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.

The Dutch whose practice is so often quoted to prove and celebrate the
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.

Among other theological arguments made use of in those times, in praise
of monarchy, and justification of absolute obedience to a prince, there
seemed to be one of a singular nature: It was urged that Heaven was
governed by a monarch, who had none to control his power, but was
absolutely obeyed: Then it followed, that earthly governments were the
more perfect, the nearer they imitated the government in Heaven. All
which I look upon as the strongest argument against despotic power that
ever was offered; since no reason can possibly be assigned why it is
best for the world that God Almighty hath such a power, which doth not
directly prove that no mortal man should ever have the like.

But though a Church of England man thinks every species of government
equally lawful, he does not think them equally expedient; or for every
country indifferently. There may be something in the climate, naturally
disposing men toward one sort of obedience, as is manifest all over
Asia, where we never read of any commonwealth, except some small ones on
the western coasts established by the Greeks. There may be a great deal
in the situation of a country, and in the present genius of the people.
It hath been observed, that the temperate climates usually run into
moderate governments, and the extremes into despotic power. 'Tis a
remark of Hobbes, that the youth of England are corrupted in their
principles of government, by reading the authors of Greece and Rome who
writ under commonwealths. But it might have been more fairly offered for
the honour of liberty, that while the rest of the known world was
overrun with the arbitrary government of single persons; arts and
sciences took their rise, and flourished only in those few small
territories were the people were free. And though learning may continue
after liberty is lost, as it did in Rome, for a while, upon the
foundations laid under the commonwealth, and the particular patronage of
some emperors; yet it hardly ever began under a tyranny in any nation:
Because slavery is of all things the greatest clog and obstacle to
speculation. And indeed, arbitrary power is but the first natural step
from anarchy or the savage life; the adjusting of power and freedom
being an effect and consequence of maturer thinking: And this is nowhere
so duly regulated as in a limited monarchy: Because I believe it may
pass for a maxim in state, that the administration cannot be placed in
too few hands, nor the legislature in too many. Now in this material
point, the constitution of the English government far exceeds all others
at this time on the earth, to which the present establishment of the
Church doth so happily agree, that I think, whoever is an enemy to
either, must of necessity be so to both.

He thinks, as our monarchy is constituted, a hereditary right is much to
be preferred before election. Because the government here, especially by
some late amendments, is so regularly disposed in all its parts, that it
almost executes itself. And therefore upon the death of a prince among
us, the administration goes on without any rub or interruption. For the
same reasons we have little to apprehend from the weakness or fury of
our monarchs, who have such wise councils to guide the first, and laws
to restrain the other. And therefore this hereditary right should be
kept so sacred, as never to break the succession, unless where the
preserving of it may endanger the constitution; which is not from any
intrinsic merit, or unalienable right in a particular family, but to
avoid the consequences that usually attend the ambition of competitors,
to which elective kingdoms are exposed; and which is the only obstacle
to hinder them from arriving at the greatest perfection that government
can possibly reach. Hence appears the absurdity of that distinction
between a king _de facto_, and one _de jure_, with respect to us. For
every limited monarch is a king _de jure_, because he governs by the
consent of the whole, which is authority sufficient to abolish all
precedent right. If a king come in by conquest, he is no longer a
limited monarch, if he afterward consent to limitations, he becomes
immediately king _de jure_ for the same reason.

The great advocates for succession, who affirm it ought not to be
violated upon any regard or consideration whatsoever, do insist much
upon one argument that seems to carry little weight. They would have it,
that a crown is a prince's birthright, and ought at least to be as well
secured to him and his posterity as the inheritance of any private man:
In short, that he has the same title to his kingdom which every
individual has to his property. Now the consequence of this doctrine
must be, that as a man may find several ways to waste, misspend, or
abuse his patrimony, without being answerable to the laws; so a king may
in like manner do what he will with his own, that is, he may squander
and misapply his revenues, and even alienate the crown, without being
called to an account by his subjects. They allow such a prince to be
guilty indeed of much folly and wickedness, but for those he is to
answer to God, as every private man must do that is guilty of
mismanagement in his own concerns. Now the folly of this reasoning will
best appear, by applying it in a parallel case. Should any man argue,
that a physician is supposed to understand his own art best; that the
law protects and encourages his profession; and therefore although he
should manifestly prescribe poison to all his patients, whereof they
should immediately die, he cannot be justly punished, but is answerable
only to God: Or should the same be offered in behalf of a divine, who
would preach against religion and moral duties; in either of these two
cases everybody would find out the sophistry, and presently answer, that
although common men are not exactly skilled in the composition or
application of medicines, or in prescribing the limits of duty; yet the
difference between poisons and remedies is easily known by their
effects, and common reason soon distinguishes between virtue and vice:
And it must be necessary to forbid both these the further practice of
their professions, because their crimes are not purely personal to the
physician or the divine, but destructive to the public. All which is
infinitely stronger in respect to a prince, with whose good or ill
conduct the happiness or misery of a whole nation is included; whereas
it is of small consequence to the public, farther than examples, how any
private person manages his property.