It could be argued that in the previous chapter on the Argument against Abolishing Christianity, I have proposed a false polarisation, warping my readings of the text around two equally unlikely interpretations. In that essay, it could be said, Swift advocates a balanced and practical middle way of public piety, something like the message deciphered by Philip Harth:

The fallacy here is not in the interpretation, but in the idea that there is only one authoritative Swift and that he can be placed reliably behind this single interpretation. The text can be read as a fundamentalist, moderate, or libertine tract. Its implications can be construed to support real or nominal Christianity. We can view the Shaftesburian mode positively as quotation (a playful essay in an essentially libertine and rationalist enterprise), or negatively as parody (an ironic exposure of the absurdity, irresponsibility, and immorality of that enterprise). We cannot know which of these alternatives is correct. The text is finally opaque because none of these interpretations can claim an overwhelming authority.