Book: The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D. D., Volume IV:

J >> Jonathan Swift >> The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D. D., Volume IV:




[Footnote 10: The words from "the expression" to "was prince" are
omitted by Faulkner in his edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: See vol. iii, p. 9, note. [T.S.]]

But, if you please, I will tell you the great objection we have against
repealing this same Sacramental Test. It is, that we are verily
persuaded the consequence will be an entire alteration of religion among
us in a no great compass of years. And, pray observe, how we reason here
in Ireland upon this matter.

We observe the Scots in our northern parts, to be a brave, industrious
people, extremely devoted to their religion, and full of an undisturbed
affection towards each other. Numbers of that noble nation, invited by
the fertilities of the soil, are glad to exchange their barren hills of
Loquabar, by a voyage of three hours, for our fruitful vales of Down and
Antrim, so productive of that grain, which, at little trouble and less
expense finds diet and lodging for themselves and their cattle.[12]
These people by their extreme parsimony, wonderful dexterity in dealing,
and firm adherence to one another, soon grow into wealth from the
smallest beginnings, never are rooted out where they once fix, and
increase daily by new supplies; besides when they are the superior
number in any tract of ground, they are not over patient of mixture; but
such, whom they cannot assimilate, soon find it their interest to
remove. I have done all in my power on some land of my own to preserve
two or three English fellows in their neighbourhood, but found it
impossible, though one of them thought he had sufficiently made his
court by turning Presbyterian. Add to all this, that they bring along
with them from Scotland a most formidable notion of our Church, which
they look upon at least three degrees worse than Popery; and it is
natural it should be so, since they come over full fraught with that
spirit which taught them to abolish Episcopacy at home.

[Footnote 12: From this passage, perhaps, Johnson derived the famous
definition of oats, in his Dictionary, as the food of horses in England,
and of men in Scotland. [S.]]

Then we proceed farther, and observe, that the gentlemen of employments
here, make a very considerable number in the House of Commons, and have
no other merit but that of doing their duty in their several stations;
therefore when the Test is repealed, it will be highly reasonable they
should give place to those who have much greater services to plead. The
commissions of the revenue are soon disposed of, and the collectors and
other officers throughout this kingdom, are generally appointed by the
commissioners, which give them a mighty influence in every country. As
much may be said of the great officers in the law; and when this door is
open to let dissenters into the commissions of the peace, to make them
High Sheriffs, Mayors of Corporations, and officers of the army and
militia; I do not see how it can be otherwise, considering their
industry and our supineness, but that they may in a very few years grow
to a majority in the House of Commons, and consequently make themselves
the national religion, and have a fair pretence to demand the revenues
of the Church for their teachers. I know it will be objected, that if
all this should happen as I describe, yet the Presbyterian religion
could never be made the national by act of Parliament, because our
bishops are so great a number in the House of Lords, and without a
majority there, the Church could not be abolished. But I have two very
good expedients for that, which I shall leave you to guess, and I dare
swear our Speaker here has often thought on, especially having
endeavoured at one of them so lately. That this design is not so foreign
from some people's thoughts, I must let you know that an honest
bellwether[13] of our house (you have him now in England, I wish you
could keep him there) had the impudence some years ago, in Parliament
time, to shake my Lord Bishop of Kilaloe[14] by his lawn sleeve, and
tell him in a threatening manner, "that he hoped to live to see the day
when there should not be one of his order in the kingdom."

[Footnote 13: Supposed to be Mr. Broderick. [F.]]

[Footnote 14: Dr. Lindsay, afterwards Lord Primate. [S.]]

These last lines perhaps you think a digression; therefore to return: I
have told you the consequences we fully reckon upon from repealing the
Sacramental Test, which although the greatest number of such as are for
doing it, are actually in no manner of pain about it, and many of them
care not threepence whether there be any Church, or no; yet because they
pretend to argue from conscience as well as policy and interest, I
thought it proper to understand and answer them accordingly.

Now, sir, in answer to your question, whether if an attempt should be
made here for repealing the Sacramental Test, it would be likely to
succeed? The number of professed dissenters in this Parliament was, as I
remember, something under a dozen, and I cannot call to mind above
thirty others who were expected to fall in with them. This is certain,
that the Presbyterian party having with great industry mustered up their
forces, did endeavour one day upon occasion of a hint in my Lord
Pembroke's speech, to introduce a debate about repealing the Test
clause, when there appeared at least four to one odds against them; and
the ablest of those who were reckoned the most staunch and
thorough-paced Whigs upon all other occasions, fell off with an
abhorrence at the first mention of this.

I must desire you to take notice, that the terms of Whig and Tory, do
not properly express the different interests in our parliament. I
remember when I was last in England, I told the King, that the highest
Tories we had with us would make tolerable Whigs there; this was
certainly right, and still in the general continues so, unless you have
since admitted new characteristics, which did not come within our
definition.[15] Whoever bears a true veneration for the glorious memory
of King William, as our great deliverer from Popery and slavery; whoever
is firmly loyal to our present Queen, with an utter abhorrence and
detestation of the Pretender; whoever approves the succession to the
Crown in the House of Hanover, and is for preserving the doctrine and
discipline of the Church of England, with an indulgence for scrupulous
consciences; such a man we think acts upon right principles, and may be
justly allowed a Whig: And I believe there are not six members in our
House of Commons, who may not fairly come under this description. So
that the parties among us are made up, on one side, of moderate Whigs,
and on the other, of Presbyterians and their abettors; by which last I
mean, such who can equally go to a Church or Conventicle, or such who
are indifferent to all religion in general, or lastly such who affect to
bear a personal rancour toward the clergy: These last are a set of men
not of our own growth, their principles at least have been imported of
late years; yet this whole party put together will not, I am confident,
amount to above fifty men in Parliament, which can hardly be worked up
into a majority of three hundred.

[Footnote 15: The passage beginning with "I remember when I was last in
England," and ending with "within our definition," is omitted by
Faulkner. [T.S.]]

As to the House of Lords, the difficulty there is conceived at least as
great as in ours. So many of our temporal peers live in England, that
the bishops are generally pretty near a par of the House, and we reckon
they will be all to a man against repealing the Test; and yet their
lordships are generally thought as good Whigs upon our principles as any
in the kingdom. There are indeed a few lay lords who appear to have no
great devotion for Episcopacy; and perhaps one or two more with whom
certain powerful motives might be used for removing any difficulty
whatsoever; but these are in no sort of a number to carry any point
against the conjunction of the rest and the whole bench of bishops.

Besides, the whole body of our clergy is utterly against repealing the
Test, though they are entirely devoted to her Majesty, and hardly one in
a hundred who are not very good Whigs in our acceptation of the word.
And I must let you know, that we of Ireland are not yet come up to other
folk's refinements; for we generally love and esteem our clergy, and
think they deserve it; nay, we are apt to lay some weight upon their
opinion, and would not willingly disoblige them, at least unless it were
upon some greater point of interest than this. And their judgment in the
present affair is the more to be regarded, because they are the last
persons who will be affected by it: This makes us think them impartial,
and that their concern is only for religion and the interest of the
kingdom. Because the act which repeals the Test, will only qualify a
layman for an employment, but not a Presbyterian or Anabaptist preacher
for a church-living. Now I must take leave to inform you, that several
members of our House, and myself among the rest, knowing some time ago
what was upon the anvil, went to all the clergy we knew of any
distinction, and desired their judgment of the matter, wherein we found
a most wonderful agreement; there being but one divine that we could
hear of in the whole kingdom, who appeared of a contrary sentiment,
wherein he afterwards stood alone in the convocation, very little to his
credit, though, as he hoped, very much to his interest.

I will now consider a little the arguments offered to shew the
advantages, or rather the necessity, of repealing the Test in Ireland.
We are told, the Popish interest is here so formidable, that all hands
should be joined to keep it under; that the only names of distinction
among us ought to be those of Protestant and Papist, and that this
expedient is the only means to unite all Protestants upon one common
bottom. All which is nothing but misrepresentation and mistake.

If we were under any real fear of the Papists in this kingdom, it would
be hard to think us so stupid, not to be equally apprehensive with
others, since we are likely to be the greatest, and more immediate
sufferers; but on the contrary, we look upon them to be altogether as
inconsiderable as the women and children. Their lands are almost
entirely taken from them, and they are rendered incapable of purchasing
any more; and for the little that remains, provision is made by the late
act against Popery, that it will daily crumble away: To prevent which,
some of the most considerable among them are already turned Protestants,
and so in all probability will many more. Then, the Popish priests are
all registered, and without permission (which I hope will not be
granted) they can have no successors; so that the Protestant Clergy will
find it perhaps no difficult matter to bring great numbers over to the
Church; and in the meantime, the common people without leaders, without
discipline, or natural courage, being little better than "hewers of
wood, and drawers of water," are out of all capacity of doing any
mischief, if they were ever so well inclined. Neither are they at all
likely to join in any considerable numbers with an invader, having found
so ill success when they were much more numerous and powerful; when they
had a prince of their own religion to head them, had been trained for
some years under a Popish deputy, and received such mighty aids from the
French king.

As to that argument used for repealing the Test, that it will unite all
Protestants against the common enemy, I wonder by what figure those
gentlemen speak who are pleased to advance it: Suppose in order to
increase the friendship between you and me, a law should pass that I
must have half your estate; do you think that would much advance the
union between us? Or, suppose I share my fortune equally between my own
children, and a stranger whom I take into my protection; will that be a
method to unite them? Tis an odd way of uniting parties, to deprive a
majority of part of their ancient right, by conferring it on a faction
who had never any right at all, and therefore cannot be said to suffer
any loss or injury if it be refused them. Neither is it very clear, how
far some people may stretch the term of common enemy. How many are there
of those that call themselves Protestants, who look upon our worship to
be idolatrous as well as that of the Papists, and with great charity put
Prelacy and Popery together, as terms convertible?

And, therefore, there is one small doubt, I would be willingly satisfied
in before I agree to the repealing of the Test; that is, whether, these
same Protestants, when they have by their dexterity made themselves the
national religion, and disposed the Church revenues among their pastors
or themselves, will be so kind to allow us dissenters, I do not say a
share in employments, but a bare toleration by law? The reason of my
doubt is, because I have been so very idle as to read above fifty
pamphlets, written by as many Presbyterian divines, loudly disclaiming
this idol Toleration, some of them calling it (I know not how properly)
a rag of Popery, and all agreeing it was to establish iniquity by law.
Now, I would be glad to know when and where their successors have
renounced this doctrine, and before what witnesses. Because, methinks I
should be loth to see my poor titular bishop _in partibus_, seized on by
mistake in the dark for a Jesuit, or be forced myself to keep my
chaplain disguised like my butler, and steal to prayers in a back room,
as my grandfather[l6] used in those times when the Church of England was
malignant.

[Footnote 16: This is Thomas Swift, vicar of Goodrich, in Herefordshire,
"much distinguished by his courage, as well as his loyalty to King
Charles the First, and the sufferings he underwent for that prince, more
than any person of his condition in England." See the "Fragment of
Autobiography," printed by Scott and Forster in their Lives of Swift.
[T.S.]]

But this is ripping up old quarrels long forgot; Popery is now the
common enemy, against which we must all unite; I have been tired in
history with the perpetual folly of those states who call in foreigners
to assist them against a common enemy: But the mischief was, those
allies would never be brought to allow that the common enemy was quite
subdued. And they had reason; for it proved at last, that one part of
the common enemy was those who called them in, and so the allies became
at length the masters.

'Tis agreed among naturalists that a lion is a larger, a stronger, and
more dangerous enemy than a cat; yet if a man were to have his choice,
either a lion at his foot, bound fast with three or four chains, his
teeth drawn out, and his claws pared to the quick, or an angry cat in
full liberty at his throat; he would take no long time to determine.

I have been sometimes admiring the wonderful significancy of that word
persecution, and what various interpretations it hath acquired even
within my memory. When I was a boy, I often heard the Presbyterians
complain that they were not permitted to serve God in their own way;
they said they did not repine at our employments, but thought that all
men who live peaceably ought to have liberty of conscience, and leave to
assemble. That impediment being removed at the Revolution, they soon
learned to swallow the Sacramental Test and began to take very large
steps, wherein all that offered to oppose them, were called men of a
persecuting spirit. During the time the Bill against Occasional
Conformity was on foot, persecution was every day rung in our ears, and
now at last the Sacramental Test itself has the same name. Where then is
this matter likely to end, when the obtaining of one request is only
used as a step to demand another? A lover is ever complaining of cruelty
while anything is denied him, and when the lady ceases to be cruel, she
is from the next moment at his mercy: So persecution it seems, is
everything that will not leave it in men's power to persecute others.

There is one argument offered against a Sacramental Test, by a sort of
men who are content to be styled of the Church of England, who perhaps
attend its service in the morning, and go with their wives to a
conventicle in the afternoon, confessing they hear very good doctrine in
both. These men are much offended that so holy an institution as that of
the Lord's Supper should be made subservient to such mercenary purposes
as the getting of an employment. Now, it seems, the law, concluding all
men to be members of that Church where they receive the Sacrament; and
supposing all men to live like Christians (especially those who are to
have employments) did imagine they received the Sacrament in course
about four times a year, and therefore only desired it might appear by
certificate to the public, that such who took an office were members of
the Church established, by doing their ordinary duty. However, lest we
should offend them, we have often desired they would deal candidly with
us; for if the matter stuck only there, we would propose it in
parliament, that every man who takes an employment should, instead of
receiving the sacrament, be obliged to swear, that he is a member of the
Church of Ireland by law established, with Episcopacy, and so forth; and
as they do now in Scotland, _to be true to the Kirk_. But when we drive
them thus far, they always retire to the main body of the argument, urge
the hardship that men should be deprived the liberty of serving their
Queen and country, on account of their conscience: And, in short, have
recourse to the common style of their half brethren. Now whether this be
a sincere way of arguing, I will appeal to any other judgment but
theirs.

There is another topic of clamour somewhat parallel to the foregoing: It
seems, by the Test clause, the military officers are obliged to receive
the Sacrament as well as the civil. And it is a matter of some patience
to hear the dissenters declaiming upon this occasion: They cry they are
disarmed, they are used like Papists; when an enemy appears at home, or
from abroad, they must sit still, and see their throats cut, or be
hanged for high treason if they offer to defend themselves. Miserable
condition! Woful dilemma! It is happy for us all, that the Pretender was
not apprized of this passive Presbyterian principle, else he would have
infallibly landed in our northern parts, and found them all sat down in
their formalities, as the Gauls did the Roman senators, ready to die
with honour in their callings. Sometimes to appease their indignation,
we venture to give them hopes that in such a case the government will
perhaps connive, and hardly be so severe to hang them for defending it
against the letter of the law; to which they readily answer, that they
will not lie at our mercy, but let us fight our battles ourselves.
Sometimes we offer to get an act, by which upon all Popish insurrections
at home, or Popish invasion from abroad, the government shall be
empowered to grant commissions to all Protestants whatsoever, without
that persecuting circumstance of obliging them to say their prayers when
they receive the Sacrament; but they abhor all thoughts of occasional
commissions, they will not do our drudgery, and we reap the benefit: It
is not worth their while to fight _pro aris et focis_, and they had
rather lose their estates, liberties, religion and lives, than the
pleasure of governing.

But to bring this discourse toward a conclusion: If the dissenters will
be satisfied with such a toleration by law as hath been granted them in
England, I believe the majority of both Houses will fall readily in with
it; farther it will be hard to persuade this House of Commons, and
perhaps much harder the next. For, to say the truth, we make a mighty
difference here between suffering thistles to grow among us, and wearing
them for posies. We are fully convinced in our consciences, that _we_
shall always tolerate them, but not quite so fully that _they_ will
always tolerate us, when it comes to their turn; and _we_ are the
majority, and _we_ are in possession.

He who argues in defence of a law in force, not antiquated or obsolete,
but lately enacted, is certainly on the safer side, and may be allowed
to point out the dangers he conceives to foresee in the abrogation of
it.

For if the consequences of repealing this clause, should at some time or
other enable the Presbyterians to work themselves up into the National
Church; instead of uniting Protestants, it would sow eternal divisions
among them. First, their own sects, which now lie dormant, would be soon
at cuffs again with each other about power and preferment; and the
dissenting Episcopals, perhaps discontented to such a degree, as upon
some fair unhappy occasion, would be able to shake the firmest loyalty,
which none can deny theirs to be.

Neither is it very difficult to conjecture from some late proceedings,
at what a rate this faction is likely to drive wherever it gets the whip
and the seat. They have already set up courts of spiritual judicature in
open contempt of the laws: They send missionaries everywhere, without
being invited, in order to convert the Church of England folks to
Christianity. They are as vigilant as _I know who_, to attend persons on
their death-beds, and for purposes much alike. And what practices such
principles as these (with many other that might be invidious to mention)
may spawn when they are laid out to the sun, you may determine at
leisure.

Lastly, Whether we are so entirely sure of their loyalty upon the
present foot of government as you may imagine, their detractors make a
question, which however, does, I think, by no means affect the body of
dissenters; but the instance produced is, of some among their leading
teachers in the north, who having refused the Abjuration Oath, yet
continue their preaching, and have abundance of followers. The
particulars are out of my head, but the fact is notorious enough, and I
believe has been published; I think it a pity, it has not been remedied.

Thus, I have fairly given you, Sir, my own opinion, as well as that of a
great majority in both Houses here, relating to this weighty affair,
upon which I am confident you may securely reckon. I will leave you to
make what use of it you please.

I am, with great respect, Sir,

Yours, &c.

***** ***** ***** ***** *****




THE PRESBYTERIANS' PLEA OF MERIT.


NOTE.

THE reference casually made by Swift, in his "Letter on the Sacramental
Test," to his grandfather and the "malignant Church," probably points to
one of the causes for his persistent dislike towards the Protestant
dissenters. His attitude displays a profound disgust both for their
teaching and their conduct; and he found, very early, occasion to
ridicule them, as may be seen in his description of Jack, Martin, and
Peter in "A Tale of a Tub" (see vol. i. of this edition). In
spite, however, of this attitude, Swift seems to have remained silent on
the question of the repeal of the Test Act for a period of more than
twenty years. He had published his "Letter from a Member of the House of
Commons in Ireland" in 1708; but it was not until 1731 that he again
took up his pen against Dissent.

In that year, and in the two subsequent ones, the Presbyterians fought
very strenuously for a mitigation of the laws against them; and the
literature which has been handed down to us of that fight is by no means
insignificant. The tracts which we know to be of Swift's authorship are:
"The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" (1731); "A Narrative of the several
Attempts which the Dissenters of Ireland have made for a repeal of the
Sacramental Test" (1731); "The Advantages proposed by Repealing the
Sacramental Test impartially considered" (1732); "Queries Relating to the
Sacramental Test" (1732); "Reasons humbly offered to the Parliament of
Ireland for Repealing the Test in favour of Roman Catholics" (1733);
"Some Few Thoughts Concerning the Test;" and, according to Sir Walter
Scott, "Ten Reasons for Repealing the Test Act."

Monck Mason, in his elaborate note on this particular literature of the
period (see "History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," pp. 387, 388, notes),
gives a list of sixteen pamphlets, many of which he considers to be so
well written that they would have done no discredit to Swift himself.
The list is here transcribed for the benefit of the student:

(i.) "Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test considered; with
Remarks humbly offered for the Repeal of it." 1732.

(ii.) "Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled, 'The Nature and Consequences of
the Sacramental Test Considered.'" Dublin, 1732, 12mo.

(iii.) "The History of the Test Act: in which the Mistakes in some
Writings against it are Rectified, and the Importance of it to the
Church explained." Printed at London and Dublin: and reprinted by George
Faulkner. 1733, 12mo.

(iv.) "Plain Reasons against the Repeal of the Test Act; humbly offered
to publick Consideration." Dublin: printed by George Faulkner. 1733,
12mo.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.