{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_12252/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_12252","id":"gutenberg_12252","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/12252","summary":null,"tags":["Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Church of England","Clergy","Politics","Religion"],"text":"BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY\n\nTHE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT\n\nVOL. III\n\n\n[Illustration: _Jonathan Swift,\n\nfrom a picture by Frances Bindon\n\nIn the possession of Sir F R Falkiner_]\n\n\nTHE PROSE WORKS\n\nOF\n\nJONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.\n\nEDITED BY\n\nTEMPLE SCOTT\n\nWITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION BY\n\nTHE RT. HON. W. E. H. LECKY, M.P.\n\nVOL III\n\n1898\n\n\nSWIFT'S\n\nWRITINGS ON RELIGION AND THE CHURCH\n\nVOL. I\n\nEDITED BY\n\nTEMPLE SCOTT\n\n1898\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe inquiry into the religious thought of the eighteenth century forms\none of the most interesting subjects for speculation in the history of\nthe intellectual development of western nations. It is true, that in\nthat history Swift takes no special or distinguished part; but he forms\na figure of peculiar interest in a special circle of his own. Swift had\nno natural bent for the ministry of a church; his instincts, his\ntemperament, his intellect, were of that order which fitted him for\nleadership and administration. He was a born magistrate and commander of\nmen. It is, therefore, one of the finest compliments we can pay Swift to\nsay, that no more faithful, no more devoted, no stauncher servant has\nthat Church possessed; for we must remember the proud and haughty temper\nwhich attempted to content itself with the humdrum duties of a parish\nlife. Swift entered the service of that Church at a time when its need\nfor such a man was great; and in spite of its disdain of his worth, in\nspite of its failure to recognize and acknowledge his transcendent\nqualities, he never forgot his oath, and never shook in his allegiance.\nTo any one, however, who reads carefully his sermons, his \"Thoughts on\nReligion,\" and his \"Letter to a Young Clergyman,\" there comes a\nquestion--whether, for his innermost conscience, Swift found a\nsatisfying conviction in the doctrines of Christianity. \"I am not\nanswerable to God,\" he says, \"for the doubts that arise in my own\nbreast, since they are the consequence of that reason which he hath\nplanted in me, if I take care to conceal those doubts from others, if I\nuse my best endeavours to subdue them, and if they have no influence on\nthe conduct of my life.\" We search in vain, in any of his writings, for\nany definite expression of doubt or want of faith in these doctrines.\nWhen he touches on them, as he does in the sermon \"On the Trinity,\" he\nseems to avoid of set purpose, rational inquiry, and contents himself\nwith insisting on the necessity for a belief in those mysteries\nconcerning God about which we cannot hope to know anything. \"I do not\nfind,\" he says, in his \"Letter to a Young Clergyman,\" \"that you are\nanywhere directed in the canons or articles to attempt explaining the\nmysteries of the Christian religion; and, indeed, since Providence\nintended there should be mysteries, I don't see how it can be agreeable\nto piety, orthodoxy, or good sense to go about such a work. For to me\nthere seems a manifest dilemma in the case; if you explain them, they\nare mysteries no longer; if you fail, you have laboured to no purpose.\"\n\nIt must at once be admitted that Swift had not the metaphysical bent;\nphilosophy--in our modern sense of the word--was to him only a species\nof word spinning. That only was valuable which had a practical bearing\non life--and Christianity had that. He found in Christianity, as he knew\nit--in the Church of England, that is to say--an excellent organization,\nwhich recognized the frailties of human nature, aimed at making\nhealthier men's souls, and gave mankind a reasonable guidance in the\nselection of the best motives to action. He himself, as a preacher, made\nit his principal business, \"first to tell the people what is their duty,\nand then to convince them that it is so.\" He had a profound faith in\nexisting institutions, which to him were founded on the fundamental\ntraits of humanity. The Church of England he considered to be such an\ninstitution; and it was, moreover, regulated and settled by order of the\nState. To follow its teachings would lead men to become good citizens,\nhonest dealers, truthful and cleanly companions, upright friends. What\nmore could be demanded of any religion?\n\nThe Romish Church led away from the Constitution as by law established.\nDissent set up private authority, which could no more be permitted in\nreligious than it was in political matters; it meant dissension,\nrevolution, and the upheaval of tried and trusted associations.\nTherefore, the Church of Rome and the teachings of Dissent were alike\ndangerous; and against both, whenever they attempted the possession of\npolitical power, he waged a fierce and uncompromising war. \"Where sects\nare tolerated in a State,\" he says, in his \"Sentiments of a Church of\nEngland Man,\" \"it is fit they should enjoy a full liberty of conscience,\nand every other privilege of free-born subjects, to which no power is\nannexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all emergencies, a\ngovernment cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them with too\nlittle power.\"\n\nSwift had no passionate love for ideals--indeed, he may have thought\nideals to be figments of an overheated and, therefore, aberrated\nimagination. The practically real was the best ideal; and by the real he\nwould understand that power which most capably and most regulatively\nnursed, guided, and assisted the best instincts of the average man. The\naverage man was but a sorry creature, and required adventitious aids for\nhis development. Gifted as he was with a large sympathy, Swift yet was\nseemingly incapable of appreciating those thought-forms which help us to\nvisualize mentally our religious aspirations and emotions. A mere\nemotion was but subject-matter for his satire. He suspected any zeal\nwhich protested too much for truth, and considered it \"odds on\" it being\n\"either petulancy, ambition, or pride.\"\n\nWhatever may have been his private speculations as to the truth of the\ndoctrines of Christianity they never interfered with his sense of his\nresponsibilities as a clergyman. \"I look upon myself,\" he says, \"in the\ncapacity of a clergyman, to be one appointed by Providence for defending\na post assigned me, and for gaining over as many enemies as I can.\nAlthough I think my cause is just, yet one great motive is my submitting\nto the pleasure of Providence, and to the laws of my country.\" If anyone\nhad asked him, what was the pleasure of Providence, he would probably\nhave answered, that it was plainly shown in the Scriptures, and required\nnot the aid of the expositions of divines who were \"too curious, or too\nnarrow, in reducing orthodoxy within the compass of subtleties,\nniceties, and distinctions.\" Truth was no abstraction--that was truth\nwhich found its expression in the best action; and this explains Swift's\nacceptance of any organization which made for such expression. He found\none ready in the Church of England; and whatever his doubts were, those\nonly moved him which were aroused by action from those who attempted to\ninterfere with the working of that organization. And this also helps to\nexplain his political attitude at the time when it was thought he had\ndeserted his friends. The Church was always his first consideration. He\nwas not a Churchman because he was a politician, but a politician\nbecause he was a Churchman. These, however, are matters which are more\nfully entered into by Swift himself in the tracts herewith reprinted,\nand in the notes prefixed to them by the editor.\n\nIt was originally intended that Swift's writings on Religion and the\nChurch should occupy a single volume of this edition of his works. They\nare, however, so numerous that it has been found more convenient to\ndivide them into two volumes--the first including all the tracts, except\nthose relating to the Sacramental Test; the second containing the Test\npamphlets and the twelve sermons, with the Remarks on Dr. Gibbs's\nparaphrase of the Psalms, in an appendix. It is hoped that this\ndivision, while it entails upon the student the necessity for a double\nreference, will yet preserve the continuity of form enabling him to view\nSwift's religious standpoint and work with as much advantage as he would\nhave obtained by the original plan.\n\nThe editor again takes the opportunity to thank Colonel F. Grant for the\nservice he has rendered him in placing at his disposal his fine\ncollection of Swift's tracts. The portrait which forms the frontispiece\nto this volume is one of those painted by Francis Bindon, and was\nformerly in the possession of Judge Berwick. For permission to\nphotograph and reproduce it here, thanks are due to Sir Frederick R.\nFalkiner, Recorder of Dublin.\n\nTEMPLE SCOTT.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS:\n\nARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY\n\nPROJECT FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION\n\nSENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN\n\nREMARKS UPON \"THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH\"\n\nPREFACE TO THE BISHOP OF SARUM'S \"INTRODUCTION\"\n\nABSTRACT OF COLLINS'S \"DISCOURSE OF FREETHINKING\"\n\nSOME THOUGHTS ON FREETHINKING\n\nLETTER TO A YOUNG CLERGYMAN\n\nARGUMENTS AGAINST ENLARGING THE POWER OF BISHOPS IN LETTING LEASES\n\nREASONS OFFERED TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN\n\nON THE BILL FOR THE CLERGY'S RESIDING ON THEIR LIVINGS\n\nCONSIDERATIONS UPON TWO BILLS RELATING TO THE CLERGY OF IRELAND\n\nREASONS AGAINST THE MODUS\n\nESSAY ON THE FATES OF CLERGYMEN\n\nCONCERNING THAT UNIVERSAL HATRED WHICH PREVAILS AGAINST THE CLERGY\n\nTHOUGHTS ON RELIGION\n\nFURTHER THOUGHTS ON RELIGION\n\nPRAYERS FOR MRS. JOHNSON\n\nAN EVENING PRAYER\n\nOBSERVATIONS ON HEYLIN'S \"HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANS\"\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nAN ARGUMENT\n\nTO PROVE THAT THE\n\nABOLISHING OF CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND\n\nMAY, AS THINGS NOW STAND, BE ATTENDED WITH SOME INCONVENIENCES, AND\nPERHAPS NOT PRODUCE THOSE MANY GOOD EFFECTS PROPOSED THEREBY.\n\nWRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nIn November, 1707, Swift left Dublin in the train of the then Lord\nLieutenant, Lord Pembroke. His travelling companion was Sir Andrew\nFountaine, who, on landing in England, set out with Lord Pembroke for\nWilton, while Swift went on to Leicester to visit his mother. He stayed\nwith her until some time in December, but, by the middle of the same\nmonth, he was in London. During this absence from Ireland Swift\ncorresponded somewhat freely with Archbishop King of Dublin, and with\nArchdeacon Walls--the letters to the former were first printed in\nForster's \"Life of Swift.\" For these Forster was indebted to the Rev.\nMr. Reeves (vicar of Lusk, co. Dublin), who discovered them in the\nrecord-room of the see of Armagh (see \"Life,\" p. 205 et seq. and note).\nOne of Swift's intentions, while in the metropolis, was to push forward\nthe claim of the Irish clergy for the remission of the First Fruits and\nTenths, a grant which had already been conceded to the English clergy;\nand his letters to King often include requests for the necessary papers\nby means of which he could lay the matter before either Godolphin or\nSomers. Walls had written to Swift of the vacancy of the see of\nWaterford, and, from the reply to the archdeacon, we learn that even at\nso early a date Swift suffered a grievous disappointment; for in\nJanuary, 1708, the bishopric, of which Swift had hopes, was presented to\nDr. Thomas Milles. In his letter to Walls Swift confesses that he \"once\nhad a glimpse that things would have gone otherwise.... But let us\ntalk no further on this subject. I am stomach-sick of it already. ...\nPray send me an account of some smaller vacancy in the Government's\ngift.\" It was to Somers, and through him to Lord Halifax, that Swift\nlooked for recognition, either for services rendered, or because of\ntheir appreciation of his abilities. But, however much he may have been\ndisappointed at their inaction, it may not be argued, as it has been,\nthat Swift's so-called change in his political opinions was the outcome\neither of spleen or chagrin against the Whigs for their ingratitude\ntowards him. It is, indeed, questionable whether Swift ever changed his\npolitical opinions, speaking of these as party opinions. From the day of\nhis entrance, it may be said, into the orders of the Church, his first\nthought was for it; and on all political questions which touched Church\nmatters Swift was neither Whig nor Tory, but churchman. It was because\nof the attitude of the Whigs towards the Church that Swift left them;\nand in his writings he does not spare the Tories even when he finds them\ntaking up similar attitudes. On purely political questions Swift was too\nindependent a thinker to be influenced by mere party views. That he\nwrote for the Tories must be put down to Harley's personal influence,\nand to his foresight which saw in Swift a man who must be treated as an\nequal with the highest in the land. Swift's intercourse with the leading\nmen of his day only served to accentuate his consciousness of his\nsuperiority; and a party which would permit him the free play of his\npowers would be the party to which Swift would give his adhesion.\nGodolphin, Somers, and Walpole either did not recognize the genius of\nthe man, or their own \"points of view\" did not permit them to give him\nthe free play they felt he would obtain. Be that as it may, Harley\ngained not only a splendid party fighter, but a friend on whose\naffection he could ever rely.\n\nIn these tracts on Religion and the Church, which he wrote in the year\n1708, Swift is not a party man, speaking for party purposes. He\nbelieved, and sincerely believed, that for such beings as were the men\nand women of this kingdom, the Church was, if not the highest and\nnoblest instrument for good, yet the worthiest and ablest they had.\nSwift never lost himself in theories. He was, however, not blind to the\ndangers which an established religion might engender; but whatever its\ndangers, these would be inevitable to the most perfect system so long as\nhuman nature was as base as it was. The \"Argument\" is written in a vein\nof satirical banter; but the Swiftian cynicism permeates every line. It\nis the first of four tracts which form Swift's most important expression\nof his thoughts on Religion and the Church. Scott well describes it as\n\"one of the most felicitous efforts in our language, to engage wit and\nhumour on the side of religion,\" and Forster speaks of it as \"having\nalso that indefinable subtlety of style which conveys not the writer's\nknowledge of the subject only, but his power and superiority over it.\"\n\nI have not been able to find a copy of the original edition of the\n\"Argument\" upon which to base the present text--for that I have gone to\nthe first edition of the \"Miscellanies,\" published in 1711; but I have\ncollated this with those given by the \"Miscellanies\" (1728), Faulkner,\nHawkesworth, Scott, Morley, and Craik.\n\n[T. S.]\n\n\nAN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nI am very sensible what a weakness and presumption it is, to reason\nagainst the general humour and disposition of the world. I remember it\nwas with great justice, and a due regard to the freedom both of the\npublic and the press, forbidden upon several penalties to write,[1] or\ndiscourse, or lay wagers against the Union, even before it was confirmed\nby parliament, because that was looked upon as a design, to oppose the\ncurrent of the people, which, besides the folly of it, is a manifest\nbreach of the fundamental law that makes this majority of opinion the\nvoice of God. In like manner, and for the very same reasons, it may\nperhaps be neither safe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of\nChristianity, at a juncture when all parties appear[2] so unanimously\ndetermined upon the point, as we cannot but allow from their actions,\ntheir discourses, and their writings. However, I know not how, whether\nfrom the affectation of singularity, or the perverseness of human\nnature, but so it unhappily falls out, that I cannot be entirely of this\nopinion. Nay, though I were sure an order were issued for my immediate\nprosecution by the Attorney-General, I should still confess that in the\npresent posture of our affairs at home or abroad, I do not yet see the\nabsolute necessity of extirpating the Christian religion from among us.\n\n[Footnote 1: This refers to the Jacobitism of the time, particularly\namong those who were opposed to the Union. A reference to Lord Mahon's\n\"Reign of Queen Anne\" will show how strong was the opposition in\nScotland, and how severe were the measures taken to put down that\nopposition. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 2: Craik and Hawkesworth print the word \"seem,\" but the\n\"Miscellanies,\" Faulkner, and Scott give it as in the text. [T.S.]]\n\nThis perhaps may appear too great a paradox even for our wise and\nparadoxical age to endure; therefore I shall handle it with all\ntenderness, and with the utmost deference to that great and profound\nmajority which is of another sentiment.\n\nAnd yet the curious may please to observe, how much the genius of a\nnation is liable to alter in half an age. I have heard it affirmed for\ncertain by some very old people, that the contrary opinion was even in\ntheir memories as much in vogue as the other is now; and, that a project\nfor the abolishing of Christianity would then have appeared as singular,\nand been thought as absurd, as it would be at this time to write or\ndiscourse in its defence.\n\nTherefore I freely own that all appearances are against me. The system\nof the Gospel, after the fate of other systems is generally antiquated\nand exploded, and the mass or body of the common people, among whom it\nseems to have had its latest credit, are now grown as much ashamed of it\nas their betters; opinions, like fashions, always descending from those\nof quality to the middle sort, and thence to the vulgar, where at length\nthey are dropped and vanish.\n\nBut here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be so bold as to\nborrow a distinction from the writers on the other side, when they make\na difference between nominal and real Trinitarians. I hope no reader\nimagines me so weak to stand up in the defence of real Christianity,\nsuch as used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those\nages) to have an influence upon men's belief and actions: To offer at\nthe restoring of that would indeed be a wild project; it would be to dig\nup foundations; to destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the\nlearning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of\nthings; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences with the professors\nof them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into\ndeserts; and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace,[3] where\nhe advises the Romans all in a body to leave their city, and seek a new\nseat in some remote part of the world, by way of cure for the corruption\nof their manners.\n\n[Footnote 3: This proposal is embodied in the 16th Epode, where, in an\nappeal \"to the Roman people,\" Horace advises them to fly the evils of\ntyranny and civil war by sailing away to \"the happy land, those islands\nof the blest:\"\n\n  \"Nos manet Oceanus circumvagus! arva, beata\n  Petamus arva, divites et insulas!\"\n[T.S.]]\n\nTherefore I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary,\n(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of cavilling)\nsince every candid reader will easily understand my discourse to be\nintended only in defence of nominal Christianity; the other having been\nfor some time wholly laid aside by general consent, as utterly\ninconsistent with our present schemes of wealth and power.\n\nBut why we should therefore cast off the name and title of Christians,\nalthough the general opinion and resolution be so violent for it, I\nconfess I cannot (with submission) apprehend the consequence\nnecessary.[4] However, since the undertakers propose such wonderful\nadvantages to the nation by this project, and advance many plausible\nobjections against the system of Christianity, I shall briefly consider\nthe strength of both, fairly allow them their greatest weight, and offer\nsuch answers as I think most reasonable. After which I will beg leave to\nshew what inconveniences may possibly happen by such an innovation, in\nthe present posture of our affairs.\n\n[Footnote 4: I give the reading of the \"Miscellanies\" (1711), Faulkner\nand Hawkesworth. Scott and Craik print it: \"I confess I cannot (with\nsubmission) apprehend, nor is the consequence necessary.\" [T.S.]]\n\n_First,_ One great advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity\nis, that it would very much enlarge and establish liberty of conscience,\nthat great bulwark of our nation, and of the Protestant Religion, which\nis still too much limited by priestcraft, notwithstanding all the good\nintentions of the legislature, as we have lately found by a severe\ninstance. For it is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of\nreal hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who upon a thorough\nexamination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of natural\nabilities, without the least tincture of learning, having made a\ndiscovery, that there was no God, and generously communicating their\nthoughts for the good of the public, were some time ago, by an\nunparalleled severity, and upon I know not what obsolete law, broke for\nblasphemy.[5] And as it hath been wisely observed, if persecution once\nbegins, no man alive knows how far it may reach, or where it will end.\n\n[Footnote 5: No record of this \"breaking\" has been discovered. [T.S.]]\n\nIn answer to all which, with deference to wiser judgments, I think this\nrather shews the necessity of a nominal religion among us. Great wits\nlove to be free with the highest objects; and if they cannot be allowed\na God to revile or renounce, they will speak evil of dignities, abuse\nthe government, and reflect upon the ministry; which I am sure few will\ndeny to be of much more pernicious consequence, according to the saying\nof Tiberius, _Deorum offensa diis curae._[6] As to the particular fact\nrelated, I think it is not fair to argue from one instance, perhaps\nanother cannot be produced; yet (to the comfort of all those who may be\napprehensive of persecution) blasphemy we know is freely spoken a\nmillion of times in every coffeehouse and tavern, or wherever else good\ncompany meet. It must be allowed indeed, that to break an English\nfree-born officer only for blasphemy, was, to speak the gentlest of such\nan action, a very high strain of absolute power. Little can be said in\nexcuse for the general; perhaps he was afraid it might give offence to\nthe allies, among whom, for aught we know, it may be the custom of the\ncountry to believe a God. But if he argued, as some have done, upon a\nmistaken principle, that an officer who is guilty of speaking blasphemy,\nmay some time or other proceed so far as to raise a mutiny, the\nconsequence is by no means to be admitted; for, surely the commander of\nan English army is likely to be but ill obeyed, whose soldiers fear and\nreverence him as little as they do a Deity.\n\n[Footnote 6: Tacitus, \"Annals,\" bk. i., c. lxxiii. [T.S.]]\n\nIt is further objected against the Gospel System, that it obliges men to\nthe belief of things too difficult for free-thinkers, and such who have\nshaken off the prejudices that usually cling to a confined education. To\nwhich I answer, that men should be cautious how they raise objections\nwhich reflect upon the wisdom of the nation. Is not every body freely\nallowed to believe whatever he pleases, and to publish his belief to the\nworld whenever he thinks fit, especially if it serves to strengthen the\nparty which is in the right? Would any indifferent foreigner, who should\nread the trumpery lately written by Asgil, Tindal, Toland, Coward,[7]\nand forty more, imagine the Gospel to be our rule of faith, and\nconfirmed by parliaments? Does any man either believe, or say he\nbelieves, or desire to have it thought that he says he believes one\nsyllable of the matter? And is any man worse received upon that score,\nor does he find his want of nominal faith a disadvantage to him in the\npursuit of any civil or military employment? What if there be an old\ndormant statute or two against him, are they not now obsolete, to a\ndegree, that Empsom and Dudley[8] themselves if they were now alive,\nwould find it impossible to put them in execution?\n\n[Footnote 7: John Asgill (1659-1738), became a member of Lincoln's Inn,\nand went over to Ireland in 1697, where he practised as a barrister,\namassed a large fortune, and was elected to the Irish parliament. For\nwriting \"An Argument, proving that Man may be translated from hence\nwithout passing through Death,\" he was, in 1700, expelled the House, and\nthe book ordered to be burnt. On returning to England he was elected to\nparliament for Bramber, but suffered a second expulsion in 1712, also on\naccount of this book. He was imprisoned for debt, and remained under the\nrules of the Fleet and King's Bench for thirty years, during which time\nhe wrote and published various political tracts. His \"Argument\"\nattempted to \"interpret the relations between God and man by the\ntechnical rules of English law,\" and Coleridge thought no little of its\npower and style.\n\nMatthew Tindal (1657-1733) was born at Beer Ferrers, in Devonshire. He\nstudied at Oxford, and obtained a fellowship in All Souls. He was made\nLL.D. in 1685, and, although he professed himself a Roman Catholic in\nJames II.'s reign, he managed to keep his fellowship after that\nmonarch's flight by becoming Protestant again. His most important work\nwas \"The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted,\" which the House of\nCommons in 1710 adjudged fit for burning by the hangman. In 1730 he\npublished anonymously, the first part of \"Christianity as Old as\nCreation,\" a work which attacked strongly the authority of the\nScriptures; a second volume was never published.\n\nJohn Toland (1669-1722), born near Londonderry, and educated in a\nCatholic school. He professed himself a Protestant, and was sent to\nGlasgow and Edinburgh. In the latter university he graduated in his\nmaster's degree. While studying at Leyden he became a sceptic, and in\n1695 published his \"Christianity not Mysterious,\" a work which aroused a\nwide controversy. In his \"Life of Milton\" (1698) he denied that King\nCharles was the author of \"Eikon Basilikae,\" and also attacked the\nGospels. This also brought upon him rejoinders from Dr. Blackall and Dr.\nSamuel Clarke. He died at Putney, in easy circumstances, due to the\npresents made him while visiting German courts. He wrote other works,\nchief among which may be mentioned, \"Socinianism truly Stated\" (1705),\n\"Nazarenas\" (1718), and \"Tetradymus.\" His \"Posthumous Works\" were issued\nin two volumes in 1726, with a life by Des Maizeaux. Craik calls him \"a\nman of utterly worthless character,\" and refers to his being \"mixed up\nin some discreditable episodes as a political spy.\"\n\nWilliam Coward (1656?--1724?) was born at Winchester. He studied\nmedicine and became a fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. His \"Second\nThoughts concerning Human Souls,\" published in 1702, occasioned fierce\ndisputes, on account of its materialism. The House of Commons ordered\nthe work to be burnt by the hangman.\n\nAsgill, Toland, Tindal, Collins, and Coward are classed as the Deistical\nwriters of the eighteenth century. In his \"History of English Thought in\nthe Eighteenth Century\" Mr. Leslie Stephen gives an admirable exposition\nof their views, and their special interpretation of Locke's theories.\n[T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 8: Of Henry VII. notoriety, who aided the king, by illegal\nexactions, to amass his large fortune. They were executed by Henry VIII.\n[T.S.]]\n\nIt is likewise urged, that there are, by computation, in this kingdom,\nabove ten thousand parsons, whose revenues added to those of my lords\nthe bishops, would suffice to maintain at least two hundred young\ngentlemen of wit and pleasure, and freethinking, enemies to priestcraft,\nnarrow principles, pedantry, and prejudices; who might be an ornament to\nthe Court and Town: And then, again, so great a number of able [bodied]\ndivines might be a recruit to our fleet and armies. This indeed appears\nto be a consideration of some weight: But then, on the other side,\nseveral things deserve to be considered likewise: As, first, whether it\nmay not be thought necessary that in certain tracts of country, like\nwhat we call parishes, there shall be one man at least of abilities to\nread and write. Then it seems a wrong computation, that the revenues of\nthe Church throughout this island would be large enough to maintain two\nhundred young gentlemen, or even half that number, after the present\nrefined way of living; that is, to allow each of them such a rent, as in\nthe modern form of speech, would make them easy. But still there is in\nthis project a greater mischief behind; and we ought to beware of the\nwoman's folly, who killed the hen that every morning laid her a golden\negg. For, pray what would become of the race of men in the next age, if\nwe had nothing to trust to beside the scrofulous, consumptive\nproductions, furnished by our men of wit and pleasure, when, having\nsquandered away their vigour, health and estates, they are forced by\nsome disagreeable marriage to piece up their broken fortunes, and entail\nrottenness and politeness on their posterity? Now, here are ten thousand\npersons reduced by the wise regulations of Henry the Eighth,[9] to the\nnecessity of a low diet, and moderate exercise, who are the only great\nrestorers of our breed, without which the nation would in an age or two\nbecome one great hospital.\n\n[Footnote 9: His seizures of the revenues of the Church. [T.S.]]\n\nAnother advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity, is the\nclear gain of one day in seven, which is now entirely lost, and\nconsequently the kingdom one seventh less considerable in trade,\nbusiness, and pleasure, besides the loss to the public of so many\nstately structures now in the hands of the Clergy, which might be\nconverted into playhouses, exchanges, market houses, common dormitories,\nand other public edifices.\n\nI hope I shall be forgiven a hard word, if I call this a perfect\n_cavil._ I readily own there has been an old custom time out of mind,\nfor people to assemble in the churches every Sunday, and that shops are\nstill frequently shut, in order as it is conceived, to preserve the\nmemory of that ancient practice, but how this can prove a hindrance to\nbusiness or pleasure, is hard to imagine. What if the men of pleasure\nare forced one day in the week, to game at home instead of the chocolate\nhouses?[10] Are not the taverns and coffeehouses open? Can there be a\nmore convenient season for taking a dose of physic? Are fewer claps got\nupon Sundays than other days? Is not that the chief day for traders to\nsum up the accounts of the week, and for lawyers to prepare their\nbriefs? But I would fain know how it can be pretended that the churches\nare misapplied? Where are more appointments and rendezvouzes of\ngallantry? Where more care to appear in the foremost box with greater\nadvantage of dress? Where more meetings for business? Where more\nbargains driven of all sorts? And where so many conveniences or\nenticements to sleep?\n\n[Footnote 10: The chocolate houses seem to have been largely used for\ngambling purposes. They were not so numerous as the coffee houses.\n[T.S.]]\n\nThere is one advantage greater than any of the foregoing, proposed by\nthe abolishing of Christianity: that it will utterly extinguish parties\namong us, by removing those factious distinctions of High and Low\nChurch, of Whig and Tory, Presbyterian and Church of England, which are\nnow so many mutual clogs upon public proceedings, and are apt to prefer\nthe gratifying themselves, or depressing their adversaries, before the\nmost important interest of the state.\n\nI confess, if it were certain that so great an advantage would redound\nto the nation by this expedient, I would submit and be silent: But will\nany man say, that if the words _whoring, drinking, cheating, lying,\nstealing_, were by act of parliament ejected out of the English tongue\nand dictionaries, we should all awake next morning chaste and temperate,\nhonest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence? Or, if\nthe physicians would forbid us to pronounce the words _pox, gout,\nrheumatism_ and _stone_, would that expedient serve like so many\ntalismans to destroy the diseases themselves? Are party and faction\nrooted in men's hearts no deeper than phrases borrowed from religion, or\nfounded upon no firmer principles? And is our language so poor that we\ncannot find other terms to express them? Are _envy, pride, avarice_ and\n_ambition_ such ill nomenclators, that they cannot furnish appellations\nfor their owners? Will not _heydukes_ and _mamalukes, mandarins_ and\n_patshaws_, or any other words formed at pleasure, serve to distinguish\nthose who are in the ministry from others who would be in it if they\ncould? What, for instance, is easier than to vary the form of speech,\nand instead of the word church, make it a question in politics, whether\nthe Monument be in danger? Because religion was nearest at hand to\nfurnish a few convenient phrases, is our invention so barren, we can\nfind no other? Suppose, for argument sake, that the Tories favoured\nMargarita, the Whigs Mrs. Tofts,[11] and the Trimmers[12] Valentini,[13]\nwould not _Margaritians, Toftians,_ and _Valentinians_ be very tolerable\nmarks of distinction? The _Prasini_ and _Veniti,_[14] two most virulent\nfactions in Italy, began (if I remember right) by a distinction of\ncolours in ribbons, which we might do with as good a grace[15] about the\ndignity of the blue and the green, and would serve as properly to divide\nthe Court, the Parliament, and the Kingdom between them, as any terms of\nart whatsoever, borrowed from religion. And therefore I think, there is\nlittle force in this objection against Christianity, or prospect of so\ngreat an advantage as is proposed in the abolishing of it.\n\n[Footnote 11: Margarita was a famous Italian singer of the day. Her name\nwas Francesca Margherita de l'Epine, and she was known as \"the Italian\nwoman.\" In his \"Journal to Stella\" for August 6th, 1711, Swift writes:\n\"We have a music meeting in our town [Windsor] to-night. I went to the\nrehearsal of it, and there was Margarita and her sister, and another\ndrab, and a parcel of fiddlers; I was weary, and would not go to the\nmeeting, which I am sorry for, because I heard it was a great assembly.\"\n(See present edition, vol. ii. p. 219).\n\nMrs. Catherine Tofts was an Englishwoman, who also sang in Italian\nopera. She had a fine figure and a beautiful voice. Steele in the\n\"Tatler,\" No. 20, refers to her when in her state of insanity. Her mind,\nevidently, could not stand the strain of her great popularity, and she\nbecame mad in 1709. In the \"Tatler\" she is called Camilla; and Cibber\nalso speaks of the \"silver tone of her voice.\" [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 12: By the Trimmers Swift referred to the nickname given to\nthe party in the time of Charles II., which consisted of those who\nwished to compromise between the advocates of the Crown and the\nsupporters of the Protestant succession as against the Duke of York.\n[T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 13: Another Italian singer of the time, who was the rival of\nMargarita and Mrs. Tofts. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 14: This refers to the Roman chariot races. They gave rise to\nthe factions called _Albati, Russati, Prasini,_ and _Veniti._ The\nPrasini (green) and Veniti (blue) were the principal, and their rivalry\nlanded the empire, under Justinian, in a civil war. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 15: Scott has \"and we might contend with as good a grace,\" &c.\nCraik follows Scott. The reading in the text is that of the\n\"Miscellanies\" (1711), Faulkner, and Hawkesworth. [T.S.]]\n\n'Tis again objected, as a very absurd ridiculous custom, that a set of\nmen should be suffered, much less employed and hired, to bawl one day in\nseven against the lawfulness of those methods most in use toward the\npursuit of greatness, riches and pleasure, which are the constant\npractice of all men alive on the other six. But this objection is, I\nthink, a little unworthy so refined an age as ours. Let us argue this\nmatter calmly: I appeal to the breast of any polite freethinker, whether\nin the pursuit of gratifying a predominant passion, he hath not always\nfelt a wonderful incitement, by reflecting it was a thing forbidden; and\ntherefore we see, in order to cultivate this taste, the wisdom of the\nnation hath taken special care, that the ladies should be furnished with\nprohibited silks, and the men with prohibited wine. And indeed it were\nto be wished, that some other prohibitions were promoted, in order to\nimprove the pleasures of the town; which, for want of such expedients\nbegin already, as I am told, to flag and grow languid, giving way daily\nto cruel inroads from the spleen.\n\n'Tis likewise proposed as a great advantage to the public, that if we\nonce discard the system of the Gospel, all religion will of course be\nbanished for ever; and consequently, along with it, those grievous\nprejudices of education, which under the names of _virtue, conscience,\nhonour, justice,_ and the like, are so apt to disturb the peace of human\nminds, and the notions whereof are so hard to be eradicated by right\nreason or freethinking, sometimes during the whole course of our lives.\n\nHere first, I observe how difficult it is to get rid of a phrase, which\nthe world is once grown fond of, though the occasion that first produced\nit, be entirely taken away. For several years past, if a man had but an\nill-favoured nose, the deep-thinkers of the age would some way or other\ncontrive to impute the cause to the prejudice of his education. From\nthis fountain were said to be derived all our foolish notions of\njustice, piety, love of our country, all our opinions of God, or a\nfuture state, Heaven, Hell, and the like: And there might formerly\nperhaps have been some pretence for this charge. But so effectual care\nhas been taken to remove those prejudices, by an entire change in the\nmethods of education, that (with honour I mention it to our polite\ninnovators) the young gentlemen who are now on the scene, seem to have\nnot the least tincture of those infusions, or string of those weeds;\nand, by consequence, the reason for abolishing nominal Christianity upon\nthat pretext, is wholly ceased.\n\nFor the rest, it may perhaps admit a controversy, whether the banishing\nof all notions of religion whatsoever, would be convenient for the\nvulgar. Not that I am in the least of opinion with those who hold\nreligion to have been the invention of politicians, to keep the lower\npart of the world in awe by the fear of invisible powers; unless mankind\nwere then very different to what it is now: For I look upon the mass or\nbody of our people here in England, to be as freethinkers, that is to\nsay, as staunch unbelievers, as any of the highest rank. But I conceive\nsome scattered notions about a superior power to be of singular use for\nthe common people, as furnishing excellent materials to keep children\nquiet when they grow peevish, and providing topics of amusement in a\ntedious winter-night.\n\nLastly, 'tis proposed as a singular advantage, that the abolishing of\nChristianity will very much contribute to the uniting of Protestants, by\nenlarging the terms of communion so as to take in all sorts of\ndissenters, who are now shut out of the pale upon account of a few\nceremonies which all sides confess to be things indifferent: That this\nalone will effectually answer the great ends of a scheme for\ncomprehension, by opening a large noble gate, at which all bodies may\nenter; whereas the chaffering with dissenters, and dodging about this or\nt'other ceremony, is but like opening a few wickets, and leaving them at\njar, by which no more than one can get in at a time, and that, not\nwithout stooping, and sideling, and squeezing his body.[16]\n\n[Footnote 16: \"In this passage,\" says Scott, \"the author's High Church\nprinciples, and jealousy of the Dissenters, plainly shew themselves; and\nit is, perhaps, in special reference to what is here said, that he ranks\nit among the pamphlets he wrote in opposition to the party then in\npower.\" [T. S.]]\n\nTo all this I answer: that there is one darling inclination of mankind,\nwhich usually affects to be a retainer to religion, though she be\nneither its parent, its godmother, or its friend; I mean the spirit of\nopposition, that lived long before Christianity, and can easily subsist\nwithout it. Let us, for instance, examine wherein the opposition of\nsectaries among us consists, we shall find Christianity to have no share\nin it at all Does the Gospel any where prescribe a starched, squeezed\ncountenance, a stiff, formal gait, a singularity of manners and habit,\nor any affected modes of speech different from the reasonable part of\nmankind? Yet, if Christianity did not lend its name to stand in the gap,\nand to employ or divert these humours, they must of necessity be spent\nin contraventions to the laws of the land, and disturbance of the public\npeace. There is a portion of enthusiasm assigned to every nation, which,\nif it hath not proper objects to work on, will burst out, and set all\ninto a flame. If the quiet of a state can be bought by only flinging men\na few ceremonies to devour, it is a purchase no wise man would refuse\nLet the mastiffs amuse themselves about a sheep's skin stuffed with hay,\nprovided it will keep them from worrying the flock The institution of\nconvents abroad, seems in one point a strain of great wisdom, there\nbeing few irregularities in human passions, which may not have recourse\nto vent themselves in some of those orders, which are so many retreats\nfor the speculative, the melancholy, the proud, the silent, the politic\nand the morose, to spend themselves, and evaporate the noxious\nparticles, for each of whom we in this island are forced to provide a\nseveral sect of religion, to keep them quiet And whenever Christianity\nshall be abolished, the legislature must find some other expedient to\nemploy and entertain them For what imports it how large a gate you open,\nif there will be always left a number who place a pride and a merit in\nnot coming in?[17]\n\n[Footnote 17: So the \"Miscellanies\" (1711) and Hawkesworth Faulkner,\nScott, and Craik print, \"in refusing to enter.\" [T. S.]]\n\nHaving thus considered the most important objections against\nChristianity, and the chief advantages proposed by the abolishing\nthereof, I shall now with equal deference and submission to wiser\njudgments as before, proceed to mention a few inconveniences that may\nhappen, if the Gospel should be repealed, which perhaps the projectors\nmay not have sufficiently considered.\n\nAnd first, I am very sensible how much the gentlemen of wit and pleasure\nare apt to murmur, and be choqued[18] at the sight of so many draggled\ntail parsons, that happen to fall in their way, and offend their eyes,\nbut at the same time, these wise reformers do not consider what an\nadvantage and felicity it is, for great wits to be always provided with\nobjects of scorn and contempt, in order to exercise and improve their\ntalents, and divert their spleen from falling on each other or on\nthemselves, especially when all this may be done without the least\nimaginable danger to their persons.\n\n[Footnote 18: Shocked Swift's habit when using a word of French origin\nwas to keep the French spelling. [T. S.]]\n\nAnd to urge another argument of a parallel nature. If Christianity were\nonce abolished, how could the freethinkers, the strong reasoners, and\nthe men of profound learning, be able to find another subject so\ncalculated in all points whereon to display their abilities? What\nwonderful productions of wit should we be deprived of, from those whose\ngenius by continual practice hath been wholly turned upon raillery and\ninvectives against religion, and would therefore never be able to shine\nor distinguish themselves upon any other subject! We are daily\ncomplaining of the great decline of wit among us, and would we take away\nthe greatest, perhaps the only topic we have left? Who would ever have\nsuspected Asgil for a wit, or Toland for a philosopher, if the\ninexhaustible stock of Christianity had not been at hand to provide them\nwith materials? What other subject, through all art or nature, could\nhave produced Tindal for a profound author, or furnished him with\nreaders? It is the wise choice of the subject that alone adorns and\ndistinguishes the writer. For, had a hundred such pens as these been\nemployed on the side of religion, they would have immediately sunk into\nsilence and oblivion.\n\nNor do I think it wholly groundless, or my fears altogether imaginary,\nthat the abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church into\ndanger, or at least put the senate to the trouble of another securing\nvote. I desire I may not be mistaken; I am far from presuming to affirm\nor think that the Church is in danger at present, or as things now\nstand; but we know not how soon it may be so when the Christian religion\nis repealed. As plausible as this project seems, there may a dangerous\ndesign lurk under it:[19] Nothing can be more notorious, than that the\nAtheists, Deists, Socinians, Anti-trinitarians, and other subdivisions\nof freethinkers, are persons of little zeal for the present\necclesiastical establishment: Their declared opinion is for repealing\nthe Sacramental Test; they are very indifferent with regard to\nceremonies; nor do they hold the _jus divinum_ of Episcopacy. Therefore\nthis may be intended as one politic step toward altering the\nconstitution of the Church established, and setting up Presbytery in the\nstead, which I leave to be further considered by those at the helm.\n\n[Footnote 19: Craik follows Scott in altering this sentence to \"there\nmay be a dangerous design lurking under it\"; but all other editors,\nexcept Morley and Roscoe, give it as printed in the text. [T.S.]]\n\nIn the last place, I think nothing can be more plain, than that by this\nexpedient, we shall run into the evil we chiefly pretend to avoid; and\nthat the abolishment of the Christian religion will be the readiest\ncourse we can take to introduce popery. And I am the more inclined to\nthis opinion, because we know it has been the constant practice of the\nJesuits to send over emissaries, with instructions to personate\nthemselves members of the several prevailing sects among us. So it is\nrecorded, that they have at sundry times appeared in the guise of\nPresbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents and Quakers, according as any\nof these were most in credit; so, since the fashion hath been taken up\nof exploding religion, the popish missionaries have not been wanting to\nmix with the freethinkers; among whom, Toland the great oracle of the\nAntichristians is an Irish priest, the son of an Irish priest; and the\nmost learned and ingenious author of a book called \"The Rights of the\nChristian Church,\"[20] was in a proper juncture reconciled to the Romish\nfaith, whose true son, as appears by a hundred passages in his treatise,\nhe still continues. Perhaps I could add some others to the number; but\nthe fact is beyond dispute, and the reasoning they proceed by is right:\nFor, supposing Christianity to be extinguished, the people will never be\nat ease till they find out some other method of worship; which will as\ninfallibly produce superstition, as this will end in popery.\n\n[Footnote 20: Dr. Matthew Tindal (see previous note, p. 9). The book was\nafterwards specially criticised by Swift in his \"Remarks upon a Book\nentitled 'The Rights of the Christian Church.'\" See also note to the\npresent reprint of these \"Remarks.\" [T.S.]]\n\nAnd therefore, if notwithstanding all I have said, it still be thought\nnecessary to have a bill brought in for repealing Christianity, I would\nhumbly offer an amendment; that instead of the word, Christianity, may\nbe put religion in general; which I conceive will much better answer all\nthe good ends proposed by the projectors of it. For, as long as we leave\nin being a God and his providence, with all the necessary consequences\nwhich curious and inquisitive men will be apt to draw from such\npremises, we do not strike at the root of the evil, though we should\never so effectually annihilate the present scheme of the Gospel: For, of\nwhat use is freedom of thought, if it will not produce freedom of\naction, which is the sole end, how remote soever in appearance, of all\nobjections against Christianity? And therefore, the freethinkers\nconsider it as a sort of edifice, wherein all the parts have such a\nmutual dependence on each other, that if you happen to pull out one\nsingle nail, the whole fabric must fall to the ground. This was happily\nexpressed by him who had heard of a text brought for proof of the\nTrinity, which in an ancient manuscript was differently read; he\nthereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long\n_sorites_, most logically concluded; \"Why, if it be as you say, I may\nsafely whore and drink on, and defy the parson.\" From which, and many\nthe like instances easy to be produced, I think nothing can be more\nmanifest, than that the quarrel is not against any particular points of\nhard digestion in the Christian system, but against religion in general;\nwhich, by laying restraints on human nature, is supposed the great enemy\nto the freedom of thought and action.\n\nUpon the whole, if it shall still be thought for the benefit of Church\nand State, that Christianity be abolished; I conceive however, it may be\nmore convenient to defer the execution to a time of peace, and not\nventure in this conjuncture to disoblige our allies, who, as it falls\nout, are all Christians, and many of them, by the prejudices of their\neducation, so bigoted, as to place a sort of pride in the appellation.\nIf upon being rejected by them, we are to trust an alliance with the\nTurk, we shall find ourselves much deceived: For, as he is too remote,\nand generally engaged in war with the Persian emperor, so his people\nwould be more scandalized at our infidelity, than our Christian\nneighbours. For they [the Turks] are not only strict observers of\nreligious worship, but what is worse, believe a God; which is more than\nrequired of us even while we preserve the name of Christians.\n\nTo conclude: Whatever some may think of the great advantages to trade by\nthis favourite scheme, I do very much apprehend, that in six months time\nafter the act is passed for the extirpation of the Gospel, the Bank, and\nEast-India Stock, may fall at least one _per cent._ And since that is\nfifty times more than ever the wisdom of our age thought fit to venture\nfor the preservation of Christianity, there is no reason we should be at\nso great a loss, merely for the sake of destroying it.\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nFOR THE\n\nADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION,\n\nAND THE\n\nREFORMATION OF MANNERS.\n\nBY A PERSON OF QUALITY.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nIn placing this tract second in chronological order I am following\nForster and Craik. All the collected editions of Swift's works,\nincluding the \"Miscellanies\" of 1711, begin with \"The Sentiments of a\nChurch of England Man,\" continue with the \"Argument,\" and then the\n\"Project.\" But the short intervals which separated the publication of\nall three tracts and the \"Letter on the Sacramental Test,\" make a strict\nchronological order of less value than the order of development of the\nsubject-matter with which they deal, granting even that the \"Project\"\nappeared after \"The Sentiments.\" There seems, however, nothing\nimprobable in the suggestion made by Forster, that Swift planned the\nwriting of both the \"Argument\" and the \"Project\" while on a visit to the\nEarl of Berkeley, at Cranford, in 1708; and his dedication of the latter\nto Lady Berkeley lends this suggestion added weight. That the original\nedition of the \"Project\" is dated 1709 is nothing to the point, since it\nis well-known that the booksellers often antedated their publications,\nas publishers do now, when the issue occurred towards the end of a year.\nMoreover, the letter of the Earl of Berkeley to Swift, which Scott\nmisdates 1706-1707, but which should be 1708, makes special reference to\nthis very tract, showing that it was certainly published in 1708. \"I\nearnestly entreat you,\" writes the earl, \"if you have not done it\nalready, that you would not fail of having your bookseller enable the\nArchbishop of York [Dr. Sterne] to give a book to the queen; for, with\nMr. Nelson, I am entirely of opinion, that Her Majesty's reading of that\nbook on the Progress for the Increase of Morality and Piety, may be of\nvery great use to that end.\" I have never seen a copy of the first\nedition of \"The Sentiments,\" and I cannot fix the exact date of its\npublication; but it was certainly not written before the \"Project.\" The\n\"Project,\" therefore, must be considered in the light of a preliminary\nessay to the fuller and more digested statement of \"The Sentiments of a\nChurch of England man\"; and I have, on this account, placed it as the\nsecond tract written by Swift in the year 1708.\n\nWhatever may be thought of the particular methods which Swift suggested\nfor realizing his reformatory scheme, and they were, no doubt,\nartificial and wooden enough; the tract itself remains an excellent\nsurvey of the evils and gross habits of the time. The methods may be\nUtopian (Swift himself thought they were open to discussion), but the\nspirit of sincerity and piety is unmistakable. It is worth remembering,\nhowever, that several of the proposals, such as those for closing the\npublic-houses at twelve o'clock at night; the penalizing of publicans\nwho supplied drink to drunken customers; the building of churches, have\nsince been adopted.\n\nI cannot agree with Mr. Churton Collins (\"Jonathan Swift,\" pp. 59-61) in\nsuspecting Swift of a special policy of self-interest in writing the\n\"Project.\" Swift was too honest a man to use the religious sentiment for\nthe purpose of counteracting any bad impression his previous writings\nhad made on those who had the power to advance him. However much he\nmight delight in the possession of high worldly station, he would never\nso prostitute himself to obtain it. Nor did he care to let the world\ninto the secret of his heart. Indeed, all his life Swift seemed to hide,\nalmost jealously, the genuine piety of his nature. Whatever suspicion of\npolicy has surrounded the tract must be ascribed to the well-intentioned\nletter of the Earl of Berkeley above quoted; and the Earl would not have\nwritten thus had he felt Swift's motive to be any other than a purely\nimpersonal one.\n\nSteele, in his review of the \"Project\" in the fifth \"Tatler\" (April\n20th, 1709), makes some interesting observations, and seems to take\nspecial note of the \"Person of Honour,\" in the character of which Swift\nwrote it. Writing from Will's Coffee-House, Steele says: \"This week\nbeing sacred to holy things, and no public diversions allowed, there has\nbeen taken notice of even here, a little Treatise, called 'A Project for\nthe Advancement of Religion: dedicated to the Countess of Berkeley.' The\ntitle was so uncommon, and promised so peculiar a way of thinking, that\nevery man here has read it, and as many as have done so have approved\nit. It is written with the spirit of one who has seen the world enough\nto undervalue it with good breeding. The author must certainly be a man\nof wisdom, as well as piety, and have spent as much time in the exercise\nof both. The real causes of the decay of the interests of religion are\nset forth in a clear and lively manner, without unseasonable passions;\nand the whole air of the book, as to the language, the sentiments, and\nthe reasonableness, show it was written by one whose virtue sits easy\nabout him, and to whom vice is thoroughly contemptible. It was said by\none of this company, alluding to that knowledge of the world the author\nseems to have, the man writes much like a gentleman, and goes to Heaven\nwith a very good mien.\"\n\nIn his \"Apology\" Steele refers to this \"Tatler\" note, and remarks: \"The\ngentleman I here intended was Dr. Swift, this kind of man I thought him\nat that time. We have not met of late, but I hope he deserves this\ncharacter still.\"\n\nThe present text is based upon the first edition; but this edition was\nso wretchedly printed that I have carefully collated it with those given\nin the \"Miscellanies\" (1711), Faulkner (1735), and Hawkesworth (1762).\n\n[T. S.]\n\n\n  A\n  PROJECT\n  FOR THE\n  ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION,\n  AND THE\n  REFORMATION OF MANNERS.\n  BY A PERSON OF QUALITY.\n\n\n  _O quisquis volet impias\n    Caedes, & rabiem tollere civicam:\n  Si quaeret pater urbium\n    Subscribi statuis, indomitam audeat\n  Refraenare licentiam._\n\nHor.\n\n_LONDON:_\n\nPrinted and Sold by _H. Hills_, in _Black-fryars_, near the Water-side.\nFor the Benefit of the Poor. 1709.\n\n\nTO THE COUNTESS OF BERKELEY.[1]\n\nMADAM,\n\nMy intention in prefixing your Ladyship's name, is not after the common\nform, to desire your protection of the following papers; which I take to\nbe a very unreasonable request; since, by being inscribed to your\nLadyship, though without your knowledge, and from a concealed hand, you\ncannot recommend them without some suspicion of partiality. My real\ndesign is, I confess, the very same I have often detested in most\ndedications; that of publishing your praises to the world. Not upon the\nsubject of your noble birth, for I know others as noble; or of the\ngreatness of your fortune, for I know others far greater; or of that\nbeautiful race (the images of their parents) which call you mother: for\neven this may perhaps have been equalled in some other age or country.\nBesides, none of these advantages do derive any accomplishments to the\nowners, but serve at best only to adorn what they really possess. What I\nintend, is your piety, truth, good sense, and good nature, affability,\nand charity; wherein I wish your Ladyship had many equals, or any\nsuperiors; and I wish I could say I knew them too, for then your\nLadyship might have had a chance to escape this address. In the\nmeantime, I think it highly necessary, for the interest of virtue and\nreligion, that the whole kingdom should be informed in some parts of\nyour character: For instance, that the easiest and politest\nconversation, joined with the truest piety, may be observed in your\nLadyship, in as great perfection, as they were ever seen apart in any\nother persons. That by your prudence and management under several\ndisadvantages, you have preserved the lustre of that most noble family\ninto which you are grafted, and which the immeasurable profusion of\nancestors for many generations had too much eclipsed. Then, how happily\nyou perform every office of life to which Providence has called you: In\nthe education of those two incomparable daughters, whose conduct is so\nuniversally admired; in every duty of a prudent, complying, affectionate\nwife; in that care which descends to the meanest of your domestics; and,\nlastly, in that endless bounty to the poor, and discretion where to\ndistribute it. I insist on my opinion, that it is of importance for the\npublic to know this and a great deal more of your Ladyship; yet whoever\ngoes about to inform them, shall instead of finding credit, perhaps be\ncensured for a flatterer. To avoid so usual a reproach, I declare this\nto be no dedication, but properly an introduction to a proposal for the\nadvancement of religion and morals, by tracing, however imperfectly,\nsome few lineaments in the character of a Lady, who hath spent all her\nlife in the practice and promotion of both.\n\n[Footnote 1: This is the same Countess of Berkeley whom Swift hoaxed\nwith his \"Meditation on a Broomstick.\" She was the daughter of Viscount\nCampden and sister to the Earl of Gainsborough. [T.S.]]\n\nAmong all the schemes offered to the public in this projecting age, I\nhave observed with some displeasure, that there have never been any for\nthe improvement of religion and morals; which beside the piety of the\ndesign from the consequence of such a reformation in a future life,\nwould be the best natural means for advancing the public felicity of the\nstate, as well as the present happiness of every individual. For, as\nmuch as faith and morality are declined among us, I am altogether\nconfident, they might in a short time, and with no very great trouble,\nbe raised to as high a perfection as numbers are capable of receiving.\nIndeed, the method is so easy and obvious, and some present\nopportunities so good, that, in order to have this project reduced to\npractice, there seems to want nothing more than to put those in mind,\nwho by their honour, duty, and interest, are chiefly concerned.\n\nBut because it is idle to propose remedies before we are assured of the\ndisease, or to be in pain,[2] till we are convinced of the danger; I\nshall first shew in general, that the nation is extremely corrupted in\nreligion and morals; and then I will offer a short scheme for the\nreformation of both.\n\n[Footnote 2: Scott follows Faulkner in using the word \"fear.\" The\nreading in the text is that of the first edition, the \"Miscellanies\"\n(1711), and of Hawkesworth. [T.S.]]\n\nAs to the first; I know it is reckoned but a form of speech, when\ndivines complain of the wickedness of the age: However, I believe, upon\na fair comparison with other times and countries, it would be found an\nundoubted truth.\n\nFor, first; to deliver nothing but plain matter of fact without\nexaggeration or satire; I suppose it will be granted, that hardly one in\na hundred among our people of quality or gentry, appears to act by any\nprinciple of religion; that great numbers of them do entirely discard\nit, and are ready to own their disbelief of all revelation in ordinary\ndiscourse. Nor is the case much better among the vulgar, especially in\ngreat towns where the profaneness and ignorance of handicraftsmen, small\ntraders, servants, and the like, are to a degree very hard to be\nimagined greater. Then, it is observed abroad, that no race of mortals\nhath so little sense of religion, as the English soldiers; to confirm\nwhich, I have been often told by great officers in the army, that in the\nwhole compass of their acquaintance, they could not recollect three of\ntheir profession, who seemed to regard or believe one syllable of the\nGospel: And the same, at least, may be affirmed of the fleet. The\nconsequences of all which upon the actions of men are equally manifest.\nThey never go about, as in former time, to hide or palliate their vices,\nbut expose them freely to view, like any other common occurrences of\nlife, without the least reproach from the world, or themselves. For\ninstance; any man will tell you he intends to be drunk this evening, or\nwas so last night, with as little ceremony or scruple, as he would tell\nyou the time of the day. He will let you know he is going to a whore, or\nthat he has got a clap, with as much indifferency, as he would a piece\nof public news. He will swear, curse, or blaspheme, without the least\npassion or provocation. And, though all regard for reputation is not\nquite laid aside in the other sex, 'tis, however, at so low an ebb, that\nvery few among them seem to think virtue and conduct of absolute\nnecessity for preserving it. If this be not so, how comes it to pass,\nthat women of tainted reputations find the same countenance and\nreception in all public places, with those of the nicest virtue, who\npay, and receive visits from them without any manner of scruple? which\nproceeding, as it is not very old among us, so I take it to be of most\npernicious consequence: It looks like a sort of compounding between\nvirtue and vice, as if a woman were allowed to be vicious, provided she\nbe not a profligate; as if there were a certain point, where gallantry\nends, and infamy begins, or that a hundred criminal amours were not as\npardonable as half a score.\n\nBesides those corruptions already mentioned, it would be endless to\nenumerate such as arise from the excess of play or gaming: The cheats,\nthe quarrels, the oaths and blasphemies among the men; among the women,\nthe neglect of household affairs, the unlimited freedoms, the indecent\npassion; and lastly, the known inlet to all lewdness, when after an ill\nrun, the person must answer the defects of the purse; the rule on such\noccasions holding true in play as it does in law; _quod non habet in\ncrumena, luat in corpore._\n\nBut all these are trifles in comparison, if we step into other scenes,\nand consider the fraud and cozenage of trading men and shopkeepers; that\ninsatiable gulf of injustice and oppression, the law. The open traffic\nfor all civil and military employments, (I wish it rested there) without\nthe least regard to merit or qualifications; the corrupt management of\nmen in office; the many detestable abuses in choosing those who\nrepresent the people, with the management of interest and factions among\nthe representatives. To which I must be bold to add, the ignorance of\nsome of the lower clergy; the mean servile temper of others; the pert\npragmatical demeanour of several young stagers in divinity, upon their\nfirst producing themselves into the world; with many other\ncircumstances, needless, or rather invidious, to mention; which falling\nin with the corruptions already related, have, however unjustly, almost\nrendered the whole order contemptible.\n\nThis is a short view of the general depravities among us, without\nentering into particulars, which would be an endless labour. Now, as\nuniversal and deep-rooted as these appear to be, I am utterly deceived,\nif an effectual remedy might not be applied to most of them; neither am\nI at present upon a wild speculative project, but such a one as may be\neasily put in execution.\n\nFor, while the prerogative of giving all employments continues in the\nCrown, either immediately, or by subordination; it is in the power of\nthe Prince to make piety and virtue become the fashion of the age, if,\nat the same time, he would make them necessary qualifications for favour\nand preferment.\n\nIt is clear, from present experience, that the bare example of the best\nprince will not have any mighty influence, where the age is very\ncorrupt. For, when was there ever a better prince on the throne than the\npresent Queen? I do not talk of her talent for government, her love of\nthe people, or any other qualities that are purely regal; but her piety,\ncharity, temperance, conjugal love, and whatever other virtues do best\nadorn a private life; wherein, without question or flattery, she hath no\nsuperior: yet, neither will it be satire or peevish invective to affirm,\nthat infidelity and vice are not much diminished since her coming to the\ncrown, nor will, in all probability, till some more effectual remedies\nbe provided.\n\nThus human nature seems to lie under this disadvantage, that the example\nalone of a vicious prince, will, in time, corrupt an age; but that of a\ngood one, will not be sufficient to reform it, without further\nendeavours. Princes must therefore supply this defect by a vigorous\nexercise of that authority, which the law has left them, by making it\nevery man's interest and honour, to cultivate religion and virtue; by\nrendering vice a disgrace, and the certain ruin to preferment or\npretensions: All which they should first attempt in their own courts and\nfamilies. For instance; might not the Queen's domestics of the middle\nand lower sort, be obliged, upon penalty of suspension, or loss of their\nemployments, to a constant weekly attendance, at least, on the service\nof the church; to a decent behaviour in it; to receive the Sacrament\nfour times in the year; to avoid swearing and irreligious profane\ndiscourses; and, to the appearance, at least, of temperance and\nchastity? Might not the care of all this be committed to the strict\ninspection of proper persons? Might not those of higher rank, and nearer\naccess to her Majesty's person, receive her own commands to the same\npurpose, and be countenanced, or disfavoured, according as they obey?\nMight not the Queen lay her injunctions on the Bishops, and other great\nmen of undoubted piety, to make diligent enquiry, to give her notice, if\nany person about her should happen to be of libertine principles or\nmorals? Might not all those who enter upon any office in her Majesty's\nfamily, be obliged to take an oath parallel with that against simony,\nwhich is administered to the clergy? 'Tis not to be doubted, but that if\nthese, or the like proceedings, were duly observed, morality and\nreligion would soon become fashionable court virtues; and be taken up as\nthe only methods to get or keep employments there, which alone would\nhave mighty influence upon many of the nobility and principal gentry.\n\nBut, if the like methods were pursued as far as possible, with regard to\nthose who are in the great employments of state, it is hard to conceive\nhow general a reformation they might in time produce among us. For, if\npiety and virtue were once reckoned qualifications necessary to\npreferment; every man thus endowed, when put into great stations, would\nreadily imitate the Queen's example, in the distribution of all offices\nin his disposal; especially if any apparent transgression, through\nfavour or partiality, would be imputed to him for a misdemeanour, by\nwhich he must certainly forfeit his favour and station: And there being\nsuch great numbers in employment, scattered through every town and\ncounty in this kingdom; if all these were exemplary in the conduct of\ntheir lives, things would soon take a new face, and religion receive a\nmighty encouragement: Nor would the public weal be less advanced; since,\nof nine offices in ten that are ill executed, the defect is not in\ncapacity or understanding, but in common honesty. I know no employment,\nfor which piety disqualifies any man; and if it did, I doubt the\nobjection would not be very seasonably offered at present; because, it\nis perhaps too just a reflection, that in the disposal of places, the\nquestion whether a person be _fit_ for what he is recommended to, is\ngenerally the last that is thought on, or regarded.\n\nI have often imagined, that something parallel to the office of censors\nanciently in Rome, would be of mighty use among us, and could be easily\nlimited from running into any exorbitances. The Romans understood\nliberty at least as well as we, were as jealous of it, and upon every\noccasion as bold assertors. Yet I do not remember to have read any great\ncomplaint of the abuses in that office among them; but many admirable\neffects of it are left upon record. There are several pernicious vices\nfrequent and notorious among us, that escape or elude the punishment of\nany law we have yet invented, or have had no law at all against them;\nsuch as atheism, drunkenness, fraud, avarice, and several others; which,\nby this institution, wisely regulated, might be much reformed. Suppose,\nfor instance, that itinerary commissioners were appointed to inspect\neverywhere throughout the kingdom, into the conduct (at least) of men in\noffice, with respect to their morals and religion, as well as their\nabilities; to receive the complaints and informations that should be\noffered against them, and make their report here upon oath, to the\ncourt, or the ministry, who should reward or punish accordingly. I avoid\nentering into the particulars of this, or any other scheme, which,\ncoming from a private hand, might be liable to many defects, but would\nsoon be digested by the wisdom of the nation; and surely, six thousand\npounds a year would not be ill laid out among as many commissioners duly\nqualified, who, in three divisions, should be personally obliged to take\ntheir yearly circuits for that purpose.\n\nBut this is beside my present design, which was only to show what degree\nof reformation is in the power of the Queen, without the interposition\nof the legislature, and which her Majesty is, without question, obliged\nin conscience to endeavour by her authority, as much as she does by her\npractice.\n\nIt will be easily granted, that the example of this great town hath a\nmighty influence over the whole kingdom; and it is as manifest, that the\ntown is equally influenced by the court, and the ministry, and those\nwho, by their employments, or their hopes, depend upon them. Now, if\nunder so excellent a princess as the present Queen, we would suppose a\nfamily strictly regulated, as I have above proposed; a ministry, where\nevery single person was of distinguished piety; if we should suppose all\ngreat offices of state and law filled after the same manner, and with\nsuch as were equally diligent in choosing persons, who, in their several\nsubordinations, would be obliged to follow the examples of their\nsuperiors, under the penalty of loss of favour and place; will not\neverybody grant, that the empire of vice and irreligion would be soon\ndestroyed in this great metropolis, and receive a terrible blow through\nthe whole island, which hath so great an intercourse with it, and so\nmuch affects to follow its fashions?\n\nFor, if religion were once understood to be the necessary step to favour\nand preferment; can it be imagined that any man would openly offend\nagainst it, who had the least regard for his reputation or his fortune?\nThere is no quality so contrary to any nature, which men cannot affect,\nand put on upon occasions, in order to serve an interest, or gratify a\nprevailing passion. The proudest man will personate humility, the\nmorosest learn to flatter, the laziest will be sedulous and active,\nwhere he is in pursuit of what he has much at heart. How ready,\ntherefore, would most men be to step into the paths of virtue and piety,\nif they infallibly led to favour and fortune!\n\nIf swearing and profaneness, scandalous and avowed lewdness, excessive\ngaming and intemperance, were a little discountenanced in the army, I\ncannot readily see what ill consequences could be apprehended; if\ngentlemen of that profession were at least obliged to some external\ndecorum in their conduct; or even if a profligate life and character\nwere not a means of advancement, and the appearance of piety a most\ninfallible hindrance, it is impossible the corruptions there should be\nso universal and exorbitant. I have been assured by several great\nofficers, that no troops abroad are so ill disciplined as the English;\nwhich cannot well be otherwise, while the common soldiers have\nperpetually before their eyes the vicious example of their leaders; and\nit is hardly possible for those to commit any crime, whereof these are\nnot infinitely more guilty, and with less temptation.\n\nIt is commonly charged upon the gentlemen of the army, that the beastly\nvice of drinking to excess, hath been lately, from their example,\nrestored among us; which for some years before was almost dropped in\nEngland. But, whoever the introducers were, they have succeeded to a\nmiracle; many of the young nobility and gentry are already become great\nproficients, and are under no manner of concern to hide their talent,\nbut are got beyond all sense of shame or fear of reproach.\n\nThis might soon be remedied, if the Queen would think fit to declare,\nthat no young person of quality whatsoever, who was notoriously addicted\nto that, or any other vice, should be capable of her favour, or even\nadmitted into her presence, with positive command to her ministers, and\nothers in great office, to treat them in the same manner; after which,\nall men, who had any regard for their reputation, or any prospect of\npreferment, would avoid their commerce. This would quickly make that\nvice so scandalous, that those who could not subdue, would at least\nendeavour to disguise it.\n\nBy the like methods, a stop might be put to that ruinous practice of\ndeep gaming; and the reason why it prevails so much is, because a\ntreatment, directly opposite in every point, is made use of to promote\nit; by which means, the laws enacted against this abuse are wholly\neluded.\n\nIt cannot be denied, that the want of strict discipline in the\nuniversities, hath been of pernicious consequence to the youth of this\nnation, who are there almost left entirely to their own management,\nespecially those among them of better quality and fortune; who, because\nthey are not under a necessity of making learning their maintenance, are\neasily allowed to pass their time, and take their degrees, with little\nor no improvement; than which there cannot well be a greater absurdity.\nFor, if no advancement of knowledge can be had from those places, the\ntime there spent is at best utterly lost, because every ornamental part\nof education is better taught elsewhere: And as for keeping youths out\nof harm's way, I doubt, where so many of them are got together, at full\nliberty of doing what they please, it will not answer the end. But,\nwhatever abuses, corruptions, or deviations from statutes, have crept\ninto the universities through neglect, or length of time; they might in\na great degree be reformed, by strict injunctions from court (upon each\nparticular) to the visitors and heads of houses; besides the peculiar\nauthority the queen may have in several colleges, whereof her\npredecessors were the founders. And among other regulations, it would be\nvery convenient to prevent the excess of drink, with that scurvy custom\namong the lads, and parent of the former vice, the taking of tobacco,\nwhere it is not absolutely necessary in point of health.\n\nFrom the universities, the young nobility, and others of great fortunes,\nare sent for early up to town, for fear of contracting any airs of\npedantry, by a college education. Many of the younger gentry retire to\nthe Inns of Court, where they are wholly left to their own discretion.\nAnd the consequence of this remissness in education appears, by\nobserving that nine in ten of those, who rise in the church or the\ncourt, the law, or the army, are younger brothers, or new men, whose\nnarrow fortunes have forced them upon industry and application.\n\nAs for the Inns of Court, unless we suppose them to be much degenerated,\nthey must needs be the worst instituted seminaries in any Christian\ncountry; but whether they may be corrected without interposition of the\nlegislature, I have not skill enough to determine. However, it is\ncertain, that all wise nations have agreed in the necessity of a strict\neducation, which consisted, among other things, in the observance of\nmoral duties, especially justice, temperance, and chastity, as well as\nthe knowledge of arts, and bodily exercises: But all these among us are\nlaughed out of doors.\n\nWithout the least intention to offend the clergy, I cannot but think,\nthat through a mistaken notion and practice, they prevent themselves\nfrom doing much service, which otherwise might lie in their power, to\nreligion and virtue: I mean, by affecting so much to converse with each\nother, and caring so little to mingle with the laity. They have their\nparticular clubs, and particular coffee-houses, where they generally\nappear in clusters: A single divine dares hardly shew his person among\nnumbers of fine gentlemen; or if he happens to fall into such company,\nhe is silent and suspicious, in continual apprehension that some pert\nman of pleasure should break an unmannerly jest, and render him\nridiculous. Now, I take this behaviour of the clergy to be just as\nreasonable, as if the physicians should agree to spend their time in\nvisiting one another, or their several apothecaries, and leave their\npatients to shift for themselves. In my humble opinion, the clergy's\nbusiness lies entirely among the laity; neither is there, perhaps, a\nmore effectual way to forward the salvation of men's souls, than for\nspiritual persons to make themselves as agreeable as they can, in the\nconversations of the world; for which a learned education gives them\ngreat advantage, if they would please to improve and apply it. It so\nhappens that the men of pleasure, who never go to church, nor use\nthemselves to read books of devotion, form their ideas of the clergy\nfrom a few poor strollers they often observe in the streets, or sneaking\nout of some person of quality's house, where they are hired by the lady\nat ten shillings a month; while those of better figure and parts, do\nseldom appear to correct these notions. And let some reasoners think\nwhat they please, 'tis certain that men must be brought to esteem and\nlove the clergy, before they can be persuaded to be in love with\nreligion. No man values the best medicine, if administered by a\nphysician, whose person he hates or despises. If the clergy were as\nforward to appear in all companies, as other gentlemen, and would a\nlittle study the arts of conversation to make themselves agreeable, they\nmight be welcome at every party where there was the least regard for\npoliteness or good sense; and consequently prevent a thousand vicious or\nprofane discourses, as well as actions; neither would men of\nunderstanding complain, that a clergyman was a constraint upon the\ncompany, because they could not speak blasphemy, or obscene jests before\nhim. While the people are so jealous of the clergy's ambition, as to\nabhor all thoughts of the return of ecclesiastic discipline among them,\nI do not see any other method left for men of that function to take, in\norder to reform the world, than by using all honest arts to make\nthemselves acceptable to the laity. This, no doubt, is part of that\nwisdom of the serpent, which the Author of Christianity directs, and is\nthe very method used by St. Paul, who _became all things to all men, to\nthe Jews a Jew, and a Greek to the Greeks._\n\nHow to remedy these inconveniences, may be a matter of some difficulty;\nsince the clergy seem to be of an opinion, that this humour of\nsequestering themselves is a part of their duty; nay, as I remember,\nthey have been told so by some of their bishops in their pastoral\nletters, particularly by one[3] among them of great merit and\ndistinction, who yet, in his own practice, hath all his lifetime taken a\ncourse directly contrary. But I am deceived, if an awkward shame and\nfear of ill usage from the laity, have not a greater share in this\nmistaken conduct, than their own inclinations: However, if the outward\nprofession of religion and virtue, were once in practice and countenance\nat court, as well as among all men in office, or who have any hopes or\ndependence for preferment, a good treatment of the clergy would be the\nnecessary consequence of such a reformation; and they would soon be wise\nenough to see their own duty and interest in qualifying themselves for\nlay-conversation, when once they were out of fear of being chocqued by\nribaldry or profaneness.\n\n[Footnote 3: Bishop Burnet of Salisbury. See Swift's \"Remarks on the\nBishop of Sarum's Introduction.\" [T.S.]]\n\nThere is one further circumstance upon this occasion, which I know not\nwhether it will be very orthodox to mention: The clergy are the only set\nof men among us, who constantly wear a distinct habit from others; the\nconsequence of which (not in reason but in fact) is this, that as long\nas any scandalous persons appear in that dress, it will continue in some\ndegree a general mark of contempt. Whoever happens to see a scoundrel in\na gown, reeling home at midnight, (a sight neither frequent nor\nmiraculous), is apt to entertain an ill idea of the whole order, and at\nthe same time to be extremely comforted in his own vices. Some remedy\nmight be put to this, if those straggling gentlemen, who come up to town\nto seek their fortunes, were fairly dismissed to the West Indies, where\nthere is work enough, and where some better provision should be made for\nthem, than I doubt there is at present. Or, what if no person were\nallowed to wear the habit, who had not some preferment in the church, or\nat least some temporal fortune sufficient to keep him out of contempt?\nThough, in my opinion, it were infinitely better, if all the clergy\n(except the bishops) were permitted to appear like other men of the\ngraver sort, unless at those seasons when they are doing the business of\ntheir function.\n\nThere is one abuse in this town, which wonderfully contributes to the\npromotion of vice, that such men are often put into the commission of\nthe peace, whose interest it is, that virtue should be utterly banished\nfrom among us, who maintain, or at least enrich themselves, by\nencouraging the grossest immoralities, to whom all the bawds of the ward\npay contribution, for shelter and protection from the laws. Thus these\nworthy magistrates, instead of lessening enormities, are the occasion of\njust twice as much debauchery as there would be without them. For those\ninfamous women are forced upon doubling their work and industry, to\nanswer double charges, of paying the justice, and supporting themselves.\nLike thieves who escape the gallows, and are let out to steal, in order\nto discharge the gaoler's fees.\n\nIt is not to be questioned, but the Queen and ministry might easily\nredress this abominable grievance, by enlarging the number of justices\nof the peace, by endeavouring to choose men of virtuous principles, by\nadmitting none who have not considerable fortunes, perhaps, by receiving\ninto the number some of the most eminent clergy. Then, by forcing all of\nthem, upon severe penalties, to act when there is occasion, and not\npermitting any who are offered to refuse the commission, but in these\ntwo last cases, which are very material, I doubt there will be need of\nthe legislature.\n\nThe reformation of the stage is entirely in the power of the Queen, and\nin the consequences it hath upon the minds of the younger people, does\nvery well deserve the strictest care. Besides the indecent and profane\npassages, besides the perpetual turning into ridicule the very function\nof the priesthood, with other irregularities, in most modern comedies,\nwhich have by others been objected to them, it is worth observing the\ndistributive justice of the authors, which is constantly applied to the\npunishment of virtue, and the reward of vice, directly opposite to the\nrules of their best critics, as well as to the practice of dramatic\npoets, in all other ages and countries. For example, a country squire,\nwho is represented with no other vice but that of being a clown, and\nhaving the provincial accent upon his tongue, which is neither a fault,\nnor in his power to remedy, must be condemned to marry a cast wench, or\na cracked chambermaid. On the other side, a rakehell of the town, whose\ncharacter is set off with no other accomplishment, but excessive\nprodigality, profaneness, intemperance, and lust, is rewarded with a\nlady of great fortune to repair his own, which his vices had almost\nruined. And as in a tragedy, the hero is represented to have obtained\nmany victories in order to raise his character in the minds of the\nspectators; so the hero of a comedy is represented to have been\nvictorious in all his intrigues, for the same reason. I do not remember,\nthat our English poets ever suffered a criminal amour to succeed upon\nthe stage, till the reign of King Charles the Second. Ever since that\ntime, the alderman is made a cuckold, the deluded virgin is debauched,\nand adultery and fornication are supposed to be committed behind the\nscenes, as part of the action. These and many more corruptions of the\ntheatre, peculiar to our age and nation, need continue no longer, than\nwhile the court is content to connive at or neglect them. Surely a\npension would not be ill employed on some men of wit, learning, and\nvirtue, who might have power to strike out every offensive or unbecoming\npassage, from plays already written, as well as those that may be\noffered to the stage for the future. By which, and other wise\nregulations, the theatre might become a very innocent and useful\ndiversion, instead of being a scandal and reproach to our religion and\ncountry.\n\nThe proposals I have hitherto made for the advancement of religion and\nmorality, are such as come within reach of the administration; such as a\npious active prince, with a steady resolution, might soon bring to\neffect. Neither am I aware of any objections to be raised against what I\nhave advanced; unless it should be thought, that making religion a\nnecessary step to interest and favour might increase hypocrisy among us;\nand I readily believe it would. But if one in twenty should be brought\nover to true piety by this, or the like methods, and the other nineteen\nbe only hypocrites, the advantage would still be great. Besides,\nhypocrisy is much more eligible than open infidelity and vice; it wears\nthe livery of religion; it acknowledges her authority, and is cautious\nof giving scandal. Nay, a long continued disguise is too great a\nconstraint upon human nature, especially an English disposition; men\nwould leave off their vices out of mere weariness, rather than undergo\nthe toil and hazard, and perhaps expense, of practising them perpetually\nin private. And I believe it is often with religion, as it is with love;\nwhich, by much dissembling, at last grows real.\n\nAll other projects to this great end have proved hitherto ineffectual.\nLaws against immorality have not been executed; and proclamations\noccasionally issued out to enforce them are wholly unregarded as things\nof form. Religious societies, though begun with excellent intention, and\nby persons of true piety,[4] have dwindled into factious clubs, and\ngrown a trade to enrich little knavish informers of the meanest rank,\nsuch as common constables, and broken shopkeepers.\n\n[Footnote 4: The original edition omits here the words, \"are said, I\nknow not whether truly or not.\" All other editions give these words. [T.\nS.]]\n\nAnd that some effectual attempt should be made toward such a\nreformation, is perhaps more necessary than people commonly apprehend;\nbecause the ruin of a state is generally preceded by a universal\ndegeneracy of manners, and contempt of religion; which is entirely our\ncase at present.\n\n  \"Dis te minorem quod geris imperas.\"--HOR. [5]\n\n[Footnote 5: \"Carmina,\" iii. 6. 5.]\n\nNeither is this a matter to be deferred till a more convenient time of\npeace and leisure: Because a reformation in men's faith and morals is\nthe best natural, as well as religious means, to bring the war to a good\nconclusion. For, if men in trust performed their duty for conscience\nsake, affairs would not suffer through fraud, falsehood, and neglect, as\nthey now perpetually do. And if they believed a God, and his Providence,\nand acted accordingly, they might reasonably hope for his divine\nassistance, in so just a cause as ours.\n\nNor could the majesty of the English Crown appear, upon any occasion, in\na greater lustre, either to foreigners or subjects, than by an\nadministration, which, producing such great effects, would discover so\nmuch power. And power being the natural appetite of princes, a limited\nmonarch cannot so well gratify it in anything, as a strict execution of\nthe laws.\n\nBesides; all parties would be obliged to close with so good a work as\nthis, for their own reputation: Neither is any expedient more likely to\nunite them. For the most violent party men, I have ever observed, are\nsuch, as in the conduct of their lives have discovered least sense of\nreligion or morality; and when all such are laid aside, at least those\namong them as shall be found incorrigible, it will be a matter perhaps\nof no great difficulty to reconcile the rest.\n\nThe many corruptions at present in every branch of business are almost\ninconceivable. I have heard it computed by skilful persons, that of six\nmillions raised every year for the service of the public, one third, at\nleast, is sunk and intercepted through the several classes and\nsubordinations of artful men in office, before the remainder is applied\nto the proper use. This is an accidental ill effect of our freedom. And\nwhile such men are in trust, who have no check from within, nor any\nviews but toward their interest, there is no other fence against them,\nbut the certainty of being hanged upon the first discovery, by the\narbitrary will of an unlimited monarch, or his vizier. Among us, the\nonly danger to be apprehended is the loss of an employment; and that\ndanger is to be eluded a thousand ways. Besides, when fraud is great, it\nfurnishes weapons to defend itself: And at worst, if the crimes be so\nflagrant, that a man is laid aside out of perfect shame, (which rarely\nhappens) he retires loaded with the spoils of the nation; _et fruitur\ndiis iratis_. I could name a commission, where several persons, out of a\nsalary of five hundred pounds, without other visible revenues, have\nalways lived at the rate of two thousand, and laid out forty or fifty\nthousand upon purchases of lands or annuities. A hundred other instances\nof the same kind might easily be produced. What remedy, therefore, can\nbe found against such grievances, in a constitution like ours, but to\nbring religion into countenance, and encourage those, who, from the hope\nof future reward, and dread of future punishment, will be moved to act\nwith justice and integrity?\n\nThis is not to be accomplished any other way, but by introducing\nreligion, as much as possible, to be the turn and fashion of the age;\nwhich only lies in the power of the administration; the prince with\nutmost strictness regulating the court, the ministry, and other persons\nin great employment; and these, by their example and authority,\nreforming all who have dependence on them.\n\nIt is certain, that a reformation successfully carried on in this great\ntown, would in time spread itself over the whole kingdom, since most of\nthe considerable youth pass here that season of their lives, wherein the\nstrongest impressions are made, in order to improve their education, or\nadvance their fortune, and those among them, who return into their\nseveral counties, are sure to be followed and imitated, as the greatest\npatterns of wit and good breeding.\n\nAnd if things were once in this train, that is, if virtue and religion\nwere established as the necessary titles to reputation and preferment,\nand if vice and infidelity were not only loaded with infamy, but made\nthe infallible ruin of all men's pretensions, our duty, by becoming our\ninterest, would take root in our natures, and mix with the very genius\nof our people, so that it would not be easy for the example of one\nwicked prince to bring us back to our former corruptions.\n\nI have confined myself (as it is before observed) to those methods for\nthe advancement of piety, which are in the power of a prince, limited\nlike ours, by a strict execution of the laws already in force. And this\nis enough for a project, that comes without any name or recommendation,\nI doubt, a great deal more than will suddenly be reduced into practice.\nThough, if any disposition should appear towards so good a work, it is\ncertain, that the assistance of the legislative power would be necessary\nto make it more complete. I will instance only a few particulars.\n\nIn order to reform the vices of this town, which, as we have said, hath\nso mighty an influence on the whole kingdom, it would be very\ninstrumental to have a law made, that all taverns and alehouses should\nbe obliged to dismiss their company at twelve at night, and shut up\ntheir doors, and that no woman should be suffered to enter any tavern or\nalehouse, upon any pretence whatsoever. It is easy to conceive what a\nnumber of ill consequences such a law would prevent, the mischiefs of\nquarrels, and lewdness, and thefts, and midnight brawls, the diseases of\nintemperance and venery, and a thousand other evils needless to mention.\nNor would it be amiss, if the masters of those public-houses were\nobliged, upon the severest penalties, to give only a proportioned\nquantity of drink to every company, and when he found his guests\ndisordered with excess, to refuse them any more.\n\nI believe there is hardly a nation in Christendom, where all kind of\nfraud is practised in so immeasurable a degree as with us. The lawyer,\nthe tradesman, the mechanic, have found so many arts to deceive in their\nseveral callings, that they far outgrow the common prudence of mankind,\nwhich is in no sort able to fence against them. Neither could the\nlegislature in anything more consult the public good, than by providing\nsome effectual remedy against this evil, which, in several cases,\ndeserves greater punishment than many crimes that are capital among us.\nThe vintner, who, by mixing poison with his wines, destroys more lives\nthan any one disease in the bill of mortality; the lawyer, who persuades\nyou to a purchase which he knows is mortgaged for more than the worth,\nto the ruin of you and your family; the goldsmith or scrivener, who\ntakes all your fortune to dispose of, when he has beforehand resolved to\nbreak the following day, do surely deserve the gallows much better than\nthe wretch who is carried thither for stealing a horse.\n\nIt cannot easily be answered to God or man, why a law is not made for\nlimiting the press; at least so far as to prevent the publishing of such\npernicious books, as, under pretence of freethinking, endeavour to\noverthrow those tenets in religion which have been held inviolable,\nalmost in all ages, by every sect that pretend to be Christian; and\ncannot, therefore, with any colour of reason, be called points in\ncontroversy, or matters of speculation, as some would pretend. The\nDoctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Immortality of the\nSoul, and even the truth of all revelation, are daily exploded and\ndenied in books openly printed; though it is to be supposed neither\nparty will avow such principles, or own the supporting of them to be any\nway necessary to their service.[6]\n\n[Footnote 6: This passage refers to the deistical publications of\nAsgill, Toland, Tindal, and Collins, already noted. [T. S.]]\n\nIt would be endless to set down every corruption or defect which\nrequires a remedy from the legislative power. Senates are like to have\nlittle regard for any proposals that come from without doors; though,\nunder a due sense of my own inabilities, I am fully convinced, that the\nunbiassed thoughts of an honest and wise man, employed on the good of\nhis country, may be better digested than the results of a multitude,\nwhere faction and interest too often prevail; as a single guide may\ndirect the way better than five hundred, who have _contrary views_, or\n_look asquint_, or _shut their eyes_.\n\nI shall therefore mention but one more particular, which I think the\nParliament ought to take under consideration; whether it be not a shame\nto our country, and a scandal to Christianity, that in many towns, where\nthere is a prodigious increase in the number of houses and inhabitants,\nso little care should be taken for the building of churches, that five\nparts in six of the people are absolutely hindered from hearing divine\nservice? Particularly here in London, where a single minister, with one\nor two sorry curates, hath the care sometimes of above twenty thousand\nsouls incumbent on him. A neglect of religion so ignominious, in my\nopinion, that it can hardly be equalled in any civilized age or\ncountry.[7]\n\n[Footnote 7: This paragraph is known to have given the first hint to\ncertain bishops, particularly to Bishop Atterbury, to procure a fund for\nbuilding fifty new churches in London. [T. S.]]\n\nBut, to leave these airy imaginations of introducing new laws for the\namendment of mankind; what I principally insist on is, a due execution\nof the old, which lies wholly in the crown, and in the authority derived\nfrom thence. I return, therefore, to my former assertion; that if\nstations of power, trust, profit, and honour, were constantly made the\nrewards of virtue and piety, such an administration must needs have a\nmighty influence on the faith and morals of the whole kingdom: And men\nof great abilities would then endeavour to excel in the duties of a\nreligious life, in order to qualify themselves for public service. I may\npossibly be wrong in some of the means I prescribe towards this end; but\nthat is no material objection against the design itself. Let those who\nare at the helm contrive it better, which, perhaps, they may easily do.\nEverybody will agree that the disease is manifest, as well as dangerous;\nthat some remedy is necessary, and that none yet applied hath been\neffectual, which is a sufficient excuse for any man who wishes well to\nhis country, to offer his thoughts, when he can have no other end in\nview but the public good. The present Queen is a princess of as many and\ngreat virtues as ever filled a throne: How would it brighten her\ncharacter to the present and after ages, if she would exert her utmost\nauthority to instil some share of those virtues into her people, which\nthey are too degenerate to learn only from her example! And, be it spoke\nwith all the veneration possible for so excellent a sovereign, her best\nendeavours in this weighty affair are a most important part of her duty,\nas well as of her interest and her honour.\n\nBut, it must be confessed, that as things are now, every man thinks that\nhe has laid in a sufficient stock of merit, and may pretend to any\nemployment, provided he has been loud and frequent in declaring himself\nhearty for the government. 'Tis true, he is a man of pleasure, and a\nfreethinker, that is, in other words, he is profligate in his morals,\nand a despiser of religion; but in point of party, he is one to be\nconfided in; he is an assertor of liberty and property; he rattles it\nout against Popery and Arbitrary Power, and Priestcraft and High Church.\n'Tis enough: He is a person fully qualified for any employment, in the\ncourt or the navy, the law or the revenue; where he will be sure to\nleave no arts untried, of bribery, fraud, injustice, oppression, that he\ncan practise with any hope of impunity. No wonder such men are true to a\ngovernment where liberty runs high, where property, however attained, is\nso well secured, and where the administration is at least so gentle:\n'Tis impossible they could choose any other constitution, without\nchanging to their loss.\n\nFidelity to a present establishment is indeed the principal means to\ndefend it from a foreign enemy, but without other qualifications, will\nnot prevent corruptions from within; and states are more often ruined by\nthese than the other.\n\nTo conclude. Whether the proposals I have offered toward a reformation,\nbe such as are most prudent and convenient, may probably be a question;\nbut it is none at all, whether some reformation be absolutely necessary;\nbecause the nature of things is such, that if abuses be not remedied,\nthey will certainly increase, nor ever stop, till they end in the\nsubversion of a commonwealth. As there must always of necessity be some\ncorruptions, so, in a well-instituted state, the executive power will be\nalways contending against them, by _reducing things_ (as Michiaevel\nspeaks) _to their first principles_; never letting abuses grow\ninveterate, or multiply so far, that it will be hard to find remedies,\nand perhaps impossible to apply them. As he that would keep his house in\nrepair, must attend every little breach or flaw, and supply it\nimmediately; else time alone will bring all to ruin; how much more the\ncommon accidents of storms and rain? He must live in perpetual danger of\nhis house falling about his ears; and will find it cheaper to throw it\nquite down, and build it again from the ground, perhaps upon a new\nfoundation, or at least in a new form, which may neither be so safe, nor\nso convenient, as the old.\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nTHE SENTIMENTS\n\nOF A\n\nCHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN,\n\nWITH RESPECT TO\n\nRELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.\n\nWRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nThe writing of this tract, as has been already observed, placed Swift in\na position where allegiance to party was not easy to maintain. It\namounted to a warning to Whigs as well as Tories. To the former he urged\nthat the Church of England was wide enough for the highest principles of\ncivil liberty; to the latter he tried to show that to be a religious and\nGod-fearing man it was not absolutely necessary to be a Tory in\npolitics. \"Whoever has examined the conduct and proceedings of both\nparties for some years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well\nconceive it possible to go far towards the extremes of either, without\noffering some violence to his integrity or understanding.\" It is true\nthat Whiggism and \"fanatical genius\" were almost synonymous terms for\nSwift; but that was because the Church was of prime consideration with\nhim, and the Whigs numbered in their ranks the great army of Dissent.\nSwift, in his famous letter to Pope, dated Dublin, January 10th,\n1720-21, reviews his political opinions of 1708 to justify himself\nagainst the misrepresentations of \"the virulence of libellers: whose\nmalice has taken the same train in both, by fathering dangerous\nprinciples in government upon me, which I never maintained, and insipid\nproductions, which I am not capable of writing.\" That review is but a\nsummary of what is given fully in this tract. No appeal was ever better\nintentioned. \"I only wish,\" he says to Pope, \"my endeavours had\nsucceeded better in the great point I had at heart, which was that of\nreconciling the ministers to each other.\" But High Church and Low Church\nwere cries which had divided politicians as if they did not belong to\none nation. To Swift it was easy enough to be a staunch Churchman and at\nthe same time expose the fallacies underlying the faith in the sovereign\npower; but then Swift was here no party fanatic who would use the\n\"Church in danger\" cry for party purposes. \"If others,\" he writes twelve\nyears later, \"who had more concern and more influence, would have acted\ntheir parts,\" his appeal had not been made in vain. As it was it failed\nin its intended purpose, and Swift lost what hold he had on Somers,\nGodolphin, and the rest. It remains, however, to testify to Swift's\nprinciples in a manner least expected by those who have set him down as\nintemperate and inconsistent. Certainly, no principles were ever more\nmoderately expressed; and, assuredly, no expression of principles found\nfitter realization in conduct.\n\nThe text of this edition is based on that given in the \"Miscellanies\" of\n1711. I have not succeeded in obtaining a copy of the original issue;\nbut I have collated the various texts given in the re-issues by\nFaulkner, Hawkesworth, Scott, and the \"Miscellanies\" of 1728 (vol. i.)\nand 1747 (vol. i.).\n\n[T. S.]\n\n\n  THE SENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF\n  ENGLAND MAN, WITH RESPECT TO\n  RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.\n\n\nWhosoever hath examined the conduct and proceedings of both parties for\nsome years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well conceive it\npossible to go far towards the extremes of either, without offering some\nviolence to his integrity or understanding. A wise and a good man may\nindeed be sometimes induced to comply with a number whose opinion he\ngenerally approves, though it be perhaps against his own. But this\nliberty should be made use of upon very few occasions, and those of\nsmall importance, and then only with a view of bringing over his own\nside another time to something of greater and more public moment. But to\nsacrifice the innocency of a friend, the good of our country, or our own\nconscience to the humour, or passion, or interest of a party, plainly\nshews that either our heads or our hearts are not as they should be: Yet\nthis very practice is the fundamental law of each faction among us, as\nmay be obvious to any who will impartially, and without engagement, be\nat the pains to examine their actions, which however is not so easy a\ntask: For it seems a principle in human nature, to incline one way more\nthan another, even in matters where we are wholly unconcerned. And it is\na common observation, that in reading a history of facts done a thousand\nyears ago, or standing by at play among those who are perfect strangers\nto us, we are apt to find our hopes and wishes engaged on a sudden in\nfavour of one side more than another. No wonder then, we are all so\nready to interest ourselves in the course of public affairs, where the\nmost inconsiderable have some _real_ share, and by the wonderful\nimportance which every man is of to himself, a very great _imaginary_\none.\n\nAnd indeed, when the two parties that divide the whole commonwealth,\ncome once to a rupture, without any hopes left of forming a third with\nbetter principles, to balance the others; it seems every man's duty to\nchoose a side,[1] though he cannot entirely approve of either; and all\npretences to neutrality are justly exploded by both, being too stale and\nobvious, only intending the safety and ease of a few individuals while\nthe public is embroiled. This was the opinion and practice of the latter\nCato, whom I esteem to have been the wisest and best of all the Romans.\nBut before things proceed to open violence, the truest service a private\nman may hope to do his country, is, by unbiassing his mind as much as\npossible, and then endeavouring to moderate between the rival powers;\nwhich must needs be owned a fair proceeding with the world, because it\nis of all others the least consistent with the common design, of making\na fortune by the merit of an opinion.\n\n[Footnote 1: Faulkner and Scott have \"one of the two sides.\" [T. S.]]\n\nI have gone as far as I am able in qualifying myself to be such a\nmoderator: I believe I am no bigot in religion, and I am sure I am none\nin government. I converse in full freedom with many considerable men of\nboth parties, and if not in equal number, it is purely accidental and\npersonal, as happening to be near the court, and to have made\nacquaintance there, more under one ministry than another. Then, I am not\nunder the necessity of declaring myself by the prospect of an\nemployment. And lastly, if all this be not sufficient, I industriously\nconceal my name, which wholly exempts me from any hopes and fears in\ndelivering my opinion.\n\nIn consequence of this free use of my reason, I cannot possibly think so\nwell or so ill of either party, as they would endeavour to persuade the\nworld of each other, and of themselves. For instance; I do not charge it\nupon the body of the Whigs or the Tories, that their several principles\nlead them to introduce Presbytery, and the religion of the Church of\nRome, or a commonwealth and arbitrary power. For, why should any party\nbe accused of a principle which they solemnly disown and protest\nagainst? But, to this they have a mutual answer ready; they both assure\nus, that their adversaries are not to be believed, that they disown\ntheir principles out of fear, which are manifest enough when we examine\ntheir practices. To prove this, they will produce instances, on one\nside, either of avowed Presbyterians, or persons of libertine and\natheistical tenets, and on the other, of professed Papists, or such as\nare openly in the interest of the abdicated family. Now, it is very\nnatural for all subordinate sects and denominations in a state, to side\nwith some general party, and to choose that which they find to agree\nwith themselves in some general principle. Thus at the restoration, the\nPresbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents, and other sects, did all with\nvery good reason unite and solder up their several schemes to join\nagainst the Church, who without regard to their distinctions, treated\nthem all as equal adversaries. Thus, our present dissenters do very\nnaturally close in with the Whigs, who profess moderation, declare they\nabhor all thoughts of persecution, and think it hard that those who\ndiffer only in a few ceremonies and speculations, should be denied the\nprivilege and profit of serving their country in the highest employments\nof state. Thus, the atheists, libertines, despisers of religion and\nrevelation in general, that is to say, all those who usually pass under\nthe name of freethinkers, do properly join with the same body; because\nthey likewise preach up moderation, and are not so overnice to\ndistinguish between an unlimited liberty of conscience, and an unlimited\nfreedom of opinion. Then on the other side, the professed firmness of\nthe Tories for Episcopacy as an apostolical institution: Their aversion\nto those sects who lie under the reproach of having once destroyed their\nconstitution, and who they imagine, by too indiscreet a zeal for\nreformation have defaced the primitive model of the Church: Next, their\nveneration for monarchical government in the common course of\nsuccession, and their hatred to republican schemes: These, I say, are\nprinciples which not only the nonjuring zealots profess, but even\nPapists themselves fall readily in with. And every extreme here\nmentioned flings a general scandal upon the whole body it pretends to\nadhere to.\n\nBut surely no man whatsoever ought in justice or good manners to be\ncharged with principles he actually disowns, unless his practices do\nopenly and without the least room for doubt contradict his profession:\nNot upon small surmises, or because he has the misfortune to have ill\nmen sometimes agree with him in a few general sentiments. However,\nthough the extremes of Whig and Tory seem with little justice to have\ndrawn religion into their controversies, wherein they have small\nconcern; yet they both have borrowed one leading principle from the\nabuse of it; which is, to have built their several systems of political\nfaith, not upon enquiries after truth, but upon opposition to each\nother, upon injurious appellations, charging their adversaries with\nhorrid opinions, and then reproaching them for the want of charity; _et\nneuter falso_.\n\nIn order to remove these prejudices, I have thought nothing could be\nmore effectual than to describe the sentiments of a Church of England\nman with respect to religion and government. This I shall endeavour to\ndo in such a manner as may not be liable to least objection from either\nparty, and which I am confident would be assented to by great numbers in\nboth, if they were not misled to those mutual misrepresentations, by\nsuch motives as they would be ashamed to own.\n\nI shall begin with religion.\n\nAnd here, though it makes an odd sound, yet it is necessary to say, that\nwhoever professes himself a member of the Church of England, ought to\nbelieve a God and his providence, together with revealed religion, and\nthe divinity of Christ. For beside those many thousands, who (to speak\nin the phrase of divines) do practically deny all this by the immorality\nof their lives; there is no small number, who in their conversation and\nwritings directly or by consequence endeavour to overthrow it; yet all\nthese place themselves in the list of the National Church, though at the\nsame time (as it is highly reasonable) they are great sticklers for\nliberty of conscience.\n\nTo enter upon particulars: A Church of England man hath a true\nveneration for the scheme established among us of ecclesiastic\ngovernment; and though he will not determine whether Episcopacy be of\ndivine right, he is sure it is most agreeable to primitive institution,\nfittest of all others for preserving order and purity, and under its\npresent regulations best calculated for our civil state: He should\ntherefore think the abolishment of that order among us would prove a\nmighty scandal and corruption to our faith, and manifestly dangerous to\nour monarchy; nay, he would defend it by arms against all the powers on\nearth, except our own legislature; in which case he would submit as to a\ngeneral calamity, a dearth, or a pestilence.\n\nAs to rites and ceremonies, and forms of prayer; he allows there might\nbe some useful alterations, and more, which in the prospect of uniting\nChristians might be very supportable, as things declared in their own\nnature indifferent; to which he therefore would readily comply, if the\nclergy, or, (though this be not so fair a method) if the legislature\nshould direct: Yet at the same time he cannot altogether blame the\nformer for their unwillingness to consent to any alteration; which\nbeside the trouble, and perhaps disgrace, would certainly never produce\nthe good effects intended by it. The only condition that could make it\nprudent and just for the clergy to comply in altering the ceremonial or\nany other indifferent part, would be, a firm resolution in the\nlegislature to interpose by some strict and effectual laws to prevent\nthe rising and spreading of new sects how plausible soever, for the\nfuture; else there must never be an end: And it would be to act like a\nman who should pull down and change the ornaments of his house, in\ncompliance to every one who was disposed to find fault as he passed by,\nwhich besides the perpetual trouble and expense, would very much damage,\nand perhaps in time destroy the building. Sects in a state seem only\ntolerated with any reason because they are already spread; and because\nit would not be agreeable with so mild a government, or so pure a\nreligion as ours, to use violent methods against great numbers of\nmistaken people, while they do not manifestly endanger the constitution\nof either. But the greatest advocates for general liberty of conscience,\nwill allow that they ought to be checked in their beginnings, if they\nwill allow them to be an evil at all, or which is the same thing, if\nthey will only grant, it were better for the peace of the state, that\nthere should be none. But while the clergy consider the natural temper\nof mankind in general, or of our own country in particular, what\nassurances can they have, that any compliances they shall make, will\nremove the evil of dissension, while the liberty still continues of\nprofessing whatever new opinion we please? Or how can it be imagined\nthat the body of dissenting teachers, who must be all undone by such a\nrevolution, will not cast about for some new objections to withhold\ntheir flocks, and draw in fresh proselytes by some further innovations\nor refinements?\n\nUpon these reasons he is for tolerating such different forms in\nreligious worship as are already admitted, but by no means for leaving\nit in the power of those who are tolerated, to advance their own models\nupon the ruin of what is already established, which it is natural for\nall sects to desire, and which they cannot justify by any consistent\nprinciples if they do not endeavour; and yet, which they cannot succeed\nin without the utmost danger to the public peace.\n\nTo prevent these inconveniences, he thinks it highly just, that all\nrewards of trust, profit, or dignity, which the state leaves in the\ndisposal of the administration, should be given only to those whose\nprinciples direct them to preserve the constitution in all its parts. In\nthe late affair of Occasional Conformity, the general argument of those\nwho were against it, was not, to deny it an evil in itself, but that the\nremedy proposed was violent, untimely, and improper, which is the Bishop\nof Salisbury's opinion in the speech he made and published against the\nbill: But, however just their fears or complaints might have been upon\nthat score, he thinks it a little too gross and precipitate to employ\ntheir writers already in arguments for repealing the sacramental test,\nupon no wiser a maxim, than that no man should on the account of\nconscience be deprived the liberty of serving his country; a topic which\nmay be equally applied to admit Papists, Atheists, Mahometans, Heathens,\nand Jews. If the Church wants members of its own to employ in the\nservice of the public; or be so unhappily contrived as to exclude from\nits communion such persons who are likeliest to have great abilities, it\nis time it should be altered and reduced into some more perfect, or at\nleast more popular form: But in the meanwhile, it is not altogether\nimprobable, that when those who dislike the constitution, are so very\nzealous in their offers for the service of their country, they are not\nwholly unmindful of their party or of themselves.\n\nThe Dutch whose practice is so often quoted to prove and celebrate the\ngreat advantages of a general liberty of conscience, have yet a national\nreligion professed by all who bear office among them: But why should\nthey be a precedent for us either in religion or government? Our country\ndiffers from theirs, as well in situation, soil, and productions of\nnature, as in the genius and complexion of inhabitants. They are a\ncommonwealth founded on a sudden by a desperate attempt in a desperate\ncondition, not formed or digested into a regular system by mature\nthought and reason, but huddled up under the pressure of sudden\nexigencies; calculated for no long duration, and hitherto subsisting by\naccident in the midst of contending powers, who cannot yet agree about\nsharing it among them. These difficulties do indeed preserve them from\nany great corruptions, which their crazy constitution would extremely\nsubject them to in a long peace. That confluence of people in a\npersecuting age, to a place of refuge nearest at hand, put them upon the\nnecessity of trade, to which they wisely gave all ease and\nencouragement: And if we could think fit to imitate them in this last\nparticular, there would need no more to invite foreigners among us; who\nseem to think no further than how to secure their property and\nconscience, without projecting any share in that government which gives\nthem protection, or calling it persecution if it be denied them. But I\nspeak it for the honour of our administration, that although our sects\nare not so numerous as those in Holland, which I presume is not our\nfault, and I hope is not our misfortune, we much excel them and all\nChristendom besides in our indulgence to tender consciences.[2] One\nsingle compliance with the national form of receiving the sacrament, is\nall we require to qualify any sectary among us for the greatest\nemployments in the state, after which he is at liberty to rejoin his own\nassemblies for the rest of his life. Besides, I will suppose any of the\nnumerous sects in Holland, to have so far prevailed as to have raised a\ncivil war, destroyed their government and religion, and put their\nadministrators to death; after which I will suppose the people to have\nrecovered all again, and to have settled on their old foundation. Then I\nwould put a query, whether that sect which was the unhappy instrument of\nall this confusion, could reasonably expect to be entrusted for the\nfuture with the greatest employments, or indeed to be hardly tolerated\namong them?\n\n[Footnote 2: When this was written there was no law against Occasional\nConformity. [Faulkner, 1735.]]\n\nTo go on with the sentiments of a Church of England man: He does not see\nhow that mighty passion for the Church which some men pretend, can well\nconsist with those indignities and that contempt they bestow on the\npersons of the clergy.[3] Tis a strange mark whereby to distinguish High\nChurchmen, that they are such who imagine the clergy can never be too\nlow. He thinks the maxim these gentlemen are so fond of, that they are\nfor an humble clergy, is a very good one; and so is he, and for an\nhumble laity too, since humility is a virtue that perhaps equally\nbenefits and adorns every station of life.\n\n[Footnote 3: \"I observed very well with what insolence and haughtiness\nsome lords of the High-Church party treated, not only their own\nchaplains, but all other clergy whatsoever, and thought this was\nsufficiently recompensed by their professions of zeal to the church.\"]\n\nBut then, if the scribblers on the other side freely speak the\nsentiments of their party, a divine of the Church of England cannot look\nfor much better quarter thence. You shall observe nothing more frequent\nin their weekly papers than a way of affecting to confound the terms of\nClergy and High Church, of applying both indifferently, and then loading\nthe latter with all the calumny they can invent. They will tell you they\nhonour a clergyman; but talk, at the same time, as if there were not\nthree in the kingdom, who could fall in with their definition.[4] After\nthe like manner they insult the universities, as poisoned fountains, and\ncorrupters of youth.\n\n[Footnote 4: \"I had likewise observed how the Whig lords took a direct\ncontrary measure, treated the persons of particular clergymen with great\ncourtesy, but shewed much ill-will and contempt for the order in\ngeneral.\"]\n\nNow, it seems clear to me, that the Whigs might easily have procured and\nmaintained a majority among the clergy, and perhaps in the universities,\nif they had not too much encouraged or connived at this intemperance of\nspeech and virulence of pen, in the worst and most prostitute of their\nparty; among whom there has been for some years past such a perpetual\nclamour against the ambition, the implacable temper, and the\ncovetousness of the priesthood: Such a cant of High Church, and\npersecution, and being priest-ridden; so many reproaches about narrow\nprinciples, or terms of communion: Then such scandalous reflections on\nthe universities, for infecting the youth of the nation with arbitrary\nand Jacobite principles, that it was natural for those, who had the care\nof religion and education, to apprehend some general design of altering\nthe constitution of both. And all this was the more extraordinary,\nbecause it could not easily be forgot, that whatever opposition was made\nto the usurpations of King James, proceeded altogether from the Church\nof England, and chiefly from the clergy, and one of the universities.\nFor, if it were of any use to recall matters of fact, what is more\nnotorious than that prince's applying himself first to the Church of\nEngland? And upon their refusal to fall in with his measures, making the\nlike advances to the dissenters of all kinds, who readily and almost\nuniversally complied with him, affecting in their numerous addresses and\npamphlets, the style of Our Brethren the Roman Catholics, whose\ninterests they put on the same foot with their own: And some of\nCromwell's officers took posts in the army raised against the Prince of\nOrange.[5] These proceedings of theirs they can only extenuate by urging\nthe provocations they had met from the Church in King Charles's reign,\nwhich though perhaps excusable upon the score of human infirmity, are\nnot by any means a plea of merit equal to the constancy and sufferings\nof the bishops and clergy, or of the head and fellows of Magdalen\nCollege, that furnished the Prince of Orange's declaration with such\npowerful arguments to justify and promote the Revolution.\n\n[Footnote 5: De Foe's \"History of Addresses\" contains some humbling\ninstances of the applause with which the sectaries hailed their old\nenemy, James II., when they saw him engaged in hostility with the\nestablished Church. [T. S.]]\n\nTherefore a Church of England man abhors the humour of the age in\ndelighting to fling scandals upon the clergy in general; which besides\nthe disgrace to the Reformation, and to religion itself, casts an\nignominy upon the kingdom that it does not deserve. We have no better\nmaterials to compound the priesthood of, than the mass of mankind, which\ncorrupted as it is, those who receive orders must have some vices to\nleave behind them when they enter into the Church, and if a few do still\nadhere, it is no wonder, but rather a great one that they are no worse.\nTherefore he cannot think ambition, or love of power more justly laid to\ntheir charge than to other men, because, that would be to make religion\nitself, or at least the best constitution of Church-government,\nanswerable for the errors and depravity of human nature.\n\nWithin these last two hundred years all sorts of temporal power have\nbeen wrested from the clergy, and much of their ecclesiastic, the reason\nor justice of which proceeding I shall not examine; but, that the\nremedies were a little too violent with respect to their possessions,\nthe legislature hath lately confessed by the remission of their First\nFruits.[6] Neither do the common libellers deny this, who in their\ninvectives only tax the Church with an insatiable desire of power and\nwealth (equally common to all bodies of men as well as individuals) but\nthank God, that the laws have deprived them of both. However, it is\nworth observing the justice of parties: The sects among us are apt to\ncomplain, and think it hard usage to be reproached now after fifty years\nfor overturning the state, for the murder of a king, and the indignity\nof a usurpation; yet these very men and their partisans, are continually\nreproaching the clergy, and laying to their charge the pride, the\navarice, the luxury, the ignorance, and superstition, of Popish times\nfor a thousand years past.\n\n[Footnote 6: The first fruits were the first year's income of\necclesiastical benefices. In the middle ages they were taken by the Pope\nas a right; but were handed over to the English crown in 1534. Anne in\n1703 gave them back to the Church by letters patent, an act confirmed by\nParliament in 1704. The \"Bounty\" of Queen Anne, however, did not extend\nto Ireland; and one of Swift's missions in London was to obtain this\nremission of the first fruits for the Irish clergy also. [T. S.]]\n\nHe thinks it a scandal to government that such an unlimited liberty\nshould be allowed of publishing books against those doctrines in\nreligion, wherein all Christians have agreed, much more to connive at\nsuch tracts as reject all revelation, and by their consequences often\ndeny the very being of a God. Surely 'tis not a sufficient atonement for\nthe writers, that they profess much loyalty to the present government,\nand sprinkle up and down some arguments in favour of the dissenters;\nthat they dispute as strenuously as they can for liberty of conscience,\nand inveigh largely against all ecclesiastics, under the name of High\nChurch; and, in short, under the shelter of some popular principles in\npolitics and religion, undermine the foundations of all piety and\nvirtue.\n\nAs he doth not reckon every schism of that damnable nature which some\nwould represent, so he is very far from closing with the new opinion of\nthose who would make it no crime at all, and argue at a wild rate, that\nGod Almighty is delighted with the variety of faith and worship, as He\nis with the varieties of nature. To such absurdities are men carried by\nthe affectation of freethinking, and removing the prejudices of\neducation, under which head they have for some time begun to list\nmorality and religion. It is certain that before the rebellion in 1642,\nthough the number of Puritans (as they were then called) was as great as\nit is with us, and though they affected to follow pastors of that\ndenomination, yet those pastors had episcopal ordination, possessed\npreferments in the Church, and were sometimes promoted to bishoprics\nthemselves.[7] But, a breach in the general form of worship was in those\ndays reckoned so dangerous and sinful in itself, and so offensive to\nRoman Catholics at home and abroad, and that it was too unpopular to be\nattempted; neither, I believe, was the expedient then found out of\nmaintaining separate pastors out of private purses.\n\n[Footnote 7: In the reign of Elizabeth, and even in that of James, the\nPuritans were not, properly speaking, Dissenters; but, on the contrary,\nformed a sort of Low Church party in the national establishment.\nArchbishop Abbot himself has been considered as a Puritan. [T. S.]]\n\nWhen a schism is once spread in a nation, there grows at length a\ndispute which are the schismatics. Without entering on the arguments,\nused by both sides among us, to fix the guilt on each other; 'tis\ncertain, that, in the sense of the law, the schism lies on that side\nwhich opposes itself to the religion of the state. I leave it among the\ndivines to dilate upon the danger of schism, as a spiritual evil, but I\nwould consider it only as a temporal one. And I think it clear that any\ngreat separation from the established worship, though to a new one that\nis more pure and perfect, may be an occasion of endangering the public\npeace, because it will compose a body always in reserve, prepared to\nfollow any discontented heads upon the plausible pretext of advancing\ntrue religion, and opposing error, superstition, or idolatry. For this\nreason Plato lays it down as a maxim, that, _men ought to worship the\ngods according to the laws of the country_, and he introduces Socrates\nin his last discourse utterly disowning the crime laid to his charge, of\nteaching new divinities or methods of worship. Thus the poor Huguenots\nof France were engaged in a civil war, by the specious pretences of\nsome, who under the guise of religion sacrificed so many thousand lives\nto their own ambition and revenge. Thus was the whole body of Puritans\nin England drawn to be instruments, or abettors of all manner of\nvillainy, by the artifices of a few men whose[8] designs from the first\nwere levelled to destroy the constitution both of religion and\ngovernment. And thus, even in Holland itself, where it is pretended that\nthe variety of sects live so amicably together, and in such perfect\nobedience to the magistrate, it is notorious how a turbulent party\njoining with the Arminians, did in the memory of our fathers attempt to\ndestroy the liberty of that republic. So that upon the whole, where\nsects are tolerated in a state, 'tis fit they should enjoy a full\nliberty of conscience, and every other privilege of freeborn subjects to\nwhich no power is annexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all\nemergencies, a government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them\nwith too little power.\n\n[Footnote 8: Lord Clarendon's History; but see also Gardiner's \"History\nof England.\" [T. S.]]\n\nThe clergy are usually charged with a persecuting spirit, which they are\nsaid to discover by an implacable hatred to all dissenters; and this\nappears to be more unreasonable, because they suffer less in their\ninterests by a toleration than any of the conforming laity: For while\nthe Church remains in its present form, no dissenter can possibly have\nany share in its dignities, revenues, or power; whereas, by once\nreceiving the sacrament, he is rendered capable of the highest\nemployments in the state. And it is very possible, that a narrow\neducation, together with a mixture of human infirmity, may help to beget\namong some of the clergy in possession such an aversion and contempt for\nall innovators, as physicians are apt to have for empirics, or lawyers\nfor pettifoggers, or merchants for pedlars: But since the number of\nsectaries doth not concern the clergy either in point of interest or\nconscience, (it being an evil not in their power to remedy) 'tis more\nfair and reasonable to suppose their dislike proceeds from the dangers\nthey apprehend to the peace of the commonwealth, in the ruin whereof\nthey must expect to be the first and greatest sufferers.\n\nTo conclude this section, it must be observed, there is a very good\nword, which hath of late suffered much by both parties, and that is,\nMODERATION, which the one side very justly disowns, and the other as\nunjustly pretends to. Beside what passeth every day in conversation; any\nman who reads the papers published by Mr. Lesley[9] and others of his\nstamp, must needs conclude, that if this author could make the nation\nsee his adversaries under the colours he paints them in, we have nothing\nelse to do, but rise as one man and destroy such wretches from the face\nof the earth. On the other side, how shall we excuse the advocates for\nmoderation? among whom, I could appeal to a hundred papers of universal\napprobation by the cause they were writ for, which lay such principles\nto the whole body of the Tories, as, if they were true, and believed;\nour next business should in prudence be, to erect gibbets in every\nparish, and hang them out of the way. But I suppose it is presumed, the\ncommon people understand raillery, or at least, rhetoric, and will not\ntake hyperboles in too literal a sense; which however in some junctures\nmight prove a desperate experiment.\n\n[Footnote 9: This was Charles Leslie, the second son of the Bishop of\nClogher (1650-1722). He was educated for the bar, but forsook that, and\nentered into holy orders. In his zeal for the established Church he\npersecuted the Catholics; but this did not interfere with his adhesion\nto Jacobite political principles. He settled in London, and wrote a\nweekly paper called \"The Rehearsal, or a Review of the Times,\" in which\nhe attacked Locke and Hoadly. He did all he could for the cause of the\nexiled James, but he gave up the work when he found it hopeless, and\ndied in Ireland. He wrote many virulent theological works, as well as a\nhost of political tracts. [T. S.]]\n\nAnd this is moderation in the modern sense of the word, to which,\nspeaking impartially, the bigots of both parties are equally entitled.\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_The Sentiments of a Church of England Man with respect to Government_.\n\nWe look upon it as a very just reproach, though we cannot agree where to\nfix it, that there should be so much violence and hatred in religious\nmatters, among men who agree in all fundamentals, and only differ in\nsome ceremonies, or at most mere speculative points. Yet is not this\nfrequently the case between contending parties in a state? For instance:\nDo not the generality of Whigs and Tories among us, profess to agree in\nthe same fundamentals, their loyalty to the Queen, their abjuration of\nthe Pretender, the settlement of the crown in the protestant line, and a\nrevolution principle? Their affection to the Church established, with\ntoleration of dissenters? Nay sometimes they go further, and pass over\ninto each other's principles; the Whigs become great assertors of the\nprerogative, and the Tories of the people's liberty; these crying down\nalmost the whole set of bishops, and those defending them; so that the\ndifferences fairly stated, would be much of a sort with those in\nreligion among us, and amount to little more than, _who should take\nplace_ or _go in and out first_, or _kiss the Queen's hand_; and what\nare these but a few court ceremonies? Or, _who should be in the\nministry_? And what is that to the body of the nation, but a mere\nspeculative point? Yet I think it must be allowed, that no religious\nsects ever carried their aversions for each other to greater heights\nthan our state-parties have done, who the more to inflame their passions\nhave mixed religious and civil animosities together; borrowing one of\ntheir appellations from the Church, with the addition of High and Low,\nhow little soever their disputes relate to the term as it is generally\nunderstood.\n\nI now proceed to deliver the sentiments of a Church of England man with\nrespect to government.\n\nHe doth not think the Church of England so narrowly calculated, that it\ncannot fall in with any regular species of government; nor does he think\nany one regular species of government more acceptable to God than\nanother. The three generally received in the schools have all of them\ntheir several perfections, and are subject to their several\ndepravations. However, few states are ruined by any defect in their\ninstitution, but generally by the corruption of manners, against which\nthe best institution is no long security, and without which a very ill\none may subsist and flourish: Whereof there are two pregnant instances\nnow in Europe. The first is the aristocracy of Venice, which founded\nupon the wisest maxims, and digested by a great length of time, hath in\nour age admitted so many abuses through the degeneracy of the nobles,\nthat the period of its duration seems to approach. The other is the\nunited republics of the States-general, where a vein of temperance,\nindustry, parsimony, and a public spirit, running through the whole body\nof the people, hath preserved an infant commonwealth of an untimely\nbirth and sickly constitution, for above an hundred years, through so\nmany dangers and difficulties, as a much more healthy one could never\nhave struggled against, without those advantages.\n\nWhere security of person and property are preserved by laws which none\nbut the Whole can repeal, there the great ends of government are\nprovided for whether the administration be in the hands of One, or of\nMany. Where any one person or body of men, who do not represent the\nWhole, seize into their hands the power in the last resort, there is\nproperly no longer a government, but what Aristotle and his followers\ncall the abuse and corruption of one. This distinction excludes\narbitrary power in whatever numbers; which notwithstanding all that\nHobbes, Filmer[10] and others have said to its advantage, I look upon as\na greater evil than anarchy itself; as much as a savage is in a happier\nstate of life than a slave at the oar.\n\n[Footnote 10: Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679), the English philosopher, and\nauthor of \"De Cive\" (1642), \"Treatise on Human Nature\" (1650), \"De\nCorpore Politico\" (1650), \"Leviathan\" (1651), and other works. Swift is\nhere combating Hobbes's advocacy for a sovereign power, as vested in a\nsingle person.\n\nFilmer, Sir Robert (died 1647), author of \"The Anarchy of a limited and\nmixed Monarchy,\" \"Patriarcha,\" and \"The Freeholder's Grand Inquest.\" In\nthe \"Patriarcha\" Filmer attempted to prove that absolute government by a\nmonarch was a patriarchal institution. Locke replied to this work in his\n\"Two Treatises on Government.\" [T.S.]]\n\nIt is reckoned ill manners, as well as unreasonable, for men to quarrel\nupon difference in opinion; because that is usually supposed to be a\nthing which no man can help in himself; which however I do not conceive\nto be an universal infallible maxim, except in those cases where the\nquestion is pretty equally disputed among the learned and the wise;\nwhere it is otherwise, a man of tolerable reason, small experience, and\nwilling to be instructed, may apprehend he is got into a wrong opinion,\nthough the whole course of his mind and inclination would persuade him\nto believe it true: He may be convinced that he is in error though he\ndoes not see where it lies, by the bad effects of it in the common\nconduct of his life, and by observing those persons for whose wisdom and\ngoodness he has the greatest deference, to be of a contrary sentiment.\nAccording to Hobbes's comparison of reasoning with casting up accounts,\nwhoever finds a mistake in the sum total, must allow himself out,\nthough, after repeated trials he may not see in which article he has\nmisreckoned. I will instance in one opinion, which I look upon every man\nobliged in conscience to quit, or in prudence to conceal; I mean, that\nwhoever argues in defence of absolute power in a single person, though\nhe offers the old plausible plea, that, _it is his opinion, which he\ncannot help unless he be convinced_, ought, in all free states to be\ntreated as the common enemy of mankind. Yet this is laid as a heavy\ncharge upon the clergy of the two reigns before the Revolution, who\nunder the terms of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance are said to have\npreached up the unlimited power of the prince, because they found it a\ndoctrine that pleased the Court, and made way for their preferment. And\nI believe there may be truth enough in this accusation, to convince us,\nthat human frailty will too often interpose itself among persons of the\nholiest function. However, it may be offered in excuse for the clergy,\nthat in the best societies there are some ill members, which a corrupted\ncourt and ministry will industriously find out and introduce. Besides,\nit is manifest that the greater number of those who held and preached\nthis doctrine, were misguided by equivocal terms, and by perfect\nignorance in the principles of government, which they had not made any\npart of their study. The question originally put, and as I remember to\nhave heard it disputed in public schools, was this; _whether under any\npretence whatsoever it may be lawful to resist the supreme magistrate?_\nwhich was held in the negative; and this is certainly the right opinion.\nBut many of the clergy, and other learned men, deceived by dubious\nexpression, mistook the object to which passive obedience was due. By\nthe supreme magistrate is properly understood the legislative power,\nwhich in all government must be absolute and unlimited. But the word\nmagistrate seeming to denote a single person, and to express the\nexecutive power, it came to pass, that the obedience due to the\nlegislature was for want of knowing or considering this easy\ndistinction, misapplied to the administration. Neither is it any wonder,\nthat the clergy or other well-meaning people should fall into this\nerror, which deceived Hobbes himself so far, as to be the foundation of\nall the political mistakes in his book, where he perpetually confounds\nthe executive with the legislative power, though all well-instituted\nstates have ever placed them in different hands, as may be obvious to\nthose who know anything of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and other republics\nof Greece, as well as the greater ones of Carthage and Rome.\n\nBesides, it is to be considered that when these doctrines began to be\npreached among us, the kingdom had not quite worn out the memory of that\nunhappy rebellion, under the consequences of which it had groaned almost\ntwenty years. And a weak prince in conjunction with a succession of most\nprostitute ministers, began again to dispose the people to new attempts,\nwhich it was, no doubt, the clergy's duty to endeavour to prevent, if\nsome of them had not for want of knowledge in temporal affairs, and\nothers perhaps from a worse principle, proceeded upon a topic that\nstrictly followed would enslave all mankind.\n\nAmong other theological arguments made use of in those times, in praise\nof monarchy, and justification of absolute obedience to a prince, there\nseemed to be one of a singular nature: It was urged that Heaven was\ngoverned by a monarch, who had none to control his power, but was\nabsolutely obeyed: Then it followed, that earthly governments were the\nmore perfect, the nearer they imitated the government in Heaven. All\nwhich I look upon as the strongest argument against despotic power that\never was offered; since no reason can possibly be assigned why it is\nbest for the world that God Almighty hath such a power, which doth not\ndirectly prove that no mortal man should ever have the like.\n\nBut though a Church of England man thinks every species of government\nequally lawful, he does not think them equally expedient; or for every\ncountry indifferently. There may be something in the climate, naturally\ndisposing men toward one sort of obedience, as is manifest all over\nAsia, where we never read of any commonwealth, except some small ones on\nthe western coasts established by the Greeks. There may be a great deal\nin the situation of a country, and in the present genius of the people.\nIt hath been observed, that the temperate climates usually run into\nmoderate governments, and the extremes into despotic power. 'Tis a\nremark of Hobbes, that the youth of England are corrupted in their\nprinciples of government, by reading the authors of Greece and Rome who\nwrit under commonwealths. But it might have been more fairly offered for\nthe honour of liberty, that while the rest of the known world was\noverrun with the arbitrary government of single persons; arts and\nsciences took their rise, and flourished only in those few small\nterritories were the people were free. And though learning may continue\nafter liberty is lost, as it did in Rome, for a while, upon the\nfoundations laid under the commonwealth, and the particular patronage of\nsome emperors; yet it hardly ever began under a tyranny in any nation:\nBecause slavery is of all things the greatest clog and obstacle to\nspeculation. And indeed, arbitrary power is but the first natural step\nfrom anarchy or the savage life; the adjusting of power and freedom\nbeing an effect and consequence of maturer thinking: And this is nowhere\nso duly regulated as in a limited monarchy: Because I believe it may\npass for a maxim in state, that the administration cannot be placed in\ntoo few hands, nor the legislature in too many. Now in this material\npoint, the constitution of the English government far exceeds all others\nat this time on the earth, to which the present establishment of the\nChurch doth so happily agree, that I think, whoever is an enemy to\neither, must of necessity be so to both.\n\nHe thinks, as our monarchy is constituted, a hereditary right is much to\nbe preferred before election. Because the government here, especially by\nsome late amendments, is so regularly disposed in all its parts, that it\nalmost executes itself. And therefore upon the death of a prince among\nus, the administration goes on without any rub or interruption. For the\nsame reasons we have little to apprehend from the weakness or fury of\nour monarchs, who have such wise councils to guide the first, and laws\nto restrain the other. And therefore this hereditary right should be\nkept so sacred, as never to break the succession, unless where the\npreserving of it may endanger the constitution; which is not from any\nintrinsic merit, or unalienable right in a particular family, but to\navoid the consequences that usually attend the ambition of competitors,\nto which elective kingdoms are exposed; and which is the only obstacle\nto hinder them from arriving at the greatest perfection that government\ncan possibly reach. Hence appears the absurdity of that distinction\nbetween a king _de facto_, and one _de jure_, with respect to us. For\nevery limited monarch is a king _de jure_, because he governs by the\nconsent of the whole, which is authority sufficient to abolish all\nprecedent right. If a king come in by conquest, he is no longer a\nlimited monarch, if he afterward consent to limitations, he becomes\nimmediately king _de jure_ for the same reason.\n\nThe great advocates for succession, who affirm it ought not to be\nviolated upon any regard or consideration whatsoever, do insist much\nupon one argument that seems to carry little weight. They would have it,\nthat a crown is a prince's birthright, and ought at least to be as well\nsecured to him and his posterity as the inheritance of any private man:\nIn short, that he has the same title to his kingdom which every\nindividual has to his property. Now the consequence of this doctrine\nmust be, that as a man may find several ways to waste, misspend, or\nabuse his patrimony, without being answerable to the laws; so a king may\nin like manner do what he will with his own, that is, he may squander\nand misapply his revenues, and even alienate the crown, without being\ncalled to an account by his subjects. They allow such a prince to be\nguilty indeed of much folly and wickedness, but for those he is to\nanswer to God, as every private man must do that is guilty of\nmismanagement in his own concerns. Now the folly of this reasoning will\nbest appear, by applying it in a parallel case. Should any man argue,\nthat a physician is supposed to understand his own art best; that the\nlaw protects and encourages his profession; and therefore although he\nshould manifestly prescribe poison to all his patients, whereof they\nshould immediately die, he cannot be justly punished, but is answerable\nonly to God: Or should the same be offered in behalf of a divine, who\nwould preach against religion and moral duties; in either of these two\ncases everybody would find out the sophistry, and presently answer, that\nalthough common men are not exactly skilled in the composition or\napplication of medicines, or in prescribing the limits of duty; yet the\ndifference between poisons and remedies is easily known by their\neffects, and common reason soon distinguishes between virtue and vice:\nAnd it must be necessary to forbid both these the further practice of\ntheir professions, because their crimes are not purely personal to the\nphysician or the divine, but destructive to the public. All which is\ninfinitely stronger in respect to a prince, with whose good or ill\nconduct the happiness or misery of a whole nation is included; whereas\nit is of small consequence to the public, farther than examples, how any\nprivate person manages his property.\n\nBut granting that the right of a lineal successor to a crown were upon\nthe same foot with the property of a subject, still It may at any time\nbe transferred by the legislative power, as other properties frequently\nare. The supreme power in a state can do no wrong, because whatever that\ndoth, is the action of all; and when the lawyers apply this maxim to the\nking, they must understand it only in that sense as he is administrator\nof the supreme power, otherwise it is not universally true, but may be\ncontrolled in several instances easy to produce.\n\nAnd these are the topics we must proceed upon to justify our exclusion\nof the young Pretender in France; that of his suspected birth being\nmerely popular, and therefore not made use of as I remember, since the\nRevolution in any speech, vote, or proclamation where there was occasion\nto mention him.\n\nAs to the abdication of King James, which the advocates on that side\nlook upon to have been forcible and unjust, and consequently void in\nitself, I think a man may observe every article of the English Church,\nwithout being in much pain about it. 'Tis not unlikely that all doors\nwere laid open for his departure, and perhaps not without the privity of\nthe Prince of Orange, as reasonably concluding that the kingdom might be\nsettled in his absence: But to affirm he had any cause to apprehend the\nsame treatment with his father, is an improbable scandal flung upon the\nnation by a few bigotted French scribblers, or the invidious assertion\nof a ruined party at home, in the bitterness of their souls: Not one\nmaterial circumstance agreeing with those in 1648; and the greatest part\nof the nation having preserved the utmost horror for that ignominious\nmurder: But whether his removal were caused by his own fears or other\nmen's artifices, 'tis manifest to me, that supposing the throne to be\nvacant, which was the foot they went upon, the body of the people were\nthereupon left at liberty, to choose what form of government they\npleased, by themselves or their representatives.\n\nThe only difficulty of any weight against the proceedings at the\nRevolution, is an obvious objection, to which the writers upon that\nsubject have not yet given a direct or sufficient answer, as if they\nwere in pain at some consequences which they apprehend those of the\ncontrary opinion might draw from it, I will repeat this objection as it\nwas offered me some time ago, with all its advantages, by a very pious,\nlearned, and worthy gentleman[11] of the nonjuring party.\n\n[Footnote 11: Mr. Nelson, author of \"The Feasts and Fasts of the Church\nof England.\"]\n\nThe force of his argument turned upon this; that the laws made by the\nsupreme power, cannot otherwise than by the supreme power be annulled:\nThat this consisting in England of a King, Lords, and Commons, whereof\neach have a negative voice, no two of them can repeal or enact a law\nwithout consent of the third; much less may any one of them be entirely\nexcluded from its part of the legislature by a vote of the other two.\nThat all these maxims were openly violated at the Revolution; where an\nassembly of the nobles and people, not summoned by the king's writ\n(which was an essential part of the constitution) and consequently no\nlawful meeting, did merely upon their own authority, declare the king to\nhave abdicated, the throne vacant, and gave the crown by a vote to a\nnephew, when there were three children to inherit; though by the\nfundamental laws of the realm the next heir is immediately to succeed.\nNeither does it appear how a prince's abdication can make any other sort\nof vacancy in the throne, than would be caused by his death, since he\ncannot abdicate for his children (who claim their right of succession by\nact of parliament) otherwise than by his own consent in form to a bill\nfrom the two houses.\n\nAnd this is the difficulty that seems chiefly to stick with the most\nreasonable of those, who from a mere scruple of conscience refuse to\njoin with us upon the revolution principle; but for the rest, are I\nbelieve as far from loving arbitrary government, as any others can be,\nwho are born under a free constitution, and are allowed to have the\nleast share of common good sense.\n\nIn this objection there are two questions included: First, whether upon\nthe foot of our constitution, as it stood in the reign of the late King\nJames, a king of England may be deposed? The second is, whether the\npeople of England convened by their own authority, after the king had\nwithdrawn himself in the manner he did, had power to alter the\nsuccession?\n\nAs for the first; it is a point I shall not presume to determine, and\nshall therefore only say, that to any man who holds the negative, I\nwould demand the liberty of putting the case as strongly as I please. I\nwill suppose a prince limited by laws like ours, yet running into a\nthousand caprices of cruelty like Nero or Caligula. I will suppose him\nto murder his mother and his wife, to commit incest, to ravish matrons,\nto blow up the senate, and burn his metropolis, openly to renounce God\nand Christ, and worship the devil. These and the like exorbitances are\nin the power of a single person to commit without the advice of a\nministry, or assistance of an army. And if such a king as I have\ndescribed, cannot be deposed but by his own consent in parliament, I do\nnot well see how he can be resisted, or what can be meant by a limited\nmonarchy; or what signifies the people's consent in making and repealing\nlaws, if the person who administers hath no tie but conscience, and is\nanswerable to none but God. I desire no stronger proof that an opinion\nmust be false, than to find very great absurdities annexed to it; and\nthere cannot be greater than in the present case: For it is not a bare\nspeculation that kings may run into such enormities as are\nabove-mentioned; the practice may be proved by examples not only drawn\nfrom the first Caesars or later emperors, but many modern princes of\nEurope; such as Peter the Cruel, Philip the Second of Spain, John\nBasilovitz[12] of Muscovy, and in our own nation, King John, Richard the\nThird, and Henry the Eighth. But there cannot be equal absurdities\nsupposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain,\nthat princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by\nany tolerable administration; till provoked by continual oppressions, no\nman indeed can then answer where the madness of the people will stop.\n\n[Footnote 12: Peter the Cruel is Pedro of Castile. Ivan Basilovitz was\nthe first emperor of Russia who assumed the title of Czar. He was born\nin 1529, and died in 1584.]\n\nAs to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England\nconvened by their own authority, upon King James's precipitate\ndeparture, had power to alter the succession?\n\nIn answer to this, I think it is manifest from the practice of the\nwisest nations, and who seem to have had the truest notions of freedom,\nthat when a prince was laid aside for mal-administration, the nobles and\npeople, if they thought it necessary for the public weal, did resume the\nadministration of the supreme power (the power itself having been always\nin them) and did not only alter the succession, but often the very form\nof government too; because they believed there was no natural right in\none man to govern another, but that all was by institution, force, or\nconsent. Thus, the cities of Greece, when they drove out their\ntyrannical kings, either chose others from a new family, or abolished\nthe kingly government, and became free states. Thus the Romans upon the\nexpulsion of Tarquin found it inconvenient for them to be subject any\nlonger to the pride, the lust, the cruelty and arbitrary will of single\npersons, and therefore by general consent entirely altered the whole\nframe of their government. Nor do I find the proceedings of either, in\nthis point, to have been condemned by any historian of the succeeding\nages.\n\nBut a great deal hath been already said by other writers upon this\ninvidious and beaten subject; therefore I shall let it fall, though the\npoint is commonly mistaken, especially by the lawyers; who of all others\nseem least to understand the nature of government in general; like\nunder-workmen, who are expert enough at making a single wheel in a\nclock, but are utterly ignorant how to adjust the several parts, or\nregulate the movements.\n\nTo return therefore from this digression: It is a Church of England\nman's opinion, that the freedom of a nation consists in an absolute\nunlimited legislative power, wherein the whole body of the people are\nfairly represented, and in an executive duly limited; because on this\nside likewise there may be dangerous degrees, and a very ill extreme.\nFor when two parties in a state are pretty equal in power, pretensions,\nmerit, and virtue, (for these two last are with relation to parties and\na court, quite different things) it hath been the opinion of the best\nwriters upon government, that a prince ought not in any sort to be under\nthe guidance or influence of either, because he declines by this means\nfrom his office of presiding over the whole, to be the head of a party;\nwhich besides the indignity, renders him answerable for all public\nmismanagements and the consequences of them; and in whatever state this\nhappens, there must either be a weakness in the prince or ministry, or\nelse the former is too much restrained by the legislature.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: This is as given in the \"Miscellanies\" (1711). Scott and\nFaulkner print \"by the nobles, or those who represent the people.\" [T.\nS.]]\n\nTo conclude: A Church of England man may with prudence and a good\nconscience approve the professed principles of one party more than the\nother, according as he thinks they best promote the good of Church and\nState; but he will never be swayed by passion or interest, to advance an\nopinion merely because it is that of the party he most approves; which\none single principle he looks upon as the root of all our civil\nanimosities. To enter into a party as into an order of friars with so\nresigned an obedience to superiors, is very unsuitable both with the\ncivil and religious liberties we so zealously assert. Thus the\nunderstandings of a whole senate are often enslaved by three or four\nleaders on each side; who instead of intending the public weal, have\ntheir hearts wholly set upon ways and means how to get or to keep\nemployments. But to speak more at large, how has this spirit of faction\nmingled itself with the mass of the people, changed their nature and\nmanners, and the very genius of the nation; broke all the laws of\ncharity, neighbourhood, alliance and hospitality; destroyed all ties of\nfriendship, and divided families against themselves! And no wonder it\nshould be so, when in order to find out the character of a person,\ninstead of inquiring whether he be a man of virtue, honour, piety, wit,\ngood sense, or learning; the modern question is only, whether he be a\nWhig or a Tory, under which terms all good and ill qualities are\nincluded.\n\nNow, because it is a point of difficulty to choose an exact middle\nbetween two ill extremes, it may be worth enquiring in the present case,\nwhich of these, a wise and good man would rather seem to avoid: Taking\ntherefore their own good and ill characters with due abatements and\nallowances for partiality and passion; I should think that in order to\npreserve the constitution entire in Church and State, whoever has a true\nvalue for both, would be sure to avoid the extremes of Whig for the sake\nof the former, and the extremes of Tory on account of the latter.\n\nI have now said all that I could think convenient upon so nice a\nsubject, and find I have the ambition common with other reasoners, to\nwish at least that both parties may think me in the right, which would\nbe of some use to those who have any virtue left, but are blindly drawn\ninto the extravagancies of either, upon false representations, to serve\nthe ambition or malice of designing men, without any prospect of their\nown. But if that is not to be hoped for, my next wish should be, that\nboth might think me in the wrong; which I would understand as an ample\njustification of myself, and a sure ground to believe, that I have\nproceeded at least with impartiality, and perhaps with truth.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nREMARKS\n\nUPON A\n\nBOOK,\n\nINTITULED,\n\n\"THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, &c.\"\n\nWRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708, BUT LEFT UNFINISHED.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nDr. Matthew Tindal, of whom a short account has already been given (see\nnote, p. 9), issued his \"Rights of the Christian Church\" in 1706. In\n1707 it had already gone through three editions. The full title of the\nwork is: \"The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the\nRomish and all other Priests, who claim an independent Power over it:\nwith a Preface concerning the Government of the Church of England, as by\nlaw established.\" Ostensibly the book was an attack on the Roman\nCatholic Church, but the attack was so cleverly veiled that it included\nin its criticisms the Church of England also; and must take its place\namong the works of the deistical writers of the time who aimed at\nsubverting the foundations of the relationships between the Church and\nthe State. According to Dr. Hicks, who wrote several works in reply to\nTindal's book, Tindal told a gentleman, who found him at work on it,\nthat \"he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad.\" If so, he\ndid not fall short of his intention; for not only the clergy, but even\nlearned laymen became \"mad.\" In addition to Dr. Hicks of Oxford, the\nChurch of England found champions in Dr. William Wotton, Samuel Hill,\nConyers-Place, Mr. Oldisworth, and Swift. Swift delayed the preparation\nof the materials for his reply, or else he found other matters to occupy\nhis time--the Sacheverel business came on soon after, and the Tindal\ncontroversy lost interest in this more immediate and more important\naffair. So that Swift's criticism remained unfinished, and was only\npublished when his editors came to search among his papers. In 1710\nTindal's work was ordered, by a vote of the House of Commons, to be\npublicly burned by the hangman. The grand jury of Middlesex were\npresented that the author, printer, and publisher of \"The Rights of the\nChristian Church\" to be dangerous and disaffected persons, and promoters\nof sedition and profaneness; and this charge was grounded on the\nfollowing extracts. I take these from Scott's note, and I find that the\npage references are to the second edition of Tindal's work issued in\n1706.\n\n\"The church is a private society, and no more power belonging to it than\nto other private companies and clubs, and, consequently, all the right\nanyone has to be an ecclesiastical officer, and the power he is\nentrusted with, depends on the consent of the parties concerned, and is\nno greater than they can bestow.\" Preface, p. xxx.\n\n\"The Scriptures nowhere make the receiving the Lord's Supper from the\nhands of a priest necessary.\" p. 104.\n\n\"The remembrance of Christ's sufferings a mere grace-cup delivered to be\nhanded about.\" p. 105.\n\n\"Among Christians, one no more than another can be reckoned a priest\nfrom Scripture\"--\"And the clerk has as good a title to the priesthood as\nthe parson ... Every one, as well as the minister, rightly consecrateth\nthe elements to himself ... Anything farther than this, may rather be\ncalled Conjuration than Consecration.\" p. 108.\n\n\"The absurdities of bishops being by divine appointment, governors of\nthe Christian Church, and no others are capable of being of that number,\nwho derive not their right by an uninterrupted succession of bishops in\nthe Catholic Church.\" p. 313.\n\n\"The supreme powers had no way to escape the heavier oppressions, and\nmore insupportable usurpations of their own clergy, than by submitting\nto the Pope's milder yoke and gentler authority.\" p. 255.\n\n\"One grand cause of mistake is, not considering when God acts as\ngovernor of the universe, and when as prince of a particular nation. The\nJews, when they came out of the land of bondage, were under no settled\ngovernment, till God was pleased to offer himself to be their king, to\nwhich all the people expressly consented ... God's laws bound no nation,\nexcept those that agreed to the Horeb contract.\" p. 151.\n\n\"Not only an independent power of excommunication, but of ordination in\nthe clergy, is inconsistent with the magistrate's right to protect the\ncommonwealth.\" p. 87.\n\n\"Priests, no better than spiritual make-baits, baraters, boute-feux, and\nincendiaries, and who make churches serve to worse purposes than bear\ngardens.\" p. 118.\n\n\"It is a grand mistake to suppose the magistrate's power extends to\nindifferent things ... Men have liberty as they please, and a right ...\nto form what clubs, companies, or meetings, they think fit, either for\nbusiness or pleasure, which the magistrate ... cannot hinder, without\nmanifest injustice.\" p. 15.\n\n\"God ... interposed not among the Jews, until they had chosen him for\ntheir king.\" p. 312.\n\nFor a full account of Tindal and his work, see the \"Memoirs of the Life\nand Writings of Matthew Tindal, with a History of the Controversies\nwherein he was engaged,\" published in 1733. The text of the present\nreprint of Swift's \"Remarks\" is based on that given in \"Works,\" vol.\nvii. of the 4to edition of 1764. It has also been collated with the 8vo\nedition of same date (vol. xiii.) and with that of 1762 (vol. xiii.).\n\n[T. S.]\n\n\n  REMARKS UPON A BOOK INTITULED\n  \"THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN\n  CHURCH, &c.\"\n\n\nBefore I enter upon a particular examination of this treatise, it will\nbe convenient to do two things:\n\n_First_, To give some account of the author, together with the motives,\nthat might probably engage him in such a work. And,\n\n_Secondly_, to discover the nature and tendency in general, of the work\nitself.\n\nThe first of these, although it hath been objected against, seems highly\nreasonable, especially in books that instil pernicious principles. For,\nalthough a book is not intrinsically much better or worse, according to\nthe stature or complexion of the author, yet, when it happens to make a\nnoise, we are apt, and curious, as in other noises, to look about from\nwhence it cometh. But however, there is something more in the matter.\n\nIf a theological subject be well handled by a layman, it is better\nreceived than if it came from a divine; and that for reasons obvious\nenough, which, although of little weight in themselves, will ever have a\ngreat deal with mankind.\n\nBut, when books are written with ill intentions, to advance dangerous\nopinions, or destroy foundations; it may be then of real use to know\nfrom what quarter they come, and go a good way towards their\nconfutation. For instance, if any man should write a book against the\nlawfulness of punishing felony with death; and, upon enquiry, the author\nshould be found in Newgate under condemnation for robbing a house; his\narguments would not very unjustly lose much of their force, from the\ncircumstances he lay under. So, when Milton writ his book of divorces,\nit was presently rejected as an occasional treatise; because every body\nknew, he had a shrew for his wife. Neither can there be any reason\nimagined, why he might not, after he was blind, have writ another upon\nthe danger and inconvenience of eyes. But, it is a piece of logic which\nwill hardly pass on the world; that because one man hath a sore nose,\ntherefore all the town should put plasters upon theirs. So, if this\ntreatise about the rights of the church should prove to be the work of a\nman steady in his principles, of exact morals, and profound learning, a\ntrue lover of his country, and a hater of Christianity, as what he\nreally believes to be a cheat upon mankind, whom he would undeceive\npurely for their good; it might be apt to check unwary men, even of good\ndispositions towards religion. But if it be found the production of a\nman soured with age and misfortunes, together with the consciousness of\npast miscarriages; of one, who, in hopes of preferment, was reconciled\nto the Popish religion;[1] of one wholly prostitute in life and\nprinciples, and only an enemy to religion, because it condemns them: In\nthis case, and this last I find is the universal opinion, he is like to\nhave few proselytes, beside those, who, from a sense of their vicious\nlives, require to be perpetually supplied by such amusements as this;\nwhich serve to flatter their wishes, and debase their understandings.\n\n[Footnote 1: Dr. Matthew Tindal became a convert to the Romish religion\nduring the reign of James II. What share interest had in his conversion\nmay be easily imagined; but it is uncertain whether it was the\ndisappointment of his expectations, or conviction, that, in 1687,\ninduced him to reconcile himself to the Church of England, and become a\ndecided favourer of those doctrines which produced the Revolution. He\noften sat as a judge in the Court of Delegates, but did not practise\nmuch as an advocate in Doctor's Commons. His chief means of support was\na pension from government of \u00a3200. Tindal died in 1733, three years\nafter publication of his grand deistical work, \"Christianity as Old as\nthe Creation.\" His effects, amounting to \u00a32,000 and upwards, were\nappropriated by the noted Eustace Budgell, to the prejudice of the heir\nat law, under a will attended with circumstances of great suspicion. [T.\nS.]]\n\nI know there are some who would fain have it, that this discourse was\nwritten by a club of freethinkers, among whom the supposed author only\ncame in for a share. But, sure, we cannot judge so meanly of any party,\nwithout affronting the dignity of mankind. If this be so, and if here be\nthe product of all their quotas and contributions, we must needs allow,\nthat freethinking is a most confined and limited talent. It is true\nindeed, the whole discourse seemeth to be a motley, inconsistent\ncomposition, made up of various shreds of equal fineness, although of\ndifferent colours. It is a bundle of incoherent maxims and assertions,\nthat frequently destroy one another. But still there is the same\nflatness of thought and style; the same weak advances towards wit and\nraillery; the same petulancy and pertness of spirit; the same train of\nsuperficial reading; the same thread of threadbare quotations: the same\naffectation of forming general rules upon false and scanty premises.\nAnd, lastly, the same rapid venom sprinkled over the whole; which, like\nthe dying impotent bite of a trodden benumbed snake, may be nauseous and\noffensive, but cannot be very dangerous.\n\nAnd, indeed, I am so far from thinking this libel to be born of several\nfathers, that it hath been the wonder of several others, as well as\nmyself; how it was possible for any man, who appeareth to have gone the\ncommon circle of academical education;[2] who hath taken so universal a\nliberty, and hath so entirely laid aside all regards, not only of\nChristianity, but common truth and justice; one who is dead to all sense\nof shame, and seemeth to be past the getting or losing a reputation,\nshould, with so many advantages, and upon so unlimited a subject, come\nout with so poor, so jejune a production. Should we pity or be amazed at\nso perverse a talent, which, instead of qualifying an author to give a\nnew turn to old matter, disposeth him quite contrary to talk in an old\nbeaten trivial manner upon topics wholly new. To make so many sallies\ninto pedantry without a call, upon a subject the most alien, and in the\nvery moments he is declaiming against it, and in an age too, where it is\nso violently exploded, especially among those readers he proposeth to\nentertain.\n\n[Footnote 2: See note, p. 9, where it will be seen that Tindal was an\nOxford man. [T.S.]]\n\nI know it will be said, that this is only to talk in the common style of\nan answerer; but I have not so little policy. If there were any hope of\nreputation or merit from such victory, I should be apt like others to\ncry up the courage and conduct of an enemy. Whereas to detect the\nweakness, the malice, the sophistry, the falsehood, the ignorance of\nsuch a writer, requireth little more than to rank his perfections in\nsuch an order, and place them in such a light, that the commonest reader\nmay form a judgment of them.\n\nIt may still be a wonder how so heavy a book, written upon a subject in\nappearance so little instructive or diverting, should survive to three\neditions, and consequently find a better reception than is usual with\nsuch bulky spiritless volumes; and this, in an age that pretendeth so\nsoon to be nauseated with what is tedious and dull. To which I can only\nreturn, that, as burning a book by the common hangman, is a known\nexpedient to make it sell; so, to write a book that deserveth such\ntreatment, is another: And a third, perhaps as effectual as either, is\nto ply an insipid, worthless tract with grave and learned answers, as\nDr. Hickes, Dr. Potter,[3] and Mr. Wotton have done. Design and\nperformances, however commendable, have glanced a reputation upon the\npiece; which oweth its life to the strength of those hands and weapons,\nthat were raised to destroy it; like flinging a mountain upon a worm,\nwhich, instead of being bruised, by the advantage of its littleness,\nlodgeth under it unhurt.\n\n[Footnote 3: George Hickes, D.D. (1642-1715), born at Newsham, Yorks,\nand educated at Oxford. He visited Scotland with his patron, the Duke of\nLauderdale, in 1677, and was presented by the St. Andrews University\nwith the degree of LL.D. Became Dean of Worcester in 1683, but lost that\noffice at the Revolution, for not taking the oaths. The nonjuring\nprelates, in 1693, consecrated him Bishop of Thetford. Dr. Hickes was a\nprofound scholar, and well versed in northern literature. Among his\nworks may be named, \"Institutiones Grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et\nMaeso-Gothicae,\" \"Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis Thesaurus.\"\n\nJohn Potter, D.D. (1674-1747), born at Wakefield, and educated at\nOxford. In 1707 he published a \"Discourse on Church Government,\" and\neight years later became Bishop of Oxford. On the death of Wake, in\n1737, he was appointed to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. [T.S.]]\n\nBut neither is this all. For the subject, as unpromising as it seemeth\nat first view, is no less than that of Lucretius, to free men's minds\nfrom the bondage of religion; and this not by little hints and by\npiecemeal, after the manner of those little atheistical tracts that\nsteal into the world, but in a thorough wholesale manner; by making\nreligion, church, Christianity, with all their concomitants, a perfect\ncontrivance of the civil power. It is an imputation often charged on\nthis sort of men, that, by their invectives against religion, they can\npossibly propose no other end than that of fortifying themselves and\nothers against the reproaches of a vicious life; it being necessary for\nmen of libertine practices to embrace libertine principles, or else they\ncannot act in consistence with any reason, or preserve any peace of\nmind. Whether such authors have this design, (whereof I think they have\nnever gone about to acquit themselves) thus much is certain; that no\nother use is made of such writings: Neither did I ever hear this\nauthor's book justified by any person, either Whig or Tory, except such\nwho are of that profligate character. And, I believe, whoever examineth\nit, will be of the same opinion; although indeed such wretches are so\nnumerous, that it seemeth rather surprising, why the book hath had no\nmore editions, than why it should have so many.\n\nHaving thus endeavoured to satisfy the curious with some account of this\nauthor's character, let us examine what might probably be the motives to\nengage him in such a work. I shall say nothing of the principal, which\nis a sum of money; because that is not a mark to distinguish him from\nany other trader with the press. I will say nothing of revenge and\nmalice, from resentment of the indignities and contempt he hath\nundergone for his crime of apostasy. To this passion he has thought fit\nto sacrifice order, propriety, discretion, and common sense, as may be\nseen in every page of his book: But, I am deceived, if there were not a\nthird motive as powerful as the other two; and that is, vanity. About\nthe latter end of King James's reign he had almost finished a learned\ndiscourse in defence of the Church of Rome, and to justify his\nconversion: All which, upon the Revolution, was quite out of season.\nHaving thus prostituted his reputation, and at once ruined his hopes, he\nhad no course left, but to shew his spite against religion in general;\nthe false pretensions to which, had proved so destructive to his credit\nand fortune: And, at the same time, loth to employ the speculations of\nso many years to no purpose; by an easy turn, the same arguments he had\nmade use of to advance Popery, were full as properly levelled by him\nagainst Christianity itself; like the image, which, while it was new and\nhandsome, was worshipped for a saint, and when it came to be old and\nbroken, was still good enough to make a tolerable devil. And, therefore\nevery reader will observe, that the arguments for Popery are much the\nstrongest of any in his book, as I shall further remark when I find them\nin my way.\n\nThere is one circumstance in his title-page, which I take to be not\namiss, where he calleth his book, \"Part the First.\" This is a project to\nfright away answerers, and make the poor advocates for religion believe,\nhe still keepeth further vengeance in _petto_. It must be allowed, he\nhath not wholly lost time, while he was of the Romish communion. This\nvery trick he learned from his old father, the Pope; whose custom it is\nto lift up his hand, and threaten to fulminate, when he never meant to\nshoot his bolts; because the princes of Christendom had learned the\nsecret to avoid or despise them. Dr. Hickes knew this very well, and\ntherefore, in his answer to this \"Book of Rights,\" where a second part\nis threatened, like a rash person he desperately crieth, \"Let it come.\"\nBut I, who have not too much phlegm to provoke angry wits of his\nstandard, must tell the author, that the doctor plays the wag, as if he\nwere sure, it were all grimace. For my part, I declare, if he writeth a\nsecond part, I will not write another answer; or, if I do, it shall be\npublished, before the other part cometh out.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Tindal did, however, attempt to maintain his ground against\nhis numerous opponents, in \"A Defence of the Rights of the Christian\nChurch, against a late Visitation Sermon, 8vo. 1707;\" and also in \"A\nSecond Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church considered, in two\nlate Indictments against a Bookseller and His Servant, for selling one\nof the said Books, 1707.\" [T. S.]]\n\nThere may have been another motive, although it be hardly credible, both\nfor publishing this work, and threatening a second part: It is not soon\nconceived how far the sense of a man's vanity will transport him. This\nman must have somewhere heard, that dangerous enemies have been often\nbribed to silence with money or preferment: And, therefore, to shew how\nformidable he is, he hath published his first essay; and, in hopes of\nhire to be quiet, hath frighted us with his design of another. What must\nthe clergy do in these unhappy circumstances? If they should bestow this\nman bread enough to stop his mouth, it will but open those of a hundred\nmore, who are every whit as well qualified to rail as he. And truly,\nwhen I compare the former enemies to Christianity, such as Socinus,[5]\nHobbes, and Spinosa,[6] with such of their successors, as Toland, Asgil,\nCoward, Gildon,[7] this author of the \"Rights,\" and some others; the\nchurch appeareth to me like the sick old lion in the fable, who, after\nhaving his person outraged by the bull, the elephant, the horse, and the\nbear, took nothing so much to heart, as to find himself at last insulted\nby the spurn of an ass.\n\n[Footnote 5: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562), born at Siena. He studied at\nBologna, and in 1546 became a member of a secret freethinking society in\nVenice. The society, however, was broken up, and Socinus left Italy for\nSwitzerland and Poland. He died at Zurich. His papers were published by\nhis nephew, Faustus Socinus, who founded a sect on the tenets they\ntaught.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Benedict or Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), born at Amsterdam,\nof a Portuguese Jewish family. He was excommunicated by his people for\natheism. He retired to the Hague and took to making lenses, and the\nstudy of philosophy. His \"Ethics\" and \"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus\"\nconstitute a system of philosophy which has had no little influence on\nmodern thought. See Pollock's \"Spinoza.\"]\n\n[Footnote 7: Charles Gildon (1665-1723-4) was educated at Douay. He\nprinted a book called \"The Deist's Manual.\" For accounts of Coward,\nToland, and Asgil, see note, p. 9.] I will now add a few words to give\nthe reader some general notion of the nature and tendency of the work\nitself.\n\nI think I may assert, without the least partiality, that it is a\ntreatise wholly devoid of wit or learning, under the most violent and\nweak endeavours and pretences to both. That it is replenished throughout\nwith bold, rude, improbable falsehoods, and gross misinterpretations;\nand supported by the most impudent sophistry and false logic I have\nanywhere observed. To this he hath added a paltry, traditional cant of\n\"priestrid\" and \"priestcraft,\" without reason or pretext as he applyeth\nit. And when he raileth at those doctrines in Popery (which no\nProtestant was ever supposed to believe) he leads the reader, however,\nby the hand, to make applications against the English clergy, and then\nhe never faileth to triumph, as if he had made a very shrewd and notable\nstroke. And because the court and kingdom seemeth disposed to moderation\nwith regard to Dissenters, more perhaps than is agreeable to the hot\nunreasonable temper of some mistaken men among us; therefore under the\nshelter of that popular opinion, he ridiculeth all that is sound in\nreligion, even Christianity itself, under the names of Jacobite,\nTackers, High Church, and other terms of factious jargon. All which, if\nit were to be first rased from his book (as just so much of nothing to\nthe purpose) how little would remain to give the trouble of an answer!\nTo which let me add, that the spirit or genius, which animates the\nwhole, is plainly perceived to be nothing else but the abortive malice\nof an old neglected man,[8] who hath long lain under the extremes of\nobloquy, poverty and contempt; that have soured his temper, and made him\nfearless. But where is the merit of being bold, to a man that is secure\nof impunity to his person, and is past apprehension of anything else? He\nthat hath neither reputation nor bread hath very little to lose, and\nhath therefore as little to fear. And, as it is usually said, \"Whoever\nvalues not his own life, is master of another man's;\" so there is\nsomething like it in reputation: He that is wholly lost to all regards\nof truth or modesty, may scatter so much calumny and scandal, that some\npart may perhaps be taken up before it fall to the ground; because the\nill talent of the world is such, that those who will be at pains enough\nto inform themselves in a malicious story, will take none at all to be\nundeceived, nay, will be apt with some reluctance to admit a favourable\ntruth.\n\n[Footnote 8: Tindal was not an old man at the time Swift wrote,\ncertainly not older than was Swift himself. [T. S.]]\n\nTo expostulate, therefore, with this author for doing mischief to\nreligion, is to strew his bed with roses; he will reply in triumph, that\nthis was his design; and I am loth to mortify him, by asserting he hath\ndone none at all. For I never yet saw so poor an atheistical scribble,\nwhich would not serve as a twig for sinking libertines to catch at. It\nmust be allowed in their behalf, that the faith of Christians is not as\na grain of mustard seed in comparison of theirs, which can remove such\nmountains of absurdities, and submit with so entire a resignation to\nsuch apostles. If these men had any share of that reason they pretend\nto, they would retire into Christianity, merely to give it ease. And\ntherefore men can never be confirmed in such doctrines, until they are\nconfirmed in their vices; which last, as we have already observed, is\nthe principal design of this and all other writers against revealed\nreligion.\n\nI am now opening the book which I propose to examine. An employment, as\nit is entirely new to me, so it is that to which, of all others, I have\nnaturally the greatest antipathy. And, indeed, who can dwell upon a\ntedious piece of insipid thinking, and false reasoning, so long as I am\nlikely to do, without sharing the infection?\n\nBut, before I plunge into the depths of the book itself, I must be\nforced to wade through the shallows of a long preface.\n\nThis preface, large as we see it, is only made up of such supernumerary\narguments against an independent power in the church, as he could not,\nwithout nauseous repetition, scatter into the body of his book: And it\nis detached, like a forlorn hope, to blunt the enemy's sword that\nintendeth to attack him. Now, I think, it will be easy to prove, that\nthe opinion of _imperium in imperio_, in the sense he chargeth it upon\nthe clergy of England, is what no one divine of any reputation, and very\nfew at all, did ever maintain; and, that their universal sentiment in\nthis matter is such as few Protestants did ever dispute. But, if the\nauthor of the \"Regale,\" or two or three more obscure writers, have\ncarried any points further than Scripture and reason will allow, (which\nis more than I know, or shall trouble myself to enquire) the clergy of\nEngland is no more answerable for those, than the laity is for all the\nfolly and impertinence of this treatise. And, therefore, that people may\nnot be amused, or think this man is somewhat, that he hath advanced or\ndefended any oppressed truths, or overthrown any growing dangerous\nerrors, I will set in as clear a light as I can, what I conceive to be\nheld by the established clergy and all reasonable Protestants in this\nmatter.\n\nEverybody knows and allows, that in all government there is an absolute,\nunlimited, legislative power, which is originally in the body of the\npeople, although, by custom, conquest, usurpation, or other accidents,\nsometimes fallen into the hands of one or a few. This in England is\nplaced in the three estates (otherwise called the two Houses of\nParliament) in conjunction with the King. And whatever they please to\nenact or to repeal in the settled forms, whether it be ecclesiastical or\ncivil, immediately becometh law or nullity. Their decrees may be against\nequity, truth, reason and religion, but they are not against law;\nbecause law is the will of the supreme legislature, and that is,\nthemselves. And there is no manner of doubt, but the same authority,\nwhenever it pleaseth, may abolish Christianity, and set up the Jewish,\nMahometan, or heathen religion. In short, they may do anything within\nthe compass of human power. And, therefore, who will dispute that the\nsame law, which deprived the church not only of lands, misapplied to\nsuperstitious uses, but even the tithes and glebes, (the ancient and\nnecessary support of parish priests) may take away all the rest,\nwhenever the lawgivers please, and make the priesthood as primitive, as\nthis writer, or others of his stamp, can desire.\n\nBut as the supreme power can certainly do ten thousand things more than\nit ought, so there are several things which some people may think it can\ndo, although it really cannot. For, it unfortunately happens, that\nedicts which cannot be executed, will not alter the nature of things.\nSo, if a king and parliament should please to enact, that a woman who\nhath been a month married, is _virgo intacta_, would that actually\nrestore her to her primitive state? If the supreme power should resolve\na corporal of dragoons to be a doctor of divinity, law or physic, few, I\nbelieve, would trust their souls, fortunes, or bodies to his direction;\nbecause that power is neither fit to judge or teach those qualifications\nwhich are absolutely necessary to the several professions. Put the case\nthat walking on the slack rope were the only talent required by act of\nparliament for making a man a bishop; no doubt, when a man had done his\nfeat of activity in form, he might sit in the House of Lords, put on his\nrobes and his rochet, go down to his palace, receive and spend his\nrents; but it requireth very little Christianity to believe this tumbler\nto be one whit more a bishop than he was before; because the law of God\nhath otherwise decreed; which law, although a nation may refuse to\nreceive it, cannot alter in its own nature.\n\nAnd here lies the mistake of this superficial man, who is not able to\ndistinguish between what the civil power can hinder, and what it can do.\n\"If the parliament can annul ecclesiastical laws, they must be able to\nmake them, since no greater power is required for one than the other.\"\nSee pref., p. viii. This consequence he repeateth above twenty times,\nand always in the wrong. He affecteth to form a few words into the shape\nand size of a maxim, then trieth it by his ear, and, according as he\nlikes the sound or cadence, pronounceth it true. Cannot I stand over a\nman with a great pole, and hinder him from making a watch, although I am\nnot able to make one myself. If I have strength enough to knock a man on\nthe head, doth it follow I can raise him to life again? The parliament\nmay condemn all the Greek and Roman authors; can it therefore create new\nones in their stead? They may make laws, indeed, and call them canon and\necclesiastical laws, and oblige all men to observe them under pain of\nhigh treason. And so may I, who love as well as any man to have in my\nown family the power in the last resort, take a turnip, then tie a\nstring to it, and call it a watch, and turn away all my servants, if\nthey refuse to call it so too.\n\nFor my own part, I must confess that this opinion of the independent\npower of the Church, or _imperium in imperio_, wherewith this writer\nraiseth such a dust, is what I never imagined to be of any consequence,\nnever once heard disputed among divines, nor remember to have read,\notherwise than as a scheme in one or two authors of middle rank, but\nwith very little weight laid on it. And I dare believe, there is hardly\none divine in ten that ever once thought of this matter. Yet to see a\nlarge swelling volume written only to encounter this doctrine, what\ncould one think less than that the whole body of the clergy were\nperpetually tiring the press and the pulpit with nothing else?\n\nI remember some years ago, a virtuoso writ a small tract about worms,\nproved them to be in more places than was generally observed, and made\nsome discoveries by glasses. This having met with some reception,\npresently the poor man's head was full of nothing but worms; all we eat\nand drink, all the whole consistence of human bodies, and those of every\nother animal, the very air we breathe, in short, all nature throughout\nwas nothing but worms: And, by that system, he solved all difficulties,\nand from thence all causes in philosophy. Thus it hath fared with our\nauthor, and his independent power. The attack against occasional\nconformity, the scarcity of coffee, the invasion of Scotland, the loss\nof kerseys and narrow cloths, the death of King William, the author's\nturning Papist for preferment, the loss of the battle of Almanza, with\nten thousand other misfortunes, are all owing to this _imperium in\nimperio_.\n\nIt will be therefore necessary to set this matter in a clear light, by\nenquiring whether the clergy have any power independent of the civil,\nand of what nature it is.\n\nWhenever the Christian religion was embraced by the civil power in any\nnation, there is no doubt but the magistrates and senates were fully\ninstructed in the rudiments of it. Besides, the Christians were so\nnumerous, and their worship so open before the conversion of princes,\nthat their discipline, as well as doctrine, could not be a secret: They\nsaw plainly a subordination of ecclesiastics, bishops, priests, and\ndeacons: That these had certain powers and employments different from\nthe laity: That the bishops were consecrated, and set apart for that\noffice by those of their own order: That the presbyters and deacons were\ndifferently set apart, always by the bishops: That none but the\necclesiastics presumed to pray or preach in places set apart for God's\nworship, or to administer the Lord's Supper: That all questions relating\neither to discipline or doctrine, were determined in ecclesiastical\nconventions. These and the like doctrines and practices, being most of\nthem directly proved, and the rest by very fair consequences deduced\nfrom the words of our Saviour and His apostles, were certainly received\nas a divine law by every prince or state which admitted the Christian\nreligion: and, consequently, what they could not justly alter\nafterwards, any more than the common laws of nature. And, therefore,\nalthough the supreme power can hinder the clergy or Church from making\nany new canons, or executing the old; from consecrating bishops, or\nrefuse those that they do consecrate; or, in short, from performing any\necclesiastical office, as they may from eating, drinking, and sleeping;\nyet they cannot themselves perform those offices, which are assigned to\nthe clergy by our Saviour and His apostles; or, if they do, it is not\naccording to the divine institution, and, consequently, null and void.\nOur Saviour telleth us, \"His kingdom is not of this world;\" and\ntherefore, to be sure, the world is not of His kingdom, nor can ever\nplease Him by interfering in the administration of it, since He hath\nappointed ministers of His own, and hath empowered and instructed them\nfor that purpose: So that, I believe, the clergy, who, as he sayeth, are\ngood at distinguishing, would think it reasonable to distinguish between\ntheir power, and the liberty of exercising this power. The former they\nclaim immediately from Christ, and the latter from the permission,\nconnivance, or authority of the civil government; with which the\nclergy's power, according to the solution I have given, cannot possibly\ninterfere.\n\nBut this writer, setting up to form a system upon stale, scanty topics,\nand a narrow circle of thought, falleth into a thousand absurdities. And\nfor a further help, he hath a talent of rattling out phrases, which seem\nto have sense, but have none at all: the usual fate of those who are\nignorant of the force and compass of words, without which it is\nimpossible for a man to write either pertinently or intelligibly upon\nthe most obvious subjects.\n\nSo, in the beginning of his preface, page iv, he says, \"The Church of\nEngland being established by acts of parliament, is a perfect creature\nof the civil power; I mean the polity and discipline of it, and it is\nthat which maketh all the contention; for as to the doctrines expressed\nin the articles, I do not find high church to be in any manner of pain;\nbut they who lay claim to most orthodoxy can distinguish themselves out\nof them.\" It is observable in this author, that his style is naturally\nharsh and ungrateful to the ear, and his expressions mean and trivial;\nbut whenever he goeth about to polish a period, you may be certain of\nsome gross defect in propriety or meaning: So the lines just quoted seem\nto run easily over the tongue: and, upon examination, they are perfect\nnonsense and blunder: To speak in his own borrowed phrase, what is\ncontained in the idea of established? Surely, not existence. Doth\nestablishment give being to a thing? He might have said the same thing\nof Christianity in general, or the existence of God, since both are\nconfirmed by acts of parliament. But, the best is behind: for, in the\nnext line, having named the church half a dozen times before, he now\nsays, he meaneth only \"the polity and discipline of it\": As if, having\nspoke in praise of the art of physic, a man should explain himself, that\nhe meant only the institution of a college of physicians into a\npresident and fellows. And it will appear, that this author, however\nversed in the practice, hath grossly transgressed the rules of nonsense,\n(whose property it is neither to affirm nor deny) since every visible\nassertion gathered from those few lines is absolutely false: For where\nwas the necessity of excepting the doctrines expressed in the articles,\nsince these are equally creatures of the civil power, having been\nestablished by acts of parliament as well as the others. But the Church\nof England is no creature of the civil power, either as to its polity or\ndoctrines. The fundamentals of both were deduced from Christ and His\napostles, and the instructions of the purest and earliest ages, and were\nreceived as such by those princes or states who embraced Christianity,\nwhatever prudential additions have been made to the former by human\nlaws, which alone can be justly altered or annulled by them.\n\nWhat I have already said, would, I think, be a sufficient answer to his\nwhole preface, and indeed to the greatest part of his book, which is\nwholly turned upon battering down a sort of independent power in the\nclergy; which few or none of them ever claimed or defended. But there\nbeing certain peculiarities in this preface, that very much set off the\nwit, the learning, the raillery, reasoning and sincerity of the author;\nI shall take notice of some of them, as I pass.\n\nBut here, I hope, it will not be expected, that I should bestow remarks\nupon every passage in this book, that is liable to exception for\nignorance, falsehood, dulness, or malice. Where he is so insipid, that\nnothing can be struck out for the reader's entertainment, I shall\nobserve Horace's rule:\n\n\"Quae desperes tractata nitescere posse, relinquas.\"\n\nUpon which account I shall say nothing of that great instance of his\ncandour and judgment in relation to Dr. Stillingfleet,[9] who (happening\nto lie under his displeasure upon the fatal test of _imperium in\nimperio_) is High Church and Jacobite, took the oaths of allegiance to\nsave him from the gallows,[10] and subscribed the articles only to keep\nhis preferment: Whereas the character of that prelate is universally\nknown to have been directly the reverse of what this writer gives him.\n\n[Footnote 9: Edward Stillingfleet (1635-1699), educated at Cambridge,\nwrote in 1659 his \"Irenicum, or Weapon Salve for the Church's Wounds.\"\nHe also published a \"Rational Account of the Protestant Religion\" in\n1664. He occupied successively the important clerical offices of\nPrebendary of St. Paul's, Archdeaconry of London, Deanery of St. Paul's,\nand Bishopric of Worcester. The later years of his life were occupied in\na controversy with Locke on that writer's \"Essay on the Human\nUnderstanding.\" [T. S.]]\n\n[Footnote 10: Page v, he quotes Bishop Stillingfleet's \"Vindication of\nthe Doctrine of the Trinity,\" where the bishop says, that a man might be\nvery right in the belief of an article, though mistaken in the\nexplication of it. Upon which Tindal observes: \"These men treat the\narticles, as they do the oath of allegiance, which, they say, obliges\nthem not actually to assist the government, but to do nothing against\nit; that is, nothing that would bring 'em to the gallows.\" [Note in\nedition 1764, 4to.]]\n\nBut before he can attempt to ruin this damnable opinion of two\nindependent powers, he telleth us; page vi., \"It will be necessary to\nshew what is contained in the idea of government\" Now, it is to be\nunderstood, that this refined way of speaking was introduced by Mr.\nLocke; after whom the author limpeth as fast as he is able. All the\nformer philosophers in the world, from the age of Socrates to ours,\nwould have ignorantly put the question, _Quid est imperium_? But now it\nseemeth we must vary our phrase; and, since our modern improvement of\nhuman understanding, instead of desiring a philosopher to describe or\ndefine a mouse-trap, or tell me what it is; I must gravely ask, what is\ncontained in the idea of a mouse-trap? But then to observe how deeply\nthis new way of putting questions to a man's self, maketh him enter into\nthe nature of things; his present business is to show us, what is\ncontained in the idea of government. The company knoweth nothing of the\nmatter, and would gladly be instructed; which he doth in the following\nwords, p. 5.\n\n\"It would be in vain for one intelligent being to pretend to set rules\nto the actions of another, if he had it not in his power to reward the\ncompliance with, or punish the deviations from, his rules by some good,\nor evil, which is not the natural consequence of those actions; since\nthe forbidding men to do or forbear an action on the account of that\nconvenience or inconvenience which attendeth it, whether he who forbids\nit will or no, can be no more than advice.\"\n\nI shall not often draw such long quotations as this, which I could not\nforbear to offer as a specimen of the propriety and perspicuity of this\nauthor's style. And, indeed, what a light breaketh out upon us all, as\nsoon as we have read these words! How thoroughly are we instructed in\nthe whole nature of government? What mighty truths are here discovered;\nand how clearly conveyed to our understandings? And therefore let us\nmelt this refined jargon into the old style for the improvement of such,\nwho are not enough conversant in the new.\n\nIf the author were one who used to talk like one of us, he would have\nspoke in this manner: \"I think it necessary to give a full and perfect\ndefinition of government, such as will shew the nature and all the\nproperties of it; and my definition is thus: One man will never cure\nanother of stealing horses, merely by minding him of the pains he hath\ntaken, the cold he hath got, and the shoe-leather he hath lost in\nstealing that horse; nay, to warn him, that the horse may kick or fling\nhim, or cost him more than he is worth in hay and oats, can be no more\nthan advice. For the gallows is not the natural effect of robbing on the\nhighway, as heat is of fire: and therefore, if you will govern a man,\nyou must find out some other way of punishment, than what he will\ninflict upon himself.\"\n\nOr, if this will not do, let us try it in another case (which I\ninstanced before) and in his own terms. Suppose he had thought it\nnecessary (and I think it was as much so as the other) to shew us what\nis contained in the idea of a mousetrap, he must have proceeded in these\nterms. \"It would be in vain for an intelligent being, to set rules for\nhindering a mouse from eating his cheese, unless he can inflict upon\nthat mouse some punishment, which, is not the natural consequence of\neating the cheese. For, to tell her, it may lie heavy on her stomach;\nthat she will grow too big to get back into her hole, and the like, can\nbe no more than advice: therefore, we must find out some way of\npunishing her, which hath more inconveniences than she will ever suffer\nby the mere eating of cheese.\" After this, who is so slow of\nunderstanding, as not to have in his mind a full and complete idea of a\nmouse-trap? Well.--The Free thinkers may talk what they please of\npedantry, and cant, and jargon of schoolmen, and insignificant terms in\nthe writings of the clergy, if ever the most perplexed and perplexing\nfollower of Aristotle from Scotus to Suarez[11] could be a match for\nthis author.\n\n[Footnote 11: Duns Scotus flourished in the thirteenth century. He\nstudied at Oxford and Paris, and his learning and acumen in reasoning\nearned for him the title _The Subtle Doctor_. He died at Cologne in\n1308. He was a strong upholder of the doctrine of the Immaculate\nConception. His works are published in twelve volumes folio.\n\nFrancis Suarez (1548-1617) was a Spanish Jesuit who wrote a work by\ncommand of the Pope against the English Reformation. He published some\nvery able religio-philosophical treatises, from the Roman Catholic point\nof view; but, indeed, his writings altogether were enormous, so far as\ntheir number are concerned. [T. S.]]\n\nBut the strength of his arguments is equal to the clearness of his\ndefinitions. For, having most ignorantly divided government into three\nparts, whereof the first contains the other two; he attempteth to prove\nthat the clergy possess none of these by a divine right. And he argueth\nthus, p. vii. \"As to a legislative power, if that belongs to the clergy\nby a divine right, it must be when they are assembled in convocation:\nbut the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 is a bar to any such divine right, because\nthat act makes it no less than a _praemunire_ for them, so much so as to\nmeet without the king's writ, &c.\" So that the force of his argument\nlieth here; if the clergy had a divine right, it is taken away by the\n25th of Henry the Eighth. And as ridiculous as this argument is, the\npreface and book are founded upon it.\n\nAnother argument against the legislative power in the clergy of England,\nis, p. viii. that Tacitus telleth us; that in great affairs, the Germans\nconsulted the whole body of the people. \"_De minoribus rebus principes\nconsultant, de majoribus omnes: Ita tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes\nplebem arbitrium est, apud principes pertractentur.\"--Tacitus de Moribus\net Populis Germaniae_. Upon which Tindal observeth thus: \"_De majoribus\nomnes_, was a fundamental amongst our ancestors long before they arrived\nin Great Britain, and matters of religion were ever reckoned among their\n_majora_.\" (See Pref. p. viii. and ix.) Now it is plain, that our\nancestors, the Saxons, came from Germany: It is likewise plain, that\nreligion was always reckoned by the heathens among their _majora_: And\nit is plain, the whole body of the people could not be the clergy, and\ntherefore, the clergy of England have no legislative power.\n\n_Thirdly_, p. ix. They have no legislative power, because Mr.\nWashington, in his \"Observations on the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of\nthe Kings of England,\" sheweth, from \"undeniable authorities, that in\nthe time of William the Conqueror, and several of his successors, there\nwere no laws enacted concerning religion, but by the great council of\nthe kingdom.\" I hope, likewise, Mr. Washington observeth that this great\ncouncil of the kingdom, as appeareth by undeniable authorities, was\nsometimes entirely composed of bishops and clergy, and called the\nparliament, and often consulted upon affairs of state, as well as\nchurch, as it is agreed by twenty writers of three ages; and if Mr.\nWashington says otherwise, he is an author just fit to be quoted by\nbeaux.\n\n_Fourthly_,--But it is endless to pursue this matter any further; in\nthat, it is plain, the clergy have no divine right to make laws; because\nHenry VIII, Edward VI, and Queen Elizabeth, with their parliaments will\nnot allow it them. Now, without examining what divine right the clergy\nhave, or how far it extendeth; is it any sort of proof that I have no\nright, because a stronger power will not let me exercise it? Or doth\nall, that this author says through his preface, or book itself, offer\nany other sort of argument but this, or what he deduces the same way?\n\nBut his arguments and definitions are yet more supportable than the\ngrossness of historical remarks, which are scattered so plentifully in\nhis book, that it would be tedious to enumerate, or to shew the fraud\nand ignorance of them. I beg the reader's leave to take notice of one\nhere just in my way; and, the rather, because I design for the future to\nlet hundreds of them pass without further notice. \"When,\" says he, p. x.\n\"by the abolishing of the Pope's power, things were brought back to\ntheir ancient channel, the parliament's right in making ecclesiastical\nlaws revived of course.\" What can possibly be meant by this \"ancient\nchannel?\" Why, the channel that things ran in before the Pope had any\npower in England: that is to say, before Austin the monk converted\nEngland, before which time, it seems, the parliament had a right to make\necclesiastical laws. And what parliament could this be? Why, the Lords\nSpiritual and Temporal, and the Commons met at Westminster.\n\nI cannot here forbear reproving the folly and pedantry of some lawyers,\nwhose opinions this poor creature blindly followeth, and rendereth yet\nmore absurd by his comments. The knowledge of our constitution can be\nonly attained by consulting the earliest English histories, of which\nthose gentlemen seem utterly ignorant, further than a quotation or an\nindex. They would fain derive our government as now constituted, from\nantiquity: And, because they have seen Tacitus quoted for his _majoribus\nomnes_; and have read of the Goths' military institution in their\nprogresses and conquests, they presently dream of a parliament. Had\ntheir reading reached so far, they might have deduced it much more\nfairly from Aristotle and Polybius, who both distinctly name the\ncomposition of _rex, seniores, et populus_; and the latter, as I\nremember particularly, with the highest approbation. The princes, in the\nSaxon Heptarchy, did indeed call their nobles sometimes together upon\nweighty affairs, as most other princes of the world have done in all\nages. But they made war and peace, and raised money by their own\nauthority: They gave or mended laws by their charters, and they raised\narmies by their tenures. Besides, some of those kingdoms fell in by\nconquests, before England was reduced under one head, and therefore\ncould pretend no rights, but by the concessions of the conqueror.\n\nFurther, which is more material, upon the admission of Christianity,\ngreat quantities of land were acquired by the clergy, so that the great\ncouncil of the nation was often entirely of churchmen, and ever a\nconsiderable part. But, our present constitution is an artificial thing,\nnot fairly to be traced, in my opinion, beyond Henry I. Since which time\nit hath in every age admitted several alterations; and differeth now as\nmuch, even from what it was then, as almost any two species of\ngovernment described by Aristotle. And, it would be much more reasonable\nto affirm, that the government of Rome continued the same under\nJustinian, as it was in the time of Scipio, because the senate and\nconsuls still remained, although the power of both had been several\nhundred years transferred to the emperors.\n\n\nREMARKS ON THE PREFACE.[12]\n\n[Footnote 12: References to Tindal's book, and remarks upon it, which\nthe author left thus indigested, being hints for himself to use in\nanswering the said book.]\n\nPage iv, v. \"If men of opposite sentiments can subscribe the same\narticles, they are as much at liberty as if there were none.\" May not a\nman subscribe the whole articles, because he differs from another in the\nexplication of one? How many oaths are prescribed, that men may differ\nin the explication of some part of them? Instance, &c.\n\nPage vi. \"Idea of Government.\" A canting pedantic way, learned from\nLocke; and how prettily he sheweth it. Instance--\n\nPage vii, \"25 Hen. VIII. c. 19 is a bar to any such divine right [of a\nlegislative power in the clergy.]\" Absurd to argue against the clergy's\ndivine right, because of the statute of Henry VIII. How doth that\ndestroy divine right? The sottish way of arguing; from what the\nparliament can do; from their power, &c.\n\nPage viii. \"If the parliament did not think they had a plenitude of\npower in this matter, they would not have damned all the canons of\n1640.\" What doth he mean? A grave divine could not answer all his\nplayhouse and Alsatia[13] cant, &c. He hath read Hudibras, and many\nplays.\n\n[Footnote 13: Or Whitefriars, then a place of asylum, and frequented by\nsharpers, of whose gibberish there are several specimens in Shadwell's\ncomedy, \"The Squire of Alsatia.\" [T. S.]]\n\n\n_Ibid_. \"If the parliament can annul ecclesiastical laws, they must be\nable to make them.\" Distinguish, and shew the silliness, &c.\n\n_Ibid_. All that he saith against the discipline, he might say the same\nagainst the doctrine, nay, against the belief of a God, _viz_. That the\nlegislature might forbid it. The Church formeth and contriveth canons;\nand the civil power, which is compulsive, confirms them.\n\nPage ix. \"There were no laws enacted but by the great council of the\nkingdom.\" And that was very often, chiefly, only bishops.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Laws settled by parliament to punish the clergy.\" What laws\nwere those?\n\nPage x. \"The people are bound to no laws but of their own choosing.\" It\nis fraudulent; for they may consent to what others choose, and so people\noften do.\n\nPage xiv. paragraph 6. \"The clergy are not supposed to have any divine\nlegislature, because that must be superior to all worldly power; and\nthen the clergy might as well forbid the parliament to meet but when and\nwhere they please, &c.\" No such consequence at all. They have a power\nexclusive from all others. Ordained to act as clergy, but not govern in\ncivil affairs; nor act without leave of the civil power.\n\nPage xxv. \"The parliament suspected the love of power natural to\nchurchmen.\" Truly, so is the love of pudding, and most other things\ndesirable in this life; and in that they are like the laity, as in all\nother things that are not good. And, therefore, they are held not in\nesteem for what they are like in, but for their virtues. The true way to\nabuse them with effect, is to tell us some faults of theirs, that other\nmen have not, or not so much of as they, &c. Might not any man speak\nfull as bad of senates, diets, and parliaments, as he can do about\ncouncils; and as bad of princes, as he does of bishops?\n\nPage xxxi. \"They might as well have made Cardinals Campegi and de\nChinuchii, Bishops of Salisbury and Worcester, as have enacted that\ntheir several sees and bishoprics were utterly void.\" No. The\nlegislature might determine who should not be a bishop there, but not\nmake a bishop.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Were not a great number deprived by parliament upon the\nRestoration?\" Does he mean presbyters? What signifies that?\n\n_Ibid_. \"Have they not trusted this power with our princes?\" Why, aye.\nBut that argueth not right, but power. Have they not cut off a king's\nhead, &c. The Church must do the best they can, if not what they would.\n\nPage xxxvi. \"If tithes and first-fruits are paid to spiritual persons as\nsuch, the king or queen is the most spiritual person, &c.\" As if the\nfirst-fruits, &c. were paid to the king, as tithes to a spiritual\nperson.\n\nPage xliii. \"King Charles II. thought fit that the bishops in Scotland\nshould hold their bishoprics during will and pleasure; I do not find\nthat the High Church complained of this as an encroachment, &c.\" No; but\nas a pernicious counsel of Lord Loch.[14]\n\n[Footnote 14: Scott thinks this refers to Lord Lauderdale. [T.S.]]\n\nPage xliv. \"The common law judges have a power to determine, whether a\nman has a legal right to the sacrament.\" They pretend it, but what we\ncomplain of as most abominable hardship, &c.\n\nPage xlv. \"Giving men thus blindly to the devil, is an extraordinary\npiece of complaisance to a lay chancellor.\" He is something in the\nright; and therefore it is a pity there are any; and I hope the Church\nwill provide against it. But if the sentence be just, it is not the\nperson, but the contempt. And, if the author attacketh a man on the\nhighway, and taketh but twopence, he shall be sent to the gallows, more\nterrible to him than the devil, for his contempt of the law, &c.\nTherefore he need not complain of being sent to hell.\n\nPage xliv. Mr. Leslie may carry things too far, as it is natural,\nbecause the other extreme is so great. But what he says of the king's\nlosses, since the Church lands were given away, is too great a truth,\n&c.\n\nPage lxxvi. \"To which I have nothing to plead, except the zeal I have\nfor the Church of England.\" You will see some pages further, what he\nmeaneth by the Church; but it is not fair not to begin with telling us\nwhat is contained in the idea of a Church, &c.\n\nPage lxxxiii. \"They will not be angry with me for thinking better of the\nChurch than they do, &c.\" No, but they will differ from you; because the\nworse the Queen is pleased, you think her better. I believe the Church\nwill not concern themselves much about your opinion of them, &c.\n\nPage lxxxiv. \"But the Popish, Eastern, Presbyterian and Jacobite clergy,\n&c.\" This is like a general pardon, with such exceptions as make it\nuseless, if we compute it, &c.\n\nPage lxxxvii. \"Misapplying of the word church, &c.\" This is cavilling.\nNo doubt his project is for exempting the people: But that is not what\nin common speech we usually mean by the Church. Besides, who doth not\nknow that distinction?\n\n_Ibid_. \"Constantly apply the same ideas to them.\" This is, in old\nEnglish, meaning the same thing.\n\nPage lxxxix. \"Demonstrates I could have no design but the promoting of\ntruth, &c.\" Yes, several designs, as money, spleen, atheism, &c. What?\nwill any man think truth was his design, and not money and malice? Doth\nhe expect the House will go into a committee for a bill to bring things\nto his scheme, to confound everything, &c.\n\nSome deny Tindal to be the author, and produce stories of his dulness\nand stupidity. But what is there in all this book, that the dullest man\nin England might not write, if he were angry and bold enough, and had no\nregard to truth?\n\nREMARKS UPON THE BOOK, &c.\n\nPage 4. \"Whether Lewis XIV. has such a power over Philip V?\" He speaketh\nhere of the unlimited, uncontrollable authority of fathers. A very\nfoolish question; and his discourse hitherto, of government, weak and\ntrivial, and liable to objections.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Whom he is to consider not as his own, but the Almighty's\nworkmanship.\" A very likely consideration for the Ideas of the state of\nnature. A very wrong deduction of paternal government; but that is\nnothing to the dispute, &c.\n\nPage 12. \"And as such might justly be punished by every one in the state\nof nature.\" False; he doth not seem to understand the state of nature,\nalthough he hath borrowed it from Hobbes, &c.\n\nPage 14. \"Merely speculative points, and other indifferent things, &c.\"\nAnd why are speculative opinions so insignificant? Do not men proceed in\ntheir practice according to their speculations? So, if the author were a\nchancellor and one of his speculations were, that the poorer the clergy\nthe better; would not that be of great use, if a cause came before him\nof tithes or Church lands?\n\n_Ibid_. \"Which can only be known by examining whether men had any power\nin the state of nature over their own, or others' actions in these\nmatters.\" No, that is a wrong method, unless where religion hath not\nbeen revealed; in natural religion.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Nothing at first sight can be more obvious, than that in all\nreligious matters, none could make over the right of judging for\nhimself, since that would cause his religion to be absolutely at the\ndisposal of another.\" At his rate of arguing (I think I do not\nmisrepresent him, and I believe he will not deny the consequence) a man\nmay profess Heathenism, Mahometism, &c. and gain as many proselytes as\nhe can; and they may have their assemblies, and the magistrate ought to\nprotect them, provided they do not disturb the state: And they may enjoy\nall secular preferments, be lords chancellors, judges, &c. But there are\nsome opinions in several religions, which, although they do not directly\nmake men rebel, yet lead to it. Instance some. Nay we might have temples\nfor idols, &c. A thousand such absurdities follow from his general\nnotions, and ill-digested schemes. And we see in the Old Testament, that\nkings were reckoned good or ill, as they suffered or hindered\nimage-worship and idolatry, &c. which was limiting conscience.\n\nPage 15. \"Men may form what clubs, companies, or meetings they think\nfit, &c, which the magistrate, as long as the public sustains no damage,\ncannot hinder, &c.\" This is false; although the public sustain no\ndamage, they will forbid clubs, where they think danger may happen.\n\nPage 16. \"The magistrate is as much obliged to protect them in the way\nthey choose of worshipping Him, as in any other indifferent\nmatter.\"--Page 17. \"The magistrate to treat all his subjects alike, how\nmuch soever they differ from him or one another in these matters.\" This\nshews, that although they be Turks, Jews, or Heathens, it is so. But we\nare sure Christianity is the only true religion, &c. and therefore it\nshould be the magistrate's chief care to propagate it; and that God\nshould be worshipped in that that those who are the teachers think most\nproper, &c.\n\nPage 18. \"So that persecution is the most comprehensive of all crimes,\n&c.\" But he hath not told us what is concluded in the idea of\npersecution. State it right.\n\n_Ibid_. \"But here it may be demanded, If a man's conscience make him do\nsuch acts, &c.\" This doth not answer the above objection: For, if the\npublic be not disturbed with atheistical principles preached, nor\nimmoralities, all is well. So that still, men may be Jews, Turks, &c.\n\nPage 22. \"The same reason which obliges them to make statutes of\nmortmain, and other laws, against the people's giving estates to the\nclergy, will equally hold for their taking them away when given.\" A\ngreat security for property! Will this hold to any other society in the\nstate, as merchants, &c. or only to ecclesiastics? A pretty project:\nForming general schemes requires a deeper head than this man's.\n\n_Ibid_. \"But the good of the society being the only reason of the\nmagistrate's having any power over men's properties, I cannot see why he\nshould deprive his subjects of any part thereof, for the maintenance of\nsuch opinions as have no tendency that way, &c.\" Here is a paragraph\n(_vide_ also _infra_) which has a great deal in it. The meaning is, that\nno man ought to pay tithes, who doth not believe what the minister\npreacheth. But how came they by this property? When they purchased the\nland, they paid only for so much; and the tithes were exempted. It is an\nolder title than any man's estate is, and if it were taken away\nto-morrow, it could not without a new law belong to the owners of the\nother nine parts, any more than impropriations do.\n\n_Ibid_. \"For the maintenance of such opinions, as no ways contribute to\nthe public good,\" By such opinions as the public receive no advantage\nby, he must mean Christianity.\n\nPage 23. \"Who by reason of such articles are divided into different\nsects.\" A pretty cause of sects! &c.\n\nPage 24. \"So the same reason as often as it occurs, will oblige him to\nleave that Church.\" This is an excuse for his turning Papist.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Unless you suppose churches like traps, easy to admit one; but\nwhen once he is in, there he must always stick, either for the pleasure\nor profit of the trap-setters.\" Remark his wit.\n\nPage 29. \"Nothing can be more absurd than maintaining there must be two\nindependent powers in the same society.\" This is abominably absurd; shew\nit.\n\nPage 33. \"The whole hierarchy as built on it, must necessarily fall to\nthe ground, and great will be the fall of this spiritual Babylon.\" I\nwill do him justice, and take notice, when he is witty, &c.\n\nPage 36. \"For if there may be two such [independent powers] in every\nsociety on earth, why may there not be more than one in heaven?\" A\ndelicate consequence.\n\nPage 37. \"Without having the less, he could not have the greater, in\nwhich that is contained.\" Sophistical; instance wherein.\n\nPage 42. \"Some since, subtler than the Jews, have managed commutations\nmore to their own advantage, by enriching themselves, and beggaring, if\nFame be not a liar, many an honest dissenter.\" It is fair to produce\nwitnesses, is she a liar or not? The report is almost impossible.\nCommutations were contrived for roguish registers and proctors, and lay\nchancellors, but not for the clergy.\n\nPage 43. \"Kings and people, who (as the Indians do the Devil) adored the\nPope out of fear.\" I am in doubt, whether I shall allow that for wit or\nno, &c. Look you, in these cases, preface it thus: If one may use an old\nsaying.\n\nPage 44. \"One reason why the clergy make what they call schism, to be so\nheinous a sin.\" There it is now; because he hath changed churches, he\nridiculeth schism; as Milton wrote for divorces, because he had an ill\nwife. For ten pages on, we must give the true answer, that makes all\nthese arguments of no use.\n\nPage 60. \"It possibly will be said, I have all this while been doing\nthese gentlemen a great deal of wrong.\" To do him justice, he sets forth\nthe objections of his adversaries with great strength, and much to their\nadvantage. No doubt those are the very objections we would offer.\n\nPage 68. \"Their executioner.\" He is fond of this word in many places,\nyet there is nothing in it further than it is the name for the hangman,\n&c.\n\nPage 69. \"Since they exclude both from having anything in the ordering\nof Church matters.\" Another part of his scheme: For by this the people\nought to execute ecclesiastical offices without distinction, for he\nbrings the other opinion as an absurd one.\n\nPage 72, \"They claim a judicial power, and, by virtue of it the\ngovernment of the Church, and thereby (pardon the expression) become\ntraitors both to God and man.\" Who doth he desire to pardon him? or is\nthis meant of the English clergy? So it seemeth. Doth he desire them to\npardon him? They do it as Christians. Doth he desire the government to\ndo it? But then how can they make examples? He says, the clergy do so,\n&c. so he means all.\n\nPage 74. \"I would gladly know what they mean by giving the Holy Ghost.\"\nExplain what is really meant by giving the Holy Ghost, like a king\nempowering an ambassador.[15]\n\n[Footnote 15: See Hooker's \"Eccl. Pol.,\" book v. \u00a7 77.]\n\nPage 76. \"The Popish clergy make very bold with the Three Persons of the\nTrinity.\" Why then, don't mix them, but we see whom this glanceth on\nmost. As to the _Cong\u00e9 d'\u00c9lire_, and _Nolo episcopari_, not so absurd;\nand, if omitted, why changed.\n\nPage 78. \"But not to digress\"--Pray, doth he call scurrility upon the\nclergy, a digression? The apology needless, &c.\n\n_Ibid_. \"A clergyman, it is said, is God's ambassador.\" But you know an\nambassador may have a secretary, &c.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Call their pulpit speeches, the word of God.\" That is a\nmistake.\n\nPage 79. \"Such persons to represent Him.\" Are not they that own His\npower, fitter to represent Him than others? Would the author be a fitter\nperson?\n\n_Ibid_. \"Puffed up with intolerable pride and insolence.\" Not at all;\nfor where is the pride to be employed by a prince, whom so few own, and\nwhose being is disputed by such as this author?\n\n_Ibid_. \"Perhaps from a poor servitor, &c. to be a prime minister in\nGod's kingdom.\" That is right. God taketh notice of the difference\nbetween poor servitors, &c. Extremely foolish--shew it. The argument\nlieth strongly against the apostles, poor fishermen; and St. Paul, a\ntentmaker. So gross and idle!\n\nPage 80. \"The formality of laying hand over head on a man.\" A pun; but\nan old one. I remember, when Swan[16] made that pun first, he was\nseverely checked for it.\n\n[Footnote 16: Captain Swan was a celebrated low humorist and punster who\nfrequented Will's Coffee-house when it was the fashionable resort of men\nof wit and pleasure. [T. S.]]\n\n_Ibid_. \"What more is required to give one a right, &c.\" Here shew, what\npower is in the church, and what in the state to make priests.\n\nPage 85. \"To bring men into, and not turn them out of the ordinary way\nof salvation.\" Yes; but as one rotten sheep doth mischief--and do you\nthink it reasonable, that such a one as this author, should converse\nwith Christians, and weak ones.\n\nPage 86. See his fine account of spiritual punishment.\n\nPage 87. \"The clergy affirm, that if they had not the power to exclude\nmen from the Church, its unity could not be preserved.\" So to expel an\nill member from a college, would be to divide the college; as in\nAll-Souls, &c. Apply it to him.[17]\n\n[Footnote 17: Tindal was a fellow of All Souls College. [T. S.]]\n\nPage 88. \"I cannot see but it is contrary to the rules of charity, to\nexclude men from the Church, &c.\" All this turns upon the falsest\nreasoning in the world. So, if a man be imprisoned for stealing a horse,\nhe is hindered from other duties: And, you might argue, that a man who\ndoth ill, ought to be more diligent in minding other duties, and not to\nbe debarred from them. It is for contumacy and rebellion against that\npower in the church, which the law hath confirmed. So a man is outlawed\nfor a trifle, upon contumacy.\n\nPage 92. \"Obliging all by penal laws to receive the sacrament.\" This is\nfalse.\n\nPage 93. \"The want of which means can only harden a man in his\nimpenitence.\" It is for his being hardened that he is excluded. Suppose\na son robbeth his father on the highway, and his father will not see him\ntill he restoreth the money and owneth his fault. It is hard to deny him\npaying his duty in other things, &c. How absurd this!\n\nPage 95. \"And that only _they_ had a right to give it.\" Another part of\nhis scheme, that the people have a right to give the sacrament. See more\nof it, pp. 135 and 137.\n\nPage 96. \"Made familiar to such practices by the heathen priests.\" Well;\nand this shews the necessity of it for peace' sake. A silly objection of\nthis and other enemies to religion, to think to disgrace it by applying\nheathenism, which only concerns the political part wherein they were as\nwise as others, and might give rules. Instance in some, &c.\n\nPage 98. \"How differently from this do the great pretenders to primitive\npractice act, &c.\" This is a remarkable passage. Doth he condemn or\nallow this mysterious way? It seems the first--and therefore these words\nare a little turned, but infallibly stood in the first draught as a\ngreat argument for Popery.\n\nPage 100. \"They dress them up in a _sanbenito_.\" So, now we are to\nanswer for the inquisition. One thing is, that he makes the fathers\nguilty of asserting most of the corruptions about the power of priests.\n\nPage 104. \"Some priests assume to themselves an arbitrary power of\nexcluding men from the Lord's Supper.\" His scheme; that any body may\nadminister the sacraments, women or children, &c.\n\nPage 108. \"One no more than another can be reckoned a priest.\" See his\nscheme. Here he disgraces what the law enacts, about the manner of\nconsecrating, &c.\n\nPage 118. \"Churches serve to worse purposes than bear-gardens.\" This\nfrom Hudibras.\n\nPage 119. \"In the time of that wise heathen Ammianus Marcellinus.\"[18]\nHere he runs down all Christianity in general.\n\n[Footnote 18: Ammianus Marcellinus (died _c_. 390) wrote a history of\nRome in thirty-one books, of which Gibbon thought rather highly. The\nhistory may be taken as a continuation of Tacitus and Suetonius. [T.\nS.]]\n\nPage 120. \"I shall, in the following part of my discourse, shew that\nthis doctrine is so far from serving the ends of religion, that, 1. It\nprevents the spreading of the gospel, &c.\" This independent power in the\nchurch is like the worms; being the cause of all diseases.\n\nPage 124. \"How easily could the Roman emperors have destroyed the\nChurch?\" Just as if he had said; how easily could Herod kill Christ\nwhilst a child, &c.\n\nPage 125. \"The people were set against bishops by reason of their\ntyranny.\" Wrong. For the bishops were no tyrants: Their power was\nswallowed up by the Popes, and the people desired they should have more.\nIt were the regulars that tyrannized and formed priestcraft. He is\nignorant.\n\nPage 139. \"He is not bound by the laws of Christ to leave his friends in\norder to be baptized, &c.\" This directly against the Gospel.--One would\nthink him an emissary, by his preaching schism.\n\nPage 142. \"Then will the communion of saints be practicable, to which\nthe principles of all parties, the occasional conformists only excepted,\nstand in direct opposition, &c.\" So that all are wrong but they. The\nScripture is fully against schism. Tindal promoteth it and placeth in it\nall the present and future happiness of man.\n\nPage 144. All he has hitherto said on this matter, with a very little\nturn, were arguments for Popery: For, it is certain, that religion had\nshare in very few wars for many hundred years before the Reformation,\nbecause they were all of a mind. It is the ambition of rebels, preaching\nupon the discontents of sectaries, that they are not supreme, which hath\ncaused wars for religion. He is mistaken altogether. His little narrow\nunderstanding and want of learning.\n\nPage 145. \"Though some say the high-fliers' lives might serve for a very\ngood rule, if men would act quite contrary to them,\" Is he one of those\nsome? Beside the new turn of wit, &c. all the clergy in England come\nunder his notion of high-fliers, as he states it.\n\nPage 147. \"None of them (Churchmen) could be brought to acknowledge it\nlawful upon any account whatever, to exclude the Duke of York.\" This\naccount false in fact.\n\n_Ibid_. \"And the body-politic, whether ecclesiastical or civil, must be\ndealt with after the same manner, as the body-natural.\" What, because it\nis called a body, and is a simile, must it hold in all circumstances?\n\nPage 148. \"We find all wise legislators have had regard to the tempers,\ninclinations, and prejudices, &c.\" This paragraph false.--It was\ndirectly contrary in several, as Lycurgus, &c.\n\nPage 152. \"All the skill of the prelatists is not able to discover the\nleast distinction between bishop and presbyter.\" Yet, God knows, this\nhath been done many a time.\n\nPage 158. \"The Epistle to the Philippians is directed to the bishops and\ndeacons, I mean in due order after the people, _viz_, to the saints with\ntheir bishops and deacons.\" I hope he would argue from another place,\nthat the people precede the king, because of these words: \"Ye shall be\ndestroyed both you and your king.\"\n\nPage 167. \"The Pope and other great Church dons.\" I suppose, he meaneth\nbishops: But I wish, he would explain himself, and not be so very witty\nin the midst of an argument; it is like two mediums; not fair in\ndisputing.\n\nPage 168. \"Clemens Romanus blames the people not for assuming a power,\nbut for making a wrong use of it, &c.\" His great error all along is,\nthat he doth not distinguish between a power, and a liberty of\nexercising that power, &c. I would appeal to any man, whether the clergy\nhave not too little power, since a book like this, that unsettleth\nfoundations and would destroy all, goes unpunished, &c.\n\nPage 171. \"By this or some such method the bishops obtained their power\nover their fellow presbyters, and both over the people. The whole tenor\nof the Gospel directly contrary to it.\" Then it is not an allowable\nmeans: This carries it so far as to spoil his own system; it is a sin to\nhave bishops as we have them.\n\nPage 172. \"The preservation of peace and unity, and not any divine\nright, was the reason of establishing a superiority of one of the\npresbyters over the rest. Otherwise there would, as they say, have been\nas many schismatics as Presbyters. No great compliment to the clergy of\nthose days.\" Why so? It is the natural effect of a worse independency,\nwhich he keepeth such a clatter about; an independency of churches on\neach other, which must naturally create schism.\n\nPage 183. \"How could the Christians have asserted the disinterestedness\nof those who first preached the Gospel, particularly their having a\nright to the tenth part.\" Yes, that would have passed easy enough; for\nthey could not imagine teachers could live on air; and their heathen\npriests were much more unreasonable.\n\nPage 184. \"Men's suffering for such opinions is not sufficient to\nsupport the weight of them.\" This is a glance against Christianity.\nState the case of converting infidels; the converters are supposed few;\nthe bulk of the priests must be of the converted country. It is their\nown people therefore they maintain. What project or end can a few\nconverters propose? they can leave no power to their families, &c. State\nthis, I say, at length, and give it a true turn. Princes give\ncorporations power to purchase lands.\n\nPage 187. \"That it became an easy prey to the barbarous nations.\"\nIgnorance in Tindal. The empire long declined before Christianity was\nintroduced. This a wrong cause, if ever there was one.\n\nPage 190, \"It is the clergy's interest to have religion corrupted.\"\nQuite the contrary; prove it. How is it the interest of the English\nclergy to corrupt religion? The more justice and piety the people have,\nthe better it is for them; for that would prevent the penury of farmers,\nand the oppression of exacting covetous landlords, &c. That which hath\ncorrupted religion, is the liberty unlimited of professing all opinions.\nDo not lawyers render law intricate by their speculations, &c. And\nphysicians, &c.\n\nPage 209. \"The spirit and temper of the clergy, &c.\" What does this man\nthink the clergy are made of? Answer generally to what he says against\ncouncils in the ten pages before. Suppose I should bring quotations in\ntheir praise.\n\nPage 211. \"As the clergy, though few in comparison of the laity, were\nthe inventors of corruptions.\" His scheme is, that the fewer and poorer\nthe clergy the better, and the contrary among the laity. A noble\nprinciple; and delicate consequences from it.\n\nPage 207. \"Men are not always condemned for the sake of opinions, but\nopinions sometimes for the sake of men.\" And so, he hopes, that if his\nopinions are condemned, people will think, it is a spite against him, as\nhaving been always scandalous.\n\nPage 210. \"The meanest layman as good a judge as the greatest priest,\nfor the meanest man is as much interested in the truth of religion as\nthe greatest priest.\" As if one should say, the meanest sick man hath as\nmuch interest in health as a physician, therefore is as good a judge of\nphysic as a physician, &c.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Had synods been composed of laymen, none of those corruptions\nwhich tend to advance the interest of the clergy, &c.\" True, but the\npart the laity had in reforming, was little more than plundering. He\nshould understand, that the nature of things is this, that the clergy\nare made of men, and, without some encouragement, they will not have the\nbest, but the worst.\n\nPage 215. \"They who gave estates to, rather than they who took them\nfrom, the clergy, were guilty of sacrilege.\" Then the people are the\nChurch, and the clergy not; another part of his scheme.\n\nPage 219. \"The clergy, as they subsisted by the alms of the people, &c.\"\nThis he would have still. Shew the folly of it. Not possible to shew any\ncivilized nation ever did it Who would be clergymen then? The absurdity\nappears by putting the case, that none were to be statesmen, lawyers, or\nphysicians, but who were to subsist by alms.\n\nPage 222. \"These subtle clergymen work their designs, who lately cut out\nsuch a tacking job for them, &c.\" He is mistaken--Everybody was for the\nbill almost: though not for the tack. The Bishop of Sarum was for it, as\nappears by his speech against it. But it seems, the tacking is owing to\nmetaphysical speculations. I wonder whether is most perplexed, this\nauthor in his style, or the writings of our divines. In the judgment of\nall people our divines have carried practical preaching and writing to\nthe greatest perfection it ever arrived to; which shews, that we may\naffirm in general, our clergy is excellent, although this or that man be\nfaulty. As if an army be constantly victorious, regular, &c. we may say,\nit is an excellent victorious army: But Tindal; to disparage it, would\nsay, such a serjeant ran away; such an ensign hid himself in a ditch;\nnay, one colonel turned his back, therefore, it is a corrupt, cowardly\narmy, &c.\n\nPage 224. \"They were as apprehensive of the works of Aristotle, as some\nmen are of the works of a late philosopher, which, they are afraid, will\nlet too much light into the world.\" Yet just such, another; only a\ncommentator on Aristotle. People are likely to improve their\nunderstanding much with Locke; It is not his \"Human Understanding,\" but\nother works that people dislike, although in that there are some\ndangerous tenets, as that of [no] innate ideas.\n\nPage 226. \"Could they, like the popish priests, add to this a restraint\non the press, their business would be done.\" So it ought: For example,\nto hinder his book, because it is written to justify the vices and\ninfidelity of the age. There can be no other design in it. For, is this\na way or manner to do good? Railing doth but provoke. The opinion of the\nwhole parliament is, the clergy are too poor.\n\n_Ibid_. \"When some nations could be no longer kept from prying into\nlearning, this miserable gibberish of the schools was contrived.\" We\nhave exploded schoolmen as much as he, and in some people's opinion too\nmuch, since the liberty of embracing any opinion is allowed. They\nfollowing Aristotle, who is doubtless the greatest master of arguing in\nthe world: But it hath been a fashion of late years to explode\nAristotle, and therefore this man hath fallen into it like others, for\nthat reason, without understanding him. Aristotle's poetry, rhetoric,\nand politics, are admirable, and therefore, it is likely, so are his\nlogics.\n\nPage 230. \"In these freer countries, as the clergy have less power, so\nreligion is better understood, and more useful and excellent discourses\nare made on that subject, &c.\" Not generally. Holland not very famous,\nSpain hath been, and France is. But it requireth more knowledge, than\nhis, to form general rules, which people strain (when ignorant) to false\ndeductions to make them out.\n\nPage 232. Chap. VII. \"That this hypothesis of an independent power in\nany set of clergymen, makes all reformation unlawful, except where those\nwho have this power, do consent.\" The title of this chapter, A Truism.\n\nPage 234. \"If God has not placed mankind in respect to civil matters\nunder an absolute power, but has permitted them in every society to act\nas they judge best for their own safety, &c.\" Bad parallels; bad\npolitics; want of due distinction between teaching and government. The\npeople may know when they are governed well, but not be wiser than their\ninstructors. Shew the difference.\n\n_Ibid_. \"If God has allowed the civil society these privileges can we\nsuppose He hath less kindness for His church, &c.\" Here they are\ndistinguished, then, here it makes for him. It is a sort of turn of\nexpression, which is scarce with him, and he contradicts himself to\nfollow it.\n\nPage 235. \"This cursed hypothesis had, perhaps, never been thought on\nwith relation to civils, had not the clergy (who have an inexhaustible\nmagazine of oppressive doctrines) contrived first in ecclesiasticals,\n&c.\" The seventh paragraph furious and false. Were there no tyrants\nbefore the clergy, &c.?\n\nPage 236. \"Therefore in order to serve them, though I expect little\nthanks, &c.\" And, why so? Will they not, as you say, follow their\ninterest? I thought you said so. He has three or four sprightly turns of\nthis kind, that look, as if he thought he had done wonders, and had put\nall the clergy in a ferment. Whereas, I do assure him, there are but two\nthings wonderful in his book: First, how any man in a Christian country\ncould have the boldness and wickedness to write it: And, how any\ngovernment would neglect punishing the author of it, if not as an enemy\nof religion, yet a profligate trumpeter of sedition. These are hard\nwords, got by reading his book.\n\n_Ibid_. \"The light of nature as well as the Gospel, obliges people to\njudge of themselves, &c. to avoid false prophets, seducers, &c.\" The\nlegislature can turn out a priest, and appoint another ready-made, but\nnot make one; as you discharge a physician, and may take a farrier; but\nhe is no physician, unless made as he ought to be.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Since no more power is required for the one than the other.\"\nThat is, I dislike my physician, and can turn him off, therefore I can\nmake any man a physician, &c. \"_Cujus est destruere_, &c.\" Jest on it:\nTherefore because he lays schemes for destroying the Church, we must\nemploy him to raise it again. See, what danger lies in applying maxims\nat random. So, because it is the soldiers' business to knock men on the\nhead, it is theirs likewise to raise them to life, &c.\n\nPage 237. \"It can belong only to the people to appoint their own\necclesiastical officers.\" This word \"people\" is so delicious in him,\nthat I cannot tell what is included in the idea of the \"people.\" Doth he\nmean the rabble or the legislature, &c. In this sense it may be true,\nthat the legislature giveth leave to the bishops to appoint, and they\nappoint themselves, I mean, the executive power appoints, &c. He sheweth\nhis ignorance in government. As to High Church he carrieth it a\nprodigious way, and includeth, in the idea of it, more than others will\nallow.\n\nPage 239 \"Though it be customary to admit none to the ministry who are\nnot approved by the bishops or priests, &c.\" One of his principles to\nexpose.\n\n_Ibid_ \"If every one has not an inherent right to choose his own guide,\nthen a man must be either of the religion of his guide, or, &c.\" That\nwould make delicate work in a nation. What would become of all our\nchurches? They must dwindle into conventicles. Show what would be the\nconsequence of this scheme in several points. This great reformer, if\nhis projects were reduced to practice, how many thousand sects, and\nconsequently tumults, &c. Men must be governed in speculation, at least\nnot suffered to vent them, because opinions tend to actions, which are\nmost governed by opinions, &c. If those who write for the church writ\nno better, they would succeed but scurvily. But to see whether he be a\ngood writer, let us see when he hath published his second part.\n\nPage 253 \"An excellent author in his preface to the Account of Denmark.\"\nThis man judgeth and writeth much of a level. Molesworth's preface full\nof stale profligate topics. That author wrote his book in spite to a\nnation, as this doth to religion, and both perhaps on poor personal\npiques[1].\n\n[Footnote 19: This was Robert, Viscount Molesworth (1656-1725), who\nwas born in Dublin, and educated at Trinity College there. He was\nambassador at Copenhagen, but had to resign on account of a dispute with\nthe Danish king. The \"Account of Denmark,\" which he wrote on his\nreturn, was answered by Dr. King. [T. S.]]\n\n_Ibid_ \"By which means, and not by any difference in speculative\nmatters, they are more rich and populous.\" As if ever anybody thought\nthat a difference in speculative opinions made men richer or poorer, for\nexample, &c.\n\nPage 258 \"Play the Devil for God's sake.\" If this is meant for wit, I\nwould be glad to observe it, but in such cases I first look whether\nthere be common sense, &c.\n\nPage 261 \"Christendom has been the scene of perpetual wars, massacres,\n&c.\" He doth not consider that most religious wars have been caused by\nschisms, when the dissenting parties were ready to join with any\nambitious discontented man. The national religion always desireth peace,\neven in her notions, for its interests.\n\nPage 270. \"Some have taken the liberty to compare a high church priest\nin politics to a monkey in a glass-shop, where, as he can do no good, so\nhe never fails of doing mischief enough.\" That is his modesty, it is his\nown simile, and it rather fits a man that does so and so, (meaning\nhimself.) Besides the comparison is foolish: So it is with _men_, as\nwith _stags_.\n\nPage 276. \"Their interest obliges them directly to promote tyranny.\" The\nmatter is, that Christianity is the fault, which spoils the priests, for\nthey were like other men, before they were priests. Among the Romans,\npriests did not do so; for they had the greatest power during the\nrepublic. I wonder he did not prove they spoiled Nero.\n\nPage 277. \"No princes have been more insupportable and done greater\nviolence to the commonwealth than those the clergy have honoured for\nsaints and martyrs.\" For example in our country, the princes most\ncelebrated by our clergy are, &c. &c. &c. And the quarrels since the\nConquest were nothing at all of the clergy, but purely of families, &c.\nwherein the clergy only joined like other men.\n\nPage 279. \"After the Reformation,[20]I desire to know whether the\nconduct of the clergy was anyways altered for the better, &c.\" Monstrous\nmisrepresentation. Does this man's spirit of declaiming let him forget\nall truth of fact, as here, &c.? Shew it. Or doth he flatter himself, a\ntime will come in future ages, that men will believe it on his word? In\nshort, between declaiming, between misrepresenting, and falseness, and\ncharging Popish things, and independency huddled together, his whole\nbook is employed.\n\n[Footnote 20: \"Reformation\" in 4to and 8vo editions, but Tindal's word\nis \"Restoration.\" [T.S.]]\n\nSet forth at large the necessity of union in religion, and the\ndisadvantage of the contrary, and answer the contrary in Holland, where\nthey have no religion, and are the worst constituted government in the\nworld to last. It is ignorance of causes and appearances which makes\nshallow people judge so much to their advantage. They are governed by\nthe administration and almost legislature of Holland through advantage\nof property; nor are they fit to be set in balance with a noble kingdom,\n&c. like a man that gets a hundred pounds a year by hard labour, and one\nthat has it in land.\n\nPage 280. \"It may be worth enquiring, whether the difference between the\nseveral sects in England, &c.\" A noble notion started, that union in the\nChurch must enslave the kingdom: reflect on it. This man hath somewhere\nheard, that it is a point of wit to advance paradoxes, and the bolder\nthe better. But the wit lies in maintaining them, which he neglecteth,\nand formeth imaginary conclusions from them, as if they were true and\nuncontested.\n\nHe adds, \"That in the best constituted Church, the greatest good which,\ncan be expected of the ecclesiastics, is from their divisions.\" This is\na maxim deduced from a gradation of false suppositions. If a man should\nturn the tables, and argue that all the debauchery, atheism,\nlicentiousness, &c. of the times, were owing to the poverty of the\nclergy, &c. what would he say? There have been more wars of religion\nsince the ruin of the clergy, than before, in England. All the civil\nwars before were from other causes.\n\nPage 283. \"Prayers are made in the loyal university of Oxford, to\ncontinue the throne free from the contagion of schism. See Mather's\nsermon on the 29th of May, 1705.\" Thus he ridicules the university while\nhe is eating their bread. The whole university comes with the most loyal\naddresses, yet that goes for nothing. If one indiscreet man drops an\nindiscreet word, all must answer for it.\n\nPage 286. \"By allowing all, who hold no opinions prejudicial to the\nstate, and contribute equally with their fellow-subjects to its support,\nequal privileges in it.\" But who denies that of the dissenters? The\nCalvinist scheme, one would not think, proper for monarchy. Therefore,\nthey fall in with the Scotch, Geneva, and Holland; and when they had\nstrength here, they pulled down the monarchy. But I will tell an opinion\nthey hold prejudicial to the state in his opinion; and that is, that\nthey are against toleration, of which, if I do not shew him ten times\nmore instances from their greatest writers, than he can do of passive\nobedience among the clergy, I have done.\n\n\"Does not justice demand, that they who alike contribute to the burden,\nshould alike receive the advantage?\" Here is another of his maxims\nclosely put without considering what exceptions may be made. The Papists\nhave contributed doubly (being so taxed) therefore by this rule they\nought to have double advantage. Protection in property, leave to trade\nand purchase, &c. are enough for a government to give. Employments in a\nstate are a reward for those who entirely agree with it, &c. For\nexample, a man, who upon all occasions declared his opinion of a\ncommonwealth to be preferable to a monarchy, would not be a fit man to\nhave employments; let him enjoy his opinion, but not be in a capacity of\nreducing it to practice, &c.\n\nPage 287. \"There can be no alteration in the established mode of Church\ndiscipline, which is not made in a legal way.\" Oh, but there are several\nmethods to compass this legal way, by cunning, faction, industry. The\ncommon people, he knows, may be wrought upon by priests; these may\ninfluence the faction, and so compass a very pernicious law, and in a\nlegal way ruin the state; as King Charles I. began to be ruined in a\nlegal way, by passing bills, &c.\n\nPage 288. \"As everything is persecution, which puts a man in a worse\ncondition than his neighbours.\" It is hard to think sometimes whether\nthis man is hired to write for or against dissenters and the sects. This\nis their opinion, although they will not own it so roundly. Let this be\nbrought to practice: Make a quaker lord chancellor, who thinketh paying\ntithes unlawful. And bring other instances to shew that several\nemployments affect the Church.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Great advantage which both Church and state have got by the\nkindness already shewn to dissenters.\" Let them then be thankful for\nthat. We humour children for their good sometimes, but too much may\nhurt. Observe that this 64th paragraph just contradicts the former. For,\nif we have advantage by kindness shewn dissenters, then there is no\nnecessity of banishment, or death.\n\nPage 290. \"Christ never designed the holy Sacrament should be\nprostituted to serve a party. And that people should be bribed by a\nplace to receive unworthily.\" Why, the business is, to be sure, that\nthose who are employed are of the national church; and the way to know\nit is by receiving the sacrament, which all men ought to do in their own\nchurch; and if not, are hardly fit for an office; and if they have those\nmoral qualifications he mentioneth, joined to religion, no fear of\nreceiving unworthily. And for this there might be a remedy: To take an\noath, that they are of the same principles, &c. for that is the end of\nreceiving; and that it might be no bribe, the bill against occasional\nconformity would prevent entirely.\n\n_Ibid_. \"Preferring men not for their capacity, but their zeal to the\nChurch.\" The misfortune is, that if we prefer dissenters to great posts,\nthey will have an inclination to make themselves the national church,\nand so there will be perpetual struggling; which case may be dangerous\nto the state. For men are naturally wishing to get over others to their\nown opinion: Witness this writer, who hath published as singular and\nabsurd notions as possible, yet hath a mighty zeal to bring us over to\nthem, &c.\n\nPage 292. Here are two pages of scurrilous faction, with a deal of\nreflections on great persons. Under the notion of High-Churchmen, he\nruns down all uniformity and church government. Here is the whole Lower\nHouse of Convocation, which represents the body of the clergy and both\nuniversities, treated with rudeness by an obscure, corrupt member, while\nhe is eating their bread.\n\nPage 294. \"The reason why the middle sort of people retain so much of\ntheir ancient virtue &c. is because no such pernicious notions are the\ningredients of their education; which 'tis a sign are infinitely absurd,\nwhen so many of the gentry and nobility can, notwithstanding their\nprepossession, get clear of them.\" Now the very same argument lies\nagainst religion, morality, honour, and honesty, which are, it seems,\nbut prejudices of education, and too many get clear of them. The middle\nsort of people have other things to mind than the factions of the age.\nHe always assigneth many causes, and sometimes with reason, since he\nmaketh imaginary effects. He quarrels at power being lodged in the\nclergy: When there is no reasonable Protestant, clergy, or laity, who\nwill not readily own the inconveniences by too great power and wealth,\nin any one body of men, ecclesiastics, or seculars: But on that account\nto weed up the wheat with the tares; to banish all religion, because it\nis capable of being corrupted; to give unbounded licence to all sects,\n&c.--And if heresies had not been used with some violence in the\nprimitive age, we should have had, instead of true religion, the most\ncorrupt one in the world.\n\nPage 316. \"The Dutch, and the rest of our presbyterian allies, &c.\" The\nDutch will hardly thank him for this appellation. The French Huguenots,\nand Geneva Protestants themselves, and others, have lamented the want of\nepiscopacy, and approved ours, &c. In this and the next paragraph, the\nauthor introduceth the arguments he formerly used, when he turned papist\nin King James's time; and loth to lose them, he gives them a new turn;\nand they are the strongest In his book, at least have most artifice.\n\nPage 333. \"'Tis plain, all the power the bishops have, is derived from\nthe people, &c.\" In general the distinction lies here. The permissive\npower of exercising jurisdiction, lies in the people, or legislature, or\nadministrator of a kingdom; but not of making him a bishop. As a\nphysician that commenceth abroad, may be suffered to practise in London\nor be hindered; but they have not the power of creating him a doctor,\nwhich is peculiar to a university. This is some allusion; but the thing\nis plain, as it seemeth to me, and wanteth no subterfuge, &c.\n\nPage 338. \"A journeyman bishop to ordain for him.\" Doth any man think,\nthat writing at this rate, does the author's cause any service? Is it\nhis wit or his spleen that he cannot govern?\n\nPage 364. \"Can any have a right to an office without having a right to\ndo those things in which the office consists?\" I answer, the ordination\nis valid. But a man may prudentially forbid to do some things. As a\nclergyman may marry without licence or banns; the marriage is good; yet\nhe is punishable for it.\n\nPage 368. \"A choice made by persons who have no right to choose, is an\nerror of the first concoction.\" That battered simile again; this is\nhard. I wish the physicians had kept that a secret, it lieth so ready\nfor him to be witty with.\n\nPage 370. \"If prescription can make mere nullities to become good and\nvalid, the laity may be capable of all manner of ecclesiastical power,\n&c.\" There is a difference; for here the same way is kept, although\nthere might be breaches; but it is quite otherwise, if you alter the\nwhole method from what it was at first. We see bishops: There always\nwere bishops: It is the old way still. So a family is still held the\nsame, although we are not sure of the purity of every one of the race.\n\nPage 380. \"It is said, That every nation is not a complete body politic\nwithin itself as to ecclesiasticals. But the whole church, say they,\ncomposes such a body, and Christ is the head of it. But Christ's\nheadship makes Christians no more one body politic with respect to\necclesiasticals than to civils.\" Here we must shew the reason and\nnecessity of the Church being a corporation all over the world: To avoid\nheresies, and preserve fundamentals, and hinder corrupting of Scripture,\n&c. But there are no such necessities in government, to be the same\neverywhere, &c. It is something like the colleges in a university; they\nall are independent, yet, joined, are one body. So a general council\nconsisteth of many persons independent of one another, &c.\n\nHowever there is such a thing as _jus gentium_, &c. And he that is\ndoctor of physic, or law, is so in any university of Europe, like the\n_Respublica Literaria_. Nor to me does there seem anything\ncontradicting, or improper in this notion of the Catholic Church; and\nfor want of such a communion, religion is so much corrupted, and would\nbe more, if there were [not] more communion in this than in civils. It\nis of no import to mankind how nations are governed; but the preserving\nthe purity of religion is best held up by endeavouring to make it one\nbody over the world. Something like as there is in trade. So to be able\nto communicate with all Christians we come among, is at least to be\nwished and aimed at as much as we can.\n\nPage 384. \"In a word, if the bishops are not supreme, &c.\" Here he\nreassumeth his arguments for Popery, that there cannot be a body politic\nof the Church through the whole world, without a visible head to have\nrecourse to. These were formerly writ to advance Popery, and now to put\nan absurdity upon the hypothesis of a Catholic Church. As they say in\nIreland, in King James's time, they built mass-houses, which we make\nvery good barns of.\n\nPage 388. \"Bishops are, under a _premunire_ obliged to confirm and\nconsecrate the person named in the _cong\u00e9 d'\u00c9lire_.\" This perhaps is\ncomplained of. He is permitted to do it. We allow the legislature may\nhinder if they please; as they may turn out Christianity, if they think\nfit.\n\nPage 389. \"It is the magistrate who empowers them to do more for other\nbishops than they can for themselves, since they cannot appoint their\nown successors.\" Yes they could, if the magistrate would let them. Here\nis an endless splutter, and a parcel of perplexed distinctions upon no\noccasion. All that the clergy pretend to, is a right of qualifying men\nfor the ministry, something like what a university doth with degrees.\nThis power they claim from God, and that the civil power cannot do it as\npleasing to God without them; but they may choose whether they will\nsuffer it or no. A religion cannot be crammed down a nation's throat\nagainst their will; but when they receive a religion, it is supposed\nthey receive as their converters give it; and, upon that foot, they\ncannot justly mingle their own methods, that contradict that religion,\n&c.\n\nPage 390. \"With us the bishops act only ministerially and by virtue of\nthe regal commission, by which the prince firmly enjoins and commands\nthem to proceed in choosing, confirming, and consecrating, &c.\" Suppose\nwe held it unlawful to do so: How can we help it? but does that make it\nrightful, if it be not so? Suppose the author lived in a heathen\ncountry, where a law would be made to call Christianity idolatrous;\nwould that be a topic for him to prove it so by, &c.? And why do the\nclergy incur a _pre-munire;_--To frighten them--Because the law\nunderstandeth, that, if they refuse, the chosen cannot be a bishop: But,\nif the clergy had an order to do it otherwise than they have prescribed,\nthey ought and would incur an hundred rather.\n\nPage 402. \"I believe the Catholic Church, &c.\" Here he ridicules the\nApostles' Creed.--Another part of his scheme.--By what he says in these\npages, it is certain, his design is either to run down Christianity, or\nset up Popery; the latter it is more charitable to think, and, from his\npast life, highly probable.\n\nPage 405. \"That which gave the Papists so great advantage was,\nclergymen's talking so very inconsistent with themselves, &c.\" State the\ndifference here between our separation from Rome, and the dissenters\nfrom us, and shew the falseness of what he sayeth. I wish he would tell\nus what he leaveth for a clergyman to do, if he may not instruct the\npeople in religion, and if they should not receive his instructions.\n\nPage 411. \"The restraint of the press a badge of Popery.\" Why is that a\nbadge of Popery? Why not restrain the press to those who would confound\nreligion, as in civil matters? But this toucheth himself. He would\nstarve, perhaps, &c, Let him get some honester livelihood then. It is\nplain, all his arguments against constraint, &c. favour the papists as\nmuch as dissenters; for both have opinions that may affect the peace of\nthe state.\n\nPage 413. \"Since this discourse, &c.\" And must we have another volume on\nthis one subject of independency? Or, is it to fright us? I am not of\nDr. Hickes's mind, _Qu'il venge_. I pity the readers, and the clergy\nthat must answer it, be it ever so insipid. Reflect on his sarcastic\nconclusion, &c.\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nPREFACE\n\nTO THE\n\nB---P OF S----M'S\n\nINTRODUCTION, &c.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nAT the time of writing this scathing piece of invective, Swift was busy\ndealing out to an old friend a similar specimen of his terrible power of\nrejoinder. Steele, in the newly established \"Guardian,\" as Mr. Churton\nCollins well puts it, \"drunk with party spirit, had so far forgotten\nhimself as to insert ... a coarse and ungenerous reflection on Swift.\"\nSwift sought an explanation through Addison, but Steele's egotism was\nstronger than the feeling of friendship, and the insult remained for\nSwift to wipe out in \"The Importance of the 'Guardian' Considered.\"\nProbably this severance from his friend, due to political\ndifferences--for Steele glowed in Whiggism--deepened, if possible, his\nhatred to Whigs of whatever degree; and in Burnet he found another\nobject for his wit. But apart from such a suggestion, there was enough\nin the Bishop's attitude towards the Tories to rouse Swift to his task.\nIt was not enough that Burnet should accuse his political opponents of\nsympathy with the French, Jacobitism, and Popery, but he must needs\nflaunt his vanity in issuing, in advance, for purposes of advertisement,\nthe introduction to a work which was to come later. This was enough for\nSwift, and the prelate who \"could smell popery at five hundred miles\ndistance better than fanaticism under his nose,\" became the recipient of\none of the most amusing and yet most virulent attacks which even that\ncontroversial age produced. \"The whole pamphlet,\" Mr. Collins truly\nsays, \"is inimitable. Its irony, its humour, its drollery, are\ndelicious.\"\n\nIt must not, however, be imagined that Swift's opinion of Burnet is only\nthat which can be gathered from this \"Preface.\" He fully appreciated the\nsterling qualities of scholarship and good nature, since in his\n\"Remarks\" on Burnet's \"History of My Own Time,\" he says: \"after all he\nwas a man of generosity and good nature, and very communicative; but in\nhis last ten years was absolutely party-mad, and fancied he saw Popery\nunder every bush.\" Lord Dartmouth has left an excellent sketch of\nBurnet's character in a note to the \"History of My Own Time\": \"Bishop\nBurnet was a man of the most extensive knowledge I ever met with; had\nread and seen a great deal, with a prodigious memory, and a very\nindifferent judgment: he was extremely partial, and readily took\neverything for granted that he heard to the prejudice of those he did\nnot like: which made him pass for a man of less truth than he really\nwas. I do not think he designedly published anything he believed to be\nfalse. He had a boisterous, vehement manner of expressing himself, which\noften made him ridiculous, especially in the House of Lords, when what\nhe said would not have been thought so, delivered in a lower voice, and\na calmer behaviour. His vast knowledge occasioned his frequent rambling\nfrom the point he was speaking to, which ran him into discourses of so\nuniversal a nature, that there was no end to be expected but from a\nfailure of his strength and spirits, of both which he had a larger share\nthan most men; which were accompanied with a most invincible assurance.\"\n(Note to the Preface of Burnet's \"History of My Own Time,\" vol. i. p.\nxxxiii, Oxford, 1897.)\n\nIt may not be altogether out of place to give here a short biographical\nsketch of Bishop Burnet.\n\nGilbert Burnet was born at Edinburgh in 1643. He studied first at\nAberdeen and then in Holland. In 1665, after he was elected a Fellow of\nthe Royal Society, he entered holy orders, became vicar of Saltoun, and,\nin 1669, professor of divinity at Glasgow. The year 1673 found him in\nLondon, engaged on his \"History of the Reformation,\" and fulfilling the\nduties of chaplain to the king, preacher to the Rolls, and lecturer of\nSt. Clement's. The \"Reformation\" appeared in three folio volumes; the\nfirst in 1679, the second in 1681, and the third in 1714. He had already\nwritten the \"Lives of the Dukes of Hamilton,\" the \"Life of Sir Matthew\nHale,\" and a \"Life of the Earl of Rochester.\" Getting into some\npolitical trouble he was deprived of his offices, and left England for\nthe continent. After travelling in France he settled in Holland, and\nmarried a Dutch lady. When the Prince of Orange came to England to\nassume the government of the country, Burnet accompanied him, and in\n1689 was installed into the bishopric of Salisbury. Evidently he had too\nzealous a sentiment for William and Mary, for his pastoral letter to the\nclergy of his diocese, commenting on the new sovereign, was condemned by\nthe parliament, and ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. He\nmarried again, on the death of his Dutch wife, a rich widow, Mrs.\nBerkeley, who was his third spouse--hence Swift's caustic reference. He\ndied March 17th, 1714-15. In addition to his histories of the\nReformation and his own times, he wrote an \"Exposition of the\nThirty-Nine Articles\" (1699), the \"Life of Bishop Bedell\" and the other\nlives already named, and several sermons and controversial pieces.\n\nThe text of this pamphlet is that of the first edition, collated with,\nthose given by Faulkner, Hawkesworth, the \"Miscellanies\" of 1745, and\nScott. It was originally published in 1713.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  A\n  PREFACE[1]\n  T O   T H E\n  B--p of S--r--m's\n  INTRODUCTION\n  To the Third Volume of the\n  History of the Reformation\n  of the\n  Church of _England_.\n\n_By GREGORY MISOSARVM._\n\n_----Spargere voces\n  In vulgum ambiguas; & quaerere confcius arma._\n\nThe Second Edition\n\n_LONDON_:\n\nPrinted for _John Morphew, _near _Stationers Hall_. 1713. Price\n_6d_.\n\n\nTHE  PREFACE.[2]\n\n\nMR. MORPHEW,\n\nYour care in putting an advertisement in the _EXAMINER_ has been of\ngreat use to me. I do now send you my Preface to the B----p of\nS----r----m's INTRODUCTION to his third volume, which I desire you to\nprint in such a form, as in the bookseller's phrase will make a sixpenny\ntouch; hoping it will give such a public notice of my design, that it\nmay come into the hands of those who perhaps look not into the B----p's\nIntroduction. I desire you will prefix to this a passage out of Virgil,\nwhich does so perfectly agree with my present thoughts of his\nL----dsh----p, that I cannot express them better, nor more truly, than\nthose words do.\n\nI am, Sir,\n\nYour most humble servant,\n\nG. MISOSARUM.\n\n[Footnote 1: Mr. Nichols quotes from the \"Speculum Sarisburianum,\" \"That\nthe frequent and hasty repetitions of such prefaces and introductions,\nno less than three new ones in about one year's time, beside an old\nserviceable one republished concerning persecution--are preludes to\nother practical things, beside pastoral cares, sermons, and histories.\"\n[T. S.]]\n\n[Footnote 2: This preface \"to the bookseller\" is in imitation of the\nbishop's own preface to the bookseller in the \"Introduction,\" which was\nsigned \"G. Sarum.\" [T. S.]]\n\nThis way of publishing introductions to books that are, God knows when,\nto come out, is either wholly new, or so long unpractised, that my small\nreading cannot trace it. However we are to suppose, that a person of his\nLordship's great age and experience, would hardly act such a piece of\nsingularity without some extraordinary motives. I cannot but observe,\nthat his fellow-labourer, the author of the paper called _The\nEnglishman_,[3] seems, in some of his late performances, to have almost\ntranscribed the notions of the Bishop: these notions, I take to have\nbeen dictated by the same masters, leaving to each writer that peculiar\nmanner of expressing himself, which the poverty of our language forces\nme to call their style. When the _Guardian_ changed his title, and\nprofessed to engage in faction, I was sure the word was given, that\ngrand preparations were making against next sessions; that all\nadvantages would be taken of the little dissensions reported to be among\nthose in power; and that the _Guardian_ would soon be seconded by some\nother piqueerers[4] from the same camp. But I will confess, my\nsuspicions did not carry me so far as to conjecture that this venerable\nchampion would be in such mighty haste to come into the field, and serve\nin the quality of an _enfant perdu_,[5] armed only with a pocket pistol,\nbefore his great blunderbuss could be got ready, his old rusty\nbreastplate scoured, and his cracked headpiece mended.\n\n[Footnote 3: Steele.]\n\n[Footnote 4: Piqueerer = pickeerer (modern) = a marauder, a skirmisher\nin advance of an army. From French _picorer_ = to maraud. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Enfant perdu_, one of the advanced guard; or, as\nHawkesworth notes it, \"one of the forlorn hope.\" [T.S.]]\n\nI was debating with myself, whether this hint of producing a small\npamphlet to give notice of a large folio, was not borrowed from the\nceremonial in Spanish romances, where a dwarf is sent out upon the\nbattlements to signify to all passengers, what a mighty giant there is\nin the castle; or whether the Bishop copied this proceeding from the\n_fanfarronade_ of Monsieur Boufflers, when the Earl of Portland and that\ngeneral had an interview. Several men were appointed at certain periods\nto ride in great haste toward the English camp, and cry out,\n_Monseigneur vient, Monseigneur vient:_ Then, small parties advanced\nwith the same speed and the same cry, and this foppery held for many\nhours, until the mareschal himself arrived. So here, the Bishop (as we\nfind by his dedication to Mr. Churchill the bookseller) has for a long\ntime sent warning of his arrival by advertisements in _Gazettes_, and\nnow his Introduction advances to tell us again, _Monseigneur vient:_ In\nthe mean time, we must gape and wait and gaze the Lord knows how long,\nand keep our spirits in some reasonable agitation, until his Lordship's\nreal self shall think fit to appear in the habit of a folio.\n\nI have seen the same sort of management at a puppet-show. Some puppets\nof little or no consequence appeared several times at the window to\nallure the boys and the rabble: The trumpeter sounded often, and the\ndoorkeeper cried a hundred times till he was hoarse, that they were just\ngoing to begin; yet after all, we were forced sometimes to wait an hour\nbefore Punch himself in person made his entry.\n\nBut why this ceremony among old acquaintance? The world and he have long\nknown one another: Let him appoint his hour and make his visit, without\ntroubling us all day with a succession of messages from his laqueys and\npages.\n\nWith submission, these little arts of getting off an edition, do ill\nbecome any author above the size of Marten[6] the surgeon. My Lord tells\nus, that \"many thousands of the two former parts of his History are in\nthe kingdom,\"[7] and now he perpetually advertises in the gazette, that\nhe intends to publish the third: This is exactly in the method and style\nof Marten: \"The seventh edition (many thousands of the former editions\nhaving been sold off in a small time) of Mr. Marten's book concerning\nsecret diseases,\" &c.\n\n[Footnote 6: This is John Marten, the author of two treatises on the\ngout, and a \"Treatise of all the Degrees and Symptoms of the Venereal\nDisease\" (1708?-9). His notoriety brought on him the ire of a \"licens'd\npractitioner in physick and surgery,\" one J. Spinke, who, in a pamphlet\nentitled \"Quackery Unmask'd\" (1709), dealt Marten some most uncourteous\nblows. From the pamphlet, it is difficult to judge whether Spinke or\nMarten were the greater quack; we should judge the former. Certainly\nMarten deserves our sympathy, if only for Spinke's virulence. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 7: Page 26.]\n\nDoes his Lordship intend to publish his great volume by subscription,\nand is this Introduction only by way of specimen? I was inclined to\nthink so, because, in the prefixed letter to Mr. Churchill, which\nintroduces this Introduction, there are some dubious expressions: He\nsays, \"the advertisements he published were in order to move people to\nfurnish him with materials, which might help him to finish his work with\ngreat advantage.\" If he means half-a-guinea upon the subscription, and\nt'other half at the delivery, why does he not tell us so in plain terms?\n\nI am wondering how it came to pass, that this diminutive letter to Mr.\nChurchill should understand the business of introducing better than the\nIntroduction itself; or why the Bishop did not take it into his head to\nsend the former into the world some months before the latter; which\nwould have been a greater improvement upon the solemnity of the\nprocession?\n\nSince I writ these last lines, I have perused the whole pamphlet (which\nI had only dipped in before) and found I have been hunting upon a wrong\nscent; for the author hath in several parts of his piece, discovered the\ntrue motives which put him upon sending it abroad at this juncture; I\nshall therefore consider them as they come in my way.\n\nMy Lord begins his Introduction with an account of the reasons why he\nwas guilty of so many mistakes in the first volume of his \"History of\nthe Reformation:\" His excuses are just, rational, and extremely\nconsistent. He says, \"he wrote in haste,\"[8] which he confirms by\nadding, \"that it lay a year after he wrote it before it was put into the\npress:\"[9] At the same time he mentioned a passage extremely to the\nhonour of that pious and excellent prelate, Archbishop Sancroft, which\ndemonstrates his Grace to have been a person of great sagacity, and\nalmost a prophet. Dr. Burnet, then a private divine, \"desired admittance\nto the Cotton library, but was prevented by the archbishop, who told Sir\nJohn Cotton, that the said doctor was no friend to the prerogative of\nthe crown, nor to the constitution of the kingdom.\" This judgment was\nthe more extraordinary, because the doctor had not long before published\na book in Scotland, with his name prefixed, which carries the regal\nprerogative higher than any writer of the age:[10] however, the good\narchbishop lived to see his opinion become universal in the kingdom.\n\n[Footnote 8: Page 6.]\n\n[Footnote 9: Page 10.]\n\n[Footnote 10: This was Burnet's \"Vindication of the Authority,\nConstitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland,\" dedicated\nto the Duke of Lauderdale, and published in 1672. The dedication\ncontains an eulogium of the duke, and the work a defence of episcopacy\nand monarchy against Buchanan and his followers. At a later period, the\nauthor did not probably recollect this juvenile publication with, much\ncomplacence.\n\nIt is somewhat remarkable to see the progress of this story. In the\nfirst edition of this \"Introduction,\" it should seem, \"he was prevented\nby the Archbishop,\" &c. When the \"Introduction\" was reprinted a year\nafter with the \"History,\" it stands: \"A great prelate had been\nbeforehand and possessed him [Sir John Cotton] against me--That unless\nthe Archbishop of Canterbury would recommend me--he desired to be\nexcused--The Bishop of Worcester could not prevail on the Archbishop to\ninterpose.\" This is somewhat less than preventing, unless the Archbishop\nbe meant by the \"great prelate.\" Which is not very probable. 1. Because\nin the Preface to this very third volume, p. 4, he says, \"It was by\nArchbishop Sancroft's order he had the free use of everything that lay\nin the Lambeth Library.\" 2. Because the Author of \"Speculum\nSarisburianum\" (p. 6), tells us, \"His access to the Library was owing\nsolely to the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft, as I have been\ninformed by some of the family.\" 3. Because Bishop Burnet, in his\n\"History of My Own Times,\" vol. i. p. 396, says it was \"Dolben, Bishop\nof Rochester (at the instigation of the Duke of Lauderdale), that\ndiverted Sir John Cotton from suffering me to search his Library.\"\n[\"Miscellanies,\" vol. viii. 1745.]]\n\nThe Bishop goes on for many pages, with an account of certain facts\nrelating to the publishing of his two former volumes of the Reformation,\nthe great success of that work, and the adversaries who appeared against\nit. These are matters out of the way of my reading; only I observe that\npoor Mr. Henry Wharton,[11] who has deserved so well of the commonwealth\nof learning, and who gave himself the trouble of detecting some hundreds\nof the Bishop's mistakes, meets with very ill quarter from his Lordship.\nUpon which I cannot avoid mentioning a peculiar method which this\nprelate takes to revenge himself upon those who presume to differ from\nhim in print. The Bishop of Rochester[12] happened some years ago to be\nof this number. My Lord of Sarum in his reply ventured to tell the\nworld, that the gentleman who had writ against him, meaning Dr\nAtterbury, was one upon whom he had conferred great obligations; which\nwas a very generous Christian contrivance of charging his adversary with\ningratitude. But it seems the truth happened to be on the other side;\nwhich the doctor made appear in such a manner as would have silenced his\nLordship for ever, if he had not been writing proof. Poor Mr. Wharton in\nhis grave is charged with the same accusation, but with circumstances\nthe most aggravating that malice and something else could invent[13];\nand which I will no more believe than five hundred passages in a certain\nbook of travels[14]. See the character he gives of a divine, and a\nscholar, who shortened his life in the service of God and the church.\n\"Mr. Wharton desired me to intercede with Tillotson for a prebend of\nCanterbury. I did so, but Wharton would not believe it; said he would be\nrevenged, and so writ against me. Soon after he was convinced I had\nspoke for him, said he was set on to do what he did, and, if I would\nprocure any thing for him, he would discover every thing to me[15].\"\nWhat a spirit of candour, charity, and good nature, generosity, and\ntruth, shines through this story, told of a most excellent and pious\ndivine, twenty years after his death, without one single voucher[16]!\n\n[Footnote 11: Henry Wharton (1664-1694-5), a divine, born at Worstead,\nNorfolk, and educated at Cambridge. Became chaplain to Archbishop\nSancroft in 1688, and then rector of Chartham. Wrote \"A Treatise on the\nCelibacy of the Clergy;\" \"The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome\ndemonstrated in the Life of Ignatius Loyola;\" \"A Defence of\nPluralities;\" \"Specimen of Errors in Burnet's 'History of the\nReformation;'\" \"Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Historiarum;\" and \"History\nof Archbishop Laud.\" The criticism on Burnet's \"History\" was written\nunder the _nom de guerre_ of Anthony Farmar. [T. S.]]\n\n[Footnote 12: Dr. Atterbury.]\n\n[Footnote 13: Page 22.]\n\n[Footnote 14: Burnet's \"Travels.\"]\n\n[Footnote 15: Page 23.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Burnet's account of this matter was reprinted in the\nPreface to his \"History of the Reformation,\" and it contains also the\nbishop's rejoinder against Wharton's method of criticism in the\n\"Specimen\": \"He had examined the dark ages before the Reformation with\nmuch diligence, and so knew many things relating to those times beyond\nany man of the age; he pretended that he had many more errors in\nreserve, and that this specimen was only a hasty collection of a few,\nout of many other discoveries he could make. This consisted of some\ntrifling and minute differences in some dates and transactions of no\nimportance, upon which nothing depended; so I cannot tell whether I took\nthese too easily from printed books, or if I committed any errors in my\nnotes taken in the several offices. He likewise follows me through the\nseveral recapitulations I had made of the state of things before the\nReformation, and finds errors and omissions in most of these; he adds\nsome things out of papers I had never seen. The whole was writ with so\nmuch malice, and such contempt, that I must give some account of the\nman, and of his motives. He had expressed great zeal against popery, in\nthe end of King James's reign, being then chaplain to Archbishop\nSancroft, who, as he said, had promised him the first of those prebends\nof Canterbury that should fall in his gift: for when he saw that the\narchbishop was resolved not to take the oaths, but to forsake the post,\nhe made an earnest application to me, to secure that for him at\nArchbishop Tillotson's hands. I pressed him in it as much as was decent\nfor me to do, but he said he would not encourage these aspiring men, by\npromising any thing, before it should fall; as indeed none of them fell\nduring his time. Wharton, upon this answer, thought I had neglected him,\nlooking on it as a civil denial, and said he would be revenged; and so\nhe published that specimen: upon which, I, in a letter that I printed,\naddressed to the present Bishop of Worcester, charged him again and\nagain to bring forth all that he pretended to have reserved at that\ntime, for, till that was done, I would not enter upon the examination of\nthat specimen. It was received with contempt, and Tillotson justified my\npressing him to take Wharton under his particular protection so fully,\nthat he sent and asked me pardon. He said he was set on to it; and that,\nif I would procure any thing for him, he would discover any thing to me.\nI despised that offer, but said that I would at any price buy of him\nthose discoveries that he pretended to have in reserve. But Mr. Chiswell\n(at whose house he then lay) being sick, said he could draw nothing of\nthat from him, and he believed he had nothing. He died about a year\nafter.\"--BURNET'S _History of the Reformation_ III, vii. [T. S.]]\n\nCome we now to the reasons, which moved his lordship to set about this\nwork at this time. He \"could delay it no longer, because the reasons of\nhis engaging in it at first seem to return upon him[17].\" He was then\nfrightened with \"the danger of a popish successor in view, and the\ndreadful apprehensions of the power of France. England has forgot these\ndangers, and yet is nearer to them than ever[18],\" and therefore he is\nresolved to \"awaken them\" with his third volume; but in the mean time,\nsends this Introduction to let them know they are asleep. He then goes\non in describing the condition of the kingdom[19], after such a manner\nas if destruction hung over us by a single hair; as if the Pope, the\ndevil, the Pretender, and France, were just at our doors.\n\n[Footnote 17: Page 27.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Page 28.]\n\n[Footnote 19: Page 28.]\n\nWhen the Bishop published his History, there was a popish plot on foot,\nthe Duke of York a known papist was presumptive heir to the crown, the\nHouse of Commons would not hear of any expedient for securing their\nreligion under a popish prince, nor would the King or Lords, consent to\na bill of exclusion: The French King was in the height of his grandeur,\nand the vigour of his age. At this day the presumptive heir, with that\nwhole illustrious family, are Protestants, the Popish Pretender excluded\nfor ever by several acts of Parliament, and every person in the smallest\nemployment, as well as the members in both Houses, obliged to abjure\nhim. The French King is at the lowest ebb of life; his armies have been\nconquered and his towns won from him for ten years together, and his\nkingdom is in danger of being torn by divisions during a long minority.\nAre these cases parallel? Or are we now in more danger of France and\npopery than we were thirty years ago? What can be the motive for\nadvancing such false, such detestable assertions? What conclusions would\nhis Lordship draw from such premises as these? If injurious appellations\nwere of any advantage to a cause, (as the style of our adversaries would\nmake us believe) what appellations would those deserve who thus\nendeavour to sow the seeds of sedition, and are impatient to see the\nfruits? \"But,\" saith he[20], \"the deaf adder stops her ear let the\ncharmer charm never so wisely.\" True, my Lord, there are indeed too many\nadders in this nation's bosom, adders in all shapes, and in all habits,\nwhom neither the Queen nor parliament can charm to loyalty, truth,\nreligion, or honour.\n\n[Footnote 20: Page 28.] Among other instances produced by him of the\ndismal condition we are in, he offers one which could not easily be\nguessed. It is this: That the little factious pamphlets written about\nthe end of King Charles II's reign, \"lie dead in shops, are looked on as\nwaste paper, and turned to pasteboard.\" How many are there of his\nLordship's writings which could otherwise never have been of any real\nservice to the public? Has he indeed so mean an opinion of our taste, to\nsend us at this time of day into all the corners of Holborn, Duck Lane,\nand Moorfields, in quest after the factious trash published in those\ndays by Julian Johnson, Hickeringil, Dr. Oates, and himself[21]?\n\n[Footnote 21: The Rev. Samuel Johnson,  degraded from his clerical\nrank, scourged, and imprisoned, for a work called \"Julian's Arts to\nundermine Christianity,\" in which he drew a parallel between that\napostate and James, then Duke of York. [S.]\n\nEdmund Hickeringil, a fanatic preacher at Colchester. He appears, from\nthe various pamphlets which he wrote during the reigns of Charles II.\nand his brother, to have been a meddling crazy fool. He was born in\nEssex, 1630, and was educated at Cambridge. He entered the army, and\nwent to Jamaica, of which place he wrote a very curious account.\nAfterwards he entered holy orders, and became rector of All Saints,\nColchester. He was a most eccentric individual. [T. S.]]\n\nHis Lordship, taking it for a _postulatum_, that the Queen and ministry,\nboth Houses of Parliament, and a vast majority of the landed gentlemen\nthroughout England are running headlong into Popery, lays hold on the\noccasion to describe \"the cruelties in Queen Mary's reign, an\ninquisition setting up faggots in Smithfield, and executions all over\nthe kingdom. Here is that\" (says he) \"which those that look toward a\npopish successor must look for.\"[22] And he insinuates through his whole\npamphlet, that all who are not of his party, \"look toward a popish\nsuccessor.\" These he divides into two parts, the Tory laity, and the\nTory clergy. He tells the former, though they have no religion at all,\nbut \"resolve to change with every wind and tide; yet they ought to have\ncompassion on their countrymen and kindred.\"[23] Then he applies himself\nto the Tory clergy, assures them, that \"the fires revived in Smithfield,\nand all over the nation, will have no amiable view; but least of all to\nthem, who if they have any principle at all, must be turned out of their\nlivings, leave their families, be hunted from place to place into parts\nbeyond the seas, and meet with that contempt with which they treated\nforeigners who took sanctuary among us.\"\n\n[Footnote 22: Page 36.]\n\n[Footnote 23: Page 36.]\n\nThis requires a recapitulation, with some remarks. First, I do affirm,\nthat of every hundred professed atheists, deists, and socinians in the\nkingdom, ninety-nine at least are staunch thorough-paced Whigs, entirely\nagreeing with his Lordship in politics and discipline; and therefore\nwill venture all the fires of hell, rather than singe one hair of their\nbeards in Smithfield. Secondly, I do likewise affirm, that those whom we\nusually understand by the appellation of Tory or high-church clergy,\nwere the greatest sticklers against the exorbitant proceedings of King\nJames, the best writers against popery, and the most exemplary sufferers\nfor the established religion. Thirdly, I do pronounce it to be a most\nfalse and infamous scandal upon the nation in general, and on the clergy\nin particular, to reproach them for \"treating foreigners with\nhaughtiness and contempt:\" The French Huguenots are many thousand\nwitnesses to the contrary; and I wish they deserved a thousandth part of\nthe good treatment they have received.[24]\n\n[Footnote 24: Swift's disparaging reference to the Huguenots must be put\ndown to the fact that he included them among Dissenters, on account of\ntheir Calvinism. [T. S.]]\n\nLastly, I observe that the author of the paper called _The Englishman_,\nhath run into the same cant, gravely advising the whole body of the\nclergy not to bring in Popery, because that will put them under a\nnecessity of parting with their wives, or losing their livings.\n\nThe bulk of the kingdom, both clergy and laity, happens to differ\nextremely from this prelate, in many principles both of politics and\nreligion: Now I ask, whether if any man of them had signed his name to a\nsystem of atheism, or Popery, he could have argued with them otherwise\nthan he does? Or, if I should write a grave letter to his Lordship with\nthe same advice, taking it for granted that he was half an atheist, and\nhalf a papist, and conjuring him by all he held dear to have compassion\nupon all those who believed a God, \"not to revive the fires in\nSmithfield,\" that he must either forfeit his bishopric, or not marry a\nfourth wife;[25] I ask whether he would not think I intended him the\nhighest injury and affront?\n\n[Footnote 25: Bishop Burnet had already been married three times. [T.\nS.]]\n\nBut as to the Tory laity; he gives them up in a lump for abandoned\natheists: They are a set of men so \"impiously corrupted in the point of\nreligion, that no scene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it\n[Popery] and perhaps acting such a part in it, as may be assigned\nthem.\"[26] He therefore despairs of influencing them by any topics drawn\nfrom religion or compassion, and advances the consideration of interest,\nas the only powerful argument to persuade them against Popery.\n\n[Footnote 26: Page 37.]\n\nWhat he offers upon this head is so very amazing from a Christian, a\nclergyman, and a prelate of the Church of England, that I must in my own\nimagination strip him of those three capacities, and put him among the\nnumber of that set of men he mentions in the paragraph before; or else\nit will be impossible to shape out an answer.\n\nHis Lordship, in order to dissuade the Tories from their design of\nbringing in Popery, tells them, \"how valuable a part of the whole soil\nof England, the abbey lands, the estates of the bishops, of the\ncathedrals, and the tithes are;\"[27] how difficult such \"a resumption\nwould be to many families; yet all these must be thrown up; for\nsacrilege in the church of Rome, is a mortal sin.\" I desire it may be\nobserved, what a jumble here is made of ecclesiastical revenues, as if\nthey were all upon the same foot, were alienated with equal justice, and\nthe clergy had no more reason to complain of the one than the other.\nWhereas the four branches mentioned by him are of very different\nconsideration. If I might venture to guess the opinion of the clergy\nupon this matter, I believe they could wish that some small part of the\nabbey lands had been applied to the augmentation of poor bishoprics, and\na very few acres to serve for glebes in those parishes where there are\nnone; after which I think they would not repine that the laity should\npossess the rest. If the estates of some bishops and cathedrals were\nexorbitant before the Reformation, I believe the present clergy's wishes\nreach no further than that some reasonable temper had been used, instead\nof paring them to the quick: But as to the tithes, without examining\nwhether they be of divine institution, I conceive there is hardly one of\nthat sacred order in England, and very few even among the laity that\nlove the Church, who will not allow the misapplying of those revenues to\nsecular persons, to have been at first a most flagrant act of injustice\nand oppression: Though at the same time, God forbid they should be\nrestored any other way than by gradual purchase, by the consent of those\nwho are now the lawful possessors, or by the piety and generosity of\nsuch worthy spirits as this nation sometimes produceth. The Bishop knows\nvery well that the application of tithes to the maintenance of\nmonasteries, was a scandalous usurpation even in popish times: That the\nmonks usually sent out some of their fraternity to supply the cures; and\nthat when the monasteries were granted away by Henry VIII., the parishes\nwere left destituted, or very meanly provided of any maintenance for a\npastor: So that in many places, the whole ecclesiastical dues, even to\nmortuaries, Easter-offerings, and the like, are in lay hands, and the\nincumbent lies wholly at the mercy of his patron for his daily bread. By\nthese means there are several hundred parishes in England under \u00a320 a\nyear, and many under ten. I take his Lordship's bishopric to be worth\nnear \u00a32,500 annual income; and I will engage at half a year's warning to\nfind him above 200 beneficed clergymen who have not so much among them\nall to support themselves and their families; most of them orthodox, of\ngood life and conversation, as loth to see the fires kindled in\nSmithfield, as his Lordship, and at least as ready to face them under a\npopish persecution. But nothing is so hard for those who abound in\nriches, as to conceive how others can be in want. How can the\nneighbouring vicar feel cold or hunger, while my Lord is seated by a\ngood fire in the warmest room in his palace, with a dozen dishes before\nhim? I remember one other prelate much of the same stamp; who when his\nclergy would mention their wishes that some act of parliament might be\nthought of for the good of the Church, would say, \"Gentlemen, _we_ are\nvery well as _we_ are; if they would let _us_ alone, _we_ should ask no\nmore.\"[28]\n\n[Footnote 27: Page 38.]\n\n[Footnote 28: Scott, in a note, thinks this reflection on Burnet to be\nunjust, because of that prelate's zeal \"in forwarding a scheme in 1704\nfor Improving the livings of the poorer clergy.\" [T. S.]]\n\n\"Sacrilege\" (says my Lord) \"in the church of Rome, is a mortal sin;\"[29]\nand is it only so in the church of Rome? Or is it but a venial sin in\nthe Church of England? Our litany calls fornication a deadly sin; and I\nwould appeal to his Lordship for fifty years past, whether he thought\nthat or sacrilege the deadliest? To make light of such a sin, at the\nsame moment that he is frighting us from an idolatrous religion, should\nseem not very consistent. \"_Thou_ that sayest, a man should not commit\nadultery, dost _thou_ commit adultery? _Thou_ that abhorrest idols, dost\n_thou_ commit sacrilege?\"\n\n[Footnote 29: Page 38.]\n\nTo smooth the way for the return of Popery in Queen Mary's time, the\ngrantees were confirmed by the Pope in the possession of the abbey\nlands. But the Bishop tells us, that \"this confirmation was fraudulent\nand invalid\" I shall believe it to be so, though I happen to read in his\nLordship's history: But he adds, that although the confirmation had been\ngood, the priests would have got their land again by these two methods;\n\"first,[30] the Statute of Mortmain was repealed for 20 years, in which\ntime no doubt they reckoned they would recover the best part of what\nthey had lost; besides that, engaging the clergy to renew no leases, was\na thing entirely in their own power, and this in forty years time would\nraise their revenues to be about ten times their present value.\" These\ntwo expedients for increasing the revenues of the Church, he represents\nas pernicious designs, fit only to be practised in times of Popery, and\nsuch as the laity ought never to consent to: Whence, and from what he\nsaid before about tithes, his Lordship has freely declared his opinion,\nthat the clergy are rich enough, and that the least addition to their\nsubsistence would be a step toward Popery. Now it happens, that the two\nonly methods, which could be thought on, with any probability of\nsuccess, toward some reasonable augmentation of ecclesiastical revenues,\nare here rejected by a Bishop, as a means for introducing Popery, and\nthe nation publicly warned against them. The continuance of the Statute\nof Mortmain in full force, after the Church had been so terribly\nstripped, appeared to Her Majesty and the kingdom a very unnecessary\nhardship; upon which account it was at several times relaxed by the\nlegislature. Now as the relaxation of that statute is manifestly one of\nthe reasons which gives the Bishop those terrible apprehensions of\nPopery coming on us; so I conceive another ground of his fears, is the\nremission of the first-fruits and tenths. But where the inclination to\nPopery lay, whether in Her Majesty who proposed this benefaction, the\nparliament which confirmed, or the clergy who accepted it, his Lordship\nhath not thought fit to determine.\n\n[Footnote 30: Page 39.]\n\nThe other popish expedient for augmenting church-revenues, is \"engaging\nthe clergy to renew no leases.\"[31] Several of the most eminent\nclergymen have assured me, that nothing has been more wished for by good\nmen, than a law to prevent (at least) bishops from setting leases for\nlives. I could name ten bishoprics in England whose revenues one with\nanother do not amount to \u00a3600 a-year for each; and if his lordship's,\nfor instance, would be above ten times the value when the lives are\nexpired, I should think the overplus would not be ill disposed toward an\naugmentation of such as are now shamefully poor. But I do assert, that\nsuch an expedient was not always thought popish and dangerous by this\nright reverend historian. I have had the honour formerly to converse\nwith him; and he has told me several years ago, that he lamented\nextremely the power which bishops had of letting leases for lives,\nwhereby, as he said, they were utterly deprived of raising their\nrevenues, whatever alterations might happen in the value of money by\nlength of time: I think the reproach of betraying private conversation\nwill not upon this account be laid to my charge. Neither do I believe he\nwould have changed his opinion upon any score, but to take up another,\nmore agreeable to the maxims of his party; that \"the least addition of\nproperty to the Church, is one step toward Popery.\"\n\n[Footnote 31: Page 39.]\n\nThe Bishop goes on with much earnestness and prolixity to prove that the\nPope's confirmation of the church lands to those who held them by King\nHenry's donation, was null and fraudulent: Which is a point that I\nbelieve no Protestant in England would give threepence to have his\nchoice whether it should be true or false: It might indeed serve as a\npassage in his history, among a thousand other instances, to detect the\nknavery of the court of Rome; but I ask, where could be the use of it in\nthis Introduction? Or why all this haste in publishing it at this\njuncture; and so out of all method apart, and before the work itself? He\ngives his reasons in very plain terms; we are now, it seems, \"in more\ndanger of Popery than toward the end of King Charles II.'s reign. That\nset of men (the Tories) is so impiously corrupted in the point of\nreligion, that no scene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it,\nand perhaps from acting such a part in it as may be assigned them.\"[32]\nHe doubts whether the High-Church clergy have any principles, and\ntherefore will be ready to turn off their wives, and look on the fires\nkindled in Smithfield as an amiable view. These are the facts he all\nalong takes for granted, and argues accordingly; therefore, in despair\nof dissuading the nobility and gentry of the land from introducing\nPopery by any motives of honour, religion, alliance or mercy, he assures\nthem, that \"the Pope has not duly confirmed their titles to the church\nlands in their possession,\" which therefore must infallibly be restored,\nas soon as that religion is established among us.\n\n[Footnote 32: Page 37.]\n\nThus, in his Lordship's opinion, there is nothing wanting to make the\nmajority of the kingdom, both for number, quality and possession,\nimmediately embrace Popery, except a \"firm bull from the Pope,\" to\nsecure the abbey and other church lands and tithes to the present\nproprietors and their heirs; if this only difficulty could now be\nadjusted, the Pretender would be restored next session, the two Houses\nreconciled to the church of Rome against Easter term, and the fires\nlighted in Smithfield by Midsummer. Such horrible calumnies against a\nnation are not the less injurious to decency, good-nature, truth,\nhonour, and religion, because they may be vented with safety. And I will\nappeal to any reader of common understanding, whether this be not the\nmost natural and necessary deduction from the passages I have cited and\nreferred to.\n\nYet all this is but friendly dealing, in comparison with what he affords\nthe clergy upon the same article. He supposes[33] all that reverend\nbody, who differ from him in principles of church or state, so far from\ndisliking Popery, upon the above-mentioned motives of perjury, \"quitting\ntheir wives, or burning their relations;\" that the hopes of \"enjoying\nthe abbey lands\" would soon bear down all such considerations, and be an\neffectual incitement to their perversion; and so he goes gravely on, as\nwith the only argument which he thinks can have any force, to assure\nthem, that \"the parochial priests in Roman Catholic countries are much\npoorer than in ours, the several orders of regulars, and the\nmagnificence of their church, devouring all their treasure,\" and by\nconsequence \"their hopes are vain of expecting to be richer after the\nintroduction of Popery.\"\n\n[Footnote 33: Page 46.]\n\nBut after all, his Lordship despairs, that even this argument will have\nany force with our abominable clergy, because, to use his own words,\n\"They are an insensible and degenerate race, who are thinking of nothing\nbut their present advantages; and so that they may now support a\nluxurious and brutal course of irregular and voluptuous practices, they\nare easily hired to betray their religion, to sell their country, and\ngive up that liberty and those properties, which are the present\nfelicities and glories of this nation.\"[34] He seems to reckon all these\nevils as matters fully determined on, and therefore falls into the last\nusual form of despair, by threatening the authors of these miseries with\n\"lasting infamy, and the curses of posterity upon perfidious betrayers\nof their trust.\"[35]\n\n[Footnote 34: Page 47.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Page 47.]\n\nLet me turn this paragraph into vulgar language for the use of the poor,\nand strictly adhere to the sense of the words. I believe it may be\nfaithfully translated in the following manner: \"The bulk of the clergy,\nand one-third of the bishops, are stupid sons of whores, who think of\nnothing but getting money as soon as they can: If they may but produce\nenough to supply them in gluttony, drunkenness, and whoring, they are\nready to turn traitors to God and their country, and make their\nfellow-subjects slaves.\" The rest of the period, about threatening\n\"infamy,\" and \"the curses of posterity upon such dogs and villains,\" may\nstand as it does in the Bishop's own phrase, and so make the paragraph\nall of a piece.\n\nI will engage, on the other side, to paraphrase all the rogues and\nrascals in the _Englishman_, so as to bring them up exactly to his\nLordship's style: But, for my own part, I much prefer the plain\nBillingsgate way of calling names, because it expresses our meaning full\nas well, and would save abundance of time which is lost by\ncircumlocution; so, for instance, John Dunton,[36] who is retained on\nthe same side with the Bishop, calls my Lord-treasurer and Lord\nBolingbroke, traitors, whoremasters, and Jacobites, which three words\ncost our right reverend author thrice as many lines to define them; and\nI hope his Lordship does not think there is any difference in point of\nmorality, whether a man calls me traitor in one word, or says I am one\n\"hired to betray my religion and sell my country.\"[37]\n\n[Footnote 36: See note on p. 50 of vol. i. of this edition of Swift's\nworks. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 37: Page 51.]\n\nI am not surprised to see the Bishop mention with contempt all\nConvocations of the Clergy;[38] for Toland, Collins, Tindal,[39] and\nothers of the fraternity, talk the very same language. His Lordship\nconfesses he \"is not\" inclined \"to expect much from the assemblies of\nclergymen.\" There lies the misfortune; for if he and some more of his\norder would correct their \"inclinations,\" a great deal of good might be\nexpected from such assemblies, as much as they are now cramped by that\nsubmission, which a corrupt clergy brought upon their innocent\nsuccessors. He will not deny that his copiousness in these matters is,\nin his own opinion, one of the meanest parts of his new work. I will\nagree with him, unless he happens to be more \"copious\" in any thing\nelse. However, it is not easy to conceive why he should be so \"copious\"\nupon a subject he so much despises, unless it were to gratify his talent\nof railing at the clergy, in the number of whom he disdains to be\nreckoned, because he is a Bishop. For it is a style I observe some\nprelates have fallen into of late years, to talk of clergymen as if\nthemselves were not of the number: You will read in many of their\nspeeches at Dr. Sacheverel's[40] trial, expressions to this or the like\neffect: \"My lords, if clergymen be suffered,\" &c. wherein they seem to\nhave reason; and I am pretty confident, that a great majority of the\nclergy were heartily inclined to disown any relation they had to the\nmanagers in lawn. However, it was a confounding argument against\nPresbytery, that those who are most suspected to lean that way, treating\ntheir inferior brethren with haughtiness, rigour, and contempt:\nAlthough, to say the truth, nothing better could be hoped for; because,\nI believe, it may pass for a universal rule, that in every diocese\ngoverned by bishops of the Whig species, the clergy (especially the\npoorer sort) are under double discipline, and the laity left to\nthemselves. The opinion of Sir Thomas More, which he produces to prove\nthe ill consequences or insignificancy of Convocations, advances no such\nthing, but says, \"if the clergy assembled often, and might act as other\nassemblies of clergy in Christendom, much good might have come: but the\nmisfortune lay in their long disuse, and that in his own and a good part\nof his father's time, they never came together, except at the command of\nthe prince.\"[41]\n\n[Footnote 38: Page 47.]\n\n[Footnote 39: See note, p. 9. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 40: Henry Sacheverell, D.D., was educated at Marlborough and\nOxford. At Magdalen College he was a fellow-student with Addison, and\nobtained there his fellowship and doctor's degree. In 1709 he preached\ntwo sermons, one at the Derby Assizes, and the other at St. Paul's, in\nwhich he urged the imminent danger of the Church. For these sermons,\nwhich the parliament considered highly inflammatory, he was, by the\nHouse of Commons, at the instigation of Godolphin, impeached, and tried\nbefore the Lords in 1710. He was found guilty of a misdemeanour, and was\nsuspended from preaching for three years. The trial made a great stir at\nthe time, and served but to increase the popularity of a man who, had he\nbeen let alone, would, probably, never have been heard of. He died in\n1724, holding the living of St. Andrew, Holborn, to which he was\npresented after the expiration of his sentence. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 41: See Sir Thomas More's \"Apology,\" 1533, p. 241.]\n\nI suppose his lordship thinks, there is some original impediment in the\nstudy of divinity, or secret incapacity in a gown and cassock without\nlawn, which disqualifies all inferior clergymen from debating upon\nsubjects of doctrine or discipline in the church. It is a famous saying\nof his, that \"he looks upon every layman to be an honest man, until he\nis by experience convinced to the contrary; and on every clergyman as a\nknave, till he finds him to be an honest man.\" What opinion then must we\nhave of a Lower House of Convocation:[42] where I am confident he will\nhardly find three persons that ever convinced him of their honesty, or\nwill ever be at the pains to do it? Nay, I am afraid they would think\nsuch a conviction might be no very advantageous bargain, to gain the\ncharacter of an honest man with his Lordship, and lose it with the rest\nof the world.\n\n[Footnote 42: It must not be forgotten, that, during the reign of Queen\nAnne, the body of the clergy were high-church men; but the bishops, who\nhad chiefly been promoted since the Revolution, were Whiggish in\npolitics, and moderate in their sentiments of church government. Hence\nthe Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation rarely agreed in sentiment on\naffairs of church or state. [T. S.]]\n\nIn the famous Concordate that was made between Francis I. of France and\nPope Leo X., the Bishop tells us, that \"the king and pope came to a\nbargain, by which they divided the liberties of the Gallican Church\nbetween them, and indeed quite enslaved it.\"[43] He intends, in the\nthird part of his History which he is going to publish, \"to open this\nwhole matter to the world.\" In the mean time, he mentions some ill\nconsequences to the Gallican Church from that Concordate, which are\nworthy to be observed; \"The church of France became a slave, and this\nchange in their constitution put an end not only to national, but even\nto provincial synods in that kingdom. The assemblies of the clergy\nthere, meet now only to give subsidies,\" &c. and he says, \"our nation\nmay see by that proceeding, what it is to deliver up the essential\nliberties of a free constitution to a court.\" [44]\n\n[Footnote 43: Page 53.]\n\n[Footnote 44: Page 53.]\n\nAll I can gather from this matter is, that our King Henry made a better\nbargain than his contemporary Francis, who divided the liberties of the\nchurch between himself and the Pope, while the King of England seized\nthem all to himself. But how comes he to number the want of synods in\nthe Gallican church among the grievances of that Concordate, and as a\nmark of their slavery, since he reckons all Convocations of the Clergy\nin England to be useless and dangerous? Or what difference in point of\nliberty was there between the Gallican Church under Francis, and the\nEnglish under Harry? For, the latter was as much a papist as the former,\nunless in the point of obedience to the see of Rome; and in every\nquality of a good man, or a good prince, (except personal courage\nwherein both were equal) the French monarch had the advantage by as many\ndegrees as is possible for one man to have over another.\n\nHenry VIII. had no manner of intention to change religion in his\nkingdom; he still continued to persecute and burn Protestants after he\nhad cast off the Pope's supremacy, and I suppose this seizure of\necclesiastical revenues (which Francis never attempted) cannot be\nreckoned as a mark of the church's liberty. By the quotation the Bishop\nsets down to show the slavery of the French church, he represents it as\na grievance, that \"bishops are not now elected there as formerly, but\nwholly appointed by the prince; and that those made by the court have\nbeen ordinarily the chief advancers of schisms, heresies, and\noppressions of the church.\" [45] He cites another passage from a Greek\nwriter, and plainly insinuates, that it is justly applicable to Her\nMajesty's reign: \"Princes choose such men to that charge [of a bishop]\nwho may be their slaves, and in all things obsequious to what they\nprescribe; and may lie at their feet, and have not so much as a thought\ncontrary to their commands.\" [46]\n\n[Footnote 45: Page 55.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Page 55.]\n\nThese are very singular passages for his Lordship to set down in order\nto show the dismal consequences of the French Concordate, by the slavery\nof the Gallican Church, compared with the freedom of ours. I shall not\nenter into a long dispute, whether it were better for religion that\nbishops should be chosen by the clergy, or people, or both together: I\nbelieve our author would give his vote for the second (which however\nwould not have been of much advantage to himself, and some others that I\ncould name). But I ask, Whether bishops are any more elected in England\nthan in France? And the want of synods are in his own opinion rather a\nblessing than a grievance, unless he will affirm that more good can be\nexpected from a popish synod than an English Convocation. Did the French\nclergy ever receive a greater blow to their liberties, than the\nsubmission made to Henry VIII., or so great a one as the seizure of\ntheir lands? The Reformation owed nothing to the good intentions of K.\nHenry: He was only an instrument of it, (as the logicians speak) by\naccident; nor doth he appear through his whole reign to have had any\nother views than those of gratifying his insatiable love of power,\ncruelty, oppression, and other irregular appetites. But this kingdom as\nwell as many other parts of Europe, was, at that time, generally weary\nof the corruptions and impositions of the Roman court and church, and\ndisposed to receive those doctrines which Luther and his followers had\nuniversally spread. Cranmer the archbishop, Cromwell, and others of the\ncourt, did secretly embrace the Reformation; and the King's abrogating\nthe Pope's supremacy, made the people in general run into the new\ndoctrines with greater freedom, because they hoped to be supported in it\nby the authority and example of their prince, who disappointed them so\nfar that he made no other step than rejecting the Pope's supremacy as a\nclog upon his own power and passions, but retained every corruption\nbeside, and became a cruel persecutor, as well of those who denied his\nown supremacy, as of all others who professed any Protestant doctrine.\nNeither hath any thing disgusted me more in reading the histories of\nthose times, than to see one of the worst princes of any age or country,\ncelebrated as an instrument in that glorious work of the Reformation.\n\nThe Bishop having gone over all the matters that properly fall within\nhis Introduction, proceeds to expostulate with several sorts of\npeople;[47] First with Protestants who are no Christians, such as\natheists, deists, freethinkers, and the like enemies to Christianity.\nBut these he treats with the tenderness of a friend, because they are\nall of them of sound Whig principles in church and state. However, to do\nhim justice, he lightly touches some old topics for the truth of the\nGospel; and concludes by wishing that the freethinkers would consider\nwell, if (_Anglice,_ whether) they think it possible to bring a nation\nto be without any religion at all, and what the consequences of that may\nprove; [48] and in case they allow the negative, he gives it clearly for\nChristianity.\n\n[Footnote 47: Page 56.]\n\n[Footnote 48: Page 59.]\n\nSecondly, he applies himself (if I take his meaning right) to Christian\npapists \"who have a taste of liberty,\" and desires them to \"compare the\nabsurdities of their own religion with the reasonableness of the\nreformed:\" [49] Against which, as good luck would have it, I have\nnothing to object.\n\n[Footnote 49: Page 59.]\n\nThirdly, he is somewhat rough against his own party, \"who having tasted\nthe sweets of Protestant liberty, can look back so tamely on Popery\ncoming on them; it looks as if they were bewitched, or that the devil\nwere in them, to be so negligent. It is not enough that they resolve not\nto turn papists themselves: They ought to awaken all about them, even\nthe most ignorant and stupid, to apprehend their danger, and to exert\nthemselves with their utmost industry to guard against it, and to resist\nit. If after all their endeavours to prevent it, the corruption of the\nage, and the art and power of our enemies, prove too hard for us, then,\nand not until then, we must submit to the will of God, and be silent,\nand prepare ourselves for all the extremity of suffering and of\nmisery:\"[50] with a great deal more of the same strain.\n\n[Footnote 50: Pages 60, 61.]\n\nWith due submission to the profound sagacity of this prelate, who can\nsmell Popery at 500 miles distance, better than fanaticism just under\nhis nose; I take leave to tell him, that this reproof to his friends,\nfor want of zeal and clamour against Popery, slavery, and the Pretender,\nis what they have not deserved. Are the pamphlets and papers, daily\npublished by the sublime authors of his party full of any thing else?\nAre not the Queen, the ministers, the majority of Lords and Commons,\nloudly taxed in print with this charge against them at full length? Is\nit not the perpetual echo of every Whig coffeehouse and club? Have they\nnot quartered Popery and the Pretender upon the peace, and treaty of\ncommerce; upon the possessing, and quieting, and keeping, and\ndemolishing of Dunkirk? Have they not clamoured because the Pretender\ncontinued in France, and because he left it? Have they not reported,\nthat the town swarmed with many thousand papists, when upon search there\nwere never found so few of that religion in it before? If a clergyman\npreaches obedience to the higher powers, is he not immediately traduced\nas a papist? Can mortal man do more? To deal plainly, my Lord, your\nfriends are not strong enough yet to make an insurrection, and it is\nunreasonable to expect it from them, until their neighbours are ready.\n\nMy Lord, I have a little seriousness at heart upon this point, where\nyour Lordship affects to show so much. When you can prove, that one\nsingle word has ever dropped from any minister of state, in public or\nprivate, in favour of the Pretender, or his cause; when you can make it\nappear, that in the course of this administration, since the Queen\nthought fit to change her servants, there hath one step been made toward\nweakening the Hanover title, or giving the least countenance to any\nother whatsoever; then, and not until then, go dry your chaff and\nstubble, give fire to the zeal of your faction, and reproach them with\nlukewarmness.\n\nFourthly, the Bishop applies himself to the Tories in general. Taking it\nfor granted, after his charitable manner, that they are all ready\nprepared to introduce Popery, he puts an excuse into their mouths, by\nwhich they would endeavour to justify their change of religion. That\n\"Popery is not what it was before the Reformation: Things are now much\nmended; and further corrections might be expected, if we would enter\ninto a treaty with them: In particular, they see the error of proceeding\nseverely with heretics; so that there is no reason to apprehend the\nreturns of such cruelties as were practised an age and a half ago.\"[51]\n\n[Footnote 51: Page 62.]\n\nThis, he assures us, is a plea offered by the Tories in defence of\nthemselves, for going about at this juncture to establish the Popish\nreligion among us: What argument does he bring to prove the fact itself?\n\n      \"Quibus indiciis, quo teste, probavit?\n  Nil horum: verbosa et grandis epistola venit\" [52]\n\n[Footnote 52: Juvenal, \"Sat.\" x. 70-71. [T. S.]]\n\nNothing but this tedious Introduction, wherein he supposes it all along\nas a thing granted. That there might be a perfect union in the whole\nChristian Church, is a blessing which every good man wishes, but no\nreasonable man can hope. That the more polite Roman Catholics have in\nseveral places given up some of their superstitious fopperies,\nparticularly concerning legends, relics, and the like, is what nobody\ndenies. But the material points in difference between us and them are\nuniversally retained and asserted, in all their controversial writings.\nAnd if his Lordship really thinks that every man who differs from him,\nunder the name of a Tory in some church and state opinions, is ready to\nbelieve transubstantiation, purgatory, the infallibility of pope or\ncouncils, to worship saints and angels, and the like; I can only pray\nGod to enlighten his understanding, or graft in his heart the first\nprinciples of charity; a virtue which some people ought not by any means\nwholly to renounce, \"because it covers a multitude of sins.\"\n\nFifthly, the Bishop applies himself to his own party in both Houses of\nParliament, whom he exhorts to \"guard their religion and liberty against\nall danger at what distance soever it may appear. If they are absent and\nremiss on critical occasions,\" that is to say, if they do not attend\nclose next sessions, to vote upon all occasions whatsoever against the\nproceedings of the Queen and Her Ministry; \"or, if any views of\nadvantage to themselves prevail on them.\" [53] In other words, if any of\nthem vote for the Bill of Commerce, in hopes of a place or a pension, a\ntitle, or a garter; \"God may work a deliverance for us another way.\"\nThat is to say, by inviting the Dutch. \"But they and their families,\"\n(id est) those who are negligent or revolters, \"shall perish.\" By which\nis meant; they shall be hanged as well as the present ministry and their\nabettors, as soon as we recover our power. \"Because they let in\nidolatry, superstition, and tyranny.\" Because they stood by and suffered\nthe peace to be made, the Bill of Commerce to pass, and Dunkirk to lie\nundemolished longer than we expected, without raising a rebellion.\n\n[Footnote 53: Pages 67, 68.]\n\nHis last application is to the Tory clergy, a parcel of \"blind,\nignorant, dumb, sleeping, greedy, drunken dogs.\"[54] A pretty artful\nepiscopal method is this, of calling his brethren as many injurious\nnames as he pleases. It is but quoting a text of Scripture, where the\ncharacters of evil men are described, and the thing is done; and at the\nsame time the appearances of piety and devotion preserved. I would\nengage, with the help of a good Concordance, and the liberty of\nperverting Holy Writ, to find out as many injurious appellations, as the\n_Englishman_ throws out in any of his politic papers, and apply them to\nthose persons \"who call good evil, and evil good;\" to those who cry\nwithout cause, \"Every man to his tent, O Israel! and to those who curse\nthe Queen in their hearts!\"\n\n[Footnote 54: This is the bishop's reference to the Tory clergy: \"But,\nin the last place, Those who are appointed to be the watchmen, who ought\nto give warning, and to lift up their voice as a trumpet, when they see\nthose wolves ready to break in and devour the flock, have the heaviest\naccount of all others to make, if they neglect their duty; much more if\nthey betray their trust. If they are so set on some smaller matters, and\nare so sharpened upon that account, that they will not see their danger,\nnor awaken others to see it, and to fly from it; the guilt of those\nsouls who have perished by their means, God will require at their hands.\nIf they, in the view of any advantage to themselves, are silent when\nthey ought to cry out day and night, they will fall under the character\ngiven by the prophet, of the watchmen in his time: 'They are blind, they\nare all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to\nslumber: Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough. And\nthey are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own\nway, every one for his gain from his quarter; that say, come, I will\nfetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; to-morrow\nshall be as this day, and much more abundant.'\"--BURNET'S _History of\nthe Reformation_, vol. iii. p. xxii. [T. S.]]\n\nThese decent words he tells us, make up a \"lively description of such\npastors, as will not study controversy, nor know the depths of Satan.\"\nHe means I suppose, the controversy between us and the papists; for as\nto the freethinkers and dissenters of every denomination, they are some\nof the best friends to the cause. Now I have been told, there is a body\nof that kind of controversy published by the London divines, which is\nnot to be matched in the world. I believe likewise, there is a good\nnumber of the clergy at present, thoroughly versed in that study; after\nwhich I cannot but give my judgment, that it would be a very idle thing\nfor pastors in general to busy themselves much in disputes against\nPopery. It being a dry heavy employment of the mind at best, especially\nwhen, God be thanked, there is so little occasion for it, in the\ngenerality of parishes throughout the kingdom, and must be daily less\nand less by the just severity of the laws, and the utter aversion of our\npeople from that idolatrous superstition.\n\nIf I might be so bold as to name those who have the honour to be of his\nLordship's party, I would venture to tell him, that pastors have much\nmore occasion to study controversies against the several classes of\nfreethinkers and dissenters; the former (I beg his Lordship's pardon for\nsaying so) being a little worse than papists, and both of them more\ndangerous at present to our constitution both in church and state. Not\nthat I think Presbytery so corrupt a system of Christian religion as\nPopery; I believe it is not above one-third as bad: but I think the\nPresbyterians, and their clans of other fanatics of freethinkers and\natheists that dangle after them, are as well inclined to pull down the\npresent establishment of monarchy and religion, as any set of Papists in\nChristendom, and therefore that our danger as things now stand, is\ninfinitely greater from our Protestant enemies; because they are much\nmore able to ruin us, and full as willing. There is no doubt, but\nPresbytery, and a commonwealth, are less formidable evils than Popery,\nslavery, and the Pretender; for if the fanatics were in power, I should\nbe in more apprehension of being starved than burned. But there are\nprobably in England forty dissenters of all kinds, including their\nbrethren the freethinkers, for one papist; and, allowing one papist to\nbe as terrible as three dissenters, it will appear by arithmetic, that\nwe are thirteen times and one-third more in danger of being ruined by\nthe latter than the former.\n\nThe other qualification necessary for all pastors, if they will not be\n\"blind, ignorant, greedy, drunken dogs,\" &c., is, \"to know the depths of\nSatan.\" This is harder than the former; that a poor gentleman ought not\nto be parson, vicar, or curate of a parish, except he be cunninger than\nthe devil. I am afraid it will be difficult to remedy this defect for\none manifest reason, because whoever had only half the cunning of the\ndevil, would never take up with a vicarage of \u00a310 a-year, \"to live on at\nhis ease,\" as my Lord expresseth it; but seek out for some better\nlivelihood. His Lordship is of a nation very much distinguished for that\nquality of cunning (though they have a great many better) and I think he\nwas never accused for wanting his share. However upon a trial of skill I\nwould venture to lay six to four on the devil's side, who must be\nallowed to be at least the older practitioner. Telling truth shames him,\nand resistance makes him fly: But to attempt outwitting him, is to fight\nhim at his own weapon, and consequently no cunning at all. Another thing\nI would observe is, that a man may be \"in the depths of Satan,\" without\nknowing them all, and such a man may be so far in Satan's depths as to\nbe out of his own. One of the depths of Satan, is to counterfeit an\nangel of light. Another, I believe, is, to stir up the people against\ntheir governors, by false suggestions of danger. A third is to be a\nprompter to false brethren, and to send wolves about in sheep's\nclothing. Sometimes he sends Jesuits about England in the habit and cant\nof fanatics, at other times he has fanatic missionaries in the habits of\n----. I shall mention but one more of Satan's depths, for I confess I\nknow not the hundredth part of them; and that is, to employ his\nemissaries in crying out against remote imaginary dangers, by which we\nmay be taken off from defending ourselves against those which are real\nand just at our elbows.\n\nBut his Lordship draws towards a conclusion, and bids us \"look about, to\nconsider the danger we are in, before it is too late;\" for he assures\nus, we are already \"going into some of the worst parts of popery;\"[55]\nlike the man who was so much in haste for his new coat, that he put it\non the wrong side out. \"Auricular confession, priestly absolution, and\nthe sacrifice of the mass,\" have made great progress in England, and\nnobody has observed it: several other popish points \"are carried higher\nwith us than by the papists themselves.\"[56] And somebody, it seems,\n\"had the impudence to propose a union with the Gallican church.\"[57] I\nhave indeed heard that Mr. Lesley[58] published a discourse to that\npurpose, which I have never seen; nor do I perceive the evil in\nproposing an union between any two churches in Christendom. Without\ndoubt Mr. Lesley is most unhappily misled in his politics; but if he be\nthe author of the late tract against Popery[59], he has given the world\nsuch a proof of his soundness in religion, as many a bishop ought to be\nproud of. I never saw the gentleman in my life: I know he is the son of\na great and excellent prelate, who upon several accounts was one of the\nmost extraordinary men of his age. Mr. Lesley has written many useful\ndiscourses upon several subjects, and hath so well deserved of the\nChristian religion, and the Church of England in particular, that to\naccuse him of \"impudence for proposing an union\" in two very different\nfaiths, is a style which I hope few will imitate. I detest Mr. Lesley's\npolitical principles as much as his Lordship can do for his heart; but I\nverily believe he acts from a mistaken conscience, and therefore I\ndistinguish between the principles and the person. However, it is some\nmortification to me, when I see an avowed nonjuror contribute more to\nthe confounding of Popery, than could ever be done by a hundred thousand\nsuch Introductions as this.\n\n[Footnote 55: Page 70.]\n\n[Footnote 56: Page 70.]\n\n[Footnote 57: Swift here disowns a charge loudly urged by the Whigs of\nthe time against the high churchmen. There were, however, strong\nsymptoms of a nearer approach on their part to the church of Rome.\nHickes, the head of the Jacobite writers, had insinuated, that there was\na proper sacrifice in the Eucharist; Brett had published a Sermon on the\n\"Doctrine of Priestly Absolution as essential to Salvation;\" Dodwell had\nwritten against Lay-Baptism, and his doctrine at once excluded all the\ndissenters (whose teachers are held as lay-men) from the pale of\nChristianity;  and, upon the whole, there was a general disposition\namong the clergy to censure, if not the Reformation itself, at least the\nmode in which it was carried on. [S.]]\n\n[Footnote 58: Charles Lesley, or Leslie, the celebrated nonjuror. He\npublished a Jacobite paper, called the \"Rehearsal,\" and was a strenuous\nassertor of divine right; but he was also so steady a Protestant, that\nhe went to Bar-le-Duc to convert the Chevalier de St George from the\nerrors of Rome. [S.] See note on p. 63. [T. S.]]\n\n[Footnote 59: \"The Case stated between the Church of Rome and the Church\nof England,\" 1713.]\n\nHis Lordship ends with discovering a small ray of comfort. \"God be\nthanked there are many among us that stand upon the watch-tower, and\nthat give faithful warning; that stand in the breach, and make\nthemselves a wall for their church and country; that cry to God day and\nnight, and lie in the dust mourning before him, to avert those judgments\nthat seem to hasten towards us. They search into the mystery of iniquity\nthat is working among us, and acquaint themselves with that mass of\ncorruption that is in popery.\"[60] He prays \"that the number of these\nmay increase, and that he may be of that number, ready either to die in\npeace, or to seal that doctrine he has been preaching above fifty years,\nwith his blood.\"[61] This being his last paragraph, I have made bold to\ntranscribe the most important parts of it. His design is to end after\nthe manner of orators, with leaving the strongest impression possible\nupon the minds of his hearers. A great breach is made; \"the mystery of\npopish iniquity is working among us;\" may God avert those \"judgments\nthat are hastening towards us!\" I am an old man, \"a preacher above fifty\nyears,\" and I now expect and am ready to die a martyr for the doctrines\nI have preached. What an amiable idea does he here leave upon our minds,\nof Her Majesty and her government! He has been poring so long upon Fox's\nBook of Martyrs, that he imagines himself living in the reign of Queen\nMary, and is resolved to set up for a knight-errant against Popery. Upon\nthe supposition of his being in earnest, (which I am sure he is not) it\nwould require but a very little more heat of imagination, to make a\nhistory of such a knight's adventures. What would he say, to behold the\n\"fires kindled in Smithfield, and all over the town,\" on the 17th of\nNovember; to behold the Pope borne in triumph on the shoulders of the\npeople, with a cardinal on the one side, and the Pretender on the other?\nHe would never believe it was Queen Elizabeth's day, but that of her\npersecuting sister: In short, how easily might a windmill be taken for\nthe whore of Babylon, and a puppet-show for a popish procession?\n\n[Footnote 60: Page 71]\n\n[Footnote 61: Page 72]\n\nBut enthusiasm is none of his Lordship's faculty: I am inclined to\nbelieve he might be melancholy enough when he writ this Introduction:\nThe despair at his age of seeing a faction restored, to which he hath\nsacrificed so great a part of his life: The little success he can hope\nfor in case he should resume those High-Church Principles, in defence of\nwhich he first employed his pen: No visible expectation of removing to\nFarnham or Lambeth: And lastly, the misfortune of being hated by every\none, who either wears the habit, or values the profession of a\nclergyman: No wonder such a spirit, in such a situation, is provoked\nbeyond the regards of truth, decency, religion, or self-conviction. To\ndo him justice, he seems to have nothing else left, but to cry out,\nhalters, gibbets, faggots, inquisition, Popery, slavery, and the\nPretender. But in the meantime, he little considers what a world of\nmischief he does to his cause. It is very convenient, for the present\ndesigns of that faction, to spread the opinion of our immediate danger\nfrom Popery and the Pretender. His directors therefore ought, in my\nhumble opinion, to have employed his Lordship in publishing a book,\nwherein he should have asserted, by the most solemn asseverations, that\nall things were safe and well; for the world has contracted so strong a\nhabit of believing him backwards, that I am confident, nine parts in ten\nof those who have read or heard of his Introduction, have slept in\ngreater security ever since. It is like the melancholy tone of a\nwatchman at midnight, who thumps with his pole, as if some thief were\nbreaking in, but you know by the noise, that the door is fast.\n\nHowever, he \"thanks God there are many among us who stand in the\nbreach:\" I believe they may; 'tis a breach of their own making, and they\ndesign to come forward, and storm and plunder, if they be not driven\nback. \"They make themselves a wall for their church and country.\" A\nsouth wall, I suppose, for all the best fruit of the church and country\nto be nailed on. Let us examine this metaphor: The wall of our church\nand country is built of those who love the constitution in both: Our\ndomestic enemies undermine some parts of the wall, and place themselves\nin the breach; and then they cry, \"We are the wall!\" We do not like such\npatchwork, they build with untempered mortar; nor can they ever cement\nwith us, till they get better materials and better workmen: God keep us\nfrom having our breaches made up with such rubbish! \"They stand upon the\nwatch-tower;\" they are indeed pragmatical enough to do so; but who\nassigned them that post, to give us false intelligence, to alarm us with\nfalse dangers, and send us to defend one gate, while their accomplices\nare breaking in at another? \"They cry to God, day and night to avert the\njudgment of Popery which seems to hasten towards us.\" Then I affirm,\nthey are hypocrites by day, and filthy dreamers by night. When they cry\nunto him, he will not hear them: For they cry against the plainest\ndictates of their own conscience, reason, and belief.\n\nBut lastly, \"They lie in the dust, mourning before him.\" Hang me if I\nbelieve that, unless it be figuratively spoken. But suppose it to be\ntrue; why do \"they lie in the dust?\" Because they love to raise it: For\nwhat do \"they mourn?\" Why, for power, wealth, and places. There let the\nenemies of the Queen, and monarchy, and the church, lie, and mourn, and\nlick the dust, like serpents, till they are truly sensible of their\ningratitude, falsehood, disobedience, slander, blasphemy, sedition, and\nevery evil work!\n\nI cannot find in my heart to conclude without offering his Lordship a\nlittle humble advice upon some certain points.\n\nFirst, I would advise him, if it be not too late in his life, to\nendeavour a little at mending his style, which is mighty defective in\nthe circumstances of grammar, propriety, politeness, and smoothness;[62]\nI fancied at first, it might be owing to the prevalence of his passion,\nas people sputter out nonsense for haste when they are in a rage. And\nindeed I believe this piece before me has received some additional\nimperfections from that occasion. But whoever has heard his sermons, or\nread his other tracts, will find him very unhappy in his choice and\ndisposition of his words, and, for want of variety, repeating them,\nespecially the particles, in a manner very grating to an English ear.\nBut I confine myself to this Introduction, as his last work, where\nendeavouring at rhetorical flowers, he gives us only bunches of\nthistles; of which I could present the reader with a plentiful crop; but\nI refer him to every page and line of the pamphlet itself.\n\n[Footnote 62: In Swift's notes on Burnet's \"History of his Own Times,\"\nhe points out many instances of the deficiency here stated. [S.]]\n\nSecondly, I would most humbly advise his Lordship to examine a little\ninto the nature of truth, and sometimes to hear what she says. I shall\nproduce two instances among a hundred. When he asserts that we are \"now\nin more danger of Popery than toward the end of King Charles II.'s\nreign,\" and gives the broadest hints, that the Queen, the ministry, the\nparliament, and the clergy, are just going to introduce it; I desire to\nknow, whether he really thinks truth is of his side, or whether he be\nnot sure she is against him? If the latter, then truth and he will be\nfound in two different stories; and which are we to believe? Again, when\nhe gravely advises the clergy and laity of the Tory side, not to \"light\nthe fires in Smithfield,\" and goes on in twenty places already quoted,\nas if the bargain was made for Popery and slavery to enter: I ask again,\nwhether he has rightly considered the nature of truth? I desire to put a\nparallel case. Suppose his Lordship should take it into his fancy to\nwrite and publish a letter to any gentleman of no infamous character for\nhis religion or morals; and there advise him with great earnestness, not\nto rob or fire churches, ravish his daughter, or murder his father; show\nhim the sin and the danger of these enormities, that if he flattered\nhimself, he could escape in disguise, or bribe his jury, he was\ngrievously mistaken: That he must in all probability forfeit his goods\nand chattels, die an ignominious death, and be cursed by posterity;\nWould not such a gentleman justly think himself highly injured, though\nhis Lordship did not affirm that the said gentleman had his picklocks or\ncombustibles ready, that he had attempted his daughter, and drawn his\nsword against his father in order to stab him? Whereas, in the other\ncase, this writer affirms over and over, that all attempts for\nintroducing Popery and slavery are already made, the whole business\nconcerted, and that little less than a miracle can prevent our ruin.\n\nThirdly, I could heartily wish his Lordship would not undertake to\ncharge the opinions of one or two, and those probably nonjurors, upon\nthe whole body of the nation that differs from him. Mr. Lesley writ a\n\"Proposal for a Union with the Gallican Church;\" somebody else has\n\"carried the necessity of priesthood in the point of baptism farther\nthan popery;\" a third has \"asserted the independency of the church on\nthe state, and in many things arraigned the supremacy of the crown.\"\nThen he speaks in a dubious insinuating way, as if some other popish\ntenets had been already advanced: And at last concludes in this affected\nstrain of despondency, \"What will all these things end in? and on what\ndesign are they driven? Alas, it is too visible!\" 'Tis as clear as the\nsun, that these authors are encouraged by the ministry with a design to\nbring in Popery; and in Popery all these things will end.\n\nI never was so uncharitable as to believe, that the whole party of which\nhis Lordship professeth himself a member, had a real formed design of\nestablishing atheism among us. The reason why the Whigs have taken the\natheists, or freethinkers, into their body, is because they wholly agree\nin their political schemes, and differ very little in church power and\ndiscipline. However, I could turn the argument against his Lordship with\nvery great advantage, by quoting passages from fifty pamphlets wholly\nmade up of Whiggism and atheism, and then conclude; \"What will all these\nthings end in? And on what design are they driven? Alas, it is too\nvisible!\"\n\nLastly, I would beg his Lordship not to be so exceedingly outrageous\nupon the memory of the dead; because it is highly probable, that, in a\nvery short time he will be one of the number. He has in plain words\ngiven Mr. Wharton the character of a \"most malicious, revengeful,\ntreacherous, lying, mercenary villain.\" To which I shall only say, that\nthe direct reverse of this amiable description is what appears from the\nworks of that most learned divine, and from the accounts given me by\nthose who knew him much better than the Bishop seems to have done. I\nmeddle not with the moral part of his treatment. God Almighty forgive\nhis Lordship this manner of revenging himself; and then there will be\nbut little consequence from an accusation which the dead cannot feel,\nand which none of the living will believe.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nMR. COLLINS'S DISCOURSE OF\n\nFREETHINKING;\n\nPUT INTO PLAIN ENGLISH,\n\nBY WAY OF ABSTRACT,\n\nFOR THE USE OF THE POOR.\n\nBY A FRIEND OF THE AUTHOR.\n\nFIRST PRINTED IN 1713\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nOf the deistical writers of the early eighteenth century, Anthony\nCollins (1676-1729) is, perhaps, the most celebrated. He was born near\nHounslow and educated at Eton and Cambridge. His writings were mainly\nattacks on Christianity, and, in addition to the \"Discourse on\nFreethinking,\" he published: \"Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of\nthe Christian Religion;\" \"Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered;\"\n\"Priestcraft in Perfection;\" \"Historical and Critical Essay on the\nThirty-Nine Articles;\" and \"A Philosophical Enquiry concerning Human\nLiberty.\" Most of these writings engaged him in many and violent\ncontroversies with some of the ablest divines of his time. Among these,\nbeside Swift, may be named, Whiston, Hare, Hoadly, Bentley, and Samuel\nClarke. Steele, also, had his fling at Collins, and thought that \"if\never man deserved to be denied the common benefits of air and water, it\nis the author of 'A Discourse upon Freethinking'\" (\"Guardian,\" No. 3).\nBut then Steele's opinion on such a matter was of no great moment. What\nwas of more, was the fact that the school to which Collins belonged\nfound a decided opponent in Locke, from the writings of whom the members\nof the school professed to draw their strongest arguments. For a\nphilosophical appreciation of Toland, Collins, and the rest, see Mr.\nLeslie Stephen's \"English Thought in the Eighteenth Century\" (chaps.\niii. and iv. of vol. i. 1881).\n\nSwift took an entirely different attitude towards Collins from that\nassumed by the professional controversialists. He refused to take him\nseriously, and no doubt he felt that ridicule would as effectually serve\nhis purpose as another method. Moreover, he sought to use the\nopportunity for scoring a point against the Whigs, by insisting on the\npolitical side of the matter, and, in the person of an assumed defender\nof Collins, betrayed undoubted Whig leanings. Swift, at this time, was\ndeep in work, pamphleteering for Harley and St. John. He had already\nwritten \"The Conduct of the Allies,\" and \"Some Remarks on the Barrier\nTreaty,\" and was soon to write \"The Public Spirit of the Whigs.\" The\nassumed and sarcastic defence of Collins must be taken as a Swiftian\ndodge to bring odium and suspicion on the opponents of the Tory\nministry, by showing that the propounders of the hateful and ridiculous\natheism were themselves Whigs.\n\nSir Henry Craik, in a note to his reprint of this tract (\"Selections\nfrom Swift,\" Oxford, 1893, vol. ii. p. 42), agrees with Scott as to the\nmotive which urged Swift in writing it. \"In this later tract,\" he says,\n\"Swift makes no attempt to cloak his enmity; and he boldly assumes the\ncharacter of a Whig as the propounder of those atheistical absurdities,\nwhich he wished, as a useful political move, but without any scrupulous\nregard to fairness, to represent as part and parcel of the tenets of\nthat party.\" \"What gave colour,\" says Scott, \"though only a colour, to\nhis charge was, that Toland, Tindal, Collins, and most of those who\ncarried to licence their abhorrence of Church-government, were naturally\nenough enrolled among that party in politics who professed most\nattachment to freedom of sentiment.\" It must not, however, be forgotten,\nthat Swift's attachment to his Church, as it influenced him against the\nWhigs, would naturally influence him against the deistical writers also,\nand that he must be credited, to that extent, with honesty of purpose.\nThat these writers were Whigs was, if one may so put it, an accident, of\nwhich it would have been more than a human act for Swift not to take\nadvantage, for party purposes.\n\nCuriously enough, none of Swift's more modern biographers have thought\nthis imitation of Collins's \"Discourse\" worthy of a mention; yet it is,\nin its way, as fine a performance as his castigation of Bishop Burnet\nand his \"Introduction.\" The fooling is admirably carried on, and the\nintention, as explained in the introduction, is excellently well\nrealized. It frightened Collins into Holland. To appreciate the\ncleverness with which it has been done, one should read Swift's\n\"Abstract\" side by side with Collins's \"Discourse.\"\n\nThe pamphlet was advertised for sale in \"The Examiner\" for Tuesday,\nJanuary 26th, 1712-13. In His \"Letters to Stella\" (January 16th and\n21st, 1712-13), Swift makes the following references to it: \"I came home\nat seven, and began a little whim which just came into my head, and will\nmake a three-penny pamphlet. It shall be finished in a week; and, if it\nsucceeds, you shall know what it is; otherwise not. ... I was to-day\nwith my printer, to give him a little pamphlet I have written; but not\npolitics. It will be out by Monday.\"\n\nThe present text is based on that of the first edition, collated with\nthose given by Nichols, Hawkesworth and Scott. None of the\n\"Miscellanies\" prints this tract, nor is it given in Faulkner's edition\nof 1735-38 (6 vols.). It is fully annotated and edited by Nichols in the\nfirst volume of his \"Supplement to Swift's Works\" (1779).\n\n[T. S.]\n\n\n  Mr. COLLIN'S\n  DISCOURSE\n  OF\n  FREE-THINKING,\n  PUT INTO PLAIN ENGLISH,\n  BY WAY OF ABSTRACT,\n  FOR THE\n  USE OF THE POOR.\n\nBY A FRIEND OF THE AUTHOR.\n\n1713.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nOur party having failed, by all their political arguments, to\nre-establish their power; the wise leaders have determined, that the\nlast and principal remedy should be made use of, for opening the eyes of\nthis blinded nation; and that a short, but perfect, system of their\ndivinity, should be published, to which we are all of us ready to\nsubscribe, and which we lay down as a model, bearing a close analogy to\nour schemes in religion. Crafty, designing men, that they might keep the\nworld in awe, have, in their several forms of government, placed a\n_Supreme Power_ on earth, to keep human-kind in fear of being hanged;\nand a supreme power in heaven, for fear of being damned. In order to\ncure men's apprehensions of the former, several of our learned members\nhave writ many profound treatises on Anarchy; but a brief complete body\nof Atheology seemed yet wanting, till this irrefragable Discourse\nappeared. However, it so happens, that our ablest brethren, in their\nelaborate disquisitions upon this subject, have written with so much\ncaution, that ignorant unbelievers have edified very little by them. I\ngrant that those daring spirits, who first adventured to write against\nthe direct rules of the gospel, the current of antiquity, the religion\nof the magistrate, and the laws of the land, had some measures to keep;\nand particularly when they railed at religion, were in the right to use\nlittle artful disguises, by which a jury could only find them guilty of\nabusing heathenism or popery. But the mystery is now revealed, that\nthere is no such thing as mystery or revelation; and though our friends\nare out of place and power, yet we may have so much confidence in the\npresent ministry, to be secure, that those who suffer so many free\nspeeches against their sovereign and themselves, to pass unpunished,\nwill never resent our expressing the freest thoughts against their\nreligion; but think with Tiberius, that if there be a God, he is able\nenough to revenge any injuries done to himself, without expecting the\ncivil power to interpose.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Swift was evidently very fond of this reference, since he\nuses it several times in his writings. [T. S.]]\n\n_By these reflections I was brought to think, that the most ingenious\nauthor of the Discourse upon Freethinking, in a letter to Somebody,\nEsq.; although he hath used less reserve than any of his predecessors,\nmight yet have been more free and open. I considered, that several\nwell-witters to infidelity, might be discouraged by a show of logic, and\na multiplicity of quotations, scattered through his book, which to\nunderstandings of that size, might carry an appearance of something like\nbook-learning, and consequently fright them from reading for their\nimprovement; I could see no reason why these great discoveries should be\nhid from our youth of quality, who frequent Whites and Tom's; why they\nshould not be adapted to the capacities of the Kit-Cat and Hanover\nClubs,[2] who might then be able to read lectures on them to their\nseveral toasts: and it will be allowed on all hands, that nothing can\nsooner help to restore our abdicated cause, than a firm universal belief\nof the principles laid down by this sublime author._\n\n[Footnote 2: These were chocolate houses of the time, supported mainly\nby the aristocracy and the gamblers. White's is still in existence, and\nhas had the honour of having had a special history written about it.\nTom's was in Russell Street, and so-called after its landlord, Tom West.\nThe Kit-Cat Club was the resort of the Whig wits of the day, and the\nHanover Club of those who favoured the Hanover succession. [T. S.]]\n\nFor I am sensible that nothing would more contribute to \"the continuance\nof the war\" and the restoration of the late ministry, than to have the\ndoctrines delivered in this treatise well infused into the people. I\nhave therefore compiled them into the following Abstract, wherein I have\nadhered to the very words of our author, only adding some few\nexplanations of my own, where the terms happen to be too learned, and\nconsequently a little beyond the comprehension of those for whom the\nwork was principally intended, I mean the nobility and gentry of our\nparty. After which I hope it will be impossible for the malice of a\nJacobite, highflying, priestridden faction, to misrepresent us. The few\nadditions I have made are for no other use than to help the transition,\nwhich could not otherwise be kept in an abstract; but I have not\npresumed to advance anything of my own; which besides would be needless\nto an author who hath so fully handled and demonstrated every\nparticular. I shall only add, that though this writer, when he speaks of\npriests, desires chiefly to be understood to mean the English clergy,\nyet he includes all priests whatsoever, except the ancient and modern\nheathens, the Turks, Quakers, and Socinians.\n\n\nTHE LETTER.\n\nSIR,\n\nI send you this apology for Freethinking,[3] without the least hopes of\ndoing good, but purely to comply with your request; for those truths\nwhich nobody can deny, will do no good to those who deny them. The\nclergy, who are so impudent to teach the people the doctrines of faith,\nare all either cunning knaves or mad fools; for none but artificial,\ndesigning men, and crack-brained enthusiasts, presume to be guides to\nothers in matters of speculation, which all the doctrines of\nChristianity are; and whoever has a mind to learn the Christian\nreligion, naturally chooses such knaves and fools to teach them. Now the\nBible, which contains the precepts of the priests' religion, is the most\ndifficult book in the world to be understood; it requires a thorough\nknowledge in natural, civil, ecclesiastical history, law, husbandry,\nsailing, physic, pharmacy, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, and\neverything else that can be named: And everybody who believes it ought\nto understand it, and must do so by force of his own freethinking,\nwithout any guide or instructor.\n\n[Footnote 3: The chief strain of Collins's \"Discourse\" is an eulogium\nupon the necessity and advantage of Freethinking; in which it is more\nthan insinuated that the advocates of revealed religion are enemies to\nthe progress of enlightened inquiry. This insidious position is\nridiculed in the following parody. [S.]]\n\nHow can a man think at all, if he does not think freely? A man who does\nnot eat and drink freely, does not eat and drink at all. Why may not I\nbe denied the liberty of freeseeing, as well as freethinking? Yet nobody\npretends that the first is unlawful, for a cat may look on a king;\nthough you be near-sighted, or have weak or sore eyes, or are blind, you\nmay be a free-seer; you ought to see for yourself, and not trust to a\nguide to choose the colour of your stockings, or save you from falling\ninto a ditch.\n\nIn like manner, there ought to be no restraint at all on thinking freely\nupon any proposition, however impious or absurd. There is not the least\nhurt in the wickedest thoughts, provided they be free; nor in telling\nthose thoughts to everybody, and endeavouring to convince the world of\nthem; for all this is included in the doctrine of freethinking, as I\nshall plainly show you in what follows; and therefore you are all along\nto understand the word freethinking in this sense.\n\nIf you are apt to be afraid of the devil, think freely of him, and you\ndestroy him and his kingdom. Freethinking has done him more mischief\nthan all the clergy in the world ever could do; they believe in the\ndevil, they have an interest in him, and therefore are the great\nsupports of his kingdom. The devil was in the States-General before they\nbegan to be freethinkers. For England and Holland[4] were formerly the\nChristian territories of the devil; I told you how he left Holland; and\nfreethinking and the revolution banished him from England; I defy all\nthe clergy to shew me when they ever had such success against him. My\nmeaning is, that to think freely of the devil, is to think there is no\ndevil at all; and he that thinks so, the devil's in him if he be afraid\nof the devil.\n\n[Footnote 4: Collins is supposed to have imbibed his freethinking\nphilosophy during his repeated visits to Holland. [S.]]\n\nBut, within these two or three years, the devil has come into England\nagain, and Dr. Sacheverell[5] has given him commission to appear in the\nshape of a cat, and carry old women about upon broomsticks: And the\ndevil has now so many \"ministers ordained to his service,\" that they\nhave rendered freethinking odious, and nothing but the second coming of\nChrist can restore it.\n\n[Footnote 5: See note on p. 147.]\n\nThe priests tell me, I am to believe the Bible, but freethinking tells\nme otherwise in many particulars: The Bible says, the Jews were a nation\nfavoured by God; but I who am a freethinker say, that cannot be, because\nthe Jews lived in a corner of the earth, and freethinking makes it\nclear, that those who live in corners cannot be favourites of God. The\nNew Testament all along asserts the truth of Christianity, but\nfreethinking denies it; because Christianity was communicated but to a\nfew; and whatever is communicated but to a few, cannot be true; for that\nis like whispering, and the proverb says, that there is no whispering\nwithout lying.\n\nHere is a society in London for propagating freethinking throughout the\nworld, encouraged and supported by the Queen and many others. You say,\nperhaps, it is for propagating the Gospel. Do you think the missionaries\nwe send will tell the heathens that they must not think freely? No,\nsurely; why then, it is manifest, those missionaries must be\nfreethinkers, and make the heathens so too. But why should not the king\nof Siam, whose religion is heathenism and idolatry, send over a parcel\nof his priests to convert us to his church, as well as we send\nmissionaries there? Both projects are exactly of a piece, and equally\nreasonable; and if those heathen priests were here, it would be our duty\nto hearken to them, and think freely whether they may not be in the\nright rather than we. I heartily wish a detachment of such divines as Dr\nAtterbury, Dr. Smallridge,[6] Dr. Swift, Dr. Sacheverell, and some others,\nwere sent every year to the farthest part of the heathen world, and that\nwe had a cargo of their priests in return, who would spread freethinking\namong us; then the war would go on, the late ministry be restored, and\nfaction cease, which our priests inflame by haranguing upon texts, and\nfalsely call that preaching the Gospel.\n\n[Footnote 6: Dr. Smallridge, it will be remembered, was the gentleman\nwho indignantly denied the authorship of \"A Tale of a Tub\" (see vol. i.\nof this edition). He became Bishop of Bristol in 1714, and died in 1719.\nHis style was well thought of at the time. [T.S.]]\n\nI have another project in my head, which ought to be put in execution,\nin order to make us freethinkers: It is a great hardship and injustice,\nthat our priests must not be disturbed while they are prating in the\npulpit. For example: Why should not William Penn the Quaker, or any\nAnabaptist, Papist, Muggletonian, Jew, or Sweet-Singer,[7] have liberty\nto come into St Paul's Church, in the midst of divine service, and\nendeavour to convert first the aldermen, then the preacher, and\nsinging-men? Or pray, why might not poor Mr. Whiston,[8] who denies the\ndivinity of Christ, be allowed to come into the Lower House of\nConvocation, and convert the clergy? But, alas! we are overrun with such\nfalse notions, that, if Penn or Whiston should do their duty, they would\nbe reckoned fanatics, and disturbers of the holy synod, although they\nhave as good a title to it as St Paul had to go into the synagogues of\nthe Jews; and their authority is full as divine as his.\n\n[Footnote 7: The Sweet-Singers were a fanatical sect of wailers, founded\nin Scotland, but which had no long life. [T.S.]] Christ himself commands\nus to be freethinkers; for he bids us search the scriptures, and take\nheed what and whom we hear; by which he plainly warns us, not to believe\nour bishops and clergy; for Jesus Christ, when he considered that all\nthe Jewish and heathen priests, whose religion he came to abolish, were\nhis enemies, rightly concluded that those appointed by him to preach his\nown gospel, would probably be so too; and could not be secure, that any\nset of priests, of the faith he delivered, would ever be otherwise;\ntherefore it is fully demonstrated that the clergy of the Church of\nEngland are mortal enemies to Christ, and ought not to be believed.\n\n[Footnote 8: Yet Whiston, who receives this side-cut, was himself an\nanxious combatant of Collins, in his \"Reflections on an Anonymous\nPamphlet, entitled, 'A Defence of Freethinking.'\" 1713. [S.]]\n\nBut, without the privilege of freethinking, how is it possible to know\nwhich is the right Scripture? Here are perhaps twenty sorts of\nScriptures in the several parts of the world, and every set of priests\ncontend that their Scripture is the true one. The Indian Brahmins have a\nbook of scripture called the Shaster; the Persees their Zundivastaw;[9]\nthe Bonzes in China have theirs, written by the disciples of Fo-he, whom\nthey call _God and Saviour of the world, who was born to teach the way\nof salvation, and to give satisfaction for all men's sins_: which, you\nsee, is directly the same with what our priests pretend of Christ. And\nmust we not think freely, to find out which are in the right, whether\nthe Bishops or the Bonzes? But the Talapoins, or heathen clergy of Siam,\napproach yet nearer to the system of our priests; they have a Book of\nScripture written by Sommonocodam, who, the Siamese say, was \"born of a\nvirgin,\" and was \"the God expected by the Universe;\" just as our priests\ntell us, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and was the\nMessiah so long expected. The Turkish priests, or dervises, have their\nScripture which they call the Alcoran. The Jews have the Old Testament\nfor their Scripture, and the Christians have both the Old and the New.\nNow among all these Scriptures, there cannot above one be right; and how\nis it possible to know which is that, without reading them all, and then\nthinking freely, every one of us for ourselves, without following the\nadvice or instruction of any guide, before we venture to choose? The\nparliament ought to be at the charge of finding a sufficient number of\nthese Scriptures, for every one of Her Majesty's subjects, for there are\ntwenty to one against us, that we may be in the wrong: But a great deal\nof freethinking will at last set us all right, and every one will adhere\nto the Scripture he likes best; by which means, religion, peace, and\nwealth, will be for ever secured in Her Majesty's realms.\n\n[Footnote 9: Swift means here, of course, the Zendavesta, the\ncommentaries on the sacred books of the Parsees. Not that Swift could\nhave known much of these Oriental religions; but the names were good\nenough for his purpose. [T.S.]]\n\nAnd it is the more necessary that the good people of England should have\nliberty to choose some other Scripture, because all Christian priests\ndiffer so much about the copies of theirs, and about the various\nreadings of the several manuscripts, which quite destroys the authority\nof the Bible: for what authority can a book pretend to, where there are\nvarious readings?[10] And for this reason, it is manifest that no man\ncan know the opinions of Aristotle or Plato, or believe the facts\nrelated by Thucydides or Livy, or be pleased with the poetry of Homer\nand Virgil, all which books are utterly useless, upon account of their\nvarious readings. Some books of Scripture are said to be lost, and this\nutterly destroys the credit of those that are left: some we reject,\nwhich the Africans and Copticks receive; and why may we not think\nfreely, and reject the rest? Some think the scriptures wholly inspired,\nsome partly; and some not at all. Now this is just the very case of the\nBramins, Persees, Bonzes, Talapoins, Dervises, Rabbis, and all other\npriests, who build their religion upon books, as our priests do upon\ntheir Bibles; they all equally differ about the copies, various readings\nand inspirations, of their several Scriptures, and God knows which are\nin the right: Freethinking alone can determine it.\n\n[Footnote 10: In the discourse on \"Freethinking,\" p. 80, Collins insists\nmuch on a passage in Victor of Tunis, from which he infers, that the\nGospels were corrected and altered in the fourth century. [S.]]\n\nIt would be endless to show in how many particulars the priests of the\nHeathen and Christian churches, differ about the meaning even of those\nScriptures which they universally receive as sacred. But, to avoid\nprolixity, I shall confine myself to the different opinions among the\npriests of the Church of England, and here only give you a specimen,\nbecause even these are too many to be enumerated.\n\nI have found out a bishop, (though indeed his opinions are condemned by\nall his brethren,) who allows the Scriptures to be so difficult, that\nGod has left them rather as a trial of our industry than a repository of\nour faith, and furniture of creeds and articles of belief; with several\nother admirable schemes of freethinking, which you may consult at your\nleisure.\n\nThe doctrine of the Trinity is the most fundamental point of the whole\nChristian religion. Nothing is more easy to a freethinker, yet what\ndifferent notions of it do the English priests pretend to deduce from\nScripture, explaining it by \"specific unities, eternal modes of\nsubsistence,\" and the like unintelligible jargon? Nay, it is a question\nwhether this doctrine be fundamental or no; for though Dr. South and\nBishop Bull affirm it, yet Bishop Taylor and Dr. Wallis deny it.[11] And\nthat excellent freethinking prelate, Bishop Taylor, observes, that\nAthanasius's example was followed with too much greediness; by which\nmeans it has happened, that the greater number of our priests are in\nthat sentiment, and think it necessary to believe the Trinity, and\nincarnation of Christ.[12]\n\n[Footnote 11: Dr. Robert South (1633-1716), rector of Islip. The\nreference by Swift is to his controversy with Sherlock on the doctrine\nof the Trinity. The two disputants got into such depths that both were\ncharged with heresy.\n\nDr. George Bull (1634-1710), Bishop of St. David's, wrote the \"Defensio\nFidei Nicenae.\" For his exposition of the necessity for the belief in the\ndivinity of the Son of God he received the thanks of Bossuet.\n\nDr. Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down and Connor (1613-1667), and author of\n\"Holy Living\" and \"Holy Dying,\" wrote also \"Unum Necessarium, or the\nDoctrine and Practice of Repentance.\" His treatment, in this work, of\nthe doctrine of original sin was considered heterodox by Bishop Warner\nand Dr. Sanderson, and a controversy ensued, in the course of which\nTaylor was imprisoned in Chepstow Castle on a charge of being concerned\nin a Royalist insurrection.\n\nDr. John Wallis (1616-1703), here referred to, is the famous\nmathematician and divine, and one of the original members of the Royal\nSociety. He is mentioned in the text by Swift because of a work he\npublished on the Trinity, which brought him into collision with the\nArians. But the Doctor seems to have been addicted to views of a\ncontroversial nature, for his opinions on infant baptism and the keeping\nof the Sabbath found many objectors. He was Savilian Professor of\nGeometry at Oxford in 1648. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 12: See Swift's opinion of controversies on this subject in\nhis \"Sermon upon the Trinity.\" [S.]]\n\nOur priests likewise dispute several circumstances about the\nresurrection of the dead, the nature of our bodies after the\nresurrection, and in what manner they shall be united to our souls. They\nalso attack one another \"very weakly with great vigour,\" about\npredestination. And it is certainly true, (for Bishop Taylor and Mr.\nWhiston the Socinian say so,) that all churches in prosperity alter\ntheir doctrines every age, and are neither satisfied with themselves,\nnor their own confessions; neither does any clergyman of sense believe\nthe Thirty-nine Articles.\n\nOur priests differ about the eternity of hell torments. The famous Dr\nHenry More,[13] and the most pious and rational of all priests, Dr\nTillotson,[14] (both freethinkers,) believe them to be not eternal. They\ndiffer about keeping the sabbath, the divine right of episcopacy, and\nthe doctrine of original sin; which is the foundation of the whole\nChristian religion; for if men are not liable to be damned for Adam's\nsin, the Christian religion is an imposture: Yet this is now disputed\namong them; so is lay baptism; so was formerly the lawfulness of usury,\nbut now the priests are common stock-jobbers, attorneys, and scriveners.\nIn short there is no end of disputing among priests, and therefore I\nconclude, that there ought to be no such thing in the world as priests,\nteachers, or guides, for instructing ignorant people in religion; but\nthat every man ought to think freely for himself.\n\n[Footnote 13: Dr. Henry More (1614-1687), the Platonist theologian,\nwrote a philosophical poem entitled, \"Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the\nSoul\" (1640). [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 14: Dr. John Tillotson (1630-1694) succeeded Bancroft as\nArchbishop of Canterbury. He published some eloquent sermons and several\ncontroversial tracts against Catholicism. [T.S.]]\n\nI will tell you the meaning in all this; the priests dispute every point\nin the Christian religion, as well as almost every text in the Bible;\nand the force of my argument lies here, that whatever point is disputed\nby one or two divines, however condemned by the Church, not only that\nparticular point, but the whole article to which it relates, may\nlawfully be received or rejected by any freethinker. For instance,\nsuppose More and Tillotson deny the eternity of hell torments, a\nfreethinker may deny all future punishments whatsoever. The priests\ndispute about explaining the Trinity; therefore a freethinker may reject\none or two, or the whole three persons; at least he may reject\nChristianity, because the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of\nthat religion. So I affirm original sin, and that men are now liable to\nbe damned for Adam's sin, to be the foundation of the whole Christian\nreligion; but this point was formerly, and is now disputed, therefore, a\nfreethinker may deny the whole. And I cannot help giving you one farther\ndirection, how I insinuate all along, that the wisest freethinking\npriests, whom you may distinguish by the epithets I bestow them, were\nthose who differed most from the generality of their brethren.\n\nBut besides, the conduct of our priests in many other points, makes\nfreethinking unavoidable; for some of them own, that the doctrines of\nthe Church are contradictory to one another, as well as to reason; which\nI thus prove: Dr. Sacheverell says in his speech at his trial, That by\nabandoning passive obedience we must render ourselves the most\ninconsistent Church in the world: Now 'tis plain, that one inconsistency\ncould not make the most inconsistent Church in the world; _ergo_, there\nmust have been a great many inconsistencies and contradictory doctrines\nin the Church before. Dr. South describes the incarnation of Christ, as\nan astonishing mystery, impossible to be conceived by man's reason;\n_ergo_, it is contradictory to itself, and to reason, and ought to be\nexploded by all freethinkers.\n\nAnother instance of the priests' conduct, which multiplies freethinkers,\nis their acknowledgment of abuses, defects, and false doctrines, in the\nChurch; particularly that of eating black pudding,[15] which is so\nplainly forbid in the Old and New Testament, that I wonder those who\npretend to believe a syllable in either will presume to taste it. Why\nshould I mention the want of discipline, and of a sideboard at the\naltar, with complaints of other great abuses and defects made by some of\nthe priests, which no man can think on without freethinking, and\nconsequently rejecting Christianity?\n\n[Footnote 15: Collins in his pamphlet quotes a Dr. Grabe, who, following\nthe Jewish code of rules as regards food, considered the eating of blood\none of the points on which the Church did not insist against. In the\ntext Swift ridicules this in the reference to \"black pudding.\" [T. S.]]\n\nWhen I see an honest freethinking bishop endeavour to destroy the power\nand privileges of the Church, and Dr. Atterbury angry with him for it,\nand calling it \"dirty work,\" what can I conclude, by virtue of being a\nfreethinker, but that Christianity is all a cheat?\n\nMr. Whiston has published several tracts, wherein he absolutely denies\nthe divinity of Christ: A bishop tells him, \"Sir, in any matter where\nyou have the Church's judgment against you, you should be careful not to\nbreak the peace of the Church, by writing against it, though you are\nsure you are in the right.\"[16] Now my opinion is directly contrary; and\nI affirm, that if ten thousand freethinkers thought differently from the\nreceived doctrine, and from each other, they would be all in duty bound\nto publish their thoughts (provided they were all sure of being in the\nright) though it broke the peace of the Church and state ten thousand\ntimes.\n\n[Footnote 16: Swift's \"Sermon on the Trinity,\" as well as a passage in\nhis \"Thoughts upon Religion,\" shews the weight which he attached to this\nimportant argument. [S.]]\n\nAnd here I must take leave to tell you, although you cannot but have\nperceived it from what I have already said, and shall be still more\namply convinced by what is to follow; that freethinking signifies\nnothing, without freespeaking and freewriting. It is the indispensable\nduty of a freethinker, to endeavour forcing all the world to think as he\ndoes, and by that means make them freethinkers too. You are also to\nunderstand, that I allow no man to be a freethinker, any further than as\nhe differs from the received doctrines of religion. Where a man falls\nin, though by perfect chance, with what is generally believed, he is in\nthat point a confined and limited thinker; and you shall see by and by,\nthat I celebrate those for the noblest freethinkers in every age, who\ndiffered from the religion of their countries in the most fundamental\npoints, and especially in those which bear any analogy to the chief\nfundamentals of religion among us.\n\nAnother trick of the priests is, to charge all men with atheism, who\nhave more wit than themselves; which therefore I expect will be my case\nfor writing this discourse: This is what makes them so implacable\nagainst Mr. Gildon, Dr. Tindal, Mr. Toland,[17] and myself, and when they\ncall us wits, atheists, it provokes us to be freethinkers.\n\n[Footnote 17: See notes on pp. 9, 79, 80, 82.]\n\nAgain; the priests cannot agree when their Scripture was written. They\ndiffer about the number of canonical books, and the various readings.\nNow those few among us who understand Latin, are careful to tell this to\nour disciples, who presently fall a-freethinking, that the Bible is a\nbook not to be depended upon in anything at all.\n\nThere is another thing, that mightily spreads freethinking, which I\nbelieve you would hardly guess. The priests have got a way of late of\nwriting books against freethinking; I mean treatises in dialogue, where\nthey introduce atheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians offering their\nseveral arguments. Now these freethinkers are too hard for the priests\nthemselves in their own books; and how can it be otherwise? For if the\narguments usually offered by atheists, are fairly represented in these\nbooks, they must needs convert everybody that reads them; because\natheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians, have certainly better\narguments to maintain their opinions, than any the priests can produce\nto maintain the contrary.\n\nMr. Creech,[18] a priest, translated Lucretius into English, which is a\ncomplete system of atheism; and several young students, who were\nafterwards priests, wrote verses in praise of this translation. The\narguments against Providence in that book are so strong, that they have\nadded mightily to the number of freethinkers.\n\n[Footnote 18: This is Thomas Creech, the translator of Horace, to whom\nSwift refers in \"The Battle of the Books\" (see vol. i. p. 180). The\ntranslation of Lucretius was published in English verse in 1682. [T.\nS.]]\n\nWhy should I mention the pious cheats of the priests, who in the New\nTestament translate the word _ecclesia_ sometimes the _church_, and\nsometimes the _congregation_; and _episcopus_, sometimes a _bishop_, and\nsometimes an _overseer_? A priest,[19] translating a book, left out a\nwhole passage that reflected on the king, by which he was an enemy to\npolitical freethinking, a most considerable branch of our system.\nAnother priest, translating a book of travels,[20] left out a lying\nmiracle, out of mere malice, to conceal an argument for freethinking. In\nshort, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by\npriests: But however, I love to excuse them whenever I can: And as to\nthis accusation, they may plead the authority of the ancient fathers of\nthe Church, for forgery, corruption, and mangling of authors, with more\nreason than for any of their articles of faith. St Jerom, St Hilary,\nEusebius Vercellensis, Victorinus,[21] and several others, were all\nguilty of arrant forgery and corruption: For when they translated the\nworks of several freethinkers, whom they called heretics, they omitted\nall their heresies or freethinkings, and had the impudence to own it to\nthe world.\n\n[Footnote 19: Collins refers to the Rev. Mr. Brown, who translated\nFather Paul's \"Letters,\" and omitted the words, \"If the King of England\n[James I.] were not more a doctor than a king.\"]\n\n[Footnote 20: Baumgarten's \"Travels.\" [T. S.]]\n\n[Footnote 21: Jerome, or St. Hieronymus (_circa_ 340-420), wrote the\nLatin vulgate translation of the Scriptures. Is accepted as one of the\nFathers of the Church.\n\nSt. Hilary, another accepted Father, was bishop of Poictiers. He died\n367 or 368.\n\nThe Eusebius here named was Bishop of Vercelli, a city of Liguria. He\nflourished about A.D. 360, and distinguished himself at the Council of\nMilan in A.D. 355, for his attacks against Arianism. He was exiled to\nUpper Thebais, with several other bishops who refused to subscribe to\nthe condemnation of Athanasius; but was recalled with Lucifer, bishop of\nCagliari, Sardinia. In conjunction with Athanasius he attended an\nAlexandrian synod which declared the Trinity consubstantial. He\ntravelled much, in the Eastern provinces and Italy, engaging in\nmissionary work. He died about A.D. 373.\n\nFabius Marius Victorinus was born in Africa, and died at Rome in 370. He\nwas a distinguished orator, grammarian, and rhetorician. His chief work\nwas a treatise entitled \"De Orthographia.\" He also wrote many\ntheological books. [T. S.]]\n\nFrom these many notorious instances of the priests' conduct, I conclude\nthey are not to be relied on in any one thing relating to religion; but\nthat every man must think freely for himself.\n\nBut to this it may be objected, that the bulk of mankind is as well\nqualified for flying as thinking, and if every man thought it his duty\nto think freely, and trouble his neighbour with his thoughts (which is\nan essential part of freethinking,) it would make wild work in the\nworld. I answer; whoever cannot think freely, may let it alone if he\npleases, by virtue of his right to think freely; that is to say, if such\na man freely thinks that he cannot think freely, of which every man is a\nsufficient judge, why, then, he need not think freely, unless he thinks\nfit.\n\nBesides, if the bulk of mankind cannot think freely in matters of\nspeculation, as the being of a God, the immortality of the soul, &c. why\nthen, freethinking is indeed no duty: But then the priests must allow,\nthat men are not concerned to believe whether there is a God or no. But\nstill those who are disposed to think freely, may think freely if they\nplease.\n\nIt is again objected, that freethinking will produce endless divisions\nin opinion, and by consequence disorder society. To which I answer;\n\nWhen every single man comes to have a different opinion every day from\nthe whole world, and from himself, by virtue of freethinking, and thinks\nit his duty to convert every man to his own freethinking (as all we\nfreethinkers do) how can that possibly create so great a diversity of\nopinions, as to have a set of priests agree among themselves to teach\nthe same opinions in their several parishes to all who will come to hear\nthem? Besides, if all people were of the same opinion, the remedy would\nbe worse than the disease; I will tell you the reason some other time.\n\nBesides, difference in opinion, especially in matters of great moment,\nbreeds no confusion at all. Witness Papist and Protestant, Roundhead and\nCavalier, Whig and Tory, now among us. I observe, the Turkish empire is\nmore at peace within itself, than Christian princes are with one\nanother. Those noble Turkish virtues of charity and toleration, are what\ncontribute chiefly to the flourishing state of that happy monarchy.\nThere Christians and Jews are tolerated, and live at ease, if they can\nhold their tongues and think freely, provided they never set foot within\nthe mosques, nor write against Mahomet: A few plunderings now and then\nby the janissaries are all they have to fear.\n\nIt is objected, that by freethinking, men will think themselves into\natheism; and indeed I have allowed all along, that atheistical books\nconvert men to freethinking. But suppose that to be true; I can bring\nyou two divines who affirm superstition and enthusiasm to be worse than\natheism, and more mischievous to society, and in short it is necessary\nthat the bulk of the people should be atheists or superstitious.\n\nIt is objected, that priests ought to be relied on by the people, as\nlawyers and physicians, because it is their faculty.\n\nI answer, 'Tis true, a man who is no lawyer is not suffered to plead for\nhimself; but every man may be his own quack if he pleases, and he only\nventures his life; but in the other case the priest tells him he must be\ndamned: Therefore do not trust the priest, but think freely for\nyourself, and if you happen to think there is no hell, there certainly\nis none, and consequently you cannot be damned; I answer further, that\nwherever there is no lawyer, physician, or priest, the country is\nparadise. Besides, all priests, (except the orthodox, and those are not\nours, nor any that I know,) are hired by the public to lead men into\nmischief; but lawyers and physicians are not, you hire them yourself.\n\nIt is objected, (by priests no doubt, but I have forgot their names)\nthat false speculations are necessary to be imposed upon men, in order\nto assist the magistrate in keeping the peace, and that men ought\ntherefore to be deceived, like children, for their own good. I answer,\nthat zeal for imposing speculations, whether true or false (under which\nname of speculations I include all opinions of religion, as the belief\nof a God, Providence, immortality of the soul, future rewards and\npunishments, &c.) has done more hurt than it is possible for religion to\ndo good. It puts us to the charge of maintaining ten thousand priests in\nEngland, which is a burden upon society never felt upon any other\noccasion; and a greater evil to the public than if these ecclesiastics\nwere only employed in the most innocent offices of life, which I take to\nbe eating and drinking. Now if you offer to impose anything on mankind\nbesides what relates to moral duties, as to pay your debts, not pick\npockets, nor commit murder, and the like; that is to say, if, besides\nthis, you oblige them to believe in God and Jesus Christ, what you add\nto their faith will take just so much off from their morality. By this\nargument it is manifest, that a perfect moral man must be a perfect\natheist; every inch of religion he gets loses him an inch of morality:\nFor there is a certain _quantum_ belongs to every man, of which there is\nnothing to spare. This is clear from the common practice of all our\npriests, they never once preach to you to love your neighbour, to be\njust in your dealings, or to be sober and temperate. The streets of\nLondon are full of common whores, publicly tolerated in their\nwickedness; yet the priests make no complaints against this enormity,\neither from the pulpit or the press: I can affirm, that neither you nor\nI, sir, have ever heard one sermon against whoring since we were boys.\nNo, the priests allow all these vices, and love us the better for them,\nprovided we will promise not \"to harangue upon a text,\" nor to sprinkle\na little water in a child's face, which they call baptizing, and would\nengross it all to themselves.\n\nBesides, the priests engage all the rogues, villains, and fools in their\nparty, in order to make it as large as they can: By this means they\nseduced Constantine the Great[22] over to their religion, who was the\nfirst Christian emperor, and so horrible a villain, that the heathen\npriests told him they could not expiate his crimes in their church; so\nhe was at a loss to know what to do, till an AEgyptian bishop assured\nhim, that there was no villainy so great, but was to be expiated by the\nsacraments of the Christian religion; upon which he became a Christian,\nand to him that religion owes its first settlement.\n\n[Footnote 22: The reference here is to the luminous cross which\nConstantine said he saw in the heavens, and which influenced him to\nembrace Christianity. [T. S.]]\n\nIt is objected, that freethinkers themselves are the most infamous,\nwicked, and senseless of all mankind.\n\nI answer, first, we say the same of priests, and other believers. But\nthe truth is, men of all sects are equally good and bad; for no religion\nwhatsoever contributes in the least to mend men's lives.\n\nI answer, secondly, that freethinkers use their understanding, but those\nwho have religion do not; therefore the first have more understanding\nthan the others; witness Toland, Tindal, Gildon[23], Clendon, Coward,\nand myself. For, use legs and have legs.\n\n[Footnote 23: John Clendon, of the Middle Temple, published in\n1709-1710, \"Tractatus Philosophico-Theologicus de Persona; or, a\nTreatise of the Word Person.\" This singular book appears to have been\nwritten principally to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was very\nwell explained by an Act of Parliament, 9 and 10 Will. III. It was\ncomplained of in the House of Commons, March 25th, 1710, and was judged\nto be a scandalous, seditious, and blasphemous libel .... and was burnt\nby the common hangman at the same time with Tindal's \"Rights.\" [N.] ]\n\nI answer, thirdly, that freethinkers are the most virtuous persons in\nthe world; for all freethinkers must certainly differ from the priests,\nand from nine hundred ninety-nine of a thousand of those among whom they\nlive; and are therefore virtuous of course, because everybody hates\nthem.\n\nI answer, fourthly, that the most virtuous people in all ages have been\nfreethinkers; of which I shall produce several instances[24].\n\n[Footnote 24: What follows is in ridicule of a long list of\nfreethinkers, as he calls them, with which Collins has graced his\ndiscourse; in which he includes not only the ancient philosophers, but\nthe inspired prophets, and even \"King Solomon the wise.\" [S.] ]\n\nSocrates was a freethinker; for he disbelieved the gods of his country,\nand the common creeds about them, and declared his dislike when he heard\nmen attribute \"repentance, anger, and other passions to the gods, and\ntalk of wars and battles in heaven, and of the gods getting women with\nchild,\" and such like fabulous and blasphemous stones. I pick out these\nparticulars, because they are the very same with what the priests have\nin their Bibles, where repentance and anger are attributed to God; where\nit is said, there was \"war in heaven;\" and that \"the Virgin Mary was\nwith child by the Holy Ghost,\" whom the priests call God; all fabulous\nand blasphemous stories. Now, I affirm Socrates to have been a true\nChristian. You will ask, perhaps, how that can be, since he lived three\nor four hundred years before Christ? I answer, with Justin Martyr, that\nChrist is nothing else but reason, and I hope you do not think Socrates\nlived before reason. Now, this true Christian Socrates never made\nnotions, speculations, or mysteries, any part of his religion, but\ndemonstrated all men to be fools who troubled themselves with enquiries\ninto heavenly things. Lastly, 'tis plain that Socrates was a\nfreethinker, because he was calumniated for an atheist, as freethinkers\ngenerally are, only because he was an enemy to all speculations and\ninquiries into heavenly things. For I argue thus, that if I never\ntrouble myself to think whether there be a God or no, and forbid others\nto do it, I am a freethinker, but not an atheist.\n\nPlato was a freethinker, and his notions are so like some in the Gospel,\nthat a heathen charged Christ with borrowing his doctrine from Plato.\nBut Origen[25] defends Christ very well against this charge, by saying\nhe did not understand Greek, and therefore could not borrow his doctrine\nfrom Plato. However their two religions agreed so well, that it was\ncommon for Christians to turn Platonists, and Platonists Christians.\nWhen the Christians found out this, one of their zealous priests (worse\nthan any atheist) forged several things under Plato's name, but\nconformable to Christianity, by which the heathens were fraudulently\nconverted.\n\n[Footnote 25: Origen, a Father of the Church, was born about 185. He\ncarried to extremes the celibate life taught in the Gospel; and his\n\"Treatise against Celsus\" contains, according to St. Jerome and\nEusebius, the refutation of \"all the objections which have been made,\nand all which ever will be made against Christianity.\" [T. S.] ]\n\nEpicurus was the greatest of all freethinkers, and consequently the most\nvirtuous man in the world. His opinions in religion were the most\ncomplete system of atheism that ever appeared. Christians ought to have\nthe greatest veneration for him, because he taught a higher point of\nvirtue than Christ; I mean the virtue of friendship, which in the sense\nwe usually understand it, is not so much as named in the New Testament.\n\nPlutarch was a freethinker, notwithstanding his being a priest; but\nindeed he was a heathen priest. His freethinking appears by showing the\ninnocence of atheism, (which at worst is only false reasoning,) and the\nmischiefs of superstition; and explains what superstition is, by calling\nit a conceit of immortal ills after death, the opinion of hell torments,\ndreadful aspects, doleful groans, and the like. He is likewise very\nsatirical upon the public forms of devotion in his own country (a\nqualification absolutely necessary to a freethinker) yet those forms\nwhich he ridicules, are the very same that now pass for true worship in\nalmost all countries: I am sure some of them do so in ours; such as\nabject looks, distortions, wry faces, beggarly tones, humiliation, and\ncontrition.\n\nVarro,[26] the most learned among the Romans, was a freethinker; for he\nsaid, the heathen divinity contained many fables below the dignity of\nimmortal beings; such, for instance, as Gods BEGOTTEN and PROCEEDING\nfrom other Gods. These two words I desire you will particularly remark,\nbecause they are the very terms made use of by our priests in their\ndoctrine of the Trinity: He says likewise, that there are many things\nfalse in religion, and so say all freethinkers; but then he adds; \"which\nthe vulgar ought not to know, but it is expedient they should believe.\"\nIn this last he indeed discovers the whole secret of a statesman and\npolitician, by denying the vulgar the privilege of freethinking, and\nhere I differ from him. However, it is manifest from hence, that the\nTrinity was an invention of statesmen and politicians.\n\n[Footnote 26: Marcus Terentius Varro (born B.C. 117) was the friend of\nCicero. He was a profound grammarian, historian, and philosopher. The\nexpression Swift applies to him as \"the most learned among the Romans\"\nis one by which he is generally called. [T. S.] ]\n\nThe grave and wise Cato the censor will for ever live in that noble\nfreethinking saying--\"I wonder,\" said he, \"how one of our priests can\nforbear laughing when he sees another!\" (For contempt of priests is\nanother grand characteristic of a freethinker). This shews that Cato\nunderstood the whole mystery of the Roman religion \"as by law\nestablished.\" I beg you, sir, not to overlook these last words,\n\"religion as by law established.\" I translate _hanisfax,_ into the\ngeneral word, _priest_. Thus I apply the sentence to our priests in\nEngland, and, when Dr. Smallridge sees Dr. Atterbury, I wonder how either\nof them can forbear laughing at the cheat they put upon the people, by\nmaking them believe their \"religion as by law established.\"\n\nCicero, that consummate philosopher, and noble patriot, though he was a\npriest, and consequently more likely to be a knave; gave the greatest\nproofs of his freethinking. First, he professed the sceptic philosophy,\nwhich doubts of everything. Then, he wrote two treatises;[27] in the\nfirst, he shews the weakness of the Stoics' arguments for the being of\nthe Gods: In the latter, he has destroyed the whole revealed religion of\nthe Greeks and Romans (for why should not theirs be a revealed religion\nas well as that of Christ?) Cicero likewise tells us, as his own\nopinion, that they who study philosophy, do not believe there are any\nGods: He denies the immortality of the soul, and says, there can be\nnothing after death.\n\n[Footnote 27: \"De Natura Deomm.\" [T. S.] ]\n\nAnd because the priests have the impudence to quote Cicero in their\npulpits and pamphlets, against freethinking; I am resolved to disarm\nthem of his authority. You must know, his philosophical works are\ngenerally in dialogues, where people are brought in disputing against\none another: Now the priests when they see an argument to prove a God,\noffered perhaps by a Stoic, are such knaves or blockheads, to quote it\nas if it were Cicero's own; whereas Cicero was so noble a freethinker,\nthat he believed nothing at all of the matter, nor ever shews the least\ninclination to favour superstition, or the belief of a God, and the\nimmortality of the soul; unless what he throws out sometimes to save\nhimself from danger, in his speeches to the Roman mob; whose religion\nwas, however, much more innocent and less absurd, than that of popery at\nleast: And I could say more--but you understand me.\n\nSeneca was a great freethinker, and had a noble notion of the worship of\nthe gods, for which our priests would call any man an atheist: He laughs\nat morning devotions, or worshipping upon Sabbath-days; he says God has\nno need of ministers and servants, because he himself serves mankind.\nThis religious man, like his religious brethren the Stoics, denies the\nimmortality of the soul, and says, all that is feigned to be so terrible\nin hell, is but a fable: Death puts an end to all our misery, &c. Yet\nthe priests were anciently so fond of Seneca, that they forged a\ncorrespondence of letters between him and St. Paul.\n\nSolomon himself, whose writings are called \"the word of God,\" was such a\nfreethinker, that if he were now alive, nothing but his building of\nchurches could have kept our priests from calling him an atheist. He\naffirms the eternity of the world almost in the same manner with\nManilius,[28] the heathen philosophical poet, (which opinion entirely\noverthrows the history of the creation by Moses, and all the New\nTestament): He denies the immortality of the soul, assures us that men\ndie like beasts, and that both go to one place.\n\n[Footnote 28: Marcus Manilius, who probably flourished under Theodosius\nthe Great, was a Latin poet, who wrote a poem entitled \"Astronomica.\"\n[T.S.] ]\n\nThe prophets of the Old Testament were generally freethinkers: you must\nunderstand, that their way of learning to prophesy was by music and\ndrinking.[29] These prophets writ against the established religion of\nthe Jews, (which those people looked upon as the institution of God\nhimself,) as if they believed it was all a cheat: that is to say, with\nas great liberty against the priests and prophets of Israel, as Dr.\nTindal did lately against the priests and prophets of our Israel, who\nhas clearly shewn them and their religion to be cheats. To prove this,\nyou may read several passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jeremiah, &c.,\nwherein you will find such instances of freethinking, that, if any\nEnglishman had talked so in our days, their opinions would have been\nregistered in Dr. Sacheverell's trial, and in the representation of the\nLower House of Convocation, and produced as so many proofs of the\nprofaneness, blasphemy, and atheism of the nation; there being nothing\nmore profane, blasphemous, or atheistical in those representations, than\nwhat these prophets have spoke, whose writings are yet called by our\npriests, \"the word of God.\" And therefore these prophets are as much\natheists as myself, or as any of my freethinking brethren whom I lately\nnamed to you.\n\n[Footnote 29: Collins, after making the charge, which has been repeated\nby all freethinkers down to Thomas Paine, that the prophets acquired\ntheir fervour of spirit by the aid of music and wine, allows,\nnevertheless, that they were great freethinkers, and \"writ with as great\nliberty against the established religion of the Jews, which the people\nlooked on as the institution of God himself as if they looked upon it\nall to be imposture.\"--_Discourse_, p. 153, _et sequen._ [S.] ]\n\nJosephus was a great freethinker: I wish he had chosen a better subject\nto write on, than those ignorant, barbarous, ridiculous scoundrels, the\nJews, whom God (if we may believe the priests) thought fit to choose for\nhis own people. I will give you some instances of his freethinking. He\nsays, Cain travelled through several countries, and kept company with\nrakes and profligate fellows; he corrupted the simplicities of former\ntimes, &c., which plainly supposes men before Adam, and consequently\nthat the priests' history of the creation by Moses, is an imposture. He\nsays, the Israelites' passing through the Red Sea, was no more than\nAlexander's passing at the Pamphilian sea; that as for the appearance of\nGod at Mount Sinai, the reader may believe it as he pleases; that Moses\npersuaded the Jews he had God for his guide, just as the Greeks\npretended they had their laws from Apollo. These are noble strains of\nfreethinking, which the priests knew not how to solve, but by thinking\nas freely: For one of them says, that Josephus writ this to make his\nwork acceptable to the heathens, by striking out everything that was\nincredible.\n\nOrigen, who was the first Christian that had any learning, has left a\nnoble testimony of his freethinking; for a general council has\ndetermined him to be damned; which plainly shews he was a freethinker,\nand was no saint; for people were only sainted because of their want of\nlearning and excess of zeal; so that all the fathers, who are called\nsaints by the priests, were worse than atheists.\n\nMinutius Felix[30] seems to be a true modern latitudinarian,\nfreethinking Christian; for he is against altars, churches, public\npreaching, and public assemblies; and likewise against priests; for, he\nsays, there were several great flourishing empires before there were any\norders of priests in the world.\n\n[Footnote 30: Marcus Minutius Felix is said to have been born in Africa.\nHe flourished in the third century, and wrote a defence of Christianity,\nin dialogue form, entitled, \"Octavius.\" The work has been translated\ninto English by Lord Hailes. [T.S.]]\n\nSynesius,[31] who had too much learning and too little zeal for a saint,\nwas for some time a great freethinker; he could not believe the\nresurrection till he was made a bishop, and then pretended to be\nconvinced by a lying miracle.\n\n[Footnote 31: Synesius of Cyrene, born 379, is the Platonic philosopher\nwho became Bishop of Ptolemais. [T.S.]]\n\nTo come to our own country: My Lord Bacon was a great freethinker, when\nhe tells us, that whatever has the least relation to religion, is\nparticularly liable to suspicion; by which he seems to suspect all the\nfacts whereon most of the superstitions (that is to say, what the\npriests call the religions) of the world are grounded. He also\nprefers atheism before superstition.\n\nMr. Hobbes was a person of great learning, virtue, and freethinking,\nexcept in the high church politics.\n\nBut Archbishop Tillotson is the person whom all English freethinkers own\nas their head; and his virtue is indisputable for this manifest reason;\nthat Dr. Hickes, a priest, calls him an atheist; says, he caused several\nto turn atheists, and to ridicule the priesthood and religion. These\nmust be allowed to be noble effects of freethinking. This great prelate\nassures us, that all the duties of the Christian religion, with respect\nto God, are no other but what natural light prompts men to, except the\ntwo sacraments, and praying to God in the name and mediation of Christ.\nAs a priest and prelate, he was obliged to say something of\nChristianity; but pray observe, sir, how he brings himself off. He\njustly affirms that even these things are of less moment than natural\nduties; and because mothers' nursing their children is a natural duty,\nit is of more moment than the two sacraments, or than praying to God in\nthe name and by the mediation of Christ. This freethinking archbishop\ncould not allow a miracle sufficient to give credit to a prophet who\ntaught anything contrary to our natural notions: By which it is plain,\nhe rejected at once all the mysteries of Christianity.\n\nI could name one-and-twenty more great men, who were all freethinkers;\nbut that I fear to be tedious: For, 'tis certain that all men of sense\ndepart from the opinions commonly received; and are consequently more or\nless men of sense, according as they depart more or less from the\nopinions commonly received; neither can you name an enemy to\nfreethinking, however he be dignified or distinguished, whether\narchbishop, bishop, priest, or deacon, who has not been either \"a\ncrack-brained enthusiast, a diabolical villain, or a most profound\nignorant brute.\"\n\nThus, sir, I have endeavoured to execute your commands, and you may\nprint this Letter, if you please; but I would have you conceal my name.\nFor my opinion of virtue is, that we ought not to venture doing\nourselves harm, by endeavouring to do good.\n\n\nI am yours, &c.\n\n\n\n_I have here given the public a brief, but faithful abstract of this\nmost excellent Essay; wherein I have all along religiously adhered to\nour author's notions, and generally to his words, without any other\naddition than that of explaining a few necessary consequences, for the\nsake of ignorant readers; for, to those who have the least degree of\nlearning, I own they will be wholly useless. I hope I have not, in any\nsingle instance, misrepresented the thoughts of this admirable writer.\nIf I have happened to mistake through inadvertency, I entreat he will\ncondescend to inform me, and point out the place, upon which I will\nimmediately beg pardon both of him and the world. The design of his\npiece is to recommend freethinking, and one chief motive is the example\nof many excellent men who were of that sect. He produces as the\nprincipal points of their freethinking; that they denied the Being of a\nGod, the Torments of Hell, the Immortality of the Soul, the Trinity,\nIncarnation, the history of the creation by Moses, with many other such\n\"fabulous and blasphemous stories,\" as he judiciously calls them: And he\nasserts, that whoever denies the most of these, is the completest\nfreethinker, and consequently the wisest and most virtuous man. The\nauthor, sensible of the prejudices of the age, does not directly affirm\nhimself an atheist; he goes no further than to pronounce that atheism is\nthe most perfect degree of freethinking; and leaves the reader to form\nthe conclusion. However, he seems to allow, that a man may be a\ntolerable freethinker, though he does believe a God; provided he utterly\nrejects \"Providence, Revelation, the Old and New Testament, Future\nRewards and Punishments, the Immortality of the Soul,\" and other the\nlike impossible absurdities. Which mark of superabundant caution,\nsacrificing truth to the superstition of priests, may perhaps be\nforgiven, but ought not to be imitated by any who would arrive (even in\nthis author's judgment) at the true perfection of freethinking._\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nSOME THOUGHTS\n\nON\n\nFREETHINKING.\n\nWRITTEN IN ENGLAND, BUT LEFT UNFINISHED.\n\n\nDiscoursing one day with a prelate of the kingdom of Ireland, who is a\nperson of excellent wit and learning, he offered a notion applicable to\nthe subject we were then upon, which I took to be altogether new and\nright. He said, that the difference betwixt a madman and one in his\nwits, in what related to speech, consisted in this; that the former\nspoke out whatever came into his mind, and just in the confused manner\nas his imagination presented the ideas: The latter only expressed such\nthoughts as his judgment directed him to choose, leaving the rest to die\naway in his memory; and that, if the wisest man would, at any time,\nutter his thoughts in the crude indigested manner as they come into his\nhead, he would be looked upon as raving mad. And, indeed, when we\nconsider our thoughts, as they are the seeds of words and actions, we\ncannot but agree that they ought to be kept under the strictest\nregulation; and that in the great multiplicity of ideas which one's mind\nis apt to form, there is nothing more difficult than to select those\nwhich are most proper for the conduct of life. So that I cannot imagine\nwhat is meant by the mighty zeal in some people for asserting the\nfreedom of thinking; because, if such thinkers keep their thoughts\nwithin their own breasts, they can be of no consequence, farther than to\nthemselves. If they publish them to the world, they ought to be\nanswerable for the effects their thoughts produce upon others. There are\nthousands in this kingdom, who, in their thoughts, prefer a republic, or\nabsolute power of a prince, before a limited monarchy; yet, if any of\nthese should publish their opinions, and go about, by writing or\ndiscourse, to persuade the people to innovations in government, they\nwould be liable to the severest punishments the law can inflict; and\ntherefore they are usually so wise as to keep their sentiments to\nthemselves. But, with respect to religion, the matter is quite\notherwise: and the public, at least here in England, seems to be of\nopinion with _Tiberius_, that _Deorum injuriae diis curae_. They leave it\nto God Almighty to vindicate the injuries done to himself, who is no\ndoubt sufficiently able, by perpetual miracles, to revenge the affronts\nof impious men. And, it should seem, that is what princes expect from\nhim, though I cannot readily conceive the grounds they go upon; nor why,\nsince they are God's vicegerents, they do not think themselves at least\nequally obliged to preserve their master's honour as their own; since\nthis is what they expect from those they depute, and since they never\nfail to represent the disobedience of their subjects, as offences\nagainst God. It is true, the visible reason of this neglect is obvious\nenough: The consequences of atheistical opinions, published to the\nworld, are not so immediate, or so sensible, as doctrines of rebellion\nand sedition, spread in a proper season. However, I cannot but think the\nsame consequences are as natural and probable from the former, though\nmore remote: And whether these have not been in view among our great\nplanters of infidelity in England, I shall hereafter examine.\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nA LETTER\n\nTO\n\nA YOUNG CLERGYMAN,\n\nLATELY ENTERED INTO\n\nHOLY ORDERS.\n\n1719-20.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nNo stronger proof could be adduced of Swift's genuine and earnest belief\nin the dignity of a clergyman of the Church than this letter. In spite\nof the sarcasms which here and there are levelled against the mediocre\nmembers of the class, it is evident Swift felt that these might be made\nworthy teachers and preachers of the doctrines of an institution\nfounded, in his opinion, for the best regulation of mankind. The letter\nserves also to present us with an outline of a picture of the clergyman\nof his day; and if this picture be not flattering, it seems faithfully\nto reflect the social conditions which we know to have prevailed at the\ntime.\n\nThe letter was written in the years of quiet which Swift enjoyed between\nthe pamphleteering crusade against the Whigs, when Harley and St. John\nwere in power, and the famous social and political troubles which began\nwith Wood's halfpence.\n\nThe text of this letter is practically that of the first edition; but I\nhave collated this with the texts given by Hawkesworth, Scott, the first\nvolume of the \"Miscellanies\" of 1728, and the second volume of the\n\"Miscellanies\" of 1745. In the original edition, and in the reprints\npublished to the time of Faulkner's collected edition, the title reads\n\"A Letter to a Young Gentleman,\" etc.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  A\n  LETTER\n  TO A\n  YOUNG GENTLEMAN,\n  LATELY ENTER'D INTO\n  HOLY ORDERS\n\nBy a Person of QUALITY.\n\nIt is certainly known, that the following Treatise was writ in Ireland\nby the Reverend Dr. Swift, Dean of St. Patrick's in that Kingdom.\n\n\nDublin, _January the 9th,_ 1719-20.\n\nSir,\n\nAlthough it was against my knowledge or advice, that you entered into\nholy orders, under the present dispositions of mankind toward the\nChurch, yet since it is now supposed too late to recede, (at least\naccording to the general practice and opinion,) I cannot forbear\noffering my thoughts to you upon this new condition of life you are\nengaged in.\n\nI could heartily wish that the circumstances of your fortune, had\nenabled you to have continued some years longer in the university; at\nleast till you were ten years standing; to have laid in a competent\nstock of human learning, and some knowledge in divinity, before you\nattempted to appear in the world: For I cannot but lament the common\ncourse, which at least nine in ten of those who enter into the ministry\nare obliged to run. When they have taken a degree, and are consequently\ngrown a burden to their friends, who now think themselves fully\ndischarged, they get into orders as soon as they can; (upon which I\nshall make no remarks,) first solicit a readership, and if they be very\nfortunate, arrive in time to a curacy here in town, or else are sent to\nbe assistants in the country, where they probably continue several\nyears, (many of them their whole lives,) with thirty or forty pounds\na-year for their support, till some bishop, who happens to be not\noverstocked with relations, or attached to favourites, or is content to\nsupply his diocese without colonies from England, bestows upon them some\ninconsiderable benefice, when it is odds they are already encumbered\nwith a numerous family. I should be glad to know what intervals of life\nsuch persons can possibly set apart for the improvement of their minds;\nor which way they could be furnished with books, the library they\nbrought with them from their college being usually not the most\nnumerous, or judiciously chosen. If such gentlemen arrive to be great\nscholars, it must, I think, be either by means supernatural, or by a\nmethod altogether out of any road yet known to the learned. But I\nconceive the fact directly otherwise, and that many of them lose the\ngreatest part of the small pittance they receive at the university.\n\nI take it for granted, that you intend to pursue the beaten track, and\nare already desirous to be seen in a pulpit, only I hope you will think\nit proper to pass your quarantine among some of the desolate churches\nfive miles round this town, where you may at least learn to read and to\nspeak before you venture to expose your parts in a city congregation;\nnot that these are better judges, but because, if a man must needs\nexpose his folly, it is more safe and discreet to do so before few\nwitnesses, and in a scattered neighbourhood. And you will do well if you\ncan prevail upon some intimate and judicious friend to be your constant\nhearer, and allow him with the utmost freedom to give you notice of\nwhatever he shall find amiss either in your voice or gesture; for want\nof which early warning, many clergymen continue defective, and sometimes\nridiculous, to the end of their lives; neither is it rare to observe\namong excellent and learned divines, a certain ungracious manner, or an\nunhappy tone of voice, which they never have been able to shake off.\n\nI should likewise have been glad, if you had applied yourself a little\nmore to the study of the English language, than I fear you have done;\nthe neglect whereof is one of the most general defects among the\nscholars of this kingdom, who seem not to have the least conception of a\nstyle, but run on in a flat kind of phraseology, often mingled with\nbarbarous terms and expressions, peculiar to the nation: Neither do I\nperceive that any person, either finds or acknowledges his wants upon\nthis head, or in the least desires to have them supplied. Proper words\nin proper places, make the true definition of a style. But this would\nrequire too ample a disquisition to be now dwelt on: however, I shall\nventure to name one or two faults, which are easy to be remedied, with a\nvery small portion of abilities.\n\nThe first is the frequent use of obscure terms, which by the women are\ncalled hard words, and by the better sort of vulgar, fine language; than\nwhich I do not know a more universal, inexcusable, and unnecessary\nmistake, among the clergy of all distinctions, but especially the\nyounger practitioners. I have been curious enough to take a list of\nseveral hundred words in a sermon of a new beginner, which not one of\nhis hearers among a hundred could possibly understand, neither can I\neasily call to mind any clergyman of my own acquaintance who is wholly\nexempt from this error, although many of them agree with me in the\ndislike of the thing. But I am apt to put myself in the place of the\nvulgar, and think many words difficult or obscure, which they will not\nallow to be so, because those words are obvious to scholars, I believe\nthe method observed by the famous Lord Falkland[1] in some of his\nwritings, would not be an ill one for young divines: I was assured by an\nold person of quality who knew him well, that when he doubted whether a\nword was perfectly intelligible or no, he used to consult one of his\nlady's chambermaids, (not the waiting-woman, because it was possible she\nmight be conversant in romances,) and by her judgment was guided whether\nto receive or reject it. And if that great person thought such a caution\nnecessary in treatises offered to the learned world, it will be sure at\nleast as proper in sermons, where the meanest hearer is supposed to be\nconcerned, and where very often a lady's chambermaid may be allowed to\nequal half the congregation, both as to quality and understanding. But I\nknow not how it comes to pass, that professors in most arts and sciences\nare generally the worst qualified to explain their meanings to those who\nare not of their tribe: a common farmer shall make you understand in\nthree words, that his foot is out of joint, or his collar-bone broken,\nwherein a surgeon, after a hundred terms of art, if you are not a\nscholar, shall leave you to seek. It is frequently the same case in law,\nphysic, and even many of the meaner arts.\n\n[Footnote 1: Lucius Cary, second Viscount Falkland (1610-1643), who was\nkilled at the battle of Newbury in the great Civil War, was a generous\npatron of learning and of the literary men of his day. He was himself a\nfine scholar and able writer. Clarendon has recorded his character in\nthe seventh book of his \"History of the Great Rebellion\": \"A person of\nsuch prodigious parts of learning and knowledge, of that inimitable\nsweetness and delight in conversation, of so flowing and obliging an\nhumanity and goodness to mankind, that, if there were no other brand\nupon this odious and accursed Civil War than that single loss, it must\nbe infamous and execrable to all posterity.\" Falkland has been made the\nhero of a romance by Lord Lytton. [T. S. ] ]\n\nAnd upon this account it is, that among hard words, I number likewise\nthose which are peculiar to divinity as it is a science, because I have\nobserved several clergymen, otherwise little fond of obscure terms, yet\nin their sermons very liberal of those which they find in ecclesiastical\nwriters, as if it were our duty to understand them; which I am sure it\nis not. And I defy the greatest divine to produce any law either of God\nor man, which obliges me to comprehend the meaning of _omniscience,\nomnipresence, ubiquity, attribute, beatific vision,_ with a thousand\nothers so frequent in pulpits, any more than that of _eccentric,\nidiosyncracy, entity,_ and the like. I believe I may venture to insist\nfarther, that many terms used in Holy Writ, particularly by St Paul,\nmight with more discretion be changed into plainer speech, except when\nthey are introduced as part of a quotation.[2]\n\n[Footnote 2: Swift refers to this point in his \"Thoughts on Religion,\"\nand regrets that the explanation of matters of doctrine, which St. Paul\nexpressed in the current eastern vocabulary, should have been\nperpetuated in terms founded on the same terminology. [T. S.] ]\n\nI am the more earnest in this matter, because it is a general complaint,\nand the justest in the world. For a divine has nothing to say to the\nwisest congregation of any parish in this kingdom, which he may not\nexpress in a manner to be understood by the meanest among them. And this\nassertion must be true, or else God requires from us more than we are\nable to perform. However, not to contend whether a logician might\npossibly put a case that would serve for an exception, I will appeal to\nany man of letters, whether at least nineteen in twenty of those\nperplexing words might not be changed into easy ones, such as naturally\nfirst occur to ordinary men, and probably did so at first to those very\ngentlemen who are so fond of the former.\n\nWe are often reproved by divines from the pulpits, on account of our\nignorance in things sacred, and perhaps with justice enough. However, it\nis not very reasonable for them to expect, that common men should\nunderstand expressions which are never made use of in common life. No\ngentleman thinks it safe or prudent to send a servant with a message,\nwithout repeating it more than once, and endeavouring to put it into\nterms brought down to the capacity of the bearer: yet after all this\ncare, it is frequent for servants to mistake, and sometimes to occasion\nmisunderstandings among friends. Although the common domestics in some\ngentlemen's families have more opportunities of improving their minds\nthan the ordinary sort of tradesmen.\n\nIt is usual for clergymen who are taxed with this learned defect, to\nquote Dr. Tillotson, and other famous divines, in their defence; without\nconsidering the difference between elaborate discourses upon important\noccasions, delivered to princes or parliaments, written with a view of\nbeing made public, and a plain sermon intended for the middle or lower\nsize of people. Neither do they seem to remember the many alterations,\nadditions, and expungings, made by great authors in those treatises\nwhich they prepare for the public. Besides, that excellent prelate\nabove-mentioned, was known to preach after a much more popular manner in\nthe city congregations: and if in those parts of his works he be any\nwhere too obscure for the understandings of many who may be supposed to\nhave been his hearers, it ought to be numbered among his omissions.\n\nThe fear of being thought pedants hath been of pernicious consequence to\nyoung divines. This hath wholly taken many of them off from their\nseverer studies in the university, which they have exchanged for plays,\npoems, and pamphlets, in order to qualify them for tea-tables and\ncoffee-houses. This they usually call \"polite conversation; knowing the\nworld; and reading men instead of books.\" These accomplishments, when\napplied to the pulpit, appear by a quaint; terse, florid style, rounded\ninto periods and cadences, commonly without either propriety or meaning.\nI have listen'd with my utmost attention for half an hour to an orator\nof this species, without being able to understand, much less to carry\naway one single sentence out of a whole sermon. Others, to shew that\ntheir studies have not been confined to sciences, or ancient authors,\nwill talk in the style of a gaming ordinary, and White Friars[3], when I\nsuppose the hearers can be little edified by the terms _palming,\nshuffling, biting, bamboozling_ and the like, if they have not been\nsometimes conversant among pick-pockets and sharpers. And truly, as they\nsay, a man is known by his company, so it should seem that a man's\ncompany may be known by his manner of expressing himself, either in\npublic assemblies, or private conversation.\n\n[Footnote 3: See note on \"Alsatia,\" p. 100. [T. S.] ]\n\nIt would be endless to run over the several defects of style among us; I\nshall therefore say nothing of the mean and paltry (which are usually\nattended by the fustian), much less of the slovenly or indecent. Two\nthings I will just warn you against; the first is the frequency of flat\nunnecessary epithets, and the other is the folly of using old threadbare\nphrases, which will often make you go out of your way to find and apply\nthem, are nauseous to rational hearers, and will seldom express your\nmeaning as well as your own natural words.\n\nAlthough, as I have already observed, our English tongue is too little\ncultivated in this kingdom; yet the faults are nine in ten owing to\naffectation, and not to the want of understanding. When a man's thoughts\nare clear, the properest words will generally offer themselves first,\nand his own judgment will direct him in what order to place them, so as\nthey may be best understood. Where men err against this method, it is\nusually on purpose, and to shew their learning, their oratory, their\npoliteness, or their knowledge of the world. In short, that simplicity\nwithout which no human performance can arrive to any great perfection,\nis nowhere more eminently useful than in this.\n\nI have been considering that part of oratory which relates to the moving\nof the passions; this I observe is in esteem and practice among some\nchurch divines, as well as among all the preachers and hearers of the\nfanatic or enthusiastic strain. I will here deliver to you (perhaps with\nmore freedom than prudence) my opinion upon the point.\n\nThe two great orators of Greece and Rome, Demosthenes and Cicero, though\neach of them a leader (or as the Greeks call it a demagogue) in a\npopular state, yet seem to differ in their practice upon this branch of\ntheir art; the former who had to deal with a people of much more\npoliteness, learning, and wit, laid the greatest weight of his oratory\nupon the strength of his arguments, offered to their understanding and\nreason: whereas Tully considered the dispositions of a sincere, more\nignorant, and less mercurial nation, by dwelling almost entirely on the\npathetic part.\n\nBut the principal thing to be remembered is, that the constant design of\nboth these orators in all their speeches, was to drive some one\nparticular point, either the condemnation or acquittal of an accused\nperson, a persuasive to war, the enforcing of a law, and the like; which\nwas determined upon the spot, according as the orators on either side\nprevailed. And here it was often found of absolute necessity to inflame\nor cool the passions of the audience, especially at Rome where Tully\nspoke, and with whose writings young divines (I mean those among them\nwho read old authors) are more conversant than with those of\nDemosthenes, who by many degrees excelled the other at least as an\norator. But I do not see how this talent of moving the passions can be\nof any great use toward directing Christian men in the conduct of their\nlives, at least in these northern climates, where I am confident the\nstrongest eloquence of that kind will leave few impressions upon any of\nour spirits deep enough to last till the next morning, or rather to the\nnext meal.[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Swift's own sermons rarely appealed to the emotions; they\nwere, in his own phrase, political pamphlets, and aimed at convincing\nthe reason. [T. S.] ]\n\nBut what hath chiefly put me out of conceit with this moving manner of\npreaching, is the frequent disappointment it meets with. I know a\ngentleman, who made it a rule in reading, to skip over all sentences\nwhere he spied a note of admiration at the end. I believe those\npreachers who abound in _epiphonemas_,[5] if they look about them, would\nfind one part of their congregation out of countenance, and the other\nasleep, except perhaps an old female beggar or two in the aisles, who\n(if they be sincere) may probably groan at the sound.\n\n[Footnote 5: _Epiphonema_ is a figure in rhetoric, signifying a\nsententious kind of exclamation. [S.] ]\n\nNor is it a wonder, that this expedient should so often miscarry, which\nrequires so much art and genius to arrive at any perfection in it, as\nany man will find, much sooner than learn by consulting Cicero himself.\n\nI therefore entreat you to make use of this faculty (if you ever be so\nunfortunate as to think you have it) as seldom, and with as much caution\nas you can, else I may probably have occasion to say of you as a great\nperson said of another upon this very subject. A lady asked him coming\nout of church, whether it were not a very moving discourse? \"Yes,\" said\nhe, \"I was extremely sorry, for the man is my friend.\"\n\nIf in company you offer something for a jest, and nobody second you in\nyour own laughter, nor seems to relish what you said, you may condemn\ntheir taste, if you please, and appeal to better judgments; but in the\nmeantime, it must be agreed you make a very indifferent figure; and it\nis at least equally ridiculous to be disappointed in endeavouring to\nmake other folks grieve, as to make them laugh.\n\nA plain convincing reason may possibly operate upon the mind both of a\nlearned and ignorant hearer as long as they live, and will edify a\nthousand times more than the art of wetting the handkerchiefs of a whole\ncongregation, if you were sure to attain it.\n\nIf your arguments be strong, in God's name offer them in as moving a\nmanner as the nature of the subject will properly admit, wherein reason\nand good advice will be your safest guides; but beware of letting the\npathetic part swallow up the rational: For I suppose, philosophers have\nlong agreed, that passion should never prevail over reason.\n\nAs I take it, the two principal branches of preaching are first to tell\nthe people what is their duty, and then to convince them that it is so.\nThe topics for both these, we know, are brought from Scripture and\nreason. Upon this first, I wish it were often practised to instruct the\nhearers in the limits, extent, and compass of every duty, which requires\na good deal of skill and judgment: the other branch is, I think, not so\ndifficult. But what I would offer them both, is this; that it seems to\nbe in the power of a reasonable clergyman, if he will be at the pains,\nto make the most ignorant man comprehend what is his duty, and to\nconvince him by argument drawn to the level of his understanding, that\nhe ought to perform it.\n\nBut I must remember that my design in this paper was not so much to\ninstruct you in your business either as a clergyman or a preacher, as to\nwarn you against some mistakes which are obvious to the generality of\nmankind as well as to me; and we who are hearers, may be allowed to have\nsome opportunities in the quality of being standers-by. Only perhaps I\nmay now again transgress by desiring you to express the heads of your\ndivisions in as few and clear words as you possibly can, otherwise, I\nand many thousand others will never be able to retain them, nor\nconsequently to carry away a syllable of the sermon.\n\nI shall now mention a particular wherein your whole body will be\ncertainly against me, and the laity almost to a man on my side. However\nit came about, I cannot get over the prejudice of taking some little\noffence at the clergy for perpetually reading their sermons[6]; perhaps\nmy frequent hearing of foreigners, who never made use of notes, may have\nadded to my disgust. And I cannot but think, that whatever is read,\ndiffers as much from what is repeated without book, as a copy does from\nan original. At the same time, I am highly sensible what an extreme\ndifficulty it would be upon you to alter this method, and that, in such\na case, your sermons would be much less valuable than they are, for want\nof time to improve and correct them. I would therefore gladly come to a\ncompromise with you in this matter. I knew a clergyman of some\ndistinction, who appeared to deliver his sermon without looking into his\nnotes, which when I complimented him upon, he assured me he could not\nrepeat six lines; but his method was to write the whole sermon in a\nlarge plain hand, with all the forms of margin, paragraph, marked page,\nand the like; then on Sunday morning he took care to run it over five or\nsix times, which he could do in an hour; and when he deliver'd it, by\npretending to turn his face from one side to the other, he would (in his\nown expression) pick up the lines, and cheat his people by making them\nbelieve he had it all by heart. He farther added, that whenever he\nhappened by neglect to omit any of these circumstances, the vogue of the\nparish was, \"Our doctor gave us but an indifferent sermon to-day.\" Now\namong us, many clergymen act too directly contrary to this method, that\nfrom a habit of saving time and paper, which they acquired at the\nUniversity, they write in so diminutive a manner, with such frequent\nblots and interlineations, that they are hardly able to go on without\nperpetual hesitations or extemporary expletives: And I desire to know\nwhat can be more inexcusable, than to see a divine and a scholar, at a\nloss in reading his own compositions, which it is supposed he has been\npreparing with much pains and thought for the instruction of his people?\nThe want of a little more care in this article, is the cause of much\nungraceful behaviour. You will observe some clergymen with their heads\nheld down from the beginning to the end, within an inch of the cushion,\nto read what is hardly legible; which, besides the untoward manner,\nhinders them from making the best advantage of their voice: others again\nhave a trick of popping up and down every moment from their paper to the\naudience, like an idle school-boy on a repetition day.\n\n[Footnote 6: \"The custom of reading sermons,\" notes Scott, \"seems\noriginally to have arisen in opposition to the practice of Dissenters,\nmany of whom affected to trust to their Inspiration in their _extempore_\nharangues.\" [T. S.] ]\n\nLet me entreat you, therefore, to add one half-crown a year to the\narticle of paper; to transcribe your sermons in as large and plain a\nmanner as you can, and either make no interlineations, or change the\nwhole leaf; for we your hearers would rather you should be less correct\nthan perpetually stammering, which I take to be one of the worst\nsolecisms in rhetoric: And lastly, read your sermon once or twice for a\nfew days before you preach it: to which you will probably answer some\nyears hence, \"that it was but just finished when the last bell rang to\nchurch:\" and I shall readily believe, but not excuse you.\n\nI cannot forbear warning you in the most earnest manner against\nendeavouring at wit in your sermons, because by the strictest\ncomputation, it is very near a million to one that you have none; and\nbecause too many of your calling have consequently made themselves\neverlastingly ridiculous by attempting it. I remember several young men\nin this town, who could never leave the pulpit under half a dozen\nconceits; and this faculty adhered to those gentlemen a longer or\nshorter time exactly in proportion to their several degrees of dulness:\naccordingly, I am told that some of them retain it to this day. I\nheartily wish the brood were at an end.\n\nBefore you enter into the common insufferable cant of taking all\noccasions to disparage the heathen philosophers, I hope you will differ\nfrom some of your brethren, by first enquiring what those philosophers\ncan say for themselves. The system of morality to be gathered out of the\nwritings or sayings of those ancient sages, falls undoubtedly very short\nof that delivered in the Gospel, and wants besides, the divine sanction\nwhich our Saviour gave to His. Whatever is further related by the\nevangelists, contains chiefly, matters of fact, and consequently of\nfaith, such as the birth of Christ, His being the Messiah, His Miracles,\nHis death, resurrection, and ascension. None of which can properly come\nunder the appellation of human wisdom, being intended only to make us\nwise unto salvation. And therefore in this point nothing can justly be\nlaid to the charge of the philosophers further than that they were\nignorant of certain facts that happened long after their death. But I am\ndeceived, if a better comment could be anywhere collected, upon the\nmoral part of the Gospel, than from the writings of those excellent men;\neven that divine precept of loving our enemies, is at large insisted on\nby Plato, who puts it, as I remember, into the mouth of Socrates.[7] And\nas to the reproach of heathenism, I doubt they had less of it than the\ncorrupted Jews in whose time they lived. For it is a gross piece of\nignorance among us to conceive that in those polite and learned ages,\neven persons of any tolerable education, much less the wisest\nphilosophers did acknowledge or worship any more than one almighty\npower, under several denominations, to whom they allowed all those\nattributes we ascribe to the Divinity: and as I take it, human\ncomprehension reacheth no further: neither did our Saviour think it\nnecessary to explain to us the nature of God, because I suppose it would\nbe impossible without bestowing on us other faculties than we possess at\npresent. But the true misery of the heathen world appears to be what I\nbefore mentioned, the want of a Divine Sanction, without which the\ndictates of the philosophers failed in the point of authority, and\nconsequently the bulk of mankind lay indeed under a great load of\nignorance even in the article of morality, but the philosophers\nthemselves did not. Take the matter in this light, it will afford field\nenough for a divine to enlarge on, by showing the advantages which the\nChristian world has over the heathen, and the absolute necessity of\nDivine Revelation, to make the knowledge of the true God, and the\npractice of virtue more universal in the world.\n\n[Footnote 7: This is in the \"Crito\" of Plato, where Socrates says it is\nwrong to do harm to our enemies. [T. S.] ]\n\nI am not ignorant how much I differ in this opinion from some ancient\nfathers in the Church, who arguing against the heathens, made it a\nprincipal topic to decry their philosophy as much as they could: which,\nI hope, is not altogether our present case. Besides, it is to be\nconsidered, that those fathers lived in the decline of literature; and\nin my judgment (who should be unwilling to give the least offence)\nappear to be rather most excellent, holy persons, than of transcendent\ngenius and learning. Their genuine writings (for many of them have\nextremely suffered by spurious editions) are of admirable use for\nconfirming the truth of ancient doctrines and discipline, by shewing the\nstate and practice of the primitive church. But among such of them as\nhave fallen in my way, I do not remember any whose manner of arguing or\nexhorting I could heartily recommend to the imitation of a young divine\nwhen he is to speak from the pulpit. Perhaps I judge too hastily; there\nbeing several of them in whose writings I have made very little\nprogress, and in others none at all. For I perused only such as were\nrecommended to me, at a time when I had more leisure and a better\ndisposition to read, than have since fallen to my share.[8]\n\n[Footnote 8: Swift must refer here to the years he spent at Moor Park,\nin the house of Sir William Temple. The \"Tale of a Tub,\" however, shows\nthat he had not idled his time, and that his acquaintance with the\nwritings of the fathers was fairly intimate. [T, S.] ]\n\nTo return then to the heathen philosophers, I hope you will not only\ngive them quarter, but make their works a considerable part of your\nstudy: To these I will venture to add the principal orators and\nhistorians, and perhaps a few of the poets: by the reading of which, you\nwill soon discover your mind and thoughts to be enlarged, your\nimagination extended and refined, your judgment directed, your\nadmiration lessened, and your fortitude increased; all which advantages\nmust needs be of excellent use to a divine, whose duty it is to preach\nand practise the contempt of human things.\n\nI would say something concerning quotations, wherein I think you cannot\nbe too sparing, except from Scripture, and the primitive writers of the\nChurch. As to the former, when you offer a text as a proof of an\nillustration, we your hearers expect to be fairly used, and sometimes\nthink we have reason to complain, especially of you younger divines,\nwhich makes us fear that some of you conceive you have no more to do\nthan to turn over a concordance, and there having found the principal\nword, introduce as much of the verse as will serve your turn, though in\nreality it makes nothing for you. I do not altogether disapprove the\nmanner of interweaving texts of scripture through the style of your\nsermons, wherein however, I have sometimes observed great instances of\nindiscretion and impropriety, against which I therefore venture to give\nyou a caution.\n\nAs to quotations from ancient fathers, I think they are best brought in\nto confirm some opinion controverted by those who differ from us: in\nother cases we give you full power to adopt the sentence for your own,\nrather than tell us, \"as St. Austin excellently observes.\" But to\nmention modern writers by name, or use the phrase of \"a late excellent\nprelate of our Church,\" and the like, is altogether intolerable, and for\nwhat reason I know not, makes every rational hearer ashamed. Of no\nbetter a stamp is your \"heathen philosopher\" and \"famous poet,\" and\n\"Roman historian,\" at least in common congregations, who will rather\nbelieve you on your own word, than on that of Plato or Homer.\n\nI have lived to see Greek and Latin almost entirely driven out of the\npulpit, for which I am heartily glad. The frequent use of the latter was\ncertainly a remnant of Popery which never admitted Scripture in the\nvulgar language; and I wonder, that practice was never accordingly\nobjected to us by the fanatics.\n\nThe mention of quotations puts me in mind of commonplace books, which\nhave been long in use by industrious young divines, and I hear do still\ncontinue so. I know they are very beneficial to lawyers and physicians,\nbecause they are collections of facts or cases, whereupon a great part\nof their several faculties depend; of these I have seen several, but\nnever yet any written by a clergyman; only from what I am informed, they\ngenerally are extracts of theological and moral sentences drawn from\necclesiastical and other authors, reduced under proper heads, usually\nbegun, and perhaps finished, while the collectors were young in the\nchurch, as being intended for materials or nurseries to stock future\nsermons. You will observe the wise editors of ancient authors, when they\nmeet a sentence worthy of being distinguished, take special care to have\nthe first word printed in capital letters, that you may not overlook it:\nSuch, for example, as the INCONSTANCY of FORTUNE, the GOODNESS of PEACE,\nthe EXCELLENCY of WISDOM, the CERTAINTY of DEATH: that PROSPERITY makes\nmen INSOLENT, and ADVERSITY HUMBLE; and the like eternal truths, which\nevery ploughman knows well enough before Aristotle or Plato were\nborn.[9]  If theological commonplace books be no better filled, I think\nthey had better be laid aside, and I could wish that men of tolerable\nintellectuals would rather trust their own natural reason, improved by a\ngeneral conversation with books, to enlarge on points which they are\nsupposed already to understand. If a rational man reads an excellent\nauthor with just application, he shall find himself extremely improved,\nand perhaps insensibly led to imitate that author's perfections,\nalthough in a little time he should not remember one word in the book,\nnor even the subject it handled: for books give the same turn to our\nthoughts and way of reasoning, that good and ill company do to our\nbehaviour and conversation; without either loading our memories, or\nmaking us even sensible of the change. And particularly I have observed\nin preaching, that no men succeed better than those who trust entirely\nto the stock or fund of their own reason, advanced indeed, but not\noverlaid by commerce with books. Whoever only reads in order to\ntranscribe wise and shining remarks, without entering into the genius\nand spirit of the author, as it is probable he will make no very\njudicious extract, so he will be apt to trust to that collection in all\nhis compositions, and be misled out of the regular way of thinking, in\norder to introduce those materials, which he has been at the pains to\ngather and the product of all this will be found a manifest incoherent\npiece of patchwork.\n\n[Footnote 9: Thus in first edition. Scott and Hawkesworth have: \"though\nhe never heard of Aristotle or Plato.\" [T.S.]]\n\nSome gentlemen abounding in their university erudition, are apt to fill\ntheir sermons with philosophical terms and notions of the metaphysical\nor abstracted kind, which generally have one advantage, to be equally\nunderstood by the wise, the vulgar, and the preacher himself. I have\nbeen better entertained, and more informed by a chapter[10] in the\n\"Pilgrim's Progress,\" than by a long discourse upon the will and the\nintellect, and simple or complex ideas. Others again, are fond of\ndilating on matter and motion, talk of the fortuitous concourse of\natoms, of theories, and phenomena, directly against the advice of St\nPaul, who yet appears to have been conversant enough in those kinds of\nstudies.\n\n[Footnote 10: Thus in first edition. Scott and Hawkesworth have \"a few\npages\" instead of \"a chapter\" [T. S ]]\n\nI do not find that you are anywhere directed in the canons or articles,\nto attempt explaining the mysteries of the Christian religion. And\nindeed since Providence intended there should be mysteries, I do not see\nhow it can be agreeable to piety, orthodoxy or good sense, to go about\nsuch a work. For, to me there seems to be a manifest dilemma in the case\nif you explain them, they are mysteries no longer, if you fail, you have\nlaboured to no purpose. What I should think most reasonable and safe for\nyou to do upon this occasion is, upon solemn days to deliver the\ndoctrine as the Church holds it, and confirm it by Scripture. For my\npart, having considered the matter impartially, I can see no great\nreason which those gentlemen you call the freethinkers can have for\ntheir clamour against religious mysteries, since it is plain, they were\nnot invented by the clergy, to whom they bring no profit, nor acquire\nany honour. For every clergyman is ready either to tell us the utmost he\nknows, or to confess that he does not understand them; neither is it\nstrange that there should be mysteries in divinity as well as in the\ncommonest operations of nature.\n\nAnd here I am at a loss what to say upon the frequent custom of\npreaching against atheism, deism, freethinking, and the like, as young\ndivines are particularly fond of doing especially when they exercise\ntheir talent in churches frequented by persons of quality, which as it\nis but an ill compliment to the audience; so I am under some doubt\nwhether it answers the end.\n\nBecause persons under those imputations are generally no great\nfrequenters of churches, and so the congregation is but little edified\nfor the sake of three or four fools who are past grace. Neither do I\nthink it any part of prudence to perplex the minds of well-disposed\npeople with doubts, which probably would never have otherwise come into\ntheir heads. But I am of opinion, and dare be positive in it, that not\none in an hundred of those who pretend to be freethinkers, are really so\nin their hearts. For there is one observation which I never knew to\nfail, and I desire you will examine it in the course of your life, that\nno gentleman of a liberal education, and regular in his morals, did ever\nprofess himself a freethinker: where then are these kind of people to be\nfound? Among the worst part of the soldiery made up of pages, younger\nbrothers of obscure families, and others of desperate fortunes; or else\namong idle town fops, and now and then a drunken 'squire of the country.\nTherefore nothing can be plainer, than that ignorance and vice are two\ningredients absolutely necessary in the composition of those you\ngenerally call freethinkers, who in propriety of speech, are no thinkers\nat all. And since I am in the way of it, pray consider one thing\nfarther: as young as you are, you cannot but have already observed, what\na violent run there is among too many weak people against university\neducation. Be firmly assured, that the whole cry is made up by those who\nwere either never sent to a college; or through their irregularities and\nstupidity never made the least improvement while they were there. I have\nat least[11] forty of the latter sort now in my eye; several of them in\nthis town, whose learning, manners, temperance, probity, good-nature,\nand politics, are all of a piece. Others of them in the country,\noppressing their tenants, tyrannizing over the neighbourhood, cheating\nthe vicar, talking nonsense, and getting drunk at the sessions. It is\nfrom such seminaries as these, that the world is provided with the\nseveral tribes and denominations of freethinkers, who, in my judgment,\nare not to be reformed by arguments offered to prove the truth of the\nChristian religion, because reasoning will never make a man correct an\nill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired: for in the course of\nthings, men always grow vicious before they become unbelievers; but if\nyou would once convince the town or country profligate, by topics drawn\nfrom the view of their own quiet, reputation, health, and advantage,\ntheir infidelity would soon drop off: This I confess is no easy task,\nbecause it is almost in a literal sense, to fight with beasts. Now, to\nmake it clear, that we are to look for no other original of this\ninfidelity, whereof divines so much complain, it is allowed on all\nhands, that the people of England are more corrupt in their morals than\nany other nation at this day under the sun: and this corruption is\nmanifestly owing to other causes, both, numerous and obvious, much more\nthan to the publication of irreligious books, which indeed are but the\nconsequence of the former. For all the writers against Christianity\nsince the Revolution have been of the lowest rank among men in regard to\nliterature, wit, and good sense, and upon that account wholly\nunqualified to propagate heresies, unless among a people already\nabandoned.\n\n[Footnote 11: Scott and Hawkesworth print \"above forty.\" [T. S.]]\n\nIn an age where everything disliked by those who think with the majority\nis called disaffection, it may perhaps be ill interpreted, when I\nventure to tell you that this universal depravation of manners is owing\nto the perpetual bandying of factions among us for thirty years past;\nwhen without weighing the motives of justice, law, conscience, or\nhonour, every man adjusts his principles to those of the party he hath\nchosen, and among whom he may best find his own account: But by reason\nof our frequent vicissitudes, men who were impatient of being out of\nplay, have been forced to recant, or at least to reconcile their former\ntenets with every new system of administration. Add to this, that the\nold fundamental custom of annual parliaments being wholly laid aside,\nand elections growing chargeable, since gentlemen found that their\ncountry seats brought them in less than a seat in the House, the voters,\nthat is to say, the bulk of the common people have been universally\nseduced into bribery, perjury, drunkenness, malice, and slanders.\n\nNot to be further tedious, or rather invidious, these are a few among\nother causes which have contributed to the ruin of our morals, and\nconsequently to the contempt of religion: For imagine to yourself, if\nyou please, a landed youth, whom his mother would never suffer to look\ninto a book for fear of spoiling his eyes, got into parliament, and\nobserving all enemies to the clergy heard with the utmost applause, what\nnotions he must imbibe; how readily he will join in the cry; what an\nesteem he will conceive of himself; and what a contempt he must\nentertain, not only for his vicar at home, but for the whole order.\n\nI therefore again conclude, that the trade of infidelity hath been taken\nup only for an expedient to keep in countenance that universal\ncorruption of morals, which many other causes first contributed to\nintroduce and to cultivate. And thus, Mr. Hobbes' saying upon reason may\nbe much more properly applied to religion: that, \"if religion will be\nagainst a man, a man will be against religion.\" Though after all, I have\nheard a profligate offer much stronger arguments against paying his\ndebts, than ever he was known to do against Christianity; indeed the\nreason was, because in that juncture he happened to be closer pressed by\nthe bailiff than the parson.\n\nIgnorance may perhaps be the mother of superstition; but experience hath\nnot proved it to be so of devotion: for Christianity always made the\nmost easy and quickest progress in civilized countries. I mention this\nbecause it is affirmed that the clergy are in most credit where\nignorance prevails (and surely this kingdom would be called the paradise\nof clergymen if that opinion were true) for which they instance England\nin the times of Popery. But whoever knows anything of three or four\ncenturies before the Reformation, will find the little learning then\nstirring was more equally divided between the English clergy and laity\nthan it is at present. There were several famous lawyers in that period,\nwhose writings are still in the highest repute, and some historians and\npoets who were not of the Church.[12] Whereas now-a-days our education\nis so corrupted, that you will hardly find a young person of quality\nwith the least tincture of knowledge, at the same time that many of the\nclergy were never more learned, or so scurvily treated. Here among us,\nat least, a man of letters out of the three professions, is almost a\nprodigy. And those few who have preserved any rudiments of learning are\n(except perhaps one or two smatterers) the clergy's friends to a man:\nand I dare appeal to any clergyman in this kingdom, whether the greatest\ndunce in the parish be not always the most proud, wicked, fraudulent,\nand intractable of his flock.\n\n[Footnote 12: What Swift calls learning was, in his day, the property,\nso to speak, of professional men, such as divines, lawyers, and\nuniversity teachers. The common man was too poor or too much taxed to\nacquire it; the aristocrat often too lazy or too fond of\npleasure-seeking to bother about it. The Pre-Reformation days, to which\nSwift refers, could boast such men as Fabyan, Hall, Chaucer, Gower, and\nCaxton, as well as Lord Berners, Sir Thomas More, and Lydgate, who were\nnot, in any sense, professional men. [T.S.]]\n\nI think the clergy have almost given over perplexing themselves and\ntheir hearers with abstruse points of Predestination, Election, and the\nlike; at least it is time they should; and therefore I shall not trouble\nyou further upon this head.\n\nI have now said all I could think convenient with relation to your\nconduct in the pulpit: your behaviour in life[13] is another scene, upon\nwhich I shall readily offer you my thoughts, if you appear to desire\nthem from me by your approbation of what I have here written; if not, I\nhave already troubled you too much.\n\n[Footnote 13: Scott and Hawkesworth print \"your behaviour in the world.\"\nThe above is the reading of the first edition. [T. S.]]\n\n  I am, Sir,\n  Your Affectionate\n  Friend and Servant\n  A.B.\n\n  January 9th.\n  1719-20.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nSOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENLARGING\n\nTHE POWER OF BISHOPS IN\n\nLETTING OF LEASES.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nThe years between that which saw the publication of the \"Drapier\nLetters,\" and that which rang with the fame of \"Gulliver's Travels,\"\nwere busy fighting years for Swift. Apart from his vigorous championship\nof the Test, and his war against the Dissenters, he espoused the cause\nof the inferior clergy of his own Church, as against the bishops. The\nbusiness of filling the vacant sees of Ireland had degenerated into what\nwe should now call \"jobbery\"; and during the period of Sir Robert\nWalpole's administration it was rarely that an Irishman was selected. On\nany question, therefore, which affected the welfare of the lower clergy,\nit will at once be seen, that the Lords Spiritual, sitting in the Irish\nUpper House, would find little difficulty in coming to a solution. That\nthe solution should also be one which only increased the clergy's\ndifficulties, might be expected from a body which aimed chiefly at\nacquiring wealth and power for itself.\n\nIn the reign of Charles I. an act was passed, \"prohibiting all bishops,\nand other ecclesiastical corporations, from setting their lands for\nabove the term of twenty-one years: the rent reserved to be half the\nreal value of such lands at the time they were set.\" As Swift points\nout, about the time of the Reformation, a trade was carried on by the\npopish bishops, who felt that their terms of office would be short, and\nwho, consequently, to get what benefit they could while in office, \"made\nlong leases and fee-farms of great part of their lands, reserving very\ninconsiderable rents, sometimes only a chiefry.\" It was owing to a\ncontinuance in this traffic by the bishops when they became Protestants,\nand to a recognition of the injustice of such alienation, that the\nlegislature passed the act. In 1723, however, an attempt was made for\nits repeal. Swift was not the man to permit the bishops to have their\nway, if he could help it. His opinion of Irish bishops is well known.\n\"No blame,\" he said, \"rested with the court for these appointments.\nExcellent and moral men had been selected upon every occasion of\nvacancy, but it unfortunately happened, that as these worthy divines\ncrossed Hounslow Heath, on their way to Ireland, to take possession of\ntheir bishoprics, they have been regularly robbed and murdered by the\nhighwaymen frequenting that common, who seize upon their robes and\npatents, come over to Ireland, and are consecrated bishops in their\nstead.\" To prevent, therefore, the encroachments of such individuals he\nwrote this tract, in which he clearly demonstrates the justice and\nsalutariness of Charles's act. His contention, as Monck Mason points out\n(\"History of St. Patrick's Cathedral,\" p. 392, note 1) \"is confirmed by\nall writers upon the subject,\" and quotes from Carte's \"Life of James,\nDuke of Ormond,\" where it is stated that the bishoprics in Ireland had,\n\"the greatest part of them, been depauperated in the change of religion\nby absolute grants and long leases (made generally by the popish bishops\nthat conformed)--some of them not able to maintain a bishop, several\nwere, by these means, reduced to \u00a350 a year, as Waterford, Kilfenora,\nand others, and some to five marks, as Cloyne and Kilmacduagh.\" To Swift\nis largely due the fact that the House of Commons, when they received\nthe bill from the Lords, threw it out.\n\nScott, in his note on this pamphlet (amended from one by Lord Orrery),\ntakes his usual course when considering Swift's attitude of opposition\n--he implies a motive or prejudice. In his opinion, Swift considered the\nbill for the repeal of Charles's act, \"an indirect mode of gratifying\nthe existing bishops, whom he did not regard with peculiar respect or\ncomplacency, at the expense of the Church establishment,\" and that,\ntherefore, \"the spirit of his opposition is, in this instance,\npeculiarly caustic.\" As a matter of fact, the spirit of Swift's\nopposition was always peculiarly caustic, in this case no more so than\nin any other. But to imply that his motive was a self gratifying one\nonly, is to treat Swift unfairly. If the bishops required an example as\nto how they should deal with their lands, they could easily have found\none in Swift himself. In all the renewals of the leases of the Deanery\nlands, Swift never sought his own immediate advantage, his terms were\nbased on the consideration that the lands were his only in trust for a\nsuccessor. To take one instance only, the instance of the parish of\nKilberry in county Kildare, cited by Monck Mason (p. 27, note h). In\n1695 the rent of this parish was reserved at \u00a3100 English sterling, in\n1717, Swift raised this rent to \u00a3150, in 1731 to \u00a3170, and in 1741 to\n\u00a3200 per annum, with a proportionable loss of fine upon each occasion.\n\nThe tract is dated October 21st, 1723, but as I have not come across a\ncopy of the original separate issue, I have based the text on that given\nby Faulkner (vol. iv, 1735), and the title page here reproduced is from\nthat edition. The fifth volume of \"Miscellanies,\" also issued in 1735,\ncontains this tract, and I have compared the texts of the two. The notes\ngiven in Scott's edition are, in the main, altered from Faulkner's\nedition.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  SOME\n  ARGUMENTS\n  AGAINST ENLARGING the\n  POWER OF BISHOPS\n  In LETTING OF\n  LEASES.\n  WITH\n  REMARKS on some _Queries_\n  lately published.\n\n_Mibi credite, major haereditas venit unicuique vestraem in iisdem bonis ae\njure & ae legibus, quam ab iis ae quibus illa ipsa bona relicta sunt._\n\nCicero _pro_ A. Caecina.\n\nWritten in the Year 1723.\n\nPrinted in the Year MDCCXXXIII.\n\n\nIn handling this subject, I shall proceed wholly upon the supposition,\nthat those of our party, who profess themselves members of the church\nestablished, and under the apostolical government of bishops, do desire\nthe continuance and transmission of it to posterity, at least, in as\ngood a condition as it is at present. Because, as this discourse is not\ncalculated for dissenters of any kind; so neither will it suit the talk\nor sentiments of those persons, who, with the denomination of churchmen,\nare oppressors of the inferior clergy, and perpetually quarrelling at\nthe great incomes of the bishops; which is a traditional cant delivered\ndown from former times, and continued with great reason, although it be\nnow near 200 years since almost three parts in four of the church\nrevenues have been taken from the clergy: Besides the spoils that have\nbeen gradually made ever since, of glebes and other lands, by the\nconfusion of times, the fraud of encroaching neighbours, or the power of\noppressors, too great to be encountered.\n\nAbout the time of the Reformation, many popish bishops of this kingdom,\nknowing they must have been soon ejected, if they would not change their\nreligion, made long leases and fee-farms of great part of their lands,\nreserving very inconsiderable rents, sometimes only a chiefry; by a\npower they assumed, directly contrary to many ancient canons, yet\nconsistent enough with the common law. This trade held on for many years\nafter the bishops became Protestants; and some of their names are still\nremembered with infamy, on account of enriching their families by such\nsacrilegious alienations. By these means, episcopal revenues were so low\nreduced, that three or four sees were often united to make a tolerable\ncompetency. For some remedy to this evil, King James the First, by a\nbounty that became a good Christian prince, bestowed several forfeited\nlands on the northern bishoprics: But in all other parts of the kingdom,\nthe Church continued still in the same distress and poverty; some of the\nsees hardly possessing enough to maintain a country vicar. About the\nmiddle of King Charles the First's reign, the legislature here thought\nfit to put a stop, at least, to any farther alienations; and so a law\nwas enacted, prohibiting all bishops, and other ecclesiastical\ncorporations, from setting their lands for above the term of twenty-one\nyears; the rent reserved to be one half of the real value of such lands\nat the time they were set, without which condition the lease to be void.\n\nSoon after the restoration of King Charles the Second, the parliament\ntaking into consideration the miserable estate of the Church, certain\nlands, by way of augmentation, were granted to eight bishops in the act\nof settlement, and confirmed in the act of explanation; of which bounty,\nas I remember, three sees were, in a great measure, defeated; but by\nwhat accidents, it is not here of any importance to relate.\n\nThis, at present, is the condition of the Church in Ireland, with regard\nto Episcopal revenues: Which I have thus briefly (and, perhaps,\nimperfectly) deduced for some information to those, whose thoughts do\nnot lead them to such considerations.\n\nBy virtue of the statute, already mentioned, under King Charles the\nFirst, limiting ecclesiastical bodies to the term of twenty-one years,\nunder the reserved rent of half real value, the bishops have had some\nshare in the gradual rise of lands, without which they could not have\nbeen supported, with any common decency that might become their station.\nIt is above eighty years since the passing of that act: The see of\nMeath, one of the best in the kingdom, was then worth about \u00a3400 _per\nannum_; the poorer ones in the same proportion. If this were their\npresent condition, I cannot conceive how they would have been able to\npay for their patents, or buy their robes: But this will certainly be\nthe condition of their successors, if such a bill should pass, as they\nsay is now intended, which I will suppose, and believe, many persons,\nwho may give a vote for it, are not aware of.\n\nHowever, this is the act which is now attempted to be repealed, or, at\nleast, eluded; some are for giving bishops leave to let fee-farms;\nothers would allow them to let leases for lives; and the most moderate\nwould repeal that clause, by which the bishops are bound to let their\nlands at half value.\n\nThe reasons for the rise of value in lands, are of two kinds. Of the\nfirst kind, are long peace and settlement after the devastations of war;\nplantations, improvements of bad soil, recovery of bogs and marshes,\nadvancement of trade and manufactures, increase of inhabitants,\nencouragement of agriculture, and the like.\n\nBut there is another reason for the rise of land, more gradual, constant\nand certain; which will have its effects in countries that are very far\nfrom flourishing in any of the advantages I have just mentioned: I mean\n_the perpetual decrease in the value of gold and silver_. I shall\ndiscourse upon these two different kinds, with a view towards the bill\nnow attempted.\n\nAs to the first: I cannot see how this kingdom is at any height of\nimprovement, while four parts in five of the plantations for 30 years\npast, have been real disimprovements; nine in ten of the quick-set\nhedges being ruined for want of care or skill. And as to forest trees,\nthey being often taken out of woods, and planted in single rows on the\ntops of ditches, it is impossible they should grow to be of use, beauty,\nor shelter. Neither can it be said, that the soil of Ireland is improved\nto its full height, while so much lies all winter under water, and the\nbogs made almost desperate by the ill cutting of the turf. There hath,\nindeed, been some little improvement in the manufactures of linen and\nwoollen, although very short of perfection: But our trade was never in\nso low a condition: And as to agriculture, of which all wise nations\nhave been so tender, the desolation made in the country by engrossing\ngraziers, and the great yearly importation of corn from England, are\nlamentable instances under what discouragement it lies.\n\nBut, notwithstanding all these mortifications, I suppose there is no\nwell-wisher to his country, without a little hope, that in time the\nkingdom may be on a better foot in some of the articles above mentioned.\nBut it would be hard, if ecclesiastical bodies should be the only\npersons excluded from any share in public advantages; which yet can\nnever happen, without a greater share of profit to their tenants: If God\n\"sends rain equally upon the just and the unjust;\" why should those who\nwait at His altars, and are instructors of the people, be cut off from\npartaking in the general benefits of law, or of nature?\n\nBut, as this way of reasoning may seem to bear a more favourable eye\nto the clergy, than perhaps will suit with the present disposition, or\nfashion of the age; I shall, therefore, dwell more largely upon the\nsecond reason for the rise of land, which is the perpetual decrease of\nthe value of gold and silver.\n\nThis may be observed from the course of the Roman history, above two\nthousand years before those inexhaustible silver mines of Potosi were\nknown. The value of an obolus, and of every other coin between the time\nof Romulus and that of Augustus, gradually sunk about five parts in six,\nas appears by several passages out of the best authors. And yet, the\nprodigious wealth of that state did not arise from the increase of\nbullion in the world, by the discovery of new mines, but from a much\nmore accidental cause, which was, the spreading of their conquests, and\nthereby importing into Rome and Italy, the riches of the east and west.\n\nWhen the seat of empire was removed to Constantinople, the tide of money\nflowed that way, without ever returning; and was scattered in Asia. But\nwhen that mighty empire was overthrown by the northern people, such a\nstop was put to all trade and commerce, that vast sums of money were\nburied, to escape the plundering of the conquerors; and what remained\nwas carried off by those ravagers.\n\nIt were no difficult matter to compute the value of money in England,\nduring the Saxon reigns; but the monkish and other writers since the\nConquest, have put that matter in a clearer light, by the several\naccounts they have given us of the value of corn and cattle, in years of\ndearth and plenty. Every one knows, that King John's whole portion,\nbefore he came to the crown, was but five thousand pounds, without a\nfoot of land.\n\nI have likewise seen the steward's accounts, of an ancient noble family\nin England, written in Latin, between three and four hundred years ago,\nwith the several prices of wine and victuals, to confirm my\nobservations.\n\nI have been at the trouble of computing (as others have done) the\ndifferent values of money for about four hundred years past. Henry Duke\nof Lancaster, who lived about that period, founded an hospital in\nLeicester, for a certain number of old men; charging his lands with a\ngroat a week to each for their maintenance, which is to this day duly\npaid them. In those times, a penny was equal to ten-pence half-penny,\nand somewhat more than half a farthing in ours; which makes about eight\nninths' difference.\n\nThis is plain also, from the old custom upon many estates in England, to\nlet for leases of lives, (renewable at pleasure) where the reserved rent\nis usually about twelve-pence a pound, which then was near the half real\nvalue: And although the fines be not fixed, yet the landlord gets\naltogether not above three shillings in the pound of the worth of his\nland: And the tenants are so wedded to this custom, that if the owner\nsuffer three lives to expire, none of them will take a lease on other\nconditions; or, if he brings in a foreigner who will agree to pay a\nreasonable rent, the other tenants, by all manner of injuries, will make\nthat foreigner so uneasy, that he must be forced to quit the farm; as\nthe late Earl of Bath felt, by the experience of above ten thousand\npounds loss.\n\nThe gradual decrease for about two hundred years after, was not\nconsiderable, and therefore I do not rely on the account given by some\nhistorians, that Harry the Seventh left behind him eighteen hundred\nthousand pounds; for although the West Indies were discovered before his\ndeath, and although he had the best talents and instruments for exacting\nof money, ever possessed by any prince since the time of Vespasian,\n(whom he resembled in many particulars); yet I conceive, that in his\ndays the whole coin of England could hardly amount to such a sum. For in\nthe reign of Philip and Mary, Sir Thomas Cokayne of Derbyshire, [1] the\nbest housekeeper of his quality in the county, allowed his lady fifty\npounds a year for maintaining the family, one pound a year wages to each\nservant, and two pounds to the steward; as I was told by a person of\nquality who had seen the original account of his economy. Now this sum\nof fifty pound, added to the advantages of a large domain, might be\nequal to about five hundred pounds a year at present, or somewhat more\nthan four-fifths.\n\n[Footnote 1: Sir Thomas Cokayne (1519?-1592), known as \"a professed\nhunter and not a scholler.\" He was the eldest son of Francis Cokayne, or\nCockaine, of Ashbourne, Derbyshire. One of his sons, Edward, was the\nfather of Thomas Cokayne, the lexicographer. Sir Thomas, in 1591,\npublished \"A Short Treatise of Hunting, compyled for the Delight of\nNoblemen and Gentlemen.\" [T. S.]]\n\nThe great plenty of silver in England began in Queen Elizabeth's reign,\nwhen Drake, and others, took vast quantities of coin and bullion from\nthe Spaniards, either upon their own American coasts, or in their return\nto Spain. However, so much hath been imported annually from that time to\nthis, that the value of money in England, and most parts of Europe, is\nsunk above one half within the space of an hundred years,\nnotwithstanding the great export of silver for about eighty years past,\nto the East Indies, from whence it never returns. But gold being not\nliable to the same accident, and by new discoveries growing every day\nmore plentiful, seems in danger of becoming a drug.\n\nThis hath been the progress of the value of money in former ages, and\nmust of necessity continue so for the future, without some new invasion\nof Goths and Vandals to destroy law, property and religion, alter the\nvery face of nature; and turn the world upside down.\n\nI must repeat, that what I am to say upon this subject, is intended only\nfor the conviction of those among our own party, who are true lovers of\nthe Church, and would be glad it should continue in a tolerable degree\nof prosperity to the end of the world.\n\nThe Church is supposed to last for ever, both in its discipline and\ndoctrine; which is a privilege common to every petty corporation, who\nmust likewise observe the laws of their foundation. If a gentleman's\nestate which now yields him a thousand pounds a year, had been set for\never at the highest value, even in the flourishing days of King Charles\nthe Second, would it now amount to above four or five hundred at most?\nWhat if this had happened two or three hundred years ago; would the\nreserved rent at this day be any more than a small chiefry? Suppose the\nrevenues of a bishop to have been under the same circumstances; could he\nnow be able to perform works of hospitality and charity? Thus, if the\nrevenues of a bishop be limited to a thousand pounds a year; how will\nhis successor be in a condition to support his station with decency,\nwhen the same denomination of money shall not answer an half, a quarter,\nor an eighth part of that sum? Which must unavoidably be the consequence\nof any bill to elude the limiting act, whereby the Church was preserved\nfrom utter ruin.\n\nThe same reason holds good in all corporations whatsoever, who cannot\nfollow a more pernicious practice than that of granting perpetuities,\nfor which many of them smart to this day; although the leaders among\nthem are often so stupid as not to perceive it, or sometimes so knavish\nas to find their private account in cheating the community.\n\nSeveral colleges in Oxford, were aware of this growing evil about an\nhundred years ago; and, instead of limiting their rents to a certain sum\nof money, prevailed with their tenants to pay the price of so many\nbarrels of corn, to be valued as the market went, at two seasons (as I\nremember) in the year. For a barrel of corn is of a real intrinsic\nvalue, which gold and silver are not: And by this invention, these\ncolleges have preserved a tolerable subsistence, for their fellows and\nstudents, to this day.\n\nThe present bishops will, indeed be no sufferers by such a bill;\nbecause, their ages considered, they cannot expect to see any great\ndecrease in the value of money; or, at worst, they can make it up in the\nfines, which will probably be greater than usual, upon the change of\nleases into fee-farms, or lives; or without the power of obliging their\ntenants to a real half value. And, as I cannot well blame them for\ntaking such advantages, (considering the nature of human kind) when the\nquestion is only, whether the money shall be put into their own or\nanother man's pocket: So they will be never excusable before God or man,\nif they do not to the death oppose, declare, and protest against any\nsuch bill, as must in its consequences complete the ruin of the Church,\nand of their own order in this kingdom.\n\nIf the fortune of a private person be diminished by the weakness, or\ninadvertency of his ancestors, in letting leases for ever at low rents,\nthe world lies open to his industry for purchasing of more; but the\nChurch is barred by a _dead hand_; or if it were otherwise, yet the\ncustom of making bequests to it, hath been out of practice for almost\ntwo hundred years, and a great deal directly contrary hath been its\nfortune.\n\nI have been assured by a person of some consequence, to whom I am\nlikewise obliged for the account of some other facts already related,\nthat the late Bishop of Salisbury,[2] (the greatest Whig of that bench\nin his days) confessed to him, that the liberty which bishops in England\nhave of letting leases for lives, would, in his opinion, be one day the\nruin of Episcopacy there; and thought the Church in this kingdom happy\nby the limitation act.\n\n[Footnote 2: Dr. Barnet.]\n\nAnd have we not already found the effect of this different proceeding in\nboth kingdoms? Have not two English prelates quitted their peerage and\nseats in Parliament, in a nation of freedom, for the sake of a more\nample revenue, even in this unhappy kingdom, rather than lie under the\nmortification of living below their dignity at home? For which, however,\nthey cannot be justly censured. I know indeed, some persons, who offer,\nas an argument for repealing the limiting bill, that it may in future\nages prevent the practice of providing this kingdom with bishops from\nEngland, when the only temptation will be removed. And they allege,\nthat, as things have gone for some years past, gentlemen will grow\ndiscouraged from sending their sons to the university, and from\nsuffering them to enter into holy orders, when they are likely to\nlanguish under a curacy, or small vicarage, to the end of their lives:\nBut this is all a vain imagination; for the decrease in the value of\nmoney will equally affect both kingdoms: And besides, when bishoprics\nhere grow too small to invite over men of credit and consequence, they\nwill be left more fully to the disposal of a chief governor, who can\nnever fail of some worthless illiterate chaplain, fond of a title and\nprecedence. Thus will that whole bench, in an age or two, be composed of\nmean, ignorant, fawning gownmen, humble suppliants and dependants upon\nthe court for a morsel of bread, and ready to serve every turn that\nshall be demanded from them, in hopes of getting some _commendam_ tacked\nto their sees; which must then be the trade, as it is now too much in\nEngland, to the great discouragement of the inferior clergy. Neither is\nthat practice without example among us.\n\nIt is now about eighty-five years since the passing of that limiting\nact, and there is but one instance, in the memory of man, of a bishop's\nlease broken upon the plea of not being statutable; which, in\neverybody's opinion, could have been lost by no other person than he who\nwas then tenant, and happened to be very ungracious in his county. In\nthe present Bishop of Meath's[3] case, that plea did not avail, although\nthe lease were notoriously unstatutable; the rent reserved, being, as I\nhave been told, not a seventh part of the real value; yet the jury, upon\ntheir oaths, very gravely found it to be according to the statute; and\none of them was heard to say, That he would _eat his shoes_ before he\nwould give a verdict for the bishop. A very few more have made the same\nattempt with as little success. Every bishop, and other ecclesiastical\nbody, reckon forty pounds in an hundred to be a reasonable half value;\nor if it be only a third part, it seldom, or never, breeds any\ndifference between landlord and tenant. But when the rent is from five\nto nine or ten parts less than the worth; the bishop, if he consults the\ngood of his see, will be apt to expostulate; and the tenant, if he be an\nhonest man, will have some regard to the reasonableness and justice of\nthe demand, so as to yield to a moderate advancement, rather than engage\nin a suit, where law and equity are directly against him. By these\nmeans, the bishops have been so true to their trusts, as to procure some\nsmall share in the advancement of rents; although it be notorious that\nthey do not receive the third penny (fines included) of the real value\nof their lands throughout the kingdom.\n\n[Footnote 3: Dr. Evans, a Welchman. [Faulkner, 1735.]]\n\nI was never able to imagine what inconvenience could accrue to the\npublic, by one or two thousand pounds a year, in the hands of a\nProtestant bishop, any more than of a lay person.[4] The former,\ngenerally speaking, liveth as piously and hospitably as the other; pays\nhis debts as honestly, and spends as much of his revenue among his\ntenants: Besides, if they be his immediate tenants, you may distinguish\nthem, at first sight, by their habits and horses; or if you go to their\nhouses, by their comfortable way of living. But the misfortune is, that\nsuch immediate tenants, generally speaking, have others under them, and\nso a third and fourth in subordination, till it comes to the welder (as\nthey call him) who sits at a rack-rent, and lives as miserably as an\nIrish farmer upon a new lease from a lay landlord. But suppose a bishop\nhappens to be avaricious, (as being composed of the same stuff with\nother men) the consequence to the public is no worse than if he were a\nsquire; for he leaves his fortune to his son, or near relation, who, if\nhe be rich enough, will never think of entering into the Church.\n\n[Footnote 4: This part of the paragraph is to be applied to the period\nwhen the whole was written, which was in 1723, when several of Queen\nAnne's bishops were living. [Note in edition of 1761, as amended from\nthe edition of 1735. T.S.]]\n\nAnd, as there can be no disadvantage to the public, in a Protestant\ncountry, that a man should hold lands as a bishop, any more than if he\nwere a temporal person; so it is of great advantage to the community,\nwhere a bishop lives as he ought to do. He is bound, in conscience, to\nreside in his diocese, and, by a solemn promise, to keep hospitality;\nhis estate is spent in the kingdom, not remitted to England; he keeps\nthe clergy to their duty, and is an example of virtue both to them and\nthe people. Suppose him an ill man; yet his very character will withhold\nhim from any great or open exorbitancies. But, in fact, it must be\nallowed, that some bishops of this kingdom, within twenty years past,\nhave done very signal and lasting acts of public charity; great\ninstances whereof, are the late[5] and present[6] Primate, the Lord\nArchbishop of Dublin[7] that now is, who hath left memorials of his\nbounty in many parts of his province. I might add, the Bishop of\nRaphoe,[8] and several others: Not forgetting the late Dean of Down, Dr.\nPratt, who bestowed one thousand pounds upon the university: Which\nfoundation, (that I may observe by the way) if the bill proposed should\npass, would be in the same circumstances with the bishops, nor ever able\nagain to advance the stipends of the fellows and students, as lately\nthey found it necessary to do; the determinate sum appointed by the\nstatute for commons, being not half sufficient, by the fall of money, to\nafford necessary sustenance. But the passing of such a bill must put an\nend to all ecclesiastical beneficence for the time to come; and whether\nthis will be supplied by those who are to reap the benefit, better than\nit hath been done by the grantees of impropriate tithes, who received\nthem upon the old church conditions of keeping hospitality; it will be\neasy to conjecture.\n\n[Footnote 5: Dr. Marsh.]\n\n[Footnote 6: Dr. Lindsay.]\n\n[Footnote 7: Dr. King.]\n\n[Footnote 8: Dr. Forster.]\n\nTo allege, that passing such a bill would be a good encouragement to\nimprove bishops' lands, is a great error. Is it not the general method\nof landlords, to wait the expiration of a lease, and then cant[9] their\nlands to the highest bidder? And what should hinder the same course to\nbe taken in church leases, when the limitation is removed of paying half\nthe real value to the bishop? In riding through the country, how few\nimprovements do we see upon the estates of laymen, farther than about\ntheir own domains? To say the truth, it is a great misfortune as well to\nthe public as to the bishops themselves, that their lands are generally\nlet to lords and great squires, who, in reason, were never designed to\nbe tenants; and therefore may naturally murmur at the payment of rent,\nas a subserviency they were not born to. If the tenants to the Church\nwere honest farmers, they would pay their fines and rents with\ncheerfulness, improve their lands, and thank God they were to give but a\nmoderate half value for what they held. I have heard a man of a thousand\npounds a year, talk with great contempt of bishops' leases, as being on\na worse foot than the rest of his estate; and he had certainly reason:\nMy answer was, that such leases were originally intended only for the\nbenefit of industrious husbandmen, who would think it a great blessing\nto be so provided for, instead of having his farm screwed up to the\nheight, not eating one comfortable meal in a year, nor able to find\nshoes for his children.\n\n[Footnote 9: To cant means to call for bidders at an auction sale.\nProbably derived from the O. French _cant = quantum_ = how much. [T.S.]]\n\nI know not any advantage that can accrue by such a bill, except the\npreventing of perjury in jurymen, and false dealing in tenants; which is\na remedy like that of giving my money to an highwayman, before he\nattempts to take it by force; and so I shall be sure to prevent the sin\nof robbery.\n\nI had wrote thus far, and thought to have put an end; when a bookseller\nsent me a small pamphlet, entitled, \"The Case of the Laity, with some\nQueries;\" full of the strongest malice against the clergy, that I have\nanywhere met with since the reign of Toland, and others of that tribe.\nThese kinds of advocates do infinite mischief to OUR GOOD CAUSE, by\ngiving grounds to the unjust reproaches of TORIES and JACOBITES, who\ncharge us with being enemies to the Church. If I bear an hearty\nunfeigned loyalty to his Majesty King George, and the House of Hanover,\nnot shaken in the least by the hardships we lie under, which never can\nbe imputable to so gracious a prince: If I sincerely abjure the\nPretender, and all Popish successors; if I bear a due veneration to the\nglorious memory of the late King William, who preserved these kingdoms\nfrom Popery and slavery, with the expense of his blood, and hazard of\nhis life: And lastly, if I am for a proper indulgence to all dissenters;\nI think nothing more can be reasonably demanded of me as a WHIG, and\nthat my political catechism is full and complete. But whoever, under the\nshelter of that party denomination, and of many great professions of\nloyalty, would destroy, or undermine, or injure the Church established;\nI utterly disown him, and think he ought to choose another name of\ndistinction for himself, and his adherents. I came into the cause upon\nother principles, which, by the grace of God, I mean to preserve as long\nas I live. Shall we justify the accusations of our adversaries? _Hoc\nIthacus velit_--The Tories and Jacobites will behold us with a malicious\npleasure, determined upon the ruin of our friends: For is not the\npresent set of bishops almost entirely of that number, as well as a\ngreat majority of the principal clergy? And a short time will reduce the\nwhole, by vacancies upon death.\n\nAn impartial reader, if he pleases to examine what I have already said,\nwill easily answer the bold \"Queries\" in the pamphlet I mentioned: He\nwill be convinced, that \"the reason still strongly exists, for which\"\nthat limiting law was enacted. A reasonable man will wonder, where can\nbe the insufferable grievance, that an ecclesiastical landlord should\nexpect a moderate, or third part value in rent for his lands, when his\ntitle is, _at least_, as ancient and as legal as that of a layman; who\nis yet but seldom guilty of giving such beneficial bargains. Has \"the\nnation been thrown into confusion\"? And have \"many poor families been\nruined\" by rack-rents paid for the lands of the church? Does \"the nation\ncry out\" to have a law that must, in time, send their bishops a-begging?\nBut, God be thanked, the clamour of enemies to the Church is not yet the\ncry, and, I hope, will never prove the voice of the nation. The clergy,\nI conceive, will hardly allow that \"the people maintain them,\" any more\nthan in the sense, that all landlords whatsoever are maintained by the\npeople. Such assertions as these, and the insinuations they carry along\nwith them, proceed from principles which cannot be avowed by those who\nare for preserving the happy constitution in Church and State. Whoever\nwere the proposers of such \"queries,\" it might have provoked a bold\nwriter to retaliate, perhaps with more justice than prudence, by shewing\nat whose door the grievance lies, and that the bishops, _at least_, are\nnot to answer for the poverty of tenants.\n\nTo gratify this great reformer, who enlarges the episcopal rent-roll\nalmost one half; let me suppose that all the Church lands in the kingdom\nwere thrown up to the laity; would the tenants, in such a case, sit\neasier in their rents than they do now? Or, would the money be equally\nspent in the kingdom? No: The farmer would be screwed up to the utmost\npenny, by the agents and stewards of absentees, and the revenues\nemployed in making a figure at London; to which city a full third part\nof the whole income of Ireland is annually returned, to answer that\nsingle article of maintenance for Irish landlords.\n\nAnother of his quarrels is against pluralities and non-residence: As to\nthe former, it is a word of ill name, but not well understood. The\nclergy having been stripped of the greatest part of their revenues, the\nglebes being generally lost, the tithes in the hands of laymen, the\nchurches demolished, and the country depopulated; in order to preserve a\nface of Christianity, it was necessary to unite small vicarages,\nsufficient to make a tolerable maintenance for a minister. The profit of\nten or a dozen of these unions, do seldom amount to above eighty or an\nhundred pounds a year: If there be a very few dignitaries, whose\npreferments are, perhaps, more liable to this accusation, it is to be\nsupposed, they may be favourites of the time, or persons of superior\nmerit, for whom there hath ever been some indulgence in all governments.\n\nAs to non-residence, I believe there is no Christian country upon earth,\nwhere the clergy have less to answer for upon that article. I am\nconfident there are not ten clergymen in the kingdom, who, properly\nspeaking, can be termed non-residents: For surely, we are not to reckon\nin that number, those who, for want of glebes, are forced to retire to\nthe nearest neighbouring village for a cabin to put their heads in; the\nleading man of the parish, when he makes the greatest clamour, being\nleast disposed to accommodate the minister with an acre of ground. And,\nindeed, considering the difficulties the clergy lie under upon this\nhead, it hath been frequent matter of wonder to me, how they are able to\nperform that part of their duty as well as they do.\n\nThere is a noble author,[10] who hath lately addressed to the House of\nCommons, an excellent discourse for the \"Encouragement of Agriculture\";\nfull of most useful hints, which, I hope, that honourable assembly will\nconsider as they deserve. I am not a stranger to his lordship; and,\nexcepting in what relates to the Church, there are few persons with\nwhose opinions I am better pleased to agree; and am, therefore, grieved\nwhen I find him charging the inconveniencies in the payment of tithes\nupon the clergy and their proctors. His lordship is above considering a\nvery known and vulgar truth, that the meanest farmer hath all manner of\nadvantages against the most powerful clergyman, by whom it is impossible\nhe can be wronged, although the minister were ever so evil disposed; the\nwhole system of teasing, perplexing, and defrauding the proctor, or his\nmaster, being as well known to every ploughman, as the reaping or sowing\nof his corn, and much more artfully practised. Besides, the leading man\nin the parish must have his tithes at his own rate, which is hardly ever\nabove one quarter of the value. And I have heard it computed by many\nskilful observers, whose interest was not concerned, that the clergy did\nnot receive, throughout the kingdom, one half of what the laws have made\ntheir due.\n\n[Footnote 10: The late Lord Molesworth.]\n\nAs to his lordship's discontent against the Bishops' Courts, I shall not\ninterpose further than in venturing my private opinion, that the clergy\nwould be very glad to recover their just dues by a more short, decisive,\nand compulsive method, than such a cramped and limited jurisdiction will\nallow.\n\nHis lordship is not the only person disposed to give the clergy the\nhonour of being the _sole_ encouragers of all new improvements. If hops,\nhemp, flax, and twenty things more are to be planted, the clergy,\n_alone_, must reward the industrious farmer, by abatement of the tithe.\nWhat if the owner of nine parts in ten would please to abate\nproportionably in his rent, for every acre thus improved? Would not a\nman just dropped from the clouds, upon a full hearing, judge the demand\nto be, at least, as reasonable?\n\nI believe no man will dispute his lordship's title to his estate; nor\nwill I the _jus divinum_ of tithes, which he mentions with some emotion.\nI suppose the affirmative would be of little advantage to the clergy,\nfor the same reason that a maxim in law hath more weight in the world\nthan an article of faith. And yet, I think there may be such a thing as\nsacrilege; because it is frequently mentioned by Greek and Roman\nauthors, as well as described in Holy Writ. This I am sure of; that his\nlordship would, at any time, excuse a parliament for not concerning\nitself in his properties, without his own consent.\n\nThe observations I have made upon his lordship's discourse, have not, I\nconfess, been altogether proper to my subject: However, since he hath\nbeen pleased therein to offer some proposals to the House of Commons,\nwith relation to the clergy, I hope he will excuse me for differing from\nhim; which proceeds from his own principle, the desire of defending\nliberty and property, that he hath so strenuously and constantly\nmaintained.\n\nBut the other writer openly declares for a law, empowering the bishops\nto set fee-farms; and says, \"Whoever intimates that they will deny their\nconsent to such a reasonable law, which the whole nation cries for, are\nenemies to them and the Church.\" Whether this be his real opinion, or\nonly a strain of mirth and irony, the matter is not much. However, my\nsentiments are so directly contrary to his; that I think, whoever\nimpartially reads and considers what I have written upon this argument,\nhath either no regard for the Church established under the hierarchy of\nbishops, or will never consent to any law that shall repeal, or elude\nthe limiting clause, relating to the real half value, contained in the\nact of parliament _decimo Caroli_, \"For the preservation of the\ninheritance, rights and profits of lands belonging to the Church, and\npersons ecclesiastical\"; which was grounded upon reasons that do still,\nand must for ever subsist.\n\nOctober 21, 1723.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\n[REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED]\n\nTO HIS GRACE\n\nWILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF\n\nDUBLIN, &c.\n\nTHE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE CLERGY\n\nOF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nScott's text has been collated with that given in volume eight of the\nquarto edition of Swift's Works (1765). In that edition the title is\ngiven as: \"The Representation of the Clergy of Dublin,\" &c.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  [REASONS HUMBLY OFFERED] TO HIS\n  GRACE WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP\n  OF DUBLIN, &c.[1]\n  THE HUMBLE REPRESENTATION OF THE CLERGY\n  OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.\n\n[Footnote 1: William King, D.D. (1650-1729), Archbishop of Dublin, was\nborn in Antrim, and educated at a school at Dungannon and Trinity\nCollege, Dublin. He was installed Dean of St. Patrick's in 1688-9\n(February 1st). For his open espousal of the Prince of Orange, he was\nconfined to the Castle, and suffered many indignities. In 1690-1\n(January 9th) he was promoted to the see of Derry. His conduct through\nlife was that of an ardent Irish Protestant patriot. He fought against\nSectarianism, Roman Catholicism, and the interference of the English\nParliament in Irish affairs. He opposed the Toleration Bill, and\nprotested against the act confirming the Articles of Limerick. His\nrelationship with Swift became close when he sent the vicar of Laracor\nto London, to obtain for the Irish clergy the restoration of the\nfirst-fruits and twentieth parts; but it was a relationship never\ncemented by feelings warmer than those of esteem. King acknowledged the\nability of Swift, but found him ambitious and overbearingly proud.\nThroughout life he remained a consistent High Churchman, and a strenuous\nsupporter of the rights of the Church in Ireland, but his attempt, in\n1727, to interfere with the affairs of the Deanery of St. Patrick's,\nbrought down upon him Swift's wrath, and an open quarrel ensued which\nwas partly softened by the Archbishop retiring from the matter and\ntacitly acknowledging Swift's right.\n\nKing's chief published work is his treatise \"De Origine Mali,\" published\nin 1702, and received with respectful consideration by the eminent\nthinkers of the day. He wrote other minor works, but none of any\ndistinguished merit. He succeeded Narcissus Marsh as Archbishop of\nDublin in 1702-3 (March 11th). Swift's letters to King during the\nformer's embassy on the matter of first-fruits, make a most interesting\nchapter in the six volumes which Scott devotes to Swift's\ncorrespondence. T. S.]\n\nJan. 1724.\n\nMY LORD,\n\nYour Grace having been pleased to communicate to us a certain brief, by\nletters patents, for the relief of one Charles M'Carthy, whose house in\nCollege-Green, Dublin, was burnt by an accidental fire; and having\ndesired us to consider of the said brief, and give our opinions thereof\nto your Grace;\n\nWe the Clergy of the city of Dublin, in compliance with your Grace's\ndesire, and with great acknowledgments for your paternal tenderness\ntowards us, having maturely considered the said brief by letters\npatents, compared the several parts of it with what is enjoined us by\nthe rubric, (which is confirmed by act of parliament) and consulted\npersons skilled in the laws of the Church; do, in the names of ourselves\nand of the rest of our brethren, the Clergy of the diocese of Dublin,\nmost humbly represent to your Grace:\n\nFirst, That, by this brief, your Grace is required and commanded, to\nrecommend and command all the parsons, vicars, &c., to advance so great\nan act of charity.\n\nWe shall not presume to determine how far your Grace may be commanded by\nthe said brief; but we humbly conceive that the Clergy of your diocese\ncannot, by any law now in being, be commanded by your Grace to advance\nthe said act of charity, any other ways than by reading the said brief\nin our several churches, as prescribed by the rubric.\n\nSecondly, Whereas it is said in the said brief, \"That the parsons,\nvicars, &c. upon the first Lord's day, or opportunity after the receipt\nof the copy of the said brief, shall, deliberately and affectionately,\npublish and declare the tenor thereof to His Majesty's subjects, and\nearnestly persuade, exhort, and stir them up to contribute freely and\ncheerfully towards the relief of the said sufferer;\"\n\nWe do not comprehend what is meant by the word _opportunity_. We never\ndo preach upon any day except the Lord's day, or some solemn days\nlegally appointed; neither is it possible for the strongest constitution\namong us to obey this command (which includes no less than a whole\nsermon) upon any other opportunity than when our people are met together\nin the church; and to perform this work in every house where the\nparishes are very populous, consisting sometimes here in town of 900 or\n1,000 houses, would take up the space of a year, although we should\npreach in two families every day; and almost as much time in the\ncountry, where the parishes are of large extent, the roads bad, and the\npeople too poor to receive us, and give charity at once.\n\nBut, if it be meant that these exhortations are commanded to be made in\nthe church, upon the Lord's day, we are humbly of opinion, that it is\nleft to the discretion of the clergy, to choose what subjects they think\nmost proper to preach on, and at what times; and, if they preach either\nfalse doctrine or seditious principles, they are liable to be punished.\n\nIt may possibly happen that the sufferer recommended may be a person not\ndeserving the favour intended by the brief; in which case no minister,\nwho knows the sufferer to be an undeserving person, can with a safe\nconscience, deliberately and affectionately publish the brief, much less\nearnestly persuade, exhort, and stir up the people to contribute freely\nand cheerfully towards the relief of such a sufferer.[2]\n\n[Footnote 2: This M'Carthy's house was burnt in the month of August\n1723, and the universal opinion of mankind was, that M'Carthy himself\nwas the person who had set fire to the house. [Note in edition of\nSwift's Works, vol. viii., 1765, 4to.]]\n\nThirdly, Whereas in the said brief the ministers and curates are\nrequired, \"on the week-days next after the Lord's day when the brief was\nread, to go from house to house, with their church-wardens, to ask and\nreceive from all persons the said charity:\" We cannot but observe here,\nthat the said ministers are directly made collectors of the said charity\nin conjunction with the church-wardens; which however, we presume, was\nnot intended, as being against all law and precedent: And therefore, we\napprehend, there may be some inconsistency, which leaves us at a loss\nhow to proceed. For, in the next paragraph, the ministers and curates\nare only required, where they conveniently can, to accompany the\nchurch-wardens, or procure some other of the chief inhabitants, to do\nthe same. And, in a following paragraph, the whole work seems left\nentirely to the church-wardens, who are required to use their utmost\ndiligence to gather and collect the said charity, and to pay the same,\nin ten days after, to the parson, vicar, &c.\n\nIn answer to this, we do represent to your Grace our humble opinion,\nthat neither we nor our church-wardens can be legally commanded or\nrequired to go from house to house to receive the said charity; because\nyour Grace hath informed us in your order, at your visitation An. Dom.\n1712, that neither we nor our church-wardens are bound to make any\ncollections for the poor, save in the church; which also appears plainly\nby the rubric, that appoints both time and place, as your Grace hath\nobserved in your said order.\n\nWe do likewise assure your Grace, that it is not in our power to procure\nsome of the chief inhabitants of our parishes to accompany the\nchurch-wardens from house to house in these collections: And we have\nreason to believe, that such a proposal, made to our chief inhabitants\n(particularly in this city, where our chief inhabitants are often peers\nof the land) would be received in a manner very little to our own\nsatisfaction, or to the advantage of the said collections.\n\nFourthly, The brief doth will, require, and command the bishops, and all\nother dignitaries of the Church, that they make their contributions\ndistinctly, to be returned in the several provinces to the several\narchbishops of the same.\n\nUpon which we take leave to observe that the terms of expression here\nare of the strongest kind, and in a point that may subject the said\ndignitaries (for we shall say nothing of the bishops) to great\ninconveniencies.\n\nThe said dignitaries are here willed, required, and commanded to make\ntheir contributions distinctly; by which it should seem that they are\nabsolutely commanded to make contributions (for the word _distinctly_ is\nbut a circumstance), and may be understood not very agreeable to a\nvoluntary, cheerful contribution. And therefore, if any bishop or\ndignitary should refuse to make his contribution, (perhaps for very good\nreasons) he may be thought to incur the crime of disobedience to His\nMajesty, which all good subjects abhor, when such a command is according\nto law.\n\nMost dignities of this kingdom consist only of parochial tithes, and the\ndignitaries are ministers of parishes. A doubt may therefore arise,\nwhether the said dignitaries are willed, required, and commanded, to\nmake their contributions in both capacities, distinctly as dignitaries,\nand jointly as parsons or vicars.\n\nMany dignities in this kingdom are the poorest kind of benefices; and it\nshould seem hard to put poor dignitaries under the necessity either of\nmaking greater contributions than they can afford, or of exposing\nthemselves to the censure of wanting charity, by making their\ncontributions public.\n\nOur Saviour commands us, in works of charity, to \"let not our left hand\nknow what our right hand doeth;\" which cannot well consist with our\nbeing willed, required, and commanded by any earthly power, where no law\nis prescribed, to publish our charity to the world, if we have a mind to\nconceal it.\n\nFifthly, Whereas it is said in the said brief, \"That the parson, vicar,\n&c. of every parish, shall, in six days after the receipt of the said\ncharity, return it to his respective chancellor, &c.\" This may be a\ngreat grievance, hazard, and expense to the said parson, in remote and\ndesolate parts of the country, where often an honest messenger (if such\na one can be got) must be hired to travel forty or fifty miles going and\ncoming; which will probably cost more than the value of the contribution\nhe carries with him. And this charge, if briefs should happen to be\nfrequent, would be enough to undo many a poor clergyman in the kingdom.\n\nSixthly, We observe in the said brief, that the provost and fellows of\nthe University, judges, officers of the courts, and professors of laws\ncommon and civil, are neither willed, required, nor commanded to make\ntheir contributions; but that so good a work is only recommended to\nthem. Whereas we conceive, that all His Majesty's subjects are equally\nobliged, with or without His Majesty's commands, to promote works of\ncharity according to their power; and that the clergy, in their\necclesiastical capacity, are only liable to such commands as the rubric,\nor any other law shall enjoin, being born to the same privileges of\nfreedom with the rest of His Majesty's subjects.\n\nWe cannot but observe to your Grace, that, in the English act of the\nfourth year of Queen Anne, for the better collecting charity money on\nbriefs by letters-patent, &c. the ministers are obliged only to read the\nbriefs in their churches, without any particular exhortations; neither\nare they commanded to go from house to house with the church-wardens,\nnor to send the money collected to their respective chancellors, but pay\nit to the undertaker or agent of the sufferer. So that, we humbly hope,\nthe clergy of this kingdom shall not, without any law in being, be put\nto greater hardships in this case than their brethren in England, where\nthe legislature, intending to prevent the abuses in collecting charity\nmoney on briefs, did not think fit to put the clergy under any of those\ndifficulties we now complain of, in the present brief by letters patent,\nfor the relief of Charles M'Carthy aforesaid.\n\nThe collections upon the Lord's day are the principal support of our own\nnumerous poor in our several parishes; and therefore every single brief,\nwith the benefit of a full collection over the whole kingdom, must\ndeprive several thousands of poor of their weekly maintenance, for the\nsake only of one person, who often becomes a sufferer by his own folly\nor negligence, and is sure to overvalue his losses double or treble: So\nthat, if this precedent be followed, as it certainly will if the present\nbrief should succeed, we may probably have a new brief every week; and\nthus, for the advantage of fifty-two persons, whereof not one in ten is\ndeserving, and for the interest of a dozen dexterous clerks and\nsecretaries, the whole poor in the kingdom will be likely to starve.\n\nWe are credibly informed, that neither the officers of the Lord Primate,\nin preparing the report of his Grace's opinion, nor those of the\ngreat-seal, in passing the patent for briefs, will remit any of their\nfees, both which do amount to a considerable sum: And thus the good\nintentions of well-disposed people are in a great measure disappointed,\na large part of their charity being anticipated, and alienated by fees\nand gratuities.\n\nLastly, We cannot but represent to your Grace our great concern and\ngrief, to see the pains and labour of our church-wardens so much\nincreased, by the injunctions and commands put upon them in this brief,\nto the great disadvantage of the clergy and the people, as well as to\ntheir own trouble, damage, and loss of time, to which great additions\nhave been already made, by laws appointing them to collect the taxes for\nthe watch and the poor-house, which they bear with great unwillingness;\nand, if they shall find themselves further laden with such briefs as\nthis of M'Carthy, it will prove so great a discouragement, that we shall\nnever be able to provide honest and sufficient persons for that weighty\noffice of church-warden, so necessary to the laity as well as the\nclergy, in all things that relate to the order and regulation of\nparishes.\n\nUpon all these considerations, we humbly hope that your Grace, of whose\nfatherly care, vigilance, and tenderness, we have had so many and great\ninstances, will represent our case to his Most Excellent Majesty, or to\nthe chief governor in this kingdom, in such a manner, that we may be\nneither under the necessity of declining His Majesty's commands in his\nletters patent, or of taking new and grievous burthens upon ourselves\nand our church-wardens, to which neither the rubric nor any other law in\nforce oblige us to submit.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nON\n\nTHE   BILL\n\nFOR\n\nTHE CLERGY'S RESIDING ON THEIR LIVINGS.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nIn the note to the tract, \"Some Arguments against enlarging the Power of\nBishops in letting Leases\" (p. 219), it was pointed out that the Bill\nagainst which this tract was written was an attempt on the part of the\nbishops to get back a power which they once had abused. Failing in this\nattempt, in 1723, they renewed the attack in 1731 by promoting two\nbills, one called a Bill of Residence, the other a Bill of Division.\n\nThe ostensible object of the Bill of Residence was to compel the clergy\nto reside on their livings. By this bill, any person taking a benefice,\nwith cure of souls, of the annual value of \u00a3100, was forced, if the land\nattached to that benefice had no house fit for residence, to build one\nthereon, in any situation the bishop might think suitable, this house to\ncost one year and a half's income, and to be completed within a time\nfixed by the bishop. It will at once be seen that the power over the\ninferior clergy which this bill placed in the bishops' hands was by no\nmeans insignificant; and Swift felt that to make such a bill law would\nnot only tend to impoverish, the inferior clergy, but would place them\nin a position of subjection at once degrading and dispiriting. He\nopposed the bill, with the consequence that the House of Commons\nrejected it.\n\nBy the Bill of Division \"it was intended to be enacted that whenever a\nchurch should become vacant, although the incumbent should refuse his\nconsent, it might be lawful for the chief governor, with the assent of\nthe major part of the Privy Council, six at least consenting, by and\nwith the consent of the ordinary and the patron, to subdivide any parish\ninto as many portions as they might think fit, provided that, after such\ndivision, the church of the old parish should continue worth, at the\nleast, \u00a3300 per annum.\" This bill, which passed the House of Lords two\ndays after the Bill of Residence, Swift opposed in a spirited and\nsomewhat bitter manner. His opposition largely influenced the Lower\nHouse in rejecting it. The two tracts which state the grounds of his\nopposition to both bills are the present one, and the following tract,\n\"Considerations upon two Bills, sent down from the House of Lords to the\nHouse of Commons in Ireland, relating to the Clergy.\"\n\nScott notes that the \"tone of _aigreur_,\" which is more distinctly felt\nin the second of these tracts, intimates a \"deep dissatisfaction with\nlate ecclesiastical preferments, which may perhaps be traced as much to\npersonal disappointment as to any better cause;\" a statement which it\nwas hardly worth making; since, however deep may have been Swift's\npersonal feelings, he never allowed them to be the impelling motive to\nhis work. It should suffice us to know that the cause which Swift\nespoused was a disinterested one. As Vicar of Laracor he knew what it\nwas to make a shift of living on an insufficient income; and it may have\nbeen, this experience as much as \"personal disappointment\" which gave\npungency to his criticism. It is easy enough to find questionable\nmotives for a satirist, especially when that satirist is Swift; let us\nnot, however, forget that in his case the personal element was never\npermitted to overweight the impersonal purpose. Other men when they\nreach prosperity often forget or ignore the hard conditions of their\nprevious state; to Swift these conditions were always existing factors\nin his considerations for the amelioration of his fellow-men. This it is\nwhich gives to his writings so much of the \"tone of _aigreur_.\"\n\nIn his letter to John Stearne, Bishop of Clogher, dated July, 1733,\nwhich is one of Swift's most characteristic epistles--characteristic,\nbecause the embodiment of truthful candour--he gives no equivocal\nexpression of opinion on these two bills. He calls them, \"abominable\nbills, for enslaving and beggaring the clergy, (which took their birth\nfrom hell).\" \"I call God to witness,\" he adds, \"that I did then, and do\nnow, and shall for ever, firmly believe, that every Bishop who gave his\nvote for either of these bills, did it with no other view (bating\nfurther promotion), than a premeditated design, from the spirit of\nambition, and love of arbitrary power, to make the whole body of the\nclergy their slaves and vassals until the day of judgment, under the\nload of poverty and contempt.\"\n\nAbout the same time, 1732, appeared another pamphlet entitled, \"The\nReconciler ... shewing how all the good ends proposed by either of those\nbills, may, by a more gentle and easy method, be attained, without\ninjury to the rights of my lords the bishops; or rigour and violence to\nthe inferior clergy.\" In the main, the writer agrees with Swift; but the\ntract is valuable as showing that the controversy was no small one, and\nit furnishes also what is, apparently, an impartial history of the whole\naffair. Three Irish prelates voted against the bills on a\ndivision--Theophilus Bolton, Archbishop of Cashel, Charles Carr, Bishop\nof Killaloe, and Robert Howard, Bishop of Elphin.\n\nThe text of this tract is based on that which appeared in a volume of\n\"Miscellanies in Prose and Verse\" in the year 1789. It has been collated\nwith those given by Scott, Hawkesworth, and other editors.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  ON THE BILL FOR THE CLERGY'S\n  RESIDING ON THEIR LIVINGS.\n\n\nThose gentlemen who have been promoted to bishoprics in this kingdom for\nseveral years past, are of two sorts: first, certain private clergymen\nfrom England, who, by the force of friends, industry, solicitation, or\nother means and merits to me unknown, have been raised to that character\nby the _mero motu_ of the crown.\n\nOf the other sort, are some clergymen born in this kingdom, who have\nmost distinguished themselves by their warmth against Popery, their\ngreat indulgence to Dissenters, and all true loyal Protestants; by their\nzeal for the House of Hanover, abhorrence of the Pretender, and an\nimplicit readiness to fall into any measures that will make the\ngovernment easy to those who represent His Majesty's person.\n\nSome of the former kind are such as are said to have enjoyed tolerable\npreferments in England; and it is therefore much to their commendation\nthat they have condescended to leave their native country, and come over\nhither to be bishops, merely to promote Christianity among us; and\ntherefore in my opinion, both their lordships, and the many defenders\nthey bring over, may justly claim the merit of missionaries sent to\nconvert a nation from heresy and heathenism.\n\nBefore I proceed farther, it may be proper to relate some particulars\nwherein the circumstances of the English clergy differ from those of\nIreland.\n\nThe districts of parishes throughout England continue much the same as\nthey were before the Reformation; and most of the churches are of the\ngothic architecture, built some hundred years ago; but the tithes of\ngreat numbers of churches having been applied by the Pope's pretended\nauthority to several abbeys, and even before the Reformation bestowed by\nthat sacrilegious tyrant Henry VIII., on his ravenous favourites, the\nmaintenance of an incumbent in most parts of the kingdom is contemptibly\nsmall; and yet a vicar there of forty pounds a year, can live with more\ncomfort, than one of three times the nominal value with us. For his\nforty pounds are duly paid him, because there is not one farmer in a\nhundred, who is not worth five times the rent he pays to his landlord,\nand fifty times the sum demanded for the tithes; which, by the small\ncompass of his parish, he can easily collect or compound for; and if his\nbehaviour and understanding be supportable, he will probably receive\npresents now and then from his parishioners, and perhaps from the\nsquire; who, although he may sometimes be apt to treat his parson a\nlittle superciliously, will probably be softened by a little humble\ndemeanour. The vicar is likewise generally sure to find upon his\nadmittance to his living, a convenient house and barn in repair, with a\ngarden, and a field or two to graze a few cows, and one horse for\nhimself and his wife. He hath probably a market very near him, perhaps\nin his own village. No entertainment is expected from his visitor beyond\na pot of ale, and a piece of cheese. He hath every Sunday the comfort of\na full congregation, of plain, cleanly people of both sexes, well to\npass, and who speak his own language. The scene about him is fully\ncultivated (I mean for the general) and well inhabited. He dreads no\nthieves for anything but his apples, for the trade of universal stealing\nis not so epidemic there as with us. His wife is little better than\nGoody, in her birth, education, or dress; and as to himself, we must let\nhis parentage alone. If he be the son of a farmer it is very sufficient,\nand his sister may very decently be chambermaid to the squire's wife. He\ngoes about on working days in a grazier's coat, and will not scruple to\nassist his workmen in harvest time. He is usually wary and thrifty, and\noften more able to provide for a numerous family than some of ours can\ndo with a rectory called 300_l_. a year. His daughters shall go to\nservice, or be sent 'prentice to the sempstress of the next town; and\nhis sons are put to honest trades. This is the usual course of an\nEnglish country vicar from twenty to sixty pounds a year.\n\nAs to the clergy of our own kingdom, their livings are generally larger.\nNot originally, or by the bounty of princes, parliaments, or charitable\nendowments, for the same degradations (and as to glebes, a much greater)\nhave been made here, but, by the destruction and desolation in the long\nwars between the invaders and the natives; during which time a great\npart of the bishops' lands, and almost all the glebes, were lost in the\nconfusion. The first invaders had almost the whole kingdom divided\namongst them. New invaders succeeded, and drove out their predecessors\nas native Irish. These were expelled by others who came after, and upon\nthe same pretensions. Thus it went on for several hundred years, and in\nsome degree even to our own memories. And thus it will probably go on,\nalthough not in a martial way, to the end of the world. For not only the\npurchasers of debentures forfeited in 1641, were all of English birth,\nbut those after the Restoration, and many who came hither even since the\nRevolution, are looked upon as perfect Irish; directly contrary to the\npractice of all wise nations, and particularly of the Greeks and Romans,\nin establishing their colonies, by which name Ireland is very absurdly\ncalled.\n\nUnder these distractions the conquerors always seized what lands they\ncould with little ceremony, whether they belonged to the Church or not:\nThus the glebes were almost universally exposed to the first seizers,\nand could never be recovered, although the grants, with the particular\ndenominations, are manifest, and still in being. The whole lands of the\nsee of Waterford were wholly taken by one family; the like is reported\nof other bishoprics.\n\nKing James the First, who deserves more of the Church of Ireland than\nall other princes put together, having the forfeitures of vast tracts of\nland in the northern parts (I think commonly called the escheated\ncounties), having granted some hundred thousand acres of these lands to\ncertain Scotch and English favourites, was prevailed on by some great\nprelates to grant to some sees in the north, and to many parishes there,\ncertain parcels of land for the augmentation of poor bishoprics, did\nlikewise endow many parishes with glebes for the incumbents, whereof a\ngood number escaped the depredations of 1641 and 1688. These lands, when\nthey were granted by King James, consisted mostly of woody ground,\nwherewith those parts of this island were then overrun. This is well\nknown, universally allowed, and by some in part remembered; the rest\nbeing, in some places, not stubbed out to this day. And the value of the\nlands was consequently very inconsiderable, till Scotch colonies came\nover in swarms upon great encouragement to make them habitable; at least\nfor such a race of strong-bodied people, who came hither from their own\nbleak barren highlands, as it were into a paradise; who soon were able\nto get straw for their bedding, instead of a bundle of heath spread on\nthe ground, and sprinkled with water. Here, by degrees, they acquired\nsome degree of politeness and civility, from such neighbouring Irish as\nwere still left after Tyrone's last rebellion, and are since grown\nalmost entirely possessors of the north. Thus, at length, the woods\nbeing rooted up, the land was brought in, and tilled, and the glebes\nwhich could not before yield two-pence an acre, are equal to the best,\nsometimes affording the minister a good demesne, and some land to let.\n\nThese wars and desolations in their natural consequences, were likewise\nthe cause of another effect, I mean that of uniting several parishes\nunder one incumbent. For, as the lands were of little value by the want\nof inhabitants to cultivate them, and many of the churches levelled to\nthe ground, particularly by the fanatic zeal of those rebellious saints\nwho murdered their king, destroyed the Church, and overthrew monarchy\n(for all which there is a humiliation day appointed by law, and soon\napproaching); so, in order to give a tolerable maintenance to a\nminister, and the country being too poor, as well as devotion too low,\nto think of building new churches, it was found necessary to repair some\none church which had least suffered, and join sometimes three or more,\nenough for a bare support to some clergyman, who knew not where to\nprovide himself better. This was a case of absolute necessity to prevent\nheathenism, as well as popery, from overrunning the nation. The\nconsequence of these unions was very different, in different parts; for,\nin the north, by the Scotch settlement, their numbers daily increasing\nby new additions from their own country, and their prolific quality\npeculiar to northern people; and lastly by their universally feeding\nupon oats (which grain, under its several preparations and\ndenominations, is the only natural luxury of that hardy people) the\nvalue of tithes increased so prodigiously, that at this day, I confess,\nseveral united parishes ought to be divided, taking in so great a\ncompass, that it is almost impossible for the people to travel timely to\ntheir own parish church, or their little churches to contain half their\nnumber, though the revenue would be sufficient to maintain two, or\nperhaps three worthy clergymen with decency; provided the times mend, or\nthat they were honestly dealt with, which I confess is seldom the case.\nI shall name only one, and it is the deanery of Derry; the revenue\nwhereof, if the dean could get his dues, exceeding that of some\nbishoprics, both by the compass and fertility of the soil, the number as\nwell as industry of the inhabitants, the conveniency of exporting their\ncorn to Dublin and foreign parts; and, lastly, by the accidental\ndiscovery of marl in many places of the several parishes. Yet all this\nrevenue is wholly founded upon corn, for I am told there is hardly an\nacre of glebe for the dean to plant and build on.\n\nI am therefore of opinion, that a real undefalcated revenue of six\nhundred pounds a year, is a sufficient income for a country dean in this\nkingdom; and since the rents consist wholly of tithes, two parishes, to\nthe amount of that value, should be united, and the dean reside as\nminister in that of Down, and the remaining parishes be divided among\nworthy clergymen, to about 300_l_. a year to each. The deanery of Derry,\nwhich is a large city, might be left worth 800_l_. a year, and Rapho\naccording as it shall be thought proper. These three are the only\nopulent deaneries in the whole kingdom, and, as I am informed, consist\nall of tithes, which was an unhappy expedient in the Church, occasioned\nby the sacrilegious robberies during the several times of confusion and\nwar; insomuch that at this day there is hardly any remainder left of\ndean and chapter lands in Ireland, that delicious morsel swallowed so\ngreedily in England, under the fanatic usurpations.\n\nAs to the present scheme of a bill for obliging the clergy to residence,\nnow or lately in the privy council, I know no more of the particulars\nthan what hath been told me by several clergymen of distinction; who\nsay, that a petition in the name of them all hath been presented to the\nlord lieutenant and council, that they might be heard by their counsel\nagainst the bill, and that the petition was rejected, with some reasons\nwhy it was rejected; for the bishops know best what is proper for the\nclergy. It seems the bill consists of two parts: First, a power in the\nbishops, with consent of the archbishop, and the patron, to take off\nfrom any parish whatever, it is worth above \u00a3300 a year; and this to be\ndone without the incumbent's consent, which before was necessary in all\ndivisions. The other part of the bill obligeth all clergymen, from forty\npounds a year and upwards, to reside, and build a house in his parish.\nBut those of \u00a340 are remitted till they shall receive \u00a3100 out of the\nrevenue of first-fruits granted by Her late Majesty.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nCONSIDERATIONS\n\nUPON\n\nTWO BILLS, &c.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\"In the year 1731 a Bill was brought into the House of Lords by a great\nmajority of the Right Reverend the Bishops, for enabling them to divide\nthe livings of the inferior Clergy; which Bill was approved of in the\nPrivy-Council of Ireland, and passed by the Lords in Parliament. It was\nafterwards sent to the House of Commons for their approbation; but was\nrejected by them with a great majority. The supposed author of the\nfollowing Considerations, who hath always been the best friend to the\ninferior Clergy of the Church of England, as may be seen by many parts\nof his writings, opposed this pernicious project with great success;\nwhich, if it had passed into law, would have been of the worst\nconsequence to this nation.\" [Advertisement to the reprint of this\npamphlet in Swift's Works, vol. vi. Dublin: Faulkner, 1738.]\n\nFuller details of the circumstances which gave Swift the opportunity for\nwriting this tract are given in the note prefixed to the previous\npamphlet (see p. 250).\n\nThe text here given is that of the first edition.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  CONSIDERATIONS\n  UPON TWO\n  BILLS\n  Sent down from the R---- H---- the\n  H---- of L----\n  To the H----ble\n  H---- of C----\n  Relating to the\n  CLERGY\n  OF\n  _I----D_.\n\nLONDON.\n\nPrinted for A. MOORE, near St. _Paul's_, and Sold by the Booksellers of\n_Westminster_ and _Southwark_, 1732.\n\n\nI have often, for above a month past, desired some few clergymen, who\nare pleased to visit me, that they would procure an extract of two\nbills, brought into the council by some of the bishops, and both of them\nsince passed in the House of Lords: but I could never obtain what I\ndesired, whether by the forgetfulness, or negligence of those whom I\nemployed, or the difficulty of the thing itself. Therefore, if I shall\nhappen to mistake in any fact of consequence, I desire my remarks upon\nit, may pass for nothing; for my information is no better than what I\nreceived in words from several divines, who seemed to agree with each\nother. I have not the honour to be acquainted with any one single\nprelate of the kingdom, and am a stranger to their characters, further\nthan as common fame reports them, which is not to be depended on.\nTherefore, I cannot be supposed to act upon a principle of resentment. I\nesteem their functions (if I may be allowed to say so without offence)\nas truly apostolical, and absolutely necessary to the perfection of a\nChristian Church.\n\nThere are no qualities more incident to the frailty and corruption of\nhuman kind, than an indifference, or insensibility for other men's\nsufferings, and a sudden forgetfulness of their own former humble state,\nwhen they rise in the world. These two dispositions have not, I think,\nanywhere so strongly exerted themselves, as in the order of bishops with\nregard to the inferior clergy; for which I can find no reasons, but such\nas naturally should seem to operate a quite contrary way. The\nmaintenance of the Clergy, throughout the kingdom, is precarious and\nuncertain, collected from a most miserable race of beggarly farmers; at\nwhose mercy every minister lies to be defrauded: His office, as rector\nor vicar, if it be duly executed, is very laborious. As soon as he is\npromoted to a bishopric, the scene is entirely and happily changed; his\nrevenues are large, and as surely paid as those of the king; his whole\nbusiness is once a-year, to receive the attendance, the submission, and\nthe proxy-money of all his clergy, in whatever part of the diocese he\nshall please to think most convenient for himself. Neither is his\npersonal presence necessary, for the business may be done by a\nVicar-General. The fatigue of ordination, is just what the bishops\nplease to make it, and as matters have been for some time, and may\nprobably remain, the fewer ordinations the better. The rest of their\nvisible office, consists in the honour of attending parliaments and\ncouncils, and bestowing preferments in their own gift; in which last\nemployment, and in their spiritual and temporal courts, the labour falls\nto their Vicars-General, Secretaries, Proctors, Apparitors, Seneschals,\nand the like. Now, I say, in so quick a change, where their brethren in\na few days, are become their subjects, it would be reasonable, at least,\nto hope, that the labour, confinement, and subjection from which they\nhave so lately escaped, like a bird out of the snare of the fowler,\nmight a little incline them to remember the condition of those, who were\nbut last week their equals, probably their companions or their friends,\nand possibly, as reasonable expectants. There is a known story of\nColonel Tidcomb, who, while he continued a subaltern officer, was every\nday complaining against the pride, oppression, and hard treatment of\ncolonels toward their officers; yet in a very few minutes after he had\nreceived his commission for a regiment, walking with a friend on the\nMall, he confessed that the spirit of colonelship, was coming fast upon\nhim, which spirit is said to have daily increased to the hour of his\ndeath.\n\nIt is true, the Clergy of this kingdom, who are promoted to bishoprics,\nhave always some great advantages; either that of rich deaneries,\nopulent and multiplied rectories and dignities, strong alliances by\nbirth or marriage, fortified by a superlative degree of zeal and\nloyalty; but, however, they were all at first no more than young\nbeginners; and before their great promotion, were known by their plain\nChristian names, among their old companions, the middling rate of\nclergymen; nor could, therefore, be strangers to their condition, or\nwith any good grace, forget it so soon as it hath sometimes happened.\n\nI confess, I do not remember to have observed any body of men, acting\nwith so little concert as our clergy have done, in a point where their\nopinions appeared to be unanimous: a point where their whole temporal\nsupport was concerned, as well as their power of serving God and his\nChurch, in their spiritual functions. This hath been imputed to their\nfear of disobliging, or hopes of further favours upon compliance;\nbecause it was observed, that some who appeared at first with the\ngreatest zeal, thought fit suddenly to absent themselves from the usual\nmeetings; yet, we know what expert solicitors the Quakers, the\nDissenters, and even the Papists have sometimes found, to drive a point\nof advantage, or present an impending evil.\n\nI have not seen any extract from the two bills introduced into the Privy\nCouncil by the bishops; where the Clergy, upon some failure in favour,\nor through the timorousness of many among their brethren, were refused\nto be heard by the Council. It seems these bills were both returned,\nagreed to by the King and Council in England; and the House of Lords\nhath, with great expedition, passed them both, and it is said they are\nimmediately to be sent down to the Commons for their consent.\n\nThe particulars, as they have been imperfectly reported to me, are as\nfollow:\n\nBy one of the bills, the bishops have power to oblige the country\nclergy, to build a mansion-house upon whatever part of their glebes\ntheir lordships shall command; and if the living be above \u00a350 a-year,\nthe minister is bound to build, after three years, a house that shall\ncost one year and a half's rent of his income. For instance, if a\nclergyman with a wife and seven children gets a living of \u00a355 per annum,\nhe must after three years, build a house that shall cost \u00a377 10s., and\nmust support his family during the time the bishop shall appoint for the\nbuilding of it with the remainder. But, if the living be under \u00a350\na-year, the minister shall be allowed an \u00a3100 out of the first-fruits.\n\nBut, there is said to be one circumstance a little extraordinary; that\nif there be a single spot in the glebe more barren, more marshy, more\nexpos'd to winds, more distant from the church, or skeleton of a church,\nor from any conveniency of building: the rector, or vicar may be obliged\nby the caprice, or pique of the bishop, to build, under pain of\nsequestration, (an office, which ever falls into the most knavish\nhands,) upon whatever point his lordship shall command; although the\nfarmers have not paid one quarter of his due.\n\nI believe, under the present distresses of the kingdom (which\ninevitably, without a miracle, must increase for ever) there are not ten\ncountry clergymen in Ireland reputed to possess a parish of \u00a3100 per\nannum who, for some years past, have actually received \u00a360, and that\nwith the utmost difficulty and vexation. I am, therefore, at a loss what\nkind of valuators the bishops will make use of, and whether the starving\nvicar, shall be forced to build his house with the money he never\nreceived.\n\nThe other bill, which passed in two days after the former, is said to\nconcern the division of parishes into as many parcels as the bishop\nshall think fit, only leaving \u00a3300 a-year to the Mother Church; which\n\u00a3300 by another act passed some years ago, they can divide likewise, and\ncrumble as low as their will and pleasure will dispose them. So that\ninstead of 600 clergymen, which, I think, is the usual computation, we\nmay have, in a small compass of years, almost as many thousands to live\nwith decency and comfort, provide for their children, &c., be charitable\nto the poor, and maintain hospitality.\n\nBut it is very reasonable to hope, and heartily to be wished by all\nthose who have the least regard to our holy religion, as hitherto\nestablished, or to a learned, pious, diligent, conversible clergyman, or\neven to common humanity; that the honourable House of Commons will in\ntheir great wisdom, justice, and tenderness to innocent men, consider\nthese bills in another light. It is said, they well know this kingdom\nnot to be so over stocked with neighbouring gentry; but a discreet,\nlearned clergyman, with a competency fit for one of his education, may\nbe an entertaining, a useful, and sometimes a necessary companion. That\nalthough such a clergyman may not be able constantly to find BEEF and\nWINE for his own family, yet he may be allowed sometimes to afford both\nto a neighbour, without distressing himself; and the rather, because he\nmay expect at least as good a return. It will probably be considered,\nthat in many desolate parts, there may not be always a sufficient number\nof persons considerable enough to be trusted with commissions of the\npeace, which several of the Clergy now supply much better, than a\nlittle, hedge, contemptible, illiterate vicar from twenty to fifty\npounds a-year, the son of a weaver, pedlar, tailor, or miller, can be\npresumed to do.\n\nThe landlords and farmers by this scheme can find no profit, but will\ncertainly be losers; for instance, if the large northern livings be\nsplit into a dozen parishes, or more, it will be very necessary for the\nlittle threadbare gownman, with his wife, his proctor and every child\nwho can crawl, to watch the fields at harvest time, for fear of losing a\nsingle sheaf, which he could not afford under peril of a day's starving;\nfor according to the Scotch proverb, a hungry louse bites sore. This\nwould of necessity, breed an infinite number of brangles and litigious\nsuits in the spiritual courts, and put the wretched pastor at perpetual\nvariance with his whole parish. But, as they have hitherto stood, a\nclergyman established in a competent living is not under the necessity\nof being so sharp, vigilant, and exacting. On the contrary, it is well\nknown and allowed, that the Clergy round the kingdom think themselves\nwell treated, if they lose only one single third of their legal demands.\n\nThe honourable House may perhaps be inclined to conceive, that my lords\nthe bishops enjoy as ample a power, both spiritual and temporal, as will\nfully suffice to answer every branch of their office; that they want no\nlaws to regulate the conduct of those clergymen, over whom they preside;\nthat if non-residence be a grievance, it is the patron's fault, who\nmakes not a better choice, or caused the plurality. That if the general\nimpartial character of persons chosen into the Church had been more\nregarded, and the motive of party, alliance, kindred, flatterers, ill\njudgment, or personal favour regarded less, there would be fewer\ncomplaints of non-residence, neglect of care, blameable behaviour, or\nany other part of misconduct, not to mention ignorance and stupidity.\n\nI could name certain gentlemen of the gown, whose awkward, spruce, prim,\nsneering, and smirking countenances, the very tone of their voices, and\nan ungainly strut in their walk, without one single talent for any one\noffice, have contrived to get good preferment by the mere force of\nflattery and cringing: for which two virtues (the only two virtues they\npretend to) they were, however, utterly unqualified. And whom, if I were\nin power, although they were my nephews or had married my nieces, I\ncould never in point of good conscience or honour, have recommended to a\ncuracy in Connaught.\n\nThe honourable House of Commons may likewise perhaps consider, that the\ngentry of this kingdom differ from all others upon earth, being less\ncapable of employments in their own country, than any others who come\nfrom abroad, and that most of them have little expectation of providing\nfor their younger children, otherwise than by the Church, in which there\nmight be some hopes of getting a tolerable maintenance. For after the\npatrons should have settled their sons, their nephews, their nieces,\ntheir dependants, and their followers, invited over from t'other side,\nthere would still remain an overplus of smaller church preferments, to\nbe given to such clergy of the nation, who shall have their quantum of\nwhatever merit may be then in fashion. But by these bills, they will be\nall as absolutely excluded, as if they had passed under the denomination\nof Tories, unless they can be contented at the utmost with \u00a350 a-year,\nwhich by the difficulties of collecting tithes in Ireland, and the daily\nincreasing miseries of the people, will hardly rise to half the sum.\n\nIt is observed, that the divines sent over hither to govern this Church,\nhave not seemed to consider the difference between both kingdoms, with\nrespect to the inferior clergy. As to themselves, indeed, they find a\nlarge revenue in lands let at one quarter value, which consequently must\nbe paid while there is a penny left among us; and, the public distress\nso little affects their interests, that their fines are now higher than\never, they content themselves to suppose that whatever a parish is said\nto be worth, comes all into the parson's pocket.\n\nThe poverty of great numbers among the Clergy of England, hath been the\ncontinual complaint of all men who wish well to the Church, and many\nschemes have been thought on to redress it; yet an English vicar of \u00a340\na-year, lives much more comfortably than one of double the value in\nIreland. His farmers generally speaking, are able and willing to pay him\nhis full dues. He hath a decent church of ancient standing, filled every\nLord's day with a large congregation of plain people, well clad, and\nbehaving themselves as if they believed in God and Christ. He hath a\nhouse and barn in repair, a field or two to graze his cows, with a\ngarden and orchard. No guest expects more from him than a pot of ale; he\nlives like an honest, plain farmer, as his wife is dressed but little\nbetter than Goody. He is sometimes graciously invited by the squire,\nwhere he sits at humble distance; if he gets the love of his people,\nthey often make him little useful presents; he is happy by being born to\nno higher expectation, for he is usually the son of some ordinary\ntradesman or middling farmer. His learning is much of a size with his\nbirth and education, no more of either than what a poor hungry servitor\ncan be expected to bring with him from his college. It would be tedious\nto shew the reverse of all this in our distant poorer parishes, through\nmost parts of Ireland, wherein every reader may make the comparison.\n\nLastly, the honourable House of Commons may consider, whether the scheme\nof multiplying beggarly clergymen through the whole kingdom who must all\nhave votes for choosing parliament men (provided they can prove their\nfreeholds to be worth 40s. per annum, _ultra reprisas_) may not, by\ntheir numbers, have great influence upon elections, being entirely under\nthe dependance of their bishops. For by a moderate computation, after\nall the divisions and subdivisions of parishes, that, my lords, the\nbishops, have power to make by their new laws, there will, as soon as\nthe present set of clergy go off, be raised an army of ecclesiastical\nmilitants, able enough for any kind of service, except that of the\naltar.\n\nI am, indeed, in some concern about a fund for building a thousand or\ntwo churches, wherein these probationers may read their wall lectures,\nand begin to doubt they must be contented with barns; which barns will\nbe one great advancing step towards an accommodation with our true\nProtestant brethren, the Dissenters.\n\nThe scheme of encouraging clergymen to build houses by dividing a living\nof \u00a3500 a-year into ten parts, is a contrivance, the meaning whereof\nhath got on the wrong side of my comprehension; unless it may be argued,\nthat bishops build no houses, because they are so rich; and therefore,\nthe inferior clergy will certainly build, if you reduce them to beggary.\nBut I knew a very rich man of quality in England, who could never be\npersuaded to keep a servant out of livery; because such servants would\nbe expensive, and apt, in time, to look like gentlemen; whereas the\nothers were ready to submit to the basest offices, and at a cheaper\npennyworth might increase his retinue.\n\nI hear, it is the opinion of many wise men, that before these bills pass\nboth Houses, they should be sent back to England with the following\nclauses inserted:\n\nFirst, that whereas there may be about a dozen double bishoprics in\nIreland, those bishoprics should be split and given to different\npersons; and those of a single denomination be also divided into two,\nthree, or four parts, as occasion shall require; otherwise there may be\na question started, whether twenty-two prelates can effectually extend\ntheir paternal care and unlimited power, for the protection and\ncorrection of so great a number of spiritual subjects. But this proposal\nwill meet with such furious objections, that I shall not insist upon it,\nfor I well remember to have read, what a terrible fright the frogs were\nin, upon a report that the sun was going to marry.\n\nAnother clause should be, that none of these twenty, thirty, forty, or\nfifty pounders may be suffered to marry, under the penalty of immediate\ndeprivation, their marriages declared null, and their children bastards;\nfor some desponding people, take the kingdom to be not in a condition of\nencouraging so numerous a breed of beggars.\n\nA third clause will be necessary, that these humble gentry should be\nabsolutely disqualified from giving votes in elections for parliament\nmen.\n\nOthers add a fourth, which is a clause of indulgence, that these reduced\ndivines may be permitted to follow any lawful ways of living, that will\nnot call them too often or too far from their spiritual offices (for\nunless I misapprehend, they are supposed to have episcopal ordination).\nFor example, they may be lappers of linen, bailiffs of the manor, they\nmay let blood, or apply plasters, for three miles round; they may get a\ndispensation to hold the clerkship and sextonship of their own parish\n_in commendam_. Their wives and daughters may make shirts for the\nneighbourhood, or if a barrack be near, for the soldiers. In linen\ncountries, they may card and spin, and keep a few looms in the house:\nthey may let lodgings, and sell a pot of ale without doors, but not at\nhome, unless to sober company, and at regular hours. It is by some\nthought a little hard, that in an affair of the last consequence, to the\nvery being of the Clergy, in the points of liberty and property, as well\nas in their abilities to perform their duty; this whole reverend body,\nwho are the established instructors of the nation in Christianity and\nmoral virtues, and are the only persons concerned, should be the sole\npersons not consulted. Let any scholar shew the like precedent in\nChristendom for twelve hundred years past. An act of parliament for\nsettling or selling an estate in a private family, is never passed till\nall parties give consent. But in the present case the whole body of the\nClergy is, as themselves apprehend, determined to utter ruin, without\nonce expecting or asking their opinion, and this by a scheme contrived\nonly by one part of the convocation, while the other part which hath\nbeen chosen in the usual forms, wants only the regal permission to\nassemble, and consult about the affairs of the Church, as their\npredecessors have always done in former ages; where it is presumed, the\nLower House hath a power of proposing canons, and a negative voice, as\nwell as the Upper. And God forbid (say these objectors) that there\nshould be a real separate interest between the bishops and Clergy, any\nmore than there is between a man and his wife, a king and his people, or\nChrist and his Church.\n\nIt seems there is a provision in the bill, that no parish shall be cut\ninto scraps, without the consent of several persons, who can be no\nsufferers in the matter; but I cannot find that the Clergy lay much\nweight on this caution, because they argue, that the very persons from\nwhom these Bills took their rise, will have the greatest share in the\ndecision.\n\nI do not, by any means, conceive the crying sin of the Clergy in this\nkingdom, to be that of non-residence. I am sure, it is many degrees less\nso here than in England, unless the possession of pluralities may pass\nunder that name; and if this be a fault, it is well known to whom it\nmust be imputed: I believe, upon a fair inquiry (and I hear an inquiry\nis to be made) they will appear to be most pardonably few, especially\nconsidering how many parishes have not an inch of glebe, and how\ndifficult it is upon any reasonable terms, to find a place of\nhabitation. And, therefore, God knows, whether my lords the bishops will\nbe soon able to convince the Clergy, or those who have any regard for\nthat venerable body, that the chief motive in their lordships' minds, by\nprocuring these bills, was to prevent the sin of non-residence, while\nthe universal opinion of almost every clergyman in the kingdom, without\ndistinction of party, taking in even those who are not likely to be\nsufferers, stands directly against them.\n\nIf some livings in the north may be justly thought too large a compass\nof land, which makes it inconvenient for the remotest inhabitant to\nattend the service of the Church, which in some instances may be true;\nno reasonable clergyman would oppose a proper remedy by particular acts\nof parliament.\n\nThus for instance, the deanery of Down, a country deanery, I think,\nwithout a cathedral, depending wholly upon an union of parishes joined\ntogether, in a time when the land lay waste and thinly inhabited; since\nthose circumstances are so prodigiously changed for the better, may\nproperly be lessened, leaving a decent competency to the dean, and\nplacing rectories in the remaining churches, which are now served only\nby stipendiary curates.\n\nThe case may be probably the same in other parts: and such a proceeding\ndiscreetly managed would be truly for the good of the Church.\n\nFor it is to be observed, that the dean and chapter lands, which, in\nEngland were all seized under the fanatic usurpation, are things unknown\nin Ireland, having been long ravished from the Church, by a succession\nof confusions, and tithes applied in their stead, to support that\necclesiastical dignity.\n\nThe late Archbishop of Dublin[1] had a very different way of encouraging\nthe clergy of his diocese to residence: When a lease had run out seven\nyears or more, he stipulated with the tenant to resign up twenty or\nthirty acres to the minister of the parish where it lay convenient,\nwithout lessening his former rent; and with no great abatement of the\nfine; and this he did in the parts near Dublin, where land is at the\nhighest rates, leaving a small chiefry for the minister to pay, hardly a\nsixth part of the value. I doubt not that almost every bishop in the\nkingdom may do the same generous act with less damage to their sees than\nhis late Grace of Dublin; much of whose lands were out in fee-farms, or\nleases for lives, and I am sorry that the good example of that prelate\nhath not been followed.\n\n[Footnote 1: The Right Rev. Dr. William King (see p. 241). [T. S.]]\n\nBut a great majority of the Clergy's friends cannot hitherto reconcile\nthemselves to this project, which they call a levelling principle, that\nmust inevitably root out the seeds of all honest emulation, the legal\nparent of the greatest virtues, and most generous actions among men; but\nwhich, in the general opinion (for I do not pretend to offer my own,)\nwill never more have room to exert itself in the breast of any clergyman\nwhom this kingdom shall produce.\n\nBut, whether the consequences of these Bills may, by the virtues and\nfrailties of future bishops, sent over hither to rule the Church,\nterminate in good or evil, I shall not presume to determine, since God\ncan work the former out of the latter. But one thing I can venture to\nassert, that from the earliest ages of Christianity to the minute I am\nnow writing, there never was a precedent of SUCH a proceeding, much less\nto be feared, hoped, or apprehended from such hands in any Christian\ncountry, and so it may pass for more than a phoenix, because it hath\nrisen without any assistance from the ashes of its sire.\n\nThe appearance of so many dissenters at the hearing of this cause, is\nwhat, I am told, hath not been charged to the account of their prudence\nor moderation; because that action hath been censured as a mark of\ntriumph and insult before the victory is complete; since neither of\nthese bills hath yet passed the House of Commons, and some are pleased\nto think it not impossible that they may be rejected. Neither do I hear,\nthat there is an enacting clause in either of the Bills to apply any\npart of the divided or subdivided tithes, towards increasing the\nstipends of the sectaries. So that these gentlemen seem to be gratified\nlike him, who, after having been kicked downstairs, took comfort when he\nsaw his friend kicked down after him.\n\nI have heard many more objections against several particulars of both\nthese Bills, but they are of a high nature, and carry such dreadful\ninnuendos, that I dare not mention them, resolving to give no offence\nbecause I well know how obnoxious I have long been (although I conceive\nwithout any fault of my own) to the zeal and principles of those, who\nplace all difference in opinion concerning public matters, to the score\nof disaffection, whereof I am at least as innocent as the loudest of my\ndetractors.\n\n  DUBLIN,\n  _Feb_. 24, 1731-2.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nSOME\n\nREASONS\n\nAGAINST\n\nTHE BILL FOR SETTLING THE TITHE\n\nOF\n\nHEMP, FLAX, &c., BY A MODUS.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nAbout the end of 1733 the Irish House of Commons had under consideration\na bill for the encouragement of the growth of flax and the manufacture\nof linen. This bill contained a clause by which the tithe upon flax\nshould be commuted by a _modus_ or money composition. The clergy, to\nwhom this tithe was an important source of revenue, and, naturally, not\nwishing to lose its advantage, took steps to petition Parliament to be\nheard by counsel against the bill. Swift signed the petition, which set\nforth the injury which would be done to their order if the clause in the\nbill, then before the House, were allowed to become law. In addition to\nthis he committed and arranged his arguments to writing, and issued them\nin the following pamphlet. The activity against the bill proved so\nefficacious that the House of Commons dropped it. It may be remarked\nthat Swift's interference was purely disinterested, since no part of the\nrevenue of St. Patrick's, as Monck Mason points out, comes from the\n\"district appropriated to the culture of flax;\" nor did Swift, \"or any\nof his predecessors or successors, ever receive one shilling upon\naccount of that tithe.\"\n\nThis attempt on the part of the House of Commons to regulate the affairs\nof the clergy of Ireland seems to have been one of a series which\ndivided laity and clergy into two strongly opposing parties. On the one\nside were the House of Commons and its supporters, on the other the\ngeneral body of the Irish clergy, with, for a time, at any rate, Swift\nat the head. The tithe of pasturage, or, as it was called, the tithe of\nagistment, was being strongly resisted at the time, and many of the\nclergy were forced to sue in court before they could obtain it. The\nmatter of this tithe had been already before an Irish court in 1707, and\nhad been settled in favour of the suing clergyman, one Archdeacon Neal;\nand although the cause was removed to King's Bench in England, the\nprevious judgment was confirmed. In spite of this decision, however, the\ntithe continued to be a subject of litigation, and the landed\nproprietors even formed themselves into associations for the purpose of\nresisting the clergy's claim. In 1734 the House of Commons aggravated\nmatters by passing resolutions against the claims, many of which were\nthen the subject of legal actions, and prevented decisions being come to\nwhile it had the matter under its consideration. From the pamphlets\nwritten at the time it may easily be seen that this interference on the\npart of the lower House was both unseemly and unjust. Its conduct so\nroused Swift that his indignation found expression in one of his\nbitterest and most terrible poetical satires--\"The Legion Club\"--a\nsatire so bitter and so scathing that reading it now, after the lapse of\nmore than a century and a half, one shudders at its invective--\"a\nblasting flood of filth and vitriol, out of some hellish fountain,\" Mr.\nChurton Collins calls it. We are told that its composition brought on a\nviolent attack of vertigo, and it remained unfinished.\n\nThe text here given is that of the first edition collated with those\ngiven by Faulkner, Hawkesworth, and Scott.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  SOME\n  REASONS\n  AGAINST THE\n  Bill for settling the Tyth of _Hemp, Flax,_ &c. by a _Modus_.\n\nMDCCXXIV.\n\n\nThe Clergy did little expect to have any cause of complaint against the\npresent House of Commons; who in the last sessions, were pleased to\nthrow out a Bill[1] sent them from the Lords, which that reverend body\napprehended would be very injurious to them, if it passed into a law;\nand who, in the present sessions, defeated the arts and endeavours of\nschismatics to repeal the Sacramental Test.\n\n[Footnote 1: For the bishops to divide livings. See the two preceding\nTracts. [T. S.]]\n\nFor, although it hath been allowed on all hands, that the former of\nthose Bills might, by its necessary consequences, be very displeasing to\nthe lay gentlemen of the kingdom, for many reasons purely secular; and,\nthat this last attempt for repealing the Test, did much more affect, at\npresent, the temporal interest than the spiritual; yet the whole body of\nthe lower Clergy have, upon both these occasions, expressed equal\ngratitude to that honourable House, for their justice and steadiness, as\nif the clergy alone were to receive the benefit.\n\nIt must needs be, therefore, a great addition to the Clergy's grief,\nthat such an assembly as the present House of Commons; should now, with\nan expedition more than usual, agree to a bill for encouraging the linen\nmanufacture; with a clause, whereby the Church is to lose two parts in\nthree, of the legal tithe in flax and hemp.\n\nSome reasons, why the Clergy think such a law will be a great hardship\nupon them, are, I conceive, those that follow. I shall venture to\nenumerate them with all deference due to that honourable assembly.\n\n_First_; the Clergy suppose that they have not, by any fault or demerit,\nincurred the displeasure of the nation's representatives: neither can\nthe declared loyalty of the present set, from the highest prelate to the\nlowest vicar, be in the least disputed: because, there are hardly ten\nclergymen, through the whole kingdom, for more than nineteen years past,\nwho have not been either preferred entirely upon account of their\ndeclared affection to the Hanover line; or higher promoted as the due\nreward of the same merit.\n\nThere is not a landlord in the whole kingdom, residing some part of the\nyear at his country-seat, who is not, in his own conscience, fully\nconvinced, that the tithes of his minister have gradually sunk, for some\nyears past, one-third, or at least one-fourth of their former value,\nexclusive of all non-solvencies.\n\nThe payment of tithes in this kingdom, is subject to so many frauds,\nbrangles, and other difficulties, not only from Papists and Dissenters,\nbut even from those who profess themselves Protestants; that by the\nexpense, the trouble, and vexation of collecting, or bargaining for\nthem, they are, of all other rents, the most precarious, uncertain, and\nill paid.\n\nThe landlords in most parishes expect, as a compliment, that they shall\npay little more than half the value of their tithes for the lands they\nhold in their own hands; which often consist of large domains: And it is\nthe minister's interest to make them easy upon that article, when he\nconsiders what influence those gentlemen have upon their tenants.\n\nThe Clergy cannot but think it extremely severe, that in a bill for\nencouraging the linen manufacture, they alone must be the sufferers, who\ncan least afford it: If, as I am told, there be a tax of three thousand\npounds a year, paid by the public, for a further encouragement to the\nsaid manufacture; are not the Clergy equal sharers in the charge with\nthe rest of their fellow subjects? What satisfactory reason can be\ntherefore given, why they alone should bear the whole additional weight,\nunless it will be alleged that their property is not upon an equal foot\nwith the properties of other men? They acquire their own small pittance,\nby at least as honest means, as their neighbours, the landlords, possess\ntheir estates; and have been always supposed, except in rebellious or\nfanatical times, to have as good a title: For, no families now in being\ncan shew a more ancient. Indeed, if it be true, that some persons (I\nhope they were not many) were seen to laugh when the rights of the\nClergy were mentioned; in this case, an opinion may possibly be soon\nadvanced, that they have no rights at all. And this is likely enough to\ngain ground, in proportion as the contempt of all religion shall\nincrease; which is already in a very forward way.\n\nIt is said, there will be also added to this Bill a clause for\ndiminishing the tithe of hops, in order to cultivate that useful plant\namong us: And here likewise the load is to lie entirely on the shoulders\nof the Clergy, while the landlords reap all the benefit. It will not be\neasy to foresee where such proceedings are like to stop: Or whether by\nthe same authority, in civil times, a parliament may not as justly\nchallenge the same power in reducing all things titheable, not below the\ntenth part of the product, (which is and ever will be the Clergy's\nequitable right) but from a tenth-part to a sixtieth or eightieth, and\nfrom thence to nothing.\n\nI have heard it granted by skilful persons, that the practice of taxing\nthe Clergy by parliament, without their own consent, is a new thing, not\nmuch above the date of seventy years: before which period, in times of\npeace, they always taxed themselves. But things are extremely altered at\npresent: It is not now sufficient to tax them in common with their\nfellow subjects, without imposing an additional tax upon them, from\nwhich, or from anything equivalent, all their fellow-subjects are\nexempt; and this in a country professing Christianity.\n\nThe greatest part of the Clergy throughout this kingdom, have been\nstripped of their glebes by the confusion of times, by violence, fraud,\noppression, and other unlawful means: All which glebes are now in the\nhands of the laity. So that they now are generally forced to lie at the\nmercy of landlords, for a small piece of ground in their parishes, at a\nmost exorbitant rent, and usually for a short term of years; whereon to\nbuild a house, and enable them to reside. Yet, in spite of these\ndisadvantages, I am a witness that they are generally more constant\nresidents than their brethren in England; where the meanest vicar hath a\nconvenient dwelling, with a barn, a garden, and a field or two for his\ncattle; besides the certainty of his little income from honest farmers,\nable and willing, not only to pay him his dues, but likewise to make him\npresents, according to their ability, for his better support. In all\nwhich circumstances, the Clergy of Ireland meet with a treatment\ndirectly contrary.\n\nIt is hoped, the honourable House will consider that it is impossible\nfor the most ill-minded, avaricious, or cunning clergyman, to do the\nleast injustice to the meanest cottager in his parish, in any bargain\nfor tithes, or other ecclesiastical dues. He can, at the utmost, only\ndemand to have his tithe fairly laid out; and does not once in a hundred\ntimes obtain his demand. But every tenant, from the poorest cottager to\nthe most substantial farmer, can, and generally doth impose upon the\nminister, by fraud, by theft, by lies, by perjuries, by insolence, and\nsometimes by force; notwithstanding the utmost vigilance and skill of\nhimself and his proctor. Insomuch, that it is allowed, that the Clergy\nin general receive little more than one-half of their legal dues; not\nincluding the charges they are at in collecting or bargaining for them.\n\nThe land rents of Ireland are computed to about two millions, whereof\none-tenth amounts to two hundred thousand pounds. The benefited\nclergymen, excluding those of this city, are not reckoned to be above\nfive hundred; by which computation, they should each of them possess two\nhundred pounds a year, if those tithes were equally divided, although in\nwell cultivated corn countries it ought to be more; whereas they hardly\nreceive one half of that sum; with great defalcations, and in very bad\npayments. There are indeed, a few glebes in the north pretty\nconsiderable, but if these and all the rest were in like manner equally\ndivided, they would not add five pounds a year to every clergyman.\nTherefore, whether the condition of the Clergy in general among us be\njustly liable to envy, or able to bear a heavy burden, which neither the\nnobility, nor gentry, nor tradesmen, nor farmers, will touch with one of\ntheir fingers; this, I say, is submitted to the honourable House.\n\nOne terrible circumstance in this Bill, is, that of turning the tithe of\nflax and hemp into what the lawyers call a _Modus_, or a certain sum in\nlieu of a tenth part of the product. And by this practice of claiming a\n_Modus_ in many parishes by ancient custom, the Clergy in both kingdoms\nhave been almost incredible sufferers. Thus, in the present case, the\ntithe of a tolerable acre of flax, which by a medium is worth twelve\nshillings, is by the present Bill reduced to four shillings. Neither is\nthis the worst part in a _Modus_; every determinate sum must in process\nof time sink from a fourth to a four-and-twentieth part, or a great deal\nlower, by that necessary fall attending the value of money, which is now\nat least nine tenths lower all over Europe than it was four hundred\nyears ago, by a gradual decline; and even a third part at least within\nour own memories, in purchasing almost everything required for the\nnecessities or conveniencies of life; as any gentleman can attest, who\nhath kept house for twenty years past. And this will equally affect poor\ncountries as well as rich. For, although, I look upon it as an\nimpossibility that this kingdom should ever thrive under its present\ndisadvantages, which without a miracle must still increase; yet, when\nthe whole cash of the nation shall sink to fifty thousand pounds; we\nmust in all our traffic abroad, either of import or export, go by the\ngeneral rate at which money is valued in those countries that enjoy the\ncommon privileges of human kind. For this reason, no corporation, (if\nthe Clergy may presume to call themselves one) should by any means grant\naway their properties in perpetuity upon any consideration whatsoever;\nWhich is a rock that many corporations have split upon, to their great\nimpoverishment, and sometimes to their utter undoing. Because they are\nsupposed to subsist for ever; and because no determination of money is\nof any certain perpetual intrinsic value. This is known enough in\nEngland, where estates let for ever, some hundred years ago, by several\nancient noble families, do not at this present pay their posterity a\ntwentieth part of what they are now worth at an easy rate.\n\nA tax affecting one part of a nation, which already bears its full share\nin all parliamentary impositions, cannot possibly be just, except it be\ninflicted as a punishment upon that body of men which is taxed, for some\ngreat demerit or danger to the public apprehended from those upon whom\nit is laid: Thus the Papists and Nonjurors have been doubly taxed for\nrefusing to give proper securities to the government; which cannot be\nobjected against the Clergy. And therefore, if this Bill should pass; I\nthink it ought to be with a preface, shewing wherein they have offended,\nand for what disaffection or other crime they are punished.\n\nIf an additional excise upon ale, or a duty upon flesh and bread, were\nto be enacted, neither the victualler, butcher, or baker would bear any\nmore of the charge than for what themselves consumed; but it would be an\nequal general tax through the whole kingdom: Whereas, by this Bill, the\nClergy alone are avowedly condemned to be deprived of their ancient,\ninherent, undisputed rights, in order to encourage a manufacture by\nwhich all the rest of the kingdom are supposed to be gainers.\n\nThis Bill is directly against _Magna Charta_, whereof the first clause\nis for confirming the inviolable rights of Holy Church; as well as\ncontrary to the oath taken by all our kings at their coronation, where\nthey swear to defend and protect the Church in all its rights.\n\nA tax laid upon employments is a very different thing. The possessors of\ncivil and military employments are no corporation; neither are they any\npart of our constitution: Their salaries, pay, and perquisites are all\nchangeable at the pleasure of the prince who bestows them, although the\narmy be paid from funds raised and appropriated by the legislature. But\nthe Clergy as they have little reason to expect, so they desire no more\nthan their ancient legal dues; only indeed with the removal of many\ngrievous impediments in the collection of them; which it is to be feared\nthey must wait for until more favourable times. It is well known, that\nthey have already of their own accord shewn great indulgence to their\npeople upon this very article of flax, seldom taking above a fourth part\nof their tithe for small parcels, and oftentimes nothing at all from new\nbeginners; waiting with patience until the farmers were able, and until\ngreater quantities of land were employed in that part of husbandry;\nnever suspecting that their good intentions should be perverted in so\nsingular a manner to their detriment, by that very assembly, which,\nduring the time that convocations (which are an original part of our\nconstitution ever since Christianity became national among us) are\nthought fit to be suspended, God knows for what reason, or from what\nprovocations; I say, from that very assembly, who, during the intervals\nof convocations, should rather be supposed to be guardians of the rights\nand properties of the Clergy, than to make the least attempt upon\neither.\n\nI have not heard upon inquiry, that any of those gentlemen, who, among\nus without doors, are called the Court Party, discover the least zeal in\nthis affair. If they had thoughts to interpose, it might be conceived\nthey would shew their displeasure against this Bill, which must very\nmuch lessen the value of the King's patronage upon promotion to vacant\nsees; in the disposal of deaneries, and other considerable preferments\nin the Church, which are in the donation of the Crown; whereby the\nviceroys will have fewer good preferments to bestow on their dependants,\nas well as upon the kindred of members, who may have a sufficient stock\nof that sort of merit, whatever it may be, which may in future times\nmost prevail.\n\nThe Dissenters, by not succeeding in their endeavours to procure a\nrepeal of the Test, have lost nothing, but continue in full enjoyment of\ntheir toleration; while the Clergy without giving the least offence, are\nby this Bill deprived of a considerable branch of their ancient legal\nrights, whereby the schismatical party will have the pleasure of\ngratifying their revenge. _Hoc Graii voluere._\n\nThe farmer will find no relief by this _Modus_, because, when his\npresent lease shall expire, his landlord will infallibly raise the rent\nin an equal proportion, upon every part of land where flax is sown, and\nhave so much a better security for payment at the expense of the Clergy.\n\nIf we judge by things past, it little avails that this Bill is to be\nlimited to a certain time of ten, twenty, or thirty years. For no\nlandlord will ever consent that a law shall expire, by which he finds\nhimself a gainer; and of this there are many examples, as well in\nEngland, as in this kingdom.\n\nThe great end of this Bill is, by proper encouragement to extend the\nlinen manufacture into those counties where it hath hitherto been little\ncultivated: But this encouragement _of lessening the tithe of flax and\nhemp_ is one of such a kind as, it is to be feared, will have a directly\ncontrary effect. Because, if I am rightly informed, no set of men hath\nfor their number and fortunes been more industrious and successful than\nthe Clergy, in introducing that manufacture into places which were\nunacquainted with it; by persuading their people to sow flax and hemp,\nby procuring seed for them and by having them instructed in the\nmanagement thereof; and this they did not without reasonable hopes of\nincreasing the value of their parishes after some time, as well as of\npromoting the benefit of the public. But if this _Modus_ should take\nplace, the Clergy will be so far from gaining that they will become\nlosers by any extraordinary care, by having their best arable lands\nturned to flax and hemp, which are reckoned great impoverishers of land:\nThey cannot therefore be blamed, if they should shew as much zeal to\nprevent its being introduced or improved in their parishes as they\nhitherto have shewed in the introducing and improving of it. This, I am\ntold, some of them have already declared at least so far as to resolve\nnot to give themselves any more trouble than other men about promoting a\nmanufacture by the success of which, they only of all men are to be\nsufferers. Perhaps the giving them even a further encouragement than the\nlaw doth, as it now stands, to a set of men who might on many accounts\nbe so useful to this purpose, would be no bad method of having the great\nend of the Bill more effectually answered: But this is what they are far\nfrom desiring; all they petition for is no more than to continue on the\nsame footing with the rest of their fellow-subjects.\n\nIf this _Modus_ of paying by the acre be to pass into a law, it were to\nbe wished that the same law would appoint one or more sworn surveyors in\neach parish to measure the lands on which flax and hemp are sown, as\nalso would settle the price of surveying, and determine whether the\nincumbent or farmer is to pay for each annual survey. Without something\nof this kind, there must constantly be disputes between them, and the\nneighbouring justices of peace must be teazed as often as those disputes\nhappen.\n\nI had written thus far, when a paper was sent to me with several reasons\nagainst the Bill, some whereof although they have been already touched,\nare put in a better light, and the rest did not occur to me. I shall\ndeliver them in the author's own words.\n\nN.B. Some Alterations have been made in the Bill about the _Modus_,\nsince the above paper was writ; but they are of little moment.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nSOME\n\nFURTHER   REASONS\n\nAGAINST\n\nTHE BILL FOR SETTLING THE TITHE\n\nOF\n\nHEMP, FLAX, &c.\n\n\nI. That tithes are the patrimony of the Church: And if not of Divine\noriginal, yet at least of great antiquity.\n\nII. That all purchases and leases of titheable lands, for many centuries\npast, have been made and taken, subject to the demand of tithes, and\nthose lands sold and taken just so much the cheaper on that account.\n\nIII. That if any lands are exempted from tithes; or the legal demands\nof such tithes lessened by act of parliament, so much value is taken\nfrom the proprietor of the tithes, and vested in the proprietor of the\nlands, or his head tenants.\n\nIV. That no innocent unoffending person can be so deprived of his\nproperty without the greatest violation of common justice.\n\nV. That to do this upon a prospect of encouraging the linen, or any\nother manufacture, is acting upon a very mistaken and unjust\nsupposition, inasmuch as the price of the lands so occupied will be no\nway lessened to the farmer by such a law.\n\nVI. That the Clergy are content cheerfully to bear (as they now do) any\nburden in common with their fellow-subjects, either for the support of\nhis Majesty's government, or the encouragement of the trade of the\nnation but think it very hard, that they should be singled out to pay\nheavier taxes than others, at a time when by the decrease of the value\nof their parishes they are less able to bear them.\n\nVII. That the legislature hath heretofore distinguished the Clergy by\nexemptions, and not by additional loads, and the present Clergy of the\nkingdom hope they have not deserved worse of the legislature than their\npredecessors.\n\nVIII. That by the original constitution of these kingdoms, the Clergy\nhad the sole right of taxing themselves, and were in possession of that\nright as low as the Restoration: And if that right be now devolved upon\nthe Commons by the cession of the Clergy, the Commons can be considered\nin this case in no other light than as the guardians of the Clergy.\n\nIX. That besides those tithes always in the possession of the Clergy;\nthere are some portion of tithes lately come into their possession by\npurchase; that if this clause should take place, they would not be\nallowed the benefit of these purchases, upon an equal footing of\nadvantage with the rest of their fellow-subjects. And that some tithes\nin the hands of impropriators, are under settlements and mortgages.\n\nX. That the gentlemen of this House should consider, that loading the\nClergy is loading their own younger brothers and children; with this\nadditional grievance, that it is taking from the younger and poorer, to\ngive to the elder and richer. And,\n\n_Lastly_, That, if it were at any time just and proper to do this, it\nwould however be too severe to do it now, when all the tithes of the\nkingdom are known for some years past to have sunk above one-third part\nin their value.\n\nAny income in the hands of the Clergy, is at least as useful to the\npublic, as the same income in the hands of the laity.\n\nIt were more reasonable to grant the clergy in three parts of the nation\nan additional support, than to diminish their present subsistence.\n\nGreat employments are and will be in the hands of Englishmen; nothing\nleft for the younger sons of Irishmen but vicarages, tide-waiters'\nplaces, &c.; therefore no reason to make them worse.\n\nThe _Modus_ upon the flax in England, affects only lands reclaimed since\nthe year 1690, and is at the rate of five shillings the English acre,\nwhich is equivalent to eight shillings and eightpence Irish, and that to\nbe paid before the farmer removed it from the field. Flax is a\nmanufacture of little consequence in England, but is the staple in\nIreland, and if it increases (as it probably will) must in many places\njostle out corn, because it is more gainful.\n\nThe Clergy of the Established Church, have no interest like those of the\nChurch of Rome, distinct from the true interest of their country; and\ntherefore ought to suffer under no distinct impositions or taxes of any\nkind.\n\nThe Bill for settling the _Modus_ of flax in England, was brought in, in\nthe first year of the reign of King George I., when the Clergy lay very\nunjustly under the imputation of some disaffection. And to encourage the\nbringing in of some fens in Lincolnshire, which were not to be continued\nunder flax: But it left all lands where flax had been sown before that\ntime, under the same condition of tithing, in which they were before the\npassing of that Bill: Whereas this bill takes away what the Clergy are\nactually possessed of.\n\nThat the woollen manufacture is the staple of England, as the linen is\nthat of Ireland, yet no attempt was ever made in England to reduce the\ntithe of wool, for the encouragement of that manufacture.\n\nThis manufacture hath already been remarkably favoured by the Clergy,\nwho have hitherto been generally content with less than half--some with\nsixpence a garden--and some have taken nothing.\n\nEmployments they say have been taxed, the reasons for which taxation\nwill not hold with regard to property, at least till employments become\ninheritances.\n\nThe Commons always have had so tender a regard to property; that they\nnever would suffer any law to pass, whereby any particular persons might\nbe aggrieved without their own consent.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nAN ESSAY\n\nON THE\n\nFATES OF CLERGYMEN.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nThis essay was first printed in Nos. v. and vii. of \"The Intelligencer\"\n(Dublin, 1728). In that periodical it bore the title: \"A Description of\nwhat the World calls Discretion;\" and had the following lines from Ben\nJonson as a text:\n\n  \"Described it's thus: Defined would you it have?\n  Then the World's honest Man's an errant knave.\"\n\nThe text here printed is based on the original issue, and collated with\nthe \"Miscellanies,\" vol. iii. of 1732, and the \"Miscellanies,\" vol. ii.,\n1747.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  AN ESSAY ON THE FATES OF\n  CLERGYMEN.\n\n\nThere is no talent so useful towards rising in the world, or which puts\nmen more out of the reach of fortune, than that quality generally\npossessed by the dullest sort of people, and is in common speech called\ndiscretion; a species of lower prudence, by the assistance of which,\npeople of the meanest intellectuals, without any other qualification,\npass through the world in great tranquillity, and with universal good\ntreatment, neither giving nor taking offence. Courts are seldom\nunprovided of persons under this character, on whom, if they happen to\nbe of great quality, most employments, even the greatest, naturally\nfall, when competitors will not agree; and in such promotions, nobody\nrejoices or grieves. The truth of this I could prove by several\ninstances within my own memory; for I say nothing of present times.\n\nAnd, indeed, as regularity and forms are of great use in carrying on the\nbusiness of the world, so it is very convenient, that persons endued\nwith this kind of discretion, should have that share which is proper to\ntheir talents, in the conduct of affairs, but by no means meddle in\nmatters which require genius, learning, strong comprehension, quickness\nof conception, magnanimity, generosity, sagacity, or any other superior\ngift of human minds. Because this sort of discretion is usually attended\nwith a strong desire of money, and few scruples about the way of\nobtaining it; with servile flattery and submission; with a want of all\npublic spirit or principle; with a perpetual wrong judgment, when the\nowners come into power and high place, how to dispose of favour and\npreferment; having no measures for merit and virtue in others, but those\nvery steps by which themselves ascended; nor the least intention of\ndoing good or hurt to the public, farther than either one or t'other is\nlikely to be subservient to their own security or interest. Thus, being\nvoid of all friendship and enmity, they never complain or find fault\nwith the times, and indeed never have reason to do so.\n\nMen of eminent parts and abilities, as well as virtues, do sometimes\nrise in the court, sometimes in the law, and sometimes even in the\nChurch. Such were the Lord Bacon, the Earl of Strafford, Archbishop\nLaud, in the reign of King Charles I., and others in our own times, whom\nI shall not name; but these, and many more, under different princes, and\nin different kingdoms, were disgraced or banished, or suffered death,\nmerely in envy to their virtues and superior genius, which emboldened\nthem in great exigencies and distresses of state, (wanting a reasonable\ninfusion of this aldermanly discretion,) to attempt the service of their\nprince and country, out of the common forms.\n\nThis evil fortune, which generally attends extraordinary men in the\nmanagement of great affairs, has been imputed to divers causes that need\nnot be here set down, when so obvious a one occurs, if what a certain\nwriter observes be true, that when a great genius appears in the world,\nthe dunces are all in confederacy against him. And if this be his fate\nwhen he employs his talents[1] wholly in his closet, without interfering\nwith any man's ambition or avarice, what must he expect, when he\nventures out to seek for preferment in a court, but universal opposition\nwhen he is mounting the ladder, and every hand ready to turn him off\nwhen he is at the top? And in this point, fortune generally acts\ndirectly contrary to nature; for in nature we find, that bodies full of\nlife and spirits mount easily, and are hard to fall, whereas heavy\nbodies are hard to rise, and come down with greater velocity, in\nproportion to their weight; but we find fortune every day acting just\nthe reverse of this.\n\n[Footnote 1: \"And thus although he employs his talents.\" This is the\nreading of \"The Intelligencer.\" [T.S.]]\n\nThis talent of discretion, as I have described it in its several\nadjuncts and circumstances, is nowhere so serviceable as to the clergy,\nto whose preferment nothing is so fatal as the character of wit,\npoliteness in reading or manners, or that kind of behaviour which we\ncontract by having too much conversation with persons of high station\nand eminency: these qualifications being reckoned, by the vulgar of all\nranks, to be marks of levity, which is the last crime the world will\npardon in a clergyman; to this I may add a free manner of speaking in\nmixed company, and too frequent an appearance in places of much resort,\nwhich are equally noxious to spiritual promotion.\n\nI have known, indeed, a few exceptions to some parts of these\nobservations.[2] I have seen some of the dullest men alive aiming at\nwit, and others, with as little pretensions, affecting politeness in\nmanners and discourse: But never being able to persuade the world of\ntheir guilt, they grew into considerable stations, upon the firm\nassurance which all people had of their discretion, because they were of\na size too low to deceive the world to their own disadvantage. But this,\nI confess, is a trial too dangerous often to engage in.\n\n[Footnote 2: This word is \"regulations\" in \"The Intelligencer.\" [T.S.]]\n\nThere is a known story of a clergyman, who was recommended for a\npreferment by some great men at court, to an archbishop.[3] His grace\nsaid, \"he had heard that the clergyman used to play at whist and\nswobbers;[4] that as to playing now and then a sober game at whist for\npastime, it might be pardoned, but he could not digest those wicked\nswobbers;\" and it was with some pains that my Lord Somers could\nundeceive him. I ask, by what talents we may suppose that great prelate\nascended so high, or what sort of qualifications he would expect in\nthose whom he took into his patronage, or would probably recommend to\ncourt for the government of distant churches?\n\n[Footnote 3: Archbishop Tenison, who, by all contemporary accounts, was\na very dull man. There was a bitter sarcasm upon him usually ascribed to\nSwift, \"That he was as hot and heavy as a tailor's goose.\" [S.]\n\nIn \"The Intelligencer\" the word \"archbishop\" is replaced by the letters\nA.B.C.T. [T.S.]]\n\n[Footnote 4: \"Swobbers\" were four privileged cards used, at one time,\nfor betting purposes, in the game of whist. [T.S.]]\n\nTwo clergymen, in my memory, stood candidates for a small free school in\nYorkshire, where a gentleman of quality and interest in the country, who\nhappened to have a better understanding than his neighbours, procured\nthe place for him who was the better scholar, and more gentlemanly\nperson, of the two, very much to the regret of all the parish: The\nother, being disappointed, came up to London, where he became the\ngreatest pattern of this lower discretion that I have known, and\npossessed it with as heavy intellectuals; which, together with the\ncoldness of his temper, and gravity of his deportment, carried him safe\nthrough many difficulties, and he lived and died in a great station;\nwhile his competitor is too obscure for fame to tell us what became of\nhim.\n\nThis species of discretion, which I so much celebrate, and do most\nheartily recommend, hath one advantage not yet mentioned, that it will\ncarry a man safe through all the malice and variety of parties, so far,\nthat whatever faction happens to be uppermost, his claim is usually\nallowed for a share of what is going. And the thing seems to me highly\nreasonable: For in all great changes, the prevailing side is usually so\ntempestuous, that it wants the ballast of those whom the world calls\nmoderate men, and I call men of discretion; whom people in power may,\nwith little ceremony, load as heavy as they please, drive them through\nthe hardest and deepest roads without danger of foundering, or breaking\ntheir backs, and will be sure to find them neither rusty nor vicious.\n\nI[5] will here give the reader a short history of two clergymen in\nEngland, the characters of each, and the progress of their fortunes in\nthe world; by which the force of worldly discretion, and the bad\nconsequences from the want of that virtue, will strongly appear.\n\n[Footnote 5: In \"The Intelligencer,\" No. v., this paragraph reads as\nfollows: \"In some following Paper I will give the reader a short history\nof two Clergymen in England, the characters of each, and the progress of\ntheir fortunes in the world. By which the force of worldly discretion,\nand the bad consequences from the want of that virtue, will strongly\nappear.\" In No. vii. the subject is continued as in the next paragraph.\n[T.S.]]\n\nCorusodes, an Oxford student, and a farmer's son, was never absent from\nprayers or lecture, nor once out of his college, after Tom had tolled.\nHe spent every day ten hours in his closet, in reading his courses,\ndozing, clipping papers, or darning his stockings; which last he\nperformed to admiration. He could be soberly drunk at the expense of\nothers, with college ale, and at those seasons was always most devout.\nHe wore the same gown five years without draggling or tearing. He never\nonce looked into a playbook or a poem. He read Virgil and Ramus in the\nsame cadence, but with a very different taste. He never understood a\njest, or had the least conception of wit.\n\nFor one saying he stands in renown to this day. Being with some other\nstudents over a pot of ale, one of the company said so many pleasant\nthings, that the rest were much diverted, only Corusodes was silent and\nunmoved. When they parted, he called this merry companion aside, and\nsaid, \"Sir, I perceive by your often speaking, and your friends\nlaughing, that you spoke many jests; and you could not but observe my\nsilence: But sir, this is my humour, I never make a jest myself, nor\never laugh at another man's.\"\n\nCorusodes, thus endowed, got into holy orders; having, by the most\nextreme parsimony, saved thirty-four pounds out of a very beggarly\nfellowship, he went up to London, where his sister was waitingwoman to a\nlady, and so good a solicitor, that by her means he was admitted to read\nprayers in the family twice a-day, at fourteen[1] shillings a month. He\nhad now acquired a low, obsequious, awkward bow, and a talent of gross\nflattery both in and out of season; he would shake the butler by the\nhand; he taught the page his catechism, and was sometimes admitted to\ndine at the steward's table. In short, he got the good word of the whole\nfamily, and was recommended by my lady for chaplain to some other noble\nhouses, by which his revenue (besides vales) amounted to about thirty\npounds a-year: His sister procured him a scarf from my lord, who had a\nsmall design of gallantry upon her; and by his lordship's solicitation\nhe got a lectureship in town of sixty pounds a-year; where he preached\nconstantly in person, in a grave manner, with an audible voice, a style\necclesiastic, and the matter (such as it was) well suited to the\nintellectuals of his hearers. Some time after, a country living fell in\nmy lord's disposal; and his lordship, who had now some encouragement\ngiven him of success in his amour, bestowed the living on Corusodes, who\nstill kept his lectureship and residence in town; where he was a\nconstant attendant at all meetings relating to charity, without ever\ncontributing further than his frequent pious exhortations. If any woman\nof better fashion in the parish happened to be absent from church, they\nwere sure of a visit from him in a day or two, to chide and to dine with\nthem.\n\n[Footnote 6: Scott has \"ten shillings.\" [T.S.]]\n\nHe had a select number of poor constantly attending at the street door\nof his lodgings, for whom he was a common solicitor to his former\npatroness, dropping in his own halfcrown among the collection, and\ntaking it out when he disposed of the money. At a person of quality's\nhouse, he would never sit down till he was thrice bid, and then upon the\ncorner of the most distant chair. His whole demeanour was formal and\nstarch, which adhered so close, that he could never shake it off in his\nhighest promotion.\n\nHis lord was now in high employment at court, and attended by him with\nthe most abject assiduity; and his sister being gone off with child to a\nprivate lodging, my lord continued his graces to Corusodes, got him to\nbe a chaplain in ordinary, and in due time a parish in town, and a\ndignity in the Church.\n\nHe paid his curates punctually, at the lowest salary, and partly out of\nthe communion money; but gave them good advice in abundance. He married\na citizen's widow, who taught him to put out small sums at ten per\ncent., and brought him acquainted with jobbers in Change-alley. By her\ndexterity he sold the clerkship of his parish, when it became vacant.\n\nHe kept a miserable house, but the blame was laid wholly upon madam; for\nthe good doctor was always at his books, or visiting the sick, or doing\nother offices of charity and piety in his parish.\n\nHe treated all his inferiors of the clergy with a most sanctified pride;\nwas rigorously and universally censorious upon all his brethren of the\ngown, on their first appearance in the world, or while they continued\nmeanly preferred; but gave large allowance to the laity of high rank, or\ngreat riches, using neither eyes nor ears for their faults: He was never\nsensible of the least corruption in courts, parliaments, or ministries,\nbut made the most favourable constructions of all public proceedings;\nand power, in whatever hands, or whatever party, was always secure of\nhis most charitable opinion. He had many wholesome maxims ready to\nexcuse all miscarriages of state: Men are but men; _Erunt vitia donec\nhomines_; and, _Quod supra nos, nil ad nos_; with several others of\nequal weight.\n\nIt would lengthen my paper beyond measure to trace out the whole system\nof his conduct; his dreadful apprehensions of Popery; his great\nmoderation toward dissenters of all denominations; with hearty wishes,\nthat, by yielding somewhat on both sides, there might be a general union\namong Protestants; his short, inoffensive sermons in his turns at court,\nand the matter exactly suited to the present juncture of prevailing\nopinions; the arts he used to obtain a mitre, by writing against\nEpiscopacy; and the proofs he gave of his loyalty, by palliating or\ndefending the murder of a martyred prince.\n\nEndowed with all these accomplishments, we leave him in the full career\nof success, mounting fast toward the top of the Ladder Ecclesiastical,\nwhich he hath a fair probability to reach; without the merit of one\nsingle virtue, moderately stocked with the least valuable parts of\nerudition, utterly devoid of all taste, judgment, or genius; and, in his\ngrandeur, naturally choosing to haul up others after him, whose\naccomplishments most resemble his own, except his beloved sons, nephews,\nor other kindred, be in competition; or, lastly, except his inclinations\nbe diverted by those who have power to mortify, or further advance him.\n\nEugenio set out from the same university, and about the same time with\nCorusodes; he had the reputation of an arch lad at school, and was\nunfortunately possessed with a talent for poetry; on which account he\nreceived many chiding letters from his father, and grave advice from his\ntutor. He did not neglect his college learning, but his chief study was\nthe authors of antiquity, with a perfect knowledge in the Greek and\nRoman tongues. He could never procure himself to be chosen fellow: For\nit was objected against him, that he had written verses, and\nparticularly some wherein he glanced at a certain reverend doctor famous\nfor dulness: That he been seen bowing to ladies, as he met them in the\nstreets; and it was proved, that once he had been found dancing in a\nprivate family, with half a dozen of both sexes.\n\nHe was the younger son to a gentleman of good birth, but small estate;\nand his father dying, he was driven to London to seek his fortune: He\ngot into orders, and became reader in a parish church at twenty pounds\na-year; was carried by an Oxford friend to Will's coffee-house,\nfrequented in those days by men of wit, where in some time he had the\nbad luck to be distinguished. His scanty salary compelled him to run\ndeep in debt for a new gown and cassock, and now and then forced him to\nwrite some paper of wit or humour, or preach a sermon for ten shillings,\nto supply his necessities. He was a thousand times recommended by his\npoetical friends to great persons, as a young man of excellent parts who\ndeserved encouragement, and received a thousand promises; but his\nmodesty, and a generous spirit, which disdained the slavery of continual\napplication and attendance, always disappointed him, making room for\nvigilant dunces, who were sure to be never out of sight.\n\nHe had an excellent faculty in preaching, if he were not sometimes a\nlittle too refined, and apt to trust too much to his own way of thinking\nand reasoning.\n\nWhen, upon the vacancy of a preferment, he was hardly drawn to attend\nupon some promising lord, he received the usual answer, \"That he came\ntoo late, for it had been given to another the very day before.\" And he\nhad only this comfort left, that everybody said, \"It was a thousand\npities something could not be done for poor Mr. Eugenio.\"\n\nThe remainder of his story will be dispatched in a few words: Wearied\nwith weak hopes, and weaker pursuits, he accepted a curacy in\nDerbyshire, of thirty pounds a-year, and when he was five-and-forty, had\nthe great felicity to be preferred by a friend of his father's to a\nvicarage worth annually sixty pounds, in the most desert parts of\nLincolnshire; where, his spirit quite sunk with those reflections that\nsolitude and disappointments bring, he married a farmer's widow, and is\nstill alive, utterly undistinguished and forgotten; only some of the\nneighbours have accidentally heard, that he had been a notable man in\nhis youth.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nCONCERNING THAT\n\nUNIVERSAL HATRED,\n\nWHICH PREVAILS\n\nAGAINST THE CLERGY.\n\n\nMay 24, 1736.\n\nI have been long considering and conjecturing, what could be the causes\nof that great disgust, of late, against the clergy of both kingdoms,\nbeyond what was ever known till that monster and tyrant, Henry VIII. who\ntook away from them, against law, reason, and justice, at least\ntwo-thirds of their legal possessions; and whose successors (except\nQueen Mary) went on with their rapine, till the accession of King James\nI. That detestable tyrant Henry VIII. although he abolished the Pope's\npower in England, as universal bishop, yet what he did in that article,\nhowever just it were in itself, was the mere effect of his irregular\nappetite, to divorce himself from a wife he was weary of, for a younger\nand more beautiful woman, whom he afterwards beheaded. But, at the same\ntime, he was an entire defender of all the Popish doctrines, even those\nwhich were the most absurd. And, while he put people to death for\ndenying him to be head of the Church, he burned every offender against\nthe doctrines of the Roman faith; and cut off the head of Sir Thomas\nMore, a person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced, for\nnot directly owning him to be head of the Church. Among all the princes\nwho ever reigned in the world there was never so infernal a beast as\nHenry VIII. in every vice of the most odious kind, without any one\nappearance of virtue: But cruelty, lust, rapine, and atheism, were his\npeculiar talents. He rejected the power of the Pope for no other reason,\nthan to give his full swing to commit sacrilege, in which no tyrant,\nsince Christianity became national, did ever equal him by many degrees.\nThe abbeys, endowed with lands by the mistaken notions of well-disposed\nmen, were indeed too numerous, and hurtful to the kingdom; and,\ntherefore, the legislature might, after the Reformation, have justly\napplied them to some pious or public uses.\n\nIn a very few centuries after Christianity became national in most parts\nof Europe, although the church of Rome had already introduced many\ncorruptions in religion; yet the piety of early Christians, as well as\nnew converts, was so great, and particularly of princes, as well as\nnoblemen and other wealthy persons, that they built many religious\nhouses, for those who were inclined to live in a recluse or solitary\nmanner, endowing those monasteries with land. It is true, we read of\nmonks some ages before, who dwelt in caves and cells, in desert places.\nBut, when public edifices were erected and endowed, they began gradually\nto degenerate into idleness, ignorance, avarice, ambition, and luxury,\nafter the usual fate of all human institutions. The Popes, who had\nalready aggrandized themselves, laid hold of the opportunity to subject\nall religious houses with their priors and abbots, to their peculiar\nauthority; whereby these religious orders became of an interest directly\ndifferent from the rest of mankind, and wholly at the Pope's devotion. I\nneed say no more on this article, so generally known and so frequently\ntreated, or of the frequent endeavours of some other princes, as well as\nour own, to check the growth, and wealth, and power of the regulars.\n\nIn later times, this mistaken piety, of erecting and endowing abbeys,\nbegan to decrease. And therefore, when some new-invented sect of monks\nand friars began to start up, not being able to procure grants of land,\nthey got leave from the Pope to appropriate the tithes and glebes of\ncertain parishes, as contiguous or near as they could find, obliging\nthemselves to send out some of their body to take care of the people's\nsouls: And, if some of those parishes were at too great a distance from\nthe abbey, the monks appointed to attend them were paid, for the cure,\neither a small stipend of a determined sum, or sometimes a third part,\nor what are now called the vicarial tithes.\n\nAs to the church-lands, it hath been the opinion of many writers, that,\nin England, they amounted to a third part of the whole kingdom. And\ntherefore, if that wicked prince above-mentioned, when he had cast off\nthe Pope's power, had introduced some reformation in religion, he could\nnot have been blamed for taking away the abbey-lands by authority of\nparliament. But, when he continued the most cruel persecutor of all\nthose who differed in the least article of the Popish religion, which\nwas then the national and established faith, his seizing on those lands,\nand applying them to profane uses, was absolute sacrilege, in the\nstrongest sense of the word; having been bequeathed by princes and pious\nmen to sacred uses.\n\nIn the reign of this prince, the church and court of Rome had arrived to\nsuch a height of corruption, in doctrine and discipline, as gave great\noffence to many wise, learned, and pious men, through most parts of\nEurope; and several countries agreed to make some reformation in\nreligion. But, although a proper and just reformation were allowed to be\nnecessary, even to preserve Christianity itself, yet the passions and\nvices of men had mingled themselves so far, as to pervert and confound\nall the good endeavours of those who intended well: And thus the\nreformation, in every country where it was attempted, was carried on in\nthe most impious and scandalous manner that can possibly be conceived.\nTo which unhappy proceedings we owe all the just reproachings that Roman\nCatholics have cast upon us ever since. For, when the northern kingdoms\nand states grew weary of the Pope's tyranny, and when their preachers,\nbeginning with the scandalous abuses of indulgencies, and proceeding\nfarther to examine several points of faith, had credit enough with their\nprinces, who were in some fear lest such a change might affect the peace\nof their countries, because their bishops had great influence on the\npeople by their wealth and power; these politic teachers had a ready\nanswer to this purpose. \"Sir, your Majesty need not be in any pain or\napprehension: Take away the lands, and sink the authority of the\nbishops: Bestow those lands on your courtiers, on your nobles, and your\ngreat officers in your army; and then you will be secure of the people.\"\nThis advice was exactly followed. And, in the Protestant monarchies\nabroad, little more than the shadow of Episcopacy is left; but, in the\nrepublics, is wholly extinct.\n\nIn England, the Reformation was brought in after a somewhat different\nmanner, but upon the same principle of robbing the Church. However,\nHenry VIII. with great dexterity, discovered an invention to gratify his\ninsatiable thirst for blood, on both religions.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS ON RELIGION.\n\n\nNOTE.\n\nIn the \"Gent. Mag.,\" vol. xxxv., p. 372 (August, 1765), is a reprint of\nthese \"Thoughts,\" and \"Further Thoughts\" from Deane Swift's edition of\nhis relative's works, just then published. The note introducing the\nreprint is signed \"T.B.\"; but neither the note nor T.B.'s remarks are of\nmuch importance. The present text is that of Scott, and collated with\nthe quarto edition of Swift's Works, vol. viii. 1765.\n\n[T.S.]\n\n\n  THOUGHTS ON RELIGION.\n\n\nI am in all opinions to believe according to my own impartial reason;\nwhich I am bound to inform and improve, as far as my capacity and\nopportunities will permit.\n\nIt may be prudent in me to act sometimes by other men's reason, but I\ncan think only by my own.\n\nIf another man's reason fully convinceth me, it becomes my own reason.\n\nTo say a man is bound to believe, is neither truth nor sense.\n\nYou may force men, by interest or punishment, to say or swear they\nbelieve, and to act as if they believed: You can go no further.\n\nEvery man, as a member of the commonwealth, ought to be content with the\npossession of his own opinion in private, without perplexing his\nneighbour or disturbing the public.\n\nViolent zeal for truth hath an hundred to one odds to be either\npetulancy, ambition, or pride.\n\nThere is a degree of corruption wherein some nations, as bad as the\nworld is, will proceed to an amendment; till which time particular men\nshould be quiet.\n\nTo remove opinions fundamental in religion is impossible, and the\nattempt wicked, whether those opinions be true or false; unless your\navowed design be to abolish that religion altogether. So, for instance,\nin the famous doctrine of Christ's divinity, which hath been universally\nreceived by all bodies of Christians, since the condemnation of Arianism\nunder Constantine and his successors: Wherefore the proceedings of the\nSocinians are both vain and unwarrantable; because they will be never\nable to advance their own opinion, or meet any other success than\nbreeding doubts and disturbances in the world. _Qui ratione suae\ndisturbant moenia mundi._\n\nThe want of belief is a defect that ought to be concealed when it cannot\nbe overcome.\n\nThe Christian religion, in the most early times, was proposed to the\nJews and heathens without the article of Christ's divinity; which, I\nremember, Erasmus accounts for, by its being too strong a meat for\nbabes. Perhaps, if it were now softened by the Chinese missionaries, the\nconversion of those infidels would be less difficult: And we find by the\nAlcoran, it is the great stumbling-block of the Mahometans. But, in a\ncountry already Christian, to bring so fundamental a point of faith into\ndebate, can have no consequences that are not pernicious to morals and\npublic peace.\n\nI have been often offended to find St. Paul's allegories, and other\nfigures of Grecian eloquence, converted by divines into articles of\nfaith.\n\nGod's mercy is over all His works, but divines of all sorts lessen that\nmercy too much.\n\nI look upon myself, in the capacity of a clergyman, to be one appointed\nby Providence for defending a post assigned me, and for gaining over as\nmany enemies as I can. Although I think my cause is just, yet one great\nmotive is my submitting to the pleasure of Providence, and to the laws\nof my country.\n\nI am not answerable to God for the doubts that arise in my own breast,\nsince they are the consequence of that reason which He hath planted in\nme; if I take care to conceal those doubts from others, if I use my best\nendeavours to subdue them, and if they have no influence on the conduct\nof my life.\n\nI believe that thousands of men would be orthodox enough in certain\npoints, if divines had not been too curious, or too narrow, in reducing\northodoxy within the compass of subtleties, niceties, and distinctions,\nwith little warrant from Scripture and less from reason or good policy.\n\nI never saw, heard, nor read, that the clergy were beloved in any nation\nwhere Christianity was the religion of the country. Nothing can render\nthem popular but some degree of persecution.\n\nThose fine gentlemen who affect the humour of railing at the clergy,\nare, I think, bound in honour to turn parsons themselves, and shew us\nbetter examples.\n\nMiserable mortals! Can we contribute to the honour and glory of God? I\nwish that expression were struck out of our Prayer-books.\n\nLiberty of conscience, properly speaking, is no more than the liberty of\npossessing our own thoughts and opinions, which every man enjoys without\nfear of the magistrate: But how far he shall publicly act in pursuance\nof those opinions, is to be regulated by the laws of the country.\nPerhaps, in my own thoughts, I prefer a well-instituted commonwealth\nbefore a monarchy; and I know several others of the same opinion. Now,\nif, upon this pretence, I should insist upon liberty of conscience, form\nconventicles of republicans, and print books preferring that government\nand condemning what is established, the magistrate would, with great\njustice, hang me and my disciples. It is the same case in religion,\nalthough not so avowed, where liberty of conscience, under the present\nacceptation, equally produces revolutions, or at least convulsions and\ndisturbances in a state; which politicians would see well enough, if\ntheir eyes were not blinded by faction, and of which these kingdoms, as\nwell as France, Sweden, and other countries, are flaming instances.\nCromwell's notion upon this article was natural and right; when, upon\nthe surrender of a town in Ireland, the Popish governor insisted upon an\narticle for liberty of conscience, Cromwell said, he meddled with no\nman's conscience; but, if by liberty of conscience, the governor meant\nthe liberty of the mass, he had express orders from the Parliament of\nEngland against admitting any such liberty at all.\n\nIt is impossible that anything so natural, so necessary, and so\nuniversal as death, should ever have been designed by Providence as an\nevil to mankind.\n\nAlthough reason were intended by Providence to govern our passions, yet\nit seems that, in two points of the greatest moment to the being and\ncontinuance of the world, God hath intended our passions to prevail over\nreason. The first is, the propagation of our species, since no wise man\never married from the dictates of reason. The other is, the love of\nlife, which, from the dictates of reason, every man would despise, and\nwish it at an end, or that it never had a beginning.\n\n\n*****       *****       *****       *****\n\n\n\n\nFURTHER THOUGHTS ON\n\nRELIGION.\n\n\nThe Scripture system of man's creation is what Christians are bound to\nbelieve, and seems most agreeable of all others to probability and\nreason. Adam was formed from a piece of clay, and Eve from one of his\nribs. The text mentioneth nothing of his Maker's intending him for,\nexcept to rule over the beasts of the field and birds of the air. As to\nEve, it doth not appear that her husband was her monarch, only she was\nto be his help meet, and placed in some degree of subjection. However,\nbefore his fall, the beasts were his most obedient subjects, whom he\ngoverned by absolute power. After his eating the forbidden fruit, the\ncourse of nature was changed, the animals began to reject his\ngovernment; some were able to escape by flight, and others were too\nfierce to be attacked. The Scripture mentioneth no particular acts of\nroyalty in Adam over his posterity, who were cotemporary with him, or of\nany monarch until after the flood; whereof the first was Nimrod, the\nmighty hunter, who, as Milton expresseth it, made men, and not beasts,\nhis prey. For men were easier caught by promises, and subdued by the\nfolly or treachery of their own species. Whereas the brutes prevailed\nonly by their courage or strength, which, among them, are peculiar to\ncertain kinds. Lions, bears, elephants, and some other animals are\nstrong or valiant, and their species never degenerates in their native\nsoil, except they happen to be enslaved or destroyed by human fraud: But\nmen degenerate every day, merely by the folly, the perverseness, the\navarice, the tyranny, the pride, the treachery, or inhumanity of their\nown kind.\n\n\nTHREE PRAYERS\n\nUSED BY THE DEAN FOR MRS JOHNSON,\n\nIN HER LAST SICKNESS, 1727.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: \"Dr. Swift, after his return to Ireland in the beginning of\nOctober [1727], having visited her [Stella] frequently during her\nsickness, not only as a friend, but a clergyman; he used the following\nprayers on that occasion; which are here printed from his own\nhandwriting.\" [Note in volume viii. of Swift's Works, Dublin, 1746.]]\n\n\nI.\n\nA PRAYER FOR STELLA.\n\nAlmighty and most gracious Lord God, extend, we beseech Thee, Thy pity\nand compassion towards this Thy languishing servant: Teach her to place\nher hope and confidence entirely in Thee; give her a true sense of the\nemptiness and vanity of all earthly things; make her truly sensible of\nall the infirmities of her life past, and grant to her such a true\nsincere repentance as is not to be repented of. Preserve her, O Lord, in\na sound mind and understanding, during this Thy visitation: Keep her\nfrom both the sad extremes of presumption and despair. If Thou shalt\nplease to restore her to her former health, give her grace to be ever\nmindful of that mercy, and to keep those good resolutions she now makes\nin her sickness, so that no length of time, nor prosperity, may entice\nher to forget them. Let no thought of her misfortunes distract her mind,\nand prevent the means towards her recovery, or disturb her in her\npreparations for a better life. We beseech Thee also, O Lord, of Thy\ninfinite goodness to remember the good actions of this Thy servant; that\nthe naked she hath clothed, the hungry she hath fed, the sick and the\nfatherless whom she hath relieved, may be reckoned according to Thy\ngracious promise, as if they had been done unto Thee. Hearken, O Lord,\nto the prayers offered up by the friends of this Thy servant in her\nbehalf, and especially those now made by us unto Thee. Give Thy blessing\nto those endeavours used for her recovery; but take from her all violent\ndesire, either of life or death, further than with resignation to Thy\nholy will. And now, O Lord, we implore Thy gracious favour towards us\nhere met together; grant that the sense of this Thy servant's weakness\nmay add strength to our faith, that we, considering the infirmities of\nour nature, and the uncertainty of life, may, by this example, be drawn\nto repentance before it shall please Thee to visit us in the like\nmanner. Accept these prayers, we beseech Thee, for the sake of Thy dear\nSon Jesus Christ, our Lord; who, with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth\nand reigneth ever one God world without end. Amen.\n\n\nII.\n\nA PRAYER USED BY THE DEAN FOR MRS JOHNSON IN HER  LAST  SICKNESS,\nWRITTEN OCT. 17, 1727.\n\nMost merciful Father, accept our humblest prayers in behalf of this Thy\nlanguishing servant: Forgive the sins, the frailties, and infirmities of\nher life past. Accept the good deeds she hath done, in such a manner,\nthat at whatever time Thou shalt please to call her, she may be received\ninto everlasting habitations. Give her grace to continue sincerely\nthankful to Thee for the many favours Thou hast bestowed upon her; The\nability and inclination and practice to do good, and those virtues,\nwhich have procured the esteem and love of her friends, and a most\nunspotted name in the world. O God, Thou dispensest Thy blessings and\nThy punishments, as it becometh infinite justice and mercy; and since it\nwas Thy pleasure to afflict her with a long, constant, weakly state of\nhealth, make her truly sensible, that it was for very wise ends, and was\nlargely made up to her in other blessings, more valuable and less\ncommon. Continue to her, O Lord, that firmness and constancy of mind,\nwhere with Thou hast most graciously endowed her, together with that\ncontempt of worldly things and vanities, that she hath shewn in the\nwhole conduct of her life. O all-powerful Being, the least motion of\nWhose will can create or destroy a world; pity us the mournful friends\nof Thy distressed servant, who sink under the weight of her present\ncondition, and the fear of losing the most valuable of our friends:\nRestore her to us, O Lord, if it be Thy gracious will, or inspire us\nwith constancy and resignation, to support ourselves under so heavy an\naffliction. Restore her, O Lord, for the sake of those poor, who by\nlosing her will be desolate, and those sick, who will not only want her\nbounty, but her care and tending: Or else, in Thy mercy, raise up some\nother in her place with equal disposition and better abilities. Lessen,\nO Lord, we beseech Thee, her bodily pains, or give her a double strength\nof mind to support them. And if Thou wilt soon take her to Thyself, turn\nour thoughts rather upon that felicity, which we hope she shall enjoy,\nthan upon that unspeakable loss we shall endure. Let her memory be ever\ndear unto us; and the example of her many virtues, as far as human\ninfirmity will admit, our constant imitation. Accept, O Lord, these\nprayers poured from the very bottom of our hearts, in Thy mercy, and for\nthe merits of our blessed Saviour. Amen.\n\n\nIII.\n\nWRITTEN Nov. 6, 1727.\n\nO Merciful Father, Who never afflictest Thy children, but for their own\ngood, and with justice, over which Thy mercy always prevaileth, either\nto turn them to repentance, or to punish them in the present life, in\norder to reward them in a better; take pity, we beseech Thee, upon this\nThy poor afflicted servant, languishing so long and so grievously under\nthe weight of Thy hand. Give her strength, O Lord, to support her\nweakness; and patience to endure her pains, without repining at Thy\ncorrection. Forgive every rash and inconsiderate expression which her\nanguish may at any time force from her tongue, while her heart\ncontinueth in an entire submission to Thy will. Suppress in her, O Lord,\nall eager desires of life, and lessen her fears of death, by inspiring\ninto her an humble, yet assured, hope of Thy mercy. Give her a sincere\nrepentance for all her transgressions and omissions, and a firm\nresolution to pass the remainder of her life in endeavouring to her\nutmost to observe all Thy precepts. We beseech Thee likewise to compose\nher thoughts; and preserve to her the use of her memory and reason\nduring the course of her sickness. Give her a true conception of the\nvanity, folly, and insignificancy of all human things; and strengthen\nher so as to beget in her a sincere love of Thee in the midst of her\nsufferings. Accept and impute all her good deeds, and forgive her all\nthose offences against Thee, which she hath sincerely repented of, or\nthrough the frailty of memory hath forgot. And now, O Lord, we turn to\nThee in behalf of ourselves, and the rest of her sorrowful friends. Let\nnot our grief afflict her mind, and thereby have an ill effect on her\npresent distempers. Forgive the sorrow and weakness of those among us,\nwho sink under the grief and terror of losing so dear and useful a\nfriend. Accept and pardon our most earnest prayers and wishes for her\nlonger continuance in this evil world, to do what Thou art pleased to\ncall Thy service, and is only her bounden duty; that she may be still a\ncomfort to us, and to all others who will want the benefit of her\nconversation, her advice, her good offices, or her charity. And since\nThou hast promised, that where two or three are gathered together in Thy\nname, Thou wilt be in the midst of them, to grant their request; O\ngracious Lord, grant to us who are here met in Thy name, that those\nrequests, which in the utmost sincerity and earnestness of our hearts we\nhave now made in behalf of this Thy distressed servant, and of\nourselves, may effectually be answered; through the merits of Jesus\nChrist our Lord. Amen.\n\n\nAN EVENING PRAYER,\n\nFROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FOUND AMONGST DR LYON'S PAPERS.\n\nOH! Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, and from whom no secrets\nare hid, who hast declared that all such as shall draw nigh to thee with\ntheir lips, when their hearts are far from thee, are an abomination unto\nthee; cleanse, we beseech thee, the thoughts of our hearts, by the\ninspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that no wandering, vain, nor idle\nthoughts may put out of our minds that reverence and godly fear, that\nbecomes all those who come in thy presence.\n\nWe know, O Lord, that while we are in these bodies, we are absent from\nthe Lord, for no man can see thy face and live. The only way that we can\ndraw near unto thee in this life, is by prayer; but, O Lord, we know not\nhow to pray, nor what to ask for as we ought. We cannot pretend by our\nsupplications or prayers to turn or change thee, for thou art the same\nyesterday, to-day, and for ever; but the coming into thy presence, the\ndrawing near unto thee, is the only means to be changed ourselves, to\nbecome like thee in holiness and purity, to be followers of thee as thy\ndear children. O, therefore, turn not away thy face from us, but let us\nsee so much of the excellencies of thy divine nature, of thy goodness,\nand justice, and mercy, and forbearance, and holiness, and purity, as\nmay make us hate everything in ourselves that is unlike to thee, that so\nwe may abhor and repent of and forsake those sins that we so often fall\ninto when we forget thee. Lord! We acknowledge and confess we have lived\nin a course of sin, and folly, and vanity, from our youth up, forgetting\nour latter end, and our great account that we must one day make, and\nturning a deaf ear to thy many calls to us, either by thy holy word, by\nour teachers, or by our own consciences; and even thy more severe\nmessages by afflictions, sicknesses, crosses, and disappointments, have\nnot been of force enough to turn us from the vanity and folly of our own\nways. What then can we expect in justice, when thou shalt enter into\njudgment with us, but to have our portion with the hypocrites and\nunbelievers? to depart for ever from the presence of the Lord; to be\nturned into hell with those that forget God! But, O God, most holy! O\nGod, most mighty! O holy and most merciful Saviour, deliver us not into\nthe bitter pains of eternal death, but have mercy upon us, most merciful\nFather, and forgive us our sins for thy name's sake; for thou hast\ndeclared thyself to be a God slow to anger, full of goodness,\nforbearance, and long-suffering, and forgiving iniquity, transgression,\nand sin. O Lord, therefore, shew thy mercy upon us. O let it be in\npardoning our sins past, and in changing our natures, in giving us a new\nheart, and a new spirit, that we may lead a new life, and walk before\nthee in newness of life, that so sin may not have dominion over us for\nthe time to come. O let thy good Spirit, without which we can do\nnothing, O let that work in us both to will and do such things as may be\nwell pleasing to thee. O let it change our thoughts and minds, and take\nthem off the vain pleasures of this world, and place them there where\nonly the true joys are to be found. O fill our minds every day more and\nmore with the happiness of that blessed state of living for ever with\nthee, that we may make it our great work and business to work out our\nsalvation,--to improve in the knowledge of thee, whom to know is life\neternal. But, Lord, since we cannot know thee but by often drawing near\nunto thee, and coming into thy presence, which in this life, we can do\nonly by prayer, O make us, therefore, ever sensible of these great\nbenefits of prayer, that we may rejoice at all opportunities of coming\ninto thy presence, and may ever find ourselves the better and more\nheavenly minded by it, and may never wilfully neglect any opportunity of\nthy worship and service. Awaken thoroughly in us a serious sense of\nthese things, that so to-day, while it is called to-day, we may see and\nknow the things that belong to our peace, before they be hid from our\neyes, before that long night cometh when no man can work. O that every\nnight may so effectually put us in mind of our last, that we may every\nday take care so to live, as we shall then wish we had lived when we\ncome to die; that so when that night shall come, we may as willingly put\noff these bodies, as we now put off our clothes, and may rejoice to rest\nfrom our labours, and that our war with the world, the devil, and our\nown corrupt nature, is at an end. In the meanwhile, we beseech thee to\ntake us, and ours, and all that belongs to us, into thy fatherly care\nthis night. Let thy holy angels be our guard, while we are not in a\ncondition to defend ourselves, that we may not be under the power of\ndevils or wicked men; and preserve us also, O Lord, from every evil\naccident, that, after a comfortable and refreshing sleep, we may find\nourselves, and all that belongs to us, in peace and safety. And now, O\nLord, being ourselves still in the body, and compassed about with\ninfirmities, we can neither be ignorant nor unmindful of the sufferings\nof our fellow-creatures. O Lord, we must acknowledge, that they are all\nbut the effects of sin; and, therefore, we beseech thee so to sanctify\ntheir several chastisements to them, that at length they may bring forth\nthe peaceable fruits of righteousness, and then be thou graciously\npleased to remove thy heavy and afflicting hand from them. And O that\nthe rest of mankind, who are not under such trials, may, by thy\ngoodness, be led to repentance, that the consciences of hard-hearted\nsinners may be awakened, and the understandings of poor ignorant\ncreatures enlightened, and that all that love and fear thee may ever\nfind the joy and comfort of a good conscience, beyond all the\nsatisfactions that this world can afford. And now, blessed Lord, from\nwhom every good gift comes, it is meet, right, and our bounden duty,\nthat we should offer up unto thee our thanks and praise for all thy\ngoodness towards us, for preserving peace in our land, the light of thy\nGospel, and the true religion in our churches; for giving us the fruits\nof the earth in due season, and preserving us from the plague and\nsickness that rages in other lands. We bless thee for that support and\nmaintenance, which thou art pleased to afford us, and that thou givest\nus a heart to be sensible of this thy goodness, and to return our thanks\nat this time for the same; and as to our persons, for that measure of\nhealth that any of us do enjoy, which is more than any of us do deserve.\nWe bless thee, more particularly, for thy protection over us the day\npast; that thy good spirit has kept us from falling into even the\ngreatest sins, which, by our wicked and corrupt nature, we should\ngreedily have been hurried into; and that, by the guard of thy holy\nangels, we have been kept safe from any of those evils that might have\nbefallen us, and which many are now groaning under, who rose up in the\nmorning in safety and peace as well as we. But above all, for that great\nmercy of contriving and effecting our redemption, by the death of our\nSaviour Jesus Christ, whom, of thy great love to mankind, thou didst\nsend into this world, to take upon him our flesh, to teach us thy will,\nand to bear the guilt of our transgressions, to die for our sins, and to\nrise again for our justification; and for enabling us to lay hold of\nthat salvation, by the gracious assistances of thy Holy Spirit. Lord,\ngrant that the sense of this wonderful love of thine to us, may\neffectually encourage us to walk in thy fear, and live to thy glory,\nthat so when we shall put off this mortal state, we may be made\npartakers of that glory that shall then be revealed, which we beg of\nthee, for the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ, who died to procure it for\nus, and in whose name and words we do offer up the desires of our souls\nunto thee, saying,\n\n\"Our Father,\" &c.\n\n\nOBSERVATIONS\n\nON\n\nHEYLIN'S HISTORY OF THE PRESBYTERIANS.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Written by the Dean in the beginning of the book, on one of\nthe blank leaves. [Note in vol. ix. 1775 edition of Swift's Works.]]\n\nThis book, by some errors and neglects in the style, seems not to have\nreceived the author's[2] last correction. It is written with some\nvehemence, very pardonable in one who had been an observer and a\nsufferer, in England, under that diabolical fanatic sect which then\ndestroyed Church and State. But, by comparing in my memory what I have\nread in other histories, he neither aggravates nor falsifies any facts.\nHis partiality appears chiefly in setting the actions of the Calvinists\nin the strongest light, without equally dwelling on those of the other\nside; which, however, to say the truth, was not his proper business. And\nyet he might have spent some more words on the inhuman massacre of Paris\nand other parts of France, which no provocation (and yet the King had\nthe greatest possible) could excuse, or much extenuate. The author,\naccording to the current opinion of the age he lived in, had too high\nnotions of regal power; led by the common mistake of the term Supreme\nMagistrate, and not rightly distinguishing between the legislature and\nadministration: into which mistake the clergy fell, or continued, in the\nreign of Charles II., as I have shewn and explained in a treatise, &c.\nJ. SWIFT. March 6, 1727-8.\n\n[Footnote 2: Peter Heylin, D.D. (1600-1662) was born at Burford,\nOxfordshire. Educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, and became in\nsuccession, chaplain to Charles I., rector of Hemmingford, rector of\nIslip, and a prebendary of Westminster. He wrote the weekly paper,\n\"Mercurius Auhcus,\" and lost his estates during the Civil War. He was\nreinstated at the Restoration into all his preferments. His works are\nvoluminous, consisting of a \"Cosmography,\" \"A Help to English History,\"\na \"Life of Charles I.,\" a \"History of the Reformation,\" a \"History of\nPresbyterians,\" a \"Life of Archbishop Laud,\" and a few theological\nworks. The work on the Presbyterians, here referred to by Swift, was\npublished in 1670. [T.S.]]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCHISWICK PRESS:--CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE,\nLONDON.","title":"The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. \u2014 Volume 03: Swift's Writings on Religion and the Church \u2014 Volume 1","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110372}