ncient prestige of it. The old theories lingered long in
manor-houses and parsonages, and among all whose hearts were with the
banished Stuarts. But they could not permanently survive under such
altered auspices; and a sentiment which had once been of real service
both to Church and State, but which had become injurious to both, was
disrooted from the constitution and disentangled from the religion of
the country. The ultimate gain was great; yet it must be acknowledged
that at the time a great price was paid for it. In the State, there was
a notable loss of the old loyalty, a blunting in public matters of some
of the finer feelings, an increase among State officers of selfish and
interested motives, a spirit of murmuring and disaffection, a lowering
of tone, an impaired national unity. In the Church, as the revulsion was
greater, and in some respects the benefit greater, so also the temporary
loss was both greater and more permanent. The beginning of the
eighteenth century saw almost the last of the old-fashioned Anglicans,
who dated from the time of Henry VIII.--men whose ardent love of what
they considered primitive and Catholic usage had no tinge of Popery, and
whose devoted attachment to the throne was wholly free from all unmanly
servility. The High Church party was deprived of some of the best of its
leaders, and was altogether divided, disorganised, and above all,
lowered in tone; and the whole Church suffered in the deterioration of
one of its principal sections.

In relation both to Nonjurors and to persons who, as a duty or a
necessity, had accepted the new constitution, but were more or less
Jacobite in their sympathies, a question arose of far more than
temporary interest. It is one which frequently recurs, and is of much
practical importance, namely, how far unity of worship implies, or ought
to imply, a close unity of belief; and secondly, how far a clergyman is
justified in continuing his ministrations if, agreeing in all
essentials, he strongly dissents to some particular petitions or
expressions in the services of which he is constituted the mouthpiece.
The point immediately at issue was whether those who dissented from the
State prayers could join with propriety in the public services. This was
very variously decided. There were some who denied that this was
possible to persons who had any strict regard to consistency and
truth.[106] How, said they, could they assist by their presence at
public prayer