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.