It is objected, (by priests no doubt, but I have forgot their names)

that false speculations are necessary to be imposed upon men, in order

to assist the magistrate in keeping the peace, and that men ought

therefore to be deceived, like children, for their own good. I answer,

that zeal for imposing speculations, whether true or false (under which

name of speculations I include all opinions of religion, as the belief

of a God, Providence, immortality of the soul, future rewards and

punishments, &c.) has done more hurt than it is possible for religion to

do good. It puts us to the charge of maintaining ten thousand priests in

England, which is a burden upon society never felt upon any other

occasion; and a greater evil to the public than if these ecclesiastics

were only employed in the most innocent offices of life, which I take to

be eating and drinking. Now if you offer to impose anything on mankind

besides what relates to moral duties, as to pay your debts, not pick

pockets, nor commit murder, and the like; that is to say, if, besides

this, you oblige them to believe in God and Jesus Christ, what you add

to their faith will take just so much off from their morality. By this

argument it is manifest, that a perfect moral man must be a perfect

atheist; every inch of religion he gets loses him an inch of morality:

For there is a certain _quantum_ belongs to every man, of which there is

nothing to spare. This is clear from the common practice of all our

priests, they never once preach to you to love your neighbour, to be

just in your dealings, or to be sober and temperate. The streets of

London are full of common whores, publicly tolerated in their

wickedness; yet the priests make no complaints against this enormity,

either from the pulpit or the press: I can affirm, that neither you nor

I, sir, have ever heard one sermon against whoring since we were boys.

No, the priests allow all these vices, and love us the better for them,

provided we will promise not "to harangue upon a text," nor to sprinkle

a little water in a child's face, which they call baptizing, and would

engross it all to themselves.

Besides, the priests engage all the rogues, villains, and fools in their

party, in order to make it as large as they can: By this means they

seduced Constantine the Great[22] over to their religion, who was the

first Christian emperor, and so horrible a villain, that the heathen

priests told him they could not expiate his crimes in their church; so

he was at a loss to know what to do, till an AEgyptian bishop assured

him, that there was no villainy so great, but was to be expiated by the

sacraments of the Christian religion; upon which he became a Christian,

and to him that religion owes its first settlement.

[Footnote 22: The reference here is to the luminous cross which

Constantine said he saw in the heavens, and which influenced him to

embrace Christianity. [T. S.]]

It is objected, that freethinkers themselves are the most infamous,

wicked, and senseless of all mankind.

I answer, first, we say the same of priests, and other believers. But

the truth is, men of all sects are equally good and bad; for no religion

whatsoever contributes in the least to mend men's lives.

I answer, secondly, that freethinkers use their understanding, but those

who have religion do not; therefore the first have more understanding

than the others; witness Toland, Tindal, Gildon[23], Clendon, Coward,

and myself. For, use legs and have legs.

[Footnote 23: John Clendon, of the Middle Temple, published in

1709-1710, "Tractatus Philosophico-Theologicus de Persona; or, a

Treatise of the Word Person." This singular book appears to have been

written principally to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was very

well explained by an Act of Parliament, 9 and 10 Will. III. It was

complained of in the House of Commons, March 25th, 1710, and was judged

to be a scandalous, seditious, and blasphemous libel .... and was burnt

by the common hangman at the same time with Tindal's "Rights." [N.] ]

I answer, thirdly, that freethinkers are the most virtuous persons in

the world; for all freethinkers must certainly differ from the priests,

and from nine hundred ninety-nine of a thousand of those among whom they

live; and are therefore virtuous of course, because everybody hates

them.

I answer, fourthly, that the most virtuous people in all ages have been

freethinkers; of which I shall produce several instances[24].

[Footnote 24: What follows is in ridicule of a long list of

freethinkers, as he calls them, with which Collins has graced his

discourse; in which he includes not only the ancient philosophers, but

the inspired prophets, and even "King Solomon the wise." [S.] ]

Socrates was a freethinker; for he disbelieved the gods of his country,

and the common creeds about them, and declared his dislike when he heard

men attribute "repentance, anger, and other passions to the gods, and

talk of wars and battles in heaven, and of the gods getting women with

child," and such like fabulous and blasphemous stones. I pick out these

particulars, because they are the very same with what the priests have

in their Bibles, where repentance and anger are attributed to God; where

it is said, there was "war in heaven;" and that "the Virgin Mary was

with child by the Holy Ghost," whom the priests call God; all fabulous

and blasphemous stories. Now, I affirm Socrates to have been a true

Christian. You will ask, perhaps, how that can be, since he lived three

or four hundred years before Christ? I answer, with Justin Martyr, that

Christ is nothing else but reason, and I hope you do not think Socrates

lived before reason. Now, this true Christian Socrates never made

notions, speculations, or mysteries, any part of his religion, but

demonstrated all men to be fools who troubled themselves with enquiries

into heavenly things. Lastly, 'tis plain that Socrates was a

freethinker, because he was calumniated for an atheist, as freethinkers

generally are, only because he was an enemy to all speculations and

inquiries into heavenly things. For I argue thus, that if I never

trouble myself to think whether there be a God or no, and forbid others

to do it, I am a freethinker, but not an atheist.

Plato was a freethinker, and his notions are so like some in the Gospel,

that a heathen charged Christ with borrowing his doctrine from Plato.

But Origen[25] defends Christ very well against this charge, by saying

he did not understand Greek, and therefore could not borrow his doctrine

from Plato. However their two religions agreed so well, that it was

common for Christians to turn Platonists, and Platonists Christians.

When the Christians found out this, one of their zealous priests (worse

than any atheist) forged several things under Plato's name, but

conformable to Christianity, by which the heathens were fraudulently

converted.

[Footnote 25: Origen, a Father of the Church, was born about 185. He

carried to extremes the celibate life taught in the Gospel; and his

"Treatise against Celsus" contains, according to St. Jerome and

Eusebius, the refutation of "all the objections which have been made,

and all which ever will be made against Christianity." [T. S.] ]

Epicurus was the greatest of all freethinkers, and consequently the most

virtuous man in the world. His opinions in religion were the most

complete system of atheism that ever appeared. Christians ought to have

the greatest veneration for him, because he taught a higher point of

virtue than Christ; I mean the virtue of friendship, which in the sense

we usually understand it, is not so much as named in the New Testament.

Plutarch was a freethinker, notwithstanding his being a priest; but

indeed he was a heathen priest. His freethinking appears by showing the

innocence of atheism, (which at worst is only false reasoning,) and the

mischiefs of superstition; and explains what superstition is, by calling

it a conceit of immortal ills after death, the opinion of hell torments,

dreadful aspects, doleful groans, and the like. He is likewise very

satirical upon the public forms of devotion in his own country (a

qualification absolutely necessary to a freethinker) yet those forms

which he ridicules, are the very same that now pass for true worship in

almost all countries: I am sure some of them do so in ours; such as

abject looks, distortions, wry faces, beggarly tones, humiliation, and

contrition.

Varro,[26] the most learned among the Romans, was a freethinker; for he

said, the heathen divinity contained many fables below the dignity of

immortal beings; such, for instance, as Gods BEGOTTEN and PROCEEDING

from other Gods. These two words I desire you will particularly remark,

because they are the very terms made use of by our priests in their

doctrine of the Trinity: He says likewise, that there are many things

false in religion, and so say all freethinkers; but then he adds; "which

the vulgar ought not to know, but it is expedient they should believe."

In this last he indeed discovers the whole secret of a statesman and

politician, by denying the vulgar the privilege of freethinking, and

here I differ from him. However, it is manifest from hence, that the

Trinity was an invention of statesmen and politicians.

[Footnote 26: Marcus Terentius Varro (born B.C. 117) was the friend of

Cicero. He was a profound grammarian, historian, and philosopher. The

expression Swift applies to him as "the most learned among the Romans"

is one by which he is generally called. [T. S.] ]

The grave and wise Cato the censor will for ever live in that noble

freethinking saying--"I wonder," said he, "how one of our priests can

forbear laughing when he sees another!" (For contempt of priests is

another grand characteristic of a freethinker). This shews that Cato

understood the whole mystery of the Roman religion "as by law

established." I beg you, sir, not to overlook these last words,

"religion as by law established." I translate _hanisfax,_ into the

general word, _priest_. Thus I apply the sentence to our priests in

England, and, when Dr. Smallridge sees Dr. Atterbury, I wonder how either

of them can forbear laughing at the cheat they put upon the people, by

making them believe their "religion as by law established."

Cicero, that consummate philosopher, and noble patriot, though he was a

priest, and consequently more likely to be a knave; gave the greatest

proofs of his freethinking. First, he professed the sceptic philosophy,

which doubts of everything. Then, he wrote two treatises;[27] in the

first, he shews the weakness of the Stoics' arguments for the being of

the Gods: In the latter, he has destroyed the whole revealed religion of

the Greeks and Romans (for why should not theirs be a revealed religion

as well as that of Christ?) Cicero likewise tells us, as his own

opinion, that they who study philosophy, do not believe there are any

Gods: He denies the immortality of the soul, and says, there can be

nothing after death.

[Footnote 27: "De Natura Deomm." [T. S.] ]

And because the priests have the impudence to quote Cicero in their

pulpits and pamphlets, against freethinking; I am resolved to disarm

them of his authority. You must know, his philosophical works are

generally in dialogues, where people are brought in disputing against

one another: Now the priests when they see an argument to prove a God,

offered perhaps by a Stoic, are such knaves or blockheads, to quote it

as if it were Cicero's own; whereas Cicero was so noble a freethinker,

that he believed nothing at all of the matter, nor ever shews the least

inclination to favour superstition, or the belief of a God, and the

immortality of the soul; unless what he throws out sometimes to save

himself from danger, in his speeches to the Roman mob; whose religion

was, however, much more innocent and less absurd, than that of popery at

least: And I could say more--but you understand me.

Seneca was a great freethinker, and had a noble notion of the worship of

the gods, for which our priests would call any man an atheist: He laughs

at morning devotions, or worshipping upon Sabbath-days; he says God has

no need of ministers and servants, because he himself serves mankind.

This religious man, like his religious brethren the Stoics, denies the

immortality of the soul, and says, all that is feigned to be so terrible

in hell, is but a fable: Death puts an end to all our misery, &c. Yet

the priests were anciently so fond of Seneca, that they forged a

correspondence of letters between him and St. Paul.

Solomon himself, whose writings are called "the word of God," was such a

freethinker, that if he were now alive, nothing but his building of

churches could have kept our priests from calling him an atheist. He

affirms the eternity of the world almost in the same manner with

Manilius,[28] the heathen philosophical poet, (which opinion entirely

overthrows the history of the creation by Moses, and all the New

Testament): He denies the immortality of the soul, assures us that men

die like beasts, and that both go to one place.

[Footnote 28: Marcus Manilius, who probably flourished under Theodosius

the Great, was a Latin poet, who wrote a poem entitled "Astronomica."

[T.S.] ]

The prophets of the Old Testament were generally freethinkers: you must

understand, that their way of learning to prophesy was by music and

drinking.[29] These prophets writ against the established religion of

the Jews, (which those people looked upon as the institution of God

himself,) as if they believed it was all a cheat: that is to say, with

as great liberty against the priests and prophets of Israel, as Dr.

Tindal did lately against the priests and prophets of our Israel, who

has clearly shewn them and their religion to be cheats. To prove this,

you may read several passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jeremiah, &c.,

wherein you will find such instances of freethinking, that, if any

Englishman had talked so in our days, their opinions would have been

registered in Dr. Sacheverell's trial, and in the representation of the

Lower House of Convocation, and produced as so many proofs of the

profaneness, blasphemy, and atheism of the nation; there being nothing

more profane, blasphemous, or atheistical in those representations, than

what these prophets have spoke, whose writings are yet called by our

priests, "the word of God." And therefore these prophets are as much

atheists as myself, or as any of my freethinking brethren whom I lately

named to you.

[Footnote 29: Collins, after making the charge, which has been repeated

by all freethinkers down to Thomas Paine, that the prophets acquired

their fervour of spirit by the aid of music and wine, allows,

nevertheless, that they were great freethinkers, and "writ with as great

liberty against the established religion of the Jews, which the people

looked on as the institution of God himself as if they looked upon it

all to be imposture."--_Discourse_, p. 153, _et sequen._ [S.] ]

Josephus was a great freethinker: I wish he had chosen a better subject

to write on, than those ignorant, barbarous, ridiculous scoundrels, the

Jews, whom God (if we may believe the priests) thought fit to choose for

his own people. I will give you some instances of his freethinking. He

says, Cain travelled through several countries, and kept company with

rakes and profligate fellows; he corrupted the simplicities of former

times, &c., which plainly supposes men before Adam, and consequently

that the priests' history of the creation by Moses, is an imposture. He

says, the Israelites' passing through the Red Sea, was no more than

Alexander's passing at the Pamphilian sea; that as for the appearance of

God at Mount Sinai, the reader may believe it as he pleases; that Moses

persuaded the Jews he had God for his guide, just as the Greeks

pretended they had their laws from Apollo. These are noble strains of

freethinking, which the priests knew not how to solve, but by thinking

as freely: For one of them says, that Josephus writ this to make his

work acceptable to the heathens, by striking out everything that was

incredible.

Origen, who was the first Christian that had any learning, has left a

noble testimony of his freethinking; for a general council has

determined him to be damned; which plainly shews he was a freethinker,

and was no saint; for people were only sainted because of their want of

learning and excess of zeal; so that all the fathers, who are called

saints by the priests, were worse than atheists.

Minutius Felix[30] seems to be a true modern latitudinarian,

freethinking Christian; for he is against altars, churches, public

preaching, and public assemblies; and likewise against priests; for, he

says, there were several great flourishing empires before there were any

orders of priests in the world.

[Footnote 30: Marcus Minutius Felix is said to have been born in Africa.

He flourished in the third century, and wrote a defence of Christianity,

in dialogue form, entitled, "Octavius." The work has been translated

into English by Lord Hailes. [T.S.]]

Synesius,[31] who had too much learning and too little zeal for a saint,

was for some time a great freethinker; he could not believe the

resurrection till he was made a bishop, and then pretended to be

convinced by a lying miracle.

[Footnote 31: Synesius of Cyrene, born 379, is the Platonic philosopher

who became Bishop of Ptolemais. [T.S.]]

To come to our own country: My Lord Bacon was a great freethinker, when

he tells us, that whatever has the least relation to religion, is

particularly liable to suspicion; by which he seems to suspect all the

facts whereon most of the superstitions (that is to say, what the

priests call the religions) of the world are grounded. He also

prefers atheism before superstition.

Mr. Hobbes was a person of great learning, virtue, and freethinking,

except in the high church politics.

But Archbishop Tillotson is the person whom all English freethinkers own

as their head; and his virtue is indisputable for this manifest reason;

that Dr. Hickes, a priest, calls him an atheist; says, he caused several

to turn atheists, and to ridicule the priesthood and religion. These

must be allowed to be noble effects of freethinking. This great prelate

assures us, that all the duties of the Christian religion, with respect

to God, are no other but what natural light prompts men to, except the

two sacraments, and praying to God in the name and mediation of Christ.

As a priest and prelate, he was obliged to say something of

Christianity; but pray observe, sir, how he brings himself off. He

justly affirms that even these things are of less moment than natural

duties; and because mothers' nursing their children is a natural duty,

it is of more moment than the two sacraments, or than praying to God in

the name and by the mediation of Christ. This freethinking archbishop

could not allow a miracle sufficient to give credit to a prophet who

taught anything contrary to our natural notions: By which it is plain,

he rejected at once all the mysteries of Christianity.

I could name one-and-twenty more great men, who were all freethinkers;

but that I fear to be tedious: For, 'tis certain that all men of sense

depart from the opinions commonly received; and are consequently more or

less men of sense, according as they depart more or less from the

opinions commonly received; neither can you name an enemy to

freethinking, however he be dignified or distinguished, whether

archbishop, bishop, priest, or deacon, who has not been either "a

crack-brained enthusiast, a diabolical villain, or a most profound

ignorant brute."

Thus, sir, I have endeavoured to execute your commands, and you may

print this Letter, if you please; but I would have you conceal my name.

For my opinion of virtue is, that we ought not to venture doing

ourselves harm, by endeavouring to do good.

I am yours, &c.

_I have here given the public a brief, but faithful abstract of this

most excellent Essay; wherein I have all along religiously adhered to

our author's notions, and generally to his words, without any other

addition than that of explaining a few necessary consequences, for the

sake of ignorant readers; for, to those who have the least degree of

learning, I own they will be wholly useless. I hope I have not, in any

single instance, misrepresented the thoughts of this admirable writer.

If I have happened to mistake through inadvertency, I entreat he will

condescend to inform me, and point out the place, upon which I will

immediately beg pardon both of him and the world. The design of his

piece is to recommend freethinking, and one chief motive is the example

of many excellent men who were of that sect. He produces as the

principal points of their freethinking; that they denied the Being of a

God, the Torments of Hell, the Immortality of the Soul, the Trinity,

Incarnation, the history of the creation by Moses, with many other such

"fabulous and blasphemous stories," as he judiciously calls them: And he

asserts, that whoever denies the most of these, is the completest

freethinker, and consequently the wisest and most virtuous man. The

author, sensible of the prejudices of the age, does not directly affirm

himself an atheist; he goes no further than to pronounce that atheism is

the most perfect degree of freethinking; and leaves the reader to form

the conclusion. However, he seems to allow, that a man may be a

tolerable freethinker, though he does believe a God; provided he utterly

rejects "Providence, Revelation, the Old and New Testament, Future

Rewards and Punishments, the Immortality of the Soul," and other the

like impossible absurdities. Which mark of superabundant caution,

sacrificing truth to the superstition of priests, may perhaps be

forgiven, but ought not to be imitated by any who would arrive (even in

this author's judgment) at the true perfection of freethinking._

***** ***** ***** *****

SOME THOUGHTS

ON

FREETHINKING.

WRITTEN IN ENGLAND, BUT LEFT UNFINISHED.

The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D. — Volume 03 Swift's Writings on Religion and the Church — Volume 1 · 第 16 / 26 段