I believe the greatest part of such well-meaning people, are now thoroughly converted.
And indeed it must be allowed, that the two fantastick names of whig and tory, have, at present, very little relation to those opinions, which were at first thought to distinguish them. Whoever formerly professed himself to approve the Revolution, to be against the pretender, to justify the succession in the house of Hanover, to think the British monarchy not absolute, but limited by laws which the executive power could not dispense with, and to allow an indulgence to scrupulous consciences; such man was content to be called a whig. On the other side, whoever asserted the queen's hereditary right, that the persons of princes were sacred, their lawful authority not to be resisted on any pretence; nor even their usurpations, without the most extreme necessity; that breaches in the succession were highly dangerous; that schism was a great evil, both in itself and its consequences; that the ruin of the church would probably be attended with that of the state; that no power should be trusted with those who are not of the established religion; such a man was usually called a tory. Now, although the opinions of both these are very consistent, and I really think are maintained at present by a great majority of the kingdom; yet according as men apprehend the danger greater, either from the pretender and his party, or from the violence and cunning of other enemies to the constitution, so their common discourses and reasonings turn either to the first, or second set of these opinions, I have mentioned; and they are consequently styled either whigs or tories. Which is as if two brothers apprehended their house
