Chapter IV: A True and Faithful Narrative of what passed in London (2)

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 £1,200 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.

_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.

Upon the first intelligence King James received of an intended invasion by the Prince of Orange; among great numbers of Papists, to increase his troops, he gave commissions to several Presbyterians; some of whom had been officers under the Rump; and particularly he placed one Richards, a noted Presbyterian, at the head of a regiment; who had been governor of Wexford in Cromwell's time, and is often mentioned by Ludlow in his Memoirs. This regiment was raised in England against the Prince of Orange: the colonel made his son a captain, whom I knew, and who was as zealous a Presbyterian as his father. However at the time of the prince's landing, the father easily foreseeing how things would go, went over, like many others to the prince, who continued him in his regiment; but coming over a year or two after to assist in raising the siege of Derry, he behaved himself so like either a coward or a traitor, that his regiment was taken from him.

I will now consider the conduct of the Church party, during the whole reign of that unfortunate king. They were so unanimous against promising to pass an act for repealing the Test, and establishing a general liberty of conscience; that the king durst not trust a parliament; but encouraged by the professions of loyalty given him by his Presbyterian friends, went on with his dispensing power.

The Church clergy, at that time are allowed to have written the best collection of tracts against Popery that ever appeared in England; which are to this day in the highest esteem. But, upon the strictest enquiry, I could never hear of above one or two papers published by the Presbyterians at that time upon the same subject. Seven great prelates (he of Canterbury among the rest) were sent to the Tower, for presenting a petition, wherein they desired to be excused in not obeying an illegal command from the King. The Bishop of London, Dr. Compton,[10] was summoned to answer before the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Affairs, for not suspending Dr. Sharp[11] (afterwards Archbishop of York) by the King's command. If the Presbyterians expressed the same zeal upon any occasion, the instances of it are not as I can find, left upon record, or transmitted by tradition. The proceedings against Magdalen College in Oxford, for refusing to comply with the King's mandate for admitting a professed Papist upon their foundation, are a standing proof of the courage and firmness in religion shewn by that learned society, to the ruin of their fortunes. The Presbyterians know very well, that I could produce many more instances of the same kind. But these are enough in so short a paper as I intend at present.

[Footnote 10: Henry Compton (1632-1713), educated at Oxford, was created Bishop of London in 1675. During the Revolution of 1688 he conveyed the Princess Anne from London to Nottingham. After, he crowned her Queen of England. He was the author of a few works of little importance, such as the "Treatise on the Holy Communion." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: John Sharp (1644-1714) was educated at Cambridge, and created Archbishop of York in 1691. He gave great offence to James II. by his preaching against Roman Catholicism. This is the same Archbishop Sharp who prevented Swift's appointment to a bishopric, by urging that the author of "A Tale of a Tub" was not a proper person to hold such an office. See note prefixed to "A Tale of a Tub," vol. i., p. xcvi, of this edition of Swift's Works. [T.S.]]

It is indeed very true, that after King William was settled on the English throne, the Presbyterians began to appear, and offer their credentials, and demand favour; and the new King having been originally bred a Calvinist, was desirous enough to make them easy (if that would do it) by a legal toleration; although in his heart he never bore much affection to that sect; nor designed to favour them farther than it stood with the present scheme of politics: as I have long since been assured by the greatest men of Whig principles at that time in England.

It is likewise true, nor will it be denied; that when the King was possessed of the English crown; and the remainder of the quarrel was left to be decided in this kingdom; the Presbyterians wisely chose to join with the Protestant army, rather than with that of King James their old friend, whose affairs were then in a manner desperate. They were wise enough to know, that this kingdom, divided against itself, could never prevail against the united power of England. They fought _pro aris et focis_; for their estates and religion; which latter will never suffer so much by the Church of England as by that of Rome, where they are counted heretics as well as we: and consequently they have no other game to play. But, what merit they can build upon having joined with a Protestant army, under a King they acknowledged, to defend their own liberties and properties against a Popish enemy under an abdicated King; is, I confess to me absolutely inconceivable; and I believe will equally be so for ever, to any reasonable man.

When these sectaries were several years ago making the same attempt for abolishing the Test, many groundless reports were industriously and seasonably spread, of an invasion threatened by the Pretender on the north of Ireland. At which time the Presbyterians in their pamphlets, argued in a menacing manner, that if the Pretender should invade those parts of the kingdom, where the numbers and estates of dissenters chiefly lay; they would sit still, and let us fight our own battles;[12] since they were to reap no advantage, whichever side should be victors. If this were the course they intended to take in such a case; I should desire to know, how they could contrive safely to stand neuters, otherwise than by a compact with the Pretender and his army, to support their neutrality, and protect them against the forces of the Crown? This is a necessary supposition; because they must otherwise have inevitably been a prey to both. However, by this frank declaration, they sufficiently shewed their good-will; and confirmed the common charge laid at their door; that a Scottish or northern Presbyterian hates our Episcopal Established Church more than Popery itself. And, the reason for this hatred, is natural enough; because it is the Church alone, that stands in the way between them and power, which Popery doth not.

[Footnote 12: See the poem, reprinted by Monck Mason ("History of St. Patrick's," p. 388 note), entitled:

"The Grunters' request
To take off the Test,"

in which the poet advises his "lauds" to "faight y'er ain battel." [T.S.]]

Upon this occasion I am in some doubt, whether the political spreaders of those chimerical invasions, made a judicious choice in fixing the northern parts of Ireland for that romantic enterprize. Nor, can I well understand the wisdom of the Presbyterians in countenancing and confirming those reports. Because it seems to cast a most infamous reflection upon the loyalty and religious principles of their whole body: For if there had been any truth in the matter, the consequence must have been allowed, that the Pretender counted upon more assistance from his father's friends the Presbyterians, by choosing to land in those very parts, where their number, wealth, and power most prevailed; rather than among those of his own religion. And therefore, in charity to this sect, I rather incline to believe, that those reports of an invasion were formed and spread by the race of small politicians, in order to do a seasonable job.

As to Popery in general, which for a thousand years past hath been introducing and multiplying corruptions both in doctrine and discipline; I look upon it to be the most absurd system of Christianity professed by any nation. But I cannot apprehend this kingdom to be in much danger from it. The estates of Papists are very few; crumbling into small parcels, and daily diminishing. Their common people are sunk in poverty, ignorance, and cowardice, and of as little consequence as women and children. Their nobility and gentry are at least one-half ruined, banished, or converted: They all soundly feel the smart of what they suffered in the last Irish war. Some of them are already retired into foreign countries; others as I am told, intend to follow them; and the rest, I believe, to a man, who still possess any lands, are absolutely determined never to hazard them again for the sake of establishing their superstition. If it hath been thought fit, as some observe, to abate of the law's rigour against Popery in this kingdom, I am confident it was done for very wise reasons, considering the situation of affairs abroad at different times, and the interest of the Protestant religion in general. And as I do not find the least fault in this proceeding; so I do not conceive why a sunk discarded party, who neither expect nor desire anything more than a quiet life; should under the names of highflyers, Jacobites, and many other vile appellations, be charged so often in print, and at common tables, with endeavouring to introduce Popery and the Pretender; while the Papists abhor them above all other men, on account of severities against their priests in her late Majesty's reign; when the now disbanded reprobate party was in power. This I was convinced of some years ago by a long journey into the southern parts; where I had the curiosity to send for many priests of the parishes I passed through; and, to my great satisfaction found them everywhere abounding in professions of loyalty to the late King George; for which they gave me the reasons above-mentioned; at the same time complaining bitterly of the hardships they suffered under the Queen's last ministry.

I return from this digression to the modest demands of the Presbyterians for a repeal of the Sacramental Test, as a reward for their merits at the Restoration and the Revolution; which merits I have fairly represented as well as my memory will allow me. If I have committed any mistakes they must be of little moment. The facts and principal circumstances are what I have obtained and digested, from reading the histories of those times, written by each party; and many thousands have done the same as well as I, who I am sure have in their minds drawn the same conclusions.

This is the faction, and these the men, who are now resuming their applications, and giving in their bills of merit to both kingdoms upon two points, which of all others, they have the least pretensions to offer. I have collected the facts with all possible impartiality, from the current histories of those times; and have shewn, although very briefly, the gradual proceedings of those sectaries under the denomination of Puritans, Presbyterians, and Independents, for about the space of an hundred and eighty years, from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth to this present time. But, notwithstanding all that can be said, these very schismatics (for such they are in temporals as well as spirituals) are now again expecting, soliciting, and demanding, (not without insinuating threats, according to their custom) that the Parliament should fix them upon an equal foot with the Church established. I would fain know to what branch of the legislature they can have the forehead to apply. Not to my lords the bishops; who must have often read, how the predecessors of this very faction, acting upon the same principles, drove the whole bench out of the house; who were then, and hitherto continue one of the three estates. Not to the temporal peers, the second of the three estates; who must have heard, that, immediately after those rebellious fanatics had murdered their king, they voted a House of Lords to be useless and dangerous, and would let them sit no longer, otherwise than when elected as commoners: Not to the House of Commons; who must have heard, that in those fanatic times the Presbyterian and Independent commanders in the army, by military power, expelled all the moderate men out of the house, and left a Rump to govern the nation. Lastly, not to the Crown, which those very saints destined to rule the earth, trampled under their feet, and then in cold blood murdered the blessed wearer.

But, the session now approaching, and a clan of dissenting teachers being come up to town from their northern headquarters, accompanied by many of their elders and agents, and supported by a general contribution, to solicit their establishment, with a capacity of holding all military as well as civil employments; I think it high time, that this paper should see the light. However, I cannot conclude without freely confessing, that if the Presbyterians should obtain their ends, I could not be sorry to find them mistaken in the point which they have most at heart by the repeal of the Test; I mean the benefit of employments. For, after all, what assurance can a Scottish northern dissenter, born on Irish ground, have, that he shall be treated with as much favour as a true Scot born beyond the Tweed?

I am ready enough to believe that all I have said will avail but little. I have the common excuse of other men, when I think myself bound by all religious and civil ties, to discharge my conscience, and to warn my countrymen upon this important occasion. It is true, the advocates for this scheme promise a new world, after this blessed work shall be completed: that all animosities and faction must immediately drop; that the only distinction in this kingdom will then be of Papist and Protestant. For, as to Whig and Tory, High Church and Low Church, Jacobite and Hanoverian, Court and Country party, English and Irish interests, Dissenters and Conformists, New Light and Old Light, Anabaptist and Independent, Quaker and Muggletonian, they will all meet and jumble together into a perfect harmony, at the sessions and assizes, on the bench and in the revenues; and upon the whole, in all civil and military trust, not excepting the great councils of the nation. For it is wisely argued thus, that a kingdom being no more than a larger knot of friends met together, it is against the rules of good manners to shut any person out of the company, except the Papists; who profess themselves of another club.

I am at a loss to know what arts the Presbyterian sect intends to use, in convincing the world of their loyalty to kingly government; which long before the prevalence, or even the birth of their independent rivals, as soon as the King's forces were overcome, declared their principles to be against monarchy, as well as Episcopacy and the House of Lords, even till the King was restored: At which event, although they were forced to submit to the present power, yet I have not heard that they did ever, to this day, renounce any one principle by which their predecessors then acted; yet this they have been challenged to do, or at least to shew that others have done it for them, by a certain doctor,[13] who, as I am told, has much employed his pen in the like disputes. I own, they will be ready enough to insinuate themselves into any government: But, if they mean to be honest and upright, they will and must endeavour by all means, which they shall think lawful, to introduce and establish their own scheme of religion, as nearest approaching to the word of God, by casting out all superstitious ceremonies, ecclesiastical titles, habits, distinctions, and superiorities, as rags of Popery; in order to a thorough reformation; and, as in charity bound, to promote the salvation of their countrymen: wishing with St. Paul, that the whole kingdom were as they are. But what assurance will they please to give, that when their sect shall become the national established worship, they will treat Us Dissenters as we have treated them? Was this their course of proceeding during the dominion of the saints? Were not all the remainders of the Episcopal Church in those days, especially the clergy, under a persecution for above a dozen years, equal to that of the primitive Christians under heathen emperors? That this proceeding was suitable to their principles, is known enough; for many of their preachers then writ books expressly against allowing any liberty of conscience, in a religion different from their own; producing many arguments to prove that opinion; and among the rest one frequently insisted on; that allowing such a liberty would be to establish iniquity by a law: Many of these writings are yet to be seen;[14] and I hear, have been quoted by the doctor above mentioned.

[Footnote 13: Dr. Tisdal, in a tract entitled, "The Case of the Sacramental Test stated and argued." Tisdal died 4th June, 1736. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: See many hundred quotations to prove this, in the treatise called "Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence." [Note in Faulkner's edition, 1738.]]

As to their great objection of prostituting that holy institution, the blessed Sacrament, by way of a test before admittance into any employment; I ask, whether they would not be content to receive it after their own manner, for the office of a judge, for that of a commissioner in the revenue, for a regiment of horse, or to be a lord justice? I believe they would scruple it as little, as a long grace before and after dinner; which they can say without bending a knee; for, as I have been told, their manner of taking bread and wine in their conventicles, is performed with little more solemnity than at their common meals. And, therefore, since they look upon our practice in receiving the elements, to be idolatrous; they neither can, nor ought, in conscience, to allow us that liberty, otherwise than by connivance, and a bare toleration, like what is permitted to the Papists. But, lest we should offend them, I am ready to change this test for another; although, I am afraid, that sanctified reason is, by no means, the point where the difficulty pinches; and only offered by pretended churchmen, as if they could be content with our believing, that the impiety and profanation of making the Sacrament a test, were the only objection. I therefore propose, that before the present law be repealed, another may be enacted; that no man shall receive any employment, before he swears himself to be a true member of the Church of Ireland, in doctrine and discipline, &c., and, that he will never frequent, or communicate with any other form of worship. It shall likewise be further enacted, that whoever offends, &c., shall be fined five hundred pounds, imprisoned for a year and a day, and rendered incapable of all public trust for ever. Otherwise, I do insist that those pious, indulgent, external professors of our national religion, shall either give up that fallacious hypocritical reason for taking off the Test; or freely confess, that they desire to have a gate wide open for every sect, without any test at all, except that of swearing loyalty to the King: Which, however, considering their principles, with regard to monarchy yet unrenounced, might, if they would please to look deep enough into their own hearts, prove a more bitter test than any other that the law hath yet invented.

For, from the first time that these sectaries appeared in the world, it hath been always found, by their whole proceeding, that they professed an utter hatred to kingly government. I can recollect, at present, three civil establishments, where Calvinists, and some other reformers who rejected Episcopacy, possess the supreme power; and, these are all republics; I mean Holland, Geneva, and the reformed Swiss cantons. I do not say this in diminution, or disgrace to commonwealths; wherein, I confess, I have much altered many opinions under which I was educated, having been led by some observation, long experience, and a thorough detestation for the corruptions of mankind: Insomuch, that I am now justly liable to the censure of Hobbes, who complains, that the youth of England imbibe ill opinions, from reading the histories of Ancient Greece and Rome, those renowned scenes of liberty and every virtue.

But, as to monarchs; who must be supposed well to study and understand their own interest; they will best consider, whether those people, who in all their actions, preachings, and writings, have openly declared themselves against regal power, are to be safely placed in an equal degree of favour and trust with those who have been always found the true and only friends to the English establishment. From which consideration, I could have added one more article to my new test, if I had thought it worth my time.

I have been assured by some persons who were present, that several of these dissenting teachers, upon their first arrival hither to solicit the repeal of the Test, were pleased to express their gratitude, by publicly drinking the healths of certain eminent patrons, whom they pretend to have found among us; if this be true, and that the Test must be delivered up by the very commanders appointed to defend it, the affair is already, in effect, at an end. What secret reasons those patrons may have given for such a return of brotherly love, I shall not inquire: "For, O my soul come not thou into their secret, unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united. For in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel."

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

A NARRATIVE

OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF

IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE

SACRAMENTAL TEST.

NOTE.

This tract occupies Nos. iii. and iv. of a periodical paper called "The Correspondent," originally printed at Dublin "by James Hoey in Skinner-Row, 1733." The text here given is that of the original "Correspondent"; that given by Scott and Nichols is evidently taken from the London reprint. It will be seen that the matter as it was originally printed contains much more than was afterwards reprinted. I have indicated in footnotes where Scott's omissions occur. The title of the periodical runs: "The Correspondent, No. iii. [No. iv.] Humbly inscribed to the Conforming Nobility and Gentry of Ireland." Nos. i. and ii. dealt with "Old and New Light Presbyterians"; but these are not by Swift. In Nichols's edition this pamphlet appears in the second volume of the "Supplement to Dr. Swift's Works," 1779, p. 307. See note to the previous pamphlet, where the question of the date of the first publication of this tract is discussed. It may be, as Monck Mason suggests ("History of St. Patrick's," p. 389, note h), that a separate and second edition of this "Narrative" was likewise printed, of the same size as "The Presbyterians' Plea," and bound up, occasionally with that pamphlet; but such an edition I have never seen. The only reprint of the time examined, is that by A. Dodd, of Temple Bar, affixed to the second London edition of "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit," and the date of which may be put down to 1734.

[T.S.]

A NARRATIVE OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS,
WHICH THE DISSENTERS
OF IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR
A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL
TEST.

My intention is in this and some following "Correspondents," to vindicate the Test Act, from the insolent aspersions which are thrown upon it, and to answer objections, which are raised against it, particularly by an anonymous author, in a paper entitled, "The Nature and Consequence of the Sacramental Test considered," &c., printed _anno_ 1731, upon the opening of the last session of parliament, and now republished.

As a proper introduction to this, I must take leave to put the conformists in mind, of what (upon recollection) they may very well remember, and which in some measure they have been formerly apprised of, and that is in[1] a narrative of the several attempts, which the Dissenters of Ireland have made, for a repeal of the Sacramental Test.

When the oath of supremacy was repealed which had been the Church's great security since the second of Queen Elizabeth, against both Papists and Presbyterians, who equally refused it, I presume it is no secret now to tell the reader, that the repeal of that oath opened a sluice and let in such a current of dissenters into some of our corporations, as bore down all before them.

[Footnote 1: From the beginning of this paragraph to the word "in" is omitted in the editions issued by Scott and Nichols. The words "A Narrative... Sacramental Test" are used by Scott as part of the sub-title of the tract; but he adds the date, 1731. This is a mistake, since "The Correspondent" appeared in 1733; and if it did appear in the second edition of "The Plea," that edition was published either in the same or in the following year. [T.S.]]

Although the Sacramental Test had been for a considerable time in force in England, yet that law did not reach Ireland, where the Church was more oppressed by dissenters; and where her most sanguine friends were glad to compound, to preserve what legal security she had left, rather than to attempt any new, or even to recover what she had lost: And in truth they had no reason to expect it, at a time when the dissenters had the interest to have a motion made and debated in parliament, that there might be a temporary repeal of all the penal laws against them, and when they were so flushed with the conquest they had made in some corporations, as to reject all overtures of a toleration; and to that end, had employed Mr. Boyse[2] to write against it with the utmost contempt, calling it "a stone instead of bread; a serpent instead of a fish."

[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.