In the “foreword” to the reprint of this tract in the “Miscellanies” of
1711, Swift remarks: “I have been assured that the suspicion which the
supposed author lay under for writing this letter absolutely ruined him
with the late ministry.” The “late ministry” was the Whig ministry of
which Godolphin was the Premier. To this ministry the repeal of the Test
Act was a matter of much concern. To test the effect of such a repeal it
was determined to try it in Ireland first. There the Presbyterians had
distinguished themselves by their loyalty to William and the Protestant
succession. These, therefore, offered a good excuse for the introduction
of such a measure, particularly when, in 1708, an invasion was rumoured,
they were the first to send in loyal addresses to the Queen. Swift likened
this method to “that of a discreet physician, who first gives a new
medicine to a dog, before he prescribes it to a human creature.” Further,
the Speaker of the Irish House had come over to England to agitate for the
repeal. On this matter Swift wrote to Archbishop King, under date April
15th (the letter was first published by Mr. John Forster in his “Life of
Swift,” p. 246), as follows: “Some days ago my Lord Somers entered with me
into discourse about the Test clause, and desired my opinion upon it,
which I gave him truly, though with all the gentleness I could; because,
as I am inclined and obliged to value the friendship he professes for me,
so he is a person whose favour I would engage in the affairs of the First
Fruits…. If it became me to give ill names to ill things and persons, I
should be at a loss to find bad enough for the villainy and baseness of a
certain lawyer of Ireland [Speaker Brodrick, afterwards Lord Midleton],
who is in a station the least of all others excusable for such
proceedings, and yet has been going about most industriously to all his
acquaintance of both houses towards the end of the session to show the
necessity of taking off the Test clause in Ireland by an act here, wherein
you may be sure he had his brother’s assistance. If such a project should
be resumed next session, and I in England, unless your grace send me your
absolute commands to the contrary, which I should be sorry to receive, I
could hardly forbear publishing some paper in opposition to it, or leaving
one behind me, if there should be occasion.” In August of the same year
the agitation for the repeal was renewed, and in December Swift published
his “Letter on the Sacramental Test,” writing as if from Dublin and as a
member of the Irish House of Commons. When he writes to King in the
following month he makes a mild attempt to convince the Archbishop that
the pamphlet was not of his authorship. “The author has gone out of his
way to reflect on me as a person likely to write for repealing the test,
which I am sure is very unfair treatment. This is all I am likely to get
by the company I keep. I am used like a sober man with a drunken face,
have the scandal of the vice without the satisfaction.” But King was not
deceived. In his reply to Swift he simply remarks: “You need not be
concerned: I will engage you will lose nothing by that paper.” Swift,
however, lost more than the Archbishop thought; for “that paper” led to
his severance from the Whigs, and, in after life, to much contumely cast
on his character for being a political renegade. Because “he was not Whig
enough;” because he would not forsake his Church for his party, critics
and biographers have thought fit to make little of him, and to compare him
to his discredit with contemporaries whose intellects he held in the palm
of his hand, and to whom he might have stood as a moral exemplar.

Swift refers to this tract in his “Memoirs relating to the change in the
Queen’s Ministry,” as follows:—”It was everybody’s opinion, that the
Earl of Wharton would endeavour, when he went to Ireland, to take off the
test, as a step to have it taken off here: upon which I drew up and
printed a pamphlet, by way of a letter from a member of parliament here,
shewing the danger to the Church by such an intent. Although I took all
care to be private, yet the Lieutenant’s chaplain, and some others guessed
me to be the author, and told his Excellency their suspicions; whereupon I
saw him no more until I went to Ireland.”

The tract is one of the most favourable specimens of Swift’s controversial
method and trenchant satire. The style is excellent—forcible and
pithy; while the arguments are like most of Swift’s arguments, aptly to
the point with yet a potentiality of application which fits them for the
most general statement of the principles under discussion. Scott considers
the pamphlet “as having materially contributed to the loss of the bill for
repeal of the Test Act during the Earl of Pembroke’s vice-royalty.” In the
same year Swift wrote “A Letter to a Member of Parliament in Ireland on
choosing a new Speaker there.” This short tract bears also on the question
of the Test; but it is not included in this volume, since it was intended
as an electioneering pamphlet.

I have been unable to obtain access to a copy of the first edition of the
“Letter on the Sacramental Test.” The text here given is that of the
“Miscellanies” of 1711, collated with that given in the “Miscellanies,”
1728, and with those printed by Faulkner, Hawkesworth, and Scott.

[T.S.]

A LETTER CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

ADVERTISEMENT.[1]

[Footnote 1: This “Advertisement” is taken from “Miscellanies in Prose and
Verse,” printed for John Morphew, 1711. On page 314 of that volume it
forms a “foreword” to “A Letter concerning the Sacramental Test.” It is
omitted from the reprint in the “Miscellanies” of 1728. The page which
Swift says he has taken leave to omit cannot be identified. Probably this
was another of Swift’s manoeuvres for concealing the identity of the
author. The “Advertisement” of George Faulkner to his edition of Swift’s
Works (vol. iv., 1735) is as follows:

“In the second volume of Doctor Swift’s and Mr. Pope’s ‘Miscellanies,’ I
found the following treatise, which had been printed in London, with some
other of the Dean’s works, many years before, but at first came out by
itself in the year 1708, as the date shews: And it was at a juncture when
the Dissenters were endeavouring to repeal the Sacramental Test, as by
common fame, and some pamphlets published to the same purpose, they seem
to be now again attempting, with great hope of success. I have, therefore,
taken the liberty to make an extract out of that discourse, omitting only
some passages which relate to certain persons, and are of no consequence
to the argument. But the author’s weight of reasoning seems at present to
have more weight than it had in those times, when the discourse first
appeared.

“The author, in this letter, personates a Member of Parliament here
[Dublin], to a Member of Parliament in England.

“The Speaker mentioned in this letter was Allen Broderick, afterwards
Chancellor and Lord Middleton; and the prelate was Dr. Lyndsay, afterwards
Lord Primate,” [T.S.]]

The following letter is supposed by some judicious persons to be of the
same author, and, if their conjectures be right, it will be of no
disadvantage to him to have it revived, considering the time when it was
writ, the persons then at the helm, and the designs in agitation, against
which this paper so boldly appeared. I have been assured that the
suspicion which the supposed author lay under for writing this letter,
absolutely ruined him with the late ministry. I have taken leave to omit
about a page which was purely personal, and of no use to the subject.

Dublin, Dec. 4, 1708.

Sir,

I received your letter, wherein you tell me of the strange representations
made of us on your side of the water. The instance you are pleased to
mention is that of the Presbyterian missionary, who, according to your
phrase, hath been lately persecuted at Drogheda for his religion: But it
is easy to observe, how mighty industrious some people have been for three
or four years past, to hand about stories of the hardships, the merits,
the number, and the power of the Presbyterians in Ireland, to raise
formidable ideas of the dangers of Popery there, and to transmit all for
England, improved by great additions, and with special care to have them
inserted with comments in those infamous weekly papers that infest your
coffee-houses. So, when the clause enacting a Sacramental Test was put in
execution, it was given out in England, that half the justices of peace
through this kingdom had laid down their commissions; whereas upon
examination, the whole number was found to amount only to a dozen or
thirteen, and those generally of the lowest rate in fortune and
understanding, and some of them superannuated. So, when the Earl of
Pembroke was in Ireland and the Parliament sitting, a formal story was
very gravely carried to his Excellency by some zealous members, of a
priest newly arrived from abroad to the north-west parts of Ireland, who
had publicly preached to his people, to fall a-murdering the Protestants;
which, though invented to serve an end they were then upon, and are still
driving at, it was presently handed over, and printed with shrewd remarks
by your worthy scribblers. In like manner, the account of that person who
was lately expelled our university for reflecting on the memory of King
William, what a dust it raised, and how foully it was related, is fresh
enough in memory.[2] Neither would people be convinced till the university
was at the pains of publishing a Latin paper to justify themselves. And,
to mention no more, this story of the persecution at Drogheda, how it hath
been spread and aggravated, what consequences have been drawn from it, and
what reproaches fixed on those who have least deserved them, we are
already informed. Now if the end of all this proceeding were a secret and
mystery, I should not undertake to give it an interpretation, but
sufficient care hath been taken to give it sufficient explanation.[3]
First, by addresses artificially (if not illegally) procured, to shew the
miserable state of the dissenters in Ireland by reason of the Sacramental
Test, and to desire the Queen’s intercession that it might be repealed.
Then it is manifest that our Speaker, when he was last year in England,
solicited, in person, several members of both Houses, to have it repealed
by an act there, though it be a matter purely national, that cannot
possibly interfere with the trade and interest of England, and though he
himself appeared formerly the most zealous of all men against the
injustice of binding a nation by laws to which they do not consent. And
lastly, those weekly libellers, whenever they get a tale by the end
relating to Ireland, without ever troubling their thoughts about the
truth, always end it with an application against the Sacramental Test, and
the absolute necessity there is of repealing it in both kingdoms. I know
it may be reckoned a weakness to say anything of such trifles as are below
a serious man’s notice; much less would I disparage the understanding of
any party to think they would choose the vilest and most ignorant among
mankind, to employ them for assertors of a cause. I shall only say, that
the scandalous liberty those wretches take would hardly be allowed, if it
were not mingled with opinions that some men would be glad to
advance. Besides, how insipid soever those papers are, they seem to be
levelled to the understandings of a great number; they are grown a
necessary part in coffee-house furniture, and some time or other may
happen to be read by customers of all ranks, for curiosity and amusement;
because they lie always in the way. One of these authors (the fellow that
was pilloried I have forgot his name)[4] is indeed so grave, sententious,
dogmatical a rogue, that there is no enduring him; the Observator[5]
is much the brisker of the two, and I think farther gone of late in lies
and impudence, than his Presbyterian brother. The reason why I mention
him, is to have an occasion of letting you know, that you have not dealt
so gallantly with us, as we did with you in a parallel case: Last year, a
paper was brought here from England, called, “A Dialogue between the
Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Higgins,” which we ordered to be burnt by
the common hangman, as it well deserved; though we have no more to do with
his Grace of Canterbury[6] than you have with the Archbishop of Dublin[7];
nor can you love and reverence your prelate more than we do ours, whom you
tamely suffer to be abused openly, and by name, by that paltry rascal of
an Observator; and lately upon an affair wherein he had no concern;
I mean the business of the missionary at Drogheda, wherein our excellent
primate was engaged, and did nothing but according to law and discretion.
But because the Lord Archbishop of Dublin hath been upon several occasions
of late years, misrepresented in England, I would willingly set you right
in his character. For his great sufferings and eminent services he was by
the late King promoted to the see of Derry. About the same time, he wrote
a book to justify the Revolution, wherein was an account of King James’s
proceedings in Ireland, and the late Archbishop Tillotson recommended it
to the King as the most serviceable treatise that could have been
published at such a juncture.[8] And as his Grace set out upon those
principles, he has proceeded so ever since, as a loyal subject to the
Queen, entirely for the succession in the Protestant line, and for ever
excluding the Pretender; and though a firm friend to the Church, yet with
indulgence toward dissenters, as appears from his conduct at Derry, where
he was settled for many years among the most virulent of the sect; yet
upon his removal to Dublin, they parted from him with tears in their eyes,
and universal acknowledgments of his wisdom and goodness. For the rest, it
must be owned, he does not busy himself by entering deep into any party,
but rather spends his time in acts of hospitality and charity, in building
of churches, repairing his palace, in introducing and preferring the
worthiest persons he can find, without other regards; in short, in the
practice of all virtues that can become a public or private life. This and
more, if possible, is due to so excellent a person, who may be justly
reckoned among the greatest and most learned prelates of his age, however
his character may be defiled by such mean and dirty hands as those of the
Observator or such as employ him.[9]

[Footnote 2: The Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, had
lately expelled Edward Forbes for the cause mentioned in the text. [S.]]

[Footnote 3: Faulkner prints: “But sufficient care hath been taken to
explain it.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 4: Daniel Defoe (1663?-1731), the son of a Cripplegate butcher.
Entered business as a hosier, but failed. In 1695 he was appointed one of
the commissioners for duties on glass. Wrote “The True Born Englishman”
(1701); “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters,” for which he was
pilloried, fined, and imprisoned; and numerous other works, including
“Robinson Crusoe;” “Life of Captain Singleton;” “History of Duncan
Campbell;” “Life of Moll Flanders;” “Roxana;” “Life of Colonel Jack;”
“Journal of the Plague;” “History of the Devil;” and “Religious
Courtship.” He edited a paper called “The Review,” to which Swift here
refers, and against which Charles Leslie wrote his “Rehearsals.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 5: John Tutchin, a virulent writer of the reign of James II. For
a political work in defence of Monmouth he was sentenced by Judge
Jefferies to be whipped through several market towns. He wrote the
“Observator” (begun April, 1702), and suffered at the hands of the Tories
for his writings. He died in great poverty in 1708, at the age of
forty-seven. He was also the author of a play entitled, “The Unfortunate
Shepherd.” Pope refers to these punishments meted out to Defoe and
Tutchin, in the second book of the “Dunciad”:

[Footnote 6: Dr. Thomas Tenison (1636-1715), born at Cottenham,
Cambridgeshire. For his attacks on the Roman Catholics he was in 1691
created Bishop of Lincoln. He was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1694.
He wrote a “Discourse of Idolatry,” an answer to Hobbes, and published
several sermons. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 7: Dr. William King. See vol. iii., p. 241, note. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Dr. King was twice imprisoned in the castle of Dublin after
the landing of King James in Ireland in 1699, and narrowly escaped
assassination. The title of the work alluded to is: “The State of the
Protestants in Ireland under the late King James’s Government, in which
their carriage towards him is justified, and the absolute necessity of
their endeavouring to be freed from his Government, and of submitting to
their present Majesties, is demonstrated.” [S.]]

[Footnote 9: The portion of this paragraph beginning with “The reason why
I mention him,” to the end, “such as employ him,” is omitted by Faulkner.
[T.S.]]

I now come to answer the other part of your letter, and shall give you my
opinion freely about repealing the Sacramental Test; only whereas you
desire my thoughts as a friend, and not as I am a member of parliament, I
must assure you they are exactly the same in both capacities.

I must begin by telling you, we are generally surprised at your wonderful
kindness to us on this occasion, it being so very industrious to teach us
to see our interest in a point where we are so unable to see it ourselves.
This hath given us some suspicion; and though in my own particular, I am
hugely bent to believe, that whenever you concern yourselves in our
affairs, it is certainly for our good, yet I have the misfortune to be
something singular in this belief, and therefore I never attempt to
justify it, but content myself to possess my own opinion in private, for
fear of encountering men of more wit or words than I have to spare.

We at this distance, who see nothing of the spring of actions, are forced
by mere conjecture to assign two reasons for your desiring us to repeal
the Sacramental Test: One is, because you are said to imagine it will be
one step towards the like good work in England: The other more immediate,
that it will open a way for rewarding several persons who have well
deserved upon a great occasion, but who are now unqualified through that
impediment.

I do not frequently quote poets, especially English, but I remember there
is in some of Mr. Cowley’s love verses, a strain that I thought
extraordinary at fifteen, and have often since imagined it to be spoken by
Ireland:

In short, whatever advantage you propose to yourselves by repealing the
Sacramental Test, speak it out plainly, ’tis the best argument you can
use, for we value your interest much more than our own: If your little
finger be sore, and you think a poultice made of our vitals will give it
any ease, speak the word and it shall be done; the interest of our whole
kingdom is at any time ready to strike to that of your poorest fishing
towns; it is hard you will not accept our services, unless we believe at
the same time that you are only consulting our profit, and giving us marks
of your love. If there be a fire at some distance, and I immediately blow
up my house before there be occasion, because you are a man of quality,
and apprehend some danger to a corner of your stable; yet why should you
require me to attend next morning at your levee with my humble thanks for
the favour you have done me?

If we might be allowed to judge for ourselves, we had abundance of benefit
by the Sacramental Test, and foresee a number of mischiefs would be the
consequence of repealing it, and we conceive the objections made against
it by the dissenters are of no manner of force: They tell us of their
merits in the late war in Ireland, and how cheerfully they engaged for the
safety of the nation; that had they thought they had been fighting only
other people’s quarrels, perhaps it might have cooled their zeal; and that
for the future, they shall sit down quietly and let us do our work
ourselves; nay, that it is necessary they should do so, since they cannot
take up arms under the penalty of high treason.

Now supposing them to have done their duty, as I believe they did, and not
to trouble them about the fly on the wheel; I thought Liberty,
Property and Religion had been the three subjects of the quarrel, and have
not all those been amply secured to them? Had they not at that time a
mental reservation for power and employments? And must these two articles
be added henceforward in our national quarrels? It is grown a mighty
conceit among some men to melt down the phrase of a Church Established
by law into that of the Religion of the Magistrate; of which
appellation it is easier to find the reason than the sense: If by the
magistrate they mean the prince, the expression includes a falsehood; for
when King James was prince[10], the Established Church was the same it is
now. If by the same word they mean the Legislature, we desire no more. Be
that as it will, we of this kingdom believe the Church of Ireland to be
the National Church, and the only one established by law, and are willing
by the same law to give a toleration to dissenters: But if once we repeal
our Sacramental Test, and grant a toleration, or suspend the execution of
the penal laws, I do not see how we can be said to have any Established
Church remaining; or rather why there will not be as many established
churches, as there are sects of dissenters. No, say they, yours will still
be the National Church, because your bishops and clergy are maintained by
the public; but, that, I suppose, will be of no long duration, and it
would be very unjust it should, because, to speak in Tindal’s phrase,[11]
it is not reasonable that revenues should be annexed to one opinion more
than another, when all are equally lawful, and ’tis the same author’s
maxim, that no freeborn subject ought to pay for maintaining speculations
he does not believe. But why should any man, upon account of opinions
he cannot help, be deprived of the opportunity of serving his Queen and
country? Their zeal is commendable, and when employments go a begging
for want of hands, they shall be sure to have the refusal, only upon
condition they will not pretend to them upon maxims which equally include
atheists, Turks, Jews, infidels, and heretics, or which is still more
dangerous, even Papists themselves; the former you allow, the other you
deny, because these last own a foreign power, and therefore must be shut
out. But there is no great weight in this; for their religion can suit
with free states, with limited or absolute monarchies, as well as a
better, and the Pope’s power in France is but a shadow; so that upon this
foot there need be no great danger to the constitution by admitting
Papists to employments. I will help you to enough of them who shall be
ready to allow the Pope as little power here as you please; and the bare
opinion of his being vicar of Christ is but a speculative point, for which
no man it seems ought to be deprived of the capacity of serving his
country.

[Footnote 10: The words from “the expression” to “was prince” are omitted
by Faulkner in his edition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: See vol. iii, p. 9, note. [T.S.]]

But, if you please, I will tell you the great objection we have against
repealing this same Sacramental Test. It is, that we are verily persuaded
the consequence will be an entire alteration of religion among us in a no
great compass of years. And, pray observe, how we reason here in Ireland
upon this matter.

We observe the Scots in our northern parts, to be a brave, industrious
people, extremely devoted to their religion, and full of an undisturbed
affection towards each other. Numbers of that noble nation, invited by the
fertilities of the soil, are glad to exchange their barren hills of
Loquabar, by a voyage of three hours, for our fruitful vales of Down and
Antrim, so productive of that grain, which, at little trouble and less
expense finds diet and lodging for themselves and their cattle.[12] These
people by their extreme parsimony, wonderful dexterity in dealing, and
firm adherence to one another, soon grow into wealth from the smallest
beginnings, never are rooted out where they once fix, and increase daily
by new supplies; besides when they are the superior number in any tract of
ground, they are not over patient of mixture; but such, whom they cannot
assimilate, soon find it their interest to remove. I have done all in my
power on some land of my own to preserve two or three English fellows in
their neighbourhood, but found it impossible, though one of them thought
he had sufficiently made his court by turning Presbyterian. Add to all
this, that they bring along with them from Scotland a most formidable
notion of our Church, which they look upon at least three degrees worse
than Popery; and it is natural it should be so, since they come over full
fraught with that spirit which taught them to abolish Episcopacy at home.

[Footnote 12: From this passage, perhaps, Johnson derived the famous
definition of oats, in his Dictionary, as the food of horses in England,
and of men in Scotland. [S.]]

Then we proceed farther, and observe, that the gentlemen of employments
here, make a very considerable number in the House of Commons, and have no
other merit but that of doing their duty in their several stations;
therefore when the Test is repealed, it will be highly reasonable they
should give place to those who have much greater services to plead. The
commissions of the revenue are soon disposed of, and the collectors and
other officers throughout this kingdom, are generally appointed by the
commissioners, which give them a mighty influence in every country. As
much may be said of the great officers in the law; and when this door is
open to let dissenters into the commissions of the peace, to make them
High Sheriffs, Mayors of Corporations, and officers of the army and
militia; I do not see how it can be otherwise, considering their industry
and our supineness, but that they may in a very few years grow to a
majority in the House of Commons, and consequently make themselves the
national religion, and have a fair pretence to demand the revenues of the
Church for their teachers. I know it will be objected, that if all this
should happen as I describe, yet the Presbyterian religion could never be
made the national by act of Parliament, because our bishops are so great a
number in the House of Lords, and without a majority there, the Church
could not be abolished. But I have two very good expedients for that,
which I shall leave you to guess, and I dare swear our Speaker here has
often thought on, especially having endeavoured at one of them so lately.
That this design is not so foreign from some people’s thoughts, I must let
you know that an honest bellwether[13] of our house (you have him now in
England, I wish you could keep him there) had the impudence some years
ago, in Parliament time, to shake my Lord Bishop of Kilaloe[14] by his
lawn sleeve, and tell him in a threatening manner, “that he hoped to live
to see the day when there should not be one of his order in the kingdom.”

[Footnote 13: Supposed to be Mr. Broderick. [F.]]

[Footnote 14: Dr. Lindsay, afterwards Lord Primate. [S.]]

These last lines perhaps you think a digression; therefore to return: I
have told you the consequences we fully reckon upon from repealing the
Sacramental Test, which although the greatest number of such as are for
doing it, are actually in no manner of pain about it, and many of them
care not threepence whether there be any Church, or no; yet because they
pretend to argue from conscience as well as policy and interest, I thought
it proper to understand and answer them accordingly.

Now, sir, in answer to your question, whether if an attempt should be made
here for repealing the Sacramental Test, it would be likely to succeed?
The number of professed dissenters in this Parliament was, as I remember,
something under a dozen, and I cannot call to mind above thirty others who
were expected to fall in with them. This is certain, that the Presbyterian
party having with great industry mustered up their forces, did endeavour
one day upon occasion of a hint in my Lord Pembroke’s speech, to introduce
a debate about repealing the Test clause, when there appeared at least
four to one odds against them; and the ablest of those who were reckoned
the most staunch and thorough-paced Whigs upon all other occasions, fell
off with an abhorrence at the first mention of this.

I must desire you to take notice, that the terms of Whig and Tory, do not
properly express the different interests in our parliament. I remember
when I was last in England, I told the King, that the highest Tories we
had with us would make tolerable Whigs there; this was certainly right,
and still in the general continues so, unless you have since admitted new
characteristics, which did not come within our definition.[15] Whoever
bears a true veneration for the glorious memory of King William, as our
great deliverer from Popery and slavery; whoever is firmly loyal to our
present Queen, with an utter abhorrence and detestation of the Pretender;
whoever approves the succession to the Crown in the House of Hanover, and
is for preserving the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England,
with an indulgence for scrupulous consciences; such a man we think acts
upon right principles, and may be justly allowed a Whig: And I believe
there are not six members in our House of Commons, who may not fairly come
under this description. So that the parties among us are made up, on one
side, of moderate Whigs, and on the other, of Presbyterians and their
abettors; by which last I mean, such who can equally go to a Church or
Conventicle, or such who are indifferent to all religion in general, or
lastly such who affect to bear a personal rancour toward the clergy: These
last are a set of men not of our own growth, their principles at least
have been imported of late years; yet this whole party put together will
not, I am confident, amount to above fifty men in Parliament, which can
hardly be worked up into a majority of three hundred.

[Footnote 15: The passage beginning with “I remember when I was last in
England,” and ending with “within our definition,” is omitted by Faulkner.
[T.S.]]

As to the House of Lords, the difficulty there is conceived at least as
great as in ours. So many of our temporal peers live in England, that the
bishops are generally pretty near a par of the House, and we reckon they
will be all to a man against repealing the Test; and yet their lordships
are generally thought as good Whigs upon our principles as any in the
kingdom. There are indeed a few lay lords who appear to have no great
devotion for Episcopacy; and perhaps one or two more with whom certain
powerful motives might be used for removing any difficulty whatsoever; but
these are in no sort of a number to carry any point against the
conjunction of the rest and the whole bench of bishops.

Besides, the whole body of our clergy is utterly against repealing the
Test, though they are entirely devoted to her Majesty, and hardly one in a
hundred who are not very good Whigs in our acceptation of the word. And I
must let you know, that we of Ireland are not yet come up to other folk’s
refinements; for we generally love and esteem our clergy, and think they
deserve it; nay, we are apt to lay some weight upon their opinion, and
would not willingly disoblige them, at least unless it were upon some
greater point of interest than this. And their judgment in the present
affair is the more to be regarded, because they are the last persons who
will be affected by it: This makes us think them impartial, and that their
concern is only for religion and the interest of the kingdom. Because the
act which repeals the Test, will only qualify a layman for an employment,
but not a Presbyterian or Anabaptist preacher for a church-living. Now I
must take leave to inform you, that several members of our House, and
myself among the rest, knowing some time ago what was upon the anvil, went
to all the clergy we knew of any distinction, and desired their judgment
of the matter, wherein we found a most wonderful agreement; there being
but one divine that we could hear of in the whole kingdom, who appeared of
a contrary sentiment, wherein he afterwards stood alone in the
convocation, very little to his credit, though, as he hoped, very much to
his interest.

I will now consider a little the arguments offered to shew the advantages,
or rather the necessity, of repealing the Test in Ireland. We are told,
the Popish interest is here so formidable, that all hands should be joined
to keep it under; that the only names of distinction among us ought to be
those of Protestant and Papist, and that this expedient is the only means
to unite all Protestants upon one common bottom. All which is nothing but
misrepresentation and mistake.

If we were under any real fear of the Papists in this kingdom, it would be
hard to think us so stupid, not to be equally apprehensive with others,
since we are likely to be the greatest, and more immediate sufferers; but
on the contrary, we look upon them to be altogether as inconsiderable as
the women and children. Their lands are almost entirely taken from them,
and they are rendered incapable of purchasing any more; and for the little
that remains, provision is made by the late act against Popery, that it
will daily crumble away: To prevent which, some of the most considerable
among them are already turned Protestants, and so in all probability will
many more. Then, the Popish priests are all registered, and without
permission (which I hope will not be granted) they can have no successors;
so that the Protestant Clergy will find it perhaps no difficult matter to
bring great numbers over to the Church; and in the meantime, the common
people without leaders, without discipline, or natural courage, being
little better than “hewers of wood, and drawers of water,” are out of all
capacity of doing any mischief, if they were ever so well inclined.
Neither are they at all likely to join in any considerable numbers with an
invader, having found so ill success when they were much more numerous and
powerful; when they had a prince of their own religion to head them, had
been trained for some years under a Popish deputy, and received such
mighty aids from the French king.

As to that argument used for repealing the Test, that it will unite all
Protestants against the common enemy, I wonder by what figure those
gentlemen speak who are pleased to advance it: Suppose in order to
increase the friendship between you and me, a law should pass that I must
have half your estate; do you think that would much advance the union
between us? Or, suppose I share my fortune equally between my own
children, and a stranger whom I take into my protection; will that be a
method to unite them? Tis an odd way of uniting parties, to deprive a
majority of part of their ancient right, by conferring it on a faction who
had never any right at all, and therefore cannot be said to suffer any
loss or injury if it be refused them. Neither is it very clear, how far
some people may stretch the term of common enemy. How many are there of
those that call themselves Protestants, who look upon our worship to be
idolatrous as well as that of the Papists, and with great charity put
Prelacy and Popery together, as terms convertible?

And, therefore, there is one small doubt, I would be willingly satisfied
in before I agree to the repealing of the Test; that is, whether, these
same Protestants, when they have by their dexterity made themselves the
national religion, and disposed the Church revenues among their pastors or
themselves, will be so kind to allow us dissenters, I do not say a share
in employments, but a bare toleration by law? The reason of my doubt is,
because I have been so very idle as to read above fifty pamphlets, written
by as many Presbyterian divines, loudly disclaiming this idol Toleration,
some of them calling it (I know not how properly) a rag of Popery, and all
agreeing it was to establish iniquity by law. Now, I would be glad to know
when and where their successors have renounced this doctrine, and before
what witnesses. Because, methinks I should be loth to see my poor titular
bishop in partibus, seized on by mistake in the dark for a Jesuit,
or be forced myself to keep my chaplain disguised like my butler, and
steal to prayers in a back room, as my grandfather[l6] used in those times
when the Church of England was malignant.

[Footnote 16: This is Thomas Swift, vicar of Goodrich, in Herefordshire,
“much distinguished by his courage, as well as his loyalty to King Charles
the First, and the sufferings he underwent for that prince, more than any
person of his condition in England.” See the “Fragment of Autobiography,”
printed by Scott and Forster in their Lives of Swift. [T.S.]]

But this is ripping up old quarrels long forgot; Popery is now the common
enemy, against which we must all unite; I have been tired in history with
the perpetual folly of those states who call in foreigners to assist them
against a common enemy: But the mischief was, those allies would never be
brought to allow that the common enemy was quite subdued. And they had
reason; for it proved at last, that one part of the common enemy was those
who called them in, and so the allies became at length the masters.

‘Tis agreed among naturalists that a lion is a larger, a stronger, and
more dangerous enemy than a cat; yet if a man were to have his choice,
either a lion at his foot, bound fast with three or four chains, his teeth
drawn out, and his claws pared to the quick, or an angry cat in full
liberty at his throat; he would take no long time to determine.

I have been sometimes admiring the wonderful significancy of that word
persecution, and what various interpretations it hath acquired even within
my memory. When I was a boy, I often heard the Presbyterians complain that
they were not permitted to serve God in their own way; they said they did
not repine at our employments, but thought that all men who live peaceably
ought to have liberty of conscience, and leave to assemble. That
impediment being removed at the Revolution, they soon learned to swallow
the Sacramental Test and began to take very large steps, wherein all that
offered to oppose them, were called men of a persecuting spirit. During
the time the Bill against Occasional Conformity was on foot, persecution
was every day rung in our ears, and now at last the Sacramental Test
itself has the same name. Where then is this matter likely to end, when
the obtaining of one request is only used as a step to demand another? A
lover is ever complaining of cruelty while anything is denied him, and
when the lady ceases to be cruel, she is from the next moment at his
mercy: So persecution it seems, is everything that will not leave it in
men’s power to persecute others.

There is one argument offered against a Sacramental Test, by a sort of men
who are content to be styled of the Church of England, who perhaps attend
its service in the morning, and go with their wives to a conventicle in
the afternoon, confessing they hear very good doctrine in both. These men
are much offended that so holy an institution as that of the Lord’s Supper
should be made subservient to such mercenary purposes as the getting of an
employment. Now, it seems, the law, concluding all men to be members of
that Church where they receive the Sacrament; and supposing all men to
live like Christians (especially those who are to have employments) did
imagine they received the Sacrament in course about four times a year, and
therefore only desired it might appear by certificate to the public, that
such who took an office were members of the Church established, by doing
their ordinary duty. However, lest we should offend them, we have often
desired they would deal candidly with us; for if the matter stuck only
there, we would propose it in parliament, that every man who takes an
employment should, instead of receiving the sacrament, be obliged to
swear, that he is a member of the Church of Ireland by law established,
with Episcopacy, and so forth; and as they do now in Scotland, to be
true to the Kirk. But when we drive them thus far, they always retire
to the main body of the argument, urge the hardship that men should be
deprived the liberty of serving their Queen and country, on account of
their conscience: And, in short, have recourse to the common style of
their half brethren. Now whether this be a sincere way of arguing, I will
appeal to any other judgment but theirs.

There is another topic of clamour somewhat parallel to the foregoing: It
seems, by the Test clause, the military officers are obliged to receive
the Sacrament as well as the civil. And it is a matter of some patience to
hear the dissenters declaiming upon this occasion: They cry they are
disarmed, they are used like Papists; when an enemy appears at home, or
from abroad, they must sit still, and see their throats cut, or be hanged
for high treason if they offer to defend themselves. Miserable condition!
Woful dilemma! It is happy for us all, that the Pretender was not apprized
of this passive Presbyterian principle, else he would have infallibly
landed in our northern parts, and found them all sat down in their
formalities, as the Gauls did the Roman senators, ready to die with honour
in their callings. Sometimes to appease their indignation, we venture to
give them hopes that in such a case the government will perhaps connive,
and hardly be so severe to hang them for defending it against the letter
of the law; to which they readily answer, that they will not lie at our
mercy, but let us fight our battles ourselves. Sometimes we offer to get
an act, by which upon all Popish insurrections at home, or Popish invasion
from abroad, the government shall be empowered to grant commissions to all
Protestants whatsoever, without that persecuting circumstance of obliging
them to say their prayers when they receive the Sacrament; but they abhor
all thoughts of occasional commissions, they will not do our drudgery, and
we reap the benefit: It is not worth their while to fight pro aris et
focis, and they had rather lose their estates, liberties, religion and
lives, than the pleasure of governing.

But to bring this discourse toward a conclusion: If the dissenters will be
satisfied with such a toleration by law as hath been granted them in
England, I believe the majority of both Houses will fall readily in with
it; farther it will be hard to persuade this House of Commons, and perhaps
much harder the next. For, to say the truth, we make a mighty difference
here between suffering thistles to grow among us, and wearing them for
posies. We are fully convinced in our consciences, that we shall
always tolerate them, but not quite so fully that they will always
tolerate us, when it comes to their turn; and we are the majority,
and we are in possession.

He who argues in defence of a law in force, not antiquated or obsolete,
but lately enacted, is certainly on the safer side, and may be allowed to
point out the dangers he conceives to foresee in the abrogation of it.

For if the consequences of repealing this clause, should at some time or
other enable the Presbyterians to work themselves up into the National
Church; instead of uniting Protestants, it would sow eternal divisions
among them. First, their own sects, which now lie dormant, would be soon
at cuffs again with each other about power and preferment; and the
dissenting Episcopals, perhaps discontented to such a degree, as upon some
fair unhappy occasion, would be able to shake the firmest loyalty, which
none can deny theirs to be.

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.

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:

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.”

[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.]

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.

The Presbyterian merit is of as little weight, when they allege themselves
instrumental towards the King’s restoration. The kingdom grew tired with
those ridiculous models of government: First, by a House of Lords and
Commons, without a king; then without bishops; afterwards by a Rump[8] and
lords temporal: then by a Rump alone; next by a single person for life, in
conjunction with a council: by agitators: by major-generals: by a new kind
of representatives from the three kingdoms: by the keepers of the
liberties of England; with other schemes that have slipped out of my
memory. Cromwell was dead; his son Richard, a weak, ignorant wretch, who
gave up his monarchy much in the same manner with the two usurping kings
of Brentford.[9] The people harassed with taxes and other oppressions; the
King’s party, then called the Cavaliers began to recover their spirits.
The few nobility scattered through the kingdom, who lived in a most
retired manner, observing the confusion of things, could no longer endure
to be ridden by bakers, cobblers, brewers, and the like, at the head of
armies; and plundering everywhere like French dragoons: The Rump assembly
grew despicable to those who had raised them: The city of London,
exhausted by almost twenty years contributing to their own ruin, declared
against them. The Rump, after many deaths and resurrections, was, in the
most contemptuous manner, kicked out, and burned in effigy. The excluded
members were let in: a free Parliament called in as legal a manner as the
times would allow; and the King restored.

[Footnote 8: This name was given to that part of the House of Commons
which remained after the moderate men had been expelled by military-force.
[S.]]

[Footnote 9: In the “Rehearsal.”]

The second claim of Presbyterian merit is founded upon their services
against the dangerous designs of King James the Second; while that prince
was using all his endeavours to introduce Popery, which he openly
professed upon his coming to the crown: To this they add, their eminent
services at the Revolution, under the Prince of Orange.

Now, the quantum of Presbyterian merit, during the four years’ reign of
that weak, bigoted, and ill-advised prince, as well as at the time of the
Revolution, will easily be computed, by a recourse to a great number of
histories, pamphlets, and public papers, printed in those times, and some
afterwards; beside the verbal testimonies of many persons yet alive, who
are old enough to have known and observed the Dissenters’ conduct in that
critical period.

It is agreed, that upon King Charles the Second’s death, soon after his
successor had publicly owned himself a Roman Catholic; he began with his
first caresses to the Church party; from whom having received very cold
discouraging answers; he applied to the Presbyterian leaders and teachers,
being advised by the priests and Popish courtiers, that the safest method
toward introducing his own religion, would be by taking off the
Sacramental Test, and giving a full liberty of conscience to all
religions, (I suppose, that professed Christianity.) It seems, that the
Presbyterians, in the latter years of King Charles the Second, upon
account of certain plots, (allowed by Bishop Burnet to be genuine) had
been, for a short time, forbid to hold their conventicles: Whereupon,
these charitable Christians, out of perfect resentment against the Church,
received the gracious offers of King James with the strongest professions
of loyalty, and highest acknowledgments for his favour. I have seen
several of their addresses, full of thanks and praises, with bitter
insinuations of what they had suffered; putting themselves and the Papists
upon the same foot; as fellow-sufferers for conscience; and with the style
of, Our brethren the Roman Catholics. About this time began the
project of closeting, (which has since been practised many times, with
more art and success,) where the principal gentlemen of the kingdom were
privately catechised by his Majesty, to know whether, if a new parliament
were called, they would agree to pass an act for repealing the Sacramental
Test, and establishing a general liberty of conscience. But he received so
little encouragement, that, despairing of success, he had recourse to his
dispensing power, which the judges had determined to be part of his
prerogative. By colour of this determination, he preferred several
Presbyterians, and many Papists, to civil and military employments. While
the king was thus busied, it is well known, that Monsieur Fagel, the Dutch
envoy in London, delivered the opinion of the Prince and Princess of
Orange, concerning the repeal of the Test; whereof the king had sent an
account to their Highnesses, to know how far they approved of it. The
substance of their answer, as reported by Fagel, was this, “That their
highnesses thought very well of a liberty of conscience; but by no means
of giving employments to any other persons, than those who were of the
National Church.” This opinion was confirmed by several reasons: I cannot
be more particular, not having the paper by me, although it hath been
printed in many accounts of those times. And thus much every moderate
churchman would perhaps submit to: But, to trust any part of the civil
power in the hands of those whose interest, inclination, conscience, and
former practices have been wholly turned to introduce a different system
of religion and government, hath very few examples in any Christian state;
nor any at all in Holland, the great patroness of universal toleration.

Upon the first intelligence King James received of an intended invasion by
the Prince of Orange; among great numbers of Papists, to increase his
troops, he gave commissions to several Presbyterians; some of whom had
been officers under the Rump; and particularly he placed one Richards, a
noted Presbyterian, at the head of a regiment; who had been governor of
Wexford in Cromwell’s time, and is often mentioned by Ludlow in his
Memoirs. This regiment was raised in England against the Prince of Orange:
the colonel made his son a captain, whom I knew, and who was as zealous a
Presbyterian as his father. However at the time of the prince’s landing,
the father easily foreseeing how things would go, went over, like many
others to the prince, who continued him in his regiment; but coming over a
year or two after to assist in raising the siege of Derry, he behaved
himself so like either a coward or a traitor, that his regiment was taken
from him.

I will now consider the conduct of the Church party, during the whole
reign of that unfortunate king. They were so unanimous against promising
to pass an act for repealing the Test, and establishing a general liberty
of conscience; that the king durst not trust a parliament; but encouraged
by the professions of loyalty given him by his Presbyterian friends, went
on with his dispensing power.

The Church clergy, at that time are allowed to have written the best
collection of tracts against Popery that ever appeared in England; which
are to this day in the highest esteem. But, upon the strictest enquiry, I
could never hear of above one or two papers published by the Presbyterians
at that time upon the same subject. Seven great prelates (he of Canterbury
among the rest) were sent to the Tower, for presenting a petition, wherein
they desired to be excused in not obeying an illegal command from the
King. The Bishop of London, Dr. Compton,[10] was summoned to answer before
the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Affairs, for not suspending Dr.
Sharp[11] (afterwards Archbishop of York) by the King’s command. If the
Presbyterians expressed the same zeal upon any occasion, the instances of
it are not as I can find, left upon record, or transmitted by tradition.
The proceedings against Magdalen College in Oxford, for refusing to comply
with the King’s mandate for admitting a professed Papist upon their
foundation, are a standing proof of the courage and firmness in religion
shewn by that learned society, to the ruin of their fortunes. The
Presbyterians know very well, that I could produce many more instances of
the same kind. But these are enough in so short a paper as I intend at
present.

[Footnote 10: Henry Compton (1632-1713), educated at Oxford, was created
Bishop of London in 1675. During the Revolution of 1688 he conveyed the
Princess Anne from London to Nottingham. After, he crowned her Queen of
England. He was the author of a few works of little importance, such as
the “Treatise on the Holy Communion.” [T.S.]]

[Footnote 11: John Sharp (1644-1714) was educated at Cambridge, and
created Archbishop of York in 1691. He gave great offence to James II. by
his preaching against Roman Catholicism. This is the same Archbishop Sharp
who prevented Swift’s appointment to a bishopric, by urging that the
author of “A Tale of a Tub” was not a proper person to hold such an
office. See note prefixed to “A Tale of a Tub,” vol. i., p. xcvi, of this
edition of Swift’s Works. [T.S.]]

It is indeed very true, that after King William was settled on the English
throne, the Presbyterians began to appear, and offer their credentials,
and demand favour; and the new King having been originally bred a
Calvinist, was desirous enough to make them easy (if that would do it) by
a legal toleration; although in his heart he never bore much affection to
that sect; nor designed to favour them farther than it stood with the
present scheme of politics: as I have long since been assured by the
greatest men of Whig principles at that time in England.

It is likewise true, nor will it be denied; that when the King was
possessed of the English crown; and the remainder of the quarrel was left
to be decided in this kingdom; the Presbyterians wisely chose to join with
the Protestant army, rather than with that of King James their old friend,
whose affairs were then in a manner desperate. They were wise enough to
know, that this kingdom, divided against itself, could never prevail
against the united power of England. They fought pro aris et focis;
for their estates and religion; which latter will never suffer so much by
the Church of England as by that of Rome, where they are counted heretics
as well as we: and consequently they have no other game to play. But, what
merit they can build upon having joined with a Protestant army, under a
King they acknowledged, to defend their own liberties and properties
against a Popish enemy under an abdicated King; is, I confess to me
absolutely inconceivable; and I believe will equally be so for ever, to
any reasonable man.

When these sectaries were several years ago making the same attempt for
abolishing the Test, many groundless reports were industriously and
seasonably spread, of an invasion threatened by the Pretender on the north
of Ireland. At which time the Presbyterians in their pamphlets, argued in
a menacing manner, that if the Pretender should invade those parts of the
kingdom, where the numbers and estates of dissenters chiefly lay; they
would sit still, and let us fight our own battles;[12] since they were to
reap no advantage, whichever side should be victors. If this were the
course they intended to take in such a case; I should desire to know, how
they could contrive safely to stand neuters, otherwise than by a compact
with the Pretender and his army, to support their neutrality, and protect
them against the forces of the Crown? This is a necessary supposition;
because they must otherwise have inevitably been a prey to both. However,
by this frank declaration, they sufficiently shewed their good-will; and
confirmed the common charge laid at their door; that a Scottish or
northern Presbyterian hates our Episcopal Established Church more than
Popery itself. And, the reason for this hatred, is natural enough; because
it is the Church alone, that stands in the way between them and power,
which Popery doth not.

[Footnote 12: See the poem, reprinted by Monck Mason (“History of St.
Patrick’s,” p. 388 note), entitled:

in which the poet advises his “lauds” to “faight y’er ain battel.” [T.S.]]

Upon this occasion I am in some doubt, whether the political spreaders of
those chimerical invasions, made a judicious choice in fixing the northern
parts of Ireland for that romantic enterprize. Nor, can I well understand
the wisdom of the Presbyterians in countenancing and confirming those
reports. Because it seems to cast a most infamous reflection upon the
loyalty and religious principles of their whole body: For if there had
been any truth in the matter, the consequence must have been allowed, that
the Pretender counted upon more assistance from his father’s friends the
Presbyterians, by choosing to land in those very parts, where their
number, wealth, and power most prevailed; rather than among those of his
own religion. And therefore, in charity to this sect, I rather incline to
believe, that those reports of an invasion were formed and spread by the
race of small politicians, in order to do a seasonable job.

As to Popery in general, which for a thousand years past hath been
introducing and multiplying corruptions both in doctrine and discipline; I
look upon it to be the most absurd system of Christianity professed by any
nation. But I cannot apprehend this kingdom to be in much danger from it.
The estates of Papists are very few; crumbling into small parcels, and
daily diminishing. Their common people are sunk in poverty, ignorance, and
cowardice, and of as little consequence as women and children. Their
nobility and gentry are at least one-half ruined, banished, or converted:
They all soundly feel the smart of what they suffered in the last Irish
war. Some of them are already retired into foreign countries; others as I
am told, intend to follow them; and the rest, I believe, to a man, who
still possess any lands, are absolutely determined never to hazard them
again for the sake of establishing their superstition. If it hath been
thought fit, as some observe, to abate of the law’s rigour against Popery
in this kingdom, I am confident it was done for very wise reasons,
considering the situation of affairs abroad at different times, and the
interest of the Protestant religion in general. And as I do not find the
least fault in this proceeding; so I do not conceive why a sunk discarded
party, who neither expect nor desire anything more than a quiet life;
should under the names of highflyers, Jacobites, and many other vile
appellations, be charged so often in print, and at common tables, with
endeavouring to introduce Popery and the Pretender; while the Papists
abhor them above all other men, on account of severities against their
priests in her late Majesty’s reign; when the now disbanded reprobate
party was in power. This I was convinced of some years ago by a long
journey into the southern parts; where I had the curiosity to send for
many priests of the parishes I passed through; and, to my great
satisfaction found them everywhere abounding in professions of loyalty to
the late King George; for which they gave me the reasons above-mentioned;
at the same time complaining bitterly of the hardships they suffered under
the Queen’s last ministry.

I return from this digression to the modest demands of the Presbyterians
for a repeal of the Sacramental Test, as a reward for their merits at the
Restoration and the Revolution; which merits I have fairly represented as
well as my memory will allow me. If I have committed any mistakes they
must be of little moment. The facts and principal circumstances are what I
have obtained and digested, from reading the histories of those times,
written by each party; and many thousands have done the same as well as I,
who I am sure have in their minds drawn the same conclusions.

This is the faction, and these the men, who are now resuming their
applications, and giving in their bills of merit to both kingdoms upon two
points, which of all others, they have the least pretensions to offer. I
have collected the facts with all possible impartiality, from the current
histories of those times; and have shewn, although very briefly, the
gradual proceedings of those sectaries under the denomination of Puritans,
Presbyterians, and Independents, for about the space of an hundred and
eighty years, from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth to this present time.
But, notwithstanding all that can be said, these very schismatics (for
such they are in temporals as well as spirituals) are now again expecting,
soliciting, and demanding, (not without insinuating threats, according to
their custom) that the Parliament should fix them upon an equal foot with
the Church established. I would fain know to what branch of the
legislature they can have the forehead to apply. Not to my lords the
bishops; who must have often read, how the predecessors of this very
faction, acting upon the same principles, drove the whole bench out of the
house; who were then, and hitherto continue one of the three estates. Not
to the temporal peers, the second of the three estates; who must have
heard, that, immediately after those rebellious fanatics had murdered
their king, they voted a House of Lords to be useless and dangerous, and
would let them sit no longer, otherwise than when elected as commoners:
Not to the House of Commons; who must have heard, that in those fanatic
times the Presbyterian and Independent commanders in the army, by military
power, expelled all the moderate men out of the house, and left a Rump to
govern the nation. Lastly, not to the Crown, which those very saints
destined to rule the earth, trampled under their feet, and then in cold
blood murdered the blessed wearer.

But, the session now approaching, and a clan of dissenting teachers being
come up to town from their northern headquarters, accompanied by many of
their elders and agents, and supported by a general contribution, to
solicit their establishment, with a capacity of holding all military as
well as civil employments; I think it high time, that this paper should
see the light. However, I cannot conclude without freely confessing, that
if the Presbyterians should obtain their ends, I could not be sorry to
find them mistaken in the point which they have most at heart by the
repeal of the Test; I mean the benefit of employments. For, after all,
what assurance can a Scottish northern dissenter, born on Irish ground,
have, that he shall be treated with as much favour as a true Scot born
beyond the Tweed?

I am ready enough to believe that all I have said will avail but little. I
have the common excuse of other men, when I think myself bound by all
religious and civil ties, to discharge my conscience, and to warn my
countrymen upon this important occasion. It is true, the advocates for
this scheme promise a new world, after this blessed work shall be
completed: that all animosities and faction must immediately drop; that
the only distinction in this kingdom will then be of Papist and
Protestant. For, as to Whig and Tory, High Church and Low Church, Jacobite
and Hanoverian, Court and Country party, English and Irish interests,
Dissenters and Conformists, New Light and Old Light, Anabaptist and
Independent, Quaker and Muggletonian, they will all meet and jumble
together into a perfect harmony, at the sessions and assizes, on the bench
and in the revenues; and upon the whole, in all civil and military trust,
not excepting the great councils of the nation. For it is wisely argued
thus, that a kingdom being no more than a larger knot of friends met
together, it is against the rules of good manners to shut any person out
of the company, except the Papists; who profess themselves of another
club.

I am at a loss to know what arts the Presbyterian sect intends to use, in
convincing the world of their loyalty to kingly government; which long
before the prevalence, or even the birth of their independent rivals, as
soon as the King’s forces were overcome, declared their principles to be
against monarchy, as well as Episcopacy and the House of Lords, even till
the King was restored: At which event, although they were forced to submit
to the present power, yet I have not heard that they did ever, to this
day, renounce any one principle by which their predecessors then acted;
yet this they have been challenged to do, or at least to shew that others
have done it for them, by a certain doctor,[13] who, as I am told, has
much employed his pen in the like disputes. I own, they will be ready
enough to insinuate themselves into any government: But, if they mean to
be honest and upright, they will and must endeavour by all means, which
they shall think lawful, to introduce and establish their own scheme of
religion, as nearest approaching to the word of God, by casting out all
superstitious ceremonies, ecclesiastical titles, habits, distinctions, and
superiorities, as rags of Popery; in order to a thorough reformation; and,
as in charity bound, to promote the salvation of their countrymen: wishing
with St. Paul, that the whole kingdom were as they are. But what assurance
will they please to give, that when their sect shall become the national
established worship, they will treat Us Dissenters as we have treated
them? Was this their course of proceeding during the dominion of the
saints? Were not all the remainders of the Episcopal Church in those days,
especially the clergy, under a persecution for above a dozen years, equal
to that of the primitive Christians under heathen emperors? That this
proceeding was suitable to their principles, is known enough; for many of
their preachers then writ books expressly against allowing any liberty of
conscience, in a religion different from their own; producing many
arguments to prove that opinion; and among the rest one frequently
insisted on; that allowing such a liberty would be to establish iniquity
by a law: Many of these writings are yet to be seen;[14] and I hear, have
been quoted by the doctor above mentioned.

[Footnote 13: Dr. Tisdal, in a tract entitled, “The Case of the
Sacramental Test stated and argued.” Tisdal died 4th June, 1736. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: See many hundred quotations to prove this, in the treatise
called “Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence.” [Note in Faulkner’s edition,
1738.]]

As to their great objection of prostituting that holy institution, the
blessed Sacrament, by way of a test before admittance into any employment;
I ask, whether they would not be content to receive it after their own
manner, for the office of a judge, for that of a commissioner in the
revenue, for a regiment of horse, or to be a lord justice? I believe they
would scruple it as little, as a long grace before and after dinner; which
they can say without bending a knee; for, as I have been told, their
manner of taking bread and wine in their conventicles, is performed with
little more solemnity than at their common meals. And, therefore, since
they look upon our practice in receiving the elements, to be idolatrous;
they neither can, nor ought, in conscience, to allow us that liberty,
otherwise than by connivance, and a bare toleration, like what is
permitted to the Papists. But, lest we should offend them, I am ready to
change this test for another; although, I am afraid, that sanctified
reason is, by no means, the point where the difficulty pinches; and only
offered by pretended churchmen, as if they could be content with our
believing, that the impiety and profanation of making the Sacrament a
test, were the only objection. I therefore propose, that before the
present law be repealed, another may be enacted; that no man shall receive
any employment, before he swears himself to be a true member of the Church
of Ireland, in doctrine and discipline, &c., and, that he will never
frequent, or communicate with any other form of worship. It shall likewise
be further enacted, that whoever offends, &c., shall be fined five
hundred pounds, imprisoned for a year and a day, and rendered incapable of
all public trust for ever. Otherwise, I do insist that those pious,
indulgent, external professors of our national religion, shall either give
up that fallacious hypocritical reason for taking off the Test; or freely
confess, that they desire to have a gate wide open for every sect, without
any test at all, except that of swearing loyalty to the King: Which,
however, considering their principles, with regard to monarchy yet
unrenounced, might, if they would please to look deep enough into their
own hearts, prove a more bitter test than any other that the law hath yet
invented.

For, from the first time that these sectaries appeared in the world, it
hath been always found, by their whole proceeding, that they professed an
utter hatred to kingly government. I can recollect, at present, three
civil establishments, where Calvinists, and some other reformers who
rejected Episcopacy, possess the supreme power; and, these are all
republics; I mean Holland, Geneva, and the reformed Swiss cantons. I do
not say this in diminution, or disgrace to commonwealths; wherein, I
confess, I have much altered many opinions under which I was educated,
having been led by some observation, long experience, and a thorough
detestation for the corruptions of mankind: Insomuch, that I am now justly
liable to the censure of Hobbes, who complains, that the youth of England
imbibe ill opinions, from reading the histories of Ancient Greece and
Rome, those renowned scenes of liberty and every virtue.

But, as to monarchs; who must be supposed well to study and understand
their own interest; they will best consider, whether those people, who in
all their actions, preachings, and writings, have openly declared
themselves against regal power, are to be safely placed in an equal degree
of favour and trust with those who have been always found the true and
only friends to the English establishment. From which consideration, I
could have added one more article to my new test, if I had thought it
worth my time.

I have been assured by some persons who were present, that several of
these dissenting teachers, upon their first arrival hither to solicit the
repeal of the Test, were pleased to express their gratitude, by publicly
drinking the healths of certain eminent patrons, whom they pretend to have
found among us; if this be true, and that the Test must be delivered up by
the very commanders appointed to defend it, the affair is already, in
effect, at an end. What secret reasons those patrons may have given for
such a return of brotherly love, I shall not inquire: “For, O my soul come
not thou into their secret, unto their assembly mine honour be not thou
united. For in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they
digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their
wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in
Israel.”

A NARRATIVE OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF IRELAND HAVE
MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

NOTE.

This tract occupies Nos. iii. and iv. of a periodical paper called “The
Correspondent,” originally printed at Dublin “by James Hoey in
Skinner-Row, 1733.” The text here given is that of the original
“Correspondent”; that given by Scott and Nichols is evidently taken from
the London reprint. It will be seen that the matter as it was originally
printed contains much more than was afterwards reprinted. I have indicated
in footnotes where Scott’s omissions occur. The title of the periodical
runs: “The Correspondent, No. iii. [No. iv.] Humbly inscribed to the
Conforming Nobility and Gentry of Ireland.” Nos. i. and ii. dealt with
“Old and New Light Presbyterians”; but these are not by Swift. In
Nichols’s edition this pamphlet appears in the second volume of the
“Supplement to Dr. Swift’s Works,” 1779, p. 307. See note to the previous
pamphlet, where the question of the date of the first publication of this
tract is discussed. It may be, as Monck Mason suggests (“History of St.
Patrick’s,” p. 389, note h), that a separate and second edition of this
“Narrative” was likewise printed, of the same size as “The Presbyterians’
Plea,” and bound up, occasionally with that pamphlet; but such an edition
I have never seen. The only reprint of the time examined, is that by A.
Dodd, of Temple Bar, affixed to the second London edition of “The
Presbyterians’ Plea of Merit,” and the date of which may be put down to
1734.

[T.S.]

My intention is in this and some following “Correspondents,” to vindicate
the Test Act, from the insolent aspersions which are thrown upon it, and
to answer objections, which are raised against it, particularly by an
anonymous author, in a paper entitled, “The Nature and Consequence of the
Sacramental Test considered,” &c., printed anno 1731, upon the
opening of the last session of parliament, and now republished.

As a proper introduction to this, I must take leave to put the conformists
in mind, of what (upon recollection) they may very well remember, and
which in some measure they have been formerly apprised of, and that is
in[1] 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, I presume it is no secret now to
tell the reader, that the repeal of that oath opened a sluice and let in
such a current of dissenters into some of our corporations, as bore down
all before them.

[Footnote 1: From the beginning of this paragraph to the word “in” is
omitted in the editions issued by Scott and Nichols. The words “A
Narrative… Sacramental Test” are used by Scott as part of the sub-title
of the tract; but he adds the date, 1731. This is a mistake, since “The
Correspondent” appeared in 1733; and if it did appear in the second
edition of “The Plea,” that edition was published either in the same or in
the following year. [T.S.]]

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 to
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[2]
to write against it with the utmost contempt, calling it “a stone instead
of bread; a serpent instead of a fish.”

[Footnote 2: In his note Scott calls him “Samuel” Boyse, but he is
distinctly mentioned further on in the tract as “Jo: Boyse.” The Rev.
Joseph Boyse was a native of Leeds, who had settled in Dublin in 1683 as
joint-pastor with Dr. Daniel Williams. He died in poverty in 1728; and in
the same year his works were published in two folio volumes. His son,
Samuel Boyse, the poet, died in 1749. [T.S.]]

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 afterwards with as
great resolution.

The immediate consequence of this law was the recovery of several
corporations, which the conformists had given to 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 further attempts against a 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,[3] 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 interests of her
Protestant subjects of Ireland.”

[Footnote 3: It will be remembered that the earl’s viceroyalty commenced
April 7th, 1707. It was in his train that Swift came to England in that
year.[T.S.]]

The advocates for the dissenters immediately took hold of this handle, and
in order to prepare the way for this expedient, insisted 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
signal 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 public, “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 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
exigencies 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 several of 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
encroachments 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 of Ireland.

The next attempt they made against the Test was during the government of
Lord Wharton.[4]

[Footnote 4: Wharton was appointed Lord Lieutenant on November 25th, 1708.
This Wharton is the Thomas, Lord Wharton, against whom Swift wrote one of
his bitterest and most personal attacks. He was the eldest son of Philip,
Lord Wharton, and was created a marquis by George I. He died April 12th,
1715. The ballad of “Lillibullero” is attributed to him. [T.S.]]

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 to be even “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 towards it.

Their movements to repeal the Test Act 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 soothe, others seemed to threaten even the
legislature, with a view, (as must be presumed) that those, whom they
could not cajole, might be frightened into it.[5]

[Footnote 5: Scott omits the words from “with a view” to the end of the
paragraph. [T.S.]]

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
circumstances 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 congregations,
propagated their schism in places where it had not the least footing
formerly; that they were protected from a legal prosecution 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 public and scandalous reflections upon the
Episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the Sacramental Test, and
had misapplied the royal bounty of £1,200 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. Of which more hereafter. There is one
particular in another address which 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 these
words.

“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.]

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.]

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:

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.]

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. 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.

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.]

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 republicâ, 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 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 £20
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 Vendôme, 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.

From all that hath been hitherto said, it appears, that great abilities of
any sort, when they are employed as God directs, do but make the owners of
them greater and more painful servants to their neighbour, and the public;
however, we are by no means to conclude from hence, that they are not
really blessings, when they are in the hands of good men. For first, what
can be a greater honour than to be chosen one of the stewards and
dispensers of God’s bounty to mankind? What is there, that can give a
generous spirit more pleasure and complacency of mind, than to consider
that he is an instrument of doing much good? that great numbers owe to
him, under God, their subsistence, their safety, their health, and the
good conduct of their lives? The wickedest man upon earth taketh a
pleasure in doing good to those he loveth; and therefore surely a good
Christian, who obeys our Saviour’s command of loving all men, cannot but
take delight in doing good even to his enemies. God, who giveth all things
to all men, can receive nothing from any; and those among men, who do the
most good, and receive the fewest returns, do most resemble their Creator:
for which reason, St Paul delivereth it as a saying of our Saviour, that
“it is more blessed to give than to receive.” By this rule, what must
become of those things which the world valueth as the greatest blessings,
riches, power, and the like, when our Saviour plainly determines, that the
best way to make them blessings, is to part with them? Therefore, although
the advantages which one man hath over another, may be called blessings,
yet they are by no means so in the sense the world usually understands.
Thus, for example, great riches are no blessing in themselves; because the
poor man, with the common necessaries of life enjoys more health, and hath
fewer cares without them: How then do they become blessings? No otherwise,
than by being employed in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked,
rewarding worthy men, and in short, doing acts of charity and generosity.
Thus likewise, power is no blessing in itself, because private men bear
less envy, and trouble, and anguish without it. But when it is employed to
protect the innocent, to relieve the oppressed, and to punish the
oppressor, then it becomes a great blessing. And so lastly even great
wisdom is in the opinion of Solomon not a blessing in itself: For “in much
wisdom is much sorrow;” and men of common understandings, if they serve
God and mind their callings, make fewer mistakes in the conduct of life
than those who have better heads. And yet, wisdom is a mighty blessing,
when it is applied to good purposes, to instruct the ignorant, to be a
faithful counsellor either in public or private, to be a director to
youth, and to many other ends needless here to mention.

To conclude: God sent us into the world to obey his commands, by doing as
much good as our abilities will reach, and as little evil as our many
infirmities will permit. Some he hath only trusted with one talent, some
with five, and some with ten. No man is without his talent; and he that is
faithful or negligent in a little, shall be rewarded or punished, as well
as he that hath been so in a great deal.

Consider what hath been said; and the Lord give you a right understanding
in all things. To whom with the Son and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and
glory, now and for ever.

ON THE TESTIMONY OF CONSCIENCE.

2 CORINTHIANS, I. 12. PART OF IT.

“——For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our
conscience.”

There is no word more frequently in the mouths of men, than that of
conscience, and the meaning of it is in some measure generally understood:
However, because it is likewise a word extremely abused by many people,
who apply other meanings to it, which God Almighty never intended; I shall
explain it to you in the clearest manner I am able. The word conscience
properly signifies, that knowledge which a man hath within himself of his
own thoughts and actions. And, because, if a man judgeth fairly of his own
actions by comparing them with the law of God, his mind will either
approve or condemn him according as he hath done good or evil; therefore
this knowledge or conscience may properly be called both an accuser and a
judge. So that whenever our conscience accuseth us, we are certainly
guilty; but we are not always innocent when it doth not accuse us: For
very often, through the hardness of our hearts, or the fondness and favour
we bear to ourselves, or through ignorance or neglect, we do not suffer
our conscience to take any cognizance of several sins we commit. There is
another office likewise belonging to conscience, which is that of being
our director and guide; and the wrong use of this hath been the occasion
of more evils under the sun, than almost all other causes put together.
For, as conscience is nothing else but the knowledge we have of what we
are thinking and doing; so it can guide us no farther than that knowledge
reacheth. And therefore God hath placed conscience in us to be our
director only in those actions which Scripture and reason plainly tell us
to be good or evil. But in cases too difficult or doubtful for us to
comprehend or determine, there conscience is not concerned; because it
cannot advise in what it doth not understand, nor decide where it is
itself in doubt: but, by God’s great mercy, those difficult points are
never of absolute necessity to our salvation. There is likewise another
evil, that men often say, a thing is against their conscience, when really
it is not. For instance: Ask any of those who differ from the worship
established, why they do not come to church? They will say, they dislike
the ceremonies, the prayers, the habits, and the like, and therefore it
goes against their conscience: But they are mistaken, their teacher hath
put those words into their mouths; for a man’s conscience can go no higher
than his knowledge; and therefore until he has thoroughly examined by
Scripture, and the practice of the ancient church, whether those points
are blameable or no, his conscience cannot possibly direct him to condemn
them. Hence have likewise arisen those mistakes about what is usually
called “Liberty of Conscience”; which, properly speaking, is no more than
a liberty of knowing our own thoughts; which liberty no one can take from
us. But those words have obtained quite different meanings: Liberty of
conscience is now-a-days not only understood to be the liberty of
believing what men please, but also of endeavouring to propagate the
belief as much as they can, and to overthrow the faith which the laws have
already established, to be rewarded by the public for those wicked
endeavours: And this is the liberty of conscience which the fanatics are
now openly in the face of the world endeavouring at with their utmost
application. At the same time it cannot but be observed, that those very
persons, who under pretence of a public spirit and tenderness towards
their Christian brethren, are so zealous for such a liberty of conscience
as this, are of all others the least tender to those who differ from them
in the smallest point relating to government; and I wish I could not say,
that the Majesty of the living God may be offended with more security than
the memory of a dead prince. But the wisdom of the world at present seems
to agree with that of the heathen Emperor, who said, if the gods were
offended, it was their own concern, and they were able to vindicate
themselves.[1]

[Footnote 1: The saying of Tiberius as given by Tacitus (“Annals,” bk. i.,
c. lxxiii.), Deorum offensa diis curæ. [T.S.]]

But although conscience hath been abused to those wicked purposes which I
have already related, yet a due regard to the directions it plainly giveth
us, as well as to its accusations, reproaches, and advices, would be of
the greatest use to mankind, both for their present welfare and future
happiness.

Therefore, my discourse at this time shall be directed to prove to you,
that there is no solid, firm foundation for virtue, but on a conscience
which is guided by religion.

In order to this, I shall first shew you the weakness and uncertainty of
two false principles, which many people set up in the place of conscience,
for a guide to their actions.

The first of these principles is, what the world usually calls Moral
Honesty. There are some people, who appear very indifferent as to
religion, and yet have the repute of being just and fair in their
dealings; and these are generally known by the character of good moral
men. But now, if you look into the grounds and the motives of such a man’s
actions, you shall find them to be no other than his own ease and
interest. For example: You trust a moral man with your money in the way of
trade; you trust another with the defence of your cause at law, and
perhaps they both deal justly with you. Why? Not from any regard they have
for justice, but because their fortune depends upon their credit, and a
stain of open public dishonesty must be to their disadvantage. But let it
consist with such a man’s interest and safety to wrong you, and then it
will be impossible you can have any hold upon him; because there is
nothing left to give him a check, or put in the balance against his
profit. For, if he hath nothing to govern himself by, but the opinion of
the world, as long as he can conceal his injustice from the world, he
thinks he is safe.

Besides, it is found by experience, that those men who set up for morality
without regard to religion, are generally but virtuous in part; they will
be just in their dealings between man and man; but if they find themselves
disposed to pride, lust, intemperance, or avarice, they do not think their
morality concerned to check them in any of these vices, because it is the
great rule of such men, that they may lawfully follow the dictates of
nature, wherever their safety, health, and fortune, are not injured. So,
that upon the whole, there is hardly one vice which a mere moral man may
not upon some occasions allow himself to practise.

The other false principle, which some men set up in the place of
conscience to be their director in life, is what those who pretend to it,
call Honour.

This word is often made the sanction of an oath; it is reckoned a great
commendation to be a man of strict honour; and it is commonly understood,
that a man of honour can never be guilty of a base action. This is usually
the style of military men; of persons with titles; and of others who
pretend to birth and quality. It is true, indeed, that in ancient times it
was universally understood, that honour was the reward of virtue; but if
such honour as is now-a-days going will not permit a man to do a base
action, it must be allowed, there are very few such things as base actions
in nature. No man of honour, as that word is usually understood, did ever
pretend that his honour obliged him to be chaste or temperate; to pay his
creditors; to be useful to his country; to do good to mankind; to
endeavour to be wise, or learned; to regard his word, his promise, or his
oath; or if he hath any of these virtues, they were never learned in the
catechism of honour; which contains but two precepts, the punctual payment
of debts contracted at play, and the right understanding the several
degrees of an affront, in order to revenge it by the death of an
adversary.

But suppose, this principle of honour, which some men so much boast of,
did really produce more virtues than it ever pretended to; yet since the
very being of that honour dependeth upon the breath, the opinion, or the
fancy of the people, the virtues derived from it could be of no long or
certain duration. For example: Suppose a man from a principle of honour
should resolve to be just, or chaste, or temperate; and yet the censuring
world should take a humour of refusing him those characters; he would then
think the obligation at an end. Or, on the other side, if he thought he
could gain honour by the falsest and vilest action, (which is a case that
very often happens,) he would then make no scruple to perform it. And God
knows, it would be an unhappy state, to have the religion, the liberty, or
the property of a people lodged in such hands, which however hath been too
often the case.

What I have said upon this principle of honour may perhaps be thought of
small concernment to most of you who are my hearers: However, a caution
was not altogether unnecessary; since there is nothing by which not only
the vulgar, but the honest tradesman hath been so much deceived, as this
infamous pretence to honour in too many of their betters.

Having thus shewn you the weakness and uncertainty of those principles
which some men set up in the place of conscience to direct them in their
actions, I shall now endeavour to prove to you that there is no solid,
firm foundation of virtue, but in a conscience directed by the principles
of religion.

There is no way of judging how far we may depend upon the actions of men,
otherwise than by knowing the motives, and grounds, and causes of them;
and, if the motives of our actions be not resolved and determined into the
law of God, they will be precarious and uncertain, and liable to perpetual
changes. I will shew you what I mean, by an example: Suppose a man thinks
it his duty to obey his parents, because reason tells him so, because he
is obliged by gratitude, and because the laws of his country command him
to do so; but, if he stops here, his parents can have no lasting security;
for an occasion may happen, wherein it may be extremely his interest to be
disobedient, and where the laws of the land can lay no hold upon him:
therefore, before such a man can safely be trusted, he must proceed
farther, and consider, that his reason is the gift of God; that God
commanded him to be obedient to the laws, and did moreover in a particular
manner enjoin him to be dutiful to his parents; after which, if he lays
due weight upon those considerations, he will probably continue in his
duty to the end of his life: Because no earthly interest can ever come in
competition to balance the danger of offending his Creator, or the
happiness of pleasing him. And of all this his conscience will certainly
inform him, if he hath any regard to religion.

Secondly: Fear and hope are the two greatest natural motives of all
men’s actions: But, neither of these passions will ever put us in the way
of virtue, unless they be directed by conscience. For although virtuous
men do sometimes accidentally make their way to preferment, yet the world
is so corrupted, that no man can reasonably hope to be rewarded in it,
merely upon account of his virtue. And consequently, the fear of
punishment in this life will preserve men from very few vices, since some
of the blackest and basest do often prove the surest steps to favour; such
as ingratitude, hypocrisy, treachery, malice, subornation, atheism, and
many more which human laws do little concern themselves about. But when
conscience placeth before us the hopes of everlasting happiness, and the
fears of everlasting misery, as the reward and punishment of our good or
evil actions, our reason can find no way to avoid the force of such an
argument, otherwise than by running into infidelity.

Lastly: Conscience will direct us to love God, and to put our whole
trust and confidence in him. Our love of God will inspire us with a
detestation for sin, as what is of all things most contrary to his divine
nature; and if we have an entire confidence in him, that will
enable us to subdue and despise all the allurements of the world.

It may here be objected, if conscience be so sure a director to us
Christians in the conduct of our lives, how comes it to pass, that the
ancient heathens, who had no other lights but those of nature and reason,
should so far exceed us in all manner of virtue, as plainly appears by
many examples they have left on record?

To which it may be answered; first, those heathens were extremely strict
and exact in the education of their children; whereas among us this care
is so much laid aside, that the more God hath blessed any man with estate
or quality, just so much the less in proportion is the care he taketh in
the education of his children, and particularly of that child which is to
inherit his fortune: Of which the effects are visible enough among the
great ones of the world. Again, those heathens did in a particular manner
instil the principle into their children, of loving their country; which
is so far otherwise now-a-days, that, of the several parties among us,
there is none of them that seems to have so much as heard, whether there
be such a virtue in the world; as plainly appears by their practices, and
especially when they are placed in those stations where they can only have
opportunity of shewing it. Lastly; the most considerable among the
heathens did generally believe rewards and punishments in a life to come;
which is the great principle for conscience to work upon; Whereas too many
of those who would be thought the most considerable among us, do, both by
their practices and their discourses, plainly affirm, that they believe
nothing at all of the matter.

Wherefore, since it hath manifestly appeared that a religious conscience
is the only true solid foundation upon which virtue can be built, give me
leave, before I conclude, to let you see how necessary such a conscience
is, to conduct us in every station and condition of our lives.

That a religious conscience is necessary in any station, is confessed even
by those who tell us, that all religion was invented by cunning men, in
order to keep the world in awe. For, if religion, by the confession of its
adversaries, be necessary towards the well-governing of mankind; then
every wise man in power will be sure not only to choose out for every
station under him such persons as are most likely to be kept in awe by
religion, but likewise to carry some appearance of it himself, or else he
is a very weak politician. And accordingly in any country where great
persons affect to be open despisers of religion, their counsels will be
found at last to be fully as destructive to the state as to the church.

It was the advice of Jethro to his son-in-law Moses, to “provide able men,
such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness,” and to place such
over the people; and Moses, who was as wise a statesman, at least, as any
in this age, thought fit to follow that advice. Great abilities, without
the fear of God, are most dangerous instruments, when they are trusted
with power. The laws of man have thought fit, that those who are called to
any office of trust should be bound by an oath to the faithful discharge
of it: But, an oath is an appeal to God, and therefore can have no
influence except upon those who believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of those that seek him, and a punisher of those who disobey him:
And therefore, we see, the laws themselves are forced to have recourse to
conscience in these cases, because their penalties cannot reach the arts
of cunning men, who can find ways to be guilty of a thousand injustices
without being discovered, or at least without being punished. And the
reason why we find so many frauds, abuses, and corruptions, where any
trust is conferred, can be no other, than that there is so little
conscience and religion left in the world, or at least that men in their
choice of instruments have private ends in view, which are very different
from the service of the public. Besides, it is certain, that men who
profess to have no religion, are full as zealous to bring over proselytes
as any Papist or fanatic can be. And therefore, if those who are in
station high enough to be of influence or example to others; if those (I
say) openly profess a contempt or disbelief of religion, they will be sure
to make all their dependents of their own principles; and what security
can the public expect from such persons, whenever their interests, or
their lusts, come into competition with their duty? It is very possible
for a man who hath the appearance of religion, and is a great pretender to
conscience, to be wicked and a hypocrite; but, it is impossible for a man
who openly declares against religion, to give any reasonable security that
he will not be false and cruel, and corrupt, whenever a temptation offers,
which he values more than he does the power wherewith he was trusted. And,
if such a man doth not betray his cause and his master, it is only because
the temptation was not properly offered, or the profit was too small, or
the danger was too great. And hence it is, that we find so little truth or
justice among us, because there are so very few, who either in the service
of the public, or in common dealings with each other, do ever look farther
than their own advantage, and how to guard themselves against the laws of
the country; which a man may do by favour, by secrecy, or by cunning,
although he breaks almost every law of God.

Therefore to conclude: It plainly appears, that unless men are guided by
the advice and judgment of a conscience founded on religion, they can give
no security that they will be either good subjects, faithful servants of
the public, or honest in their mutual dealings; since there is no other
tie through which the pride, or lust, or avarice, or ambition of mankind
will not certainly break one time or other.

Consider what has been said, &c.

ON THE TRINITY.

I. EPIST. GEN. OF JOHN, V. 7.

“For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One.”

This day being set apart to acknowledge our belief in the Eternal Trinity,
I thought it might be proper to employ my present discourse entirely upon
that subject; and, I hope, to handle it in such a manner, that the most
ignorant among you may return home better informed of your duty in this
great point, than probably you are at present.

It must be confessed, that by the weakness and indiscretion of busy (or at
best, of well-meaning) people, as well as by the malice of those who are
enemies to all revealed religion, and are not content to possess their own
infidelity in silence, without communicating it to the disturbance of
mankind; I say, by these means, it must be confessed, that the doctrine of
the Trinity hath suffered very much, and made Christianity suffer along
with it. For these two things must be granted: First, that men of wicked
lives would be very glad there were no truth in Christianity at all; and
secondly, if they can pick out any one single article in the Christian
religion which appears not agreeable to their own corrupted reason, or to
the arguments of those bad people, who follow the trade of seducing
others, they presently conclude, that the truth of the whole Gospel must
sink along with that one article; which is just as wise, as if a man
should say, because he dislikes one law of his country, he will therefore
observe no law at all; and yet, that one law may be very reasonable in
itself, although he does not allow it, or does not know the reason of the
law-givers.

Thus it hath happened with the great doctrine of the Trinity; which word
is indeed not in the Scripture, but was a term of art invented in the
earlier times to express the doctrine by a single word, for the sake of
brevity and convenience. The doctrine then, as delivered in Holy
Scripture, although not exactly in the same words, is very short, and
amounts only to this, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are
each of them God, and yet there is but one God. For, as to the word
Person, when we say there are three Persons; and as to those other
explanations in the Athanasian Creed this day read to you (whether
compiled by Athanasius or no) they were taken up three hundred years after
Christ, to expound this doctrine; and I will tell you upon what occasion.
About that time there sprang up a heresy of a people called Arians, from
one Arius the leader of them. These denied our Saviour to be God, although
they allowed all the rest of the Gospel (wherein they were more sincere
than their followers among us). Thus the Christian world was divided into
two parts, until at length, by the zeal and courage of St Athanasius, the
Arians were condemned in a general council, and a creed formed upon the
true faith, as St Athanasius hath settled it. This creed is now read at
certain times in our churches, which, although it is useful for
edification to those who understand it; yet, since it containeth some nice
and philosophical points which few people can comprehend, the bulk of
mankind is obliged to believe no more than the Scripture doctrine, as I
have delivered it. Because that creed was intended only as an answer to
the Arians in their own way, who were very subtle disputers.

But this heresy having revived in the world about a hundred years ago, and
continued ever since; not out of a zeal to truth, but to give a loose to
wickedness, by throwing off all religion; several divines, in order to
answer the cavils of those adversaries to truth and morality, began to
find out farther explanations of this doctrine of the Trinity, by rules of
philosophy; which have multiplied controversies to such a degree, as to
beget scruples that have perplexed the minds of many sober Christians, who
otherwise could never have entertained them.

I must therefore be bold to affirm, that the method taken by many of those
learned men to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, hath been founded upon
a mistake.

It must be allowed, that every man is bound to follow the rules and
directions of that measure of reason which God hath given him; and indeed
he cannot do otherwise, if he will be sincere, or act like a man. For
instance: If I should be commanded by an angel from heaven to believe it
is midnight at noon-day; yet I could not believe him. So, if I were
directly told in Scripture that three are one, and one is three, I could
not conceive or believe it in the natural common sense of that expression,
but must suppose that something dark or mystical was meant, which it
pleased God to conceal from me and from all the world. Thus, in the text,
“There are Three that bear record,” &c. Am I capable of knowing and
defining what union and what distinction there may be in the divine
nature, which possibly may be hid from the angels themselves? Again, I see
it plainly declared in Scripture, that there is but one God; and yet I
find our Saviour claiming the prerogative of God in knowing men’s
thoughts; in saying, “He and his Father are one;” and, “before Abraham
was, I am.” I read, that the disciples worshipped him; that Thomas said to
him, “My Lord and my God.” And St John, chap, 1st, “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” I read
likewise that the Holy Ghost bestowed the gift of tongues, and the power
of working miracles; which, if rightly considered, is as great a miracle
as any, that a number of illiterate men should of a sudden be qualified to
speak all the languages then known in the world; such as could be done by
the inspiration of God done. From these several texts it is plain, that
God commands us to believe that there is an union and there is a
distinction; but what that union, or what that distinction is, all mankind
are equally ignorant, and must continue so, at least till the day of
judgment, without some new revelation.

But because I cannot conceive the nature of this union and distinction in
the divine nature, am I therefore to reject them as absurd and impossible;
as I would, if any one told me that three men are one, and one man is
three? We are told, that a man and his wife are one flesh; this I can
comprehend the meaning of; yet, literally taken, it is a thing impossible.
But the apostle tell us, “We see but in part, and we know but in part;”
and yet we would comprehend all the secret ways and workings of God.

Therefore I shall again repeat the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is
positively affirmed in Scripture: that God is there expressed in three
different names, as Father, as Son, and as Holy Ghost: that each of these
is God, and that there is but one God. But this union and distinction are
a mystery utterly unknown to mankind.

This is enough for any good Christian to believe on this great article,
without ever inquiring any farther: And, this can be contrary to no man’s
reason, although the knowledge of it is hid from him.

But there is another difficulty of great importance among those who
quarrel with the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as with several other
articles of Christianity; which is, that our religion abounds in
mysteries, and these they are so bold as to revile as cant, imposture, and
priestcraft. It is impossible for us to determine for what reasons God
thought fit to communicate some things to us in part, and leave some part
a mystery. But so it is in fact, and so the Holy Scripture tells us in
several places. For instance: the resurrection and change of our bodies
are called mysteries by St Paul: and our Saviour’s incarnation is another:
The Kingdom of God is called a mystery by our Saviour, to be only known to
his disciples; so is faith, and the word of God by St Paul. I omit many
others. So, that to declare against all mysteries without distinction or
exception, is to declare against the whole tenor of the New Testament.

There are two conditions that may bring a mystery under suspicion. First,
when it is not taught and commanded in Holy Writ; or, secondly, when the
mystery turns to the advantage of those who preach it to others. Now, as
to the first, it can never be said, that we preach mysteries without
warrant from Holy Scripture, although I confess this of the Trinity may
have sometimes been explained by human invention, which might perhaps
better have been spared. As to the second, it will not be possible to
charge the Protestant priesthood with proposing any temporal advantage to
themselves by broaching or multiplying, or preaching of mysteries. Does
this mystery of the Trinity, for instance, and the descent of the Holy
Ghost, bring the least profit or power to the preachers? No; it is as
great a mystery to themselves as it is to the meanest of their hearers;
and may be rather a cause of humiliation, by putting their understanding
in that point upon a level with the most ignorant of their flock. It is
true indeed, the Roman church hath very much enriched herself by trading
in mysteries, for which they have not the least authority from Scripture,
and were fitted only to advance their own temporal wealth and grandeur;
such as transubstantiation, the worshipping of images, indulgences for
sins, purgatory, and masses for the dead; with many more: But, it is the
perpetual talent of those who have ill-will to our Church, or a contempt
for all religion, taken up by the wickedness of their lives, to charge us
with the errors and corruptions of Popery, which all Protestants have
thrown off near two hundred years: whereas, those mysteries held by us
have no prospect of power, pomp, or wealth, but have been ever maintained
by the universal body of true believers from the days of the apostles, and
will be so to the resurrection; neither will the gates of hell prevail
against them.

It may be thought perhaps a strange thing, that God should require us to
believe mysteries, while the reason or manner of what we are to believe is
above our comprehension, and wholly concealed from us: neither doth it
appear at first sight, that the believing or not believing them doth
concern either the glory of God, or contribute to the goodness or
wickedness of our lives. But this is a great and dangerous mistake. We see
what a mighty weight is laid upon faith, both in the Old and New
Testament. In the former we read how the faith of Abraham is praised, who
could believe that God would raise from him a great nation, at the very
time that he was commanded to sacrifice his only son, and despaired of any
other issue. And this was to him a great mystery. Our Saviour is
perpetually preaching faith to his disciples, or reproaching them with the
want of it: and St Paul produceth numerous examples of the wonders done by
faith. And all this is highly reasonable: For faith is an entire
dependence upon the truth, the power, the justice, and the mercy of God;
which dependence will certainly incline us to obey him in all things. So,
that the great excellency of faith, consists in the consequence it hath
upon our actions: as, if we depend upon the truth and wisdom of a man, we
shall certainly be more disposed to follow his advice. Therefore, let no
man think that he can lead as good a moral life without faith as with it;
for this reason, because he who hath no faith, cannot, by the strength of
his own reason or endeavours, so easily resist temptations, as the other
who depends upon God’s assistance in the overcoming his frailties, and is
sure to be rewarded for ever in heaven for his victory over them. “Faith,”
says the apostle, “is the evidence of things not seen”: he means, that
faith is a virtue by which anything commanded us by God to believe appears
evident and certain to us, although we do not see, nor can conceive it;
because, by faith we entirely depend upon the truth and power of God.

It is an old and true distinction, that things may be above our reason,
without being contrary to it. Of this kind are the power, the nature, and
the universal presence of God, with innumerable other points. How little
do those who quarrel with mysteries, know of the commonest actions of
nature! The growth of an animal, of a plant, or of the smallest seed, is a
mystery to the wisest among men. If an ignorant person were told that a
loadstone would draw iron at a distance, he might say it was a thing
contrary to his reason, and could not believe before he saw it with his
eyes.

The manner whereby the soul and body are united, and how they are
distinguished, is wholly unaccountable to us. We see but one part, and yet
we know we consist of two; and this is a mystery we cannot comprehend, any
more than that of the Trinity.

From what hath been said, it is manifest that God did never command us to
believe, nor his ministers to preach, any doctrine which is contrary to
the reason he hath pleased to endow us with; but for his own wise ends has
thought fit to conceal from us the nature of the thing he commands;
thereby to try our faith and obedience, and increase our dependence upon
him.

It is highly probable, that if God should please to reveal unto us this
great mystery of the Trinity, or some other mysteries in our holy
religion, we should not be able to understand them, unless he would at the
same time think fit to bestow on us some new powers or faculties of the
mind, which we want at present, and are reserved till the day of
resurrection to life eternal. “For now,” as the apostle says, “we see
through a glass darkly, but then face to face.”

Thus, we see, the matter is brought to this issue: We must either believe
what God directly commands us in Holy Scripture, or we must wholly reject
the Scripture, and the Christian religion which we pretend to profess. But
this, I hope, is too desperate a step for any of us to make.

I have already observed, that those who preach up the belief of the
Trinity, or of any other mystery, cannot propose any temporal advantage to
themselves by so doing. But this is not the case of those who oppose these
doctrines. Do they lead better moral lives than a good Christian?
Are they more just in their dealings? more chaste, or temperate, or
charitable? Nothing at all of this; but on the contrary, their intent is
to overthrow all religion, that they may gratify their vices without any
reproach from the world, or their own conscience: and are zealous to bring
over as many others as they can to their own opinions; because it is some
kind of imaginary comfort to have a multitude on their side.

There is no miracle mentioned in Holy Writ, which, if it were strictly
examined, is not as much, contrary to common reason, and as much a
mystery, as this doctrine of the Trinity; and therefore we may, with equal
justice deny the truth of them all. For instance: It is against the laws
of nature, that a human body should be able to walk upon the water, as St
Peter is recorded to have done; or that a dead carcass should be raised
from the grave after three days, when it began to be corrupted; which
those who understand anatomy will pronounce to be impossible by the common
rules of nature and reason. Yet these miracles, and many others, are
positively affirmed in the Gospel; and these we must believe, or give up
our holy religion to atheists and infidels.

I shall now make a few inferences and observations upon what has been
said.

First: It would be well, if people would not lay so much weight on
their own reason in matters of religion, as to think everything impossible
and absurd which they cannot conceive. How often do we contradict the
right rules of reason in the whole course of our lives! Reason itself is
true and just, but the reason of every particular man is weak and
wavering, perpetually swayed and turned by his interests, his passions,
and his vices. Let any man but consider, when he hath a controversy with
another, although his cause be ever so unjust, although the world be
against him, how blinded he is by the love of himself, to believe that
right is wrong, and wrong is right, when it maketh for his own advantage.
Where is then the right use of his reason, which he so much boasts of, and
which he would blasphemously set up to control the commands of the
Almighty?

Secondly: When men are tempted to deny the mysteries of religion,
let them examine and search into their own hearts, whether they have not
some favourite sin which is of their party in this dispute, and which is
equally contrary to other commands of God in the Gospel. For, why do men
love darkness rather than light? The Scripture tells us, “Because their
deeds are evil;” and there can be no other reason assigned. Therefore when
men are curious and inquisitive to discover some weak sides in
Christianity, and inclined to favour everything that is offered to its
disadvantage; it is plain they wish it were not true, and those wishes can
proceed from nothing but an evil conscience; because, if there be truth in
our religion, their condition must be miserable.

And therefore, Thirdly: Men should consider, that raising
difficulties concerning the mysteries in religion, cannot make them more
wise, learned, or virtuous; better neighbours, or friends, or more
serviceable to their country; but, whatever they pretend, will destroy
their inward peace of mind, by perpetual doubts and fears arising in their
breasts. And, God forbid we should ever see the times so bad, when
dangerous opinions in religion will be a means to get favour and
preferment; although, even in such a case, it would be an ill traffic, to
gain the world, and lose our own souls. So, that upon the whole, it will
be impossible to find any real use toward a virtuous or happy life, by
denying the mysteries of the Gospel.

Fourthly: Those strong unbelievers, who expect that all mysteries
should be squared and fitted to their own reason, might have somewhat to
say for themselves, if they could satisfy the general reason of mankind in
their opinions: But herein they are miserably defective, absurd, and
ridiculous; they strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel; they can believe
that the world was made by chance; that God doth not concern himself with
things below; will neither punish vice, nor reward virtue; that religion
was invented by cunning men to keep the world in awe; with many other
opinions equally false and detestable, against the common light of nature
as well as reason; against the universal sentiments of all civilized
nations, and offensive to the ears even of a sober heathen.

Lastly: Since the world abounds with pestilent books particularly
against this doctrine of the Trinity; it is fit to inform you, that the
authors of them proceed wholly upon a mistake: They would shew how
impossible it is that three can be one, and one can be three; whereas the
Scripture saith no such thing, at least in that manner they would make it:
but, only, that there is some kind of unity and distinction in the divine
nature, which mankind cannot possibly comprehend: thus, the whole doctrine
is short and plain, and in itself incapable of any controversy: since God
himself hath pronounced the fact, but wholly concealed the manner. And
therefore many divines, who thought fit to answer those wicked books, have
been mistaken too, by answering fools in their folly; and endeavouring to
explain a mystery, which God intended to keep secret from us. And, as I
would exhort all men to avoid reading those wicked books written against
this doctrine, as dangerous and pernicious; so I think they may omit the
answers, as unnecessary. This I confess will probably affect but few or
none among the generality of our congregations, who do not much trouble
themselves with books, at least of this kind. However, many who do not
read themselves, are seduced by others that do; and thus become
unbelievers upon trust and at second-hand; and this is too frequent a
case: for which reason I have endeavoured to put this doctrine upon a
short and sure foot, levelled to the meanest understanding; by which we
may, as the apostle directs, be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and
fear.

And, thus I have done with my subject, which probably I should not have
chosen, if I had not been invited to it by the occasion of this season,
appointed on purpose to celebrate the mysteries of the Trinity, and the
descent of the Holy Ghost, wherein we pray to be kept stedfast in this
faith; and what this faith is I have shewn you in the plainest manner I
could. For, upon the whole, it is no more than this: God commandeth us, by
our dependence upon His truth, and His Holy Word, to believe a fact that
we do not understand. And, this is no more than what we do every day in
the works of nature, upon the credit of men of learning. Without faith we
can do no works acceptable to God; for, if they proceed from any other
principle, they will not advance our salvation; and this faith, as I have
explained it, we may acquire without giving up our senses, or
contradicting our reason. May God of his infinite mercy inspire us with
true faith in every article and mystery of our holy religion, so as to
dispose us to do what is pleasing in his sight; and this we pray through
Jesus Christ, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, the mysterious,
incomprehensible ONE GOD, be all honour and glory now and for evermore! Amen.

ON BROTHERLY LOVE.[1]

[Footnote: 1 Notwithstanding the text and title of this sermon, and the
many excellent observations which it contains in illustration of both,
there are several passages in it which the dissenters of the time would
hardly consider as propitiatory towards the continuance of brotherly love.
There are also various allusions to the parties which raged at the time,
and some which appear to have been written in defence of the preacher’s
character, then severely arraigned by the Irish Whigs, and held in
abhorrence by the people of Dublin, by whom he was afterwards idolized.
[S.]]

HEB. XIII. I.

“Let brotherly love continue.”

In the early times of the Gospel, the Christians were very much
distinguished from all other bodies of men, by the great and constant love
they bore to each other; which, although it was done in obedience to the
frequent injunctions of our Saviour and his apostles, yet, I confess,
there seemeth to have been likewise a natural reason, that very much
promoted it. For the Christians then were few and scattered, living under
persecution by the heathens round about them, in whose hands was all the
civil and military power; and there is nothing so apt to unite the minds
and hearts of men, or to beget love and tenderness, as a general distress.
The first dissensions between Christians took their beginning from the
errors and heresies that arose among them; many of those heresies,
sometimes extinguished, and sometimes reviving, or succeeded by others,
remain to this day; and having been made instruments to the pride,
avarice, or ambition, of ill-designing men, by extinguishing brotherly
love, have been the cause of infinite calamities, as well as corruptions
of faith and manners, in the Christian world.

The last legacy of Christ was peace and mutual love; but then he foretold,
that he came to send a sword upon the earth: The primitive Christians
accepted the legacy, and their successors down to the present age have
been largely fulfilling his prophecy. But whatever the practice of mankind
hath been, or still continues, there is no duty more incumbent upon those
who profess the Gospel, than that of brotherly love; which, whoever could
restore in any degree among men, would be an instrument of more good to
human society, than ever was, or will be, done by all the statesmen and
politicians in the world.

It is upon this subject of brotherly love, that I intend to discourse at
present, and the method I observe shall be as follows:—

I. First, I will inquire into the causes of this great want of
brotherly love among us.

II. Secondly, I will lay open the sad effects and consequences,
which our animosities and mutual hatred have produced.

III. Lastly, I will use some motives and exhortations, that may
persuade you to embrace brotherly love, and continue in it.

I. First, I shall enquire into the causes of this great want of
brotherly love among us.

This nation of ours hath, for an hundred years past, been infested by two
enemies, the Papists and fanatics, who, each in their turns, filled it
with blood and slaughter, and, for a time, destroyed both the Church and
government. The memory of these events hath put all true Protestants
equally upon their guard against both these adversaries, who, by
consequence, do equally hate us. The fanatics revile us, as too nearly
approaching to Popery; and the Papists condemn us, as bordering too much
on fanaticism. The Papists, God be praised, are, by the wisdom of our
laws, put out of all visible possibility of hurting us; besides, their
religion is so generally abhorred, that they have no advocates or abettors
among Protestants to assist them. But the fanatics are to be considered in
another light; they have had of late years the power, the luck, or the
cunning, to divide us among ourselves; they have endeavoured to represent
all those who have been so bold as to oppose their errors and designs,
under the character of persons disaffected to the government; and they
have so far succeeded, that, now-a-days, if a clergyman happens to preach
with any zeal and vehemence against the sin and danger of schism, there
will not want too many, in his congregation, ready enough to censure him
as hot and high-flying, an inflamer of men’s minds, an enemy to
moderation, and disloyal to his prince. This hath produced a formed and
settled division between those who profess the same doctrine and
discipline; while they who call themselves moderate are forced to widen
their bottom, by sacrificing their principles and their brethren to the
encroachments and insolence of dissenters, who are therefore answerable,
as a principal cause of all that hatred and animosity now reigning among
us.

Another cause of the great want of brotherly love is the weakness and
folly of too many among you of the lower sort, who are made the tools and
instruments of your betters to work their designs, wherein you have no
concern. Your numbers make you of use, and cunning men take the advantage,
by putting words into your mouths, which you do not understand; then they
fix good or ill characters to those words, as it best serves their
purposes: And thus you are taught to love or hate, you know not what or
why; you often suspect your best friends, and nearest neighbours, even
your teacher himself, without any reason, if your leaders once taught you
to call him by a name, which they tell you signifieth some very bad thing.

A third cause of our great want of brotherly love seemeth to be, that this
duty is not so often insisted on from the pulpit, as it ought to be in
such times as these; on the contrary, it is to be doubted, whether
doctrines are not sometimes delivered by an ungoverned zeal, a desire to
be distinguished, or a view of interest, which produce quite different
effects; when, upon occasions set apart to return thanks to God for some
public blessing, the time is employed in stirring up one part of the
congregation against the other, by representations of things and persons,
which God, in his mercy, forgive those who are guilty of.

The last cause I shall mention of the want of brotherly love is, that
unhappy disposition towards politics among the trading people, which has
been industriously instilled into them. In former times, the middle and
lower sorts of mankind seldom gained or lost by the factions of the
kingdom, and therefore were little concerned in them, further than as
matter of talk and amusement; but now the meanest dealer will expect to
turn the penny by the merits of his party. He can represent his neighbour
as a man of dangerous principles, can bring a railing accusation against
him, perhaps a criminal one, and so rob him of his livelihood, and find
his own account by that much more than if he had disparaged his
neighbour’s goods, or defamed him as a cheat. For so it happens, that,
instead of enquiring into the skill or honesty of those kind of people,
the manner is now to enquire into their party, and to reject or encourage
them accordingly; which proceeding hath made our people, in general, such
able politicians, that all the artifice, flattery, dissimulation,
diligence, and dexterity, in undermining each other, which the satirical
wit of men hath charged upon courts; together with all the rage and
violence, cruelty and injustice, which have been ever imputed to public
assemblies; are with us (so polite are we grown) to be seen among our
meanest traders and artificers in the greatest perfection. All which, as
it may be matter of some humiliation to the wise and mighty of this world,
so the effects thereof may, perhaps, in time, prove very different from
what, I hope in charity, were ever foreseen or intended.

II. I will therefore now, in the second place, lay open some of the sad
effects and consequences which our animosities and mutual hatred have
produced.

And the first ill consequence is, that our want of brotherly love hath
almost driven out all sense of religion from among us, which cannot well
be otherwise; for since our Saviour laid so much weight upon his disciples
loving one another, that he gave it among his last instructions; and since
the primitive Christians are allowed to have chiefly propagated the faith
by their strict observance of that instruction, it must follow that, in
proportion as brotherly love declineth, Christianity will do so too. The
little religion there is in the world, hath been observed to reside
chiefly among the middle and lower sorts of people, who are neither
tempted to pride nor luxury by great riches, nor to desperate courses by
extreme poverty: And truly I, upon that account, have thought it a
happiness, that those who are under my immediate care are generally of
that condition; but where party hath once made entrance, with all its
consequences of hatred, envy, partiality, and virulence, religion cannot
long keep its hold in any state or degree of life whatsoever. For, if the
great men of the world have been censured in all ages for mingling too
little religion with their politics, what a havoc of principles must they
needs make in unlearned and irregular heads; of which indeed the effects
are already too visible and melancholy all over the kingdom!

Another ill consequence from our want of brotherly love is, that it
increaseth the insolence of the fanatics; and this partly ariseth from a
mistaken meaning of the word moderation; a word which hath been much
abused, and bandied about for several years past. There are too many people
indifferent enough to all religion; there are many others, who dislike the
clergy, and would have them live in poverty and dependence; both these
sorts are much commended by the fanatics for moderate men, ready to put an
end to our divisions, and to make a general union among Protestants. Many
ignorant well-meaning people are deceived by these appearances,
strengthened with great pretences to loyalty: and these occasions the
fanatics lay hold on, to revile the doctrine and discipline of the Church,
and even insult and oppress the clergy wherever their numbers or favourers
will bear them out; insomuch, that one wilful refractory fanatic hath been
able to disturb a whole parish for many years together. But the most
moderate and favoured divines dare not own, that the word moderation, with
respect to the dissenters, can be at all applied to their religion, but is
purely personal or prudential. No good man repineth at the liberty of
conscience they enjoy; and, perhaps a very moderate divine may think
better of their loyalty than others do; or, to speak after the manner of
men, may think it necessary, that all Protestants should be united against
the common enemy; or out of discretion, or other reasons best known to
himself, be tender of mentioning them at all. But still the errors of the
dissenters are all fixed and determined, and must, upon demand, be
acknowledged by all the divines of our church, whether they be called, in
party phrase, high or low, moderate or violent. And further, I believe it
would be hard to find many moderate divines, who, if their opinion were
asked whether dissenters should be trusted with power, could, according to
their consciences, answer in the affirmative; from whence it is plain,
that all the stir which the fanatics have made with this word moderation,
was only meant to increase our divisions, and widen them so far as to make
room for themselves to get in between. And this is the only scheme they
ever had (except that of destroying root and branch) for the uniting of
Protestants, they so much talk of.

I shall mention but one ill consequence more, which attends our want of
brotherly love; that it hath put an end to all hospitality and friendship,
all good correspondence and commerce between mankind. There are indeed
such things as leagues and confederacies among those of the same party;
but surely God never intended that men should be so limited in the choice
of their friends: However, so it is in town and country, in every parish
and street; the pastor is divided from his flock, the father from his son,
and the house often divided against itself. Men’s very natures are soured,
and their passions inflamed, when they meet in party clubs, and spend
their time in nothing else but railing at the opposite side; thus every
man alive among us is encompassed with a million of enemies of his own
country, among which his oldest acquaintance and friends, and kindred
themselves, are often of the number; neither can people of different
parties mix together without constraint, suspicion, or jealousy, watching
every word they speak, for fear of giving offence, or else falling into
rudeness and reproaches, and so leaving themselves open to the malice and
corruption of informers, who were never more numerous or expert in their
trade. And as a further addition to this evil, those very few, who, by the
goodness and generosity of their nature, do in their own hearts despise
this narrow principle of confining their friendship and esteem, their
charity and good offices, to those of their own party, yet dare not
discover their good inclinations, for fear of losing their favour and
interest. And others again, whom God had formed with mild and gentle
dispositions, think it necessary to put a force upon their own tempers, by
acting a noisy, violent, malicious part, as a means to be distinguished.
Thus hath party got the better of the very genius and constitution of our
people; so that whoever reads the character of the English in former ages,
will hardly believe their present posterity to be of the same nation or
climate.

III. I shall now, in the last place, make use of some motives and
exhortations, that may persuade you to embrace brotherly love, and
continue in it. Let me apply myself to you of the lower sort, and desire
you will consider, when any of you make use of fair and enticing words to
draw in customers, whether you do it for their sakes or your own. And
then, for whose sakes do you think it is, that your leaders are so
industrious to put into your heads all that party rage and virulence? Is
it not to make you the tools and instruments, by which they work out their
own designs? Has this spirit of faction been useful to any of you in your
worldly concerns, except to those who have traded in whispering,
backbiting, or informing, and wanted skill or honesty to thrive by fairer
methods? It is no business of yours to inquire, who is at the head of
armies, or of councils, unless you had power and skill to choose, neither
of which is ever likely to be your case; and therefore to fill your heads
with fears, and hatred of persons and things, of which it is impossible
you can ever make a right judgment, or to set you at variance with your
neighbour, because his thoughts are not the same as yours, is not only in
a very gross manner to cheat you of your time and quiet, but likewise to
endanger your souls.

Secondly: In order to restore brotherly love, let me earnestly
exhort you to stand firm in your religion; I mean, the true religion
hitherto established among us, without varying in the least either to
Popery on the one side, or to fanaticism on the other; and in a particular
manner beware of that word, moderation; and believe it, that your
neighbour is not immediately a villain, a Papist, and a traitor, because
the fanatics and their adherents will not allow him to be a moderate man.

Nay, it is very probable, that your teacher himself may be a loyal, pious,
and able divine, without the least grain of moderation, as the word is too
frequently understood. Therefore, to set you right in this matter, I will
lay before you the character of a truly moderate man, and then I will give
you the description of such a one as falsely pretendeth to that title.

A man truly moderate is steady in the doctrine and discipline of the
Church, but with a due Christian charity to all who dissent from it out of
a principle of conscience; the freedom of which, he thinketh, ought to be
fully allowed, as long as it is not abused, but never trusted with power.
He is ready to defend with his life and fortune the Protestant succession,
and the Protestant established faith, against all invaders whatsoever. He
is for giving the Crown its just prerogative, and the people their just
liberties. He hateth no man for differing from him in political opinions;
nor doth he think it a maxim infallible, that virtue should always attend
upon favour, and vice upon disgrace. These are some few lineaments in the
character of a truly moderate man; let us now compare it with the
description of one who usually passeth under that title.

A moderate man, in the new meaning of the word, is one to whom all
religion is indifferent; who although he denominates himself of the
Church, regardeth it no more than a conventicle. He perpetually raileth at
the body of the clergy, with exceptions only to a very few, who, he
hopeth, and probably upon false grounds, are as ready to betray their
rights and properties as himself. He thinketh the power of the people can
never be too great, nor that of the prince too little; and yet this very
notion he publisheth, as his best argument, to prove him a most loyal
subject. Every opinion in government, that differeth in the least from
his, tendeth directly to Popery, slavery, and rebellion. Whoever lieth
under the frown of power, can, in his judgment, neither have common sense,
common honesty, nor religion. Lastly, his devotion consisteth in drinking
gibbets, confusion, and damnation[1]; in profanely idolizing the memory of
one dead prince,[2] and ungratefully trampling upon the ashes of
another.[3]

[Footnote 1: The subject of these political toasts was the theme of much
discussion in Ireland. [S.]]

[Footnote 2: King William.]

[Footnote 3: Queen Anne.]

By these marks you will easily distinguish a truly moderate man from those
who are commonly, but very falsely, so called; and while persons thus
qualified are so numerous and so noisy, so full of zeal and industry to
gain proselytes, and spread their opinions among the people, it cannot be
wondered at that there should be so little brotherly love left among us.

Lastly: It would probably contribute to restore some degree of
brotherly love, if we would but consider, that the matter of those
disputes, which inflame us to this degree, doth not, in its own nature, at
all concern the generality of mankind. Indeed as to those who have been
great gainers or losers by the changes of the world, the case is
different; and to preach moderation to the first, and patience to the
last, would perhaps be to little purpose: But what is that to the bulk of
the people, who are not properly concerned in the quarrel, although evil
instruments have drawn them into it? For, if the reasonable men on both
sides were to confer opinions, they would find neither religion, loyalty,
nor interest, are at all affected in this dispute. Not religion, because
the members of the Church, on both sides, profess to agree in every
article: Not loyalty to our prince, which is pretended to by one party as
much as the other, and therefore can be no subject for debate: Not
interest, for trade and industry lie open to all; and, what is further,
concerns only those who have expectations from the public: So that the
body of the people, if they knew their own good, might yet live amicably
together, and leave their betters to quarrel among themselves, who might
also probably soon come to a better temper, if they were less seconded and
supported by the poor deluded multitude.

I have now done with my text, which I confess to have treated in a manner
more suited to the present times, than to the nature of the subject in
general. That I have not been more particular in explaining the several
parts and properties of this great duty of brotherly love, the apostle to
the Thessalonians will plead my excuse.—”Touching brotherly love”
(saith he) “ye need not that I write unto you, for ye yourselves are
taught of God to love one another[4].” So that nothing remains to add, but
our prayers to God, that he would please to restore and continue this duty
of brotherly love or charity among us, the very bond of peace and of all
virtues.

[Footnote 4: 1 Thess. iv. 9.]

Nov. 29, 1717.

THE DIFFICULTY OF KNOWING ONE’S-SELF.[1]

[Footnote 1: Prefixed to the issue in volume ten, “Miscellanies,” 1745, is
the following:

“ADVERTISEMENT.

“The manuscript title page of the following sermon being lost, and no
memorandum writ upon it, as there were upon the others, when and where it
was preached, made the editor doubtful whether he should print it as the
Dean’s, or not. But its being found amongst the same papers; and the hand,
though writ somewhat better, bearing a great similitude to the Dean’s,
made him willing to lay it before the public, that they might judge
whether the style and manner also does not render it still more probable
to be his.” [T.S.]]

2 KINGS, VIII. PART OF THE 13TH VERSE.

“And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
great thing?”

We have a very singular instance of the deceitfulness of the heart,
represented to us in the person of Hazael; who was sent to the prophet
Elisha, to enquire of the Lord concerning his master the King of Syria’s
recovery. For the man of God, having told him that the king might recover
from the disorder he was then labouring under, begun to set and fasten his
countenance upon him of a sudden, and to break out into the most violent
expressions of sorrow, and a deep concern for it; whereupon, when Hazael,
full of shame and confusion, asked, “Why weepeth my lord?” he answered,
“Because I know all the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of
Israel; their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt
thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their
women with child.” Thus much did the man of God say and know of him, by a
light darted into his mind from heaven. But Hazael not knowing himself so
well as the other did, was startled and amazed at the relation, and would
not believe it possible that a man of his temper could ever run out into
such enormous instances of cruelty and inhumanity. “What!” says he, “is
thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?”

And yet, for all this, it is highly probable that he was then that man he
could not imagine himself to be; for we find him, on the very next day
after his return, in a very treacherous and disloyal manner murdering his
own master, and usurping his kingdom; which was but a prologue to the sad
tragedy which he afterwards acted upon the people of Israel.

And now the case is but very little better with most men, than it was with
Hazael; however it comes to pass, they are wonderfully unacquainted with
their own temper and disposition, and know very little of what passes
within them: For of so many proud, ambitious, revengeful, envying, and
ill-natured persons, that are in the world, where is there one of them,
who, although he has all the symptoms of the vice appearing upon every
occasion, can look with such an impartial eye upon himself, as to believe
that the imputation thrown upon him is not altogether groundless and
unfair? Who, if he were told by men of a discerning spirit and a strong
conjecture, of all the evil and absurd things which that false heart of
his would at one time or other betray him into, would not believe as
little, and wonder as much, as Hazael did before him? Thus, for instance;
tell an angry person that he is weak and impotent, and of no consistency
of mind; tell him, that such or such a little accident, which he may then
despise and think much below a passion, shall hereafter make him say and
do several absurd, indiscreet, and misbecoming things: He may perhaps own
that he has a spirit of resentment within him, that will not let him be
imposed on, but he fondly imagines that he can lay a becoming restraint
upon it when he pleases, although ’tis ever running away with him into
some indecency or other.

Therefore, to bring the words of my text to our present occasion, I shall
endeavour, in a further prosecution of them, to evince the great necessity
of a nice and curious inspection into the several recesses of the heart,
being the surest and the shortest method that a wicked man can take to
reform himself: For let us but stop the fountain, and the streams will
spend and waste themselves away in a very little time; but if we go about,
like children, to raise a bank, and to stop the current, not taking notice
all the while of the spring which continually feeds it, when the next
flood of temptation rises, and breaks in upon it, then we shall find that
we have begun at the wrong end of our duty, and that we are very little
more the better for it, than if we had sat still, and made no advances at
all.

But, in order to a clearer explanation of the point, I shall speak to
these following particulars:—

First: By endeavouring to prove, from particular instances, that
man is generally the most ignorant creature in the world of himself.

Secondly: By inquiring into the grounds and reasons of his
ignorance.

Thirdly and Lastly: By proposing several advantages that do
most assuredly attend a due improvement in the knowledge of ourselves.

First, then: To prove that man is generally the most ignorant
creature in the world, of himself.

To pursue the heart of man through all the instances of life, in all its
several windings and turnings, and under that infinite variety of shapes
and appearances which it puts on, would be a difficult and almost
impossible undertaking; so that I shall confine myself to such as have a
nearer reference to the present occasion, and do, upon a closer view, shew
themselves through the whole business of repentance. For we all know what
it is to repent, but whether he repents him truly of his sins or not, who
can know it?

Now the great duty of repentance is chiefly made up of these two parts, a
hearty sorrow for the follies and miscarriages of the time past, and a
full purpose and resolution of amendment for the time to come. And now, to
shew the falseness of the heart in both these parts of repentance, And

First: As to a hearty sorrow for the sins and miscarriages of the
time past. Is there a more usual thing than for a man to impose upon
himself, by putting on a grave and demure countenance, by casting a severe
look into his past conduct, and making some few pious and devout
reflections upon it, and then to believe that he has repented to an
excellent purpose, without ever letting it step forth into practice, and
shew itself in a holy conversation? Nay, some persons do carry the deceit
a little higher; who if they can but bring themselves to weep for their
sins, they are then full of an ill-grounded confidence and security; never
considering that all this may prove to be no more than the very garb and
outward dress of a contrite heart, which another heart, as hard as the
nether millstone, may as well put on. For tears and sighs, however in some
persons they may be decent and commendable expressions of a godly sorrow,
are neither necessary, nor infallible signs of a true and unfeigned
repentance. Not necessary, because sometimes, and in some persons, the
inward grief and anguish of the mind may be too big to be expressed by so
little a thing as a tear, and then it turneth its edge inward upon the
mind; and like those wounds of the body which bleed inwardly, generally
proves the most fatal and dangerous to the whole body of sin: Not
infallible, because a very small portion of sorrow may make some tender
dispositions melt, and break out into tears; or a man may perhaps weep at
parting with his sins, as he would bid the last farewell to an old friend.

But there is still a more pleasant cheat in this affair, that when we find
a deadness, and a strange kind of unaptness and indisposition to all
impressions of religion, and that we cannot be as truly sorry for our sins
as we should be, we then pretend to be sorry that we are not more sorry
for them; which is not more absurd and irrational, than that a man should
pretend to be very angry at a thing, because he did not know how to be
angry at all.

But after all, what is wanting in this part of repentance, we expect to
make up in the next; and to that purpose we put on a resolution of
amendment, which we take to be as firm as a house built upon a rock; so
that let the floods arise, and the winds blow, and the streams beat
vehemently upon it, nothing shall shake it into ruin or disorder. We doubt
not, upon the strength of this resolve, to stand fast and unmoved amid the
storm of a temptation; and do firmly believe, at the time we make it, that
nothing in the world will ever be able to make us commit those sins over
again, which we have so firmly resolved against.

Thus many a time have we come to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, with
a full purpose of amendment, and with as full a persuasion of putting that
same purpose into practice; and yet have we not all as often broke that
good purpose, and falsified that same persuasion, by starting aside, like
a broken bow, into those very sins, which we then so solemnly and so
confidently declared against?

Whereas had but any other person entered with us into a vow so solemn,
that he had taken the Holy Sacrament upon it, I believe had he but once
deceived us by breaking in upon the vow, we should hardly ever after be
prevailed upon to trust that man again, though we still continue to trust
our own fears, against reason and against experience.

This indeed is a dangerous deceit enough, and will of course betray all
those well-meaning persons into sin and folly, who are apt to take
religion for a much easier thing than it is. But this is not the only
mistake we are apt to run into; we do not only think sometimes that we can
do more than we can do, but sometimes that we are incapable of doing less;
an error of another kind indeed, but not less dangerous, arising from a
diffidence and false humility. For how much a wicked man can do in the
business of religion, if he would but do his best, is very often more than
he can tell.

Thus nothing is more common than to see a wicked man running headlong into
sin and folly, against his reason, against his religion, and against his
God. Tell him, that what he is going to do will be an infinite
disparagement to his understanding, which, at another time, he sets no
small value upon; tell him that it will blacken his reputation, which he
had rather die for than lose; tell him that the pleasure of sin is short
and transient, and leaves a vexatious kind of sting behind it, which will
very hardly be drawn forth; tell him that this is one of those things for
which God will most surely bring him to judgment, which he pretends to
believe with a full assurance and persuasion: And yet for all this, he
shuts his eyes against all conviction, and rusheth into the sin like a
horse into battle; as if he had nothing left to do, but, like a silly
child to wink hard, and to think to escape a certain and infinite
mischief, only by endeavouring not to see it.

And now to shew that the heart has given in a false report of the
temptation, we may learn from this, that the same weak man would resist
and master the same powerful temptation, upon considerations of infinitely
less value than those which religion offers, nay such vile considerations,
that the grace of God cannot without blasphemy be supposed to add any
manner of force and efficacy to them. Thus for instance, it would be a
hard matter to dress up a sin in such soft and tempting circumstances,
that a truly covetous man would not resist for a considerable sum of
money; when neither the hopes of heaven nor the fears of hell could make
an impression upon him before. But can anything be a surer indication of
the deceitfulness of the heart, than thus to shew more courage,
resolution, and activity, in an ill cause, than it does in a good one? And
to exert itself to better purpose, when it is to serve its own pride, or
lust, or revenge, or any other passion, than when it is to serve God upon
motives of the Gospel, and upon all the arguments that have ever been made
use of to bring men over to religion and a good life? And thus having
shewn that man is wonderfully apt to deceive and impose upon himself, in
passing through the several stages of that great duty, repentance, I
proceed now, in the

Second place: To inquire into the grounds and reasons of this
ignorance, and to shew whence it comes to pass that man, the only
creature in the world that can reflect and look into himself, should know
so little of what passes within him, and be so very much unacquainted even
with the standing dispositions and complexion of his own heart. The
prime reason of it is, because we so very seldom converse with ourselves,
and take so little notice of what passes within us: For a man can no more
know his own heart than he can know his own face, any other way than by
reflection: He may as well tell over every feature of the smaller portions
of his face without the help of a looking-glass, as he can tell all the
inward bents and tendencies of his soul, those standing features and
lineaments of the inward man, and know all the various changes that this
is liable to from custom, from passion, and from opinion, without a very
frequent use of looking within himself.

For our passions and inclinations are not always upon the wing, and always
moving toward their respective objects, but retire now and then into the
more dark and hidden recesses of the heart, where they lie concealed for a
while, until a fresh occasion calls them forth again: So that not every
transient, oblique glance upon the mind can bring a man into a thorough
knowledge of all its strength and weaknesses; for a man may sometimes turn
the eye of the mind inward upon itself, as he may behold his natural face
in a glass, and go away, “and straight forget what manner of man he was.”
But a man must rather sit down and unravel every action of the past day
into all its circumstances and particularities, and observe how every
little thing moved and affected him, and what manner of impression it made
upon his heart; this done with that frequency and carefulness which the
importance of the duty does require, would in a short time bring him into
a nearer and more intimate acquaintance with himself.

But when men instead of this do pass away months and years in a perfect
slumber of the mind, without once awaking it, it is no wonder they should
be so very ignorant of themselves, and know very little more of what
passes within them than the very beasts which perish. But here it may not
be amiss to inquire into the reasons why most men have so little
conversation with themselves.

And, first: Because this reflection is a work and labour of the
mind, and cannot be performed without some pain and difficulty: For,
before a man can reflect upon himself, and look into his heart with a
steady eye, he must contract his sight, and collect all his scattering and
roving thoughts into some order and compass, that he may be able to take a
clear and distinct view of them; he must retire from the world for a
while, and be unattentive to all impressions of sense; and how hard and
painful a thing must it needs be to a man of passion and infirmity, amid
such a crowd of objects that are continually striking upon the sense, and
soliciting the affections, not to be moved and interrupted by one or other
of them. But,

Secondly: Another reason why we so seldom converse with ourselves,
is, because the business of the world takes up all our time, and leaveth
us no portion of it to spend upon this great work and labour of the mind.
Thus twelve or fourteen years pass away before we can well discern good
from evil; and of the rest so much goes away in sleep, so much in the
proper business of our calling, that we have none to lay out upon the more
serious and religious employments. Every man’s life is an imperfect sort
of a circle, which he repeats and runs over every day; he has a set of
thoughts, desires, and inclinations, which return upon him in their proper
time and order, and will very hardly be laid aside, to make room for
anything new and uncommon: So that call upon him when you please, to set
about the study of his own heart, and you are sure to find him
pre-engaged; either he has some business to do, or some diversion to take,
some acquaintance that he must visit, or some company that he must
entertain, or some cross accident has put him out of humour, and unfitted
him for such a grave employment. And thus it cometh to pass that a man can
never find leisure to look into himself, because he does not set apart
some portion of the day for that very purpose, but foolishly defers it
from one day to another, till his glass is almost run out, and he is
called to give a miserable account of himself in the other world. But,

Thirdly, Another reason why a man does not more frequently converse
with himself, is, because such conversation with his own heart may
discover some vice or some infirmity lurking within him, which he is very
unwilling to believe himself guilty of. For can there be a more ungrateful
thing to a man, than to find that upon a nearer view he is not that person
he took himself to be? That he had neither the courage, nor the honesty,
nor the piety, nor the humility that he dreamed he had? That a very little
pain, for instance, putteth him out of patience, and as little pleasure
softens and disarms him into ease and wantonness? That he has been at more
pains, and labour, and cost, to be revenged of an enemy, than to oblige
the best friend he has in the world? That he cannot bring himself to say
his prayers, without a great deal of reluctancy; and when he does say
them, the spirit and fervour of devotion evaporate in a very short time,
and he can scarcely hold out a prayer of ten lines, without a number of
idle and impertinent, if not vain and wicked thoughts coming into his
head? These are very unwelcome discoveries that a man may make of himself;
so that ’tis no wonder that every one who is already flushed with a good
opinion of himself, should rather study how to run away from it, than how
to converse with his own heart.

But further, if a man were both able and willing to retire into his own
heart, and to set apart some portion of the day for that very purpose; yet
he is still disabled from passing a fair and impartial judgment upon
himself, by several difficulties, arising partly from prejudice and
prepossession, partly from the lower appetites and inclinations. And,

First: That the business of prepossession may lead and betray a man
into a false judgment of his own heart. For we may observe, that the first
opinion we take up of anything, or any person, does generally stick close
to us; the nature of the mind being such, that it cannot but desire, and
consequently endeavour to have some certain principles to go upon,
something fixed and unmoveable, whereon it may rest and support itself.
And hence it comes to pass, that some persons are with so much difficulty
brought to think well of a man they have once entertained an ill opinion
of: and perhaps that too for a very absurd and unwarrantable reason. But
how much more difficult then must it be for a man, who takes up a fond
opinion of his own heart long before he has either years or sense enough
to understand it, either to be persuaded out of it by himself, whom he
loveth so well, or by another, whose interest or diversion it may be to
make him ashamed of himself! Then,

Secondly: As to the difficulties arising from the inferior
appetites and inclinations, let any man look into his own heart, and
observe in how different a light, and under what different complexions,
any two sins of equal turpitude and malignity do appear to him, if he has
but a strong inclination to the one, and none at all to the other. That
which he has an inclination to, is always drest up in all the false beauty
that a fond and busy imagination can give it; the other appears naked and
deformed, and in all the true circumstances of folly and dishonour. Thus
stealing is a vice that few gentlemen are inclined to; and they justly
think it below the dignity of a man to stoop to so base and low a sin; but
no principle of honour, no workings of the mind and conscience, not the
still voice of mercy, not the dreadful call of judgment, nor any
considerations whatever, can put a stop to that violence and oppression,
that pride and ambition, that revelling and wantonness, which we every day
meet with in the world. Nay, it is easy to observe very different thoughts
in a man, of the sin that he is most fond of, according to, the different
ebbs and flows of his inclination to it For as soon as the appetite is
alarmed, and seizeth upon the heart, a little cloud gathereth about the
head, and spreads a kind of darkness over the face of the soul, whereby
’tis hindered from taking a clear and distinct view of things; but no
sooner is the appetite tired and satiated, but the same cloud passes away
like a shadow, and a new light springing up in the mind of a sudden, the
man sees much more, both of the folly and of the danger of the sin, than
he did before.

And thus having done with the several reasons why man, the only creature
in the world that can reflect and look into himself, is so very ignorant
of what passes within him, and so much unacquainted with the standing
dispositions and complexions of his own heart: I proceed now, in the

Third and Last place, to lay down several advantages, that
do most assuredly attend a due improvement in the knowledge of
ourselves. And,

First: One great advantage is, that it tends very much to mortify
and humble a man into a modest and low opinion of himself. For let a man
take a nice and curious inspection into all the several regions of the
heart, and observe every thing irregular and amiss within him: for
instance, how narrow and short-sighted a thing is the understanding; upon
how little reason do we take up an opinion, and upon how much less
sometimes do we lay it down again, how weak and false ground do we often
walk upon with the biggest confidence and assurance, and how tremulous and
doubtful are we very often where no doubt is to be made. Again; how wild
and impertinent, how busy and incoherent a thing is the imagination, even
in the best and wisest men; insomuch that every man may be said to be mad,
but every man does not shew it. Then as to the passions; how noisy, how
turbulent, and how tumultuous are they, how easy they are stirred and set
a-going, how eager and hot in the pursuit, and what strange disorder and
confusion do they throw a man into; so that he can neither think, nor
speak, nor act as he should do, while he is under the dominion of any one
of them.

Thus let every man look with a severe and impartial eye into all the
distinct regions of the heart, and no doubt, several deformities and
irregularities, that he never thought of, will open and disclose
themselves upon so near a view; and rather make the man ashamed of
himself, than proud.

Secondly: A due improvement in the knowledge of ourselves does
certainly secure us from the sly and insinuating assaults of flattery.
There is not in the world a baser and more hateful thing than flattery; it
proceeds from so much falseness and insincerity in the man that gives it,
and often discovers so much weakness and folly in the man that takes it,
that it is hard to tell which of the two is most to be blamed. Every man
of common sense can demonstrate in speculation, and may be fully
convinced, that all the praises and commendations of the whole world can
add no more to the real and intrinsic value of a man, than they can add to
his stature. And yet, for all this, men of the best sense and piety, when
they come down to the practice, cannot forbear thinking much better of
themselves, when they have the good fortune to be spoken well of by other
persons.

But the meaning of this absurd proceeding seems to be no other than this;
there are few men that have so intimate an acquaintance with their own
heart, as to know their own real worth, and how to set a just rate upon
themselves, and therefore they do not know but that he who praises them
most, may be most in the right of it. For, no doubt, if a man were
ignorant of the true value of a thing he loved as well as himself, he
would measure the worth of it according to the esteem of him who bids most
for it, rather than of him that bids less.

Therefore, the most infallible way to disentangle a man from the snares of
flattery, is, to consult and study his own heart; for whoever does that
well, will hardly be so absurd, as to take another man’s word, before his
own sense and experience.

Thirdly: Another advantage from this kind of study, is this, that
it teaches a man how to behave himself patiently, when he has the ill
fortune to be censured and abused by other people. For a man who is
thoroughly acquainted with his own heart, does already know more evil of
himself, than anybody else can tell him; and when any one speaks ill of
him, he rather thanks God that he can say no worse. For could his enemy
but look into the dark and hidden recesses of the heart, he considers what
a number of impure thoughts he might there see brooding and hovering, like
a dark cloud, upon the face of the soul; that there he might take a
prospect of the fancy, and view it acting over the several scenes of
pride, of ambition, of envy, of lust, and revenge; that there he might
tell how often a vicious inclination has been restrained, for no other
reason but just to save the man’s credit or interest in the world; and how
many unbecoming ingredients have entered into the composition of his best
actions. And now, what man in the whole world would be able to bear so
severe a test, to have every thought and inward motion of the heart laid
open and exposed to the views of his enemies? But,

Fourthly, and Lastly: Another advantage of this kind is,
that it makes men less severe upon other people’s faults, and less busy
and industrious in spreading them. For a man, employed at home, inspecting
into his own failings, has not leisure to take notice of every little spot
and blemish that lies scattered upon others. Or if he cannot escape the
sight of them, he always passes the most easy and favourable construction
upon them. Thus, for instance; does the ill he knows of a man proceed from
an unhappy temper and constitution of body? He then considers with
himself, how hard a thing it is, not to be borne down with the current of
the blood and spirits, and accordingly lays some part of the blame upon
the weakness of human nature, for he has felt the force and rapidity of it
within his own breast; though perhaps, in another instance, he remembers
how it rages and swells by opposition; and though it may be restrained, or
diverted for a while, yet it can hardly ever be totally subdued.

Or has the man sinned out of custom? He then, from his own experience,
traces a habit into the very first rise and imperfect beginnings of it;
and can tell by how slow and insensible advances it creeps upon the heart;
how it works itself by degrees into the very frame and texture of it, and
so passes into a second nature; and consequently he has a just sense of
the great difficulty for him to learn to do good, who has been long
accustomed to do evil.

Or, lastly, has a false opinion betrayed him into a sin? He then calls to
mind what wrong apprehensions he has made of some things himself; how many
opinions, that he once made no doubt of, he has, upon a stricter
examination found to be doubtful and uncertain; how many more to be
unreasonable and absurd. He knows further, that there are a great many
more opinions that he has never yet examined into at all, and which,
however, he still believes, for no other reason, but because he has
believed them so long already without a reason. Thus, upon every occasion,
a man intimately acquainted with himself, consults his own heart, and
makes every man’s case to be his own, (and so puts the most favourable
interpretation upon it). Let every man therefore look into his own heart,
before he beginneth to abuse the reputation of another, and then he will
hardly be so absurd as to throw a dart that will so certainly rebound and
wound himself. And thus, through the whole course of his conversation, let
him keep an eye upon that one great comprehensive rule of Christian duty,
on which hangs, not only the law and the prophets, but the very life and
spirit of the Gospel too: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, do ye even so unto them.” Which rule, that we may all duly observe,
by throwing aside all scandal and detraction, all spite and rancour, all
rudeness and contempt, all rage and violence, and whatever tends to make
conversation and commerce either uneasy, or troublesome, may the God of
peace grant for Jesus Christ his sake, &c.

Consider what has been said, &c.

ON FALSE WITNESS.

EXODUS, XX. 16.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

In those great changes that are made in a country by the prevailing of one
party over another, it is very convenient that the prince, and those who
are in authority under him, should use all just and proper methods for
preventing any mischief to the public from seditious men. And governors do
well, when they encourage any good subject to discover (as his duty
obligeth him) whatever plots or conspiracies may be anyway dangerous to
the state: Neither are they to be blamed, even when they receive
informations from bad men, in order to find out the truth, when it
concerns the public welfare. Every one indeed is naturally inclined to
have an ill opinion of an informer; although it is not impossible but an
honest man may be called by that name. For whoever knoweth anything, the
telling of which would prevent some great evil to his prince, his country,
or his neighbour, is bound in conscience to reveal it. But the mischief
is, that, when parties are violently enflamed, which seemeth unfortunately
to be our case at present, there is never wanting a set of evil
instruments, who, either out of mad zeal, private hatred, or filthy lucre,
are always ready to offer their service to the prevailing side, and become
accusers of their brethren, without any regard to truth or charity. Holy
David numbers this among the chief of his sufferings; “False witnesses are
risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.”[1] Our Saviour and
his apostles did likewise undergo the same distress, as we read both in
the Gospels and the Acts.

[Footnote 1: Psalm xxvii. 12.]

Now, because the sign of false witnessing is so horrible and dangerous in
itself, and so odious to God and man; and because the bitterness of too
many among us is risen to such a height, that it is not easy to know where
it will stop, or how far some weak and wicked minds may be carried by a
mistaken zeal, a malicious temper, or hope of reward, to break this great
commandment delivered in the text; therefore, in order to prevent this
evil, and the consequences of it, at least among you who are my hearers, I
shall,

I. First: Shew you several ways by which a man may be called a
false witness against his neighbour.

II. Secondly: I shall give you some rules for your conduct and
behaviour, in order to defend yourselves against the malice and cunning of
false accusers.

III. And lastly: I shall conclude with shewing you very briefly,
how far it is your duty, as good subjects and good neighbours, to bear
faithful witness, when you are lawfully called to it by those in
authority, or by the sincere advice of your own consciences,

I. As to the first, there are several ways by which a man may be justly
called a false witness against his neighbour.

First, According to the direct meaning of the word, when a man
accuseth his neighbour without the least ground of truth. So we read, that
Jezebel hired two sons of Belial to accuse Naboth for blaspheming God and
the King, for which, although he was entirely innocent, he was stoned to
death.[2] And in our age it is not easy, to tell how many men have lost
their lives, been ruined in their fortunes, and put to ignominious
punishment by the downright perjury of false witnesses! The law itself in
such cases being not able to protect the innocent. But this is so horrible
a crime, that it doth not need to be aggravated by words.

[Footnote 2: i Kings, xxi. 8-13.]

A second way by which a man becometh a false witness is, when he mixeth
falsehood and truth together, or concealeth some circumstances, which, if
they were told; would destroy the falsehoods he uttereth. So the two false
witnesses who accused our Saviour before the chief priests, by a very
little perverting his words, would have made him guilty of a capital
crime: for so it was among the Jews to prophesy any evil against the
Temple: “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to
build it in three days;”[3] whereas the words, as our Saviour spoke them,
were to another end, and differently expressed: For when the Jews asked
him to shew them a sign, he said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up.” In such cases as these, an innocent man is half
confounded, and looketh as if he were guilty, since he neither can deny
his words, nor perhaps readily strip them from the malicious additions of
a false witness.

[Footnote 3: Mat. xxvi. 6]

Thirdly: A man is a false witness, when, in accusing his neighbour,
he endeavoureth to aggravate by his gestures and tone of his voice, or
when he chargeth a man with words which were only repeated or quoted from
somebody else. As if any one should tell me that he heard another speak
certain dangerous and seditious speeches, and I should immediately accuse
him for speaking them himself; and so drop the only circumstance that made
him innocent. This was the case of St Stephen. The false witness said,
“This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place
and the law.”[4] Whereas St Stephen said no such words; but only repeated
some prophecies of Jeremiah or Malachi, which threatened Jerusalem with
destruction if it did not repent. However, by the fury of the people, this
innocent holy person was stoned to death for words he never spoke.

[Footnote 4: Acts, vi. 13.]

Fourthly: The blackest kind of false witnesses are those who do the
office of the devil, by tempting their brethren in order to betray them. I
cannot call to mind any instances of this kind mentioned in Holy
Scripture. But I am afraid, this vile practice hath been too much followed
in the world. When a man’s temper hath been so soured by misfortunes and
hard usage, that perhaps he hath reason enough to complain; then one of
these seducers, under the pretence of friendship, will seem to lament his
case, urge the hardships he hath suffered, and endeavour to raise his
passions, until he hath said something that a malicious informer can
pervert or aggravate against him in a court of justice.

Fifthly: Whoever beareth witness against his neighbour, out of a
principle of malice and revenge, from any old grudge, or hatred to his
person; such a man is a false witness in the sight of God, although what
he says be true; because the motive or cause is evil, not to serve his
prince or country, but to gratify his own resentments. And therefore,
although a man thus accused may be very justly punished by the law, yet
this doth by no means acquit the accuser, who, instead of regarding the
public service, intended only to glut his private rage and spite.

Sixthly: I number among false witnesses, all those who make a trade
of being informers in hope of favour or reward; and to this end employ
their time, either by listening in public places, to catch up an
accidental word; or in corrupting men’s servants to discover any unwary
expression of their master; or thrusting themselves into company, and then
using the most indecent scurrilous language; fastening a thousand
falsehoods and scandals upon a whole party, on purpose to provoke such an
answer as they may turn to an accusation. And truly this ungodly race is
said to be grown so numerous, that men of different parties can hardly
converse together with any security. Even the pulpit hath not been free
from the misrepresentation of these informers; of whom the clergy have not
wanted occasions to complain with holy David: “They daily mistake my
words, all they imagine is to do me evil.” Nor is it any wonder at all,
that this trade of informing should be now in a flourishing condition,
since our case is manifestly thus: We are divided into two parties, with
very little charity or temper toward each other; the prevailing side may
talk of past things as they please, with security; and generally do it in
the most provoking words they can invent; while those who are down, are
sometimes tempted to speak in favour of a lost cause, and therefore,
without great caution, must needs be often caught tripping, and thereby
furnish plenty of materials for witnesses and informers.

Lastly: Those may be well reckoned among false witnesses against
their neighbour, who bring him into trouble and punishment by such
accusations as are of no consequence at all to the public, nor can be of
any other use but to create vexation. Such witnesses are those who cannot
hear an idle intemperate expression, but they must immediately run to the
magistrate to inform; or perhaps wrangling in their cups over night, when
they were not able to speak or apprehend three words of common sense, will
pretend to remember everything the next morning, and think themselves very
properly qualified to be accusers of their brethren. God be thanked, the
throne of our King[5] is too firmly settled to be shaken by the folly and
rashness of every sottish companion. And I do not in the least doubt, that
when those in power begin to observe the falsehood, the prevarication, the
aggravating manner, the treachery and seducing, the malice and revenge,
the love of lucre, and lastly, the trifling accusations in too many wicked
people, they will be as ready to discourage every sort of those whom I
have numbered among false witnesses, as they will be to countenance honest
men, who, out of a true zeal to their prince and country, do, in the
innocence of their hearts, freely discover whatever they may apprehend to
be dangerous to either. A good Christian will think it sufficient to
reprove his brother for a rash unguarded word, where there is neither
danger nor evil example to be apprehended; or, if he will not amend by
reproof, avoid his conversation.

[Footnote 5: George I.]

II. And thus much may serve to shew the several ways whereby a man may be
said to be a false witness against his neighbour. I might have added one
kind more, and it is of those who inform against their neighbour out of
fear of punishment to themselves, which, although it be more excusable,
and hath less of malice than any of the rest, cannot, however, be
justified. I go on, therefore, upon the second head, to give you some
rules for your conduct and behaviour, in order to defend yourselves
against the malice and cunning of false accusers.

It is readily agreed, that innocence is the best protection in the world;
yet that it is not always sufficient without some degree of prudence, our
Saviour himself intimateth to us, by instructing his disciples “to be wise
as serpents, as well as innocent as doves.” But if ever innocence be too
weak a defence, it is chiefly so in jealous and suspicious times, when
factions are arrived to an high pitch of animosity, and the minds of men,
instead of being warmed by a true zeal for religion, are inflamed only by
party fury. Neither is virtue itself a sufficient security in such times,
because it is not allowed to be virtue, otherwise than as it hath a
mixture of party.

However, although virtue and innocence are no infallible defence against
perjury, malice, and subornation, yet they are great supports for enabling
us to bear those evils with temper and resignation; and it is an
unspeakable comfort to a good man under the malignity of evil mercenary
tongues, that a few years will carry his appeal to an higher tribunal,
where false witnesses, instead of daring to bring accusations before an
all-seeing Judge, will call for mountains to cover them. As for earthly
judges, they seldom have it in their power; and, God knows, whether they
have it in their will, to mingle mercy with justice; they are so far from
knowing the hearts of the accuser or the accused, that they cannot know
their own; and their understanding is frequently biassed, although their
intentions be just. They are often prejudiced to causes, parties, and
persons, through the infirmity of human nature, without being sensible
themselves that they are so: And therefore, although God may pardon their
errors here, he certainly will not ratify their sentences hereafter.

However, since as we have before observed, our Saviour prescribeth to us
to be not only harmless as doves, but wise as serpents; give me leave to
prescribe to you some rules, which the most ignorant person may follow for
the conduct of his life, with safety in perilous times, against false
accusers.

1st, Let me advise you to have nothing at all to do with that which is
commonly called politics, or the government of the world, in the nature of
which it is certain you are utterly ignorant, and when your opinion is
wrong, although it proceeds from ignorance, it shall be an accusation
against you. Besides, opinions in government are right or wrong, just
according to the humour and disposition of the times; and, unless you have
judgment to distinguish, you may be punished at one time for what you
would be rewarded in another.

2dly, Be ready at all times, in your words and actions, to shew your
loyalty to the king that reigns over you. This is the plain manifest
doctrine of Holy Scripture: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man
for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme,” &c.[6] And
another apostle telleth us, “The powers that be are ordained of God.”
Kings are the ordinances of man by the permission of God, and they are
ordained of God by his instrument man. The powers that be, the present
powers, which are ordained by God, and yet in some sense are the
ordinances of man, are what you must obey, without presuming to examine
into rights and titles; neither can it be reasonably expected, that the
powers in being, or in possession, should suffer their title to be
publicly disputed by subjects without severe punishment. And to say the
truth, there is no duty in religion more easy to the generality of
mankind, than obedience to government: I say to the generality of mankind;
because while their law, and property, and religion are preserved, it is
of no great consequence to them by whom they are governed, and therefore
they are under no temptation to desire a change.

[Footnote 6: I Peter, ii. 13.]

3dly, In order to prevent any charge from the malice of false witnesses,
be sure to avoid intemperance. If it be often so hard for men to govern
their tongues when they are in their right senses, how can they hope to do
it when they are heated with drink? In those cases most men regard not
what they say, and too many not what they swear; neither will a man’s
memory, disordered with drunkenness, serve to defend himself, or satisfy
him whether he were guilty or no.

4thly, Avoid, as much as possible, the conversation of those people, who
are given to talk of public persons and affairs, especially of those whose
opinions in such matters are different from yours. I never once knew any
disputes of this kind managed with tolerable temper; but on both sides
they only agree as much as possible to provoke the passions of each other,
indeed with this disadvantage, that he who argueth on the side of power
may speak securely the utmost his malice can invent; while the other lieth
every moment at the mercy of an informer; and the law, in these cases,
will give no allowance at all for passion, inadvertency, or the highest
provocation.

I come now in the last place to shew you how far it is your duty as good
subjects and good neighbours to bear faithful witness, when you are
lawfully called to it by those in authority, or by the sincere advice of
your own consciences.

In what I have hitherto said, you easily find, that I do not talk of
bearing witness in general, which is and may be lawful upon a thousand
accounts in relation to property and other matters, and wherein there are
many scandalous corruptions, almost peculiar to this country, which would
require to be handled by themselves. But I have confined my discourse only
to that branch of bearing false witness, whereby the public is injured in
the safety or honour of the prince, or those in authority under him.

In order therefore to be a faithful witness, it is first necessary that a
man doth not undertake it from the least prospect of any private advantage
to himself. The smallest mixture of that leaven will sour the whole lump.
Interest will infallibly bias his judgment, although he be ever so firmly
resolved to say nothing but truth. He cannot serve God and Mammon; but as
interest is his chief end, he will use the most effectual means to advance
it. He will aggravate circumstances to make his testimony valuable; he
will be sorry if the person he accuseth should be able to clear himself;
in short, he is labouring a point which he thinks necessary to his own
good; and it would be a disappointment to him, that his neighbour should
prove innocent.

5thly, Every good subject is obliged to bear witness against his
neighbour, for any action or words, the telling of which would be of
advantage to the public, and the concealment dangerous, or of ill example.
Of this nature are all plots and conspiracies against the peace of a
nation, all disgraceful words against a prince, such as clearly discover a
disloyal and rebellious heart: But where our prince and country can
possibly receive no damage or disgrace; where no scandal or ill example is
given; and our neighbour, it may be, provoked by us, happeneth privately
to drop a rash or indiscreet word, which in strictness of law might bring
him under trouble, perhaps to his utter undoing; there we are obliged, we
ought, to proceed no further than warning and reproof.

In describing to you the several kinds of false witnesses, I have made it
less necessary to dwell much longer upon this head; because a faithful
witness like everything else is known by his contrary: Therefore it would
be only a repetition of what I have already said to tell you, that the
strictest truth is required in a witness; that he should be wholly free
from malice against the person he accuses; that he should not aggravate
the smallest circumstance against the criminal, nor conceal the smallest
in his favour; and to crown all, though I have hinted it before, that the
only cause or motive of his undertaking an office, so subject to censure,
and so difficult to perform, should be the safety and service of his
prince and country.

Under these conditions and limitations (but not otherwise,) there is no
manner of doubt but a good man may lawfully and justly become a witness in
behalf of the public, and may perform that office (in its own nature not
very desirable) with honour and integrity. For the command in the text is
positive as well as negative; that is to say, as we are directed not to
bear false witness against our neighbour, so we are to bear true. Next to
the word of God, and the advice of teachers, every man’s conscience,
strictly examined, will be his best director in this weighty point; and to
that I shall leave him.

It might perhaps be thought proper to have added something by way of
advice to those who are unhappily engaged in this abominable trade and sin
of bearing false witness; but I am far from believing or supposing any of
that destructive tribe are now my hearers. I look upon them as a sort of
people that seldom frequent these holy places, where they can hardly pick
up any materials to serve their turn, unless they think it worth their
while to misrepresent or pervert the words of the preacher: And whoever is
that way disposed, I doubt, cannot be in a very good condition to edify
and reform himself by what he heareth. God in his mercy preserve us from
all the guilt of this grievous sin forbidden in my text, and from the
snares of those who are guilty of it!

I shall conclude with one or two precepts given by Moses, from God, to the
children of Israel, in the xxiiid of Exod. 1, 2.

“Thou shalt not raise a false report: Put not thine hand with the wicked,
to be an unrighteous witness.

“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil, neither shalt them speak in
a cause to decline after many, to wrest judgment.”

Now to God the Father, &c.

ON THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.[1]

[Footnote 1: The title of this sermon as given in Contents of Swift’s
“Works,” vol. viii., pt. i. (4to, 1765) is, “A Sermon upon the Excellence
of Christianity in Opposition to Heathen Philosophy.” [T.S.]]

I COR. III. 19.

“The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”

It is remarkable that, about the time of our Saviour’s coming into the
world, all kinds of learning flourished to a very great degree, insomuch
that nothing is more frequent in the mouths of many men, even such who
pretend to read and to know, than an extravagant praise and opinion of the
wisdom and virtue of the Gentile sages of those days, and likewise of
those ancient philosophers who went before them, whose doctrines are left
upon record either by themselves or other writers. As far as this may be
taken for granted, it may be said, that the providence of God brought this
about for several very wise ends and purposes: For, it is certain that
these philosophers had been a long time before searching out where to fix
the true happiness of man; and, not being able to agree upon any certainty
about it, they could not possibly but conclude, if they judged
impartially, that all their enquiries were, in the end, but vain and
fruitless; the consequence of which must be not only an acknowledgment of
the weakness of all human wisdom, but likewise an open passage hereby
made, for the letting in those beams of light, which the glorious sunshine
of the Gospel then brought into the world, by revealing those hidden
truths, which they had so long before been labouring to discover, and
fixing the general happiness of mankind beyond all controversy and
dispute. And therefore the providence of God wisely suffered men of deep
genius and learning then to arise, who should search into the truth of the
Gospel now made known, and canvass its doctrines with all the subtilty and
knowledge they were masters of, and in the end freely acknowledge that to
be the true wisdom only “which cometh from above.” (James, iii. 15, 16,
17.)

However, to make a further enquiry into the truth of this observation, I
doubt not but there is reason to think that a great many of those
encomiums given to ancient philosophers are taken upon trust, and by a
sort of men who are not very likely to be at the pains of an enquiry that
would employ so much time and thinking. For the usual ends why men affect
this kind of discourse, appear generally to be either out of ostentation,
that they may pass upon the world for persons of great knowledge and
observation; or, what is worse, there are some who highly exalt the wisdom
of those Gentile sages, thereby obliquely to glance at and traduce Divine
Revelation, and more especially that of the Gospel; for the consequence
they would have us draw is this: That, since those ancient philosophers
rose to a greater pitch of wisdom and virtue than was ever known among
Christians, and all this purely upon the strength of their own reason and
liberty of thinking, therefore it must follow, that either all Revelation
is false, or, what is worse, that it has depraved the nature of man, and
left him worse than it found him.

But this high opinion of heathen wisdom is not very ancient in the world,
nor at all countenanced from primitive times: Our Saviour had but a low
esteem of it, as appears by His treatment of the Pharisees and Sadducees,
who followed the doctrines of Plato and Epicurus. St Paul likewise, who
was well versed in all the Grecian literature, seems very much to despise
their philosophy, as we find in his writings, cautioning the Colossians to
“beware lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit.” And,
in another place, he advises Timothy to “avoid profane and vain babblings,
and oppositions of science, falsely so called;” that is, not to introduce
into the Christian doctrine the janglings of those vain philosophers,
which they would pass upon the world for science. And the reasons he gives
are, first, That those who professed them did err concerning the faith:

Secondly, Because the knowledge of them did encrease ungodliness, vain
babblings being otherways expounded vanities, or empty sounds; that is,
tedious disputes about words, which the philosophers were always so full
of, and which were the natural product of disputes and dissensions between
several sects.

Neither had the primitive fathers any great or good opinion of the heathen
philosophy, as it is manifest from several passages in their writings: So
that this vein of affecting to raise the reputation of those sages so
high, is a mode and a vice but of yesterday, assumed chiefly, as I have
said, to disparage revealed knowledge, and the consequences of it among
us.

Now, because this is a prejudice which may prevail with some persons, so
far as to lessen the influence of the Gospel, and whereas therefore this
is an opinion which men of education are like to be encountered with, when
they have produced themselves into the world; I shall endeavour to shew
that their preference of heathen wisdom and virtue, before that of the
Christian, is every way unjust, and grounded upon ignorance or mistake: In
order to which I shall consider four things.

First, I shall produce certain points, wherein the wisdom and
virtue of all unrevealed philosophy in general, fell short, and was very
imperfect.

Secondly, I shall shew, in several instances, where some of the
most renowned philosophers have been grossly defective in their lessons of
morality.

Thirdly, I shall prove the perfection of Christian wisdom, from the
proper characters and marks of it.

Lastly, I shall shew that the great examples of wisdom and virtue
among the heathen wise men, were produced by personal merit, and not
influenced by the doctrine of any sect; whereas, in Christianity, it is
quite the contrary.

First, I shall produce certain points, wherein the wisdom and
virtue of all unrevealed philosophy in general fell short, and was very
imperfect.

My design is to persuade men, that Christian philosophy is in all things
preferable to heathen wisdom; from which, or its professors, I shall
however have no occasion to detract. They were as wise and as good as it
was possible for them under such disadvantages, and would have probably
been infinitely more with such aids as we enjoy: But our lessons are
certainly much better, however our practices may fail short.

The first point I shall mention is that universal defect which was in all
their schemes, that they could not agree about their chief good, or
wherein to place the happiness of mankind, nor had any of them a tolerable
answer upon this difficulty, to satisfy a reasonable person. For, to say,
as the most plausible of them did, that happiness consisted in virtue, was
but vain babbling, and a mere sound of words, to amuse others and
themselves; because they were not agreed what this virtue was, or wherein
it did consist; and likewise, because several among the best of them
taught quite different things, placing happiness in health or good
fortune, in riches or in honour, where all were agreed that virtue was
not, as I shall have occasion to shew, when I speak of their particular
tenets.

The second great defect in the Gentile philosophy was, that it wanted some
suitable reward proportioned to the better part of man, his mind, as an
encouragement for his progress in virtue. The difficulties they met with
upon the score of this default were great, and not to be accounted for:
Bodily goods, being only suitable to bodily wants, are no rest at all for
the mind; and, if they were, yet are they not the proper fruits of wisdom
and virtue, being equally attainable by the ignorant and wicked. Now,
human nature is so constituted, that we can never pursue anything heartily
but upon hopes of a reward. If we run a race, it is in expectation of a
prize, and the greater the prize the faster we run; for an incorruptible
crown, if we understand it and believe it to be such, more than a
corruptible one. But some of the philosophers gave all this quite another
turn, and pretended to refine so far, as to call virtue its own reward,
and worthy to be followed only for itself: Whereas, if there be anything
in this more than the sound of the words, it is at least too abstracted to
become a universal influencing principle in the world, and therefore could
not be of general use.

It was the want of assigning some happiness, proportioned to the soul of
man, that caused many of them, either, on the one hand, to be sour and
morose, supercilious and untreatable; or, on the other, to fall into the
vulgar pursuits of common men, to hunt after greatness and riches, to make
their court, and to serve occasions; as Plato did to the younger
Dionysius, and Aristotle to Alexander the Great. So impossible is it for a
man, who looks no further than the present world, to fix himself long in a
contemplation where the present world has no part: He has no sure hold, no
firm footing; he can never expect to remove the earth he rests upon, while
he has no support beside for his feet, but wants, like Archimedes, some
other place whereon to stand. To talk of bearing pain and grief, without
any sort of present or future hope, cannot be purely greatness of spirit;
there must be a mixture in it of affectation, and an alloy of pride, or
perhaps is wholly counterfeit.

It is true there has been all along in the world a notion of rewards and
punishments in another life; but it seems to have rather served as an
entertainment to poets, or as a terror of children, than a settled
principle, by which men pretended to govern any of their actions. The last
celebrated words of Socrates, a little before his death, do not seem to
reckon or build much upon any such opinion; and Cæsar made no scruple to
disown it, and ridicule it in open senate.

Thirdly, The greatest and wisest of all their philosophers were
never able to give any satisfaction, to others and themselves, in their
notions of a Deity. They were often extremely gross and absurd in their
conceptions; and those who made the fairest conjectures are such as were
generally allowed by the learned to have seen the system of Moses, if I
may so call it, who was in great reputation at that time in the heathen
world, as we find by Diodonis, Justin, Longinus, and other authors; for
the rest, the wisest among them laid aside all notions after a Deity, as a
disquisition vain and fruitless, which indeed it was, upon unrevealed
principles; and those who ventured to engage too far fell into incoherence
and confusion.

Fourthly, Those among them who had the justest conceptions of a
Divine Power, and did also admit a Providence, had no notion at all of
entirely relying and depending upon either; they trusted in themselves for
all things: But, as for a trust or dependence upon God, they would not
have understood the phrase; it made no part of the profane style.

Therefore it was, that, in all issues and events, which they could not
reconcile to their own sentiments of reason and justice, they were quite
disconcerted: They had no retreat; but, upon every blow of adverse
fortune, either affected to be indifferent, or grew sullen and severe, or
else yielded and sunk like other men.

Having now produced certain points, wherein the wisdom and virtue of all
unrevealed philosophy fell short, and was very imperfect; I go on, in the
second place, to shew in several instances, where some of the most
renowned philosophers have been grossly defective in their lessons of
morality.

Thales, the founder of the Ionic sect, so celebrated for morality, being
asked how a man might bear ill-fortune with greatest ease, answered, “By
seeing his enemies in a worse condition.” An answer truly barbarous,
unworthy of human nature, and which included such consequences as must
destroy all society from the world.

Solon, lamenting the death of a son, one told him, “You lament in vain:”
“Therefore” (said he) “I lament, because it is in vain.” This was a plain
confession how imperfect all his philosophy was, and that something was
still wanting. He owned that all his wisdom and morals were useless, and
this upon one of the most frequent accidents in life. How much better
could he have learned to support himself even from David, by his entire
dependence upon God; and that before our Saviour had advanced the notions
of religion to the height and perfection wherewith He hath instructed His
disciples? Plato himself, with all his refinements, placed happiness in
wisdom, health, good fortune, honour, and riches; and held that they who
enjoyed all these were perfectly happy: Which opinion was indeed unworthy
its owner, leaving the wise and the good man wholly at the mercy of
uncertain chance, and to be miserable without resource.

His scholar, Aristotle, fell more grossly into the same notion; and
plainly affirmed, “That virtue, without the goods of fortune, was not
sufficient for happiness, but that a wise man must be miserable in poverty
and sickness.” Nay, Diogenes himself, from whose pride and singularity one
would have looked for other notions, delivered it as his opinion, “That a
poor old man was the most miserable thing in life.”

Zeno also and his followers fell into many absurdities, among which
nothing could be greater than that of maintaining all crimes to be equal,
which, instead of making vice hateful, rendered it as a thing indifferent
and familiar to all men.

Lastly: Epicurus had no notion of justice but as it was profitable;
and his placing happiness in pleasure, with all the advantages he could
expound it by, was liable to very great exception: For, although he taught
that pleasure did consist in virtue, yet he did not any way fix or
ascertain the boundaries of virtue, as he ought to have done; by which
means he misled his followers into the greatest vices, making their names
to become odious and scandalous, even in the heathen world.

I have produced these few instances from a great many others, to shew the
imperfection of heathen philosophy, wherein I have confined myself wholly
to their morality. And surely we may pronounce upon it in the words of St
James, that “This wisdom descended not from above, but was earthly and
sensual.” What if I had produced their absurd notions about God and the
soul? It would then have completed the character given it by that apostle,
and appeared to have been devilish too. But it is easy to observe, from
the nature of these few particulars, that their defects in morals were
purely the flagging and fainting of the mind, for want of a support by
revelation from God.

I proceed therefore, in the third place, to shew the perfection of
Christian wisdom from above, and I shall endeavour to make it appear from
those proper characters and marks of it by the apostle before mentioned,
in the third chapter, and 15th, 16th, and 17th verses.

The words run thus:

“This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

“For where envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work.

“But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,
and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without
partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

“The wisdom from above is first pure.” This purity of the mind and spirit
is peculiar to the Gospel. Our Saviour says, “Blessed are the pure in
heart, for they shall see God.” A mind free from all pollution of lusts
shall have a daily vision of God, whereof unrevealed religion can form no
notion. This it is which keeps us unspotted from the world; and hereby
many have been prevailed upon to live in the practice of all purity,
holiness, and righteousness, far beyond the examples of the most
celebrated philosophers.

It is “peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated.” The Christian
doctrine teacheth us all those dispositions that make us affable and
courteous, gentle and kind, without any morose leaven of pride or vanity,
which entered into the composition of most heathen schemes: So we are
taught to be meek and lowly. Our Saviour’s last legacy was peace; and He
commands us to forgive our offending brother unto seventy times seven.
Christian wisdom is full of mercy and good works, teaching the height of
all moral virtues, of which the heathens fall infinitely short. Plato
indeed (and it is worth observing) has somewhere a dialogue, or part of
one, about forgiving our enemies, which was perhaps the highest strain
ever reached by man, without divine assistance; yet how little is that to
what our Saviour commands us? “To love them that hate us; to bless them
that curse us; and do good to them that despitefully use us.”

Christian wisdom is “without partiality;” it is not calculated for this or
that nation of people, but the whole race of mankind: Not so the
philosophical schemes, which were narrow and confined, adapted to their
peculiar towns, governments, or sects; but, “in every nation, he that
feareth God and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.”

Lastly: It is “without hypocrisy:” It appears to be what it really
is; it is all of a piece. By the doctrines of the Gospel we are so far
from being allowed to publish to the world those virtues we have not, that
we are commanded to hide, even from ourselves, those we really have, and
not to let our right hand know what our left hand does; unlike several
branches of the heathen wisdom, which pretended to teach insensibility and
indifference, magnanimity and contempt of life, while, at the same time,
in other parts it belied its own doctrines.

I come now, in the last place, to shew that the great examples of wisdom
and virtue, among the Grecian sages, were produced by personal merit, and
not influenced by the doctrine of any particular sect; whereas, in
Christianity, it is quite the contrary.

The two virtues most celebrated by ancient moralists were Fortitude and
Temperance, as relating to the government of man in his private capacity,
to which their schemes were generally addressed and confined; and the two
instances, wherein those virtues arrived at the greatest height, were
Socrates and Cato. But neither those, nor any other virtues possessed by
these two, were at all owing to any lessons or doctrines of a sect. For
Socrates himself was of none at all; and although Cato was called a Stoic,
it was more from a resemblance of manners in his worst qualities, than
that he avowed himself one of their disciples. The same may be affirmed of
many other great men of antiquity. From whence I infer, that those who
were renowned for virtue among them, were more obliged to the good natural
dispositions of their own minds, than to the doctrines of any sect they
pretended to follow.

On the other side, As the examples of fortitude and patience, among the
primitive Christians, have been infinitely greater and more numerous, so
they were altogether the product of their principles and doctrine; and
were such as the same persons, without those aids, would never have
arrived to. Of this truth most of the apostles, with many thousand
martyrs, are a cloud of witnesses beyond exception. Having therefore
spoken so largely upon the former heads, I shall dwell no longer upon
this.

And, if it should here be objected, Why does not Christianity still
produce the same effects? it is easy to answer, First, That although the
number of pretended Christians be great, yet that of true believers, in
proportion to the other, was never so small; and it is a true lively faith
alone, that by the assistance of God’s grace, can influence our practice.

Secondly, we may answer, That Christianity itself has very much
suffered by being blended up with Gentile philosophy. The Platonic system,
first taken into religion, was thought to have given matter for some early
heresies in the Church. When disputes began to arise, the Peripatetic
forms were introduced by Scotus, as best fitted for controversy. And,
however this may now have become necessary, it was surely the author of a
litigious vein, which has since occasioned very pernicious consequences,
stopped the progress of Christianity, and been a great promoter of vice,
verifying that sentence given by St James, and mentioned before, “Where
envying and strife is, there is confusion, and every evil work.” This was
the fatal stop to the Grecians, in their progress both of arts and arms:
Their wise men were divided under several sects, and their governments
under several commonwealths, all in opposition to each other; which
engaged them in eternal quarrels among themselves, while they should have
been armed against the common enemy. And I wish we had no other examples
from the like causes, less foreign or ancient than that. Diogenes said
Socrates was a madman; the disciples of Zeno and Epicurus, nay of Plato
and Aristotle, were engaged in fierce disputes about the most
insignificant trifles. And, if this be the present language and practice
among us Christians, no wonder that Christianity does not still produce
the same effects which it did at first, when it was received and embraced
in its utmost purity and perfection. For such a wisdom as this cannot
“descend from above,” but must be “earthly, sensual, devilish; full of
confusion and every evil work”: Whereas “the wisdom from above, is first
pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and
good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” This is the true
heavenly wisdom, which Christianity only can boast of, and which the
greatest of the heathen wise men could never arrive at.

Now to God the Father, &c. &c.

DOING GOOD:

A SERMON, ON THE OCCASION OF WOOD’S PROJECT.[1]

[Footnote 1: “I did very lately, as I thought it my duty, preach to the
people under my inspection, upon the subject of Mr. Wood’s coin; and
although I never heard that my sermon gave the least offence, as I am sure
none was intended; yet, if it were now printed and published, I cannot
say, I would insure it from the hands of the common hangman; or my own
person from those of a messenger.” See “The Drapier’s Letters,” No. VI.

“‘I never’ (said the Dean in a jocular conversation), ‘preached but twice
in my life; and then they were not sermons, but pamphlets.’ Being asked on
what subject, he replied, ‘They were against Wood’s halfpence.'”—Pilkington’s
Memoirs, vol. i. p. 56.

“The pieces relating to Ireland are those of a public nature; in which the
Dean appears, as usual, in the best light, because they do honour to his
heart as well as to his head; furnishing some additional proofs, that,
though he was very free in his abuse of the inhabitants of that country,
as well natives as foreigners, he had their interest sincerely at heart,
and perfectly understood it. His sermon upon Doing Good, though peculiarly
adapted to Ireland and Wood’s designs upon it, contains perhaps the best
motives to patriotism that were ever delivered within so small a compass.”—BURKE.]

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR MDCCXXIV.

GALATIANS, VI. 10.

“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men.”

Nature directs every one of us, and God permits us, to consult our own
private good before the private good of any other person whatsoever. We
are, indeed, commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves, but not as well
as ourselves. The love we have for ourselves is to be the pattern of that
love we ought to have towards our neighbour: But, as the copy doth not
equal the original, so my neighbour cannot think it hard, if I prefer
myself, who am the original, before him, who is only the copy. Thus, if
any matter equally concern the life, the reputation, the profit of my
neighbour, and my own; the law of nature, which is the law of God,
obligeth me to take care of myself first, and afterwards of him. And this
I need not be at much pains in persuading you to; for the want of
self-love, with regard to things of this world, is not among the faults of
mankind. But then, on the other side, if, by a small hurt and loss to
myself, I can procure a great good to my neighbour, in that case his
interest is to be preferred. For example, if I can be sure of saving his
life, without great danger to my own; if I can preserve him from being
undone, without ruining myself, or recover his reputation without blasting
mine; all this I am obliged to do: and, if I sincerely perform it, I do
then obey the command of God, in loving my neighbour as myself.

But, beside this love we owe to every man in his particular capacity under
the title of our neighbour, there is yet a duty of a more large extensive
nature incumbent on us; which is, our love to our neighbour in his public
capacity, as he is a member of that great body the commonwealth, under the
same government with ourselves; and this is usually called love of the
public, and is a duty to which we are more strictly obliged than even that
of loving ourselves; because therein ourselves are also contained, as well
as all our neighbours, in one great body. This love of the public, or of
the commonwealth, or love of our country, was in ancient times properly
known by the name of virtue, because it was the greatest of all virtues,
and was supposed to contain all virtues in it: And many great examples of
this virtue are left us on record, scarcely to be believed, or even
conceived, in such a base, corrupted, wicked age as this we live in. In
those times it was common for men to sacrifice their lives for the good of
their country, although they had neither hope or belief of future rewards;
whereas, in our days, very few make the least scruple of sacrificing a
whole nation, as well as their own souls, for a little present gain; which
often hath been known to end in their own ruin in this world, as it
certainly must in that to come.

Have we not seen men, for the sake of some petty employment, give up the
very natural rights and liberties of their country, and of mankind, in the
ruin of which themselves must at last be involved? Are not these
corruptions gotten among the meanest of our people, who, for a piece of
money, will give their votes at a venture, for the disposal of their own
lives and fortunes, without considering whether it be to those who are
most likely to betray or defend them? But, if I were to produce only one
instance of a hundred wherein we fail in this duty of loving our country,
it would be an endless labour; and therefore I shall not attempt it.

But here I would not be misunderstood: By the love of our country I do not
mean loyalty to our king, for that is a duty of another nature; and a man
may be very loyal, in the common sense of the word, without one grain of
public good at his heart. Witness this very kingdom we live in. I verily
believe, that, since the beginning of the world, no nation upon earth ever
shewed (all circumstances considered) such high constant marks of loyalty
in all their actions and behaviour, as we have done: And, at the same
time, no people ever appeared more utterly void of what is called a public
spirit. When I say the people, I mean the bulk or mass of the people, for
I have nothing to do with those in power.

Therefore I shall think my time not ill spent, if I can persuade most or
all of you who hear me, to shew the love you have for your country, by
endeavouring, in your several stations, to do all the public good you are
able. For I am certainly persuaded, that all our misfortunes arise from no
other original cause than that general disregard among us to the public
welfare.

I therefore undertake to shew you three things.

First: That there are few people so weak or mean, who have it not
sometimes in their power to be useful to the public.

Secondly: That it is often in the power of the meanest among
mankind to do mischief to the public.

And, Lastly: That all wilful injuries done to the public are very
great and aggravated sins in the sight of God.

First: There are few people so weak or mean, who have it not
sometimes in their power to be useful to the public. Solomon tells us of a
poor wise man who saved a city by his counsel. It hath often happened that
a private soldier, by some unexpected brave attempt, hath been
instrumental in obtaining a great victory. How many obscure men have been
authors of very useful inventions, whereof the world now reaps the
benefit? The very example of honesty and industry in a poor tradesman will
sometimes spread through a neighbourhood, when others see how successful
he is; and thus so many useful members are gained, for which the whole
body of the public is the better. Whoever is blessed with a true public
spirit, God will certainly put it into his way to make use of that
blessing, for the ends it was given him, by some means or other: And
therefore it hath been observed in most ages, that the greatest actions,
for the benefit of the commonwealth, have been performed by the wisdom or
courage, the contrivance or industry, of particular men, and not of
numbers; and that the safety of a kingdom hath often been owing to those
hands from whence it was least expected.

But, Secondly: It is often in the power of the meanest among
mankind to do mischief to the public: And hence arise most of those
miseries with which the states and kingdoms of the earth are infested. How
many great princes have been murdered by the meanest ruffians? The weakest
hand can open a flood-gate to drown a country, which a thousand of the
strongest cannot stop. Those who have thrown off all regard for public
good, will often have it in their way to do public evil, and will not fail
to exercise that power whenever they can. The greatest blow given of late
to this kingdom, was by the dishonesty of a few manufacturers; who, by
imposing bad ware at foreign markets, in almost the only traffic permitted
to us, did half ruin that trade; by which this poor unhappy kingdom now
suffers in the midst of sufferings. I speak not here of persons in high
stations, who ought to be free from all reflection, and are supposed
always to intend the welfare of the community: But we now find by
experience, that the meanest instrument may, by the concurrence of
accidents, have it in his power to bring a whole kingdom to the very brink
of destruction, and is, at this present, endeavouring to finish his work;
and hath agents among ourselves, who are contented to see their own
country undone, to be small sharers in that iniquitous gain, which at last
must end in their own ruin as well as ours. I confess, it was chiefly the
consideration of that great danger we are in, which engaged me to
discourse to you on this subject; to exhort you to a love of your country,
and a public spirit, when all you have is at stake; to prefer the interest
of your prince and your fellow-subjects before that of one destructive
impostor, and a few of his adherents.

Perhaps it may be thought by some, that this way of discoursing is not so
proper from the pulpit. But surely, when an open attempt is made, and far
carried on, to make a great kingdom one large poorhouse, to deprive us of
all means to exercise hospitality or charity, to turn our cities and
churches into ruins, to make the country a desert for wild beasts and
robbers, to destroy all arts and sciences, all trades and manufactures,
and the very tillage of the ground, only to enrich one obscure
ill-designing projector, and his followers; it is time for the pastor to
cry out that the wolf is getting into his flock, to warn them to stand
together, and all to consult the common safety. And God be praised for His
infinite goodness in raising such a spirit of union among us, at least in
this point, in the midst of all our former divisions; which union, if it
continue, will, in all probability, defeat the pernicious design of this
pestilent enemy to the nation.

But, from hence, it clearly follows how necessary the love of our country,
or a public spirit, is in every particular man, since the wicked have so
many opportunities of doing public mischief. Every man is upon his guard
for his private advantage; but, where the public is concerned, he is apt
to be negligent, considering himself only as one among two or three
millions, among whom the loss is equally shared, and thus, he thinks, he
can be no great sufferer. Meanwhile the trader, the farmer, and the
shopkeeper, complain of the hardness and deadness of the times, and wonder
whence it comes; while it is, in a great measure, owing to their own
folly, for want of that love of their country, and public spirit and firm
union among themselves, which are so necessary to the prosperity of every
nation.

Another method by which the meanest wicked man, may have it in his power
to injure the public, is false accusation, whereof this kingdom hath
afforded too many examples: Neither is it long since no man, whose
opinions were thought to differ from those in fashion, could safely
converse beyond his nearest friends, for fear of being sworn against, as a
traitor, by those who made a traffic of perjury and subornation; by which
the very peace of the nation was disturbed, and men fled from each other
as they would from a lion or a bear got loose. And, it is very remarkable,
that the pernicious project now in hand to reduce us to beggary, was
forwarded by one of these false accusers, who had been convicted of
endeavouring, by perjury and subornation, to take away the lives of
several innocent persons here among us; and, indeed, there could not be a
more proper instrument for such a work.

Another method by which the meanest people may do injury to the public, is
the spreading of lies and false rumours, thus raising a distrust among the
people of a nation, causing them to mistake their true interest, and their
enemies for their friends: And this hath been likewise too successful a
practice among us, where we have known the whole kingdom misled by the
grossest lies, raised upon occasion to serve some particular turn. As it
hath also happened in the case I lately mentioned, where one obscure man,
by representing our wants where they were least, and concealing them where
they were greatest, had almost succeeded in a project of utterly ruining
this whole kingdom; and may still succeed, if God doth not continue that
public spirit, which He hath almost miraculously kindled in us upon this
occasion.

Thus we see the public is many times, as it were, at the mercy of the
meanest instrument, who can be wicked enough to watch opportunities of
doing it mischief, upon the principles of avarice or malice; which, I am
afraid, are deeply rooted in too many breasts, and against which there can
be no defence, but a firm resolution in all honest men, to be closely
united and active in shewing their love to their country, by preferring
the public interest to their present private advantage. If a passenger, in
a great storm at sea, should hide his goods that they might not be thrown
overboard to lighten the ship, what would be the consequence? The ship is
cast away, and he loses his life and goods together.

We have heard of men, who, through greediness of gain, have brought
infected goods into a nation, which bred a plague, whereof the owners and
their families perished first. Let those among us consider this and
tremble, whose houses are privately stored with those materials of beggary
and desolation, lately brought over to be scattered like a pestilence
among their countrymen, which may probably first seize upon themselves and
their families, until their houses shall be made a dunghill.

I shall mention one practice more, by which the meanest instruments often
succeed in doing public mischief; and this is by deceiving us with
plausible arguments, to make us believe that the most ruinous project they
can offer is intended for our good, as it happened in the case so often
mentioned. For the poor ignorant people, allured by the appearing
convenience in their small dealings, did not discover the serpent in the
brass,[2] but were ready, like the Israelites, to offer incense to it;
neither could the wisdom of the nation convince them, until some, of good
intentions, made the cheat so plain to their sight, that those who run may
read. And thus the design was to treat us, in every point, as the
Philistines treated Samson, (I mean when he was betrayed by Delilah) first
to put out our eyes, and then bind us with fetters of brass.

[Footnote 2: “Brass” may be read “Wood’s halfpence.” [T.S.]]

I proceed to the last thing I proposed, which was to shew you that all
wilful injuries done to the public, are very great and aggravated sins in
the sight of God.

First: It is apparent from Scripture, and most agreeable to reason,
that the safety and welfare of nations are under the most peculiar care of
God’s providence. Thus He promised Abraham to save Sodom, if only ten
righteous men could be found in it. Thus the reason which God gave to
Jonas for not destroying Nineveh was, because there were six score
thousand men in that city.

All government is from God, Who is the God of order, and therefore whoever
attempts to breed confusion or disturbance among a people, doth his utmost
to take the government of the world out of God’s hands, and to put it into
the hands of the Devil, who is the author of confusion. By which it is
plain, that no crime, how heinous soever, committed against particular
persons, can equal the guilt of him who does injury to the public.

Secondly: All offenders against their country lie under this
grievous difficulty, that it is next to impossible to obtain a pardon, or
make restitution. The bulk of mankind are very quick at resenting
injuries, and very slow in forgiving them: And how shall one man be able
to obtain the pardon of millions, or repair the injuries he hath done to
millions? How shall those, who, by a most destructive fraud, got the whole
wealth of our neighbouring kingdom into their hands, be ever able to make
a recompence? How will the authors and promoters of that villainous
project, for the ruin of this poor country, be able to account with us for
the injuries they have already done, although they should no farther
succeed? The deplorable case of such wretches, must entirely be left to
the unfathomable mercies of God: For those who know the least in religion
are not ignorant that, without our utmost endeavours to make restitution
to the person injured, and to obtain his pardon, added to a sincere
repentance, there is no hope of salvation given in the Gospel.

Lastly: All offences against our own country have this aggravation,
that they are ungrateful and unnatural. It is to our country we owe those
laws which protect us in our lives, our liberties, our properties, and our
religion. Our country produced us into the world, and continues to nourish
us so, that it is usually called our mother; and there have been examples
of great magistrates, who have put their own children to death for
endeavouring to betray their country, as if they had attempted the life of
their natural parent.

Thus I have briefly shewn you how terrible a sin it is to be an enemy to
our country, in order to incite you to the contrary virtue, which at this
juncture is so highly necessary, when every man’s endeavour will be of
use. We have hitherto been just able to support ourselves under many
hardships; but now the axe is laid to the root of the tree, and nothing
but a firm union among us can prevent our utter undoing. This we are
obliged to, in duty to our gracious King, as well as to ourselves. Let us
therefore preserve that public spirit, which God hath raised in us for our
own temporal interest For, if this wicked project should succeed, which it
cannot do but by our own folly; if we sell ourselves for nought; the
merchant, the shopkeeper, the artificer, must fly to the desert with their
miserable families, there to starve or live upon rapine, or at least
exchange their country for one more hospitable than that where they were
born.

Thus much I thought it my duty to say to you, who are under my care, to
warn you against those temporal evils, which may draw the worst of
spiritual evils after them; such as heart-burnings, murmurings,
discontents, and all manner of wickedness which a desperate condition of
life may tempt men to.

I am sensible that what I have now said will not go very far, being
confined to this assembly; but I hope it may stir up others of my brethren
to exhort their several congregations, after a more effectual manner, to
shew their love for their country on this important occasion. And this, I
am sure, cannot be called meddling in affairs of state.

I pray God protect his Most Gracious Majesty, and this kingdom, long under
his government, and defend us from all ruinous projectors, deceivers,
suborners, perjurers, false accusers, and oppressors; from the virulence
of party and faction; and unite us in loyalty to our King, love to our
country, and charity to each other.

And this we beg for Jesus Christ His sake: To Whom, &c.

ON THE MARTYRDOM OF KING CHARLES I.

PREACHED AT ST PATRICK’S, DUBLIN, JAN. 30, 1725-26, BEING SUNDAY.

GENESIS, XLIX. 5, 6, 7.

“Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their
habitations.

“O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine
honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in
their self-will they digged down a wall.

“Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was
cruel. I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.”

I know very well, that the Church hath been often censured for keeping
holy this day of humiliation, in memory of that excellent king and blessed
martyr, Charles I., who rather chose to die on a scaffold, than betray the
religion and liberties of his people, wherewith God and the laws had
entrusted him. But, at the same time, it is manifest that those who make
such censures are either people without any religion at all, or who derive
their principles, and perhaps their birth, from the abettors of those who
contrived the murder of that prince, and have not yet shewn the world that
their opinions are changed. It is alleged, that the observation of this
day hath served to continue and increase the animosity and enmity among
our countrymen, and to disunite Protestants; that a law was made, upon the
restoration of the Martyr’s son, for a general pardon and oblivion,
forbidding all reproaches upon that occasion; and, since none are now
alive who were actors or instruments in that tragedy, it is thought hard
and uncharitable to keep up the memory of it for all generations.

Now, because I conceive most of you to be ignorant in many particulars
concerning that horrid murder, and the rebellion which preceded it; I
will,

First, relate to you so much of the story as may be sufficient for
your information:

Secondly, I will tell you the consequences which this bloody deed
had upon these kingdoms:

And, Lastly, I will shew you to what good uses this solemn day of
humiliation may be applied.

As to the first: In the reign of this prince, Charles the Martyr, the
power and prerogative of the king were much greater than they are in our
times, and so had been for at least seven hundred years before; And the
best princes we ever had, carried their power much farther than the
blessed Martyr offered to do in the most blameable part of his reign. But,
the lands of the Crown having been prodigally bestowed to favourites, in
the preceding reigns, the succeeding kings could not support themselves
without taxes raised by Parliament; which put them under a necessity of
frequently calling those assemblies: And, the crown lands being gotten
into the hands of the nobility and gentry, beside the possessions of which
the Church had been robbed by King Henry the Eighth, power, which always
follows property, grew to lean to the side of the people, by whom even the
just rights of the Crown were often disputed.

But further: Upon the cruel persecution raised against the Protestants,
under Queen Mary, among great numbers who fled the kingdom to seek for
shelter, several went and resided at Geneva, which is a commonwealth,
governed without a king, and where the religion, contrived by Calvin, is
without the order of bishops. When the Protestant faith was restored by
Queen Elizabeth, those who fled to Geneva returned among the rest home to
England, and were grown so fond of the government and religion of the
place they had left, that they used all possible endeavours to introduce
both into their own country; at the same time continually preaching and
railing against ceremonies and distinct habits of the clergy, taxing
whatever they disliked, as a remnant of Popery, and continued extremely
troublesome to the Church and state, under that great Queen, as well as
her successor King James I. These people called themselves Puritans, as
pretending to a purer faith than those of the Church established. And
these were the founders of our Dissenters. They did not think it
sufficient to leave all the errors of Popery, but threw off many laudable
and edifying institutions of the primitive Church, and, at last, even the
government of bishops; which, having been ordained by the apostles
themselves, had continued without interruption, in all Christian churches,
for above fifteen hundred years. And all this they did, not because those
things were evil, but because they were kept by the Papists. From thence
they proceeded, by degrees, to quarrel with the kingly government;
because, as I have already said, the city of Geneva, to which their
fathers had flown for refuge, was a commonwealth, or government of the
people.

These Puritans, about the middle of the Martyr’s reign, were grown to a
considerable faction in the kingdom, and in the Lower House of Parliament.
They filled the public with the most false and bitter libels against the
bishops and the clergy, accusing chiefly the very best among them of
Popery; and, at the same time, the House of Commons grew so insolent and
uneasy to the King, that they refused to furnish him with necessary
supplies for the support of his family, unless upon such conditions as he
could not submit to without forfeiting his conscience and honour, and even
his coronation oath. And, in such an extremity, he was forced upon a
practice, no way justifiable, of raising money; for which, however, he had
the opinion of the judges on his side; for, wicked judges there were in
those times as well as in ours. There were likewise many complaints, and
sometimes justly, made against the proceedings of a certain court, called
the Star-chamber, a judicature of great antiquity, but had suffered some
corruptions, for which, however, the King was nowise answerable, I cannot
recollect any more subjects of complaint with the least ground of reason,
nor is it needful to recollect them, because this gracious King did, upon
the first application, redress all grievances by an act of Parliament, and
put it out of his power to do any hardships for the future. But that
wicked faction in the House of Commons, not content with all those marks
of his justice and condescension, urged still for more; and joining with a
factious party from Scotland, who had the same fancies in religion, forced
him to pass an act for cutting off the head of his best and chief
minister; and, at the same time, compelled him, by tumults and
threatenings of a packed rabble, poisoned with the same doctrines, to pass
another law, by which it should not be in his power to dissolve that
Parliament without their own consent. Thus, by the greatest weakness and
infatuation that ever possessed any man’s spirit, this Prince did in
effect sign his own destruction. For the House of Commons, having the
reins in their own hands, drove on furiously; sent him every day some
unreasonable demand, and when he refused to grant it, made use of their
own power, and declared that an ordinance of both Houses, without the
King’s consent, should be obeyed as a law, contrary to all reason and
equity, as well as to the fundamental constitution of the kingdom.

About this time the rebellion in Ireland broke out, wherein his Parliament
refused to assist him; nor would accept his offer to come hither in person
to subdue those rebels. These, and a thousand other barbarities, forced
the King to summon his loyal subjects to his standard in his own defence.
Meanwhile the English Parliament, instead of helping the poor Protestants
here, seized on the very army that his Majesty was sending over for our
relief, and turned them against their own Sovereign. The rebellion in
England continued for four or five years: At last the King was forced to
fly in disguise to the Scots, who sold him to the rebels. And these
Puritans had the impudent cruelty to try his sacred person in a mock court
of justice, and cut off his head; which he might have saved, if he would
have yielded to betray the constitution in Church and state.

In this whole proceeding, Simeon and Levi were brethren; the wicked
insinuations of those fanatical preachers stirring up the cruelty of the
soldiers, who, by force of arms, excluded from the house every member of
Parliament, whom they apprehended to bear the least inclination towards an
agreement with the King, suffering only those to enter who thirsted
chiefly for his blood; and this is the very account given by their own
writers: From whence it is clear that this Prince was, in all respects, a
real martyr for the true religion and the liberty of the people. That
odious Parliament had first turned the bishops out of the House of Lords;
in a few years after, they murdered their King; then immediately abolished
the whole House of Lords; and so, at last, obtained their wishes, of
having a government of the people, and a new religion, both after the
manner of Geneva, without a king, a bishop, or a nobleman; and this they
blasphemously called “The kingdom of Christ and his saints.”

This is enough for your information on the first head: I shall therefore
proceed to the second, wherein I will shew you the miserable consequences
which that abominable rebellion and murder produced in these nations.

First: The Irish rebellion was wholly owing to that wicked English
Parliament. For the leaders in the Irish Popish massacre would never have
dared to stir a finger, if they had not been encouraged by that rebellious
spirit in the English House of Commons, which they very well knew must
disable the King from sending any supplies to his Protestant subjects
here; and, therefore, we may truly say that the English Parliament held
the King’s hands, while the Irish Papists here were cutting our
grandfathers’ throats.

Secondly: That murderous Puritan Parliament, when they had all in
their own power, could not agree upon any one method of settling a form
either of religion or civil government; but changed every day from schism
to schism, from heresy to heresy, and from one faction to another: From
whence arose that wild confusion, still continuing in our several ways of
serving God, and those absurd notions of civil power, which have so often
torn us with factions more than any other nation in Europe.

Thirdly: To this rebellion and murder have been owing the rise and
progress of atheism among us. For, men observing what numberless
villainies of all kinds were committed during twenty years, under pretence
of zeal and the reformation of God’s Church, were easily tempted to doubt
that all religion was a mere imposture: And the same spirit of infidelity,
so far spread among us at this present, is nothing but the fruit of the
seeds sown by those rebellious hypocritical saints.

Fourthly: The old virtue and loyalty, and generous spirit of the
English nation, were wholly corrupted by the power, the doctrine, and the
example of those wicked people. Many of the ancient nobility were killed,
and their families extinct, in defence of their Prince and country, or
murdered by the merciless courts of justice. Some of the worst among them
favoured, or complied with the reigning iniquities, and not a few of the
new set created, when the Martyr’s son was restored, were such who had
drunk too deep of the bad principles then prevailing.

Fifthly: The children of the murdered Prince were forced to fly,
for the safety of their lives, to foreign countries; where one of them at
least, I mean King James II., was seduced to Popery; which ended in the
loss of his kingdoms, the misery and desolation of this country, and a
long and expensive war abroad. Our deliverance was owing to the valour and
conduct of the late King; and, therefore, we ought to remember him with
gratitude, but not mingled with blasphemy or idolatry. It was happy that
his interests and ours were the same: And God gave him greater success
than our sins deserved. But, as a house thrown down by a storm, is seldom
rebuilt without some change in the foundation; so it hath happened, that,
since the late Revolution, men have sat much looser in the true
fundamentals both of religion and government, and factions have been more
violent, treacherous, and malicious than ever, men running naturally from
one extreme into another; and, for private ends, taking up those very
opinions professed by the leaders in that rebellion, which carried the
blessed Martyr to the scaffold.

Sixthly: Another consequence of this horrid rebellion and murder
was the destroying or defacing of such vast number of God’s houses. “In
their self-will they digged down a wall.” If a stranger should now travel
in England, and observe the churches in his way, he could not otherwise
conclude, than that some vast army of Turks or heathens had been sent on
purpose to ruin and blot out all marks of Christianity. They spared
neither the statues of saints, nor ancient prelates, nor kings, nor
benefactors; broke down the tombs and monuments of men famous in their
generations, seized the vessels of silver set apart for the holiest use,
tore down the most innocent ornaments both within and without, made the
houses of prayer dens of thieves, or stables for cattle. These were the
mildest effects of Puritan zeal, and devotion for Christ; and this was
what themselves affected to call a thorough reformation. In this kingdom
those ravages were not so easily seen; for the people here being too poor
to raise such noble temples, the mean ones we had were not defaced, but
totally destroyed.

Upon the whole, it is certain, that although God might have found out many
other ways to have punished a sinful people, without permitting this
rebellion and murder, yet as the course of the world hath run ever since,
we need seek for no other causes, of all the public evils we have hitherto
suffered, or may suffer for the future, by the misconduct of princes, or
wickedness of the people.

I go on now upon the third head, to shew you to what good uses this solemn
day of humiliation may be applied.

First: It may be an instruction to princes themselves, to be
careful in the choice of those who are their advisers in matters of law.
All the judges of England, except one or two, advised the King, that he
might legally raise money upon the subjects for building of ships without
consent of Parliament; which, as it was the greatest oversight of his
reign, so it proved the principal foundation of all his misfortunes.
Princes may likewise learn from hence, not to sacrifice a faithful servant
to the rage of a faction, nor to trust any body of men with a greater
share of power than the laws of the land have appointed them, much less to
deposit it in their hands until they shall please to restore it.

Secondly: By bringing to mind the tragedy of this day, and the
consequences that have arisen from it, we shall be convinced how necessary
it is for those in power to curb, in season, all such unruly spirits as
desire to introduce new doctrines and discipline in the Church, or new
forms of government in the state. Those wicked Puritans began, in Queen
Elizabeth’s time, to quarrel only with surplices and other habits, with
the ring in matrimony, the cross in baptism, and the like; thence they
went on to further matters of higher importance, and, at last, they must
needs have the whole government of the Church dissolved. This great work
they compassed, first, by depriving the bishops of their seats in
Parliament, then they abolished the whole order; and, at last, which was
their original design, they seized on all the Church-lands, and divided
the spoil among themselves; and, like Jeroboam, made priests of the very
dregs of the people. This was their way of reforming the Church. As to the
civil government, you have already heard how they modelled it upon the
murder of their King, and discarding the nobility. Yet, clearly to shew
what a Babel they had built, after twelve years’ trial and twenty several
sorts of government; the nation grown weary of their tyranny, was forced
to call in the son of him whom those reformers had sacrificed. And thus
were Simeon and Levi divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel.

Thirdly: Although the successors of these Puritans, I mean our
present Dissenters, do not think fit to observe this day of humiliation;
yet, since it would be very proper in them, upon some occasions, to
renounce in a public manner those principles upon which their predecessors
acted; and it will be more prudent in them to do so, because those very
Puritans, of whom ours are followers, found by experience, that after they
had overturned the Church and state, murdered their King, and were
projecting what they called a kingdom of the saints, they were cheated of
the power and possessions they only panted after, by an upstart sect of
religion that grew out of their own bowels, who subjected them to one
tyrant, while they were endeavouring to set up a thousand.

Fourthly: Those who profess to be followers of our Church
established, and yet presume in discourse to justify or excuse that
rebellion, and murder of the King, ought to consider, how utterly contrary
all such opinions are to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles, as well
as to the articles of our Church, and to the preaching and practice of its
true professors for above a hundred years. Of late times, indeed, and I
speak it with grief of heart, we have heard even sermons of a strange
nature; although reason would make one think it a very unaccountable way
of procuring favour under a monarchy, by palliating and lessening the
guilt of those who murdered the best of kings in cold blood, and, for a
time, destroyed the very monarchy itself. Pray God, we may never more hear
such doctrine from the pulpit, nor have it scattered about in print, to
poison the people!

Fifthly: Some general knowledge of this horrid rebellion and
murder, with the consequences they had upon these nations, may be a
warning to our people not to believe a lie, and to mistrust those deluding
spirits, who, under pretence of a purer and more reformed religion, would
lead them from their duty to God and the laws. Politicians may say what
they please, but it is no hard thing at all for the meanest person, who
hath common understanding, to know whether he be well or ill governed. If
he be freely allowed to follow his trade and calling; if he be secure in
his property, and hath the benefit of the law to defend himself against
injustice and oppression; if his religion be different from that of his
country, and the government think fit to tolerate it, (which he may be
very secure of, let it be what it will;) he ought to be fully satisfied,
and give no offence, by writing or discourse, to the worship established,
as the dissenting preachers are too apt to do. But, if he hath any new
visions of his own, it is his duty to be quiet, and possess them in
silence, without disturbing the community by a furious zeal for making
proselytes. This was the folly and madness of those ancient puritan
fanatics: They must needs overturn heaven and earth, violate all the laws
of God and man, make their country a field of blood, to propagate whatever
wild or wicked opinions came into their heads, declaring all their
absurdities and blasphemies to proceed from the Holy Ghost.

To conclude this head. In answer to that objection of keeping up animosity
and hatred between Protestants, by the observation of this day; if there
be any sect or sort of people among us, who profess the same principles in
religion and government which those puritan rebels put in practice, I
think it is the interest of all those who love the Church and King, to
keep up as strong a party against them as possible, until they shall, in a
body, renounce all those wicked opinions upon which their predecessors
acted, to the disgrace of Christianity, and the perpetual infamy of the
English nation.

When we accuse the Papists of the horrid doctrine, “that no faith ought to
be kept with heretics,” they deny it to a man; and yet we justly think it
dangerous to trust them, because we know their actions have been sometimes
suitable to that opinion. But the followers of those who beheaded the
Martyr have not yet renounced their principles; and, till they do, they
may be justly suspected. Neither will the bare name of Protestants set
them right. For surely Christ requires more from us than a profession of
hating Popery, which a Turk or an atheist may do as well as a Protestant.

If an enslaved people should recover their liberty from a tyrannical power
of any sort, who could blame them for commemorating their deliverance by a
day of joy and thanksgiving? And doth not the destruction of a Church, a
King, and three kingdoms, by the artifices, hypocrisy, and cruelty of a
wicked race of soldiers and preachers, and other sons of Belial, equally
require a solemn time of humiliation? Especially since the consequences of
that bloody scene still continue, as I have already shewn, in their
effects upon us.

Thus I have done with the three heads I proposed to discourse on. But
before I conclude, I must give a caution to those who hear me, that they
may not think I am pleading for absolute unlimited power in any one man.
It is true, all power is from God, and, as the apostle says, “the powers
that be are ordained of God;” but this is in the same sense that all we
have is from God, our food and raiment, and whatever possessions we hold
by lawful means. Nothing can be meant in those, or any other words of
Scripture, to justify tyrannical power, or the savage cruelties of those
heathen emperors who lived in the time of the apostles. And so St Paul
concludes, “The powers that be are ordained of God:” For what? Why, “for
the punishment of evil doers, and the praise, the reward, of them that do
well.” There is no more inward value in the greatest emperor, than in the
meanest of his subjects: His body is composed of the same substance, the
same parts, and with the same or greater, infirmities: His education is
generally worse, by flattery, and idleness, and luxury, and those evil
dispositions that early power is apt to give. It is therefore against
common sense, that his private personal interest, or pleasure, should be
put in the balance with the safety of millions, every one of which is his
equal by nature, equal in the sight of God, equally capable of salvation;
and it is for their sakes, not his own, that he is entrusted with the
government over them. He hath as high trust as can safely be reposed in
one man, and, if he discharge it as he ought, he deserves all the honour
and duty that a mortal may be allowed to receive. His personal failings we
have nothing to do with, and errors in government are to be imputed to his
ministers in the state. To what height those errors may be suffered to
proceed, is not the business of this day, or this place, or of my
function, to determine. When oppressions grow too great and universal to
be borne, nature or necessity may find a remedy. But, if a private person
reasonably expects pardon, upon his amendment, for all faults that are not
capital, it would be a hard condition indeed, not to give the same
allowance to a prince, who must see with other men’s eyes, and hear with
other men’s ears, which are often wilfully blind and deaf. Such was the
condition of the Martyr, and is so, in some degree, of all other princes.
Yet this we may justly say in defence of the common people, in all
civilized nations, that it must be a very bad government indeed, where the
body of the subjects will not rather choose to live in peace and
obedience, than take up arms on pretence of faults in the administration,
unless where the vulgar are deluded by false preachers to grow fond of new
visions and fancies in religion; which, managed by dexterous men, for
sinister ends of malice, envy, or ambition, have often made whole nations
run mad. This was exactly the case in the whole progress of that great
rebellion, and the murder of King Charles I. But the late Revolution under
the Prince of Orange was occasioned by a proceeding directly contrary, the
oppression and injustice there beginning from the throne: For that unhappy
prince, King James II., did not only invade our laws and liberties, but
would have forced a false religion upon his subjects, for which he was
deservedly rejected, since there could be no other remedy found, or at
least agreed on. But, under the blessed Martyr, the deluded people would
have forced many false religions, not only on their fellow-subjects, but
even upon their sovereign himself, and at the same time invaded all his
undoubted rights; and, because he would not comply, raised a horrid
rebellion, wherein, by the permission of God, they prevailed, and put
their sovereign to death, like a common criminal, in the face of the
world.

Therefore, those who seem to think they cannot otherwise justify the late
Revolution, and the change of the succession, than by lessening the guilt
of the Puritans, do certainly put the greatest affront imaginable upon the
present powers, by supposing any relation, or resemblance, between that
rebellion and the late Revolution; and, consequently, that the present
establishment is to be defended by the same arguments which those usurpers
made use of, who, to obtain their tyranny, trampled under foot all the
laws of both God and man.

One great design of my discourse was to give you warning against running
into either extreme of two bad opinions, with relation to obedience. As
kings are called gods upon earth, so some would allow them an equal power
with God, over all laws and ordinances; and that the liberty, and
property, and life, and religion of the subject, depended wholly upon the
breath of the prince; which, however, I hope was never meant by those who
pleaded for passive obedience. And this opinion hath not been confined to
that party which was first charged with it, but hath sometimes gone over
to the other, to serve many an evil turn of interest or ambition, who have
been as ready to enlarge prerogative, where they could find their own
account, as the highest maintainers of it.

On the other side, some look upon kings as answerable for every mistake or
omission in government, and bound to comply with the most unreasonable
demands of an unquiet faction; which was the case of those who persecuted
the blessed Martyr of this day from his throne to the scaffold.

Between these two extremes, it is easy, from what hath been said, to
choose a middle; to be good and loyal subjects, yet, according to your
power, faithful assertors of your religion and liberties; to avoid all
broachers and preachers of newfangled doctrines in the Church; to be
strict observers of the laws, which cannot be justly taken from you
without your own consent: In short, “to obey God and the King, and meddle
not with those who are given to change.”

Which that you may all do, &c.

ON THE POOR MAN’S CONTENTMENT.

PHILIPPIANS, CHAP. IV. PART OF THE 11TH VERSE.

“I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content”

The holy Scripture is full of expressions to set forth the miserable
condition of man during the whole progress of his life; his weakness,
pride, and vanity; his unmeasurable desires, and perpetual
disappointments; the prevalency of his passions, and the corruptions of
his reason; his deluding hopes, and his real, as well as imaginary, fears;
his natural and artificial wants; his cares and anxieties; the diseases of
his body, and the diseases of his mind; the shortness of his life; his
dread of a future state, with his carelessness to prepare for it: And the
wise men of all ages have made the same reflections.

But all these are general calamities, from which none are excepted; and
being without remedy, it is vain to bewail them. The great question, long
debated in the world, is, whether the rich or the poor are the least
miserable of the two? It is certain, that no rich man ever desired to be
poor, and that most, if not all, poor men, desire to be rich; whence it
may be argued, that, in all appearance, the advantage lieth on the side of
wealth, because both parties agree in preferring it before poverty. But
this reasoning will be found to be false: For, I lay it down as a certain
truth, that God Almighty hath placed all men upon an equal foot, with
respect to their happiness in this world, and the capacity of attaining
their salvation in the next; or, at least, if there be any difference, it
is not to the advantage of the rich and the mighty. Now, since a great
part of those who usually make up our congregations, are not of
considerable station, and many among them of the lower sort, and since the
meaner people are generally and justly charged with the sin of repining
and murmuring at their own condition, to which, however, their betters axe
sufficiently subject (although, perhaps, for shame, not always so loud in
their complaints) I thought it might be useful to reason upon this point
in as plain a manner as I can. I shall therefore shew, first, that the
poor enjoy many temporal blessings, which are not common to the rich and
the great: And, likewise, that the rich and the great are subject to many
temporal evils, which are not common to the poor.

But here I would not be misunderstood; perhaps there is not a word more
abused than that of the poor, or wherein the world is more generally
mistaken. Among the number of those who beg in our streets, or are
half-starved at home, or languish in prison for debt, there is hardly one
in a hundred who doth not owe his misfortunes to his own laziness, or
drunkenness, or worse vices.

To these he owes those very diseases which often disable him from getting
his bread. Such wretches are deservedly unhappy: They can only blame
themselves; and when we are commanded to have pity on the poor, these are
not understood to be of the number.

It is true, indeed, that sometimes honest, endeavouring men are reduced to
extreme want, even to the begging of alms, by losses, by accidents, by
diseases, and old age, without any fault of their own: But these are very
few in comparison of the other; nor would their support be any sensible
burthen to the public, if the charity of well-disposed persons were not
intercepted by those common strollers, who are most importunate, and who
least deserve it. These, indeed, are properly and justly called the poor,
whom it should be our study to find out and distinguish, by making them
partake, of our superfluity and abundance.

But neither have these anything to do with my present subject; For, by the
poor, I only intend the honest, industrious artificer, the meaner sort of
tradesmen, and the labouring man, who getteth his bread by the sweat of
his brows, in town or country, and who make the bulk of mankind among us.

First: I shall therefore shew, first, that the poor (in the sense I
understand the word) do enjoy many temporal blessings, which are not
common to the rich and great; and likewise, that the rich and great are
subject to many temporal evils, which are not common to the poor.

Secondly: From the arguments offered to prove the foregoing head, I
shall draw some observations that may be useful for your practice.

I. As to the first: Health, we know, is generally allowed to be the best
of all earthly possessions, because it is that, without which we can have
no satisfaction in any of the rest. For riches are of no use, if sickness
taketh from us the ability of enjoying them, and power and greatness are
then only a burthen. Now, if we would look for health, it must be in the
humble habitation of the labouring man, or industrious artificer, who earn
their bread by the sweat of their brows, and usually live to a good old
age, with a great degree of strength and vigour.

The refreshment of the body by sleep is another great happiness of the
meaner sort. Their rest is not disturbed by the fear of thieves and
robbers, nor is it interrupted by surfeits of intemperance. Labour and
plain food supply the want of quieting draughts; and the wise man telleth
us, that the sleep of the labouring man is sweet. As to children, which
are certainly accounted of as a blessing, even to the poor, where industry
is not wanting; they are an assistance to honest parents, instead of being
a burthen; they are healthy and strong, and fit for labour; neither is the
father in fear, lest his heir should be ruined by an unequal match: Nor is
he solicitous about his rising in the world, farther than to be able to
get his bread.

The poorer sort are not the objects of general hatred or envy; they have
no twinges of ambition, nor trouble themselves with party quarrels, or
state divisions. The idle rabble, who follow their ambitious leaders in
such cases, do not fall within my description of the poorer sort; for, it
is plain, I mean only the honest industrious poor in town or country, who
are safest in times of public disturbance, in perilous seasons, and public
revolutions, if they will be quiet, and do their business; for artificers
and husbandmen are necessary in all governments: But in such seasons, the
rich are the public mark, because they are oftentimes of no use, but to be
plundered; like some sort of birds, who are good for nothing, but their
feathers; and so fall a prey to the strongest side.

Let us proceed, on the other side to examine the disadvantages which the
rich and the great lie under, with respect to the happiness of the present
life.

First, then; While health, as we have said, is the general portion of the
lower sort, the gout, the dropsy, the stone, the cholic, and all other
diseases, are continually haunting the palaces of the rich and the great,
as the natural attendants upon laziness and luxury. Neither does the rich
man eat his sumptuous fare with half the appetite and relish, that even
the beggars do the crumbs which fall from his table: But, on the contrary,
he is full of loathing and disgust, or at best of indifference, in the
midst of plenty. Thus their intemperance shortens their lives, without
pleasing their appetites.

Business, fear, guilt, design, anguish, and vexation are continually
buzzing about the curtains of the rich and the powerful, and will hardly
suffer them to close their eyes, unless when they are dosed with the fumes
of strong liquors.

It is a great mistake to imagine that the rich want but few things; their
wants are more numerous, more craving, and urgent, than those of poorer
men: For these endeavour only at the necessaries of life, which make them
happy, and they think no farther: But the desire of power and wealth is
endless, and therefore impossible to be satisfied with any acquisitions.

If riches were so great a blessing as they are commonly thought, they
would at least have this advantage, to give their owners cheerful hearts
and countenances; they would often stir them up to express their
thankfulness to God, and discover their satisfaction to the world. But, in
fact, the contrary to all this is true. For where are there more cloudy
brows, more melancholy hearts, or more ingratitude to their great
Benefactor, than among those who abound in wealth? And, indeed, it is
natural that it should be so, because those men, who covet things that are
hard to be got, must be hard to please; whereas a small thing maketh a
poor man happy, and great losses cannot befall him.

It is likewise worth considering, how few among the rich have procured
their wealth by just measures; how many owe their fortunes to the sins of
their parents, how many more to their own? If men’s titles were to be
tried before a true court of conscience, where false swearing, and a
thousand vile artifices, (that are well known, and can hardly be avoided
in human courts of justice) would avail nothing; how many would be ejected
with infamy and disgrace? How many grow considerable by breach of trust,
by bribery and corruption? How many have sold their religion, with the
rights and liberties of themselves and others, for power and employments?

And, it is a mistake to think, that the most hardened sinner, who oweth
his possessions or titles to any such wicked arts of thieving, can have
true peace of mind, under the reproaches of a guilty conscience, and amid
the cries of ruined widows and orphans.

I know not one real advantage that the rich have over the poor, except the
power of doing good to others. But this is an advantage which God hath not
given wicked men the grace to make use of. The wealth acquired by evil
means was never employed to good ends; for that would be to divide the
kingdom of Satan against itself. Whatever hath been gained by fraud,
avarice, oppression, and the like, must be preserved and increased by the
same methods.

I shall add but one thing more upon this head, which I hope will convince
you, that God (whose thoughts are not as our thoughts) never intended
riches or power to be necessary for the happiness of mankind in this life;
because it is certain, that there is not one single good quality of the
mind absolutely necessary to obtain them, where men are resolved to be
rich at any rate; neither honour, justice, temperance, wisdom, religion,
truth, or learning; for a slight acquaintance of the world will inform us,
that there have been many instances of men, in all ages, who have arrived
at great possessions and great dignities, by cunning, fraud, or flattery,
without any of these, or any other virtues that can be named. Now, if
riches and greatness were such blessings, that good men without them could
not have their share of happiness in this life; how cometh it to pass,
that God should suffer them to be often dealt to the worst, and most
profligate of mankind; that they should be generally procured by the most
abominable means, and applied to the basest and most wicked uses? This
ought not to be conceived of a just, a merciful, a wise, and Almighty
Being. We must therefore conclude, that wealth and power are in their own
nature, at best, but things indifferent, and that a good man may be
equally happy without them, provided that he hath a sufficiency of the
common blessings of human life to answer all the reasonable and virtuous
demands of nature, which his industry will provide, and sobriety will
prevent his wanting. Agur’s prayer, with the reasons of his wish, are full
to this purpose: “Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with food
convenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee, and say, ‘Who is the
Lord?’ Or, lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in
vain.”

From what hath been said, I shall, in the second place, offer some
considerations, that may be useful for your practice.

And here I shall apply myself chiefly to those of the lower sort, for
whose comfort and satisfaction this discourse is principally intended.
For, having observed the great sin of those, who do not abound in wealth,
to be that of murmuring and repining, that God hath dealt his blessings
unequally to the sons of men, I thought it would be of great use to remove
out of your minds so false and wicked an opinion, by shewing that your
condition is really happier than most of you imagine.

First: Therefore, it hath been always agreed in the world, that the
present happiness of mankind consisted in the ease of our body and the
quiet of our mind; but, from what has been already said, it plainly
appears, that neither wealth nor power do in any sort contribute to either
of these two blessings. If, on the contrary, by multiplying our desires,
they increase our discontents; if they destroy our health, gall us with
painful diseases, and shorten our life; if they expose us to hatred, to
envy, to censure, to a thousand temptations, it is not easy to see why a
wise man should make them his choice, for their own sake, although it were
in his power. Would any of you, who are in health and strength of body,
with moderate food and raiment earned by your own labour, rather choose to
be in the rich man’s bed, under the torture of the gout, unable to take
your natural rest, or natural nourishment, with the additional load of a
guilty conscience, reproaching you for injustice, oppressions,
covetousness, and fraud? No; but you would take the riches and power, and
leave behind the inconveniences that attend them; and so would every man
living. But that is more than our share, and God never intended this world
for such a place of rest as we would make it; for the Scripture assureth
us that it was only designed as a place of trial. Nothing is more
frequent, than a man to wish himself in another’s condition; yet he seldom
doth it without some reserve: He would not be so old; he would not be so
sickly; he would not be so cruel; he would not be so insolent; he would
not be so vicious; he would not be so oppressive, so griping, and so on.
From whence it is plain, that, in their own judgment, men are not so
unequally dealt with, as they would at first sight imagine: For, if I
would not change my condition with another man, without any exception or
reservation at all, I am, in reality, more happy than he.

Secondly: You of the meaner sort are subject to fewer temptations
than the rich; and therefore your vices are more unpardonable. Labour
subdueth your appetites to be satisfied with common things; the business
of your several callings filleth up your whole time; so that idleness,
which is the bane and destruction of virtue, doth not lead you into the
neighbourhood of sin: Your passions are cooler, by not being inflamed with
excess, and therefore the gate and the way that lead to life are not so
straight and so narrow to you, as to those who live among all the
allurements to wickedness. To serve God with the best of your care and
understanding, and to be just and true in your dealings, is the short sum
of your duty, and will be the more strictly required of you, because
nothing lieth in the way to divert you from it.

Thirdly: It is plain from what I have said, that you of the lower
rank have no just reason to complain of your condition: Because, as you
plainly see, it affordeth you so many advantages, and freeth you from so
many vexations, so many distempers both of body and mind, which pursue and
torment the rich and powerful.

Fourthly: You are to remember and apply, that the poorest person is
not excused from doing good to others, and even relieving the wants of his
distressed neighbour, according to his abilities; and if you perform your
duty in this point, you far outdo the greatest liberalities of the rich,
and will accordingly be accepted of by God, and get your reward: For it is
our Saviour’s own doctrine, when the widow gave her two mites. The rich
give out of their abundance; that is to say, what they give, they do not
feel it in their way of living: But the poor man, who giveth out of his
little stock, must spare it from the necessary food and raiment of himself
and his family. And, therefore, our Saviour adds, “That the widow gave
more than all who went before her; for she gave all she had, even all her
living;” and so went home utterly unprovided to supply her necessities.

Lastly: As it appeareth from what hath been said, that you in the
lower rank have, in reality, a greater share of happiness, your work of
salvation is easier, by your being liable to fewer temptations; and as
your reward in Heaven is much more certain than it is to the rich, if you
seriously perform your duty, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven; so your
neglect of it will be less excusable, will meet with fewer allowances from
God, and will be punished with double stripes: For the most unknowing
among you cannot plead ignorance of what you have been so early taught, I
hope, so often instructed in, and which is so easy to be understood, I
mean the art of leading a life agreeable to the plain and positive laws of
God. Perhaps you may think you lie under one disadvantage, which the great
and rich have not; that idleness will certainly reduce you to beggary;
whereas those who abound in wealth lie under no necessity either of labour
or temperance to keep enough to live on. But this is indeed one part of
your happiness, that the lowness of your condition, in a manner, forceth
you to what is pleasing to God, and necessary for your daily support. Thus
your duty and interest are always the same.

To conclude: Since our blessed Lord, instead of a rich and honourable
station in this world, was pleased to choose his lot among men of the
lower condition; let not those, on whom the bounty of Providence hath
bestowed wealth and honours, despise the men who are placed in a humble
and inferior station; but rather, with their utmost power, by their
countenance, by their protection, by just payment of their honest labour,
encourage their daily endeavours for the support of themselves and their
families. On the other hand, let the poor labour to provide things honest
in the sight of all men; and so, with diligence in their several
employments, live soberly, righteously, and godlily in this present world,
that they may obtain that glorious reward promised in the Gospel to the
poor, I mean the kingdom of Heaven.

Now, to God the Father, &c,

A SERMON ON THE CAUSES OF THE WRETCHED CONDITION OF IRELAND.[1]

[Footnote 1: This is not very properly styled a sermon; but, considered as
a political dissertation, it has great merit, and it is highly worthy of
the subject, and the author. Most of the circumstances here founded upon,
as the causes of national distress, are the subject of separate
disquisitions in those political writings connected with Ireland. But they
are here summed up, and brought into one view; and the opinions expressed
form a sort of index to the Dean’s tenets upon the state of that country.
[S.]]

PSALM CXLIV. PART OF THE 14TH AND 15TH VERSES.

“That there be no complaining in our streets. Happy is the people that is
in such a case.”

It is a very melancholy reflection, that such a country as ours, which is
capable of producing all things necessary, and most things convenient for
life, sufficient for the support of four times the number of its
inhabitants, should yet lie under the heaviest load of misery and want,
our streets crowded with beggars, so many of our lower sort of tradesmen,
labourers, and artificers, not able to find clothes and food for their
families.

I think it may therefore be of some use to lay before you the chief causes
of this wretched condition we are in, and then it will be easier to assign
what remedies are in our power toward removing, at least, some part of
these evils.

For it is ever to be lamented, that we lie under many disadvantages, not
by our own faults, which are peculiar to ourselves, and which no other
nation under heaven hath any reason to complain of.

I shall, therefore, first mention some causes of our miseries,—which
I doubt are not to be remedied, until God shall put it in the hearts of
those who are stronger to allow us the common rights and privileges of
brethren, fellow-subjects, and even of mankind. The first cause of our
misery is the intolerable hardships we lie under in every branch of our
trade, by which we are become as hewers of wood, and drawers of water, to
our rigorous neighbours.

The second cause of our miserable state is the folly, the vanity, and
ingratitude of those vast numbers, who think themselves too good to live
in the country which gave them birth, and still gives them bread; and
rather choose to pass their days, and consume their wealth, and draw out
the very vitals of their mother kingdom, among those who heartily despise
them.

These I have but lightly touched on, because I fear they are not to be
redressed, and, besides, I am very sensible how ready some people are to
take offence at the honest truth; and, for that reason, I shall omit
several other grievances, under which we are long likely to groan.

I shall therefore go on to relate some other causes of this nation’s
poverty, by which, if they continue much longer, it must infallibly sink
to utter ruin.

The first is, that monstrous pride and vanity in both sexes, especially
the weaker sex, who, in the midst of poverty, are suffered to run into all
kind of expense and extravagance in dress, and particularly priding
themselves to wear nothing but what cometh from abroad, disdaining the
growth or manufacture of their own country, in those articles where they
can be better served at home with half the expense; and this is grown to
such a height, that they will carry the whole yearly rent of a good estate
at once on their body. And, as there is in that sex a spirit of envy, by
which they cannot endure to see others in a better habit than themselves,
so those, whose fortunes can hardly support their families in the
necessaries of life, will needs vie with the richest and greatest amongst
us, to the ruin of themselves and their posterity.

Neither are the men less guilty of this pernicious folly, who, in
imitation of a gaudiness and foppery of dress, introduced of late years
into our neighbouring kingdom, (as fools are apt to imitate only the
defects of their betters,) cannot find materials in their own country
worthy to adorn their bodies of clay, while their minds are naked of every
valuable quality.

Thus our tradesmen and shopkeepers, who deal in home goods, are left in a
starving condition, and only those encouraged who ruin the kingdom by
importing among us foreign vanities.

Another cause of our low condition is our great luxury, the chief support
of which is the materials of it brought to the nation in exchange for the
few valuable things left us, whereby so many thousand families want the
very necessaries of life.

Thirdly, In most parts of this kingdom the natives are from their
infancy so given up to idleness and sloth, that they often choose to beg
or steal, rather than support themselves with their own labour; they marry
without the least view or thought of being able to make any provision for
their families; and whereas, in all industrious nations, children are
looked on as a help to their parents; with us, for want of being early
trained to work, they are an intolerable burthen at home, and a grievous
charge upon the public, as appeareth from the vast number of ragged and
naked children in town and country, led about by strolling women, trained
up in ignorance and all manner of vice.

Lastly, A great cause of this nation’s misery, is that Egyptian
bondage of cruel, oppressing, covetous landlords, expecting that all who
live under them should make bricks without straw, who grieve and envy when
they see a tenant of their own in a whole coat, or able to afford one
comfortable meal in a month, by which the spirits of the people are
broken, and made for slavery; the farmers and cottagers, almost through
the whole kingdom, being to all intents and purposes as real beggars as
any of those to whom we give our charity in the streets. And these cruel
landlords are every day unpeopling their kingdom, by forbidding their
miserable tenants to till the earth, against common reason and justice,
and contrary to the practice and prudence of all other nations, by which
numberless families have been forced either to leave the kingdom, or
stroll about, and increase the number of our thieves and beggars.

Such, and much worse, is our condition at present, if I had leisure or
liberty to lay it before you; and, therefore, the next thing which might
be considered is, whether there may be any probable remedy found, at the
least against some part of these evils; for most of them are wholly
desperate.

But this being too large a subject to be now handled, and the intent of my
discourse confining me to give some directions concerning the poor of this
city, I shall keep myself within those limits. It is indeed in the power
of the lawgivers to found a school in every parish of the kingdom, for
teaching the meaner and poorer sort of children to speak and read the
English tongue, and to provide a reasonable maintenance for the teachers.
This would, in time, abolish that part of barbarity and ignorance, for
which our natives are so despised by all foreigners: this would bring them
to think and act according to the rules of reason, by which a spirit of
industry, and thrift, and honesty would be introduced among them. And,
indeed, considering how small a tax would suffice for such a work, it is a
public scandal that such a thing should never have been endeavoured, or,
perhaps, so much as thought on.

To supply the want of such a law, several pious persons, in many parts of
this kingdom, have been prevailed on, by the great endeavours and good
example set them by the clergy, to erect charity-schools in several
parishes, to which very often the richest parishioners contribute the
least. In those schools, children are, or ought to be, trained up to read
and write, and cast accounts; and these children should, if possible, be
of honest parents, gone to decay through age, sickness, or other
unavoidable calamity, by the hand of God; not the brood of wicked
strollers; for it is by no means reasonable, that the charity of
well-inclined people should be applied to encourage the lewdness of those
profligate, abandoned women, who crowd our streets with their borrowed or
spurious issue.

In those hospitals which have good foundations and rents to support them,
whereof, to the scandal of Christianity, there are very few in this
kingdom; I say, in such hospitals, the children maintained ought to be
only of decayed citizens, and freemen, and be bred up to good trades. But
in these small-parish charity-schools which have no support, but the
casual goodwill of charitable people, I do altogether disapprove the
custom of putting the children ‘prentice, except to the very meanest
trades; otherwise the poor honest citizen, who is just able to bring up
his child, and pay a small sum of money with him to a good master, is
wholly defeated, and the bastard issue, perhaps, of some beggar preferred
before him. And hence we come to be so overstocked with ‘prentices and
journeymen, more than our discouraged country can employ; and, I fear, the
greatest part of our thieves, pickpockets, and other vagabonds are of this
number.

Therefore, in order to make these parish charity-schools of great and
universal use, I agree with the opinion of many wise persons, that a new
turn should be given to this whole matter.

I think there is no complaint more just than what we find in almost every
family, of the folly and ignorance, the fraud and knavery, the idleness
and viciousness, the wasteful squandering temper of servants, who are,
indeed, become one of the many public grievances of the kingdom; whereof,
I believe, there are few masters that now hear me who are not convinced by
their own experience. And I am not very confident, that more families, of
all degrees, have been ruined by the corruptions of servants, than by all
other causes put together. Neither is this to be wondered at, when we
consider from what nurseries so many of them are received into our houses.
The first is the tribe of wicked boys, wherewith most corners of this town
are pestered, who haunt public doors. These, having been born of beggars,
and bred to pilfer as soon as they can go or speak, as years come on, are
employed in the lowest offices to get themselves bread, are practised in
all manner of villainy, and when they are grown up, if they are not
entertained in a gang of thieves, are forced to seek for a service. The
other nursery is the barbarous and desert part of the country, from whence
such lads come up hither to seek their fortunes, who are bred up from the
dunghill in idleness, ignorance, lying, and thieving. From these two
nurseries, I say, a great number of our servants come to us, sufficient to
corrupt all the rest. Thus, the whole race of servants in this kingdom
have gotten so ill a reputation, that some persons from England, come over
hither into great stations, are said to have absolutely refused admitting
any servant born among us into their families. Neither can they be justly
blamed; for although it is not impossible to find an honest native fit for
a good service, yet the inquiry is too troublesome, and the hazard too
great for a stranger to attempt.

If we consider the many misfortunes that befall private families, it will
be found that servants are the causes and instruments of them all: Are our
goods embezzled, wasted and destroyed? Is our house burnt down to the
ground? It is by the sloth, the drunkenness or the villainy of servants.
Are we robbed and murdered in our beds? It is by confederacy with our
servants. Are we engaged in quarrels and misunderstandings with our
neighbours? These were all begun and inflamed by the false, malicious
tongues of our servants. Are the secrets of our families betrayed, and
evil repute spread of us? Our servants were the authors. Do false accusers
rise up against us (an evil too frequent in this country)? They have been
tampering with our servants. Do our children discover folly, malice,
pride, cruelty, revenge, undutifulness in their words and actions? Are
they seduced to lewdness or scandalous marriages? It is all by our
servants. Nay, the very mistakes, follies, blunders, and absurdities of
those in our service, are able to ruffle and discompose the mildest
nature, and are often of such consequence, as to put whole families into
confusion.

Since therefore not only our domestic peace and quiet, and the welfare of
our children, but even the very safety of our lives, reputations, and
fortunes have so great a dependence upon the choice of our servants, I
think it would well become the wisdom of the nation to make some provision
in so important an affair. But in the meantime, and, perhaps, to better
purpose, it were to be wished, that the children of both sexes,
entertained in the parish charity-schools, were bred up in such a manner
as would give them a teachable disposition, and qualify them to learn
whatever is required in any sort of service. For instance, they should be
taught to read and write, to know somewhat in casting accounts, to
understand the principles of religion, to practise cleanliness, to get a
spirit of honesty, industry, and thrift, and be severely punished for
every neglect in any of these particulars. For, it is the misfortune of
mankind, that if they are not used to be taught in their early childhood,
whereby to acquire what I call a teachable disposition, they cannot,
without great difficulty, learn the easiest thing in the course of their
lives, but are always awkward and unhandy; their minds, as well as bodies,
for want of early practice, growing stiff and unmanageable, as we observe
in the sort of gentlemen, who, kept from school by the indulgence of their
parents but a few years, are never able to recover the time they have
lost, and grow up in ignorance and all manner of vice, whereof we have too
many examples all over the nation. But to return to what I was saying: If
these charity children were trained up in the manner I mentioned, and then
bound apprentices in the families of gentlemen and citizens, (for which a
late law giveth great encouragement) being accustomed from their first
entrance to be always learning some useful thing, [they] would learn, in a
month, more than another, without those advantages, can do in a year; and,
in the meantime, be very useful in a family, as far as their age and
strength would allow. And when such children come to years of discretion,
they will probably be a useful example to their fellow-servants, at least
they will prove a strong check upon the rest; for, I suppose, everybody
will allow, that one good, honest, diligent servant in a house may prevent
abundance of mischief in the family.

These are the reasons for which I urge this matter so strongly, and I hope
those who listen to me will consider them.

I shall now say something about that great number of poor, who, under the
name of common beggars, infest our streets, and fill our ears with their
continual cries, and craving importunity. This I shall venture to call an
unnecessary evil, brought upon us for the gross neglect, and want of
proper management, in those whose duty it is to prevent it. But before I
proceed farther, let me humbly presume to vindicate the justice and mercy
of God and His dealings with mankind. Upon this particular He hath not
dealt so hardly with His creatures as some would imagine, when they see so
many miserable objects ready to perish for want: For it would infallibly
be found, upon strict enquiry, that there is hardly one in twenty of those
miserable objects who do not owe their present poverty to their own
faults, to their present sloth and negligence, to their indiscreet
marriage without the least prospect of supporting a family, to their
foolish expensiveness, to their drunkenness, and other vices, by which
they have squandered their gettings, and contracted diseases in their old
age. And, to speak freely, is it any way reasonable or just, that those
who have denied themselves many lawful satisfactions and conveniences of
life, from a principle of conscience, as well as prudence, that they might
not be a burthen to the public, should be charged with supporting others,
who have brought themselves to less than a morsel of bread by their
idleness, extravagance, and vice? Yet such, and no other, are far the
greatest number not only in those who beg in our streets, but even of what
we call poor decayed housekeepers, whom we are apt to pity as real objects
of charity, and distinguish them from common beggars, although, in truth,
they both owe their undoing to the same causes; only the former is either
too nicely bred to endure walking half naked in the streets, or too proud
to own their wants. For the artificer or other tradesman, who pleadeth he
is grown too old to work or look after business, and therefore expecteth
assistance as a decayed housekeeper; may we not ask him, why he did not
take care, in his youth and strength of days, to make some provision
against old age, when he saw so many examples before him of people undone
by their idleness and vicious extravagance? And to go a little higher;
whence cometh it that so many citizens and shopkeepers, of the most
creditable trade, who once made a good figure, go to decay by their
expensive pride and vanity, affecting to educate and dress their children
above their abilities, or the state of life they ought to expect?

However, since the best of us have too many infirmities to answer for, we
ought not to be severe upon those of others; and therefore if our brother,
through grief, or sickness, or other incapacity, is not in a condition to
preserve his being, we ought to support him to the best of our power,
without reflecting over seriously on the causes that brought him to his
misery. But in order to this, and to turn our charity into its proper
channel, we ought to consider who and where those objects are, whom it is
chiefly incumbent upon us to support.

By the ancient law of this realm, still in force, every parish is obliged
to maintain its own poor, which although some may think to be not very
equal, because many parishes are very rich, and have few poor among them,
and others the contrary; yet, I think, may be justly defended: For as to
remote country parishes in the desert part of the kingdom, the necessaries
of life are there so cheap, that the infirm poor may be provided for with
little burden to the inhabitants. But in what I am going to say, I shall
confine myself only to this city, where we are overrun not only with our
own poor, but with a far greater number from every part of the nation.
Now, I say, this evil of being encumbered with so many foreign beggars,
who have not the least title to our charity, and whom it is impossible for
us to support, may be easily remedied, if the government of this city, in
conjunction with the clergy and parish officers, would think it worth
their care; and I am sure few things deserve it better. For, if every
parish would take a list of those begging poor which properly belong to
it, and compel each of them to wear a badge, marked and numbered, so as to
be seen and known by all they meet, and confine them to beg within the
limits of their own parish, severely punishing them when they offend, and
driving out all interlopers from other parishes, we could then make a
computation of their numbers; and the strollers from the country being
driven away, the remainder would not be too many for the charity of those
who pass by to maintain; neither would any beggar, although confined to
his own parish, be hindered from receiving the charity of the whole town;
because, in this case, those well-disposed persons who walk the streets
will give their charity to such whom they think proper objects, wherever
they meet them, provided they are found in their own parishes, and wearing
their badges of distinction. And, as to those parishes which bordered upon
the skirts and suburbs of the town, where country strollers are used to
harbour themselves, they must be forced to go back to their homes, when
they find nobody to relieve them, because they want that mark which only
gives them licence to beg. Upon this point, it were to be wished, that
inferior parish officers had better encouragement given them to perform
their duty in driving away all beggars who do not belong to the parish,
instead of conniving at them, as it is said they do for some small
contribution: For the whole city would save much more by ridding
themselves of many hundred beggars, than they would lose by giving parish
officers a reasonable support.

It should seem a strange, unaccountable thing, that those who have
probably been reduced to want by riot, lewdness, and idleness, although
they have assurance enough to beg alms publicly from all they meet, should
yet be too proud to wear the parish badge, which would turn so much to
their own advantage, by ridding them of such great numbers, who now
intercept the greatest part of what belongeth to them: Yet it is certain,
that there are very many who publicly declare they will never wear those
badges, and many others who either hide or throw them away: But the remedy
for this is very short, easy, and just, by trying them like vagabonds and
sturdy beggars, and forcibly driving them out of the town.

Therefore, as soon as this expedient of wearing badges shall be put in
practice, I do earnestly exhort all those who hear me, never to give their
alms to any public beggar who doth not fully comply with this order, by
which our number of poor will be so reduced, that it will be much easier
to provide for the rest. Our shop-doors will be no longer crowded with so
many thieves and pickpockets, in beggars’ habits, nor our streets so
dangerous to those who are forced to walk in the night.

Thus I have, with great freedom, delivered my thoughts upon this subject,
which so nearly concerneth us. It is certainly a bad scheme, to any
Christian country, which God hath blessed with fruitfulness, and where the
people enjoy the just rights and privileges of mankind, that there should
be any beggars at all. But, alas! among us, where the whole nation itself
is almost reduced to beggary by the disadvantages we lie under, and the
hardships we are forced to bear; the laziness, ignorance, thoughtlessness,
squandering temper, slavish nature, and uncleanly manner of living in the
poor Popish natives, together with the cruel oppressions of their
landlords, who delight to see their vassals in the dust; I say, that, in
such a nation, how can we otherwise expect than to be over-run with
objects of misery and want? Therefore, there can be no other method to
free this city from so intolerable a grievance, than by endeavouring, as
far as in us lies, that the burthen may be more equally divided, by
contributing to maintain our own poor, and forcing the strollers and
vagabonds to return to their several homes in the country, there to smite
the conscience of those oppressors, who first stripped them of all their
substance.

I might here, if the time would permit, offer many arguments to persuade
to works of charity; but you hear them so often from the pulpit, that I am
willing to hope you may not now want them. Besides, my present design was
only to shew where your alms would be best bestowed, to the honour of God,
your own ease and advantage, the service of your country, and the benefit
of the poor. I desire you will all weigh and consider what I have spoken,
and, according to your several stations and abilities, endeavour to put it
in practice; and God give you good success. To Whom, with the Son and Holy
Ghost, be all honour, &c.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

A SERMON UPON SLEEPING IN CHURCH.

ACTS, CHAP. XX. VER. 9.

“And there sat in a window a certain young man, named Eutychus,
being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he
sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up
dead.”

I have chosen these words with design, if possible, to disturb some part
in this audience of half an hour’s sleep, for the convenience and exercise
whereof this place, at this season of the day, is very much celebrated.

There is indeed one mortal disadvantage to which all preaching is subject;
that those who, by the wickedness of their lives, stand in greatest need,
have usually the smallest share; for either they are absent upon the
account of idleness, or spleen, or hatred to religion, or in order to doze
away the intemperance of the week; or, if they do come, they are sure to
employ their minds rather any other way, than regarding or attending to
the business of the place.

The accident which happened to this young man in the text, hath not been
sufficient to discourage his successors: But because the preachers now in
the world, however they may exceed St Paul in the art of setting men to
sleep, do extremely fall short of him in the working of miracles;
therefore men are become so cautious as to choose more safe and convenient
stations and postures for taking their repose, without hazard of their
persons; and, upon the whole matter, choose rather to trust their
destruction to a miracle, than their safety. However, this being not the
only way by which the lukewarm Christians and scorners of the age discover
their neglect and contempt of preaching, I shall enter expressly into
consideration of this matter, and order my discourse in the following
method:

First: I shall produce several instances to shew the great neglect
of preaching now amongst us.

Secondly: I shall reckon up some of the usual quarrels men have
against preaching.

Thirdly: I shall set forth the great evil of this neglect and
contempt of preaching, and discover the real causes from whence it
proceedeth.

Lastly: I shall offer some remedies against this great and
spreading evil.

First: I shall produce certain instances to shew the great neglect
of preaching now among us.

These may be reduced under two heads. First, men’s absence from the
service of the Church; and secondly, their misbehaviour when they are
here.

The first instance of men’s neglect, is in their frequent absence from the
church.

There is no excuse so trivial, that will not pass upon some men’s
consciences to excuse their attendance at the public worship of God. Some
are so unfortunate as to be always indisposed on the Lord’s day, and think
nothing so unwholesome as the air of a church. Others have their affairs
so oddly contrived, as to be always unluckily prevented by business. With
some it is a great mark of wit, and deep understanding, to stay at home on
Sundays. Others again discover strange fits of laziness, that seize them,
particularly on that day, and confine them to their beds. Others are
absent out of mere contempt of religion. And, lastly, there are not a few
who look upon it as a day of rest, and therefore claim the privilege of
their cattle, to keep the Sabbath by eating, drinking, and sleeping, after
the toil and labour of the week. Now in all this the worst circumstance
is, that these persons are such whose companies are most required, and who
stand most in need of a physician.

Secondly: Men’s great neglect and contempt of preaching, appear by
their misbehaviour when at church.

If the audience were to be ranked under several heads according to their
behaviour, when the word of God is delivered, how small a number would
appear of those who receive it as they ought? How much of the seed then
sown would be found to fall by the way-side, upon stony ground or among
thorns? And how little good ground would there be to take it? A preacher
cannot look round from the pulpit, without observing, that some are in a
perpetual whisper, and, by their air and gesture, give occasion to
suspect, that they are in those very minutes defaming their neighbour.
Others have their eyes and imagination constantly engaged in such a circle
of objects, perhaps to gratify the most unwarrantable desires, that they
never once attend to the business of the place; the sound of the
preacher’s words doth not so much as once interrupt them. Some have their
minds wandering among idle, worldly, or vicious thoughts. Some lie at
catch to ridicule whatever they hear, and with much wit and humour provide
a stock of laughter, by furnishing themselves from the pulpit. But, of all
misbehaviour, none is comparable to that of those who come here to sleep;
opium is not so stupefying to many persons as an afternoon sermon.
Perpetual custom hath so brought it about, that the words, of whatever
preacher, become only a sort of uniform sound at a distance, than which
nothing is more effectual to lull the senses. For, that it is the very
sound of the sermon which bindeth up their faculties, is manifest from
hence, because they all awake so very regularly as soon as it ceaseth, and
with much devotion receive the blessing, dozed and besotted with
indecencies I am ashamed to repeat.

I proceed, Secondly, to reckon up some of the usual quarrels men
have against preaching, and to shew the unreasonableness of them.

Such unwarrantable demeanour as I have described, among Christians, in the
house of God, in a solemn assembly, while their faith and duty are
explained and delivered, have put those who are guilty upon inventing some
excuses to extenuate their fault: This they do by turning the blame either
upon the particular preacher, or upon preaching in general. First, they
object against the particular preacher; his manner, his delivery, his
voice are disagreeable, his style and expression are flat and low;
sometimes improper and absurd; the matter is heavy, trivial and insipid;
sometimes despicable, and perfectly ridiculous; or else, on the other
side, he runs up into unintelligible speculation, empty notions, and
abstracted flights, all clad in words above usual understandings.

Secondly, They object against preaching in general; it is a perfect road
of talk; they know already whatever can be said; they have heard the same
an hundred times over. They quarrel that preachers do not relieve an old
beaten subject with wit and invention; and that now the art is lost of
moving men’s passions, so common among the ancient orators of Greece and
Rome. These, and the like objections, are frequently in the mouths of men
who despise the “foolishness of preaching.” But let us examine the
reasonableness of them.

The doctrine delivered by all preachers is the same: “So we preach, and so
ye believe:” But the manner of delivering is suited to the skill and
abilities of each, which differ in preachers just as in the rest of
mankind. However, in personal dislikes of a particular preacher, are these
men sure they are always in the right? Do they consider how mixed a thing
is every audience, whose taste and judgment differ, perhaps, every day,
not only from each other, but themselves? And how to calculate a
discourse, that shall exactly suit them all, is beyond the force and reach
of human reason, knowledge, or invention. Wit and eloquence are shining
qualities, that God hath imparted, in great degrees, to very few, nor any
more to be expected, in the generality of any rank among men, than riches
and honour. But further: If preaching in general be all old and beaten,
and that they are already so well acquainted with it, more shame and guilt
to them who so little edify by it. But these men, whose ears are so
delicate as not to endure a plain discourse of religion, who expect a
constant supply of wit and eloquence on a subject handled so many thousand
times; what will they say when we turn the objection upon themselves, who,
with all the rude and profane liberty of discourse they take, upon so many
thousand subjects, are so dull as to furnish nothing but tedious
repetitions, and little paltry, nauseous common-places, so vulgar, so
worn, or so obvious, as, upon any other occasion, but that of advancing
vice, would be hooted off the stage? Nor, lastly, are preachers justly
blamed for neglecting human oratory to move the passions, which is not the
business of a Christian orator, whose office it is only to work upon faith
and reason. All other eloquence hath been a perfect cheat, to stir up
men’s passions against truth and justice, for the service of a faction, to
put false colours upon things, and by an amusement of agreeable words,
make the worse reason appear to be the better. This is certainly not to be
allowed in Christian eloquence, and, therefore, St Paul took quite the
other course; he “came not with excellency of words, or enticing speech of
men’s wisdom, but in plain evidence of the Spirit and power.” And perhaps
it was for that reason the young man Eutychus, used to the Grecian
eloquence, grew tired and fell so fast asleep.

I go on, Thirdly, to set forth the great evil of this neglect and
scorn of preaching, and to discover the real causes from whence it
proceedeth.

I think it is obvious,[1] that this neglect of preaching hath very much
occasioned the great decay of religion among us. To this may be imputed no
small part of that contempt some men bestow on the clergy; for, whoever
talketh without being regarded, is sure to be despised. To this we owe, in
a great measure, the spreading of atheism and infidelity among us; for
religion, like all other things, is soonest put out of countenance by
being ridiculed. The scorn of preaching might perhaps have been at first
introduced by men of nice ears and refined taste; but it is now become a
spreading evil, through all degrees, and both sexes; for, since sleeping,
talking, and laughing are qualities sufficient to furnish out a critic,
the meanest and most ignorant have set up a title, and succeeded in it as
well as their betters. Thus are the last efforts of reforming mankind
rendered wholly useless: “How shall they hear,” saith the apostle,
“without a preacher?” But, if they have a preacher, and make it a point of
wit or breeding not to hear him, what remedy is left? To this neglect of
preaching, we may also entirely impute that gross ignorance among us in
the very principles of religion, which it is amazing to find in persons
who very much value their own knowledge and understanding in other things;
yet, it is a visible, inexcusable ignorance, even in the meanest among us,
considering the many advantages they have of learning their duty. And it
hath been the great encouragement to all manner of vice: For, in vain we
preach down sin to a people, “whose hearts are waxed gross, whose ears are
dull of hearing, and whose eyes are closed.” Therefore Christ Himself, in
His discourses, frequently rouseth up the attention of the multitude, and
of His disciples themselves, with this expression, “He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear.” But, among all neglects of preaching, none is so
fatal as that of sleeping in the house of God; a scorner may listen to
truth and reason, and in time grow serious; an unbeliever may feel the
pangs of a guilty conscience; one whose thoughts or eyes wander among
other objects, may, by a lucky word, be called back to attention: But the
sleeper shuts up all avenues to his soul: He is “like the deaf adder, that
hearkeneth not to the voice of the charmer, charm he never so wisely.”
And, we may preach with as good success to the grave that is under his
feet.

[Footnote 1: Hawkesworth (Swift’s “Works,” vol. xiii., 1762) inserts here
“to believe.” [T.S.]]

But the great evil of this neglect will further yet appear, from
considering the real causes whence it proceedeth; whereof the first, I
take to be, an evil conscience. Many men come to church to save or gain a
reputation; or because they will not be singular, but comply with an
established custom; yet, all the while, they are loaded with the guilt of
old rooted sins. These men can expect to hear of nothing but terrors and
threatenings, their sins laid open in true colours, and eternal misery the
reward of them; therefore, no wonder they stop their ears, and divert
their thoughts, and seek any amusement rather than stir the hell within
them.

Another cause of this neglect is, a heart set upon worldly things. Men
whose minds are much enslaved to earthly affairs all the week, cannot
disengage or break the chain of their thoughts so suddenly, as to apply to
a discourse that is wholly foreign to what they have most at heart. Tell a
usurer of charity, and mercy, and restitution, you talk to the deaf; his
heart and soul, with all his senses, are got among his bags, or he is
gravely asleep, and dreaming of a mortgage. Tell a man of business, that
the cares of the world choke the good seed; that we must not encumber
ourselves with much serving; that the salvation of his soul is the one
thing necessary: You see, indeed, the shape of a man before you, but his
faculties are all gone off among clients and papers, thinking how to
defend a bad cause, or find flaws in a good one; or, he weareth out the
time in drowsy nods.

A third cause of the great neglect and scorn of preaching, ariseth from
the practice of men who set up to decry and disparage religion; these,
being zealous to promote infidelity and vice, learn a rote of buffoonery
that serveth all occasions, and refutes the strongest arguments for piety
and good manners. These have a set of ridicule calculated for all sermons,
and all preachers, and can be extreme witty as often as they please upon
the same fund.

Let me now, in the last place, offer some remedies against this great
evil.

It will be one remedy against the contempt of preaching, rightly to
consider the end for which it was designed. There are many who place
abundance of merit in going to church, although it be with no other
prospect but that of being well entertained, wherein if they happen to
fail, they return wholly disappointed. Hence it is become an impertinent
vein among people of all sorts to hunt after what they call a good sermon,
as if it were a matter of pastime and diversion. Our business, alas! is
quite another thing, either to learn, or, at least, be reminded of our
duty, to apply the doctrines delivered, compare the rules we hear with our
lives and actions, and find wherein we have transgressed. These are the
dispositions men should bring into the house of God, and then they will be
little concerned about the preacher’s wit or eloquence, nor be curious to
enquire out his faults and infirmities, but consider how to correct their
own.

Another remedy against the contempt of preaching, is, that men would
consider, whether it be not reasonable to give more allowances for the
different abilities of preachers than they usually do; refinements of
style, and flights of wit, as they are not properly the business of any
preacher, so they cannot possibly be the talents of all. In most other
discourses, men are satisfied with sober sense and plain reason; and, as
understandings usually go, even that is not over frequent. Then why they
should be so over nice in expectation of eloquence,[2] where it is neither
necessary nor convenient, is hard to imagine.

[Footnote 2: Hawkesworth (1762 edit.) has “over nice and expecting for
sense”; but both the 4to and the 8vo of 1764 agree with Scott as above.
[T.S.]]

Lastly: The scorners of preaching would do well to consider, that
this talent of ridicule, they value so much, is a perfection very easily
acquired, and applied to all things whatsoever; neither is anything at all
the worse, because it is capable of being perverted to burlesque: Perhaps
it may be the more perfect upon that score; since we know, the most
celebrated pieces have been thus treated with greatest success. It is in
any man’s power to suppose a fool’s cap on the wisest head, and then laugh
at his own supposition. I think there are not many things cheaper than
supposing and laughing; and if the uniting these two talents can bring a
thing into contempt, it is hard to know where it may end.

To conclude: These considerations may, perhaps, have some effect
while men are awake; but what arguments shall we use to the sleeper? What
methods shall we take to hold open his eyes? Will he be moved by
considerations of common civility? We know it is reckoned a point of very
bad manners to sleep in private company, when, perhaps, the tedious
impertinence of many talkers would render it at least as excusable as at
the dullest sermon. Do they think it a small thing to watch four hours at
a play, where all virtue and religion are openly reviled; and can they not
watch one half hour to hear them defended? Is this to deal like a judge,
(I mean like a good judge) to listen on one side of the cause, and sleep
on the other? I shall add but one word more: That this indecent sloth is
very much owing to that luxury and excess men usually practise upon this
day, by which half the service thereof is turned to sin; men dividing the
time between God and their bellies, when after a gluttonous meal, their
senses dozed and stupefied, they retire to God’s house to sleep out the
afternoon. Surely, brethren, these things ought not so to be.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” And God give us all grace to
hear and receive His holy word to the salvation of our own souls.

APPENDIX I. SWIFT’S REMARKS ON DR GIBBS’S PARAPHRASE OF THE PSALMS.

NOTE.

“THE following manuscript was literally copied from the printed original
found in the library of Dr. J. Swift, Dean of St Patrick’s, Dublin, in the
year 1745. The marginal notes and parodies were written by the Dean’s own
hand, except such as are distinguished with this mark [O/] with which I am
only chargeable. Witness my hand, this 25th day of February, 1745. WILLIAM
DUNKIN.

“N.B.—The original was by me presented to his excellency Philip
Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield, lord lieutenant general and general
governor of Ireland. W.D.”

The manuscript to which Dr. Dunkin refers is in the library of Trinity
College, Dublin. The present text is taken from a transcript which is at
the South Kensington Museum, and which appears to be the identical
transcript used by Nichols for his reprint in the quarto edition, vol.
xiv. At the end of this MS. is the following note:

“The above was written from the manuscript mentioned in the first page,
now in the hands of Nicholas Coyne, Esq., being the only copy in the
kingdom of Ireland; he having purchased the original, and afterwards
generously given it to his friend Dr. Dunkin, finding the doctor extremely
uneasy at the disappointment the Earl of Chesterfield was like to meet
with, as he had promised the earl to attend the auction, and procure it
for him at any price; and is now transcribed by Neale Molloy, of Dublin,
Esq’r, by the favour of the said Nicholas Coyne, his brother-in-law; and
sent by him to his kinsman, and dear friend, Charles Molloy, of London,
Esq’re.

“Dublin, 26th, of May, 1748.”

The “Epistle Dedicatory” to Princess Anne, in Dr. Gibbs’s volume, has also
been annotated, chiefly by Dr. Dunkin; but as these are mostly too filthy
to be published, I have omitted the few notes by Swift, which consist
merely of marginalia corrections of words and a few satirical
interpolations of no great consequence. I have corrected Dr. Gibbs’s text
by the original edition of his “Paraphrase” (1701). The corrections were
necessary, since the transcript could not be absolutely relied on.

[T.S.]

On “The first Fifteen Psalms of David, translated into Lyric Verse:
Proposed as an Essay, supplying the Perspicuity and Coherence according to
the Modern Art of Poetry; not known to have been attempted before in any
Language. With a Preface containing some Observations of the great and
general Defectiveness of former Versions in Greek, Latin, and English. By
Dr. [James] Gibbs. London: printed by J. Mathews, for John Hartley,
over-against Gray’s-Inn, in Holborn. MDCCI.”

THE FIRST FIFTEEN PSALMS, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE.

[“The above may serve for a tolerable specimen of Swift’s remarks. The
whole should be given, if it were possible to make them intelligible,
without copying the version which is ridiculed; a labour for which our
readers would scarcely thank us. A few detached stanzas, however, with the
Dean’s notes on them, shall be transcribed.” Thus writes Scott; but I have
added a great many more, which deserve reprinting, if only for their
humour. [T.S.]]

APPENDIX II. A PROPOSAL HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE P T FOR THE MORE EFFECTUAL
PREVENTING THE FURTHER GROWTH OF POPERY.

WITH THE DESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL THERMOMETER,

This “Proposal,” which has not been included in the editions of Swift’s
Works issued by Scott, Faulkner, or Hawkesworth, appeared originally, but
in a shorter form, in the “Tatler” (No. 220, September 4th, 1710). In this
form the whole of the first portion, from the beginning to the paragraph
commencing “The Church thermometer,” is omitted, as are also the last
paragraphs of the essay, including the “Advertisement.” The text of the
present reprint I have taken from the “Miscellanies,” vol. viii., 1745
(pp. 217-229). In all modern editions of the “Tatler” this paper is
ascribed to Addison; but the style and the subject are so characteristic
of Swift that, although I am not in a position to say definitely that it
is by him, I think it deserves a place in the form of an Appendix. The
date of its appearance in the “Tatler” is somewhat against Swift having
written it, since he was at that time on his way to London; and of the few
contributions he sent to the “Tatler” it is agreed by all editors that the
first is the paper on the same subject as the letter to the Lord High
Treasurer, which appeared in No. 230 (September 28th, 1710).

[T.S.]

Having, with great sorrow of heart, observed the increase of Popery among
us of late years, and how ineffectual the penal laws and statutes of this
realm have been, for near forty years last past, towards reclaiming that
blind and deluded people from their errors, notwithstanding the good
intentions of the legislators, and the pious and unwearied labours of the
many learned divines of the Established Church, who have preached to them
without ceasing, although hitherto without success:

Having also remarked, in his Grace’s speech to both Houses of Parliament,
most kind offers of his Grace’s good offices towards obtaining such
further laws as shall be thought necessary towards bringing home the said
wandering sheep into the fold of the Church, as also a good disposition in
the parliament to join in the laudable work, towards which every good
Protestant ought to contribute at least his advice: I think it a proper
time to lay before the public a scheme which was writ some years since,
and laid by to be ready on a fit occasion.

That, whereas the several penal laws and statutes now in being against
Papists, have been found ineffectual, and rather tend to confirm, than
reclaim men from their errors, as calling a man coward, is a ready way to
make him fight; It is humbly proposed,

I. That the said penal laws and statutes against Papists, except the law
of Gavelkind, and that which disqualifies them for places, be repealed,
abrogated, annulled, destroyed, and obliterated, to all intents and
purposes.

II. That, in the room of the said penal laws and statutes, all
ecclesiastical jurisdiction be taken from out of the hands of the clergy
of the established Church, and the same be vested in the several popish
archbishops, bishops, deans and arch-deacons; nevertheless so as such
jurisdiction be exercised over persons of the Popish religion only.

III. That a Popish priest shall be settled by law in each and every parish
in Ireland.

IV. That the said Popish priest shall, on taking the oath of allegiance to
his majesty, be entitled to a tenth part or tithe of all things tithable
in Ireland, belonging to the papists, within their respective parishes,
yet so as such grant of tithes to such Popish priests, shall not be
construed, in law or equity, to hinder the Protestant clergyman of such
parish from receiving and collecting his tithes in like manner as he does
at present.

V. That, in case of detention or subtraction of tithes by any Papist, the
parish priest do have his remedy at law in any of his majesty’s courts, in
the same manner as now practised by the clergy of the Established Church;
together with all other ecclesiastical dues. And, for their further
discovery to vex their people at law, it might not be amiss to oblige the
solicitor-general, or some other able king’s counsel, to give his advice,
or assistance to such priests gratis, for which he might receive a salary
out of the Barrack Fund, Military Contingencies, or Concordatum; having
observed the exceedings there better paid than of the army, or any other
branch of the establishment; and I would have no delay in payment in a
matter of this importance.

VI. That the archbishops and bishops have power to visit the inferior
clergy, and to extort proxies, exhibits, and all other perquisites usual
in Popish and Protestant countries.

VII. That the convocation having been found, by long experience, to be
hurtful to true religion, be for ever hereafter abolished among
Protestants.

VIII. That, in the room thereof, the Popish archbishops, bishops, priests,
deans, arch-deacons, and proctors, have liberty to assemble themselves in
convocation, and be impowered to make such canons as they shall think
proper for the government of the Papists in Ireland:

IX. And that, the secular arm being necessary to enforce obedience to
ecclesiastical censure, the sheriffs, constables, and other officers, be
commanded to execute the decrees and sentences of the said popish
convocation, with secrecy and dispatch, or, in lieu thereof, they may be
at liberty to erect an inquisition, with proper officers of their own.

X. That, as Papists declare themselves converts to the Established Church,
all spiritual power over them shall cease.

XI. That as soon as any whole parish shall renounce the Popish religion,
the priest of such parish shall, for his good services, have a pension of
£200 per ann. settled on him for life, and that he be from such time
exempt from preaching and praying, and other duties of his function, in
like manner as protestant divines, with equal incomes, are at present.

XII. That each bishop, so soon as his diocese shall become protestants, be
called, My Lord, and have a pension of two thousand pounds per annum
during life.

XIII. That when a whole province shall be reclaimed, the archbishop shall
be called His Grace, and have a pension of three thousand pounds per ann.
during life, and be admitted a member of his majesty’s most honourable
privy council.

The good consequences of this scheme, (which will execute itself without
murmurings against the government) are very visible: I shall mention a few
of the most obvious.

I. The giving the priest a right to the tithe would produce law-suits and
wrangles; his reverence, being entituled to a certain income at all
events, would consider himself as a legal incumbent, and behave
accordingly, and apply himself more to fleecing than feeding his flock;
his necessary attendance on the courts of justice would leave his people
without a spiritual guide; by which means protestant curates, who have no
suits about tithes, would be furnished with proper opportunities for
making converts, which is very much wanted.

II. The erecting a spiritual jurisdiction amongst them would, in all
probability, drive as many out of that communion, as a due execution of
such jurisdiction hath hitherto drove from amongst ourselves.

III. An inquisition would still be a further improvement, and most
certainly would expedite the conversion of Papists.

I know it may be objected to this scheme, and with some shew of reason,
that, should the Popish princes abroad pursue the same methods, with
regard to their protestant subjects, the Protestant interest in Europe
would thereby be considerably weakened: but as we have no reason to
suspect Popish counsels will ever produce so much moderation, I think the
objection ought to have but little weight.

A due execution of this scheme will soon produce many converts from
Popery; nevertheless, to the end may it be known, when they shall be of
the true Church, I have ordered a large parcel of ecclesiastical or Church
thermometers to be made, one of which is to be hung up in each parish
church, the description and use of which take as follows, in the words of
the ingenious Isaac Bickerstaff, Esq.

The[1] Church thermometer, which I am now to treat of, is supposed have
been invented in the reign of Henry the Eighth, about the time when that
religious prince put some to death for owning the Pope’s supremacy, and
others for denying transubstantiation. I do not find, however, any great
use made of this instrument till it fell into the hand of a learned and
vigilant priest or minister, (for he frequently wrote himself both the one
and the other) who was some time Vicar of Bray. This gentleman lived in
his vicarage to a good old age; and after having seen several successions
of his neighbouring clergy either burnt or banished, departed this life
with the satisfaction of having never deserted his flock, and died Vicar
of Bray. As this glass was first designed to calculate the different
degrees of heat in religion, as it raged in Popery, or as it cooled, and
grew temperate in the Reformation, it was marked at several distances,
after the manner our ordinary thermometer is to this day, viz. extreme hot
sultry hot, very hot, hot, warm, temperate, cold, just freezing, frost,
hard frost, great frost, extreme cold.

[Footnote 1: In the “Tatler” this paragraph is preceded by the following:
“From my own apartment, Sept. 4.—Having received many letters
filled with compliments and acknowledgments for my late useful discovery
of the political barometer, I shall here communicate to the publican
account of my ecclesiastical thermometer, the latter giving as manifest
prognostications of the changes and revolutions in Church, as the former
does of those in State, and both of them being absolutely necessary for
every prudent subject who is resolved to keep what he has, and get what he
can.” [T.S.]]

It is well known, that Torricellius,[2] the inventor of the common
weather-glass, made the experiment of a long tube which held thirty-two
foot of water; and that a more modern virtuoso finding such a machine
altogether unwieldly and useless, and considering that thirty-two inches
of quicksilver weighed as much as so many foot of water in a tube of the
same circumference, invented that sizeable instrument which is now in use.
After this manner, that I might adapt the thermometer I am now speaking of
to the present constitution of our Church, as divided into High and Low, I
have made some necessary variations both in the tube and the fluid it
contains. In the first place I ordered a tube to be cast in a planetary
hour, and took care to seal it hermetically, when the sun was in
conjunction with Saturn. I then took the proper precautions about the
fluid, which is a compound of two different liquors; one of them a spirit
drawn out of a strong heady wine; the other a particular sort of
rock-water, colder than ice, and clearer than crystal. The spirit is of a
red, fiery colour, and so very apt to ferment, that, unless it be mingled
with a proportion of the water, or pent up very close, it will burst the
vessel that holds it, and fly up in a fume and smoke. The water, on the
contrary, is of such a subtile, piercing cold, that, unless it be mingled
with a proportion of the spirits, it will sink almost through every thing
it is put into, and seems to be of the same nature as the water mentioned
by Quintus Curtius, which says the historian, could be contained in
nothing but in the hoof, or (as the Oxford Manuscript has it) the skull of
an ass. The thermometer is marked according to the following figure, which
I set down at length, not only to give my reader a clear idea of it, but
also to fill up my paper.

[Footnote 2: Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647) was assistant to Galileo,
and is famous as the discoverer of the phenomena on which he made the
barometer. In 1644 he published “Opera Geometrica.” [T.S.]]

The reader will observe, that the Church is placed in the middle point of
the glass between Zeal and Moderation, the situation in which she always
flourishes, and in which every good Englishman wishes her, who is a friend
to the constitution of his country. However, when it mounts to Zeal, it is
not amiss; and, when it sinks to Moderation, it is still in admirable
temper. The worst of it is, that when once it begins to rise, it has still
an inclination to ascend, insomuch that it is apt to climb from Zeal to
Wrath, and from Wrath to Persecution, which often ends in Ignorance, and
very often proceeds from it. In the same manner it frequently takes its
progress through the lower half of the glass; and, when it has a tendency
to fall, will gradually descend from Moderation to Lukewarmness, and from
Lukewarmness to Infidelity, which very often terminates in Ignorance, and
always proceeds from it.

It is a common observation, that the ordinary thermometer will be affected
by the breathing of people who are in the room where it stands, and indeed
it is almost incredible to conceive how the glass I am now describing,
will fall by the breath of the multitude crying Popery; or, on the
contrary, how it will rise when the same multitude (as it sometimes
happens) cry out in the same breath, The Church is in Danger.

As soon as I have finished this my glass, and adjusted it to the
above-mentioned scale of religion, that I might make proper experiments
with it, I carried it under my cloak to several coffee-houses, and other
places of resort, about this great city. At Saint James’s Coffee-house the
liquor stood at Moderation; but at Will’s, to my extreme surprise, it
subsided to the very lowest mark of the glass. At the Grecian it mounted
but just one point higher; at the Rainbow it still ascended two degrees;
Child’s fetched it up to Zeal, and other adjacent coffee-houses to Wrath.

It fell in the lower half of the glass as I went further into the City,
till at length it settled at Moderation, where it continued all the time I
stayed about the Change, as also whilst I passed by the Bank. And here I
cannot but take notice, that, through the whole course of my remarks, I
never observed my glass to rise at the same time that the stocks did.

To complete the experiment, I prevailed upon a friend of mine, who works
under me in the occult sciences, to make a progress with my glass through
the whole Island of Great Britain; and, after his return, to present me
with a register of his observations. I guessed beforehand at the temper of
several places he passed through, by the characters they have had time out
of mind. Thus that facetious divine, Dr. Fuller,[3] speaking of the town
of Banbury near a hundred years ago, tells us, it was a place famous for
cakes and zeal, which I find by my glass is true to this day, as to the
latter part of his description; though I must confess, it is not in the
same reputation for cakes that it was in the time of that learned author;
and thus of other places. In short, I have now by me, digested in an
alphabetical order, all the counties, corporations, and boroughs in Great
Britain, with their respective tempers, as they stand related to my
thermometer. But this I shall keep to myself, because I would by no means
do any thing that may seem to influence any ensuing election.

[Footnote 3: Thomas Fuller, D.D. (1608-1661) was the author of “History of
the Worthies of England,” “History of the Holy War,” and many other works
distinguished for their humour and style. [T.S.]]

The point of doctrine which I would propagate by this my invention, is the
same which was long ago advanced by that able teacher Horace, out of whom
I have taken my text for this discourse: We should be careful not to
over-shoot ourselves in the pursuits even of virtue. Whether zeal or
moderation be the point we aim at, let us keep fire out of the one, and
frost out of the other. But, alas! the world is too wise to want such a
precaution. The terms High-Church and Low-Church, as commonly used, do not
so much denote a principle, as they distinguish a party. They are like
words of battle, they have nothing to do with their original
signification, but are only given out to keep a body of men together, and
to let them know friends from enemies.

I must confess I have considered, with some attention, the influence which
the opinions of these great national sects have upon their practice; and
do look upon it as one of the unaccountable things of our times, that
multitudes of honest gentlemen, who entirely agree in their lives, should
take it in their heads to differ in their religion.[4]

[Footnote 4: Here the “Tatler” paper ends. [T.S.]]

I shall conclude this paper with an account of a conference which happened
between a very excellent divine (whose doctrine was easy, and formerly
much respected) and a lawyer.

And behold a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? How readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy
mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt
live.

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my
neighbour?

And Jesus answering, said; A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and
wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and, when he saw
him, he passed by on the other side.

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him,
and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and, when he
saw him, he had compassion on him.

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine; and set
him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them
to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him, and whatsoever thou
spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell
among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go,
and do thou likewise. Luke x. 25 to 38.

Advertisement.

There is now in the press a proposal for raising a fund towards paying the
National Debt by the following means: The author would have commissioners
appointed to search all the public and private libraries, booksellers
shops and warehouses, in this kingdom, for such books as are of no use to
the owner, or to the public, viz. all comments on the Holy Scriptures,
whether called sermons, creeds, bodies of divinity, tomes of casuistry,
vindications, confutations, essays, answers, replies, rejoinders, or
sur-rejoinders, together with all other learned treatises and books of
divinity, of what denomination or class soever; as also all comments on
the laws of the land, such as reports, law-cases, decrees, guides for
attorneys and young clerks, and, in fine, all the books now in being in
this kingdom (whether of divinity, law, physic, metaphysics, logics or
politics) except the pure text of the Holy Scriptures, the naked text of
the laws, a few books of morality, poetry, music, architecture,
agriculture, mathematics, merchandise and history; the author would have
the aforesaid useless books carried to the several paper-mills, there to
be wrought into white paper, which, to prevent damage or complaints, he
would have performed by the commentators, critics, popular preachers,
apothecaries, learned lawyers, attorneys, solicitors, logicians,
physicians, almanac-makers, and others of the like wrong turn of mind; the
said paper to be sold, and the produce applied to discharge the National
Debt; what should remain of the said debt unsatisfied, might be paid by a
tax on the salaries or estates of bankers, common cheats, usurers,
treasurers, embezzelers of public money, general officers, sharpers,
pensioners, pick-pockets, &c.

APPENDIX III. SWIFT AND SERJEANT BETTESWORTH.

The rencontre with Serjeant Bettesworth, to which reference has
already been made in the note prefixed to “The Presbyterians’ Plea of
Merit,” is further illustrated by the Resolution which the inhabitants of
the Liberty of St. Patrick’s passed, and which they presented to the Dean.
Bettesworth, as a note in the thirteenth volume of Swift’s works (1762)
states, “engaged his footman and two ruffians to attend him, in order to
secure the dean wherever they met him, until he had gratified his
resentment either by maiming or stabbing him.” Accordingly, he went
directly to the deanery, and hearing the Dean was at a friend’s house
(Rev. Mr. John Worrall’s in Big Ship Street), followed him thither,
charged him with writing the said verses, but had not courage enough to
put his bloody design in execution. However, as he had the assurance to
relate this affair to several noblemen and gentlemen, the inhabitants of
the Liberty of St. Patrick’s waited upon the Dean, and presented the
following paper, signed by above thirty of them, in the name of
themselves, and the rest of their neighbourhood:

“We the inhabitants of the Liberty of the Dean and Chapter of St Patrick’s
Dublin, and the neighbourhood of the same, having been informed, by
universal report, that a certain man of this city hath openly threatened,
and sworn before many hundred people, as well persons of quality as
others, that he resolves upon the first opportunity, by the help of
several ruffians, to murder or maim the Reverend the Dean of St. Patrick,
our neighbour, benefactor, and the head of the Liberty of St Patrick, upon
a frivolous unproved suspicion of the said Dean’s having written some
lines in verse reflecting on the said man.

“Therefore, we, the said inhabitants of the said Liberty, and in the
neighbourhood thereof, from our great love and respect to the said Dean,
to whom the whole kingdom hath so many obligations, as well as we of the
Liberty, do unanimously declare, that we will endeavour to defend the life
and limbs of the said Dean against the said man, and all his ruffians and
murderers, as far as the law will allow, if he or any of them presume to
come into the said Liberty with any wicked malicious intent against the
house, or family, or person, or goods of the said Dean. To which we have
cheerfully, sincerely, and heartily set our hands.”

Swift, at the time of receiving this Resolution lay very ill in bed, and
was unable to receive the deputation in person. He, however, dictated the
following reply:

“GENTLEMEN,

“I receive, with great thankfulness, these many kind expressions of your
concern for my safety, as well as your declared resolution to defend me
(as far as the laws of God and man will allow) against all murderers and
ruffians, who shall attempt to enter into the liberty with any bloody or
wicked designs upon my life, my limbs, my house, or my goods. Gentlemen,
my life is in the hand of God, and whether it may be cut off by treachery
or open violence, or by the common way of other men; as long as it
continueth, I shall ever bear a grateful memory for this favour you have
shewn, beyond my expectation, and almost exceeding my wishes.

“The inhabitants of the liberty, as well as those of the neighbourhood,
have lived with me in great amity for near twenty years; which I am
confident will never diminish during my life. I am chiefly sorry, that by
two cruel disorders of deafness and giddiness, which have pursued me for
four months, I am not in condition either to hear, or to receive you, much
less to return my most sincere acknowledgements, which in justice and
gratitude I ought to do. May God bless you and your families in this
world, and make you for ever happy in the next.”

The poem itself to which Bettesworth took exception is herewith reprinted,
as well as three others occasioned by the Bettesworth action.

ON THE WORDS BROTHER PROTESTANTS AND FELLOW CHRISTIANS,

SO FAMILIARLY USED BY THE ADVOCATES FOR THE REPEAL OF THE TEST-ACT IN
IRELAND. 1733.

[Footnote 1: Henry Singleton, Esq., then prime sergeant, afterwards
lord-chief-justice of the common pleas, which he resigned, and was some
time after made master of the rolls. [F.]]

[Footnote 2: These lines occasioned the personal attack upon the Dean.
[T.S.]]

AN EPIGRAM.[1] INSCRIBED TO THE HONOURABLE SERGEANT KITE.

[Footnote 1: Now first published from a copy in the Dean’s handwriting; in
possession of J. Connill, Esq. [S.]]

[Footnote 2: Povey was sergeant-at-arms to the House of Commons.]

“THE YAHOO’S OVERTHROW; OR, THE KEVAN BAYL’S NEW BALLAD.”[3] UPON SERGEANT
KITE’S INSULTING THE DEAN.

[Footnote 3: “Grub Street Journal,” No. 189, August 9th, 1734.—”In
December last, Mr. Bettesworth of the city of Dublin, serjeant-at-law, and
member of parliament, 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, (Dr. Swift). Upon which thirty-one of the
principal inhabitants of that liberty signed a paper to this effect:
‘That, out of their great love and respect to the Dean, to whom the whole
kingdom hath so many obligations, they would endeavour to defend the life
and limbs of the said Dean against a certain man and all his ruffians and
murderers.’ With which paper they, in the name of themselves and all the
inhabitants of the city, attended the Dean on January 8, who being
extremely ill in bed of a giddiness and deafness, and not able to receive
them, immediately dictated a very grateful answer. The occasion of a
certain man’s declaration of his villainous design against the Dean, was a
frivolous unproved suspicion that he had written some lines in verse
reflecting upon him.”]

[Footnote 4: Kevan Bayl was a cant expression for the mob of this district
of Dublin.]

[Footnote 5: See the Dean’s letter to the Duke of Dorset, in which he
gives an account of his interview with Bettesworth, about which he alleges
the serjeant had spread abroad five hundred falsehoods. [S.]]

“ON THE ARCHBISHOP OF CASHEL,[1] AND BETTESWORTH.

[Footnote 1: Dr. Theophilus Bolton. [T.S.]]

The letter to the Earl of Dorset, containing Swift’s version of the story
is as follows:

“January, 1734.

“MY LORD,

“It has been my great misfortune that since your grace’s return to this
kingdom I have not been able to attend you, as my duty and gratitude for
your favours as well as the honour of having been so many years known to
you obliged me to do. I have been pursued by two old disorders, a
giddiness and deafness, which used to leave me in three or four weeks, but
now have continued four months. Thus I am put under a necessity to write
what I would rather have chosen to say in your grace’s presence.

“On Monday last week towards evening there came to the deanery one Mr.
Bettesworth; who, being told by the servants that I was gone to a friend’s
house,[1] went thither to inquire for me, and was admitted into the street
parlour. I left my company in the back room and went to him. He began with
asking me ‘whether I were the author of certain verses wherein he was
reflected on.’ The singularity of the man, in his countenance, manner,
action, style, and tone of voice, made me call to mind that I had once
seen him about two or three years ago at Mr. Ludlow’s country-house. But I
could not recollect his name; and of what calling he might be I had never
heard. I therefore desired to know who and what he was; said ‘I had heard
of some such verses, but knew no more.’ He then signified to me ‘that he
was a serjeant-at-law and a member of parliament.’ After which he repeated
the lines that concerned him with great emphasis; said ‘I was mistaken in
one thing, for he assured me he was no booby, but owned himself to be a
coxcomb.’ However, that being a point of controversy wherein I had no
concern, I let it drop. As to the verses, he insisted, ‘that by his taste
and skill in poetry he was as sure I wrote them as if he had seen them
fall from my pen.’ But I found the chief weight of his argument lay upon
two words that rhymed to his name, which he knew could come from none but
me. He then told me ‘that, since I would not own the verses, and that
since he could not get satisfaction by any course of law, he would get it
by his pen, and show the world what a man I was.’ When he began to grow
over-warm and eloquent I called in the gentleman of the house from the
room adjoining; and the serjeant, going on with less turbulence, went
away. He had a footman in the hall during all his talk, who was to have
opened the door for one or more fellows, as he has since reported; and
likewise that he had a sharp knife in his pocket, ready to stab or maim
me. But the master and mistress of the house, who knew his character and
could hear every word from the room they were in, had prepared a
sufficient defence in such a case, as they afterward told me. He has since
related to five hundred persons of all ranks about five hundred falsehoods
of this conversation, of my fears and his own brutalities, against all
probability as well as fact; and some of them, as I have been assured,
even in the presence of your grace. His meanings and his movements were
indeed peevish enough, but his words were not. He threatened me with
nothing but his pen, yet owned he had no pretence to wit. And indeed I am
heartily glad for his own sake that he proceeded no farther, for the least
uproar would have called his nearest neighbours first to my assistance,
and next to the manifest danger of his life; and I would not willingly
have even a dog killed upon my account. Ever since he has amused himself
with declaring in all companies, especially before bishops and lords and
members of parliament, his resolutions for vengeance and the several
manners by which he will put it in execution.

[Footnote 1: The Rev. Mr. Worrall’s. [T.S.]]

“It is only to the advice of some judicious friends that your grace owes
the trouble of this letter; for though I may be dispirited enough by
sickness and years, yet I have little reason to apprehend any danger from
that man; and those who seem to have most regard for my safety are no more
apprehensive than myself, especially such as best know his character; for
his very enemies and even his ridiculers, who are of the two by far the
greater number, allow him to be a peaceable man in all things except his
words, his rhetorical actions, his looks, and his hatred to the clergy;
which however are all known by abundance of experience to be perfectly
harmless, and particularly as to the clergy. I do not doubt but, if he
will be so good to continue steadfast in his principles and practices, he
may at proper junctures contribute very much to the honour and interests
of that reverend body, as well as employ and improve the wit of many young
gentlemen in the city, the university, and the rest of the kingdom.

“What I have said to your grace is only meant as a poor endeavour to
preserve myself in your good opinion and in the continuance of your
favour. I am, with the highest respect, etc.”

“JONATHAN SWIFT.”

APPENDIX IV. A TRUE AND FAITHFUL NARRATIVE OF WHAT PASSED IN LONDON,
DURING THE GENERAL CONSTERNATION OF ALL RANKS AND DEGREES OF MANKIND; ON
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY LAST.

NOTE.

WILLIAM WHISTON (1667-1752), born at Norton, Leicestershire, was educated
at Tamworth School and Clare College, Cambridge. He resigned the living at
Lowestoft, presented to him by his patron and friend, Bishop Moore, of
Norwich, on accepting the Professorship of Mathematics, vacated by Sir
Isaac Newton. He was a profound scholar and mathematician, but obtained a
somewhat harassing fame by his propagation of Arianism. Indeed, his public
lectures and sermons, as well as his publications vindicating his
attitude, forced the authorities to deprive him of his lectureship, and
expel him from the university. In 1717 Whiston founded a Society for
Promoting Primitive Christianity, and its meetings were held at his house
in Cross Street, Hatton Garden. But the society lived only for two years.
In that curious medley, “Memoirs of the Life of Mr. William Whiston, by
himself,” we are told that he had a model made of the original Tabernacle
of Moses from his own plans, and toured the country giving lectures on the
coming of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews to their own country,
and the rebuilding of the Temple according to the model. The Millennium he
foretold would commence in 1766.

He wrote a prodigious number of tracts, pamphlets, commentaries, and
biblical expositions in support of his particular view of Christianity;
but the works for which he is now remembered are his astronomical and
mechanical papers and his well-known translation of Josephus’s “History of
the Jews.”

The pamphlet which follows is written in ridicule of Whiston’s prophetic
pronouncements. Scott ascribes its authorship to Swift; but the
“Miscellanies” of 1747 and Hawkesworth in the edition of 1766 of Swift’s
Works place it in the list of “Contents,” with other pieces, under the
heading, “By Mr. Pope and Mr. Gay.”

The present text is practically that given by Scott, which is based on
that in the third edition of the “Miscellanies” of 1732.

[T.S.]

On Tuesday the 13th of October, Mr. Whiston held his lecture, near the
Royal Exchange, to an audience of fourteen worthy citizens, his
subscribers and constant hearers. Besides these, there were five chance
auditors for that night only, who had paid their shillings a-piece. I
think myself obliged to be very particular in this relation, lest my
veracity should be suspected; which makes me appeal to the men who were
present; of which number I myself was one. Their names are,

Mr. Whiston began by acquainting us, that (contrary to his advertisement)
he thought himself in duty and conscience obliged to change the subject
matter of his intended discourse. Here he paused, and seemed, for a short
space, as it were, lost in devotion and mental prayer; after which, with
great earnestness and vehemence, he spake as follows:

“Friends and fellow-citizens, all speculative science is at an end: the
period of all things is at hand; on Friday next this world shall be no
more. Put not your confidence in me, brethren; for to-morrow morning, five
minutes after five, the truth will be evident; in that instant the comet
shall appear, of which I have heretofore warned you. As ye have heard,
believe. Go hence, and prepare your wives, your families, and friends, for
the universal change.”

At this solemn and dreadful prediction, the whole society appeared in the
utmost astonishment: but it would be unjust not to remember, that Mr.
Whiston himself was in so calm a temper, as to return a shilling a-piece
to the youths, who had been disappointed of their lecture, which I
thought, from a man of his integrity, a convincing proof of his own faith
in the prediction.

As we thought it a duty in charity to warn all men, in two or three hours
the news had spread through the city. At first, indeed, our report met
with but little credit; it being, by our greatest dealers in stocks,
thought only a court artifice to sink them, that some choice favourites
might purchase at a lower rate; for the South Sea, that very evening, fell
five per cent., the India, eleven, and all the other funds in
proportion. But, at the Court end of the town, our attestations were
entirely disbelieved, or turned into ridicule; yet nevertheless the news
spread everywhere, and was the subject matter of all conversation.

That very night, (as I was credibly informed) Mr. Whiston was sent for to
a great lady, who is very curious in the learned sciences, and addicted to
all the speculative doubts of the most able philosophers; but he was not
now to be found; and since, at other times, he has been known not to
decline that honour, I make no doubt he concealed himself to attend the
great business of his soul: but whether it was the lady’s faith, or
inquisitiveness, that occasioned her to send, is a point I shall not
presume to determine. As for his being sent for to the secretary’s office
by a messenger, it is now known to be a matter notoriously false, and
indeed at first it had little credit with me, that so zealous and honest a
man should be ordered into custody, as a seditious preacher, who is known
to be so well-affected to the present happy establishment.

‘Twas now I reflected, with exceeding trouble and sorrow, that I had
disused family prayers for above five years, and (though it has been a
custom of late entirely neglected by men of any business or station) I
determined within myself no longer to omit so reasonable and religious a
duty. I acquainted my wife with my intentions: But two or three neighbours
having been engaged to sup with us that night, and many hours being
unwarily spent at cards, I was prevailed upon by her to put it off till
the next day; she reasoning, that it would be time enough to take off the
servants from their business (which this practice must infallibly occasion
for an hour or two every day) after the comet had made its appearance.

Zachery Bowen, a Quaker, and my next neighbour, had no sooner heard of the
prophecy, but he made me a visit. I informed him of everything I had
heard, but found him quite obstinate in his unbelief; for, said he, be
comforted, friend, thy tidings are impossibilities; for, were these things
to happen, they must have been foreseen by some of our brethren. This
indeed (as in all other spiritual cases with this set of people) was his
only reason against believing me; and, as he was fully persuaded that the
prediction was erroneous, he in a very neighbourly manner admonished me
against selling my stock at the present low price, which, he said, beyond
dispute, must have a rise before Monday, when this unreasonable
consternation should be over.

But on Wednesday morning (I believe to the exact calculation of Mr.
Whiston) the comet appeared; for, at three minutes after five by my own
watch, I saw it. He indeed foretold, that it would be seen at five minutes
after five; but, as the best watches may be a minute or two too slow, I am
apt to think his calculation just to a minute.

In less than a quarter of an hour, all Cheapside was crowded with a vast
concourse of people, and notwithstanding it was so early, it is thought
that, through all that part of the town, there was not man, woman, or
child, except the sick or infirm, left in their beds. From my own balcony,
I am confident, I saw several thousands in the street, and counted at
least seventeen, who were upon their knees, and seemed in actual devotion.
Eleven of them, indeed, appeared to be old women of about fourscore; the
six others were men in advanced life, but (as I could guess) two of them
might be under seventy.

It is highly probable, that an event of this nature may be passed over by
the greater historians of our times, as conducing very little or nothing
to the unravelling and laying open the deep schemes of politicians, and
mysteries of state; for which reason, I thought it might not be
unacceptable to record the facts, which, in the space of three days, came
to my knowledge, either as an eye-witness, or from unquestionable
authorities; nor can I think this narrative will be entirely without its
use, as it may enable us to form a more just idea of our countrymen in
general, particularly in regard to their faith, religion, morals, and
politics.

Before Wednesday noon, the belief was universal, that the day of judgment
was at hand, insomuch, that a waterman of my acquaintance told me, he
counted no less than one hundred and twenty-three clergymen, who had been
ferried over to Lambeth before twelve o’clock: these, it is said, went
thither to petition, that a short prayer might be penned, and ordered,
there being none in the service upon that occasion. But, as in things of
this nature, it is necessary that the council be consulted, their request
was not immediately complied with; and this I affirm to be the true and
only reason, that the churches were not that morning so well attended, and
is in noways to be imputed to the fears and consternation of the clergy,
with which the freethinkers have since very unjustly reproached them.

My wife and I went to church, (where we had not been for many years on a
week-day,) and, with a very large congregation, were disappointed of the
service. But (what will be scarce credible) by the carelessness of a
‘prentice, in our absence, we had a piece of fine cambric carried off by a
shop-lifter: so little impression was yet made on the minds of those
wicked women!

I cannot omit the care of a particular director of the Bank; I hope the
worthy and wealthy knight will forgive me, that I endeavour to do him
justice; for it was unquestionably owing to Sir Gilbert Heathcote’s[1]
sagacity, that all the fire-offices were required to have a particular eye
upon the Bank of England. Let it be recorded to his praise, that in the
general hurry, this struck him as his nearest and tenderest concern; but
the next day in the evening, after having taken due care of all his books,
bills, and bonds, I was informed, his mind was wholly turned upon
spiritual matters; yet, ever and anon, he could not help expressing his
resentment against the Tories and Jacobites, to whom he imputed that
sudden run upon the Bank, which happened on this occasion.

[Footnote 1: Sir Gilbert Heathcote had before signalized his care for the
Bank when in equal danger, by petitioning against the Lord-Treasurer
Godolphin’s being removed, as a measure that would destroy the public
credit. [H.]]

A great man (whom at this time it may not be prudent to name) employed all
the Wednesday morning to make up such an account, as might appear fair, in
case he should be called upon to produce it on the Friday; but was forced
to desist, after having for several hours together attempted it, not being
able to bring himself to a resolution to trust the many hundred articles
of his secret transactions upon paper.

Another seemed to be very melancholy, which his flatterers imputed to his
dread of losing his power in a day or two; but I rather take it, that his
chief concern was the terror of being tried in a court, that could not be
influenced, and where a majority of voices could avail him nothing. It was
observed, too, that he had but few visitors that day.

This added so much to his mortification, that he read through the first
chapter of the book of Job, and wept over it bitterly; in short, he seemed
a true penitent in everything but in charity to his neighbour. No business
was that day done in his counting-house. It is said too, that he was
advised to restitution, but I never heard that he complied with it, any
farther than in giving half-a-crown a-piece to several crazed and starving
creditors, who attended in the outward room.

Three of the maids of honour sent to countermand their birth-day clothes;
two of them burnt all their collections of novels and romances, and sent
to a bookseller’s in Pall-Mall to buy each of them a Bible, and Taylor’s
“Holy Living and Dying.” But I must do all of them the justice to
acknowledge, that they shewed a very decent behaviour in the drawing-room,
and restrained themselves from those innocent freedoms, and little
levities, so commonly incident to young ladies of their profession. So
many birth-day suits were countermanded the next day, that most of the
tailors and mantua makers discharged all their journeymen and women. A
grave elderly lady of great erudition and modesty, who visits these young
ladies, seemed to be extremely shocked by the apprehensions, that she was
to appear naked before the whole world; and no less so, that all mankind
was to appear naked before her; which might so much divert her thoughts,
as to incapacitate her to give ready and apt answers to the
interrogatories that might be made her. The maids of honour, who had both
modesty and curiosity, could not imagine the sight so disagreeable as was
represented; nay, one of them went so far as to say, she perfectly longed
to see it; for it could not be so indecent, when everybody was to be
alike; and they had a day or two to prepare themselves to be seen in that
condition. Upon this reflection, each of them ordered a bathing-tub to be
got ready that evening, and a looking-glass to be set by it. So much are
these young ladies, both by nature and custom, addicted to cleanly
appearance.

A west-country gentleman told me, he got a church-lease filled up that
morning for the same sum which had been refused for three years
successively. I must impute this merely to accident: for I cannot imagine
that any divine could take the advantage of his tenant in so unhandsome a
manner, or that the shortness of the life was in the least his
consideration; though I have heard the same worthy prelate aspersed and
maligned since, upon this very account.

The term being so near, the alarm among the lawyers was inexpressible,
though some of them, I was told, were so vain as to promise themselves
some advantage in making their defence, by being versed in the practice of
our earthly courts. It is said, too, that some of the chief pleaders were
heard to express great satisfaction, that there had been but few state
trials of late years. Several attorneys demanded the return of fees that
had been given the lawyers; but it was answered, the fee was undoubtedly
charged to their client, and that they could not connive at such
injustice, as to suffer it to be sunk in the attorneys’ pockets. Our sage
and learned judges had great consolation, insomuch as they had not pleaded
at the bar for several years; the barristers rejoiced in that they were
not attorneys, and the attorneys felt no less satisfaction, that they were
not pettifoggers, scriveners, and other meaner officers of the law.

As to the army, far be it from me to conceal the truth. Every soldier’s
behaviour was as undismayed, and undaunted, as if nothing was to happen; I
impute not this to their want of faith, but to their martial disposition;
though I cannot help thinking they commonly accompany their commands with
more oaths than are requisite, of which there was no remarkable diminution
this morning on the parade in St James’s Park. But possibly it was by
choice, and on consideration, that they continued this way of expression,
not to intimidate the common soldiers, or give occasion to suspect, that
even the fear of damnation could make any impression upon their superior
officers. A duel was fought the same morning between two colonels, not
occasioned (as was reported) because the one was put over the other’s
head; that being a point, which might, at such a juncture, have been
accommodated by the mediation of friends; but as this was upon the account
of a lady, it was judged it could not be put off at this time, above all
others, but demanded immediate satisfaction. I am apt to believe, that a
young officer, who desired his surgeon to defer putting him into a
salivation till Saturday, might make this request out of some opinion he
had of the truth of the prophecy; for the apprehensions of any danger in
the operation could not be his motive, the surgeon himself having assured
me, that he had before undergone three severe operations of the like
nature with great resignation and fortitude.

There was an order issued, that the chaplains of the several regiments
should attend their duty; but as they were dispersed about in several
parts of England, it was believed, that most of them could not be found,
or so much as heard of, till the great day was over.

Most of the considerable physicians, by their outward demeanour, seemed to
be unbelievers; but at the same time, they everywhere insinuated, that
there might be a pestilential malignancy in the air, occasioned by the
comet, which might be armed against by proper and timely medicines. This
caution had but little effect; for as the time approached, the Christian
resignation of the people increased, and most of them (which was never
before known) had their souls more at heart than their bodies.

If the reverend clergy shewed more concern than others, I charitably
impute it to their great charge of souls; and what confirmed me in this
opinion was, that the degrees of apprehension and terror could be
distinguished to be greater or less, according to their ranks and degrees
in the church.

The like might be observed in all sorts of ministers, though not of the
Church of England; the higher their rank, the more was their fear.

I speak not of the Court for fear of offence; and I forbear inserting the
names of particular persons, to avoid the imputation of slander; so that
the reader will allow the narrative must be deficient, and is therefore
desired to accept hereof rather as a sketch, than a regular circumstantial
history.

I was not informed of any persons, who shewed the least joy; except three
malefactors, who were to be executed on the Monday following, and one old
man, a constant church-goer, who being at the point of death, expressed
some satisfaction at the news.

On Thursday morning there was little or nothing transacted in
‘Change-alley; there were a multitude of sellers, but so few buyers, that
one cannot affirm the stocks bore any certain price except among the Jews;
who this day reaped great profit by their infidelity. There were many who
called themselves Christians, who offered to buy for time; but as these
were people of great distinction, I choose not to mention them, because in
effect it would seem to accuse them both of avarice and infidelity.

The run upon the Bank is too well known to need a particular relation: for
it never can be forgotten, that no one person whatever (except the
directors themselves, and some of their particular friends and associates)
could convert a bill all that day into specie; all hands being employed to
serve them.

In the several churches of the city and suburbs, there were seven thousand
two hundred and forty-five, who publicly and solemnly declared before the
congregation, that they took to wife their several kept-mistresses, which
was allowed as valid marriage, the priest not having time to pronounce the
ceremony in form.

At St Bride’s church in Fleet-street, Mr. Woolston,[2] (who writ against
the miracles of our Saviour,) in the utmost terrors of conscience, made a
public recantation. Dr. Mandeville[3] (who had been groundlessly reported
formerly to have done the same,) did it now in good earnest at St James’s
gate; as did also at the Temple Church several gentlemen, who frequent
coffeehouses near the bar. So great was the faith and fear of two of them,
that they dropped dead on the spot; but I will not record their names,
lest I should be thought invidiously to lay an odium on their families and
posterity.

[Footnote 2: Thomas Woolston (1669-1733), a deistical writer, born at
Northampton; became a Fellow of Sidney College, Cambridge. For his work,
“Six Discourses on the Miracles of Christ,” he was sentenced to
imprisonment for one year and fined one hundred pounds. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 3: Bernard de Mandeville, M.D., author of the “Fable of the
Bees,” a deistical work, the scope of which was to prove, that private
vices are public benefits. The work was attacked by Bishop Berkeley in his
“Alciphron.” De Mandeville was born in Holland about 1670, but came over
to England and settled there about the middle of the eighteenth century.
He also wrote “The Virgin Unmasked,” “The Grumbling Hive,” and “Free
Thoughts on Religion.” He died in 1733. [T.S.]]

Most of the players, who had very little faith before, were now desirous
of having as much as they could, and therefore embraced the Roman Catholic
religion: the same thing was observed of some bawds, and ladies of
pleasure.

An Irish gentleman out of pure friendship came to make me a visit, and
advised me to hire a boat for the ensuing day, and told me, that unless I
gave earnest for one immediately, he feared it might be too late; for his
countrymen had secured almost every boat upon the river, as judging, that,
in the general conflagration, to be upon the water would be the safest
place.

There were two lords, and three commoners, who, out of scruple of
conscience, very hastily threw up their pensions, as imagining a pension
was only an annual retaining bribe. All the other great pensioners, I was
told, had their scruples quieted by a clergyman or two of distinction,
whom they happily consulted.

It was remarkable, that several of our very richest tradesmen of the city,
in common charity, gave away shillings and sixpences to the beggars who
plied about the church doors; and at a particular church in the city, a
wealthy church-warden with his own hands distributed fifty twelve-penny
loaves to the poor, by way of restitution for the many great and costly
feasts, which he had eaten of at their expense.

Three great ladies, a valet-de-chambre, two lords, a customhouse-officer,
five half-pay captains, and a baronet, (all noted gamesters,) came
publicly into a church at Westminster, and deposited a very considerable
sum of money in the minister’s hands; the parties, whom they had
defrauded, being either out of town, or not to be found. But so great is
the hardness of heart of this fraternity, that among either the noble or
vulgar gamesters, (though the profession is so general,) I did not hear of
any other restitution of this sort. At the same time I must observe, that
(in comparison of these) through all parts of the town, the justice and
penitence of the highwaymen, housebreakers, and common pickpockets, was
very remarkable.

The directors of our public companies were in such dreadful apprehensions,
that one would have thought a parliamentary inquiry was at hand; yet so
great was their presence of mind, that all the Thursday morning was taken
up in private transfers, which by malicious people was thought to be done
with design to conceal their effects.

I forbear mentioning the private confessions of particular ladies to their
husbands; for as their children were born in wedlock, and of consequence
are legitimate, it would be an invidious task to record them as bastards;
and particularly after their several husbands have so charitably forgiven
them.

The evening and night through the whole town were spent in devotions both
public and private; the churches for this one day were so crowded by the
nobility and gentry, that thousands of common people were seen praying in
the public streets. In short, one would have thought the whole town had
been really and seriously religious. But what was very remarkable, all the
different persuasions kept by themselves, for as each thought the other
would be damned, not one would join in prayer with the other.

At length Friday came, and the people covered all the streets; expecting,
watching, and praying. But as the day wore away, their fears first began
to abate, then lessened every hour, at night they were almost extinct,
till the total darkness, that hitherto used to terrify, now comforted
every freethinker and atheist. Great numbers went together to the taverns,
bespoke suppers, and broke up whole hogsheads for joy. The subject of all
wit and conversation was to ridicule the prophecy, and rally each other.
All the quality and gentry were perfectly ashamed, nay, some utterly
disowned that they had manifested any signs of religion.

But the next day even the common people, as well as their betters,
appeared in their usual state of indifference. They drank, they whored,
they swore, they lied, they cheated, they quarrelled, they murdered. In
short, the world went on in the old channel.

I need not give any instances of what will so easily be credited; but I
cannot omit relating, that Mr. Woolston advertised in that very Saturday’s
Evening Post, a new Treatise against the Miracles of our Saviour; and that
the few who had given up their pensions the day before, solicited to have
them continued: which as they had not been thrown up upon any ministerial
point, I am informed was readily granted.

THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT

By Jonathan Swift, D.D.

Edited By Temple Scott With A Biographical Introduction By The Rt. Hon. W.E.H. Lecky, M.P. VOL. IV of BOHN’S STANDARD LIBRARY

LONDON

GEORGE BELL AND SONS

1898

CHISWICK PRESS:—CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.

TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

SWIFT’S WRITINGS ON RELIGION AND THE CHURCH

VOL. II

A LETTER FROM A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN IRELAND TO A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN ENGLAND CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST. WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

A LETTER CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

ADVERTISEMENT.[1]

THE PRESBYTERIANS’ PLEA OF MERIT.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

A NARRATIVE OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF IRELAND HAVE MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

QUAERIES WROTE BY DR. J. SWIFT, IN THE YEAR 1732. [RELATING TO THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.]

NOTE.

[T.S.]

QUERY.

QUERY.

THE ADVANTAGES PROPOSED BY REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST, IMPARTIALLY CONSIDERED. BY THE REV. DR. SWIFT, DEAN OF ST. PATRICK’S,

NOTE.

[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.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

SOME FEW THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE REPEAL OF THE TEST.[1]

TEN REASONS FOR REPEALING THE TEST ACT.[1]

I.

SERMONS.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

ON MUTUAL SUBJECTION.

I PETER, V. 5.

ON THE TESTIMONY OF CONSCIENCE.

2 CORINTHIANS, I. 12. PART OF IT.

ON THE TRINITY.

I. EPIST. GEN. OF JOHN, V. 7.

ON BROTHERLY LOVE.[1]

HEB. XIII. I.

THE DIFFICULTY OF KNOWING ONE’S-SELF.[1]

“ADVERTISEMENT.

2 KINGS, VIII. PART OF THE 13TH VERSE.

ON FALSE WITNESS.

EXODUS, XX. 16.

ON THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD.[1]

I COR. III. 19.

DOING GOOD:

A SERMON, ON THE OCCASION OF WOOD’S PROJECT.[1]

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR MDCCXXIV.

GALATIANS, VI. 10.

ON THE MARTYRDOM OF KING CHARLES I.

PREACHED AT ST PATRICK’S, DUBLIN, JAN. 30, 1725-26, BEING SUNDAY.

GENESIS, XLIX. 5, 6, 7.

ON THE POOR MAN’S CONTENTMENT.

PHILIPPIANS, CHAP. IV. PART OF THE 11TH VERSE.

A SERMON ON THE CAUSES OF THE WRETCHED CONDITION OF IRELAND.[1]

PSALM CXLIV. PART OF THE 14TH AND 15TH VERSES.

A SERMON UPON SLEEPING IN CHURCH.

ACTS, CHAP. XX. VER. 9.

APPENDIX I. SWIFT’S REMARKS ON DR GIBBS’S PARAPHRASE OF THE PSALMS.

NOTE.

[T.S.]

THE FIRST FIFTEEN PSALMS, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH VERSE.

APPENDIX II. A PROPOSAL HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE P T FOR THE MORE EFFECTUAL PREVENTING THE FURTHER GROWTH OF POPERY.

WITH THE DESCRIPTION AND USE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL THERMOMETER,

[T.S.]

APPENDIX III. SWIFT AND SERJEANT BETTESWORTH.

“GENTLEMEN,

ON THE WORDS BROTHER PROTESTANTS AND FELLOW CHRISTIANS,

AN EPIGRAM.[1] INSCRIBED TO THE HONOURABLE SERGEANT KITE.

“THE YAHOO’S OVERTHROW; OR, THE KEVAN BAYL’S NEW BALLAD.”[3] UPON SERGEANT KITE’S INSULTING THE DEAN.

“ON THE ARCHBISHOP OF CASHEL,[1] AND BETTESWORTH.

“MY LORD,

Edited By Temple Scott
With A Biographical Introduction By
The Rt. Hon. W.E.H. Lecky, M.P.
VOL. IV of BOHN’S
STANDARD LIBRARY

A LETTER FROM A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN IRELAND TO A MEMBER OF
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN ENGLAND CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST. WRITTEN
IN THE YEAR 1708.

A NARRATIVE OF THE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS, WHICH THE DISSENTERS OF IRELAND HAVE
MADE, FOR A REPEAL OF THE SACRAMENTAL TEST.

QUAERIES WROTE BY DR. J. SWIFT, IN THE YEAR 1732. [RELATING TO THE
SACRAMENTAL TEST.]

THE ADVANTAGES PROPOSED BY REPEALING THE SACRAMENTAL TEST, IMPARTIALLY
CONSIDERED. BY THE REV. DR. SWIFT, DEAN OF ST. PATRICK’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.

APPENDIX II. A PROPOSAL HUMBLY OFFERED TO THE P T FOR THE MORE EFFECTUAL
PREVENTING THE FURTHER GROWTH OF POPERY.

“THE YAHOO’S OVERTHROW; OR, THE KEVAN BAYL’S NEW BALLAD.”[3] UPON SERGEANT
KITE’S INSULTING THE DEAN.

APPENDIX IV. A TRUE AND FAITHFUL NARRATIVE OF WHAT PASSED IN LONDON,
DURING THE GENERAL CONSTERNATION OF ALL RANKS AND DEGREES OF MANKIND; ON
TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY LAST.