A N

ARGUMENT

To prove that the

Abolishing of CHRISTIANITY

IN

ENGLAN D,

May as things now ftand, be attended with fome Inconveniencies, and per¬ haps not produce thofe many good Effects propofed thereby.

I

Written in the Year, 1708.

AM very fenfible what a Weaknefs and Presumption it is, to reafon against the general Humor and Difpofition of the World. I remember it was with great Jaftice, and a due regard to the Freedom both

of

of the Publick and the Prefs, forbidden upon feveral Penalties to Write, or Discourse, or lay. Wagers against the even before it was confirmed by Parliament, because that was look'd upon as a Defign, to oppose the Current of the People, which befides 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 fame Reasons, it may perhaps be neither fafe nor prudent to argue against the abolishing of Christianity: at a Juncture when, all Parties feem fo unanimoufly determined upon the Point, as we cannot but allow from their Actions, their Difcourfes, and their Writings. However, I know not how, whether from the Affectation of Singularity, or the Perverfenefs 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 iffued out for my immediate Profecuti, on by the Attorney General, I fhould ftill confess that in the prefent Posture of our Affairs at home or abroad, I

do

do not yet fee the abfolute Neceffity of extirpating the Christian 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 Tenderness, and with the utmost Deference to that great and profound Majority which is of another Sentiment.

AND yet the Curious may please to obferve, how much the Genius of a Nation is liable to alter in half an Age. I have heard it affirmed for certain by fome 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 Chriftianity would then have appeared as fingular, and been thought as abfurd, as it would be at this time to write or difcourse in it's Defence.

THEREFORE I freely down that all Appearances are againft me. The Syftem of the Gospel after the

Fate

Fate of other Systems is generally antiquated and exploded; and the Mals or Body of the common People, among whom it feems to have had it's latest Credit, are now grown as much afhamed of it as their Betters. Opinions like Fashions always defcending from those of Quality to the middle fort, and thence to the Vulgar, where at length they are dropt and vanish.

BUT here I would not be miftaken, and mus therefore be fo bold as to borrow a Distinction from the Writers on the other fide, when they make a Difference betwixt Nominal and Real Trinitarians. I hope no Reader imagines me fo weak to ftand up in the Defence of Real Chriftianity, fuch as used in Primitive Times (if we may believe the Authors of thofe 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 en

tire

tire 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 and fhops into Deferts; 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 feek a new Seat in fome remote Part of the World, by way of a Cure for the Corruption of their Manners.

THEREFORE I think this Caution was in it self altogether unneceffary (which I have inferted only to prevent all Poffibility of Caviling) fince every candid Reader will eafily understand my Difcourfe to be intended only in Defence of Nominal Chriftianity, the other having been for fome time wholly laid afide by general Confent, as utterly inconfiftent with all our present Schemes of Wealth and Power,

BUT why we fhould therefore caft off the Name and Title of Chriftians, although the general Opinion

and