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[1] be glad to ask a question about two great men 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 falshood of some popular maxims, which those idiots scatter from the press twice a week, and draw a 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. 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
- ↑ Would, here, is improperly used for, should.
