appointments of William were acknowledged by that rapidly-increasing party, who preferred secular advantages to ecclesiastical theories,173

174

Such were some of the events which, at the end of the seventeenth century, widened the breach that had long existed between the interests of the nation and the interests of the clergy. There was also another circumstance which considerably increased this alienation. Many of the English clergy, though they retained their affection for James, did not choose to brave the anger of the government, or risk the loss of their livings. To avoid this, and to reconcile their conscience with their interest, they availed themselves of a supposed distinction between a king by right and a king in possession, 175 The consequence was, that while with their lips they took an oath of allegiance to William, they in their hearts paid homage to James; and, while they prayed for one king in their churches, they were bound to pray for another in their closets. 176 By this wretched subterfuge, a large body of the clergy were at once turned into concealed rebels; and we have it on the authority of a contempo

173 The alternative is fairly stated in a letter written in 1691 (Life of Ken, by a Layman, vol. ii. p. 599): "If the deprived bishop be the only lawful bishop, then the people and clergy of his diocese are bound to own him, and no other; then all the bishops who own the authority of a new archbishop, and live in communion with him, are schismatics; and the clergy who live in communion with schismatical bishops are schismatics themselves; and the whole Church of England now established by law is schismatical."

174 Lord Mahon (Hist. of England, vol. ii. p. 245) notices what he terms the "unnatural alienation between the church and state," consequent upon the Revolution of 1688; and on the diminished power of the church caused by the same event, see Phillimore's Mem. of Lyttleton, vol. i. p. 352.

176 The old absurdity of de facto and de jure; as if any man could retain a right to a throne which the people would not allow him to occupy!

176 In 1715, Leslie, by far the ablest of them, thus states their position: “You are now driven to this dilemma,-swear, or swear not: if you swear, you kill the soul; and if you swear not, you kill the body, in the loss of your bread." Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 686. The result of the dilemma was what might have been expected; and a high-church writer, in the reign of William III., boasts (Somers. Tracts, vol. x. p. 344) that the oaths taken by the clergy were no protection to the government: not that the government receives any security from oaths." Whiston, too, says, in his Memoirs, p. 30: "Yet do I too well remember that the far greatest part of those of the university and clergy that then took the oaths to the government, seemed to me to take them with a doubtful conscience, if not against its dictates." This was in 1693; and, in 1710, we find: "There are now circumstances to make us believe that the Jacobite clergy have the like instructions to take any oaths, to get possession of a pulpit for the service of the cause, to bellow out the hereditary right, the pretended title of the Pretender." Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 641. A knowledge of this fact, or at all events, a belief of it, was soon diffused; and, eight years later, the celebrated Lord Cowper, then lord chancellor, said, in the House of Lords, "that his majesty had also the best part of the landed, and all the trading interest; that, as to the clergy, he would say nothing,-but that it was notorious that the majority of the populace had been poisoned, and that the poison was not yet quite expelled." Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 541; also given, but not quite verbatim, in Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 365.

rary bishop, that the prevarication of which these men were notoriously guilty, was a still further aid to that scepticism, the progress of which he bitterly deplores.177

As the eighteenth century advanced, the great movement of liberation rapidly proceeded. One of the most important of the ecclesiastical resources had formerly been Convocation; in which the clergy, by meeting in a body, were able to discountenance in an imposing manner whatever might be hostile to the church; and had, moreover, an opportunity, which they sedulously employed, of devising schemes favourable to the spiritual authority. But, in the progress of the age, this weapon also was taken from them. Within a very few years after the Revolution, Convocation fell into general contempt;179 and, in 1717, this celebrated assembly was finally prorogued by an act of the crown, it being justly considered that the country had no further occasion for its services.150 Since that period, this great council of the English church has never been allowed to meet for the purpose of deliberating on its own affairs, until a few years ago, when, by the connivance of a feeble government, it was permitted to reassemble. So marked, however, has been the change in the temper of the nation, that this once formidable body does not now retain even a semblance of its ancient influence; its resolutions are no longer feared, its discussions are no longer studied; and the business of the country continues to be conducted without regard to those interests, which, only a few gen

177"The prevarication of too many in so sacred a matter contributed not a little to fortify the growing atheism of the present age." Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. p. 381. See also, to the same effect, vol. iv. pp. 176, 177; and a remarkable passage in Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 573. I need hardly add, that it was then usual to con fuse scepticism with atheism; though the two things are not only different, but in. compatible. In regard to the quibble respecting de facto and de jure, and the use made of it by the clergy, the reader should compare Wilson's Mem. of De Foe, vol. i. pp. 171, 172; Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 531; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. iv. p. 409; and a letter from the Rev. Francis Jessop, written in 1717, in Nichols's Lit. Illustrations, vol. iv. pp. 120-123.

178 Among which must be particularly mentioned the practice of censuring all books that encouraged free inquiry. In this respect, the clergy were extremely mischievous. See Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, pp. 124, 286, 338, 351; and Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. ii. p. 170.

179 In 1704, Burnet (Own Time, vol v. p. 138) says of Convocation, "but little opposition was made to them, as very little regard was had to them." In 1700, there was a squabble between the upper and lower house of Convocation for Canterbury; which, no doubt, aided these feelings. See Life of Archbishop Sharp, edited by Newcome, vol. i. p. 348, where this wretched feud is related with great gravity.

180 Charles Butler (Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 95) says that the final prorogation was in 1720; but, according to all the other authorities I have met with, it was in 1717; See Hallam's Const. Hist. vol. ii. p. 395; Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, p. 385; Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 302; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. ii. p.

850.

erations ago, were considered by every statesman to be of supreme importance,161

Indeed, immediately after the Revolution, the tendency of things became too obvious to be mistaken, even by the most superficial observers. The ablest men in the country no longer flocked into the church, but preferred those secular professions - in which ability was more likely to be rewarded.182 At the same time, and as a natural part of the great movement, the clergy saw all the offices of power and emolument, which they had been used to hold, gradually falling out of their hands. Not only in the dark ages, but even so late as the fifteenth century, they were still strong enough to monopolize the most honourable and lucrative posts in the empire. 183 In the sixteenth century, the tide began to turn against them, and advanced with such steadiness, that, since the seventeenth century, there has been no instance of any ecclesiastic being made lord chancellor;184

ter.

181 A letter, written by the Rev. Thos. Clayton in 1727, is worth reading, as illus trating the feelings of the clergy on this subject. He asserts that one of the causes of the obvious degeneracy of the age is, that, owing to Convocation not being allowed to meet, "bold and impious books appear barefaced to the world without any public censure." See this letter, in Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century, vol. iv. pp. 414-416; and compare with it, Letters between Warburton and Hurd, pp. 310-312. 182 On the decline of ability in ecclesiastical literature, see note 38 in this chapIn 1685, a complaint was made that secular professions were becoming more sought after than ecclesiastical ones. See England's Wants, sec. lvi. in Somers Tracts, vol. ix. p. 231, where the writer mournfully states, that in his time "physic and law, professions ever acknowledged in all nations to be inferior to divinity, are generally embraced by gentlemen, and sometimes by persons nobly descended, and preferred much above the divines' profession." This preference was, of course, most displayed by young men of intellect; and a large amount of energy being thus drawn off from the church, gave rise to that decay of spirit and of general power which has been already noticed; and which is also indicated by Coleridge in his remarks on the "apologizing theology" which succeeded the Revolution. Coleridge's Lit. Remains, vol. iii. pp. 51, 52, 116, 117, 119. Compare Stephen's Essays on Ecclesiast. Biog. 2d edit. 1850, vol. ii. p. 66, on " this depression of theology;" and Hare's Mission of the Comforter, 1850, p. 264, on the "intellectually feebler age." Evelyn, in 1691, laments the diminished energy then beginning to be observed among "young preachers." Evelyn's Diary, vol. iii. p. 309; and, for another notice, in 1696, of this "dead and lifeless way of preaching," see Life of Cudworth, p. 35, in vol. i. of Cudworth's Intellect. Syst.

163 Sharon Turner, describing the state of things in England in the fifteenth century, says, "Clergymen were secretaries of government, the privy seals, cabinet counsellors, treasurers of the crown, ambassadors, commissioners to open parlia ment, and to Scotland; presidents of the king's council, supervisors of the royal works, chancellors, keepers of the records, the masters of the rolls, and even the physicians, both to the king and to the duke of Gloucester, during the reign of Henry VI. and afterwards." Turner's Hist. of England, vol. vi. p. 132. On their enor mous wealth, see Eccleston's English Antiquities, p. 146: "In the early part of the fourteenth century, it is calculated that very nearly one-half of the soil of the kingdom was in the hands of the clergy."

184 In 1625, Williams bishop of Lincoln was dismissed from his office of lordkeeper; and Lord Campbell observes (Lives of the Chancellors, vol. ii. p. 492) “This is the last time that an ecclesiastic has held the great seal of England; and, notwithstanding the admiration in some quarters of medieval usages, I presume the experiment is not likely to be soon repeated."

and, since the beginning of the eighteenth century, there has beer no instance of one receiving any diplomatic appointment, or, indeed, holding any important office in the state.185 Nor has this increasing ascendency of laymen been confined to the executive government. On the contrary, we find in both Houses of Parliament the same principle at work. In the early and barbarous periods of our history, one-half of the House of Lords consisted of temporal peers; the other half of spiritual ones. 186 By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the spiritual peers, instead of forming one-half of the upper house, had dwindled away to one-eighth ;187 and, in the middle of the nineteenth century, they have still further shrunk to one-fourteenth :188 thus supplying a striking numerical instance of that diminution of ecclesiastical power, which is an essential requisite of modern civilization. Precisely in the same way, more than fifty years have elapsed since any clergyman has been able to take his seat as a representative of the people; the House of Commons having, in 1801, formally closed their doors against a profession, which, in the olden time, would have been gladly admitted, even by the proudest and most exclusive assembly.189 In the House of Lords, the bishops still retain their seats; but their precarious tenure is every where remarked, and the progress of public opinion is constantly pointing to a period, which cannot now be far distant, when the Peers will imitate the example set by the Commons, and will induce the legislature to relieve the upper house of its spiritual members; since they, by their habits, their

185 Monk (Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 222) says, that Dr. John Robinson, bishop of Bristol, was "lord privy seal, and plenipotentiary at the treaty of Utrecht; and is the last ecclesiastic in England who has held any of the high offices of State." A high-church writer, in 1712, complains of the efforts that were being made to "thrust the churchmen out of their places of power in the government." Somers Tracts, vol. xiii. p. 211.

186 In and after the reign of Henry III., "the number of archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and ecclesiastical persons was for the most part equal to, and very often far exceeded the number of the temporal lords and barons." Parry's Parlia ments and Councils of England, London, 1839, p. xvii. Of this Mr. Parry gives several instances; the most remarkable of which is, that "in 49 Henry III. 120 prelates, and only 23 temporal lords, were summoned." This, of course, was an ex

treme case.

187 See an analysis of the House of Lords, in 1713, in Mahon's Hist. of England, vol. i. pp. 43-45; from which it appears that the total was 207, of whom 26 were spiritual. This includes the Catholics.

188

By the returns in Dod for 1854, I find that the House of Lords contains 436 members, of whom 30 belong to the Episcopal bench.

189 For different accounts, and of course different views, of this final expulsion of the clergy from the House of Commons, see Pellew's Life of Sidmouth, vol. i. pp. 419, 420; Stephens's Mem. of Tooke, vol. ii. pp. 247-260; Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party, vol. i. pp. 178-180; Campbell's Chancellors, vol. vii. p. 148; Twiss's Life of Eldon, vol. i. p. 263; Adolphus's Hist. of George III. vol vii. p. 487.

tastes, and their traditions, are evidently unfitted for the profane exigencies of political life.190

While the fabric of superstition was thus tottering from internal decay, and while that ecclesiastical authority which had formerly played so great a part was gradually yielding to the advance of knowledge, there suddenly occurred an event which, though it might naturally have been expected, evidently took by surprise even those whom it most interested. I allude, of course, to that great religious revolution, which was a fitting supplement to the political revolution which preceded it. The dissenters, who were strengthened by the expulsion of James, had by no means forgotten those cruel punishments which the Church of England, in the days of her power, had constantly inflicted upon them; and they felt that the moment had now come when they could assume towards her a bolder front than that on which they had hitherto ventured.121 Besides this, they had in the mean time received fresh causes of provocation. After the death of our great king William III., the throne was occupied by a foolish and ignorant woman, whose love for the clergy would, in a more superstitious age, have led to dangerous results.122 Even as it was, a temporary reaction took place, and during her reign the church was treated with a deference which

190 That the banishment of the clergy from the lower house was the natural prelude to the banishment of the bishops from the upper, was hinted at the time and with regret, by a very keen observer. In the discussion "on the Bill to prevent Persons in Holy Orders from sitting in the House of Commons," Lord Thurlow "mentioned the tenure of the bishops at this time, and said, if the bill went to disfranchise the lower orders of the clergy, it might go the length of striking at the right of the reverend bench opposite to seats in that house; though he knew it had been held that the reverend prelates sat, in the right of their baronies, as temporal peers." Parl. Hist. vol. xxxv. p. 1542.

19 It is impossible now to ascertain the full extent to which the Church of England in the seventeenth century, persecuted the dissenters; but Jeremy White is said to have had a list of sixty thousand of these sufferers between 1660 and 1688, of whom no less than five thousand died in prison. Bogue and Bennett's Hist. of the Dissenters, vol. i. p. 108. On the cruel spirit which the clergy displayed in the reign of Charles II. compare Harris's Lives of the Stuarts, vol. v. p. 106; Orme's Life of Owen, p. 344; Somers Tracts, vol. xii. p. 534. Indeed Harwood frankly said in the House of Commons, in 1672, "Our aim is to bring all dissenting men into the Protestant church, and he that is not willing to come into the church should not have ease." Parl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 530. On the zeal with which this principle was carried out, see an account, written in 1671, in Somers Tracts, vol. vii. pp. 586-615; and the statement of De Foe, in Wilson's Life of De Foe, vol. ii. pp. 443, 444.

192 Besides the correspondence which the Duchess of Marlborough preserved for the instruction of posterity, we have some materials for estimating the abilities of Anne in the letters published in Dalrymple's Memoirs. In one of them Anne writes, soon after the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience was issued, "It is a melancholy prospect that all we of the Church of England have. All the sectaries may now do what they please. Every one has the free exercise of their religion, on purpose, no doubt, to ruin us, which I think to all impartial judges is very plain." Dalrymple's Memoirs, appendix to book v. vol. ii. p. 173.