To conclude this section, it must be observed, there is a very good word, which hath of late suffered much by both parties, and that is, MODERATION, which the one side very justly disowns, and the other as unjustly pretends to.  Beside what passeth every day in conversation; any man who reads the papers published by Mr. Lesley[9] and others of his stamp, must needs conclude, that if this author could make the nation see his adversaries under the colours he paints them in, we have nothing else to do, but rise as one man and destroy such wretches from the face of the earth.  On the other side, how shall we excuse the advocates for moderation? among whom, I could appeal to a hundred papers of universal approbation by the cause they were writ for, which lay such principles to the whole body of the Tories, as, if they were true, and believed; our next business should in prudence be, to erect gibbets in every parish, and hang them out of the way.  But I suppose it is presumed, the common people understand raillery, or at least, rhetoric, and will not take hyperboles in too literal a sense; which however in some junctures might prove a desperate experiment.

[Footnote 9:  This was Charles Leslie, the second son of the Bishop of Clogher (1650-1722).  He was educated for the bar, but forsook that, and entered into holy orders.  In his zeal for the established Church he persecuted the Catholics; but this did not interfere with his adhesion to Jacobite political principles.  He settled in London, and wrote a weekly paper called “The Rehearsal, or a Review of the Times,” in which he attacked Locke and Hoadly.  He did all he could for the cause of the exiled James, but he gave up the work when he found it hopeless, and died in Ireland.  He wrote many virulent theological works, as well as a host of political tracts. [T.  S.]]

And this is moderation in the modern sense of the word, to which, speaking impartially, the bigots of both parties are equally entitled.

SECTION II.

The Sentiments of a Church of England Man with respect to Government.

We look upon it as a very just reproach, though we cannot agree where to fix it, that there should be so much violence and hatred in religious matters, among men who agree in all fundamentals, and only differ in some ceremonies, or at most mere speculative points.  Yet is not this frequently the case between contending parties in a state?  For instance:  Do not the generality of Whigs and Tories among us, profess to agree in the same fundamentals, their loyalty to the Queen, their abjuration of the Pretender, the settlement of the crown in the protestant line, and a revolution principle?  Their affection to the Church established, with toleration of dissenters?  Nay sometimes they go further, and pass over into each other’s principles; the Whigs become great assertors of the prerogative, and the Tories of the people’s liberty; these crying down almost the