BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY

THE PROSE WORKS OF JONATHAN SWIFT

VOL. III


[Illustration: _Jonathan Swift,

from a picture by Frances Bindon

In the possession of Sir F R Falkiner_]


THE PROSE WORKS

OF

JONATHAN SWIFT, D.D.

EDITED BY

TEMPLE SCOTT

WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION BY

THE RT. HON. W. E. H. LECKY, M.P.

VOL III

1898


SWIFT'S

WRITINGS ON RELIGION AND THE CHURCH

VOL. I

EDITED BY

TEMPLE SCOTT

1898




PREFACE.


The inquiry into the religious thought of the eighteenth century forms
one of the most interesting subjects for speculation in the history of
the intellectual development of western nations. It is true, that in
that history Swift takes no special or distinguished part; but he forms
a figure of peculiar interest in a special circle of his own. Swift had
no natural bent for the ministry of a church; his instincts, his
temperament, his intellect, were of that order which fitted him for
leadership and administration. He was a born magistrate and commander of
men. It is, therefore, one of the finest compliments we can pay Swift to
say, that no more faithful, no more devoted, no stauncher servant has
that Church possessed; for we must remember the proud and haughty temper
which attempted to content itself with the humdrum duties of a parish
life. Swift entered the service of that Church at a time when its need
for such a man was great; and in spite of its disdain of his worth, in
spite of its failure to recognize and acknowledge his transcendent
qualities, he never forgot his oath, and never shook in his allegiance.
To any one, however, who reads carefully his sermons, his "Thoughts on
Religion," and his "Letter to a Young Clergyman," there comes a
question--whether, for his innermost conscience, Swift found a
satisfying conviction in the doctrines of Christianity. "I am not
answerable to God," he says, "for the doubts that arise in my own
breast, since they are the consequence of that reason which he hath
planted in me, if I take care to conceal those doubts from others, if I
use my best endeavours to subdue them, and if they have no influence on
the conduct of my life." We search in vain, in any of his writings, for
any definite expression of doubt or want of faith in these doctrines.
When he touches on them, as he does in the sermon "On the Trinity," he
seems to avoid of set purpose, rational inquiry, and contents himself
with insisting on the necessity for a belief in those mysteries
concerning God about which we cannot hope to know anything. "I do not
find," he says, in his "Letter to a Young Clergyman," "that you are
anywhere directed in the canons or articles to attempt explaining the
mysteries of the Christian religion; and, indeed, since Providence
intended there should be mysteries, I don't see how it can be agreeable
to piety, orthodoxy, or good sense to go about such a work. For to me
there seems a manifest dilemma in the case; if you explain them, they
are mysteries no longer; if you fail, you have laboured to no purpose."

It must at once be admitted that Swift had not the metaphysical bent;
philosophy--in our modern sense of the word--was to him only a species
of word spinning. That only was valuable which had a practical bearing
on life--and Christianity had that. He found in Christianity, as he knew
it--in the Church of England, that is to say--an excellent organization,
which recognized the frailties of human nature, aimed at making
healthier men's souls, and gave mankind a reasonable guidance in the
selection of the best motives to action. He himself, as a preacher, made
it his principal business, "first to tell the people what is their duty,
and then to convince them that it is so." He had a profound faith in
existing institutions, which to him were founded on the fundamental
traits of humanity. The Church of England he considered to be such an
institution; and it was, moreover, regulated and settled by order of the
State. To follow its teachings would lead men to become good citizens,
honest dealers, truthful and cleanly companions, upright friends. What
more could be demanded of any religion?

The Romish Church led away from the Constitution as by law established.
Dissent set up private authority, which could no more be permitted in
religious than it was in political matters; it meant dissension,
revolution, and the upheaval of tried and trusted associations.
Therefore, the Church of Rome and the teachings of Dissent were alike
dangerous; and against both, whenever they attempted the possession of
political power, he waged a fierce and uncompromising war. "Where sects
are tolerated in a State," he says, in his "Sentiments of a Church of
England Man," "it is fit they should enjoy a full liberty of conscience,
and every other privilege of free-born subjects, to which no power is
annexed. And to preserve their obedience upon all emergencies, a
government cannot give them too much ease, nor trust them with too
little power."

Swift had no passionate love for ideals--indeed, he may have thought
ideals to be figments of an overheated and, therefore, aberrated
imagination. The practically real was the best ideal; and by the real he
would understand that power which most capably and most regulatively
nursed, guided, and assisted the best instincts of the average man. The
average man was but a sorry creature, and required adventitious aids for
his development. Gifted as he was with a large sympathy, Swift yet was
seemingly incapable of appreciating those thought-forms which help us to
visualize mentally our religious aspirations and emotions. A mere
emotion was but subject-matter for his satire. He suspected any zeal
which protested too much for truth, and considered it "odds on" it being
"either petulancy, ambition, or pride."

Whatever may have been his private speculations as to the truth of the
doctrines of Christianity they never interfered with his sense of his
responsibilities as a clergyman. "I look upon myself," he says, "in the
capacity of a clergyman, to be one appointed by Providence for defending
a post assigned me, and for gaining over as many enemies as I can.
Although I think my cause is just, yet one great motive is my submitting
to the pleasure of Providence, and to the laws of my country." If anyone
had asked him, what was the pleasure of Providence, he would probably
have answered, that it was plainly shown in the Scriptures, and required
not the aid of the expositions of divines who were "too curious, or too
narrow, in reducing orthodoxy within the compass of subtleties,
niceties, and distinctions." Truth was no abstraction--that was truth
which found its expression in the best action; and this explains Swift's
acceptance of any organization which made for such expression. He found
one ready in the Church of England; and whatever his doubts were, those
only moved him which were aroused by action from those who attempted to
interfere with the working of that organization. And this also helps to
explain his political attitude at the time when it was thought he had
deserted his friends. The Church was always his first consideration. He
was not a Churchman because he was a politician, but a politician
because he was a Churchman. These, however, are matters which are more
fully entered into by Swift himself in the tracts herewith reprinted,
and in the notes prefixed to them by the editor.

It was originally intended that Swift's writings on Religion and the
Church should occupy a single volume of this edition of his works. They
are, however, so numerous that it has been found more convenient to
divide them into two volumes--the first including all the tracts, except
those relating to the Sacramental Test; the second containing the Test
pamphlets and the twelve sermons, with the Remarks on Dr. Gibbs's
paraphrase of the Psalms, in an appendix. It is hoped that this
division, while it entails upon the student the necessity for a double
reference, will yet preserve the continuity of form enabling him to view
Swift's religious standpoint and work with as much advantage as he would
have obtained by the original plan.

The editor again takes the opportunity to thank Colonel F. Grant for the
service he has rendered him in placing at his disposal his fine
collection of Swift's tracts. The portrait which forms the frontispiece
to this volume is one of those painted by Francis Bindon, and was
formerly in the possession of Judge Berwick. For permission to
photograph and reproduce it here, thanks are due to Sir Frederick R.
Falkiner, Recorder of Dublin.

TEMPLE SCOTT.




CONTENTS:

ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY

PROJECT FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF RELIGION

SENTIMENTS OF A CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN

REMARKS UPON "THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH"

PREFACE TO THE BISHOP OF SARUM'S "INTRODUCTION"

ABSTRACT OF COLLINS'S "DISCOURSE OF FREETHINKING"

SOME THOUGHTS ON FREETHINKING

LETTER TO A YOUNG CLERGYMAN

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ENLARGING THE POWER OF BISHOPS IN LETTING LEASES

REASONS OFFERED TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN

ON THE BILL FOR THE CLERGY'S RESIDING ON THEIR LIVINGS

CONSIDERATIONS UPON TWO BILLS RELATING TO THE CLERGY OF IRELAND

REASONS AGAINST THE MODUS

ESSAY ON THE FATES OF CLERGYMEN

CONCERNING THAT UNIVERSAL HATRED WHICH PREVAILS AGAINST THE CLERGY

THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

FURTHER THOUGHTS ON RELIGION

PRAYERS FOR MRS. JOHNSON

AN EVENING PRAYER

OBSERVATIONS ON HEYLIN'S "HISTORY OF PRESBYTERIANS"

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




AN ARGUMENT

TO PROVE THAT THE

ABOLISHING OF CHRISTIANITY IN ENGLAND

MAY, AS THINGS NOW STAND, BE ATTENDED WITH SOME INCONVENIENCES, AND
PERHAPS NOT PRODUCE THOSE MANY GOOD EFFECTS PROPOSED THEREBY.

WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1708.


NOTE.

In November, 1707, Swift left Dublin in the train of the then Lord
Lieutenant, Lord Pembroke. His travelling companion was Sir Andrew
Fountaine, who, on landing in England, set out with Lord Pembroke for
Wilton, while Swift went on to Leicester to visit his mother. He stayed
with her until some time in December, but, by the middle of the same
month, he was in London. During this absence from Ireland Swift
corresponded somewhat freely with Archbishop King of Dublin, and with
Archdeacon Walls--the letters to the former were first printed in
Forster's "Life of Swift." For these Forster was indebted to the Rev.
Mr. Reeves (vicar of Lusk, co. Dublin), who discovered them in the
record-room of the see of Armagh (see "Life," p. 205 et seq. and note).
One of Swift's intentions, while in the metropolis, was to push forward
the claim of the Irish clergy for the remission of the First Fruits and
Tenths, a grant which had already been conceded to the English clergy;
and his letters to King often include requests for the necessary papers
by means of which he could lay the matter before either Godolphin or
Somers. Walls had written to Swift of the vacancy of the see of
Waterford, and, from the reply to the archdeacon, we learn that even at
so early a date Swift suffered a grievous disappointment; for in
January, 1708, the bishopric, of which Swift had hopes, was presented to
Dr. Thomas Milles. In his letter to Walls Swift confesses that he "once
had a glimpse that things would have gone otherwise.... But let us
talk no further on this subject. I am stomach-sick of it already. ...
Pray send me an account of some smaller vacancy in the Government's
gift." It was to Somers, and through him to Lord Halifax, that Swift
looked for recognition, either for services rendered, or because of
their appreciation of his abilities. But, however much he may have been
disappointed at their inaction, it may not be argued, as it has been,
that Swift's so-called change in his political opinions was the outcome
either of spleen or chagrin against the Whigs for their ingratitude
towards him. It is, indeed, questionable whether Swift ever changed his
political opinions, speaking of these as party opinions. From the day of
his entrance, it may be said, into the orders of the Church, his first
thought was for it; and on all political questions which touched Church
matters Swift was neither Whig nor Tory, but churchman. It was because
of the attitude of the Whigs towards the Church that Swift left them;
and in his writings he does not spare the Tories even when he finds them
taking up similar attitudes. On purely political questions Swift was too
independent a thinker to be influenced by mere party views. That he
wrote for the Tories must be put down to Harley's personal influence,
and to his foresight which saw in Swift a man who must be treated as an
equal with the highest in the land. Swift's intercourse with the leading
men of his day only served to accentuate his consciousness of his
superiority; and a party which would permit him the free play of his
powers would be the party to which Swift would give his adhesion.
Godolphin, Somers, and Walpole either did not recognize the genius of
the man, or their own "points of view" did not permit them to give him
the free play they felt he would obtain. Be that as it may, Harley
gained not only a splendid party fighter, but a friend on whose
affection he could ever rely.

In these tracts on Religion and the Church, which he wrote in the year
1708, Swift is not a party man, speaking for party purposes. He
believed, and sincerely believed, that for such beings as were the men
and women of this kingdom, the Church was, if not the highest and
noblest instrument for good, yet the worthiest and ablest they had.
Swift never lost himself in theories. He was, however, not blind to the
dangers which an established religion might engender; but whatever its
dangers, these would be inevitable to the most perfect system so long as
human nature was as base as it was. The "Argument" is written in a vein
of satirical banter; but the Swiftian cynicism permeates every line. It
is the first of four tracts which form Swift's most important expression
of his thoughts on Religion and the Church. Scott well describes it as
"one of the most felicitous efforts in our language, to engage wit and
humour on the side of religion," and Forster speaks of it as "having
also that indefinable subtlety of style which conveys not the writer's
knowledge of the subject only, but his power and superiority over it."

I have not been able to find a copy of the original edition of the
"Argument" upon which to base the present text--for that I have gone to
the first edition of the "Miscellanies," published in 1711; but I have
collated this with those given by the "Miscellanies" (1728), Faulkner,
Hawkesworth, Scott, Morley, and Craik.

[T. S.]


AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLISHING CHRISTIANITY.


I am very sensible what a weakness and presumption it is, to reason
against the general humour and disposition of the world. I remember it
was with great justice, and a due regard to the freedom both of the
public and the press, forbidden upon several penalties to write,[1] or
discourse, or lay wagers against the Union, even before it was confirmed
by parliament, because that was looked upon as a design, to oppose the
current of the people, which, besides the folly of it, is a manifest
breach of the fundamental law that makes this majority of opinion the
voice of God. In like manner, and for the very same reasons, it may
perhaps be neither safe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of
Christianity, at a juncture when all parties appear[2] so unanimously
determined upon the point, as we cannot but allow from their actions,
their discourses, and their writings. However, I know not how, whether
from the affectation of singularity, or the perverseness of human
nature, but so it unhappily falls out, that I cannot be entirely of this
opinion. Nay, though I were sure an order were issued for my immediate
prosecution by the Attorney-General, I should still confess that in the
present posture of our affairs at home or abroad, I do not yet see the
absolute necessity of extirpating the Christian religion from among us.

[Footnote 1: This refers to the Jacobitism of the time, particularly
among those who were opposed to the Union. A reference to Lord Mahon's
"Reign of Queen Anne" will show how strong was the opposition in
Scotland, and how severe were the measures taken to put down that
opposition. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 2: Craik and Hawkesworth print the word "seem," but the
"Miscellanies," Faulkner, and Scott give it as in the text. [T.S.]]

This perhaps may appear too great a paradox even for our wise and
paradoxical age to endure; therefore I shall handle it with all
tenderness, and with the utmost deference to that great and profound
majority which is of another sentiment.

And yet the curious may please to observe, how much the genius of a
nation is liable to alter in half an age. I have heard it affirmed for
certain by some very old people, that the contrary opinion was even in
their memories as much in vogue as the other is now; and, that a project
for the abolishing of Christianity would then have appeared as singular,
and been thought as absurd, as it would be at this time to write or
discourse in its defence.

Therefore I freely own that all appearances are against me. The system
of the Gospel, after the fate of other systems is generally antiquated
and exploded, and the mass or body of the common people, among whom it
seems to have had its latest credit, are now grown as much ashamed of it
as their betters; opinions, like fashions, always descending from those
of quality to the middle sort, and thence to the vulgar, where at length
they are dropped and vanish.

But here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be so bold as to
borrow a distinction from the writers on the other side, when they make
a difference between nominal and real Trinitarians. I hope no reader
imagines me so weak to stand up in the defence of real Christianity,
such as used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those
ages) to have an influence upon men's belief and actions: To offer at
the restoring of that would indeed be a wild project; it would be to dig
up foundations; to destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the
learning of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of
things; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences with the professors
of them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into
deserts; and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace,[3] where
he advises the Romans all in a body to leave their city, and seek a new
seat in some remote part of the world, by way of cure for the corruption
of their manners.

[Footnote 3: This proposal is embodied in the 16th Epode, where, in an
appeal "to the Roman people," Horace advises them to fly the evils of
tyranny and civil war by sailing away to "the happy land, those islands
of the blest:"

  "Nos manet Oceanus circumvagus! arva, beata
  Petamus arva, divites et insulas!"
[T.S.]]

Therefore I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary,
(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of cavilling)
since every candid reader will easily understand my discourse to be
intended only in defence of nominal Christianity; the other having been
for some time wholly laid aside by general consent, as utterly
inconsistent with our present schemes of wealth and power.

But why we should therefore cast off the name and title of Christians,
although the general opinion and resolution be so violent for it, I
confess I cannot (with submission) apprehend the consequence
necessary.[4] However, since the undertakers propose such wonderful
advantages to the nation by this project, and advance many plausible
objections against the system of Christianity, I shall briefly consider
the strength of both, fairly allow them their greatest weight, and offer
such answers as I think most reasonable. After which I will beg leave to
shew what inconveniences may possibly happen by such an innovation, in
the present posture of our affairs.

[Footnote 4: I give the reading of the "Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner
and Hawkesworth. Scott and Craik print it: "I confess I cannot (with
submission) apprehend, nor is the consequence necessary." [T.S.]]

_First,_ One great advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity
is, that it would very much enlarge and establish liberty of conscience,
that great bulwark of our nation, and of the Protestant Religion, which
is still too much limited by priestcraft, notwithstanding all the good
intentions of the legislature, as we have lately found by a severe
instance. For it is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of
real hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who upon a thorough
examination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of natural
abilities, without the least tincture of learning, having made a
discovery, that there was no God, and generously communicating their
thoughts for the good of the public, were some time ago, by an
unparalleled severity, and upon I know not what obsolete law, broke for
blasphemy.[5] And as it hath been wisely observed, if persecution once
begins, no man alive knows how far it may reach, or where it will end.

[Footnote 5: No record of this "breaking" has been discovered. [T.S.]]

In answer to all which, with deference to wiser judgments, I think this
rather shews the necessity of a nominal religion among us. Great wits
love to be free with the highest objects; and if they cannot be allowed
a God to revile or renounce, they will speak evil of dignities, abuse
the government, and reflect upon the ministry; which I am sure few will
deny to be of much more pernicious consequence, according to the saying
of Tiberius, _Deorum offensa diis curae._[6] As to the particular fact
related, I think it is not fair to argue from one instance, perhaps
another cannot be produced; yet (to the comfort of all those who may be
apprehensive of persecution) blasphemy we know is freely spoken a
million of times in every coffeehouse and tavern, or wherever else good
company meet. It must be allowed indeed, that to break an English
free-born officer only for blasphemy, was, to speak the gentlest of such
an action, a very high strain of absolute power. Little can be said in
excuse for the general; perhaps he was afraid it might give offence to
the allies, among whom, for aught we know, it may be the custom of the
country to believe a God. But if he argued, as some have done, upon a
mistaken principle, that an officer who is guilty of speaking blasphemy,
may some time or other proceed so far as to raise a mutiny, the
consequence is by no means to be admitted; for, surely the commander of
an English army is likely to be but ill obeyed, whose soldiers fear and
reverence him as little as they do a Deity.

[Footnote 6: Tacitus, "Annals," bk. i., c. lxxiii. [T.S.]]

It is further objected against the Gospel System, that it obliges men to
the belief of things too difficult for free-thinkers, and such who have
shaken off the prejudices that usually cling to a confined education. To
which I answer, that men should be cautious how they raise objections
which reflect upon the wisdom of the nation. Is not every body freely
allowed to believe whatever he pleases, and to publish his belief to the
world whenever he thinks fit, especially if it serves to strengthen the
party which is in the right? Would any indifferent foreigner, who should
read the trumpery lately written by Asgil, Tindal, Toland, Coward,[7]
and forty more, imagine the Gospel to be our rule of faith, and
confirmed by parliaments? Does any man either believe, or say he
believes, or desire to have it thought that he says he believes one
syllable of the matter? And is any man worse received upon that score,
or does he find his want of nominal faith a disadvantage to him in the
pursuit of any civil or military employment? What if there be an old
dormant statute or two against him, are they not now obsolete, to a
degree, that Empsom and Dudley[8] themselves if they were now alive,
would find it impossible to put them in execution?

[Footnote 7: John Asgill (1659-1738), became a member of Lincoln's Inn,
and went over to Ireland in 1697, where he practised as a barrister,
amassed a large fortune, and was elected to the Irish parliament. For
writing "An Argument, proving that Man may be translated from hence
without passing through Death," he was, in 1700, expelled the House, and
the book ordered to be burnt. On returning to England he was elected to
parliament for Bramber, but suffered a second expulsion in 1712, also on
account of this book. He was imprisoned for debt, and remained under the
rules of the Fleet and King's Bench for thirty years, during which time
he wrote and published various political tracts. His "Argument"
attempted to "interpret the relations between God and man by the
technical rules of English law," and Coleridge thought no little of its
power and style.

Matthew Tindal (1657-1733) was born at Beer Ferrers, in Devonshire. He
studied at Oxford, and obtained a fellowship in All Souls. He was made
LL.D. in 1685, and, although he professed himself a Roman Catholic in
James II.'s reign, he managed to keep his fellowship after that
monarch's flight by becoming Protestant again. His most important work
was "The Rights of the Christian Church Asserted," which the House of
Commons in 1710 adjudged fit for burning by the hangman. In 1730 he
published anonymously, the first part of "Christianity as Old as
Creation," a work which attacked strongly the authority of the
Scriptures; a second volume was never published.

John Toland (1669-1722), born near Londonderry, and educated in a
Catholic school. He professed himself a Protestant, and was sent to
Glasgow and Edinburgh. In the latter university he graduated in his
master's degree. While studying at Leyden he became a sceptic, and in
1695 published his "Christianity not Mysterious," a work which aroused a
wide controversy. In his "Life of Milton" (1698) he denied that King
Charles was the author of "Eikon Basilikae," and also attacked the
Gospels. This also brought upon him rejoinders from Dr. Blackall and Dr.
Samuel Clarke. He died at Putney, in easy circumstances, due to the
presents made him while visiting German courts. He wrote other works,
chief among which may be mentioned, "Socinianism truly Stated" (1705),
"Nazarenas" (1718), and "Tetradymus." His "Posthumous Works" were issued
in two volumes in 1726, with a life by Des Maizeaux. Craik calls him "a
man of utterly worthless character," and refers to his being "mixed up
in some discreditable episodes as a political spy."

William Coward (1656?--1724?) was born at Winchester. He studied
medicine and became a fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. His "Second
Thoughts concerning Human Souls," published in 1702, occasioned fierce
disputes, on account of its materialism. The House of Commons ordered
the work to be burnt by the hangman.

Asgill, Toland, Tindal, Collins, and Coward are classed as the Deistical
writers of the eighteenth century. In his "History of English Thought in
the Eighteenth Century" Mr. Leslie Stephen gives an admirable exposition
of their views, and their special interpretation of Locke's theories.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 8: Of Henry VII. notoriety, who aided the king, by illegal
exactions, to amass his large fortune. They were executed by Henry VIII.
[T.S.]]

It is likewise urged, that there are, by computation, in this kingdom,
above ten thousand parsons, whose revenues added to those of my lords
the bishops, would suffice to maintain at least two hundred young
gentlemen of wit and pleasure, and freethinking, enemies to priestcraft,
narrow principles, pedantry, and prejudices; who might be an ornament to
the Court and Town: And then, again, so great a number of able [bodied]
divines might be a recruit to our fleet and armies. This indeed appears
to be a consideration of some weight: But then, on the other side,
several things deserve to be considered likewise: As, first, whether it
may not be thought necessary that in certain tracts of country, like
what we call parishes, there shall be one man at least of abilities to
read and write. Then it seems a wrong computation, that the revenues of
the Church throughout this island would be large enough to maintain two
hundred young gentlemen, or even half that number, after the present
refined way of living; that is, to allow each of them such a rent, as in
the modern form of speech, would make them easy. But still there is in
this project a greater mischief behind; and we ought to beware of the
woman's folly, who killed the hen that every morning laid her a golden
egg. For, pray what would become of the race of men in the next age, if
we had nothing to trust to beside the scrofulous, consumptive
productions, furnished by our men of wit and pleasure, when, having
squandered away their vigour, health and estates, they are forced by
some disagreeable marriage to piece up their broken fortunes, and entail
rottenness and politeness on their posterity? Now, here are ten thousand
persons reduced by the wise regulations of Henry the Eighth,[9] to the
necessity of a low diet, and moderate exercise, who are the only great
restorers of our breed, without which the nation would in an age or two
become one great hospital.

[Footnote 9: His seizures of the revenues of the Church. [T.S.]]

Another advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity, is the
clear gain of one day in seven, which is now entirely lost, and
consequently the kingdom one seventh less considerable in trade,
business, and pleasure, besides the loss to the public of so many
stately structures now in the hands of the Clergy, which might be
converted into playhouses, exchanges, market houses, common dormitories,
and other public edifices.

I hope I shall be forgiven a hard word, if I call this a perfect
_cavil._ I readily own there has been an old custom time out of mind,
for people to assemble in the churches every Sunday, and that shops are
still frequently shut, in order as it is conceived, to preserve the
memory of that ancient practice, but how this can prove a hindrance to
business or pleasure, is hard to imagine. What if the men of pleasure
are forced one day in the week, to game at home instead of the chocolate
houses?[10] Are not the taverns and coffeehouses open? Can there be a
more convenient season for taking a dose of physic? Are fewer claps got
upon Sundays than other days? Is not that the chief day for traders to
sum up the accounts of the week, and for lawyers to prepare their
briefs? But I would fain know how it can be pretended that the churches
are misapplied? Where are more appointments and rendezvouzes of
gallantry? Where more care to appear in the foremost box with greater
advantage of dress? Where more meetings for business? Where more
bargains driven of all sorts? And where so many conveniences or
enticements to sleep?

[Footnote 10: The chocolate houses seem to have been largely used for
gambling purposes. They were not so numerous as the coffee houses.
[T.S.]]

There is one advantage greater than any of the foregoing, proposed by
the abolishing of Christianity: that it will utterly extinguish parties
among us, by removing those factious distinctions of High and Low
Church, of Whig and Tory, Presbyterian and Church of England, which are
now so many mutual clogs upon public proceedings, and are apt to prefer
the gratifying themselves, or depressing their adversaries, before the
most important interest of the state.

I confess, if it were certain that so great an advantage would redound
to the nation by this expedient, I would submit and be silent: But will
any man say, that if the words _whoring, drinking, cheating, lying,
stealing_, were by act of parliament ejected out of the English tongue
and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning chaste and temperate,
honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence? Or, if
the physicians would forbid us to pronounce the words _pox, gout,
rheumatism_ and _stone_, would that expedient serve like so many
talismans to destroy the diseases themselves? Are party and faction
rooted in men's hearts no deeper than phrases borrowed from religion, or
founded upon no firmer principles? And is our language so poor that we
cannot find other terms to express them? Are _envy, pride, avarice_ and
_ambition_ such ill nomenclators, that they cannot furnish appellations
for their owners? Will not _heydukes_ and _mamalukes, mandarins_ and
_patshaws_, or any other words formed at pleasure, serve to distinguish
those who are in the ministry from others who would be in it if they
could? What, for instance, is easier than to vary the form of speech,
and instead of the word church, make it a question in politics, whether
the Monument be in danger? Because religion was nearest at hand to
furnish a few convenient phrases, is our invention so barren, we can
find no other? Suppose, for argument sake, that the Tories favoured
Margarita, the Whigs Mrs. Tofts,[11] and the Trimmers[12] Valentini,[13]
would not _Margaritians, Toftians,_ and _Valentinians_ be very tolerable
marks of distinction? The _Prasini_ and _Veniti,_[14] two most virulent
factions in Italy, began (if I remember right) by a distinction of
colours in ribbons, which we might do with as good a grace[15] about the
dignity of the blue and the green, and would serve as properly to divide
the Court, the Parliament, and the Kingdom between them, as any terms of
art whatsoever, borrowed from religion. And therefore I think, there is
little force in this objection against Christianity, or prospect of so
great an advantage as is proposed in the abolishing of it.

[Footnote 11: Margarita was a famous Italian singer of the day. Her name
was Francesca Margherita de l'Epine, and she was known as "the Italian
woman." In his "Journal to Stella" for August 6th, 1711, Swift writes:
"We have a music meeting in our town [Windsor] to-night. I went to the
rehearsal of it, and there was Margarita and her sister, and another
drab, and a parcel of fiddlers; I was weary, and would not go to the
meeting, which I am sorry for, because I heard it was a great assembly."
(See present edition, vol. ii. p. 219).

Mrs. Catherine Tofts was an Englishwoman, who also sang in Italian
opera. She had a fine figure and a beautiful voice. Steele in the
"Tatler," No. 20, refers to her when in her state of insanity. Her mind,
evidently, could not stand the strain of her great popularity, and she
became mad in 1709. In the "Tatler" she is called Camilla; and Cibber
also speaks of the "silver tone of her voice." [T.S.]]

[Footnote 12: By the Trimmers Swift referred to the nickname given to
the party in the time of Charles II., which consisted of those who
wished to compromise between the advocates of the Crown and the
supporters of the Protestant succession as against the Duke of York.
[T.S.]]

[Footnote 13: Another Italian singer of the time, who was the rival of
Margarita and Mrs. Tofts. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 14: This refers to the Roman chariot races. They gave rise to
the factions called _Albati, Russati, Prasini,_ and _Veniti._ The
Prasini (green) and Veniti (blue) were the principal, and their rivalry
landed the empire, under Justinian, in a civil war. [T.S.]]

[Footnote 15: Scott has "and we might contend with as good a grace," &c.
Craik follows Scott. The reading in the text is that of the
"Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner, and Hawkesworth. [T.S.]]

'Tis again objected, as a very absurd ridiculous custom, that a set of
men should be suffered, much less employed and hired, to bawl one day in
seven against the lawfulness of those methods most in use toward the
pursuit of greatness, riches and pleasure, which are the constant
practice of all men alive on the other six. But this objection is, I
think, a little unworthy so refined an age as ours. Let us argue this
matter calmly: I appeal to the breast of any polite freethinker, whether
in the pursuit of gratifying a predominant passion, he hath not always
felt a wonderful incitement, by reflecting it was a thing forbidden; and
therefore we see, in order to cultivate this taste, the wisdom of the
nation hath taken special care, that the ladies should be furnished with
prohibited silks, and the men with prohibited wine. And indeed it were
to be wished, that some other prohibitions were promoted, in order to
improve the pleasures of the town; which, for want of such expedients
begin already, as I am told, to flag and grow languid, giving way daily
to cruel inroads from the spleen.

'Tis likewise proposed as a great advantage to the public, that if we
once discard the system of the Gospel, all religion will of course be
banished for ever; and consequently, along with it, those grievous
prejudices of education, which under the names of _virtue, conscience,
honour, justice,_ and the like, are so apt to disturb the peace of human
minds, and the notions whereof are so hard to be eradicated by right
reason or freethinking, sometimes during the whole course of our lives.

Here first, I observe how difficult it is to get rid of a phrase, which
the world is once grown fond of, though the occasion that first produced
it, be entirely taken away. For several years past, if a man had but an
ill-favoured nose, the deep-thinkers of the age would some way or other
contrive to impute the cause to the prejudice of his education. From
this fountain were said to be derived all our foolish notions of
justice, piety, love of our country, all our opinions of God, or a
future state, Heaven, Hell, and the like: And there might formerly
perhaps have been some pretence for this charge. But so effectual care
has been taken to remove those prejudices, by an entire change in the
methods of education, that (with honour I mention it to our polite
innovators) the young gentlemen who are now on the scene, seem to have
not the least tincture of those infusions, or string of those weeds;
and, by consequence, the reason for abolishing nominal Christianity upon
that pretext, is wholly ceased.

For the rest, it may perhaps admit a controversy, whether the banishing
of all notions of religion whatsoever, would be convenient for the
vulgar. Not that I am in the least of opinion with those who hold
religion to have been the invention of politicians, to keep the lower
part of the world in awe by the fear of invisible powers; unless mankind
were then very different to what it is now: For I look upon the mass or
body of our people here in England, to be as freethinkers, that is to
say, as staunch unbelievers, as any of the highest rank. But I conceive
some scattered notions about a superior power to be of singular use for
the common people, as furnishing excellent materials to keep children
quiet when they grow peevish, and providing topics of amusement in a
tedious winter-night.

Lastly, 'tis proposed as a singular advantage, that the abolishing of
Christianity will very much contribute to the uniting of Protestants, by
enlarging the terms of communion so as to take in all sorts of
dissenters, who are now shut out of the pale upon account of a few
ceremonies which all sides confess to be things indifferent: That this
alone will effectually answer the great ends of a scheme for
comprehension, by opening a large noble gate, at which all bodies may
enter; whereas the chaffering with dissenters, and dodging about this or
t'other ceremony, is but like opening a few wickets, and leaving them at
jar, by which no more than one can get in at a time, and that, not
without stooping, and sideling, and squeezing his body.[16]

[Footnote 16: "In this passage," says Scott, "the author's High Church
principles, and jealousy of the Dissenters, plainly shew themselves; and
it is, perhaps, in special reference to what is here said, that he ranks
it among the pamphlets he wrote in opposition to the party then in
power." [T. S.]]

To all this I answer: that there is one darling inclination of mankind,
which usually affects to be a retainer to religion, though she be
neither its parent, its godmother, or its friend; I mean the spirit of
opposition, that lived long before Christianity, and can easily subsist
without it. Let us, for instance, examine wherein the opposition of
sectaries among us consists, we shall find Christianity to have no share
in it at all Does the Gospel any where prescribe a starched, squeezed
countenance, a stiff, formal gait, a singularity of manners and habit,
or any affected modes of speech different from the reasonable part of
mankind? Yet, if Christianity did not lend its name to stand in the gap,
and to employ or divert these humours, they must of necessity be spent
in contraventions to the laws of the land, and disturbance of the public
peace. There is a portion of enthusiasm assigned to every nation, which,
if it hath not proper objects to work on, will burst out, and set all
into a flame. If the quiet of a state can be bought by only flinging men
a few ceremonies to devour, it is a purchase no wise man would refuse
Let the mastiffs amuse themselves about a sheep's skin stuffed with hay,
provided it will keep them from worrying the flock The institution of
convents abroad, seems in one point a strain of great wisdom, there
being few irregularities in human passions, which may not have recourse
to vent themselves in some of those orders, which are so many retreats
for the speculative, the melancholy, the proud, the silent, the politic
and the morose, to spend themselves, and evaporate the noxious
particles, for each of whom we in this island are forced to provide a
several sect of religion, to keep them quiet And whenever Christianity
shall be abolished, the legislature must find some other expedient to
employ and entertain them For what imports it how large a gate you open,
if there will be always left a number who place a pride and a merit in
not coming in?[17]

[Footnote 17: So the "Miscellanies" (1711) and Hawkesworth Faulkner,
Scott, and Craik print, "in refusing to enter." [T. S.]]

Having thus considered the most important objections against
Christianity, and the chief advantages proposed by the abolishing
thereof, I shall now with equal deference and submission to wiser
judgments as before, proceed to mention a few inconveniences that may
happen, if the Gospel should be repealed, which perhaps the projectors
may not have sufficiently considered.

And first, I am very sensible how much the gentlemen of wit and pleasure
are apt to murmur, and be choqued[18] at the sight of so many draggled
tail parsons, that happen to fall in their way, and offend their eyes,
but at the same time, these wise reformers do not consider what an
advantage and felicity it is, for great wits to be always provided with
objects of scorn and contempt, in order to exercise and improve their
talents, and divert their spleen from falling on each other or on
themselves, especially when all this may be done without the least
imaginable danger to their persons.

[Footnote 18: Shocked Swift's habit when using a word of French origin
was to keep the French spelling. [T. S.]]

And to urge another argument of a parallel nature. If Christianity were
once abolished, how could the freethinkers, the strong reasoners, and
the men of profound learning, be able to find another subject so
calculated in all points whereon to display their abilities? What
wonderful productions of wit should we be deprived of, from those whose
genius by continual practice hath been wholly turned upon raillery and
invectives against religion, and would therefore never be able to shine
or distinguish themselves upon any other subject! We are daily
complaining of the great decline of wit among us, and would we take away
the greatest, perhaps the only topic we have left? Who would ever have
suspected Asgil for a wit, or Toland for a philosopher, if the
inexhaustible stock of Christianity had not been at hand to provide them
with materials? What other subject, through all art or nature, could
have produced Tindal for a profound author, or furnished him with
readers? It is the wise choice of the subject that alone adorns and
distinguishes the writer. For, had a hundred such pens as these been
employed on the side of religion, they would have immediately sunk into
silence and oblivion.

Nor do I think it wholly groundless, or my fears altogether imaginary,
that the abolishing of Christianity may perhaps bring the Church into
danger, or at least put the senate to the trouble of another securing
vote. I desire I may not be mistaken; I am far from presuming to affirm
or think that the Church is in danger at present, or as things now
stand; but we know not how soon it may be so when the Christian religion
is repealed. As plausible as this project seems, there may a dangerous
design lurk under it:[19] Nothing can be more notorious, than that the
Atheists, Deists, Socinians, Anti-trinitarians, and other subdivisions
of freethinkers, are persons of little zeal for the present
ecclesiastical establishment: Their declared opinion is for repealing
the Sacramental Test; they are very indifferent with regard to
ceremonies; nor do they hold the _jus divinum_ of Episcopacy. Therefore
this may be intended as one politic step toward altering the
constitution of the Church established, and setting up Presbytery in the
stead, which I leave to be further considered by those at the helm.

[Footnote 19: Craik follows Scott in altering this sentence to "there
may be a dangerous design lurking under it"; but all other editors,
except Morley and Roscoe, give it as printed in the text. [T.S.]]

In the last place, I think nothing can be more plain, than that by this
expedient, we shall run into the evil we chiefly pretend to avoid; and
that the abolishment of the Christian religion will be the readiest
course we can take to introduce popery. And I am the more inclined to
this opinion, because we know it has been the constant practice of the
Jesuits to send over emissaries, with instructions to personate
themselves members of the several prevailing sects among us. So it is
recorded, that they have at sundry times appeared in the guise of
Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Independents and Quakers, according as any
of these were most in credit; so, since the fashion hath been taken up
of exploding religion, the popish missionaries have not been wanting to
mix with the freethinkers; among whom, Toland the great oracle of the
Antichristians is an Irish priest, the son of an Irish priest; and the
most learned and ingenious author of a book called "The Rights of the
Christian Church,"[20] was in a proper juncture reconciled to the Romish
faith, whose true son, as appears by a hundred passages in his treatise,
he still continues. Perhaps I could add some others to the number; but
the fact is beyond dispute, and the reasoning they proceed by is right:
For, supposing Christianity to be extinguished, the people will never be
at ease till they find out some other method of worship; which will as
infallibly produce superstition, as this will end in popery.

[Footnote 20: Dr. Matthew Tindal (see previous note, p. 9). The book was
afterwards specially criticised by Swift in his "Remarks upon a Book
entitled 'The Rights of the Christian Church.'" See also note to the
present reprint of these "Remarks." [T.S.]]

And therefore, if notwithstanding all I have said, it still be thought
necessary to have a bill brought in for repealing Christianity, I would
humbly offer an amendment; that instead of the word, Christianity, may
be put religion in general; which I conceive will much better answer all
the good ends proposed by the projectors of it. For, as long as we leave
in being a God and his providence, with all the necessary consequences
which curious and inquisitive men will be apt to draw from such
premises, we do not strike at the root of the evil, though we should
ever so effectually annihilate the present scheme of the Gospel: For, of
what use is freedom of thought, if it will not produce freedom of
action, which is the sole end, how remote soever in appearance, of all
objections against Christianity? And therefore, the freethinkers
consider it as a sort of edifice, wherein all the parts have such a
mutual dependence on each other, that if you happen to pull out one
single nail, the whole fabric must fall to the ground. This was happily
expressed by him who had heard of a text brought for proof of the
Trinity, which in an ancient manuscript was differently read; he
thereupon immediately took the hint, and by a sudden deduction of a long
_sorites_, most logically concluded; "Why, if it be as you say, I may
safely whore and drink on, and defy the parson." From which, and many
the like instances easy to be produced, I think nothing can be more
manifest, than that the quarrel is not against any particular points of
hard digestion in the Christian system, but against religion in general;
which, by laying restraints on human nature, is supposed the great enemy
to the freedom of thought and action.

Upon the whole, if it shall still be thought for the benefit of Church
and State, that Christianity be abolished; I conceive however, it may be
more convenient to defer the execution to a time of peace, and not
venture in this conjuncture to disoblige our allies, who, as it falls
out, are all Christians, and many of them, by the prejudices of their
education, so bigoted, as to place a sort of pride in the appellation.
If upon being rejected by them, we are to trust an alliance with the
Turk, we shall find ourselves much deceived: For, as he is too remote,
and generally engaged in war with the Persian emperor, so his people
would be more scandalized at our infidelity, than our Christian
neighbours. For they [the Turks] are not only strict observers of
religious worship, but what is worse, believe a God; which is more than
required of us even while we preserve the name of Christians.