← catalogue

The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. — Volume 03

by Jonathan Swift · English · Gutenberg #12252 · 654,654 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. — Volume 03
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. — Volume 03

Author: Jonathan Swift

Editor: Temple Scott


        
Release date: May 1, 2004 [eBook #12252]
                Most recently updated: October 28, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12252

Credits: Produced by Terry Gilliland and PG Distributed Proofreaders. Produced from images provided by the Million Book Project


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D. — VOLUME 03 ***

BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY

THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT

VOL. III


[Illustration: _Jonathan Swift,

from a picture by Frances Bindon

In the possession of Sir F R Falkiner_]


THE PROSE WORKS

OF

JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.

EDITED BY

TEMPLE SCOTT

WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION BY

THE RT. HON. W. E. H. LECKY, M.P.

VOL III

1898


SWIFT'S

WRITINGS ON RELIGION AND THE CHURCH

VOL. I

EDITED BY

TEMPLE SCOTT

1898




PREFACE.


The inquiry into the religious thought of the eighteenth century forms
one of the most interesting subjects for speculation in the history of
the intellectual development of western nations. It is true, that in
that history Swift takes no special or distinguished part; but he forms
a figure of peculiar interest in a special circle of his own. Swift had
no natural bent for the ministry of a church; his instincts, his
temperament, his intellect, were of that order which fitted him for
leadership and administration. He was a born magistrate and commander of
men. It is, therefore, one of the finest compliments we can pay Swift to
say, that no more faithful, no more devoted, no stauncher servant has
that Church possessed; for we must remember the proud and haughty temper
which attempted to content itself with the humdrum duties of a parish
life. Swift entered the service of that Church at a time when its need
for such a man was great; and in spite of its disdain of his worth, in
spite of its failure to recognize and acknowledge his transcendent
qualities, he never forgot his oath, and never shook in his allegiance.
To any one, however, who reads carefully his sermons, his "Thoughts on
Religion," and his "Letter to a Young Clergyman," there comes a
question--whether, for his innermost conscience, Swift found a
satisfying conviction in the doctrines of Christianity. "I am not
answerable to God," he says, "for the doubts that arise in my own
breast, since they are the consequence of that reason which he hath
planted in me, if I take care to conceal those doubts from others, if I
use my best endeavours to subdue them, and if they have no influence on
the conduct of my life." We search in vain, in any of his writings, for
any definite expression of doubt or want of faith in these doctrines.
When he touches on them, as he does in the sermon "On the Trinity," he
seems to avoid of set purpose, rational inquiry, and contents himself
with insisting on the necessity for a belief in those mysteries
concerning God about which we cannot hope to know anything. "I do not
find," he says, in his "Letter to a Young Clergyman," "that you are
anywhere directed in the canons or articles to attempt explaining the
mysteries of the Christian religion; and, indeed, since Providence
intended there should be mysteries, I don't see how it can be agreeable
to piety, orthodoxy, or good sense to go about such a work. For to me
there seems a manifest dilemma in the case; if you explain them, they
are mysteries no longer; if you fail, you have laboured to no purpose."

It must at once be admitted that Swift had not the metaphysical bent;
philosophy--in our modern sense of the word--was to him only a species
of word spinning. That only was valuable which had a practical bearing
on life--and Christianity had that. He found in Christianity, as he knew
it--in the Church of England, that is to say--an excellent organization,
which recognized the frailties of human nature, aimed at making
healthier men's souls, and gave mankind a reasonable guidance in the
selection of the best motives to action. He himself, as a preacher, made
it his principal business, "first to tell the people what is their duty,
and then to convince them that it is so." He had a profound faith in
existing institutions, which to him were founded on the fundamental
traits of humanity. The Church of England he considered to be such an
institution; and it was, moreover, regulated and settled by order of the
State. To follow its teachings would lead men to become good citizens,
honest dealers, truthful and cleanly companions, upright friends. What
more could be demanded of any religion?

The Romish Church led away from the Constitution as by law established.
Dissent set up private authority, which could no more be permitted in
religious than it was in political matters; it meant dissension,
revolution, and the upheaval of tried and trusted associations.
Therefore, the Church of Rome and the teachings of Dissent were alike
dangerous; and against both, whenever they attempted the possession of
political power, he waged a fierce and uncompromising war. "Where sects
are tolerated in a State," he says, in his "Sentiments of a Church of
England Man," "it is fit they should enjoy a full liberty of conscience,
and every other privilege of free-born subjects, to which no power is
annexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all emergencies, a
government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them with too
little power."

Swift had no passionate love for ideals--indeed, he may have thought
ideals to be figments of an overheated and, therefore, aberrated
imagination. The practically real was the best ideal; and by the real he
would understand that power which most capably and most regulatively
nursed, guided, and assisted the best instincts of the average man. The
average man was but a sorry creature, and required adventitious aids for
his development. Gifted as he was with a large sympathy, Swift yet was
seemingly incapable of appreciating those thought-forms which help us to
visualize mentally our religious aspirations and emotions. A mere
emotion was but subject-matter for his satire. He suspected any zeal
which protested too much for truth, and considered it "odds on" it being
"either petulancy, ambition, or pride."

Whatever may have been his private speculations as to the truth of the
doctrines of Christianity they never interfered with his sense of his
responsibilities as a clergyman. "I look upon myself," he says, "in the
capacity of a clergyman, to be one appointed by Providence for defending
a post assigned me, and for gaining over as many enemies as I can.
Although I think my cause is just, yet one great motive is my submitting
to the pleasure of Providence, and to the laws of my country." If anyone
had asked him, what was the pleasure of Providence, he would probably
have answered, that it was plainly shown in the Scriptures, and required
not the aid of the expositions of divines who were "too curious, or too
narrow, in reducing orthodoxy within the compass of subtleties,
niceties, and distinctions." Truth was no abstraction--that was truth
which found its expression in the best action; and this explains Swift's
acceptance of any organization which made for such expression. He found
one ready in the Church of England; and whatever his doubts were, those
only moved him which were aroused by action from those who attempted to
interfere with the working of that organization. And this also helps to
explain his political attitude at the time when it was thought he had
deserted his friends. The Church was always his first consideration. He
was not a Churchman because he was a politician, but a politician
because he was a Churchman. These, however, are matters which are more
fully entered into by Swift himself in the tracts herewith reprinted,
and in the notes prefixed to them by the editor.

It was originally intended that Swift's writings on Religion and the
Church should occupy a single volume of this edition of his works. They
are, however, so numerous that it has been found more convenient to
divide them into two volumes--the first including all the tracts, except
those relating to the Sacramental Test; the second containing the Test
pamphlets and the twelve sermons, with the Remarks on Dr. Gibbs's
paraphrase of the Psalms, in an appendix. It is hoped that this
division, while it entails upon the student the necessity for a double
reference, will yet preserve the continuity of form enabling him to view
Swift's religious standpoint and work with as much advantage as he would
have obtained by the original plan.

The editor again takes the opportunity to thank Colonel F. Grant for the
service he has rendered him in placing at his disposal his fine
collection of Swift's tracts. The portrait which forms the frontispiece
to this volume is one of those painted by Francis Bindon, and was
formerly in the possession of Judge Berwick. For permission to
photograph and reproduce it here, thanks are due to Sir Frederick R.
Falkiner, Recorder of Dublin.

TEMPLE SCOTT.




CONTENTS:

ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY

PROJECT FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION

SENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN

REMARKS UPON "THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH"

PREFACE TO THE BISHOP OF SARUM'S "INTRODUCTION"

ABSTRACT OF COLLINS'S "DISCOURSE OF FREETHINKING"

SOME THOUGHTS ON FREETHINKING

LETTER TO A YOUNG CLERGYMAN

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENLARGING THE POWER OF BISHOPS IN LETTING LEASES

REASONS OFFERED TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN

ON THE BILL FOR THE CLERGY'S RESIDING ON THEIR LIVINGS

CONSIDERATIONS UPON TWO BILLS RELATING TO THE CLERGY OF IRELAND

REASONS AGAINST THE MODUS

ESSAY ON THE FATES OF CLERGYMEN

CONCERNING THAT UNIVERSAL HATRED WHICH PREVAILS AGAINST THE CLERGY

THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

PRAYERS FOR MRS. JOHNSON

AN EVENING PRAYER

OBSERVATIONS ON HEYLIN'S "HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANS"

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




AN ARGUMENT

TO PROVE THAT THE

ABOLISHING OF CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND

MAY, AS THINGS NOW STAND, BE ATTENDED WITH SOME INCONVENIENCES, AND
PERHAPS NOT PRODUCE THOSE MANY GOOD EFFECTS PROPOSED THEREBY.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.


NOTE.

In November, 1707, Swift left Dublin in the train of the then Lord
Lieutenant, Lord Pembroke. His travelling companion was Sir Andrew
Fountaine, who, on landing in England, set out with Lord Pembroke for
Wilton, while Swift went on to Leicester to visit his mother. He stayed
with her until some time in December, but, by the middle of the same
month, he was in London. During this absence from Ireland Swift
corresponded somewhat freely with Archbishop King of Dublin, and with
Archdeacon Walls--the letters to the former were first printed in
Forster's "Life of Swift." For these Forster was indebted to the Rev.
Mr. Reeves (vicar of Lusk, co. Dublin), who discovered them in the
record-room of the see of Armagh (see "Life," p. 205 et seq. and note).
One of Swift's intentions, while in the metropolis, was to push forward
the claim of the Irish clergy for the remission of the First Fruits and
Tenths, a grant which had already been conceded to the English clergy;
and his letters to King often include requests for the necessary papers
by means of which he could lay the matter before either Godolphin or
Somers. Walls had written to Swift of the vacancy of the see of
Waterford, and, from the reply to the archdeacon, we learn that even at
so early a date Swift suffered a grievous disappointment; for in
January, 1708, the bishopric, of which Swift had hopes, was presented to
Dr. Thomas Milles. In his letter to Walls Swift confesses that he "once
had a glimpse that things would have gone otherwise.... But let us
talk no further on this subject. I am stomach-sick of it already. ...
Pray send me an account of some smaller vacancy in the Government's
gift." It was to Somers, and through him to Lord Halifax, that Swift
looked for recognition, either for services rendered, or because of
their appreciation of his abilities. But, however much he may have been
disappointed at their inaction, it may not be argued, as it has been,
that Swift's so-called change in his political opinions was the outcome
either of spleen or chagrin against the Whigs for their ingratitude
towards him. It is, indeed, questionable whether Swift ever changed his
political opinions, speaking of these as party opinions. From the day of
his entrance, it may be said, into the orders of the Church, his first
thought was for it; and on all political questions which touched Church
matters Swift was neither Whig nor Tory, but churchman. It was because
of the attitude of the Whigs towards the Church that Swift left them;
and in his writings he does not spare the Tories even when he finds them
taking up similar attitudes. On purely political questions Swift was too
independent a thinker to be influenced by mere party views. That he
wrote for the Tories must be put down to Harley's personal influence,
and to his foresight which saw in Swift a man who must be treated as an
equal with the highest in the land. Swift's intercourse with the leading
men of his day only served to accentuate his consciousness of his
superiority; and a party which would permit him the free play of his
powers would be the party to which Swift would give his adhesion.
Godolphin, Somers, and Walpole either did not recognize the genius of
the man, or their own "points of view" did not permit them to give him
the free play they felt he would obtain. Be that as it may, Harley
gained not only a splendid party fighter, but a friend on whose
affection he could ever rely.

In these tracts on Religion and the Church, which he wrote in the year
1708, Swift is not a party man, speaking for party purposes. He
believed, and sincerely believed, that for such beings as were the men
and women of this kingdom, the Church was, if not the highest and
noblest instrument for good, yet the worthiest and ablest they had.
Swift never lost himself in theories. He was, however, not blind to the
dangers which an established religion might engender; but whatever its
dangers, these would be inevitable to the most perfect system so long as
human nature was as base as it was. The "Argument" is written in a vein
of satirical banter; but the Swiftian cynicism permeates every line. It
is the first of four tracts which form Swift's most important expression
of his thoughts on Religion and the Church. Scott well describes it as
"one of the most felicitous efforts in our language, to engage wit and
humour on the side of religion," and Forster speaks of it as "having
also that indefinable subtlety of style which conveys not the writer's
knowledge of the subject only, but his power and superiority over it."

I have not been able to find a copy of the original edition of the
"Argument" upon which to base the present text--for that I have gone to
the first edition of the "Miscellanies," published in 1711; but I have
collated this with those given by the "Miscellanies" (1728), Faulkner,
Hawkesworth, Scott, Morley, and Craik.

[T. S.]


AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY.


I am very sensible what a weakness and presumption it is, to reason
against the general humour and disposition of the world. I remember it
was with great justice, and a due regard to the freedom both of the
public and the press, forbidden upon several penalties to write,[1] or
discourse, or lay wagers against the Union, even before it was confirmed
by parliament, because that was looked upon as a design, to oppose the
current of the people, which, besides the folly of it, is a manifest
breach of the fundamental law that makes this majority of opinion the
voice of God. In like manner, and for the very same reasons, it may
perhaps be neither safe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of
Christianity, at a juncture when all parties appear[2] so unanimously
determined upon the point, as we cannot but allow from their actions,
their discourses, and their writings. However, I know not how, whether
from the affectation of singularity, or the perverseness of human
nature, but so it unhappily falls out, that I cannot be entirely of this
opinion. Nay, though I were sure an order were issued for my immediate
prosecution by the Attorney-General, I should still confess that in the
present posture of our affairs at home or abroad, I do not yet see the
absolute necessity of extirpating the Christian religion from among us.

[Footnote 1: This refers to the Jacobitism of the time, particularly
among those who were opposed to the Union. A reference to Lord Mahon's
"Reign of Queen Anne" will show how strong was the opposition in
Scotland, and how severe were the measures taken to put down that
opposition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Craik and Hawkesworth print the word "seem," but the
"Miscellanies," Faulkner, and Scott give it as in the text. [T.S.]]

This perhaps may appear too great a paradox even for our wise and
paradoxical age to endure; therefore I shall handle it with all
tenderness, and with the utmost deference to that great and profound
majority which is of another sentiment.

And yet the curious may please to observe, how much the genius of a
nation is liable to alter in half an age. I have heard it affirmed for
certain by some very old people, that the contrary opinion was even in
their memories as much in vogue as the other is now; and, that a project
for the abolishing of Christianity would then have appeared as singular,
and been thought as absurd, as it would be at this time to write or
discourse in its defence.

Therefore I freely own that all appearances are against me. The system
of the Gospel, after the fate of other systems is generally antiquated
and exploded, and the mass or body of the common people, among whom it
seems to have had its latest credit, are now grown as much ashamed of it
as their betters; opinions, like fashions, always descending from those
of quality to the middle sort, and thence to the vulgar, where at length
they are dropped and vanish.

But here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be so bold as to
borrow a distinction from the writers on the other side, when they make
a difference between nominal and real Trinitarians. I hope no reader
imagines me so weak to stand up in the defence of real Christianity,
such as used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those
ages) to have an influence upon men's belief and actions: To offer at
the restoring of that would indeed be a wild project; it would be to dig
up foundations; to destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the
learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of
things; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences with the professors
of them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into
deserts; and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace,[3] where
he advises the Romans all in a body to leave their city, and seek a new
seat in some remote part of the world, by way of cure for the corruption
of their manners.

[Footnote 3: This proposal is embodied in the 16th Epode, where, in an
appeal "to the Roman people," Horace advises them to fly the evils of
tyranny and civil war by sailing away to "the happy land, those islands
of the blest:"

  "Nos manet Oceanus circumvagus! arva, beata
  Petamus arva, divites et insulas!"
[T.S.]]

Therefore I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary,
(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of cavilling)
since every candid reader will easily understand my discourse to be
intended only in defence of nominal Christianity; the other having been
for some time wholly laid aside by general consent, as utterly
inconsistent with our present schemes of wealth and power.

But why we should therefore cast off the name and title of Christians,
although the general opinion and resolution be so violent for it, I
confess I cannot (with submission) apprehend the consequence
necessary.[4] However, since the undertakers propose such wonderful
advantages to the nation by this project, and advance many plausible
objections against the system of Christianity, I shall briefly consider
the strength of both, fairly allow them their greatest weight, and offer
such answers as I think most reasonable. After which I will beg leave to
shew what inconveniences may possibly happen by such an innovation, in
the present posture of our affairs.

[Footnote 4: I give the reading of the "Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner
and Hawkesworth. Scott and Craik print it: "I confess I cannot (with
submission) apprehend, nor is the consequence necessary." [T.S.]]

_First,_ One great advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity
is, that it would very much enlarge and establish liberty of conscience,
that great bulwark of our nation, and of the Protestant Religion, which
is still too much limited by priestcraft, notwithstanding all the good
intentions of the legislature, as we have lately found by a severe
instance. For it is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of
real hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who upon a thorough
examination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of natural
abilities, without the least tincture of learning, having made a
discovery, that there was no God, and generously communicating their
thoughts for the good of the public, were some time ago, by an
unparalleled severity, and upon I know not what obsolete law, broke for
blasphemy.[5] And as it hath been wisely observed, if persecution once
begins, no man alive knows how far it may reach, or where it will end.

[Footnote 5: No record of this "breaking" has been discovered. [T.S.]]

In answer to all which, with deference to wiser judgments, I think this
rather shews the necessity of a nominal religion among us. Great wits
love to be free with the highest objects; and if they cannot be allowed
a God to revile or renounce, they will speak evil of dignities, abuse
the government, and reflect upon the ministry; which I am sure few will
deny to be of much more pernicious consequence, according to the saying
of Tiberius, _Deorum offensa diis curae._[6] As to the particular fact
related, I think it is not fair to argue from one instance, perhaps
another cannot be produced; yet (to the comfort of all those who may be
apprehensive of persecution) blasphemy we know is freely spoken a
million of times in every coffeehouse and tavern, or wherever else good
company meet. It must be allowed indeed, that to break an English
free-born officer only for blasphemy, was, to speak the gentlest of such
an action, a very high strain of absolute power. Little can be said in
excuse for the general; perhaps he was afraid it might give offence to
the allies, among whom, for aught we know, it may be the custom of the
country to believe a God. But if he argued, as some have done, upon a
mistaken principle, that an officer who is guilty of speaking blasphemy,
may some time or other proceed so far as to raise a mutiny, the
consequence is by no means to be admitted; for, surely the commander of
an English army is likely to be but ill obeyed, whose soldiers fear and
reverence him as little as they do a Deity.

[Footnote 6: Tacitus, "Annals," bk. i., c. lxxiii. [T.S.]]

It is further objected against the Gospel System, that it obliges men to
the belief of things too difficult for free-thinkers, and such who have
shaken off the prejudices that usually cling to a confined education. To
which I answer, that men should be cautious how they raise objections
which reflect upon the wisdom of the nation. Is not every body freely
allowed to believe whatever he pleases, and to publish his belief to the
world whenever he thinks fit, especially if it serves to strengthen the
party which is in the right? Would any indifferent foreigner, who should
read the trumpery lately written by Asgil, Tindal, Toland, Coward,[7]
and forty more, imagine the Gospel to be our rule of faith, and
confirmed by parliaments? Does any man either believe, or say he
believes, or desire to have it thought that he says he believes one
syllable of the matter? And is any man worse received upon that score,
or does he find his want of nominal faith a disadvantage to him in the
pursuit of any civil or military employment? What if there be an old
dormant statute or two against him, are they not now obsolete, to a
degree, that Empsom and Dudley[8] themselves if they were now alive,
would find it impossible to put them in execution?

[Footnote 7: John Asgill (1659-1738), became a member of Lincoln's Inn,
and went over to Ireland in 1697, where he practised as a barrister,
amassed a large fortune, and was elected to the Irish parliament. For
writing "An Argument, proving that Man may be translated from hence
without passing through Death," he was, in 1700, expelled the House, and
the book ordered to be burnt. On returning to England he was elected to
parliament for Bramber, but suffered a second expulsion in 1712, also on
account of this book. He was imprisoned for debt, and remained under the
rules of the Fleet and King's Bench for thirty years, during which time
he wrote and published various political tracts. His "Argument"
attempted to "interpret the relations between God and man by the
technical rules of English law," and Coleridge thought no little of its
power and style.

Matthew Tindal (1657-1733) was born at Beer Ferrers, in Devonshire. He
studied at Oxford, and obtained a fellowship in All Souls. He was made
LL.D. in 1685, and, although he professed himself a Roman Catholic in
James II.'s reign, he managed to keep his fellowship after that
monarch's flight by becoming Protestant again. His most important work
was "The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted," which the House of
Commons in 1710 adjudged fit for burning by the hangman. In 1730 he
published anonymously, the first part of "Christianity as Old as
Creation," a work which attacked strongly the authority of the
Scriptures; a second volume was never published.

John Toland (1669-1722), born near Londonderry, and educated in a
Catholic school. He professed himself a Protestant, and was sent to
Glasgow and Edinburgh. In the latter university he graduated in his
master's degree. While studying at Leyden he became a sceptic, and in
1695 published his "Christianity not Mysterious," a work which aroused a
wide controversy. In his "Life of Milton" (1698) he denied that King
Charles was the author of "Eikon Basilikae," and also attacked the
Gospels. This also brought upon him rejoinders from Dr. Blackall and Dr.
Samuel Clarke. He died at Putney, in easy circumstances, due to the
presents made him while visiting German courts. He wrote other works,
chief among which may be mentioned, "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705),
"Nazarenas" (1718), and "Tetradymus." His "Posthumous Works" were issued
in two volumes in 1726, with a life by Des Maizeaux. Craik calls him "a
man of utterly worthless character," and refers to his being "mixed up
in some discreditable episodes as a political spy."

William Coward (1656?--1724?) was born at Winchester. He studied
medicine and became a fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. His "Second
Thoughts concerning Human Souls," published in 1702, occasioned fierce
disputes, on account of its materialism. The House of Commons ordered
the work to be burnt by the hangman.

Asgill, Toland, Tindal, Collins, and Coward are classed as the Deistical
writers of the eighteenth century. In his "History of English Thought in
the Eighteenth Century" Mr. Leslie Stephen gives an admirable exposition
of their views, and their special interpretation of Locke's theories.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Of Henry VII. notoriety, who aided the king, by illegal
exactions, to amass his large fortune. They were executed by Henry VIII.
[T.S.]]

It is likewise urged, that there are, by computation, in this kingdom,
above ten thousand parsons, whose revenues added to those of my lords
the bishops, would suffice to maintain at least two hundred young
gentlemen of wit and pleasure, and freethinking, enemies to priestcraft,
narrow principles, pedantry, and prejudices; who might be an ornament to
the Court and Town: And then, again, so great a number of able [bodied]
divines might be a recruit to our fleet and armies. This indeed appears
to be a consideration of some weight: But then, on the other side,
several things deserve to be considered likewise: As, first, whether it
may not be thought necessary that in certain tracts of country, like
what we call parishes, there shall be one man at least of abilities to
read and write. Then it seems a wrong computation, that the revenues of
the Church throughout this island would be large enough to maintain two
hundred young gentlemen, or even half that number, after the present
refined way of living; that is, to allow each of them such a rent, as in
the modern form of speech, would make them easy. But still there is in
this project a greater mischief behind; and we ought to beware of the
woman's folly, who killed the hen that every morning laid her a golden
egg. For, pray what would become of the race of men in the next age, if
we had nothing to trust to beside the scrofulous, consumptive
productions, furnished by our men of wit and pleasure, when, having
squandered away their vigour, health and estates, they are forced by
some disagreeable marriage to piece up their broken fortunes, and entail
rottenness and politeness on their posterity? Now, here are ten thousand
persons reduced by the wise regulations of Henry the Eighth,[9] to the
necessity of a low diet, and moderate exercise, who are the only great
restorers of our breed, without which the nation would in an age or two
become one great hospital.

[Footnote 9: His seizures of the revenues of the Church. [T.S.]]

Another advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity, is the
clear gain of one day in seven, which is now entirely lost, and
consequently the kingdom one seventh less considerable in trade,
business, and pleasure, besides the loss to the public of so many
stately structures now in the hands of the Clergy, which might be
converted into playhouses, exchanges, market houses, common dormitories,
and other public edifices.

I hope I shall be forgiven a hard word, if I call this a perfect
_cavil._ I readily own there has been an old custom time out of mind,
for people to assemble in the churches every Sunday, and that shops are
still frequently shut, in order as it is conceived, to preserve the
memory of that ancient practice, but how this can prove a hindrance to
business or pleasure, is hard to imagine. What if the men of pleasure
are forced one day in the week, to game at home instead of the chocolate
houses?[10] Are not the taverns and coffeehouses open? Can there be a
more convenient season for taking a dose of physic? Are fewer claps got
upon Sundays than other days? Is not that the chief day for traders to
sum up the accounts of the week, and for lawyers to prepare their
briefs? But I would fain know how it can be pretended that the churches
are misapplied? Where are more appointments and rendezvouzes of
gallantry? Where more care to appear in the foremost box with greater
advantage of dress? Where more meetings for business? Where more
bargains driven of all sorts? And where so many conveniences or
enticements to sleep?

[Footnote 10: The chocolate houses seem to have been largely used for
gambling purposes. They were not so numerous as the coffee houses.
[T.S.]]

There is one advantage greater than any of the foregoing, proposed by
the abolishing of Christianity: that it will utterly extinguish parties
among us, by removing those factious distinctions of High and Low
Church, of Whig and Tory, Presbyterian and Church of England, which are
now so many mutual clogs upon public proceedings, and are apt to prefer
the gratifying themselves, or depressing their adversaries, before the
most important interest of the state.

I confess, if it were certain that so great an advantage would redound
to the nation by this expedient, I would submit and be silent: But will
any man say, that if the words _whoring, drinking, cheating, lying,
stealing_, were by act of parliament ejected out of the English tongue
and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning chaste and temperate,
honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence? Or, if
the physicians would forbid us to pronounce the words _pox, gout,
rheumatism_ and _stone_, would that expedient serve like so many
talismans to destroy the diseases themselves? Are party and faction
rooted in men's hearts no deeper than phrases borrowed from religion, or
founded upon no firmer principles? And is our language so poor that we
cannot find other terms to express them? Are _envy, pride, avarice_ and
_ambition_ such ill nomenclators, that they cannot furnish appellations
for their owners? Will not _heydukes_ and _mamalukes, mandarins_ and
_patshaws_, or any other words formed at pleasure, serve to distinguish
those who are in the ministry from others who would be in it if they
could? What, for instance, is easier than to vary the form of speech,
and instead of the word church, make it a question in politics, whether
the Monument be in danger? Because religion was nearest at hand to
furnish a few convenient phrases, is our invention so barren, we can
find no other? Suppose, for argument sake, that the Tories favoured
Margarita, the Whigs Mrs. Tofts,[11] and the Trimmers[12] Valentini,[13]
would not _Margaritians, Toftians,_ and _Valentinians_ be very tolerable
marks of distinction? The _Prasini_ and _Veniti,_[14] two most virulent
factions in Italy, began (if I remember right) by a distinction of
colours in ribbons, which we might do with as good a grace[15] about the
dignity of the blue and the green, and would serve as properly to divide
the Court, the Parliament, and the Kingdom between them, as any terms of
art whatsoever, borrowed from religion. And therefore I think, there is
little force in this objection against Christianity, or prospect of so
great an advantage as is proposed in the abolishing of it.

[Footnote 11: Margarita was a famous Italian singer of the day. Her name
was Francesca Margherita de l'Epine, and she was known as "the Italian
woman." In his "Journal to Stella" for August 6th, 1711, Swift writes:
"We have a music meeting in our town [Windsor] to-night. I went to the
rehearsal of it, and there was Margarita and her sister, and another
drab, and a parcel of fiddlers; I was weary, and would not go to the
meeting, which I am sorry for, because I heard it was a great assembly."
(See present edition, vol. ii. p. 219).

Mrs. Catherine Tofts was an Englishwoman, who also sang in Italian
opera. She had a fine figure and a beautiful voice. Steele in the
"Tatler," No. 20, refers to her when in her state of insanity. Her mind,
evidently, could not stand the strain of her great popularity, and she
became mad in 1709. In the "Tatler" she is called Camilla; and Cibber
also speaks of the "silver tone of her voice." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: By the Trimmers Swift referred to the nickname given to
the party in the time of Charles II., which consisted of those who
wished to compromise between the advocates of the Crown and the
supporters of the Protestant succession as against the Duke of York.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Another Italian singer of the time, who was the rival of
Margarita and Mrs. Tofts. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: This refers to the Roman chariot races. They gave rise to
the factions called _Albati, Russati, Prasini,_ and _Veniti._ The
Prasini (green) and Veniti (blue) were the principal, and their rivalry
landed the empire, under Justinian, in a civil war. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Scott has "and we might contend with as good a grace," &c.
Craik follows Scott. The reading in the text is that of the
"Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner, and Hawkesworth. [T.S.]]

'Tis again objected, as a very absurd ridiculous custom, that a set of
men should be suffered, much less employed and hired, to bawl one day in
seven against the lawfulness of those methods most in use toward the
pursuit of greatness, riches and pleasure, which are the constant
practice of all men alive on the other six. But this objection is, I
think, a little unworthy so refined an age as ours. Let us argue this
matter calmly: I appeal to the breast of any polite freethinker, whether
in the pursuit of gratifying a predominant passion, he hath not always
felt a wonderful incitement, by reflecting it was a thing forbidden; and
therefore we see, in order to cultivate this taste, the wisdom of the
nation hath taken special care, that the ladies should be furnished with
prohibited silks, and the men with prohibited wine. And indeed it were
to be wished, that some other prohibitions were promoted, in order to
improve the pleasures of the town; which, for want of such expedients
begin already, as I am told, to flag and grow languid, giving way daily
to cruel inroads from the spleen.

'Tis likewise proposed as a great advantage to the public, that if we
once discard the system of the Gospel, all religion will of course be
banished for ever; and consequently, along with it, those grievous
prejudices of education, which under the names of _virtue, conscience,
honour, justice,_ and the like, are so apt to disturb the peace of human
minds, and the notions whereof are so hard to be eradicated by right
reason or freethinking, sometimes during the whole course of our lives.

Here first, I observe how difficult it is to get rid of a phrase, which
the world is once grown fond of, though the occasion that first produced
it, be entirely taken away. For several years past, if a man had but an
ill-favoured nose, the deep-thinkers of the age would some way or other
contrive to impute the cause to the prejudice of his education. From
this fountain were said to be derived all our foolish notions of
justice, piety, love of our country, all our opinions of God, or a
future state, Heaven, Hell, and the like: And there might formerly
perhaps have been some pretence for this charge. But so effectual care
has been taken to remove those prejudices, by an entire change in the
methods of education, that (with honour I mention it to our polite
innovators) the young gentlemen who are now on the scene, seem to have
not the least tincture of those infusions, or string of those weeds;
and, by consequence, the reason for abolishing nominal Christianity upon
that pretext, is wholly ceased.

For the rest, it may perhaps admit a controversy, whether the banishing
of all notions of religion whatsoever, would be convenient for the
vulgar. Not that I am in the least of opinion with those who hold
religion to have been the invention of politicians, to keep the lower
part of the world in awe by the fear of invisible powers; unless mankind
were then very different to what it is now: For I look upon the mass or
body of our people here in England, to be as freethinkers, that is to
say, as staunch unbelievers, as any of the highest rank. But I conceive
some scattered notions about a superior power to be of singular use for
the common people, as furnishing excellent materials to keep children
quiet when they grow peevish, and providing topics of amusement in a
tedious winter-night.

Lastly, 'tis proposed as a singular advantage, that the abolishing of
Christianity will very much contribute to the uniting of Protestants, by
enlarging the terms of communion so as to take in all sorts of
dissenters, who are now shut out of the pale upon account of a few
ceremonies which all sides confess to be things indifferent: That this
alone will effectually answer the great ends of a scheme for
comprehension, by opening a large noble gate, at which all bodies may
enter; whereas the chaffering with dissenters, and dodging about this or
t'other ceremony, is but like opening a few wickets, and leaving them at
jar, by which no more than one can get in at a time, and that, not
without stooping, and sideling, and squeezing his body.[16]

[Footnote 16: "In this passage," says Scott, "the author's High Church
principles, and jealousy of the Dissenters, plainly shew themselves; and
it is, perhaps, in special reference to what is here said, that he ranks
it among the pamphlets he wrote in opposition to the party then in
power." [T. S.]]

To all this I answer: that there is one darling inclination of mankind,
which usually affects to be a retainer to religion, though she be
neither its parent, its godmother, or its friend; I mean the spirit of
opposition, that lived long before Christianity, and can easily subsist
without it. Let us, for instance, examine wherein the opposition of
sectaries among us consists, we shall find Christianity to have no share
in it at all Does the Gospel any where prescribe a starched, squeezed
countenance, a stiff, formal gait, a singularity of manners and habit,
or any affected modes of speech different from the reasonable part of
mankind? Yet, if Christianity did not lend its name to stand in the gap,
and to employ or divert these humours, they must of necessity be spent
in contraventions to the laws of the land, and disturbance of the public
peace. There is a portion of enthusiasm assigned to every nation, which,
if it hath not proper objects to work on, will burst out, and set all
into a flame. If the quiet of a state can be bought by only flinging men
a few ceremonies to devour, it is a purchase no wise man would refuse
Let the mastiffs amuse themselves about a sheep's skin stuffed with hay,
provided it will keep them from worrying the flock The institution of
convents abroad, seems in one point a strain of great wisdom, there
being few irregularities in human passions, which may not have recourse
to vent themselves in some of those orders, which are so many retreats
for the speculative, the melancholy, the proud, the silent, the politic
and the morose, to spend themselves, and evaporate the noxious
particles, for each of whom we in this island are forced to provide a
several sect of religion, to keep them quiet And whenever Christianity
shall be abolished, the legislature must find some other expedient to
employ and entertain them For what imports it how large a gate you open,
if there will be always left a number who place a pride and a merit in
not coming in?[17]

[Footnote 17: So the "Miscellanies" (1711) and Hawkesworth Faulkner,
Scott, and Craik print, "in refusing to enter." [T. S.]]

Having thus considered the most important objections against
Christianity, and the chief advantages proposed by the abolishing
thereof, I shall now with equal deference and submission to wiser
judgments as before, proceed to mention a few inconveniences that may
happen, if the Gospel should be repealed, which perhaps the projectors
may not have sufficiently considered.

And first, I am very sensible how much the gentlemen of wit and pleasure
are apt to murmur, and be choqued[18] at the sight of so many draggled
tail parsons, that happen to fall in their way, and offend their eyes,
but at the same time, these wise reformers do not consider what an
advantage and felicity it is, for great wits to be always provided with
objects of scorn and contempt, in order to exercise and improve their
talents, and divert their spleen from falling on each other or on
themselves, especially when all this may be done without the least
imaginable danger to their persons.

[Footnote 18: Shocked Swift's habit when using a word of French origin
was to keep the French spelling. [T. S.]]

And to urge another argument of a parallel nature. If Christianity were
once abolished, how could the freethinkers, the strong reasoners, and
the men of profound learning, be able to find another subject so
calculated in all points whereon to display their abilities? What
wonderful productions of wit should we be deprived of, from those whose
genius by continual practice hath been wholly turned upon raillery and
invectives against religion, and would therefore never be able to shine
or distinguish themselves upon any other subject! We are daily
complaining of the great decline of wit among us, and would we take away
the greatest, perhaps the only topic we have left? Who would ever have
suspected Asgil for a wit, or Toland for a philosopher, if the
inexhaustible stock of Christianity had not been at hand to provide them
with materials? What other subject, through all art or nature, could
have produced Tindal for a profound author, or furnished him with
readers? It is the wise choice of the subject that alone adorns and
distinguishes the writer. For, had a hundred such pens as these been
employed on the side of religion, they would have immediately sunk into
silence and oblivion.

Nor do I think it wholly groundless, or my fears altogether imaginary,
that the abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church into
danger, or at least put the senate to the trouble of another securing
vote. I desire I may not be mistaken; I am far from presuming to affirm
or think that the Church is in danger at present, or as things now
stand; but we know not how soon it may be so when the Christian religion
is repealed. As plausible as this project seems, there may a dangerous
design lurk under it:[19] Nothing can be more notorious, than that the
Atheists, Deists, Socinians, Anti-trinitarians, and other subdivisions
of freethinkers, are persons of little zeal for the present
ecclesiastical establishment: Their declared opinion is for repealing
the Sacramental Test; they are very indifferent with regard to
ceremonies; nor do they hold the _jus divinum_ of Episcopacy. Therefore
this may be intended as one politic step toward altering the
constitution of the Church established, and setting up Presbytery in the
stead, which I leave to be further considered by those at the helm.

[Footnote 19: Craik follows Scott in altering this sentence to "there
may be a dangerous design lurking under it"; but all other editors,
except Morley and Roscoe, give it as printed in the text. [T.S.]]

In the last place, I think nothing can be more plain, than that by this
expedient, we shall run into the evil we chiefly pretend to avoid; and
that the abolishment of the Christian religion will be the readiest
course we can take to introduce popery. And I am the more inclined to
this opinion, because we know it has been the constant practice of the
Jesuits to send over emissaries, with instructions to personate
themselves members of the several prevailing sects among us. So it is
recorded, that they have at sundry times appeared in the guise of
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents and Quakers, according as any
of these were most in credit; so, since the fashion hath been taken up
of exploding religion, the popish missionaries have not been wanting to
mix with the freethinkers; among whom, Toland the great oracle of the
Antichristians is an Irish priest, the son of an Irish priest; and the
most learned and ingenious author of a book called "The Rights of the
Christian Church,"[20] was in a proper juncture reconciled to the Romish
faith, whose true son, as appears by a hundred passages in his treatise,
he still continues. Perhaps I could add some others to the number; but
the fact is beyond dispute, and the reasoning they proceed by is right:
For, supposing Christianity to be extinguished, the people will never be
at ease till they find out some other method of worship; which will as
infallibly produce superstition, as this will end in popery.

[Footnote 20: Dr. Matthew Tindal (see previous note, p. 9). The book was
afterwards specially criticised by Swift in his "Remarks upon a Book
entitled 'The Rights of the Christian Church.'" See also note to the
present reprint of these "Remarks." [T.S.]]

And therefore, if notwithstanding all I have said, it still be thought
necessary to have a bill brought in for repealing Christianity, I would
humbly offer an amendment; that instead of the word, Christianity, may
be put religion in general; which I conceive will much better answer all
the good ends proposed by the projectors of it. For, as long as we leave
in being a God and his providence, with all the necessary consequences
which curious and inquisitive men will be apt to draw from such
premises, we do not strike at the root of the evil, though we should
ever so effectually annihilate the present scheme of the Gospel: For, of
what use is freedom of thought, if it will not produce freedom of
action, which is the sole end, how remote soever in appearance, of all
objections against Christianity? And therefore, the freethinkers
consider it as a sort of edifice, wherein all the parts have such a
mutual dependence on each other, that if you happen to pull out one
single nail, the whole fabric must fall to the ground. This was happily
expressed by him who had heard of a text brought for proof of the
Trinity, which in an ancient manuscript was differently read; he
thereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long
_sorites_, most logically concluded; "Why, if it be as you say, I may
safely whore and drink on, and defy the parson." From which, and many
the like instances easy to be produced, I think nothing can be more
manifest, than that the quarrel is not against any particular points of
hard digestion in the Christian system, but against religion in general;
which, by laying restraints on human nature, is supposed the great enemy
to the freedom of thought and action.

Upon the whole, if it shall still be thought for the benefit of Church
and State, that Christianity be abolished; I conceive however, it may be
more convenient to defer the execution to a time of peace, and not
venture in this conjuncture to disoblige our allies, who, as it falls
out, are all Christians, and many of them, by the prejudices of their
education, so bigoted, as to place a sort of pride in the appellation.
If upon being rejected by them, we are to trust an alliance with the
Turk, we shall find ourselves much deceived: For, as he is too remote,
and generally engaged in war with the Persian emperor, so his people
would be more scandalized at our infidelity, than our Christian
neighbours. For they [the Turks] are not only strict observers of
religious worship, but what is worse, believe a God; which is more than
required of us even while we preserve the name of Christians.

To conclude: Whatever some may think of the great advantages to trade by
this favourite scheme, I do very much apprehend, that in six months time
after the act is passed for the extirpation of the Gospel, the Bank, and
East-India Stock, may fall at least one _per cent._ And since that is
fifty times more than ever the wisdom of our age thought fit to venture
for the preservation of Christianity, there is no reason we should be at
so great a loss, merely for the sake of destroying it.

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




FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION,

AND THE

REFORMATION OF MANNERS.

BY A PERSON OF QUALITY.


NOTE.

In placing this tract second in chronological order I am following
Forster and Craik. All the collected editions of Swift's works,
including the "Miscellanies" of 1711, begin with "The Sentiments of a
Church of England Man," continue with the "Argument," and then the
"Project." But the short intervals which separated the publication of
all three tracts and the "Letter on the Sacramental Test," make a strict
chronological order of less value than the order of development of the
subject-matter with which they deal, granting even that the "Project"
appeared after "The Sentiments." There seems, however, nothing
improbable in the suggestion made by Forster, that Swift planned the
writing of both the "Argument" and the "Project" while on a visit to the
Earl of Berkeley, at Cranford, in 1708; and his dedication of the latter
to Lady Berkeley lends this suggestion added weight. That the original
edition of the "Project" is dated 1709 is nothing to the point, since it
is well-known that the booksellers often antedated their publications,
as publishers do now, when the issue occurred towards the end of a year.
Moreover, the letter of the Earl of Berkeley to Swift, which Scott
misdates 1706-1707, but which should be 1708, makes special reference to
this very tract, showing that it was certainly published in 1708. "I
earnestly entreat you," writes the earl, "if you have not done it
already, that you would not fail of having your bookseller enable the
Archbishop of York [Dr. Sterne] to give a book to the queen; for, with
Mr. Nelson, I am entirely of opinion, that Her Majesty's reading of that
book on the Progress for the Increase of Morality and Piety, may be of
very great use to that end." I have never seen a copy of the first
edition of "The Sentiments," and I cannot fix the exact date of its
publication; but it was certainly not written before the "Project." The
"Project," therefore, must be considered in the light of a preliminary
essay to the fuller and more digested statement of "The Sentiments of a
Church of England man"; and I have, on this account, placed it as the
second tract written by Swift in the year 1708.

Whatever may be thought of the particular methods which Swift suggested
for realizing his reformatory scheme, and they were, no doubt,
artificial and wooden enough; the tract itself remains an excellent
survey of the evils and gross habits of the time. The methods may be
Utopian (Swift himself thought they were open to discussion), but the
spirit of sincerity and piety is unmistakable. It is worth remembering,
however, that several of the proposals, such as those for closing the
public-houses at twelve o'clock at night; the penalizing of publicans
who supplied drink to drunken customers; the building of churches, have
since been adopted.

I cannot agree with Mr. Churton Collins ("Jonathan Swift," pp. 59-61) in
suspecting Swift of a special policy of self-interest in writing the
"Project." Swift was too honest a man to use the religious sentiment for
the purpose of counteracting any bad impression his previous writings
had made on those who had the power to advance him. However much he
might delight in the possession of high worldly station, he would never
so prostitute himself to obtain it. Nor did he care to let the world
into the secret of his heart. Indeed, all his life Swift seemed to hide,
almost jealously, the genuine piety of his nature. Whatever suspicion of
policy has surrounded the tract must be ascribed to the well-intentioned
letter of the Earl of Berkeley above quoted; and the Earl would not have
written thus had he felt Swift's motive to be any other than a purely
impersonal one.

Steele, in his review of the "Project" in the fifth "Tatler" (April
20th, 1709), makes some interesting observations, and seems to take
special note of the "Person of Honour," in the character of which Swift
wrote it. Writing from Will's Coffee-House, Steele says: "This week
being sacred to holy things, and no public diversions allowed, there has
been taken notice of even here, a little Treatise, called 'A Project for
the Advancement of Religion: dedicated to the Countess of Berkeley.' The
title was so uncommon, and promised so peculiar a way of thinking, that
every man here has read it, and as many as have done so have approved
it. It is written with the spirit of one who has seen the world enough
to undervalue it with good breeding. The author must certainly be a man
of wisdom, as well as piety, and have spent as much time in the exercise
of both. The real causes of the decay of the interests of religion are
set forth in a clear and lively manner, without unseasonable passions;
and the whole air of the book, as to the language, the sentiments, and
the reasonableness, show it was written by one whose virtue sits easy
about him, and to whom vice is thoroughly contemptible. It was said by
one of this company, alluding to that knowledge of the world the author
seems to have, the man writes much like a gentleman, and goes to Heaven
with a very good mien."

In his "Apology" Steele refers to this "Tatler" note, and remarks: "The
gentleman I here intended was Dr. Swift, this kind of man I thought him
at that time. We have not met of late, but I hope he deserves this
character still."

The present text is based upon the first edition; but this edition was
so wretchedly printed that I have carefully collated it with those given
in the "Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner (1735), and Hawkesworth (1762).

[T. S.]


  A
  PROJECT
  FOR THE
  ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION,
  AND THE
  REFORMATION OF MANNERS.
  BY A PERSON OF QUALITY.


  _O quisquis volet impias
    Caedes, & rabiem tollere civicam:
  Si quaeret pater urbium
    Subscribi statuis, indomitam audeat
  Refraenare licentiam._

Hor.

_LONDON:_

Printed and Sold by _H. Hills_, in _Black-fryars_, near the Water-side.
For the Benefit of the Poor. 1709.


TO THE COUNTESS OF BERKELEY.[1]

MADAM,

My intention in prefixing your Ladyship's name, is not after the common
form, to desire your protection of the following papers; which I take to
be a very unreasonable request; since, by being inscribed to your
Ladyship, though without your knowledge, and from a concealed hand, you
cannot recommend them without some suspicion of partiality. My real
design is, I confess, the very same I have often detested in most
dedications; that of publishing your praises to the world. Not upon the
subject of your noble birth, for I know others as noble; or of the
greatness of your fortune, for I know others far greater; or of that
beautiful race (the images of their parents) which call you mother: for
even this may perhaps have been equalled in some other age or country.
Besides, none of these advantages do derive any accomplishments to the
owners, but serve at best only to adorn what they really possess. What I
intend, is your piety, truth, good sense, and good nature, affability,
and charity; wherein I wish your Ladyship had many equals, or any
superiors; and I wish I could say I knew them too, for then your
Ladyship might have had a chance to escape this address. In the
meantime, I think it highly necessary, for the interest of virtue and
religion, that the whole kingdom should be informed in some parts of
your character: For instance, that the easiest and politest
conversation, joined with the truest piety, may be observed in your
Ladyship, in as great perfection, as they were ever seen apart in any
other persons. That by your prudence and management under several
disadvantages, you have preserved the lustre of that most noble family
into which you are grafted, and which the immeasurable profusion of
ancestors for many generations had too much eclipsed. Then, how happily
you perform every office of life to which Providence has called you: In
the education of those two incomparable daughters, whose conduct is so
universally admired; in every duty of a prudent, complying, affectionate
wife; in that care which descends to the meanest of your domestics; and,
lastly, in that endless bounty to the poor, and discretion where to
distribute it. I insist on my opinion, that it is of importance for the
public to know this and a great deal more of your Ladyship; yet whoever
goes about to inform them, shall instead of finding credit, perhaps be
censured for a flatterer. To avoid so usual a reproach, I declare this
to be no dedication, but properly an introduction to a proposal for the
advancement of religion and morals, by tracing, however imperfectly,
some few lineaments in the character of a Lady, who hath spent all her
life in the practice and promotion of both.

[Footnote 1: This is the same Countess of Berkeley whom Swift hoaxed
with his "Meditation on a Broomstick." She was the daughter of Viscount
Campden and sister to the Earl of Gainsborough. [T.S.]]

Among all the schemes offered to the public in this projecting age, I
have observed with some displeasure, that there have never been any for
the improvement of religion and morals; which beside the piety of the
design from the consequence of such a reformation in a future life,
would be the best natural means for advancing the public felicity of the
state, as well as the present happiness of every individual. For, as
much as faith and morality are declined among us, I am altogether
confident, they might in a short time, and with no very great trouble,
be raised to as high a perfection as numbers are capable of receiving.
Indeed, the method is so easy and obvious, and some present
opportunities so good, that, in order to have this project reduced to
practice, there seems to want nothing more than to put those in mind,
who by their honour, duty, and interest, are chiefly concerned.

But because it is idle to propose remedies before we are assured of the
disease, or to be in pain,[2] till we are convinced of the danger; I
shall first shew in general, that the nation is extremely corrupted in
religion and morals; and then I will offer a short scheme for the
reformation of both.

[Footnote 2: Scott follows Faulkner in using the word "fear." The
reading in the text is that of the first edition, the "Miscellanies"
(1711), and of Hawkesworth. [T.S.]]

As to the first; I know it is reckoned but a form of speech, when
divines complain of the wickedness of the age: However, I believe, upon
a fair comparison with other times and countries, it would be found an
undoubted truth.

For, first; to deliver nothing but plain matter of fact without
exaggeration or satire; I suppose it will be granted, that hardly one in
a hundred among our people of quality or gentry, appears to act by any
principle of religion; that great numbers of them do entirely discard
it, and are ready to own their disbelief of all revelation in ordinary
discourse. Nor is the case much better among the vulgar, especially in
great towns where the profaneness and ignorance of handicraftsmen, small
traders, servants, and the like, are to a degree very hard to be
imagined greater. Then, it is observed abroad, that no race of mortals
hath so little sense of religion, as the English soldiers; to confirm
which, I have been often told by great officers in the army, that in the
whole compass of their acquaintance, they could not recollect three of
their profession, who seemed to regard or believe one syllable of the
Gospel: And the same, at least, may be affirmed of the fleet. The
consequences of all which upon the actions of men are equally manifest.
They never go about, as in former time, to hide or palliate their vices,
but expose them freely to view, like any other common occurrences of
life, without the least reproach from the world, or themselves. For
instance; any man will tell you he intends to be drunk this evening, or
was so last night, with as little ceremony or scruple, as he would tell
you the time of the day. He will let you know he is going to a whore, or
that he has got a clap, with as much indifferency, as he would a piece
of public news. He will swear, curse, or blaspheme, without the least
passion or provocation. And, though all regard for reputation is not
quite laid aside in the other sex, 'tis, however, at so low an ebb, that
very few among them seem to think virtue and conduct of absolute
necessity for preserving it. If this be not so, how comes it to pass,
that women of tainted reputations find the same countenance and
reception in all public places, with those of the nicest virtue, who
pay, and receive visits from them without any manner of scruple? which
proceeding, as it is not very old among us, so I take it to be of most
pernicious consequence: It looks like a sort of compounding between
virtue and vice, as if a woman were allowed to be vicious, provided she
be not a profligate; as if there were a certain point, where gallantry
ends, and infamy begins, or that a hundred criminal amours were not as
pardonable as half a score.

Besides those corruptions already mentioned, it would be endless to
enumerate such as arise from the excess of play or gaming: The cheats,
the quarrels, the oaths and blasphemies among the men; among the women,
the neglect of household affairs, the unlimited freedoms, the indecent
passion; and lastly, the known inlet to all lewdness, when after an ill
run, the person must answer the defects of the purse; the rule on such
occasions holding true in play as it does in law; _quod non habet in
crumena, luat in corpore._

But all these are trifles in comparison, if we step into other scenes,
and consider the fraud and cozenage of trading men and shopkeepers; that
insatiable gulf of injustice and oppression, the law. The open traffic
for all civil and military employments, (I wish it rested there) without
the least regard to merit or qualifications; the corrupt management of
men in office; the many detestable abuses in choosing those who
represent the people, with the management of interest and factions among
the representatives. To which I must be bold to add, the ignorance of
some of the lower clergy; the mean servile temper of others; the pert
pragmatical demeanour of several young stagers in divinity, upon their
first producing themselves into the world; with many other
circumstances, needless, or rather invidious, to mention; which falling
in with the corruptions already related, have, however unjustly, almost
rendered the whole order contemptible.

This is a short view of the general depravities among us, without
entering into particulars, which would be an endless labour. Now, as
universal and deep-rooted as these appear to be, I am utterly deceived,
if an effectual remedy might not be applied to most of them; neither am
I at present upon a wild speculative project, but such a one as may be
easily put in execution.

For, while the prerogative of giving all employments continues in the
Crown, either immediately, or by subordination; it is in the power of
the Prince to make piety and virtue become the fashion of the age, if,
at the same time, he would make them necessary qualifications for favour
and preferment.

It is clear, from present experience, that the bare example of the best
prince will not have any mighty influence, where the age is very
corrupt. For, when was there ever a better prince on the throne than the
present Queen? I do not talk of her talent for government, her love of
the people, or any other qualities that are purely regal; but her piety,
charity, temperance, conjugal love, and whatever other virtues do best
adorn a private life; wherein, without question or flattery, she hath no
superior: yet, neither will it be satire or peevish invective to affirm,
that infidelity and vice are not much diminished since her coming to the
crown, nor will, in all probability, till some more effectual remedies
be provided.

Thus human nature seems to lie under this disadvantage, that the example
alone of a vicious prince, will, in time, corrupt an age; but that of a
good one, will not be sufficient to reform it, without further
endeavours. Princes must therefore supply this defect by a vigorous
exercise of that authority, which the law has left them, by making it
every man's interest and honour, to cultivate religion and virtue; by
rendering vice a disgrace, and the certain ruin to preferment or
pretensions: All which they should first attempt in their own courts and
families. For instance; might not the Queen's domestics of the middle
and lower sort, be obliged, upon penalty of suspension, or loss of their
employments, to a constant weekly attendance, at least, on the service
of the church; to a decent behaviour in it; to receive the Sacrament
four times in the year; to avoid swearing and irreligious profane
discourses; and, to the appearance, at least, of temperance and
chastity? Might not the care of all this be committed to the strict
inspection of proper persons? Might not those of higher rank, and nearer
access to her Majesty's person, receive her own commands to the same
purpose, and be countenanced, or disfavoured, according as they obey?
Might not the Queen lay her injunctions on the Bishops, and other great
men of undoubted piety, to make diligent enquiry, to give her notice, if
any person about her should happen to be of libertine principles or
morals? Might not all those who enter upon any office in her Majesty's
family, be obliged to take an oath parallel with that against simony,
which is administered to the clergy? 'Tis not to be doubted, but that if
these, or the like proceedings, were duly observed, morality and
religion would soon become fashionable court virtues; and be taken up as
the only methods to get or keep employments there, which alone would
have mighty influence upon many of the nobility and principal gentry.

But, if the like methods were pursued as far as possible, with regard to
those who are in the great employments of state, it is hard to conceive
how general a reformation they might in time produce among us. For, if
piety and virtue were once reckoned qualifications necessary to
preferment; every man thus endowed, when put into great stations, would
readily imitate the Queen's example, in the distribution of all offices
in his disposal; especially if any apparent transgression, through
favour or partiality, would be imputed to him for a misdemeanour, by
which he must certainly forfeit his favour and station: And there being
such great numbers in employment, scattered through every town and
county in this kingdom; if all these were exemplary in the conduct of
their lives, things would soon take a new face, and religion receive a
mighty encouragement: Nor would the public weal be less advanced; since,
of nine offices in ten that are ill executed, the defect is not in
capacity or understanding, but in common honesty. I know no employment,
for which piety disqualifies any man; and if it did, I doubt the
objection would not be very seasonably offered at present; because, it
is perhaps too just a reflection, that in the disposal of places, the
question whether a person be _fit_ for what he is recommended to, is
generally the last that is thought on, or regarded.

I have often imagined, that something parallel to the office of censors
anciently in Rome, would be of mighty use among us, and could be easily
limited from running into any exorbitances. The Romans understood
liberty at least as well as we, were as jealous of it, and upon every
occasion as bold assertors. Yet I do not remember to have read any great
complaint of the abuses in that office among them; but many admirable
effects of it are left upon record. There are several pernicious vices
frequent and notorious among us, that escape or elude the punishment of
any law we have yet invented, or have had no law at all against them;
such as atheism, drunkenness, fraud, avarice, and several others; which,
by this institution, wisely regulated, might be much reformed. Suppose,
for instance, that itinerary commissioners were appointed to inspect
everywhere throughout the kingdom, into the conduct (at least) of men in
office, with respect to their morals and religion, as well as their
abilities; to receive the complaints and informations that should be
offered against them, and make their report here upon oath, to the
court, or the ministry, who should reward or punish accordingly. I avoid
entering into the particulars of this, or any other scheme, which,
coming from a private hand, might be liable to many defects, but would
soon be digested by the wisdom of the nation; and surely, six thousand
pounds a year would not be ill laid out among as many commissioners duly
qualified, who, in three divisions, should be personally obliged to take
their yearly circuits for that purpose.

But this is beside my present design, which was only to show what degree
of reformation is in the power of the Queen, without the interposition
of the legislature, and which her Majesty is, without question, obliged
in conscience to endeavour by her authority, as much as she does by her
practice.

It will be easily granted, that the example of this great town hath a
mighty influence over the whole kingdom; and it is as manifest, that the
town is equally influenced by the court, and the ministry, and those
who, by their employments, or their hopes, depend upon them. Now, if
under so excellent a princess as the present Queen, we would suppose a
family strictly regulated, as I have above proposed; a ministry, where
every single person was of distinguished piety; if we should suppose all
great offices of state and law filled after the same manner, and with
such as were equally diligent in choosing persons, who, in their several
subordinations, would be obliged to follow the examples of their
superiors, under the penalty of loss of favour and place; will not
everybody grant, that the empire of vice and irreligion would be soon
destroyed in this great metropolis, and receive a terrible blow through
the whole island, which hath so great an intercourse with it, and so
much affects to follow its fashions?

For, if religion were once understood to be the necessary step to favour
and preferment; can it be imagined that any man would openly offend
against it, who had the least regard for his reputation or his fortune?
There is no quality so contrary to any nature, which men cannot affect,
and put on upon occasions, in order to serve an interest, or gratify a
prevailing passion. The proudest man will personate humility, the
morosest learn to flatter, the laziest will be sedulous and active,
where he is in pursuit of what he has much at heart. How ready,
therefore, would most men be to step into the paths of virtue and piety,
if they infallibly led to favour and fortune!

If swearing and profaneness, scandalous and avowed lewdness, excessive
gaming and intemperance, were a little discountenanced in the army, I
cannot readily see what ill consequences could be apprehended; if
gentlemen of that profession were at least obliged to some external
decorum in their conduct; or even if a profligate life and character
were not a means of advancement, and the appearance of piety a most
infallible hindrance, it is impossible the corruptions there should be
so universal and exorbitant. I have been assured by several great
officers, that no troops abroad are so ill disciplined as the English;
which cannot well be otherwise, while the common soldiers have
perpetually before their eyes the vicious example of their leaders; and
it is hardly possible for those to commit any crime, whereof these are
not infinitely more guilty, and with less temptation.

It is commonly charged upon the gentlemen of the army, that the beastly
vice of drinking to excess, hath been lately, from their example,
restored among us; which for some years before was almost dropped in
England. But, whoever the introducers were, they have succeeded to a
miracle; many of the young nobility and gentry are already become great
proficients, and are under no manner of concern to hide their talent,
but are got beyond all sense of shame or fear of reproach.

This might soon be remedied, if the Queen would think fit to declare,
that no young person of quality whatsoever, who was notoriously addicted
to that, or any other vice, should be capable of her favour, or even
admitted into her presence, with positive command to her ministers, and
others in great office, to treat them in the same manner; after which,
all men, who had any regard for their reputation, or any prospect of
preferment, would avoid their commerce. This would quickly make that
vice so scandalous, that those who could not subdue, would at least
endeavour to disguise it.

By the like methods, a stop might be put to that ruinous practice of
deep gaming; and the reason why it prevails so much is, because a
treatment, directly opposite in every point, is made use of to promote
it; by which means, the laws enacted against this abuse are wholly
eluded.

It cannot be denied, that the want of strict discipline in the
universities, hath been of pernicious consequence to the youth of this
nation, who are there almost left entirely to their own management,
especially those among them of better quality and fortune; who, because
they are not under a necessity of making learning their maintenance, are
easily allowed to pass their time, and take their degrees, with little
or no improvement; than which there cannot well be a greater absurdity.
For, if no advancement of knowledge can be had from those places, the
time there spent is at best utterly lost, because every ornamental part
of education is better taught elsewhere: And as for keeping youths out
of harm's way, I doubt, where so many of them are got together, at full
liberty of doing what they please, it will not answer the end. But,
whatever abuses, corruptions, or deviations from statutes, have crept
into the universities through neglect, or length of time; they might in
a great degree be reformed, by strict injunctions from court (upon each
particular) to the visitors and heads of houses; besides the peculiar
authority the queen may have in several colleges, whereof her
predecessors were the founders. And among other regulations, it would be
very convenient to prevent the excess of drink, with that scurvy custom
among the lads, and parent of the former vice, the taking of tobacco,
where it is not absolutely necessary in point of health.

From the universities, the young nobility, and others of great fortunes,
are sent for early up to town, for fear of contracting any airs of
pedantry, by a college education. Many of the younger gentry retire to
the Inns of Court, where they are wholly left to their own discretion.
And the consequence of this remissness in education appears, by
observing that nine in ten of those, who rise in the church or the
court, the law, or the army, are younger brothers, or new men, whose
narrow fortunes have forced them upon industry and application.

As for the Inns of Court, unless we suppose them to be much degenerated,
they must needs be the worst instituted seminaries in any Christian
country; but whether they may be corrected without interposition of the
legislature, I have not skill enough to determine. However, it is
certain, that all wise nations have agreed in the necessity of a strict
education, which consisted, among other things, in the observance of
moral duties, especially justice, temperance, and chastity, as well as
the knowledge of arts, and bodily exercises: But all these among us are
laughed out of doors.

Without the least intention to offend the clergy, I cannot but think,
that through a mistaken notion and practice, they prevent themselves
from doing much service, which otherwise might lie in their power, to
religion and virtue: I mean, by affecting so much to converse with each
other, and caring so little to mingle with the laity. They have their
particular clubs, and particular coffee-houses, where they generally
appear in clusters: A single divine dares hardly shew his person among
numbers of fine gentlemen; or if he happens to fall into such company,
he is silent and suspicious, in continual apprehension that some pert
man of pleasure should break an unmannerly jest, and render him
ridiculous. Now, I take this behaviour of the clergy to be just as
reasonable, as if the physicians should agree to spend their time in
visiting one another, or their several apothecaries, and leave their
patients to shift for themselves. In my humble opinion, the clergy's
business lies entirely among the laity; neither is there, perhaps, a
more effectual way to forward the salvation of men's souls, than for
spiritual persons to make themselves as agreeable as they can, in the
conversations of the world; for which a learned education gives them
great advantage, if they would please to improve and apply it. It so
happens that the men of pleasure, who never go to church, nor use
themselves to read books of devotion, form their ideas of the clergy
from a few poor strollers they often observe in the streets, or sneaking
out of some person of quality's house, where they are hired by the lady
at ten shillings a month; while those of better figure and parts, do
seldom appear to correct these notions. And let some reasoners think
what they please, 'tis certain that men must be brought to esteem and
love the clergy, before they can be persuaded to be in love with
religion. No man values the best medicine, if administered by a
physician, whose person he hates or despises. If the clergy were as
forward to appear in all companies, as other gentlemen, and would a
little study the arts of conversation to make themselves agreeable, they
might be welcome at every party where there was the least regard for
politeness or good sense; and consequently prevent a thousand vicious or
profane discourses, as well as actions; neither would men of
understanding complain, that a clergyman was a constraint upon the
company, because they could not speak blasphemy, or obscene jests before
him. While the people are so jealous of the clergy's ambition, as to
abhor all thoughts of the return of ecclesiastic discipline among them,
I do not see any other method left for men of that function to take, in
order to reform the world, than by using all honest arts to make
themselves acceptable to the laity. This, no doubt, is part of that
wisdom of the serpent, which the Author of Christianity directs, and is
the very method used by St. Paul, who _became all things to all men, to
the Jews a Jew, and a Greek to the Greeks._

How to remedy these inconveniences, may be a matter of some difficulty;
since the clergy seem to be of an opinion, that this humour of
sequestering themselves is a part of their duty; nay, as I remember,
they have been told so by some of their bishops in their pastoral
letters, particularly by one[3] among them of great merit and
distinction, who yet, in his own practice, hath all his lifetime taken a
course directly contrary. But I am deceived, if an awkward shame and
fear of ill usage from the laity, have not a greater share in this
mistaken conduct, than their own inclinations: However, if the outward
profession of religion and virtue, were once in practice and countenance
at court, as well as among all men in office, or who have any hopes or
dependence for preferment, a good treatment of the clergy would be the
necessary consequence of such a reformation; and they would soon be wise
enough to see their own duty and interest in qualifying themselves for
lay-conversation, when once they were out of fear of being chocqued by
ribaldry or profaneness.

[Footnote 3: Bishop Burnet of Salisbury. See Swift's "Remarks on the
Bishop of Sarum's Introduction." [T.S.]]

There is one further circumstance upon this occasion, which I know not
whether it will be very orthodox to mention: The clergy are the only set
of men among us, who constantly wear a distinct habit from others; the
consequence of which (not in reason but in fact) is this, that as long
as any scandalous persons appear in that dress, it will continue in some
degree a general mark of contempt. Whoever happens to see a scoundrel in
a gown, reeling home at midnight, (a sight neither frequent nor
miraculous), is apt to entertain an ill idea of the whole order, and at
the same time to be extremely comforted in his own vices. Some remedy
might be put to this, if those straggling gentlemen, who come up to town
to seek their fortunes, were fairly dismissed to the West Indies, where
there is work enough, and where some better provision should be made for
them, than I doubt there is at present. Or, what if no person were
allowed to wear the habit, who had not some preferment in the church, or
at least some temporal fortune sufficient to keep him out of contempt?
Though, in my opinion, it were infinitely better, if all the clergy
(except the bishops) were permitted to appear like other men of the
graver sort, unless at those seasons when they are doing the business of
their function.

There is one abuse in this town, which wonderfully contributes to the
promotion of vice, that such men are often put into the commission of
the peace, whose interest it is, that virtue should be utterly banished
from among us, who maintain, or at least enrich themselves, by
encouraging the grossest immoralities, to whom all the bawds of the ward
pay contribution, for shelter and protection from the laws. Thus these
worthy magistrates, instead of lessening enormities, are the occasion of
just twice as much debauchery as there would be without them. For those
infamous women are forced upon doubling their work and industry, to
answer double charges, of paying the justice, and supporting themselves.
Like thieves who escape the gallows, and are let out to steal, in order
to discharge the gaoler's fees.

It is not to be questioned, but the Queen and ministry might easily
redress this abominable grievance, by enlarging the number of justices
of the peace, by endeavouring to choose men of virtuous principles, by
admitting none who have not considerable fortunes, perhaps, by receiving
into the number some of the most eminent clergy. Then, by forcing all of
them, upon severe penalties, to act when there is occasion, and not
permitting any who are offered to refuse the commission, but in these
two last cases, which are very material, I doubt there will be need of
the legislature.

The reformation of the stage is entirely in the power of the Queen, and
in the consequences it hath upon the minds of the younger people, does
very well deserve the strictest care. Besides the indecent and profane
passages, besides the perpetual turning into ridicule the very function
of the priesthood, with other irregularities, in most modern comedies,
which have by others been objected to them, it is worth observing the
distributive justice of the authors, which is constantly applied to the
punishment of virtue, and the reward of vice, directly opposite to the
rules of their best critics, as well as to the practice of dramatic
poets, in all other ages and countries. For example, a country squire,
who is represented with no other vice but that of being a clown, and
having the provincial accent upon his tongue, which is neither a fault,
nor in his power to remedy, must be condemned to marry a cast wench, or
a cracked chambermaid. On the other side, a rakehell of the town, whose
character is set off with no other accomplishment, but excessive
prodigality, profaneness, intemperance, and lust, is rewarded with a
lady of great fortune to repair his own, which his vices had almost
ruined. And as in a tragedy, the hero is represented to have obtained
many victories in order to raise his character in the minds of the
spectators; so the hero of a comedy is represented to have been
victorious in all his intrigues, for the same reason. I do not remember,
that our English poets ever suffered a criminal amour to succeed upon
the stage, till the reign of King Charles the Second. Ever since that
time, the alderman is made a cuckold, the deluded virgin is debauched,
and adultery and fornication are supposed to be committed behind the
scenes, as part of the action. These and many more corruptions of the
theatre, peculiar to our age and nation, need continue no longer, than
while the court is content to connive at or neglect them. Surely a
pension would not be ill employed on some men of wit, learning, and
virtue, who might have power to strike out every offensive or unbecoming
passage, from plays already written, as well as those that may be
offered to the stage for the future. By which, and other wise
regulations, the theatre might become a very innocent and useful
diversion, instead of being a scandal and reproach to our religion and
country.

The proposals I have hitherto made for the advancement of religion and
morality, are such as come within reach of the administration; such as a
pious active prince, with a steady resolution, might soon bring to
effect. Neither am I aware of any objections to be raised against what I
have advanced; unless it should be thought, that making religion a
necessary step to interest and favour might increase hypocrisy among us;
and I readily believe it would. But if one in twenty should be brought
over to true piety by this, or the like methods, and the other nineteen
be only hypocrites, the advantage would still be great. Besides,
hypocrisy is much more eligible than open infidelity and vice; it wears
the livery of religion; it acknowledges her authority, and is cautious
of giving scandal. Nay, a long continued disguise is too great a
constraint upon human nature, especially an English disposition; men
would leave off their vices out of mere weariness, rather than undergo
the toil and hazard, and perhaps expense, of practising them perpetually
in private. And I believe it is often with religion, as it is with love;
which, by much dissembling, at last grows real.

All other projects to this great end have proved hitherto ineffectual.
Laws against immorality have not been executed; and proclamations
occasionally issued out to enforce them are wholly unregarded as things
of form. Religious societies, though begun with excellent intention, and
by persons of true piety,[4] have dwindled into factious clubs, and
grown a trade to enrich little knavish informers of the meanest rank,
such as common constables, and broken shopkeepers.

[Footnote 4: The original edition omits here the words, "are said, I
know not whether truly or not." All other editions give these words. [T.
S.]]

And that some effectual attempt should be made toward such a
reformation, is perhaps more necessary than people commonly apprehend;
because the ruin of a state is generally preceded by a universal
degeneracy of manners, and contempt of religion; which is entirely our
case at present.

  "Dis te minorem quod geris imperas."--HOR. [5]

[Footnote 5: "Carmina," iii. 6. 5.]

Neither is this a matter to be deferred till a more convenient time of
peace and leisure: Because a reformation in men's faith and morals is
the best natural, as well as religious means, to bring the war to a good
conclusion. For, if men in trust performed their duty for conscience
sake, affairs would not suffer through fraud, falsehood, and neglect, as
they now perpetually do. And if they believed a God, and his Providence,
and acted accordingly, they might reasonably hope for his divine
assistance, in so just a cause as ours.

Nor could the majesty of the English Crown appear, upon any occasion, in
a greater lustre, either to foreigners or subjects, than by an
administration, which, producing such great effects, would discover so
much power. And power being the natural appetite of princes, a limited
monarch cannot so well gratify it in anything, as a strict execution of
the laws.

Besides; all parties would be obliged to close with so good a work as
this, for their own reputation: Neither is any expedient more likely to
unite them. For the most violent party men, I have ever observed, are
such, as in the conduct of their lives have discovered least sense of
religion or morality; and when all such are laid aside, at least those
among them as shall be found incorrigible, it will be a matter perhaps
of no great difficulty to reconcile the rest.

The many corruptions at present in every branch of business are almost
inconceivable. I have heard it computed by skilful persons, that of six
millions raised every year for the service of the public, one third, at
least, is sunk and intercepted through the several classes and
subordinations of artful men in office, before the remainder is applied
to the proper use. This is an accidental ill effect of our freedom. And
while such men are in trust, who have no check from within, nor any
views but toward their interest, there is no other fence against them,
but the certainty of being hanged upon the first discovery, by the
arbitrary will of an unlimited monarch, or his vizier. Among us, the
only danger to be apprehended is the loss of an employment; and that
danger is to be eluded a thousand ways. Besides, when fraud is great, it
furnishes weapons to defend itself: And at worst, if the crimes be so
flagrant, that a man is laid aside out of perfect shame, (which rarely
happens) he retires loaded with the spoils of the nation; _et fruitur
diis iratis_. I could name a commission, where several persons, out of a
salary of five hundred pounds, without other visible revenues, have
always lived at the rate of two thousand, and laid out forty or fifty
thousand upon purchases of lands or annuities. A hundred other instances
of the same kind might easily be produced. What remedy, therefore, can
be found against such grievances, in a constitution like ours, but to
bring religion into countenance, and encourage those, who, from the hope
of future reward, and dread of future punishment, will be moved to act
with justice and integrity?

This is not to be accomplished any other way, but by introducing
religion, as much as possible, to be the turn and fashion of the age;
which only lies in the power of the administration; the prince with
utmost strictness regulating the court, the ministry, and other persons
in great employment; and these, by their example and authority,
reforming all who have dependence on them.

It is certain, that a reformation successfully carried on in this great
town, would in time spread itself over the whole kingdom, since most of
the considerable youth pass here that season of their lives, wherein the
strongest impressions are made, in order to improve their education, or
advance their fortune, and those among them, who return into their
several counties, are sure to be followed and imitated, as the greatest
patterns of wit and good breeding.

And if things were once in this train, that is, if virtue and religion
were established as the necessary titles to reputation and preferment,
and if vice and infidelity were not only loaded with infamy, but made
the infallible ruin of all men's pretensions, our duty, by becoming our
interest, would take root in our natures, and mix with the very genius
of our people, so that it would not be easy for the example of one
wicked prince to bring us back to our former corruptions.

I have confined myself (as it is before observed) to those methods for
the advancement of piety, which are in the power of a prince, limited
like ours, by a strict execution of the laws already in force. And this
is enough for a project, that comes without any name or recommendation,
I doubt, a great deal more than will suddenly be reduced into practice.
Though, if any disposition should appear towards so good a work, it is
certain, that the assistance of the legislative power would be necessary
to make it more complete. I will instance only a few particulars.

In order to reform the vices of this town, which, as we have said, hath
so mighty an influence on the whole kingdom, it would be very
instrumental to have a law made, that all taverns and alehouses should
be obliged to dismiss their company at twelve at night, and shut up
their doors, and that no woman should be suffered to enter any tavern or
alehouse, upon any pretence whatsoever. It is easy to conceive what a
number of ill consequences such a law would prevent, the mischiefs of
quarrels, and lewdness, and thefts, and midnight brawls, the diseases of
intemperance and venery, and a thousand other evils needless to mention.
Nor would it be amiss, if the masters of those public-houses were
obliged, upon the severest penalties, to give only a proportioned
quantity of drink to every company, and when he found his guests
disordered with excess, to refuse them any more.

I believe there is hardly a nation in Christendom, where all kind of
fraud is practised in so immeasurable a degree as with us. The lawyer,
the tradesman, the mechanic, have found so many arts to deceive in their
several callings, that they far outgrow the common prudence of mankind,
which is in no sort able to fence against them. Neither could the
legislature in anything more consult the public good, than by providing
some effectual remedy against this evil, which, in several cases,
deserves greater punishment than many crimes that are capital among us.
The vintner, who, by mixing poison with his wines, destroys more lives
than any one disease in the bill of mortality; the lawyer, who persuades
you to a purchase which he knows is mortgaged for more than the worth,
to the ruin of you and your family; the goldsmith or scrivener, who
takes all your fortune to dispose of, when he has beforehand resolved to
break the following day, do surely deserve the gallows much better than
the wretch who is carried thither for stealing a horse.

It cannot easily be answered to God or man, why a law is not made for
limiting the press; at least so far as to prevent the publishing of such
pernicious books, as, under pretence of freethinking, endeavour to
overthrow those tenets in religion which have been held inviolable,
almost in all ages, by every sect that pretend to be Christian; and
cannot, therefore, with any colour of reason, be called points in
controversy, or matters of speculation, as some would pretend. The
Doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Immortality of the
Soul, and even the truth of all revelation, are daily exploded and
denied in books openly printed; though it is to be supposed neither
party will avow such principles, or own the supporting of them to be any
way necessary to their service.[6]

[Footnote 6: This passage refers to the deistical publications of
Asgill, Toland, Tindal, and Collins, already noted. [T. S.]]

It would be endless to set down every corruption or defect which
requires a remedy from the legislative power. Senates are like to have
little regard for any proposals that come from without doors; though,
under a due sense of my own inabilities, I am fully convinced, that the
unbiassed thoughts of an honest and wise man, employed on the good of
his country, may be better digested than the results of a multitude,
where faction and interest too often prevail; as a single guide may
direct the way better than five hundred, who have _contrary views_, or
_look asquint_, or _shut their eyes_.

I shall therefore mention but one more particular, which I think the
Parliament ought to take under consideration; whether it be not a shame
to our country, and a scandal to Christianity, that in many towns, where
there is a prodigious increase in the number of houses and inhabitants,
so little care should be taken for the building of churches, that five
parts in six of the people are absolutely hindered from hearing divine
service? Particularly here in London, where a single minister, with one
or two sorry curates, hath the care sometimes of above twenty thousand
souls incumbent on him. A neglect of religion so ignominious, in my
opinion, that it can hardly be equalled in any civilized age or
country.[7]

[Footnote 7: This paragraph is known to have given the first hint to
certain bishops, particularly to Bishop Atterbury, to procure a fund for
building fifty new churches in London. [T. S.]]

But, to leave these airy imaginations of introducing new laws for the
amendment of mankind; what I principally insist on is, a due execution
of the old, which lies wholly in the crown, and in the authority derived
from thence. I return, therefore, to my former assertion; that if
stations of power, trust, profit, and honour, were constantly made the
rewards of virtue and piety, such an administration must needs have a
mighty influence on the faith and morals of the whole kingdom: And men
of great abilities would then endeavour to excel in the duties of a
religious life, in order to qualify themselves for public service. I may
possibly be wrong in some of the means I prescribe towards this end; but
that is no material objection against the design itself. Let those who
are at the helm contrive it better, which, perhaps, they may easily do.
Everybody will agree that the disease is manifest, as well as dangerous;
that some remedy is necessary, and that none yet applied hath been
effectual, which is a sufficient excuse for any man who wishes well to
his country, to offer his thoughts, when he can have no other end in
view but the public good. The present Queen is a princess of as many and
great virtues as ever filled a throne: How would it brighten her
character to the present and after ages, if she would exert her utmost
authority to instil some share of those virtues into her people, which
they are too degenerate to learn only from her example! And, be it spoke
with all the veneration possible for so excellent a sovereign, her best
endeavours in this weighty affair are a most important part of her duty,
as well as of her interest and her honour.

But, it must be confessed, that as things are now, every man thinks that
he has laid in a sufficient stock of merit, and may pretend to any
employment, provided he has been loud and frequent in declaring himself
hearty for the government. 'Tis true, he is a man of pleasure, and a
freethinker, that is, in other words, he is profligate in his morals,
and a despiser of religion; but in point of party, he is one to be
confided in; he is an assertor of liberty and property; he rattles it
out against Popery and Arbitrary Power, and Priestcraft and High Church.
'Tis enough: He is a person fully qualified for any employment, in the
court or the navy, the law or the revenue; where he will be sure to
leave no arts untried, of bribery, fraud, injustice, oppression, that he
can practise with any hope of impunity. No wonder such men are true to a
government where liberty runs high, where property, however attained, is
so well secured, and where the administration is at least so gentle:
'Tis impossible they could choose any other constitution, without
changing to their loss.

Fidelity to a present establishment is indeed the principal means to
defend it from a foreign enemy, but without other qualifications, will
not prevent corruptions from within; and states are more often ruined by
these than the other.

To conclude. Whether the proposals I have offered toward a reformation,
be such as are most prudent and convenient, may probably be a question;
but it is none at all, whether some reformation be absolutely necessary;
because the nature of things is such, that if abuses be not remedied,
they will certainly increase, nor ever stop, till they end in the
subversion of a commonwealth. As there must always of necessity be some
corruptions, so, in a well-instituted state, the executive power will be
always contending against them, by _reducing things_ (as Michiaevel
speaks) _to their first principles_; never letting abuses grow
inveterate, or multiply so far, that it will be hard to find remedies,
and perhaps impossible to apply them. As he that would keep his house in
repair, must attend every little breach or flaw, and supply it
immediately; else time alone will bring all to ruin; how much more the
common accidents of storms and rain? He must live in perpetual danger of
his house falling about his ears; and will find it cheaper to throw it
quite down, and build it again from the ground, perhaps upon a new
foundation, or at least in a new form, which may neither be so safe, nor
so convenient, as the old.

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




THE SENTIMENTS

OF A

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN,

WITH RESPECT TO

RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.


NOTE.

The writing of this tract, as has been already observed, placed Swift in
a position where allegiance to party was not easy to maintain. It
amounted to a warning to Whigs as well as Tories. To the former he urged
that the Church of England was wide enough for the highest principles of
civil liberty; to the latter he tried to show that to be a religious and
God-fearing man it was not absolutely necessary to be a Tory in
politics. "Whoever has examined the conduct and proceedings of both
parties for some years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well
conceive it possible to go far towards the extremes of either, without
offering some violence to his integrity or understanding." It is true
that Whiggism and "fanatical genius" were almost synonymous terms for
Swift; but that was because the Church was of prime consideration with
him, and the Whigs numbered in their ranks the great army of Dissent.
Swift, in his famous letter to Pope, dated Dublin, January 10th,
1720-21, reviews his political opinions of 1708 to justify himself
against the misrepresentations of "the virulence of libellers: whose
malice has taken the same train in both, by fathering dangerous
principles in government upon me, which I never maintained, and insipid
productions, which I am not capable of writing." That review is but a
summary of what is given fully in this tract. No appeal was ever better
intentioned. "I only wish," he says to Pope, "my endeavours had
succeeded better in the great point I had at heart, which was that of
reconciling the ministers to each other." But High Church and Low Church
were cries which had divided politicians as if they did not belong to
one nation. To Swift it was easy enough to be a staunch Churchman and at
the same time expose the fallacies underlying the faith in the sovereign
power; but then Swift was here no party fanatic who would use the
"Church in danger" cry for party purposes. "If others," he writes twelve
years later, "who had more concern and more influence, would have acted
their parts," his appeal had not been made in vain. As it was it failed
in its intended purpose, and Swift lost what hold he had on Somers,
Godolphin, and the rest. It remains, however, to testify to Swift's
principles in a manner least expected by those who have set him down as
intemperate and inconsistent. Certainly, no principles were ever more
moderately expressed; and, assuredly, no expression of principles found
fitter realization in conduct.

The text of this edition is based on that given in the "Miscellanies" of
1711. I have not succeeded in obtaining a copy of the original issue;
but I have collated the various texts given in the re-issues by
Faulkner, Hawkesworth, Scott, and the "Miscellanies" of 1728 (vol. i.)
and 1747 (vol. i.).

[T. S.]


  THE SENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF
  ENGLAND MAN, WITH RESPECT TO
  RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.


Whosoever hath examined the conduct and proceedings of both parties for
some years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well conceive it
possible to go far towards the extremes of either, without offering some
violence to his integrity or understanding. A wise and a good man may
indeed be sometimes induced to comply with a number whose opinion he
generally approves, though it be perhaps against his own. But this
liberty should be made use of upon very few occasions, and those of
small importance, and then only with a view of bringing over his own
side another time to something of greater and more public moment. But to
sacrifice the innocency of a friend, the good of our country, or our own
conscience to the humour, or passion, or interest of a party, plainly
shews that either our heads or our hearts are not as they should be: Yet
this very practice is the fundamental law of each faction among us, as
may be obvious to any who will impartially, and without engagement, be
at the pains to examine their actions, which however is not so easy a
task: For it seems a principle in human nature, to incline one way more
than another, even in matters where we are wholly unconcerned. And it is
a common observation, that in reading a history of facts done a thousand
years ago, or standing by at play among those who are perfect strangers
to us, we are apt to find our hopes and wishes engaged on a sudden in
favour of one side more than another. No wonder then, we are all so
ready to interest ourselves in the course of public affairs, where the
most inconsiderable have some _real_ share, and by the wonderful
importance which every man is of to himself, a very great _imaginary_
one.

And indeed, when the two parties that divide the whole commonwealth,
come once to a rupture, without any hopes left of forming a third with
better principles, to balance the others; it seems every man's duty to
choose a side,[1] though he cannot entirely approve of either; and all
pretences to neutrality are justly exploded by both, being too stale and
obvious, only intending the safety and ease of a few individuals while
the public is embroiled. This was the opinion and practice of the latter
Cato, whom I esteem to have been the wisest and best of all the Romans.
But before things proceed to open violence, the truest service a private
man may hope to do his country, is, by unbiassing his mind as much as
possible, and then endeavouring to moderate between the rival powers;
which must needs be owned a fair proceeding with the world, because it
is of all others the least consistent with the common design, of making
a fortune by the merit of an opinion.

[Footnote 1: Faulkner and Scott have "one of the two sides." [T. S.]]

I have gone as far as I am able in qualifying myself to be such a
moderator: I believe I am no bigot in religion, and I am sure I am none
in government. I converse in full freedom with many considerable men of
both parties, and if not in equal number, it is purely accidental and
personal, as happening to be near the court, and to have made
acquaintance there, more under one ministry than another. Then, I am not
under the necessity of declaring myself by the prospect of an
employment. And lastly, if all this be not sufficient, I industriously
conceal my name, which wholly exempts me from any hopes and fears in
delivering my opinion.

In consequence of this free use of my reason, I cannot possibly think so
well or so ill of either party, as they would endeavour to persuade the
world of each other, and of themselves. For instance; I do not charge it
upon the body of the Whigs or the Tories, that their several principles
lead them to introduce Presbytery, and the religion of the Church of
Rome, or a commonwealth and arbitrary power. For, why should any party
be accused of a principle which they solemnly disown and protest
against? But, to this they have a mutual answer ready; they both assure
us, that their adversaries are not to be believed, that they disown
their principles out of fear, which are manifest enough when we examine
their practices. To prove this, they will produce instances, on one
side, either of avowed Presbyterians, or persons of libertine and
atheistical tenets, and on the other, of professed Papists, or such as
are openly in the interest of the abdicated family. Now, it is very
natural for all subordinate sects and denominations in a state, to side
with some general party, and to choose that which they find to agree
with themselves in some general principle. Thus at the restoration, the
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents, and other sects, did all with
very good reason unite and solder up their several schemes to join
against the Church, who without regard to their distinctions, treated
them all as equal adversaries. Thus, our present dissenters do very
naturally close in with the Whigs, who profess moderation, declare they
abhor all thoughts of persecution, and think it hard that those who
differ only in a few ceremonies and speculations, should be denied the
privilege and profit of serving their country in the highest employments
of state. Thus, the atheists, libertines, despisers of religion and
revelation in general, that is to say, all those who usually pass under
the name of freethinkers, do properly join with the same body; because
they likewise preach up moderation, and are not so overnice to
distinguish between an unlimited liberty of conscience, and an unlimited
freedom of opinion. Then on the other side, the professed firmness of
the Tories for Episcopacy as an apostolical institution: Their aversion
to those sects who lie under the reproach of having once destroyed their
constitution, and who they imagine, by too indiscreet a zeal for
reformation have defaced the primitive model of the Church: Next, their
veneration for monarchical government in the common course of
succession, and their hatred to republican schemes: These, I say, are
principles which not only the nonjuring zealots profess, but even
Papists themselves fall readily in with. And every extreme here
mentioned flings a general scandal upon the whole body it pretends to
adhere to.

But surely no man whatsoever ought in justice or good manners to be
charged with principles he actually disowns, unless his practices do
openly and without the least room for doubt contradict his profession:
Not upon small surmises, or because he has the misfortune to have ill
men sometimes agree with him in a few general sentiments. However,
though the extremes of Whig and Tory seem with little justice to have
drawn religion into their controversies, wherein they have small
concern; yet they both have borrowed one leading principle from the
abuse of it; which is, to have built their several systems of political
faith, not upon enquiries after truth, but upon opposition to each
other, upon injurious appellations, charging their adversaries with
horrid opinions, and then reproaching them for the want of charity; _et
neuter falso_.

In order to remove these prejudices, I have thought nothing could be
more effectual than to describe the sentiments of a Church of England
man with respect to religion and government. This I shall endeavour to
do in such a manner as may not be liable to least objection from either
party, and which I am confident would be assented to by great numbers in
both, if they were not misled to those mutual misrepresentations, by
such motives as they would be ashamed to own.

I shall begin with religion.

And here, though it makes an odd sound, yet it is necessary to say, that
whoever professes himself a member of the Church of England, ought to
believe a God and his providence, together with revealed religion, and
the divinity of Christ. For beside those many thousands, who (to speak
in the phrase of divines) do practically deny all this by the immorality
of their lives; there is no small number, who in their conversation and
writings directly or by consequence endeavour to overthrow it; yet all
these place themselves in the list of the National Church, though at the
same time (as it is highly reasonable) they are great sticklers for
liberty of conscience.

To enter upon particulars: A Church of England man hath a true
veneration for the scheme established among us of ecclesiastic
government; and though he will not determine whether Episcopacy be of
divine right, he is sure it is most agreeable to primitive institution,
fittest of all others for preserving order and purity, and under its
present regulations best calculated for our civil state: He should
therefore think the abolishment of that order among us would prove a
mighty scandal and corruption to our faith, and manifestly dangerous to
our monarchy; nay, he would defend it by arms against all the powers on
earth, except our own legislature; in which case he would submit as to a
general calamity, a dearth, or a pestilence.

As to rites and ceremonies, and forms of prayer; he allows there might
be some useful alterations, and more, which in the prospect of uniting
Christians might be very supportable, as things declared in their own
nature indifferent; to which he therefore would readily comply, if the
clergy, or, (though this be not so fair a method) if the legislature
should direct: Yet at the same time he cannot altogether blame the
former for their unwillingness to consent to any alteration; which
beside the trouble, and perhaps disgrace, would certainly never produce
the good effects intended by it. The only condition that could make it
prudent and just for the clergy to comply in altering the ceremonial or
any other indifferent part, would be, a firm resolution in the
legislature to interpose by some strict and effectual laws to prevent
the rising and spreading of new sects how plausible soever, for the
future; else there must never be an end: And it would be to act like a
man who should pull down and change the ornaments of his house, in
compliance to every one who was disposed to find fault as he passed by,
which besides the perpetual trouble and expense, would very much damage,
and perhaps in time destroy the building. Sects in a state seem only
tolerated with any reason because they are already spread; and because
it would not be agreeable with so mild a government, or so pure a
religion as ours, to use violent methods against great numbers of
mistaken people, while they do not manifestly endanger the constitution
of either. But the greatest advocates for general liberty of conscience,
will allow that they ought to be checked in their beginnings, if they
will allow them to be an evil at all, or which is the same thing, if
they will only grant, it were better for the peace of the state, that
there should be none. But while the clergy consider the natural temper
of mankind in general, or of our own country in particular, what
assurances can they have, that any compliances they shall make, will
remove the evil of dissension, while the liberty still continues of
professing whatever new opinion we please? Or how can it be imagined
that the body of dissenting teachers, who must be all undone by such a
revolution, will not cast about for some new objections to withhold
their flocks, and draw in fresh proselytes by some further innovations
or refinements?

Upon these reasons he is for tolerating such different forms in
religious worship as are already admitted, but by no means for leaving
it in the power of those who are tolerated, to advance their own models
upon the ruin of what is already established, which it is natural for
all sects to desire, and which they cannot justify by any consistent
principles if they do not endeavour; and yet, which they cannot succeed
in without the utmost danger to the public peace.

To prevent these inconveniences, he thinks it highly just, that all
rewards of trust, profit, or dignity, which the state leaves in the
disposal of the administration, should be given only to those whose
principles direct them to preserve the constitution in all its parts. In
the late affair of Occasional Conformity, the general argument of those
who were against it, was not, to deny it an evil in itself, but that the
remedy proposed was violent, untimely, and improper, which is the Bishop
of Salisbury's opinion in the speech he made and published against the
bill: But, however just their fears or complaints might have been upon
that score, he thinks it a little too gross and precipitate to employ
their writers already in arguments for repealing the sacramental test,
upon no wiser a maxim, than that no man should on the account of
conscience be deprived the liberty of serving his country; a topic which
may be equally applied to admit Papists, Atheists, Mahometans, Heathens,
and Jews. If the Church wants members of its own to employ in the
service of the public; or be so unhappily contrived as to exclude from
its communion such persons who are likeliest to have great abilities, it
is time it should be altered and reduced into some more perfect, or at
least more popular form: But in the meanwhile, it is not altogether
improbable, that when those who dislike the constitution, are so very
zealous in their offers for the service of their country, they are not
wholly unmindful of their party or of themselves.

The Dutch whose practice is so often quoted to prove and celebrate the
great advantages of a general liberty of conscience, have yet a national
religion professed by all who bear office among them: But why should
they be a precedent for us either in religion or government? Our country
differs from theirs, as well in situation, soil, and productions of
nature, as in the genius and complexion of inhabitants. They are a
commonwealth founded on a sudden by a desperate attempt in a desperate
condition, not formed or digested into a regular system by mature
thought and reason, but huddled up under the pressure of sudden
exigencies; calculated for no long duration, and hitherto subsisting by
accident in the midst of contending powers, who cannot yet agree about
sharing it among them. These difficulties do indeed preserve them from
any great corruptions, which their crazy constitution would extremely
subject them to in a long peace. That confluence of people in a
persecuting age, to a place of refuge nearest at hand, put them upon the
necessity of trade, to which they wisely gave all ease and
encouragement: And if we could think fit to imitate them in this last
particular, there would need no more to invite foreigners among us; who
seem to think no further than how to secure their property and
conscience, without projecting any share in that government which gives
them protection, or calling it persecution if it be denied them. But I
speak it for the honour of our administration, that although our sects
are not so numerous as those in Holland, which I presume is not our
fault, and I hope is not our misfortune, we much excel them and all
Christendom besides in our indulgence to tender consciences.[2] One
single compliance with the national form of receiving the sacrament, is
all we require to qualify any sectary among us for the greatest
employments in the state, after which he is at liberty to rejoin his own
assemblies for the rest of his life. Besides, I will suppose any of the
numerous sects in Holland, to have so far prevailed as to have raised a
civil war, destroyed their government and religion, and put their
administrators to death; after which I will suppose the people to have
recovered all again, and to have settled on their old foundation. Then I
would put a query, whether that sect which was the unhappy instrument of
all this confusion, could reasonably expect to be entrusted for the
future with the greatest employments, or indeed to be hardly tolerated
among them?

[Footnote 2: When this was written there was no law against Occasional
Conformity. [Faulkner, 1735.]]

To go on with the sentiments of a Church of England man: He does not see
how that mighty passion for the Church which some men pretend, can well
consist with those indignities and that contempt they bestow on the
persons of the clergy.[3] Tis a strange mark whereby to distinguish High
Churchmen, that they are such who imagine the clergy can never be too
low. He thinks the maxim these gentlemen are so fond of, that they are
for an humble clergy, is a very good one; and so is he, and for an
humble laity too, since humility is a virtue that perhaps equally
benefits and adorns every station of life.

[Footnote 3: "I observed very well with what insolence and haughtiness
some lords of the High-Church party treated, not only their own
chaplains, but all other clergy whatsoever, and thought this was
sufficiently recompensed by their professions of zeal to the church."]

But then, if the scribblers on the other side freely speak the
sentiments of their party, a divine of the Church of England cannot look
for much better quarter thence. You shall observe nothing more frequent
in their weekly papers than a way of affecting to confound the terms of
Clergy and High Church, of applying both indifferently, and then loading
the latter with all the calumny they can invent. They will tell you they
honour a clergyman; but talk, at the same time, as if there were not
three in the kingdom, who could fall in with their definition.[4] After
the like manner they insult the universities, as poisoned fountains, and
corrupters of youth.

[Footnote 4: "I had likewise observed how the Whig lords took a direct
contrary measure, treated the persons of particular clergymen with great
courtesy, but shewed much ill-will and contempt for the order in
general."]

Now, it seems clear to me, that the Whigs might easily have procured and
maintained a majority among the clergy, and perhaps in the universities,
if they had not too much encouraged or connived at this intemperance of
speech and virulence of pen, in the worst and most prostitute of their
party; among whom there has been for some years past such a perpetual
clamour against the ambition, the implacable temper, and the
covetousness of the priesthood: Such a cant of High Church, and
persecution, and being priest-ridden; so many reproaches about narrow
principles, or terms of communion: Then such scandalous reflections on
the universities, for infecting the youth of the nation with arbitrary
and Jacobite principles, that it was natural for those, who had the care
of religion and education, to apprehend some general design of altering
the constitution of both. And all this was the more extraordinary,
because it could not easily be forgot, that whatever opposition was made
to the usurpations of King James, proceeded altogether from the Church
of England, and chiefly from the clergy, and one of the universities.
For, if it were of any use to recall matters of fact, what is more
notorious than that prince's applying himself first to the Church of
England? And upon their refusal to fall in with his measures, making the
like advances to the dissenters of all kinds, who readily and almost
universally complied with him, affecting in their numerous addresses and
pamphlets, the style of Our Brethren the Roman Catholics, whose
interests they put on the same foot with their own: And some of
Cromwell's officers took posts in the army raised against the Prince of
Orange.[5] These proceedings of theirs they can only extenuate by urging
the provocations they had met from the Church in King Charles's reign,
which though perhaps excusable upon the score of human infirmity, are
not by any means a plea of merit equal to the constancy and sufferings
of the bishops and clergy, or of the head and fellows of Magdalen
College, that furnished the Prince of Orange's declaration with such
powerful arguments to justify and promote the Revolution.

[Footnote 5: De Foe's "History of Addresses" contains some humbling
instances of the applause with which the sectaries hailed their old
enemy, James II., when they saw him engaged in hostility with the
established Church. [T. S.]]

Therefore a Church of England man abhors the humour of the age in
delighting to fling scandals upon the clergy in general; which besides
the disgrace to the Reformation, and to religion itself, casts an
ignominy upon the kingdom that it does not deserve. We have no better
materials to compound the priesthood of, than the mass of mankind, which
corrupted as it is, those who receive orders must have some vices to
leave behind them when they enter into the Church, and if a few do still
adhere, it is no wonder, but rather a great one that they are no worse.
Therefore he cannot think ambition, or love of power more justly laid to
their charge than to other men, because, that would be to make religion
itself, or at least the best constitution of Church-government,
answerable for the errors and depravity of human nature.

Within these last two hundred years all sorts of temporal power have
been wrested from the clergy, and much of their ecclesiastic, the reason
or justice of which proceeding I shall not examine; but, that the
remedies were a little too violent with respect to their possessions,
the legislature hath lately confessed by the remission of their First
Fruits.[6] Neither do the common libellers deny this, who in their
invectives only tax the Church with an insatiable desire of power and
wealth (equally common to all bodies of men as well as individuals) but
thank God, that the laws have deprived them of both. However, it is
worth observing the justice of parties: The sects among us are apt to
complain, and think it hard usage to be reproached now after fifty years
for overturning the state, for the murder of a king, and the indignity
of a usurpation; yet these very men and their partisans, are continually
reproaching the clergy, and laying to their charge the pride, the
avarice, the luxury, the ignorance, and superstition, of Popish times
for a thousand years past.

[Footnote 6: The first fruits were the first year's income of
ecclesiastical benefices. In the middle ages they were taken by the Pope
as a right; but were handed over to the English crown in 1534. Anne in
1703 gave them back to the Church by letters patent, an act confirmed by
Parliament in 1704. The "Bounty" of Queen Anne, however, did not extend
to Ireland; and one of Swift's missions in London was to obtain this
remission of the first fruits for the Irish clergy also. [T. S.]]

He thinks it a scandal to government that such an unlimited liberty
should be allowed of publishing books against those doctrines in
religion, wherein all Christians have agreed, much more to connive at
such tracts as reject all revelation, and by their consequences often
deny the very being of a God. Surely 'tis not a sufficient atonement for
the writers, that they profess much loyalty to the present government,
and sprinkle up and down some arguments in favour of the dissenters;
that they dispute as strenuously as they can for liberty of conscience,
and inveigh largely against all ecclesiastics, under the name of High
Church; and, in short, under the shelter of some popular principles in
politics and religion, undermine the foundations of all piety and
virtue.

As he doth not reckon every schism of that damnable nature which some
would represent, so he is very far from closing with the new opinion of
those who would make it no crime at all, and argue at a wild rate, that
God Almighty is delighted with the variety of faith and worship, as He
is with the varieties of nature. To such absurdities are men carried by
the affectation of freethinking, and removing the prejudices of
education, under which head they have for some time begun to list
morality and religion. It is certain that before the rebellion in 1642,
though the number of Puritans (as they were then called) was as great as
it is with us, and though they affected to follow pastors of that
denomination, yet those pastors had episcopal ordination, possessed
preferments in the Church, and were sometimes promoted to bishoprics
themselves.[7] But, a breach in the general form of worship was in those
days reckoned so dangerous and sinful in itself, and so offensive to
Roman Catholics at home and abroad, and that it was too unpopular to be
attempted; neither, I believe, was the expedient then found out of
maintaining separate pastors out of private purses.

[Footnote 7: In the reign of Elizabeth, and even in that of James, the
Puritans were not, properly speaking, Dissenters; but, on the contrary,
formed a sort of Low Church party in the national establishment.
Archbishop Abbot himself has been considered as a Puritan. [T. S.]]

When a schism is once spread in a nation, there grows at length a
dispute which are the schismatics. Without entering on the arguments,
used by both sides among us, to fix the guilt on each other; 'tis
certain, that, in the sense of the law, the schism lies on that side
which opposes itself to the religion of the state. I leave it among the
divines to dilate upon the danger of schism, as a spiritual evil, but I
would consider it only as a temporal one. And I think it clear that any
great separation from the established worship, though to a new one that
is more pure and perfect, may be an occasion of endangering the public
peace, because it will compose a body always in reserve, prepared to
follow any discontented heads upon the plausible pretext of advancing
true religion, and opposing error, superstition, or idolatry. For this
reason Plato lays it down as a maxim, that, _men ought to worship the
gods according to the laws of the country_, and he introduces Socrates
in his last discourse utterly disowning the crime laid to his charge, of
teaching new divinities or methods of worship. Thus the poor Huguenots
of France were engaged in a civil war, by the specious pretences of
some, who under the guise of religion sacrificed so many thousand lives
to their own ambition and revenge. Thus was the whole body of Puritans
in England drawn to be instruments, or abettors of all manner of
villainy, by the artifices of a few men whose[8] designs from the first
were levelled to destroy the constitution both of religion and
government. And thus, even in Holland itself, where it is pretended that
the variety of sects live so amicably together, and in such perfect
obedience to the magistrate, it is notorious how a turbulent party
joining with the Arminians, did in the memory of our fathers attempt to
destroy the liberty of that republic. So that upon the whole, where
sects are tolerated in a state, 'tis fit they should enjoy a full
liberty of conscience, and every other privilege of freeborn subjects to
which no power is annexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all
emergencies, a government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them
with too little power.

[Footnote 8: Lord Clarendon's History; but see also Gardiner's "History
of England." [T. S.]]

The clergy are usually charged with a persecuting spirit, which they are
said to discover by an implacable hatred to all dissenters; and this
appears to be more unreasonable, because they suffer less in their
interests by a toleration than any of the conforming laity: For while
the Church remains in its present form, no dissenter can possibly have
any share in its dignities, revenues, or power; whereas, by once
receiving the sacrament, he is rendered capable of the highest
employments in the state. And it is very possible, that a narrow
education, together with a mixture of human infirmity, may help to beget
among some of the clergy in possession such an aversion and contempt for
all innovators, as physicians are apt to have for empirics, or lawyers
for pettifoggers, or merchants for pedlars: But since the number of
sectaries doth not concern the clergy either in point of interest or
conscience, (it being an evil not in their power to remedy) 'tis more
fair and reasonable to suppose their dislike proceeds from the dangers
they apprehend to the peace of the commonwealth, in the ruin whereof
they must expect to be the first and greatest sufferers.

To conclude this section, it must be observed, there is a very good
word, which hath of late suffered much by both parties, and that is,
MODERATION, which the one side very justly disowns, and the other as
unjustly pretends to. Beside what passeth every day in conversation; any
man who reads the papers published by Mr. Lesley[9] and others of his
stamp, must needs conclude, that if this author could make the nation
see his adversaries under the colours he paints them in, we have nothing
else to do, but rise as one man and destroy such wretches from the face
of the earth. On the other side, how shall we excuse the advocates for
moderation? among whom, I could appeal to a hundred papers of universal
approbation by the cause they were writ for, which lay such principles
to the whole body of the Tories, as, if they were true, and believed;
our next business should in prudence be, to erect gibbets in every
parish, and hang them out of the way. But I suppose it is presumed, the
common people understand raillery, or at least, rhetoric, and will not
take hyperboles in too literal a sense; which however in some junctures
might prove a desperate experiment.

[Footnote 9: This was Charles Leslie, the second son of the Bishop of
Clogher (1650-1722). He was educated for the bar, but forsook that, and
entered into holy orders. In his zeal for the established Church he
persecuted the Catholics; but this did not interfere with his adhesion
to Jacobite political principles. He settled in London, and wrote a
weekly paper called "The Rehearsal, or a Review of the Times," in which
he attacked Locke and Hoadly. He did all he could for the cause of the
exiled James, but he gave up the work when he found it hopeless, and
died in Ireland. He wrote many virulent theological works, as well as a
host of political tracts. [T. S.]]

And this is moderation in the modern sense of the word, to which,
speaking impartially, the bigots of both parties are equally entitled.

SECTION II.

_The Sentiments of a Church of England Man with respect to Government_.

We look upon it as a very just reproach, though we cannot agree where to
fix it, that there should be so much violence and hatred in religious
matters, among men who agree in all fundamentals, and only differ in
some ceremonies, or at most mere speculative points. Yet is not this
frequently the case between contending parties in a state? For instance:
Do not the generality of Whigs and Tories among us, profess to agree in
the same fundamentals, their loyalty to the Queen, their abjuration of
the Pretender, the settlement of the crown in the protestant line, and a
revolution principle? Their affection to the Church established, with
toleration of dissenters? Nay sometimes they go further, and pass over
into each other's principles; the Whigs become great assertors of the
prerogative, and the Tories of the people's liberty; these crying down
almost the whole set of bishops, and those defending them; so that the
differences fairly stated, would be much of a sort with those in
religion among us, and amount to little more than, _who should take
place_ or _go in and out first_, or _kiss the Queen's hand_; and what
are these but a few court ceremonies? Or, _who should be in the
ministry_? And what is that to the body of the nation, but a mere
speculative point? Yet I think it must be allowed, that no religious
sects ever carried their aversions for each other to greater heights
than our state-parties have done, who the more to inflame their passions
have mixed religious and civil animosities together; borrowing one of
their appellations from the Church, with the addition of High and Low,
how little soever their disputes relate to the term as it is generally
understood.

I now proceed to deliver the sentiments of a Church of England man with
respect to government.

He doth not think the Church of England so narrowly calculated, that it
cannot fall in with any regular species of government; nor does he think
any one regular species of government more acceptable to God than
another. The three generally received in the schools have all of them
their several perfections, and are subject to their several
depravations. However, few states are ruined by any defect in their
institution, but generally by the corruption of manners, against which
the best institution is no long security, and without which a very ill
one may subsist and flourish: Whereof there are two pregnant instances
now in Europe. The first is the aristocracy of Venice, which founded
upon the wisest maxims, and digested by a great length of time, hath in
our age admitted so many abuses through the degeneracy of the nobles,
that the period of its duration seems to approach. The other is the
united republics of the States-general, where a vein of temperance,
industry, parsimony, and a public spirit, running through the whole body
of the people, hath preserved an infant commonwealth of an untimely
birth and sickly constitution, for above an hundred years, through so
many dangers and difficulties, as a much more healthy one could never
have struggled against, without those advantages.

Where security of person and property are preserved by laws which none
but the Whole can repeal, there the great ends of government are
provided for whether the administration be in the hands of One, or of
Many. Where any one person or body of men, who do not represent the
Whole, seize into their hands the power in the last resort, there is
properly no longer a government, but what Aristotle and his followers
call the abuse and corruption of one. This distinction excludes
arbitrary power in whatever numbers; which notwithstanding all that
Hobbes, Filmer[10] and others have said to its advantage, I look upon as
a greater evil than anarchy itself; as much as a savage is in a happier
state of life than a slave at the oar.

[Footnote 10: Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679), the English philosopher, and
author of "De Cive" (1642), "Treatise on Human Nature" (1650), "De
Corpore Politico" (1650), "Leviathan" (1651), and other works. Swift is
here combating Hobbes's advocacy for a sovereign power, as vested in a
single person.

Filmer, Sir Robert (died 1647), author of "The Anarchy of a limited and
mixed Monarchy," "Patriarcha," and "The Freeholder's Grand Inquest." In
the "Patriarcha" Filmer attempted to prove that absolute government by a
monarch was a patriarchal institution. Locke replied to this work in his
"Two Treatises on Government." [T.S.]]

It is reckoned ill manners, as well as unreasonable, for men to quarrel
upon difference in opinion; because that is usually supposed to be a
thing which no man can help in himself; which however I do not conceive
to be an universal infallible maxim, except in those cases where the
question is pretty equally disputed among the learned and the wise;
where it is otherwise, a man of tolerable reason, small experience, and
willing to be instructed, may apprehend he is got into a wrong opinion,
though the whole course of his mind and inclination would persuade him
to believe it true: He may be convinced that he is in error though he
does not see where it lies, by the bad effects of it in the common
conduct of his life, and by observing those persons for whose wisdom and
goodness he has the greatest deference, to be of a contrary sentiment.
According to Hobbes's comparison of reasoning with casting up accounts,
whoever finds a mistake in the sum total, must allow himself out,
though, after repeated trials he may not see in which article he has
misreckoned. I will instance in one opinion, which I look upon every man
obliged in conscience to quit, or in prudence to conceal; I mean, that
whoever argues in defence of absolute power in a single person, though
he offers the old plausible plea, that, _it is his opinion, which he
cannot help unless he be convinced_, ought, in all free states to be
treated as the common enemy of mankind. Yet this is laid as a heavy
charge upon the clergy of the two reigns before the Revolution, who
under the terms of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance are said to have
preached up the unlimited power of the prince, because they found it a
doctrine that pleased the Court, and made way for their preferment. And
I believe there may be truth enough in this accusation, to convince us,
that human frailty will too often interpose itself among persons of the
holiest function. However, it may be offered in excuse for the clergy,
that in the best societies there are some ill members, which a corrupted
court and ministry will industriously find out and introduce. Besides,
it is manifest that the greater number of those who held and preached
this doctrine, were misguided by equivocal terms, and by perfect
ignorance in the principles of government, which they had not made any
part of their study. The question originally put, and as I remember to
have heard it disputed in public schools, was this; _whether under any
pretence whatsoever it may be lawful to resist the supreme magistrate?_
which was held in the negative; and this is certainly the right opinion.
But many of the clergy, and other learned men, deceived by dubious
expression, mistook the object to which passive obedience was due. By
the supreme magistrate is properly understood the legislative power,
which in all government must be absolute and unlimited. But the word
magistrate seeming to denote a single person, and to express the
executive power, it came to pass, that the obedience due to the
legislature was for want of knowing or considering this easy
distinction, misapplied to the administration. Neither is it any wonder,
that the clergy or other well-meaning people should fall into this
error, which deceived Hobbes himself so far, as to be the foundation of
all the political mistakes in his book, where he perpetually confounds
the executive with the legislative power, though all well-instituted
states have ever placed them in different hands, as may be obvious to
those who know anything of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and other republics
of Greece, as well as the greater ones of Carthage and Rome.

Besides, it is to be considered that when these doctrines began to be
preached among us, the kingdom had not quite worn out the memory of that
unhappy rebellion, under the consequences of which it had groaned almost
twenty years. And a weak prince in conjunction with a succession of most
prostitute ministers, began again to dispose the people to new attempts,
which it was, no doubt, the clergy's duty to endeavour to prevent, if
some of them had not for want of knowledge in temporal affairs, and
others perhaps from a worse principle, proceeded upon a topic that
strictly followed would enslave all mankind.

Among other theological arguments made use of in those times, in praise
of monarchy, and justification of absolute obedience to a prince, there
seemed to be one of a singular nature: It was urged that Heaven was
governed by a monarch, who had none to control his power, but was
absolutely obeyed: Then it followed, that earthly governments were the
more perfect, the nearer they imitated the government in Heaven. All
which I look upon as the strongest argument against despotic power that
ever was offered; since no reason can possibly be assigned why it is
best for the world that God Almighty hath such a power, which doth not
directly prove that no mortal man should ever have the like.

But though a Church of England man thinks every species of government
equally lawful, he does not think them equally expedient; or for every
country indifferently. There may be something in the climate, naturally
disposing men toward one sort of obedience, as is manifest all over
Asia, where we never read of any commonwealth, except some small ones on
the western coasts established by the Greeks. There may be a great deal
in the situation of a country, and in the present genius of the people.
It hath been observed, that the temperate climates usually run into
moderate governments, and the extremes into despotic power. 'Tis a
remark of Hobbes, that the youth of England are corrupted in their
principles of government, by reading the authors of Greece and Rome who
writ under commonwealths. But it might have been more fairly offered for
the honour of liberty, that while the rest of the known world was
overrun with the arbitrary government of single persons; arts and
sciences took their rise, and flourished only in those few small
territories were the people were free. And though learning may continue
after liberty is lost, as it did in Rome, for a while, upon the
foundations laid under the commonwealth, and the particular patronage of
some emperors; yet it hardly ever began under a tyranny in any nation:
Because slavery is of all things the greatest clog and obstacle to
speculation. And indeed, arbitrary power is but the first natural step
from anarchy or the savage life; the adjusting of power and freedom
being an effect and consequence of maturer thinking: And this is nowhere
so duly regulated as in a limited monarchy: Because I believe it may
pass for a maxim in state, that the administration cannot be placed in
too few hands, nor the legislature in too many. Now in this material
point, the constitution of the English government far exceeds all others
at this time on the earth, to which the present establishment of the
Church doth so happily agree, that I think, whoever is an enemy to
either, must of necessity be so to both.

He thinks, as our monarchy is constituted, a hereditary right is much to
be preferred before election. Because the government here, especially by
some late amendments, is so regularly disposed in all its parts, that it
almost executes itself. And therefore upon the death of a prince among
us, the administration goes on without any rub or interruption. For the
same reasons we have little to apprehend from the weakness or fury of
our monarchs, who have such wise councils to guide the first, and laws
to restrain the other. And therefore this hereditary right should be
kept so sacred, as never to break the succession, unless where the
preserving of it may endanger the constitution; which is not from any
intrinsic merit, or unalienable right in a particular family, but to
avoid the consequences that usually attend the ambition of competitors,
to which elective kingdoms are exposed; and which is the only obstacle
to hinder them from arriving at the greatest perfection that government
can possibly reach. Hence appears the absurdity of that distinction
between a king _de facto_, and one _de jure_, with respect to us. For
every limited monarch is a king _de jure_, because he governs by the
consent of the whole, which is authority sufficient to abolish all
precedent right. If a king come in by conquest, he is no longer a
limited monarch, if he afterward consent to limitations, he becomes
immediately king _de jure_ for the same reason.

The great advocates for succession, who affirm it ought not to be
violated upon any regard or consideration whatsoever, do insist much
upon one argument that seems to carry little weight. They would have it,
that a crown is a prince's birthright, and ought at least to be as well
secured to him and his posterity as the inheritance of any private man:
In short, that he has the same title to his kingdom which every
individual has to his property. Now the consequence of this doctrine
must be, that as a man may find several ways to waste, misspend, or
abuse his patrimony, without being answerable to the laws; so a king may
in like manner do what he will with his own, that is, he may squander
and misapply his revenues, and even alienate the crown, without being
called to an account by his subjects. They allow such a prince to be
guilty indeed of much folly and wickedness, but for those he is to
answer to God, as every private man must do that is guilty of
mismanagement in his own concerns. Now the folly of this reasoning will
best appear, by applying it in a parallel case. Should any man argue,
that a physician is supposed to understand his own art best; that the
law protects and encourages his profession; and therefore although he
should manifestly prescribe poison to all his patients, whereof they
should immediately die, he cannot be justly punished, but is answerable
only to God: Or should the same be offered in behalf of a divine, who
would preach against religion and moral duties; in either of these two
cases everybody would find out the sophistry, and presently answer, that
although common men are not exactly skilled in the composition or
application of medicines, or in prescribing the limits of duty; yet the
difference between poisons and remedies is easily known by their
effects, and common reason soon distinguishes between virtue and vice:
And it must be necessary to forbid both these the further practice of
their professions, because their crimes are not purely personal to the
physician or the divine, but destructive to the public. All which is
infinitely stronger in respect to a prince, with whose good or ill
conduct the happiness or misery of a whole nation is included; whereas
it is of small consequence to the public, farther than examples, how any
private person manages his property.

But granting that the right of a lineal successor to a crown were upon
the same foot with the property of a subject, still It may at any time
be transferred by the legislative power, as other properties frequently
are. The supreme power in a state can do no wrong, because whatever that
doth, is the action of all; and when the lawyers apply this maxim to the
king, they must understand it only in that sense as he is administrator
of the supreme power, otherwise it is not universally true, but may be
controlled in several instances easy to produce.

And these are the topics we must proceed upon to justify our exclusion
of the young Pretender in France; that of his suspected birth being
merely popular, and therefore not made use of as I remember, since the
Revolution in any speech, vote, or proclamation where there was occasion
to mention him.

As to the abdication of King James, which the advocates on that side
look upon to have been forcible and unjust, and consequently void in
itself, I think a man may observe every article of the English Church,
without being in much pain about it. 'Tis not unlikely that all doors
were laid open for his departure, and perhaps not without the privity of
the Prince of Orange, as reasonably concluding that the kingdom might be
settled in his absence: But to affirm he had any cause to apprehend the
same treatment with his father, is an improbable scandal flung upon the
nation by a few bigotted French scribblers, or the invidious assertion
of a ruined party at home, in the bitterness of their souls: Not one
material circumstance agreeing with those in 1648; and the greatest part
of the nation having preserved the utmost horror for that ignominious
murder: But whether his removal were caused by his own fears or other
men's artifices, 'tis manifest to me, that supposing the throne to be
vacant, which was the foot they went upon, the body of the people were
thereupon left at liberty, to choose what form of government they
pleased, by themselves or their representatives.

The only difficulty of any weight against the proceedings at the
Revolution, is an obvious objection, to which the writers upon that
subject have not yet given a direct or sufficient answer, as if they
were in pain at some consequences which they apprehend those of the
contrary opinion might draw from it, I will repeat this objection as it
was offered me some time ago, with all its advantages, by a very pious,
learned, and worthy gentleman[11] of the nonjuring party.

[Footnote 11: Mr. Nelson, author of "The Feasts and Fasts of the Church
of England."]

The force of his argument turned upon this; that the laws made by the
supreme power, cannot otherwise than by the supreme power be annulled:
That this consisting in England of a King, Lords, and Commons, whereof
each have a negative voice, no two of them can repeal or enact a law
without consent of the third; much less may any one of them be entirely
excluded from its part of the legislature by a vote of the other two.
That all these maxims were openly violated at the Revolution; where an
assembly of the nobles and people, not summoned by the king's writ
(which was an essential part of the constitution) and consequently no
lawful meeting, did merely upon their own authority, declare the king to
have abdicated, the throne vacant, and gave the crown by a vote to a
nephew, when there were three children to inherit; though by the
fundamental laws of the realm the next heir is immediately to succeed.
Neither does it appear how a prince's abdication can make any other sort
of vacancy in the throne, than would be caused by his death, since he
cannot abdicate for his children (who claim their right of succession by
act of parliament) otherwise than by his own consent in form to a bill
from the two houses.

And this is the difficulty that seems chiefly to stick with the most
reasonable of those, who from a mere scruple of conscience refuse to
join with us upon the revolution principle; but for the rest, are I
believe as far from loving arbitrary government, as any others can be,
who are born under a free constitution, and are allowed to have the
least share of common good sense.

In this objection there are two questions included: First, whether upon
the foot of our constitution, as it stood in the reign of the late King
James, a king of England may be deposed? The second is, whether the
people of England convened by their own authority, after the king had
withdrawn himself in the manner he did, had power to alter the
succession?

As for the first; it is a point I shall not presume to determine, and
shall therefore only say, that to any man who holds the negative, I
would demand the liberty of putting the case as strongly as I please. I
will suppose a prince limited by laws like ours, yet running into a
thousand caprices of cruelty like Nero or Caligula. I will suppose him
to murder his mother and his wife, to commit incest, to ravish matrons,
to blow up the senate, and burn his metropolis, openly to renounce God
and Christ, and worship the devil. These and the like exorbitances are
in the power of a single person to commit without the advice of a
ministry, or assistance of an army. And if such a king as I have
described, cannot be deposed but by his own consent in parliament, I do
not well see how he can be resisted, or what can be meant by a limited
monarchy; or what signifies the people's consent in making and repealing
laws, if the person who administers hath no tie but conscience, and is
answerable to none but God. I desire no stronger proof that an opinion
must be false, than to find very great absurdities annexed to it; and
there cannot be greater than in the present case: For it is not a bare
speculation that kings may run into such enormities as are
above-mentioned; the practice may be proved by examples not only drawn
from the first Caesars or later emperors, but many modern princes of
Europe; such as Peter the Cruel, Philip the Second of Spain, John
Basilovitz[12] of Muscovy, and in our own nation, King John, Richard the
Third, and Henry the Eighth. But there cannot be equal absurdities
supposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain,
that princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by
any tolerable administration; till provoked by continual oppressions, no
man indeed can then answer where the madness of the people will stop.

[Footnote 12: Peter the Cruel is Pedro of Castile. Ivan Basilovitz was
the first emperor of Russia who assumed the title of Czar. He was born
in 1529, and died in 1584.]

As to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England
convened by their own authority, upon King James's precipitate
departure, had power to alter the succession?

In answer to this, I think it is manifest from the practice of the
wisest nations, and who seem to have had the truest notions of freedom,
that when a prince was laid aside for mal-administration, the nobles and
people, if they thought it necessary for the public weal, did resume the
administration of the supreme power (the power itself having been always
in them) and did not only alter the succession, but often the very form
of government too; because they believed there was no natural right in
one man to govern another, but that all was by institution, force, or
consent. Thus, the cities of Greece, when they drove out their
tyrannical kings, either chose others from a new family, or abolished
the kingly government, and became free states. Thus the Romans upon the
expulsion of Tarquin found it inconvenient for them to be subject any
longer to the pride, the lust, the cruelty and arbitrary will of single
persons, and therefore by general consent entirely altered the whole
frame of their government. Nor do I find the proceedings of either, in
this point, to have been condemned by any historian of the succeeding
ages.

But a great deal hath been already said by other writers upon this
invidious and beaten subject; therefore I shall let it fall, though the
point is commonly mistaken, especially by the lawyers; who of all others
seem least to understand the nature of government in general; like
under-workmen, who are expert enough at making a single wheel in a
clock, but are utterly ignorant how to adjust the several parts, or
regulate the movements.

To return therefore from this digression: It is a Church of England
man's opinion, that the freedom of a nation consists in an absolute
unlimited legislative power, wherein the whole body of the people are
fairly represented, and in an executive duly limited; because on this
side likewise there may be dangerous degrees, and a very ill extreme.
For when two parties in a state are pretty equal in power, pretensions,
merit, and virtue, (for these two last are with relation to parties and
a court, quite different things) it hath been the opinion of the best
writers upon government, that a prince ought not in any sort to be under
the guidance or influence of either, because he declines by this means
from his office of presiding over the whole, to be the head of a party;
which besides the indignity, renders him answerable for all public
mismanagements and the consequences of them; and in whatever state this
happens, there must either be a weakness in the prince or ministry, or
else the former is too much restrained by the legislature.[1]

[Footnote 1: This is as given in the "Miscellanies" (1711). Scott and
Faulkner print "by the nobles, or those who represent the people." [T.
S.]]

To conclude: A Church of England man may with prudence and a good
conscience approve the professed principles of one party more than the
other, according as he thinks they best promote the good of Church and
State; but he will never be swayed by passion or interest, to advance an
opinion merely because it is that of the party he most approves; which
one single principle he looks upon as the root of all our civil
animosities. To enter into a party as into an order of friars with so
resigned an obedience to superiors, is very unsuitable both with the
civil and religious liberties we so zealously assert. Thus the
understandings of a whole senate are often enslaved by three or four
leaders on each side; who instead of intending the public weal, have
their hearts wholly set upon ways and means how to get or to keep
employments. But to speak more at large, how has this spirit of faction
mingled itself with the mass of the people, changed their nature and
manners, and the very genius of the nation; broke all the laws of
charity, neighbourhood, alliance and hospitality; destroyed all ties of
friendship, and divided families against themselves! And no wonder it
should be so, when in order to find out the character of a person,
instead of inquiring whether he be a man of virtue, honour, piety, wit,
good sense, or learning; the modern question is only, whether he be a
Whig or a Tory, under which terms all good and ill qualities are
included.

Now, because it is a point of difficulty to choose an exact middle
between two ill extremes, it may be worth enquiring in the present case,
which of these, a wise and good man would rather seem to avoid: Taking
therefore their own good and ill characters with due abatements and
allowances for partiality and passion; I should think that in order to
preserve the constitution entire in Church and State, whoever has a true
value for both, would be sure to avoid the extremes of Whig for the sake
of the former, and the extremes of Tory on account of the latter.

I have now said all that I could think convenient upon so nice a
subject, and find I have the ambition common with other reasoners, to
wish at least that both parties may think me in the right, which would
be of some use to those who have any virtue left, but are blindly drawn
into the extravagancies of either, upon false representations, to serve
the ambition or malice of designing men, without any prospect of their
own. But if that is not to be hoped for, my next wish should be, that
both might think me in the wrong; which I would understand as an ample
justification of myself, and a sure ground to believe, that I have
proceeded at least with impartiality, and perhaps with truth.


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




REMARKS

UPON A

BOOK,

INTITULED,

"THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, &c."

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708, BUT LEFT UNFINISHED.


NOTE.

Dr. Matthew Tindal, of whom a short account has already been given (see
note, p. 9), issued his "Rights of the Christian Church" in 1706. In
1707 it had already gone through three editions. The full title of the
work is: "The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the
Romish and all other Priests, who claim an independent Power over it:
with a Preface concerning the Government of the Church of England, as by
law established." Ostensibly the book was an attack on the Roman
Catholic Church, but the attack was so cleverly veiled that it included
in its criticisms the Church of England also; and must take its place
among the works of the deistical writers of the time who aimed at
subverting the foundations of the relationships between the Church and
the State. According to Dr. Hicks, who wrote several works in reply to
Tindal's book, Tindal told a gentleman, who found him at work on it,
that "he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad." If so, he
did not fall short of his intention; for not only the clergy, but even
learned laymen became "mad." In addition to Dr. Hicks of Oxford, the
Church of England found champions in Dr. William Wotton, Samuel Hill,
Conyers-Place, Mr. Oldisworth, and Swift. Swift delayed the preparation
of the materials for his reply, or else he found other matters to occupy
his time--the Sacheverel business came on soon after, and the Tindal
controversy lost interest in this more immediate and more important
affair. So that Swift's criticism remained unfinished, and was only
published when his editors came to search among his papers. In 1710
Tindal's work was ordered, by a vote of the House of Commons, to be
publicly burned by the hangman. The grand jury of Middlesex were
presented that the author, printer, and publisher of "The Rights of the
Christian Church" to be dangerous and disaffected persons, and promoters
of sedition and profaneness; and this charge was grounded on the
following extracts. I take these from Scott's note, and I find that the
page references are to the second edition of Tindal's work issued in
1706.

"The church is a private society, and no more power belonging to it than
to other private companies and clubs, and, consequently, all the right
anyone has to be an ecclesiastical officer, and the power he is
entrusted with, depends on the consent of the parties concerned, and is
no greater than they can bestow." Preface, p. xxx.

"The Scriptures nowhere make the receiving the Lord's Supper from the
hands of a priest necessary." p. 104.

"The remembrance of Christ's sufferings a mere grace-cup delivered to be
handed about." p. 105.

"Among Christians, one no more than another can be reckoned a priest
from Scripture"--"And the clerk has as good a title to the priesthood as
the parson ... Every one, as well as the minister, rightly consecrateth
the elements to himself ... Anything farther than this, may rather be
called Conjuration than Consecration." p. 108.

"The absurdities of bishops being by divine appointment, governors of
the Christian Church, and no others are capable of being of that number,
who derive not their right by an uninterrupted succession of bishops in
the Catholic Church." p. 313.

"The supreme powers had no way to escape the heavier oppressions, and
more insupportable usurpations of their own clergy, than by submitting
to the Pope's milder yoke and gentler authority." p. 255.

"One grand cause of mistake is, not considering when God acts as
governor of the universe, and when as prince of a particular nation. The
Jews, when they came out of the land of bondage, were under no settled
government, till God was pleased to offer himself to be their king, to
which all the people expressly consented ... God's laws bound no nation,
except those that agreed to the Horeb contract." p. 151.

"Not only an independent power of excommunication, but of ordination in
the clergy, is inconsistent with the magistrate's right to protect the
commonwealth." p. 87.

"Priests, no better than spiritual make-baits, baraters, boute-feux, and
incendiaries, and who make churches serve to worse purposes than bear
gardens." p. 118.

"It is a grand mistake to suppose the magistrate's power extends to
indifferent things ... Men have liberty as they please, and a right ...
to form what clubs, companies, or meetings, they think fit, either for
business or pleasure, which the magistrate ... cannot hinder, without
manifest injustice." p. 15.

"God ... interposed not among the Jews, until they had chosen him for
their king." p. 312.

For a full account of Tindal and his work, see the "Memoirs of the Life
and Writings of Matthew Tindal, with a History of the Controversies
wherein he was engaged," published in 1733. The text of the present
reprint of Swift's "Remarks" is based on that given in "Works," vol.
vii. of the 4to edition of 1764. It has also been collated with the 8vo
edition of same date (vol. xiii.) and with that of 1762 (vol. xiii.).

[T. S.]


  REMARKS UPON A BOOK INTITULED
  "THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN
  CHURCH, &c."


Before I enter upon a particular examination of this treatise, it will
be convenient to do two things:

_First_, To give some account of the author, together with the motives,
that might probably engage him in such a work. And,

_Secondly_, to discover the nature and tendency in general, of the work
itself.

The first of these, although it hath been objected against, seems highly
reasonable, especially in books that instil pernicious principles. For,
although a book is not intrinsically much better or worse, according to
the stature or complexion of the author, yet, when it happens to make a
noise, we are apt, and curious, as in other noises, to look about from
whence it cometh. But however, there is something more in the matter.

If a theological subject be well handled by a layman, it is better
received than if it came from a divine; and that for reasons obvious
enough, which, although of little weight in themselves, will ever have a
great deal with mankind.

But, when books are written with ill intentions, to advance dangerous
opinions, or destroy foundations; it may be then of real use to know
from what quarter they come, and go a good way towards their
confutation. For instance, if any man should write a book against the
lawfulness of punishing felony with death; and, upon enquiry, the author
should be found in Newgate under condemnation for robbing a house; his
arguments would not very unjustly lose much of their force, from the
circumstances he lay under. So, when Milton writ his book of divorces,
it was presently rejected as an occasional treatise; because every body
knew, he had a shrew for his wife. Neither can there be any reason
imagined, why he might not, after he was blind, have writ another upon
the danger and inconvenience of eyes. But, it is a piece of logic which
will hardly pass on the world; that because one man hath a sore nose,
therefore all the town should put plasters upon theirs. So, if this
treatise about the rights of the church should prove to be the work of a
man steady in his principles, of exact morals, and profound learning, a
true lover of his country, and a hater of Christianity, as what he
really believes to be a cheat upon mankind, whom he would undeceive
purely for their good; it might be apt to check unwary men, even of good
dispositions towards religion. But if it be found the production of a
man soured with age and misfortunes, together with the consciousness of
past miscarriages; of one, who, in hopes of preferment, was reconciled
to the Popish religion;[1] of one wholly prostitute in life and
principles, and only an enemy to religion, because it condemns them: In
this case, and this last I find is the universal opinion, he is like to
have few proselytes, beside those, who, from a sense of their vicious
lives, require to be perpetually supplied by such amusements as this;
which serve to flatter their wishes, and debase their understandings.

[Footnote 1: Dr. Matthew Tindal became a convert to the Romish religion
during the reign of James II. What share interest had in his conversion
may be easily imagined; but it is uncertain whether it was the
disappointment of his expectations, or conviction, that, in 1687,
induced him to reconcile himself to the Church of England, and become a
decided favourer of those doctrines which produced the Revolution. He
often sat as a judge in the Court of Delegates, but did not practise
much as an advocate in Doctor's Commons. His chief means of support was
a pension from government of £200. Tindal died in 1733, three years
after publication of his grand deistical work, "Christianity as Old as
the Creation." His effects, amounting to £2,000 and upwards, were
appropriated by the noted Eustace Budgell, to the prejudice of the heir
at law, under a will attended with circumstances of great suspicion. [T.
S.]]

I know there are some who would fain have it, that this discourse was
written by a club of freethinkers, among whom the supposed author only
came in for a share. But, sure, we cannot judge so meanly of any party,
without affronting the dignity of mankind. If this be so, and if here be
the product of all their quotas and contributions, we must needs allow,
that freethinking is a most confined and limited talent. It is true
indeed, the whole discourse seemeth to be a motley, inconsistent
composition, made up of various shreds of equal fineness, although of
different colours. It is a bundle of incoherent maxims and assertions,
that frequently destroy one another. But still there is the same
flatness of thought and style; the same weak advances towards wit and
raillery; the same petulancy and pertness of spirit; the same train of
superficial reading; the same thread of threadbare quotations: the same
affectation of forming general rules upon false and scanty premises.
And, lastly, the same rapid venom sprinkled over the whole; which, like
the dying impotent bite of a trodden benumbed snake, may be nauseous and
offensive, but cannot be very dangerous.

And, indeed, I am so far from thinking this libel to be born of several
fathers, that it hath been the wonder of several others, as well as
myself; how it was possible for any man, who appeareth to have gone the
common circle of academical education;[2] who hath taken so universal a
liberty, and hath so entirely laid aside all regards, not only of
Christianity, but common truth and justice; one who is dead to all sense
of shame, and seemeth to be past the getting or losing a reputation,
should, with so many advantages, and upon so unlimited a subject, come
out with so poor, so jejune a production. Should we pity or be amazed at
so perverse a talent, which, instead of qualifying an author to give a
new turn to old matter, disposeth him quite contrary to talk in an old
beaten trivial manner upon topics wholly new. To make so many sallies
into pedantry without a call, upon a subject the most alien, and in the
very moments he is declaiming against it, and in an age too, where it is
so violently exploded, especially among those readers he proposeth to
entertain.

[Footnote 2: See note, p. 9, where it will be seen that Tindal was an
Oxford man. [T.S.]]

I know it will be said, that this is only to talk in the common style of
an answerer; but I have not so little policy. If there were any hope of
reputation or merit from such victory, I should be apt like others to
cry up the courage and conduct of an enemy. Whereas to detect the
weakness, the malice, the sophistry, the falsehood, the ignorance of
such a writer, requireth little more than to rank his perfections in
such an order, and place them in such a light, that the commonest reader
may form a judgment of them.

It may still be a wonder how so heavy a book, written upon a subject in
appearance so little instructive or diverting, should survive to three
editions, and consequently find a better reception than is usual with
such bulky spiritless volumes; and this, in an age that pretendeth so
soon to be nauseated with what is tedious and dull. To which I can only
return, that, as burning a book by the common hangman, is a known
expedient to make it sell; so, to write a book that deserveth such
treatment, is another: And a third, perhaps as effectual as either, is
to ply an insipid, worthless tract with grave and learned answers, as
Dr. Hickes, Dr. Potter,[3] and Mr. Wotton have done. Design and
performances, however commendable, have glanced a reputation upon the
piece; which oweth its life to the strength of those hands and weapons,
that were raised to destroy it; like flinging a mountain upon a worm,
which, instead of being bruised, by the advantage of its littleness,
lodgeth under it unhurt.

[Footnote 3: George Hickes, D.D. (1642-1715), born at Newsham, Yorks,
and educated at Oxford. He visited Scotland with his patron, the Duke of
Lauderdale, in 1677, and was presented by the St. Andrews University
with the degree of LL.D. Became Dean of Worcester in 1683, but lost that
office at the Revolution, for not taking the oaths. The nonjuring
prelates, in 1693, consecrated him Bishop of Thetford. Dr. Hickes was a
profound scholar, and well versed in northern literature. Among his
works may be named, "Institutiones Grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et
Maeso-Gothicae," "Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis Thesaurus."

John Potter, D.D. (1674-1747), born at Wakefield, and educated at
Oxford. In 1707 he published a "Discourse on Church Government," and
eight years later became Bishop of Oxford. On the death of Wake, in
1737, he was appointed to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. [T.S.]]

But neither is this all. For the subject, as unpromising as it seemeth
at first view, is no less than that of Lucretius, to free men's minds
from the bondage of religion; and this not by little hints and by
piecemeal, after the manner of those little atheistical tracts that
steal into the world, but in a thorough wholesale manner; by making
religion, church, Christianity, with all their concomitants, a perfect
contrivance of the civil power. It is an imputation often charged on
this sort of men, that, by their invectives against religion, they can
possibly propose no other end than that of fortifying themselves and
others against the reproaches of a vicious life; it being necessary for
men of libertine practices to embrace libertine principles, or else they
cannot act in consistence with any reason, or preserve any peace of
mind. Whether such authors have this design, (whereof I think they have
never gone about to acquit themselves) thus much is certain; that no
other use is made of such writings: Neither did I ever hear this
author's book justified by any person, either Whig or Tory, except such
who are of that profligate character. And, I believe, whoever examineth
it, will be of the same opinion; although indeed such wretches are so
numerous, that it seemeth rather surprising, why the book hath had no
more editions, than why it should have so many.

Having thus endeavoured to satisfy the curious with some account of this
author's character, let us examine what might probably be the motives to
engage him in such a work. I shall say nothing of the principal, which
is a sum of money; because that is not a mark to distinguish him from
any other trader with the press. I will say nothing of revenge and
malice, from resentment of the indignities and contempt he hath
undergone for his crime of apostasy. To this passion he has thought fit
to sacrifice order, propriety, discretion, and common sense, as may be
seen in every page of his book: But, I am deceived, if there were not a
third motive as powerful as the other two; and that is, vanity. About
the latter end of King James's reign he had almost finished a learned
discourse in defence of the Church of Rome, and to justify his
conversion: All which, upon the Revolution, was quite out of season.
Having thus prostituted his reputation, and at once ruined his hopes, he
had no course left, but to shew his spite against religion in general;
the false pretensions to which, had proved so destructive to his credit
and fortune: And, at the same time, loth to employ the speculations of
so many years to no purpose; by an easy turn, the same arguments he had
made use of to advance Popery, were full as properly levelled by him
against Christianity itself; like the image, which, while it was new and
handsome, was worshipped for a saint, and when it came to be old and
broken, was still good enough to make a tolerable devil. And, therefore
every reader will observe, that the arguments for Popery are much the
strongest of any in his book, as I shall further remark when I find them
in my way.

There is one circumstance in his title-page, which I take to be not
amiss, where he calleth his book, "Part the First." This is a project to
fright away answerers, and make the poor advocates for religion believe,
he still keepeth further vengeance in _petto_. It must be allowed, he
hath not wholly lost time, while he was of the Romish communion. This
very trick he learned from his old father, the Pope; whose custom it is
to lift up his hand, and threaten to fulminate, when he never meant to
shoot his bolts; because the princes of Christendom had learned the
secret to avoid or despise them. Dr. Hickes knew this very well, and
therefore, in his answer to this "Book of Rights," where a second part
is threatened, like a rash person he desperately crieth, "Let it come."
But I, who have not too much phlegm to provoke angry wits of his
standard, must tell the author, that the doctor plays the wag, as if he
were sure, it were all grimace. For my part, I declare, if he writeth a
second part, I will not write another answer; or, if I do, it shall be
published, before the other part cometh out.[4]

[Footnote 4: Tindal did, however, attempt to maintain his ground against
his numerous opponents, in "A Defence of the Rights of the Christian
Church, against a late Visitation Sermon, 8vo. 1707;" and also in "A
Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church considered, in two
late Indictments against a Bookseller and His Servant, for selling one
of the said Books, 1707." [T. S.]]

There may have been another motive, although it be hardly credible, both
for publishing this work, and threatening a second part: It is not soon
conceived how far the sense of a man's vanity will transport him. This
man must have somewhere heard, that dangerous enemies have been often
bribed to silence with money or preferment: And, therefore, to shew how
formidable he is, he hath published his first essay; and, in hopes of
hire to be quiet, hath frighted us with his design of another. What must
the clergy do in these unhappy circumstances? If they should bestow this
man bread enough to stop his mouth, it will but open those of a hundred
more, who are every whit as well qualified to rail as he. And truly,
when I compare the former enemies to Christianity, such as Socinus,[5]
Hobbes, and Spinosa,[6] with such of their successors, as Toland, Asgil,
Coward, Gildon,[7] this author of the "Rights," and some others; the
church appeareth to me like the sick old lion in the fable, who, after
having his person outraged by the bull, the elephant, the horse, and the
bear, took nothing so much to heart, as to find himself at last insulted
by the spurn of an ass.

[Footnote 5: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562), born at Siena. He studied at
Bologna, and in 1546 became a member of a secret freethinking society in
Venice. The society, however, was broken up, and Socinus left Italy for
Switzerland and Poland. He died at Zurich. His papers were published by
his nephew, Faustus Socinus, who founded a sect on the tenets they
taught.]

[Footnote 6: Benedict or Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), born at Amsterdam,
of a Portuguese Jewish family. He was excommunicated by his people for
atheism. He retired to the Hague and took to making lenses, and the
study of philosophy. His "Ethics" and "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus"
constitute a system of philosophy which has had no little influence on
modern thought. See Pollock's "Spinoza."]

[Footnote 7: Charles Gildon (1665-1723-4) was educated at Douay. He
printed a book called "The Deist's Manual." For accounts of Coward,
Toland, and Asgil, see note, p. 9.] I will now add a few words to give
the reader some general notion of the nature and tendency of the work
itself.

I think I may assert, without the least partiality, that it is a
treatise wholly devoid of wit or learning, under the most violent and
weak endeavours and pretences to both. That it is replenished throughout
with bold, rude, improbable falsehoods, and gross misinterpretations;
and supported by the most impudent sophistry and false logic I have
anywhere observed. To this he hath added a paltry, traditional cant of
"priestrid" and "priestcraft," without reason or pretext as he applyeth
it. And when he raileth at those doctrines in Popery (which no
Protestant was ever supposed to believe) he leads the reader, however,
by the hand, to make applications against the English clergy, and then
he never faileth to triumph, as if he had made a very shrewd and notable
stroke. And because the court and kingdom seemeth disposed to moderation
with regard to Dissenters, more perhaps than is agreeable to the hot
unreasonable temper of some mistaken men among us; therefore under the
shelter of that popular opinion, he ridiculeth all that is sound in
religion, even Christianity itself, under the names of Jacobite,
Tackers, High Church, and other terms of factious jargon. All which, if
it were to be first rased from his book (as just so much of nothing to
the purpose) how little would remain to give the trouble of an answer!
To which let me add, that the spirit or genius, which animates the
whole, is plainly perceived to be nothing else but the abortive malice
of an old neglected man,[8] who hath long lain under the extremes of
obloquy, poverty and contempt; that have soured his temper, and made him
fearless. But where is the merit of being bold, to a man that is secure
of impunity to his person, and is past apprehension of anything else? He
that hath neither reputation nor bread hath very little to lose, and
hath therefore as little to fear. And, as it is usually said, "Whoever
values not his own life, is master of another man's;" so there is
something like it in reputation: He that is wholly lost to all regards
of truth or modesty, may scatter so much calumny and scandal, that some
part may perhaps be taken up before it fall to the ground; because the
ill talent of the world is such, that those who will be at pains enough
to inform themselves in a malicious story, will take none at all to be
undeceived, nay, will be apt with some reluctance to admit a favourable
truth.

[Footnote 8: Tindal was not an old man at the time Swift wrote,
certainly not older than was Swift himself. [T. S.]]

To expostulate, therefore, with this author for doing mischief to
religion, is to strew his bed with roses; he will reply in triumph, that
this was his design; and I am loth to mortify him, by asserting he hath
done none at all. For I never yet saw so poor an atheistical scribble,
which would not serve as a twig for sinking libertines to catch at. It
must be allowed in their behalf, that the faith of Christians is not as
a grain of mustard seed in comparison of theirs, which can remove such
mountains of absurdities, and submit with so entire a resignation to
such apostles. If these men had any share of that reason they pretend
to, they would retire into Christianity, merely to give it ease. And
therefore men can never be confirmed in such doctrines, until they are
confirmed in their vices; which last, as we have already observed, is
the principal design of this and all other writers against revealed
religion.

I am now opening the book which I propose to examine. An employment, as
it is entirely new to me, so it is that to which, of all others, I have
naturally the greatest antipathy. And, indeed, who can dwell upon a
tedious piece of insipid thinking, and false reasoning, so long as I am
likely to do, without sharing the infection?

But, before I plunge into the depths of the book itself, I must be
forced to wade through the shallows of a long preface.

This preface, large as we see it, is only made up of such supernumerary
arguments against an independent power in the church, as he could not,
without nauseous repetition, scatter into the body of his book: And it
is detached, like a forlorn hope, to blunt the enemy's sword that
intendeth to attack him. Now, I think, it will be easy to prove, that
the opinion of _imperium in imperio_, in the sense he chargeth it upon
the clergy of England, is what no one divine of any reputation, and very
few at all, did ever maintain; and, that their universal sentiment in
this matter is such as few Protestants did ever dispute. But, if the
author of the "Regale," or two or three more obscure writers, have
carried any points further than Scripture and reason will allow, (which
is more than I know, or shall trouble myself to enquire) the clergy of
England is no more answerable for those, than the laity is for all the
folly and impertinence of this treatise. And, therefore, that people may
not be amused, or think this man is somewhat, that he hath advanced or
defended any oppressed truths, or overthrown any growing dangerous
errors, I will set in as clear a light as I can, what I conceive to be
held by the established clergy and all reasonable Protestants in this
matter.

Everybody knows and allows, that in all government there is an absolute,
unlimited, legislative power, which is originally in the body of the
people, although, by custom, conquest, usurpation, or other accidents,
sometimes fallen into the hands of one or a few. This in England is
placed in the three estates (otherwise called the two Houses of
Parliament) in conjunction with the King. And whatever they please to
enact or to repeal in the settled forms, whether it be ecclesiastical or
civil, immediately becometh law or nullity. Their decrees may be against
equity, truth, reason and religion, but they are not against law;
because law is the will of the supreme legislature, and that is,
themselves. And there is no manner of doubt, but the same authority,
whenever it pleaseth, may abolish Christianity, and set up the Jewish,
Mahometan, or heathen religion. In short, they may do anything within
the compass of human power. And, therefore, who will dispute that the
same law, which deprived the church not only of lands, misapplied to
superstitious uses, but even the tithes and glebes, (the ancient and
necessary support of parish priests) may take away all the rest,
whenever the lawgivers please, and make the priesthood as primitive, as
this writer, or others of his stamp, can desire.

But as the supreme power can certainly do ten thousand things more than
it ought, so there are several things which some people may think it can
do, although it really cannot. For, it unfortunately happens, that
edicts which cannot be executed, will not alter the nature of things.
So, if a king and parliament should please to enact, that a woman who
hath been a month married, is _virgo intacta_, would that actually
restore her to her primitive state? If the supreme power should resolve
a corporal of dragoons to be a doctor of divinity, law or physic, few, I
believe, would trust their souls, fortunes, or bodies to his direction;
because that power is neither fit to judge or teach those qualifications
which are absolutely necessary to the several professions. Put the case
that walking on the slack rope were the only talent required by act of
parliament for making a man a bishop; no doubt, when a man had done his
feat of activity in form, he might sit in the House of Lords, put on his
robes and his rochet, go down to his palace, receive and spend his
rents; but it requireth very little Christianity to believe this tumbler
to be one whit more a bishop than he was before; because the law of God
hath otherwise decreed; which law, although a nation may refuse to
receive it, cannot alter in its own nature.

And here lies the mistake of this superficial man, who is not able to
distinguish between what the civil power can hinder, and what it can do.
"If the parliament can annul ecclesiastical laws, they must be able to
make them, since no greater power is required for one than the other."
See pref., p. viii. This consequence he repeateth above twenty times,
and always in the wrong. He affecteth to form a few words into the shape
and size of a maxim, then trieth it by his ear, and, according as he
likes the sound or cadence, pronounceth it true. Cannot I stand over a
man with a great pole, and hinder him from making a watch, although I am
not able to make one myself. If I have strength enough to knock a man on
the head, doth it follow I can raise him to life again? The parliament
may condemn all the Greek and Roman authors; can it therefore create new
ones in their stead? They may make laws, indeed, and call them canon and
ecclesiastical laws, and oblige all men to observe them under pain of
high treason. And so may I, who love as well as any man to have in my
own family the power in the last resort, take a turnip, then tie a
string to it, and call it a watch, and turn away all my servants, if
they refuse to call it so too.

For my own part, I must confess that this opinion of the independent
power of the Church, or _imperium in imperio_, wherewith this writer
raiseth such a dust, is what I never imagined to be of any consequence,
never once heard disputed among divines, nor remember to have read,
otherwise than as a scheme in one or two authors of middle rank, but
with very little weight laid on it. And I dare believe, there is hardly
one divine in ten that ever once thought of this matter. Yet to see a
large swelling volume written only to encounter this doctrine, what
could one think less than that the whole body of the clergy were
perpetually tiring the press and the pulpit with nothing else?

I remember some years ago, a virtuoso writ a small tract about worms,
proved them to be in more places than was generally observed, and made
some discoveries by glasses. This having met with some reception,
presently the poor man's head was full of nothing but worms; all we eat
and drink, all the whole consistence of human bodies, and those of every
other animal, the very air we breathe, in short, all nature throughout
was nothing but worms: And, by that system, he solved all difficulties,
and from thence all causes in philosophy. Thus it hath fared with our
author, and his independent power. The attack against occasional
conformity, the scarcity of coffee, the invasion of Scotland, the loss
of kerseys and narrow cloths, the death of King William, the author's
turning Papist for preferment, the loss of the battle of Almanza, with
ten thousand other misfortunes, are all owing to this _imperium in
imperio_.

It will be therefore necessary to set this matter in a clear light, by
enquiring whether the clergy have any power independent of the civil,
and of what nature it is.

Whenever the Christian religion was embraced by the civil power in any
nation, there is no doubt but the magistrates and senates were fully
instructed in the rudiments of it. Besides, the Christians were so
numerous, and their worship so open before the conversion of princes,
that their discipline, as well as doctrine, could not be a secret: They
saw plainly a subordination of ecclesiastics, bishops, priests, and
deacons: That these had certain powers and employments different from
the laity: That the bishops were consecrated, and set apart for that
office by those of their own order: That the presbyters and deacons were
differently set apart, always by the bishops: That none but the
ecclesiastics presumed to pray or preach in places set apart for God's
worship, or to administer the Lord's Supper: That all questions relating
either to discipline or doctrine, were determined in ecclesiastical
conventions. These and the like doctrines and practices, being most of
them directly proved, and the rest by very fair consequences deduced
from the words of our Saviour and His apostles, were certainly received
as a divine law by every prince or state which admitted the Christian
religion: and, consequently, what they could not justly alter
afterwards, any more than the common laws of nature. And, therefore,
although the supreme power can hinder the clergy or Church from making
any new canons, or executing the old; from consecrating bishops, or
refuse those that they do consecrate; or, in short, from performing any
ecclesiastical office, as they may from eating, drinking, and sleeping;
yet they cannot themselves perform those offices, which are assigned to
the clergy by our Saviour and His apostles; or, if they do, it is not
according to the divine institution, and, consequently, null and void.
Our Saviour telleth us, "His kingdom is not of this world;" and
therefore, to be sure, the world is not of His kingdom, nor can ever
please Him by interfering in the administration of it, since He hath
appointed ministers of His own, and hath empowered and instructed them
for that purpose: So that, I believe, the clergy, who, as he sayeth, are
good at distinguishing, would think it reasonable to distinguish between
their power, and the liberty of exercising this power. The former they
claim immediately from Christ, and the latter from the permission,
connivance, or authority of the civil government; with which the
clergy's power, according to the solution I have given, cannot possibly
interfere.

But this writer, setting up to form a system upon stale, scanty topics,
and a narrow circle of thought, falleth into a thousand absurdities. And
for a further help, he hath a talent of rattling out phrases, which seem
to have sense, but have none at all: the usual fate of those who are
ignorant of the force and compass of words, without which it is
impossible for a man to write either pertinently or intelligibly upon
the most obvious subjects.

So, in the beginning of his preface, page iv, he says, "The Church of
England being established by acts of parliament, is a perfect creature
of the civil power; I mean the polity and discipline of it, and it is
that which maketh all the contention; for as to the doctrines expressed
in the articles, I do not find high church to be in any manner of pain;
but they who lay claim to most orthodoxy can distinguish themselves out
of them." It is observable in this author, that his style is naturally
harsh and ungrateful to the ear, and his expressions mean and trivial;
but whenever he goeth about to polish a period, you may be certain of
some gross defect in propriety or meaning: So the lines just quoted seem
to run easily over the tongue: and, upon examination, they

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/12252