who, instead of intending the publick weal, have their hearts wholly fet upon ways and means how to get or to keep employments. But to fpeak more at large, how has this fpirit of faction mingled itself with the mass of the people, changed their nature and manners, and the very genius of the nation? broke all the laws of charity, neighbourhood, alliance, and hofpitality, deftroyed all ties of friendship, and divided families against themselves? and no wonder it should be so, when in order to find out the character of a person, instead of enquiring whether he be a man of virtue, honour, piety, wit, good sense, or learning; the modern question is only, whether he be a whig or a tory, under which terms all good and ill qualities are included,

:

Now, because it is a point of difficulty to chufe an exact middle between two ill extremes, it may be worth enquiring in the prefent cafe, which of thefe a wife and good man would rather seem to avoid taking therefore their own good and ill characters with due abatements and allowances for partiality and paffion, I should think that in order to preserve the constitution entire in church and state, whoever hath a true value for both, would be fure to avoid the extremes of whig for the fake of the former, and the extremes of tory on account of the latter.

I have now faid all, that I could think convenient upon fo nice a subject, and find I have the ambition common with other reafoners, to wish at least that both parties may think me in the right, which would be of fome use to those who have any virtue left, but are blindly drawn into the extravagancies of either, upon false representations, to ferve the ambition or maVOL. III.

H

lice

lice of defigning men, without any profpect of their own. But if that is not to be hoped for, my next wifh fhould be that both might think me in the wrong: which I would understand as an ample justification of myself, and a fure ground to believe, that I have proceeded at leaft with impartiality, and perhaps with truth.

A N

ARGUMENT

To prove that the ABOLISHING of

CHRISTIANITY

ΙΝ

ENGLAND

may, as things now ftand, be attended with fome inconveniencies, and perhaps not produce thofe many good effects propofed thereby.

Written in the Year 1708.

AM very fenfible, what a weakness and prefumption

IAM

it is, to reafon against the general humour and difpofition of the world. I remember it was with great juftice, and a due regard to the freedom, both of the publick and the prefs, forbidden upon fevere penalties to write, or difcourfe, or lay wagers against the union, even before it was confirmed by parliament; because that was looked upon as a design to oppofe the current of the people, which befides the folly of it, is a manifeft breach of the fundamental law, that makes this ma`jority of opinion the voice of God. In like manner, and for the very fame reafons, it may perhaps be neither fafe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of chriftianity

H 2

stianity at a juncture, when all parties appear 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 fingularity, or the perverseness of human nature, but fo it unhappily falls out, that I cannot be entirely of this opinion. Nay, though I were fure an order were issued for my immediate prosecution by the attorney-general, I should still confefs, that in the prefent posture of our affairs at home or abroad I do not yet fee the abfolute neceffity of extirpating the chriftian religion from among us.

This perhaps may appear too great a paradox even for our wife and paradoxical age to endure; therefore I fhall handle it with all the tenderness, and with the utmoft deference to that great and profound majority, which is of another fentiment.

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 abolishing christianity would then have appeared as fingular, and been thought as abfurd, 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 fyftem of the gospel, after the fate of other fyftems, 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 defcending from thofe of quality to

the

the middle fort, and thence to the vulgar, where at length they are dropped and vanish.

But here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be fo bold as to borrow a diftinction from the writers on the other fide, when they make a difference between nominal and real trinitarians. I hope no reader imagines me fo weak to stand up in the defence of real christianity, such as used in primitive times (if we may believe the authors of those ages) to have an influence upon mens 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 conftitution of things; to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the profeffors of them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges and shops into defarts; and would be full as abfurd as the propofal of Horace, where he advifes the Romans, all in a body, to leave their city, and seek a new feat in fome remote part of the world, by way of cure for the corruption of their manners.

Therefore I think this caution was in itfelf altogether unneceffary, (which I have inserted only to prevent all poffibility of cavilling) fince every candid reader will eafily understand my discourse to be intended only in defence of nominal christianity, the other having been for fome time wholly laid afide by general confent, as utterly inconsistent with our present schemes of wealth and power.

But why we should therefore caft off the name and title of chriftians, although the general opinion and refolution be fo violent for it, I confefs I cannot (with fubmiffion) apprehend, nor is the confequence neceffary. However, fince the undertakers propofe fuch wonder