a drop of blood followed: the ventricle of his heart had burst and caused an instantaneous and painless death. "Full of years and glory, he died without a pang, and without a reverse. He left his family firmly established on a long disputed throne, and was taken away in the moment that approaching extinction of sight and hearing made loss of life the only blessing that remained de sirable."*

*Walpole, Memoirs.

CHAPTER II.

THE HISTORY OF RELIGION.

THE settlement, as it used properly to be styled, of 1689, was, in the church as well as in the state, much less of a revolution, than was either the abolition of the ancient government in 1640, or its restoration in 1660. The change in regard to the one, as well as to the other, was not of institutions, but only of persons. As the monarchy remained, with only a new king, so did the established church, with only the substitution of some new bishops and other clergymen.

The victory of 1668 was really, in the main, a victory of protestantism, and, as such, a victory of the established church. Yet, notwithstanding this character of the result, and notwithstanding also the fact that it had been principally brought about by means of the church, there is no doubt that the Revolution was far from being acceptable to the generality of the clergy. That event, indeed, brought with it no new laws directly affecting the established church in England-no alteration of anything in either its internal or external condition, in its doctrines, its discipline, its endowments, or its position in the state. On the contrary, all its ancient rights and liberties, some of which had been recently attempted to be infringed, were confirmed, and more distinctly recognised than they had been at any former period. But still there were obvious enough reasons why such a body as the established clergy should be in general dissatisfied with such a change as the Revolution. It is certain, in the first place, that, although the resistance of some of the heads of the church, in which they were backed by the nearly universal body of the clergy, as well as of the laity, had been principally instrumental in driving the late king from the

throne, yet that was a consequence of their conduct which was neither foreseen nor desired, either by some of themselves, or by the great multitude of their inferiors by whom they were supported and applauded.

The mass of the people can scarcely be said to have taken part at all in the measures that were ultimately adopted. And, even in the legislature, the majority of the peers were avowedly hostile to the deposition of the king. The Revolution of 1689 was not the act of the House of Commons alone, in so far as it was a national act at all. And even that body might possibly have contented itself with a less decided change if it had not been for the attitude taken by the Prince of Orange himself, who soon made it be clearly understood that he would only go on with and finish the work he had been called in to do upon one condition. So that, after all, this glorious Revolution, as it is styled, may be said to have been, on the part of the English nation, little less than a forced leap over a precipice, at the edge of which it found itself, without the power of retreat.

When the convention, which had conferred the crown upon William and Mary, had, by an act of the two Houses, which received the royal assent in the usual form, been turned into a parliament, and the oath of allegiance imposed by that act came to be administered to the Lords and Commons, only eight of the bishops in the first instance consented to take it; two more, after some hesitation, followed their example; but eight absented themselves, and persisted in refusing to acknowledge the new government. Of the number were Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury; Turner, bishop of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken, of Bath and Wells; and White, of Peterborough; five of the seven prelates whose refusal to read King James's Declaration of Indulgence had given the signal for the late Revolution. The other three who refused to take the oath were, Thomas, bishop of Worcester; Lloyd, of Norwich; and Frampton, of Gloucester. Lloyd, of St. Asaph, and Trelawney, of Bristol, were the only two of the seven petitioners against the indulgence who consented to sanction the

change which their petition had mainly contributed to bring about; the others, who took the oath along with them, being Lamplugh, archbishop of York (to which see he had been translated from Exeter scarcely three months before by King James); Compton, bishop of London; Barlowe, of Lincoln; Mew, of Winchester; Sprat, of Rochester; Bean, of Llandaff; and, shortly afterwards, Smith, of Carlisle; and Watson, of St. Davids. To these may be added Lord Crewe, bishop of Durham, who seems to have taken the oath in his capacity of a temporal peer. But, indeed, nearly all the bishops who complied with the new settlement were opposed to it at heart; Compton and Trelawney must be regarded as the only members of the right reverend bench who were really in favour of the transference of the crown from the head of James to that of William; only these two voted in the majority of fifty-one against fortynine, by which it was carried that the vacant throne should be filled, not by a regent but by a king, while thirteen of their brethren were counted in the minority. On the whole, of the twenty-six spiritual peers, seven may be said to have been, at this time, owing to one cause or another, absent from Parliament; and, of the remaining nineteen, eleven consented to take the oath of allegiance to the new government, and eight refused or withdrew from the House to avoid it.

Before, however, they took the step, some of them, Burnet tells us, moved the House for a bill of toleration and another of comprehension, "that they might recommend themselves," he is pleased to add, "by a show of moderation." But the truth is, these nonjuring prelates, while they evinced their sincerity and conscientiousness by the strongest of all tests, were most of them, in all probability, more mildly disposed towards the dissenters, and really more favourable to a measure of toleration, than some of their brethren who took a different course. Meanwhile, when it was found that the bishops who were averse to take the oaths could not be reached by the existing law, so long as they chose to refrain from presenting themselves in parliament, a new bill was

brought into the House of Commons, which was eventually passed under the name of “ An Act for abrogating the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and appointing other oaths," and which, among other regulations, declared that every archbishop and bishop neglecting to take the new oaths should be liable to the same penalties as they would have been liable to by any statute for refusing to take the abrogated oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and further, that every holder of any ecclesiastical office whatsoever, by whom the new oaths should not have been taken before the 1st of August, should be in the first instance suspended for six months, and, at the end of that time, if he had not taken them, should be deprived. The debates upon this bill brought out very strongly the determined attachment of the majority of both Houses to the sacramental test, the great bar which kept the dissenters without the pale of the constitution. Accordingly, notwithstanding the exertions of Burnet, who, having been made bishop of Salisbury, was, he tells us, "the chief manager of the debate in favour of the clergy, both in the House of Lords and at the conferences with the Commons," the measure passed with no further mitigation of its original severity than the annexation of a clause leaving it to the king to allow to any twelve of the nonjuring clergy he might think fit to select, "an allowance out of their ecclesiastical benefices or promotions for their subsistence, not exceeding a third part, and to continue during his majesty's pleasure, and no longer.'

After all, the generality of the clergy took the oaths, "though," according to Burnet, "with too many reservations and distinctions, which laid them open to severe censures, as if they had taken them against their conscience." In another passage, he imputes much of the general corruption of principle, which, he affirms, notwithstanding an outward face of virtue and sobriety, was now fast spreading through the nation, to this conduct of the ministers of religion: "It must be confessed," he

* 1 Will. and Mary, c. 8. † Own Time, ii. 28.