We know, and, what is better, we feel inwardly, that religion is the

basis of civil society, and the source of all good, and of all

comfort.[95] In England we are so convinced of this, that there is no

rust of superstition, with which the accumulated absurdity of the human

mind might have crusted it over in the course of ages, that ninety-nine

in a hundred of the people of England would not prefer to impiety. We

shall never be such fools as to call in an enemy to the substance of any

system to remove its corruptions, to supply its defects, or to perfect

its construction. If our religious tenets should ever want a further

elucidation, we shall not call on Atheism to explain them. We shall not

light up our temple from that unhallowed fire. It will be illuminated

with other lights. It will be perfumed with other incense than the

infectious stuff which is imported by the smugglers of adulterated

metaphysics. If our ecclesiastical establishment should want a revision,

it is not avarice or rapacity, public or private, that we shall employ

for the audit or receipt or application of its consecrated revenue.

Violently condemning neither the Greek nor the Armenian, nor, since

heats are subsided, the Roman system of religion, we prefer the

Protestant: not because we think it has less of the Christian religion

in it, but because, in our judgment, it has more. We are Protestants,

not from indifference, but from zeal.

We know, and it is our pride to know, that man is by his constitution a

religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason, but our

instincts; and that it cannot prevail long. But if, in the moment of

riot, and in a drunken delirium from the hot spirit drawn out of the

alembic of hell, which in France is now so furiously boiling, we should

uncover our nakedness, by throwing off that Christian religion which has

hitherto been our boast and comfort, and one great source of

civilization amongst us, and among many other nations, we are

apprehensive (being well aware that the mind will not endure a void)

that some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition might take

place of it.

For that reason, before we take from our establishment the natural,

human means of estimation, and give it up to contempt, as you have done,

and in doing it have incurred the penalties you well deserve to suffer,

we desire that some other may be presented to us in the place of it. We

shall then form our judgment.

On these ideas, instead of quarrelling with establishments, as some do,

who have made a philosophy and a religion of their hostility to such

institutions, we cleave closely to them. We are resolved to keep an

established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy,

and an established democracy, each in the degree it exists, and in no

greater. I shall show you presently how much of each of these we

possess.

It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory)

of this age, that everything is to be discussed, as if the Constitution

of our country were to be always a subject rather of altercation than

enjoyment. For this reason, as well as for the satisfaction of those

among you (if any such you have among you) who may wish to profit of

examples, I venture to trouble you with a few thoughts upon each of

these establishments. I do not think they were unwise in ancient Rome,

who, when they wished to new-model their laws, sent commissioners to

examine the best-constituted republics within their reach.

* * * * *

First I beg leave to speak of our Church Establishment, which is the

first of our prejudices,--not a prejudice destitute of reason, but

involving in it profound and extensive wisdom. I speak of it first. It

is first, and last, and midst in our minds. For, taking ground on that

religious system of which we are now in possession, we continue to act

on the early received and uniformly continued sense of mankind. That

sense not only, like a wise architect, hath built up the august fabric

of states, but, like a provident proprietor, to preserve the structure

from profanation and ruin, as a sacred temple, purged from all the

impurities of fraud and violence and injustice and tyranny, hath

solemnly and forever consecrated the commonwealth, and all that

officiate in it. This consecration is made, that all who administer in

the government of men, in which they stand in the person of God Himself,

should have high and worthy notions of their function and destination;

that their hope should be full of immortality; that they should not look

to the paltry pelf of the moment, nor to the temporary and transient

praise of the vulgar, but to a solid, permanent existence, in the

permanent part of their nature, and to a permanent fame and glory, in

the example they leave as a rich inheritance to the world.

Such sublime principles ought to be infused into persons of exalted

situations, and religious establishments provided that may continually

revive and enforce them. Every sort of moral, every sort of civil, every

sort of politic institution, aiding the rational and natural ties that

connect the human understanding and affections to the divine, are not

more than necessary, in order to build up that wonderful structure,

Man,--whose prerogative it is, to be in a great degree a creature of his

own making, and who, when made as he ought to be made, is destined to

hold no trivial place in the creation. But whenever man is put over men,

as the better nature ought ever to preside, in that case more

particularly he should as nearly as possible be approximated to his

perfection.

The consecration of the state by a state religious establishment is

necessary also to operate with a wholesome awe upon free citizens;

because, in order to secure their freedom, they must enjoy some

determinate portion of power. To them, therefore, a religion connected

with the state, and with their duty towards it, becomes even more

necessary than in such societies where the people, by the terms of their

subjection, are confined to private sentiments, and the management of

their own family concerns. All persons possessing any portion of power

ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in

trust, and that they are to account for their conduct in that trust to

the one great Master, Author, and Founder of society.

This principle ought even to be more strongly impressed upon the minds

of those who compose the collective sovereignty than upon those of

single princes. Without instruments, these princes can do nothing.

Whoever uses instruments, in finding helps, finds also impediments.

Their power is therefore by no means complete; nor are they safe in

extreme abuse. Such persons, however elevated by flattery, arrogance,

and self-opinion, must be sensible, that, whether covered or not by

positive law, in some way or other they are accountable even here for

the abuse of their trust. If they are not cut off by a rebellion of

their people, they may be strangled by the very janissaries kept for

their security against all other rebellion. Thus we have seen the king

of France sold by his soldiers for an increase of pay. But where popular

authority is absolute and unrestrained, the people have an infinitely

greater, because a far better founded, confidence in their own power.

They are themselves in a great measure their own instruments. They are

nearer to their objects. Besides, they are less under responsibility to

one of the greatest controlling powers on earth, the sense of fame and

estimation. The share of infamy that is likely to fall to the lot of

each individual in public acts is small indeed: the operation of opinion

being in the inverse ratio to the number of those who abuse power. Their

own approbation of their own acts has to them the appearance of a public

judgment in their favor. A perfect democracy is therefore the most

shameless thing in the world. As it is the most shameless, it is also

the most fearless. No man apprehends in his person that he can be made

subject to punishment. Certainly the people at large never ought: for,

as all punishments are for example towards the conservation of the

people at large, the people at large can never become the subject of

punishment by any human hand.[96] It is therefore of infinite importance

that they should not be suffered to imagine that their will, any more

than that of kings, is the standard of right and wrong. They ought to be

persuaded that they are full as little entitled, and far less qualified,

with safety to themselves, to use any arbitrary power whatsoever; that

therefore they are not, under a false show of liberty, but in truth to

exercise an unnatural, inverted domination, tyrannically to exact from

those who officiate in the state, not an entire devotion to their

interest, which is their right, but an abject submission to their

occasional will: extinguishing thereby, in all those who serve them, all

moral principle, all sense of dignity, all use of judgment, and all

consistency of character; whilst by the very same process they give

themselves up a proper, a suitable, but a most contemptible prey to the

servile ambition of popular sycophants or courtly flatterers.

When the people have emptied themselves of all the lust of selfish will,

which without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should,--when

they are conscious that they exercise, and exercise perhaps in a higher

link of the order of delegation, the power which to be legitimate must

be according to that eternal, immutable law in which will and reason are

the same,--they will be more careful how they place power in base and

incapable hands. In their nomination to office, they will not appoint to

the exercise of authority as to a pitiful job, but as to a holy

function; not according to their sordid, selfish interest, nor to their

wanton caprice, nor to their arbitrary will; but they will confer that

power (which any man may well tremble to give or to receive) on those

only in whom they may discern that predominant proportion of active

virtue and wisdom, taken together and fitted to the charge, such as in

the great and inevitable mixed mass of human imperfections and

infirmities is to be found.

When they are habitually convinced that no evil can be acceptable,

either in the act or the permission, to Him whose essence is good, they

will be better able to extirpate out of the minds of all magistrates,

civil, ecclesiastical, or military, anything that bears the least

resemblance to a proud and lawless domination.

But one of the first and most leading principles on which the

commonwealth and the laws are consecrated is lest the temporary

possessors and life-renters in it, unmindful of what they have received

from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act

as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it

amongst their rights to cut off the entail or commit waste on the

inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric

of their society: hazarding to leave to those who come after them a ruin

instead of an habitation,--and teaching these successors as little to

respect their contrivances as they had themselves respected the

institutions of their forefathers. By this unprincipled facility of

changing the state as often and as much and in as many ways as there are

floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the

commonwealth would be broken; no one generation could link with the

other; men would become little better than the flies of a summer.

And first of all, the science of jurisprudence, the pride of the human

intellect, which, with all its defects, redundancies, and errors, is the

collected reason of ages, combining the principles of original justice

with the infinite variety of human concerns, as a heap of old exploded

errors, would be no longer studied. Personal self-sufficiency and

arrogance (the certain attendants upon all those who have never

experienced a wisdom greater than their own) would usurp the tribunal.

Of course no certain laws, establishing invariable grounds of hope and

fear, would keep the actions of men in a certain course, or direct them

to a certain end. Nothing stable in the modes of holding property or

exercising function could form a solid ground on which any parent could

speculate in the education of his offspring, or in a choice for their

future establishment in the world. No principles would be early worked

into the habits. As soon as the most able instructor had completed his

laborious course of institution, instead of sending forth his pupil

accomplished in a virtuous discipline fitted to procure him attention

and respect in his place in society, he would find everything altered,

and that he had turned out a poor creature to the contempt and derision

of the world, ignorant of the true grounds of estimation. Who would

insure a tender and delicate sense of honor to beat almost with the

first pulses of the heart, when no man could know what would be the test

of honor in a nation continually varying the standard of its coin? No

part of life would retain its acquisitions. Barbarism with regard to

science and literature, unskilfulness with regard to arts and

manufactures, would infallibly succeed to the want of a steady education

and settled principle; and thus the commonwealth itself would in a few

generations crumble away, be disconnected into the dust and powder of

individuality, and at length dispersed to all the winds of heaven.

To avoid, therefore, the evils of inconstancy and versatility, ten

thousand times worse than those of obstinacy and the blindest prejudice,

we have consecrated the state, that no man should approach to look into

its defects or corruptions but with due caution; that he should never

dream of beginning its reformation by its subversion; that he should

approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with

pious awe and trembling solicitude. By this wise prejudice we are taught

to look with horror on those children of their country who are prompt

rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of

magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations

they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their

father's life.

Society is, indeed, a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of

mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure; but the state

ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership

agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some

other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest,

and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on

with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things

subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and

perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in

all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As the

ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it

becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between

those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.

Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great

primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher

natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a

fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical

and all moral natures each in their appointed place. This law is not

subject to the will of those who, by an obligation above them, and

infinitely superior, are bound to submit their will to that law. The

municipal corporations of that universal kingdom are not morally at

liberty, at their pleasure, and on their speculations of a contingent

improvement, wholly to separate and tear asunder the bands of their

subordinate community, and to dissolve it into an unsocial, uncivil,

unconnected chaos of elementary principles. It is the first and supreme

necessity only, a necessity that is not chosen, but chooses, a necessity

paramount to deliberation, that admits no discussion and demands no

evidence, which alone can justify a resort to anarchy. This necessity is

no exception to the rule; because this necessity itself is a part, too,

of that moral and physical disposition of things to which man must be

obedient by consent or force: but if that which is only submission to

necessity should be made the object of choice, the law is broken, Nature

is disobeyed, and the rebellious are outlawed, cast forth, and exiled,

from this world of reason, and order, and peace, and virtue, and

fruitful penitence, into the antagonist world of madness, discord, vice,

confusion, and unavailing sorrow.

These, my dear Sir, are, were, and, I think, long will be, the

sentiments of not the least learned and reflecting part of this kingdom.

They who are included in this description form their opinions on such

grounds as such persons ought to form them. The less inquiring receive

them from an authority which those whom Providence dooms to live on

trust need not be ashamed to rely on. These two sorts of men move in the

same direction, though in a different place. They both move with the

order of the universe. They all know or feel this great ancient

truth:--"_Quod illi principi et præpotenti Deo qui omnem hunc mundum

regit nihil eorum quæ quidem fiant in terris acceptius quam concilia et

coetus hominum jure sociati quæ civitates appellantur_." They take this

tenet of the head and heart, not from the great name which it

immediately bears, nor from the greater from whence it is derived, but

from that which alone can give true weight and sanction to any learned

opinion, the common nature and common relation of men. Persuaded that

all things ought to be done with reference, and referring all to the

point of reference to which all should be directed, they think

themselves bound, not only as individuals in the sanctuary of the heart,

or as congregated in that personal capacity, to renew the memory of

their high origin and cast, but also in their corporate character to

perform their national homage to the Institutor and Author and Protector

of civil society, without which civil society man could not by any

possibility arrive at the perfection of which his nature is capable, nor

even make a remote and faint approach to it. They conceive that He who

gave our nature to be perfected by our virtue willed also the necessary

means of its perfection: He willed, therefore, the state: He willed its

connection with the source and original archetype of all perfection.

They who are convinced of this His will, which is the law of laws and

the sovereign of sovereigns, cannot think it reprehensible that this our

corporate fealty and homage, that this our recognition of a signiory

paramount, I had almost said this oblation of the state itself, as a

worthy offering on the high altar of universal praise, should be

performed, as all public, solemn acts are performed, in buildings, in

music, in decoration, in speech, in the dignity of persons, according to

the customs of mankind, taught by their nature,--that is, with modest

splendor, with unassuming state, with mild majesty and sober pomp. For

those purposes they think some part of the wealth of the country is as

usefully employed as it can be in fomenting the luxury of individuals.

It is the public ornament. It is the public consolation. It nourishes

the public hope. The poorest man finds his own importance and dignity in

it, whilst the wealth and pride of individuals at every moment makes the

man of humble rank and fortune sensible of his inferiority, and degrades

and vilifies his condition. It is for the man in humble life, and to

raise his nature, and to put him in mind of a state in which the

privileges of opulence will cease, when he will be equal by nature, and

may be more than equal by virtue, that this portion of the general

wealth of his country is employed and sanctified.

I assure you I do not aim at singularity. I give you opinions which have

been accepted amongst us, from very early times to this moment, with a

continued and general approbation, and which, indeed, are so worked into

my mind that I am unable to distinguish what I have learned from others

from the results of my own meditation.

It is on some such principles that the majority of the people of

England, far from thinking a religious national establishment unlawful,

hardly think it lawful to be without one. In France you are wholly

mistaken, if you do not believe us above all other things attached to

it, and beyond all other nations; and when this people has acted

unwisely and unjustifiably in its favor, (as in some instances they have

done, most certainly,) in their very errors you will at least discover

their zeal.

This principle runs through the whole system of their polity. They do

not consider their Church establishment as convenient, but as essential

to their state: not as a thing heterogeneous and separable,--something

added for accommodation,--what they may either keep up or lay aside,

according to their temporary ideas of convenience. They consider it as

the foundation of their whole Constitution, with which, and with every

part of which, it holds an indissoluble union. Church and State are

ideas inseparable in their minds, and scarcely is the one ever mentioned

without mentioning the other.

Our education is so formed as to confirm and fix this impression. Our

education is in a manner wholly in the hands of ecclesiastics, and in

all stages from infancy to manhood. Even when our youth, leaving schools

and universities, enter that most important period of life which begins

to link experience and study together, and when with that view they

visit other countries, instead of old domestics whom we have seen as

governors to principal men from other parts, three fourths of those who

go abroad with our young nobility and gentlemen are ecclesiastics: not

as austere masters, nor as mere followers; but as friends and companions

of a graver character, and not seldom persons as well born as

themselves. With them, as relations, they most commonly keep up a close

connection through life. By this connection we conceive that we attach

our gentlemen to the Church; and we liberalize the Church by an

intercourse with the leading characters of the country.

So tenacious are we of the old ecclesiastical modes and fashions of

institution, that very little alteration has been made in them since the

fourteenth or fifteenth century: adhering in this particular, as in all

things else, to our old settled maxim, never entirely nor at once to

depart from antiquity. We found these old institutions, on the whole,

favorable to morality and discipline; and we thought they were

susceptible of amendment, without altering the ground. We thought that

they were capable of receiving and meliorating, and above all of

preserving, the accessions of science and literature, as the order of

Providence should successively produce them. And after all, with this

Gothic and monkish education, (for such it is in the groundwork,) we may

put in our claim to as ample and as early a share in all the

improvements in science, in arts, and in literature, which have

illuminated and adorned the modern world, as any other nation in Europe:

we think one main cause of this improvement was our not despising the

patrimony of knowledge which was left us by our forefathers.

It is from our attachment to a Church establishment, that the English

nation did not think it wise to intrust that great fundamental interest

of the whole to what they trust no part of their civil or military

public service,--that is, to the unsteady and precarious contribution of

individuals. They go further. They certainly never have suffered, and

never will suffer, the fixed estate of the Church to be converted into a

pension, to depend on the Treasury, and to be delayed, withheld, or

perhaps to be extinguished by fiscal difficulties: which difficulties

may sometimes be pretended for political purposes, and are in fact often

brought on by the extravagance, negligence, and rapacity of politicians.

The people of England think that they have constitutional motives, as

well as religious, against any project of turning their independent

clergy into ecclesiastical pensioners of state. They tremble for their

liberty, from the influence of a clergy dependent on the crown; they

tremble for the public tranquillity, from the disorders of a factious

clergy, if it were made to depend upon any other than the crown. They

therefore made their Church, like their king and their nobility,

independent.

From the united considerations of religion and constitutional policy,

from their opinion of a duty to make a sure provision for the

consolation of the feeble and the instruction of the ignorant, they have

incorporated and identified the estate of the Church with the mass of

_private property_, of which the state is not the proprietor, either for

use or dominion, but the guardian only and the regulator. They have

ordained that the provision of this establishment might be as stable as

the earth on which it stands, and should not fluctuate with the Euripus

of funds and actions.

The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. 03 (of 12) · 第 24 / 39 段