Book V, Chapter I, 18

The followers of Zuinglius, or more properly of Calvin, took the opposite course: whenever a church became vacant, they gave the people of its parish the right to elect their own pastor, while establishing complete equality among the clergy. The first part of this arrangement, for as long as it remained in force, seems to have produced nothing but disorder and confusion, and to have tended equally to corrupt the morals of clergy and people. The second part seems never to have had any but wholly beneficial effects.

As long as parishioners retained the right to elect their own pastors, they nearly always acted under the influence of the clergy, generally its most factious and fanatical members. To maintain their influence over these popular elections, many clergy became, or pretended to become, fanatics themselves. They encouraged fanaticism among the people and nearly always preferred the most fanatical candidate. A matter as small as the appointment of a parish priest almost invariably provoked a bitter contest, not just in that parish but in every neighboring parish, whose inhabitants seldom failed to join the quarrel. If the parish was in a great city, the contest divided all its inhabitants into two parties. If that city was itself a little republic, or was the chief city and capital of one—as was the case with many important cities in Switzerland and Holland—each petty dispute of this kind, besides inflaming the animosity of all the other factions, threatened to leave both a new schism in the church and a new faction in the state. In those small republics, therefore, magistrates soon found it necessary, for the sake of public peace, to assume the right of presenting candidates to all vacant benefices. In Scotland, the largest country ever to establish this presbyterian form of church government, the act that established presbytery at the beginning of the reign of William III. effectively abolished patronage rights. At least, it empowered certain groups in each parish to purchase the right to elect their own pastor for a very small sum. The arrangement established by that act lasted about twenty-two years, but was abolished by the 10th of queen Anne, ch.12, because this more popular mode of election had produced confusion and disorder almost everywhere. In a country as extensive as Scotland, however, a disturbance in a remote parish was less likely to trouble the government than in a smaller state. The 10th of queen Anne restored patronage rights. Yet although Scottish law awards the benefice, without exception, to the person presented by the patron, the church sometimes requires a degree of concurrence from the people before conferring on that person what is called the cure of souls, or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the parish. The church's decisions have not been very consistent on this point. Sometimes, at least, it delays the appointment until it can secure that concurrence, professing concern for the peace of the parish. The private efforts of some neighboring clergy to secure that concurrence, but more often to prevent it, together with the popular arts they cultivate to make their interventions more effective, are perhaps the principal causes sustaining whatever remains of the old fanatical spirit among either the clergy or the people of Scotland.

The equality established among the clergy by presbyterian church government consists, first, in equality of authority or ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and, second, in equality of benefice. In all presbyterian churches authority is perfectly equal; benefices are not quite so equal. Yet the difference between benefices is seldom large enough to tempt even the holder of a small one to seek a better by courting his patron with vile flattery and servile agreement. In presbyterian churches where patronage rights are fully established, the established clergy generally seek favor with their superiors by nobler and better means: by their learning, the irreproachable discipline of their lives, and the faithful and diligent performance of their duties. Their patrons even frequently complain of their independence of spirit, construing it as ingratitude for past favors. Yet at worst this is perhaps seldom more than the indifference that naturally comes from knowing that no further favors of that kind can be expected. Perhaps nowhere in Europe could one find a more learned, decent, independent, and respectable body of men than most of the presbyterian clergy of Holland, Geneva, Switzerland, and Scotland.

Where church benefices are all nearly equal, none can be very large; and although this moderation of income can no doubt be carried too far, it has some highly beneficial effects. Only exemplary morals can give dignity to a man of modest means. Frivolity and vanity inevitably make him ridiculous, and are almost as ruinous to him as to ordinary people. In his own conduct, therefore, he must follow the moral code that ordinary people respect most. He earns their esteem and affection by a way of life that his own interest and circumstances would lead him to adopt. Ordinary people regard him with the kindness we naturally feel for someone who comes somewhat near our own station, but who, we think, ought to occupy a higher one. Their kindness naturally awakens his. He takes care to instruct them and attends to their needs, assisting and relieving them. He does not even despise the prejudices of people so favorably disposed toward him, and never treats them with the contempt and arrogance so often found among the proud dignitaries of wealthy, well-endowed churches. Accordingly, presbyterian clergy have perhaps more influence over the minds of ordinary people than the clergy of any other established church. Accordingly, only in presbyterian countries do we ever find ordinary people converted, without persecution, completely and almost to a person, to the established church.

In countries where most church benefices are quite modest, a university professorship generally provides a better livelihood than a church benefice. Universities can then select their members from all the clergy of the country, who everywhere constitute by far the largest class of learned men. Where many church benefices are substantial, by contrast, the church naturally draws away most of the universities' eminent scholars. Such men generally find a patron who does himself honor by securing church advancement for them. In the former situation, universities are likely to be filled with the country's most eminent scholars. In the latter, few eminent scholars are likely to remain in them, and those few will be among the youngest members, liable to be drawn away before they acquire enough experience and knowledge to be of much use to their universities. Mr de Voltaire observed that father Porée, a Jesuit of no great eminence in the world of letters, was the only professor France had ever had whose works were worth reading. In a country that has produced so many eminent scholars, it must seem rather strange that scarcely one of them should have been a university professor. The famous Cassendi was a professor at the university of Aix early in his life. As soon as his genius began to show, he was told that by entering the church he could easily find a quieter and more comfortable living, as well as a better position from which to pursue his studies. He immediately followed the advice. Mr de Voltaire's observation applies, I believe, not only to France but to all other Roman Catholic countries. In any of them we very rarely find an eminent scholar who is a university professor, except perhaps in law and medicine, professions from which the church is less likely to draw scholars. After the church of Rome, the church of England is by far the richest and best-endowed church in Christendom. Accordingly, in England the church continually draws all the best and ablest members away from the universities. A long-serving college tutor known and distinguished throughout Europe as an eminent scholar is as rare there as in any Roman Catholic country. By contrast, in Geneva, the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, the Protestant countries of Germany, Holland, Scotland, Sweden, and Denmark, the most eminent scholars those countries have produced have been university professors—not all of them, certainly, but by far the greater part. In those countries, the universities continually draw away the church's most eminent scholars.

It may be worth noting that, apart from poets, a few orators, and a few historians, by far the greater part of the other eminent scholars of Greece and Rome seem to have been teachers, public or private, generally of philosophy or rhetoric. This holds true from the time of Lysias and Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle, down to that of Plutarch and Epictetus, Suetonius and Quintilian. Requiring a person to teach a particular branch of knowledge year after year seems, in fact, the most effective way to make that person a complete master of it. Compelled to cover the same ground every year, anyone with any ability necessarily becomes thoroughly familiar with every part of it within a few years. If one year he forms an opinion too hastily on some particular point, he is very likely to correct it when his lectures bring him back to that subject the next year. Teaching a branch of knowledge is certainly a scholar's natural employment; it may also be the education most likely to give him substantial learning and knowledge. Modest church benefices naturally tend to draw most of a country's scholars into the work in which they can be most useful to the public, while also giving them perhaps the best education they can receive. They tend to make their learning as solid and as useful as possible.

The revenue of every established church, apart from whatever arises from particular lands or manors, is, it should be observed, a branch of the state's general revenue diverted to a purpose quite different from the defense of the state. The tithe, for example, is a real tax on land, which prevents landowners from contributing as much to the state's defense as they otherwise could. Yet land rent is, according to some, the sole fund—and according to others, the principal fund—from which the needs of the state must ultimately be met in all great monarchies. Plainly, the more of this fund goes to the church, the less is available to the state. We may take it as a certain maxim that, all other things being equal, the richer the church, the poorer either the sovereign or the people must be; and in every case the less capable the state will be of defending itself. In several Protestant countries, particularly all the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, the tithes and church lands that once supplied revenue to the Roman Catholic church have proved sufficient not only to pay adequate salaries to the established clergy, but also to meet all the state's other expenses with little or no additional revenue. The magistrates of the powerful canton of Berne in particular have accumulated from the savings on this fund a very large sum, thought to amount to several millions. Part is kept in a public treasury, and part is invested at interest in what are called the public funds of Europe's indebted nations, chiefly France and Great Britain. I do not claim to know the total cost to the state of the church of Berne or of any other Protestant canton. A very precise account shows that in 1755 the entire revenue of the clergy of the church of Scotland, including their glebe or church lands and the rent of their manses or dwelling-houses, valued on reasonable terms, amounted to only £68,514:1:5 ¹⁄₁₂d. This very modest revenue provides a decent living for nine hundred and forty-four ministers. The whole expense of the church, including occasional spending on building and repairing churches and ministers' manses, can hardly be supposed to exceed eighty or eighty-five thousand pounds a year. The wealthiest church in Christendom does no better than this very poorly endowed church of Scotland at sustaining among the great body of the people a common faith, fervent devotion, a spirit of order and regularity, and austere morals. It produces all the good effects, civil and religious, that an established church might be expected to produce, as fully as any other. Most of the Protestant churches of Switzerland, which generally have no better endowments than the church of Scotland, produce these effects to an even higher degree. In most Protestant cantons, not a single person can be found who does not profess to belong to the established church. If anyone professes another faith, however, the law obliges that person to leave the canton. Yet so severe—or rather so oppressive—a law could never have been enforced in such free countries if the diligence of the clergy had not already converted nearly the entire population to the established church, with perhaps only a few individuals excepted. Accordingly, in some parts of Switzerland where the accidental union of a Protestant and a Roman Catholic territory has kept conversion from being so complete, both religions are not merely tolerated but established by law.

The followers of Zuinglius, or more accurately those of Calvin, took a different approach. When a church position became vacant, they gave the people of its parish the right to choose their own pastor. They also established complete equality among clergymen. The first measure, while it lasted, seems to have caused only disorder and confusion and to have tended to corrupt both clergy and people's morals. The second seems to have had only good effects.

As long as parishioners had the right to choose their pastors, they nearly always followed the clergy's influence, especially that of the most divisive and fanatical clergymen. To keep their influence over these popular elections, many clergymen either became fanatics themselves or acted like them. They encouraged fanaticism among the people and almost always preferred the most fanatical candidate. Even something as small as choosing a parish priest almost always caused a bitter fight. It involved not only the parish itself but also neighboring parishes, which rarely failed to take sides. If the parish was in a large city, the contest split all its inhabitants into two parties. If that city was itself a small republic, or the capital of one, the danger grew. This was true of many major cities in Switzerland and Holland. Every petty dispute of this sort inflamed the hostility of all the other factions. It also threatened to leave a new split in the church and a new faction in the state. Magistrates in those small republics therefore soon found they needed to take over the right to nominate people for all vacant benefices to keep the peace. Scotland is the largest country ever to establish this presbyterian system of church government. An act establishing presbytery early in William III.'s reign effectively abolished the rights of patrons there. At least it allowed certain groups in each parish to buy the right to elect their own pastor for a very small price. The arrangement established by this act lasted about twenty-two years. But the 10th of queen Anne, ch.12 abolished it because this more democratic election system had caused disorder and confusion almost everywhere. A disturbance in a remote Scottish parish, however, was less likely to disrupt the government of a country as large as Scotland than the government of a smaller state. The 10th of queen Anne restored patrons' rights. Scottish law gives a benefice without exception to the person the patron nominates. But the church sometimes requires some agreement from the people before giving that person the cure of souls, meaning church authority over the parish. The church has not always made consistent decisions on this point. Sometimes, at least, it delays the appointment until it can obtain that agreement, claiming to be concerned for the parish's peace. Some neighboring clergymen privately interfere to get that agreement, but more often to prevent it. They also cultivate ways of winning popular support that help them interfere more effectively. These practices are perhaps the main reason any of the old fanatical spirit survives among Scotland's clergy or people.

Under presbyterian church government, equality among the clergy means, first, equal authority or church jurisdiction and, second, equal benefices. Authority is perfectly equal in all presbyterian churches, but benefices are not. Even so, the difference between benefices is seldom large enough to tempt a clergyman with a small one to seek a better one by flattering his patron and agreeing with everything he says. Wherever patrons' rights are firmly established in presbyterian churches, clergy generally try to win their superiors' favor in better ways: through learning, an irreproachably disciplined life, and faithful, diligent work. Patrons often complain that these clergymen are too independent. They see this as ingratitude for earlier favors. But at worst it may usually be no more than the indifference of people who know they cannot expect further favors of the same kind. Perhaps nowhere in Europe is there a more learned, decent, independent, and respectable body of men than most presbyterian clergymen in Holland, Geneva, Switzerland, and Scotland.

When all church benefices are roughly equal, none can be very large. Moderately sized benefices can, of course, be made too small. But they also have some very good effects. Only exemplary conduct can give dignity to someone of modest means. Frivolity and vanity necessarily make him look ridiculous. They are also nearly as financially ruinous for him as for ordinary people. He must therefore live by the moral standards ordinary people most respect. The way of life his own interests and circumstances lead him to follow also wins their esteem and affection. Ordinary people look kindly on someone whose condition is somewhat like theirs, though they think he deserves a higher one. Their kindness naturally encourages his kindness. He takes care to teach them and pays attention to helping and relieving them. Nor does he scorn the prejudices of people so well disposed toward him. He never treats them with the contempt and arrogance so often found among the proud leaders of rich, well-funded churches. Presbyterians' clergy therefore have perhaps more influence over ordinary people's minds than the clergy of any other established church. Accordingly, only in presbyterian countries do we find virtually every ordinary person converted completely to the established church without persecution.

Where most church benefices offer only a modest living, a university professorship generally offers a better one. Universities can then select their staff from all the country's clergymen, who form by far the largest group of scholars in every country. When many church benefices are very lucrative, by contrast, the church naturally takes most leading scholars away from universities. They generally find a patron who gains honor by securing a church appointment for them. In the first situation, the universities are likely to employ the country's leading scholars. In the second, they are likely to have few distinguished scholars. The few they do have will be among the youngest staff members, who are likely to be drawn away before they gain enough experience and knowledge to be very useful to their university. Mr de Voltaire observed that father Porée, a jesuit of no great standing among scholars, was the only professor France had ever had whose writings were worth reading. It seems strange that a country producing so many distinguished scholars should have had hardly any among its university professors. The famous Cassendi taught at the university of Aix early in his life. At the first signs of his talent, someone told him that entering the church would easily give him a more peaceful and comfortable living and a better opportunity to study. He followed the advice immediately. I believe Mr de Voltaire's observation applies not only to France but to every other Roman Catholic country. We very rarely find a distinguished scholar teaching at a university in any of them, except perhaps in law and medicine. The church is less likely to draw teachers away from those professions. After the church of Rome, the church of England is by far Christendom's richest and best-funded church. In England, therefore, the church continually takes universities' best and most capable members. A longtime college tutor renowned in Europe as a distinguished scholar is as rare there as in any Roman Catholic country. By contrast, in Geneva, the protestant cantons of Switzerland, the protestant regions of Germany, Holland, Scotland, Sweden, and Denmark, most of the distinguished scholars those countries have produced have taught at universities, though not all of them. In those countries, universities continually draw the church's most distinguished scholars into teaching.

It may be worth noting that, apart from poets, a few orators, and a few historians, most of the other distinguished scholars of Greece and Rome seem to have been public or private teachers. They usually taught philosophy or rhetoric. This holds from the time of Lysias and Isocrates, and Plato and Aristotle, down to Plutarch and Epictetus, Suetonius, and Quintilian. Requiring someone to teach a particular subject year after year seems to be the most effective way for him to master it thoroughly. He must cover the same material every year. If he has any ability, he will become well acquainted with every part of it within a few years. If he forms a hasty opinion on a point one year, he is likely to correct it when his lectures bring him back to the subject the next year. Teaching a subject is certainly a scholar's natural occupation. It may also be the training most likely to give him sound learning and knowledge. When church benefices provide only moderate incomes, most of a country's scholars are naturally drawn to the work in which they can be most useful to the public. They may also receive the best education available to them. This makes their learning as sound and useful as possible.

We should note that most of an established church's revenue is a part of the state's general revenue redirected away from a very different purpose: defending the state. An exception is the revenue from particular lands or manors. The tithe, for instance, is really a land tax. It prevents landowners from contributing as much to the state's defense as they otherwise could. Some say land rent is the only fund that can ultimately meet the needs of the state in all great monarchies; others say it is the main fund. Clearly, the more of that fund the church receives, the less remains for the state. We can take this as a firm rule, assuming other things are equal: the richer the church, the poorer either the sovereign or the people must be, and the less able the state is to defend itself in any case. In several protestant countries, especially every protestant canton of Switzerland, the former revenue of the Roman Catholic church—tithes and church lands—has been enough not only to pay the established clergy adequate salaries but also to cover nearly all other state expenses with little or no additional money. In particular, the magistrates of the powerful canton of Berne have saved a very large sum from this fund, thought to be several millions. Some is kept in the public treasury; some is invested at interest in the public funds of various indebted European nations, chiefly France and Great Britain. I do not claim to know the total cost to the state of the church in Berne or any other protestant canton. A very precise account shows that in 1755, the Scottish church clergy's entire revenue, including their glebe or church lands and a reasonable estimated rent for their manses or homes, was only £68,514:1:5 ¹⁄₁₂d. This modest sum supports nine hundred and forty-four ministers decently. Total church expenses, including occasional spending on building and repairing churches and ministers' manses, can hardly be more than eighty or eighty-five thousand pounds a year. Even Christendom's richest church does no better than Scotland's very poorly funded church at maintaining a shared faith, strong devotion, order, disciplined conduct, and strict morals among the great mass of people. It produces every good civil and religious effect that an established church can be expected to produce, just as fully as any other church does. Most protestant churches in Switzerland, which are generally no better funded than the Scottish church, produce these effects even more strongly. In most protestant cantons, everyone professes to belong to the established church. If someone declares membership in another church, the law requires that person to leave the canton. Yet such a harsh, indeed oppressive, law could never have been enforced in such free countries if diligent clergymen had not already converted almost everyone to the established church, perhaps leaving only a few exceptions. In some parts of Switzerland, a protestant region and a Roman Catholic region were united by chance, so conversion was less complete. Both religions are therefore not only tolerated there but established by law.