[Footnote 30: Page 39.]

The other popish expedient for augmenting church-revenues, is "engaging
the clergy to renew no leases."[31] Several of the most eminent
clergymen have assured me, that nothing has been more wished for by good
men, than a law to prevent (at least) bishops from setting leases for
lives. I could name ten bishoprics in England whose revenues one with
another do not amount to ВЈ600 a-year for each; and if his lordship's,
for instance, would be above ten times the value when the lives are
expired, I should think the overplus would not be ill disposed toward an
augmentation of such as are now shamefully poor. But I do assert, that
such an expedient was not always thought popish and dangerous by this
right reverend historian. I have had the honour formerly to converse
with him; and he has told me several years ago, that he lamented
extremely the power which bishops had of letting leases for lives,
whereby, as he said, they were utterly deprived of raising their
revenues, whatever alterations might happen in the value of money by
length of time: I think the reproach of betraying private conversation
will not upon this account be laid to my charge. Neither do I believe he
would have changed his opinion upon any score, but to take up another,
more agreeable to the maxims of his party; that "the least addition of
property to the Church, is one step toward Popery."

[Footnote 31: Page 39.]

The Bishop goes on with much earnestness and prolixity to prove that the
Pope's confirmation of the church lands to those who held them by King
Henry's donation, was null and fraudulent: Which is a point that I
believe no Protestant in England would give threepence to have his
choice whether it should be true or false: It might indeed serve as a
passage in his history, among a thousand other instances, to detect the
knavery of the court of Rome; but I ask, where could be the use of it in
this Introduction? Or why all this haste in publishing it at this
juncture; and so out of all method apart, and before the work itself? He
gives his reasons in very plain terms; we are now, it seems, "in more
danger of Popery than toward the end of King Charles II.'s reign. That
set of men (the Tories) is so impiously corrupted in the point of
religion, that no scene of cruelty can fright them from leaping into it,
and perhaps from acting such a part in it as may be assigned them."[32]
He doubts whether the High-Church clergy have any principles, and
therefore will be ready to turn off their wives, and look on the fires
kindled in Smithfield as an amiable view. These are the facts he all
along takes for granted, and argues accordingly; therefore, in despair
of dissuading the nobility and gentry of the land from introducing
Popery by any motives of honour, religion, alliance or mercy, he assures
them, that "the Pope has not duly confirmed their titles to the church
lands in their possession," which therefore must infallibly be restored,
as soon as that religion is established among us.

[Footnote 32: Page 37.]

Thus, in his Lordship's opinion, there is nothing wanting to make the
majority of the kingdom, both for number, quality and possession,
immediately embrace Popery, except a "firm bull from the Pope," to
secure the abbey and other church lands and tithes to the present
proprietors and their heirs; if this only difficulty could now be
adjusted, the Pretender would be restored next session, the two Houses
reconciled to the church of Rome against Easter term, and the fires
lighted in Smithfield by Midsummer. Such horrible calumnies against a
nation are not the less injurious to decency, good-nature, truth,
honour, and religion, because they may be vented with safety. And I will
appeal to any reader of common understanding, whether this be not the
most natural and necessary deduction from the passages I have cited and
referred to.

Yet all this is but friendly dealing, in comparison with what he affords
the clergy upon the same article. He supposes[33] all that reverend
body, who differ from him in principles of church or state, so far from
disliking Popery, upon the above-mentioned motives of perjury, "quitting
their wives, or burning their relations;" that the hopes of "enjoying
the abbey lands" would soon bear down all such considerations, and be an
effectual incitement to their perversion; and so he goes gravely on, as
with the only argument which he thinks can have any force, to assure
them, that "the parochial priests in Roman Catholic countries are much
poorer than in ours, the several orders of regulars, and the
magnificence of their church, devouring all their treasure," and by
consequence "their hopes are vain of expecting to be richer after the
introduction of Popery."

[Footnote 33: Page 46.]

But after all, his Lordship despairs, that even this argument will have
any force with our abominable clergy, because, to use his own words,
"They are an insensible and degenerate race, who are thinking of nothing
but their present advantages; and so that they may now support a
luxurious and brutal course of irregular and voluptuous practices, they
are easily hired to betray their religion, to sell their country, and
give up that liberty and those properties, which are the present
felicities and glories of this nation."[34] He seems to reckon all these
evils as matters fully determined on, and therefore falls into the last
usual form of despair, by threatening the authors of these miseries with
"lasting infamy, and the curses of posterity upon perfidious betrayers
of their trust."[35]

[Footnote 34: Page 47.]

[Footnote 35: Page 47.]

Let me turn this paragraph into vulgar language for the use of the poor,
and strictly adhere to the sense of the words. I believe it may be
faithfully translated in the following manner: "The bulk of the clergy,
and one-third of the bishops, are stupid sons of whores, who think of
nothing but getting money as soon as they can: If they may but produce
enough to supply them in gluttony, drunkenness, and whoring, they are
ready to turn traitors to God and their country, and make their
fellow-subjects slaves." The rest of the period, about threatening
"infamy," and "the curses of posterity upon such dogs and villains," may
stand as it does in the Bishop's own phrase, and so make the paragraph
all of a piece.

I will engage, on the other side, to paraphrase all the rogues and
rascals in the _Englishman_, so as to bring them up exactly to his
Lordship's style: But, for my own part, I much prefer the plain
Billingsgate way of calling names, because it expresses our meaning full
as well, and would save abundance of time which is lost by
circumlocution; so, for instance, John Dunton,[36] who is retained on
the same side with the Bishop, calls my Lord-treasurer and Lord
Bolingbroke, traitors, whoremasters, and Jacobites, which three words
cost our right reverend author thrice as many lines to define them; and
I hope his Lordship does not think there is any difference in point of
morality, whether a man calls me traitor in one word, or says I am one
"hired to betray my religion and sell my country."[37]

[Footnote 36: See note on p. 50 of vol. i. of this edition of Swift's
works. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 37: Page 51.]

I am not surprised to see the Bishop mention with contempt all
Convocations of the Clergy;[38] for Toland, Collins, Tindal,[39] and
others of the fraternity, talk the very same language. His Lordship
confesses he "is not" inclined "to expect much from the assemblies of
clergymen." There lies the misfortune; for if he and some more of his
order would correct their "inclinations," a great deal of good might be
expected from such assemblies, as much as they are now cramped by that
submission, which a corrupt clergy brought upon their innocent
successors. He will not deny that his copiousness in these matters is,
in his own opinion, one of the meanest parts of his new work. I will
agree with him, unless he happens to be more "copious" in any thing
else. However, it is not easy to conceive why he should be so "copious"
upon a subject he so much despises, unless it were to gratify his talent
of railing at the clergy, in the number of whom he disdains to be
reckoned, because he is a Bishop. For it is a style I observe some
prelates have fallen into of late years, to talk of clergymen as if
themselves were not of the number: You will read in many of their
speeches at Dr. Sacheverel's[40] trial, expressions to this or the like
effect: "My lords, if clergymen be suffered," &c. wherein they seem to
have reason; and I am pretty confident, that a great majority of the
clergy were heartily inclined to disown any relation they had to the
managers in lawn. However, it was a confounding argument against
Presbytery, that those who are most suspected to lean that way, treating
their inferior brethren with haughtiness, rigour, and contempt:
Although, to say the truth, nothing better could be hoped for; because,
I believe, it may pass for a universal rule, that in every diocese
governed by bishops of the Whig species, the clergy (especially the
poorer sort) are under double discipline, and the laity left to
themselves. The opinion of Sir Thomas More, which he produces to prove
the ill consequences or insignificancy of Convocations, advances no such
thing, but says, "if the clergy assembled often, and might act as other
assemblies of clergy in Christendom, much good might have come: but the
misfortune lay in their long disuse, and that in his own and a good part
of his father's time, they never came together, except at the command of
the prince."[41]

[Footnote 38: Page 47.]

[Footnote 39: See note, p. 9. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 40: Henry Sacheverell, D.D., was educated at Marlborough and
Oxford. At Magdalen College he was a fellow-student with Addison, and
obtained there his fellowship and doctor's degree. In 1709 he preached
two sermons, one at the Derby Assizes, and the other at St. Paul's, in
which he urged the imminent danger of the Church. For these sermons,
which the parliament considered highly inflammatory, he was, by the
House of Commons, at the instigation of Godolphin, impeached, and tried
before the Lords in 1710. He was found guilty of a misdemeanour, and was
suspended from preaching for three years. The trial made a great stir at
the time, and served but to increase the popularity of a man who, had he
been let alone, would, probably, never have been heard of. He died in
1724, holding the living of St. Andrew, Holborn, to which he was
presented after the expiration of his sentence. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 41: See Sir Thomas More's "Apology," 1533, p. 241.]

I suppose his lordship thinks, there is some original impediment in the
study of divinity, or secret incapacity in a gown and cassock without
lawn, which disqualifies all inferior clergymen from debating upon
subjects of doctrine or discipline in the church. It is a famous saying
of his, that "he looks upon every layman to be an honest man, until he
is by experience convinced to the contrary; and on every clergyman as a
knave, till he finds him to be an honest man." What opinion then must we
have of a Lower House of Convocation:[42] where I am confident he will
hardly find three persons that ever convinced him of their honesty, or
will ever be at the pains to do it? Nay, I am afraid they would think
such a conviction might be no very advantageous bargain, to gain the
character of an honest man with his Lordship, and lose it with the rest
of the world.

[Footnote 42: It must not be forgotten, that, during the reign of Queen
Anne, the body of the clergy were high-church men; but the bishops, who
had chiefly been promoted since the Revolution, were Whiggish in
politics, and moderate in their sentiments of church government. Hence
the Upper and Lower Houses of Convocation rarely agreed in sentiment on
affairs of church or state. [T. S.]]

In the famous Concordate that was made between Francis I. of France and
Pope Leo X., the Bishop tells us, that "the king and pope came to a
bargain, by which they divided the liberties of the Gallican Church
between them, and indeed quite enslaved it."[43] He intends, in the
third part of his History which he is going to publish, "to open this
whole matter to the world." In the mean time, he mentions some ill
consequences to the Gallican Church from that Concordate, which are
worthy to be observed; "The church of France became a slave, and this
change in their constitution put an end not only to national, but even
to provincial synods in that kingdom. The assemblies of the clergy
there, meet now only to give subsidies," &c. and he says, "our nation
may see by that proceeding, what it is to deliver up the essential
liberties of a free constitution to a court." [44]

[Footnote 43: Page 53.]

[Footnote 44: Page 53.]

All I can gather from this matter is, that our King Henry made a better
bargain than his contemporary Francis, who divided the liberties of the
church between himself and the Pope, while the King of England seized
them all to himself. But how comes he to number the want of synods in
the Gallican church among the grievances of that Concordate, and as a
mark of their slavery, since he reckons all Convocations of the Clergy
in England to be useless and dangerous? Or what difference in point of
liberty was there between the Gallican Church under Francis, and the
English under Harry? For, the latter was as much a papist as the former,
unless in the point of obedience to the see of Rome; and in every
quality of a good man, or a good prince, (except personal courage
wherein both were equal) the French monarch had the advantage by as many
degrees as is possible for one man to have over another.

Henry VIII. had no manner of intention to change religion in his
kingdom; he still continued to persecute and burn Protestants after he
had cast off the Pope's supremacy, and I suppose this seizure of
ecclesiastical revenues (which Francis never attempted) cannot be
reckoned as a mark of the church's liberty. By the quotation the Bishop
sets down to show the slavery of the French church, he represents it as
a grievance, that "bishops are not now elected there as formerly, but
wholly appointed by the prince; and that those made by the court have
been ordinarily the chief advancers of schisms, heresies, and
oppressions of the church." [45] He cites another passage from a Greek
writer, and plainly insinuates, that it is justly applicable to Her
Majesty's reign: "Princes choose such men to that charge [of a bishop]
who may be their slaves, and in all things obsequious to what they
prescribe; and may lie at their feet, and have not so much as a thought
contrary to their commands." [46]

[Footnote 45: Page 55.]

[Footnote 46: Page 55.]

These are very singular passages for his Lordship to set down in order
to show the dismal consequences of the French Concordate, by the slavery
of the Gallican Church, compared with the freedom of ours. I shall not
enter into a long dispute, whether it were better for religion that
bishops should be chosen by the clergy, or people, or both together: I
believe our author would give his vote for the second (which however
would not have been of much advantage to himself, and some others that I
could name). But I ask, Whether bishops are any more elected in England
than in France? And the want of synods are in his own opinion rather a
blessing than a grievance, unless he will affirm that more good can be
expected from a popish synod than an English Convocation. Did the French
clergy ever receive a greater blow to their liberties, than the
submission made to Henry VIII., or so great a one as the seizure of
their lands? The Reformation owed nothing to the good intentions of K.
Henry: He was only an instrument of it, (as the logicians speak) by
accident; nor doth he appear through his whole reign to have had any
other views than those of gratifying his insatiable love of power,
cruelty, oppression, and other irregular appetites. But this kingdom as
well as many other parts of Europe, was, at that time, generally weary
of the corruptions and impositions of the Roman court and church, and
disposed to receive those doctrines which Luther and his followers had
universally spread. Cranmer the archbishop, Cromwell, and others of the
court, did secretly embrace the Reformation; and the King's abrogating
the Pope's supremacy, made the people in general run into the new
doctrines with greater freedom, because they hoped to be supported in it
by the authority and example of their prince, who disappointed them so
far that he made no other step than rejecting the Pope's supremacy as a
clog upon his own power and passions, but retained every corruption
beside, and became a cruel persecutor, as well of those who denied his
own supremacy, as of all others who professed any Protestant doctrine.
Neither hath any thing disgusted me more in reading the histories of
those times, than to see one of the worst princes of any age or country,
celebrated as an instrument in that glorious work of the Reformation.

The Bishop having gone over all the matters that properly fall within
his Introduction, proceeds to expostulate with several sorts of
people;[47] First with Protestants who are no Christians, such as
atheists, deists, freethinkers, and the like enemies to Christianity.
But these he treats with the tenderness of a friend, because they are
all of them of sound Whig principles in church and state. However, to do
him justice, he lightly touches some old topics for the truth of the
Gospel; and concludes by wishing that the freethinkers would consider
well, if (_Anglice,_ whether) they think it possible to bring a nation
to be without any religion at all, and what the consequences of that may
prove; [48] and in case they allow the negative, he gives it clearly for
Christianity.

[Footnote 47: Page 56.]

[Footnote 48: Page 59.]

Secondly, he applies himself (if I take his meaning right) to Christian
papists "who have a taste of liberty," and desires them to "compare the
absurdities of their own religion with the reasonableness of the
reformed:" [49] Against which, as good luck would have it, I have
nothing to object.

[Footnote 49: Page 59.]

Thirdly, he is somewhat rough against his own party, "who having tasted
the sweets of Protestant liberty, can look back so tamely on Popery
coming on them; it looks as if they were bewitched, or that the devil
were in them, to be so negligent. It is not enough that they resolve not
to turn papists themselves: They ought to awaken all about them, even
the most ignorant and stupid, to apprehend their danger, and to exert
themselves with their utmost industry to guard against it, and to resist
it. If after all their endeavours to prevent it, the corruption of the
age, and the art and power of our enemies, prove too hard for us, then,
and not until then, we must submit to the will of God, and be silent,
and prepare ourselves for all the extremity of suffering and of
misery:"[50] with a great deal more of the same strain.

[Footnote 50: Pages 60, 61.]

With due submission to the profound sagacity of this prelate, who can
smell Popery at 500 miles distance, better than fanaticism just under
his nose; I take leave to tell him, that this reproof to his friends,
for want of zeal and clamour against Popery, slavery, and the Pretender,
is what they have not deserved. Are the pamphlets and papers, daily
published by the sublime authors of his party full of any thing else?
Are not the Queen, the ministers, the majority of Lords and Commons,
loudly taxed in print with this charge against them at full length? Is
it not the perpetual echo of every Whig coffeehouse and club? Have they
not quartered Popery and the Pretender upon the peace, and treaty of
commerce; upon the possessing, and quieting, and keeping, and
demolishing of Dunkirk? Have they not clamoured because the Pretender
continued in France, and because he left it? Have they not reported,
that the town swarmed with many thousand papists, when upon search there
were never found so few of that religion in it before? If a clergyman
preaches obedience to the higher powers, is he not immediately traduced
as a papist? Can mortal man do more? To deal plainly, my Lord, your
friends are not strong enough yet to make an insurrection, and it is
unreasonable to expect it from them, until their neighbours are ready.

My Lord, I have a little seriousness at heart upon this point, where
your Lordship affects to show so much. When you can prove, that one
single word has ever dropped from any minister of state, in public or
private, in favour of the Pretender, or his cause; when you can make it
appear, that in the course of this administration, since the Queen
thought fit to change her servants, there hath one step been made toward
weakening the Hanover title, or giving the least countenance to any
other whatsoever; then, and not until then, go dry your chaff and
stubble, give fire to the zeal of your faction, and reproach them with
lukewarmness.

Fourthly, the Bishop applies himself to the Tories in general. Taking it
for granted, after his charitable manner, that they are all ready
prepared to introduce Popery, he puts an excuse into their mouths, by
which they would endeavour to justify their change of religion. That
"Popery is not what it was before the Reformation: Things are now much
mended; and further corrections might be expected, if we would enter
into a treaty with them: In particular, they see the error of proceeding
severely with heretics; so that there is no reason to apprehend the
returns of such cruelties as were practised an age and a half ago."[51]

[Footnote 51: Page 62.]

This, he assures us, is a plea offered by the Tories in defence of
themselves, for going about at this juncture to establish the Popish
religion among us: What argument does he bring to prove the fact itself?

      "Quibus indiciis, quo teste, probavit?
  Nil horum: verbosa et grandis epistola venit" [52]

[Footnote 52: Juvenal, "Sat." x. 70-71. [T. S.]]

Nothing but this tedious Introduction, wherein he supposes it all along
as a thing granted. That there might be a perfect union in the whole
Christian Church, is a blessing which every good man wishes, but no
reasonable man can hope. That the more polite Roman Catholics have in
several places given up some of their superstitious fopperies,
particularly concerning legends, relics, and the like, is what nobody
denies. But the material points in difference between us and them are
universally retained and asserted, in all their controversial writings.
And if his Lordship really thinks that every man who differs from him,
under the name of a Tory in some church and state opinions, is ready to
believe transubstantiation, purgatory, the infallibility of pope or
councils, to worship saints and angels, and the like; I can only pray
God to enlighten his understanding, or graft in his heart the first
principles of charity; a virtue which some people ought not by any means
wholly to renounce, "because it covers a multitude of sins."

Fifthly, the Bishop applies himself to his own party in both Houses of
Parliament, whom he exhorts to "guard their religion and liberty against
all danger at what distance soever it may appear. If they are absent and
remiss on critical occasions," that is to say, if they do not attend
close next sessions, to vote upon all occasions whatsoever against the
proceedings of the Queen and Her Ministry; "or, if any views of
advantage to themselves prevail on them." [53] In other words, if any of
them vote for the Bill of Commerce, in hopes of a place or a pension, a
title, or a garter; "God may work a deliverance for us another way."
That is to say, by inviting the Dutch. "But they and their families,"
(id est) those who are negligent or revolters, "shall perish." By which
is meant; they shall be hanged as well as the present ministry and their
abettors, as soon as we recover our power. "Because they let in
idolatry, superstition, and tyranny." Because they stood by and suffered
the peace to be made, the Bill of Commerce to pass, and Dunkirk to lie
undemolished longer than we expected, without raising a rebellion.

[Footnote 53: Pages 67, 68.]

His last application is to the Tory clergy, a parcel of "blind,
ignorant, dumb, sleeping, greedy, drunken dogs."[54] A pretty artful
episcopal method is this, of calling his brethren as many injurious
names as he pleases. It is but quoting a text of Scripture, where the
characters of evil men are described, and the thing is done; and at the
same time the appearances of piety and devotion preserved. I would
engage, with the help of a good Concordance, and the liberty of
perverting Holy Writ, to find out as many injurious appellations, as the
_Englishman_ throws out in any of his politic papers, and apply them to
those persons "who call good evil, and evil good;" to those who cry
without cause, "Every man to his tent, O Israel! and to those who curse
the Queen in their hearts!"

[Footnote 54: This is the bishop's reference to the Tory clergy: "But,
in the last place, Those who are appointed to be the watchmen, who ought
to give warning, and to lift up their voice as a trumpet, when they see
those wolves ready to break in and devour the flock, have the heaviest
account of all others to make, if they neglect their duty; much more if
they betray their trust. If they are so set on some smaller matters, and
are so sharpened upon that account, that they will not see their danger,
nor awaken others to see it, and to fly from it; the guilt of those
souls who have perished by their means, God will require at their hands.
If they, in the view of any advantage to themselves, are silent when
they ought to cry out day and night, they will fall under the character
given by the prophet, of the watchmen in his time: 'They are blind, they
are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to
slumber: Yea, they are greedy dogs, which can never have enough. And
they are shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own
way, every one for his gain from his quarter; that say, come, I will
fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; to-morrow
shall be as this day, and much more abundant.'"--BURNET'S _History of
the Reformation_, vol. iii. p. xxii. [T. S.]]

These decent words he tells us, make up a "lively description of such
pastors, as will not study controversy, nor know the depths of Satan."
He means I suppose, the controversy between us and the papists; for as
to the freethinkers and dissenters of every denomination, they are some
of the best friends to the cause. Now I have been told, there is a body
of that kind of controversy published by the London divines, which is
not to be matched in the world. I believe likewise, there is a good
number of the clergy at present, thoroughly versed in that study; after
which I cannot but give my judgment, that it would be a very idle thing
for pastors in general to busy themselves much in disputes against
Popery. It being a dry heavy employment of the mind at best, especially
when, God be thanked, there is so little occasion for it, in the
generality of parishes throughout the kingdom, and must be daily less
and less by the just severity of the laws, and the utter aversion of our
people from that idolatrous superstition.

If I might be so bold as to name those who have the honour to be of his
Lordship's party, I would venture to tell him, that pastors have much
more occasion to study controversies against the several classes of
freethinkers and dissenters; the former (I beg his Lordship's pardon for
saying so) being a little worse than papists, and both of them more
dangerous at present to our constitution both in church and state. Not
that I think Presbytery so corrupt a system of Christian religion as
Popery; I believe it is not above one-third as bad: but I think the
Presbyterians, and their clans of other fanatics of freethinkers and
atheists that dangle after them, are as well inclined to pull down the
present establishment of monarchy and religion, as any set of Papists in
Christendom, and therefore that our danger as things now stand, is
infinitely greater from our Protestant enemies; because they are much
more able to ruin us, and full as willing. There is no doubt, but
Presbytery, and a commonwealth, are less formidable evils than Popery,
slavery, and the Pretender; for if the fanatics were in power, I should
be in more apprehension of being starved than burned. But there are
probably in England forty dissenters of all kinds, including their
brethren the freethinkers, for one papist; and, allowing one papist to
be as terrible as three dissenters, it will appear by arithmetic, that
we are thirteen times and one-third more in danger of being ruined by
the latter than the former.

The other qualification necessary for all pastors, if they will not be
"blind, ignorant, greedy, drunken dogs," &c., is, "to know the depths of
Satan." This is harder than the former; that a poor gentleman ought not
to be parson, vicar, or curate of a parish, except he be cunninger than
the devil. I am afraid it will be difficult to remedy this defect for
one manifest reason, because whoever had only half the cunning of the
devil, would never take up with a vicarage of ВЈ10 a-year, "to live on at
his ease," as my Lord expresseth it; but seek out for some better
livelihood. His Lordship is of a nation very much distinguished for that
quality of cunning (though they have a great many better) and I think he
was never accused for wanting his share. However upon a trial of skill I
would venture to lay six to four on the devil's side, who must be
allowed to be at least the older practitioner. Telling truth shames him,
and resistance makes him fly: But to attempt outwitting him, is to fight
him at his own weapon, and consequently no cunning at all. Another thing
I would observe is, that a man may be "in the depths of Satan," without
knowing them all, and such a man may be so far in Satan's depths as to
be out of his own. One of the depths of Satan, is to counterfeit an
angel of light. Another, I believe, is, to stir up the people against
their governors, by false suggestions of danger. A third is to be a
prompter to false brethren, and to send wolves about in sheep's
clothing. Sometimes he sends Jesuits about England in the habit and cant
of fanatics, at other times he has fanatic missionaries in the habits of
----. I shall mention but one more of Satan's depths, for I confess I
know not the hundredth part of them; and that is, to employ his
emissaries in crying out against remote imaginary dangers, by which we
may be taken off from defending ourselves against those which are real
and just at our elbows.

But his Lordship draws towards a conclusion, and bids us "look about, to
consider the danger we are in, before it is too late;" for he assures
us, we are already "going into some of the worst parts of popery;"[55]
like the man who was so much in haste for his new coat, that he put it
on the wrong side out. "Auricular confession, priestly absolution, and
the sacrifice of the mass," have made great progress in England, and
nobody has observed it: several other popish points "are carried higher
with us than by the papists themselves."[56] And somebody, it seems,
"had the impudence to propose a union with the Gallican church."[57] I
have indeed heard that Mr. Lesley[58] published a discourse to that
purpose, which I have never seen; nor do I perceive the evil in
proposing an union between any two churches in Christendom. Without
doubt Mr. Lesley is most unhappily misled in his politics; but if he be
the author of the late tract against Popery[59], he has given the world
such a proof of his soundness in religion, as many a bishop ought to be
proud of. I never saw the gentleman in my life: I know he is the son of
a great and excellent prelate, who upon several accounts was one of the
most extraordinary men of his age. Mr. Lesley has written many useful
discourses upon several subjects, and hath so well deserved of the
Christian religion, and the Church of England in particular, that to
accuse him of "impudence for proposing an union" in two very different
faiths, is a style which I hope few will imitate. I detest Mr. Lesley's
political principles as much as his Lordship can do for his heart; but I
verily believe he acts from a mistaken conscience, and therefore I
distinguish between the principles and the person. However, it is some
mortification to me, when I see an avowed nonjuror contribute more to
the confounding of Popery, than could ever be done by a hundred thousand
such Introductions as this.

[Footnote 55: Page 70.]

[Footnote 56: Page 70.]

[Footnote 57: Swift here disowns a charge loudly urged by the Whigs of
the time against the high churchmen. There were, however, strong
symptoms of a nearer approach on their part to the church of Rome.
Hickes, the head of the Jacobite writers, had insinuated, that there was
a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist; Brett had published a Sermon on the
"Doctrine of Priestly Absolution as essential to Salvation;" Dodwell had
written against Lay-Baptism, and his doctrine at once excluded all the
dissenters (whose teachers are held as lay-men) from the pale of
Christianity;  and, upon the whole, there was a general disposition
among the clergy to censure, if not the Reformation itself, at least the
mode in which it was carried on. [S.]]

[Footnote 58: Charles Lesley, or Leslie, the celebrated nonjuror. He
published a Jacobite paper, called the "Rehearsal," and was a strenuous
assertor of divine right; but he was also so steady a Protestant, that
he went to Bar-le-Duc to convert the Chevalier de St George from the
errors of Rome. [S.] See note on p. 63. [T. S.]]

[Footnote 59: "The Case stated between the Church of Rome and the Church
of England," 1713.]

His Lordship ends with discovering a small ray of comfort. "God be
thanked there are many among us that stand upon the watch-tower, and
that give faithful warning; that stand in the breach, and make
themselves a wall for their church and country; that cry to God day and
night, and lie in the dust mourning before him, to avert those judgments
that seem to hasten towards us. They search into the mystery of iniquity
that is working among us, and acquaint themselves with that mass of
corruption that is in popery."[60] He prays "that the number of these
may increase, and that he may be of that number, ready either to die in
peace, or to seal that doctrine he has been preaching above fifty years,
with his blood."[61] This being his last paragraph, I have made bold to
transcribe the most important parts of it. His design is to end after
the manner of orators, with leaving the strongest impression possible
upon the minds of his hearers. A great breach is made; "the mystery of
popish iniquity is working among us;" may God avert those "judgments
that are hastening towards us!" I am an old man, "a preacher above fifty
years," and I now expect and am ready to die a martyr for the doctrines
I have preached. What an amiable idea does he here leave upon our minds,
of Her Majesty and her government! He has been poring so long upon Fox's
Book of Martyrs, that he imagines himself living in the reign of Queen
Mary, and is resolved to set up for a knight-errant against Popery. Upon
the supposition of his being in earnest, (which I am sure he is not) it
would require but a very little more heat of imagination, to make a
history of such a knight's adventures. What would he say, to behold the
"fires kindled in Smithfield, and all over the town," on the 17th of
November; to behold the Pope borne in triumph on the shoulders of the
people, with a cardinal on the one side, and the Pretender on the other?
He would never believe it was Queen Elizabeth's day, but that of her
persecuting sister: In short, how easily might a windmill be taken for
the whore of Babylon, and a puppet-show for a popish procession?

[Footnote 60: Page 71]

[Footnote 61: Page 72]

But enthusiasm is none of his Lordship's faculty: I am inclined to
believe he might be melancholy enough when he writ this Introduction:
The despair at his age of seeing a faction restored, to which he hath
sacrificed so great a part of his life: The little success he can hope
for in case he should resume those High-Church Principles, in defence of
which he first employed his pen: No visible expectation of removing to
Farnham or Lambeth: And lastly, the misfortune of being hated by every
one, who either wears the habit, or values the profession of a
clergyman: No wonder such a spirit, in such a situation, is provoked
beyond the regards of truth, decency, religion, or self-conviction. To
do him justice, he seems to have nothing else left, but to cry out,
halters, gibbets, faggots, inquisition, Popery, slavery, and the
Pretender. But in the meantime, he little considers what a world of
mischief he does to his cause. It is very convenient, for the present
designs of that faction, to spread the opinion of our immediate danger
from Popery and the Pretender. His directors therefore ought, in my
humble opinion, to have employed his Lordship in publishing a book,
wherein he should have asserted, by the most solemn asseverations, that
all things were safe and well; for the world has contracted so strong a
habit of believing him backwards, that I am confident, nine parts in ten
of those who have read or heard of his Introduction, have slept in
greater security ever since. It is like the melancholy tone of a
watchman at midnight, who thumps with his pole, as if some thief were
breaking in, but you know by the noise, that the door is fast.

However, he "thanks God there are many among us who stand in the
breach:" I believe they may; 'tis a breach of their own making, and they
design to come forward, and storm and plunder, if they be not driven
back. "They make themselves a wall for their church and country." A
south wall, I suppose, for all the best fruit of the church and country
to be nailed on. Let us examine this metaphor: The wall of our church
and country is built of those who love the constitution in both: Our
domestic enemies undermine some parts of the wall, and place themselves
in the breach; and then they cry, "We are the wall!" We do not like such
patchwork, they build with untempered mortar; nor can they ever cement
with us, till they get better materials and better workmen: God keep us
from having our breaches made up with such rubbish! "They stand upon the
watch-tower;" they are indeed pragmatical enough to do so; but who
assigned them that post, to give us false intelligence, to alarm us with
false dangers, and send us to defend one gate, while their accomplices
are breaking in at another? "They cry to God, day and night to avert the
judgment of Popery which seems to hasten towards us." Then I affirm,
they are hypocrites by day, and filthy dreamers by night. When they cry
unto him, he will not hear them: For they cry against the plainest
dictates of their own conscience, reason, and belief.

But lastly, "They lie in the dust, mourning before him." Hang me if I
believe that, unless it be figuratively spoken. But suppose it to be
true; why do "they lie in the dust?" Because they love to raise it: For
what do "they mourn?" Why, for power, wealth, and places. There let the
enemies of the Queen, and monarchy, and the church, lie, and mourn, and
lick the dust, like serpents, till they are truly sensible of their
ingratitude, falsehood, disobedience, slander, blasphemy, sedition, and
every evil work!

I cannot find in my heart to conclude without offering his Lordship a
little humble advice upon some certain points.

First, I would advise him, if it be not too late in his life, to
endeavour a little at mending his style, which is mighty defective in
the circumstances of grammar, propriety, politeness, and smoothness;[62]
I fancied at first, it might be owing to the prevalence of his passion,
as people sputter out nonsense for haste when they are in a rage. And
indeed I believe this piece before me has received some additional
imperfections from that occasion. But whoever has heard his sermons, or
read his other tracts, will find him very unhappy in his choice and
disposition of his words, and, for want of variety, repeating them,
especially the particles, in a manner very grating to an English ear.
But I confine myself to this Introduction, as his last work, where
endeavouring at rhetorical flowers, he gives us only bunches of
thistles; of which I could present the reader with a plentiful crop; but
I refer him to every page and line of the pamphlet itself.

[Footnote 62: In Swift's notes on Burnet's "History of his Own Times,"
he points out many instances of the deficiency here stated. [S.]]

Secondly, I would most humbly advise his Lordship to examine a little
into the nature of truth, and sometimes to hear what she says. I shall
produce two instances among a hundred. When he asserts that we are "now
in more danger of Popery than toward the end of King Charles II.'s
reign," and gives the broadest hints, that the Queen, the ministry, the
parliament, and the clergy, are just going to introduce it; I desire to
know, whether he really thinks truth is of his side, or whether he be
not sure she is against him? If the latter, then truth and he will be
found in two different stories; and which are we to believe? Again, when
he gravely advises the clergy and laity of the Tory side, not to "light
the fires in Smithfield," and goes on in twenty places already quoted,
as if the bargain was made for Popery and slavery to enter: I ask again,
whether he has rightly considered the nature of truth? I desire to put a
parallel case. Suppose his Lordship should take it into his fancy to
write and publish a letter to any gentleman of no infamous character for
his religion or morals; and there advise him with great earnestness, not
to rob or fire churches, ravish his daughter, or murder his father; show
him the sin and the danger of these enormities, that if he flattered
himself, he could escape in disguise, or bribe his jury, he was
grievously mistaken: That he must in all probability forfeit his goods
and chattels, die an ignominious death, and be cursed by posterity;
Would not such a gentleman justly think himself highly injured, though
his Lordship did not affirm that the said gentleman had his picklocks or
combustibles ready, that he had attempted his daughter, and drawn his
sword against his father in order to stab him? Whereas, in the other
case, this writer affirms over and over, that all attempts for
introducing Popery and slavery are already made, the whole business
concerted, and that little less than a miracle can prevent our ruin.

Thirdly, I could heartily wish his Lordship would not undertake to
charge the opinions of one or two, and those probably nonjurors, upon
the whole body of the nation that differs from him. Mr. Lesley writ a
"Proposal for a Union with the Gallican Church;" somebody else has
"carried the necessity of priesthood in the point of baptism farther
than popery;" a third has "asserted the independency of the church on
the state, and in many things arraigned the supremacy of the crown."
Then he speaks in a dubious insinuating way, as if some other popish
tenets had been already advanced: And at last concludes in this affected
strain of despondency, "What will all these things end in? and on what
design are they driven? Alas, it is too visible!" 'Tis as clear as the
sun, that these authors are encouraged by the ministry with a design to
bring in Popery; and in Popery all these things will end.

I never was so uncharitable as to believe, that the whole party of which
his Lordship professeth himself a member, had a real formed design of
establishing atheism among us. The reason why the Whigs have taken the
atheists, or freethinkers, into their body, is because they wholly agree
in their political schemes, and differ very little in church power and
discipline. However, I could turn the argument against his Lordship with
very great advantage, by quoting passages from fifty pamphlets wholly
made up of Whiggism and atheism, and then conclude; "What will all these
things end in? And on what design are they driven? Alas, it is too
visible!"

Lastly, I would beg his Lordship not to be so exceedingly outrageous
upon the memory of the dead; because it is highly probable, that, in a
very short time he will be one of the number. He has in plain words
given Mr. Wharton the character of a "most malicious, revengeful,
treacherous, lying, mercenary villain." To which I shall only say, that
the direct reverse of this amiable description is what appears from the
works of that most learned divine, and from the accounts given me by
those who knew him much better than the Bishop seems to have done. I
meddle not with the moral part of his treatment. God Almighty forgive
his Lordship this manner of revenging himself; and then there will be
but little consequence from an accusation which the dead cannot feel,
and which none of the living will believe.


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




MR. COLLINS'S DISCOURSE OF

FREETHINKING;

PUT INTO PLAIN ENGLISH,

BY WAY OF ABSTRACT,

FOR THE USE OF THE POOR.

BY A FRIEND OF THE AUTHOR.

FIRST PRINTED IN 1713


NOTE.

Of the deistical writers of the early eighteenth century, Anthony
Collins (1676-1729) is, perhaps, the most celebrated. He was born near
Hounslow and educated at Eton and Cambridge. His writings were mainly
attacks on Christianity, and, in addition to the "Discourse on
Freethinking," he published: "Discourse of the Grounds and Reasons of
the Christian Religion;" "Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered;"
"Priestcraft in Perfection;" "Historical and Critical Essay on the
Thirty-Nine Articles;" and "A Philosophical Enquiry concerning Human
Liberty." Most of these writings engaged him in many and violent
controversies with some of the ablest divines of his time. Among these,
beside Swift, may be named, Whiston, Hare, Hoadly, Bentley, and Samuel
Clarke. Steele, also, had his fling at Collins, and thought that "if
ever man deserved to be denied the common benefits of air and water, it
is the author of 'A Discourse upon Freethinking'" ("Guardian," No. 3).
But then Steele's opinion on such a matter was of no great moment. What
was of more, was the fact that the school to which Collins belonged
found a decided opponent in Locke, from the writings of whom the members
of the school professed to draw their strongest arguments. For a
philosophical appreciation of Toland, Collins, and the rest, see Mr.
Leslie Stephen's "English Thought in the Eighteenth Century" (chaps.
iii. and iv. of vol. i. 1881).

Swift took an entirely different attitude towards Collins from that
assumed by the professional controversialists. He refused to take him
seriously, and no doubt he felt that ridicule would as effectually serve
his purpose as another method. Moreover, he sought to use the
opportunity for scoring a point against the Whigs, by insisting on the
political side of the matter, and, in the person of an assumed defender
of Collins, betrayed undoubted Whig leanings. Swift, at this time, was
deep in work, pamphleteering for Harley and St. John. He had already
written "The Conduct of the Allies," and "Some Remarks on the Barrier
Treaty," and was soon to write "The Public Spirit of the Whigs." The
assumed and sarcastic defence of Collins must be taken as a Swiftian
dodge to bring odium and suspicion on the opponents of the Tory
ministry, by showing that the propounders of the hateful and ridiculous
atheism were themselves Whigs.

Sir Henry Craik, in a note to his reprint of this tract ("Selections
from Swift," Oxford, 1893, vol. ii. p. 42), agrees with Scott as to the
motive which urged Swift in writing it. "In this later tract," he says,
"Swift makes no attempt to cloak his enmity; and he boldly assumes the
character of a Whig as the propounder of those atheistical absurdities,
which he wished, as a useful political move, but without any scrupulous
regard to fairness, to represent as part and parcel of the tenets of
that party." "What gave colour," says Scott, "though only a colour, to
his charge was, that Toland, Tindal, Collins, and most of those who
carried to licence their abhorrence of Church-government, were naturally
enough enrolled among that party in politics who professed most
attachment to freedom of sentiment." It must not, however, be forgotten,
that Swift's attachment to his Church, as it influenced him against the
Whigs, would naturally influence him against the deistical writers also,
and that he must be credited, to that extent, with honesty of purpose.
That these writers were Whigs was, if one may so put it, an accident, of
which it would have been more than a human act for Swift not to take
advantage, for party purposes.

Curiously enough, none of Swift's more modern biographers have thought
this imitation of Collins's "Discourse" worthy of a mention; yet it is,
in its way, as fine a performance as his castigation of Bishop Burnet
and his "Introduction." The fooling is admirably carried on, and the
intention, as explained in the introduction, is excellently well
realized. It frightened Collins into Holland. To appreciate the
cleverness with which it has been done, one should read Swift's
"Abstract" side by side with Collins's "Discourse."

The pamphlet was advertised for sale in "The Examiner" for Tuesday,
January 26th, 1712-13. In His "Letters to Stella" (January 16th and
21st, 1712-13), Swift makes the following references to it: "I came home
at seven, and began a little whim which just came into my head, and will
make a three-penny pamphlet. It shall be finished in a week; and, if it
succeeds, you shall know what it is; otherwise not. ... I was to-day
with my printer, to give him a little pamphlet I have written; but not
politics. It will be out by Monday."