lieutenant-general of the army of Ireland during the rebellion of 1641.
After his defeat of General Preston, in 1643, he was appointed
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; but retired to France on the fall of the
Stuart dynasty. The execution of Charles caused Ormond to land again in
Ireland for the purpose of rousing that country in favour of the royal
cause; but he forsook it on the landing of Cromwell. At the Restoration
he came over with Charles, and was raised, for his services, to the
dukedom. He was, however, deprived of his lord-lieutenancy for his
friendship for the exiled Clarendon. He had a narrow escape for his life
from the plots of Colonel Blood, whom he forgave at the request of the
King. In 1682 he was rewarded by being promoted to an English dukedom.
[T.S.]]
3. Because very few of the Presbyterians have lost an employment worth
£20 per annum, for not qualifying themselves according to the Test Act;
nor will they accept of a militia commission, though they do of one in
the army.
4. Because, if they are not in the militia and other places of trust,
the Pretender and his adherents will destroy us; when he has no one to
support him but the King of Spain; when King George is at a good
understanding with Sweden, Prussia, and Denmark; and when he has made
the best alliances in Christendom. When the Emperor, King of Great
Britain, the French King, the King of Sardinia, are all in the quadruple
alliance against the Spaniard, his upstart cardinal,[3] and the
Pretender; when bloody plots against Great Britain and France are blown
up; when the Spanish fleet is quite dispersed; when the French army is
overrunning Spain; and when the rebels in Scotland are cut off.
[Footnote 3: Cardinal Julius Alberoni (1664-1752), born at Parma,
obtained the favour, when a humble parish priest, of the Duke of
Vendôme, by informing that general of the whereabouts of some corn, which
the country folk had hidden. He followed the Duke to Spain, and
was successful in bringing about the marriage between the Princess of
Parma and Philip V. For this service he was made Prime Minister of
Spain, a cardinal, and Archbishop of Valencia. He entered heartily into
Philip's designs for recovering Spain's lost territory, and showed
even more boldness than his royal master in their execution. His
reduction of Sardinia precipitated the alliance between England, France,
Holland, and afterwards, Austria. Spain, with Alberoni as its guiding
spirit, supported the Jacobite cause to harass England, and conquered
Sicily. But at Messina the Spanish fleet was destroyed by the English,
and in the north of Spain the forces of Philip were repulsed by the
French. In the end, Spain gave way, and Alberoni was dismissed to retire
to Rome, and to be safely lodged in the Jesuits' College there. On his
release he returned to his native town, but died at Rome. [T.S.]]
5. The test clause should be repealed, because it is a defence against
the reformation the Presbyterians long since promised the churches of
England and Ireland, viz. "We, noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen,
citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, commons of all sorts in
the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, &c.[4] each one of us
for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do swear,
first, That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. Secondly, That we shall
in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of
Popery, Prelacy; that is, church-government by archbishops, their
chancellors, and commissaries, deans, deacons, and chapters,
archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that
hierarchy."
[Footnote 4: _Vide_ "Confession of Faith," pp. 304, 305.]
6. Because the Presbyterian Church-Government may be independent of the
state. The Lord Jesus is King and Head of his Church;[5] hath therein
appointed a government in the hands of church-officers, distinct from
the civil magistrate. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of
ministers to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if
magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of
themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons,
upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such
assemblies.[6]
[Footnote 5: "Confession of Faith," p. 87.]
[Footnote 6: _Ibid_., pp. 88, 89.]
7. Because they have not the free use of their religion, when they
disdain a toleration.
8. Because they have so much charity for Episcopacy, as to account it
iniquitous. The address of the General Assembly to the Duke of
Queensbury in the late reign says, that to tolerate the Episcopal clergy
in Scotland would be to establish iniquity by a law.
9. Because repealing the test clause will probably disoblige ten of his
Majesty's good subjects, for one it can oblige.
10. Because, if the test clause be repealed, the Presbyterians may with
the better grace get into employments, and the easier worm out those of
the Established Church.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
SERMONS.
The following Form of Prayer, which Dr. Swift constantly used in the
pulpit before his sermon, is copied from his own handwriting:
"Almighty and most merciful God! forgive us all our sins. Give us grace
heartily to repent them, and to lead new lives. Graft in our hearts a
true love and veneration for thy holy name and word. Make thy pastors
burning and shining lights, able to convince gainsayers, and to save
others and themselves. Bless this congregation here met together in thy
name; grant them to hear and receive thy holy word, to the salvation of
their own souls. Lastly, we desire to return thee praise and
thanksgiving for all thy mercies bestowed upon us; but chiefly for the
Fountain of them all, Jesus Christ our Lord, in whose name and words we
further call upon thee, saying, 'Our Father,' &c."
NOTE.
These twelve sermons are what have been handed down to us of a bundle of
thirty-five which Swift, some years before his death, gave to Dr.
Sheridan. Swift had no great opinion of them himself, if we may judge
from what he said to his friend when he offered him the bundle. "You may
have them if you please; they may be of use to you, they never were of
any to me." There is not much in any of them of that quality which
characterizes the average sermon. For the artifices of rhetoric which
are usually employed to move hearers Swift had no small contempt. He
aimed to convince the mind by plain statements of common-sense views. He
had no faith in a conviction brought about under the stress of emotional
excitement. His sermons exactly answer to the advice he gave a young
clergyman--"First tell the people what is their duty, and then convince
them that it is so." In the note to his reprint of these sermons Sir
Walter Scott has very admirably summed up their qualities.
"The Sermons of Swift," says Scott, "have none of that thunder which
appals, or that resistless and winning softness which melts, the hearts
of an audience. He can never have enjoyed the triumph of uniting
hundreds in one ardent sentiment of love, of terror, or of devotion. His
reasoning, however powerful, and indeed unanswerable, convinces the
understanding, but is never addressed to the heart; and, indeed, from his
instructions to a young clergyman, he seems hardly to have considered
pathos as a legitimate ingredient in an English sermon. Occasionally,
too, Swift's misanthropic habits break out even from the pulpit; nor is
he altogether able to suppress his disdain of those fellow mortals, on
whose behalf was accomplished the great work of redemption. With such
unamiable feelings towards his hearers, the preacher might indeed
command their respect, but could never excite their sympathy. It may be
feared that his Sermons were less popular from another cause, imputable
more to the congregation than to the pastor. Swift spared not the vices
of rich or poor; and, disdaining to amuse the imaginations of his
audience with discussion of dark points of divinity, or warm them by a
flow of sentimental devotion, he rushes at once to the point of moral
depravity, and upbraids them with their favourite and predominant vices
in a tone of stern reproof, bordering upon reproach. In short, he tears
the bandages from their wounds, like the hasty surgeon of a crowded
hospital, and applies the incision knife and caustic with salutary, but
rough and untamed severity. But, alas! the mind must be already
victorious over the worst of its evil propensities, that can profit by
this harsh medicine. There is a principle of opposition in our nature,
which mans itself with obstinacy even against avowed truth, when it
approaches our feelings in a harsh and insulting manner. And Swift was
probably sensible, that his discourses, owing to these various causes,
did not produce the powerful effects most grateful to the feelings of
the preacher, because they reflect back to him those of the audience.
"But although the Sermons of Swift are deficient in eloquence, and were
lightly esteemed by their author, they must not be undervalued by the
modern reader. They exhibit, in an eminent degree, that powerful grasp
of intellect which distinguished the author above all his
contemporaries. In no religious discourses can be found more sound good
sense, more happy and forcible views of the immediate subject. The
reasoning is not only irresistible, but managed in a mode so simple
and clear, that its force is obvious to the most ordinary capacity. Upon
all subjects of morality, the preacher maintains the character of a rigid
and inflexible monitor; neither admitting apology for that which is
wrong, nor softening the difficulty of adhering to that which is right; a
stern stoicism of doctrine, that may fail in finding many converts, but
leads to excellence in the few manly minds who dare to embrace it. In
treating the doctrinal points of belief, (as in his Sermon upon the
Trinity,) Swift systematically refuses to quit the high and pre-eminent
ground which the defender of Christianity is entitled to occupy, or to
submit to the test of human reason, mysteries which are placed, by their
very nature, far beyond our finite capacities. Swift considered, that, in
religion, as in profane science, there must be certain ultimate laws
which are to be received as fundamental truths, although we are
incapable of defining or analysing their nature; and he censures those
divines, who, in presumptuous confidence of their own logical
powers, enter into controversy upon such mysteries of faith, without
considering that they give thereby the most undue advantage to the
infidel. Our author wisely and consistently declared reason an
incompetent judge of doctrines, of which God had declared the fact,
concealing from man the manner. He contended, that he who, upon the
whole, receives the Christian religion as of divine inspiration, must be
contented to depend upon God's truth, and his holy word, and receive
with humble faith the mysteries which are too high for comprehension.
Above all, Swift points out, with his usual forcible precision, the
mischievous tendency of those investigations which, while they assail
one fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, shake and endanger
the whole fabric, destroy the settled faith of thousands, pervert and
mislead the genius of the learned and acute, destroy and confound the
religious principles of the simple and ignorant."
In 1744, Faulkner printed three sermons as a single volume; these were
"On Mutual Subjection," "On Conscience," and "On the Trinity." The other
sermons appeared in the various editions issued by Nichols and others.
The text here given is that of the volume of 1744, of Hawkesworth and
Scott.
[T.S.]
ON MUTUAL SUBJECTION.
I PETER, V. 5.
"--Yea, all of you be subject one to another."
The Apostle having in many parts of this epistle given directions to
Christians concerning the duty of subjection or obedience to superiors;
in the several instances of the subject to his prince, the child to his
parent, the servant to his master, the wife to her husband, and the
younger to the elder; doth here, in the words of my text, sum up the
whole, by advancing a point of doctrine, which at first may appear a
little extraordinary: "Yea, all of you," saith he, "be subject one to
another." For it should seem, that two persons cannot properly be said
to be subject to each other, and that subjection is only due from
inferiors to those above them: yet St Paul hath several passages to the
same purpose. For he exhorts the Romans, "in honour to prefer one
another:"[1] and the Philippians, "that in lowliness of mind they should
each esteem other better than themselves;"[2] and the Ephesians, "that
they should submit themselves one to another in the fear of the
Lord."[3] Here we find these two great apostles recommending to all
Christians this duty of mutual subjection. For we may observe by St
Peter, that having mentioned the several relations which men bear to
each other, as governor and subject, master and servant, and the rest
which I have already repeated, he maketh no exception, but sums up the
whole with commanding "all to be subject one to another." From whence we
may conclude, that this subjection due from all men to all men, is
something more than the compliment of course, when our betters are
pleased to tell us they are our humble servants, but understand us to be
their slaves.
[Footnote 1: Rom. xii. 10.]
[Footnote 2: Philip. ii. 3.]
[Footnote 3: Ephes. v. 21.]
I know very well, that some of those who explain this text, apply it to
humility, to the duties of charity, to private exhortations, and to
bearing with each other's infirmities: And it is probable, the apostle
may have had a regard to all these: But however, many learned men agree,
that there is something more understood, and so the words in their plain
natural meaning must import; as you will observe yourselves, if you read
them with the beginning of the verse, which is thus: "Likewise ye
younger submit yourselves unto the elder; yea, all of you be subject one
to another." So, that upon the whole, there must be some kind of
subjection due from every man to every man, which cannot be made void by
any power, pre-eminence, or authority whatsoever. Now, what sort of
subjection this is, and how it ought to be paid, shall be the subject of
my present discourse.
As God hath contrived all the works of nature to be useful, and in some
manner a support to each other, by which the whole frame of the world
under his providence is preserved and kept up; so, among mankind, our
particular stations are appointed to each of us by God Almighty, wherein
we are obliged to act, as far as our power reacheth, toward the good of
the whole community. And he who doth not perform that part assigned him,
toward advancing the benefit of the whole, in proportion to his
opportunities and abilities, is not only a useless, but a very
mischievous member of the public: Because he taketh his share of the
profit, and yet leaves his share of the burden to be borne by others,
which is the true principal cause of most miseries and misfortunes in
life. For, a wise man who doth not assist with his counsels, a great man
with his protection, a rich man with his bounty and charity, and a poor
man with his labour, are perfect nuisances in a commonwealth. Neither is
any condition of life more honourable in the sight of God than another;
otherwise he would be a respecter of persons, which he assureth us he is
not: For he hath proposed the same salvation to all men, and hath only
placed them in different ways or stations to work it out. Princes are
born with no more advantages of strength or wisdom than other men; and,
by an unhappy education, are usually more defective in both than
thousands of their subjects. They depend for every necessary of life
upon the meanest of their people: Besides, obedience and subjection were
never enjoined by God to humour the passions, lusts, and vanities of
those who demand them from us; but we are commanded to obey our
governors, because disobedience would breed seditions in the state. Thus
servants are directed to obey their masters, children their parents, and
wives their husbands; not from any respect of persons in God, but
because otherwise there would be nothing but confusion in private
families. This matter will be clearly explained, by considering the
comparison which St Paul maketh between the Church of Christ and the
body of man: For the same resemblance will hold, not only to families
and kingdoms, but to the whole corporation of mankind. "The eye," saith
he,[4] "cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the
head to the feet, I have no need of thee. Nay, much more, those members
of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. And whether one
member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be
honoured, all the members rejoice with it." The case is directly the
same among mankind. The prince cannot say to the merchant, I have no
need of thee; nor the merchant to the labourer, I have no need of thee.
Nay, much more those members, &c. For the poor are generally more
necessary members of the commonwealth than the rich: Which clearly
shews, that God never intented such possessions for the sake and service
of those to whom he lends them: but because he hath assigned every man
his particular station to be useful in life; and this for the reason
given by the apostle, "that there should be no schism in the body."[5]
[Footnote 4: 1 Corin. xii. 21, 23, 26.]
[Footnote 5: 1 Corin. xii. 25.]
From hence may partly be gathered the nature of that subjection which we
all owe to one another. God Almighty hath been pleased to put us into an
imperfect state, where we have perpetual occasion of each other's
assistance. There is none so low, as not to be in a capacity of
assisting the highest; nor so high, as not to want the assistance of the
lowest.
It plainly appears from what hath been said, that no one human creature
is more worthy than another in the sight of God; farther, than according
to the goodness or holiness of their lives; and, that power, wealth, and
the like outward advantages, are so far from being the marks of God's
approving or preferring those on whom they are bestowed, that, on the
contrary, he is pleased to suffer them to be almost engrossed by those
who have least title to his favour. Now, according to this equality
wherein God hath placed all mankind, with relation himself, you will
observe, that in all the relations between man and man, there is a
mutual dependence, whereby the one cannot subsist without the other.
Thus, no man can be a prince without subjects, nor a master without
servants, nor a father without children. And this both explains and
confirms the doctrine of the text: For, where there is a mutual
dependence, there must be a mutual duty, and consequently a mutual
subjection. For instance, the subject must only obey his prince, because
God commands it, human laws require it, and the safety of the public
maketh it necessary: (For the same reasons we must obey all that are in
authority, and submit ourselves, not only to the good and gentle, but
also to the froward, whether they rule according to our liking or no.)
On the other side, in those countries that pretend to freedom, princes
are subject to those laws which their people have chosen; they are bound
to protect their subjects in liberty, property, and religion; to receive
their petitions, and redress their grievances: So, that the best prince
is, in the opinion of wisemen, only the greatest servant of the nation;
not only a servant to the public in general, but in some sort to every man
in it. In the like manner, a servant owes obedience, and diligence and
faithfulness to his master, from whom, at the same time, he hath a just
demand for protection, and maintenance, and gentle treatment. Nay, even
the poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms from the rich man, who is
guilty of fraud, injustice, and oppression, if he doth not afford relief
according to his abilities.
But this subjection we all owe one another is nowhere more necessary
than in the common conversations of life; for without it there could be
no society among men. If the learned would not sometimes submit to the
ignorant, the wise to the simple, the gentle to the froward, the old to
the weaknesses of the young, there would be nothing but everlasting
variance in the world. This our Saviour himself confirmed by his own
example; for he appeared in the form of a servant, and washed his
disciples' feet, adding those memorable words: "Ye call me Lord and
Master, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then your Lord and Master
wash your feet, how much more ought ye to wash one another's feet?"
Under which expression of washing the feet, is included all that
subjection, assistance, love, and duty, which every good Christian ought
to pay his brother, in whatever station God hath placed him. For the
greatest prince and the meanest slave, are not, by infinite degrees so
distant, as our Saviour and those disciples whose feet he vouchsafed to
wash.
And, although this doctrine of subjecting ourselves to one another may
seem to grate upon the pride and vanity of mankind, and may therefore be
hard to be digested by those who value themselves upon their greatness
or their wealth; yet, it is really no more than what most men practise
upon other occasions. For, if our neighbour who is our inferior comes to
see us, we rise to receive him, we place him above us, and respect him
as if he were better than ourselves; and this is thought both decent and
necessary, and is usually called good manners. Now the duty required by
the apostle, is only that we should enlarge our minds, and that what we
thus practice in the common course of life, we should imitate in all our
actions and proceedings whatsoever; since our Saviour tells us, that
every man is our neighbour, and since we are so ready in the point of
civility, to yield to others in our own houses, where only we have any
title to govern.
Having thus shewn you what sort of subjection it is which all men owe
one to another, and in what manner it ought to be paid, I shall now draw
some observations from what hath been said.
And _first_: A thorough practice of this duty of subjecting ourselves to
the wants and infirmities of each other, would utterly extinguish in us
the vice of pride. For, if God hath pleased to entrust me with a talent,
not for my own sake, but for the service of others, and at the same time
hath left me full of wants and necessities which others must supply; I
can then have no cause to set any extraordinary value upon myself, or to
despise my brother, because he hath not the same talents which were lent
to me. His being may probably be as useful to the public as mine; and,
therefore, by the rules of right reason, I am in no sort preferable to
him.
_Secondly_: It is very manifest, from what hath been said, that no man
ought to look upon the advantages of life, such as riches, honour,
power, and the like, as his property, but merely as a trust, which God
hath deposited with him, to be employed for the use of his brethren; and
God will certainly punish the breach of that trust, although the laws of
man will not, or rather indeed cannot; because the trust was conferred
only by God, who hath not left it to any power on earth to decide
infallibly whether a man maketh a good use of his talents or no, or to
punish him where he fails. And therefore God seems to have more
particularly taken this matter into his own hands, and will most
certainly reward or punish us in proportion to our good or ill
performance in it. Now, although the advantages which one man possesseth
more than another, may in some sense be called his property with respect
to other men, yet with respect to God they are, as I said, only a trust:
which will plainly appear from hence. If a man doth not use those
advantages to the good of the public, or the benefit of his neighbour,
it is certain he doth not deserve them; and consequently, that God never
intended them for a blessing to him; and on the other side, whoever doth
employ his talents as he ought, will find by his own experience, that
they were chiefly lent him for the service of others: for to the service
of others he will certainly employ them.