Page images

bigoted Papists had the least design to oppose 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 I., were the principal cause of the Irish rebellion and massacre, by distressing that prince, and making it impossible for him to send over timely succors. And after that 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; to 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 the 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, it is not manifest, that the persecuting spirit lies 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 professes himself a member of the church established, although perhaps with little inward regard to any religion, (which is too often the case,) if he loves 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?




[ocr errors]


Whether the candor 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 or writer; but it is a gross imposition upon common reason to terrify us with their strength. For popery, under the circumstances it lies in this kingdom, although it be offensive and inconvenient enough from the consequences it has 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 clamors of designing men, but the real terror only of fools. The landed popish interest in England far exceeds that among us, even in proportion to the wealth and extent of each kingdom. The little that remains 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, nor inclinations to rebel : they want every advantage which they formerly possessed to follow their 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 even 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 toward 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 neighbors, and others who come from the same neighborhood, are so kind to express for us upon this account, although the former be farther removed from the danger 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


[ocr errors]

now stands, we durst not assist you ; and therefore, unless


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, 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 a 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.

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 invasion, 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 I., 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 place 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 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?

Į ground the reason of making these queries on the title of the act; to which I refer the reader.



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 fæce Romuli.

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

thrown among every species of fanatics, to scufflle 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 sects to partake in public emoluments, it is very probable the lawfulness of taking oaths, and wearing carnal weapons, 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.




This book, by some errors and neglects in the style seems not to have received the author's last correction. It is written with some vehemence, very pardonable in one who had been an observer and a sufferer, in England, under that diabolical fanatic sect, which then destroyed church and state. But by comparing, in my memory, what I have read in other histories, he neither aggravates nor falsifies any facts. - His partiality appears chiefly in setting the actions of Calvinists in the strongest light, without equally dwelling on those of the other side ; which, however, to say the truth, was not his proper business. And yet he might have spent some more words on the inhuman massacre of Paris, and other parts of France, which no provocation (and yet the king had the greatest possible) could excuse, or much extenuate. The author, according to the current opinion of the age he lived in, had too high notions of regal power;

led by the common mistake of the term supreme magistrate, and not rightly distinguishing between the legislature and the administration ; into which mistake the clergy fell or continued, in the reign of Charles II., as I have shown and explained in a treatise, &c.

JONATHAN SWIFT. March 6, 1727-8.







It is well known that the first conquerors of this kingdom were English Catholics, subjects to English Catholic kings, from whom, by their valor 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 pretension.

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,

« PreviousContinue »