_; I thought Liberty,
Property and Religion had been the three subjects of the quarrel, and
have not all those been amply secured to them? Had they not at that time
a mental reservation for power and employments? And must these two
articles be added henceforward in our national quarrels? It is grown a
mighty conceit among some men to melt down the phrase of a _Church
Established by law_ into that of the _Religion of the Magistrate_; of
which appellation it is easier to find the reason than the sense: If by
the magistrate they mean the prince, the expression includes a
falsehood; for when King James was prince[10], the Established Church
was the same it is now. If by the same word they mean the Legislature,
we desire no more. Be that as it will, we of this kingdom believe the
Church of Ireland to be the National Church, and the only one
established by law, and are willing by the same law to give a toleration
to dissenters: But if once we repeal our Sacramental Test, and grant a
toleration, or suspend the execution of the penal laws, I do not see how
we can be said to have any Established Church remaining; or rather why
there will not be as many established churches, as there are sects of
dissenters. No, say they, yours will still be the National Church,
because your bishops and clergy are maintained by the public; but, that,
I suppose, will be of no long duration, and it would be very unjust it
should, because, to speak in Tindal's phrase,[11] it is not reasonable
that revenues should be annexed to one opinion more than another, when
all are equally lawful, and 'tis the same author's maxim, that no
freeborn subject ought to pay for maintaining speculations he does not
believe. _But why should any man, upon account of opinions he cannot
help, be deprived of the opportunity of serving his Queen and country?_
Their zeal is commendable, and when employments go a begging for want of
hands, they shall be sure to have the refusal, only upon condition they
will not pretend to them upon maxims which equally include atheists,
Turks, Jews, infidels, and heretics, or which is still more dangerous,
even Papists themselves; the former you allow, the other you deny,
because these last own a foreign power, and therefore must be shut out.
But there is no great weight in this; for their religion can suit with
free states, with limited or absolute monarchies, as well as a better,
and the Pope's power in France is but a shadow; so that upon this foot
there need be no great danger to the constitution by admitting Papists
to employments. I will help you to enough of them who shall be ready to
allow the Pope as little power here as you please; and the bare opinion
of his being vicar of Christ is but a speculative point, for which no
man it seems ought to be deprived of the capacity of serving his
country.
[Footnote 10: The words from "the expression" to "was prince" are
omitted by Faulkner in his edition. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: See vol. iii, p. 9, note. [T.S.]]
But, if you please, I will tell you the great objection we have against
repealing this same Sacramental Test. It is, that we are verily
persuaded the consequence will be an entire alteration of religion among
us in a no great compass of years. And, pray observe, how we reason here
in Ireland upon this matter.
We observe the Scots in our northern parts, to be a brave, industrious
people, extremely devoted to their religion, and full of an undisturbed
affection towards each other. Numbers of that noble nation, invited by
the fertilities of the soil, are glad to exchange their barren hills of
Loquabar, by a voyage of three hours, for our fruitful vales of Down and
Antrim, so productive of that grain, which, at little trouble and less
expense finds diet and lodging for themselves and their cattle.[12]
These people by their extreme parsimony, wonderful dexterity in dealing,
and firm adherence to one another, soon grow into wealth from the
smallest beginnings, never are rooted out where they once fix, and
increase daily by new supplies; besides when they are the superior
number in any tract of ground, they are not over patient of mixture; but
such, whom they cannot assimilate, soon find it their interest to
remove. I have done all in my power on some land of my own to preserve
two or three English fellows in their neighbourhood, but found it
impossible, though one of them thought he had sufficiently made his
court by turning Presbyterian. Add to all this, that they bring along
with them from Scotland a most formidable notion of our Church, which
they look upon at least three degrees worse than Popery; and it is
natural it should be so, since they come over full fraught with that
spirit which taught them to abolish Episcopacy at home.
[Footnote 12: From this passage, perhaps, Johnson derived the famous
definition of oats, in his Dictionary, as the food of horses in England,
and of men in Scotland. [S.]]
Then we proceed farther, and observe, that the gentlemen of employments
here, make a very considerable number in the House of Commons, and have
no other merit but that of doing their duty in their several stations;
therefore when the Test is repealed, it will be highly reasonable they
should give place to those who have much greater services to plead. The
commissions of the revenue are soon disposed of, and the collectors and
other officers throughout this kingdom, are generally appointed by the
commissioners, which give them a mighty influence in every country. As
much may be said of the great officers in the law; and when this door is
open to let dissenters into the commissions of the peace, to make them
High Sheriffs, Mayors of Corporations, and officers of the army and
militia; I do not see how it can be otherwise, considering their
industry and our supineness, but that they may in a very few years grow
to a majority in the House of Commons, and consequently make themselves
the national religion, and have a fair pretence to demand the revenues
of the Church for their teachers. I know it will be objected, that if
all this should happen as I describe, yet the Presbyterian religion
could never be made the national by act of Parliament, because our
bishops are so great a number in the House of Lords, and without a
majority there, the Church could not be abolished. But I have two very
good expedients for that, which I shall leave you to guess, and I dare
swear our Speaker here has often thought on, especially having
endeavoured at one of them so lately. That this design is not so foreign
from some people's thoughts, I must let you know that an honest
bellwether[13] of our house (you have him now in England, I wish you
could keep him there) had the impudence some years ago, in Parliament
time, to shake my Lord Bishop of Kilaloe[14] by his lawn sleeve, and
tell him in a threatening manner, "that he hoped to live to see the day
when there should not be one of his order in the kingdom."
[Footnote 13: Supposed to be Mr. Broderick. [F.]]
[Footnote 14: Dr. Lindsay, afterwards Lord Primate. [S.]]
These last lines perhaps you think a digression; therefore to return: I
have told you the consequences we fully reckon upon from repealing the
Sacramental Test, which although the greatest number of such as are for
doing it, are actually in no manner of pain about it, and many of them
care not threepence whether there be any Church, or no; yet because they
pretend to argue from conscience as well as policy and interest, I
thought it proper to understand and answer them accordingly.
Now, sir, in answer to your question, whether if an attempt should be
made here for repealing the Sacramental Test, it would be likely to
succeed? The number of professed dissenters in this Parliament was, as I
remember, something under a dozen, and I cannot call to mind above
thirty others who were expected to fall in with them. This is certain,
that the Presbyterian party having with great industry mustered up their
forces, did endeavour one day upon occasion of a hint in my Lord
Pembroke's speech, to introduce a debate about repealing the Test
clause, when there appeared at least four to one odds against them; and
the ablest of those who were reckoned the most staunch and
thorough-paced Whigs upon all other occasions, fell off with an
abhorrence at the first mention of this.
I must desire you to take notice, that the terms of Whig and Tory, do
not properly express the different interests in our parliament. I
remember when I was last in England, I told the King, that the highest
Tories we had with us would make tolerable Whigs there; this was
certainly right, and still in the general continues so, unless you have
since admitted new characteristics, which did not come within our
definition.[15] Whoever bears a true veneration for the glorious memory
of King William, as our great deliverer from Popery and slavery; whoever
is firmly loyal to our present Queen, with an utter abhorrence and
detestation of the Pretender; whoever approves the succession to the
Crown in the House of Hanover, and is for preserving the doctrine and
discipline of the Church of England, with an indulgence for scrupulous
consciences; such a man we think acts upon right principles, and may be
justly allowed a Whig: And I believe there are not six members in our
House of Commons, who may not fairly come under this description. So
that the parties among us are made up, on one side, of moderate Whigs,
and on the other, of Presbyterians and their abettors; by which last I
mean, such who can equally go to a Church or Conventicle, or such who
are indifferent to all religion in general, or lastly such who affect to
bear a personal rancour toward the clergy: These last are a set of men
not of our own growth, their principles at least have been imported of
late years; yet this whole party put together will not, I am confident,
amount to above fifty men in Parliament, which can hardly be worked up
into a majority of three hundred.
[Footnote 15: The passage beginning with "I remember when I was last in
England," and ending with "within our definition," is omitted by
Faulkner. [T.S.]]
As to the House of Lords, the difficulty there is conceived at least as
great as in ours. So many of our temporal peers live in England, that
the bishops are generally pretty near a par of the House, and we reckon
they will be all to a man against repealing the Test; and yet their
lordships are generally thought as good Whigs upon our principles as any
in the kingdom. There are indeed a few lay lords who appear to have no
great devotion for Episcopacy; and perhaps one or two more with whom
certain powerful motives might be used for removing any difficulty
whatsoever; but these are in no sort of a number to carry any point
against the conjunction of the rest and the whole bench of bishops.
Besides, the whole body of our clergy is utterly against repealing the
Test, though they are entirely devoted to her Majesty, and hardly one in
a hundred who are not very good Whigs in our acceptation of the word.
And I must let you know, that we of Ireland are not yet come up to other
folk's refinements; for we generally love and esteem our clergy, and
think they deserve it; nay, we are apt to lay some weight upon their
opinion, and would not willingly disoblige them, at least unless it were
upon some greater point of interest than this. And their judgment in the
present affair is the more to be regarded, because they are the last
persons who will be affected by it: This makes us think them impartial,
and that their concern is only for religion and the interest of the
kingdom. Because the act which repeals the Test, will only qualify a
layman for an employment, but not a Presbyterian or Anabaptist preacher
for a church-living. Now I must take leave to inform you, that several
members of our House, and myself among the rest, knowing some time ago
what was upon the anvil, went to all the clergy we knew of any
distinction, and desired their judgment of the matter, wherein we found
a most wonderful agreement; there being but one divine that we could
hear of in the whole kingdom, who appeared of a contrary sentiment,
wherein he afterwards stood alone in the convocation, very little to his
credit, though, as he hoped, very much to his interest.
I will now consider a little the arguments offered to shew the
advantages, or rather the necessity, of repealing the Test in Ireland.
We are told, the Popish interest is here so formidable, that all hands
should be joined to keep it under; that the only names of distinction
among us ought to be those of Protestant and Papist, and that this
expedient is the only means to unite all Protestants upon one common
bottom. All which is nothing but misrepresentation and mistake.
If we were under any real fear of the Papists in this kingdom, it would
be hard to think us so stupid, not to be equally apprehensive with
others, since we are likely to be the greatest, and more immediate
sufferers; but on the contrary, we look upon them to be altogether as
inconsiderable as the women and children. Their lands are almost
entirely taken from them, and they are rendered incapable of purchasing
any more; and for the little that remains, provision is made by the late
act against Popery, that it will daily crumble away: To prevent which,
some of the most considerable among them are already turned Protestants,
and so in all probability will many more. Then, the Popish priests are
all registered, and without permission (which I hope will not be
granted) they can have no successors; so that the Protestant Clergy will
find it perhaps no difficult matter to bring great numbers over to the
Church; and in the meantime, the common people without leaders, without
discipline, or natural courage, being little better than "hewers of
wood, and drawers of water," are out of all capacity of doing any
mischief, if they were ever so well inclined. Neither are they at all
likely to join in any considerable numbers with an invader, having found
so ill success when they were much more numerous and powerful; when they
had a prince of their own religion to head them, had been trained for
some years under a Popish deputy, and received such mighty aids from the
French king.
As to that argument used for repealing the Test, that it will unite all
Protestants against the common enemy, I wonder by what figure those
gentlemen speak who are pleased to advance it: Suppose in order to
increase the friendship between you and me, a law should pass that I
must have half your estate; do you think that would much advance the
union between us? Or, suppose I share my fortune equally between my own
children, and a stranger whom I take into my protection; will that be a
method to unite them? Tis an odd way of uniting parties, to deprive a
majority of part of their ancient right, by conferring it on a faction
who had never any right at all, and therefore cannot be said to suffer
any loss or injury if it be refused them. Neither is it very clear, how
far some people may stretch the term of common enemy. How many are there
of those that call themselves Protestants, who look upon our worship to
be idolatrous as well as that of the Papists, and with great charity put
Prelacy and Popery together, as terms convertible?
And, therefore, there is one small doubt, I would be willingly satisfied
in before I agree to the repealing of the Test; that is, whether, these
same Protestants, when they have by their dexterity made themselves the
national religion, and disposed the Church revenues among their pastors
or themselves, will be so kind to allow us dissenters, I do not say a
share in employments, but a bare toleration by law? The reason of my
doubt is, because I have been so very idle as to read above fifty
pamphlets, written by as many Presbyterian divines, loudly disclaiming
this idol Toleration, some of them calling it (I know not how properly)
a rag of Popery, and all agreeing it was to establish iniquity by law.
Now, I would be glad to know when and where their successors have
renounced this doctrine, and before what witnesses. Because, methinks I
should be loth to see my poor titular bishop _in partibus_, seized on by
mistake in the dark for a Jesuit, or be forced myself to keep my
chaplain disguised like my butler, and steal to prayers in a back room,
as my grandfather[l6] used in those times when the Church of England was
malignant.
[Footnote 16: This is Thomas Swift, vicar of Goodrich, in Herefordshire,
"much distinguished by his courage, as well as his loyalty to King
Charles the First, and the sufferings he underwent for that prince, more
than any person of his condition in England." See the "Fragment of
Autobiography," printed by Scott and Forster in their Lives of Swift.
[T.S.]]
But this is ripping up old quarrels long forgot; Popery is now the
common enemy, against which we must all unite; I have been tired in
history with the perpetual folly of those states who call in foreigners
to assist them against a common enemy: But the mischief was, those
allies would never be brought to allow that the common enemy was quite
subdued. And they had reason; for it proved at last, that one part of
the common enemy was those who called them in, and so the allies became
at length the masters.
'Tis agreed among naturalists that a lion is a larger, a stronger, and
more dangerous enemy than a cat; yet if a man were to have his choice,
either a lion at his foot, bound fast with three or four chains, his
teeth drawn out, and his claws pared to the quick, or an angry cat in
full liberty at his throat; he would take no long time to determine.
I have been sometimes admiring the wonderful significancy of that word
persecution, and what various interpretations it hath acquired even
within my memory. When I was a boy, I often heard the Presbyterians
complain that they were not permitted to serve God in their own way;
they said they did not repine at our employments, but thought that all
men who live peaceably ought to have liberty of conscience, and leave to
assemble. That impediment being removed at the Revolution, they soon
learned to swallow the Sacramental Test and began to take very large
steps, wherein all that offered to oppose them, were called men of a
persecuting spirit. During the time the Bill against Occasional
Conformity was on foot, persecution was every day rung in our ears, and
now at last the Sacramental Test itself has the same name. Where then is
this matter likely to end, when the obtaining of one request is only
used as a step to demand another? A lover is ever complaining of cruelty
while anything is denied him, and when the lady ceases to be cruel, she
is from the next moment at his mercy: So persecution it seems, is
everything that will not leave it in men's power to persecute others.
There is one argument offered against a Sacramental Test, by a sort of
men who are content to be styled of the Church of England, who perhaps
attend its service in the morning, and go with their wives to a
conventicle in the afternoon, confessing they hear very good doctrine in
both. These men are much offended that so holy an institution as that of
the Lord's Supper should be made subservient to such mercenary purposes
as the getting of an employment. Now, it seems, the law, concluding all
men to be members of that Church where they receive the Sacrament; and
supposing all men to live like Christians (especially those who are to
have employments) did imagine they received the Sacrament in course
about four times a year, and therefore only desired it might appear by
certificate to the public, that such who took an office were members of
the Church established, by doing their ordinary duty. However, lest we
should offend them, we have often desired they would deal candidly with
us; for if the matter stuck only there, we would propose it in
parliament, that every man who takes an employment should, instead of
receiving the sacrament, be obliged to swear, that he is a member of the
Church of Ireland by law established, with Episcopacy, and so forth; and
as they do now in Scotland, _to be true to the Kirk_. But when we drive
them thus far, they always retire to the main body of the argument, urge
the hardship that men should be deprived the liberty of serving their
Queen and country, on account of their conscience: And, in short, have
recourse to the common style of their half brethren. Now whether this be
a sincere way of arguing, I will appeal to any other judgment but
theirs.
There is another topic of clamour somewhat parallel to the foregoing: It
seems, by the Test clause, the military officers are obliged to receive
the Sacrament as well as the civil. And it is a matter of some patience
to hear the dissenters declaiming upon this occasion: They cry they are
disarmed, they are used like Papists; when an enemy appears at home, or
from abroad, they must sit still, and see their throats cut, or be
hanged for high treason if they offer to defend themselves. Miserable
condition! Woful dilemma! It is happy for us all, that the Pretender was
not apprized of this passive Presbyterian principle, else he would have
infallibly landed in our northern parts, and found them all sat down in
their formalities, as the Gauls did the Roman senators, ready to die
with honour in their callings. Sometimes to appease their indignation,
we venture to give them hopes that in such a case the government will
perhaps connive, and hardly be so severe to hang them for defending it
against the letter of the law; to which they readily answer, that they
will not lie at our mercy, but let us fight our battles ourselves.
Sometimes we offer to get an act, by which upon all Popish insurrections
at home, or Popish invasion from abroad, the government shall be
empowered to grant commissions to all Protestants whatsoever, without
that persecuting circumstance of obliging them to say their prayers when
they receive the Sacrament; but they abhor all thoughts of occasional
commissions, they will not do our drudgery, and we reap the benefit: It
is not worth their while to fight _pro aris et focis_, and they had
rather lose their estates, liberties, religion and lives, than the
pleasure of governing.
But to bring this discourse toward a conclusion: If the dissenters will
be satisfied with such a toleration by law as hath been granted them in
England, I believe the majority of both Houses will fall readily in with
it; farther it will be hard to persuade this House of Commons, and
perhaps much harder the next. For, to say the truth, we make a mighty
difference here between suffering thistles to grow among us, and wearing
them for posies. We are fully convinced in our consciences, that _we_
shall always tolerate them, but not quite so fully that _they_ will
always tolerate us, when it comes to their turn; and _we_ are the
majority, and _we_ are in possession.
He who argues in defence of a law in force, not antiquated or obsolete,
but lately enacted, is certainly on the safer side, and may be allowed
to point out the dangers he conceives to foresee in the abrogation of
it.
For if the consequences of repealing this clause, should at some time or
other enable the Presbyterians to work themselves up into the National
Church; instead of uniting Protestants, it would sow eternal divisions
among them. First, their own sects, which now lie dormant, would be soon
at cuffs again with each other about power and preferment; and the
dissenting Episcopals, perhaps discontented to such a degree, as upon
some fair unhappy occasion, would be able to shake the firmest loyalty,
which none can deny theirs to be.
Neither is it very difficult to conjecture from some late proceedings,
at what a rate this faction is likely to drive wherever it gets the whip
and the seat. They have already set up courts of spiritual judicature in
open contempt of the laws: They send missionaries everywhere, without
being invited, in order to convert the Church of England folks to
Christianity. They are as vigilant as _I know who_, to attend persons on
their death-beds, and for purposes much alike. And what practices such
principles as these (with many other that might be invidious to mention)
may spawn when they are laid out to the sun, you may determine at
leisure.
Lastly, Whether we are so entirely sure of their loyalty upon the
present foot of government as you may imagine, their detractors make a
question, which however, does, I think, by no means affect the body of
dissenters; but the instance produced is, of some among their leading
teachers in the north, who having refused the Abjuration Oath, yet
continue their preaching, and have abundance of followers. The
particulars are out of my head, but the fact is notorious enough, and I
believe has been published; I think it a pity, it has not been remedied.
Thus, I have fairly given you, Sir, my own opinion, as well as that of a
great majority in both Houses here, relating to this weighty affair,
upon which I am confident you may securely reckon. I will leave you to
make what use of it you please.
I am, with great respect, Sir,
Yours, &c.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
THE PRESBYTERIANS' PLEA OF MERIT.
NOTE.
THE reference casually made by Swift, in his "Letter on the Sacramental
Test," to his grandfather and the "malignant Church," probably points to
one of the causes for his persistent dislike towards the Protestant
dissenters. His attitude displays a profound disgust both for their
teaching and their conduct; and he found, very early, occasion to
ridicule them, as may be seen in his description of Jack, Martin, and
Peter in "A Tale of a Tub" (see vol. i. of this edition). In
spite, however, of this attitude, Swift seems to have remained silent on
the question of the repeal of the Test Act for a period of more than
twenty years. He had published his "Letter from a Member of the House of
Commons in Ireland" in 1708; but it was not until 1731 that he again
took up his pen against Dissent.