encroachment on that side; and a steady attachment
to the Church of England, with a proportionable aversion
to all dissenters from it, whether Catholic or Protestant,
was almost universally prevalent among them.
A due consideration of these distinct features in
the character of a party so powerful in Charles’s
and in James’s time, and even when it was lowest
(that is, during the reigns of the two first princes
of the House of Brunswick), by no means inconsiderable,
is exceedingly necessary to the right understanding
of English history. It affords a clue to many
passages otherwise unintelligible. For want of
a proper attention to this circumstance, some historians
have considered the conduct of the Tories in promoting
the revolution as an instance of great inconsistency.
Some have supposed, contrary to the clearest evidence,
that their notions of passive obedience, even in civil
matters, were limited, and that their support of the
government of Charles and James was founded upon a
belief that those princes would never abuse their
prerogative for the purpose of introducing arbitrary
sway. But this hypothesis is contrary to the
evidence both of their declarations and their conduct.
Obedience without reserve, an abhorrence of all resistance,
as contrary to the tenets of their religion, are the
principles which they professed in their addresses,
their sermons, and their decrees at Oxford; and surely
nothing short of such principles could make men esteem
the latter years of Charles II., and the opening of
the reign of his successor, an era of national happiness
and exemplary government. Yet this is the representation
of that period, which is usually made by historians
and other writers of the Church party. “Never
were fairer promises on one side, nor greater generosity
on the other,” says Mr. Echard. “The
king had as yet, in no instance, invaded the rights
of his subjects,” says the author of the Caveat
against the Whigs. Thus, as long as James contented
himself with absolute power in civil matters, and
did not make use of his authority against the Church,
everything went smooth and easy; nor is it necessary,
in order to account for the satisfaction of the parliament
and people, to have recourse to any implied compromise
by which the nation was willing to yield its civil
liberties as the price of retaining its religious
constitution. The truth seems to be, that the
king, in asserting his unlimited power, rather fell
in with the humour of the prevailing party than offered
any violence to it. Absolute power in civil
matters, under the specious names of monarchy and prerogative,
formed a most essential part of the Tory creed; but
the order in which Church and king are placed in the
favourite device of the party is not accidental, and
is well calculated to show the genuine principles
of such among them as are not corrupted by influence.
Accordingly, as the sequel of this reign will abundantly
show, when they found themselves compelled to make
an option, they preferred, without any degree of inconsistency,
their first idol to their second, and when they could
not preserve both Church and king, declared for the
former.