great advantages of a general liberty of conscience, have yet a national
religion professed by all who bear office among them: But why should
they be a precedent for us either in religion or government? Our country
differs from theirs, as well in situation, soil, and productions of
nature, as in the genius and complexion of inhabitants. They are a
commonwealth founded on a sudden by a desperate attempt in a desperate
condition, not formed or digested into a regular system by mature
thought and reason, but huddled up under the pressure of sudden
exigencies; calculated for no long duration, and hitherto subsisting by
accident in the midst of contending powers, who cannot yet agree about
sharing it among them. These difficulties do indeed preserve them from
any great corruptions, which their crazy constitution would extremely
subject them to in a long peace. That confluence of people in a
persecuting age, to a place of refuge nearest at hand, put them upon the
necessity of trade, to which they wisely gave all ease and
encouragement: And if we could think fit to imitate them in this last
particular, there would need no more to invite foreigners among us; who
seem to think no further than how to secure their property and
conscience, without projecting any share in that government which gives
them protection, or calling it persecution if it be denied them. But I
speak it for the honour of our administration, that although our sects
are not so numerous as those in Holland, which I presume is not our
fault, and I hope is not our misfortune, we much excel them and all
Christendom besides in our indulgence to tender consciences.[2] One
single compliance with the national form of receiving the sacrament, is
all we require to qualify any sectary among us for the greatest
employments in the state, after which he is at liberty to rejoin his own
assemblies for the rest of his life. Besides, I will suppose any of the
numerous sects in Holland, to have so far prevailed as to have raised a
civil war, destroyed their government and religion, and put their
administrators to death; after which I will suppose the people to have
recovered all again, and to have settled on their old foundation. Then I
would put a query, whether that sect which was the unhappy instrument of
all this confusion, could reasonably expect to be entrusted for the
future with the greatest employments, or indeed to be hardly tolerated
among them?
[Footnote 2: When this was written there was no law against Occasional
Conformity. [Faulkner, 1735.]]
To go on with the sentiments of a Church of England man: He does not see
how that mighty passion for the Church which some men pretend, can well
consist with those indignities and that contempt they bestow on the
persons of the clergy.[3] Tis a strange mark whereby to distinguish High
Churchmen, that they are such who imagine the clergy can never be too
low. He thinks the maxim these gentlemen are so fond of, that they are
for an humble clergy, is a very good one; and so is he, and for an
humble laity too, since humility is a virtue that perhaps equally
benefits and adorns every station of life.
[Footnote 3: "I observed very well with what insolence and haughtiness
some lords of the High-Church party treated, not only their own
chaplains, but all other clergy whatsoever, and thought this was
sufficiently recompensed by their professions of zeal to the church."]
But then, if the scribblers on the other side freely speak the
sentiments of their party, a divine of the Church of England cannot look
for much better quarter thence. You shall observe nothing more frequent
in their weekly papers than a way of affecting to confound the terms of
Clergy and High Church, of applying both indifferently, and then loading
the latter with all the calumny they can invent. They will tell you they
honour a clergyman; but talk, at the same time, as if there were not
three in the kingdom, who could fall in with their definition.[4] After
the like manner they insult the universities, as poisoned fountains, and
corrupters of youth.
[Footnote 4: "I had likewise observed how the Whig lords took a direct
contrary measure, treated the persons of particular clergymen with great
courtesy, but shewed much ill-will and contempt for the order in
general."]
Now, it seems clear to me, that the Whigs might easily have procured and
maintained a majority among the clergy, and perhaps in the universities,
if they had not too much encouraged or connived at this intemperance of
speech and virulence of pen, in the worst and most prostitute of their
party; among whom there has been for some years past such a perpetual
clamour against the ambition, the implacable temper, and the
covetousness of the priesthood: Such a cant of High Church, and
persecution, and being priest-ridden; so many reproaches about narrow
principles, or terms of communion: Then such scandalous reflections on
the universities, for infecting the youth of the nation with arbitrary
and Jacobite principles, that it was natural for those, who had the care
of religion and education, to apprehend some general design of altering
the constitution of both. And all this was the more extraordinary,
because it could not easily be forgot, that whatever opposition was made
to the usurpations of King James, proceeded altogether from the Church
of England, and chiefly from the clergy, and one of the universities.
For, if it were of any use to recall matters of fact, what is more
notorious than that prince's applying himself first to the Church of
England? And upon their refusal to fall in with his measures, making the
like advances to the dissenters of all kinds, who readily and almost
universally complied with him, affecting in their numerous addresses and
pamphlets, the style of Our Brethren the Roman Catholics, whose
interests they put on the same foot with their own: And some of
Cromwell's officers took posts in the army raised against the Prince of
Orange.[5] These proceedings of theirs they can only extenuate by urging
the provocations they had met from the Church in King Charles's reign,
which though perhaps excusable upon the score of human infirmity, are
not by any means a plea of merit equal to the constancy and sufferings
of the bishops and clergy, or of the head and fellows of Magdalen
College, that furnished the Prince of Orange's declaration with such
powerful arguments to justify and promote the Revolution.
[Footnote 5: De Foe's "History of Addresses" contains some humbling
instances of the applause with which the sectaries hailed their old
enemy, James II., when they saw him engaged in hostility with the
established Church. [T. S.]]
Therefore a Church of England man abhors the humour of the age in
delighting to fling scandals upon the clergy in general; which besides
the disgrace to the Reformation, and to religion itself, casts an
ignominy upon the kingdom that it does not deserve. We have no better
materials to compound the priesthood of, than the mass of mankind, which
corrupted as it is, those who receive orders must have some vices to
leave behind them when they enter into the Church, and if a few do still
adhere, it is no wonder, but rather a great one that they are no worse.
Therefore he cannot think ambition, or love of power more justly laid to
their charge than to other men, because, that would be to make religion
itself, or at least the best constitution of Church-government,
answerable for the errors and depravity of human nature.
Within these last two hundred years all sorts of temporal power have
been wrested from the clergy, and much of their ecclesiastic, the reason
or justice of which proceeding I shall not examine; but, that the
remedies were a little too violent with respect to their possessions,
the legislature hath lately confessed by the remission of their First
Fruits.[6] Neither do the common libellers deny this, who in their
invectives only tax the Church with an insatiable desire of power and
wealth (equally common to all bodies of men as well as individuals) but
thank God, that the laws have deprived them of both. However, it is
worth observing the justice of parties: The sects among us are apt to
complain, and think it hard usage to be reproached now after fifty years
for overturning the state, for the murder of a king, and the indignity
of a usurpation; yet these very men and their partisans, are continually
reproaching the clergy, and laying to their charge the pride, the
avarice, the luxury, the ignorance, and superstition, of Popish times
for a thousand years past.
[Footnote 6: The first fruits were the first year's income of
ecclesiastical benefices. In the middle ages they were taken by the Pope
as a right; but were handed over to the English crown in 1534. Anne in
1703 gave them back to the Church by letters patent, an act confirmed by
Parliament in 1704. The "Bounty" of Queen Anne, however, did not extend
to Ireland; and one of Swift's missions in London was to obtain this
remission of the first fruits for the Irish clergy also. [T. S.]]
He thinks it a scandal to government that such an unlimited liberty
should be allowed of publishing books against those doctrines in
religion, wherein all Christians have agreed, much more to connive at
such tracts as reject all revelation, and by their consequences often
deny the very being of a God. Surely 'tis not a sufficient atonement for
the writers, that they profess much loyalty to the present government,
and sprinkle up and down some arguments in favour of the dissenters;
that they dispute as strenuously as they can for liberty of conscience,
and inveigh largely against all ecclesiastics, under the name of High
Church; and, in short, under the shelter of some popular principles in
politics and religion, undermine the foundations of all piety and
virtue.
As he doth not reckon every schism of that damnable nature which some
would represent, so he is very far from closing with the new opinion of
those who would make it no crime at all, and argue at a wild rate, that
God Almighty is delighted with the variety of faith and worship, as He
is with the varieties of nature. To such absurdities are men carried by
the affectation of freethinking, and removing the prejudices of
education, under which head they have for some time begun to list
morality and religion. It is certain that before the rebellion in 1642,
though the number of Puritans (as they were then called) was as great as
it is with us, and though they affected to follow pastors of that
denomination, yet those pastors had episcopal ordination, possessed
preferments in the Church, and were sometimes promoted to bishoprics
themselves.[7] But, a breach in the general form of worship was in those
days reckoned so dangerous and sinful in itself, and so offensive to
Roman Catholics at home and abroad, and that it was too unpopular to be
attempted; neither, I believe, was the expedient then found out of
maintaining separate pastors out of private purses.
[Footnote 7: In the reign of Elizabeth, and even in that of James, the
Puritans were not, properly speaking, Dissenters; but, on the contrary,
formed a sort of Low Church party in the national establishment.
Archbishop Abbot himself has been considered as a Puritan. [T. S.]]
When a schism is once spread in a nation, there grows at length a
dispute which are the schismatics. Without entering on the arguments,
used by both sides among us, to fix the guilt on each other; 'tis
certain, that, in the sense of the law, the schism lies on that side
which opposes itself to the religion of the state. I leave it among the
divines to dilate upon the danger of schism, as a spiritual evil, but I
would consider it only as a temporal one. And I think it clear that any
great separation from the established worship, though to a new one that
is more pure and perfect, may be an occasion of endangering the public
peace, because it will compose a body always in reserve, prepared to
follow any discontented heads upon the plausible pretext of advancing
true religion, and opposing error, superstition, or idolatry. For this
reason Plato lays it down as a maxim, that, _men ought to worship the
gods according to the laws of the country_, and he introduces Socrates
in his last discourse utterly disowning the crime laid to his charge, of
teaching new divinities or methods of worship. Thus the poor Huguenots
of France were engaged in a civil war, by the specious pretences of
some, who under the guise of religion sacrificed so many thousand lives
to their own ambition and revenge. Thus was the whole body of Puritans
in England drawn to be instruments, or abettors of all manner of
villainy, by the artifices of a few men whose[8] designs from the first
were levelled to destroy the constitution both of religion and
government. And thus, even in Holland itself, where it is pretended that
the variety of sects live so amicably together, and in such perfect
obedience to the magistrate, it is notorious how a turbulent party
joining with the Arminians, did in the memory of our fathers attempt to
destroy the liberty of that republic. So that upon the whole, where
sects are tolerated in a state, 'tis fit they should enjoy a full
liberty of conscience, and every other privilege of freeborn subjects to
which no power is annexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all
emergencies, a government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them
with too little power.
[Footnote 8: Lord Clarendon's History; but see also Gardiner's "History
of England." [T. S.]]
The clergy are usually charged with a persecuting spirit, which they are
said to discover by an implacable hatred to all dissenters; and this
appears to be more unreasonable, because they suffer less in their
interests by a toleration than any of the conforming laity: For while
the Church remains in its present form, no dissenter can possibly have
any share in its dignities, revenues, or power; whereas, by once
receiving the sacrament, he is rendered capable of the highest
employments in the state. And it is very possible, that a narrow
education, together with a mixture of human infirmity, may help to beget
among some of the clergy in possession such an aversion and contempt for
all innovators, as physicians are apt to have for empirics, or lawyers
for pettifoggers, or merchants for pedlars: But since the number of
sectaries doth not concern the clergy either in point of interest or
conscience, (it being an evil not in their power to remedy) 'tis more
fair and reasonable to suppose their dislike proceeds from the dangers
they apprehend to the peace of the commonwealth, in the ruin whereof
they must expect to be the first and greatest sufferers.
To conclude this section, it must be observed, there is a very good
word, which hath of late suffered much by both parties, and that is,
MODERATION, which the one side very justly disowns, and the other as
unjustly pretends to. Beside what passeth every day in conversation; any
man who reads the papers published by Mr. Lesley[9] and others of his
stamp, must needs conclude, that if this author could make the nation
see his adversaries under the colours he paints them in, we have nothing
else to do, but rise as one man and destroy such wretches from the face
of the earth. On the other side, how shall we excuse the advocates for
moderation? among whom, I could appeal to a hundred papers of universal
approbation by the cause they were writ for, which lay such principles
to the whole body of the Tories, as, if they were true, and believed;
our next business should in prudence be, to erect gibbets in every
parish, and hang them out of the way. But I suppose it is presumed, the
common people understand raillery, or at least, rhetoric, and will not
take hyperboles in too literal a sense; which however in some junctures
might prove a desperate experiment.
[Footnote 9: This was Charles Leslie, the second son of the Bishop of
Clogher (1650-1722). He was educated for the bar, but forsook that, and
entered into holy orders. In his zeal for the established Church he
persecuted the Catholics; but this did not interfere with his adhesion
to Jacobite political principles. He settled in London, and wrote a
weekly paper called "The Rehearsal, or a Review of the Times," in which
he attacked Locke and Hoadly. He did all he could for the cause of the
exiled James, but he gave up the work when he found it hopeless, and
died in Ireland. He wrote many virulent theological works, as well as a
host of political tracts. [T. S.]]
And this is moderation in the modern sense of the word, to which,
speaking impartially, the bigots of both parties are equally entitled.
SECTION II.
_The Sentiments of a Church of England Man with respect to Government_.
We look upon it as a very just reproach, though we cannot agree where to
fix it, that there should be so much violence and hatred in religious
matters, among men who agree in all fundamentals, and only differ in
some ceremonies, or at most mere speculative points. Yet is not this
frequently the case between contending parties in a state? For instance:
Do not the generality of Whigs and Tories among us, profess to agree in
the same fundamentals, their loyalty to the Queen, their abjuration of
the Pretender, the settlement of the crown in the protestant line, and a
revolution principle? Their affection to the Church established, with
toleration of dissenters? Nay sometimes they go further, and pass over
into each other's principles; the Whigs become great assertors of the
prerogative, and the Tories of the people's liberty; these crying down
almost the whole set of bishops, and those defending them; so that the
differences fairly stated, would be much of a sort with those in
religion among us, and amount to little more than, _who should take
place_ or _go in and out first_, or _kiss the Queen's hand_; and what
are these but a few court ceremonies? Or, _who should be in the
ministry_? And what is that to the body of the nation, but a mere
speculative point? Yet I think it must be allowed, that no religious
sects ever carried their aversions for each other to greater heights
than our state-parties have done, who the more to inflame their passions
have mixed religious and civil animosities together; borrowing one of
their appellations from the Church, with the addition of High and Low,
how little soever their disputes relate to the term as it is generally
understood.
I now proceed to deliver the sentiments of a Church of England man with
respect to government.
He doth not think the Church of England so narrowly calculated, that it
cannot fall in with any regular species of government; nor does he think
any one regular species of government more acceptable to God than
another. The three generally received in the schools have all of them
their several perfections, and are subject to their several
depravations. However, few states are ruined by any defect in their
institution, but generally by the corruption of manners, against which
the best institution is no long security, and without which a very ill
one may subsist and flourish: Whereof there are two pregnant instances
now in Europe. The first is the aristocracy of Venice, which founded
upon the wisest maxims, and digested by a great length of time, hath in
our age admitted so many abuses through the degeneracy of the nobles,
that the period of its duration seems to approach. The other is the
united republics of the States-general, where a vein of temperance,
industry, parsimony, and a public spirit, running through the whole body
of the people, hath preserved an infant commonwealth of an untimely
birth and sickly constitution, for above an hundred years, through so
many dangers and difficulties, as a much more healthy one could never
have struggled against, without those advantages.
Where security of person and property are preserved by laws which none
but the Whole can repeal, there the great ends of government are
provided for whether the administration be in the hands of One, or of
Many. Where any one person or body of men, who do not represent the
Whole, seize into their hands the power in the last resort, there is
properly no longer a government, but what Aristotle and his followers
call the abuse and corruption of one. This distinction excludes
arbitrary power in whatever numbers; which notwithstanding all that
Hobbes, Filmer[10] and others have said to its advantage, I look upon as
a greater evil than anarchy itself; as much as a savage is in a happier
state of life than a slave at the oar.
[Footnote 10: Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679), the English philosopher, and
author of "De Cive" (1642), "Treatise on Human Nature" (1650), "De
Corpore Politico" (1650), "Leviathan" (1651), and other works. Swift is
here combating Hobbes's advocacy for a sovereign power, as vested in a
single person.
Filmer, Sir Robert (died 1647), author of "The Anarchy of a limited and
mixed Monarchy," "Patriarcha," and "The Freeholder's Grand Inquest." In
the "Patriarcha" Filmer attempted to prove that absolute government by a
monarch was a patriarchal institution. Locke replied to this work in his
"Two Treatises on Government." [T.S.]]
It is reckoned ill manners, as well as unreasonable, for men to quarrel
upon difference in opinion; because that is usually supposed to be a
thing which no man can help in himself; which however I do not conceive
to be an universal infallible maxim, except in those cases where the
question is pretty equally disputed among the learned and the wise;
where it is otherwise, a man of tolerable reason, small experience, and
willing to be instructed, may apprehend he is got into a wrong opinion,
though the whole course of his mind and inclination would persuade him
to believe it true: He may be convinced that he is in error though he
does not see where it lies, by the bad effects of it in the common
conduct of his life, and by observing those persons for whose wisdom and
goodness he has the greatest deference, to be of a contrary sentiment.
According to Hobbes's comparison of reasoning with casting up accounts,
whoever finds a mistake in the sum total, must allow himself out,
though, after repeated trials he may not see in which article he has
misreckoned. I will instance in one opinion, which I look upon every man
obliged in conscience to quit, or in prudence to conceal; I mean, that
whoever argues in defence of absolute power in a single person, though
he offers the old plausible plea, that, _it is his opinion, which he
cannot help unless he be convinced_, ought, in all free states to be
treated as the common enemy of mankind. Yet this is laid as a heavy
charge upon the clergy of the two reigns before the Revolution, who
under the terms of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance are said to have
preached up the unlimited power of the prince, because they found it a
doctrine that pleased the Court, and made way for their preferment. And
I believe there may be truth enough in this accusation, to convince us,
that human frailty will too often interpose itself among persons of the
holiest function. However, it may be offered in excuse for the clergy,
that in the best societies there are some ill members, which a corrupted
court and ministry will industriously find out and introduce. Besides,
it is manifest that the greater number of those who held and preached
this doctrine, were misguided by equivocal terms, and by perfect
ignorance in the principles of government, which they had not made any
part of their study. The question originally put, and as I remember to
have heard it disputed in public schools, was this; _whether under any
pretence whatsoever it may be lawful to resist the supreme magistrate?_
which was held in the negative; and this is certainly the right opinion.
But many of the clergy, and other learned men, deceived by dubious
expression, mistook the object to which passive obedience was due. By
the supreme magistrate is properly understood the legislative power,
which in all government must be absolute and unlimited. But the word
magistrate seeming to denote a single person, and to express the
executive power, it came to pass, that the obedience due to the
legislature was for want of knowing or considering this easy
distinction, misapplied to the administration. Neither is it any wonder,
that the clergy or other well-meaning people should fall into this
error, which deceived Hobbes himself so far, as to be the foundation of
all the political mistakes in his book, where he perpetually confounds
the executive with the legislative power, though all well-instituted
states have ever placed them in different hands, as may be obvious to
those who know anything of Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and other republics
of Greece, as well as the greater ones of Carthage and Rome.
Besides, it is to be considered that when these doctrines began to be
preached among us, the kingdom had not quite worn out the memory of that
unhappy rebellion, under the consequences of which it had groaned almost
twenty years. And a weak prince in conjunction with a succession of most
prostitute ministers, began again to dispose the people to new attempts,
which it was, no doubt, the clergy's duty to endeavour to prevent, if
some of them had not for want of knowledge in temporal affairs, and
others perhaps from a worse principle, proceeded upon a topic that
strictly followed would enslave all mankind.