But granting that the right of a lineal successor to a crown were upon
the same foot with the property of a subject, still It may at any time
be transferred by the legislative power, as other properties frequently
are. The supreme power in a state can do no wrong, because whatever that
doth, is the action of all; and when the lawyers apply this maxim to the
king, they must understand it only in that sense as he is administrator
of the supreme power, otherwise it is not universally true, but may be
controlled in several instances easy to produce.

And these are the topics we must proceed upon to justify our exclusion
of the young Pretender in France; that of his suspected birth being
merely popular, and therefore not made use of as I remember, since the
Revolution in any speech, vote, or proclamation where there was occasion
to mention him.

As to the abdication of King James, which the advocates on that side
look upon to have been forcible and unjust, and consequently void in
itself, I think a man may observe every article of the English Church,
without being in much pain about it. 'Tis not unlikely that all doors
were laid open for his departure, and perhaps not without the privity of
the Prince of Orange, as reasonably concluding that the kingdom might be
settled in his absence: But to affirm he had any cause to apprehend the
same treatment with his father, is an improbable scandal flung upon the
nation by a few bigotted French scribblers, or the invidious assertion
of a ruined party at home, in the bitterness of their souls: Not one
material circumstance agreeing with those in 1648; and the greatest part
of the nation having preserved the utmost horror for that ignominious
murder: But whether his removal were caused by his own fears or other
men's artifices, 'tis manifest to me, that supposing the throne to be
vacant, which was the foot they went upon, the body of the people were
thereupon left at liberty, to choose what form of government they
pleased, by themselves or their representatives.

The only difficulty of any weight against the proceedings at the
Revolution, is an obvious objection, to which the writers upon that
subject have not yet given a direct or sufficient answer, as if they
were in pain at some consequences which they apprehend those of the
contrary opinion might draw from it, I will repeat this objection as it
was offered me some time ago, with all its advantages, by a very pious,
learned, and worthy gentleman[11] of the nonjuring party.

[Footnote 11: Mr. Nelson, author of "The Feasts and Fasts of the Church
of England."]

The force of his argument turned upon this; that the laws made by the
supreme power, cannot otherwise than by the supreme power be annulled:
That this consisting in England of a King, Lords, and Commons, whereof
each have a negative voice, no two of them can repeal or enact a law
without consent of the third; much less may any one of them be entirely
excluded from its part of the legislature by a vote of the other two.
That all these maxims were openly violated at the Revolution; where an
assembly of the nobles and people, not summoned by the king's writ
(which was an essential part of the constitution) and consequently no
lawful meeting, did merely upon their own authority, declare the king to
have abdicated, the throne vacant, and gave the crown by a vote to a
nephew, when there were three children to inherit; though by the
fundamental laws of the realm the next heir is immediately to succeed.
Neither does it appear how a prince's abdication can make any other sort
of vacancy in the throne, than would be caused by his death, since he
cannot abdicate for his children (who claim their right of succession by
act of parliament) otherwise than by his own consent in form to a bill
from the two houses.

And this is the difficulty that seems chiefly to stick with the most
reasonable of those, who from a mere scruple of conscience refuse to
join with us upon the revolution principle; but for the rest, are I
believe as far from loving arbitrary government, as any others can be,
who are born under a free constitution, and are allowed to have the
least share of common good sense.

In this objection there are two questions included: First, whether upon
the foot of our constitution, as it stood in the reign of the late King
James, a king of England may be deposed? The second is, whether the
people of England convened by their own authority, after the king had
withdrawn himself in the manner he did, had power to alter the
succession?

As for the first; it is a point I shall not presume to determine, and
shall therefore only say, that to any man who holds the negative, I
would demand the liberty of putting the case as strongly as I please. I
will suppose a prince limited by laws like ours, yet running into a
thousand caprices of cruelty like Nero or Caligula. I will suppose him
to murder his mother and his wife, to commit incest, to ravish matrons,
to blow up the senate, and burn his metropolis, openly to renounce God
and Christ, and worship the devil. These and the like exorbitances are
in the power of a single person to commit without the advice of a
ministry, or assistance of an army. And if such a king as I have
described, cannot be deposed but by his own consent in parliament, I do
not well see how he can be resisted, or what can be meant by a limited
monarchy; or what signifies the people's consent in making and repealing
laws, if the person who administers hath no tie but conscience, and is
answerable to none but God. I desire no stronger proof that an opinion
must be false, than to find very great absurdities annexed to it; and
there cannot be greater than in the present case: For it is not a bare
speculation that kings may run into such enormities as are
above-mentioned; the practice may be proved by examples not only drawn
from the first Caesars or later emperors, but many modern princes of
Europe; such as Peter the Cruel, Philip the Second of Spain, John
Basilovitz[12] of Muscovy, and in our own nation, King John, Richard the
Third, and Henry the Eighth. But there cannot be equal absurdities
supposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain,
that princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by
any tolerable administration; till provoked by continual oppressions, no
man indeed can then answer where the madness of the people will stop.

[Footnote 12: Peter the Cruel is Pedro of Castile. Ivan Basilovitz was
the first emperor of Russia who assumed the title of Czar. He was born
in 1529, and died in 1584.]

As to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England
convened by their own authority, upon King James's precipitate
departure, had power to alter the succession?

In answer to this, I think it is manifest from the practice of the
wisest nations, and who seem to have had the truest notions of freedom,
that when a prince was laid aside for mal-administration, the nobles and
people, if they thought it necessary for the public weal, did resume the
administration of the supreme power (the power itself having been always
in them) and did not only alter the succession, but often the very form
of government too; because they believed there was no natural right in
one man to govern another, but that all was by institution, force, or
consent. Thus, the cities of Greece, when they drove out their
tyrannical kings, either chose others from a new family, or abolished
the kingly government, and became free states. Thus the Romans upon the
expulsion of Tarquin found it inconvenient for them to be subject any
longer to the pride, the lust, the cruelty and arbitrary will of single
persons, and therefore by general consent entirely altered the whole
frame of their government. Nor do I find the proceedings of either, in
this point, to have been condemned by any historian of the succeeding
ages.

But a great deal hath been already said by other writers upon this
invidious and beaten subject; therefore I shall let it fall, though the
point is commonly mistaken, especially by the lawyers; who of all others
seem least to understand the nature of government in general; like
under-workmen, who are expert enough at making a single wheel in a
clock, but are utterly ignorant how to adjust the several parts, or
regulate the movements.

To return therefore from this digression: It is a Church of England
man's opinion, that the freedom of a nation consists in an absolute
unlimited legislative power, wherein the whole body of the people are
fairly represented, and in an executive duly limited; because on this
side likewise there may be dangerous degrees, and a very ill extreme.
For when two parties in a state are pretty equal in power, pretensions,
merit, and virtue, (for these two last are with relation to parties and
a court, quite different things) it hath been the opinion of the best
writers upon government, that a prince ought not in any sort to be under
the guidance or influence of either, because he declines by this means
from his office of presiding over the whole, to be the head of a party;
which besides the indignity, renders him answerable for all public
mismanagements and the consequences of them; and in whatever state this
happens, there must either be a weakness in the prince or ministry, or
else the former is too much restrained by the legislature.[1]

[Footnote 1: This is as given in the "Miscellanies" (1711). Scott and
Faulkner print "by the nobles, or those who represent the people." [T.
S.]]

To conclude: A Church of England man may with prudence and a good
conscience approve the professed principles of one party more than the
other, according as he thinks they best promote the good of Church and
State; but he will never be swayed by passion or interest, to advance an
opinion merely because it is that of the party he most approves; which
one single principle he looks upon as the root of all our civil
animosities. To enter into a party as into an order of friars with so
resigned an obedience to superiors, is very unsuitable both with the
civil and religious liberties we so zealously assert. Thus the
understandings of a whole senate are often enslaved by three or four
leaders on each side; who instead of intending the public weal, have
their hearts wholly set upon ways and means how to get or to keep
employments. But to speak more at large, how has this spirit of faction
mingled itself with the mass of the people, changed their nature and
manners, and the very genius of the nation; broke all the laws of
charity, neighbourhood, alliance and hospitality; destroyed all ties of
friendship, and divided families against themselves! And no wonder it
should be so, when in order to find out the character of a person,
instead of inquiring whether he be a man of virtue, honour, piety, wit,
good sense, or learning; the modern question is only, whether he be a
Whig or a Tory, under which terms all good and ill qualities are
included.

Now, because it is a point of difficulty to choose an exact middle
between two ill extremes, it may be worth enquiring in the present case,
which of these, a wise and good man would rather seem to avoid: Taking
therefore their own good and ill characters with due abatements and
allowances for partiality and passion; I should think that in order to
preserve the constitution entire in Church and State, whoever has a true
value for both, would be sure to avoid the extremes of Whig for the sake
of the former, and the extremes of Tory on account of the latter.

I have now said all that I could think convenient upon so nice a
subject, and find I have the ambition common with other reasoners, to
wish at least that both parties may think me in the right, which would
be of some use to those who have any virtue left, but are blindly drawn
into the extravagancies of either, upon false representations, to serve
the ambition or malice of designing men, without any prospect of their
own. But if that is not to be hoped for, my next wish should be, that
both might think me in the wrong; which I would understand as an ample
justification of myself, and a sure ground to believe, that I have
proceeded at least with impartiality, and perhaps with truth.


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




REMARKS

UPON A

BOOK,

INTITULED,

"THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, &c."

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708, BUT LEFT UNFINISHED.


NOTE.

Dr. Matthew Tindal, of whom a short account has already been given (see
note, p. 9), issued his "Rights of the Christian Church" in 1706. In
1707 it had already gone through three editions. The full title of the
work is: "The Rights of the Christian Church asserted, against the
Romish and all other Priests, who claim an independent Power over it:
with a Preface concerning the Government of the Church of England, as by
law established." Ostensibly the book was an attack on the Roman
Catholic Church, but the attack was so cleverly veiled that it included
in its criticisms the Church of England also; and must take its place
among the works of the deistical writers of the time who aimed at
subverting the foundations of the relationships between the Church and
the State. According to Dr. Hicks, who wrote several works in reply to
Tindal's book, Tindal told a gentleman, who found him at work on it,
that "he was writing a book which would make the clergy mad." If so, he
did not fall short of his intention; for not only the clergy, but even
learned laymen became "mad." In addition to Dr. Hicks of Oxford, the
Church of England found champions in Dr. William Wotton, Samuel Hill,
Conyers-Place, Mr. Oldisworth, and Swift. Swift delayed the preparation
of the materials for his reply, or else he found other matters to occupy
his time--the Sacheverel business came on soon after, and the Tindal
controversy lost interest in this more immediate and more important
affair. So that Swift's criticism remained unfinished, and was only
published when his editors came to search among his papers. In 1710
Tindal's work was ordered, by a vote of the House of Commons, to be
publicly burned by the hangman. The grand jury of Middlesex were
presented that the author, printer, and publisher of "The Rights of the
Christian Church" to be dangerous and disaffected persons, and promoters
of sedition and profaneness; and this charge was grounded on the
following extracts. I take these from Scott's note, and I find that the
page references are to the second edition of Tindal's work issued in
1706.

"The church is a private society, and no more power belonging to it than
to other private companies and clubs, and, consequently, all the right
anyone has to be an ecclesiastical officer, and the power he is
entrusted with, depends on the consent of the parties concerned, and is
no greater than they can bestow." Preface, p. xxx.

"The Scriptures nowhere make the receiving the Lord's Supper from the
hands of a priest necessary." p. 104.

"The remembrance of Christ's sufferings a mere grace-cup delivered to be
handed about." p. 105.

"Among Christians, one no more than another can be reckoned a priest
from Scripture"--"And the clerk has as good a title to the priesthood as
the parson ... Every one, as well as the minister, rightly consecrateth
the elements to himself ... Anything farther than this, may rather be
called Conjuration than Consecration." p. 108.

"The absurdities of bishops being by divine appointment, governors of
the Christian Church, and no others are capable of being of that number,
who derive not their right by an uninterrupted succession of bishops in
the Catholic Church." p. 313.

"The supreme powers had no way to escape the heavier oppressions, and
more insupportable usurpations of their own clergy, than by submitting
to the Pope's milder yoke and gentler authority." p. 255.

"One grand cause of mistake is, not considering when God acts as
governor of the universe, and when as prince of a particular nation. The
Jews, when they came out of the land of bondage, were under no settled
government, till God was pleased to offer himself to be their king, to
which all the people expressly consented ... God's laws bound no nation,
except those that agreed to the Horeb contract." p. 151.

"Not only an independent power of excommunication, but of ordination in
the clergy, is inconsistent with the magistrate's right to protect the
commonwealth." p. 87.

"Priests, no better than spiritual make-baits, baraters, boute-feux, and
incendiaries, and who make churches serve to worse purposes than bear
gardens." p. 118.

"It is a grand mistake to suppose the magistrate's power extends to
indifferent things ... Men have liberty as they please, and a right ...
to form what clubs, companies, or meetings, they think fit, either for
business or pleasure, which the magistrate ... cannot hinder, without
manifest injustice." p. 15.

"God ... interposed not among the Jews, until they had chosen him for
their king." p. 312.

For a full account of Tindal and his work, see the "Memoirs of the Life
and Writings of Matthew Tindal, with a History of the Controversies
wherein he was engaged," published in 1733. The text of the present
reprint of Swift's "Remarks" is based on that given in "Works," vol.
vii. of the 4to edition of 1764. It has also been collated with the 8vo
edition of same date (vol. xiii.) and with that of 1762 (vol. xiii.).

[T. S.]


  REMARKS UPON A BOOK INTITULED
  "THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN
  CHURCH, &c."


Before I enter upon a particular examination of this treatise, it will
be convenient to do two things:

_First_, To give some account of the author, together with the motives,
that might probably engage him in such a work. And,

_Secondly_, to discover the nature and tendency in general, of the work
itself.

The first of these, although it hath been objected against, seems highly
reasonable, especially in books that instil pernicious principles. For,
although a book is not intrinsically much better or worse, according to
the stature or complexion of the author, yet, when it happens to make a
noise, we are apt, and curious, as in other noises, to look about from
whence it cometh. But however, there is something more in the matter.

If a theological subject be well handled by a layman, it is better
received than if it came from a divine; and that for reasons obvious
enough, which, although of little weight in themselves, will ever have a
great deal with mankind.

But, when books are written with ill intentions, to advance dangerous
opinions, or destroy foundations; it may be then of real use to know
from what quarter they come, and go a good way towards their
confutation. For instance, if any man should write a book against the
lawfulness of punishing felony with death; and, upon enquiry, the author
should be found in Newgate under condemnation for robbing a house; his
arguments would not very unjustly lose much of their force, from the
circumstances he lay under. So, when Milton writ his book of divorces,
it was presently rejected as an occasional treatise; because every body
knew, he had a shrew for his wife. Neither can there be any reason
imagined, why he might not, after he was blind, have writ another upon
the danger and inconvenience of eyes. But, it is a piece of logic which
will hardly pass on the world; that because one man hath a sore nose,
therefore all the town should put plasters upon theirs. So, if this
treatise about the rights of the church should prove to be the work of a
man steady in his principles, of exact morals, and profound learning, a
true lover of his country, and a hater of Christianity, as what he
really believes to be a cheat upon mankind, whom he would undeceive
purely for their good; it might be apt to check unwary men, even of good
dispositions towards religion. But if it be found the production of a
man soured with age and misfortunes, together with the consciousness of
past miscarriages; of one, who, in hopes of preferment, was reconciled
to the Popish religion;[1] of one wholly prostitute in life and
principles, and only an enemy to religion, because it condemns them: In
this case, and this last I find is the universal opinion, he is like to
have few proselytes, beside those, who, from a sense of their vicious
lives, require to be perpetually supplied by such amusements as this;
which serve to flatter their wishes, and debase their understandings.

[Footnote 1: Dr. Matthew Tindal became a convert to the Romish religion
during the reign of James II. What share interest had in his conversion
may be easily imagined; but it is uncertain whether it was the
disappointment of his expectations, or conviction, that, in 1687,
induced him to reconcile himself to the Church of England, and become a
decided favourer of those doctrines which produced the Revolution. He
often sat as a judge in the Court of Delegates, but did not practise
much as an advocate in Doctor's Commons. His chief means of support was
a pension from government of ВЈ200. Tindal died in 1733, three years
after publication of his grand deistical work, "Christianity as Old as
the Creation." His effects, amounting to ВЈ2,000 and upwards, were
appropriated by the noted Eustace Budgell, to the prejudice of the heir
at law, under a will attended with circumstances of great suspicion. [T.
S.]]

I know there are some who would fain have it, that this discourse was
written by a club of freethinkers, among whom the supposed author only
came in for a share. But, sure, we cannot judge so meanly of any party,
without affronting the dignity of mankind. If this be so, and if here be
the product of all their quotas and contributions, we must needs allow,
that freethinking is a most confined and limited talent. It is true
indeed, the whole discourse seemeth to be a motley, inconsistent
composition, made up of various shreds of equal fineness, although of
different colours. It is a bundle of incoherent maxims and assertions,
that frequently destroy one another. But still there is the same
flatness of thought and style; the same weak advances towards wit and
raillery; the same petulancy and pertness of spirit; the same train of
superficial reading; the same thread of threadbare quotations: the same
affectation of forming general rules upon false and scanty premises.
And, lastly, the same rapid venom sprinkled over the whole; which, like
the dying impotent bite of a trodden benumbed snake, may be nauseous and
offensive, but cannot be very dangerous.

And, indeed, I am so far from thinking this libel to be born of several
fathers, that it hath been the wonder of several others, as well as
myself; how it was possible for any man, who appeareth to have gone the
common circle of academical education;[2] who hath taken so universal a
liberty, and hath so entirely laid aside all regards, not only of
Christianity, but common truth and justice; one who is dead to all sense
of shame, and seemeth to be past the getting or losing a reputation,
should, with so many advantages, and upon so unlimited a subject, come
out with so poor, so jejune a production. Should we pity or be amazed at
so perverse a talent, which, instead of qualifying an author to give a
new turn to old matter, disposeth him quite contrary to talk in an old
beaten trivial manner upon topics wholly new. To make so many sallies
into pedantry without a call, upon a subject the most alien, and in the
very moments he is declaiming against it, and in an age too, where it is
so violently exploded, especially among those readers he proposeth to
entertain.

[Footnote 2: See note, p. 9, where it will be seen that Tindal was an
Oxford man. [T.S.]]

I know it will be said, that this is only to talk in the common style of
an answerer; but I have not so little policy. If there were any hope of
reputation or merit from such victory, I should be apt like others to
cry up the courage and conduct of an enemy. Whereas to detect the
weakness, the malice, the sophistry, the falsehood, the ignorance of
such a writer, requireth little more than to rank his perfections in
such an order, and place them in such a light, that the commonest reader
may form a judgment of them.

It may still be a wonder how so heavy a book, written upon a subject in
appearance so little instructive or diverting, should survive to three
editions, and consequently find a better reception than is usual with
such bulky spiritless volumes; and this, in an age that pretendeth so
soon to be nauseated with what is tedious and dull. To which I can only
return, that, as burning a book by the common hangman, is a known
expedient to make it sell; so, to write a book that deserveth such
treatment, is another: And a third, perhaps as effectual as either, is
to ply an insipid, worthless tract with grave and learned answers, as
Dr. Hickes, Dr. Potter,[3] and Mr. Wotton have done. Design and
performances, however commendable, have glanced a reputation upon the
piece; which oweth its life to the strength of those hands and weapons,
that were raised to destroy it; like flinging a mountain upon a worm,
which, instead of being bruised, by the advantage of its littleness,
lodgeth under it unhurt.

[Footnote 3: George Hickes, D.D. (1642-1715), born at Newsham, Yorks,
and educated at Oxford. He visited Scotland with his patron, the Duke of
Lauderdale, in 1677, and was presented by the St. Andrews University
with the degree of LL.D. Became Dean of Worcester in 1683, but lost that
office at the Revolution, for not taking the oaths. The nonjuring
prelates, in 1693, consecrated him Bishop of Thetford. Dr. Hickes was a
profound scholar, and well versed in northern literature. Among his
works may be named, "Institutiones Grammaticae Anglo-Saxonicae et
Maeso-Gothicae," "Antiquae Literaturae Septentrionalis Thesaurus."

John Potter, D.D. (1674-1747), born at Wakefield, and educated at
Oxford. In 1707 he published a "Discourse on Church Government," and
eight years later became Bishop of Oxford. On the death of Wake, in
1737, he was appointed to the Archbishopric of Canterbury. [T.S.]]

But neither is this all. For the subject, as unpromising as it seemeth
at first view, is no less than that of Lucretius, to free men's minds
from the bondage of religion; and this not by little hints and by
piecemeal, after the manner of those little atheistical tracts that
steal into the world, but in a thorough wholesale manner; by making
religion, church, Christianity, with all their concomitants, a perfect
contrivance of the civil power. It is an imputation often charged on
this sort of men, that, by their invectives against religion, they can
possibly propose no other end than that of fortifying themselves and
others against the reproaches of a vicious life; it being necessary for
men of libertine practices to embrace libertine principles, or else they
cannot act in consistence with any reason, or preserve any peace of
mind. Whether such authors have this design, (whereof I think they have
never gone about to acquit themselves) thus much is certain; that no
other use is made of such writings: Neither did I ever hear this
author's book justified by any person, either Whig or Tory, except such
who are of that profligate character. And, I believe, whoever examineth
it, will be of the same opinion; although indeed such wretches are so
numerous, that it seemeth rather surprising, why the book hath had no
more editions, than why it should have so many.

Having thus endeavoured to satisfy the curious with some account of this
author's character, let us examine what might probably be the motives to
engage him in such a work. I shall say nothing of the principal, which
is a sum of money; because that is not a mark to distinguish him from
any other trader with the press. I will say nothing of revenge and
malice, from resentment of the indignities and contempt he hath
undergone for his crime of apostasy. To this passion he has thought fit
to sacrifice order, propriety, discretion, and common sense, as may be
seen in every page of his book: But, I am deceived, if there were not a
third motive as powerful as the other two; and that is, vanity. About
the latter end of King James's reign he had almost finished a learned
discourse in defence of the Church of Rome, and to justify his
conversion: All which, upon the Revolution, was quite out of season.
Having thus prostituted his reputation, and at once ruined his hopes, he
had no course left, but to shew his spite against religion in general;
the false pretensions to which, had proved so destructive to his credit
and fortune: And, at the same time, loth to employ the speculations of
so many years to no purpose; by an easy turn, the same arguments he had
made use of to advance Popery, were full as properly levelled by him
against Christianity itself; like the image, which, while it was new and
handsome, was worshipped for a saint, and when it came to be old and
broken, was still good enough to make a tolerable devil. And, therefore
every reader will observe, that the arguments for Popery are much the
strongest of any in his book, as I shall further remark when I find them
in my way.

There is one circumstance in his title-page, which I take to be not
amiss, where he calleth his book, "Part the First." This is a project to
fright away answerers, and make the poor advocates for religion believe,
he still keepeth further vengeance in _petto_. It must be allowed, he
hath not wholly lost time, while he was of the Romish communion. This
very trick he learned from his old father, the Pope; whose custom it is
to lift up his hand, and threaten to fulminate, when he never meant to
shoot his bolts; because the princes of Christendom had learned the
secret to avoid or despise them. Dr. Hickes knew this very well, and
therefore, in his answer to this "Book of Rights," where a second part
is threatened, like a rash person he desperately crieth, "Let it come."
But I, who have not too much phlegm to provoke angry wits of his
standard, must tell the author, that the doctor plays the wag, as if he
were sure, it were all grimace. For my part, I declare, if he writeth a
second part, I will not write another answer; or, if I do, it shall be
published, before the other part cometh out.[4]

[Footnote 4: Tindal did, however, attempt to maintain his ground against
his numerous opponents, in "A Defence of the Rights of the Christian
Church, against a late Visitation Sermon, 8vo. 1707;" and also in "A
Second Defence of the Rights of the Christian Church considered, in two
late Indictments against a Bookseller and His Servant, for selling one
of the said Books, 1707." [T. S.]]

There may have been another motive, although it be hardly credible, both
for publishing this work, and threatening a second part: It is not soon
conceived how far the sense of a man's vanity will transport him. This
man must have somewhere heard, that dangerous enemies have been often
bribed to silence with money or preferment: And, therefore, to shew how
formidable he is, he hath published his first essay; and, in hopes of
hire to be quiet, hath frighted us with his design of another. What must
the clergy do in these unhappy circumstances? If they should bestow this
man bread enough to stop his mouth, it will but open those of a hundred
more, who are every whit as well qualified to rail as he. And truly,
when I compare the former enemies to Christianity, such as Socinus,[5]
Hobbes, and Spinosa,[6] with such of their successors, as Toland, Asgil,
Coward, Gildon,[7] this author of the "Rights," and some others; the
church appeareth to me like the sick old lion in the fable, who, after
having his person outraged by the bull, the elephant, the horse, and the
bear, took nothing so much to heart, as to find himself at last insulted
by the spurn of an ass.

[Footnote 5: Laelius Socinus (1525-1562), born at Siena. He studied at
Bologna, and in 1546 became a member of a secret freethinking society in
Venice. The society, however, was broken up, and Socinus left Italy for
Switzerland and Poland. He died at Zurich. His papers were published by
his nephew, Faustus Socinus, who founded a sect on the tenets they
taught.]

[Footnote 6: Benedict or Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), born at Amsterdam,
of a Portuguese Jewish family. He was excommunicated by his people for
atheism. He retired to the Hague and took to making lenses, and the
study of philosophy. His "Ethics" and "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus"
constitute a system of philosophy which has had no little influence on
modern thought. See Pollock's "Spinoza."]

[Footnote 7: Charles Gildon (1665-1723-4) was educated at Douay. He
printed a book called "The Deist's Manual." For accounts of Coward,
Toland, and Asgil, see note, p. 9.] I will now add a few words to give
the reader some general notion of the nature and tendency of the work
itself.

I think I may assert, without the least partiality, that it is a
treatise wholly devoid of wit or learning, under the most violent and
weak endeavours and pretences to both. That it is replenished throughout
with bold, rude, improbable falsehoods, and gross misinterpretations;
and supported by the most impudent sophistry and false logic I have
anywhere observed. To this he hath added a paltry, traditional cant of
"priestrid" and "priestcraft," without reason or pretext as he applyeth
it. And when he raileth at those doctrines in Popery (which no
Protestant was ever supposed to believe) he leads the reader, however,
by the hand, to make applications against the English clergy, and then
he never faileth to triumph, as if he had made a very shrewd and notable
stroke. And because the court and kingdom seemeth disposed to moderation
with regard to Dissenters, more perhaps than is agreeable to the hot
unreasonable temper of some mistaken men among us; therefore under the
shelter of that popular opinion, he ridiculeth all that is sound in
religion, even Christianity itself, under the names of Jacobite,
Tackers, High Church, and other terms of factious jargon. All which, if
it were to be first rased from his book (as just so much of nothing to
the purpose) how little would remain to give the trouble of an answer!
To which let me add, that the spirit or genius, which animates the
whole, is plainly perceived to be nothing else but the abortive malice
of an old neglected man,[8] who hath long lain under the extremes of
obloquy, poverty and contempt; that have soured his temper, and made him
fearless. But where is the merit of being bold, to a man that is secure
of impunity to his person, and is past apprehension of anything else? He
that hath neither reputation nor bread hath very little to lose, and
hath therefore as little to fear. And, as it is usually said, "Whoever
values not his own life, is master of another man's;" so there is
something like it in reputation: He that is wholly lost to all regards
of truth or modesty, may scatter so much calumny and scandal, that some
part may perhaps be taken up before it fall to the ground; because the
ill talent of the world is such, that those who will be at pains enough
to inform themselves in a malicious story, will take none at all to be
undeceived, nay, will be apt with some reluctance to admit a favourable
truth.

[Footnote 8: Tindal was not an old man at the time Swift wrote,
certainly not older than was Swift himself. [T. S.]]

To expostulate, therefore, with this author for doing mischief to
religion, is to strew his bed with roses; he will reply in triumph, that
this was his design; and I am loth to mortify him, by asserting he hath
done none at all. For I never yet saw so poor an atheistical scribble,
which would not serve as a twig for sinking libertines to catch at. It
must be allowed in their behalf, that the faith of Christians is not as
a grain of mustard seed in comparison of theirs, which can remove such
mountains of absurdities, and submit with so entire a resignation to
such apostles. If these men had any share of that reason they pretend
to, they would retire into Christianity, merely to give it ease. And
therefore men can never be confirmed in such doctrines, until they are
confirmed in their vices; which last, as we have already observed, is
the principal design of this and all other writers against revealed
religion.

I am now opening the book which I propose to examine. An employment, as
it is entirely new to me, so it is that to which, of all others, I have
naturally the greatest antipathy. And, indeed, who can dwell upon a
tedious piece of insipid thinking, and false reasoning, so long as I am
likely to do, without sharing the infection?

But, before I plunge into the depths of the book itself, I must be
forced to wade through the shallows of a long preface.

This preface, large as we see it, is only made up of such supernumerary
arguments against an independent power in the church, as he could not,
without nauseous repetition, scatter into the body of his book: And it
is detached, like a forlorn hope, to blunt the enemy's sword that
intendeth to attack him. Now, I think, it will be easy to prove, that
the opinion of _imperium in imperio_, in the sense he chargeth it upon
the clergy of England, is what no one divine of any reputation, and very
few at all, did ever maintain; and, that their universal sentiment in
this matter is such as few Protestants did ever dispute. But, if the
author of the "Regale," or two or three more obscure writers, have
carried any points further than Scripture and reason will allow, (which
is more than I know, or shall trouble myself to enquire) the clergy of
England is no more answerable for those, than the laity is for all the
folly and impertinence of this treatise. And, therefore, that people may
not be amused, or think this man is somewhat, that he hath advanced or
defended any oppressed truths, or overthrown any growing dangerous
errors, I will set in as clear a light as I can, what I conceive to be
held by the established clergy and all reasonable Protestants in this
matter.

Everybody knows and allows, that in all government there is an absolute,
unlimited, legislative power, which is originally in the body of the
people, although, by custom, conquest, usurpation, or other accidents,
sometimes fallen into the hands of one or a few. This in England is
placed in the three estates (otherwise called the two Houses of
Parliament) in conjunction with the King. And whatever they please to
enact or to repeal in the settled forms, whether it be ecclesiastical or
civil, immediately becometh law or nullity. Their decrees may be against
equity, truth, reason and religion, but they are not against law;
because law is the will of the supreme legislature, and that is,
themselves. And there is no manner of doubt, but the same authority,
whenever it pleaseth, may abolish Christianity, and set up the Jewish,
Mahometan, or heathen religion. In short, they may do anything within
the compass of human power. And, therefore, who will dispute that the
same law, which deprived the church not only of lands, misapplied to
superstitious uses, but even the tithes and glebes, (the ancient and
necessary support of parish priests) may take away all the rest,
whenever the lawgivers please, and make the priesthood as primitive, as
this writer, or others of his stamp, can desire.

But as the supreme power can certainly do ten thousand things more than
it ought, so there are several things which some people may think it can
do, although it really cannot. For, it unfortunately happens, that
edicts which cannot be executed, will not alter the nature of things.
So, if a king and parliament should please to enact, that a woman who
hath been a month married, is _virgo intacta_, would that actually
restore her to her primitive state? If the supreme power should resolve
a corporal of dragoons to be a doctor of divinity, law or physic, few, I
believe, would trust their souls, fortunes, or bodies to his direction;
because that power is neither fit to judge or teach those qualifications
which are absolutely necessary to the several professions. Put the case
that walking on the slack rope were the only talent required by act of
parliament for making a man a bishop; no doubt, when a man had done his
feat of activity in form, he might sit in the House of Lords, put on his
robes and his rochet, go down to his palace, receive and spend his
rents; but it requireth very little Christianity to believe this tumbler
to be one whit more a bishop than he was before; because the law of God
hath otherwise decreed; which law, although a nation may refuse to
receive it, cannot alter in its own nature.

And here lies the mistake of this superficial man, who is not able to
distinguish between what the civil power can hinder, and what it can do.
"If the parliament can annul ecclesiastical laws, they must be able to
make them, since no greater power is required for one than the other."
See pref., p. viii. This consequence he repeateth above twenty times,
and always in the wrong. He affecteth to form a few words into the shape
and size of a maxim, then trieth it by his ear, and, according as he
likes the sound or cadence, pronounceth it true. Cannot I stand over a
man with a great pole, and hinder him from making a watch, although I am
not able to make one myself. If I have strength enough to knock a man on
the head, doth it follow I can raise him to life again? The parliament
may condemn all the Greek and Roman authors; can it therefore create new
ones in their stead? They may make laws, indeed, and call them canon and
ecclesiastical laws, and oblige all men to observe them under pain of
high treason. And so may I, who love as well as any man to have in my
own family the power in the last resort, take a turnip, then tie a
string to it, and call it a watch, and turn away all my servants, if
they refuse to call it so too.

For my own part, I must confess that this opinion of the independent
power of the Church, or _imperium in imperio_, wherewith this writer
raiseth such a dust, is what I never imagined to be of any consequence,
never once heard disputed among divines, nor remember to have read,
otherwise than as a scheme in one or two authors of middle rank, but
with very little weight laid on it. And I dare believe, there is hardly
one divine in ten that ever once thought of this matter. Yet to see a
large swelling volume written only to encounter this doctrine, what
could one think less than that the whole body of the clergy were
perpetually tiring the press and the pulpit with nothing else?

I remember some years ago, a virtuoso writ a small tract about worms,
proved them to be in more places than was generally observed, and made
some discoveries by glasses. This having met with some reception,
presently the poor man's head was full of nothing but worms; all we eat
and drink, all the whole consistence of human bodies, and those of every
other animal, the very air we breathe, in short, all nature throughout
was nothing but worms: And, by that system, he solved all difficulties,
and from thence all causes in philosophy. Thus it hath fared with our
author, and his independent power. The attack against occasional
conformity, the scarcity of coffee, the invasion of Scotland, the loss
of kerseys and narrow cloths, the death of King William, the author's
turning Papist for preferment, the loss of the battle of Almanza, with
ten thousand other misfortunes, are all owing to this _imperium in
imperio_.

It will be therefore necessary to set this matter in a clear light, by
enquiring whether the clergy have any power independent of the civil,
and of what nature it is.

Whenever the Christian religion was embraced by the civil power in any
nation, there is no doubt but the magistrates and senates were fully
instructed in the rudiments of it. Besides, the Christians were so
numerous, and their worship so open before the conversion of princes,
that their discipline, as well as doctrine, could not be a secret: They
saw plainly a subordination of ecclesiastics, bishops, priests, and
deacons: That these had certain powers and employments different from
the laity: That the bishops were consecrated, and set apart for that
office by those of their own order: That the presbyters and deacons were
differently set apart, always by the bishops: That none but the
ecclesiastics presumed to pray or preach in places set apart for God's
worship, or to administer the Lord's Supper: That all questions relating
either to discipline or doctrine, were determined in ecclesiastical
conventions. These and the like doctrines and practices, being most of
them directly proved, and the rest by very fair consequences deduced
from the words of our Saviour and His apostles, were certainly received
as a divine law by every prince or state which admitted the Christian
religion: and, consequently, what they could not justly alter
afterwards, any more than the common laws of nature. And, therefore,
although the supreme power can hinder the clergy or Church from making
any new canons, or executing the old; from consecrating bishops, or
refuse those that they do consecrate; or, in short, from performing any
ecclesiastical office, as they may from eating, drinking, and sleeping;
yet they cannot themselves perform those offices, which are assigned to
the clergy by our Saviour and His apostles; or, if they do, it is not
according to the divine institution, and, consequently, null and void.
Our Saviour telleth us, "His kingdom is not of this world;" and
therefore, to be sure, the world is not of His kingdom, nor can ever
please Him by interfering in the administration of it, since He hath
appointed ministers of His own, and hath empowered and instructed them
for that purpose: So that, I believe, the clergy, who, as he sayeth, are
good at distinguishing, would think it reasonable to distinguish between
their power, and the liberty of exercising this power. The former they
claim immediately from Christ, and the latter from the permission,
connivance, or authority of the civil government; with which the
clergy's power, according to the solution I have given, cannot possibly
interfere.

But this writer, setting up to form a system upon stale, scanty topics,
and a narrow circle of thought, falleth into a thousand absurdities. And
for a further help, he hath a talent of rattling out phrases, which seem
to have sense, but have none at all: the usual fate of those who are
ignorant of the force and compass of words, without which it is
impossible for a man to write either pertinently or intelligibly upon
the most obvious subjects.

So, in the beginning of his preface, page iv, he says, "The Church of
England being established by acts of parliament, is a perfect creature
of the civil power; I mean the polity and discipline of it, and it is
that which maketh all the contention; for as to the doctrines expressed
in the articles, I do not find high church to be in any manner of pain;
but they who lay claim to most orthodoxy can distinguish themselves out
of them." It is observable in this author, that his style is naturally
harsh and ungrateful to the ear, and his expressions mean and trivial;
but whenever he goeth about to polish a period, you may be certain of
some gross defect in propriety or meaning: So the lines just quoted seem
to run easily over the tongue: and, upon examination, they are perfect
nonsense and blunder: To speak in his own borrowed phrase, what is
contained in the idea of established? Surely, not existence. Doth
establishment give being to a thing? He might have said the same thing
of Christianity in general, or the existence of God, since both are
confirmed by acts of parliament. But, the best is behind: for, in the
next line, having named the church half a dozen times before, he now
says, he meaneth only "the polity and discipline of it": As if, having
spoke in praise of the art of physic, a man should explain himself, that
he meant only the institution of a college of physicians into a
president and fellows. And it will appear, that this author, however
versed in the practice, hath grossly transgressed the rules of nonsense,
(whose property it is neither to affirm nor deny) since every visible
assertion gathered from those few lines is absolutely false: For where
was the necessity of excepting the doctrines expressed in the articles,
since these are equally creatures of the civil power, having been
established by acts of parliament as well as the others. But the Church
of England is no creature of the civil power, either as to its polity or
doctrines. The fundamentals of both were deduced from Christ and His
apostles, and the instructions of the purest and earliest ages, and were
received as such by those princes or states who embraced Christianity,
whatever prudential additions have been made to the former by human
laws, which alone can be justly altered or annulled by them.

What I have already said, would, I think, be a sufficient answer to his
whole preface, and indeed to the greatest part of his book, which is
wholly turned upon battering down a sort of independent power in the
clergy; which few or none of them ever claimed or defended. But there
being certain peculiarities in this preface, that very much set off the
wit, the learning, the raillery, reasoning and sincerity of the author;
I shall take notice of some of them, as I pass.

But here, I hope, it will not be expected, that I should bestow remarks
upon every passage in this book, that is liable to exception for
ignorance, falsehood, dulness, or malice. Where he is so insipid, that
nothing can be struck out for the reader's entertainment, I shall
observe Horace's rule:

"Quae desperes tractata nitescere posse, relinquas."

Upon which account I shall say nothing of that great instance of his
candour and judgment in relation to Dr. Stillingfleet,[9] who (happening
to lie under his displeasure upon the fatal test of _imperium in
imperio_) is High Church and Jacobite, took the oaths of allegiance to
save him from the gallows,[10] and subscribed the articles only to keep
his preferment: Whereas the character of that prelate is universally
known to have been directly the reverse of what this writer gives him.