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 2: In his note Scott calls him "Samuel" Boyse, but he is
distinctly mentioned further on in the tract as "Jo: Boyse." The Rev.
Joseph Boyse was a native of Leeds, who had settled in Dublin in 1683 as
joint-pastor with Dr. Daniel Williams. He died in poverty in 1728; and
in the same year his works were published in two folio volumes. His son,
Samuel Boyse, the poet, died in 1749. [T.S.]]

When the Church was in this situation, the clause of the Sacramental
Test was happily sent over from England, tacked to the Popery Bill,
which alarmed the whole body of the dissenters to that degree, that
their managers began to ply with the greatest artifice, and industry, to
prevent its passing into a law. But (to the honour of that parliament be
it spoken), the whole body of both Lords and Commons (some few excepted)
passed the clause with great readiness, and defended it afterwards with
as great resolution.

The immediate consequence of this law was the recovery of several
corporations, which the conformists had given to the dissenters, and the
preservation of others, to which the "enterprising people" had made very
bold and quick approaches.

It was hoped that this signal defeat would have discouraged the
dissenters from any further attempts against a law, which had so
unanimously passed both houses: But the contrary soon appeared. For,
upon meeting of the Parliament, held by the Earl of Pembroke,[3] they
quickly reassumed their wonted courage and confidence, and made no
doubt, but they should either procure an absolute repeal thereof, or get
it so far relaxed, as that they might be admitted to offices of military
trust: To this, they apprehended themselves encouraged by a paragraph in
his Excellency's speech to both Houses (which they applied to
themselves) which was, "That the Queen would be glad of any expedient,
for strengthening the interests of her Protestant subjects of Ireland."

[Footnote 3: It will be remembered that the earl's viceroyalty commenced
April 7th, 1707. It was in his train that Swift came to England in that
year.[T.S.]]

The advocates for the dissenters immediately took hold of this handle,
and in order to prepare the way for this expedient, insisted boldly upon
their merit and loyalty, charged the Church with persecution, and
extolled their signal behaviour in the late Revolution, to that degree,
as if by their signal prowess, they had saved the nation.

But all this, was only to prepare the way for the grand engine, which
was forming to beat down this law; and that was their expedient
addresses.

The first of this kind was, from a provincial synod of the northern
dissenters, beginning with high encomiums upon themselves, and as high
demands from the public, "for their untainted loyalty in all turns of
government," which they said, was "the natural consequence of their
known principles"; expressions, which, had they been applied to them by
their adversaries, must have been understood as spoken ironically, and
indeed to have been the greatest sarcasm imaginable upon them;
especially, when we consider the insolent treatment given to her Majesty
in the very same address; for immediately after they pass this
compliment upon themselves, they tell her Majesty, they deeply regret
the Sacramental Test; and frankly declared, that neither the gentlemen,
nor people of their persuasion, could (they must mean _would_) serve
her, whatever exigencies might arise, unless that law was repealed.

The managers for the kirk, following this precedent, endeavoured to
obtain addresses to the same purpose from the corporations, and though
they proved unsuccessful in most, they procured them from several of our
most considerable conforming corporations; and that too at a critical
juncture, when numbers of Scotch Presbyterians, who had deserved well in
the affair of the Union, and could not be rewarded in England (where the
Test Act was in force) stood ready to overrun our preferments as soon as
the Test should be repealed in Ireland.

But after all when it came to a decisive trial in the House of Commons,
the dissenters were defeated.

When the managers found the House of Commons could not be brought into
that scheme of an expedient, to be offered by them; their refinement
upon this, was, to move for an address, "That the House would accept of
an expedient from her Majesty," but this also was rejected; for by this
project, the managers would have led the Queen into this dilemma, either
to disoblige the whole body of the dissenters, by refusing to name the
expedient, or else to give up the conformists to the insults and
encroachments of the dissenters, by the repeal of that law, which was
declared by the House of Lords, to be the great security of the
Established Church, and of the English interest of Ireland.

The next attempt they made against the Test was during the government of
Lord Wharton.[4]

[Footnote 4: Wharton was appointed Lord Lieutenant on November 25th,
1708. This Wharton is the Thomas, Lord Wharton, against whom Swift wrote
one of his bitterest and most personal attacks. He was the eldest son of
Philip, Lord Wharton, and was created a marquis by George I. He died
April 12th, 1715. The ballad of "Lillibullero" is attributed to him.
[T.S.]]

The dissenters seemed more resolute now than ever, to have the Test
repealed, especially when his Excellency had declared from the throne,
"that they were neither to be persecuted nor molested." For they who had
all along called the Test Act a persecution, might reasonably conclude
that grievance would be removed; when they were told by the chief
governor, that they were not to be even "molested." But to their great
confusion, they were soon undeceived, when they found upon trial, that
the House of Commons, would not bear the least motion towards it.

Their movements to repeal the Test Act being stopped this way; the
managers were obliged to take several other ways to come at it: And at
the time, that some pretended to soothe, others seemed to threaten even
the legislature, with a view, (as must be presumed) that those, whom
they could not cajole, might be frightened into it.[5]

[Footnote 5: Scott omits the words from "with a view" to the end of the
paragraph. [T.S.]]

There happened about the time, when the project of the expedient was on
foot, an excellent occasion, to express their resentments against this
law, and that was, when great numbers of them refused the oath of
allegiance, and to oppose the Pretender; insisting upon a repeal of the
Test Act, as the condition of their arming in defence of their Queen and
country.

The government was not reduced to such straits, as to submit to that
condition; and the Test stood firm, in spite of both the dissenters and
the Pretender, until the latter was driven from our coasts: And then,
one would have thought the hopes of the former, would have vanished with
him.

But it proved quite contrary: For those sons of the earth, rebounding
with fresh vigour from their falls, recovered new strength and spirit
from every defeat, and the next attempt was bolder (considering the
circumstances they were in) than any they had made before.

The case was this: The House of Lords of Ireland had accused them to the
Queen of several illegal practices, which highly concerned the safety of
our constitution, both in church and state: The particulars of which
charge, were summed up in a representation from the Lords to this
effect:

"That they (the dissenters) had opposed and persecuted the conformists,
in those parts where their power prevailed, had invaded their
congregations, propagated their schism in places where it had not the
least footing formerly; that they were protected from a legal
prosecution by a _noli prosequi_ in the case of Drogheda."

"That they refused to take conforming apprentices, and confined trade
among themselves, exclusive of the conformists."

"That in their illegal assemblies they had prosecuted and censured their
people for being married according to law."

"That they have thrown public and scandalous reflections upon the
Episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the Sacramental Test,
and had misapplied the royal bounty of L1,200 _per annum_, in
propagating their schism, and undermining the Church: And had exercised
an illegal jurisdiction in their Presbyteries and Synods," &c.

To this representation of the Lords, the dissenters remonstrate in an
address to the Queen, or rather an appeal to their own people, in which,
although it is evident, they were conscious of those crimes whereof they
stood accused, as appears by the evasions they make to this high charge.
Yet even under these circumstances (such was their modesty) they pressed
for a repeal of the Test Act, by the modest appellation of a grievance
and odious mark of infamy, &c. Of which more hereafter. There is one
particular in another address which I cannot omit. The House of Lords in
their representation, had accused one dissenting teacher in particular
(well known to Mr. Boyse). The charge was in these words:

"Nor has the legislature itself escaped the censure of a bold author of
theirs, who has published in print, that the Sacramental Test is only an
engine to advance a state faction, and to debase religion, to serve base
and unworthy purposes."

To this, Mr. Boyse answers, in an address to the Queen, in the year
1712, subscribed only by himself, and five more dissenting teachers, in
these words.

"As to this part of their Lordships' complaint, we beg leave to lay
before your Majesty the words of that author, which are these.

"'Nor can we altogether excuse those, who turn the holy Eucharist into
an engine, to advance a state faction, and endeavour to confine the
communion table of our Lord, by their arbitrary enclosures to a party;
religion is thereby debased to serve mean and unworthy purposes.' We
humbly conceive that the author in that passage, makes no mention of the
legislature at all, &c., and we cannot omit on this occasion, to regret
it, as the great unhappiness of this kingdom, that dissenters should now
be disabled from concurring in the defence of it, in any future exigency
and danger, and should have the same infamy put upon them with the Irish
Papists.

"We therefore humbly hope, that your Majesty shall consider, how little
real grounds there are for those complaints made by their Lordships."

What a mixture of impudence and prevarication is this! That one
dissenting teacher accused to his prince of having censured the
legislature, should presume, backed only by five more of the same
quality and profession, to transcribe the guilty paragraph, and (to
secure his meaning from all possibility of being mistaken,) annex
another to it; wherein, they rail at that very law, for which he in so
audacious a manner censured the Queen and Parliament, and at the same
time should expect to be acquitted by her Majesty, because he had not
mentioned the word "legislature": 'Tis true the word legislature is not
expressed in that paragraph; but let Mr. Boyse[6] say, what other power
but the legislature, could in this sense, "turn the holy Eucharist into
an engine to advance a state faction, or confine offices of trust, or
the communion table of our Lord, by their arbitrary enclosures, to a
party." It is plain he can from his principles intend no others, but the
legislators of the Sacramental Test; though at the same time I freely
own, that this is a vile description of them: For neither have they by
this law, made the Sacramental Test an engine to advance, but rather to
depress a state faction, nor have they made any arbitrary enclosures, of
the communion table of our Lord, since as many as please, may receive
the Sacrament with us in our churches; and those who will not, may
freely, as before, receive it in their separate congregations: Nor in
the last place, is religion hereby debased, to serve mean and unworthy
purposes; nor is it any more than all lawgivers do, by enjoining an oath
of allegiance, and making that a religious test. For an oath is an act
of religious worship as well as the Eucharist.

[Footnote 6: Scott remarks that "Mr. Boyse is here and in other places,
spoken of as alive, which was the case, I presume, when the tract first
appeared in 'The Correspondent.'" The tract, however, was printed in
the periodical in 1733, and Boyse died in 1728. It may be that when Swift
first wrote "The Narrative," Mr. Boyse was alive; in that case its date
must be put down to an earlier year than either 1733 or even 1731. Or it
may be that the style of so referring to Boyse was used for an
argumentative effect, to appeal to any reader who was in sympathy with
Boyse's opinions. [T.S.]]

Upon the whole, is not this an instance of prodigious boldness in Mr.
Boyse, backed with only five dissenting teachers, thus to recriminate
upon the Irish House of Lords (as they were pleased to call them in the
title of their printed address,) and almost to insist with her Majesty,
upon the repeal of a law, which she had stamped with her royal
authority, but a few years before?

The[7] next instance, of the resolution of the dissenters, against this
law, was the attempt made during the government of the Duke of
Shrewsbury.[8]

[Footnote 7: From this paragraph to the end is taken from "The
Correspondent," No. iv. The text as given by Scott is considerably
altered from that which appeared in the periodical. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: From September, 1713, until the Queen's death in 1714.
[T.S.]]

This attack was by the whole compacted body, of their teachers and
elders, with a formidable engine, called a "representation of
grievances," in which, after they had reviled the Test Act, with the
same odious appellations, and insisted upon the same insolent arguments,
for the repeal thereof, which they had formerly urged to the Queen: They
expressed themselves to his Grace in these words:

"We beg leave to say, that those persons must be inexcusable, and
chargeable, with all the bad consequences that may follow, who in such a
kingdom as this, disable, disgrace, and divide Protestants; a thing that
ought not to be done at any time, or in any place, much less than in
this," &c.

Is it possible to conceive any thing more provoking than this humble
supplication of these remonstrators? Does not this sound like a demand
of the repeal of the Test, at the peril of those, who dare refuse it? Is
it not an application with a hat in one hand, and a sword in the other,
and that too, in the style of a King of Ulster, to a King of Connaught,
--"Repeal the Test, or if you don't........."

But to proceed in this narrative: Notwithstanding the defeat of the
dissenters in England, in their late attempt against the Test, their
brethren in Ireland, are so far from being discouraged, that they seem
now to conceive greater hopes of having it repealed here, than ever.[9]
What grounds they have for these hopes, was a secret to us, and I
presume, to themselves; however private whispers begin now to grow into
general rumours, and their managers proceed with great art and
assiduity, from feeling of pulses, to telling of noses.

[Footnote 9: From this word to the end of this paragraph is omitted by
Scott.[T.S.]]

In order to prepare necessaries, and furnish topics for this attempt,
there was a paper printed upon the opening of last session, and now
republished; entitled, "The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental
Test considered, with reasons humbly offered for the Repeal
thereof."[10]

[Footnote 10: This pamphlet was reprinted in London in 1732. See note
prefixed to "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" [T.S.]]

It is not my intention, to follow this author, through all the mazes and
windings of his reasoning upon this subject, which (in truth) seem such
incoherent shreds, that it is impossible to tie them together; and
therefore, what I purpose is, to answer such objections to the Test, as
are advanced either by this author, or any other which have any
appearance of reason, or plausibility.

I know it is not prudent to despise an adversary, nor fair to prepossess
readers, before I show this bold and insolent writer, in his proper
figure and dress; and therefore, however I may take him to be a feeble
advocate for the repeal of the Test, in point of reasoning, yet I freely
allow him to be a most resolute champion in point of courage, who has,
with such intrepidity, attacked, not only the first enactors of this
law, but all such, who shall continue it, by giving their negatives to a
repeal. I will in this "Correspondent" only transcribe a few quotations
from this author, to shew the gallantry of this aggressor.

Page the 19th[11] he says: "the truth is the imposition of the Test, and
continuing it in such a state of the kingdom, appears (at first sight,)
so great an absurdity in politics, as can never be accounted for."

[Footnote 11: Page 23 in edition London, 1732. [T.S.]]

Who are these absurd politicians? Who first passed, and secondly
continue the Sacramental Test, in all the preceding attempts of the
Dissenters to repeal it? Are they not the majority of both Houses of
Parliament?[12]

[Footnote 12: Omitted by Scott in his edition, 1824. [T.S.]]

But to strengthen his reflections, page 26,[13] he gives the whole
legislature to understand, that continuing the Test, does not become the
wisdom, and justice of the legislature, under the pretence of its being
for the advantage of the state, when it is really prejudicial to it; and
further tells us, it infringes on the indisputable rights of the
dissenters.

[Footnote 13: Pp. 32-33 in London reprint. Scott places passages here in
quotation marks, the original in "The Correspondent" has no such marks,
nor are the passages quoted verbatim from the pamphlet referred
to.[T.S.]]

Page, the 57th,[14] he says, "The gentlemen of the House of Commons, who
framed the bill, to prevent the farther growth of Popery, instead of
approving the Test clause which was inserted, publicly declared their
dislike to it, and their resolution to take the first opportunity of
repealing it, though at that time they unwillingly passed it, rather
than lose a bill they were so fond of. This resolution has not been as
yet fulfilled, for what reasons, our worthy patriots themselves know
best."

[Footnote 14: P. 71 in London reprint [T.S.]]

I should be glad this author would inform us, who, and how many of those
members joined in this resolution, to repeal the Test; or where that
resolution is to be found, which he mentions twice in the same
paragraph; surely not in the books of the House of Commons!

If not, suppose some few gentlemen in the House of Commons, and to be
sure very few they were, who publicly declared their dislike to it, or
entered into any resolution; this, I think, he should have explained,
and not insinuated so gross a reflection on a great majority of the
House of Commons, who first passed this law, and have ever since opposed
all attempts to repeal it; these are the gentleman whom, in sarcasm and
irony, he is pleased to call the "worthy," that is, the unworthy
patriots themselves.

But to mention no more, he concludes his notable piece, with these
remarkable words, pages 62-63.[15]

[Footnote 15: P. 79 of London reprint. [T.S.]]

"Thus it appears, with regard to the Protestant succession, which has
now happily taken place, how reasonable it is to repeal the Sacramental
Test, and that granting that favour to the Dissenters," which, by the
way, cannot be granted but by parliament; "can be disagreeable to none,
who have a just sense of the many blessings we enjoy, by the Protestant
succession, in his Majesty's royal family."

I will not trouble the reader with any more quotations, to the same
purpose, out of this libel, for so I must now call it, but take leave to
make some general observations on those paragraphs I have mentioned.

[Footnote: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

I conceive, it will be readily allowed, that in all applications, either
from any body of men, or from any particular subject to the legislature,
or any branch thereof, we are to take the highest encomiums as purely
complimental; if there be the least insinuation of disrespect or
reflection therein, in such cases I say, you are to take the compliments
in the lowest sense, but all the reflections in the highest sense the
expressions can bear; inasmuch as, the first may be presumed matter of
form, the latter must be matter of resentment.

[Footnote: This paragraph is much curtailed by Scott, who combines it
with the next paragraph of the present text. [T.S.]]

Now, if we apply this observation, to what this bold adventurer has
said, with respect to the legislators, of the Sacramental Test; Does he
not directly and plainly charge them with injustice, imprudence, gross
absurdity and Jacobitism? Let the most prejudiced reader that is not
pre-determined against conviction, say, whether this libeller of the
parliament, has not drawn up a high charge against the makers and
continuers of this law.

It is readily allowed, that this has been the old style of these
champions, who have attacked the Test, as in the instances before
mentioned, with this difference, that he descends lower in his charge,
and has been more particular than any of his brethren.

[Footnote: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

Notwithstanding my resentment, which to be sure, he does not value, I
would be sorry he should bring upon himself the resentment of those he
has been so free with, and I cannot help advising him, to take all
possible care, and use all effectual means, to conjure the printer,
corrector, and publisher of this libel to secrecy; that however the
author may be suspected, he may not be discovered. Upon the whole, is
not this author, justly to be reputed a defamer, till he produces
instances wherein the conforming nobility and gentry of Ireland, have
shown their disaffection to the succession of the illustrious House of
Hanover?

Did they ever refuse the oath of abjuration, or support any conforming
nonjuring teachers in their congregations? Did ever any conforming
gentlemen, or common people, refuse to be arrayed, when the militia was
raised, upon the invasion of the Pretender? Did any of them ever shew
the least reluctance, or make any exception against their officers,
whether they were Dissenters or Churchmen?

It may be said, that from these insinuations, I would have it
understood, that the dissenters encouraged some of their teachers, who
refused the oath of abjuration; and that even in the article of danger,
when the Pretender made his attempt in Scotland, our northern
Presbyterians shewed great reluctance in taking arms, upon the array of
militia.

I freely own it is my intention; and I must affirm both facts to be
true, however they have the assurance to deny it.

What can be more notorious, than the protection, countenance, and
support, which was continued to Riddall, McBride, and McCrackan,[16] who
absolutely refused the oath of abjuration; and yet were continued to
teach in their congregations, after they returned from Scotland, when a
prosecution was directed, and a council in criminal causes, was sent
down to the county of Antrim to prosecute them.

[Footnote 16: Riddall, McBride, and McCrackan were three Presbyterian
clergymen who refused to take the oath of abjuring the Pretender. Of
Riddall and McCrackan little is known; but John McBride (1651?-1718)
(according to the writer in the "Dictionary of National Biography") was
born in Ulster, and graduated at Glasgow. He was a strong advocate of
the Hanoverian succession, but avoided the oath of abjuration, in 1703,
by retiring to Glasgow. He returned to Belfast in 1713, and died there.
His humorous excuse for non-abjuration is recorded by the writer of the
article in the Dictionary, and is worth repeating: "Once upon a time
there was a bearn, that cou'd not be persuaded to bann the de'el because
he did not know but he might soon come into his clutches." [T.S.]]

With respect to the parliament; did ever any House of Commons shew
greater alacrity in raising money, and equipping ships, in defence of
the King, than the last House did upon the expected invasion of the
Pretender? And did ever any parliament give money with greater
unanimity, for the support of the Crown, than the present has done,
whatever the wants of their private families might be? And must a very
great majority of those persons, be branded with the infamous aspersion
of disaffection to the illustrious House of Hanover, should they refuse
to give their voices for the repeal of the Test?

I am fully persuaded that this author, and his fellow-labourers, do not
believe one word of this heavy charge; but their present circumstances
are such, that they must run all hazards.

In many places their congregations are sub-divided, and have chosen an
_Old_ and _New Light_ teacher, and consequently those stipends must
support two, which were enjoyed by one before.[17]

[Footnote 17: This paragraph is omitted by Scott. [T.S.]]

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