The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D., Vol. III. | Page 4

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