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." [H.]]
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.