_Nam et, majorum instituta tueri sacris, ceremoniisque retinendis,
sapientis est.
--Ruituraque semper
Stat (mirum!) moles--_[3]
Whoever is a true lover of our constitution, must needs be pleased to see
what successful endeavours are daily made to restore it in every branch
to its ancient form, from the languishing condition it hath long lain in,
and with such deadly symptoms.
I have already handled some abuses during the late management, and shall
in convenient time go on with the rest. Hitherto I have confined myself
to those of the State; but with the good leave of those who think it a
matter of small moment, I shall now take liberty to say something of the
Church.[4]
For several years past, there hath not I think in Europe, been any
society of men upon so unhappy a foot, as the clergy of England, nor more
hardly treated, by those very persons from whom they deserved much better
quarter, and in whose power they chiefly had put it to use them so ill.
I would not willingly misrepresent facts; but I think it generally
allowed by enemies and friends, that the bold and brave defences made
before the Revolution against those many invasions of our rights,
proceeded principally from the clergy; who are likewise known to have
rejected all advances made them to close with the measures at that time
concerting; while the Dissenters, to gratify their ambition and revenge,
fell into the basest compliances with the court, approved of all
proceedings by their numerous and fulsome addresses, and took employments
and commissions by virtue of the dispensing power, against the direct
laws of the land.[5] All this is so true, that if ever the Pretender comes
in, they will, next to those of his own religion, have the fairest claim
and pretensions to his favour, from their merit and eminent services to
his supposed father, who, without such encouragement, would probably
never have been misled to go the lengths he did. It should likewise be
remembered to the everlasting honour of the London divines, that in those
dangerous times, they writ and published the best collection of arguments
against Popery, that ever appeared in the world. At the Revolution, the
body of the clergy joined heartily in the common cause (except a few,
whose sufferings perhaps have atoned for their mistakes) like men who are
content to go about, for avoiding a gulf or a precipice, but come into
the old straight road again as soon as they can. But another temper had
now begun to prevail. For as in the reign of K. Charles the First,
several well-meaning people were ready to join in reforming some abuses;
while others who had deeper designs, were still calling out for a
thorough reformation, which ended at last in the ruin of the kingdom; so
after the late king's coming to the throne, there was a restless cry from
men of the same principles, for a thorough revolution, which as some were
carrying it on, must have ended in the destruction of the Monarchy and
Church.
What a violent humour hath run ever since against the clergy, and from
what corner spread and fomented, is, I believe, manifest to all men. It
looked like a set quarrel against Christianity, and if we call to mind
several of the leaders, it must in a great measure have been actually so.
Nothing was more common in writing and conversation, than to hear that
reverend body charged in gross with what was utterly inconsistent:
despised for their poverty, hated for their riches; reproached with
avarice, and taxed with luxury; accused for promoting arbitrary power,
and resisting the prerogative; censured for their pride, and scorned for
their meanness of spirit. The representatives of the lower clergy railed
at for disputing the power of the bishops, by the known abhorrers of
episcopacy; and abused for doing nothing in their convocations, by those
very men who helped to bind up their hands. The vice, the folly, the
ignorance of every single man, were laid upon the character; their
jurisdiction, censures and discipline trampled under foot, yet mighty
complaints against their excessive power.[6] The men of wit employed to
turn the priesthood itself into ridicule. In short, groaning every where
under the weight of poverty, oppression, contempt and obloquy. A fair
return for the time and money spent in their education to fit them for
the service of the Altar; and a fair encouragement for worthy men to come
into the Church. However, it may be some comfort for persons of that holy
function, that their Divine Founder as well as His harbinger, met with
the like reception. "John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say
he hath a devil; the Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say,
behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, &c."
In this deplorable state of the clergy, nothing but the hand of
Providence, working by its glorious instrument, the QUEEN, could have
been able to turn the people's hearts so surprisingly in their favour.
This Princess, destined for the safety of Europe, and a blessing to her
subjects, began her reign with a noble benefaction to the Church;[7] and
it was hoped the nation would have followed such an example, which
nothing could have prevented, but the false politics of a set of men, who
form their maxims upon those of every tottering commonwealth, which is
always struggling for life, subsisting by expedients, and often at the
mercy of any powerful neighbour. These men take it into their
imagination, that trade can never flourish unless the country becomes
a common receptacle for all nations, religions and languages; a system
only proper for small popular states, but altogether unworthy, and below
the dignity of an imperial crown; which with us is best upheld by a
monarch in possession of his just prerogative, a senate of nobles and
of commons, and a clergy established in its due rights with a suitable
maintenance by law. But these men come with the spirit of shopkeepers to
frame rules for the administration of kingdoms; or, as if they thought
the whole art of government consisted in the importation of nutmegs, and
the curing of herrings. Such an island as ours can afford enough to
support the majesty of a crown, the honour of a nobility, and the dignity
of a magistracy; we can encourage arts and sciences, maintain our bishops
and clergy, and suffer our gentry to live in a decent, hospitable manner;
yet still there will remain hands sufficient for trade and manufactures,
which do always indeed deserve the best encouragement, but not to a
degree of sending every living soul into the warehouse or the workhouse.
This pedantry of republican politics hath done infinite mischief among
us. To this we owe those noble schemes of treating Christianity as a
system of speculative opinions, which no man should be bound to believe;
of making the being and the worship of God, a creature of the state. In
consequence of these, that the teachers of religion ought to hold their
maintenance at pleasure, or live by the alms and charitable collection of
the people, and be equally encouraged of all opinions: that they should
be prescribed what to teach, by those who are to learn from them; and,
upon default, have a staff and a pair of shoes left at their door;[8]
with many other projects of equal piety, wisdom, and good nature.
But, God be thanked, they and their schemes are vanished, and "their
places shall know them no more." When I think of that inundation of
atheism, infidelity, profaneness and licentiousness which were like to
overwhelm us, from what mouths and hearts it first proceeded, and how the
people joined with the Queen's endeavours to divert this flood, I cannot
but reflect on that remarkable passage in the Revelation,[9] where "the
serpent with seven heads cast out of his mouth water after the woman like
a flood, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood: But the
earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up
the flood which the dragon had cast out of his mouth." For the Queen
having changed her ministry suitable to her own wisdom, and the wishes of
her subjects, and having called a free Parliament; at the same time
summoned the convocation, by her royal writ,[10] "as in all times had
been accustomed," and soon after their meeting, sent a most gracious
letter[11] to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to be communicated to the
bishops and clergy of his province; taking notice of "the loose and
profane principles which had been openly scattered and propagated among
her subjects: that the consultations of the clergy were particularly
requisite to repress and prevent such daring attempts, for which her
subjects, from all parts of the kingdom, have shown their just
abhorrence. She hopes, the endeavours of the clergy, in this respect,
will not be unsuccessful; and for her part, is ready to give them all fit
encouragement, to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them; and to grant them powers requisite to carry on so good a
work." In conclusion, "earnestly recommending to them, to avoid disputes,
and determining to do all that in her lies to compose and extinguish
them."
It is to be hoped, that this last part of her Majesty's letter, will be
the first she will please to execute; for, it seems, this very letter
created the first dispute.[12] The fact whereof is thus related: The
Upper House having formed an address to the QUEEN, before they received
her Majesty's letter, sent both address and letter together, to the Lower
House, with a message, excusing their not mentioning the letter in the
address, because this was formed before the other was received:[l3] The
Lower House returned them, with a desire, that an address might be
formed, with due regard and acknowledgments for the letter. After some
difficulties, the same address was sent down again with a clause
inserted, making some short mention of the said letter. This the Lower
House did not think sufficient, and sent it back again with the same
request: whereupon the archbishop, after a short consultation with _some_
of his brethren, immediately adjourned the convocation for a month, and
no address at all was sent to the QUEEN.
I understand not ecclesiastical affairs well enough to comment upon this
matter;[14] but it seems to me, that all methods of doing service to the
Church and kingdom, by means of a convocation, may be at any time eluded,
if there be no remedy against such an incident. And if this proceeding be
agreeable to the institution, spiritual assemblies must needs be
strangely contrived, very different from any lay senate yet known in the
world. Surely, from the nature of such a synod, it must be a very unhappy
circumstance, when the majority of the bishops draws one way, and that
of the lower clergy another. The latter, I think, are not at this time
suspected for any principles bordering upon those professed by enemies to
episcopacy; and if they happen to differ from the greater part of the
present set of bishops, I doubt it will call some things to mind, that
may turn the scale of general favour on the inferior clergy's side, who
with a profound duty to her Majesty, are perfectly pleased with the
present turn of affairs. Besides, curious people will be apt to enquire
into the dates of some promotions, to call to mind what designs were then
upon the anvil, and from thence make malicious deductions. Perhaps they
will observe the manner of voting on the bishops' bench, and compare it
with what shall pass in the upper house of convocation. There is,
however, one comfort, that under the present dispositions of the kingdom,
a dislike to the proceedings of any of their lordships, even to the
number of a majority, will be purely personal, and not turned to the
disadvantage of the order. And for my part, as I am a true lover of the
Church, I had rather find the inclinations of the people favourable to
episcopacy in general, than see a majority of prelates cried up by those
who are known enemies to the character. Nor, indeed, hath anything given
me more offence for several years past, than to observe how some of that
bench have been caressed by certain persons; and others of them openly
celebrated by the infamous pens of atheists, republicans and fanatics.
Time and mortality can only remedy these inconveniencies in the Church,
which are not to be cured like those in the State, by a change of
ministry. If we may guess the temper of a convocation, from the choice of
a prolocutor,[15] as it is usual to do that of a House of Commons by the
speaker, we may expect great things from that reverend body, who have
done themselves much reputation, by pitching upon a gentleman of so much
piety, wit and learning, for that office; and one who is so thoroughly
versed in those parts of knowledge which are proper for it. I am sorry
that the three Latin speeches, delivered upon presenting the prolocutor,
were not made public;[16] they might perhaps have given us some light
into the dispositions of each house: and besides, one of them is said to
be so peculiar in the style and matter, as might have made up in
entertainment what it wanted in instruction.
[Footnote 1: No. 21 in the reprint. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 2: Under date January 1st, 1710/1, Swift writes to Stella: "Get
the 'Examiners,' and read them; the last nine or ten are full of the
reasons for the late change, and of the abuses of the last ministry; and
the great men assure me they are all true. They are written by their
encouragement and direction" (vol. ii., p. 88, of present edition).
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 3:
"For it is the part of a wise man to defend the institutions of his
forefathers, and uphold the sacred rites and ceremonies.
And ever threatening to fall
The mass--a marvel--stands."
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 4: A pamphlet, ascribed to W. Wotton, was issued in reply to
this paper. It was entitled, "The Case of the Present Convocation
Consider'd; In Answer to the Examiner's Unfair Representation of it, and
Unjust Reflections upon it." 1711.]
[Footnote 5: The Dissenters were at first
disposed to make common cause with the Catholics in favour of the
dispensing power claimed by James II.; and an address from the
Presbyterians went so far as to praise the king for having "restored to
God His empire over conscience." [S.]]
[Footnote 6: "The Case etc. Consider'd," remarks: "The boldest, and the
most insolent book of that sort, is the 'Rights of the Church' ... Yet
how long was Dr. T[inda]ll, then Fellow of All Souls, suffered at Oxford
after the 'Rights' appeared?" Dr. Matthew Tindal, author of "The Rights
of the Christian Church" (1706), was a fellow of All Souls College,
Oxford, from 1678 till his death in 1733. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 7: "At this time [February, 1703/4] Queen Anne gave up the
_first-fruits_ and _tenths_, which had long been possessed by the crown,
to be appropriated to a fund for the increase of small livings. This fund
is known as Queen Anne's Bounty" (Lathbury's "Hist. of Convocation,"
second edition, p. 386). The Queen's Message to Parliament was dated
February 7th, 1703/4, and the Bill was introduced February 17th, and
received the royal assent April 3rd, 1704. See also Swift's
"Answer" in the following number. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 8: A hint to withdraw. [T.S.]
This is said to have been the mode in which the governors of a Dutch
province were wont to give intimation to those who intermeddled with
state affairs, that they would do wisely to withdraw themselves from the
state. [S.]]
[Footnote 9: Swift notices his own misquotation in the succeeding number
(_q.v._). See a further reference to the subject in No. 26. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 10: Convocation was assembled on November 25th, and the Latin
sermon preached by Kennet. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 11: Queen Anne's letter was printed in "The Daily Courant" for
December 19th. It is dated December 12th, and says: "It is with
great grief of heart we observe the scandalous attempts which of late
years have been made to infect the minds of our good subjects by loose
and profane principles openly scattered and propagated among them.
We think the consultations of the clergy particularly requisite to
repress these daring attempts and to prevent the like for the future. The
just abhorrence that our subjects from all parts of the kingdom have
expressed of such wicked principles and their abettors, give us good
ground to hope that the endeavours of the clergy in this respect will
not be unsuccessful. For our part we are ready to give them all fitting
encouragement to proceed in the dispatch of such business as properly
belongs to them, and to grant them such powers as shall be thought
requisite," etc. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: The Queen's letter was intended to put an end to disputes
in Convocation. She expressed her hope that her royal intentions would
not be frustrated "by any unseasonable disputes between the two Houses of
Convocation about unnecessary forms and methods of proceeding." She
earnestly recommended that such disputes might cease. The bishops
prepared an address, but the Lower House insisted "on the enlarging the
fourth paragraph, and upon answering the several heads of the Queen's
letter" (Chamberlen's "History of Queen Anne," p. 365, and "Daily
Courant," Dec. 19th). The real reason for the disputes between the two
Houses at this time lay in the fact that the Upper House, owing to
Tenison's influence, was largely Low Church in sympathy, whereas the
Lower House, with Atterbury as its leader, was of the High Church party.
[T.S.]]
[Footnote 13: Dr. Smalridge (1662-1719) called for the Queen's letter to
be read. The Archbishop prorogued Convocation for two days, and then
again until January 17th. An address to the Queen was presented on
January 26th (Lathbury's "History of Convocation," second edition,
p. 407). Smalridge was Dean of Carlisle, 1711-13, and Bishop of
Bristol, 1714-19. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: "The Case etc. Consider'd" quotes on the title-page: "Jude
10. But these speak evil of those things which they know not." [T.S.]]
[Footnote 15: "Dr. Atterbury, in preference to Dr. Kennet, was chosen
prolocutor by a great majority."--TINDAL, iv. 206. [T.S.]]
Footnote 16: The Latin speeches were made on December 6th, when the
prolocutor was presented to the Archbishop, by Dr. Smalridge, Atterbury,
and Tenison. The one speech to which Swift refers may have been
Tenison's, whose style was fairly dull. [T.S.]