Part 8

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.