evolution.

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_,
because he delivers his opinion, though the prince declares, as he justly
may, that the danger is not owing to his administration? Or, shall the
prince himself be blamed, when in such a juncture he puts his affairs
into other hands, with the universal applause of his people? As to the
vote against those who should affirm the Church was in danger, I think it
likewise referred to danger from or under t