in order to make us freethinkers: It is a great hardship and injustice,
that our priests must not be disturbed while they are prating in the
pulpit. For example: Why should not William Penn the Quaker, or any
Anabaptist, Papist, Muggletonian, Jew, or Sweet-Singer,[7] have liberty
to come into St Paul's Church, in the midst of divine service, and
endeavour to convert first the aldermen, then the preacher, and
singing-men? Or pray, why might not poor Mr. Whiston,[8] who denies the
divinity of Christ, be allowed to come into the Lower House of
Convocation, and convert the clergy? But, alas! we are overrun with such
false notions, that, if Penn or Whiston should do their duty, they would
be reckoned fanatics, and disturbers of the holy synod, although they
have as good a title to it as St Paul had to go into the synagogues of
the Jews; and their authority is full as divine as his.
[Footnote 7: The Sweet-Singers were a fanatical sect of wailers, founded
in Scotland, but which had no long life. [T.S.]] Christ himself commands
us to be freethinkers; for he bids us search the scriptures, and take
heed what and whom we hear; by which he plainly warns us, not to believe
our bishops and clergy; for Jesus Christ, when he considered that all
the Jewish and heathen priests, whose religion he came to abolish, were
his enemies, rightly concluded that those appointed by him to preach his
own gospel, would probably be so too; and could not be secure, that any
set of priests, of the faith he delivered, would ever be otherwise;
therefore it is fully demonstrated that the clergy of the Church of
England are mortal enemies to Christ, and ought not to be believed.
[Footnote 8: Yet Whiston, who receives this side-cut, was himself an
anxious combatant of Collins, in his "Reflections on an Anonymous
Pamphlet, entitled, 'A Defence of Freethinking.'" 1713. [S.]]
But, without the privilege of freethinking, how is it possible to know
which is the right Scripture? Here are perhaps twenty sorts of
Scriptures in the several parts of the world, and every set of priests
contend that their Scripture is the true one. The Indian Brahmins have a
book of scripture called the Shaster; the Persees their Zundivastaw;[9]
the Bonzes in China have theirs, written by the disciples of Fo-he, whom
they call _God and Saviour of the world, who was born to teach the way
of salvation, and to give satisfaction for all men's sins_: which, you
see, is directly the same with what our priests pretend of Christ. And
must we not think freely, to find out which are in the right, whether
the Bishops or the Bonzes? But the Talapoins, or heathen clergy of Siam,
approach yet nearer to the system of our priests; they have a Book of
Scripture written by Sommonocodam, who, the Siamese say, was "born of a
virgin," and was "the God expected by the Universe;" just as our priests
tell us, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and was the
Messiah so long expected. The Turkish priests, or dervises, have their
Scripture which they call the Alcoran. The Jews have the Old Testament
for their Scripture, and the Christians have both the Old and the New.
Now among all these Scriptures, there cannot above one be right; and how
is it possible to know which is that, without reading them all, and then
thinking freely, every one of us for ourselves, without following the
advice or instruction of any guide, before we venture to choose? The
parliament ought to be at the charge of finding a sufficient number of
these Scriptures, for every one of Her Majesty's subjects, for there are
twenty to one against us, that we may be in the wrong: But a great deal
of freethinking will at last set us all right, and every one will adhere
to the Scripture he likes best; by which means, religion, peace, and
wealth, will be for ever secured in Her Majesty's realms.
[Footnote 9: Swift means here, of course, the Zendavesta, the
commentaries on the sacred books of the Parsees. Not that Swift could
have known much of these Oriental religions; but the names were good
enough for his purpose. [T.S.]]
And it is the more necessary that the good people of England should have
liberty to choose some other Scripture, because all Christian priests
differ so much about the copies of theirs, and about the various
readings of the several manuscripts, which quite destroys the authority
of the Bible: for what authority can a book pretend to, where there are
various readings?[10] And for this reason, it is manifest that no man
can know the opinions of Aristotle or Plato, or believe the facts
related by Thucydides or Livy, or be pleased with the poetry of Homer
and Virgil, all which books are utterly useless, upon account of their
various readings. Some books of Scripture are said to be lost, and this
utterly destroys the credit of those that are left: some we reject,
which the Africans and Copticks receive; and why may we not think
freely, and reject the rest? Some think the scriptures wholly inspired,
some partly; and some not at all. Now this is just the very case of the
Bramins, Persees, Bonzes, Talapoins, Dervises, Rabbis, and all other
priests, who build their religion upon books, as our priests do upon
their Bibles; they all equally differ about the copies, various readings
and inspirations, of their several Scriptures, and God knows which are
in the right: Freethinking alone can determine it.
[Footnote 10: In the discourse on "Freethinking," p. 80, Collins insists
much on a passage in Victor of Tunis, from which he infers, that the
Gospels were corrected and altered in the fourth century. [S.]]
It would be endless to show in how many particulars the priests of the
Heathen and Christian churches, differ about the meaning even of those
Scriptures which they universally receive as sacred. But, to avoid
prolixity, I shall confine myself to the different opinions among the
priests of the Church of England, and here only give you a specimen,
because even these are too many to be enumerated.
I have found out a bishop, (though indeed his opinions are condemned by
all his brethren,) who allows the Scriptures to be so difficult, that
God has left them rather as a trial of our industry than a repository of
our faith, and furniture of creeds and articles of belief; with several
other admirable schemes of freethinking, which you may consult at your
leisure.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the most fundamental point of the whole
Christian religion. Nothing is more easy to a freethinker, yet what
different notions of it do the English priests pretend to deduce from
Scripture, explaining it by "specific unities, eternal modes of
subsistence," and the like unintelligible jargon? Nay, it is a question
whether this doctrine be fundamental or no; for though Dr. South and
Bishop Bull affirm it, yet Bishop Taylor and Dr. Wallis deny it.[11] And
that excellent freethinking prelate, Bishop Taylor, observes, that
Athanasius's example was followed with too much greediness; by which
means it has happened, that the greater number of our priests are in
that sentiment, and think it necessary to believe the Trinity, and
incarnation of Christ.[12]
[Footnote 11: Dr. Robert South (1633-1716), rector of Islip. The
reference by Swift is to his controversy with Sherlock on the doctrine
of the Trinity. The two disputants got into such depths that both were
charged with heresy.
Dr. George Bull (1634-1710), Bishop of St. David's, wrote the "Defensio
Fidei Nicenae." For his exposition of the necessity for the belief in the
divinity of the Son of God he received the thanks of Bossuet.
Dr. Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down and Connor (1613-1667), and author of
"Holy Living" and "Holy Dying," wrote also "Unum Necessarium, or the
Doctrine and Practice of Repentance." His treatment, in this work, of
the doctrine of original sin was considered heterodox by Bishop Warner
and Dr. Sanderson, and a controversy ensued, in the course of which
Taylor was imprisoned in Chepstow Castle on a charge of being concerned
in a Royalist insurrection.
Dr. John Wallis (1616-1703), here referred to, is the famous
mathematician and divine, and one of the original members of the Royal
Society. He is mentioned in the text by Swift because of a work he
published on the Trinity, which brought him into collision with the
Arians. But the Doctor seems to have been addicted to views of a
controversial nature, for his opinions on infant baptism and the keeping
of the Sabbath found many objectors. He was Savilian Professor of
Geometry at Oxford in 1648. [T.S.]]
[Footnote 12: See Swift's opinion of controversies on this subject in
his "Sermon upon the Trinity." [S.]]
Our priests likewise dispute several circumstances about the
resurrection of the dead, the nature of our bodies after the
resurrection, and in what manner they shall be united to our souls. They
also attack one another "very weakly with great vigour," about
predestination. And it is certainly true, (for Bishop Taylor and Mr.
Whiston the Socinian say so,) that all churches in prosperity alter
their doctrines every age, and are neither satisfied with themselves,
nor their own confessions; neither does any clergyman of sense believe
the Thirty-nine Articles.
Our priests differ about the eternity of hell torments. The famous Dr
Henry More,[13] and the most pious and rational of all priests, Dr
Tillotson,[14] (both freethinkers,) believe them to be not eternal. They
differ about keeping the sabbath, the divine right of episcopacy, and
the doctrine of original sin; which is the foundation of the whole
Christian religion; for if men are not liable to be damned for Adam's
sin, the Christian religion is an imposture: Yet this is now disputed
among them; so is lay baptism; so was formerly the lawfulness of usury,
but now the priests are common stock-jobbers, attorneys, and scriveners.
In short there is no end of disputing among priests, and therefore I
conclude, that there ought to be no such thing in the world as priests,
teachers, or guides, for instructing ignorant people in religion; but
that every man ought to think freely for himself.
[Footnote 13: Dr. Henry More (1614-1687), the Platonist theologian,
wrote a philosophical poem entitled, "Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the
Soul" (1640). [T.S.]]
[Footnote 14: Dr. John Tillotson (1630-1694) succeeded Bancroft as
Archbishop of Canterbury. He published some eloquent sermons and several
controversial tracts against Catholicism. [T.S.]]
I will tell you the meaning in all this; the priests dispute every point
in the Christian religion, as well as almost every text in the Bible;
and the force of my argument lies here, that whatever point is disputed
by one or two divines, however condemned by the Church, not only that
particular point, but the whole article to which it relates, may
lawfully be received or rejected by any freethinker. For instance,
suppose More and Tillotson deny the eternity of hell torments, a
freethinker may deny all future punishments whatsoever. The priests
dispute about explaining the Trinity; therefore a freethinker may reject
one or two, or the whole three persons; at least he may reject
Christianity, because the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of
that religion. So I affirm original sin, and that men are now liable to
be damned for Adam's sin, to be the foundation of the whole Christian
religion; but this point was formerly, and is now disputed, therefore, a
freethinker may deny the whole. And I cannot help giving you one farther
direction, how I insinuate all along, that the wisest freethinking
priests, whom you may distinguish by the epithets I bestow them, were
those who differed most from the generality of their brethren.
But besides, the conduct of our priests in many other points, makes
freethinking unavoidable; for some of them own, that the doctrines of
the Church are contradictory to one another, as well as to reason; which
I thus prove: Dr. Sacheverell says in his speech at his trial, That by
abandoning passive obedience we must render ourselves the most
inconsistent Church in the world: Now 'tis plain, that one inconsistency
could not make the most inconsistent Church in the world; _ergo_, there
must have been a great many inconsistencies and contradictory doctrines
in the Church before. Dr. South describes the incarnation of Christ, as
an astonishing mystery, impossible to be conceived by man's reason;
_ergo_, it is contradictory to itself, and to reason, and ought to be
exploded by all freethinkers.
Another instance of the priests' conduct, which multiplies freethinkers,
is their acknowledgment of abuses, defects, and false doctrines, in the
Church; particularly that of eating black pudding,[15] which is so
plainly forbid in the Old and New Testament, that I wonder those who
pretend to believe a syllable in either will presume to taste it. Why
should I mention the want of discipline, and of a sideboard at the
altar, with complaints of other great abuses and defects made by some of
the priests, which no man can think on without freethinking, and
consequently rejecting Christianity?
[Footnote 15: Collins in his pamphlet quotes a Dr. Grabe, who, following
the Jewish code of rules as regards food, considered the eating of blood
one of the points on which the Church did not insist against. In the
text Swift ridicules this in the reference to "black pudding." [T. S.]]
When I see an honest freethinking bishop endeavour to destroy the power
and privileges of the Church, and Dr. Atterbury angry with him for it,
and calling it "dirty work," what can I conclude, by virtue of being a
freethinker, but that Christianity is all a cheat?
Mr. Whiston has published several tracts, wherein he absolutely denies
the divinity of Christ: A bishop tells him, "Sir, in any matter where
you have the Church's judgment against you, you should be careful not to
break the peace of the Church, by writing against it, though you are
sure you are in the right."[16] Now my opinion is directly contrary; and
I affirm, that if ten thousand freethinkers thought differently from the
received doctrine, and from each other, they would be all in duty bound
to publish their thoughts (provided they were all sure of being in the
right) though it broke the peace of the Church and state ten thousand
times.
[Footnote 16: Swift's "Sermon on the Trinity," as well as a passage in
his "Thoughts upon Religion," shews the weight which he attached to this
important argument. [S.]]
And here I must take leave to tell you, although you cannot but have
perceived it from what I have already said, and shall be still more
amply convinced by what is to follow; that freethinking signifies
nothing, without freespeaking and freewriting. It is the indispensable
duty of a freethinker, to endeavour forcing all the world to think as he
does, and by that means make them freethinkers too. You are also to
understand, that I allow no man to be a freethinker, any further than as
he differs from the received doctrines of religion. Where a man falls
in, though by perfect chance, with what is generally believed, he is in
that point a confined and limited thinker; and you shall see by and by,
that I celebrate those for the noblest freethinkers in every age, who
differed from the religion of their countries in the most fundamental
points, and especially in those which bear any analogy to the chief
fundamentals of religion among us.
Another trick of the priests is, to charge all men with atheism, who
have more wit than themselves; which therefore I expect will be my case
for writing this discourse: This is what makes them so implacable
against Mr. Gildon, Dr. Tindal, Mr. Toland,[17] and myself, and when they
call us wits, atheists, it provokes us to be freethinkers.
[Footnote 17: See notes on pp. 9, 79, 80, 82.]
Again; the priests cannot agree when their Scripture was written. They
differ about the number of canonical books, and the various readings.
Now those few among us who understand Latin, are careful to tell this to
our disciples, who presently fall a-freethinking, that the Bible is a
book not to be depended upon in anything at all.
There is another thing, that mightily spreads freethinking, which I
believe you would hardly guess. The priests have got a way of late of
writing books against freethinking; I mean treatises in dialogue, where
they introduce atheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians offering their
several arguments. Now these freethinkers are too hard for the priests
themselves in their own books; and how can it be otherwise? For if the
arguments usually offered by atheists, are fairly represented in these
books, they must needs convert everybody that reads them; because
atheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians, have certainly better
arguments to maintain their opinions, than any the priests can produce
to maintain the contrary.
Mr. Creech,[18] a priest, translated Lucretius into English, which is a
complete system of atheism; and several young students, who were
afterwards priests, wrote verses in praise of this translation. The
arguments against Providence in that book are so strong, that they have
added mightily to the number of freethinkers.
[Footnote 18: This is Thomas Creech, the translator of Horace, to whom
Swift refers in "The Battle of the Books" (see vol. i. p. 180). The
translation of Lucretius was published in English verse in 1682. [T.
S.]]
Why should I mention the pious cheats of the priests, who in the New
Testament translate the word _ecclesia_ sometimes the _church_, and
sometimes the _congregation_; and _episcopus_, sometimes a _bishop_, and
sometimes an _overseer_? A priest,[19] translating a book, left out a
whole passage that reflected on the king, by which he was an enemy to
political freethinking, a most considerable branch of our system.
Another priest, translating a book of travels,[20] left out a lying
miracle, out of mere malice, to conceal an argument for freethinking. In
short, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by
priests: But however, I love to excuse them whenever I can: And as to
this accusation, they may plead the authority of the ancient fathers of
the Church, for forgery, corruption, and mangling of authors, with more
reason than for any of their articles of faith. St Jerom, St Hilary,
Eusebius Vercellensis, Victorinus,[21] and several others, were all
guilty of arrant forgery and corruption: For when they translated the
works of several freethinkers, whom they called heretics, they omitted
all their heresies or freethinkings, and had the impudence to own it to
the world.
[Footnote 19: Collins refers to the Rev. Mr. Brown, who translated
Father Paul's "Letters," and omitted the words, "If the King of England
[James I.] were not more a doctor than a king."]
[Footnote 20: Baumgarten's "Travels." [T. S.]]
[Footnote 21: Jerome, or St. Hieronymus (_circa_ 340-420), wrote the
Latin vulgate translation of the Scriptures. Is accepted as one of the
Fathers of the Church.
St. Hilary, another accepted Father, was bishop of Poictiers. He died
367 or 368.
The Eusebius here named was Bishop of Vercelli, a city of Liguria. He
flourished about A.D. 360, and distinguished himself at the Council of
Milan in A.D. 355, for his attacks against Arianism. He was exiled to
Upper Thebais, with several other bishops who refused to subscribe to
the condemnation of Athanasius; but was recalled with Lucifer, bishop of
Cagliari, Sardinia. In conjunction with Athanasius he attended an
Alexandrian synod which declared the Trinity consubstantial. He
travelled much, in the Eastern provinces and Italy, engaging in
missionary work. He died about A.D. 373.
Fabius Marius Victorinus was born in Africa, and died at Rome in 370. He
was a distinguished orator, grammarian, and rhetorician. His chief work
was a treatise entitled "De Orthographia." He also wrote many
theological books. [T. S.]]
From these many notorious instances of the priests' conduct, I conclude
they are not to be relied on in any one thing relating to religion; but
that every man must think freely for himself.
But to this it may be objected, that the bulk of mankind is as well
qualified for flying as thinking, and if every man thought it his duty
to think freely, and trouble his neighbour with his thoughts (which is
an essential part of freethinking,) it would make wild work in the
world. I answer; whoever cannot think freely, may let it alone if he
pleases, by virtue of his right to think freely; that is to say, if such
a man freely thinks that he cannot think freely, of which every man is a
sufficient judge, why, then, he need not think freely, unless he thinks
fit.
Besides, if the bulk of mankind cannot think freely in matters of
speculation, as the being of a God, the immortality of the soul, &c. why
then, freethinking is indeed no duty: But then the priests must allow,
that men are not concerned to believe whether there is a God or no. But
still those who are disposed to think freely, may think freely if they
please.
It is again objected, that freethinking will produce endless divisions
in opinion, and by consequence disorder society. To which I answer;
When every single man comes to have a different opinion every day from
the whole world, and from himself, by virtue of freethinking, and thinks
it his duty to convert every man to his own freethinking (as all we
freethinkers do) how can that possibly create so great a diversity of
opinions, as to have a set of priests agree among themselves to teach
the same opinions in their several parishes to all who will come to hear
them? Besides, if all people were of the same opinion, the remedy would
be worse than the disease; I will tell you the reason some other time.
Besides, difference in opinion, especially in matters of great moment,
breeds no confusion at all. Witness Papist and Protestant, Roundhead and
Cavalier, Whig and Tory, now among us. I observe, the Turkish empire is
more at peace within itself, than Christian princes are with one
another. Those noble Turkish virtues of charity and toleration, are what
contribute chiefly to the flourishing state of that happy monarchy.
There Christians and Jews are tolerated, and live at ease, if they can
hold their tongues and think freely, provided they never set foot within
the mosques, nor write against Mahomet: A few plunderings now and then
by the janissaries are all they have to fear.
It is objected, that by freethinking, men will think themselves into
atheism; and indeed I have allowed all along, that atheistical books
convert men to freethinking. But suppose that to be true; I can bring
you two divines who affirm superstition and enthusiasm to be worse than
atheism, and more mischievous to society, and in short it is necessary
that the bulk of the people should be atheists or superstitious.
It is objected, that priests ought to be relied on by the people, as
lawyers and physicians, because it is their faculty.
I answer, 'Tis true, a man who is no lawyer is not suffered to plead for
himself; but every man may be his own quack if he pleases, and he only
ventures his life; but in the other case the priest tells him he must be
damned: Therefore do not trust the priest, but think freely for
yourself, and if you happen to think there is no hell, there certainly
is none, and consequently you cannot be damned; I answer further, that
wherever there is no lawyer, physician, or priest, the country is
paradise. Besides, all priests, (except the orthodox, and those are not
ours, nor any that I know,) are hired by the public to lead men into
mischief; but lawyers and physicians are not, you hire them yourself.