limiting the press; at least so far as to prevent the publishing of such
pernicious books, as, under pretence of freethinking, endeavour to
overthrow those tenets in religion which have been held inviolable,
almost in all ages, by every sect that pretend to be Christian; and
cannot, therefore, with any colour of reason, be called points in
controversy, or matters of speculation, as some would pretend. The
Doctrine of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Immortality of the
Soul, and even the truth of all revelation, are daily exploded and
denied in books openly printed; though it is to be supposed neither
party will avow such principles, or own the supporting of them to be any
way necessary to their service.[6]
[Footnote 6: This passage refers to the deistical publications of
Asgill, Toland, Tindal, and Collins, already noted. [T. S.]]
It would be endless to set down every corruption or defect which
requires a remedy from the legislative power. Senates are like to have
little regard for any proposals that come from without doors; though,
under a due sense of my own inabilities, I am fully convinced, that the
unbiassed thoughts of an honest and wise man, employed on the good of
his country, may be better digested than the results of a multitude,
where faction and interest too often prevail; as a single guide may
direct the way better than five hundred, who have _contrary views_, or
_look asquint_, or _shut their eyes_.
I shall therefore mention but one more particular, which I think the
Parliament ought to take under consideration; whether it be not a shame
to our country, and a scandal to Christianity, that in many towns, where
there is a prodigious increase in the number of houses and inhabitants,
so little care should be taken for the building of churches, that five
parts in six of the people are absolutely hindered from hearing divine
service? Particularly here in London, where a single minister, with one
or two sorry curates, hath the care sometimes of above twenty thousand
souls incumbent on him. A neglect of religion so ignominious, in my
opinion, that it can hardly be equalled in any civilized age or
country.[7]
[Footnote 7: This paragraph is known to have given the first hint to
certain bishops, particularly to Bishop Atterbury, to procure a fund for
building fifty new churches in London. [T. S.]]
But, to leave these airy imaginations of introducing new laws for the
amendment of mankind; what I principally insist on is, a due execution
of the old, which lies wholly in the crown, and in the authority derived
from thence. I return, therefore, to my former assertion; that if
stations of power, trust, profit, and honour, were constantly made the
rewards of virtue and piety, such an administration must needs have a
mighty influence on the faith and morals of the whole kingdom: And men
of great abilities would then endeavour to excel in the duties of a
religious life, in order to qualify themselves for public service. I may
possibly be wrong in some of the means I prescribe towards this end; but
that is no material objection against the design itself. Let those who
are at the helm contrive it better, which, perhaps, they may easily do.
Everybody will agree that the disease is manifest, as well as dangerous;
that some remedy is necessary, and that none yet applied hath been
effectual, which is a sufficient excuse for any man who wishes well to
his country, to offer his thoughts, when he can have no other end in
view but the public good. The present Queen is a princess of as many and
great virtues as ever filled a throne: How would it brighten her
character to the present and after ages, if she would exert her utmost
authority to instil some share of those virtues into her people, which
they are too degenerate to learn only from her example! And, be it spoke
with all the veneration possible for so excellent a sovereign, her best
endeavours in this weighty affair are a most important part of her duty,
as well as of her interest and her honour.
But, it must be confessed, that as things are now, every man thinks that
he has laid in a sufficient stock of merit, and may pretend to any
employment, provided he has been loud and frequent in declaring himself
hearty for the government. 'Tis true, he is a man of pleasure, and a
freethinker, that is, in other words, he is profligate in his morals,
and a despiser of religion; but in point of party, he is one to be
confided in; he is an assertor of liberty and property; he rattles it
out against Popery and Arbitrary Power, and Priestcraft and High Church.
'Tis enough: He is a person fully qualified for any employment, in the
court or the navy, the law or the revenue; where he will be sure to
leave no arts untried, of bribery, fraud, injustice, oppression, that he
can practise with any hope of impunity. No wonder such men are true to a
government where liberty runs high, where property, however attained, is
so well secured, and where the administration is at least so gentle:
'Tis impossible they could choose any other constitution, without
changing to their loss.
Fidelity to a present establishment is indeed the principal means to
defend it from a foreign enemy, but without other qualifications, will
not prevent corruptions from within; and states are more often ruined by
these than the other.
To conclude. Whether the proposals I have offered toward a reformation,
be such as are most prudent and convenient, may probably be a question;
but it is none at all, whether some reformation be absolutely necessary;
because the nature of things is such, that if abuses be not remedied,
they will certainly increase, nor ever stop, till they end in the
subversion of a commonwealth. As there must always of necessity be some
corruptions, so, in a well-instituted state, the executive power will be
always contending against them, by _reducing things_ (as Michiaevel
speaks) _to their first principles_; never letting abuses grow
inveterate, or multiply so far, that it will be hard to find remedies,
and perhaps impossible to apply them. As he that would keep his house in
repair, must attend every little breach or flaw, and supply it
immediately; else time alone will bring all to ruin; how much more the
common accidents of storms and rain? He must live in perpetual danger of
his house falling about his ears; and will find it cheaper to throw it
quite down, and build it again from the ground, perhaps upon a new
foundation, or at least in a new form, which may neither be so safe, nor
so convenient, as the old.
***** ***** ***** *****
THE SENTIMENTS
OF A
CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN,
WITH RESPECT TO
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.
WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.
NOTE.
The writing of this tract, as has been already observed, placed Swift in
a position where allegiance to party was not easy to maintain. It
amounted to a warning to Whigs as well as Tories. To the former he urged
that the Church of England was wide enough for the highest principles of
civil liberty; to the latter he tried to show that to be a religious and
God-fearing man it was not absolutely necessary to be a Tory in
politics. "Whoever has examined the conduct and proceedings of both
parties for some years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well
conceive it possible to go far towards the extremes of either, without
offering some violence to his integrity or understanding." It is true
that Whiggism and "fanatical genius" were almost synonymous terms for
Swift; but that was because the Church was of prime consideration with
him, and the Whigs numbered in their ranks the great army of Dissent.
Swift, in his famous letter to Pope, dated Dublin, January 10th,
1720-21, reviews his political opinions of 1708 to justify himself
against the misrepresentations of "the virulence of libellers: whose
malice has taken the same train in both, by fathering dangerous
principles in government upon me, which I never maintained, and insipid
productions, which I am not capable of writing." That review is but a
summary of what is given fully in this tract. No appeal was ever better
intentioned. "I only wish," he says to Pope, "my endeavours had
succeeded better in the great point I had at heart, which was that of
reconciling the ministers to each other." But High Church and Low Church
were cries which had divided politicians as if they did not belong to
one nation. To Swift it was easy enough to be a staunch Churchman and at
the same time expose the fallacies underlying the faith in the sovereign
power; but then Swift was here no party fanatic who would use the
"Church in danger" cry for party purposes. "If others," he writes twelve
years later, "who had more concern and more influence, would have acted
their parts," his appeal had not been made in vain. As it was it failed
in its intended purpose, and Swift lost what hold he had on Somers,
Godolphin, and the rest. It remains, however, to testify to Swift's
principles in a manner least expected by those who have set him down as
intemperate and inconsistent. Certainly, no principles were ever more
moderately expressed; and, assuredly, no expression of principles found
fitter realization in conduct.
The text of this edition is based on that given in the "Miscellanies" of
1711. I have not succeeded in obtaining a copy of the original issue;
but I have collated the various texts given in the re-issues by
Faulkner, Hawkesworth, Scott, and the "Miscellanies" of 1728 (vol. i.)
and 1747 (vol. i.).
[T. S.]
THE SENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF
ENGLAND MAN, WITH RESPECT TO
RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT.
Whosoever hath examined the conduct and proceedings of both parties for
some years past, whether in or out of power, cannot well conceive it
possible to go far towards the extremes of either, without offering some
violence to his integrity or understanding. A wise and a good man may
indeed be sometimes induced to comply with a number whose opinion he
generally approves, though it be perhaps against his own. But this
liberty should be made use of upon very few occasions, and those of
small importance, and then only with a view of bringing over his own
side another time to something of greater and more public moment. But to
sacrifice the innocency of a friend, the good of our country, or our own
conscience to the humour, or passion, or interest of a party, plainly
shews that either our heads or our hearts are not as they should be: Yet
this very practice is the fundamental law of each faction among us, as
may be obvious to any who will impartially, and without engagement, be
at the pains to examine their actions, which however is not so easy a
task: For it seems a principle in human nature, to incline one way more
than another, even in matters where we are wholly unconcerned. And it is
a common observation, that in reading a history of facts done a thousand
years ago, or standing by at play among those who are perfect strangers
to us, we are apt to find our hopes and wishes engaged on a sudden in
favour of one side more than another. No wonder then, we are all so
ready to interest ourselves in the course of public affairs, where the
most inconsiderable have some _real_ share, and by the wonderful
importance which every man is of to himself, a very great _imaginary_
one.
And indeed, when the two parties that divide the whole commonwealth,
come once to a rupture, without any hopes left of forming a third with
better principles, to balance the others; it seems every man's duty to
choose a side,[1] though he cannot entirely approve of either; and all
pretences to neutrality are justly exploded by both, being too stale and
obvious, only intending the safety and ease of a few individuals while
the public is embroiled. This was the opinion and practice of the latter
Cato, whom I esteem to have been the wisest and best of all the Romans.
But before things proceed to open violence, the truest service a private
man may hope to do his country, is, by unbiassing his mind as much as
possible, and then endeavouring to moderate between the rival powers;
which must needs be owned a fair proceeding with the world, because it
is of all others the least consistent with the common design, of making
a fortune by the merit of an opinion.
[Footnote 1: Faulkner and Scott have "one of the two sides." [T. S.]]
I have gone as far as I am able in qualifying myself to be such a
moderator: I believe I am no bigot in religion, and I am sure I am none
in government. I converse in full freedom with many considerable men of
both parties, and if not in equal number, it is purely accidental and
personal, as happening to be near the court, and to have made
acquaintance there, more under one ministry than another. Then, I am not
under the necessity of declaring myself by the prospect of an
employment. And lastly, if all this be not sufficient, I industriously
conceal my name, which wholly exempts me from any hopes and fears in
delivering my opinion.
In consequence of this free use of my reason, I cannot possibly think so
well or so ill of either party, as they would endeavour to persuade the
world of each other, and of themselves. For instance; I do not charge it
upon the body of the Whigs or the Tories, that their several principles
lead them to introduce Presbytery, and the religion of the Church of
Rome, or a commonwealth and arbitrary power. For, why should any party
be accused of a principle which they solemnly disown and protest
against? But, to this they have a mutual answer ready; they both assure
us, that their adversaries are not to be believed, that they disown
their principles out of fear, which are manifest enough when we examine
their practices. To prove this, they will produce instances, on one
side, either of avowed Presbyterians, or persons of libertine and
atheistical tenets, and on the other, of professed Papists, or such as
are openly in the interest of the abdicated family. Now, it is very
natural for all subordinate sects and denominations in a state, to side
with some general party, and to choose that which they find to agree
with themselves in some general principle. Thus at the restoration, the
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents, and other sects, did all with
very good reason unite and solder up their several schemes to join
against the Church, who without regard to their distinctions, treated
them all as equal adversaries. Thus, our present dissenters do very
naturally close in with the Whigs, who profess moderation, declare they
abhor all thoughts of persecution, and think it hard that those who
differ only in a few ceremonies and speculations, should be denied the
privilege and profit of serving their country in the highest employments
of state. Thus, the atheists, libertines, despisers of religion and
revelation in general, that is to say, all those who usually pass under
the name of freethinkers, do properly join with the same body; because
they likewise preach up moderation, and are not so overnice to
distinguish between an unlimited liberty of conscience, and an unlimited
freedom of opinion. Then on the other side, the professed firmness of
the Tories for Episcopacy as an apostolical institution: Their aversion
to those sects who lie under the reproach of having once destroyed their
constitution, and who they imagine, by too indiscreet a zeal for
reformation have defaced the primitive model of the Church: Next, their
veneration for monarchical government in the common course of
succession, and their hatred to republican schemes: These, I say, are
principles which not only the nonjuring zealots profess, but even
Papists themselves fall readily in with. And every extreme here
mentioned flings a general scandal upon the whole body it pretends to
adhere to.
But surely no man whatsoever ought in justice or good manners to be
charged with principles he actually disowns, unless his practices do
openly and without the least room for doubt contradict his profession:
Not upon small surmises, or because he has the misfortune to have ill
men sometimes agree with him in a few general sentiments. However,
though the extremes of Whig and Tory seem with little justice to have
drawn religion into their controversies, wherein they have small
concern; yet they both have borrowed one leading principle from the
abuse of it; which is, to have built their several systems of political
faith, not upon enquiries after truth, but upon opposition to each
other, upon injurious appellations, charging their adversaries with
horrid opinions, and then reproaching them for the want of charity; _et
neuter falso_.
In order to remove these prejudices, I have thought nothing could be
more effectual than to describe the sentiments of a Church of England
man with respect to religion and government. This I shall endeavour to
do in such a manner as may not be liable to least objection from either
party, and which I am confident would be assented to by great numbers in
both, if they were not misled to those mutual misrepresentations, by
such motives as they would be ashamed to own.
I shall begin with religion.
And here, though it makes an odd sound, yet it is necessary to say, that
whoever professes himself a member of the Church of England, ought to
believe a God and his providence, together with revealed religion, and
the divinity of Christ. For beside those many thousands, who (to speak
in the phrase of divines) do practically deny all this by the immorality
of their lives; there is no small number, who in their conversation and
writings directly or by consequence endeavour to overthrow it; yet all
these place themselves in the list of the National Church, though at the
same time (as it is highly reasonable) they are great sticklers for
liberty of conscience.
To enter upon particulars: A Church of England man hath a true
veneration for the scheme established among us of ecclesiastic
government; and though he will not determine whether Episcopacy be of
divine right, he is sure it is most agreeable to primitive institution,
fittest of all others for preserving order and purity, and under its
present regulations best calculated for our civil state: He should
therefore think the abolishment of that order among us would prove a
mighty scandal and corruption to our faith, and manifestly dangerous to
our monarchy; nay, he would defend it by arms against all the powers on
earth, except our own legislature; in which case he would submit as to a
general calamity, a dearth, or a pestilence.
As to rites and ceremonies, and forms of prayer; he allows there might
be some useful alterations, and more, which in the prospect of uniting
Christians might be very supportable, as things declared in their own
nature indifferent; to which he therefore would readily comply, if the
clergy, or, (though this be not so fair a method) if the legislature
should direct: Yet at the same time he cannot altogether blame the
former for their unwillingness to consent to any alteration; which
beside the trouble, and perhaps disgrace, would certainly never produce
the good effects intended by it. The only condition that could make it
prudent and just for the clergy to comply in altering the ceremonial or
any other indifferent part, would be, a firm resolution in the
legislature to interpose by some strict and effectual laws to prevent
the rising and spreading of new sects how plausible soever, for the
future; else there must never be an end: And it would be to act like a
man who should pull down and change the ornaments of his house, in
compliance to every one who was disposed to find fault as he passed by,
which besides the perpetual trouble and expense, would very much damage,
and perhaps in time destroy the building. Sects in a state seem only
tolerated with any reason because they are already spread; and because
it would not be agreeable with so mild a government, or so pure a
religion as ours, to use violent methods against great numbers of
mistaken people, while they do not manifestly endanger the constitution
of either. But the greatest advocates for general liberty of conscience,
will allow that they ought to be checked in their beginnings, if they
will allow them to be an evil at all, or which is the same thing, if
they will only grant, it were better for the peace of the state, that
there should be none. But while the clergy consider the natural temper
of mankind in general, or of our own country in particular, what
assurances can they have, that any compliances they shall make, will
remove the evil of dissension, while the liberty still continues of
professing whatever new opinion we please? Or how can it be imagined
that the body of dissenting teachers, who must be all undone by such a
revolution, will not cast about for some new objections to withhold
their flocks, and draw in fresh proselytes by some further innovations
or refinements?
Upon these reasons he is for tolerating such different forms in
religious worship as are already admitted, but by no means for leaving
it in the power of those who are tolerated, to advance their own models
upon the ruin of what is already established, which it is natural for
all sects to desire, and which they cannot justify by any consistent
principles if they do not endeavour; and yet, which they cannot succeed
in without the utmost danger to the public peace.
To prevent these inconveniences, he thinks it highly just, that all
rewards of trust, profit, or dignity, which the state leaves in the
disposal of the administration, should be given only to those whose
principles direct them to preserve the constitution in all its parts. In
the late affair of Occasional Conformity, the general argument of those
who were against it, was not, to deny it an evil in itself, but that the
remedy proposed was violent, untimely, and improper, which is the Bishop
of Salisbury's opinion in the speech he made and published against the
bill: But, however just their fears or complaints might have been upon
that score, he thinks it a little too gross and precipitate to employ
their writers already in arguments for repealing the sacramental test,
upon no wiser a maxim, than that no man should on the account of
conscience be deprived the liberty of serving his country; a topic which
may be equally applied to admit Papists, Atheists, Mahometans, Heathens,
and Jews. If the Church wants members of its own to employ in the
service of the public; or be so unhappily contrived as to exclude from
its communion such persons who are likeliest to have great abilities, it
is time it should be altered and reduced into some more perfect, or at
least more popular form: But in the meanwhile, it is not altogether
improbable, that when those who dislike the constitution, are so very
zealous in their offers for the service of their country, they are not
wholly unmindful of their party or of themselves.