Chapter 14

The other popish expedient for augmenting church-revenues, is "engaging the clergy to renew no leases."[31] Several of the most eminent clergymen have assured me, that nothing has been more wished for by good men, than a law to prevent (at least) bishops from setting leases for lives. I could name ten bishoprics in England whose revenues one with another do not amount to £600 a-year for each; and if his lordship's, for instance, would be above ten times the value when the lives are expired, I should think the overplus would not be ill disposed toward an augmentation of such as are now shamefully poor. But I do assert, that such an expedient was not always thought popish and dangerous by this right reverend historian. I have had the honour formerly to converse with him; and he has told me several years ago, that he lamented extremely the power which bishops had of letting leases for lives, whereby, as he said, they were utterly deprived of raising their revenues, whatever alterations might happen in the value of money by length of time: I think the reproach of betraying private conversation will not upon this account be laid to my charge. Neither do I believe he would have changed his opinion upon any score, but to take up another, more agreeable to the maxims of his party; that "the least addition of property to the Church, is one step toward Popery."

[Footnote 31: Page 39.]

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

[Footnote 32: Page 37.]

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

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

[Footnote 33: Page 46.]

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

[Footnote 34: Page 47.]

[Footnote 35: Page 47.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 37: Page 51.]

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

[Footnote 38: Page 47.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 43: Page 53.]

[Footnote 44: Page 53.]

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

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

[Footnote 45: Page 55.]

[Footnote 46: Page 55.]

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

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

[Footnote 47: Page 56.]

[Footnote 48: Page 59.]

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

[Footnote 49: Page 59.]

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

[Footnote 50: Pages 60, 61.]

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

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

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

[Footnote 51: Page 62.]

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

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

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

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