sach a private manner, which, as yet, nobody owns; and which, as they say, seems rather to be written like a lawyer's brief, than a princely declaration. We assure your Majesty, scarce one in five hundred believes it to be the Prince's true declaration.

"No! said the king, with some vehemence, then that five hundred would cut my throat,' (or bring in the Prince of Orange upon my throat.)

"The Bishops.-God forbid!

"The King. What, must I not be believed? must my credit be called in question? As he turned the Declaration over in his hands, one of the bishops asked, whether the Prince of Orange's arms were to it? He said, there were all the signs of a true Declaration.

"The Bishops.-Sir, your Majesty's credit is not here concerned. It is sufficient for that, that your officers seized on it.

“The Archbishop.—Sir, it is good reason to us to suspect it is not his, that this very clause is in it, of his being invited by a great many spiritual and temporal lords. For either this is true or false. If true, one would think it were very unwisely done of the Prince of Orange, to discover it so soon. If it be false, one would not imagine a great prince would publish a manifest untruth, and make it the grounds of his enterprise.

"The King-What! he that can do as he does, think you he will stick at a lie? You all know how usual it is for men in such cases, to affirm any kind of falsehoods, for the advantage of their cause. "The Bishops. However, Sir, this is a business of state, which properly be longs not to us. To declare peace and war is not our duty; but in your Majesty's power only. God has intrusted the sword

with you.

"The Archbishop.-Truly, Sir, we have lately some of us here, and others my brethren who are absent, so severely smarted for meddling with matters of state and government, that it may well make us exceeding cautious how we do so any more. For, though we presented your Majesty with a petition of the most innocent nature, and in the most humble manner imaginable, yet we were so violently prosecuted, as it would have ended in our ruin if God's goodness had not preserved us: and I assure your Majesty, the whole accusation turned upon this one point.-Your Attorney and Solicitor both affirmed, that the honestest paper relating to matters of civil government might be a seditious libel, when pre

sented by persons who had nothing to do with such matters, as they said we had not, but in time of parliament. And indeed, Sir, they pursued us so fiercely upon this occasion, that, for my part, I gave myself for lost.

"The King. I thank you for that, my Lord of Canterbury: I could not have thought you would believe yourselves lost by falling into my hands.

"The Bishops.-Sir, my Lord of Canterbury's meaning is, he looked on himself as lost in the course of law; lost in Westminster Hall.

"The Archbishop But, Sir, the injustice of the prosecution against us did not cease there. After we had been ac quitted by our jury, and our acquitment was recorded; and so we were right in the eye of the law: yet after that, we were afresh arraigned, and condemned by divers of your judges, as seditious libellers, in their circuits all over England. And, Sir, I beg leave to say, that if the law were open, (that is, as he afterwards explained himself, if the same persons were not to be judges and parties,) bad the meanest subject your Majesty has, been used as we have been, he would have found abundant reparation in your courts of justice for so great a scandal. I will particularly acquaint your Majesty with what one of your judges, Baron H. said, coming from the bench, where he had declared our petition to be a factious libel. A gentleman of quality asking him, how he could have the conscience to say so, when the bishops had been legally discharged of it? he answered, you need not trouble yourself with what I said on the bench: I have instructions for what I said, and I had lost my place, if had not said it. Sir, added the Archbishop, I hope this is not true. But it is true that he said it. There was another of your judges, Sir, Baron R. who attacked us in another manner, and endeavoured to expose us as ridiculous; alleging, that we did not write true English, and it was fit we should be convicted by Dr. Busby for false grammar.

"The Bishops.-Sir, that was not all. The same judge, as we are certainly informed, presumed to revile the whole church of England in the most scandalous language, affirming, that this church, which your Majesty has so ofton honoured by promising to cherish and protect it, is a cruel and bloody church." Vol. I. P. 361.

"The bishops then stated, that they understood several of the temporal lords had had interviews with his Majesty upon this very occasion; and they humbly asked, whether he had demanded any such thing

of them, as he was now pleased to do from the bishops.

"His Majesty said, No, he had not. But it would be of more concernment to his service that they (the bishops) should do it, because they had greater interest with the people.

"The bishops replied, that, in matters of this nature, belonging to civil government and the affairs of war and peace, it was most probable the nobility would have far greater influence on the nation than themselves; as they had greater interests at stake, and the management of such matters belonged more properly to them. "The King. But this is the method I have proposed. I am your king. I am judge what is best for me. I will go my own way; I desire your assistance in it. "The Bishops.-Sir, we have already made our personal vindication here in your Majesty's presence: your Majesty has condescended to say, you believe and are satisfied with it. Now, Sir, it is in your power to publish what we have here said, to all the world, in your royal Declaration, which we hear is coming forth.

"The King.-No; if I should publish it, the people would not believe me.

"The Bishops.-Sir, the word of a king is sacred; it ought to be believed on its own authority. It would be presumption in us to pretend to strengthen it: and the people cannot but believe your Majesty in this matter.

"The King. They that could believe me guilty of a false son, what will they not believe of me?

"The Bishops.-But, Sir, all the court sees us going in and out: and all the town will know the effect of what has been done and said: and we shall own it everywhere. "The King-And all the town will know what I have desired of you: so that it will be a great prejudice to my affairs, if you deny me.

"The bishops still earnestly besought his Majesty, that they might not be divided from the temporal peers; that he would at least appoint a select number of them to consult together with them. The king still refusing to hear of that, and urging their immediate compliance, they told him, that the chief place in which they could serve his Majesty effectually was a parliament: and, when he should please to call one to compose all the distractions of his kingdoms, he should there find, that, as they had always shown their personal affections to his Majesty, so the true interest of the church of England is inseparable from the true interest of the crown. "The King. My lords, that is a

business of more time. What I ask now, I think of present concernment to my affairs. But this is the last time; I will urge you no further. If you will not assist me as I desire, I must stand upon my own legs, and trust to myself and my

own arms.

The bishops, in conclusion, stated that, as bishops, they did assist his Majesty with their prayers; as peers, they entreated that they might serve him in conjunction with the rest of the peers, either by his Majesty's speedily calling a parliament, or, if that should be thought too distant, by assembling together with them as many of the temporal peers, as were in London or its vicinity.

"This suggestion was not attended to, and so the prelates were dismissed.

"Thus ended this celebrated conference between king James and the bishops: great crowds of people were present at and about the court, waiting to hear the result; both the friends and the enemies of the Church of England being impatient to learn how they would conduct themselves in that difficult juncture, Bishop Sprat says, that the jesuited party at court were so enraged against the bishops for their perseverance in refusing to give the king a paper such as he required, that, as was stated on credible authority, one of the principal of them in a heat advised that they should all be imprisoned, and the truth extorted from them by force." Vol. I. P. 368.

The inference to be drawn from this and similar passages, is that the Clergy of England not only may claim the principal share in the preservation of the Protestant religion, but also were mainly instrumental in the establishment of our civil liberties. This fact has been geneBurnet and rally kept out of sight.

his allies have said that the Clergy lost their credit in the reign of Charles II. by advocating arbitrary power-that they recovered it for a time under James by a contrary conduct; but returned after the revolution to their old way of thinking. There is just enough truth, or appearance of truth, in this statement to afford a plausible pretence for reviling the Clergy. But a very little examination will shew

* See Sprat's Letters to the Earl of Dorset,

how loosely the statement is put together. The Clergy were naturally, and, perhaps, excessively attached to the monarchical branch of our government and the presbyterian and republican faction hated and abused them accordingly. And if to be so bated and abused was to lose their credit, they had unquestionably lost it at the accession of king James. If on the other hand it was owing to their influence and example that the grievances under Charles were endured with so much patience, (and this is the gravamen of their pretended offence,) and if, when they declared that the time for resistance was arrived, the nation followed their advice and put an end to the reign of king James, (and this fact is admitted by their most determined enemies,) it is clear that they had never forfeited the good opinion of the people, and that their credit was raised, not impaired, by their behaviour. Dr. D'Oyly gives a striking description of the influence and popularity of the Clergy from the time of the committal of the Bishops; and our last extract shews that James attached more importance to a declaration in his favour from them, than from the most powerful temporal lords. These facts are admitted and confirmed by Burnet-and they are sufficient to convince us that the unanimity with which the nation fell away from James and welcomed the arrival of William, must be attributed to the influence of the Clergy. And that influence was prodigiously increased by their tried attachment to the monarchy. Had the Bishops since the restoration been meddling and factious politicians, exaggerating the errors of their governors, and vindicating the actions of traitors, they might have gone over from James to William, and back again from William to James, without having any notice taken of their presence or their departure. But because they were notoriously loyal men, because they

had endured as long as endurance was practicable or proper, and at last made a temperate declaration of their opinion respecting James, all people deserted him and he fell. The Whigs, without their assistance might have plunged the country into a civil war, which would have led first to democracy, and secondly to despotism. But our safe and bloodless Revolution, the great boast and pride of Britain, never could have been accomplished without the assistance of the Clergy; nor could the Clergy have given their assistance with effect, if they had not previously lost their credit with the Russells and Sidnies, if they had not disowned and discomfited the king-killing dissenters, if they had not spoken out against the latitudinarianism which was then in its infancy, and which afterwards unhappily became the tare in the field of freedom.

Let us hope that their successors will not lose sight of so judicious and so successful an example. The Clergy never will be admired for the arts and actions which make demagogues powerful and popular. The people have too much sense to respect a seditious priest. And if it is to be desired, as it unquestionably is that our Prelates may never again aspire to preside like Archbishop Laud at the council-table of their sovereign, and be the advisers and administrators of our civil government, it is no less to be desired they may keep clear of the opposite extreme, which plunged the wellintentioned Burnet into the intrigues and cabals of a faction; and induced him to quarrel with the majority of his own sacred profession, because they were not hearty in the political cause which he espoused. In short, if we were called upon to sum up the public character of the Clergy under James II. and point out the cause to which their influence was owing, we should say they observed the proper mean between the two celebrated men that have just

been mentioned. Sancroft more especially, though he had neither the commanding genius and dignified intrepidity of Laud, nor the indefatigable zeal and versatility of Burnet, was better calculated to make a perfect English Bishop than either of them. He might not have defended himself with the spirit and promptitude, and eloquence, of the one, who in extreme old age, and after two years close imprisonment, silenced his accusers by the demonstration of his innocence, and excited the admiration even of Prynne himself; nor could he have mingled like the other with statesmen and courtiers, mediating and explaining between kings and queens, and governing them by his conciliating manners and plausible conversation. But like Burnet he was esteemed and preferred, although he did not flatter, and like Laud, he would have laid his head upon the block with the humility of a pious Christian and the majesty of an innocent man, though he was destitute of the ambition by which such a fate is generally produced and sustained.

Of Archbishop Sancroft, and of the non-jurors of whom he became the chief, we have much more to say; but our remarks must be deferred to a future opportunity. For the present we shall conclude by an observation which has forced itself repeatedly upon our attention while reading the volumes before us, and other works upon the same subject. The Church of England is repre

We

sented as having been at the very height of popularity in the years that preceded the Revolution. At which time the doctrines that had been preached by the Clergy for five and twenty years, were precisely the same as those which they teach at the present hour. They were companions, or had been pupils of Hammond, Taylor, Pearson, and Bull-and there was neither Calvinism nor Socinianism in the Church. The recent triumphs of dissent had opened the eyes of the people, and the value of sound churchmanship was generally understood. heartily wish that we could say the same at present, not merely of the mob of ecclesiastical thinkers and talkers, but of some who aspire to the direction of the public mind. They would not then tell us that the Clergy can only become popular by forswearing and forsaking the Whole Duty of Man: nor should we hear in the confident tone in which the words now vibrate in our ear, that methodistical regeneration is the only key to the hearts of the people. The people had hearts in James the II.'s time, and they read Hammond and Taylor-the Clergy were anti-calvinistic, universally and systematically, and while the meeting houses were decaying, the churches were crowded. These are facts; and if the reader require a commentary, we refer him to the lucubrations of Dr. Chalmers.

(To be continued.)

Knowledge.

THE Anniversary Dinner of this Society will be held on Tuesday, the 5th of June; his Royal Highness the Duke of York in the chair.

Gospel.

THE Society have resolved, at the recommendation of his Majesty's Government, to convert the sum of 5007. which they had voted towards

the erection of a Church at Cape Town, to the erection of a Church at Graham's Town, in the New Colony of Algoa Bay.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

We present our readers with reports of the speeches of the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chester upon the motion for the second reading of the Roman Catholic Bill; and we trust they will be found more faithful than those that have

appeared already in the papers. The Bishop of St. David's also spoke on the same side of the question; but we are compelled, by want of room, to omit his speech. The Bishops of Peterborough, Llandaff, and Killaloe rose at different times during the debate, but were unable to obtain possession of the house.

The Bishop of London said, it is not my intention to follow the noble earl who spoke first on this question, through the various arguments, by which, on the one side, he has maintained the expediency of the concessions which this measure would grant to the Roman Catholics, and on the other, deprecates the securities taken; which, having undergone many alterations, are now, it appears, again to be altered, and will hardly be rendered by any modification satisfactory to those from whom they are required. But having on former occasions, when this momentous question has been agitated, expressed my dissent by a silent vote, I am anxious, at a time when it comes before your Lordships in a shape which demands your most respectful at tention, to state some of the reasons which, after the maturest reflection, with a conscientious desire of fulfilling my duty, induce me to persevere in opposi tion to the measure, both in its general principle, and in its present form.

In the first place, my Lords, I must distinctly disclaim any illiberal or hostile feeling. My opposition does not originate in intolerance. I am disposed by feeling as well as by principle, to allow to men of every persuasion, the free exercise of their religion, without molestation or hindrance, while its doctrines and ordinances have nothing repugnant to morality or decency, or destructive of social order. To the Catholics, as well as to others, I would extend participation in

every blessing which the Constitution assures to the mass of their fellow-subjects, the unfettered enjoyment and free dispo sition of their property, protection from personal injury, and the equal administration of law. And if at that point I stop short, and resist their admission to power, it is from sincere apprehension of danger to the institutions of a Protestant State. Nor has any hostile feeling a place in my mind. Í admit, I must in justice admit, the general respectability and loyalty of the Catholic body. In Great Britain, their demeanour has, for more than a century, been exemplarily peaceable and orderly; and if there has been agitation in Ireland, I am sensible that allowance is due to the peculiar circumstances of that country; for which, however, I conceive, that no wisdom of parliament, or prudence and moderation of government, much less such a measure as this, could provide an immediate remedy.

What, then, is the ground of my objection? It is that religions principle, which requires implicit submission to the authority of their Church, and unlimited devotion to its interests. Their Church, I need not inform your Lordships, asserts a right of dominion exclusive of all concurrence she recognizes no other authority, nor even claim to the title of a Church, besides her own she assumes an absolute power over the consciences of men, forbidding the exercise of their reasou, regarding any expression of doubt or suspense of assent to her decisions as criminal contumacy, and requiring the aid of her members, as opportunity serves, in advancing her influence and power. Whatever may be the opinion or conduct of individuals, I apprehend this to be the doctrine of the Church, anthenticated by genuine documents, and avowed without scruple by the most able and orthodox of their clergy. The obligation of this duty to the Church is identified with duty to God, and is therefore considered as prior and paramount to every other obligation; and if such is its character, it follows, of course, that no contract, promise, or oath, which clashes with this obligation, is binding on conscience, or lawful; and every such engagement, however solemn in form, or precise and explicit in terms, contains a tacit reservation in favour of this prior obligation. This is no calumny on the Catholic. A reservation of this nature is implied in every oath; a salvo of duty to God pervades every human engagement. But the Protestant simply reserves his duty to