The Prose Works of Jonathan Swift, D.D., Vol. III. | Page 5

used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those
ages) to have an influence upon men's belief and actions: To offer at
the restoring of that would indeed be a wild project; it would be to dig
up foundations; to destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the learning
of the kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things; to
ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences with the professors of them; in
short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into deserts; and would
be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace,[3] where he advises the
Romans all in a body to leave their city, and seek a new seat in some
remote part of the world, by way of cure for the corruption of their
manners.
[Footnote 3: This proposal is embodied in the 16th Epode, where, in an
appeal "to the Roman people," Horace advises them to fly the evils of
tyranny and civil war by sailing away to "the happy land, those islands
of the blest:"
"Nos manet Oceanus circumvagus! arva, beata Petamus arva, divites et
insulas!" [T.S.]]
Therefore I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary,
(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of cavilling) since
every candid reader will easily understand my discourse to be intended
only in defence of nominal Christianity; the other having been for some
time wholly laid aside by general consent, as utterly inconsistent with
our present schemes of wealth and power.
But why we should therefore cast off the name and title of Christians,
although the general opinion and resolution be so violent for it, I
confess I cannot (with submission) apprehend the consequence
necessary.[4] However, since the undertakers propose such wonderful
advantages to the nation by this project, and advance many plausible

objections against the system of Christianity, I shall briefly consider the
strength of both, fairly allow them their greatest weight, and offer such
answers as I think most reasonable. After which I will beg leave to
shew what inconveniences may possibly happen by such an innovation,
in the present posture of our affairs.
[Footnote 4: I give the reading of the "Miscellanies" (1711), Faulkner
and Hawkesworth. Scott and Craik print it: "I confess I cannot (with
submission) apprehend, nor is the consequence necessary." [T.S.]]
_First,_ One great advantage proposed by the abolishing of Christianity
is, that it would very much enlarge and establish liberty of conscience,
that great bulwark of our nation, and of the Protestant Religion, which
is still too much limited by priestcraft, notwithstanding all the good
intentions of the legislature, as we have lately found by a severe
instance. For it is confidently reported, that two young gentlemen of
real hopes, bright wit, and profound judgment, who upon a thorough
examination of causes and effects, and by the mere force of natural
abilities, without the least tincture of learning, having made a discovery,
that there was no God, and generously communicating their thoughts
for the good of the public, were some time ago, by an unparalleled
severity, and upon I know not what obsolete law, broke for
blasphemy.[5] And as it hath been wisely observed, if persecution once
begins, no man alive knows how far it may reach, or where it will end.
[Footnote 5: No record of this "breaking" has been discovered. [T.S.]]
In answer to all which, with deference to wiser judgments, I think this
rather shews the necessity of a nominal religion among us. Great wits
love to be free with the highest objects; and if they cannot be allowed a
God to revile or renounce, they will speak evil of dignities, abuse the
government, and reflect upon the ministry; which I am sure few will
deny to be of much more pernicious consequence, according to the
saying of Tiberius, _Deorum offensa diis curae._[6] As to the particular
fact related, I think it is not fair to argue from one instance, perhaps
another cannot be produced; yet (to the comfort of all those who may
be apprehensive of persecution) blasphemy we know is freely spoken a
million of times in every coffeehouse and tavern, or wherever else good
company meet. It must be allowed indeed, that to break an English
free-born officer only for blasphemy, was, to speak the gentlest of such
an action, a very high strain of absolute power. Little can be said in

excuse for the general; perhaps he was afraid it might give offence to
the allies, among whom, for aught we know, it may be the custom of
the country to believe a God. But if he argued, as some have done,
upon a mistaken principle, that an officer who is guilty of speaking
blasphemy, may some time or other proceed so far as to raise a