his opinion was perfectly sound under the precise terms in which it is stated, the whole force of it rests on the word ‘sinful.’  If any word is used which falls the least short of this, Tillotson’s remark becomes altogether questionable.  Of course no one can be justified in countenancing what ‘he is verily persuaded is sinful.’  From this point of view, there were some Nonjurors to whom separation from the National Church was a moral necessity.  Those among them, for instance, who drew up, or cordially approved, the ‘Form for admitting penitents,’ in which the sorrow-stricken wanderer in ways of conformity returns humblest thanks for his return from wrong to right, from error to truth, from schism to unity, from rebellion to loyalty—­in a word, ’from the broad into the narrow way which leadeth to eternal life,’[110]—­how could they be justified in anything short of separation?  They could no more continue to attend their parish church, than one who had been a Roman Catholic could attend the mass if he had become persuaded it was rank idolatry, or a former Protestant his old place of worship when convinced that it was a den of mortal heresy.  But between Nonjurors of the stern uncompromising type, and those semi-Jacobites who gave the allegiance of reason to one master, and that of sentiment to another, there were all grades of opinion; and to all except the most extreme among them the propriety of attending the public prayers was completely an open question.  Tillotson ought to have known his old friend Nelson better, than to conceive it possible that a man of such deep religious feeling, and such sensitive honour, could be doubtful what to do, unless it might fairly be considered doubtful.  His foolish commonplace appears indeed to have been sufficient to turn the scale.  Nelson, almost immediately after receiving this opinion, decided on abandoning the national communion, though he took a different and a wiser view at a later period.

The circumstances of the time threw into exaggerated prominence the particular views entertained by Nelson’s Juror and Nonjuror friends on the disputed questions connected with transferred allegiance.  But, great as were the sacrifices which many of them incurred on account of these opinions,—­great as was the tenacity with which they clung to them, and the vehemence with which they asserted them against all impugners—­great, above all, as was the religious and spiritual importance with which their zeal for the cause invested these semi-political doctrines, yet it is not on such grounds that their interest as a Church party chiefly rests.  No weight of circumstances could confer a more than secondary value on tenets which have no permanent bearing on the Christian life, and engage attention only under external and temporary conditions.  The early Nonjurors, and their doctrinal sympathisers within the National Church, were a body of men from whom many in modern times have taken pleasure in deriving their ecclesiastical