[Footnote 6: The passage referred to by Swift is to be found in the
first chapter of the second book of Florio's translation of Montaigne's
"Essays"--"Of the Inconstancie of our Actions." [T.S.]]

I confess, that in my private judgment, an unlimited permission of all
sects whatsoever (except Papists) to enjoy employments, would be less
pernicious to the public, than a fair struggle between two contenders;
because in the former case, such a jumble of principles, might possibly
have the effect of contrary poisons mingled together, which a strong
constitution might perhaps be able for some time to survive.

But however, I shall take the other, and more probable supposition, that
this battle for employments, is to be fought only between the
Presbyterians, and those of the church _yet_ established. I shall not
enter into the merits of either side, by examining which of the two is
the better spiritual economy, or which is most suited to the civil
constitution: But the question turns upon this point: When the
Presbyterians shall have got their share of employments (which, must be
one full half, or else they cannot look upon themselves as fairly dealt
with) I ask, whether they ought not by their own principles, and by the
strictest rules of conscience, to use the utmost of their skill, power,
and influence, in order to reduce the whole kingdom to an uniformity in
religion, both as to doctrine and discipline, most agreeable to the word
of God. Wherein, if they can succeed without blood (as, under the
present disposition of things, it is very possible they may) it is to be
hoped they will at last be satisfied: Only I would warn them of a few
difficulties. The first is for compromising that important controversy
about the _Old Light_ and the _New_;[7] which otherwise may, after this
establishment, split them as wide as Papist and Protestant, Whig and
Tory, or Churchmen and Dissenters; and consequently the work will be to
begin again. For in religious quarrels, it is of little moment how few
or small the differences are, especially when the dispute is only about
power. Thus the jealous Presbyterians of the north, are more alienated
from the established clergy, than from the Romish priests; taxing the
former with idolatrous worship, as disguised Papists, ceremony-mongers,
and many other terms of arts, and this for a very powerful reason,
because the clergy stand in their way, which the Popish priests do not.
Thus I am assured, that the quarrel between _Old_ and _New Light men_,
is managed with more rage and rancour, than any other dispute of the
highest importance; and this because it serves to lessen or increase
their several congregations, from whom they receive their contributions.

[Footnote 7: See "The Correspondent," Nos. 1 and 2, 1733, and note
prefixed to present reprint of "Narrative of Several Attempts for the
Repeal of the Sacramental Test" [T.S.]]

Another difficulty which may embarrass the Presbyterians after their
establishment, will be how to adjust their claim of the kirk's
independency on the civil power, with the constitution of this monarchy;
a point so delicate, that it hath often filled the heads of great
patriots with dangerous notions of the church-clergy, without the least
ground of suspicion.

As to the Presbyterians allowing liberty of conscience to those of
Episcopal principles, when their own kirk is predominant, their writers
are so universally agreed in the negative, as well as their practice
during Oliver's reign, that I believe no reasonable Churchman, (who must
then be a dissenter) will expect it.

I shall here take notice, that in the division of employments among the
Presbyterians, after this approaching repeal of the Test Act, supposing
them, in proper time, to have an equal share, I compute the odds will be
three or four to one on their side, in any further scheme they may have
towards making their religion national. For I reckon, all those
gentlemen sent over from England, whatever religion they profess, or
have been educated in, to be of that party: Since it is no mark of
prudence, for any persons to oppose the current of a nation, where they
are in some sort only sojourners, unless they have it in direction.

If there be any maxim in politics, not to be controlled, it must be the
following: That those whose private interest is united with the interest
of their country, supposing them to be of equal understanding with the
rest of their neighbours, will heartily wish, that the nation should
thrive. Out of these are indubitably excepted all persons who are sent
from another kingdom, to be employed in places of profit or power;
because they can possibly bear no affection to the place where they
sojourn, even for life; their sole business being to advance themselves,
by following the advice of their principals. I except, likewise, those
persons who are taken into offices, although natives of the land,
because they are greater gainers while they keep their offices, than
they could possibly be by mending the miserable condition of their
country.

I except, Thirdly, all hopers, who, by balancing accounts with
themselves, turn the scale on the same side; because the strong
expectation of a good certain salary, will outweigh the loss by bad
rents, received out of lands in moneyless times.

If my lords, the bishops, who, I hear, are now employed in a scheme for
regulating the conduct and maintenance of the inferior clergy, shall in
their wisdom and piety, and love of the church, consent to this repeal
of the Test, I have not the least doubt, that the whole reverend body
will cheerfully submit to their spiritual fathers, of whose paternal
tenderness for their welfare, they have already found so many amazing
instances.

I am not, therefore, under the least concern about the clergy on this
account. They will (_for some time_) be no great sufferers by this
repeal; because I cannot recollect among all our sects, any one that
gives latitude enough to take the oaths required at an institution to a
church-living; and, until that bar shall be removed, the present
Episcopal clergy are safe for two years. Although it may be thought
somewhat unequal, that in the northern parts, where there may be three
Dissenters to one Churchman, the whole revenue should be engrossed by
one who hath so small a part of the cure.

It is true, indeed, that this disadvantage, which the Dissenters at
present lie under, of a disability to receive church-preferments, will
be easily remedied by the repeal of the Test. For the dissenting
teachers are under no incapacity of accepting civil and military
employments, wherein they agree perfectly with the Popish clergy, among
whom great cardinals and prelates have been commanders of armies, chief
ministers, knights of many orders, ambassadors, secretaries of state,
and in most high offices under the Crown, although they assert the
indelible character, which no sectaries among us did ever assume. But,
that many, both Presbyterians and Independents, commanders, as well as
private soldiers, were professed preachers in the time of their
dominion, is allowed by all. Cromwell himself was a preacher, and hath
left us one of his sermons in print[8]: So was Col. Howard, Sir George
Downing,[9] and several others whose names are on record. I can,
therefore, see no reason why a painful Presbyterian teacher, as soon as
the Test shall be repealed, may not be privileged, to hold along with
his spiritual office and stipend, a commission in the army, or the civil
list _in commendam_: For, as I take it, the Church of England is the
only body of Christians, which, in effect, disqualifies those who are
employed to preach its doctrine, from sharing in the civil power,
further than as senators; which, however, was an institution[10] begun
in times of Popery, many hundred years before the Reformation, and woven
with the very institution of this limited monarchy.

[Footnote 8: Scott inserts here the words: "exactly in the same style
and manner with those of our modern Presbyterian teachers." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 9: Sir George Downing (1623?-1684) born in England, completed
his education at Harvard, Mass., U.S.A. In 1650, we hear of him
as scout-master general of Cromwell's army in Scotland. He wrote many of
the letters in "Mercurius Politicus." Distinguished himself principally
as Cromwell's ambassador in France and Holland. Through Thomas Howard,
however, he obtained an opportunity while legate in Holland for the Rump
Parliament, for ingratiating himself in Charles II.'s favour. This
Howard was brother to the Earl of Suffolk. As a consequence of this
favour, Downing was made a baronet at the Restoration; and although a
man of undoubted ability, his character has come down to us by no means
free from taint. Many of his despatches are quoted by Clarendon in that
writer's great history. Downing also wrote: "A Reply to the Remarks of
the Deputies of the States-General upon Sir G. Downing's Memorial,"
1665,; and "Discourses vindicating his Royal Master from a Libel," 1672.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 10: Scott has, instead of "which, however, was an
institution," the words, "yet this was a privilege." [T.S.]]

There is indeed another method, by which the stipends of dissenting
teachers may be raised, and the farmer much relieved; If it should be
thought proper to reward a people so deserving, and so loyal by their
principles. Every bishop, upon the vacancy of a church-living, can
sequester the profits for the use of the next incumbent. Upon a lapse of
half a year, the donation falls to the archbishop, and after a full year
to the Crown, during pleasure; therefore it would be no hardship for any
clergyman alive, if, in those parts of Ireland, where the number of
sectaries much exceed that of the conformists, the profits, when
sequestered, might be applied to the support of the dissenting teacher,
who hath so many souls to take care of, whereby the poor tenants would
be much relieved in these hard times, and in a better condition to pay
their rents.

But there is another difficulty in this matter, against which a remedy
doth not so readily occur. For, supposing the Test Act repealed, and the
Dissenters in consequence fully qualified for all secular employments,
the question may still be put, whether those of Ireland will be often
the persons on whom they shall be bestowed; because it is imagined,
there may be another _seminary_[11] in view, _more numerous_ and _more
needy_, as well as _more meriting_, and more easily contented with such
low offices, as some nearer neighbours hardly think it worth stirring
from their chimney-sides to obtain. And, I am told, it is the common
practice of those who are skilled in the management of bees, that when
they see a foreign swarm at some distance, approaching with an intention
to plunder their hives, these artists have a trick to divert them into
some neighbouring apiary, there to make what havoc they please. This I
should not have hinted, if I had not known it already, to have gotten
ground in many suspecting heads: For it is the peculiar talent of this
nation, to see dangers afar off: To all which I can only say, that our
native Presbyterians, must, by pains and industry, raise such a fund of
_merit_, as will answer to a birth six degrees more to the north. If
they cannot arrive at this perfection, as several of the established
church have compassed by indefatigable pains, I do not well see how
their affairs will much mend by repealing the Test; for, to be qualified
by law for[12] an employment, and yet to be disqualified in fact, as it
will much increase the mortification, so it will withdraw the pity of
many among their well-wishers, and utterly deprive them of that merit,
they have so long made of being a loyal, true Protestant people,
persecuted only for religion.

[Footnote 11: Scotland.]

[Footnote 12: Scott has "to accept." [T.S.]]

If this happen to be their case, they must wait maturity of time, till
they can by prudent, gentle steps make their faith become the religion
established in the nation, after which, I do not in the least doubt,
their taking the most effectual methods to secure their power against
those who must then be Dissenters in their turn, whereof, if we may form
a future opinion from present times, and the disposition of Dissenters,
who love to make a thorough reformation, the number and qualities will
be very inconsiderable.

Thus I have with the utmost sincerity, after long thinking, given my
judgment upon this arduous affair; but with the utmost deference and
submission to public wisdom and power.

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




REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE

PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND FOR

REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL

TEST, &C.


NOTE.

In the 4to edition of Swift's works (1755) is given the following note:

"The author having before examined 'The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit'
with respect to their own principles and practices, has in this tract
put them in the balance against Papists."

In a reprint of this tract in the second volume of "Political Tracts," 2
vols. 8vo, 1738, London, is the following "Advertisement"--neither
Scott, Faulkner, nor Hawkesworth give this. Probably it appeared in the
first edition; but as I have not been able to come across this, I am not
certain.

"In the years 1732, and 1733, an attempt was made for repealing the Test
Act in Ireland, introductory of a like attempt in England. The various
arguments for it were answered in every shape; but no way more
effectually than by examining what pretence the Presbyterians had to
share in all the privileges of government, either from their own
principles and behaviour, or compared with those of other sectaries.
Under the former head they were fully silenced by our author in 'The
Presbyterians' Plea of Merit Impartially Examined'. They are now put in
the balance with Papists, whom though they have sometimes styled their
brethren in adversity, yet when placed in competition, they will hate as
brethren likewise. But let them here dispute the preference, and then put
in their claim to be part of the establishment." "The arguments
pretended to be urged by the Roman Catholics, in this tract," says Monck
Mason, "consist partly of true statements and partly of ironical
allusions, which are combined together into such a trellis work, as to
render it almost unassailable."

The text here given is that from the 4to edition (1755) of Swift's
Works, collated with that in the second volume of "Political Tracts"
above referred to.

[T.S.]

  REASONS
  Humbly offered to the PARLIAMENT of IRELAND
  _For Repealing the_
  SACRAMENTAL TEST, &c.
  IN FAVOUR OF
  THE CATHOLICS,
  OTHERWISE CALLED ROMAN CATHOLICS,
  AND BY THEIR ILL-WISHERS PAPISTS.

  Drawn partly from Arguments as they are
  Catholics, and partly from Arguments
  common to them with their Brethren the
  Dissenters.

  WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1733.


It is well known, that the first conquerors of this kingdom were English
Catholics, subjects to English Catholic kings, from whom, by their
valour and success, they obtained large portions of land given them as a
reward for their many victories over the Irish: To which merit our
brethren the Dissenters of any denomination whatsoever, have not the
least pretensions.

It is confessed, that the posterity of those first victorious Catholics
were often forced to rise in their own defence, against new colonies
from England, who treated them like mere native Irish, with innumerable
oppressions; depriving them of their lands, and driving them by force of
arms into the most desolate parts of the kingdom. Till in the next
generation, the children of these tyrants were used in the same manner
by new English adventurers, which practice continued for many centuries.
But it is agreed on all hands, that no insurrections were ever made,
except after great oppressions by fresh invaders. Whereas all the
rebellions of Puritans, Presbyterians, Independents, and other
sectaries, constantly began before any provocations were given, except
that they were not suffered to change the government in Church and
State, and seize both into their own hands; which, however, at last they
did, with the murder of their King and of many thousands of his best
subjects.

The Catholics were always defenders of monarchy, as constituted in these
kingdoms. Whereas our brethren the Dissenters were always republicans,
both in principle and practice. It is well known that all the Catholics
of these kingdoms, both priests and laity, are true Whigs in the best
and most proper sense of the word; bearing as well in their hearts, as
in their outward profession, an entire loyalty to the royal house of
Hanover in the person and posterity of George II. against the Pretender
and all his adherents. To which they think themselves bound in gratitude
as well as conscience, by the lenity wherewith they have been treated
since the death of Queen Anne, so different from what they suffered in
the four last years of that Princess, during the administration of that
_wicked_ minister, the Earl of Oxford.

The Catholics of this kingdom humbly hope, that they have at least as
fair a title as any of their brother Dissenters, to the appelation of
Protestants. They have always protested against the selling, dethroning,
or murdering their Kings: Against the usurpations and avarice of the
court of Rome: Against Deism, Atheism, Socinianism, Quakerism,
Muggletonianism, Fanaticism, Brownism, as well as against all Jews,
Turks, Infidels, and Heretics. Whereas the title of Protestants assumed
by the whole herd of Dissenters (except ourselves) dependeth entirely
upon their protesting against archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters,
with their revenues; and the whole hierarchy. Which are the very
expressions used in The Solemn League and Covenant,[1] where the word
Popery is only mentioned _ad invidiam_; because the Catholics agree with
the Episcopal church in those fundamentals.

[Footnote 1:   A solemn league and covenant entered into between the
Scots and English fanatics, in the rebellion against King Charles I.,
1643, by which they solemnly engaged, among other things, "To endeavour
the extirpation of prelacy, that is, church government by archbishops,
bishops, deans, archdeacons, and all other episcopal officers,
depending on that hierarchy." [H.]]

Although the Catholics cannot deny, that in the great rebellion against
King Charles I. more soldiers of their religion were in the Parliament
army than in His Majesty's troops; and that many Jesuits and friars went
about in the disguise of Presbyterian and Independent ministers, to
preach up rebellion; as the best historians of those times inform us;
yet the bulk of Catholics in both kingdoms preserved their loyalty
entire.

The Catholics have some reason to think it a little hard, when their
enemies will not please to distinguish between the rebellious riot
committed by that brutal ruffian, Sir Phelim O'Neal[2] with his
tumultuous crew of rabble; and the forces raised afterwards by the
Catholic lords and gentlemen of the English pale, in defence of the King
after the English rebellion began. It is well known, that His Majesty's
affairs were in great distraction some time before, by an invasion of
the covenanting, Scottish, kirk rebels, and by the base terms the King
was forced to accept, that they might be kept in quiet, at a juncture
when he was every hour threatened at home by that fanatic party, which
soon after set all in a flame. And, if the Catholic army in Ireland
fought for their King against the forces sent over by the Parliament,
then in actual rebellion against him, what person of loyal principles
can be so partial to deny, that they did their duty, by joining with the
Marquis of Ormonde, and other commanders, who bore their commissions
from the King? For which, great numbers of them lost their lives, and
forfeited their estates; a great part of the latter being now possessed
by many descendants from those very men who had drawn their swords in
the service of that rebellious Parliament which cut off his head, and
destroyed monarchy. And what is more amazing, although the same persons,
when the Irish were entirely subdued, continued in power under the Rump;
were chief confidants, and faithful subjects to Cromwell, yet being wise
enough to foresee a restoration, they seized the forts and castles here,
out of the hands of their old brethren in rebellion, for the service of
the King; just saving the tide, and putting in a stock of merit,
sufficient not only to preserve the lands which the Catholics lost by
their loyalty; but likewise to preserve their civil and military
employments, or be higher advanced.

[Footnote 2: Sir Phelim O'Neill (1604?-1683) one of the most
picturesque characters of Irish history. For his share in the rebellion
of 1641 he was expelled from the Irish House of Commons. The rebellion
was an attempt to assist Charles as against the Parliament, and O'Neill
forged a commission, purporting to come from the King, authorizing the
Irish to rise in his favour. The Scottish settlers in Ulster, on whom
O'Neill relied for aid disappointed him, and he thereupon set to work to
reduce all their towns. The famous siege of Drogheda was one of the many
incidents of his campaign. He joined forces with his kinsman, Owen Roe
O'Neill, but a jealous difference on his part urged Sir Phelim to
support Ormonde, in 1640, in that general's endeavours for a peace. Sir
Phelim, however, was not included in the benefit of the Articles of
Kilkenny, and a price was placed on his head. He was betrayed by Philip
Roe McHugh O'Neill, brought to Dublin, and executed as a traitor.
[T.S.]]

Those insurrections wherewith the Catholics are charged from the
beginning of the seventeenth century to the great English rebellion,
were occasioned by many oppressions they lay under. They had no
intention to introduce a new religion, but to enjoy the liberty of
preserving the old; the very same which their ancestors professed from
the time that Christianity was first introduced into this island, which
was by Catholics; but whether mingled with corruptions, as some pretend,
doth not belong to the question. They had no design to change the
government; they never attempted to fight against, to imprison, to
betray, to sell, to bring to a trial, or to murder their King. The
schismatics acted by a spirit directly contrary; they united in a Solemn
League and Covenant, to alter the whole system of spiritual government,
established in all Christian nations, and of apostolic institution;
concluding the tragedy with the murder of the King in cold blood, and
upon mature deliberation; at the same time changing the monarchy into a
commonwealth.

The Catholics of Ireland, in the great rebellion, lost their estates for
fighting in defence of their King. The schismatics, who cut off the
father's head, forced the son to fly for his life, and overturned the
whole ancient frame of government, religious and civil; obtained grants
of those very estates which the Catholics lost in defence of the ancient
constitution, many of which estates are at this day possessed by the
posterity of those schismatics: And thus, they gained by their rebellion
what the Catholics lost by their loyalty.[3]

[Footnote 3: This paragraph is omitted in edition of 1743, but it is
printed in that of 1755. [T.S.]]

We allow the Catholics to be brethren of the Dissenters; some people,
indeed, (which we cannot allow) would have them to be our children,
because _we_ both dissent from the Church established, and both agree in
abolishing this persecuting Sacramental Test; by which negative
discouragement we are both rendered incapable of civil and military
employments. However, we cannot but wonder at the bold familiarity of
these schismatics, in calling the members of the National Church their
brethren and fellow Protestants. It is true, that all these sects
(except the Catholics) are brethren to each other in faction, ignorance,
iniquity, perverseness, pride, and (if we except the Quakers) in
rebellion. But, how the churchmen can be styled their fellow
Protestants, we cannot comprehend. Because, when the whole Babel of
sectaries joined against the Church, the King, and the nobility for
twenty years, in a match at football; where the proverb expressly tells
us, that _all are fellows_; while the three kingdoms were tossed to and
fro, the churches, and cities, and royal palaces shattered to pieces by
their balls, their buffets, and their kicks; the victors would allow no
more _fellows at football_: But murdered, sequestered, plundered,
deprived, banished to the plantations, or enslaved all their opposers
who had lost the game.

It is said the world is governed by opinion; and politicians assure us,
that all power is founded thereupon. Wherefore, as all human creatures
are fond to distraction of their own opinions; and so much the more, as
those opinions are absurd, ridiculous, or of little moment; it must
follow, that they are equally fond of power. But no opinions are
maintained with so much obstinacy as those in religion, especially by
such zealots who never bore the least regard to religion, conscience,
honour, justice, truth, mercy, or common morality, farther than in
outward appearance; under the mask of hypocrisy, to promote their
diabolical designs. And therefore Bishop Burnet, one of their oracles,
tells us honestly, that the _saints_ of those fanatic times, pronounced
themselves above morality; which they reckoned among "beggarly
elements"; but the meaning of those two last words thus applied, we
confess to be above our understanding.

Among those kingdoms and states which first embraced the Reformation,
England appears to have received it in the most regular way; where it
was introduced in a peaceable manner, by the supreme power of a King,[4]
and the three estates in Parliament; to which, as the highest
legislative authority, all subjects are bound passively to submit.
Neither was there much blood shed on so great a change of religion. But
a considerable number of lords, and other persons of quality through the
kingdom still continued in their old faith, and were, notwithstanding
their difference in religion, employed in offices civil as well as
military, more or less in every reign, until the Test Act in the time of
King Charles II. However, from the time of the Reformation, the number
of Catholics gradually and considerably lessened. So that in the reign
of King Charles I. England became, in a great degree, a Protestant
Kingdom, without taking the sectaries into the number; the legality
whereof, with respect to human laws, the Catholics never disputed: But
the Puritans, and other schismatics, without the least pretence to any
such authority, by an open rebellion, destroyed that legal Reformation,
as we observed before, murdered their King, and changed the monarchy
into a republic. It is therefore not to be wondered at, if the
Catholics, in such a Babel of religions, chose to adhere to their own
faith left to them by their ancestors, rather than seek for a better
among a rabble of hypocritical, rebellious, deluding knaves, or deluded
enthusiasts.

[Footnote 4: Henry VIII [H.]]

We repeat once more, that if a national religion be changed by the
supreme legislative power, we cannot dispute the human legality of such
a change. But we humbly conceive, that if any considerable party of men
which differs from an establishment, either old or new, can deserve
liberty of conscience, it ought to consist of those who for want of
conviction, or of a right understanding the merits of each cause,
conceive themselves bound in conscience to adhere to the religion of
their ancestors; because they are of all others least likely to be
authors of innovations, either in Church or State.

On t'other side; If the reformation of religion be founded upon
rebellion against the King, without whose consent, by the nature of our
constitution, no law can pass. If this reformation be introduced by only
one of the three estates, I mean the Commons, and not by one half even
of those Commons; and this by the assistance of a rebellious army:
Again, if this reformation were carried on by the exclusion of nobles
both lay and spiritual (who constitute the two other parts of the three
estates) by the murder of their King, and by abolishing the whole system
of government; the Catholics cannot see why the successors of those
schismatics, who are universally accused by all parties except
themselves, and a few infamous abettors, for still retaining the same
principles in religion and government, under which their predecessors
acted; should pretend to a better share of civil or military trust,
profit and power than the Catholics, who during all that period of
twenty years, were continually persecuted with utmost severity, merely
on account of their loyalty and constant adherence to kingly power.

We now come to those arguments for repealing the Sacramental Test, which
equally affect the Catholics, and their brethren the Dissenters.

_First_, We agree with our fellow Dissenters; that "persecution merely
for conscience' sake, is against the genius of the Gospel."[5] And so
likewise is "any law for depriving men of their natural and civil rights
which they claim as men." We are also ready enough to allow that "the
smallest negative discouragements for uniformity's sake are so many
persecutions." Because, it cannot be denied, that the scratch of a pin
is in some degree a real wound, as much as a stab through the heart. In
like manner, an incapacity by law for any man to be made a judge, a
colonel, or justice of the peace, "merely on a point of conscience, is a
negative discouragement," and consequently a real persecution: For, in
this case, the author of the pamphlet quoted in the margin[6] puts a
very pertinent and powerful question: That, "If God be the sole lord of
the conscience, why should the rights of conscience be subject to human
jurisdiction?" Now to apply this to the Catholics: The belief of
transubstantiation "is a matter purely of religion and conscience, which
doth not affect the political interest of society as such. Therefore,
Why should the rights of conscience, whereof God is the sole lord, be
subject to human jurisdiction?" And why should God be deprived of this
right over a Catholic's conscience any more than over that of any other
Dissenter?

[Footnote 5: _Vid_. Reasons for the Repeal of the Sacramental Test.
[Note in edit. 1738.]]

[Footnote 6: _Idem_.]

And whereas another author among our brethren the Dissenters, hath very
justly complained, that by this persecuting Test Act, great numbers of
true Protestants have been forced to leave the kingdom, and fly to the
plantations, rather than stay here branded with an incapacity for civil
and military employments; we do affirm, that the Catholics can bring
many more instances of the same kind; some thousands of their religion
have been forced by the Sacramental Test, to retire into other
countries, rather than live here under the incapacity of wearing swords,
sitting in Parliament, and getting that share of power and profit which
belongs to them as fellow Christians, whereof they are deprived "merely
upon account of conscience, which would not allow them to take the
sacrament after the manner prescribed in the liturgy." Hence it clearly
follows in the words of the same author,[7] "That if we Catholics are
uncapable of employments, we are punished for our dissent, that is, for
our conscience, which wholly turns upon political considerations."

[Footnote 7: See "Reasons against the Test." [Note in edit. 1738.]]

The Catholics are willing to acknowledge the King's supremacy, whenever
their brethren the Dissenters shall please to shew them the example.

Further, The Catholics, whenever their religion shall come to be the
national established faith, are willing to undergo the same test offered
by the author already quoted. His words are these: "To end this debate,
by putting it upon a foot which I hope will appear to every impartial
person a fair and equitable one; We Catholics propose, with submission
to the proper judges, that effectual security be taken against
persecution, by obliging all who are admitted into places of power and
trust, whatever their religious profession be, in the most solemn manner
to disclaim persecuting principles." It is hoped the public will take
notice of these words; "Whatever their religious profession be;" which
plainly include the Catholics; and for which we return thanks to our
dissenting brethren.

And, whereas it is objected by those of the established Church, that if
the schismatics and fanatics were once put into a capacity of possessing
civil and military employments; they would never be at ease till they
had raised their own way of worship into the national religion through
all His Majesty's dominions, equal with the true orthodox Scottish kirk;
which when they had once brought to pass, they would no more allow
liberty of conscience to Episcopal Dissenters, than they did in the time
of the great English rebellion, and in the succeeding fanatic anarchy
till the King was restored. There is another very learned schismatical
pamphleteer,[8] who in answer to a malignant libel, called, _The
Presbyterians' Plea of Merit, &c_., clearly wipes off this aspersion; by
assuring all Episcopal Protestants of the present Church, upon his own
word, and to his own knowledge, that our brethren the Dissenters will
never offer at such an attempt. In like manner, the Catholics when
legally required, will openly declare upon their words and honours,
that, as soon as their negative discouragements and their persecution
shall be removed by repealing the Sacramental Test, they will leave it
entirely to the merits of the cause, whether the kingdom shall think fit
to make their faith the established religion or not.

[Footnote 8: "Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters." This pamphlet
has been mentioned in the note prefixed to "The Presbyterians' Plea of
Merit." It was written as a reply to that tract, and to the
"Narrative."[T.S.]]

And again, Whereas our Presbyterian brethren in many of their pamphlets,
take much offence, that the great rebellion in England, the murder of
the King, with the entire change of religion and government, are
perpetually objected against them both in and out of season, by our
common enemy, the present conformists: We do declare in the defence of
our said brethren, that the reproach aforesaid is _an old worn-out
threadbare cant_, which they always disdained to answer: And I very well
remember, that, having once told a certain conformist, how much I
wondered to hear him and his tribe, dwelling perpetually on so beaten a
subject; he was pleased to divert the discourse with a foolish story,
which I cannot forbear telling to his disgrace. He said, there was a
clergyman in Yorkshire, who for fifteen years together preached every
Sunday against drunkenness: Whereat the parishioners being much
offended, complained to the archbishop; who having sent for the
clergyman, and severely reprimanded him, the minister had no better an
answer, than by confessing the fact; adding, that all the parish were
drunkards; that he desired to reclaim them from one vice before he would
begin upon another; and, since they still continued to be as great
drunkards as before, he resolved to go on, except his Grace would please
to forbid him.

We are very sensible how heavy an accusation lieth upon the Catholics of
Ireland; that some years before King Charles II. was restored, when
theirs and the King's forces were entirely reduced, and the kingdom
declared by the Rump to be settled; after all His Majesty's generals
were forced to fly to France, or other countries, the heads of the said
Catholics who remained here in an enslaved condition, joined to send an
invitation to the Duke of Lorrain; engaging, upon his appearing here
with his forces, to deliver up the whole island to his power, and
declare him their sovereign; which, after the Restoration, was proved
against them by Dean Boyle, since primate, who produced the very
original instrument at the board. The Catholics freely acknowledge the
fact to be true; and, at the same time appeal to all the world, whether
a wiser, a better, a more honourable, or a more justifiable project
could have been thought of. They were then reduced to slavery and
beggary by the English rebels, many thousands of them murdered, the rest
deprived of their estates, and driven to live on a small pittance in the
wilds of Connaught; at a time when either the Rump or Cromwell
absolutely governed the three kingdoms. And the question will turn upon
this, Whether the Catholics, deprived of all their possessions, governed
with a rod of iron, and in utter despair of ever seeing the monarchy
restored, for the preservation of which they had suffered so much, were
to be blamed for calling in a foreign prince of their own religion, who
had a considerable army to support them; rather than submit to so
infamous an usurper as Cromwell, or such a bloody and ignominious
conventicle as the Rump. And I have often heard, not only our friends
the Dissenters, but even our common enemy the Conformists, who are
conversant in the history of those times, freely confess, that
considering the miserable situation the Irish were then in, they could
not have thought of a braver or more virtuous attempt; by which they
might have been instruments of restoring the lawful monarch, at least to
the recovery of England and Scotland, from those betrayers, and sellers,
and murderers of his royal father.

To conclude, Whereas the last quoted author complains very heavily and
frequently of a _brand_ that lies upon them, it is a great mistake: For
the first original brand hath been long taken off. Only we confess, the
scar will probably remain and be visible for ever to those who know the
principles by which they acted, and until those principles shall be
openly renounced; else it must continue to all generations, like the
mark set upon Cain, which some authors say descended to all his
posterity: Or like the Roman nose and Austrian lip, or like the long bag
of flesh hanging down from the gills of the people in Piedmont. But as
for any brands fixed on schismatics for several years past, they have
been all made with cold iron; like thieves, who by the benefit of the
clergy are condemned to be only burned in the hand; but escape the pain
and the mark, by being in fee with the jailor. Which advantage the
schismatical teachers will never want, who, as we are assured, and of
which there is a very fresh instance, have the souls, and bodies, and
purses of the people a hundred times more at their mercy, than the
Catholic priests could ever pretend to.

Therefore, upon the whole, the Catholics do humbly petition (without the
least insinuation of threatening) that upon this favourable juncture
their incapacity for civil and military employments may be wholly taken
off, for the very same reasons (besides others more cogent) that are now
offered by their brethren the Dissenters.

_And your petitioners, as in duty bound, shall ever pray, &c_.[9]

Dublin, Nov. 1733.

[Footnote 9: In this controversy the author was again victorious, for
the Test was not repealed. [H.]]

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




SOME FEW THOUGHTS

CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF THE TEST.[1]


[Footnote 1: The text is that of the quarto edition (1765) of Swift's
Works. [T.S.]]

Those of either side who have written upon this subject of the Test, in
making or answering objections, seem to fail by not pressing
sufficiently the chief point upon which the controversy turns. The
arguments used by those who write for the Church are very good in their
kind, but will have little force under the present corruptions of
mankind, because the authors treat this subject _tanquam in republicâ,
Platonis, et non in fæce Romuli_.

It must be confessed, that, considering how few employments of any
consequence fall to the share of those English who are born in this
kingdom, and those few very dearly purchased, at the expense of
conscience, liberty, and all regard for the public good, they are not
worth contending for: And, if nothing but profit were in the case, it
would hardly cost me one sigh when I should see those few scraps thrown
among every species of fanatics, to scuffle for among themselves.

And this will infallibly be the case, after repealing the Test.

For, every subdivision of sect will, with equal justice, pretend to have
a share; and, as it is usual with sharers, will never think they have
enough, while any pretender is left unprovided. I shall not except the
Quakers; because, when the passage is once let open for all sects to
partake in public emoluments, it is very probable the lawfulness of
taking oaths, and wearing carnal weapons,[2] may be revealed to the
brotherhood; which thought, I confess, was first put into my head by one
of the shrewdest Quakers in this kingdom.[3]

[Footnote 2:  The Quakers were more likely to admit this relaxation of
their peculiar tenets, as, upon their first appearance as a sect, they
did not by any means profess the principle of non-resistance, which they
afterwards adopted. [S.]]

[Footnote 3: The Quaker hinted at by Dr. Swift was Mr. George Rooke, a
linen-draper. In a letter to Mr. Pope, Aug. 30, 1716, Dr. Swift says,
"There is a young ingenious Quaker in this town, who writes verses to
his mistress, not very correct, but in a strain purely what a poetical
Quaker should do, commending her look and habit, &c. It gave me a hint,
that a set of Quaker pastorals might succeed, if our friend Gay would
fancy it; and I think it a fruitful subject: pray hear what he
says."--Accordingly Gay wrote "The Espousal, a sober Eclogue, between
two of the People called Quakers." [S.]]

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



TEN REASONS FOR REPEALING

THE TEST ACT.[1]

[Footnote 1: "This Tract is from a rare broadside copy. It appears to be
written by the Dean, and the arguments correspond with those he uses
elsewhere"  So says Scott; but Monck Mason considers this tract no more
the work of Swift than several others he mentions. See note prefixed to
"The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit." [T.S.]]


I.

Because the Presbyterians are people of such great interest in this
kingdom, that there are not above ten of their persuasion in the House
of Commons, and but one in the House of Lords; though they are not
obliged to take the sacrament in the Established Church to qualify them
to be members of either House.

2. Because those of the Established Church of this kingdom are so
disaffected to the King, that not one of them worth mentioning, except
the late Duke of Ormond,[2] has been concerned in the rebellion; and
that our Parliament, though there be so few Presbyterians, has, upon all
occasions, proved its loyalty to King George, and has readily agreed to
and enacted what might support his government.

[Footnote 2: James Butler, Duke of Ormond (1610-1688), was
lieutenant-general of the army of Ireland during the rebellion of 1641.
After his defeat of General Preston, in 1643, he was appointed
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; but retired to France on the fall of the
Stuart dynasty. The execution of Charles caused Ormond to land again in
Ireland for the purpose of rousing that country in favour of the royal
cause; but he forsook it on the landing of Cromwell. At the Restoration
he came over with Charles, and was raised, for his services, to the
dukedom. He was, however, deprived of his lord-lieutenancy for his
friendship for the exiled Clarendon. He had a narrow escape for his life
from the plots of Colonel Blood, whom he forgave at the request of the
King. In 1682 he was rewarded by being promoted to an English dukedom.
[T.S.]]

3. Because very few of the Presbyterians have lost an employment worth
£20 per annum, for not qualifying themselves according to the Test Act;
nor will they accept of a militia commission, though they do of one in
the army.

4. Because, if they are not in the militia and other places of trust,
the Pretender and his adherents will destroy us; when he has no one to
support him but the King of Spain; when King George is at a good
understanding with Sweden, Prussia, and Denmark; and when he has made
the best alliances in Christendom. When the Emperor, King of Great
Britain, the French King, the King of Sardinia, are all in the quadruple
alliance against the Spaniard, his upstart cardinal,[3] and the
Pretender; when bloody plots against Great Britain and France are blown
up; when the Spanish fleet is quite dispersed; when the French army is
overrunning Spain; and when the rebels in Scotland are cut off.

[Footnote 3: Cardinal Julius Alberoni (1664-1752), born at Parma,
obtained the favour, when a humble parish priest, of the Duke of
Vendôme, by informing that general of the whereabouts of some corn, which
the country folk had hidden. He followed the Duke to Spain, and
was successful in bringing about the marriage between the Princess of
Parma and Philip V. For this service he was made Prime Minister of
Spain, a cardinal, and Archbishop of Valencia. He entered heartily into
Philip's designs for recovering Spain's lost territory, and showed
even more boldness than his royal master in their execution. His
reduction of Sardinia precipitated the alliance between England, France,
Holland, and afterwards, Austria. Spain, with Alberoni as its guiding
spirit, supported the Jacobite cause to harass England, and conquered
Sicily. But at Messina the Spanish fleet was destroyed by the English,
and in the north of Spain the forces of Philip were repulsed by the
French. In the end, Spain gave way, and Alberoni was dismissed to retire
to Rome, and to be safely lodged in the Jesuits' College there. On his
release he returned to his native town, but died at Rome. [T.S.]]

5. The test clause should be repealed, because it is a defence against
the reformation the Presbyterians long since promised the churches of
England and Ireland, viz. "We, noblemen, barons, knights, gentlemen,
citizens, burgesses, ministers of the Gospel, commons of all sorts in
the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland, &c.[4] each one of us
for himself, with our hands lifted up to the most high God, do swear,
first, That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the
grace of God, endeavour, in our several places and callings, the
preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. Secondly, That we shall
in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of
Popery, Prelacy; that is, church-government by archbishops, their
chancellors, and commissaries, deans, deacons, and chapters,
archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that
hierarchy."

[Footnote 4: _Vide_ "Confession of Faith," pp. 304, 305.]

6. Because the Presbyterian Church-Government may be independent of the
state. The Lord Jesus is King and Head of his Church;[5] hath therein
appointed a government in the hands of church-officers, distinct from
the civil magistrate. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of
ministers to consult and advise with about matters of religion; so, if
magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of
themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons,
upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such
assemblies.[6]

[Footnote 5: "Confession of Faith," p. 87.]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid_., pp. 88, 89.]

7. Because they have not the free use of their religion, when they
disdain a toleration.

8. Because they have so much charity for Episcopacy, as to account it
iniquitous. The address of the General Assembly to the Duke of
Queensbury in the late reign says, that to tolerate the Episcopal clergy
in Scotland would be to establish iniquity by a law.

9. Because repealing the test clause will probably disoblige ten of his
Majesty's good subjects, for one it can oblige.

10. Because, if the test clause be repealed, the Presbyterians may with
the better grace get into employments, and the easier worm out those of
the Established Church.

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




SERMONS.


The following Form of Prayer, which Dr. Swift constantly used in the
pulpit before his sermon, is copied from his own handwriting:

"Almighty and most merciful God! forgive us all our sins. Give us grace
heartily to repent them, and to lead new lives. Graft in our hearts a
true love and veneration for thy holy name and word. Make thy pastors
burning and shining lights, able to convince gainsayers, and to save
others and themselves. Bless this congregation here met together in thy
name; grant them to hear and receive thy holy word, to the salvation of
their own souls. Lastly, we desire to return thee praise and
thanksgiving for all thy mercies bestowed upon us; but chiefly for the
Fountain of them all, Jesus Christ our Lord, in whose name and words we
further call upon thee, saying, 'Our Father,' &c."


NOTE.

These twelve sermons are what have been handed down to us of a bundle of
thirty-five which Swift, some years before his death, gave to Dr.
Sheridan. Swift had no great opinion of them himself, if we may judge
from what he said to his friend when he offered him the bundle. "You may
have them if you please; they may be of use to you, they never were of
any to me." There is not much in any of them of that quality which
characterizes the average sermon. For the artifices of rhetoric which
are usually employed to move hearers Swift had no small contempt. He
aimed to convince the mind by plain statements of common-sense views. He
had no faith in a conviction brought about under the stress of emotional
excitement. His sermons exactly answer to the advice he gave a young
clergyman--"First tell the people what is their duty, and then convince
them that it is so." In the note to his reprint of these sermons Sir
Walter Scott has very admirably summed up their qualities.