The worst of it is, that this sort of outrageous party-writers I have above spoke of, are like a couple of make-bates, who inflame small quarrels by a thousand stories, and by keeping friends at a distance hinder them from coming to a good understanding, as they certainly would, if they were suffered to meet and debate between themselves. For let any one examine a reasonable honest man of either side, upon those opinions in religion and government, which both parties daily buffet each other about, he shall hardly find one material point in difference between them. I would be glad to ask a question about two great men[9] of the late ministry, how they came to be Whigs? and by what figure of speech, half a dozen others, lately put into great employments, can be called Tories? I doubt, whoever would suit the definition to the persons, must make it directly contrary to what we understood it at the time of the Revolution. In order to remove these misapprehensions among us, I believe it will be necessary upon occasion, to detect the malice and falsehood of some popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week, and draw an hundred absurd consequences from them. For example, I have heard it often objected as a great piece of insolence in the clergy and others, to say or hint that the Church was in danger, when it was voted otherwise in Parliament some years ago: and the Queen herself in her last speech, did openly condemn all such insinuations.[10] Notwithstanding which, I did then, and do still believe, the Church has, since that vote, been in very imminent danger; and I think I might then have said so, without the least offence to her Majesty, or either of the two Houses. The Queen's words, as near as I can remember, mentioned the Church being in danger from her administration; and whoever says or thinks that, deserves, in my opinion, to be hanged for a traitor. But that the Church and State may be both in danger under the best princes that ever reigned, and without the least guilt of theirs, is such a truth, as a man must be a great stranger to history or common sense, to doubt. The wisest prince on earth may be forced, by the necessity of his affairs, and the present power of an unruly faction, or deceived by the craft of ill designing men: One or two ministers, most in his confidence, may _at first_ have good intentions, but grow corrupted by time, by avarice, by love, by ambition, and have fairer terms offered them, to gratify their passions or interests, from _one set of men_ than another, till they are too far involved for a retreat; and so be forced to take "seven spirits more wicked than themselves." This is a very possible case; and will not "the last state of such men be worse than the first"? that is to say, will not the public, which was safe at first, grow in danger by such proceedings as these? And shall a faithful subject, who foresees and trembles at the consequences, be called _disaffected_,