leading men of his day only served to accentuate his consciousness of his superiority; and a party which would permit him the free play of his powers would be the party to which Swift would give his adhesion.  Godolphin, Somers, and Walpole either did not recognize the genius of the man, or their own “points of view” did not permit them to give him the free play they felt he would obtain.  Be that as it may, Harley gained not only a splendid party fighter, but a friend on whose affection he could ever rely.

In these tracts on Religion and the Church, which he wrote in the year 1708, Swift is not a party man, speaking for party purposes.  He 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.