to all bodies of Christians of whatever name, and, therefore, to
the Church among them; that, if not needed, there could be no
propriety in applying for it; and, finally, that any such
application would be imprudent and unwise, in that "there were
some who would oppose it, and would labor to excite opposition
among the people, who, if unalarmed by any jealousies, would
probably remain quiet." How far these wise and reasonable
conclusions commended themselves to the bishops of England I am
unable to state.

A third difficulty remained; and this, it must be owned, had more
substance to it than those just considered. It related to the
oaths in the Ordination Office. These could not, of course, be
taken by the person seeking consecration; nor could the
consecrating bishops dispense with them on their own authority;
nor would the dispensation of the sovereign suffice, even should
it be given, unless with, at least, the concurrence of the Privy
Council, or--and this seems to have been the final conclusion--an
Act of Parliament.

When we remember how potent an element in bringing on the
Revolution of 1688--a revolution which had placed the House of
Hanover on the throne of Great Britain--the question as to the
sovereign's dispensing power had been; what an engine of tyranny
in the State and of destruction to the Church James II. had
intended to make it; and how offensive, if not dangerous, any
revival of it might well appear, we need not wonder that the
bishops of England should have declined to act under it, or that
the sovereign should have declined to give it, unless it could be
guarded and supported by forms and sanctions of unquestionable