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.

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

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

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

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repealed, especially when his Excellency had declared from the throne,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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That they have thrown public and scandalous reflections upon the
Episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the Sacramental Test,
and had misapplied the royal bounty of ВЈ1,200 _per annum_, in
propagating their schism, and undermining the Church: And had exercised
an illegal jurisdiction in their Presbyteries and Synods," &c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A great number of the nonconforming gentlemen daily leave them, though
they have not made any convert to their persuasion, among the conforming
gentlemen of fortune; many who were nonconformists themselves, and many
men whose parents were elders, or rigid nonconformists, are now constant
communicants, and justices of peace in their several counties; insomuch,
that it is highly probable, should the Test continue twenty years
longer, there would not be a gentleman left to solicit a repeal.

I shall hereafter take occasion to shew, how inconsiderable they are,
for their numbers and fortunes, who can be served or obliged by this
repeal, which number is daily lessening.

The dissenting teachers are sufficiently aware, that the general
conformity of the gentlemen, will be followed, by the conformity of
numbers of the people; and should it not be so, that they will be but
poorly supported by them; that by the continuance of the Test, "their
craft will be in danger to be set at nought," and in all probability,
will end in a general conformity of the Presbyterians to the Established
Church.

So that, they have the strongest reasons in the world, to press for the
repeal of the Test; but those reasons, must have equal force for the
continuance of it, with all that wish the peace of the Church and State,
and would not have us torn in pieces, with endless and causeless
divisions.

There is one short passage more, I had like to have omitted, which our
author leaves as a sting in the tail of his libel; his words are these,
page 59th.[18]

[Footnote 18: P. 74 in London reprint. [T.S.]]

"The truth is, no one party of a religious denomination, in Britain or
Ireland, were so united, as they, (the dissenters) indeed, no one, but
they, in an inviolable attachment to the Protestant succession." To
detect the folly of this assertion, I subjoin the following letter from
a person of known integrity, and inviolably attached to the Protestant
succession, as any dissenter in the kingdom, I mean Mr. Warreng of
Warrengstown, then a member of parliament, and commissioner of array, in
the county of Down, upon the expected invasion of the Pretender.

This letter was writ in a short time after the array, of the militia,
for the truth of which I refer to Mr. Warreng himself.

"Sir,

"That I may fulfil your desire, by giving you an account, how the
dissenters in my neighbourhood behaved themselves, when we were
threatened with an invasion of the Pretender. Be pleased to know, that
upon an alarm given of his being landed near Derry, none were more
zealous and ready in setting watch and keeping guard, than they, to
prevent such disorders, as might happen at that time, by ill-designing
persons, passing through, and disturbing the peace of the country.

"But when the government thought fit, to have the kingdom arrayed, and
sent commissioners into these parts, some time after it appeared, that
the dissenters had, by that time, been otherwise instructed, for several
who were so forward before, behaved themselves after a very different
manner, some refusing, and others with reluctancy, appearing upon the
array, to be enlisted, and serve in the militia.

"This behaviour surprised me so much, that I took occasion to discourse
several of them, over whom, I thought I had as much influence, as any
other person, and found them upon the common argument, of having their
hands tied up by a late act of parliament, &c. _Whereupon I took some
pains to shew the act to them, and wherein they were mistaken._ I
further pressed their concurrence with us, in procuring the common peace
and security of our country, and though they seemed convinced by what I
said, yet I was given to understand, their behaviour was according to
the sentiments of some persons, whom they thought themselves obliged to
observe, or be directed by, &c."

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




QUAERIES

WROTE BY

DR. J. SWIFT, IN THE YEAR 1732.

[RELATING TO THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.]

    Very proper to be read (at this Time) by every Member of the
    Established Church.


NOTE.

The text of this tract is based on that of the original broadside,
collated with those given by Faulkner and Scott. In 1733 was also
published a broadside with the title: "Queries upon the Demand of the
Presbyterians to have the Sacramental Test repealed at this Session of
Parliament." These queries seem to be based on those by Swift, though
they are not quite the same.

[T.S.]

  QUAERIES WROTE BY DR. J. SWIFT,
  IN THE YEAR 1732.


_QUERY_.

Whether hatred and violence between parties in a state be not more
inflamed by different views of interest, than by the greater or lesser
differences between them, either in religion or government?

Whether it be any part of the question, at this time, which of the two
religions is worse, Popery, or Fanaticism; or not rather, which of the
two, (having both the same good will) is in the hopefullest condition to
ruin the Church?

Whether the sectaries, whenever they come to prevail, will not ruin the
Church as infallibly and effectually as the Papists?

Whether the prevailing sectaries could allow liberty of conscience to
Dissenters, without belying all their former practice, and almost all
their former writings?

Whether many hundred thousand Scotch Presbyterians, are not full as
virulent against the Episcopal Church, as they are against the Papists;
or, as they would have us think, the Papists are against them?

Whether the Dutch, who are most distinguished for allowing liberty of
conscience, do ever admit any persons, who profess a different scheme of
worship from their own, into civil employments; although they _may_ be
forced by the nature of their government, to receive mercenary troops of
all religions?

Whether the Dissenters ever pretended, until of late years, to desire
more than a bare toleration?

Whether, if it be true, what a sorry pamphleteer asserts, who lately
writ for repealing the Test, that the Dissenters in this kingdom are
equally numerous with the Churchmen: It would not be a necessary point
of prudence, by all proper and lawful means to prevent their further
increase?

The great argument given by those whom they call _Low_ Church men, to
justify the large tolerations allowed to Dissenters, hath been; that by
such indulgencies, the rancour of those sectaries would gradually wear
off, many of them would come over to us, and their parties, in a little
time, crumble to nothing.


_QUERY_.

If what the above pamphleteer asserts, that the sectaries, are in equal
numbers with conformists, it doth not clearly follow, that those
repeated tolerations, have operated directly contrary to what those
_Low_ Church politicians pretended to foresee and expect.

Whether any clergyman, however dignified or distinguished, if he think
his own profession most agreeable to Holy Scriptures, and the primitive
Church, can really wish in his heart, that all sectaries should be upon
an equal foot with the Churchmen, in the point of civil power and
employments?

Whether Episcopacy, which is held by the Church to be a divine and
apostolic institution, be not a fundamental point of religion,
particularly in that essential one of conferring holy orders?

Whether, by necessary consequences, the several expedients among the
sectaries to constitute their teachers, are not absolutely null and
void?

Whether the sectaries will ever agree to accept ordination only from
bishops?

Whether the bishops and clergy will be content to give up Episcopacy, as
a point indifferent, without which the Church can well subsist?

Whether that great tenderness towards sectaries, which now so much
prevails, be chiefly owing to the fears of Popery, or to that spirit of
atheism, deism, scepticism, and universal immorality, which all good men
so much lament?

Granting Popery to have many more errors in religion than any one branch
of the sectaries; let us examine the actions of both, as they have each
affected the peace of these kingdoms, with allowance for the short time
which the sectaries had to act in, who are in a manner _but of
yesterday_. The Papists in the time of King James II. used all
endeavours to establish their superstition; wherein they failed, by the
united power of English Church protestants, with the Prince of Orange's
assistance. But it cannot be asserted, that these bigotted Papists had
the least design to depose or murder their King, much less to abolish
kingly government; nor was it their interest or inclination to attempt
either.

On the other side the Puritans, who had almost from the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth's reign, been a perpetual thorn in the Church's side,
joining with the Scotch enthusiasts, in the time of King Charles the
First, were the principal cause of the Irish rebellion and massacre, by
distressing that Prince, and making it impossible for him to send over
timely succours. And, after that pious Prince had satisfied his
Parliament in every single point to be complained of; the same sectaries
by poisoning the minds and affections of the people, with the most false
and wicked representations of their King, were able, in the compass of a
few years, to embroil the three nations in a bloody rebellion, at the
expense of many thousand lives; to turn the kingly power into anarchy;
or murder their Prince in the face of the world, and (in their own
style) to destroy the Church _root and branch_.

The account therefore stands thus. The Papists aimed at one pernicious
act, which was to destroy the Protestant religion; wherein, by God's
mercy, and the assistance of our glorious King William, they absolutely
failed. The sectaries attempted the three most infernal actions, that
could possibly enter into the hearts of men, forsaken by God; which
were, the murder of a most pious King, the destruction of our monarchy,
and the extirpation of the Church; and succeeded in them all.

Upon which, I put the following queries. Whether any of those sectaries
have ever yet in a solemn public manner, renounced any one of those
principles upon which their predecessors then acted?

Whether, considering the cruel persecutions of the Episcopal Church,
during the course of that horrid rebellion and the consequences of it,
until the happy Restoration; is it not manifest, that the persecuting
spirit lieth so equally divided between the Papists and the sectaries,
that a feather would turn the balance on either side?

And, therefore, lastly, Whether any person of common understanding, who
professeth himself a member of the Church established, although,
perhaps, with little inward regard to any religion (which is too often
the case) if he loveth the peace and welfare of his country; can, after
cool thinking, rejoice to see a power placed again in the hands of so
restless, so ambitious, and so merciless a faction, to act over all the
same parts a second time?

Whether the candour of that expression, so frequent of late in sermons
and pamphlets, of the "strength and number of the Papists in Ireland,"
can be justified? For as to their number, however great, it is always
magnified in proportion to the zeal, or politics, of the speaker and
writer; but it is a gross imposition upon common reason, to terrify us
with their strength. For Popery, under the circumstances it lieth in
this kingdom; although it be offensive, and inconvenient enough, from
the consequences it hath to increase the rapine, sloth and ignorance, as
well as poverty of the natives; is not properly dangerous in that sense,
as some would have us take it; because it is universally hated by every
party of a different religious profession. It is the contempt of the
wise: The best topic for clamours of designing men: But the real terror
only of fools. The landed Popish interest in England, far exceedeth that
among us, even in proportion to the wealth and extent of each kingdom.
The little that remaineth here, is daily dropping into Protestant hands,
by purchase or descent; and that affected complaint of counterfeit
converts, will fall with the cause of it in half a generation; unless it
be raised or kept alive, as a continual fund of merit and eloquence. The
Papists are wholly disarmed. They have neither courage, leaders, money,
or inclinations to rebel. They want every advantage which they formerly
possessed, to follow that trade; and wherein, even with those
advantages, they always miscarried. They appear very easy, and satisfied
under that connivance which they enjoyed during the whole last reign;
nor ever scrupled to reproach another party, under which they pretend to
have suffered so much severity.

Upon these considerations I must confess to have suspended much of my
pity towards the great dreaders of Popery; many of whom appear to be
hale, strong, active young men; who, as I am told, eat, drink, and sleep
heartily; and are very cheerful (as they have exceeding good reason)
upon all other subjects. However, I cannot too much commend the generous
concern, which, our neighbours and others, who come from the same
neighbourhood, are so kind to express for us upon this account; although
the former be further removed from the dangers of Popery, by twenty
leagues of salt water: But this, I fear, is a digression.

When an artificial report was raised here many years ago, of an intended
invasion by the Pretender, (which blew over after it had done its
office) the Dissenters argued in their talk, and in their pamphlets,
after this manner, applying themselves to those of the Church.
"Gentlemen, if the Pretender had landed, as the law now standeth, we
durst not assist you; and therefore, unless you take off the Test,
whenever you shall happen to be invaded in earnest, if we are desired to
take up arms in your defence, our answer shall be, Pray, gentlemen,
fight your own battles,[1] we will lie by quietly; conquer your enemies
by yourselves, if you can; we will not do your drudgery." This way of
reasoning I have heard from several of their chiefs and abettors, in an
hundred conversations; and have read it in twenty pamphlets: And, I am
confident, it will be offered again, if the project should fail to take
off the Test.

[Footnote 1: See note, p. 40, referring to the poem:

  "The Grunters' request
  To take off the Test." [T.S.]]

Upon which piece of oratory and reasoning I form the following query.
Whether, in case of an invasion from the Pretender (which is not quite
so probable as from the Grand Signior) the Dissenters can, with prudence
and safety, offer the same plea; except they shall have made a previous
stipulation with the invaders? And, Whether the full freedom of their
religion and trade, their lives, properties, wives and children, are
not, and have not always been reckoned sufficient motives for repelling
invasions, especially in our sectaries, who call themselves the truest
Protestants, by virtue of their pretended or real fierceness against
Popery?

Whether omitting or neglecting to celebrate the day of the martyrdom of
the blessed King Charles the First, enjoined by Act of Parliament, can
be justly reckoned a particular and distinguishing mark of good
affection to the present government?

Whether in those churches, where the said day is observed, it will fully
answer the intent of the said Act; if the preacher shall commend,
excuse, palliate, or extenuate the murder of that royal Martyr; and lay
the guilt of that horrid rebellion, with all its consequences, the
following usurpations, the entire destruction of the Church, the cruel
and continual persecutions of those who could be discovered to profess
its doctrines, with the ensuing Babel of fanaticism, to the account of
that blessed King; who, by granting the Petition of Right, and passing
every bill that could be asked for the security of the subject, had, by
the confession even of those wicked men, before the war began, left them
nothing more to demand?

Whether such a preacher as I have named, (whereof there have been more
than _one_ not many years past, even in the presence of viceroys) who
takes that course as a means for promotion; may not be thought to step a
little out of the common road, in a monarchy where the descendants of
that most blessed Martyr have reigned to this day?

I ground the reason of making these queries, on the title of the act; to
which I refer the reader.

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




THE ADVANTAGES

PROPOSED BY REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL

TEST,

IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED.

BY THE REV. DR. SWIFT, DEAN OF ST. PATRICK'S,

Dublin, Printed; London, Re-printed for J. Roberts at the Oxford Arms in
Warwick Lane. 1732. (Price Six-pence.)


NOTE.

The text here given is that of the London reprint of the original
edition, which has been collated with that given by Faulkner (vol. iv.,
1735). In 1790 the tract was reprinted by J. Walters, and it is
evidently from this reprint that Scott obtained his text; for the two
agree in almost every particular.

[T.S.]

  THE ADVANTAGES PROPOSED BY REPEALING
  THE SACRAMENTAL
  TEST, IMPARTIALLY
  CONSIDERED.

Whoever writes impartially upon this subject, must do it not only as a
mere secular man, but as one who is altogether indifferent to any
particular system of Christianity. And, I think, in whatever country
that religion predominates, there is one certain form of worship and
ceremony, which is looked upon as the established, and consequently only
the priests of that particular form, are maintained at the public
charge, and all civil employments are bestowed among those who comply
(at least outwardly) with the same establishment.

This method is strictly observed, even by our neighbours the Dutch, who
are confessed to allow the fullest liberty to conscience of any
Christian state; and yet are never known to admit any persons into
religious or civil offices, who do not conform to the legal worship. As
to their military men, they are indeed not so scrupulous, being, by the
nature of their government, under a necessity of hiring foreign troops
of whatever religious denomination, upon every great emergency, and
maintaining no small number in time of peace.

This caution therefore of making one established faith, seems to be
universal, and founded upon the strongest reasons; the mistaken, or
affected zeal of obstinacy, and enthusiasm, having produced such a
number of horrible, destructive events, throughout all Christendom. For,
whoever begins to think the national worship is wrong, in any important
article of practice or belief, will, if he be serious, naturally have a
zeal to make as many proselytes as he can, and a nation may possibly
have an hundred different sects with their leaders; every one of which
hath an equal right to plead; they must "obey God rather than man," must
"cry aloud and spare not," must "lift up their voice like a trumpet"

This was the very case of England, during the fanatic times. And against
all this, there seems to be no defence, but that of supporting one
established form of doctrine and discipline; leaving the rest to a bare
liberty of conscience, but without any maintenance or encouragement from
the public.

Wherever this national religion grows so corrupt, or is thought to do so
by a very great majority of learned[1] people, joined to the governing
party, whether prince or senate, or both, it ought to be changed,
provided the work might be done without blood or tumults.[2] Yet,
whenever such a change shall be made, some other establishment must
succeed (although for the worse), allowing all deviations that would
break the union to be only tolerated. In this sense, those who affirm,
that every law, which is contrary to the law of God, is void in itself,
seem to be mistaken. For, many laws in Popish kingdoms and states, many
more among the Turks, and perhaps not a few in other countries, are
directly against the divine laws; and yet, God knows, are very far from
being void in the executive parts.

[Footnote 1: Scott has "landed." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Scott has "confusion." [T.S.]]

Thus, for instance, if the three estates of Parliament in England
(whereof the lords spiritual[3] are one) should agree, and obtain the
royal assent to abolish Episcopacy, together with the liturgy, and the
whole frame of the English church, as "burthensome, dangerous, and
contrary to Holy Scripture"; and that Presbytery, Anabaptism, Quakerism,
Independency,[4] or any other subdivided sect among us, should be
established in its place; without question, all peaceable subjects ought
passively to submit, and the predominant sect must become the religion
established, the public maintaining no other teachers, nor admitting any
persons of a different religious profession, into civil offices; at
least, if their intention be to preserve the nation in peace.

[Footnote 3: Scott inserts here the words: "who represent the Church."
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Scott inserts here "Muggletonianism, Brownism, Familism."
[T.S.]]

Supposing then, that the present system of religion were abolished; and
Presbytery, which stands much the fairest, with its synods and classes,
and all its forms and ceremonies, essential or circumstantial, were
erected into the national worship: Their teachers, and no others, could
have any legal claim to be supported at the public charge, whether by
stipends or tithes; and only the rest of the same faith to be capable of
civil employments.

If there be any true reasoning in what I have laid down, it should seem,
that the project now in agitation for repealing the Test Act, and yet
leaving the name of an establishment to the present national church, is
altogether inconsistent, and may admit of consequences, which those, who
are the most indifferent to any religion at all, are possibly not aware
of.

I presume, whenever the Test shall be repealed, which obliges all men,
who enter into office under the Crown, to receive the sacrament
according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, the way to employments
will immediately be left open to all dissenters, (except Papists) whose
consciences can suffer them to take the common oaths in such cases
prescribed, after which they are qualified to fill any lay station in
this kingdom, from that of chief governor, to an exciseman.

Thus of the three judges on each bench, the first may be a Presbyterian,
the second a Free-will Baptist, and the third a Churchman; the Lord
Chancellor may be an Independent; the revenues may be managed by seven
commissioners of as many different sects; and the like of all other
employments. Not to mention the strong probability, that the lawfulness
of taking oaths may be _revealed_ to the Quakers, who then will stand
upon as good a foot for preferment, as any other loyal subject. It is
easy[5] to imagine, under such a motley administration of affairs, what
a clashing there will be of interests and inclinations, what puttings
and haulings backwards and forwards, what a zeal and bias in each
religionist, to advance his own tribe, and depress the others. For, I
suppose nothing will be readier granted, than that how indifferent
soever most men are in faith and morals, yet whether out of artifice,
natural complexion, or love of contradiction, none are more obstinate in
maintaining their own opinions, and worrying all who differ from them,
than those who publicly shew the least sense, either of religion or
common honesty.

[Footnote 5: Scott has "obvious." [T.S.]]

As to the latter, Bishop Burnet tells us, that the Presbyterians, in the
fanatic times, professed themselves to be above morality; which, as we
find in some of their writings, was numbered among the "beggarly
elements"; and accordingly at this day, no scruples of conscience with
regard to conformity, are in any trade or calling, inconsistent with the
greatest fraud, oppression, perjury, or any other vice.

This brings to my memory a passage in Montaigne, of a common prostitute,
who, in the storming of a town, when a soldier came up to her chamber,
and offered violence to her chastity, rather chose to venture her neck,
by leaping out of the window, than suffer a rape; yet still continued
her trade of lewdness, whilst she had any customers left.[6]