FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38  
39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   >>   >|  
s 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 t
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38  
39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

distinction

 

furnish

 

religion

 

expedient

 

phrases

 
Church
 

advantage

 

church

 

easier

 

speech


question
 

Monument

 

convenient

 

invention

 

barren

 

nearest

 

instance

 
danger
 

Because

 

politics


appellations

 

owners

 

ambition

 

nomenclators

 

heydukes

 

mamalukes

 
coffee
 
ministry
 

distinguish

 
pleasure

mandarins

 

patshaws

 

formed

 
houses
 

Tories

 

ribbons

 

colours

 

factions

 
remember
 

Parliament


Kingdom

 

divide

 

properly

 

dignity

 

virulent

 

Trimmers

 
Margarita
 
argument
 

avarice

 

favoured