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

(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Sacramental Test Repealed at this Session of Parliament." 1733.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why the Test Act should not be Repealed." 1733.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 £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.

  [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.

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.]]