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

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




(v.) "The Test Act Examined by the Test of Reason." Dublin, 1733, 12mo.

(vi.) "The Case of the Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland, and that of the
Dissenters in Ireland Compared; with Relation to Toleration, and a
Capacity for Civil Offices. In a Letter to a Member of Parliament."
Dublin, 1733, 8vo.

¶ This tract refers to another entitled: "The Tables Turned against the
Presbyterians; or, Reasons against the Sacramental Test, by a General
Assembly of Scotland."

(vii.) "The Case of the Test Considered, with respect to Ireland."
Dublin, Faulkner, 1733.

(viii) "The natural Impossibilities of better Uniting Protestants &c. by
Repealing the Test." Dublin: Printed by George Faulkner, 1733.

(ix.) "Ten Reasons for Repealing the Test Act."

¶ Scott reprints this as Swift's from the broadside original.

(x-xi.) "A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters from the Aspersions
Cast upon them in a late Pamphlet, entitled, 'The Presbyterians 'Plea of
Merit &c.,' with some Remarks on a Paper called 'The Correspondent,'
giving a pretended Narrative, &c."

¶ Swift refers to this pamphlet in his "Roman Catholic Reasons for
Repealing the Test." It is also noted by the printer of the undated
second edition of the London reprint of "The Plea."

(xii.) "The Dispute Adjusted, about the _proper time_ of applying for a
Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts: by shewing that _no time is
proper_. By the Reverend Father in God, Edmund Lord Bishop of London."

¶ Faulkner, in the second edition of "The Presbyterians' Plea,"
advertises this tract to appear in 1733. The author of "The Case of the
Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland" mentions that it has been "lately
re-printed" in Ireland, but that it is "falsely ascribed to the Bishop
of London."

(xiii.) "The Test Act considered in a Political Light." 1733. Broadside.

(xiv.) "Queries upon the Demand of the Presbyterians to have the
Sacramental Test Repealed at this Session of Parliament." 1733.
Broadside.

¶ These Queries differ somewhat from those put by Swift in 1732.

(xv.) "A Letter from a Freeman of a certain Burrough, in the North of
Ireland, to his Friend and Representative in Parliament; shewing Reasons
why the Test Act should not be Repealed." 1733. Broadside.

(xvi.)
"The Grunter's Request
To take Off the Test."
[A Poem.] 1733. 12mo.

Scott suggests ("Life of Jonathan Swift," 1824, p.401) that "probably
more occasional tracts" were written by the Dean on the subject of the
Test "than have yet been recovered." The curious student may satisfy
himself on this matter by reading the above pamphlets. Neither Monck
Mason, Dr. Barrett, nor Scott himself, cared to take upon themselves to
decide whether any of them were by Swift; nor have any of the Dean's
modern biographers thrown any light on the subject. A point to note in
this consideration is the fact that Faulkner, in his collected edition
of Swift's works, did not include any of these; and, as he himself
published many of them, he would certainly have known something of their
authorship.

Swift's agitation against the repeal of the Test was so successful that
the Irish House of Commons found itself in a majority for the Test. In
addition to the prose tracts Swift wrote a stinging poem "On the Words
Brother Protestants and Fellow Christians," an expression familiarly
used by the advocates for the Repeal of the Test Act. This poem brought
him into personal conflict with one Serjeant Bettesworth, who "openly
swore, before many hundreds of people, that upon the first opportunity,
by the help of ruffians, he would murder or maim the Dean of St.
Patrick's." The lines to which the Serjeant took exception were:

"Thus at the bar the booby Bettesworth,
Though half-a-crown o'erpays his sweat's worth;
Who knows in law, nor text, nor margent,
Calls Singleton his brother serjeant."

The affair ended in the further ridicule of Bettesworth, who complained
in the Irish House of Commons that the lampoon had cost him L1,200 a
year. A full account of Swift's interview with Bettesworth is given by
Swift in a letter to the Duke of Dorset, dated January, 1733-1734; and
the "Grub Street Journal" for August 9th, 1734, tells how the
inhabitants of the City of Dublin came to Swift's aid. Perhaps
Bettesworth finally found consolation in the thought, satirically
suggested by Dr. William Dunkin, that, after all, it might be worth the
loss of money to be "transmitted to posterity in Dr. Swift's works."

"For had he not pointed me out, I had slept till
E'en Doomsday, a poor insignificant reptile;
Half lawyer, half actor, pert, dull, and inglorious,
Obscure, and unheard of--but now I'm notorious:
Fame has but two gates, a white and a black one;
The worst they can say is, I got in at the back one:
If the end be obtained 'tis equal what portal
I enter, since I'm to be render'd immortal:
So clysters applied to the anus, 'tis said,
By skilful physicians, give ease to the head--
Though my title be spurious, why should I be dastard,
A man is a man though he should be a bastard.
Why sure 'tis some comfort that heroes should slay us,
If I fall, I would fall by the hand of Aeneas;
And who by the Drapier would not rather damn'd be,
Than demigoddized by madrigal Namby."[1]

[Footnote 1: Namby was the nickname for Ambrose Philips.]

Scott, and all Swift's editors and biographers, state that "The
Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" was first published in 1731. What
authority they have for this statement, I have not been able to
discover. My own research has, so far, failed to find a copy of it with
the date, 1731, on the title-page. The edition upon which the present
text is based, is that printed by Faulkner in 1733, of the title-page of
which, a facsimile is here given. This, I believe to be the first
edition. Scott, following Nichols, states that in the first edition of
"The Plea," the "Ode to Humphry French, Esq.," appeared, and that in the
second edition, this ode was omitted to make room for the "Narrative of
the Several Attempts made for the Repeal of the Test Act." Now in the
British Museum, there are two _undated_ editions of "The Plea," which
bear out this statement; but these, as the title-pages inform us, are
London reprints of Dublin editions. Since, however, no one has recorded
dated Dublin editions corresponding exactly to these London reprints,
the evidence of the reprints counts for very little. Monck Mason, a very
accurate authority, usually, says distinctly, "The Plea" was printed in
1731, and a second edition issued in 1733; but one gathers from his note
that the only edition in his possession was that of 1733, and this has
neither the "Ode" nor the "Narrative"; the last page consisting of an
advertisement of the collected editions of Swift's works, which Faulkner
was then preparing. The first of the London reprints bears no indication
of any particular edition; the second has the words "second edition" on
the title-page. In his note to this reprint of the "Narrative," and in
his "Life of Swift," Scott refers to a Dublin periodical called "The
Correspondent" (in which the "Narrative" was first published) as being
printed in 1731. The only edition of this periodical, of which I have
either seen or heard, is the copy in the British Museum, and that copy
distinctly states: "Printed by James Hoey in Skinner-Row, 1733." If,
therefore, this be the first edition of "The Correspondent," the
"Narrative" must be ascribed to the year 1733, and the second edition of
"The Plea" to the end of the same, or the beginning of the following
year. I conclude, therefore, first, that the first edition of "The Plea"
is that dated "Dublin, 1733;" second, that the undated London reprint
with the "Ode" is of the same year; and, lastly, that the undated second
London reprint with the "Narrative," is probably of the year, 1734.
Examining Scott's text of this tract, one is forced to the conclusion
that he could not have seen the Dublin edition of 1733; whereas, its
almost exact similarity to the London reprint suggests that he used
that. For purposes of the present text all three editions have been
collated with one another, and with those given by Faulkner, Hawkesworth
and Scott.

[T.S.]

THE
_Presbyterians_ PLEA
OF
MERIT;
In Order to take off the
TEST,
Impartially Examined.

[Illustration]

_DUBLIN:_

Printed and fold by GEORGE FAULKNER, in
_Essex-Street_, opposite to the _Bridge_, 1733.


We have been told in the common newspapers, that all attempts are to be
made this session by the Presbyterians, and their abettors, for taking
off the Test, as a kind of preparatory step, to make it go down smoother
in England. For, if once their light would so shine, the Papists,
delighted with the blaze, would all come in, and dance about it. This I
take to be a prudent method; like that of a discreet physician, who
first gives a new medicine to a dog, before he prescribes it to a human
creature.[1]

[Footnote 1: See note prefixed to the "Letter on the Sacramental Test."
[T.S.]]

The Presbyterians have, ever since the Revolution directed their learned
casuists to employ their pens on this subject; by shewing the merits and
pretensions upon which they claim this justice; as founded upon the
services they did toward the restoration of King Charles the Second; and
at the Revolution under the Prince of Orange. Which pleas I take to be
the most singular, in their kind, that ever were offered in the face of
the sun, against the most glaring light of truth, and against a
continuation of public facts, known to all Europe for twenty years
together. I shall, therefore, impartially examine the merits and conduct
of the Presbyterians, upon those two great events; and the pretensions
to favour, which they challenge upon them.

Soon after the Reformation of the Church in England, under Edward the
Sixth, upon Queen Mary's succeeding to the crown, who restored Popery,
many Protestants fled out of England, to escape the persecution raised
against the Church, as her brother had left it established. Some of
these exiles went to Geneva; which city had received the doctrine of
Calvin, and rejected the government of bishops; with many other
refinements. These English exiles readily embraced the Geneva system;
and having added farther improvements of their own, upon Queen Mary's
death returned to England; where they preached up their own opinions;
inveighing bitterly against Episcopacy, and all rites and ceremonies,
however innocent and ancient in the Church: building upon this
foundation; to run as far as possible from Popery, even in the most
minute and indifferent circumstances: this faction, under the name of
Puritan, became very turbulent, during the whole reign of Queen
Elizabeth; and were always discouraged by that wise queen, as well as by
her two successors. However, their numbers, as well as their insolence
and perverseness, so far increased, that soon after the death of King
James the First, many instances of their petulancy and scurrility, are
to be seen in their pamphlets, written for some years after; which was a
trade they began in the days of Queen Elizabeth: particularly with great
rancour against the bishops, the habits, and the ceremonies: Such were
that scurrilous libel under the title of Martin Mar-prelate,[2] and
several others. And, although the Earl of Clarendon[3] tells us, that,
until the year 1640, (as I remember) the kingdom was in a state of
perfect peace and happiness, without the least appearance of thought or
design toward making any alterations in religion or government; yet I
have found, by often rummaging for old books in Little Britain and
Duck-Lane, a great number of pamphlets printed from the year 1530[4] to
1640, full of as bold and impious railing expressions, against the
lawful power of the Crown, and the order of bishops, as ever were
uttered during the Rebellion, or the whole subsequent tyranny of that
fanatic anarchy. However, I find it manifest, that Puritanism did not
erect itself into a new, separate species of religion, till some time
after the Rebellion began. For, in the latter times of King James the
First, and the former part of his son, there were several Puritan
bishops, and many Puritan private clergymen; while people went, as their
inclinations led them, to hear preachers of each party in the parish
churches. For the Puritan clergy had received Episcopal orders as well
as the rest. But, soon after the Rebellion broke out, the term Puritan
gradually dropped, and that of Presbyterian succeeded; which sect was,
in two or three years, established in all its forms, by what they called
an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, without consulting the King; who
was then at war against his rebels. And, from this period the Church
continued under persecution, till monarchy was restored in the year
1660.

[Footnote 2: According to Mr. Edward Arber the writers of these famous
tracts were the Rev. John Penny and Job Throckmorton, Esq. He calls
these two writers "the most eminent prose satirists of the Elizabethan
age." For a full account of these tracts and the controversy, see Mr.
Arber's "Introductory Sketch to the Martin Mar-prelate Controversy,
1588-1590" (1879, English Scholar's Library). The aim of the Mar-prelate
writers is thus stated by the able author of that sketch: "To ridicule
and affront a proud hierarchy [the bishops] endowed with large legal
means of doing mischief, and not wanting in will to exercise these
powers to the full. The spell of the unnatural civil power which had
been enjoyed by the Papal prelates in this country remained with their
Protestant successors until this Controversy broke it: so that from this
time onwards the bishops set about to forge a new spell, 'the Divine
Right of their temporal position and power', which hallucination was
dissolved by the Long Parliament: from which time a bishop has usually
been considered no more than a man" (Preface, pp. 11-12). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon (1608-1674), the author of
the "History of the Great Rebellion." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The original edition has 1630. [T.S.]]

In a year or two after; we began to hear of a new party risen, and
growing in the Parliament, as well as the army; under the name of
Independent: It spread, indeed somewhat more in the latter; but not
equal with the Presbyterians, either in weight or number, till the very
time[5] that the King was murdered.

[Footnote 5: Faulkner prints: "until some time before the King was
murdered."[T.S.]]

When the King, who was then a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, had made
his last concessions for a peace to the Commissioners of the Parliament,
who attended him there; upon their return to London, they reported his
Majesty's answer to the House. Whereupon, a number of moderate members,
who, as Ludlow[6] says, had secured their own terms with his Majesty,
managed with so much art, as to obtain a majority, in a thin house, for
passing a vote, that _the King's concessions were a ground for future
settlement_. But the great officers of the army, joining with the
discontented members, came to a resolution, of excluding all those who
had consented to that vote; which they executed in a military way.
Ireton told Fairfax the General,[7] a rigid Presbyterian, of this
resolution; who thereupon issued his orders for drawing out the army the
next morning, and placing guards in Westminster-hall, the Court of
Requests, and the lobby; who, in obedience to the General, in
conjunction with those members who opposed the vote, would let no member
enter the House, except those of their own party. Upon which, the
question for bringing the King to justice, was immediately put and
carried without opposition, that I can find. Then, an order was made for
his trial; the time and place appointed; the judges named; of whom
Fairfax himself was one; although by the advice or threats of his wife,
he declined sitting among them. However, by fresh orders under his own
hand, which I have seen in print, he appointed guards to attend the
judges at the trial, and to keep the city in quiet; as he did likewise
to prevent any opposition from the people, upon the day of execution.

[Footnote 6: Edmund Ludlow (1620?-1693) lieutenant-general of the
Parliamentary army. He was one of the judges of King Charles's trial,
and who signed the death-warrant. He died at Vevay, in Switzerland,
where he had fled on finding that Charles's judges were not included in
the Act of Indemnity. His memoirs were printed at Vevay in 1698-1699.3
vols. 8vo. It is to these Swift refers. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Ireton and Fairfax were two famous generals of the
Parliamentary army serving with Cromwell. [T.S.]]

From what I have already deduced, it appears manifest, that the
differences between those two sects, Presbyterian and Independent, did
not then amount to half so much as what there is between a Whig and Tory
at present among us. The design of utterly extirpating monarchy and
episcopacy, was equally the same in both; evidently the consequence of
the very same principles, upon which the Presbyterians alone began,
continued, and would have ended in the same events; if towards the
conclusion, they had not been bearded by that new party, with whom they
could not agree about dividing the spoil. However, they held a good
share of civil and military employments during the whole time of the
usurpation; whose names, and actions, and preferments, are frequent in
the accounts of those times. For I make no doubt, that all the prudent
Presbyterians complied in proper seasons, falling in with the stream;
and thereby got that share in employments, which many of them held to
the Restoration; and perhaps too many of them after. In the same manner,
we find our wisest Tories, in both kingdoms, upon the change of hands
and measures at the Queen's death, have endeavoured for several years,
by due compliances, to recover the time they had lost by a temporary
obstinacy; wherein they have well succeeded, according to their degrees
of merit. Of whose names I could here make honourable mention, if I did
not fear it might offend their modesty.

As to what is alleged, that some of the Presbyterians declared openly
against the King's murder, I allow it to be true. But, from what
motives? No other can possibly be assigned, than perfect spite, rage,
and envy, to find themselves wormed out of all power by a new infant
spawn of Independents, sprung from their own bowels. It is true; the
differences in religious tenets between them are very few and trifling;
the chief quarrel, as far as I remember, relating to congregational and
national assemblies. But, wherever interest or power thinks fit to
interfere, it little imports what principles the opposite parties think
fit to charge upon each other: for, we see, at this day, that the Tories
are more hated by the whole set of zealous Whigs, than the very Papists
themselves; and, in effect, as much unqualified for the smallest office:
although, both these parties assert themselves to be of the same
religion, in all its branches of doctrine and discipline; and profess
the same loyalty to the same Protestant King and his heirs.

If the reader would know what became of this Independent party, upon
whom all the mischief is charged by their Presbyterian brethren; he may
please to observe, that during the whole usurpation, they contended by
degrees with their parent sect, and, as I have already said, shared in
employments; and gradually, after the Restoration, mingled with the mass
of Presbyterians; lying ever since undistinguished in the herd of
dissenters.

The Presbyterian merit is of as little weight, when they allege
themselves instrumental towards the King's restoration. The kingdom grew
tired with those ridiculous models of government: First, by a House of
Lords and Commons, without a king; then without bishops; afterwards by a
Rump[8] and lords temporal: then by a Rump alone; next by a single
person for life, in conjunction with a council: by agitators: by
major-generals: by a new kind of representatives from the three
kingdoms: by the keepers of the liberties of England; with other schemes
that have slipped out of my memory. Cromwell was dead; his son Richard,
a weak, ignorant wretch, who gave up his monarchy much in the same
manner with the two usurping kings of Brentford.[9] The people harassed
with taxes and other oppressions; the King's party, then called the
Cavaliers began to recover their spirits. The few nobility scattered
through the kingdom, who lived in a most retired manner, observing the
confusion of things, could no longer endure to be ridden by bakers,
cobblers, brewers, and the like, at the head of armies; and plundering
everywhere like French dragoons: The Rump assembly grew despicable to
those who had raised them: The city of London, exhausted by almost
twenty years contributing to their own ruin, declared against them. The
Rump, after many deaths and resurrections, was, in the most contemptuous
manner, kicked out, and burned in effigy. The excluded members were let
in: a free Parliament called in as legal a manner as the times would
allow; and the King restored.

[Footnote 8: This name was given to that part of the House of Commons
which remained after the moderate men had been expelled by
military-force. [S.]]

[Footnote 9: In the "Rehearsal."]

The second claim of Presbyterian merit is founded upon their services
against the dangerous designs of King James the Second; while that
prince was using all his endeavours to introduce Popery, which he openly
professed upon his coming to the crown: To this they add, their eminent
services at the Revolution, under the Prince of Orange.

Now, the quantum of Presbyterian merit, during the four years' reign of
that weak, bigoted, and ill-advised prince, as well as at the time of
the Revolution, will easily be computed, by a recourse to a great number
of histories, pamphlets, and public papers, printed in those times, and
some afterwards; beside the verbal testimonies of many persons yet
alive, who are old enough to have known and observed the Dissenters'
conduct in that critical period.

It is agreed, that upon King Charles the Second's death, soon after his
successor had publicly owned himself a Roman Catholic; he began with his
first caresses to the Church party; from whom having received very cold
discouraging answers; he applied to the Presbyterian leaders and
teachers, being advised by the priests and Popish courtiers, that the
safest method toward introducing his own religion, would be by taking
off the Sacramental Test, and giving a full liberty of conscience to all
religions, (I suppose, that professed Christianity.) It seems, that the
Presbyterians, in the latter years of King Charles the Second, upon
account of certain plots, (allowed by Bishop Burnet to be genuine) had
been, for a short time, forbid to hold their conventicles: Whereupon,
these charitable Christians, out of perfect resentment against the
Church, received the gracious offers of King James with the strongest
professions of loyalty, and highest acknowledgments for his favour. I
have seen several of their addresses, full of thanks and praises, with
bitter insinuations of what they had suffered; putting themselves and
the Papists upon the same foot; as fellow-sufferers for conscience; and
with the style of, _Our brethren the Roman Catholics_. About this time
began the project of closeting, (which has since been practised many
times, with more art and success,) where the principal gentlemen of the
kingdom were privately catechised by his Majesty, to know whether, if a
new parliament were called, they would agree to pass an act for
repealing the Sacramental Test, and establishing a general liberty of
conscience. But he received so little encouragement, that, despairing of
success, he had recourse to his dispensing power, which the judges had
determined to be part of his prerogative. By colour of this
determination, he preferred several Presbyterians, and many Papists, to
civil and military employments. While the king was thus busied, it is
well known, that Monsieur Fagel, the Dutch envoy in London, delivered
the opinion of the Prince and Princess of Orange, concerning the repeal
of the Test; whereof the king had sent an account to their Highnesses,
to know how far they approved of it. The substance of their answer, as
reported by Fagel, was this, "That their highnesses thought very well of
a liberty of conscience; but by no means of giving employments to any
other persons, than those who were of the National Church." This opinion
was confirmed by several reasons: I cannot be more particular, not
having the paper by me, although it hath been printed in many accounts
of those times. And thus much every moderate churchman would perhaps
submit to: But, to trust any part of the civil power in the hands of
those whose interest, inclination, conscience, and former practices have
been wholly turned to introduce a different system of religion and
government, hath very few examples in any Christian state; nor any at
all in Holland, the great patroness of universal toleration.

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