up of heterogeneous, inconsistent parts, whom[1] nothing served to unite, but the common interest of sharing in the spoil and plunder of the people; the present dread of their adversaries, by whom they[2] apprehended to be called to an account; and that general conspiracy of endeavouring to overturn the church and state, which, however, if they could have compassed, they would certainly have fallen out among themselves, and broke in pieces, as their predecessors did after they destroyed the monarchy and religion. For, how could a whig, who is against all discipline, agree with a presbyterian, who carries it higher than the papists themselves? How could a socinian adjust his models to either? or how could any of these cement with a deist, or freethinker, when they came to consult upon points of faith? Neither would they have agreed better in their systems of government; where some would have been for a king under the limitations of a duke of Venice; others for a Dutch republic; a third party for an aristocracy; and most of all for some new fabrick of their own contriving.
But, however, let us consider them as a party, and under those general tenets wherein they agreed, and which they publickly owned, without charging them with any that they pretend to deny. Then, let us examine those principles of the tories, which their adversaries allow them to profess, and do not pretend to tax them with any actions contrary to those professions: after which, let the reader
