yield rather than to break the peace of the Church for the sake of trifles--for the ceremonies were on all sides allowed to be things indifferent. In the time of King Edward, and even from that period down to the reign of Charles II., none but a few visionaries deemed it to be lawful to separate from an Established Church-a Church that had nothing sinful in her practice, or corrupt in her doctrine. Schism was viewed, almost by all, with abhorrence. The Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference, and the Nonconformists at the Savoy Conference, were averse to a separation from an Established Church, and to a general toleration of all sects. In both these instances the parties laboured to produce such modifications in the ceremonies and practices of the Church as should enable them to comply; and it was not till some years after the Savoy Conference that the lawfulness of complete separation was admitted by the great body of Nonconformists. When, therefore, we consider that such were the views of all parties respecting schism, toleration, and the necessity of an Established Church, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion, that on the principles of the age, principles disputed only by a small body, the defence of the Church of England, during the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., Charles I., and Charles II., is much more easy than that of the Puritans and Nonconformists, inasmuch as the latter parties did not seek for toleration for themselves, but for a complete change in the worship and government of the Church as settled by the Reformers, many of whom had yielded up their lives in defence of the principles and practices which, after the most mature deliberation, they had deemed it necessary to adopt.

These considerations ought ever to be taken into the account in contemplating the events of the period to which we allude. We would also remind Dr. Vaughan that the Reformation in England was effected by men who maintained the very same views, as to doctrine and discipline, as are now held by the Anglican Church. There were no Dissenters in the first stages of the Reformation: the work was accomplished by the Church; and all the martyrs the men who have rendered the short reign of Queen Mary so memorable in English history-were her sons, her supporters, and most vigorous defenders. Had the principles of modern Dissent been acted upon in the time of King Edward VI., no reformation could have taken place. Such principles may be carried out into practice in such times as the present, and under the fostering wing of a tolerant Church; but what could they have done against Popery at the period of the Reformation? Dr. Vaughan must be well aware that neither the Puritans nor the Presbyterians in 1662, nor, indeed,

any parties, with the exception of the Independents and Sectaries, the offspring of the excesses of the Commonwealth, entertained the same views with himself on the important points of schism, toleration, and establishments.

Whatever may have been the views of some of the statesmen of the time respecting the Act of Uniformity, there can be little doubt that Charles himself contemplated the setting it aside, by the exercise of the prerogative, in the form of a royal indulgence.

It is, indeed, certain, that the ministers who quitted their livings under the Act were induced to believe that their end would be more easily accomplished if a large body should refuse to conform, as, in such a case, his majesty would interpose in their favour, which he could not do should their numbers be insignificant. This fact will account for the number being so large; and in reply to the objection, that they would have conformed at a subsequent period if this position had been correct, we need only remark, that it is not easy for men to depart from a course when once it has been deliberately taken. Besides, the Nonconformists were buoyed up with the same expectations during the whole of this reign, so that they were not able to think of retracing their steps. Some of those who relinquished their livings under the operation of the Act conformed at a subsequent period; and undoubtedly many others would have followed their example had they not been committed to a party. It was the policy of a section of Charles's cabinet to persuade the Nonconformists to continue firm in their resolution not to conform. The party in question were anxious for his majesty to exercise that dispensing power, respecting which there was so much discussion during this and the succeeding reign. They hoped that the Romanists, as well as the Nonconformists, would reap the benefit; while they were well aware that there would be no hope for the former in the event of the great mass of the silenced ministers conforming to the Church of England.

With respect to the views entertained by the Nonconformists of the king's intentions to protect them from the operation of the Act of Uniformity, our opinions are in accordance with the remarks of Dr. Vaughan. If, indeed, the king and the bishops had been equally attached to the Church, and no underhand practices had been resorted to by some of the royal advisers, the numbers of the Bartholomew sufferers would have fallen very short of the numbers actually removed. Expecting that the shield of the royal favour would be thrown over them, many quitted their livings in the hope of being restored at a future day. Nor did the king and some of the cabinet relax in their

exertions to procure a toleration or indulgence; which, however, was to embrace the Romanists as well as the Nonconformists. At that time the sovereign claimed the power of suspending the operation of the penal laws; and the end in view was to be accomplished by what was termed a Declaration of Indulgence. It appears that the king actually intimated to the Nonconformist leaders, even before the day fixed for the enforcement of the Act of Uniformity, that its operation should be suspended. In this scheme, however, his majesty was disappointed by the Parliament and the judges, who concurred in stating that the suspension of the statutes of the realm was contrary to law. After such an expression of the feelings of the great council of the nation, some years elapsed before any direct attempt was made to suspend the operation of the penal laws; but in the year 1672 his majesty ventured on that bold step, issuing the Declaration, by which the Nonconformists and the Romanists were permitted to use separate places of worship. Dr. Vaughan remarks of the Declaration :—

"It owed its existence to a dispensing power assumed by the crown, and which, of course, supplied a very dangerous precedent. It was hardly a secret, moreover, that the benefit intended by it was designed ultimately for the Catholic, much more than the Protestant.” (p. 659).

By the Parliament and the majority of the nation the measure was viewed with feelings of alarm. Dr. Vaughan admits that the "Declaration was censured generally and vehemently." The Parliament, however, were not averse to the toleration of the Nonconformists; but, perceiving that it was the intention of his majesty to screen especially his Roman Catholic subjects, they were alarmed lest the measure should tend to the increase of Popery. From the year 1662 the Parliament had declared against the dispensing power assumed, or attempted to be assumed, by the crown; and before the close of the year 1673, when the Declaration had been for a considerable time in operation, they solemnly protested against its exercise. On a division, 168 members of the Lower House declared against 116, who voted in the minority, that the laws of the land could not be suspended, except by an Act of Parliament. The king, therefore, though very reluctantly, consented to recal the Declaration. At this time the majority in the House of Commons would have concurred in a bill for the relief of the Nonconformists, leaving the laws against the Romanists in operation; but it was not the policy of the court to proceed by Act of Parliament, since, in that case, there would have been no hope of relaxing the law against the members of the Church of

Rome-the Dissenters being freed from the operation of the penal statutes. The court deemed it a wiser course to prevent the alteration of the law, and to attempt to relieve the Romanists, as well as the Nonconformists, by the exercise of a dispensing power. During the whole of this reign a constant struggle was carried on between the court and the Parliament on this subject.

Dr. Vaughan asserts that the revolution was owing to the proceedings of such men as Hampden and Pym, rather than to any individuals who lived at the time; and his object undoubtedly was to throw a shield over the failings of the Dissenters, in concurring as they did with the measures of the court. In alluding to this subject, the author evidently is aware that he is treading a very difficult path, and we might expect that he would proceed with much caution. It is, however, clear that he is somewhat ashamed of the conduct of the Nonconformists at this juncture, though he is too good a Dissenter to censure them. Thus we find him remarking, adopting the words of another writer:

"It has been justly observed, that the Nonconformists were acted upon by powerful inducements and dissuasives. The preservation of civil liberty, the interest of the Protestant religion, the secure enjoyment of freedom in their own worship, were irresistible reasons against compliance. Gratitude for present relief, remembrance of recent wrongs, and a strong sense of the obligation to prefer the exercise of religion to every other consideration, were very strong temptations to a different conduct. The result of these conflicting motives seems to have been, that the far greater part of all denominations of Dissenters availed themselves of the Declaration so far as to resume their public worship; that the most distinguished of their clergy, and the majority of the Presbyterians, resisted the solicitations of the court to sanction the dispensing power by addresses of thanks for this exertion of it; that all the Quakers, the greater part of the Baptists, and perhaps also of the Independents, did not scruple to give this perilous token of their misguided gratitude, though many of them confined themselves to thanks for toleration, and solemn assurances that they would not abuse it. About one hundred and eighty of these addresses were presented in ten months, of which there were only seventy-seven exclusively and avowedly from Nonconformists." (pp. 889, 890).

The author does not state from whom this passage is taken; but he adds, in a note, that only seven addresses were presented by the bishops and clergy. In this way does the author pass over the conduct of the Dissenters on this occasion, scarcely giving an opinion of his own, but, to avoid the charge of not noticing the question at all, giving the words of another, and then proceeding to other matters. We, however, cannot per

VOL. X.-C

mit the subject to be passed over so lightly, feeling that historic truth demands that our author's omissions should be exposed.

Alluding to the silence of the Dissenters relative to the Popish controversy during the reign of James II., Mr. Hallam remarks: "The Dissenters have been a little ashamed of their compliance with the Declaration, and of their silence in the Popish controversy during this reign.' Mr. Hallam, indeed, endeavours to find an excuse in their previous sufferings; but, more candid than Dr. Vaughan, he honestly states the fact. This is all we can desire. Dr. Vaughan was bound by the principle of common honesty to do the same: and then he might have mentioned any palliating circumstances which struck him as fair and reasonable. Then, with respect to the addresses presented to his majesty on the Declaration, Mr. Hallam says—

"These addresses, which, to the number of some hundreds, were sent up from every description of persons, the clergy, the nonconformists of all denominations, the grand juries, the justices of the peace, the corporations, the inhabitants of towns, in consequence of the Declaration, afford a singular contrast to what we know of the prevailing dispositions of the people in that year. Those from the clergy, indeed, disclose their ill-humour at the unconstitutional indulgence, limiting their thanks to some promises of favour the king had used towards the Established Church."

There is some discrepancy between Mr. Hallam's numbers and Dr. Vaughan's; but the latter admits that seven addresses only proceeded from the bishops and clergy, and their character is stated by the former.

But Dissenting authorities are constrained to admit that their brethren, in 1688, acted very improperly. One leading man amongst them, Mr. Alsop, penned an address to his majesty, in which he wished him "success in his great councils and affairs;" and this address was signed by a large body. His majesty's intentions are now well known, and could not have been unknown to the Nonconformists of the period. Calamy alludes with sorrow to their conduct. He attempts, indeed, to palliate, not to justify it; but he adds, that "he would gladly throw a veil over" Mr. Alsop's conduct. We allude to these matters for the purpose of pointing out the inconsistency of the Dissenters of our own times, in charging the Church of England and her clergy with leaning towards Popery, when the fact, that Popery must have prevailed in 1688, if the schemes of the court had

*Hallam's Const. Hist., iii. 101.

+ Hallam. iii. 100. Calamy's Abridgment, ii. 488.