are still in the same disposition, and that this writer has received direction from his superiours, to pursue the old style upon that article. Accordingly, in the paragraph I am now upon, he represents that reverend body as leaders, cuilies, and tools. First, he says, "That rout of secret teasers (meaning the nobility and gentry of the kingdom) were led by the priests." Then he assures us, "That the queen will, in a year or two, begin to consider, who it was that cheated those poor priests." And in case her majesty should have a mind to bring in the old ministry again, he comforts his party, "That the priests are seldom wanting, to become the tools of cunning managers." I desire to know in what sense he would have us to understand, that these poor priests have been cheated. Are they cheated by a fund established for building fifty churches? or the queen's letter empowering them to proceed on the business proper for a convocation? what one single advantage could they possibly lose by this change? They are still indeed abused every day in print, but it is by those who are without the power to hurt them; the serpent has lost his sting, is trodden under foot, and its hissing is contemned. But he confidently affirms, "That, when it shall be thought fit to restore the old ministry, the priests will not be wanting, to become the tools of their cunning managers." This I cannot by any means allow, unless they have some hidden reserve of cunning, which has never yet been produced. The cunningest managers I ever knew among them, are, of all others, most detested by the clergy: neither do I remember they have been ever able to make any of them tools, except
by
