“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]
[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 republica, Platonis, et non in faece 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 L20 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 Vendome, 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.
“The Sermons of Swift,” says Scott, “have none of that thunder which appals, or that resistless and winning softness which melts, the hearts of an audience. He can never have enjoyed the triumph of uniting hundreds in one ardent sentiment of love, of terror, or of devotion. His reasoning, however powerful, and indeed unanswerable, convinces the understanding, but is never addressed to the heart; and, indeed, from his instructions to a young clergyman, he seems hardly to have considered pathos as a legitimate ingredient in an English sermon. Occasionally, too, Swift’s misanthropic habits break out even from the pulpit; nor is he altogether able to suppress his disdain of those fellow mortals, on whose behalf was accomplished the great work of redemption. With such unamiable feelings towards his hearers, the preacher might indeed command their respect, but could never excite their sympathy. It may be feared that his Sermons were less popular from another cause, imputable more to the congregation than to the pastor. Swift spared not the vices of rich or poor; and, disdaining to amuse the imaginations of his audience with discussion of dark points of divinity, or warm them by a flow of sentimental devotion, he rushes at once to the point of moral depravity, and upbraids them with their favourite and predominant vices in a tone of stern reproof, bordering upon reproach. In short, he tears the bandages from their wounds, like the hasty surgeon of a crowded hospital, and applies the incision knife and caustic with salutary, but rough and untamed severity. But, alas! the mind must be already victorious over the worst of its evil propensities, that can profit by this harsh medicine. There is a principle of opposition in our nature, which mans itself with obstinacy even against avowed truth, when it approaches our feelings in a harsh and insulting manner. And Swift was probably sensible, that his discourses, owing to these various causes, did not produce the powerful effects most grateful to the feelings of the preacher, because they reflect back to him those of the audience.
“But although the Sermons of Swift are deficient in eloquence, and were lightly esteemed by their author, they must not be undervalued by the modern reader. They exhibit, in an eminent degree, that powerful grasp of intellect which distinguished the author above all his contemporaries. In no religious discourses can be found more sound good sense, more happy and forcible views of the immediate subject. The reasoning is not only irresistible, but managed in a mode so simple and clear, that its force is obvious to the most ordinary capacity. Upon all subjects of morality, the preacher maintains the character of a rigid and inflexible monitor; neither admitting apology for that which is wrong, nor softening the difficulty of adhering to that which is right; a stern stoicism of doctrine, that may fail in finding many converts, but leads to excellence in the few manly minds who dare to embrace it. In treating the doctrinal points of belief, (as in his Sermon upon the Trinity,) Swift systematically refuses to quit the high and pre-eminent ground which the defender of Christianity is entitled to occupy, or to submit to the test of human reason, mysteries which are placed, by their very nature, far beyond our finite capacities. Swift considered, that, in religion, as in profane science, there must be certain ultimate laws which are to be received as fundamental truths, although we are incapable of defining or analysing their nature; and he censures those divines, who, in presumptuous confidence of their own logical powers, enter into controversy upon such mysteries of faith, without considering that they give thereby the most undue advantage to the infidel. Our author wisely and consistently declared reason an incompetent judge of doctrines, of which God had declared the fact, concealing from man the manner. He contended, that he who, upon the whole, receives the Christian religion as of divine inspiration, must be contented to depend upon God’s truth, and his holy word, and receive with humble faith the mysteries which are too high for comprehension. Above all, Swift points out, with his usual forcible precision, the mischievous tendency of those investigations which, while they assail one fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, shake and endanger the whole fabric, destroy the settled faith of thousands, pervert and mislead the genius of the learned and acute, destroy and confound the religious principles of the simple and ignorant.”
In 1744, Faulkner printed three sermons as a single volume; these were “On Mutual Subjection,” “On Conscience,” and “On the Trinity.” The other sermons appeared in the various editions issued by Nichols and others. The text here given is that of the volume of 1744, of Hawkesworth and Scott.
[T.S.]
ON MUTUAL SUBJECTION.
I PETER, V. 5.
“–Yea, all of you be subject one to another.”
The Apostle having in many parts of this epistle given directions to Christians concerning the duty of subjection or obedience to superiors; in the several instances of the subject to his prince, the child to his parent, the servant to his master, the wife to her husband, and the younger to the elder; doth here, in the words of my text, sum up the whole, by advancing a point of doctrine, which at first may appear a little extraordinary: “Yea, all of you,” saith he, “be subject one to another.” For it should seem, that two persons cannot properly be said to be subject to each other, and that subjection is only due from inferiors to those above them: yet St Paul hath several passages to the same purpose. For he exhorts the Romans, “in honour to prefer one another:”[1] and the Philippians, “that in lowliness of mind they should each esteem other better than themselves;”[2] and the Ephesians, “that they should submit themselves one to another in the fear of the Lord.”[3] Here we find these two great apostles recommending to all Christians this duty of mutual subjection. For we may observe by St Peter, that having mentioned the several relations which men bear to each other, as governor and subject, master and servant, and the rest which I have already repeated, he maketh no exception, but sums up the whole with commanding “all to be subject one to another.” From whence we may conclude, that this subjection due from all men to all men, is something more than the compliment of course, when our betters are pleased to tell us they are our humble servants, but understand us to be their slaves.
[Footnote 1: Rom. xii. 10.]
[Footnote 2: Philip. ii. 3.]
[Footnote 3: Ephes. v. 21.]
I know very well, that some of those who explain this text, apply it to humility, to the duties of charity, to private exhortations, and to bearing with each other’s infirmities: And it is probable, the apostle may have had a regard to all these: But however, many learned men agree, that there is something more understood, and so the words in their plain natural meaning must import; as you will observe yourselves, if you read them with the beginning of the verse, which is thus: “Likewise ye younger submit yourselves unto the elder; yea, all of you be subject one to another.” So, that upon the whole, there must be some kind of subjection due from every man to every man, which cannot be made void by any power, pre-eminence, or authority whatsoever. Now, what sort of subjection this is, and how it ought to be paid, shall be the subject of my present discourse.
As God hath contrived all the works of nature to be useful, and in some manner a support to each other, by which the whole frame of the world under his providence is preserved and kept up; so, among mankind, our particular stations are appointed to each of us by God Almighty, wherein we are obliged to act, as far as our power reacheth, toward the good of the whole community. And he who doth not perform that part assigned him, toward advancing the benefit of the whole, in proportion to his opportunities and abilities, is not only a useless, but a very mischievous member of the public: Because he taketh his share of the profit, and yet leaves his share of the burden to be borne by others, which is the true principal cause of most miseries and misfortunes in life. For, a wise man who doth not assist with his counsels, a great man with his protection, a rich man with his bounty and charity, and a poor man with his labour, are perfect nuisances in a commonwealth. Neither is any condition of life more honourable in the sight of God than another; otherwise he would be a respecter of persons, which he assureth us he is not: For he hath proposed the same salvation to all men, and hath only placed them in different ways or stations to work it out. Princes are born with no more advantages of strength or wisdom than other men; and, by an unhappy education, are usually more defective in both than thousands of their subjects. They depend for every necessary of life upon the meanest of their people: Besides, obedience and subjection were never enjoined by God to humour the passions, lusts, and vanities of those who demand them from us; but we are commanded to obey our governors, because disobedience would breed seditions in the state. Thus servants are directed to obey their masters, children their parents, and wives their husbands; not from any respect of persons in God, but because otherwise there would be nothing but confusion in private families. This matter will be clearly explained, by considering the comparison which St Paul maketh between the Church of Christ and the body of man: For the same resemblance will hold, not only to families and kingdoms, but to the whole corporation of mankind. “The eye,” saith he,[4] “cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of thee. Nay, much more, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.” The case is directly the same among mankind. The prince cannot say to the merchant, I have no need of thee; nor the merchant to the labourer, I have no need of thee. Nay, much more those members, &c. For the poor are generally more necessary members of the commonwealth than the rich: Which clearly shews, that God never intented such possessions for the sake and service of those to whom he lends them: but because he hath assigned every man his particular station to be useful in life; and this for the reason given by the apostle, “that there should be no schism in the body.”[5]
[Footnote 4: 1 Corin. xii. 21, 23, 26.]
[Footnote 5: 1 Corin. xii. 25.]
From hence may partly be gathered the nature of that subjection which we all owe to one another. God Almighty hath been pleased to put us into an imperfect state, where we have perpetual occasion of each other’s assistance. There is none so low, as not to be in a capacity of assisting the highest; nor so high, as not to want the assistance of the lowest.
It plainly appears from what hath been said, that no one human creature is more worthy than another in the sight of God; farther, than according to the goodness or holiness of their lives; and, that power, wealth, and the like outward advantages, are so far from being the marks of God’s approving or preferring those on whom they are bestowed, that, on the contrary, he is pleased to suffer them to be almost engrossed by those who have least title to his favour. Now, according to this equality wherein God hath placed all mankind, with relation himself, you will observe, that in all the relations between man and man, there is a mutual dependence, whereby the one cannot subsist without the other. Thus, no man can be a prince without subjects, nor a master without servants, nor a father without children. And this both explains and confirms the doctrine of the text: For, where there is a mutual dependence, there must be a mutual duty, and consequently a mutual subjection. For instance, the subject must only obey his prince, because God commands it, human laws require it, and the safety of the public maketh it necessary: (For the same reasons we must obey all that are in authority, and submit ourselves, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, whether they rule according to our liking or no.) On the other side, in those countries that pretend to freedom, princes are subject to those laws which their people have chosen; they are bound to protect their subjects in liberty, property, and religion; to receive their petitions, and redress their grievances: So, that the best prince is, in the opinion of wisemen, only the greatest servant of the nation; not only a servant to the public in general, but in some sort to every man in it. In the like manner, a servant owes obedience, and diligence and faithfulness to his master, from whom, at the same time, he hath a just demand for protection, and maintenance, and gentle treatment. Nay, even the poor beggar hath a just demand of an alms from the rich man, who is guilty of fraud, injustice, and oppression, if he doth not afford relief according to his abilities.
But this subjection we all owe one another is nowhere more necessary than in the common conversations of life; for without it there could be no society among men. If the learned would not sometimes submit to the ignorant, the wise to the simple, the gentle to the froward, the old to the weaknesses of the young, there would be nothing but everlasting variance in the world. This our Saviour himself confirmed by his own example; for he appeared in the form of a servant, and washed his disciples’ feet, adding those memorable words: “Ye call me Lord and Master, and ye say well, for so I am. If I then your Lord and Master wash your feet, how much more ought ye to wash one another’s feet?” Under which expression of washing the feet, is included all that subjection, assistance, love, and duty, which every good Christian ought to pay his brother, in whatever station God hath placed him. For the greatest prince and the meanest slave, are not, by infinite degrees so distant, as our Saviour and those disciples whose feet he vouchsafed to wash.
And, although this doctrine of subjecting ourselves to one another may seem to grate upon the pride and vanity of mankind, and may therefore be hard to be digested by those who value themselves upon their greatness or their wealth; yet, it is really no more than what most men practise upon other occasions. For, if our neighbour who is our inferior comes to see us, we rise to receive him, we place him above us, and respect him as if he were better than ourselves; and this is thought both decent and necessary, and is usually called good manners. Now the duty required by the apostle, is only that we should enlarge our minds, and that what we thus practice in the common course of life, we should imitate in all our actions and proceedings whatsoever; since our Saviour tells us, that every man is our neighbour, and since we are so ready in the point of civility, to yield to others in our own houses, where only we have any title to govern.
Having thus shewn you what sort of subjection it is which all men owe one to another, and in what manner it ought to be paid, I shall now draw some observations from what hath been said.
And _first_: A thorough practice of this duty of subjecting ourselves to the wants and infirmities of each other, would utterly extinguish in us the vice of pride. For, if God hath pleased to entrust me with a talent, not for my own sake, but for the service of others, and at the same time hath left me full of wants and necessities which others must supply; I can then have no cause to set any extraordinary value upon myself, or to despise my brother, because he hath not the same talents which were lent to me. His being may probably be as useful to the public as mine; and, therefore, by the rules of right reason, I am in no sort preferable to him.
_Secondly_: It is very manifest, from what hath been said, that no man ought to look upon the advantages of life, such as riches, honour, power, and the like, as his property, but merely as a trust, which God hath deposited with him, to be employed for the use of his brethren; and God will certainly punish the breach of that trust, although the laws of man will not, or rather indeed cannot; because the trust was conferred only by God, who hath not left it to any power on earth to decide infallibly whether a man maketh a good use of his talents or no, or to punish him where he fails. And therefore God seems to have more particularly taken this matter into his own hands, and will most certainly reward or punish us in proportion to our good or ill performance in it. Now, although the advantages which one man possesseth more than another, may in some sense be called his property with respect to other men, yet with respect to God they are, as I said, only a trust: which will plainly appear from hence. If a man doth not use those advantages to the good of the public, or the benefit of his neighbour, it is certain he doth not deserve them; and consequently, that God never intended them for a blessing to him; and on the other side, whoever doth employ his talents as he ought, will find by his own experience, that they were chiefly lent him for the service of others: for to the service of others he will certainly employ them.
_Thirdly_: If we could all be brought to practise this duty of subjecting ourselves to each other, it would very much contribute to the general happiness of mankind: for this would root out envy and malice from the heart of man; because you cannot envy your neighbour’s strength, if he maketh use of it to defend your life, or carry your burden; you cannot envy his wisdom, if he gives you good counsel; nor his riches, if he supplieth you in your wants; nor his greatness, if he employs it to your protection. The miseries of life are not properly owing to the unequal distribution of things; but God Almighty, the great King of Heaven, is treated like the kings of the earth; who, although perhaps intending well themselves, have often most abominable ministers and stewards; and those generally the vilest, to whom they entrust the most talents. But here is the difference, that the princes of this world see by other men’s eyes, but God sees all things; and therefore whenever he permits his blessings to be dealt among those who are unworthy, we may certainly conclude that he intends them only as a punishment to an evil world, as well as to the owners. It were well, if those would consider this, whose riches serve them only as a spur to avarice, or as an instrument to their lusts; whose wisdom is only of this world, to put false colours upon things, to call good evil, and evil good, against the conviction of their own consciences; and lastly, who employ their power and favour in acts of oppression or injustice, in misrepresenting persons and things, or in countenancing the wicked to the ruin of the innocent.
_Fourthly_: The practice of this duty of being subject to one another, would make us rest contented in the several stations of life wherein God hath thought fit to place us; because it would in the best and easiest manner bring us back as it were to that early state of the Gospel when Christians had all things in common. For, if the poor found the rich disposed to supply their wants; if the ignorant found the wise ready to instruct and direct them; or if the weak might always find protection from the mighty; they could none of them with the least pretence of justice lament their own condition.