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