idea of an established church to have somebody to worry and torment,
suppose we were to select for this purpose William Wilberforce,
Esq., and the patent Christians of Clapham. We shall by this
expedient enjoy the same opportunity for cruelty and injustice,
without being exposed to the same risks: we will compel them to
abjure vital clergymen by a public test, to deny that the said
William Wilberforce has any power of working miracles, touching for
barrenness or any other infirmity, or that he is endowed with any
preternatural gift whatever. We will swear them to the doctrine of
good works, compel them to preach common sense, and to hear it; to
frequent Bishops, Deans, and other High Churchmen; and to appear,
once in the quarter at the least, at some melodrame, opera,
pantomime, or other light scenical representation; in short, we will
gratify the love of insolence and power; we will enjoy the old
orthodox sport of witnessing the impotent anger of men compelled to
submit to civil degradation, or to sacrifice their notions of truth
to ours. And all this we may do without the slightest risk, because
their numbers are, as yet, not very considerable. Cruelty and
injustice must, of course, exist; but why connect them with danger?
Why torture a bulldog when you can get a frog or a rabbit? I am
sure my proposal will meet with the most universal approbation. Do
not be apprehensive of any opposition from ministers. If it is a
case of hatred, we are sure that one man will defend it by the
Gospel: if it abridges human freedom, we know that another will
find precedents for it in the Revolution.

In the name of Heaven, what are we to gain by suffering Ireland to
be rode by that faction which now predominates over it? Why are we
to endanger our own Church and State, not for 500,000 Episcopalians,
but for ten or twelve great Orange families, who have been sucking