National Church, consequent on the death of Lloyd and the resignation of Ken, the Nonjurors, who persisted in continuing the separation, acted on principles different from those by which that section, who returned to the Church, had been guided from the period of the Revolution to the year 1710. Our sympathies, therefore, cannot be so strong in favour of the men who continued the separation. At the Revolution the difficulty, with the exception of the Oath of Allegiance, consisted in recognizing other Bishops, while those who had been deprived still survived. Dodwell contended, that they could not appoint their own successors: and it is difficult to understand on what principles such a claim could be supported. As long as they lived, we can imagine how difficult it must have been to yield obedience to those who succeeded them; but after their death it seems reasonable that the schism should have been closed: and though the Clergy might not have been able to have taken the Oath of Allegiance, yet, for the sake of the peace of the Church, they should have been content to live as private individuals. They might have held communion with the Church, though they did not exercise their ministry. The only objection, as I conceive, to be urged against such a course related to the petitions for the Sovereign: but this was met by Dodwell, and it can scarcely be contended, that it was sufficient to justify separation. At all events, whatever might have been the practice of that generation of Nonjurors, it appears difficult to understand the grounds, on which they proceeded to appoint Bishops and Priests, and thus continue the succession and the separation.
We have considered the particulars connected with
