Swift and Freethinkers (1)

8/13/2019 Swift and Freethinkers (1)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/swift-and-freethinkers-1 1/12

Swift among the FreethinkersAuthor(s): Daniel CareyReviewed work(s):Source: Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr, Vol. 12 (1997), pp. 89-99Published by: Eighteenth-Century Ireland SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071387 .

Accessed: 19/02/2013 02:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Eighteenth-Century Ireland Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloade d on Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:47:3 5 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ecis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071387?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/30071387?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ecis



Swift Among The Freethinkers

DANIEL CAREY

C wift apos;sareer s a satirist ed him into a bewildering rray f literary attles,L3 waged on numerous ronts against politicians, atural hilosophers, ravelwriters, religious reformers, nd projectors ntent on improving he lot of

mankind, manyof them transfixed

yreason and unaware f their own

folly.Among his collection of opponents, he category f freethinkers ecame one ofhis most persistent argets. apos;he reasons or his sustained ttention o, above all,the unholy rio of Toland, Tindal, and Collins, are not difficult o surmise. Theposition they represented osed a threat to Swift apos;sllegiance to variousorthodoxies s an Anglican churchman nd to his political position as anemerging Tory ally. What s more, he attack n revealed eligion,on Christianmysteries, n essential doctrine, elied on a strident onviction n the power ofnatural eason to discover truth, eradicating riestcraft nd bogus practicescelebrated nder he protective anner of tradition. wift apos;sounter-enlightenment distrust f rationality, s much as his dim confidence n human ature, ed

him to reject hese modern ieties.Although he basis for the dispute may be self-evident, he conflict withfreethought erits urther ttention or several easons. n part, t reveals with agood deal of clarity he range of rhetorical trategies vailable o Swift as asatirist, uggesting hat he not only concentrated n developing set of anarchicresponses hat swept his antagonists side,but also that he contributed, n a lessfamiliar way, a group f reasoned epliesand historical bjections o claims aidout by freethinkers. t the same ime, here s no doubt hat he nterest f Swift apos;spronouncements n the subject erives rom he fact that he has a position of hisown to protect nd therefore pproaches he matter with a greater ir of tensionand discomfort. This is not fully selected at random or an outlook whoseconsequences, owever evere, could be held at an emotional istance.A certainair of suspense urrounds he question f how he will dispatch hese opponents,and equally whether he will manage o do so while leaving his own groundunmired, is own beliefs enable nd ntact. Finally, he nature f the oppositionhe faced created added difficulties or him. Notably n the case of Collins, heencountered wily and resourceful ritic, not unlike Swift n his willingness ohome n on foolish attitudes. he difference ere s that Swift became he objectof scorn, and needed o construct satirical esponse o a satirical ttack.

1. For Swift hisgroupingncluded eists, theists, rians, ocinians,nd ther northodox

figures.

89







90 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURYRELAND

Swift apos;personal nd professional ensitivity o freethinking olemic appears

openly n his apos;Sermonn the Trinity apos;,ritten n his own voice, appropriatelyenough, not n the assumed dentity f a satirised arrator. t is worth beginningwith this work, whose date of composition nd delivery remain uncertain, oestablish what was at stake n the encounter ith freethinking. wift opened hesermon y stating isopposition o those who condemned hristian ysteries, na deist vein, as apos;Cant,mposture, ndPriest-craft apos;2He asserted, n the contrary,the necessity f faith and maintained hat an acceptance f mysteries uch as theTrinity was by no means unreasonable. n apos;oldnd rue distinction apos;,e argued,held apos;thathingsmay be above our Reason without eingcontrary oreason apos;IX,p.164), n other words he attempted o hold on to a precarious istinction, atterlydefended by Locke, between matters bove as opposed o matters ontrary oreason, a distinction which proved particularly ulnerable o counter-argumentfrom he ikes of Toland nd ater of Collins. apos;

Swift admitted he possibility of legitimate complaints against churchmysteries n two grounds: irst, f they ailed o appear n Scripture, ndsecond fthey served o enhance he position of those who preached hem. On the latterpoint he acknowledged he benefit from emphasising mysteries gained byCatholic clergymen, but argued hat they did so without Biblical sanction.Anglicans, y contrast, njoyed he support f Scripture ithout, n his opinion,professing mysteries n apos;Prospectf Power, Pomp, or Wealth apos;IX, p.163).However eassuring n the point of priestcraft, wift neglected he question fhow to establish he

authenticityf

Scripturetself on which his case

depended.Rather han enter that problematic errain, he ventured positive defence ofmysteries by maintaining hat God introduced matters bove human comprehension n order o stress he need for faith. Accepting uch mysteries was nomore difficult han believing n miracles ecounted n Scripture, hether hose ofwalking n water or of rising rom he dead. If we rejected his sort of event asreported n the Bible, religion would inevitably urrender o apos;AtheistsndInfidels apos;.e can see that Swift never overcame he basic circularity f theposition he set out.

Perhaps n consequence, wiftenlarged n his opinion hat he merits f reasonhad been overstated. orone thing, different ndividuals nevitably aried n their

application f allegedly ational tandards. Meanwhile we accepted many apos;facts apos;in nature which escaped ur understanding, ike the simple growth f a plant, hephenomenon f magnetic attraction, r more abstrusely he unity of soul andbody, without eading s to reject hemoutright. ot content with his, Swift also

2. The rose Works fJonathan wift, 4vols, d.Herbert avis tal (Oxford, 939-68),X,p.162. ubsequent eferencesredetailedn he ext yvolume nd age umber.

3. John Locke,An Essay oncerning uman nderstanding16901, d. P.H. Nidditch(Oxford, 975), sp.IV, xvii, 23, IV, xviii,7. For exploitationsf the frailty f thedistinctioneeJohnToland, hristianityotMysterious: r,A Treatise hewing, hat

there s nothingn the Gospel ontrary oReason, orAbovet:And hat o ChristianDoctrine anbeproperly all apos;dMysteryLondon, 696); ndAnthony ollins, nEssayconcerningheuseof reason npropositionsheevidence hereof epends pon umantestimonyLondon, 707).







SWIFT MONGHE REETHINKERS 91

launched n ad hominem ttack on freethinkers, vailing of a rhetorical evicethat persisted n his more atirical esponses o unorthodoxy. e claimed hat an

apos;evilonscience apos;rompted heir emarks, he desire o indulge heir ove of vicewithout ear of rebuke rom the religious. The slightly scattered ature of hisobjections and replies in the sermon ndicates he vulnerability f Swift apos;position, pen o attack y opponents anging rom extual ritics questioning heauthenticity f Scripture o disputants f the miraculous nd igures ejecting hecategory of apos;thingsbove reason apos;4 As such, this work underlines he pressingneed or some orm of viable response o freethinkers f various ersuasions.

The earliest f Swift apos;sfforts o take on freethinking irectly everappeared nprint. Written n late 1707and devised as a response o Matthew indal apos;sightsof the Christian Church (1706), it constituted omething of an exercise.

Rhetorically, his is his most conventional ejoinder, hich s not to say that tlacks merit or occasional delight. He sustains a high level of disdain,consolidating like-minded udience ffronted y Tindal apos;sosition.The readerknows where he stands with Swift on this occasion, and even shares a certainintimacy with him, based on the assumption f shared distaste or Tindal apos;ssmallness f mind and mean style. Rather han parodying he piece or writing nan ronic mode, Swift engages n a more traightforward orm of attack, eclaringhis open opposition. He largely onfineshimself o sarcastic ommentary ndadhominem nsinuations, lthough he does extend the discussion, unusually, oinclude direct ebuttal f Tindal apos;sogic as well as his historical laims.

Swift begins with a general efenceof ad hominem rgument. e cites Miltonas an instance f someone whose relentless irculation f objectionable ttitudesloses ts force he moment we take his biography nto account. We would do wellto remember, wift observes, hat Milton apos;sivorce racts were written y a manmarried o a shrew. ndeed, t comes as something f a surprise hat when he wentblind he never wrote a treatise apos;uponhe Danger nd Inconvenience f Eyes apos;II,p.67). In the case of freethinking, men of libertine principles ind it an idealmethod or advancing heir louche interests, and even where they lack thatobjective, heir readers ake up their publications ith dubious ntentions. Henceno one ought o be impressed y the fact hat Tindal apos;sorkhas run hrough hreeeditions, but rather surprised hat it has not run through more. Far from

amountingo

persuasive rgument, reethoughthould eave us

unaffected,nd

we must ee it as the outcome f a distempered ersonality, onsumed n vice anderror. All of this eads him to a conclusive phorism, odged against he enemiesof revealed eligion: apos;Menan never be confirmed n such Doctrines, ntil heyare confirmed n their Vices apos;II, p.73).

Armed with his broad ustification f ad hominem rgumentation, wift urnedto the specific. He diagnosed everal reasons or Tindal apos;somposition f thework: inancial ain motivated im, the desire o exact revenge rom motives ofmalice (having suffered ontempt or his apostasy), nd above all vanity. Herepeated he charge hat Tindal converted o Catholicism uring he reign ofJames I, producing lengthy discourse o defend he Church f Rome. But the

4. For urther iscussionf the notion f reason mployedn the sermon, ee KathleenWilliams,onathan wift nd heAge f CompromiseLawrence, ansas, 958), p.35-8.








precipitous hange of political circumstances ed Tindal to spite religion

altogether, ince his conversion had destroyed his reputation nd prospects.Nonetheless, hetreatise e had written roved seful, or the very arguments hatsupported opery owserved o undermine hristianity ltogether. wiftdrew ananalogywith apos;themage,which while t was new and handsome, as worshippedfor a Saint and when t came o be old and broken, was still good enough o makea tolerable Devil apos;II, p.71). To cap matters off, he conjectured hat Tindalpresented he500-page extas comprisingmerely Part of a projected ork n thehope of receiving generous ribe o cease publication.

Having disparaged he stylistic deficiencies f Tindal apos;somposition, wiftconcentrated n the substance f the piece. Principally e chastised he book as

apos;makingeligion, Church, Christianity, ith all their Concomitants, perfectContrivance f the Civil Power apos;II, p.70). According o Tindal, he currentpractice f the Church, etting tself up as an ndependent uthority, eant hat tconstituted n instance f Imperium n Imperio. But in Swift apos;spinion, Tindalmerely onfused what he civil power ould hinder with what t could actually oitself. Although he state might abridge r appoint ny religious ractice t liked,to the extreme f setting up an alternative aith entirely, he only proper ource fauthority emained what we derived apos;fromhe Words of our Saviour and hisApostles apos;II, p.77), a fact that could no more be changed han he law of nature.Swift nsisted on a careful distinction etween power and he liberty o exercisepower. Power itself for the priesthood ame from Christ, but the liberty of

exercisinghat

powerame rom he civil

government,move that enabled him

to sidestep any real difficulty ssociated with rival forms of imperium.5 indalhad simply allen nto the error f affirming he consequent. wift characterisedhis opponent apos;srgument s following hispattern: f the church oesnot proceedfrom divine right, hen t cannot egislate. t cannot egislate since Henry VIIIand other monarchs revented t from doing o).Therefore t is not constituted ydivine right. Swift highlighted he invalid reasoning and rejected he majorpremise s false. apos;

Swift hen produced series of ludicrous arallels o highlight he inadequacyof Tindal apos;sosition. n a satirical oke proleptic f Gulliver apos;sravels , he pointsout that parliament ould nsist on the sole qualification or a bishopric hat he

candidate emonstrate is talent or apos;walkingn the slack Rope apos;II, p.75). Butthe law of God decreed therwise nd no purely national tatute ould alter hecase. The state imply did not possess he true power:

5. Irvin hrenpreis apos;sudgementsworth otingnSwift. heMan,HisWorks, nd heAge,vols London, 962-83): apos;Heries o make distinction utno opposition etweendivinelyawful ight nd humanlyawful oweroblock he xercise fthat ight. ut ngood ogic ecannot o his: faright s awful,tcannotawfully eblocked; right hichcannot erightfullyxercisedsa self-contradiction.oput t concretely, church annotclaim obeboth art fthe onstitution nd bovehe onstitution apos;II,p.259).

6.Now,

withoutxamining

hat ivineight

heClergy ave,

rhow ar textendeth;

s itany ort f Proof hat have o Right, ecause stronger ower illnot et me xercisetOr, oth ll, hat hisAuthor ays hrough isPreface, rBook tself, ffer ny ther ort fArgument ut his, rwhat e deduceshe ameway (ProseWorks,I,p.82).








have he salutary ffect of liberating onsciences, he narrator oberly points out

that apos;Greatits ove to be free with the Highest Objects apos;II, p.29), and n theabsence f a deity o impugn, hey will inevitably urn heirattention o figures ngovernment. Others have computed he revenue he project would generate,enough to sustain two hundred wits about the court and town, leaving theunemployed lergy to enlist in the army and navy. The narrator uestions hearithmetic, autiously emarking n the high cost of keeping such folk in acondition f ease, but he also modestly notes the benefit of having at least oneperson n every parish with he ability o read and write. There re others till whoassert he advantage f gaining one day in seven, currently substantial oss to

apos;Trade,usiness, nd Pleasure apos;II, p.31). But he answers hat at present o oneallows Sunday o intrude n their pursuit f these interests. n fact, churches

provides nadmirable eeting lace or conducting usiness, nd he taverns ndcoffee-houses emain pen even if the chocolate ouses are shut. What s more,priests deserve ommendation or giving an added llure o vice by condemningit, providing nessential apos;sauce apos;oenhance hepleasure. ndeed, epoints out, apos;itwere to be wished, that some other Prohibitions ere promoted, n order oimprove he Pleasures f the Town apos;II, p.33).

The argument hifts tack at this point, n a way characteristic f Swift. Thedream of the projectors nevitably ails because hey refuse to appreciate heimplications f human nature which resists mprovement nd inexorably endstoward onflict and corruption. rue, an air of plausibility urrounds he mostpowerful argument n favour of abandoning he Christian aith, that is, theadvantage ained rom eliminating ny basis or conflict between ival ects. Butthe issue ies deeper han hat. apos;Arearty nd Faction ooted n Mens Hearts nodeeper than Phrases borrowed rom Religion apos;,he narrator sks apos;WillotHeydukes ndMamalukes, andarins, ndPotshaws, r any other Words.. serveto distinguish hose who are n the Ministry rom others, who would be in it ifthey could? apos;II, p.32). Contention ill not end with an act of parliament, t willonly replicate tself in hearty disputes over rival operatic styles or othertrivialities. qually, e states, apos;Theres a Portion f Enthusiasm ssigned o everynation, which f it hath not proper Objects o work on, will burst ut, and et all inFlame apos;II, p.35). If peace can be purchased y apos;flingingena few Ceremonies

to devour apos;hen he bargain s well made.Christianity etains ts value, ultimately, s an object of ridicule, ontempt,enthusiastic ttachment, nd finally awe for the vulgar. Like other reethinkingwits, Toland nd Tindal would never have attained istinction ithout o worthyan object of attack. But the clinching rgument eturns, nce again, o a matter fcalculation. f we go one step further nd remove not merely Christianity utreligion altogether a logical decision ince the real objective s not freedom fthought ut freedom o indulge icentious esire we run a risk. Our allies, stillhidebound y their own systems of religious belief, might take offence. Acompact with the Turk or our security ould address he loss of protection utthey oo would ind our ack of faith candalising. nd all this uncertainty ouldresult n a dip n the value of East-India tock of one percent, calamity hat, nclosing, he confidently sserts,must guarantee hecontinuance f Christianity.

This text places the reader n a difficult predicament, ince accepting ts








argument means maintaining o more han nominal Christianity. ny authenticversion of the faith has well and

truly disappeareds a

genuine possibility.He

puts us in a predicament ot unlike he one created y Mandeville apos;sable of theBees: yes, you can recover rue Christianity ut only at a vast social cost: apos;itwould be to dig up Foundations; o destroy t one Blow all the Wit, and half thelearning f the Kingdom; obreak he entire Frame nd Constitution f Things; oruin Trade, xtinguishArts and Sciences with he Professors f them; n short oturn our Courts, Exchanges, nd Shops nto Desarts apos;II, p.27). This s an idiomthat becomes amiliar n Mandeville apos;commentaries n the Fable where he doesnot deny the possibility of virtue hrough elf-denial, but merely records heeconomic consequences f such a sacrifice. Swift makes he predicament etmore difficult by refusing o turn the alternative nto a norm, as Mandeville

effectively does. With or without Christianity e still have the same humannature o contend with. Perhaps he only recoverable apos;message apos;f comfort maybe that Swift expects his reader o see this account san exaggerated endering fthe present, ut o the extent hat we can magine t as a possible rendering f thefuture, t needs current ction o be averted. he threat f a repeal f the Test Act,and of rampant reethinking enerally, emands ome conservative ecourse.

Swift apos;subsequent oray n this terrain rovedmore challenging or him whenhe endeavoured o reply o Anthony Collins apos;Discourse f Free-thinking 1713).In this notorious olume, which attracted host of respondents, apos;ollinsdefinedfreethought ot n terms f the unorthodox onvictions t maintained, utrather sa determination o regulate ssent ccording o the merit f the evidence resentedin favour of any given proposition. learly he was confident hat a variety ofhallowed opinions would crumble f this principle were allowed, ncluding hestatus of Scripture s a revealed ext, the authority f the Church, nd variousforms f superstitious itual.He contented imself, t east nitially, n proving henecessity of freethought ot only for conducting cience or reading ny form ofliterature including he Bible), but also with demonstrating he fact thatchurchmen, rophets, postles, patristic igures, missionaries nd other worthieseither ndorsed reethought xplicitly r relied on it implicitly. Efforts o convertthe Siamese, or example, depended n encouraging he native people there othink reely. nfact, he pointed ut that n the nterests f consistencywe ought o

welcome heir Talapoins r priests o our shores, allowing hem o advertise hemerits of their scripture nd argue us into their religion. Establishing mutualexchange f priests would have he salutary ffect of enabling England o offloada number f intractable igh church divines, ncluding wift, while giving theSiamese welcome pportunity o thin out their own swollen anks f priests.

As we can see, Collins did not confine himself o a straightforward, apos;rational apos;form of argumentation, ut he mixed the performance with a considerableamount of sarcasm and witty invective. The best moment n the Discourseoccurred when he launched polemic against blind aith, attacking hose who,

8. For iscussion fthe ontroversyenerated

yCollins eeJames apos;Higgins,.J.,Anthon-yCollins: heMan nd HisWorksTheHague, 970),h.6;Robert hiddian, apos;Theeactionto Collins apos;sDiscourse f Free-Thinking: quot;Notoliticks quot;apos;,wift tudies, V(1989),pp.63-76.








like Swift, tried to preserve a category of apos;thingsbove reason apos;.nstead oftackling he view directly, he proposed n analogy. magine a community, ewrites, hat adheres o what they call apos;eye-sightaith apos;.his group even has acreed, consisting f a sequence f odd propositions hich hey nsist are abovebut not contrary o eyesight. They nclude he following:

That a Ball can go thro a Table:That wo Balls may be made out of one little one:That a Stone can be made o vanish out of sight:That a Knot an be undone with Words:That a Thred may be burnt o pieces, and made whole with he Ashes....And astly, That a Counter may be tum apos;dnto a Groat.9

Collins s of course parodying he Athanasian reed in the Anglican ervice,which he does by taking a series of magic tricks outlined n a well-knowncontemporary anual f legerdemain ntitledHocus Pocus Junior.l Collins usesthe analogy o characterise riests as magicians who succeed only so long aspeople blind hemselves o their rickery taking his examples rom he Delphicoracle shaded n darkness o facilitate he imposition transubstantiation, r

apos;anyoctrines apos;,e wryly states, apos;notaught by the Church of England apos;).11Collins again draws on the analogy o anticipate familiar objection: easonshould not be used n religion because eason ccasionally ails. This amounts oclaiming hat apos;Ihould be deter apos;from using my Eyes, for fear I should mistakein using them; and I should walk abroad with my Eyes shut, because of thepossibility f falling f I should walk abroad with my Eyes open apos;12As this brief discussion uggests, Collins was not an easy or conventionalopponent o dispatch. The difficulty or Swift stemmed rom the sheer miscellaneity of the work tself, requiring polemic against a polemic, or a parodyoffering absurd ogic to defeat a text that tself thrived n highlighting bsurdlogic. Ordinarily wift undermined heobjects f his satire y adopting heirownvoices and showing, ronically, heir ncapacity o appreciate heir ack of logic,or the nhumanity f their onvictions. his approach epended n occupying heposition of a naive and self-refuting arrator, acking any sense of his ownlimitations. ut Collins represented more nimble and self-aware pponent. Hefashioned is work out of

preciselyhe kinds of follies that

normallyonstituted

Swift apos;sorking materials. Without anctioning he views quoted by Collins,then, or entering he field of controversy imself, Swift needed o turn hosematerials o his advantage.

While some critics, ike Richard Bentley, concentrated n providing morestraightforward eply,attacking ollins apos;scholarship ndhistorical laims, Swift

9. Anthony ollins, Discourse fFree-ThinkingLondon, 713), .17.10.Hocus ocus unior. he AnatomiefLegerdemain. r,TheArt fJugling et orth nhis

proper olours,ully, lainly, nd xactly;othat n gnorant erson ay herebyearn hefullperfection fthe ame, fter little ractise London, 634). he hirteenthdition

appearedn1706.

11. Collins, .32.12.Collins, p.26-7.








introduced couple of different echniques or undermining hepersuasiveness fthe Discourse. First he presented he reply as a mere digest of Collins apos;sork,compiled by a fictional narrator r summariser ho acts a helpful ntercessor.Swift apos;sharacterisation f this earnest ndividual went a long way towarddiscrediting Collins apos;suthority nd integrity. On the title page the intendedaudience s designated as the poor, who might have missed this importanttreatise. quot;ater t appears hat he narrator lso worries est the ̀ shew of Logick,and multiplicity of Quotations apos;n the original prove a bather to anotherprospective eadership, he easily confused lub-going outh of quality. n anycase, he dedicates imself o making Collins apos;sotentially bstruse ositionmorewidely known. Second, n the digest Swift devised a number f parodies f thelogic used o support ollins apos;sosition, ndhe compressed hediscussion n sucha

wayas to

reproduceollins apos;statements s a series of

non-sequiturs,rratic

accumulations f evidence, ndunwarranted onclusions.Swift apos;sbstract as the cumulative ffect of making Collins appear, y turns,

puerile, quibbling, r triumphalist ithout ealising he paucity of the logic orevidence e supplied. n the end he emerges imply as immature nd ncapable fany depth f thought, ot east n his tendency o proffer alse conclusions nd hisinfantile elight n controversy mong ivines.Collins apos;sittyattack n unthinkingreligious elief (eye-sight aith), urns nto a series of soft-headed omplaints ndconvictions: apos;Whyaynot I be deny apos;dhe iberty f Free-seeing, swell as Freethinking Yet no body pretends hat he first s unlawful, or a Cat may ook on aKing; hough ou be near-sighted, r have weakor soar Eyes,or are blind, oumaybe a Free-seer; ou ought o see for your elf, and not trust o a Guide o chuse heColour f your Stockings, r save you from alling nto a Ditch apos;IV, p.29). In fact,Swift subtly manages o turn Collins apos;sosition gainst tself: ust because ertainguides have been wrong, he argument oes here, does not mean hat all guidesmust be rejected, which s the same objection tated by Collins: hat eyesightshould ot be rejected imply because isionoccasionally ails.

Swift developed a number f parodies f the style of reasoning sed in theDiscourse. Rather han providing trail of solid inferences lowing rom selfevident premises, e reduces he summary o a series of peculiar bservations,finished ff by untenable onclusions. hefact that ome books of the Bible mayhave been ost apos;utterlyestroys he Credit f those hat are eft apos;,ust as no bookcan pretend o authority where here are differing eadings f it. The works ofLivy, Thucydides, Homer, Virgil, and others n antiquity apos;aretterly useless,upon account f their various Readings apos;IV, p.33). So it follows that as there s

apos;nond of disputing mong Priests...therefore conclude, hat here ought o beno such Thing in the World as Priests, Teachers, r Guides, or instructingignorant eople n Religion; ut hat every Man ought o think reely for himself apos;(IV, pp.34-5). The ostensible igour of the Discourse, as Swift reconstitutes t,degenerates nto mere allacious easoning.Collins apos;insistence n the virtuousnature of freethinkers urns into a ridiculous collection of self-refutingpropositions. ccording o the Abstract, f you mpose an obligation o believe n

13.The ull itle eads: Mr.C ns apos;siscourse fFree-Thinking,ut nto lainEnglish, yway fAbstract,or heUseof hePoor London, 713).








God and Christ, apos;whatou add o their Faith will take ust so much off from heirMorality. By this Argument t is manifest hat a perfect moral Man must be aperfect Atheist apos;,n the grounds hat, apos;everynchof Religion he gets, oses him anInch of Morality: or here s a certain Quantum elongs o every Man, of whichthere is nothing o spare apos;IV, p.40). The freethinker must be virtuous, henarrator tates, implybecause he is hated by everybody.

Swift apos;sain achievement was to highlight Collins apos;senial of the middleground: rthodoxy must, of necessity, be false and contrary o freethinking.Collins has taken he hermeneutics f suspicion o an absurd egree, queezingout any authentic pace between he extremes f superstition ndenthusiasm. ooption exists of actually accepting an orthodox opinion as the outcome ofreasoned hought.As Swift apos;narrator uts t: apos;Youre also to understand, hatallow no Man to be a Free

Thinker, nyfurther han as he differs from the

received Doctrines f Religion apos;IV, p.36). In contrast o Collins apos;sefinition fthe freethinker s someone who only accepts a proposition n the basis ofevidence, eemerges ereas a social ype,smirking t conventional isdom n acomplacent ashion, lattering imselfwith he vision of his own superior owersof reasoning. n their own deluded, elf-serving pinion, uch ndividuals ind tinevitable hat hallow-minded riestswill adopt bigoted esponse o them.

Swift apos;siece as a whole s accompanied y two framing assageswhich offera more knowing ccount f the ntention f the Discourse nd he summary. heyreveal hepolitical ontent f the argument, hat reethinking upports he nterestof the Whig cause. quot;n fact, as the body of the Abstract uggests, reethinkingamounts o atheism n the end, and is not the innocent, ensible process hatCollins maintains t is. In contrast o the pacific tendencies, highlighted yCollins, hedrift of the discussion mphasises he mplausibility f freethought sresulting n anything other than discord, dispute, and social instability. Thealternative ecomes bvious by implication: rust n the good ntention f priestlyguides, gnore heological ontroversy s irrelevant, ndembrace he Church ndits traditions. heseTory entiments lonewill guarantee olitical tability.

Although wift apos;sbstract emains f considerable nterest, t cannot e rankedamong he top flight of his works. n general t depends n too great a familiaritywith Collins apos;srgument o succeed n its own. But more ellingly, wiftconfrontsthe problem f defending omething lose to him, employing rony, parody, ndsatire n order opreserve he Church rom attack ather han etting hese iterarytechniques chievemore anarchic nds. Although he challenge e faced can beseen as stylistic, t was also philosophical. o a large extent, Collins had takenSwift apos;satural osition way rom him. Swift normally ccupied he place of thetraditional, ideist ceptic, unimpressed y the power of reason, ontent o createdoubt hrough n accumulation f human olly, and diverse pinion nd practicein order o underline he necessity of faith. But on this occasion, paradoxically,

14. For n laboration fthis ositioneeThe xaminero.39 May ,1711),nSwift apos;sroseWorks III, p.142-7).or considerationfthepoliticalnterests ftheAscendancyhat

prompted ttacks ndeism nd atural eligion,eeDavid erman, apos;TheulminationndCausation f Irish hilosophy apos;,rchiviir GeschichteerPhilosophie, XIV, (1982),pp.257-79.








Collins had already beaten him to the punch. He also availed of recognisably

sceptical trategieso

supportis

position. Usinga mode of

argumentescribed

by Sextus Empiricus n the Outlines f Pyrrhonism, ollinsplayed ontradictoryopinions, held by divines, off one another o cast doubt on the authenticity fScripture, he Trinity, and other matters f dogma.15 he difference was thatCollins did so not in order o encourage suspension f judgement, ut tounderline henecessity f exercising reethought, n ndependent onsideration fthe evidence upported y trust n reason. t was not enough hen for Swift toassemble host of follies, because Collins had already one o himself. Swift hadto make he assembler f follies the true victim of folly.

In the long list of Swift apos;sargets, reethinkers onstitute major ocus of hissatirical energies. The combination f polemic against established eligion,against evelation, nd key articles f faith, ogether with a tacit, EnlightenmentWhig agenda s Swift dentified t, necessitated convincing ecovery f the highground ndconsolidation f some basis for traditional eliefs.But the challengealways remained ne of exposing he inadequacies f others apos;rguments ithoutoffering rguments f one apos;swn. When he attempted o do so in the Sermon nthe Trinity, he effort notably ailed. apos;wift apos;strongest nswers ccurred whenhe undermined he logic supporting is opponent apos;sase, parodied s frivolous rsimply unsound. hus he let it disassemble f its own accord without eeding omount up an alternative. n the absence f that, ad hominem ttacks lways amein handy o exclude his enemies rom hecircle of discussion.

As in The Tale of a Tub, however, omething ad to survive he encounter,viable version f Christianity, f only by implication. hispredicament ay haveprompted is most extreme olution o the problem f freethinking: o avoid hedilemma of engaging with it by suppressing t altogether. n a two-pagestatement, apos;Somehoughts n Free-Thinking apos;, quot;wift expressed urprise hatalthough ppeals or a republic r for absolute overnment ould ead to severerecriminations, o one complained gainst he dissemination f freethought.Swift apos;somentary eglect of the activities f the common hangman side, hisaccount f this state of affairs ncouraged im o suggest a more igorous orm ofcensorship. eversing he optimistic dviceof Milton apos;sreopagitica n the faceof sin and error, Swift advocated ilencing adverse pinion, anticipating final

triumphver he ntractable rowd of

freethinkingritics.

15. Sextus Empiricus, utlines f Scepticism, rans. ulia Annas nd Jonathan arnes(Cambridge,994), k.I:165: apos;Accordingothemode erivingrom ispute, e ind hatundecidableissensionbouthematter roposedas ome bout oth nordinaryifeandamong hilosophers. ecause f this we are not ableeither o choose r to rule outanything, ndwe end up with uspension f judgement. apos;ee also Bk.I.151 nd, ortheologicalisputespecifically,k.III:3-10.

16. In the unpublishedeply o Tindal, wift emarked n the danger f straightforward,argumentativeeplies hichmerely erved o enhance hereputation f theunorthodoxfigure nder ttack, ut the real ear may have been hat of exposing he limitedjustificationsorone apos;swn rthodox oint fview. eeProseWorks, ,pp.69-70.

17. Printed nProseWorks,V,pp.49-50. he emarks rise rom discussion ith apos;prelateof the kingdom fIreland, ho s a person fexcellent itand earning apos;49),presumablyArchbishop ing.

Swift and Freethinkers (1)

Documents

Transcript of Swift and Freethinkers (1)