pon one which is sure to
stick; and in time, each party grows proud of that appellation, which
their adversaries at first intended for a reproach. Of this kind were the
Prasini and Veneti,[3] the Guelfs and Ghibellines,[4] Huguenots and
Papists, Roundheads and Cavaliers,[5] with many others, of ancient and
modern date. Among us of late there seems to have been a barrenness of
invention in this point, the words Whig and Tory,[6] though they are not
much above thirty years old, having been pressed to the service of many
successions of parties, with very different ideas fastened to them. This
distinction, I think, began towards the latter part of King Charles the
Second's reign, was dropped during that of his successor, and then
revived at the Revolution, since which it has perpetually flourished,
though applied to very different kinds of principles and persons. In that
Convention of Lords and Commons,[7] some of both Houses were for a
regency to the Prince of Orange, with a reservation of style and title to
the absent king, which should be made use of in all public acts. Others,
when they were brought to allow the throne vacant, thought the succession
should immediately go to the next heir, according to the fundamental laws
of the kingdom, as if the last king were actually dead. And though the
dissenting lords (in whose House the chief opposition was) did at last
yield both those points, took the oaths to the new king, and many of them
employments, yet they were looked upon with an evil eye by the warm
zealots of the other side; neither did the court ever heartily favour any
of them, though some were of the most eminent for abilities and virtue,
and served that prince, both in his councils and his army, with untainted
faith. It was apprehended, at the same time, and perhaps it might have
been true, that many of the clergy would have been better pleased with
that scheme of a regency, or at least an uninterrupted lineal succession,
for the sake of those whose consciences were truly scrupulous; and they
thought there were some circumstances, in the case of the deprived
bishops,[8] that looked a little hard, or at least deserved
commiseration.

These, and other the like reflections did, as I conceive, revive the
denominations of Whig and Tory.

Some time after the Revolution the distinction of high and low-church
came in, which was raised by the Dissenters, in order to break the Church
party, by dividing the members into hig