Chapter 3

Neither is it very difficult to conjecture from some late proceedings, at what a rate this faction is likely to drive wherever it gets the whip and the seat. They have already set up courts of spiritual judicature in open contempt of the laws: They send missionaries everywhere, without being invited, in order to convert the Church of England folks to Christianity. They are as vigilant as _I know who_, to attend persons on their death-beds, and for purposes much alike. And what practices such principles as these (with many other that might be invidious to mention) may spawn when they are laid out to the sun, you may determine at leisure.

Lastly, Whether we are so entirely sure of their loyalty upon the present foot of government as you may imagine, their detractors make a question, which however, does, I think, by no means affect the body of dissenters; but the instance produced is, of some among their leading teachers in the north, who having refused the Abjuration Oath, yet continue their preaching, and have abundance of followers. The particulars are out of my head, but the fact is notorious enough, and I believe has been published; I think it a pity, it has not been remedied.

Thus, I have fairly given you, Sir, my own opinion, as well as that of a great majority in both Houses here, relating to this weighty affair, upon which I am confident you may securely reckon. I will leave you to make what use of it you please.

I am, with great respect, Sir,

Yours, &c.

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

THE PRESBYTERIANS' PLEA OF MERIT.

NOTE.

THE reference casually made by Swift, in his "Letter on the Sacramental Test," to his grandfather and the "malignant Church," probably points to one of the causes for his persistent dislike towards the Protestant dissenters. His attitude displays a profound disgust both for their teaching and their conduct; and he found, very early, occasion to ridicule them, as may be seen in his description of Jack, Martin, and Peter in "A Tale of a Tub" (see vol. i. of this edition). In spite, however, of this attitude, Swift seems to have remained silent on the question of the repeal of the Test Act for a period of more than twenty years. He had published his "Letter from a Member of the House of Commons in Ireland" in 1708; but it was not until 1731 that he again took up his pen against Dissent.

In that year, and in the two subsequent ones, the Presbyterians fought very strenuously for a mitigation of the laws against them; and the literature which has been handed down to us of that fight is by no means insignificant. The tracts which we know to be of Swift's authorship are: "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" (1731); "A Narrative of the several Attempts which the Dissenters of Ireland have made for a repeal of the Sacramental Test" (1731); "The Advantages proposed by Repealing the Sacramental Test impartially considered" (1732); "Queries Relating to the Sacramental Test" (1732); "Reasons humbly offered to the Parliament of Ireland for Repealing the Test in favour of Roman Catholics" (1733); "Some Few Thoughts Concerning the Test;" and, according to Sir Walter Scott, "Ten Reasons for Repealing the Test Act."

Monck Mason, in his elaborate note on this particular literature of the period (see "History of St. Patrick's Cathedral," pp. 387, 388, notes), gives a list of sixteen pamphlets, many of which he considers to be so well written that they would have done no discredit to Swift himself. The list is here transcribed for the benefit of the student:

(i.) "Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test considered; with Remarks humbly offered for the Repeal of it." 1732.

(ii.) "Remarks on a Pamphlet, entitled, 'The Nature and Consequences of the Sacramental Test Considered.'" Dublin, 1732, 12mo.

(iii.) "The History of the Test Act: in which the Mistakes in some Writings against it are Rectified, and the Importance of it to the Church explained." Printed at London and Dublin: and reprinted by George Faulkner. 1733, 12mo.

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

(v.) "The Test Act Examined by the Test of Reason." Dublin, 1733, 12mo.

(vi.) "The Case of the Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland, and that of the Dissenters in Ireland Compared; with Relation to Toleration, and a Capacity for Civil Offices. In a Letter to a Member of Parliament." Dublin, 1733, 8vo.

¶ This tract refers to another entitled: "The Tables Turned against the Presbyterians; or, Reasons against the Sacramental Test, by a General Assembly of Scotland."

(vii.) "The Case of the Test Considered, with respect to Ireland." Dublin, Faulkner, 1733.

(viii) "The natural Impossibilities of better Uniting Protestants &c. by Repealing the Test." Dublin: Printed by George Faulkner, 1733.

(ix.) "Ten Reasons for Repealing the Test Act."

¶ Scott reprints this as Swift's from the broadside original.

(x-xi.) "A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenters from the Aspersions Cast upon them in a late Pamphlet, entitled, 'The Presbyterians 'Plea of Merit &c.,' with some Remarks on a Paper called 'The Correspondent,' giving a pretended Narrative, &c."

¶ Swift refers to this pamphlet in his "Roman Catholic Reasons for Repealing the Test." It is also noted by the printer of the undated second edition of the London reprint of "The Plea."

(xii.) "The Dispute Adjusted, about the _proper time_ of applying for a Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts: by shewing that _no time is proper_. By the Reverend Father in God, Edmund Lord Bishop of London."

¶ Faulkner, in the second edition of "The Presbyterians' Plea," advertises this tract to appear in 1733. The author of "The Case of the Episcopal Dissenters in Scotland" mentions that it has been "lately re-printed" in Ireland, but that it is "falsely ascribed to the Bishop of London."

(xiii.) "The Test Act considered in a Political Light." 1733. Broadside.

(xiv.) "Queries upon the Demand of the Presbyterians to have the Sacramental Test Repealed at this Session of Parliament." 1733. Broadside.

¶ These Queries differ somewhat from those put by Swift in 1732.

(xv.) "A Letter from a Freeman of a certain Burrough, in the North of Ireland, to his Friend and Representative in Parliament; shewing Reasons why the Test Act should not be Repealed." 1733. Broadside.

(xvi.) "The Grunter's Request To take Off the Test." [A Poem.] 1733. 12mo.

Scott suggests ("Life of Jonathan Swift," 1824, p.401) that "probably more occasional tracts" were written by the Dean on the subject of the Test "than have yet been recovered." The curious student may satisfy himself on this matter by reading the above pamphlets. Neither Monck Mason, Dr. Barrett, nor Scott himself, cared to take upon themselves to decide whether any of them were by Swift; nor have any of the Dean's modern biographers thrown any light on the subject. A point to note in this consideration is the fact that Faulkner, in his collected edition of Swift's works, did not include any of these; and, as he himself published many of them, he would certainly have known something of their authorship.

Swift's agitation against the repeal of the Test was so successful that the Irish House of Commons found itself in a majority for the Test. In addition to the prose tracts Swift wrote a stinging poem "On the Words Brother Protestants and Fellow Christians," an expression familiarly used by the advocates for the Repeal of the Test Act. This poem brought him into personal conflict with one Serjeant Bettesworth, who "openly swore, before many hundreds of people, that upon the first opportunity, by the help of ruffians, he would murder or maim the Dean of St. Patrick's." The lines to which the Serjeant took exception were:

"Thus at the bar the booby Bettesworth, Though half-a-crown o'erpays his sweat's worth; Who knows in law, nor text, nor margent, Calls Singleton his brother serjeant."

The affair ended in the further ridicule of Bettesworth, who complained in the Irish House of Commons that the lampoon had cost him £1,200 a year. A full account of Swift's interview with Bettesworth is given by Swift in a letter to the Duke of Dorset, dated January, 1733-1734; and the "Grub Street Journal" for August 9th, 1734, tells how the inhabitants of the City of Dublin came to Swift's aid. Perhaps Bettesworth finally found consolation in the thought, satirically suggested by Dr. William Dunkin, that, after all, it might be worth the loss of money to be "transmitted to posterity in Dr. Swift's works."

"For had he not pointed me out, I had slept till E'en Doomsday, a poor insignificant reptile; Half lawyer, half actor, pert, dull, and inglorious, Obscure, and unheard of--but now I'm notorious: Fame has but two gates, a white and a black one; The worst they can say is, I got in at the back one: If the end be obtained 'tis equal what portal I enter, since I'm to be render'd immortal: So clysters applied to the anus, 'tis said, By skilful physicians, give ease to the head-- Though my title be spurious, why should I be dastard, A man is a man though he should be a bastard. Why sure 'tis some comfort that heroes should slay us, If I fall, I would fall by the hand of Aeneas; And who by the Drapier would not rather damn'd be, Than demigoddized by madrigal Namby."[1]

[Footnote 1: Namby was the nickname for Ambrose Philips.]

Scott, and all Swift's editors and biographers, state that "The Presbyterians' Plea of Merit" was first published in 1731. What authority they have for this statement, I have not been able to discover. My own research has, so far, failed to find a copy of it with the date, 1731, on the title-page. The edition upon which the present text is based, is that printed by Faulkner in 1733, of the title-page of which, a facsimile is here given. This, I believe to be the first edition. Scott, following Nichols, states that in the first edition of "The Plea," the "Ode to Humphry French, Esq.," appeared, and that in the second edition, this ode was omitted to make room for the "Narrative of the Several Attempts made for the Repeal of the Test Act." Now in the British Museum, there are two _undated_ editions of "The Plea," which bear out this statement; but these, as the title-pages inform us, are London reprints of Dublin editions. Since, however, no one has recorded dated Dublin editions corresponding exactly to these London reprints, the evidence of the reprints counts for very little. Monck Mason, a very accurate authority, usually, says distinctly, "The Plea" was printed in 1731, and a second edition issued in 1733; but one gathers from his note that the only edition in his possession was that of 1733, and this has neither the "Ode" nor the "Narrative"; the last page consisting of an advertisement of the collected editions of Swift's works, which Faulkner was then preparing. The first of the London reprints bears no indication of any particular edition; the second has the words "second edition" on the title-page. In his note to this reprint of the "Narrative," and in his "Life of Swift," Scott refers to a Dublin periodical called "The Correspondent" (in which the "Narrative" was first published) as being printed in 1731. The only edition of this periodical, of which I have either seen or heard, is the copy in the British Museum, and that copy distinctly states: "Printed by James Hoey in Skinner-Row, 1733." If, therefore, this be the first edition of "The Correspondent," the "Narrative" must be ascribed to the year 1733, and the second edition of "The Plea" to the end of the same, or the beginning of the following year. I conclude, therefore, first, that the first edition of "The Plea" is that dated "Dublin, 1733;" second, that the undated London reprint with the "Ode" is of the same year; and, lastly, that the undated second London reprint with the "Narrative," is probably of the year, 1734. Examining Scott's text of this tract, one is forced to the conclusion that he could not have seen the Dublin edition of 1733; whereas, its almost exact similarity to the London reprint suggests that he used that. For purposes of the present text all three editions have been collated with one another, and with those given by Faulkner, Hawkesworth and Scott.

[T.S.]

THE _Presbyterians_ PLEA OF MERIT; In Order to take off the TEST, Impartially Examined.

_DUBLIN:_

Printed and fold by GEORGE FAULKNER, in _Essex-Street_, opposite to the _Bridge_, 1733.

We have been told in the common newspapers, that all attempts are to be made this session by the Presbyterians, and their abettors, for taking off the Test, as a kind of preparatory step, to make it go down smoother in England. For, if once their light would so shine, the Papists, delighted with the blaze, would all come in, and dance about it. This I take to be a prudent method; like that of a discreet physician, who first gives a new medicine to a dog, before he prescribes it to a human creature.[1]

[Footnote 1: See note prefixed to the "Letter on the Sacramental Test." [T.S.]]

The Presbyterians have, ever since the Revolution directed their learned casuists to employ their pens on this subject; by shewing the merits and pretensions upon which they claim this justice; as founded upon the services they did toward the restoration of King Charles the Second; and at the Revolution under the Prince of Orange. Which pleas I take to be the most singular, in their kind, that ever were offered in the face of the sun, against the most glaring light of truth, and against a continuation of public facts, known to all Europe for twenty years together. I shall, therefore, impartially examine the merits and conduct of the Presbyterians, upon those two great events; and the pretensions to favour, which they challenge upon them.

Soon after the Reformation of the Church in England, under Edward the Sixth, upon Queen Mary's succeeding to the crown, who restored Popery, many Protestants fled out of England, to escape the persecution raised against the Church, as her brother had left it established. Some of these exiles went to Geneva; which city had received the doctrine of Calvin, and rejected the government of bishops; with many other refinements. These English exiles readily embraced the Geneva system; and having added farther improvements of their own, upon Queen Mary's death returned to England; where they preached up their own opinions; inveighing bitterly against Episcopacy, and all rites and ceremonies, however innocent and ancient in the Church: building upon this foundation; to run as far as possible from Popery, even in the most minute and indifferent circumstances: this faction, under the name of Puritan, became very turbulent, during the whole reign of Queen Elizabeth; and were always discouraged by that wise queen, as well as by her two successors. However, their numbers, as well as their insolence and perverseness, so far increased, that soon after the death of King James the First, many instances of their petulancy and scurrility, are to be seen in their pamphlets, written for some years after; which was a trade they began in the days of Queen Elizabeth: particularly with great rancour against the bishops, the habits, and the ceremonies: Such were that scurrilous libel under the title of Martin Mar-prelate,[2] and several others. And, although the Earl of Clarendon[3] tells us, that, until the year 1640, (as I remember) the kingdom was in a state of perfect peace and happiness, without the least appearance of thought or design toward making any alterations in religion or government; yet I have found, by often rummaging for old books in Little Britain and Duck-Lane, a great number of pamphlets printed from the year 1530[4] to 1640, full of as bold and impious railing expressions, against the lawful power of the Crown, and the order of bishops, as ever were uttered during the Rebellion, or the whole subsequent tyranny of that fanatic anarchy. However, I find it manifest, that Puritanism did not erect itself into a new, separate species of religion, till some time after the Rebellion began. For, in the latter times of King James the First, and the former part of his son, there were several Puritan bishops, and many Puritan private clergymen; while people went, as their inclinations led them, to hear preachers of each party in the parish churches. For the Puritan clergy had received Episcopal orders as well as the rest. But, soon after the Rebellion broke out, the term Puritan gradually dropped, and that of Presbyterian succeeded; which sect was, in two or three years, established in all its forms, by what they called an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons, without consulting the King; who was then at war against his rebels. And, from this period the Church continued under persecution, till monarchy was restored in the year 1660.

[Footnote 2: According to Mr. Edward Arber the writers of these famous tracts were the Rev. John Penny and Job Throckmorton, Esq. He calls these two writers "the most eminent prose satirists of the Elizabethan age." For a full account of these tracts and the controversy, see Mr. Arber's "Introductory Sketch to the Martin Mar-prelate Controversy, 1588-1590" (1879, English Scholar's Library). The aim of the Mar-prelate writers is thus stated by the able author of that sketch: "To ridicule and affront a proud hierarchy [the bishops] endowed with large legal means of doing mischief, and not wanting in will to exercise these powers to the full. The spell of the unnatural civil power which had been enjoyed by the Papal prelates in this country remained with their Protestant successors until this Controversy broke it: so that from this time onwards the bishops set about to forge a new spell, 'the Divine Right of their temporal position and power', which hallucination was dissolved by the Long Parliament: from which time a bishop has usually been considered no more than a man" (Preface, pp. 11-12). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon (1608-1674), the author of the "History of the Great Rebellion." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: The original edition has 1630. [T.S.]]

In a year or two after; we began to hear of a new party risen, and growing in the Parliament, as well as the army; under the name of Independent: It spread, indeed somewhat more in the latter; but not equal with the Presbyterians, either in weight or number, till the very time[5] that the King was murdered.

[Footnote 5: Faulkner prints: "until some time before the King was murdered."[T.S.]]

When the King, who was then a prisoner in the Isle of Wight, had made his last concessions for a peace to the Commissioners of the Parliament, who attended him there; upon their return to London, they reported his Majesty's answer to the House. Whereupon, a number of moderate members, who, as Ludlow[6] says, had secured their own terms with his Majesty, managed with so much art, as to obtain a majority, in a thin house, for passing a vote, that _the King's concessions were a ground for future settlement_. But the great officers of the army, joining with the discontented members, came to a resolution, of excluding all those who had consented to that vote; which they executed in a military way. Ireton told Fairfax the General,[7] a rigid Presbyterian, of this resolution; who thereupon issued his orders for drawing out the army the next morning, and placing guards in Westminster-hall, the Court of Requests, and the lobby; who, in obedience to the General, in conjunction with those members who opposed the vote, would let no member enter the House, except those of their own party. Upon which, the question for bringing the King to justice, was immediately put and carried without opposition, that I can find. Then, an order was made for his trial; the time and place appointed; the judges named; of whom Fairfax himself was one; although by the advice or threats of his wife, he declined sitting among them. However, by fresh orders under his own hand, which I have seen in print, he appointed guards to attend the judges at the trial, and to keep the city in quiet; as he did likewise to prevent any opposition from the people, upon the day of execution.

[Footnote 6: Edmund Ludlow (1620?-1693) lieutenant-general of the Parliamentary army. He was one of the judges of King Charles's trial, and who signed the death-warrant. He died at Vevay, in Switzerland, where he had fled on finding that Charles's judges were not included in the Act of Indemnity. His memoirs were printed at Vevay in 1698-1699.3 vols. 8vo. It is to these Swift refers. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Ireton and Fairfax were two famous generals of the Parliamentary army serving with Cromwell. [T.S.]]

From what I have already deduced, it appears manifest, that the differences between those two sects, Presbyterian and Independent, did not then amount to half so much as what there is between a Whig and Tory at present among us. The design of utterly extirpating monarchy and episcopacy, was equally the same in both; evidently the consequence of the very same principles, upon which the Presbyterians alone began, continued, and would have ended in the same events; if towards the conclusion, they had not been bearded by that new party, with whom they could not agree about dividing the spoil. However, they held a good share of civil and military employments during the whole time of the usurpation; whose names, and actions, and preferments, are frequent in the accounts of those times. For I make no doubt, that all the prudent Presbyterians complied in proper seasons, falling in with the stream; and thereby got that share in employments, which many of them held to the Restoration; and perhaps too many of them after. In the same manner, we find our wisest Tories, in both kingdoms, upon the change of hands and measures at the Queen's death, have endeavoured for several years, by due compliances, to recover the time they had lost by a temporary obstinacy; wherein they have well succeeded, according to their degrees of merit. Of whose names I could here make honourable mention, if I did not fear it might offend their modesty.

As to what is alleged, that some of the Presbyterians declared openly against the King's murder, I allow it to be true. But, from what motives? No other can possibly be assigned, than perfect spite, rage, and envy, to find themselves wormed out of all power by a new infant spawn of Independents, sprung from their own bowels. It is true; the differences in religious tenets between them are very few and trifling; the chief quarrel, as far as I remember, relating to congregational and national assemblies. But, wherever interest or power thinks fit to interfere, it little imports what principles the opposite parties think fit to charge upon each other: for, we see, at this day, that the Tories are more hated by the whole set of zealous Whigs, than the very Papists themselves; and, in effect, as much unqualified for the smallest office: although, both these parties assert themselves to be of the same religion, in all its branches of doctrine and discipline; and profess the same loyalty to the same Protestant King and his heirs.

If the reader would know what became of this Independent party, upon whom all the mischief is charged by their Presbyterian brethren; he may please to observe, that during the whole usurpation, they contended by degrees with their parent sect, and, as I have already said, shared in employments; and gradually, after the Restoration, mingled with the mass of Presbyterians; lying ever since undistinguished in the herd of dissenters.