This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
History of the Nonjurors.
89

the see, unless her Majesty would excuse him, or select some other person. He adds, "And this perhaps I did, not as wisely as I should. I cannot say I did it against my conscience; but of this I am sure, that, since I have considered things better, I should not have done it, were it to do again. I did not consult my ease. I have often repented of my accepting it, and looked on it as a great infelicity."[1] Such were Kidder's views, after he was in possession of the see. Burnet and many others would have entertained no such scruples.

Great disappointment was experienced by persons in authority, on Beveridge's refusal to succeed Ken. Stillingfleet, therefore, published a Letter on the subject, containing some severe animadversions.[2] A few extracts will shew the state of feeling at the time among both parties in the Church those who were reluctant to succeed to the vacant sees, and those who, like Stillingfleet and others, had no scruples on the subject. He is somewhat severe on Beveridge, who acted from the purest motives. In short, he shews himself too much of a partizan. In meeting the supposed case of another revolution, and the consequent dispossession of the new Bishops, he actually calls the restoration a revolution. "The experience of the Revolution in 1660 hath taught them how dangerous it may be in case such a revolution should happen, to change their old preferments for new ones, which may be challenged again by their old proprietors. But in our case there is the least to be said for


  1. Bowles's Life of Ken, ii, 210—214.
  2. A Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops: in a Letter out of the Country. Occasioned by Dr. B's refusal of the Bishopric of Bath and Wells. 4to, 1691.