The present text is based on that of the first edition, collated with
those given by Nichols, Hawkesworth and Scott. None of the
"Miscellanies" prints this tract, nor is it given in Faulkner's edition
of 1735-38 (6 vols.). It is fully annotated and edited by Nichols in the
first volume of his "Supplement to Swift's Works" (1779).

[T. S.]


  Mr. COLLIN'S
  DISCOURSE
  OF
  FREE-THINKING,
  PUT INTO PLAIN ENGLISH,
  BY WAY OF ABSTRACT,
  FOR THE
  USE OF THE POOR.

BY A FRIEND OF THE AUTHOR.

1713.


INTRODUCTION.

Our party having failed, by all their political arguments, to
re-establish their power; the wise leaders have determined, that the
last and principal remedy should be made use of, for opening the eyes of
this blinded nation; and that a short, but perfect, system of their
divinity, should be published, to which we are all of us ready to
subscribe, and which we lay down as a model, bearing a close analogy to
our schemes in religion. Crafty, designing men, that they might keep the
world in awe, have, in their several forms of government, placed a
_Supreme Power_ on earth, to keep human-kind in fear of being hanged;
and a supreme power in heaven, for fear of being damned. In order to
cure men's apprehensions of the former, several of our learned members
have writ many profound treatises on Anarchy; but a brief complete body
of Atheology seemed yet wanting, till this irrefragable Discourse
appeared. However, it so happens, that our ablest brethren, in their
elaborate disquisitions upon this subject, have written with so much
caution, that ignorant unbelievers have edified very little by them. I
grant that those daring spirits, who first adventured to write against
the direct rules of the gospel, the current of antiquity, the religion
of the magistrate, and the laws of the land, had some measures to keep;
and particularly when they railed at religion, were in the right to use
little artful disguises, by which a jury could only find them guilty of
abusing heathenism or popery. But the mystery is now revealed, that
there is no such thing as mystery or revelation; and though our friends
are out of place and power, yet we may have so much confidence in the
present ministry, to be secure, that those who suffer so many free
speeches against their sovereign and themselves, to pass unpunished,
will never resent our expressing the freest thoughts against their
religion; but think with Tiberius, that if there be a God, he is able
enough to revenge any injuries done to himself, without expecting the
civil power to interpose.[1]

[Footnote 1: Swift was evidently very fond of this reference, since he
uses it several times in his writings. [T. S.]]

_By these reflections I was brought to think, that the most ingenious
author of the Discourse upon Freethinking, in a letter to Somebody,
Esq.; although he hath used less reserve than any of his predecessors,
might yet have been more free and open. I considered, that several
well-witters to infidelity, might be discouraged by a show of logic, and
a multiplicity of quotations, scattered through his book, which to
understandings of that size, might carry an appearance of something like
book-learning, and consequently fright them from reading for their
improvement; I could see no reason why these great discoveries should be
hid from our youth of quality, who frequent Whites and Tom's; why they
should not be adapted to the capacities of the Kit-Cat and Hanover
Clubs,[2] who might then be able to read lectures on them to their
several toasts: and it will be allowed on all hands, that nothing can
sooner help to restore our abdicated cause, than a firm universal belief
of the principles laid down by this sublime author._

[Footnote 2: These were chocolate houses of the time, supported mainly
by the aristocracy and the gamblers. White's is still in existence, and
has had the honour of having had a special history written about it.
Tom's was in Russell Street, and so-called after its landlord, Tom West.
The Kit-Cat Club was the resort of the Whig wits of the day, and the
Hanover Club of those who favoured the Hanover succession. [T. S.]]

For I am sensible that nothing would more contribute to "the continuance
of the war" and the restoration of the late ministry, than to have the
doctrines delivered in this treatise well infused into the people. I
have therefore compiled them into the following Abstract, wherein I have
adhered to the very words of our author, only adding some few
explanations of my own, where the terms happen to be too learned, and
consequently a little beyond the comprehension of those for whom the
work was principally intended, I mean the nobility and gentry of our
party. After which I hope it will be impossible for the malice of a
Jacobite, highflying, priestridden faction, to misrepresent us. The few
additions I have made are for no other use than to help the transition,
which could not otherwise be kept in an abstract; but I have not
presumed to advance anything of my own; which besides would be needless
to an author who hath so fully handled and demonstrated every
particular. I shall only add, that though this writer, when he speaks of
priests, desires chiefly to be understood to mean the English clergy,
yet he includes all priests whatsoever, except the ancient and modern
heathens, the Turks, Quakers, and Socinians.


THE LETTER.

SIR,

I send you this apology for Freethinking,[3] without the least hopes of
doing good, but purely to comply with your request; for those truths
which nobody can deny, will do no good to those who deny them. The
clergy, who are so impudent to teach the people the doctrines of faith,
are all either cunning knaves or mad fools; for none but artificial,
designing men, and crack-brained enthusiasts, presume to be guides to
others in matters of speculation, which all the doctrines of
Christianity are; and whoever has a mind to learn the Christian
religion, naturally chooses such knaves and fools to teach them. Now the
Bible, which contains the precepts of the priests' religion, is the most
difficult book in the world to be understood; it requires a thorough
knowledge in natural, civil, ecclesiastical history, law, husbandry,
sailing, physic, pharmacy, mathematics, metaphysics, ethics, and
everything else that can be named: And everybody who believes it ought
to understand it, and must do so by force of his own freethinking,
without any guide or instructor.

[Footnote 3: The chief strain of Collins's "Discourse" is an eulogium
upon the necessity and advantage of Freethinking; in which it is more
than insinuated that the advocates of revealed religion are enemies to
the progress of enlightened inquiry. This insidious position is
ridiculed in the following parody. [S.]]

How can a man think at all, if he does not think freely? A man who does
not eat and drink freely, does not eat and drink at all. Why may not I
be denied the liberty of freeseeing, as well as freethinking? Yet nobody
pretends that the first is unlawful, for a cat may look on a king;
though you be near-sighted, or have weak or sore eyes, or are blind, you
may be a free-seer; you ought to see for yourself, and not trust to a
guide to choose the colour of your stockings, or save you from falling
into a ditch.

In like manner, there ought to be no restraint at all on thinking freely
upon any proposition, however impious or absurd. There is not the least
hurt in the wickedest thoughts, provided they be free; nor in telling
those thoughts to everybody, and endeavouring to convince the world of
them; for all this is included in the doctrine of freethinking, as I
shall plainly show you in what follows; and therefore you are all along
to understand the word freethinking in this sense.

If you are apt to be afraid of the devil, think freely of him, and you
destroy him and his kingdom. Freethinking has done him more mischief
than all the clergy in the world ever could do; they believe in the
devil, they have an interest in him, and therefore are the great
supports of his kingdom. The devil was in the States-General before they
began to be freethinkers. For England and Holland[4] were formerly the
Christian territories of the devil; I told you how he left Holland; and
freethinking and the revolution banished him from England; I defy all
the clergy to shew me when they ever had such success against him. My
meaning is, that to think freely of the devil, is to think there is no
devil at all; and he that thinks so, the devil's in him if he be afraid
of the devil.

[Footnote 4: Collins is supposed to have imbibed his freethinking
philosophy during his repeated visits to Holland. [S.]]

But, within these two or three years, the devil has come into England
again, and Dr. Sacheverell[5] has given him commission to appear in the
shape of a cat, and carry old women about upon broomsticks: And the
devil has now so many "ministers ordained to his service," that they
have rendered freethinking odious, and nothing but the second coming of
Christ can restore it.

[Footnote 5: See note on p. 147.]

The priests tell me, I am to believe the Bible, but freethinking tells
me otherwise in many particulars: The Bible says, the Jews were a nation
favoured by God; but I who am a freethinker say, that cannot be, because
the Jews lived in a corner of the earth, and freethinking makes it
clear, that those who live in corners cannot be favourites of God. The
New Testament all along asserts the truth of Christianity, but
freethinking denies it; because Christianity was communicated but to a
few; and whatever is communicated but to a few, cannot be true; for that
is like whispering, and the proverb says, that there is no whispering
without lying.

Here is a society in London for propagating freethinking throughout the
world, encouraged and supported by the Queen and many others. You say,
perhaps, it is for propagating the Gospel. Do you think the missionaries
we send will tell the heathens that they must not think freely? No,
surely; why then, it is manifest, those missionaries must be
freethinkers, and make the heathens so too. But why should not the king
of Siam, whose religion is heathenism and idolatry, send over a parcel
of his priests to convert us to his church, as well as we send
missionaries there? Both projects are exactly of a piece, and equally
reasonable; and if those heathen priests were here, it would be our duty
to hearken to them, and think freely whether they may not be in the
right rather than we. I heartily wish a detachment of such divines as Dr
Atterbury, Dr. Smallridge,[6] Dr. Swift, Dr. Sacheverell, and some others,
were sent every year to the farthest part of the heathen world, and that
we had a cargo of their priests in return, who would spread freethinking
among us; then the war would go on, the late ministry be restored, and
faction cease, which our priests inflame by haranguing upon texts, and
falsely call that preaching the Gospel.

[Footnote 6: Dr. Smallridge, it will be remembered, was the gentleman
who indignantly denied the authorship of "A Tale of a Tub" (see vol. i.
of this edition). He became Bishop of Bristol in 1714, and died in 1719.
His style was well thought of at the time. [T.S.]]

I have another project in my head, which ought to be put in execution,
in order to make us freethinkers: It is a great hardship and injustice,
that our priests must not be disturbed while they are prating in the
pulpit. For example: Why should not William Penn the Quaker, or any
Anabaptist, Papist, Muggletonian, Jew, or Sweet-Singer,[7] have liberty
to come into St Paul's Church, in the midst of divine service, and
endeavour to convert first the aldermen, then the preacher, and
singing-men? Or pray, why might not poor Mr. Whiston,[8] who denies the
divinity of Christ, be allowed to come into the Lower House of
Convocation, and convert the clergy? But, alas! we are overrun with such
false notions, that, if Penn or Whiston should do their duty, they would
be reckoned fanatics, and disturbers of the holy synod, although they
have as good a title to it as St Paul had to go into the synagogues of
the Jews; and their authority is full as divine as his.

[Footnote 7: The Sweet-Singers were a fanatical sect of wailers, founded
in Scotland, but which had no long life. [T.S.]] Christ himself commands
us to be freethinkers; for he bids us search the scriptures, and take
heed what and whom we hear; by which he plainly warns us, not to believe
our bishops and clergy; for Jesus Christ, when he considered that all
the Jewish and heathen priests, whose religion he came to abolish, were
his enemies, rightly concluded that those appointed by him to preach his
own gospel, would probably be so too; and could not be secure, that any
set of priests, of the faith he delivered, would ever be otherwise;
therefore it is fully demonstrated that the clergy of the Church of
England are mortal enemies to Christ, and ought not to be believed.

[Footnote 8: Yet Whiston, who receives this side-cut, was himself an
anxious combatant of Collins, in his "Reflections on an Anonymous
Pamphlet, entitled, 'A Defence of Freethinking.'" 1713. [S.]]

But, without the privilege of freethinking, how is it possible to know
which is the right Scripture? Here are perhaps twenty sorts of
Scriptures in the several parts of the world, and every set of priests
contend that their Scripture is the true one. The Indian Brahmins have a
book of scripture called the Shaster; the Persees their Zundivastaw;[9]
the Bonzes in China have theirs, written by the disciples of Fo-he, whom
they call _God and Saviour of the world, who was born to teach the way
of salvation, and to give satisfaction for all men's sins_: which, you
see, is directly the same with what our priests pretend of Christ. And
must we not think freely, to find out which are in the right, whether
the Bishops or the Bonzes? But the Talapoins, or heathen clergy of Siam,
approach yet nearer to the system of our priests; they have a Book of
Scripture written by Sommonocodam, who, the Siamese say, was "born of a
virgin," and was "the God expected by the Universe;" just as our priests
tell us, that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, and was the
Messiah so long expected. The Turkish priests, or dervises, have their
Scripture which they call the Alcoran. The Jews have the Old Testament
for their Scripture, and the Christians have both the Old and the New.
Now among all these Scriptures, there cannot above one be right; and how
is it possible to know which is that, without reading them all, and then
thinking freely, every one of us for ourselves, without following the
advice or instruction of any guide, before we venture to choose? The
parliament ought to be at the charge of finding a sufficient number of
these Scriptures, for every one of Her Majesty's subjects, for there are
twenty to one against us, that we may be in the wrong: But a great deal
of freethinking will at last set us all right, and every one will adhere
to the Scripture he likes best; by which means, religion, peace, and
wealth, will be for ever secured in Her Majesty's realms.

[Footnote 9: Swift means here, of course, the Zendavesta, the
commentaries on the sacred books of the Parsees. Not that Swift could
have known much of these Oriental religions; but the names were good
enough for his purpose. [T.S.]]

And it is the more necessary that the good people of England should have
liberty to choose some other Scripture, because all Christian priests
differ so much about the copies of theirs, and about the various
readings of the several manuscripts, which quite destroys the authority
of the Bible: for what authority can a book pretend to, where there are
various readings?[10] And for this reason, it is manifest that no man
can know the opinions of Aristotle or Plato, or believe the facts
related by Thucydides or Livy, or be pleased with the poetry of Homer
and Virgil, all which books are utterly useless, upon account of their
various readings. Some books of Scripture are said to be lost, and this
utterly destroys the credit of those that are left: some we reject,
which the Africans and Copticks receive; and why may we not think
freely, and reject the rest? Some think the scriptures wholly inspired,
some partly; and some not at all. Now this is just the very case of the
Bramins, Persees, Bonzes, Talapoins, Dervises, Rabbis, and all other
priests, who build their religion upon books, as our priests do upon
their Bibles; they all equally differ about the copies, various readings
and inspirations, of their several Scriptures, and God knows which are
in the right: Freethinking alone can determine it.

[Footnote 10: In the discourse on "Freethinking," p. 80, Collins insists
much on a passage in Victor of Tunis, from which he infers, that the
Gospels were corrected and altered in the fourth century. [S.]]

It would be endless to show in how many particulars the priests of the
Heathen and Christian churches, differ about the meaning even of those
Scriptures which they universally receive as sacred. But, to avoid
prolixity, I shall confine myself to the different opinions among the
priests of the Church of England, and here only give you a specimen,
because even these are too many to be enumerated.

I have found out a bishop, (though indeed his opinions are condemned by
all his brethren,) who allows the Scriptures to be so difficult, that
God has left them rather as a trial of our industry than a repository of
our faith, and furniture of creeds and articles of belief; with several
other admirable schemes of freethinking, which you may consult at your
leisure.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the most fundamental point of the whole
Christian religion. Nothing is more easy to a freethinker, yet what
different notions of it do the English priests pretend to deduce from
Scripture, explaining it by "specific unities, eternal modes of
subsistence," and the like unintelligible jargon? Nay, it is a question
whether this doctrine be fundamental or no; for though Dr. South and
Bishop Bull affirm it, yet Bishop Taylor and Dr. Wallis deny it.[11] And
that excellent freethinking prelate, Bishop Taylor, observes, that
Athanasius's example was followed with too much greediness; by which
means it has happened, that the greater number of our priests are in
that sentiment, and think it necessary to believe the Trinity, and
incarnation of Christ.[12]

[Footnote 11: Dr. Robert South (1633-1716), rector of Islip. The
reference by Swift is to his controversy with Sherlock on the doctrine
of the Trinity. The two disputants got into such depths that both were
charged with heresy.

Dr. George Bull (1634-1710), Bishop of St. David's, wrote the "Defensio
Fidei Nicenae." For his exposition of the necessity for the belief in the
divinity of the Son of God he received the thanks of Bossuet.

Dr. Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down and Connor (1613-1667), and author of
"Holy Living" and "Holy Dying," wrote also "Unum Necessarium, or the
Doctrine and Practice of Repentance." His treatment, in this work, of
the doctrine of original sin was considered heterodox by Bishop Warner
and Dr. Sanderson, and a controversy ensued, in the course of which
Taylor was imprisoned in Chepstow Castle on a charge of being concerned
in a Royalist insurrection.

Dr. John Wallis (1616-1703), here referred to, is the famous
mathematician and divine, and one of the original members of the Royal
Society. He is mentioned in the text by Swift because of a work he
published on the Trinity, which brought him into collision with the
Arians. But the Doctor seems to have been addicted to views of a
controversial nature, for his opinions on infant baptism and the keeping
of the Sabbath found many objectors. He was Savilian Professor of
Geometry at Oxford in 1648. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: See Swift's opinion of controversies on this subject in
his "Sermon upon the Trinity." [S.]]

Our priests likewise dispute several circumstances about the
resurrection of the dead, the nature of our bodies after the
resurrection, and in what manner they shall be united to our souls. They
also attack one another "very weakly with great vigour," about
predestination. And it is certainly true, (for Bishop Taylor and Mr.
Whiston the Socinian say so,) that all churches in prosperity alter
their doctrines every age, and are neither satisfied with themselves,
nor their own confessions; neither does any clergyman of sense believe
the Thirty-nine Articles.

Our priests differ about the eternity of hell torments. The famous Dr
Henry More,[13] and the most pious and rational of all priests, Dr
Tillotson,[14] (both freethinkers,) believe them to be not eternal. They
differ about keeping the sabbath, the divine right of episcopacy, and
the doctrine of original sin; which is the foundation of the whole
Christian religion; for if men are not liable to be damned for Adam's
sin, the Christian religion is an imposture: Yet this is now disputed
among them; so is lay baptism; so was formerly the lawfulness of usury,
but now the priests are common stock-jobbers, attorneys, and scriveners.
In short there is no end of disputing among priests, and therefore I
conclude, that there ought to be no such thing in the world as priests,
teachers, or guides, for instructing ignorant people in religion; but
that every man ought to think freely for himself.

[Footnote 13: Dr. Henry More (1614-1687), the Platonist theologian,
wrote a philosophical poem entitled, "Psycho-Zoia, or the Life of the
Soul" (1640). [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: Dr. John Tillotson (1630-1694) succeeded Bancroft as
Archbishop of Canterbury. He published some eloquent sermons and several
controversial tracts against Catholicism. [T.S.]]

I will tell you the meaning in all this; the priests dispute every point
in the Christian religion, as well as almost every text in the Bible;
and the force of my argument lies here, that whatever point is disputed
by one or two divines, however condemned by the Church, not only that
particular point, but the whole article to which it relates, may
lawfully be received or rejected by any freethinker. For instance,
suppose More and Tillotson deny the eternity of hell torments, a
freethinker may deny all future punishments whatsoever. The priests
dispute about explaining the Trinity; therefore a freethinker may reject
one or two, or the whole three persons; at least he may reject
Christianity, because the Trinity is the most fundamental doctrine of
that religion. So I affirm original sin, and that men are now liable to
be damned for Adam's sin, to be the foundation of the whole Christian
religion; but this point was formerly, and is now disputed, therefore, a
freethinker may deny the whole. And I cannot help giving you one farther
direction, how I insinuate all along, that the wisest freethinking
priests, whom you may distinguish by the epithets I bestow them, were
those who differed most from the generality of their brethren.

But besides, the conduct of our priests in many other points, makes
freethinking unavoidable; for some of them own, that the doctrines of
the Church are contradictory to one another, as well as to reason; which
I thus prove: Dr. Sacheverell says in his speech at his trial, That by
abandoning passive obedience we must render ourselves the most
inconsistent Church in the world: Now 'tis plain, that one inconsistency
could not make the most inconsistent Church in the world; _ergo_, there
must have been a great many inconsistencies and contradictory doctrines
in the Church before. Dr. South describes the incarnation of Christ, as
an astonishing mystery, impossible to be conceived by man's reason;
_ergo_, it is contradictory to itself, and to reason, and ought to be
exploded by all freethinkers.

Another instance of the priests' conduct, which multiplies freethinkers,
is their acknowledgment of abuses, defects, and false doctrines, in the
Church; particularly that of eating black pudding,[15] which is so
plainly forbid in the Old and New Testament, that I wonder those who
pretend to believe a syllable in either will presume to taste it. Why
should I mention the want of discipline, and of a sideboard at the
altar, with complaints of other great abuses and defects made by some of
the priests, which no man can think on without freethinking, and
consequently rejecting Christianity?

[Footnote 15: Collins in his pamphlet quotes a Dr. Grabe, who, following
the Jewish code of rules as regards food, considered the eating of blood
one of the points on which the Church did not insist against. In the
text Swift ridicules this in the reference to "black pudding." [T. S.]]

When I see an honest freethinking bishop endeavour to destroy the power
and privileges of the Church, and Dr. Atterbury angry with him for it,
and calling it "dirty work," what can I conclude, by virtue of being a
freethinker, but that Christianity is all a cheat?

Mr. Whiston has published several tracts, wherein he absolutely denies
the divinity of Christ: A bishop tells him, "Sir, in any matter where
you have the Church's judgment against you, you should be careful not to
break the peace of the Church, by writing against it, though you are
sure you are in the right."[16] Now my opinion is directly contrary; and
I affirm, that if ten thousand freethinkers thought differently from the
received doctrine, and from each other, they would be all in duty bound
to publish their thoughts (provided they were all sure of being in the
right) though it broke the peace of the Church and state ten thousand
times.

[Footnote 16: Swift's "Sermon on the Trinity," as well as a passage in
his "Thoughts upon Religion," shews the weight which he attached to this
important argument. [S.]]

And here I must take leave to tell you, although you cannot but have
perceived it from what I have already said, and shall be still more
amply convinced by what is to follow; that freethinking signifies
nothing, without freespeaking and freewriting. It is the indispensable
duty of a freethinker, to endeavour forcing all the world to think as he
does, and by that means make them freethinkers too. You are also to
understand, that I allow no man to be a freethinker, any further than as
he differs from the received doctrines of religion. Where a man falls
in, though by perfect chance, with what is generally believed, he is in
that point a confined and limited thinker; and you shall see by and by,
that I celebrate those for the noblest freethinkers in every age, who
differed from the religion of their countries in the most fundamental
points, and especially in those which bear any analogy to the chief
fundamentals of religion among us.

Another trick of the priests is, to charge all men with atheism, who
have more wit than themselves; which therefore I expect will be my case
for writing this discourse: This is what makes them so implacable
against Mr. Gildon, Dr. Tindal, Mr. Toland,[17] and myself, and when they
call us wits, atheists, it provokes us to be freethinkers.

[Footnote 17: See notes on pp. 9, 79, 80, 82.]

Again; the priests cannot agree when their Scripture was written. They
differ about the number of canonical books, and the various readings.
Now those few among us who understand Latin, are careful to tell this to
our disciples, who presently fall a-freethinking, that the Bible is a
book not to be depended upon in anything at all.

There is another thing, that mightily spreads freethinking, which I
believe you would hardly guess. The priests have got a way of late of
writing books against freethinking; I mean treatises in dialogue, where
they introduce atheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians offering their
several arguments. Now these freethinkers are too hard for the priests
themselves in their own books; and how can it be otherwise? For if the
arguments usually offered by atheists, are fairly represented in these
books, they must needs convert everybody that reads them; because
atheists, deists, sceptics, and Socinians, have certainly better
arguments to maintain their opinions, than any the priests can produce
to maintain the contrary.

Mr. Creech,[18] a priest, translated Lucretius into English, which is a
complete system of atheism; and several young students, who were
afterwards priests, wrote verses in praise of this translation. The
arguments against Providence in that book are so strong, that they have
added mightily to the number of freethinkers.

[Footnote 18: This is Thomas Creech, the translator of Horace, to whom
Swift refers in "The Battle of the Books" (see vol. i. p. 180). The
translation of Lucretius was published in English verse in 1682. [T.
S.]]

Why should I mention the pious cheats of the priests, who in the New
Testament translate the word _ecclesia_ sometimes the _church_, and
sometimes the _congregation_; and _episcopus_, sometimes a _bishop_, and
sometimes an _overseer_? A priest,[19] translating a book, left out a
whole passage that reflected on the king, by which he was an enemy to
political freethinking, a most considerable branch of our system.
Another priest, translating a book of travels,[20] left out a lying
miracle, out of mere malice, to conceal an argument for freethinking. In
short, these frauds are very common in all books which are published by
priests: But however, I love to excuse them whenever I can: And as to
this accusation, they may plead the authority of the ancient fathers of
the Church, for forgery, corruption, and mangling of authors, with more
reason than for any of their articles of faith. St Jerom, St Hilary,
Eusebius Vercellensis, Victorinus,[21] and several others, were all
guilty of arrant forgery and corruption: For when they translated the
works of several freethinkers, whom they called heretics, they omitted
all their heresies or freethinkings, and had the impudence to own it to
the world.

[Footnote 19: Collins refers to the Rev. Mr. Brown, who translated
Father Paul's "Letters," and omitted the words, "If the King of England
[James I.] were not more a doctor than a king."]

[Footnote 20: Baumgarten's "Travels." [T. S.]]

[Footnote 21: Jerome, or St. Hieronymus (_circa_ 340-420), wrote the
Latin vulgate translation of the Scriptures. Is accepted as one of the
Fathers of the Church.

St. Hilary, another accepted Father, was bishop of Poictiers. He died
367 or 368.

The Eusebius here named was Bishop of Vercelli, a city of Liguria. He
flourished about A.D. 360, and distinguished himself at the Council of
Milan in A.D. 355, for his attacks against Arianism. He was exiled to
Upper Thebais, with several other bishops who refused to subscribe to
the condemnation of Athanasius; but was recalled with Lucifer, bishop of
Cagliari, Sardinia. In conjunction with Athanasius he attended an
Alexandrian synod which declared the Trinity consubstantial. He
travelled much, in the Eastern provinces and Italy, engaging in
missionary work. He died about A.D. 373.

Fabius Marius Victorinus was born in Africa, and died at Rome in 370. He
was a distinguished orator, grammarian, and rhetorician. His chief work
was a treatise entitled "De Orthographia." He also wrote many
theological books. [T. S.]]

From these many notorious instances of the priests' conduct, I conclude
they are not to be relied on in any one thing relating to religion; but
that every man must think freely for himself.

But to this it may be objected, that the bulk of mankind is as well
qualified for flying as thinking, and if every man thought it his duty
to think freely, and trouble his neighbour with his thoughts (which is
an essential part of freethinking,) it would make wild work in the
world. I answer; whoever cannot think freely, may let it alone if he
pleases, by virtue of his right to think freely; that is to say, if such
a man freely thinks that he cannot think freely, of which every man is a
sufficient judge, why, then, he need not think freely, unless he thinks
fit.

Besides, if the bulk of mankind cannot think freely in matters of
speculation, as the being of a God, the immortality of the soul, &c. why
then, freethinking is indeed no duty: But then the priests must allow,
that men are not concerned to believe whether there is a God or no. But
still those who are disposed to think freely, may think freely if they
please.

It is again objected, that freethinking will produce endless divisions
in opinion, and by consequence disorder society. To which I answer;

When every single man comes to have a different opinion every day from
the whole world, and from himself, by virtue of freethinking, and thinks
it his duty to convert every man to his own freethinking (as all we
freethinkers do) how can that possibly create so great a diversity of
opinions, as to have a set of priests agree among themselves to teach
the same opinions in their several parishes to all who will come to hear
them? Besides, if all people were of the same opinion, the remedy would
be worse than the disease; I will tell you the reason some other time.

Besides, difference in opinion, especially in matters of great moment,
breeds no confusion at all. Witness Papist and Protestant, Roundhead and
Cavalier, Whig and Tory, now among us. I observe, the Turkish empire is
more at peace within itself, than Christian princes are with one
another. Those noble Turkish virtues of charity and toleration, are what
contribute chiefly to the flourishing state of that happy monarchy.
There Christians and Jews are tolerated, and live at ease, if they can
hold their tongues and think freely, provided they never set foot within
the mosques, nor write against Mahomet: A few plunderings now and then
by the janissaries are all they have to fear.

It is objected, that by freethinking, men will think themselves into
atheism; and indeed I have allowed all along, that atheistical books
convert men to freethinking. But suppose that to be true; I can bring
you two divines who affirm superstition and enthusiasm to be worse than
atheism, and more mischievous to society, and in short it is necessary
that the bulk of the people should be atheists or superstitious.

It is objected, that priests ought to be relied on by the people, as
lawyers and physicians, because it is their faculty.

I answer, 'Tis true, a man who is no lawyer is not suffered to plead for
himself; but every man may be his own quack if he pleases, and he only
ventures his life; but in the other case the priest tells him he must be
damned: Therefore do not trust the priest, but think freely for
yourself, and if you happen to think there is no hell, there certainly
is none, and consequently you cannot be damned; I answer further, that
wherever there is no lawyer, physician, or priest, the country is
paradise. Besides, all priests, (except the orthodox, and those are not
ours, nor any that I know,) are hired by the public to lead men into
mischief; but lawyers and physicians are not, you hire them yourself.

It is objected, (by priests no doubt, but I have forgot their names)
that false speculations are necessary to be imposed upon men, in order
to assist the magistrate in keeping the peace, and that men ought
therefore to be deceived, like children, for their own good. I answer,
that zeal for imposing speculations, whether true or false (under which
name of speculations I include all opinions of religion, as the belief
of a God, Providence, immortality of the soul, future rewards and
punishments, &c.) has done more hurt than it is possible for religion to
do good. It puts us to the charge of maintaining ten thousand priests in
England, which is a burden upon society never felt upon any other
occasion; and a greater evil to the public than if these ecclesiastics
were only employed in the most innocent offices of life, which I take to
be eating and drinking. Now if you offer to impose anything on mankind
besides what relates to moral duties, as to pay your debts, not pick
pockets, nor commit murder, and the like; that is to say, if, besides
this, you oblige them to believe in God and Jesus Christ, what you add
to their faith will take just so much off from their morality. By this
argument it is manifest, that a perfect moral man must be a perfect
atheist; every inch of religion he gets loses him an inch of morality:
For there is a certain _quantum_ belongs to every man, of which there is
nothing to spare. This is clear from the common practice of all our
priests, they never once preach to you to love your neighbour, to be
just in your dealings, or to be sober and temperate. The streets of
London are full of common whores, publicly tolerated in their
wickedness; yet the priests make no complaints against this enormity,
either from the pulpit or the press: I can affirm, that neither you nor
I, sir, have ever heard one sermon against whoring since we were boys.
No, the priests allow all these vices, and love us the better for them,
provided we will promise not "to harangue upon a text," nor to sprinkle
a little water in a child's face, which they call baptizing, and would
engross it all to themselves.

Besides, the priests engage all the rogues, villains, and fools in their
party, in order to make it as large as they can: By this means they
seduced Constantine the Great[22] over to their religion, who was the
first Christian emperor, and so horrible a villain, that the heathen
priests told him they could not expiate his crimes in their church; so
he was at a loss to know what to do, till an AEgyptian bishop assured
him, that there was no villainy so great, but was to be expiated by the
sacraments of the Christian religion; upon which he became a Christian,
and to him that religion owes its first settlement.

[Footnote 22: The reference here is to the luminous cross which
Constantine said he saw in the heavens, and which influenced him to
embrace Christianity. [T. S.]]

It is objected, that freethinkers themselves are the most infamous,
wicked, and senseless of all mankind.

I answer, first, we say the same of priests, and other believers. But
the truth is, men of all sects are equally good and bad; for no religion
whatsoever contributes in the least to mend men's lives.

I answer, secondly, that freethinkers use their understanding, but those
who have religion do not; therefore the first have more understanding
than the others; witness Toland, Tindal, Gildon[23], Clendon, Coward,
and myself. For, use legs and have legs.

[Footnote 23: John Clendon, of the Middle Temple, published in
1709-1710, "Tractatus Philosophico-Theologicus de Persona; or, a
Treatise of the Word Person." This singular book appears to have been
written principally to prove that the doctrine of the Trinity was very
well explained by an Act of Parliament, 9 and 10 Will. III. It was
complained of in the House of Commons, March 25th, 1710, and was judged
to be a scandalous, seditious, and blasphemous libel .... and was burnt
by the common hangman at the same time with Tindal's "Rights." [N.] ]

I answer, thirdly, that freethinkers are the most virtuous persons in
the world; for all freethinkers must certainly differ from the priests,
and from nine hundred ninety-nine of a thousand of those among whom they
live; and are therefore virtuous of course, because everybody hates
them.

I answer, fourthly, that the most virtuous people in all ages have been
freethinkers; of which I shall produce several instances[24].

[Footnote 24: What follows is in ridicule of a long list of
freethinkers, as he calls them, with which Collins has graced his
discourse; in which he includes not only the ancient philosophers, but
the inspired prophets, and even "King Solomon the wise." [S.] ]

Socrates was a freethinker; for he disbelieved the gods of his country,
and the common creeds about them, and declared his dislike when he heard
men attribute "repentance, anger, and other passions to the gods, and
talk of wars and battles in heaven, and of the gods getting women with
child," and such like fabulous and blasphemous stones. I pick out these
particulars, because they are the very same with what the priests have
in their Bibles, where repentance and anger are attributed to God; where
it is said, there was "war in heaven;" and that "the Virgin Mary was
with child by the Holy Ghost," whom the priests call God; all fabulous
and blasphemous stories. Now, I affirm Socrates to have been a true
Christian. You will ask, perhaps, how that can be, since he lived three
or four hundred years before Christ? I answer, with Justin Martyr, that
Christ is nothing else but reason, and I hope you do not think Socrates
lived before reason. Now, this true Christian Socrates never made
notions, speculations, or mysteries, any part of his religion, but
demonstrated all men to be fools who troubled themselves with enquiries
into heavenly things. Lastly, 'tis plain that Socrates was a
freethinker, because he was calumniated for an atheist, as freethinkers
generally are, only because he was an enemy to all speculations and
inquiries into heavenly things. For I argue thus, that if I never
trouble myself to think whether there be a God or no, and forbid others
to do it, I am a freethinker, but not an atheist.

Plato was a freethinker, and his notions are so like some in the Gospel,
that a heathen charged Christ with borrowing his doctrine from Plato.
But Origen[25] defends Christ very well against this charge, by saying
he did not understand Greek, and therefore could not borrow his doctrine
from Plato. However their two religions agreed so well, that it was
common for Christians to turn Platonists, and Platonists Christians.
When the Christians found out this, one of their zealous priests (worse
than any atheist) forged several things under Plato's name, but
conformable to Christianity, by which the heathens were fraudulently
converted.

[Footnote 25: Origen, a Father of the Church, was born about 185. He
carried to extremes the celibate life taught in the Gospel; and his
"Treatise against Celsus" contains, according to St. Jerome and
Eusebius, the refutation of "all the objections which have been made,
and all which ever will be made against Christianity." [T. S.] ]

Epicurus was the greatest of all freethinkers, and consequently the most
virtuous man in the world. His opinions in religion were the most
complete system of atheism that ever appeared. Christians ought to have
the greatest veneration for him, because he taught a higher point of
virtue than Christ; I mean the virtue of friendship, which in the sense
we usually understand it, is not so much as named in the New Testament.

Plutarch was a freethinker, notwithstanding his being a priest; but
indeed he was a heathen priest. His freethinking appears by showing the
innocence of atheism, (which at worst is only false reasoning,) and the
mischiefs of superstition; and explains what superstition is, by calling
it a conceit of immortal ills after death, the opinion of hell torments,
dreadful aspects, doleful groans, and the like. He is likewise very
satirical upon the public forms of devotion in his own country (a
qualification absolutely necessary to a freethinker) yet those forms
which he ridicules, are the very same that now pass for true worship in
almost all countries: I am sure some of them do so in ours; such as
abject looks, distortions, wry faces, beggarly tones, humiliation, and
contrition.

Varro,[26] the most learned among the Romans, was a freethinker; for he
said, the heathen divinity contained many fables below the dignity of
immortal beings; such, for instance, as Gods BEGOTTEN and PROCEEDING
from other Gods. These two words I desire you will particularly remark,
because they are the very terms made use of by our priests in their
doctrine of the Trinity: He says likewise, that there are many things
false in religion, and so say all freethinkers; but then he adds; "which
the vulgar ought not to know, but it is expedient they should believe."
In this last he indeed discovers the whole secret of a statesman and
politician, by denying the vulgar the privilege of freethinking, and
here I differ from him. However, it is manifest from hence, that the
Trinity was an invention of statesmen and politicians.

[Footnote 26: Marcus Terentius Varro (born B.C. 117) was the friend of
Cicero. He was a profound grammarian, historian, and philosopher. The
expression Swift applies to him as "the most learned among the Romans"
is one by which he is generally called. [T. S.] ]

The grave and wise Cato the censor will for ever live in that noble
freethinking saying--"I wonder," said he, "how one of our priests can
forbear laughing when he sees another!" (For contempt of priests is
another grand characteristic of a freethinker). This shews that Cato
understood the whole mystery of the Roman religion "as by law
established." I beg you, sir, not to overlook these last words,
"religion as by law established." I translate _hanisfax,_ into the
general word, _priest_. Thus I apply the sentence to our priests in
England, and, when Dr. Smallridge sees Dr. Atterbury, I wonder how either
of them can forbear laughing at the cheat they put upon the people, by
making them believe their "religion as by law established."

Cicero, that consummate philosopher, and noble patriot, though he was a
priest, and consequently more likely to be a knave; gave the greatest
proofs of his freethinking. First, he professed the sceptic philosophy,
which doubts of everything. Then, he wrote two treatises;[27] in the
first, he shews the weakness of the Stoics' arguments for the being of
the Gods: In the latter, he has destroyed the whole revealed religion of
the Greeks and Romans (for why should not theirs be a revealed religion
as well as that of Christ?) Cicero likewise tells us, as his own
opinion, that they who study philosophy, do not believe there are any
Gods: He denies the immortality of the soul, and says, there can be
nothing after death.

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

And because the priests have the impudence to quote Cicero in their
pulpits and pamphlets, against freethinking; I am resolved to disarm
them of his authority. You must know, his philosophical works are
generally in dialogues, where people are brought in disputing against
one another: Now the priests when they see an argument to prove a God,
offered perhaps by a Stoic, are such knaves or blockheads, to quote it
as if it were Cicero's own; whereas Cicero was so noble a freethinker,
that he believed nothing at all of the matter, nor ever shews the least
inclination to favour superstition, or the belief of a God, and the
immortality of the soul; unless what he throws out sometimes to save
himself from danger, in his speeches to the Roman mob; whose religion
was, however, much more innocent and less absurd, than that of popery at
least: And I could say more--but you understand me.

Seneca was a great freethinker, and had a noble notion of the worship of
the gods, for which our priests would call any man an atheist: He laughs
at morning devotions, or worshipping upon Sabbath-days; he says God has
no need of ministers and servants, because he himself serves mankind.
This religious man, like his religious brethren the Stoics, denies the
immortality of the soul, and says, all that is feigned to be so terrible
in hell, is but a fable: Death puts an end to all our misery, &c. Yet
the priests were anciently so fond of Seneca, that they forged a
correspondence of letters between him and St. Paul.

Solomon himself, whose writings are called "the word of God," was such a
freethinker, that if he were now alive, nothing but his building of
churches could have kept our priests from calling him an atheist. He
affirms the eternity of the world almost in the same manner with
Manilius,[28] the heathen philosophical poet, (which opinion entirely
overthrows the history of the creation by Moses, and all the New
Testament): He denies the immortality of the soul, assures us that men
die like beasts, and that both go to one place.

[Footnote 28: Marcus Manilius, who probably flourished under Theodosius
the Great, was a Latin poet, who wrote a poem entitled "Astronomica."
[T.S.] ]

The prophets of the Old Testament were generally freethinkers: you must
understand, that their way of learning to prophesy was by music and
drinking.[29] These prophets writ against the established religion of
the Jews, (which those people looked upon as the institution of God
himself,) as if they believed it was all a cheat: that is to say, with
as great liberty against the priests and prophets of Israel, as Dr.
Tindal did lately against the priests and prophets of our Israel, who
has clearly shewn them and their religion to be cheats. To prove this,
you may read several passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Jeremiah, &c.,
wherein you will find such instances of freethinking, that, if any
Englishman had talked so in our days, their opinions would have been
registered in Dr. Sacheverell's trial, and in the representation of the
Lower House of Convocation, and produced as so many proofs of the
profaneness, blasphemy, and atheism of the nation; there being nothing
more profane, blasphemous, or atheistical in those representations, than
what these prophets have spoke, whose writings are yet called by our
priests, "the word of God." And therefore these prophets are as much
atheists as myself, or as any of my freethinking brethren whom I lately
named to you.

[Footnote 29: Collins, after making the charge, which has been repeated
by all freethinkers down to Thomas Paine, that the prophets acquired
their fervour of spirit by the aid of music and wine, allows,
nevertheless, that they were great freethinkers, and "writ with as great
liberty against the established religion of the Jews, which the people
looked on as the institution of God himself as if they looked upon it
all to be imposture."--_Discourse_, p. 153, _et sequen._ [S.] ]

Josephus was a great freethinker: I wish he had chosen a better subject
to write on, than those ignorant, barbarous, ridiculous scoundrels, the
Jews, whom God (if we may believe the priests) thought fit to choose for
his own people. I will give you some instances of his freethinking. He
says, Cain travelled through several countries, and kept company with
rakes and profligate fellows; he corrupted the simplicities of former
times, &c., which plainly supposes men before Adam, and consequently
that the priests' history of the creation by Moses, is an imposture. He
says, the Israelites' passing through the Red Sea, was no more than
Alexander's passing at the Pamphilian sea; that as for the appearance of
God at Mount Sinai, the reader may believe it as he pleases; that Moses
persuaded the Jews he had God for his guide, just as the Greeks
pretended they had their laws from Apollo. These are noble strains of
freethinking, which the priests knew not how to solve, but by thinking
as freely: For one of them says, that Josephus writ this to make his
work acceptable to the heathens, by striking out everything that was
incredible.