his Lordship has produced, had at least the concurrence of the whole House of Parliament, and the prayer was evidently composed under that idea which induced, whether true or false, the whole House of Commons to resolve, "that there has been and is a damnable and hellish plot carried on by Popish Recusants, for assassinating the King."

This was voted October the 31st, 1678, and under this impression, which was stronger afterwards, this prayer was composed.

As to the Oxford declaration in the year 1683, I know of none among the Clergy of the present day (and his Lordship is pleased to make no distinction) who do not admit the famous twenty-seven articles condemned by the University, to be one of the greatest reflections upon that learned body. I shall merely add, that the spirit which dictated that decree in 1683, was the reaction arising from the persecutions in 1643, when such doctrines as these were professed that, "after the sealing of the Scripture Canon the PEOPLE OF GOD, in all ages, are to expect NEW REVELATIONS, for the rule of their ACTIONS, and it is lawful for a private man, having an inward motion from God, to kill a tyrant!"*

interest, to think such a poet should, in the morning of youth, have laid down his poetical pen for ever! He was educated, like Ken, at Winchester; where also were educated the living Bishops of Salisbury, Norwich, Hereford, Down and Connor, St. David's, as well as the excellent Prelate to whom this Life is dedicated.

*Declaration of Oxford.

The principles of "passive obedience and nonresistance" acquired additional strength from the position, that "Presbyterian Government is the sceptre of Christ's Kingdom, to which KINGS, as well as others, are bound to submit!"

It is a reflection, not so much on the character of the Church of England, as upon human nature, that all bodies of men are inclined to proceed, per saltum, from one extreme to another. So the Puritans could not fly too far from the purest ordinances of the primitive Church, because some of these ordinances were retained by the Church of Rome; and the violent Tories and High-Church partizans of the reigns of Charles the Second, thought they could not go too far from the principle of taking up arms against the King! It is the bigot only, whether in the Church or out of it, who does not make this distinction, though I am far from applying such a term to his Lordship.

1

It is true Locke was expelled from his Studentship of Christ-Church, to the disgrace of those who showed themselves such tools in the hands of a Royal Visitor, more especially to the eternal disgrace of Fell. Well might the facetious Tom Brown have written

I do not like thee, Dr. Fell! *

* So popular, however, at the time, was Dr. Fell, that a loyal Oxford apothecary left eight pounds a year for a prizecomposition, at Christ-Church, "In laudem Doctoris Fell;" and it is awarded every year to the successful candidate. The name of the apothecary was John Cross, not the "starched glyster-pipe" whom Wood describes so facetiously.

But the University has deplored the circumstance ever since, as much as Lord King.

Mr. Hallam justly observes, the power of College Visitors was not defined: but the Dean of ChristChurch, instead of showing himself a mean-spirited sycophant, when the King, as Visitor, commanded the expulsion of a member, should have answered, "Sir, I have eaten the bread of adversity, rather than comply with what my conscience told me was wrong: I have done this in the face of Parliamentary power, and I will not consent to expel an innocent man, notwithstanding the command of the King of England, if I eat the bread of adversity again." This I am sure would have been the an swer of Bishop Ken.

I shall now take the liberty of addressing you, my Lord King, personally.

be

When a comparison is made, not only injurious to "us," but so complacently flattering to yourself, at the expense of "others"-the “others” may tempted to ask, on what affinity in sentiments and manners with your illustrious relative is this comparison founded? Is the resemblance seen in the mildest and purest Christian feelings of your great relative, which your Lordship so eminently partakes? Is it in that peculiar modesty and humility of manner which accompanies, in your Lordship, kindred endowments of mind? Is it in those patrician gibes with which you entertain the admiring Senate? Is it by the sneers which in

any one else I should call vulgar, vulgar in phrase and in spirit, with which you turn the point of your wit on those whose age, station, and character protects you, as you seem to know, from chastisement, let those dignified gibes be ever so personal? Leaving your Lordship to answer, I only say, for one, and I believe I may say the same for almost all of the only community you can insult with impunity, that they, as a body, venerate and esteem Mr. Locke as much as you, my Lord, his relative, can do. They disdain as much as you the base compliance of those who, in the exuberant feelings of servile loyalty, disgraced themselves and the University.

Let me now allude more, good-humouredly, to some circumstances in the present position of that Episcopal Church which has been thought so peculiarly illiberal and intolerant.

If I might introduce for a moment the well-known characters in a popular tale, Lord Peter, Jack, and Martin I might say that the fate of Martin* has been rather hard. Many of his family were burnt by Lord Peter, for reading a wicked book called "the BIBLE;" and, when Jack got the better for a little while, he turned the children of honest Martin upon the parish, because he said they were fond of Lord Peter's fine cloaths, who BURNT

* Churches of Rome, Geneva, England.

THEM ALIVE! It is true Martin tried to make Jack swallow the Prayer-book; and Jack, in return, crammed the Covenant down Martin's throat! When Martin got the better, he told Jack that he must give up the places he held so long from the right owners-unless he would say the "Lord's Prayer," put on a surplice, and read out of the Prayer-book, which Jack never would do, and has remained somewhat testy ever since.

If Martin humbly hopes Lord Peter will not burn any more of his children, he (Peter) declares, "Burn them! why, you varlet, you meant to burn us!" -- and then he swore a great oath that nothing could be easier to prove! A newspaper is found, by which it appears that Ridley and Latimer, who perished in the flames, were only served as they ought to have been, for they "intended" to do the same by others !*

Every body knows that, in the quarrels between the three brothers, Martin at last got the upper

* Dr. Lingard. Cranmer did not know that it was intended to burn him, till, being on a raised seat at St. Mary's church, in Oxford, in front of Dr. Cole, who preached his funeral-sermon, he heard the appalling intimation, and burst into tears. Dr. Cole, to comfort the miserable victim, in his sermon proceeded thus: "But, least he should carry with him no comfort, he would diligently labour, and also he did promise, in the name of all the Priests that were present, immediately after his death, there should be Dirges and Masses in all the Churches of Oxford, for the succour of his soul!"-Life of Cranmer, 1556.