The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift/Volume 19/A Narrative of the Several Attempts to Repeal the Test
A NARRATIVE
OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.
WHEN the oath of supremacy was repealed, which had been the church's great security, since the second of queen Elizabeth, against both papists and presbyterians, who equally refused it, it let in such a current of dissenters into some of our corporations, as bore down all before them.
Although the sacramental test had been for a considerable time in force in England, yet that law did not reach Ireland, where the church was more oppressed by dissenters, and where her most sanguine friends were glad to compound, to preserve what legal security she had left, rather than attempt any new, or even to recover what she had lost: and in truth they had no reason to expect it, at a time when the dissenters had the interest to have a motion made and debated in parliament, that there might be a temporary repeal of all the penal laws against them; and when they were so flushed with the conquest they had made in some corporations, as to reject all overtures of a toleration; and, to that end, had employed Mr. Boyse to write against it with the utmost contempt, calling it "a stone instead of bread, a serpent instead of a fish."
When the church was in this situation, the clause of the sacramental test was happily sent over from England, tacked to the popery bill; which alarmed the whole body of the dissenters to that degree, that their managers began to ply with the greatest artifice and industry, to prevent its passing into a law. But (to the honour of that parliament be it spoken) the whole body of both lords and commons (some few excepted) passed the clause with great readiness, and defended it afterward with as great resolution.
The immediate consequence of this law was the recovery of several corporations from, the dissenters, and the preservation of others, to which the enterprising people had made very bold and quick approaches.
It was hoped that this signal defeat would have discouraged the dissenters from any farther attempts against the law, which had so unanimously passed both houses; but the contrary soon appeared: for, upon meeting of the parliament held by the earl of Pembroke[2], they quickly reassumed their wonted courage and confidence, and made no doubt but they should either procure an absolute repeal thereof, or get it so far relaxed, as that they might be admitted to offices of military trust: to this they apprehended themselves encouraged by a paragraph in his excellency's speech to both houses (which they applied to themselves) which was, "that the queen would be glad of any expedient, for strengthening the interest of her protestant subjects of Ireland."
The advocates for the dissenters immediately took hold of this handle; and, in order to prepare the way for this expedient, insisting boldly upon their merit and loyalty, charged the church with persecution, and extolled their signal behaviour in the late revolution to that degree, as if by their singular prowess they had saved the nation.
But all this was only to prepare the way for the grand engine, which was forming to beat down this law; and that was their expedient addresses.
The first of this kind was, from a provincial synod of the northern dissenters, beginning with high encomiums upon themselves, and as high demands from the publick, "for their untainted loyalty in all turns of government, which," they said, "was the natural consequence of their known principles;" expressions, which, had they been applied to them by their adversaries, must have been understood as spoken ironically; and, indeed, to have been the greatest sarcasm imaginable upon them (especially when we consider the insolent treatment given to her late majesty in the very same address;) for, immediately after they pass this compliment upon themselves, they tell her majesty, they deeply regret the sacramental test; and frankly declared, that neither the gentlemen nor people of their persuasion could (they must mean would) serve her, whatever exigences might arise, unless that law was repealed.
The managers for the kirk, following this precedent, endeavoured to obtain addresses to the same purpose from the corporations; and though they proved unsuccessful in most, they procured them from our most considerable conforming corporations; and that too at a critical juncture, when numbers of Scotch presbyterians, who had deserved well in the affair of the union, and could not be rewarded in England (where the test act was in force), stood ready to overrun our preferments as soon as the test should be repealed in Ireland.
But, after all, when it came to a decisive trial in the house of commons, the dissenters were defeated.
When the managers found the house of commons could not be brought into that scheme of an expedient, to be offered by them; their refinement upon this was, to move for an address, "That the house would accept of an expedient from her majesty;" but this also was rejected; for, by this project, the managers would have led the queen into this dilemma, either to disoblige the whole body of the dissenters, by refusing to name the expedient, or else to give up the conformists to the insults and incroachments of the dissenters, by the repeal of that law, which was declared by the house of lords to be the great security of the established church, and of the English interest in Ireland.
The next attempt they made against the test was during the government of lord Wharton[3]. The dissenters seemed more resolute now than ever to have the test repealed, especially when his excellency had declared from the throne, "that they were neither to be persecuted nor molested." For they, who had all along called the test act a persecution, might reasonably conclude that grievance would be removed; when they were told by the chief governor, that "they were not even to be molested." But, to their great confusion, they were soon undeceived, when they found, upon trial, that the house of commons would not bear the least motion toward it.
Their movements to repeal the test being stopped this way, the managers were obliged to take several other ways to come at it: and at the time that some pretended to sooth, others seemed to threaten even the legislature.
There happened about the time when the project of the expedient was on foot, an excellent occasion to express their resentments against this law, and that was, when great numbers of them refused the oath of allegiance, and to oppose the pretender; insisting upon a repeal of the test act, as the condition of their arming in defence of their queen and country. The government was not reduced to such straits, as to submit to that condition; and the test stood firm, in spite of both the dissenters and the pretender, until the latter was driven from our coasts; and then one would have thought the hopes of the former would have vanished with him.
But it proved quite contrary: for those sons of the earth, rebounding with fresh vigour from their falls, recovered new strength and spirit from every defeat; and the next attempt was bolder (considering the circumstance they were in) than any they had made before:
The case was this: the house of lords of Ireland had accused them to the queen of several illegal practices, which highly concerned the safety of our constitution both in church and state: the particulars of which charge were summed up in a representation from the lords to this effect:
"That they (the dissenters) had opposed and persecuted the conformists in those parts where their power prevailed, had invaded their congregation, propagated their schism in places where it had not the least footing formerly; that they were protected from a legal persecution by a noli prosequi in the case of Drogheda; that they refused to take conforming apprentices, and confined trade among themselves, exclusive of the conformists: that, in their illegal assemblies, they had prosecuted and censured their people for being married according to law; that they have thrown publick and scandalous reflections upon the episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the sacramental test, and had misapplied the royal bounty of 1200l. per annum in propagating their schism, and undermining the church: and had exercised an illegal jurisdiction in their presbyteries and Synods," &c.
To this representation of the lords, the dissenters remonstrate in an address to the queen, or rather an appeal to their own people; in which, although it is evident they were conscious of those crimes whereof they stood accused, as appears by the evasions they make to this high charge; yet, even under these circumstances, (such was their modesty) they pressed for a repeal of the test act, by the modest appellation of a grievance, and odious mark of infamy, &c.
One particular in another address I cannot omit. The house of lords, in their representation, had accused one dissenting teacher in particular (well known to Mr. Boyse); the charge was in these words: "Nor has the legislature itself escaped the censure of a bold author of theirs, who has published in print, that the sacramental test is only an engine to advance a state faction, and to debase religion to serve base and unworthy purposes."
To this Mr. Boyse answers, in an address to the queen, in the year 1712, subscribed only by himself and five more dissenting teachers, in the following manner:
"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 common 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 a 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. It is true, the word legislature is not expressed in that paragraph; but let Mr. Boyse 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 common table of the 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.
Upon the whole, is not this an instance of prodigious boldness in Jo. 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 the law, which she had stamped with her royal authority but a few years before?
The next attempt of the dissenters against this law was made during the government of the duke of Shrewsbury[4], 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, and at such a time as this, disable, disgrace, and divide protestants; a thing that ought not to be done at any time, or in any place, much less then 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 Conaught "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. In order to prepare necessaries, and furnish topicks 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."
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 propose 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 fain 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 the repeal.
Page 19, 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 politicks as can never be accounted for."
Who are these absurd politicians? Are they not the majority of both houses of parliament?
But, to strengthen his reflections, page 26, 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 farther tells us, it infringes on the indisputable right of the dissenters."
Page 57, 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, publickly 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."
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 that same paragraph: surely not in the books of the house of commons!
If not, suppose some few gentlemen of the house of commons (and to be sure very few they were) who publickly 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 majority of the house of commons, who first passed this law, and have ever since opposed all attempts to repeal it; these are the gentlemen 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, page 62, 63.
"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 by 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 conceive it will be readily allowed, that, in all applications from any body of men, or particular subject, to the legislature, the highest encomiums are to be looked upon as purely complimental; but that the least insinuation of disrespect ought to be considered in the strictest sense the expressions can bear. 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 predetermined against conviction, say, whether this libeller of the parliament has not drawn up a high charge against the makers and continuers of this law.
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. Is not this author justly to be reputed a defamer,till he produces instances wherein the conforming nobihty 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 gentleman, or common people, refuse to be arrayed, when the militia was raised upon the invasion of the pretender? did any of them ever show 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 an attempt in Scotland, our northern presbyterians showed great reluctance in taking arms upon the array of the 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, 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? With respect to the parliament; did ever any house of commons show 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.
A great number of the nonconforming gentlemen daily leave them. Many men, whose fathers 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, that there would not be a gentleman left to solicit a repeal.
I shall hereafter take occasion to show, 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 naught, 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 a 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, p. 59. "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 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 goverment 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 sound them upon the common argument of having their hands tied by a late act of parliament, &c. Whereupon I took some pains to show the act to them, and wherein they were mistaken. I farther 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.
- ↑ This little tract was originally printed at Dublin in a periodical paper called The Correspondent; and was annexed to the second edition of the Presbyterians Plea of Merit: and, to make room for it, the Ode to Humphry French, esq., (which stood in the first edition) was omitted in the second. It may not be improper to observe, that it was answered, in "A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters from the Aspersions cast upon them in a late pamphlet, entitled, the Presbyterians Plea of Merit, &c. with some Remarks on a paper called The Correspondent, giving a pretended Narrative," &c.
- ↑ His lordship's viceroyalty commenced April 7, 1707.
- ↑ Appointed lord lieutenant November 25, 1708.
- ↑ From September 1713, till the queen's death.