enemies will not please to distinguish between the rebellious riot
committed by that brutal ruffian, Sir Phelim O'Neal[2] with his
tumultuous crew of rabble; and the forces raised afterwards by the
Catholic lords and gentlemen of the English pale, in defence of the King
after the English rebellion began. It is well known, that His Majesty's
affairs were in great distraction some time before, by an invasion of
the covenanting, Scottish, kirk rebels, and by the base terms the King
was forced to accept, that they might be kept in quiet, at a juncture
when he was every hour threatened at home by that fanatic party, which
soon after set all in a flame. And, if the Catholic army in Ireland
fought for their King against the forces sent over by the Parliament,
then in actual rebellion against him, what person of loyal principles
can be so partial to deny, that they did their duty, by joining with the
Marquis of Ormonde, and other commanders, who bore their commissions
from the King? For which, great numbers of them lost their lives, and
forfeited their estates; a great part of the latter being now possessed
by many descendants from those very men who had drawn their swords in
the service of that rebellious Parliament which cut off his head, and
destroyed monarchy. And what is more amazing, although the same persons,
when the Irish were entirely subdued, continued in power under the Rump;
were chief confidants, and faithful subjects to Cromwell, yet being wise
enough to foresee a restoration, they seized the forts and castles here,
out of the hands of their old brethren in rebellion, for the service of
the King; just saving the tide, and putting in a stock of merit,
sufficient not only to preserve the lands which the Catholics lost by
their loyalty; but likewise to preserve their civil and military
employments, or be higher advanced.
[Footnote 2: Sir Phelim O'Neill (1604?-1683) one of the most
picturesque characters of Irish history. For his share in the rebellion
of 1641 he was expelled from the Irish House of Commons. The rebellion
was an attempt to assist Charles as against the Parliament, and O'Neill
forged a commission, purporting to come from the King, authorizing the
Irish to rise in his favour. The Scottish settlers in Ulster, on whom
O'Neill relied for aid disappointed him, and he thereupon set to work to
reduce all their towns. The famous siege of Drogheda was one of the many
incidents of his campaign. He joined forces with his kinsman, Owen Roe
O'Neill, but a jealous difference on his part urged Sir Phelim to
support Ormonde, in 1640, in that general's endeavours for a peace. Sir
Phelim, however, was not included in the benefit of the Articles of
Kilkenny, and a price was placed on his head. He was betrayed by Philip
Roe McHugh O'Neill, brought to Dublin, and executed as a traitor.
[T.S.]]
Those insurrections wherewith the Catholics are charged from the
beginning of the seventeenth century to the great English rebellion,
were occasioned by many oppressions they lay under. They had no
intention to introduce a new religion, but to enjoy the liberty of
preserving the old; the very same which their ancestors professed from
the time that Christianity was first introduced into this island, which
was by Catholics; but whether mingled with corruptions, as some pretend,
doth not belong to the question. They had no design to change the
government; they never attempted to fight against, to imprison, to
betray, to sell, to bring to a trial, or to murder their King. The
schismatics acted by a spirit directly contrary; they united in a Solemn
League and Covenant, to alter the whole system of spiritual government,
established in all Christian nations, and of apostolic institution;
concluding the tragedy with the murder of the King in cold blood, and
upon mature deliberation; at the same time changing the monarchy into a
commonwealth.
The Catholics of Ireland, in the great rebellion, lost their estates for
fighting in defence of their King. The schismatics, who cut off the
father's head, forced the son to fly for his life, and overturned the
whole ancient frame of government, religious and civil; obtained grants
of those very estates which the Catholics lost in defence of the ancient
constitution, many of which estates are at this day possessed by the
posterity of those schismatics: And thus, they gained by their rebellion
what the Catholics lost by their loyalty.[3]
[Footnote 3: This paragraph is omitted in edition of 1743, but it is
printed in that of 1755. [T.S.]]
We allow the Catholics to be brethren of the Dissenters; some people,
indeed, (which we cannot allow) would have them to be our children,
because _we_ both dissent from the Church established, and both agree in
abolishing this persecuting Sacramental Test; by which negative
discouragement we are both rendered incapable of civil and military
employments. However, we cannot but wonder at the bold familiarity of
these schismatics, in calling the members of the National Church their
brethren and fellow Protestants. It is true, that all these sects
(except the Catholics) are brethren to each other in faction, ignorance,
iniquity, perverseness, pride, and (if we except the Quakers) in
rebellion. But, how the churchmen can be styled their fellow
Protestants, we cannot comprehend. Because, when the whole Babel of
sectaries joined against the Church, the King, and the nobility for
twenty years, in a match at football; where the proverb expressly tells
us, that _all are fellows_; while the three kingdoms were tossed to and
fro, the churches, and cities, and royal palaces shattered to pieces by
their balls, their buffets, and their kicks; the victors would allow no
more _fellows at football_: But murdered, sequestered, plundered,
deprived, banished to the plantations, or enslaved all their opposers
who had lost the game.
It is said the world is governed by opinion; and politicians assure us,
that all power is founded thereupon. Wherefore, as all human creatures
are fond to distraction of their own opinions; and so much the more, as
those opinions are absurd, ridiculous, or of little moment; it must
follow, that they are equally fond of power. But no opinions are
maintained with so much obstinacy as those in religion, especially by
such zealots who never bore the least regard to religion, conscience,
honour, justice, truth, mercy, or common morality, farther than in
outward appearance; under the mask of hypocrisy, to promote their
diabolical designs. And therefore Bishop Burnet, one of their oracles,
tells us honestly, that the _saints_ of those fanatic times, pronounced
themselves above morality; which they reckoned among "beggarly
elements"; but the meaning of those two last words thus applied, we
confess to be above our understanding.
Among those kingdoms and states which first embraced the Reformation,
England appears to have received it in the most regular way; where it
was introduced in a peaceable manner, by the supreme power of a King,[4]
and the three estates in Parliament; to which, as the highest
legislative authority, all subjects are bound passively to submit.
Neither was there much blood shed on so great a change of religion. But
a considerable number of lords, and other persons of quality through the
kingdom still continued in their old faith, and were, notwithstanding
their difference in religion, employed in offices civil as well as
military, more or less in every reign, until the Test Act in the time of
King Charles II. However, from the time of the Reformation, the number
of Catholics gradually and considerably lessened. So that in the reign
of King Charles I. England became, in a great degree, a Protestant
Kingdom, without taking the sectaries into the number; the legality
whereof, with respect to human laws, the Catholics never disputed: But
the Puritans, and other schismatics, without the least pretence to any
such authority, by an open rebellion, destroyed that legal Reformation,
as we observed before, murdered their King, and changed the monarchy
into a republic. It is therefore not to be wondered at, if the
Catholics, in such a Babel of religions, chose to adhere to their own
faith left to them by their ancestors, rather than seek for a better
among a rabble of hypocritical, rebellious, deluding knaves, or deluded
enthusiasts.
[Footnote 4: Henry VIII [H.]]
We repeat once more, that if a national religion be changed by the
supreme legislative power, we cannot dispute the human legality of such
a change. But we humbly conceive, that if any considerable party of men
which differs from an establishment, either old or new, can deserve
liberty of conscience, it ought to consist of those who for want of
conviction, or of a right understanding the merits of each cause,
conceive themselves bound in conscience to adhere to the religion of
their ancestors; because they are of all others least likely to be
authors of innovations, either in Church or State.
On t'other side; If the reformation of religion be founded upon
rebellion against the King, without whose consent, by the nature of our
constitution, no law can pass. If this reformation be introduced by only
one of the three estates, I mean the Commons, and not by one half even
of those Commons; and this by the assistance of a rebellious army:
Again, if this reformation were carried on by the exclusion of nobles
both lay and spiritual (who constitute the two other parts of the three
estates) by the murder of their King, and by abolishing the whole system
of government; the Catholics cannot see why the successors of those
schismatics, who are universally accused by all parties except
themselves, and a few infamous abettors, for still retaining the same
principles in religion and government, under which their predecessors
acted; should pretend to a better share of civil or military trust,
profit and power than the Catholics, who during all that period of
twenty years, were continually persecuted with utmost severity, merely
on account of their loyalty and constant adherence to kingly power.
We now come to those arguments for repealing the Sacramental Test, which
equally affect the Catholics, and their brethren the Dissenters.
_First_, We agree with our fellow Dissenters; that "persecution merely
for conscience' sake, is against the genius of the Gospel."[5] And so
likewise is "any law for depriving men of their natural and civil rights
which they claim as men." We are also ready enough to allow that "the
smallest negative discouragements for uniformity's sake are so many
persecutions." Because, it cannot be denied, that the scratch of a pin
is in some degree a real wound, as much as a stab through the heart. In
like manner, an incapacity by law for any man to be made a judge, a
colonel, or justice of the peace, "merely on a point of conscience, is a
negative discouragement," and consequently a real persecution: For, in
this case, the author of the pamphlet quoted in the margin[6] puts a
very pertinent and powerful question: That, "If God be the sole lord of
the conscience, why should the rights of conscience be subject to human
jurisdiction?" Now to apply this to the Catholics: The belief of
transubstantiation "is a matter purely of religion and conscience, which
doth not affect the political interest of society as such. Therefore,
Why should the rights of conscience, whereof God is the sole lord, be
subject to human jurisdiction?" And why should God be deprived of this
right over a Catholic's conscience any more than over that of any other
Dissenter?
[Footnote 5: _Vid_. Reasons for the Repeal of the Sacramental Test.
[Note in edit. 1738.]]
[Footnote 6: _Idem_.]
And whereas another author among our brethren the Dissenters, hath very
justly complained, that by this persecuting Test Act, great numbers of
true Protestants have been forced to leave the kingdom, and fly to the
plantations, rather than stay here branded with an incapacity for civil
and military employments; we do affirm, that the Catholics can bring
many more instances of the same kind; some thousands of their religion
have been forced by the Sacramental Test, to retire into other
countries, rather than live here under the incapacity of wearing swords,
sitting in Parliament, and getting that share of power and profit which
belongs to them as fellow Christians, whereof they are deprived "merely
upon account of conscience, which would not allow them to take the
sacrament after the manner prescribed in the liturgy." Hence it clearly
follows in the words of the same author,[7] "That if we Catholics are
uncapable of employments, we are punished for our dissent, that is, for
our conscience, which wholly turns upon political considerations."
[Footnote 7: See "Reasons against the Test." [Note in edit. 1738.]]
The Catholics are willing to acknowledge the King's supremacy, whenever
their brethren the Dissenters shall please to shew them the example.
Further, The Catholics, whenever their religion shall come to be the
national established faith, are willing to undergo the same test offered
by the author already quoted. His words are these: "To end this debate,
by putting it upon a foot which I hope will appear to every impartial
person a fair and equitable one; We Catholics propose, with submission
to the proper judges, that effectual security be taken against
persecution, by obliging all who are admitted into places of power and
trust, whatever their religious profession be, in the most solemn manner
to disclaim persecuting principles." It is hoped the public will take
notice of these words; "Whatever their religious profession be;" which
plainly include the Catholics; and for which we return thanks to our
dissenting brethren.
And, whereas it is objected by those of the established Church, that if
the schismatics and fanatics were once put into a capacity of possessing
civil and military employments; they would never be at ease till they
had raised their own way of worship into the national religion through
all His Majesty's dominions, equal with the true orthodox Scottish kirk;
which when they had once brought to pass, they would no more allow
liberty of conscience to Episcopal Dissenters, than they did in the time
of the great English rebellion, and in the succeeding fanatic anarchy
till the King was restored. There is another very learned schismatical
pamphleteer,[8] who in answer to a malignant libel, called, _The
Presbyterians' Plea of Merit, &c_., clearly wipes off this aspersion; by
assuring all Episcopal Protestants of the present Church, upon his own
word, and to his own knowledge, that our brethren the Dissenters will
never offer at such an attempt. In like manner, the Catholics when
legally required, will openly declare upon their words and honours,
that, as soon as their negative discouragements and their persecution
shall be removed by repealing the Sacramental Test, they will leave it
entirely to the merits of the cause, whether the kingdom shall think fit
to make their faith the established religion or not.
[Footnote 8: "Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters." This pamphlet
has been mentioned in the note prefixed to "The Presbyterians' Plea of
Merit." It was written as a reply to that tract, and to the
"Narrative."[T.S.]]
And again, Whereas our Presbyterian brethren in many of their pamphlets,
take much offence, that the great rebellion in England, the murder of
the King, with the entire change of religion and government, are
perpetually objected against them both in and out of season, by our
common enemy, the present conformists: We do declare in the defence of
our said brethren, that the reproach aforesaid is _an old worn-out
threadbare cant_, which they always disdained to answer: And I very well
remember, that, having once told a certain conformist, how much I
wondered to hear him and his tribe, dwelling perpetually on so beaten a
subject; he was pleased to divert the discourse with a foolish story,
which I cannot forbear telling to his disgrace. He said, there was a
clergyman in Yorkshire, who for fifteen years together preached every
Sunday against drunkenness: Whereat the parishioners being much
offended, complained to the archbishop; who having sent for the
clergyman, and severely reprimanded him, the minister had no better an
answer, than by confessing the fact; adding, that all the parish were
drunkards; that he desired to reclaim them from one vice before he would
begin upon another; and, since they still continued to be as great
drunkards as before, he resolved to go on, except his Grace would please
to forbid him.
We are very sensible how heavy an accusation lieth upon the Catholics of
Ireland; that some years before King Charles II. was restored, when
theirs and the King's forces were entirely reduced, and the kingdom
declared by the Rump to be settled; after all His Majesty's generals
were forced to fly to France, or other countries, the heads of the said
Catholics who remained here in an enslaved condition, joined to send an
invitation to the Duke of Lorrain; engaging, upon his appearing here
with his forces, to deliver up the whole island to his power, and
declare him their sovereign; which, after the Restoration, was proved
against them by Dean Boyle, since primate, who produced the very
original instrument at the board. The Catholics freely acknowledge the
fact to be true; and, at the same time appeal to all the world, whether
a wiser, a better, a more honourable, or a more justifiable project
could have been thought of. They were then reduced to slavery and
beggary by the English rebels, many thousands of them murdered, the rest
deprived of their estates, and driven to live on a small pittance in the
wilds of Connaught; at a time when either the Rump or Cromwell
absolutely governed the three kingdoms. And the question will turn upon
this, Whether the Catholics, deprived of all their possessions, governed
with a rod of iron, and in utter despair of ever seeing the monarchy
restored, for the preservation of which they had suffered so much, were
to be blamed for calling in a foreign prince of their own religion, who
had a considerable army to support them; rather than submit to so
infamous an usurper as Cromwell, or such a bloody and ignominious
conventicle as the Rump. And I have often heard, not only our friends
the Dissenters, but even our common enemy the Conformists, who are
conversant in the history of those times, freely confess, that
considering the miserable situation the Irish were then in, they could
not have thought of a braver or more virtuous attempt; by which they
might have been instruments of restoring the lawful monarch, at least to
the recovery of England and Scotland, from those betrayers, and sellers,
and murderers of his royal father.
To conclude, Whereas the last quoted author complains very heavily and
frequently of a _brand_ that lies upon them, it is a great mistake: For
the first original brand hath been long taken off. Only we confess, the
scar will probably remain and be visible for ever to those who know the
principles by which they acted, and until those principles shall be
openly renounced; else it must continue to all generations, like the
mark set upon Cain, which some authors say descended to all his
posterity: Or like the Roman nose and Austrian lip, or like the long bag
of flesh hanging down from the gills of the people in Piedmont. But as
for any brands fixed on schismatics for several years past, they have
been all made with cold iron; like thieves, who by the benefit of the
clergy are condemned to be only burned in the hand; but escape the pain
and the mark, by being in fee with the jailor. Which advantage the
schismatical teachers will never want, who, as we are assured, and of
which there is a very fresh instance, have the souls, and bodies, and
purses of the people a hundred times more at their mercy, than the
Catholic priests could ever pretend to.
Therefore, upon the whole, the Catholics do humbly petition (without the
least insinuation of threatening) that upon this favourable juncture
their incapacity for civil and military employments may be wholly taken
off, for the very same reasons (besides others more cogent) that are now
offered by their brethren the Dissenters.
_And your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray, &c_.[9]
Dublin, Nov. 1733.
[Footnote 9: In this controversy the author was again victorious, for
the Test was not repealed. [H.]]
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
SOME FEW THOUGHTS
CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF THE TEST.[1]
[Footnote 1: The text is that of the quarto edition (1765) of Swift's
Works. [T.S.]]
Those of either side who have written upon this subject of the Test, in
making or answering objections, seem to fail by not pressing
sufficiently the chief point upon which the controversy turns. The
arguments used by those who write for the Church are very good in their
kind, but will have little force under the present corruptions of
mankind, because the authors treat this subject _tanquam in republicâ,
Platonis, et non in fæce Romuli_.
It must be confessed, that, considering how few employments of any
consequence fall to the share of those English who are born in this
kingdom, and those few very dearly purchased, at the expense of
conscience, liberty, and all regard for the public good, they are not
worth contending for: And, if nothing but profit were in the case, it
would hardly cost me one sigh when I should see those few scraps thrown
among every species of fanatics, to scuffle for among themselves.
And this will infallibly be the case, after repealing the Test.
For, every subdivision of sect will, with equal justice, pretend to have
a share; and, as it is usual with sharers, will never think they have
enough, while any pretender is left unprovided. I shall not except the
Quakers; because, when the passage is once let open for all sects to
partake in public emoluments, it is very probable the lawfulness of
taking oaths, and wearing carnal weapons,[2] may be revealed to the
brotherhood; which thought, I confess, was first put into my head by one
of the shrewdest Quakers in this kingdom.[3]
[Footnote 2: The Quakers were more likely to admit this relaxation of
their peculiar tenets, as, upon their first appearance as a sect, they
did not by any means profess the principle of non-resistance, which they
afterwards adopted. [S.]]
[Footnote 3: The Quaker hinted at by Dr. Swift was Mr. George Rooke, a
linen-draper. In a letter to Mr. Pope, Aug. 30, 1716, Dr. Swift says,
"There is a young ingenious Quaker in this town, who writes verses to
his mistress, not very correct, but in a strain purely what a poetical
Quaker should do, commending her look and habit, &c. It gave me a hint,
that a set of Quaker pastorals might succeed, if our friend Gay would
fancy it; and I think it a fruitful subject: pray hear what he
says."--Accordingly Gay wrote "The Espousal, a sober Eclogue, between
two of the People called Quakers." [S.]]
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
TEN REASONS FOR REPEALING
THE TEST ACT.[1]
[Footnote 1: "This Tract is from a rare broadside copy. It appears to be
written by the Dean, and the arguments correspond with those he uses
elsewhere" So says Scott; but Monck Mason considers this tract no more
the work of Swift than several others he mentions. See note prefixed to
"The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit." [T.S.]]
I.
Because the Presbyterians are people of such great interest in this
kingdom, that there are not above ten of their persuasion in the House
of Commons, and but one in the House of Lords; though they are not
obliged to take the sacrament in the Established Church to qualify them
to be members of either House.
2. Because those of the Established Church of this kingdom are so
disaffected to the King, that not one of them worth mentioning, except
the late Duke of Ormond,[2] has been concerned in the rebellion; and
that our Parliament, though there be so few Presbyterians, has, upon all
occasions, proved its loyalty to King George, and has readily agreed to
and enacted what might support his government.