men in the Church at that very crisis were unable to decide amongst themselves what was the doctrine of her formularies, Sherlock declaring it to be one thing and South another. The truth is, that William lent himself to a device of the well-meaning Archbishop for maintaining the orthodoxy of all religionists in the realm, without meaning to claim any power over the religion of his subjects; for to any usurpation of that sort he was, from temperament, education, and principle, utterly averse. The Whig Archbishop, whose intellectual acuteness did not equal his common sense, who could detect no political or philosophical heresy in the course which he recommended, simply sought to accomplish what he considered as a laudable end by a method which he thought most effectual. He sought to put down error, and to promote peace, and in doing it, hastily snatched at the rusty halberd of authority over conscience, which the Revolution had hung up as a relic of the past. Nothing could be more awkward and inconsistent than such a weapon, placed by a Latitudinarian Prelate in the hands of a Sovereign adored as the incarnation of civil and religious liberty.

Although it is true of ancient times and Oriental states, that "where the word of a King is, there is power," the King's word amongst Englishmen at the time we speak of, especially upon religious subjects, carried with it no weight whatever; and although the controversy raging when the injunctions were devised soon burnt out, the heresies assailed lingered on, and in 1698 the Commons appealed to His Majesty for a proclamation for suppressing pernicious books containing doctrines opposed to the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles of the Christian faith.1 The King, not choosing to do this, gave his

1 Parl. Hist., v. 1172. February 9, 1698.

faithful Commons a short answer, promising attention to the subject, and wishing that provision could be made for the purpose desired; but, however, a proclamation was immediately issued for preventing and punishing immorality and profaneness. Not long before this circumstance, a youth of only eighteen years of age was executed in the city of Edinburgh for blasphemy-a victim to the zeal of the Presbyterian Clergy; and, about the same time, the orthodox Dissenters of England, in an address of theirs, most inconsistently urged His Majesty to deprive Unitarians of the liberty of the press.2

An Act of Parliament was passed in 1698 declaring that any one educated in the Christian religion, who should, by writing, printing, or teaching, deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth of Christianity, or the authority of the Scriptures, must, for the first offence, be disqualified for holding any office; and, for the second, be incapacitated for bringing an action, possessing lands, becoming a guardian, acting as an executor, or receiving a legacy; moreover, such a person might be subjected to imprisonment for three years. Parliament thus united its authority with that of the Sovereign in the support of orthodox opinions, without perceiving the futility of such methods of defending the Gospel. And it is not a little surprising that such a man as Calamy, both in his Diary and in his Historical Addition to Baxter's Life and Times, passes by

1 There is a full account of this horrible affair in Arnot's State Trials, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period remarked, respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas Aikenhead, "I do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he lived; but the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, spoke and

preached for cutting him off" (p. 930). A book was published in England in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, The Blasphemous Heresy Disproved, in which he says, "Blasphemy and idolatry, by God's express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land."

2 Lindsay's Hist. View, 302.

the objectionable enactment; indeed, so entirely unaffected. by its injustice does he appear to have been, that, in the latter work, he tells us, in the year 1698, Parliament "did not meddle with matters of religion, though they had a committee for religion as usually." Nothing could more decidedly prove how much even the advocates of religious liberty had yet to learn touching that very object which they were supposed to understand, and were sincerely anxious to promote. It is a pleasure to be able to add, that neither at the time, nor afterwards, so far as can be ascertained, did this Act take any effect; and, apparently, it remained a dead letter until its repeal in the year 1813.2

1 Calamy's Abridgment. 561.

2 Lindsay's Hist. View, 304. Wallace, i. 388.

CHAPTER X.

AMES, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne,

did not relinquish the hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for a descent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in which he promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but as for his past conduct, he had nothing to retract, nothing to deplore; and as to his future course, he held out no hopes that he would rule otherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resist his new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons, amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, were threatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded from mercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, did the Exile's cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, he reluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promising an amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects the restoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and a limitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy and ineffectual as they were insincere. "After all," said one who was in the confidence of James, "the object of this Declaration is only to get us back to England. We shall fight the battle of the

Catholics with much greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains."1

Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St. Germains-which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrast to the cheerful prospect from its windows-James, with his Court of blinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming to convert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappy fortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, with the hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church. Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of Queen Mary; then came schemes for assassination. Previous to that period, the death of William had offered James no augmentation of hopes; afterwards, to clear off the reigning Prince from the stage seemed an advantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of his son-inlaw cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can it be shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it can scarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on. Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas into which the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid their heads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of the shaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. A hundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in his expedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory— including the image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidels and heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to France from the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters, that they talked

1 Mazure, quoted in Macaulay, vii. 15.