(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A history of the Nonjurors : their controversies and writings ; with remarks on some of the rubrics in the Book of common prayer"

, 



of tj)e Jftonjurors : 



THEIR CONTROVERSIES AND WRITINGS; 
WITH REMARKS ON SOME OF THE RUBRICS 

IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. 

,^ .~ 

BY ^ 7 < 

"^ ^*fl 

THOMAS LATHBURY, M. A. 

\ITHOIt 01' " A HISTORY Ol' THr. < (INVOCATION," " \ HISTORY 

OF THE ENGLISH RPISCOI' U' Y I ROM KilO 

TO 10Ti2," KTf. ETC. 




LONDON 
WILLIAM PICKERING 

1845 



C. WHITTINGHAM, TOOKES COD EtT, 
CHANCERY LANE. 



TO 
THE MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD, 

, lLorD arc&irisfrop of Canterbury 

AND PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND, 

UNDER WHOSE WISE AND PRUDENT GOVERNMENT, 
THROUGH THE GOOD PROVIDENCE OF GOD, 

THE ANGLICAN CHURCH 

HAS BEEN SUSTAINED AMIDST DIFFICULTIES 
UNEXAMPLED IN HER HISTORY IN RECENT TIMES, 

THIS VOLUME 

IS MOST RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY 

HIS GRACE'S MOST OBEDIENT 
HUMBLE SERVANT 

THE AUTHOR, 







PREFACE. 

|HE present work originated in the 
feeling, that the history and prin- 
ciples of the Nonjurors were but 
very imperfectly known to the pub- 
lic in general. In prosecuting my task I have 
also deemed it to be my duty to correct the 
misrepresentations, which, in some cases from 
ignorance, in others from prejudice, have been 
so frequently circulated respecting this body 
of patient sufferers for conscience sake. 

An account will be found of many of their 
works, together with the chief productions 
which appeared against them, as well as of 
the controversies in which they were so much 
engaged. 

One portion of the volume will be read with 
considerable interest. I allude to the corres- 
pondence of the Nonjurors with the Greek 
Church in the east, which, with the exception 
of some brief extracts, is now for the first time 
published. For a copy of this correspondence, 
which is preserved among Bishop Jolly's MSS, 
I am indebted to the kindness of I. R. Hope, 



vi preface. 

Esq. D.C.L. Chancellor of the Diocese of 

Sarum, to whom my best thanks are due. 

It was originally my intention to have printed, 
in an Appendix, some of the Forms used on 
various occasions by the Nonjurors, especially 
the new Communion Office : but this was ren- 
dered impossible by the size of the volume. 
Should the present work, however, be favour- 
ably received, I may probably publish a sepa- 
rate volume, containing the Forms in question, 
which are so important in illustrating the prin- 
ciples of the Nonjurors. 

The remarks on Mr. Hendley's case were 
written many weeks before the articles on that 
subject appeared in the Times. It may be 
remarked in addition, that the Rebellion had 
recently been suppressed ; and the government 
of that day chose to consider many of the 
most faithful of the Clergy as favourers of the 
Pretender. The trial, being intended to strike 
terror into the Clergy, may be appealed to as 
one of the grossest acts of oppression on record. 
But though the Times had given such promi- 
nency to the subject, no notice whatever was 
taken of a printed copy of my remarks, which 
was forwarded by the Publisher, with a request 
that it might be inserted ; in order that a 
fair view might be obtained of the matter. 
Thus did the Times refuse to permit any other 
view than its own to be put forth through its 
columns. But perhaps we cannot be surprised 



preface, vii 

at such an act of injustice, when we take into 
consideration the vast and sudden change in 
the principles of that journal. Not long since 
it condemned such meetings on Church ques- 
tions as those which have been held in the 
Diocese of Exeter, which it now approves. 
The views, therefore, of a paper, in which a 
petty dispute of a proprietor with the Clergy- 
man of his parish is made a national grievance, 
and by which a flame is attempted to be kindled 
throughout the country, are entitled to little 
consideration. 

While the last chapter was going through 
the press, my attention was directed to a most 
extraordinary statement in the Record. Be- 
cause the Prayer for the Church Militant has 
been neglected in many Churches, the editor 
of the Record, a paper professing to be con- 
ducted on religious principles, actually desig- 
nates the use of that Prayer as a change. The 
prayer was enjoined by the Reformers, whom 
the Record boasts of following, and until 
modern times it was universally read. In 
Cathedral Churches and College Chapels it is 
still read on Sundays and holy-days : and on 
the latter also in all parochial Churches in 
which the festivals are observed. Of this fact 
the editor would have been aware, had he been 
accustomed to attend public worship on such 
occasions. Whether the Rubric enjoining the 
Prayer be right or wrong, it was framed by 



v 

the Reformers, and to call the use of it a 
change, is disparaging to the memory of those 
great and holy men. 

The same paper also recommends an appli- 
cation to Parliament, the Crown first issuing 
a commission. But surely the editor of the 
Record cannot imagine that the House of 
Commons would stop just where he would 
wish ! or that they would be content with res- 
cinding such Rubrics only as he might select. 
Should the matter ever come before Parlia- 
ment, changes of a most serious character will 
be proposed, and probably carried. Whatever 
may be the Record's views of the Liturgy, is 
the editor prepared to surrender the Articles ? 
Yet were such a suicidal act as that which he 
recommends to be carried into effect, the 
Articles would fare no better than the Liturgy. 
Both would be placed in jeopardy. Besides, 
is it consistent to recommend the settlement 
of such questions in such an assembly, an as- 
sembly in which Romanists and Socinians, 
to say nothing of other Dissenters, have seats 
and votes ! 

That such a course will be adopted by the 
present Government I have no apprehension 
whatever. Sir Robert Peel and all the mem- 
bers of the Cabinet are too warmly attached 
to the Anglican Church to allow her Articles 
and Liturgy to be subjected to Parliamentary 
revision. But the Record and the Times are 



Preface. x 

using their exertions, though in different ways, 
to bring us into a state of confusion. 

Much is said of the danger of Popery : but 
is no danger to be apprehended from any other 
quarter? Let us suppose that the Record's 
advice were followed, and that the matter were 
submitted to Parliament ; what would be the 
danger ? Certainly not of Popery. Whatever 
may be the case with individuals : though their 
inclinations may be towards Rome, yet the 
Church is not committed by their acts any 
more than by the act of certain Clergymen in 
England in encouraging schism in Scotland. 
Nor is it within the compass of probabilities, 
that the Liturgy and the Articles should be 
altered so as to approximate towards Rome. 
But on the other hand, should the question be 
submitted to Parliament, there would too pro- 
bably be a change of an opposite character, a 
change, which would so liberalise both the Arti- 
cles and the Liturgy, that Socinians and all 
others might be comprehended within what 
must in such a case be deemed, not a Church, 
but the establishment. The Record, in looking 
to Parliament, knows not what it asks. If 
changes are once permitted, who can venture 
to predict where they will end ! 

The question of the Rubrics arose out of my 
subject, since the neglect, into which some of 
them have fallen, may be traced to principles, 
which had their origin in the period of which 
this volume treats. 



x preface* 

The whole question of the Offertory, both 
with respect to the law and the benefits to be 
expected from its general adoption, is most 
satisfactorily and ably discussed in a recent 
work, " Remarks on English Churches, and 
on the Expediency of rendering Sepulchral 
Memorials subservient to Pious and Christian 
Uses. By I. H. Markland, F.R.S. and S.A." 
Mr. Markland devotes a chapter to the consi- 
deration of the subject, and it is treated in a 
spirit which must commend the work to every 
candid reader. 



Jan. 23, 1845. 




CONTENTS. 

Page 
CHAPTER I. 

Introductory Remarks. Causes of the Schism. Pro- 
ceedings of King James. Declaration of Indulgence. 
Conduct of Dissenters ; of the Clergy. Conduct of 
the Clergy and Dissenters contrasted. The Prince of 
Orange. Invitation to the Prince. The Bishop of 
London. The Fabrication of Speke. The Prince under- 
takes the Administration. Views of Parties. The Con- 
vention. Discussions. Settlement of the Crown. The 
Question of a Regency considered. The Views and 
Conduct of the Prince of Orange 1 

CHAPTER II. 

The Oath of Allegiance. Arguments respecting it. 
Death of Bishop Lake. His Confession. Death of 
Bishop Thomas. Various Views of the Oath. Kettle- 
well. Difficulties of the Case. Latitudinarian Prin- 
ciples of the Time. Sancroft's Commission. Form of 
Prayer for King William. A new Liturgy. The Bishops 
clear themselves. Plans suggested for preventing the 
Schism. Some comply after the Battle of the Boyne. 
Burnet's Influence. His Conduct examined. Sancroft. 
Trial of Lord Preston and Mr. Ashton. Charge against 
Bishop Turner. Prayers 44 

CHAPTER III. 

The Deprivations. Numbers. Sancroft's Retirement. 
Hickes's Protest. DodwelFs Letter to Tillotson. Beve- 
ridge and others refuse to accept the Vacant Sees. 
Kidder's Scruples. Stillingfleet's Letter. Forgery by 
Young and Blackhead. The Deprived Bishops separate 
from the Church. Sancroft delegates his Powers to 
Lloyd. Hickes and WagstafTe consecrated. Death 
of Sancroft. His Character and Sufferings. The Non- 
jurors' Defence of their Proceedings. Some object to 
a Separation. The Difficulties of their Case. Severity 
of the Government 83 



Content^ 

CHAPTER IV. 

Controversies. Collier. Controversy respecting the 
Oath. Sherlock. Some Compliers retract. Contro- 
versy respecting the Deprivations. Stillingfleet. Gras- 
come. Williams. Sharpe. Hickes. Hill's Soloman 
and Abiathar. Answered by Grascome. The earlier 
Writings of some of the Compliers contrasted with their 
Productions subsequent to the Revolution. Bisby's 
Unity of Priesthood. Hody and the Baroccian MS. 
Dodwell. He engages in the Controversy with Hody. 
Kettle well's Views of the Separation. Stillingfleet on 
the Oath of Allegiance 112 

CHAPTER V. 

Tillotson's Death. Hickes's Remarks on Burnet and 
Tillotson. Attacks on the Archbishop. On Burnet. 
Fund for the Relief of the Nonjuring Clergy. Pro- 
ceedings of the Government. Circumstances of the 
deprived Bishops. The Absolution of Perkins and 
Friend by Collier, Cook, and Snatt.' Works on the 
Subject. Sir John Fen wick. Death of Bishop White. 
The Succession to the Throne. Dodwell and Hody. 
Death of Bishop Turner. Death of King James. Oath 
of Abj uration. Death of King William 153 

CHAPTER VI. 

Anne's Accession. State of Parties. Death of Kidder. 
Dodwell's Case in View. Controversy. Dodwell's 
Parsenesis. His further Prospect, &c. Its Arguments. 
Death of Bishop Frampton. Death of Bishop Lloyd. 
Applications to Ken. His Reply. Wishes the Schism 
closed. Dodweil, Nelson, and Brooksby, return to the 
National Church. Hickes's Views. Letters of Nelson 
and Brooksby. Dodwell's Case in Fact. Arguments. 
Dodwell's Death. Replies to Dodwell 188 

CHAPTER VII. 

Separation continued. Death of Ken. Wagstaffe's 
Death. New Consecrations. Controversies. Higden. 
Bedford. Sacheverel. Death of Queen Anne and 
Accession of George I. The Whigs. Death of Nelson 
and others. Death of Compton. Lockhart's Memoirs. 
Death and Character of Hickes. Bonwicke. Brett 
joins the Nonjurors. Is consecrated a Bishop. The 
Rebellion. Sufferings of the Nonjurors. Welton's 



Page 

Conduct. Question how far the Nonjurors implicated. 
Writings. Bennet's Nonjurors' Separation. Hoadley's 
Preservative. Hickes's Catholic Church. Marshall's 
Defence. Earbury. Internal Disputes on the Usages. 
New Communion Office. Collier's Works in Defence 
of the Usages. Spinkes's Works in Opposition. Leslie's 
Views. Brett's Works. Collier's Desertion Discussed. 
Separation of Nonjurors into two Communions. Various 
Works. Campbell's Middle State. Sclater and King. 223 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Case of Mr. Hendley. His Trial. Conduct of the 
Judge. The Sufferings of the Clergy. The Nonjurors' 
Correspondence with the Greek Church in the East. 
The contemplated Union. Its Failure. Arsenius Arch- 
bishop of Thebais. Charge of Popery refuted by this 
Correspondence 304 

CHAPTER IX. 

The Nonjurors divided into two Communions. Both 
ordain Bishops. Death of Collier; of Spinkes; of 
Leslie; of Lawrence Howell. The Succession con- 
tinued. The Divisions on Usages cease. Communion 
Office generally adopted. Blackburn and Law. Orme. 
Jenkin. Death of Gandy ; of Samuel Parker. Account 
of Hearne. Harte. Controversies. Waterland and 
Smith. Nonjurors again divided. Lawrence a Bishop 
of the Separatists. His Works on Lay-Baptism. Death 
of Brett; of Baker. The Rebellion, 1745. Sufferings 
of the Nonjurors. Deacon. His Works. Blackburn's 
Death. George Smith's Death. Lindsay. His Works. 
Controversies. William Law. Carte, the Historian. 
The Pretender. Question respecting his Religious 
Views. His Death. Gordon, the last Bishop of the 
regular Body. The Line ceases. Bishops of the Sepa- 
ratists' Line. Extinction of this Line, and of the Party 
in England. Services rendered by the Nonjurors. . . 362 

CHAPTER X. 

Scottish Bishops in 1688. Bishop Rose and King 
William. Causes of the Abolition of Episcopacy. The 
Convention. Oath of Allegiance. Sufferings of the 
Clergy from the Rabble : from the Presbyterians. The 
Assurance. State of the Episcopal Clergy who com- 
. plied. Conduct of the Presbyterians. Queen Anne's 



Contents 

Page 

Accession. Condition of the Clergy bettered. Attempt 
at a Toleration. Grame's Case. Union. Greenshields's 
Case. Hostility to the Liturgy. A Toleration. Intro- 
duction of Liturgy. Rebellion in 1715. Severe Laws 
against the Clergy. The Appeal of the Clergy. Divisions 
on the Usages. Discussions. Relaxation of Penal Laws. 
Rebellion of 1745. Severe Measures. George III. 
Communion Office. Condition of Clergy improved. 
Consecration of Bishop Seabury. Bishops and Clergy 
comply in 1788 on the Death of Charles Edward. 
Penal Laws Repealed. Opposition to Communion 
Office from English Clergymen. Its unreasonable 
Character 412 

CHAPTER XL 

Offices of Nonjurors. Communion Office. Deacon's 
Collection. Its Departures from the Book of Common 
Prayer. Differences between the Separatists and the 
Regular Body. Reflections. Neglect of certain Rubrics 
traced to the Latitudinarian Spirit at the Revolution, 
and to the Practices of the Nonjurors. The Rubrics 
Considered. Obedience in General. Lessons. Mutila- 
tions. Omissions. Neglected Rubrics. Surplice. Prayer 
for Church Militant. Offertory. Conduct of the Ob- 
jectors to the Rubrics. Conclusion 492 



$tstorp of tlje 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. CAUSES OF THE SCHISM. PROCEED- 
INGS OF KING JAMES. DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE. CON- 
DUCT OF DISSENTERS; OF THE CLERGY. CONDUCT OF THE 
CLERGY AND DISSENTERS CONTRASTED. THE PRINCE OF 
ORANGE. INVITATION TO THE PRINCE. THE BISHOP OF LON- 
DON. THE FABRICATION OF SPEKE. THE PRINCE UNDER- 
TAKES THE ADMINISTRATION. VIEWS OF PARTIES. THE 
CONVENTION. DISCUSSIONS. SETTLEMENT OF THE CROWN. 
THE QUESTION OF A REGENCY CONSIDERED. THE VIEWS 
AND CONDUCT OF THE PRINCE OF ORANGE. 




HE history of the schism in the Church 
of England, occasioned by the Revolution 
in 1688, constitutes one of the most in- 
teresting chapters in our Ecclesiastical 
Annals. The views and proceedings of the Non- 
jurors, from their origin as a party to their extinc- 
tion, must be contemplated with much interest by 
members of the Church of England. Few persons 
are aware how much the cause of religion, as well 
as of Sacred Literature, was indebted, during the 
last century, to the exertions of the Nonjurors, 
who, when they were excluded from the National 
Church by their scruples respecting the oaths, de- 
voted themselves to useful and laborious study. 



2 l?tetorp of tlje 

Whatever we may think of their views, we cannot 
deny, that they suffered much for conscience' sake, 
and that they generally suffered with meekness and 
in silence, not parading their wrongs, whether real 
or imaginary, before the public, as was the case with 
the Nonconformists subsequent to the year 1662. 

Much misapprehension exists, even at present, re- 
specting the character and conduct of the Nonjurors. 
By some persons they are regarded as Romanists : 
by others as enemies to their country. It will be my 
aim to give an impartial account of their principles, 
as well as of their proceedings. At the present time 
we may come to the consideration of the subject 
with calmness. We may form a dispassionate judg- 
ment of their case, and of the difficulties, in which 
they were involved. It has been the custom to speak 
of them as a set of unreasonable men : and should I 
succeed, in any measure, in correcting these erro- 
neous impressions, I shall feel, that my labour has 
not been in vain. 

As churchmen, indeed, we must regret, that the 
Nonjurors did not co-operate with the great mass of 
the Clergy : yet still we must reverence them as 
men acting conscientiously, and suffering much in 
the cause, which they espoused. The first race of 
Nonjurors quitted their preferments, and ended their 
days in obscurity : while those, who succeeded them r 
excluded themselves from those distinctions, to which, 
from their talents and learning, but for the barrier 
interposed by their scruples, they must certainly have 
attained. 

My first object will be, to trace the causes, which 
led to such a schism in the Anglican Church. Some 
of the events, therefore, connected with the Revolu- 
tion, must be reviewed. Long before the death of 



of ttje ^onjurorg* 3 

his brother, James, Duke of York, had been recon- 
ciled to the Church of Rome a step to which all 
his subsequent misfortunes must be attributed. Un- 
like his brother, he was not so indifferent on the 
subject of religion as to conceal his opinions. He 
openly declared himself a Roman Catholic. On his 
accession, however, he expressed his determination, 
to maintain and defend the Church of England. Had 
he been influenced by such a determination, he 
would undoubtedly have preserved his crown. Many 
persons were inclined to rely on the King's promise : 
and probably at the time his Majesty intended to 
keep his word. It was supposed, that he would be 
content with the private exercise of his own religious 
system. There were many inducements for making 
such a promise. He knew that he was suspected by 
the Church of England. Recollecting the proceed- 
ings connected with the Exclusion Bill, he was 
anxious to make a favourable impression on church- 
men, who would not have supported him with zeal, 
had they foreseen his intentions respecting the estab- 
lishment of Popery. 

It is singular, that the Dissenters, equally with 
Churchmen, were deceived by his Majesty's promises: 
the former by his avowal of sentiments respecting 
liberty of conscience : the latter by his promise of 
maintaining the Church in her integrity. Churchmen 
hoped that he would maintain the Church : Dissenters 
expected an indulgence in their nonconformity. The 
King's intentions soon became evident to Churchmen. 
On the other hand, the Dissenters were so delighted 
with the prospect of indulgence, that they either did 
not, or would not, see the danger, and consequently 
remained perfectly quiet during that period of ex- 
citement and alarm. While the Clergy commenced 



4 !t'0torp of tlje 

an active warfare against the Church of Rome, the 
Dissenters flattered and thus deceived his Majesty, 
by leading him to suppose, that his measures res- 
pecting the Indulgence were really approved by the 
people. They contributed nothing whatever towards 
the support of the great cause which was then in 
jeopardy. 3 

A review of the conduct of Dissenters at this time 
may be permitted in the present volume, especially as, 
subsequent to the Revolution, they were the loudest in 
their complaints of the inconsistency of the Nonjurors. 
The works published by the Clergy against the Church 
of Rome will ever remain as a monument of their 
piety, their zeal, and their learning : but the voice 
of the Dissenters was not raised in favour of that 
cause, for which, afterwards, they professed so strong 
an attachment. 

In the year 1687 King James issued his Declara- 
tion of Indulgence. His object was to favour the 
Church of Rome through the means of the Dis- 
senters. The Declaration was repeated in 1688, 
with this addition, that the Bishops were commanded 
to forward it to their clergy, and to see that it was 



a It would occupy too much space to enter upon all the acts of 
King James, which evidenced his intention of reestablishing the 
Church of Rome in this country : but I cannot refrain from al- 
luding to his republication of the little Book of Offices, which, 
during the reigns of James I and Charles I, had been used by the 
Missionary Priests in the exercise of their functions in England. 
The following is the Title of the Book as published by King James : 
" Ordo Baptizandi aliaque Sacramenta Administrandi et Officia 
quaedam Ecclesiastica rite peragendi ex Rituali Romano Jussu 
Pauli Quinti Edita extractus. Pro Anglia, Hibernia, et Scotia. 
Permissu Superiorum. Londini Typis Hen. Hills, Regiae Majes- 
tati, Pro Familia et Sacello Typographi. M.D.C.LXXXVI." 



of tlje 

read in all the churches in their respective dioceses. b 
King James was no friend to toleration ; but he 
claimed the power of dispensing with the penal 
laws, in order that the Romanists might reap the 
benefit. The Bishops and Clergy generally resisted 
the attempt as unlawful. They knew that James 
only wished to tolerate Popery. They warned the 
Dissenters of the danger, and to their noble conduct 
the salvation of the Church must be attributed. 

Feeling that the attempt was illegal, the Bishops 
agreed upon a petition to his Majesty, which must 
be regarded as a proof of their unshaken determi- 
nation to resist the encroachments of the Church of 
Rome. Of so much importance was this petition 
deemed, that an answer was prepared and published 
by the King's Printer. Most of the Bishops and 
Clergy, therefore, refused to read the Declaration. 
They were in a very difficult position. By reading 
it they would violate their consciences ; by refusing 
they would incur the royal displeasure. The jirst 
declaration, since it was not commanded to be read 
in churches, did not involve such consequences. 
Undoubtedly this addition was intended to make the 

b The First was dated April 4th 1687 ; the Second April 27th 
1688. A large number of Tracts was published on both sides of 
the question. The reader's attention is directed especially to the 
following : " Reflections upon the New Test, and the Reply 
thereto." " A Letter to a Dissenter." " A Letter of a Dissen- 
ter to his Friend at the Hague." " Some Considerations about 
the New Test." " A Letter from a Clergyman, containing his 
Reasons for not reading the Declaration." " Reasons why the 
Church of England as well as Dissenters should make their Ad- 
dresses of Thanks." This last was printed by Hills, the King's 
Printer. The Oxford Clergy published their " Reasons for not 
Addressing ;" To this there was a Reply printed also by Hills : 
" A Reply to the Reasons of the Oxford Clergy against Address- 
ing." 



6 H?t0toi 4 p of ttje 

Bishops and Clergy instrumental to their own de- 
gradation. But, by the overruling Providence of 
Almighty God, this step proved the most eventful in 
its consequences of all the measures adopted by his 
Majesty. Bancroft and six of his brethren ventured to 
present their petition to the King : an act for which 
they were committed to prison. The trials, with the 
proceedings connected with their liberation, need not 
be entered upon in this volume : and I allude to the 
subject thus far, merely for the purpose of shewing 
that the country was indebted to the Bishops, not to 
the Dissenters, for the successful resistance to the 
King's measures. To the Bishops of that day are 
we indebted for our present privileges. They were 
steady and firm in the defence of their principles^ 
while the Dissenters were ready to comply with the 
King, even when his measures were calculated to let 
in Popery. Yet Dissenting writers are constantly 
charging the Bishops and Clergy, who refused to 
take the oaths subsequent to the revolution, with 
Popery, though they were the very persons to oppose 
its introduction. Lord Halifax, writing on the con- 
duct of the Bishops to the Prince of Orange, says : 
" I look upon it as that which hath bound all the Pro- 
testants together, and bound them up into a knot, 
that cannot easily be untied." Dalrymple remarks : 
" There is no doubt that the petition and the impri- 
sonment of the Bishops were the immediate causes 
of the dethronement of King James. " c 

On the contrary, the Dissenters pursued a course 



c Dalrymple's Memoirs, iii. 145. James afterwards acknow- 
ledged his error in imprisoning the Bishops, and cast the blame 
on the Chancellor. But this was in exile, after he had time for 
reflection. Macpherson's Papers, III, 154. 



of tfje 

which, had they not been checked, must have issued 
in the establishment of the Church of Rome. While 
they received the Declaration, it was rejected by almost 
all the Bishops and Clergy. It was read only in four 
churches in London. Some few of the Bishops for- 
warded it to their Clergy, who generally refused to 
read it. In the Diocese of Norwich, containing 
1200 parishes, it was read only in three or four 
churches/ Croft, Bishop of Hereford, forwarded it 
to his Clergy, and then published a singular pam- 
phlet, containing his reasons for the course which he 
had adopted. 6 He laments the necessity of acting in 
opposition to his metropolitan : and, at the same 
time, assures the King, that the non-complying 
Bishops were attached to his Majesty's person. The 
conduct of Crew, Bishop of Durham, was equally 
singular. He requested Baker to read the Declara- 
tion in his chapel at Aukland. Baker had already 
requested his own curate at Long Newton not to 
read it. " When all was over, the Bishop (as a 
penance I presume) ordered me to go to the Dean 
(as Archdeacon) to require him to make a return to 
Court of all such as had not read it, which I did, 
though I was one of the number." 1 The Bishop, 
however, joined in the vote, that King James had 
abdicated. He also took the oaths to William and 
Mary, and retained his bishopric until his death in 



d D'Oyley's Bancroft, i. 257-270. Macpherson, i. 448-9. 
Somerville, 162, 165, 166. Kennet, iii. 482-6. Comber's Life, 
259-64. Prideaux's Life, 40. Gutch's Collectanea, i. 328-41. 
Rapin, ii. 762. Stillingfleet's Mis. Discourses, 368-71. 

e A Short Discourse concerning- the Reading His Majesty's 
Declaration in the Churches, set forth by the Right Reverend 
Father in God, Herbert, Lord Bp. of Hereford, 4to. 1688. 

f Baker's Life, pp. 5-6. 



^igtorp of ttie 

1722. When time had elapsed sufficient to ascer- 
tain the numbers, it was found that not more than 
200 Clergymen throughout the whole country had 
read the Declaration. It was read by Sprat in 
Westminster Abbey ; but few persons remained to 
hear it, besides the Choristers and the Westminster 
Scholars. 8 

Unable to shew that the Dissenters took any part 
in the great struggle, and unwilling to award any 
merit to the Bishops and Clergy, Dissenting writers 
frequently labour to find out something, on which 
they may rest a charge against the members of the 
Anglican Church. They pretend, therefore, that the 
Clergy opposed the King merely because he favoured 
the Dissenters, and not from any love of liberty. 
They claim the Revolution as the offspring of their 
own principles, though Dissenters really supported 
the King in his unconstitutional course. Instead of 
defending the liberties of their country, they actually 
addressed the King in the most flattering style. To 
encourage them, they were told by some of the 
courtiers, that the royal intentions had all along been 
thwarted by the Church of England. The language 
of not a few of the addresses must have surprised the 
King himself. Alsop, a man of some influence with 
the body, prepared an address, in which the parties 
wished the King success in his " great councils and 
affairs." 11 These Addresses encouraged the King in 
his course ; for he never conceived it possible, that 
he should be defeated by the Church. The Dis- 



s Mackintosh, 252. 

h Biog. Brit. Art. Alsop. Kettle well's Life and Works, p. 61. 
In others, the expression " our brethren the Roman Catholics " 
occurred. Swift's Works, Scott's Ed. viii. 399. 



of tfje ^onjurorsL 9 

senters, says one who was by no means unfriendly to 
them, " were in general ripe for attaching themselves 
to the party of the King."' It is said too, that Sun- 
derland and others, who were in the interest of the 
Prince of Orange, fell in with the Dissenters, and 
persuaded the King to persevere. k 

Hallam admits, that the Dissenters have been 
ashamed of their conduct. Some Addresses were 
presented by the Clergy ; but they " disclose their 
ill-humour at the unconstitutional indulgence, limit- 
ing their thanks to some promises of favour the King 
had used toward the Established Church." 1 Swift 
says, speaking of the Bishops, " if the Presbyterians 
expressed the same zeal upon any occasion, the in- 
stances are not, as I can find, left upon record or 
transmitted by tradition." 01 Efforts have been made 
to defend the Dissenters in addressing the King, but 
it is not possible to remove the reproach under which 
they lie, not only of not acting against Popery, but 
even of forwarding James's views. " Addresses came 
from all sects and persuasions throughout the king- 
dom, filled, with the most rapturous professions of 
loyalty. Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers 
promiscuously crowded the royal presence, and laid 
their offerings at the foot of the Throne. James was 
compared to Cyrus, to Moses, to several other de- 
liverers of the people of God in the ancient world, 
his piety was praised, his moderation exalted, his 



' Dalrymple, i. 189. 

k Macpherson, i. 432. Calamy, i. 380. Hallam, iii. 91. 
Rapin, ii. 758. 

1 Hallam, Const. Hist. iii. 101. 
m Swift's Works, viii. 40 1 . 



10 !i?t0torp of tf)* 

magnanimity raised to the skies."" This extract does 
not overstate the matter : and Calamy and others are 
compelled to admit the fact. The Dissenters sup- 
ported the King against the liberties of their country ; 
but the Nonjurors, who have been so much traduced 
by that party, were among the foremost to oppose 
their sovereign in his unconstitutional career. Surely 
these facts ought to keep dissenting writers silent. 
Whatever may have been their views respecting the 
Revolution, they contributed nothing whatever to- 
wards its accomplishment. " Whatever opposition 
was made to the usurpations of King James proceeded 
altogether from the clergy and one of the universities. 
The Dissenters readily and almost universally com- 
plied with him." Scott also remarks, " in accom- 
plishing the Revolution, the services of the established 
Church had been chiefly conspicuous. The Dis- 
senters had at one time, (if the expression can be 
permitted) coquetted with James II. and shewed 
some disposition to accommodate themselves to his 
plans of arbitrary power in order to gratify their 
vengeance by enjoying the degradation and perhaps 
the fall of the Church of England. And although 
they recovered from this delusion, yet they must be 
considered rather as falling in with and aiding the 
general current of opinion, than as leading and 
directing it against the abdicated monarch.'' 1 " 



n Macpherson, i. 436-437. See also Kettlewell's Life, 62-63. 
Rapin, ii. 758. The accuracy of the picture is admitted in the 
following sentence from a Dissenting writer: " If some of them 
exceeded on this occasion in their compliments to the King-, it 
must be considered that oppression will make a wise man mad." 
Bennet's Memorial, 328. 

Swift's Works, viii. 259. P Ibid. 351. 



of tfje .0orijuc0c<5 1 1 

It is amusing to read the defences which have been 
set up for the Dissenters by Calamy and others. 
"The Dissenters were not so fond of hard usage as 
to refuse a liberty so freely offered them : nor did 
they think it good manners to enquire too narrowly 
how that indulgence came about." Speaking of Alsop, 
Calamy says, " I could be content to draw a veil over 
his conduct, in the reign of King James ; but who is 
wise at all times." He adds, " none more rejoiced 
in the Revolution or were more hearty in King Wil- 
liam's cause." q Yet Alsop was as hearty in the cause 
of King James, and did all he could, by supporting 
his Majesty, to prevent the accession of the Prince of 
Orange. " They were glad," says another of their de- 
fenders, " to see the work in so good hands, and the 
controversy managed to so good purpose by their 
protestant brethren of the Church of England. They 
thought it but reasonable to leave them to lay the 
devil they had done so much many of them to raise."' 
Such attempts at a defence only serve to prove the 
charge. 

But it was not only at the period of the Declara- 
tion that the Dissenters pursued so strange a course. 
If we look back over the latter part of the reign of 
Charles II. we shall find that they were silent on the 
subject of Popery. It was improbable that men, who 
could so flatter King James, would write against his 
Church. Yet soon after the Revolution, the Dissenters 
were constantly bringing the charge of Popery, not 
only against the Nonjurors, but against all consistent 
members of the Anglican Church. "In less than 



i Calamy, i. 376. ii. 487. Life of Howe, 132-6. 
r Bennet's Memorial of the Reformation, 324. Defence, 165- 
168. 



12 i?i0torp of tlje lionfurorjaf. 

seven years before, one of the main objections brought 
against them was their inclinableness to Popery. But 
when the falseness of this accusation was made to 
appear beyond contradiction, by the strenuous oppo- 
sition that was generally by them, both from the 
pulpit and the press, carried on against that which 
they were accounted before favourers of; it was more 
than a little remarkable, that those, who had made 
the outcry, were themselves now not only generally 
silent, but were also the very first to join hands with 
this very Popery against the Church of England." 
Thus some years before the Revolution the Dissenters 
raised the cry of Popery against the Church of Eng- 
land : in 1688 they actively supported King James : 
and a few years after, when the victory had been 
gained, though they had favoured his Majesty, they 
actually revived the cry of Popery against the clergy. 
The same writer remarks again : " Surely nothing 
could appear more odd and extravagant, than the 
conduct of these new allies with Popery." 9 

The Dissenters, therefore, if they were the suppor- 
ters of the Revolution, were so unwittingly and not 
intentionally. By flattering the monarch they en- 
couraged him in that course, which issued in his ruin, 
and which he would not have pursued so long, if they 
had acted faithfully like the Bishops and Clergy. 
King James could fairly say, that " he had been en- 
couraged by multitudes of addresses/'* No merit, 
therefore, is due to the Dissenters; for they never 
contemplated opposition. "Though the Clergy of 
the Church of England bore the burden and heat of 
the day, and bravely defended their religion, while 
the Dissenters lay silent, and concurred in all the 

5 Kettlewell's Life, 59, 60. * Ibid. 62, 63. 



of tlje ^onjucor0 13 

measures of the court, yet had they the confidence to 
pretend a mighty share of merit at the Revolution."" 
As the Nonjurors were subjected to so much re- 
proach from the Dissenters, it appears desirable in 
this work to expose the conduct of the latter at, and 
immediately prior to, the Revolution of 1688. Still I 
would not have entered upon this exposure, had not 
Dissenting writers, from that time down to the present 
moment, been in the habit of charging Popery against 
many of the most faithful children of the Anglican 
Church. It must strike reflecting persons as somewhat 
remarkable, that, like their forefathers, modern Dissen- 
ters are making Common Cause with Popery : while 
the Church of England still remains the chief bulwark 
against the encroachments of Rome. As soon as the 
Dissenters had entered into the harvest, which cer- 
tainly was prepared by others, they became very vir- 
tuous and zealous, and charged the Nonjuring Clergy 
with Popery. This was marvellous inconsistency in 
men, who had done so much to further the cause of 
Romanism. They encouraged the King in his mea- 
sures : and, but for that encouragement, his Majesty 
would never have proceeded to a prosecution of the im- 
prisoned prelates. w The most active supporters of 
King James were William Penn, a Quaker, and Henry 
Care, a Dissenter. They asserted the dispensing 
power in the Crown : so that according to their doc- 
trine the King could not be bound by any laws. x 



u Salmon's Examination of Burnet, ii. 1024. 

w Kettlewell's Life, 75, 76. 

x Johnston, his Majesty's physician, published a work in de- 
fence of the dispensing power : " The King's Visitorial Power as- 
serted, &c. 4to London, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the 
King's Most Excellent Majesty, for his Household and Chappel. 
1688." It was ably answered in "Some Observations upon the 



14 iHgtorp of tlje 

It may, therefore, be alleged without fear of con- 
tradiction, that the Clergy of the Anglican Church 
prevented the introduction of Popery. Nobly did 
they defend the truth, both at the Revolution, and 
during several previous years. In a catalogue of 
books against Popery during the reign of James II. 
the compiler, after specifying two books, says : 
" These are all I find written by Nonconformists. 
I need not here to beg our Nonconformist brethren's 
pardon upon this slender account of their writings 
against Popery during the reign of King James II, 
because I have used great diligence to attain an 
exact account of them." y Of the works published 
by Churchmen on the controversy with Rome, a 
portion, and only a portion, was reprinted by Bishop 
Gibson. 2 In a sermon at Oxford in 1705, the writer, 
alluding to this subject, says, " I shall not bring in 
here that all those noble defences, that were written 
against popery in these times, were done by the hands 
of Churchmen : all besides three cold Pamphlets, that 
stole out as it were in moonlight, as if the authors 
had been ashamed of them, and perhaps they had 
some reason. But I will not urge this any longer as 
an objection against these men, that they wrote no 



Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England ; with an Ap- 
pendix in answer to a late Book intitled ' The King's Visitorial 
Power Asserted. London, 8vo. 1689.'" 

y " The catalogue of all the discourses against Popery during the 
reign of King James II, by members of the Church of England 
and by the Nonconformists, with the names of the authors. 4to. 
London, 1689." The number of distinct treatises is 230. See 
also " The present state of the controversie between the Church of 
Rome and the Church of England : and an account of the works 
written on both sides. 4to. London, 1687." 

z Gibson's Preservative, Folio, 3 Volumes. 



p of tlje $fconjur0t#. 15 

more against Popery, for it may be they were not 
able : I am sure 'tis an argument of our charity for 
them if we think so. When the Dissenters paid all 
their addresses and compliments to the government, 
these good men could then comply with any thing, 
if they could lessen the Church's authority." 3 At 
that time the Dissenters were raising the cry of 
Popery against the Church : and the preacher very 
properly reminded them of their conduct at the Revo- 
lution. 

The King attempted to prevent the Clergy from 
introducing the subject into their pulpits : but a sense 
of duty led them to persevere in their course. They 
chose rather to obey God than the King. Among 
other measures adopted to silence the Clergy, the 
Press was artfully employed by command of his 
Majesty. Several publications made their appear- 
ance : but they were promptly answered by some of 
those champions, who had undertaken the defence of 
the Church and the truth. b In short, the supporters 
of the Church ever stood ready to defend the great 
doctrines embodied in our Formularies. As a speci- 
men of the lengths to which the royal supporters 



a Tilley's Sermon, 1705, 8vo, 22. 28. 29. Burnet, who was 
not unfriendly to the Dissenters, says : " The Clergy began to 
preach generally against Popery, which the Dissenters did not." 

b I subjoin the titles of some : u Good Advice to the Pulpits, 
delivered in a few Cautions for the keeping up the Reputation of 
those Chairs and preserving the Nation in Peace. 4to, 1687." This 
was printed by the King's Printer. It was answered in "An Apology 
for the Pulpits," being an answer to a late book, " Good Advice to 
the Pulpits, 4to, 1688." The King's friends replied in " Pulpit 
Sayings, or the Character of the Pulpit-Papist Examined, in 
answer to the Apology for the Pulpits." This was answered in 
" Pulpit Popery true Popery : being an answer to Pulpit Sayings, 
4to London, 1688." 



16 31?igtorp of tije 

were encouraged to proceed, it may be mentioned, 
that a work was actually published to shew Protes- 
tants how they should conduct themselves under a 
Roman Catholic Sovereign. 

Thus the contrast between the Dissenters on the 
one hand, and the Bishops and Clergy on the other, 
including those who subsequently became Nonjurors, 
was most striking. Still the Church of England 
flourished notwithstanding the lukewarmness of the 
Nonconformists. " The Church of England was 
never known to be in a more flourishing condition 
than at this time ; all things duly weighed it became 
much more powerful by the opposition made against 
it, and grew by the favours indulged to its adver- 
saries. The number of converts made in the reign 
of this king to his religion was most inconsiderable, 
and their service to him still more inconsiderable, if 
it could be said to be any at all. On the other side, 
for every one that was lost to the established religion, 
it was thought there were ten at least added to it 
another way : for certain great numbers of Dissenters 
were brought into the communion of the Church by 
the learned writings of the orthodox clergy." It was 
remarked as a proof of the flourishing state of the 
Church, that the rites and ceremonies were better 
observed, the Churches were full, and the commu- 
nions more frequent/ 

The birth of a Prince of Wales, however, alarmed 
the country. The Princess of Orange was the next 
heir to the throne, consequently the birth of a Son 



c How the Members of the Church of England ought to behave 
themselves under a Roman Catholic King, with respect to the 
test and penal laws, 12mo, London, 1687. 

(1 Kettlewell's Life, 59. 



of tfje ^onjurorg. 17 

filled the minds of the people with apprehension. 
This event took place on the 10th of June, during 
the imprisonment of the Bishops ; so that Sancroft 
could not have been the author of the Form of 
Prayer, which was ordered to be used on the Day 
of Thanksgiving. This general apprehension of 
danger led some of the principal men in the king- 
dom to look to the Prince of Orange for support. 
They were members of the Church of England : so 
that, whatever merit attaches to the Revolution, 
belongs to them, not to the Dissenters. Into the 
particulars connected with the Prince's arrival, I 
need not enter at any length, since my narrative pro- 
perly commences with the period fixed for taking 
the oaths to William and Mary. I shall only touch, 
therefore, on those points which appear to me to be 
necessary in order to illustrate the subject. 

As soon as William landed in England, he pub- 
lished a Declaration explanatory of his views in 
coming to this country. He stated, that he wished 
to preserve the religion and the liberties of the 
people : and that he had been invited by several of 
the Lords, spiritual and temporal. King James 
summoned Sancroft and the Bishops into his pre- 
sence, to question them respecting the Declaration, 
who denied all knowledge of the Prince's intentions, 
or that they had given him any invitation. It was 
subsequently proved, that the Bishop of London had 
actually signed the invitation to the Prince, though 
he positively denied it in the presence of his Majesty. 
He was the only Spiritual Peer who did sign it : and 
his solemn denial must ever remain as a blot upon 
his memory. Sancroft signed a paper, declaring 
that he never concurred in inviting the Prince of 
Orange, and expressing his belief, that all the Bishops 



of 

were guiltless of any such imputation. He had no 
suspicion of Compton. 6 A writer, whom I shall have 
occasion to notice presently, is very severe on 
Compton, and also upon Burnet, for the part they 
took in this matter : " Nor will any that know the 
men allow, that Jack Boots or Cambric Sleeves 
embarked in dethroning or driving away the King, 
out of any regard unto, or concernedness for the 
reformed doctrine and worship : but that they did it 
out of pique and revenge, and upon the motives of 
ambition and covetousness, in the one to get a 
bishopric, and in the other to preserve one." f Comp- 
ton is designated Jack Boots, from the fact of his 
heading a troop of horse at the Revolution. Burnet 
is called Cambric Sleeves, on the alleged ground, 
that he declined to wear lawn sleeves after he 
became a Bishop, having them made of a different 
material. 

On the Bishops declaring, that they had not con- 
curred in inviting the Prince, and that they were al- 
together ignorant of his design, the King requested 
them to sign a Paper expressive of their abhorrence 
of the invasion. This, however, they declined. They 
honestly declared that they had taken no part with 
the Prince : they advised his Majesty to preserve 
the religion and liberties of the country ; but they 
would not sign any Declaration of Abhorrence. 
Throughout this anxious period, Sancroft and his 
brethren, with the exception of Compton, acted a 
most consistent part. They resisted the King's il- 



e Gutch's Collectanea, i. 442, 444 ; vol. ii. 366. 

f Whether the preserving the Protestant Religion was the 
motive unto, or the end that was designed in the late Revolution, 
4to. 



of tje ^onjurorg. 19 

legal schemes ; but they did not adopt measures to 
set him aside : and no charge of inconsistency, be- 
tween their conduct at this time and a subsequent 
period, can be sustained. The only inconsistent 
man was Compton, who said to his Majesty, " I am 
confident the rest of the Bishops will as readily 
answer in the negative as myself/' 8 In the reasons 
which Compton assigned for not signing a Declara- 
tion of Abhorrence, he intimates, that, " as only few 
Bishops were in London, to sign any paper would 
lead the world to expect, that they were divided in 
opinion ; who, we hope, are very well united." He 
also argues, that the clause in the Declaration joined 
the Lords temporal and spiritual ; " so that if it has 
any meaning, it must intend, that there is a con- 
currence of both orders to invite them to this attempt, 
which would make it more improper in us, even 
though all the Bishops were here, to make a separate 
vindication, when the accusation is joined, and com- 
prehends the temporal Lords in it." h This reasoning 
was intended to convey the impression, that he had 
not signed the Invitation to the Prince. Nothing could 
be more reprehensible than such conduct. 

Of those, who refused to sign a Declaration of Ab- 
horrence of the Prince's designs, several subsequently 
became Nonjurors : and their refusal to take the oaths 
has been considered as inconsistent with their con- 
duct on this occasion. But surely this is a most 
groundless charge. They saw the necessity of some 
interference with King James : and they believed, 



8 Macpherson, i. 458. Dalrymple, i. 238, vol. iii. 136-7-8. 
Kennet, iii, 482. Rapin, ii. 770. James's Memoirs, ii. 210. 
Macpherson's Papers, i. 275-6-7. 

h Gutch's Collec. i. 445. 



20 ^igtorp of tfje 

that nothing would be so effectual as the interposition 
of the Prince ; but they never contemplated the re- 
moval of his Majesty or the advancement of William 
to the throne. They pursued a uniform course of 
opposition to those measures, which were illegal, un- 
influenced by any sinister considerations. They were 
anxious to preserve the Church ; they wished also to 
preserve the rights of the King ; consequently they 
were perfectly consistent in their refusal of the oaths, 
notwithstanding their previous refusal to express their 
abhorrence of the attempt of the Prince of Orange. 
The Nonjurors never objected to the interference of 
the Prince ; but they neither invited him to come, nor 
would they express their disapprobation of his coming. 
A singular circumstance occurred after the arrival 
of the Prince, which, as having a special bearing on 
the Revolution, merits a notice in this volume. The 
Prince issued a second Declaration ; but in December 
another document, purporting to be a third, was 
published and circulated. No one appears to have 
doubted the genuineness of the paper. It contained 
some very strong allusions to the Roman Catholics ; 
and Dr. Lingard and Ralph appear to attribute the 
flight of King James to this document. The Prince 
did not publicly disown the paper : neither did he 
avow it as his own. Thus the mystery remained 
unravelled, until some years after, when Speke, the 
real author, had the effrontery to claim it as his own 
production, and also to plead a merit for the fabri- 
cation. The document was dated from Sherbourne 
Castle, the 28th of November. Burnet, however, 
says, that the Prince disowned it as soon as he saw 
it ; but this was only in private. Speke says he pre- 
sented it to the Prince at Sherbourne Castle, and 
that all his attendants, after some consideration, be- 



of tlje /P0ttjtum% 21 

lieved that it would serve the cause. The author of 
the History of the Desertion asserts, that it was not 
circulated till the sixth of December ; and as the 
Prince had left Sherbourne at or before the begin- 
ning of the month, there was sufficient time to have 
contradicted the paper through the Press. Ralph 
exclaims, " How amazing ! that a man should betray 
an ambition to be thought the author of so nefandous 
a contrivance, which might have occasioned a general 
massacre of the Papists." Speke's own account 
proves him to have been a dishonest man, for he 
boasts of acting as a spy for King James, while he 
was serving the Prince of Orange. The Paper was 
undoubtedly the means of bringing many persons to 
acquiesce in the proceedings of the Prince. 1 

The members of the Church of England generally 
concurred in looking to the Prince of Orange as a 
mediator, however they might differ on certain points. 
This is allowed by King James himself. k But James 
was determined on quitting the country. It must be 
admitted, that he met with many provocations : and 
being under the influence of his Priests, who per- 
suaded him that his life or his liberty was in danger, 
and that he would be restored by a foreign force, he 
took a step which proved fatal to his interests. Had 
he remained, the idea of setting him aside could not 
have been entertained, in which case the nonjuring 
schism would never have existed. He must have 
remained the sovereign, whatever measures might 



1 Speke's Secret History of the Revolution. Ralph i. 1051- 
52-64. Dalrymple, i. 264. Rapin, ii. 780. Lingard xiv. 263. 
Echard's Hist, of Revolution, 182-3. King James's Memoirs, ii 
257. Echard's History of England, iii. 

k James's Memoirs, ii. 171-4. 



22 l^tetorp of tije 

have been adopted for restraining the exercise of the 
prerogative. The leaders could not have avowed 
an intention of placing the Prince of Orange on the 
throne, had King James continued in the country : 
but when he actually retired into a foreign land, 
they supposed, that he would never return except on 
his own terms. Hence it became their interest to 
resort to measures to prevent such a return. 

When the King had quitted the country, the Arch- 
bishop and the Bishops concurred with the temporal 
Peers in calling upon the Prince to take upon him- 
self the administration of affairs. It was necsesary 
that vigorous measures should be adopted, while the 
Prince was unquestionably the fittest person to carry 
them into execution. It is difficult to decide on the 
views of all parties at this juncture ; but in a very 
short space the question relative to offering the 
crown to William was publicly discussed. Tories 
and Whigs had united in supporting the Prince on 
his arrival. The former contemplated nothing more 
than a parliamentary settlement for the security of 
religion and liberty : but probably the latter, even 
from the beginning, were desirous of setting King 
James aside altogether. It seems that the most 
pressing calls upon the Prince to undertake the ad- 
ministration of affairs were from the Tories ; so that 
no difference of opinion existed respecting the cha- 
racter of the measures, which James had adopted. 1 
Scott remarks, that the Tories greatly contributed 
towards the Revolution, but afterwards repented. 
This is applicable only to one section of the Tories ; 

1 Dalrymple, i. 217. Rapin, ii. 800. Tindal's Introduction, 
xxi. 

m Life of Dryden, 308. 



of tlje /Ponjutor0< 23 

and Scott himself mentions facts which are opposed 
to the previous statement. " The Whigs were wil- 
ling to seize liberty under a new leader ; and the 
Tories deemed it not incompatible with their prin- 
ciples of obedience to receive it from the hands of a 
Prince, whose consort would, in all probability, have 
a right to their future allegiance. In one thing only 
the Tories and Whigs differed : the Tories intended 
no more by asking the protection of the Prince of 
Orange, than to procure a great parliamentary settle- 
ment for the security of the national religion and 
laws : but the Whigs, concealing their intentions in 
public, animated each other thus in private." Dal- 
rymple observes, that the Whigs were of opinion, 
that they could compel the King to descend from the 
throne by the voice of the people. The duplicity of 
the Whigs will be manifest from other proceedings, 
which will be detailed in the progress of this work. 
On all occasions they appear to have consulted their 
own interests rather than their country's welfare. 

To illustrate the motives by which the various 
parties of that period were influenced, and to show 
that a combination of circumstances contributed to 
the completion of the Revolution, I may refer to the 
state of things on the Continent. It is a fact, that 
the Pope himself contributed money towards the 
expense of William's expedition. This circumstance 
is placed beyond a doubt. The Pope was opposed 
to the interests of France : consequently he promoted 
the design of the Prince, in order that he might weaken 
the French monarch. " The finest stroke of the 
Prince's policy was his art in deluding the Pope. 
Taking advantage of that Pontiff's animosity against 

11 Dalrymple, i. '204-5. 



24 ^igtorp of tlje 

France, he had made him believe, that the Emperor 
was to send a great army to the Rhine, that he was 
to join it with one equally great from Holland, and 
march at the head of both into France. For the ad- 
vancement of this project great sums were remitted 
by the Pope to the Emperor : and those sums thus 
got from the head of the Roman Catholic world were 
employed in the dethronement of a Roman Catholic 
King/' This account, indeed, reflects no credit on 
the Prince, since it attributes his success with the 
Pope to a false representation. But the fact shews, 
that a combination of singular circumstances con- 
tributed to the Revolution. The Pope's " aversion 
to France threw him into the arms of the Emperor : 
and he supported in some degree the cause of the 
Allies with the money of the Church. " p It seems 
clear, that the Pope actually knew of the Prince's 
design, though he could not have contemplated his 
accession to the throne of Great Britain. " Innocent 
was by no means a friend to King James. His aver- 
sion to Lewis XIV had joined him to the Allies, and 
even connected him with the Prince of Orange. Many 
Catholic princes followed the example of the Father 
of the Church. The Spanish ambassador at the 
Hague ordered masses to be said publicly in his 
chapel for the success of the Prince's expedition. 



Dalrymple, i. 222. 

P Macpherson's Papers, I. 299. " It happened," says Ralph, 
*' most favourably for the Protestant religion, that the quarrel be- 
tween his Holiness and his eldest son now raged with more fury 
than ever." Ralph, i 976. The Pope, Innocent XI, died in 
1689. He was called the Protestant Pope, " though," says 
Ralph, " for no better reasons that appear than his opposition to 
France, and the share he had in setting the Prince of Orange on 
the throne of England." Ibid. ii. 164. 



of tlje ^onjurorg* 25 

The Emperor espoused his cause with all his influence 
at Rome : and he himself had the address to persuade 
the Pope, that the interests of the Roman Catholics 
and the restoration of their religion in Britain, were 
connected with the success of his enterprise." q Mac- 
pherson relates the following anecdote, which, he says, 
" may be joined to other known proofs of this cir- 
cumstance." He states that Prince Vaudemont was 
in the confidence of the Prince of Orange, who 
argued " that the Pope and the Roman Catholic 
Princes were in the wrong to expect any thing from 
King James in favour of the Romish faith : that his 
being declared of that religion made every body 
jealous of the least and most indifferent step he took : 
and it was, therefore, impracticable for him to do 
them any service : for the whole nation would oppose 
it, as tending to destroy the Church of England : 
whereas himself being a Protestant, might take any 
step whatever, and serve them effectually, without 
the least suspicion : and in case they would favour 
and promote his attempt upon England, he would 
undertake to procure a toleration for the Roman 
Catholics." It is added, that the Pope favoured the 
scheme under the influence of such feelings : and it 
is remarked, that the Prince, throughout his reign, 
gave the Roman Catholics a connivance equal to a 
toleration. r From this statement, the truth of which 



i Macpherson's Papers, i. 299. To this statement may be 
added another of Calamy's respecting the Dutch. " They had 
public prayers in the Churches every day for a good while tog-ether, 
which was an unusual thing in that country : and I observed the 
ministers prayed for a north east wind, by name, which would 
bring the forces thence hither to the best advantage." Calamy's 
Account of his own Life, i. 52. 

r Macpherson's Papers, .i. 299, 300. 



26 ^igtorp of t&e 

seems to be fully established, it is evident that the 
Prince acted with considerable craft. 

The previous facts moreover are supported from 
James's own memoirs. Before he went to Ireland, 
the King wrote to the Emperor. But the Emperor 
reminded his Majesty, that had he listened to his 
ambassador, " instead of hearkening to the fraudulent 
suggestions of France, he would have been in a dif- 
ferent position." James, commenting on the severity 
of the Emperor's answer, says : " Yet that was the 
treatment his Majesty experienced from the Courts 
of Vienna and Madrid, who, forgetting the oppressed 
Prince, made haste to compliment the Usurper, and 
entered into a stricter league with him than before." 8 
The state of Europe, therefore, was favourable to 
William's enterprise. Hatred to France, and the de- 
sire of William's alliance, led the Emperor, the King 
of Spain, and the Pope himself, to countenance the 
Prince's attempt. The writer of the Life of Boling- 
broke admits that the alliance with France was the 
ruin of James. " This suggested the scheme of the 
Revolution, promoted the execution, and secured the 
success of it. The Pope, the Emperor, the King of 
Spain, and several princes of Germany, lent their 
assistance willingly, and lent it to a Prince the most 
capable of managing such a design with that secresy 
and address, which could alone hinder it from proving 
abortive." ' 

The question of the Prince's views on entering 
upon this expedition, I shall discuss presently : but 
the previous extracts shew, that the dethronement of 
King James was contemplated as a probable thing. 

s James's Memoirs, ii. 324-327. 
* Life of Bolingbroke, 68, 69. 



of tje ^onjurorg, 27 

No person, however, could have calculated on the 
consequences that ensued : and had James remained 
in the country, the utmost elevation at which the 
Prince could have arrived would have been to the 
post of Regent. The King evidently thought, with 
his priests, that he might be restored by the assist- 
ance of France. He imagined, that his absence 
would involve the Prince of Orange in great diffi- 
culty : but he could not have been prepared for the 
course which was adopted by the Convention. 

To this time, therefore, namely, the departure of 
the King, there was no difference of opinion among 
the Bishops and the Clergy. All regarded the Prince 
as a mediator. Sancroft, with his brethren, united 
with the temporal Lords in beseeching the Prince to 
adopt measures for the safety of the kingdom. u There 
was no reluctance on the part of the Archbishop and 
the Bishops in begging the Prince to act : but they 
did not contemplate his accession to the throne. In 
the Address to the Prince, he was requested to take 
steps for calling a free Parliament, in order that 
measures might be adopted for the safety of the 
Church, and also to secure due liberty to Protestant 
Dissenters. This proposal emanated from the Church, 
and at a moment when the Dissenters were flattering 
King James. Burnet insinuates, that Bancroft's con- 
currence, in this Address to the Prince, was incon- 
sistent with his subsequent conduct in refusing the 
oath : but the disingenuousness of such a reflection 
is obvious, since the Bishops only regarded him as a 
mediator, not as a sovereign. It surely becomes us 
to judge favourably of the conduct of men, who were 
involved in difficulties of no ordinary kind. 

u Kennet, iii. 500. Echard's Revolution, 214. Salmon's His- 
tory, 382-3. 



^tgtorg of tije 

From this period it is said, that William acted 
more like a king than a mediator. Those gentlemen, 
who had been members of previous Parliaments, 
were summoned to meet at Westminster : and writs 
were afterwards issued for convening the Conven- 
tion Parliament, which met on the 22nd of January 
1688-9. Previous to this the Prince had publicly 
conformed to the Church of England, by receiving 
the Lord's Supper at the hands of the Bishop of 
London in the Chapel Royal at St. James's. w 

Before the Convention assembled, the settlement 
of the government was the great subject of discus- 
sion throughout the whole kingdom. Still no one 
could foresee what would be the result of the de- 
liberations of that assembly. Evelyn mentions a 
visit, which he paid to the Archbishop on the 15th 
of January. The Bishop of St. Asaph's was also 
present, with the Bishops of Ely, Bath and Wells, 
Peterborough, and Chichester. The conversation 
turned on the state of public affairs. Some persons, 
it was said, wished the Princess of Orange to be 
made Queen : others advocated a Regency : while 
another party recommended the recall of King James 
on certain conditions. Evelyn assures us that the 
Romanists were busy among all these parties, in order 

w Echard's Revolution, 219. Ralph remarks from Reresby, 
that the Prince at first favoured the Presbyterians, which startled 
the Clergy. He adds, on this act of receiving the Sacrament, 
" The Prince was as much a politician as his intractable temper 
would allow him to be, and suited his behaviour, as far as he 
could, to his interest. He was of opinion, that the champions for 
a divine hereditary right would never be champions for him ; and 
therefore he thought it worth his while to be well with the Dis. 
senters, who had no such difficulty to surmount. And this open 
professing himself of the Church of England was no more than 
an occasional conformity." Ralph, vol. ii. 7. 



of tlje ^onjurorg. 29 

to produce confusion. He adds : " I found nothing 
of all this in this assembly of Bishops, who were 
pleased to admit me into their discourses : they were 
all for a Regency, thereby to salve their oaths : and 
so all public matters to proceed in his Majesty's name, 
by that to facilitate the calling of a Parliament ac- 
cording to the laws in being."* With the exception 
of Burnet and some few Whigs, none of the Clergy 
and people of England had the most distant idea of 
setting aside King James, though they wished to see 
a Regency established. Nor could the Whigs of 
this time have expected more than a Regency, what- 
ever may have been their wishes. " Nay," says a 
writer, " the Prince of Orange himself, by disclaiming 
all pretensions to the crown in the Declaration, seems 
to have been thoroughly persuaded that the people 
in general had no design, nay, were abhorrent from 
the thoughts of dispossessing their sovereign. " y This 
may be true respecting the Prince's expectations : 
but that he intended to assume the sovereignty, if 
circumstances should prove favourable, is evident 
from the facts which are stated in this volume. 

When the Convention assembled animated discus- 
sions ensued. The Commons at length declared the 
throne vacant : but the Lords hesitated. A confe- 
rence was proposed between the two Houses, which 
was protracted to a considerable length : but at last 
the Lords concurred with the Commons in declaring 
the throne vacant. Two plans were open to the 
Convention : the one the establishment of a Regency, 
the other a declaration of the vacancy of the throne. 
Those who argued for the vacancy, contended that 
the Princess of Orange, as the next heir, must neces- 



Evelyn, iii, 263. y Life of Ormonde, 209. 



30 K?i0torp of 

sarily ascend the throne. In the Lords, the debate 
turned on the question between a vacancy and a Re- 
gency : and the former was carried by a majority 
of only three votes. 2 Sancroft, and several of the 
Bishops, were not present on this occasion. Their 
presence, therefore, would have turned the scale in 
favour of a Regency. The Archbishop of York and 
eight other Prelates voted for a Regency ; while two 
only, the Bishops of London and Bristol, voted with 
the majority. Had the Lords been left to their own 
unbiassed decision, without any influence from the 
Commons, they would not have voted for the vacancy 
of the throne. William himself saw this, and became 
alarmed. Contrary to his natural reserve, he called 
some of the Peers around him, and assured them that 
he would not be the Regent. He also asserted, that 
he would not accept the crown in the right of his 
wife, and that he should return to Holland unless he 
had the power as well as the title. Undoubtedly this 
declaration alarmed many of the Lords, and led to 
their concurrence with the Commons. 3 

The Prince knew that the country would be at the 
mercy of King James, if he withdrew his army : con- 
sequently " he threatened to return to Holland, and 
leave them to the mercy of their exasperated Prince, 
which soon silenced all his opposers in the debates 
concerning the abdication." 5 It must be admitted, 
that William's desire for his own aggrandizement was 
stronger than his love for the Church of England, 
since he was ready to leave the Church to the mercy 
of King James, if he could not secure the crown for 



z Evelyn, iii. 268. Fifty-four voted for the vacancy : Fifty-one 
for a Regency. 

a Macpherson, i. 507. b Salmon, i. 252. 



of tlje /ponjurorg. 31 

himself. " The Prince had declared that he had no 
design upon the crown, and now sought it all he 
could : he came to settle the Protestant religion, and 
yet brought over with him four thousand Papists in 
his army : a number not far short of what the King 
had in his." c 

It was generally known, during the debates in the 
Convention, that William would be content with 
nothing less than the crown, for, at this period, he saw 
that the prize might be secured. For a time, how- 
ever, the advocates of a Regency proceeded as though 
they knew nothing of the Prince's wishes. d In a 
conversation with Lord Hallifax, Burnet " with great 
violence argued, that the Prince was to be crowned : 
and urged that England could never be happily 
settled till his Highness was at the helm, and this 
kingdom in strict conjunction with Holland." 6 Even 
before the Convention met, William's claims were 
publicly advocated. Thus a writer says : " That 
which remains then to be done, is to declare the 
Prince of Orange King, and to settle upon him the 
Sovereignty and regal power : allowing in the mean 
time unto the Princess the privilege of being named 
with him in all leases, patents, and grants. " f It has 
been stated, and I must confess that there is in my 
opinion some foundation for the statement, that King 
James apprehended personal danger by remaining 
in the kingdom, and that William wished to produce 

c Reresby, 387. d Macpherson, i. 500. 

e Reresby, 380. 

f A Brief Justification of the Prince of Orange's Descent into 
England, and of the Kingdom's late Recourse to Arms. With a 
modest disquisition of what may become the wisdom and justice 
of the ensuing Convention in their disposal of the crown. 4to. 
London, 1689. p. 36. 



32 ftigtorg of 

such an impression, in order that he might be induced 
to quit the country. It appears that an intimation 
was made to the King, that he was in danger. To 
determine on flight therefore under such an appre- 
hension was not unnatural. 6 If William expected 
the crown, he must have been anxious for the removal 
of the King. James fancied that the Prince wished 
him to depart. He remarks that the guards at 
Rochester were not so particular in watching him, 
" which confirmed him in the belief that the Prince 
of Orange would be well enough contented he should 
get away." 11 

In forming an opinion of the men, who did not 
concur in raising William to the throne, we must 
endeavour to place ourselves in their circumstances. 
Whatever may have been the views of some of the 
intriguing Whigs, the greater part of the nation must 
have been taken by surprise at such a result. " What- 
ever the Prince and some particular persons, whom 
our author mentions, might design or hope for, pos- 
sibly not one man in a hundred at that time ever 
thought of seeing themselves delivered in the manner 
they were afterwards." All, who subsequently 
became Nonjurors, were ready to admit that circum- 
stances might arise to render a Prince incapable of 
government : and some of them thought, that an im- 
moveable persuasion in a false religion was sufficient 
to warrant the interference of the legislature/ 

It must, therefore, be borne in mind, that all those 
excellent men, who subsequently became Nonjurors, 
were prepared to support a Regency, and to constitute 



% Reresby, 383. h James's Memoirs, ii, 267. 

' Salmon on Burnet, ii, 1026. 
k Salmon on Burnet, ii, 1068. 



of ttje ^onfurorgu 33 

the Prince of Orange the Regent. It cannot be sup- 
posed that a Regency would not have preserved the 
Church and the liberties of the people ; and had King 
James remained in the country, a Regency only could 
have been contemplated, for the two Houses would 
not in that case have proceeded to depose their sove- 
reign. The Bishops and Clergy had no wish to see 
King James restored to power: but they conceived, 
that every purpose connected with the safety of the 
country would have been answered by a Regency. 
In considering the plan of a Regency, apart from the 
consequences which have resulted from the Revolution, 
we must, I think, admit, that it was open to the fewest 
objections. The Schism would thus have been pre- 
vented. Sancroft and his brethren would have 
cordially concurred in such a settlement ; and the 
peace of the Church would have been unbroken. The 
Bishop of Ely argued, in the debates on the subject, 
for a Regency, and that the throne was not vacant in 
the sense implied in the word abdicated. He con- 
sidered the word to be of too large a signification : 
and that another might be adopted implying " the 
ceasure of the exercise of a right" We may be 
assured that if Turner would have been satisfied with 
a Regency, none of the other Bishops would have 
objected. 

The chief argument, used by the advocates of the 
Prince was this : that no safety could be expected 
under a Popish Prince : and that, therefore, they must 
look to the next heir being a Protestant. The 
leaders of this party were friends to monarchy and 
episcopacy : nor would they have departed from the 
direct line of succession, if they had not considered 
such a procedure necessary for the preservation of 
the liberties of the country. The Princess of Orange 

D 



34 ^igtori? of tie 

was the next Protestant heir : but as the Prince had 
been so instrumental in the deliverance, it was deemed 
necessary to associate both together in the govern- 
ment. 1 The settlement was made in a very brief 
space. The period from the arrival of King William 
on the coast of Devon, to the final departure of King 
James, comprehended forty -three days : and only one 
hundred days elapsed from the fifth of November, 
1688, to the day on which William and Mary were 
declared to be King and Queen of England. The 
Convention waited on the Prince and Princess on the 
seventh day of February, 1688-9, with an act of 
resolution, by which they were recognized as sove- 
reigns of this country. The order of Council, for 
altering the Prayers for the Royal Family, was issued 
on the 16th of February : but an entry in Evelyn, on 
the 30th of January, shews that the ruling powers 
began very early to accommodate the services of the 
Church to the new state of things : " the anniversary 
of King Charles the First's martyrdom : but in all 
the public offices and Pulpit Prayers, the Collects 
and Litany for the King and Queene were curtailed 
and mutilated. " m 

The consideration of the Prince's own views has 
been partly anticipated in the preceding observations : 
but, as the question is one of some interest, and since 

1 Particulars connected with the settlement of the Crown may 
be seen in the following works. The Desertion Discussed. Life 
of James, 23'2 36. Macpherson, i, 503 506. 508 512. Ken- 
net, 507 14. Tindal's Introduction, xxiv vii. Sherlock's Let- 
ter in State Tracts. D'Oyley's Bancroft, i, 41530. Somerville, 
179 89. 199. Echard's History of the Revolution, 222 30. 

m Vol. iii, 269. The King quitted the country on the 24th of 
December, and on the 30th, Evelyn records the following entry in 
his Diary : " This day Prayers for the Prince of Wales were first 
left off in our Church." Vol. iii, 262. 



of tfje ^onftirors* 35 

its settlement is absolutely necessary to a due appre- 
ciation of his character and principles, I intend to 
devote a few pages to the subject. His sentiments 
were not revealed by himself, not even to his friends ; 
but they were gathered from certain indications in 
his conduct. It must, I think, be admitted, that 
some other feeling than the desire to preserve the 
Protestant religion, influenced William in his in- 
vasion. As long as King James had no son, the 
Prince expected the sovereignty for his wife ; but 
when a male heir was born he evidently became 
alarmed. He, therefore, affected to believe, that the 
Prince of Wales was not the son of King James. In 
bis declaration he stated, that he came to preserve 
the liberties of the people, and also to inquire into 
the birth of the Prince of Wales. After his accession, 
however, we hear no mention of the Prince of Wales. 
It may, I think, be argued, that if William had been 
only anxious to secure the liberties of the country and 
the safety of the Protestant religion, he might have 
been satisfied with a Regency, in which all power 
would have been vested in himself. But William, 
as we have seen, was prepared to leave the country, 
and consequently open the door to the unconditional 
return of King James, unless the crown were placed 
upon his own head. However we may revere his 
memory, for acting as our deliverer at an important 
crisis, we cannot close our eyes to the fact, that a 
feeling of ambition prompted him to undertake his 
expedition : nor can it be denied, that there was 
some foundation for the severe remarks which were 
made at the time on his proceedings. " I must needs 
say," observes a contemporary writer, " that the 
Prince's tenderness and zeal for the Protestant re- 
ligion, and his compassionate care to secure it to us 



36 %'0 to rp of tlje 

and our posterity, when it was in imminent and im- 
mediate danger of being extirpated, and which there 
was no other visible human means to prevent ; was 
then, and continues still to be made, the pretence of 
his invading these dominions." This idea is com- 
bated by the writer, who asserts, that other motives 
induced the Prince of Orange to undertake the enter- 
prize : "Nor did those abroad that co-operated in the 
Revolution act any more upon motives that respected 
the Protestant religion, than we here did. Nor did 
the great man who keeps his palace at Kensington 
bring an army into England, and screw himself into 
the throne, upon any motives of saving the Pro- 
testant religion ; but merely upon the impulse of 
pride, haughtiness, and ambition, and to gratify his 
aspirings after a crown. I will challenge all mankind, 
who have not abjured truth and common honesty, to 
believe any longer or to continue to avouch, that his 
coming into England was out of any other respect to 
our religion save making it the cloak and stalking 
horse to his towering and ambitious designs. It was 
King Charles having no children, and the Duke of 
York having no male ones that lived, and his own 
marriage with the said Duke's eldest daughter, and 
therefore coming into some probable and nearer pros- 
pect of arriving sooner or later at the sovereignty over 
these kingdoms, that made him put on the vizard and 
mask of a zealot for the reformed religion ; having 
before lived in all the coldness and indifference in 
that matter that was consistent with his keeping the 
posts he held in Holland." In reference to the 
question of the Prince of Wales's legitimacy, the 
same writer remarks : " Even then," when the Decla- 
ration was issued, " and until a few days before he 
actually embarked on that design, he had the royal 



of tfie ^lonjurorg. 37 

babe prayed for in his own chapel by that distin- 
guishing and princely title." It was said, that one 
of the Prince's friends stated, " that they neither 
questioned the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales nor 
were concerned about it; for that the Prince was 
now got into the throne, and was resolved to keep it 
so long as he lived, and cared not who ascended it 
when he was gone." n 

There is another passage in the same tract, in 
which the writer argues the question to the dis- 
advantage of the Prince. " They must have forfeited 
common sense, as well as moral honesty, who can be 
prevailed upon to allow, that the many Catholic 
Princes who approved of that undertaking could 
design any good to the Protestant religion, or believe 
that any advantage would accrue unto it by that 
attempt. It is to buffoon us, and treat us in ridicule, 
to endeavour to impose upon our belief, that the 
late Prince Palatine, who together with the Prince of 
Orange, was the original contriver of a descent upon 
England : or that the Emperor, King of Spain, 
Eector of Bavaria, who concurred unto and counte- 
nanced it; or that old Oldischalchi and Innocent XI. 
who winked and connived at it, though against both 
a Catholic monarch and the first of the Romish 
Communion, that hath sat upon the throne of Great 
Britain for above these hundred years ; could do it 
in kindness to the Protestant religion, or foresee 
that it was undertaken by the Prince of Orange 
upon any motive relating to the safety of it. No, 
they very well knew, that there was nothing of reli- 



n Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion was the 
motive unto, or the end that was designed in the late Revolution. 
4to. pp. 4, 33, 36, 37, 39. 



38 !$i0torp of ttje 

gion in this case ; but they were willing to make 
use of the ambition of the Prince of Orange to seek 
their own revenge against France, and on our being 
bubbled into it through a foolish credulity that it 
was entered upon in behalf of our religion." 

Though such a conclusion is unfavourable to the 
character of King William, yet it can, I think, scarcely 
be denied that ambitious views did very materially 
influence the Prince of Orange. " Whether the 
Prince intended by his enterprise only to inquire into 
the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales, to reconcile 
the King to his people, and to engage both in a war 
against France, or to dethrone him and take the 
direction of that war to himself, is only known to 
that God who is the searcher of hearts. It is probable 
he resolved to direct himself by events, according as 
they should present themselves. For as he had for- 
merly urged on the exclusion, when seconded by one 
half of the nation, he fell upon the same principles 
to accept the crown, if offered by the whole." p 

It is clear that William did not in reality question 
the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales. We must, 
therefore, conclude that the question was introduced 
into his Declaration, in order to inflame the public 
mind. An infamous attempt was made some few 
years later, to shew that the child was the offspring 
of one Mary Grey, and that she was put to death in 
Paris to avoid a discovery. No notice was taken of 
the matter, and the unprincipled writer was suffered 
to remain in obscurity. His book was a most impu- 
dent forgery. The two Houses of Parliament, to 
whom it was addressed, very wisely permitted the 

" Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion," &c. pp. 
40, 41. i 1 Dalrymple, i. 214. 



of tlje ^on(uror^ 39 

author to remain unnoticed. The author pretended 
that the letters were written by the Queen in secret 
ink, and that he had deciphered them by means of a 
compound of sulphur. In one of the letters, the 
Queen is made to give an account of Mary Grey's 
death by some priests at Paris. q Some years before 
this book was published, Fuller offered to give evi- 
dence before the House of Commons of a pretended 
plot, but his character was so well known, that the 
House voted him to be a notorious imposter and false 
accuser ; yet notwithstanding this severe rebuke, he 
had the effrontery to publish the book relative to 
James's son. In 1702, the very year of his publica- 
tion, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory for a 
libel. r 

The treatment which Fuller received shews, that 
there was no wish to revive the silly story of the 
Prince's illegitimacy : and it is very evident, that it 
was originally invented for party purposes. He was, 
" as it suited with the designs of party, lawfully 
born, or a supposititious child." 8 But the imputation 

i A full Demonstration that the pretended Prince of Wales was 
the son of Mrs. Mary Grey, undeniably proved by original letters 
of the late Queen and others : and by depositions of several persons 
of worth and honour, never before published : and a particular 
account of the murther of Mary Grey, at Paris. Humbly recom- 
mended to the consideration of both Houses of Parliament ; by 
William Fuller, Gent. London, 8vo. 1702. 

r Salmon's History, i. 265. 319. 

s Life of Ormonde, 210. Ralph was severe upon the Duchess 
of Maryborough on this point. She passes over the subject in her 
account of her own life. He says that the world " expected that 
many important secrets would have been brought to light : that 
especially no consideration whatever would have prevailed with 
you to stifle all you knew relating to that birth which has been 
so often represented as an imposture, though never proved to be 
one." Ralph's Other Side of the Question, &c. pp. 5, 6. 



40 %'0torp of tie 

must lie on William's memory of making use of the 
story, a story which he did not believe, for the purpose 
of advancing his own designs. In the Declaration 
he stated, that he and the Princess were deeply con- 
cerned in that matter. It was asked just after the 
Revolution, " Did they write to the King about this 
point ? Did the King refuse to satisfy them ? If not, 
could a greater impiety or a more execrable imposture 
be charged against the most flagitious and profligate 
persons." It was stated that, before the Prince left 
Holland, some persons drank the health of the Prince 
of Wales, adding, " if he die, our business is spoiled, 
and we shall never stir hence, meaning the Invasion 
would stop." 1 The Prince was charged with a design 
upon the crown even as soon as he had published his 
Declaration. This charge was contained in a Pamph- 
let entitled " Some Reflections on the Declaration." 
A reply was immediately put forth, supposed to be 
from the pen of Burnet, in which the question res- 
pecting the design on the crown is evaded; but evaded 
in such a manner as to be considered at that time as 
a denial. It was Burnet's policy to evade the ques- 
tion, for had the design been avowed, the enterprise 
must have failed." Sherlock appeared at this time 
as a writer in favour of the King, in a tract, " Reflec- 
tions on the Late and Present Proceedings in Eng- 
land" in which he calls for proofs of the various 
charges contained in the Prince's Declaration/ The 
publications of the period shew, how ready many 
persons were to invent reasons against the legitimacy 
of the Prince. Thus in one of the numerous pro- 
ductions of the Press, it was even said, that the 



* Somers' Tracts, i, 300, 301. Ibid. 309. 

T Ibid. 319. 



of tje ^onjurorg* 41 

Queen had passed the age " at which it was usual 
for Italian women to bear children." w Yet the Queen 
had several children afterwards. In short there was 
much truth in the following passage from " Observa- 
tions on the Revolution;" "By which Declaration, 
whoever observes, that the shoe pinches chiefly in 
the point of the Prince of Wales, who put the Prince 
of Orange by his hopes of succession even more if it 
were true than if it were fictitious ; and that there- 
fore (at that time especially when it was not to be 
imagined that the crown could be got upon any other 
foot) it was absolutely necessary to make him appear 
fictious if possible." 

Upon the whole, we must regard the Prince's con- 
duct, respecting the Prince of Wales, as a blemish 
in his character. Nor can any impartial person, 
however he may be impressed with a sense of the 
advantages which we are still reaping from the Revo- 
lution settlement, fail to acknowledge, that ambition 
mingled largely with the motives by which William 
was influenced. We cannot be surprised, therefore, 
at the strong feelings of some of the Nonjurors to- 
wards his Majesty, regarding him, as they did, as 
the supplanter of their lawful sovereign." 

There is another question, upon which a remark 
may be made, namely, King William's views re- 



w Somers' Tracts, vol. iv. 89. 

x The Tories equally with the Whigs, admitted the necessity of 
some interference, and were ready to render a tribute of gratitude 
to William. Thus Ralph, a Tory, but an impartial historian, re- 
marks : " The state of the kingdom, in consequence of the arbi- 
trary proceedings of the Stuart-family, and of the particular 
phrenzies and violences of King James was certainly such as required 
some extraordinary assistance ; and the extraordinary assistance 
then vouchsafed by the Prince of Orange, from what motive soever, 



42 ^igtorp of tlje 

specting the Church of England. He was educated 
as a Presbyterian ; but I apprehend, that he was in- 
different as to the particular form of Protestantism 
which might prevail. Notwithstanding his sanction 
of the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland, I do 
not consider him as so hostile to the Church of 
England as many of the Whigs. " As for those 
called Whigs, who were the warmest supporters of the 
Revolution, and are supposed more than others to have 
acted in it upon the motive of securing our religion, 
I will make bold to say of many of them, and that 
both with truth and justice, that they have no religion 
but their interest, nor sacrifice to any deity but them- 
selves. The Whig party is, generally speaking, a 
compound of the atheistical of all opinions and per- 
suasions whatsoever : and they can be of any religion 
because they are really of none. They will take the 
sacrament in the Church of England to be qualified 
to get or hold a place ; and then will herd with the 
fanatics ever after, that they may be esteemed parti- 
zans for our Sovereign Lord, the people." J Un- 
doubtedly the Whigs contemplated strong measures 
against the Church : but happily they were defeated. 
Nor did the King go the same lengths as his Whig 
servants. But for the safety of the Church we are 
indebted to the clergy of that period. The clergy 
" now began to change their note, both in pulpit 
and discourse, on their old passive obedience, so as 



certainly deserved the highest acknowledgments a kingdom so 
happily rescued could make. But having admitted this, we may 
be allowed to wish, perhaps, that the constitution, like some ships 
in like manner thus overset, had been able to right itself; with- 
out being obliged to pay such an extraordinary price for salvage." 
Ralph, ii. 1023. 

y Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion, &c. p. 31. 



of rfje ^onjucoc0 43 

people began to talk of Bishops being cast out of the 
House." z It is evident, that but for the clergy the 
Church would have been in jeopardy. " The new 
Privy Council," says Evelyn, " have a republican 
spirit, manifestly undermining all future succession 
to the throne, and property of the Church of Eng- 
land, which yet I hope they will not be able to ac- 
complish so soon as they expect, though they get 
into all places of trust and profit." a At length the 
Commons became sensible, that the Church was in 
some danger; and, therefore, they petitioned the 
King for a Convocation, at which Burnet and others 
were angry, but which they could not prevent. 
Burnet said, that a Convocation would "be the utter 
ruin of the Comprehension Scheme." 5 He proved a 
true prophet : for the Convocation was true to the 
principles of the Church, and the Scheme of Com- 
prehension was dropped a scheme, which would 
not have satisfied Dissenters, but which must have 
disgusted many of the best friends of the Church. 



Evelyn, iii. 268, 269. a Ibid. 279. 

b Reresby, 405. 




CHAPTER II. 



THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. ARGUMENTS RESPECTING IT. DEATH 
or BISHOP LAKE. His CONFESSION. DEATH OF BISHOP 
THOMAS. VARIOUS VIEWS OF THE OATH. KETTLEWELL. 
DIFFICULTIES OF THE CASE. LATITUDINARIAN PRINCIPLES OF 
THE TIME. BANCROFT'S COMMISSION. FORM OF PRAYER 
FOR KING WILLIAM. A NEW LITURGY. THE BISHOPS CLEAR 

THEMSELVES. PLANS SUGGESTED FOR PREVENTING THESCHISM. 

SOME COMPLY AFTER THE BATTLE OF THE BoYNE. BuRNET ? S 

INFLUENCE. His CONDUCT EXAMINED. SANCROFT. TRIAL 
OF LORD PRESTON AND MR. ASHTON. CHARGE AGAINST 
BISHOP TURNER. PRAYERS. 



JHE crown having been settled on William 
and Mary, it became necessary to adopt 
measures to secure the stability of the 
government: and the most important 
question related to the Oath of Allegiance. In its 
original state it presented very serious difficulties, 
inasmuch as it so strongly implied the doctrine of 
hereditary right. It was therefore altered into the 
following simple form : " I, A B, do sincerely pro- 
mise and swear to bear true allegiance to their 
Majesties King William and Queen Mary." The 
oath of supremacy consisted of two parts : the one 
an oath of abhorrence of the Pope's excommunicating 
power : the other a declaration, that no foreign prince 
or power had, or ought to have, any jurisdiction in 
this kingdom. 

I need not dwell upon the various particulars con- 




of ttje ^onjurorg, 45 

nected with the conversion of the Convention into a 
Parliament. It is sufficient for my purpose to state, 
that the new Oath was taken by the two Houses in 
March 1688-9, with the exception of some, who 
entertained scruples on the subject. The Oath was 
taken by the Archbishop of York, and by the Bishops 
of London, Lincoln, Bristol, Winchester, Rochester, 
Llandaff, and St. Asaph's : and subsequently, by the 
Bishops of Carlisle and St. David's : it was refused 
by Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ken, Bishop 
of Bath and Wells, Turner, Bishop of Ely, Frampton, 
Bishop of Gloucester, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, 
White, Bishop of Peterborough, Thomas, Bishop of 
Worcester, Lake, Bishop of Chichester, and Cart- 
wright, Bishop of Chester. Thomas, Lake, and 
Cartwright died during the year, and thus six Pre- 
lates were left, who refused to swear allegiance to 
the new Sovereigns. The Act of Parliament re- 
quired all Ecclesiastical persons to take the Oath 
before ihejirst of August 1689, under pain of sus- 
pension from the performance of their duties : but 
six months were allowed, after suspension, before 
deprivation : so that those who did not comply before 
the Jirst day of February, 1689-90, would be de- 
prived of their ecclesiastical preferments. 

There doubtless would have been difficulties if the 
Oath had not been enforced : but as no such step 
would have been required under a Regency, it may 
fairly be questioned, whether it would not have been 
better policy not to have imposed the Oath, except 
in the case of persons actually appointed under the 
new Sovereigns. In this case, the parties already 
in possession would have been left unmolested. Such 
leniency would not have been abused. One argu- 
ment only, as it appears to me, could be urged with 



46 ^igtorp of tlje 

any force in favour of the universal imposition of the 
new Oath, namely, that to have dispensed with it 
might have indicated weakness and fear on the part 
of the government. Still the dangers, arising from 
such a course, would have been more than counter- 
balanced, by the good feeling, which would have been 
produced in the minds of those, who refused to take 
the Oath. It would have been well to have prevented 
the deprivation of so many Bishops and Clergy, at 
almost any sacrifice. 

Many who took the Oath were in a most uncomfort- 
able state of doubt and uncertainty. The question 
to decide was one of great difficulty : could the men 
who had sworn allegiance to King James transfer 
that allegiance to William and Mary ? It may appear 
an unimportant question in the present day : but at 
that time it presented difficulties of no ordinary mag- 
nitude to the minds of all conscientious men. The 
following extract from a letter written by Nicolson, 
subsequently Bishop of Carlisle, dated 15th of May, 
1689, will shew that even many of those, who even- 
tually complied, were in the greatest embarrassment. 
" We have now a Prince and Princess seated on the 
throne, in whom we are ready enough to acknowledge 
all the accomplishments that we can wish for in our 
governors, provided their title to the present posses- 
sion of the crown were unquestionable : and, there- 
fore, methinks we should rather greedily catch at 
any appearance of proof that may justify their pre- 
tensions, than dwell upon such arguments as seem- 
ingly overturn them."* He proceeds to enumerate 
the arguments which appeared to him to be satisfac- 
tory : yet it is clear, that he had considerable scruples 

a Nicolson's Epistolary Correspondence, i. 7, 8. 



of rtje jponjurorg. 47 

on the subject. At a later period, indeed, when 
Bishop of Carlisle, he expresses himself satisfied on 
the following ground. " Whenever a Sovereign De 
Facto is universally submitted to, and recognized by 
all the three estates, I must believe that person to be 
lawful and rightful monarch of this kingdom : who 
alone has a just title to my allegiance, and to whom 
only I owe an oath of fealty. vb 

This argument undoubtedly satisfied numbers, who 
took the Oath, and who did not feel themselves called 
upon to consider the abstract right. But it did not 
meet the case of those, who were then in possession 
of benefices, who had taken the Oath to King James, 
and could not transfer their allegiance to another. 
They were ready to conduct themselves as peace- 
able citizens, though they could not promise to do 
so under an oath, which renounced King James to 
whom they had sworn allegiance. While, therefore, 
credit is given for sincerity to those Bishops and 
Clergy, who complied, charity constrains us to make 
the same concession in favour of those, who refused. 
It was one thing to yield obedience to the new Sove- 
reign, it was another to transfer their allegiance by 
an oath. 

But of all persons the Dissenters are the last who 
can, with any show of reason, traduce the Nonjurors 
with inconsistency : since they themselves, as has 
been shewn in the previous chapter, contributed to- 
wards the introduction of Popery, by a ready com- 
pliance with King James. While they supported the 
King in his designs against the religion and liberties 
of the country, the Bishops and Clergy of the Angli- 
can Church, among whom were all the Nonjurors, 

b Nicolson's Epistolary Correspondence, ii. 387. 



48 ^tgtorp of ttje 

interposed to prevent those evils, which otherwise 
would have been unavoidable. 

The period between the passing of the Act, requir- 
ing all Ecclesiastical persons to take the Oath, and the 
time fixed for the deprivation of those who should 
not comply, was a very anxious one, not only to those 
who subsequently refused to submit, but also to many 
who submitted. Sancroft and the Bishops absented 
themselves from the House of Lords : and no feeling 
bordering on compliance appears to have been enter- 
tained by them. They conducted themselves quietly, 
discharging the duties of their station. On the day 
on which William and Mary were proclaimed, Henry 
Wharton officiated in the Archbishop's chapel and 
prayed for the new Sovereigns. The Archbishop was 
offended, and requested that no change might be made. 
Wharton states, that Sancroft derived his views from 
the Bishops of Norwich, Chichester, and Ely. How- 
ever, he retained his Chaplains at Lambeth, though 
they gave in their adhesion to the new government. 6 

Lake, Bishop of Chichester, died in the interval, 
between the passing of the Act and the day fixed for 
taking the Oath. Soon after his death an account of 
his last moments was published by Dr. Jenkin. " His 
Lordship," says the writer, " was one of the seven 
Bishops, who by their Christian courage and patience 
disarmed the rage of our Popish adversaries, in the 
height of their pride and triumph. Nothing greater 
can be said, than that he was of their number, and 
that after he had prevented the sending down the 
declarations into his own diocese, he came in great 
haste to London, and joined himself to the rest of My 
Lords the Bishops, and had his share in the whole 

< D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 436, 437. 



of tfje ^onjucocg. 49 

management of an affair, as honourable, perhaps, as 
any thing that has been done in any age."" 

This estimable man was one of the seven Prelates, 
who had incurred the wrath of King James, by ven- 
turing to refuse to read his Majesty's Declaration. 
The writer of the account remarks, " He had after- 
wards a very worthy part in those applications the 
Bishops made to his Majesty a little before the Revo- 
lution, when they interposed themselves as it were 
between the King and his people." 6 The writer ex- 
presses his wonder at the anger evinced by some per- 
sons towards the Bishop, for not taking the Oath, as 
if his zeal for the Church had become cold. " He 
considered that the day of death and of judgment, are 
as certain as the 1st of August and the 1st of February, 
and acted accordingly.'" It will be remembered that 
these days were fixed by the Act : the former for sus- 
pension, the latter for deprivation in all cases, in 
which the Oath should not be taken. On the 27th 
of August he dictated the following profession, being 
then very ill : 

" Being called by a sick and I think a dying bed, 
and the good hand of God upon me in it, to take the 
last and best viaticum, the sacrament of my dear 
Lord's body and blood, I take myself obliged to make 
this short recognition and profession. 

" That whereas I was baptized into the religion of 
the Church of England, and sucked it in with my 
milk, I have constantly adhered to it through the 

d A Defence of the Profession which the Right Reverend Father 
in God John, late Lord Bishop of Chichester, made upon his death- 
bed : concerning 1 passive obedience and the new Oaths. Together 
with an Account of some Passages of his Lordship's Life. London 
1690. pp. 7, 8. 

e Defence, &c. f Ibid. p. 9. 

E 



of tjje 

whole course of my life, and now, if so be the will of 
God, shall dye in it : and I had resolved through 
God's grace assisting me to have dyed so, though at 
a stake. 

" And whereas that religion of the Church of Eng- 
land taught me the doctrine of nonresistance and pas- 
sive obedience, which 'I have accordingly inculcated 
upon others, and which I took to be the distinguish- 
ing character of the Church of England, I adhere no 
less firmly and steadfastly to that, and in consequence 
of it, have incurred a suspension from the exercise 
of my office and expected a deprivation. I find in 
so doing much inward satisfaction, and if the Oath 
had been tendered at the peril of my life, I could 
only have obeyed by suffering. 

" I desire you my worthy friends and brethren, to 
bear witness of this upon occasion, and to believe it, 
as the words of a dying man, and who is now en- 
gaged in the most sacred and solemn act of convers- 
ing with God in this world, and may, for ought he 
knows to the contrary, appear with these very words 
in his mouth at the dreadful tribunal : " Manu pro- 
pria Subscripsi," 

JOHANNES CICESTRENSIS.'^ 

The writer afterwards remarks, " I shall not doubt 
to say, that those who cannot take the Oath, yet wish 
better to their Majesties than these their violent ad- 
versaries, and in the end will prove better subjects. 
Their Majesties are the two persons in the world, 
whose reign over them, their interest and inclination 
oblige them most to desire, and nothing but con- 



Defence, &c. pp. 10, 11. Kettlewell's Life, 87, 



p of tlje jpoujuror^ 51 

science could restrain them from being as forward as 
any in all expressions of loyalty." 1 

This was undoubtedly the case with many of the 
Nonjurors. Their feelings were towards King Wil- 
liam : but conscience did not permit them to take the 
Oath, because they considered themselves bound to 
King James. How desirable, that such men should 
have been permitted to remain in their posts without 
taking the Oath ! 

When this account was published, the Bishop of 
Worcester was also deceased. In allusion to this 
circumstance the Author of the Defence remarks : 
"These two good Bishops spent their dying breath 
in recommending the doctrines of peace." In a 
postscript the writer thus alludes to the Bishop of 
Worcester's last moments : " His Lordship sent for a 
reverend divine, and after an hour's discourse con- 
cerning the new Oath, and giving his reasons why he 
could not take it, and expressing a great concern for 
the clergy who were of another opinion, and particu- 
larly for those of his own Diocese, he concluded with 
these words, If my heart do not deceive me, and God's 
grace do not fail me, I think I could suffer at a stake 
rather than take this Oath." ' 

This profession was made only three days before 
his death. Strange that men should have been so 
severely attacked for refusing to take the Oath ! 
The writer of the Defence therefore remarks with 
great truth : " It is very observable, that the only two 
Bishops, who have dyed since the refusal of the Oath, 
have declared, when they had now done with this 
world, and had no other expectations but of death 
and judgment, they refused it only upon a principle 

h Defence, &c. 46, 47. * Ibid. 64. 



52 Ijigtorp of tlje 

of conscience, and all who have any charity or con- 
science themselves, or the least respect for the Church 
of England, must give great regard to the dying 
words of two such Bishops, in whom their worst 
enemies can find nothing to blame, but that which 
shall be their eternal honour, that all the temptations 
and inducements, which probably can happen in any 
case, could never prevail with them to take an oath 
against their consciences." 1 

Thus the Bishop of Worcester made a Declaration, 
in his last moments, to the same effect as Lake's. It 
was taken by Hickes, then Dean of Worcester. It 
appears that the Bishop and the Dean stood almost 
alone in their refusal in that Diocese. k 

Other opportunities will offer for pointing out the 
unreasonableness of the charge of Popery, so readily 
alleged against the Nonjurors : but I cannot refrain 
from remarking in this place, that the presumptions 
of insincerity were stronger in the case of those who 
complied, than in the case of those who refused to 
take the Oath : because it is always much easier to 
go with the stream than to run counter to it. Had 
the Bishops and Clergy consulted their worldly 
interests, they would have taken the Oath : while 
in refusing it they sacrificed all temporal advantages. 

The old Oath of Allegiance bound the subject to 
the sovereign, as rightful and lawful King. It was 
argued, that these words implied a precedent title, 
which could not apply to William, who had no other 
title than the voice of the people expressed in the 
Convention. The words were, therefore, omitted in 
the new Oath : and it appears, that some of James's 



1 Defence, &c. 64. k Kettlewell's Life, 85. 



1? igtory of ttje ,0onjuror#* 53 

supporters took it, on the alleged ground, that it re- 
cognized a distinction between a sovereign De facto 
and Dejure. They imagined, that they might swear 
allegiance to the Prince in possession, though they 
considered the right to the throne to be in another. l 
But the Nonjurors scorned to pursue any course which 
was not direct and open. They were too conscientious 
to utter one thing with their lips, while they believed 
the contrary : or to take the Oath with mental reser- 
vation. 

The views of the various parties, who took the 
Oath, are well stated in the following extracts : 
" Now it was observed by him, that in those who 
qualified themselves for having preferment, by taking 
the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen 
Mary, the disagreement was most considerable as to 
the principles on which they proceeded herein. For 
some took the Oath as lawful, yet did blame the im- 
position of it as hurtful. Others did esteem the law- 
fulness of it not as certain, but only as probable ; and 
hence did not condemn the refusers of it. Others 
again did esteem it in some sense lawful, but again 
in another sense unlawful. Some of these took it 
with a declaration, expressing the sense wherein 
they could take it, and wherein not : others took it 
without any open declaration, or explicit interpreta- 
tion : but with an implicit relaxation of the same, or 
limitation hereof so far as they were not antecedently 
bound, or as might be consistent with the laws of the 
realm and the rights both of Prince and people. 
Some also there were, and those not a few, who 
being not able to see through the argument, did after 



1 Dalrymple, i. 304, 305. Mason's Vindication, by Lindsay. 
Preface Ixxxiii. 



54 ^tgtorp of tlje 

some pains taken in examination thereof, remain in 
suspense : and thence were willing to be guided by 
an implicit faith, after the judgment of others for 
whom they did happen to have a particular defer- 
ence. Lastly, it is more than probable, that there 
were great numbers, both of the clergy and laity, 
who without troubling themselves much to consider 
the weight of the argument on either side, were 
easily contented to determine themselves by the pre- 
vailing opinion both of lawyers and divines, and by 
the solemn recognition of the Possessor made at and 
by the Assembly of the Estates." m 

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this 
account ; so that we ought to be charitable in forming 
a judgment of those, who could not take the Oath, 
when so many of those who complied were actuated 
by such conflicting motives. Some there were, who 
refused the Oath, and yet did not hesitate to pray for 
the new Sovereigns : but in a short time they joined 
themselves to one or other of the great parties, into 
which the Church was divided." 

Whiston, whose opinions were as far as possible 
from bigotry, may be regarded as an unexceptionable 
witness in proof of the difficulties, under which many 
persons conceived themselves to be placed, in conse- 
quence of the Oath. " When I was to go to take 
orders, I had no mind to apply to a bishop, how ex- 



m Kettle well's Life, 91, 92. 

n Ibid. p. 92. Calamy makes it a merit on the part of the 
Dissenters that they took the Oath. He says they " freely took 
the Oath." Undoubtedly they did, having no conscience in the 
matter, as their" previous conduct testified. They had done more 
for King- James, and would have supported anyone without regard 
to principles. Their conduct proves that this remark is just. 
Calamy, i. 488. 



of ttjc ^onfutorsL 55 

cellent soever, who had come into the place of any 
who were not satisfied with the Oaths to King William 
and Queen Mary, and so had been deprived for pre- 
ferring conscience to preferment." He subsequently 
considered the Oath lawful in the case of those who 
had not sworn allegiance to King James. He re- 
marks : " The far greatest part of those, that then took 
the Oaths, seemed to me to take them with a doubt- 
ful conscience, if not against its dictates." 

It is said, that some took the Oath pleading a per- 
mission from King James. " There were many others, 
who justified themselves, by the leave which they said 
King James had given them before his going off, to 
act as there should be occasion, and not to throw 
themselves out of a capacity of going on with busi- 
ness, and of doing justice, when and where an oppor 
tunity should present itself. These methods were 
not at all pleasing to the plain temper of Mr. Kettle- 
well, who thought they had too much in them of 
the prudence of this world, and expected not that 
they would ever be blessed of God." p Kettlewell 
also took great pains to satisfy the scruples of many 
who applied to him on the subject. To those who 
took the Oath in a lower sense than the words im- 
plied, he said : " he believed they would find other 
hardships put upon them, as fasts and thanksgivings, 
and that in their practice they would be necessitated 
to come up to the highest sense, though they re- 
nounced it (at present) in their words." q 

It must be admitted, that latitudinarian notions on 
the question of the Oath prevailed to a considerable 
extent among the complying clergy, and even among 

Whiston's Memoirs, 30. P Kettlewell, 81, 82. 

i Ibid. 84. 



56 ^tetorg of tlje 

the bishops. Low views of church discipline, church 
authority, and of the Episcopal office, were enter- 
tained by many persons in high stations. With some 
it was sufficient to leave all ecclesiastical matters to 
the wisdom of Parliament. Erastian in theory, they 
necessarily became loose in practice : and had not the 
Clergy in general maintained their ground, many 
radical changes would have been introduced. Not a 
few of the Clergy suspected the King, in consequence 
of his presbyterian education, of secretly favouring 
the Dissenters : yet his Majesty after all proved a 
better Churchman than some, who had been nur- 
tured in the bosom of the Church. A very large 
body of the Clergy differed from the Nonjurors only 
on the subject of the Oath : and it is to the exertions 
of that body, that the preservation of the Church in 
her integrity must be ascribed. For a time the 
shock of the Revolution was felt by the Church, in 
the introduction, among some of her highest ministers, 
of latitudinarianism ; but providentially in the course 
of a few years the evil, from which so many sad con- 
sequences were apprehended, was greatly mitigated. 
While there was danger of Popery prior to the Revo- 
lution, there was no less danger of latitudinarianism 
subsequent to that event : so that, while we are 
thankful to King William for delivering us from the 
former, we must also be thankful to the Clergy, by 
whose consistent and determined course the Church 
was rescued from the latter/ 

The more the question, which the clergy had to 
settle at the Revolution, is considered, the more diffi- 



r Hallam admits that tampering with the Liturgy would have 
nourished the Schism. Yet the Liturgy was at one time in 
jeopardy. Hallam, iii. 238. 



of tlje ^onjucor^ 57 

cult will it appear. I am sure that no Churchman 
can fully enter into the subject, without being con- 
vinced, that the Bishops and Clergy were placed in 
a most perplexing situation. Instead of reflecting 
on the memory of the Nonjurors, we ought to be 
thankful, that we are not exposed to a similar trial. 

There is too another subject for gratitude, namely, 
the preservation of Episcopacy. That the Episcopal 
succession was in some danger will be admitted by 
all persons, who are acquainted with the circum- 
stances of the period. Suppose, for instance, that all 
the Bishops had refused the Oaths. In that case none 
could have been consecrated to act under the new 
government : and a Presbyterian establishment might 
have been set up in England, as well as in Scotland. 
No doubt there are persons in this country who would 
prefer Presbytery : but the sound members of the 
Anglican Church regard Episcopacy as an ordinance 
of God, and they are thankful that it was not placed 
in jeopardy at the Revolution. 

Just at this time the commission was sitting for 
the purpose of making, or rather suggesting altera- 
tions to be made, by convocation, in the Liturgy. 
The commissioners agreed upon so many, that had 
they been adopted, the Liturgy would have been 
quite a different thing from what it was previously. 
Happily, in consequence of the strong church feeling 
which prevailed in the convocation, the proposed 
changes were never submitted to that assembly. Had 
the design succeeded, the consequences would have 
been most fatal to the Church, since the greater 
part of the Clergy would have refused the Oaths, 
casting in their lot with the Nonjurors : and thus a 
precedent would have been set for Church Reformers 
in every age. 



58 ^igftorp of tljc 

Before his suspension, Archbishop Sancroft granted 
a commission to three of his suffragans to act in his 
name : and by them Burnet was consecrated to the 
Bishopric of Salisbury the 31st of May, 1689. 
The commission did not in any way recognize the 
new Sovereigns : but it is argued by Birch, " This 
was as much Archbishop Sancroft's own act, as if 
he himself had consecrated the new Bishop, and he 
authorized others to do what he seemed himself to 
think unlawful." The following defence appears 
to me to meet the charge : " There was yet neither 
deprivation nor suspension ; so that the Ecclesiastical 
unity was not hitherto dissolved betwixt those who 
were divided about the political state : and thence 
if a schism could have been prevented by means of 
this accommodation, with all the fatal consequences 
which thereupon have since followed, the good Arch- 
bishop (howsoever he might be blamed for it by 
some) thought it not unlawful for him thus far to 
acquiesce, it being providentially out of his power 
to act, as otherwise he would. " ! It has been argued 
that the Archbishop by this act admitted the authority 
of the government, by which the subsequent depri- 
vations took place : and that consequently, if the 
authority was competent to nominate to a see, it was 
also competent to deprive." But it appears to me 
that the extract from the Life of Kettlewell furnishes 
a sufficient reply to this objection. The cases were 



s Birch's Life of Tillotson, 330. 

* Kettlewell's Life, 135, 136. D'Oyley, i. 439. Le Neve, i. 
213. Birch says that some of the Nonjurors complained after- 
wards of this commission, and that the Document was withdrawn 
by the Archbishop's order. It was, however, subsequently restored 
to the Archives at Lambeth. Birch's Tillotson, 330, 332. 

u Marshall's Defence, 156. 



p of tty ^onjuvorg* 59 

dissimilar: and the fact may be taken as another 
evidence, that it would have been wise on the part of 
the government, not to have insisted upon the Oaths, 
except in new appointments. In that case Bancroft 
would probably have acted where he could personally, 
and on occasions on which he entertained scruples, 
he would have granted a commission, as in the con- 
secration of Burnet. 

Into the particulars of King William's proceedings 
in Ireland it is unnecessary to enter. A day of 
Fasting and Humiliation was appointed : and as 
usual a Form of Prayer was issued for the occasion, 
to be used in all Churches and Chapels for the suc- 
cess of his Majesty. But the opportunity was seized 
for circulating another Form, in which King James 
was prayed for in the usual manner. It was pub- 
lished by some of James's followers; but the author- 
ship is not known. Large numbers, however, were 
distributed. It was called The Jacobite Liturgy, or 
The New Liturgy. The suspended Bishops were 
suspected ; and some persons of more than ordinary 
pretensions to wisdom imagined, that they could dis- 
cover traces of the same hand that had drawn up the 
Form, which had been publicly used prior to the 
landing of King William. This latter Form had 
been prepared by Bancroft : consequently it was in- 
tended to insinuate, that the Archbishop was con- 
cerned in this New Liturgy. For some time the 
Bishops were silent, conscious of the utter ground- 
lessness of the charge ; but at length, for the satis- 
faction of others, they deemed it necessary to publish 
a Vindication. It was signed by Bancroft and four 
of the Bishops, the Bishop of Gloucester being 
absent. They however pledged themselves for their 
absent brother. The New Liturgy bore this title, 



60 %'0torp of tlje 

" A Form of Prayer and Humiliation for God's 
Blessing upon his Majesty and his Dominions, 
and for the removing and averting God's judgments 
from this Church and State." v The Bishops were 
charged with setting it forth by their authority, in 
opposition to that appointed by the government, and 
against the Revolution. The Archbishop and Bishops, 
in their Vindication, solemnly declare that they knew 
nothing of the Liturgy or the author : that they never 
held any correspondence with France : that they were 
concerned in no plots : and that they should make it 
their practice to study to be quiet, to bear their cross 
patiently, and to seek the good of their native country. 
They were charged in certain Pamphlets, consequent 
upon the publication of this New Liturgy, with 
Popery, and a wish to introduce arbitrary power. 
The authors of the Pamphlets, however, must have 
been most unprincipled men, since those Bishops 
had been the great instruments in preserving both 
the religion and liberties of the people. They there- 
fore declare, " We have all of us not long since, either 
actually or in full preparation of mind, hazarded all 
we had in the world in opposing Popery and arbitrary 
power in England : and we shall, by God's grace, 
with greater zeal again sacrifice all we have and our 
very lives too, if God shall be pleased to call us 
thereto, to prevent Popery, and the arbitrary power 



v The following is one of the petitions : " Restore us again 
the public worship of thy name, the reverend administration of 
the Sacraments, raise up the former government both in Church 
and State, that we may be no longer without King, without priest, 
and without God in the world." It was stated that more than ten 
thousand copies were circulated, and that it was used in private 
assemblies instead of the usual service. Bennet's Memorial of 
the Reformation, 339, 340. Ralph, ii. 230. 



of tije ^onjurottf. 61 

of France, from coming upon us, and prevailing over 
us : the persecution of our Protestant brethren there 
being fresh in our memories. " w 

The Bishops were now freed from the charge of 
being concerned in the New Liturgy, for no one was 
rash enough to impute it to them after their solemn 
denial. 

After the Archbishop's suspension, Tillotson, in 
conjunction with the Chapter of Canterbury, was 
appointed to exercise Archiepiscopal jurisdiction. 
So strange was this proceeding considered, that even 
the Bishop of London had his doubts respecting its 
legality. On the other hand, Stillingfleet, who gene- 
rally entertained latitudinarian notions on such sub- 
jects, contended that it was perfectly legal. His 
arguments were submitted at length in a letter to the 
Bishop of London, who probably was not unwilling 
to be convinced. 1 

w Kettlewell, 10508. D'Oyley, i. 45256. Ralph, ii. 231. 
So great was the enmity of some persons towards the suspended 
Bishops, that they resorted to the grossest abuse. In a Pamphlet 
entitled " A Midnight Touch at an unlicensed Pamphlet, called 
&c." we met with the following passages : " We do justly term 
and esteem him who abdicated the throne, no other than the late 
king : yet we find in the paper this day published, five Clergymen, 
in defiance of an Act of Parliament, calling themselves, W. Cant, 
W. Norwich, F. Ely, T. Bath and Wells, T. Peterborough:' 
The writer says they ought to have subscribed their names only 
with the addition " Late Bishops, if they pleased." Then we 
read : " It is certain that there is a third plot, as that there is a 
new Liturgy : and that there is a Lambeth Club, the paper now 
published confesses : but whether holy or not, I know not ; and 
for ought I know the inserting that epithet, holy, both to theirs 
and the Jacobite or Devil Tavern Club, may be a good reason 
for saying it is abusive." The scurrilous writer ventures to charge 
the Bishops with having persecuted English Protestants, and with 
wishing for the power to do so again. 

x Birch, 154, 155. Stillingfleet's Misc. Discourses, 23442. 



62 %'0torp of tljc 

As the day fixed for the deprivation of the Bishops 
and Clergy, who could not take the Oath, drew near, 
many persons were anxious to devise means to pre- 
vent the schism, which, it was foreseen, would be 
produced : but nothing appears to have been seri- 
ously contemplated by the government. The com- 
plying Clergy in general were anxious that the Oath 
should not be pressed. Efforts were accordingly 
made to prevent a deprivation. In the Diocese of 
Norwich a proposal was made, which is thus des- 
cribed by its originator : " At a numerous meeting 
of the Clergy, I proposed that we should join in a 
petition to the government, that the rigour of the 
depriving Act might be mitigated, and our Bishop 
might be permitted to live and exercise his Episcopal 
function among us. To this all subscribed very 
freely, and among the rest, his Grace Dr. Sharp, the 
late excellent Archbishop of York, though then only 
Dean of Norwich : but because, if the Oaths were 
passed by, I supposed the government might justly 
demand some security for that Bishop's peaceable 
management in his diocese ; therefore T proposed that 
the whole body of the Clergy there met should offer 
themselves to become sureties for their Bishop, 
which, though the rest were most of them afraid to 
do, that Bishop took my proposal so kindly, that he 
remembered it to the last, and has often assured me, 
that had we taken that course, it would have given 
such satisfaction as would have encouraged those of 
the other dioceses to have followed the example, and 
so every one of those holy fathers might have lived 
and dyed peaceably in their own dioceses : but the 
sins of an ungrateful nation were too great and too 
many for us to hope for such a blessing." The 



of tfi* ;fp0ttjur0r0. 63 

originator of this proposal condemned the separation, 
though he would have prevented it by not imposing 
the Oath. The blame he places, where it must be 
placed, upon the State : " Whatever fault was com- 
mitted here by their being dismissed from Episcopal 
jurisdictions in their several dioceses, that lay all at 
the door of the civil government. The Clergy in 
general mourned for it : several, purely out of con- 
science, out of true and real conscience, refused to 
accept of those dignities, which they knew those 
excellent men were unjustly deprived of, and yet 
continued quietly in the exercise of their own func- 
tions, and in their less envied stations." This is 
strong testimony from a complying clergyman : and 
it will appear the stronger from the fact that he con- 
demned the separation in no doubtful terms. He 
adds on this point : " Supposing those put in their 
places to have been schismatical usurpers : why 
should all those reverend Prelates, who submitted to 
the then government upon such reasons as were satis- 
factory to themselves, be branded as schismaticks ? 
Must I commence a schismatick only because I differ 
from some of my brethren in points purely political : 
though I conform entirely to all the orders of the 
same Church, worship God by the same liturgy, and 
acknowledge and assert the same Church government, 
and that only to be of divine right ?" 7 

A petition was also presented from the diocese of 
Bath and Wells. The petitioners stated, that they 
should have been happy if the objectors could have 
taken the Oaths ; that, however, they had formerly 
exposed themselves for the common safety ; and that 

y Melbourne's Legacy, 8vo. Vol. ii. 341, 342, 345. 



64 ^igtorp of tlje 

they were ready to stand engaged for their peaceable 

conduct. 2 

Many persons were anxious for an Act of Parlia- 
ment to relieve the Bishops from the Oath, provided 
they would undertake to perform the duties of their 
office : but the Prelates would make no other promise, 
than that they would live quietly. Whether the King 
and the Ministers ever seriously contemplated such a 
thing, it is not possible to determine : but it is a matter 
of deep regret, that such a course was not pursued. 
There might have been some difficulty respecting the 
public services, as the Bishops, who could not take 
the Oath, might not have joined in prayer for King 
William : but a little forbearance on the part of the 
government would probably have led to a favourable 
issue. The pledge of the Bishops to live quietly 
would have been scrupulously observed : and had 
the Oath been dispensed with, I am inclined to be- 
lieve, that the question respecting the prayers would 
have been so managed, that the schism would have 
been prevented. At all events, the experiment merited 
a trial. It would have been a gratification to all 
sound Churchmen to have seen Sancroft, and Ken, 
and their companions, remaining in possession of 
their Sees, and exercising their jurisdiction in the 
Church. 

But there were other parties, who hurried on the 
government to strong and decided measures against 
the Nonjurors. The Presbyterians in Scotland, and 
the Dissenters in England, insinuated that William's 
throne would have been endangered by their plots : 
though these excellent men never plotted against the 
government even after deprivation. Assuredly they 

z Bowles's Life of Ken, ii. 19496. 



of tlje ^lonjurorg. 65 

would not have done so, if lenity and forbearance 
had been manifested towards them in the difficult 
position in which they stood with respect to the Oath. 
It might not have been easy for William to refuse to 
listen to those who urged him forward ; since hesi- 
tation on his part would have exposed him to the 
charge of deserting his most active supporters ; but 
the exercise of forbearance towards men, whose only 
crime, even in the estimation of their enemies, was 
their regard for a solemn oath, would have produced 
the happiest results. It must be a source of thank- 
fulness, that the schism was not more fatal in its 
consequences. Had there been no dissensions among 
the Nonjurors themselves in subsequent reigns, the 
separation would not only have continued longer, but 
it would have been of a more serious character. 

The reflections of some of our historians, on the 
non-complying Bishops, are very uncharitable. Thus 
Kennet remarks, " Though they had earnestly de- 
sired the Prince's coming, and had the chief of them 
addressed themselves to him after he was come, to 
take the administration of affairs : yet, as if they would 
have him their redeemer without being their pro- 
tector, they did not care to pay any allegiance to him, 
nor to renounce their obligations to King James. This 
example of the Prelates and Clergy had a great in- 
fluence on many other members of the Church of 
England ; and it was their disaffection that made the 
King more inclinable to favour the Dissenters, whom 
he generally looked upon as better affected to his 
person and title." 3 There was no inconsistency, as 
Kennet insinuates : for though they wished the Prince 
to act as a mediator, they did not contemplate the 

a Kennet, iii. 518. 
F 



66 ^tgtorp of tt)e 

removal of their Sovereign. Bancroft and the Bishops 
were determined to preserve the Church at all hazards : 
and in pursuing the course, which their consciences 
dictated, they hesitated not to go to the Tower. They 
suffered more in defence of Protestant principles, 
than those who have so severely reflected on their 
memory. 

After King James had retired from Ireland, leaving 
King William in quiet possession of the crown, some 
of the Clergy, who hitherto had hesitated respecting 
their course, began to consider, whether they might not 
now submit and take the Oath. " Some there were 
who could not be brought to transfer their allegiance 
from him to another, by invocation of God's name : but 
who now, upon second thoughts, considering the des- 
perate state of his affairs, were willing to be convinced, 
that both their interest and duty might be made to 
go together, and that a right of providential possession 
ought no longer to be disputed by them." b This was 
during the six months of suspension appointed by the 
Act. It is said, that offers were made to some, to 
induce compliance, though few only accepted them. 
" However," says the writer of Kettlewell's Life, " the 
forces of the Ecclesiastical Nonjurants were sensibly 
diminished : proportionable strength being added 
thereby to the Jurant Clergy, if strength consist in 
number." He adds, " Moreover it was expected by 
many, that some favour would have been shewn this 
Session to the ecclesiastics under suspension for de- 
clining the Oath, or at least to the more considerable 
of them : and some assurances are said to have been 
given to this effect by persons of no mean figure and 

b Kettlewell's Life, 112. 



of tfje ;(ponjuror0. 67 

interest. Mr. Kettlewell was none of those that were 
too apt to flatter themselves with success of one sort 
or the other, or to fix much upon any earthly depen- 
dencies, or human promises and engagements: but 
was prepared for the worst, which he expected." It 
was urged in Parliament, " That the statute had 
already had its effect in good part, that penal laws 
touching religion have sometimes been made by our 
Parliaments more in terror em than otherwise, and that 
if in any case there was, there never could be a better 
plea than this.'" Still no serious attempt was made 
by those in authority to prevent the Act from taking 
effect on the appointed day, the first of February. 
" If moderation had swayed, the tender consciences 
of the Bishops, who would not take the Oaths, would 
never have been an inconvenience to the state. Can- 
dour will not blame them. No interest would have 
been injured, and a disagreeable division would have 
been prevented. " d 

It was now forgotten, that these very Bishops had 
been the saviours of the country only a short time 
before. They had risked every thing in the cause of 
the Church under King James : and now they must 
lose all for conscientiously adhering to an oath. It is 
evident, that they were the uncompromising oppo- 
nents of Popery, for they had given the fullest evi- 
dence on this head : while many who now opposed 
them had contributed towards its support. Such men, 
therefore, though they could not take the Oath to the 
new Sovereigns, would not have disturbed the go- 
vernment. They would have lived quietly and peace- 
ably according to their promise. Their sincerity 

c Kettlewell's Life, 113. d Noble, i. 87. 



68 Il?i0to^ of tlje 

respecting the Oaths was evinced by their sacrifices : 
and their zeal for the Church was never disputed, 
except by men, who cared neither for the Church nor 
for religion. 

The supporters of the government were greatly 
divided in opinion respecting the principles, on which 
the title of King William to the crown was founded. 
Many were content with the Parliamentary vote, con- 
sidering it all-sufficient ; but others endeavoured to 
seek out more specious reasons for their conduct. 
They agreed with the Nonjurors in principle, and 
laboured to shew, that they acted consistently in ad- 
hering to King William. Perhaps the following ex- 
tract gives the best view of the notions entertained 
by a very large class of William's supporters : " My 
principles are the same as they were ; my allegiance 
has descended in the same manner to King William 
and Queen Mary as it did to Charles II. and James 
IL not altered in the least degree or reason of it. 
They were in their times the ministers of God, and 
the lawful and undoubted Sovereigns of the English 
nation, and so are these : the same God that set up 
Charles II. and James II. when so great a part of the 
nation did what they could to have the first of them 
abjured, and the second excluded: the same God, I 
say, has by his providence set King William and 
Queen Mary on the throne : and by His grace I will 
bear the same faith and allegiance to them as I did 
to the former : and for the same cause. For my part I 
believe our now most gracious Sovereigns, King Wil- 
liam and Queen Mary, are both de jure and de facto 
as lawful King and Queen of England, by hereditary 
right, which commenced from the time that the late 
King James left the throne, though it was not de- 



of tlje ^onjuvor0, 69 

clared till the 12th of February following, as ever 
sat upon the throne." ' 

It has been supposed, that Burnet had no inconsi- 
derable influence in preventing the adoption of mode- 
rate measures with the non-complying Clergy. He 
wished the Oath to be enforced, regardless of conse- 
quences. It would have been more consistent as a 
minister of peace, to have recommended gentle and 
healing measures. It is certain, however, that he 
would have proceeded to still more violent steps, if 
his own course had been unchecked ; but happily, 
all the complying Clergy were not like Burnet : so 
that William soon discovered, that the feeling in fa- 
vour of the Church of England was stronger than he 
had at first anticipated. The Clergy as a body were 
true to their principles. They did not intend to 
renounce their creed, because circumstances had com- 
pelled them to renounce King James : but it must 
be confessed, that if all the Bishops and Clergy had 
been of the same stamp with Burnet and some others, 
whose principles had been derived from foreign 
sources, the Anglican Church would have been de- 
stroyed, as a State Establishment, while the true fol- 
lowers of the English Reformation must have cast in 
their lot with the Nonjurors. Evelyn lamented the 
course which was pursued respecting the Oath : but 
he distinctly attributes it to Presbyterian counsels, with 



e A Letter to the Authors of the Answers to the Case of Alle- 
giance, pp. 4, 5. It has been well remarked : u The blessings 
which have been derived to us from this great event make every 
Englishman anxious to justify the principles on which it was car- 
ried on : but, after all, it seems much more clear, that the Revo- 
lution was necessary, than easy to justify it on any permanent 
principles." Short's History of the Church of England, ii. 375. 



70 %'0t0rp of tlje 

which Burnet could easily comply. " The penalty 
is to be the losse of their dignitie and spiritual pre- 
ferment. This is thought to have ben driven on by 
the Presbyterians, our new governors. God in mercy 
send us help, and direct the counsels to his glory and 
good of his Church." 1 

William did not find the Whigs so pliable as per- 
haps was expected. They thwarted him in some of 
his schemes : but in any step, calculated to weaken 
the Church or to degrade the Clergy, their support 
was readily and cordially yielded. Burnet, however, 
was an actor in all the events of the period : and 
some notices respecting his influence may serve to 
reflect light on the transactions, in which King 
William acted so conspicuous a part. It appears to 
me, that Burnet's conduct from the beginning admits 
of no justification. In his history, he gives a very 
partial account of his own proceedings ; but the facts, 
which remain on record, point him out as one of the 
chief advisers of those strong measures, which were 
adopted with respect to the Nonjurors. The part he 
acted at Exeter, soon after the Prince's arrival, ap- 
pears unworthy of a Christian minister. " On the 
9th, the Prince commanded Dr. Burnet to order the 
Priest Vicars not to pray for the Prince of Wales, 
and to make use of no other prayer for the King, but 
what is in the Second service, which they refused to 
observe till they were forced, and very severely 
threatened : the Bishop and the Dean being then 
gone from the city. About twelve, this day, notice 
was given to the Canons, and all the Vicars choral 
and singing lads, to attend in the Cathedral, for that 
the Prince would be there : and Dr. Burnet ordered 

f Evelyn, iii. 281. 



of t&e ^onjurorg. 7 1 

them, as soon as the Prince entered into the choir, 
they should sing Te Deum, which was observed. The 
Prince sat in the Bishop's chair. After Te Deum, 
Dr. Burnet, in a seat under the pulpit, read aloud 
the Prince's Declaration. '" g In his own History Bur- 
net merely says, that the Clergy were fearful, and 
that the Bishop and Dean ran away. Yet he himself 
was the most prominent actor in the city of Exeter : 
and it seems difficult to reconcile his conduct with his 
avowed principles, as a Clergyman of the Anglican 
Church. 

It appears almost impossible to respect such a cha- 
racter. Very soon after William had obtained pos- 
session of the throne, he appointed Burnet to the 
See of Salisbury : but it is evident, that he cared 
little for the Church, in which he was made a Bishop. 
"In profession a Prelate, a Dissenter in sentiment. 
To protect Protestantism against Popery there was 
no character, however infamous, he would not de- 
fend." u He was a thorough partizan, and a scheming 
politician. 1 Appointed as he was to the See of Salis- 

K Somers' Tracts, xiv. 260, 261. Calamy's Life, Notes, i. 193, 
194. There was an odd assortment of persons with the Prince 
on his coming" to England. Thus while Burnet was preaching in 
the cathedral at Exeter : " Ferguson preached in the Presbyterian 
Meeting House, but was fain to force his way with his sword up 
to the Pulpit, for even the old Presbyter himself could not away 
with the breath of his brother Ferguson in his Diocese." Somers' 
Tracts, xiv. 261. Ralph, i. 1038. Burnet also preached at Exeter 
in the Cathedral, asserting that God was on the Prince's side, 
" and had now chose to begin the deliverance of England, on the 
same day that it had formerly been devoted to ruin and destruc- 
tion. This is a circumstance in his history he has thought fit to 
pass over." Ibid. 

h Noble, i. 83. 

1 It is said that he gave early intimation to the court of Han- 
over, of the project of the Revolution, intimating that the success 



72 H?tetorp of tlje 

bury, he could not expect that his opinions would 
have much weight with the Clergy : yet he ventured 
to address them, in a Pastoral Letter, before he 
quitted London. This was written under the plea, 
that he was detained in London ; but really, that he 
might put forth his views respecting the Oath of 
Allegiance, which was the subject of the Letter. The 
opinions which he advanced were such as no right- 
minded Englishman could maintain. " Since I can- 
not," says he, " yet come to do the duties of my 
function among you, I think myself obliged to sup- 
ply my absence by watching over you as effectually 
as I can at this distance." He proceeds at once to 
the Oath of Allegiance ; and after many arguments, 
which probably most men would admit, he comes to 
the reasons, which induced the Prince of Orange to 
act. " Even at Common Law an heir in remainder 
has just cause to sue him that is in possession, if 
he makes waste on the inheritance, which is his in 
reversion. It is much more reasonable, since the 
thing is much more important, that the heir of a 
crown should interpose, when he sees him that is in 
possession hurried on blindfold to subject an in- 
dependent kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction, and 
thereby to rob it both of its glory, and its security. 
And when a pretended heir was set up in such a 
manner, that the whole kingdom believed him spu- 
rious. In such a case it cannot be denied, even ac- 



of the enterprize might lead to the entail of the crown on that 
illustrious house. Biog. Brit. Art. Burnet. Ralph calls him, 
" The Champion in Ordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter 
the lists against all comers." Ralph, ii. 3. Alluding- to his ele- 
vation to the Episcopal bench, the same historian remarks : " and 
thus our Historian, in acknowledgement of his many services, 
became a Lord of Parliament." Ibid. 59. 



of ttie ^onjucorg. 73 

cording to the highest principles of passive obedi- 
ence, that another sovereign Prince might make war 
on a king so abusing his power : and that this was 
the case in fact, will not be called in question by any 
Protestant. So then here was a war begun upon just 
and lawful grounds, and a war being so begun, it is 
the uncontroverted opinion of all lawyers, that the 
success of a just war gives a lawful title to that which 
is acquired in the progress of it. Therefore King 
James, having so far sunk in the war that he both 
abandoned his people and deserted the government, 
all his right and title did accrue to the King, in the 
right of a conquest over him : so that if he had then 
assumed the crown, the opinion of all lawyers must 
have been on his side : but he chose rather to leave 
the matter to the determination of the Peers and 
people of England, chosen and assembled together 
with all possible freedom, who did upon that declare 
him their king : so that with relation to King James's 
rights, he was vested with them by the successes of 
a just war, and yet he was willing with relation to 
the people to receive the crown by their declaration, 
rather than to hold it in the right of his sword." 1 

I cannot but consider this a most improper course 
to be pursued by a Bishop of the Anglican Church : 
and within the space of two years after, the same 
view was taken by the House of Commons. The 
notion of a right in King William by Conquest was 
asserted in a pamphlet, intitled, " King William and 
Queen Mary Conquerors :" and when this obnoxious 



k A Pastoral Writ by the Right Reverend Father in God, Gil- 
bert, Lord Bishop of Sarum, to the Clergy of his Diocese, con- 
cerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. 4to. London, 
pp. 20, 21. 



74 %'0torp of tl> 

production was brought under the cognizance of 
Parliament in 1692, Burnet's Pastoral Letter was 
joined with it in the same vote. Both the pamphlet 
and the Letter were ordered to be publicly burnt. 
Kennet intimates his opinion, that the latter was 
sacrificed " to a poor jest upon the Author's name." 
He adds : " The majority in the warmth of debating, 
and some of 'em for the sake of allusion to the 
Author's name, passed the same censure on that 
excellent letter, and ordered it publicly to be burnt 
by the common executioner. On January the 24th 
the Lords came to a like resolution : that the asser- 
tion of King William and Queen Mary's being King 
and Queen by Conquest) was highly injurious to their 
Majesties, and inconsistent with the principles on which 
the government is founded, and tending to the subver- 
sion of the rights of the people. Which Vote being 
communicated to the Commons, that house on the next 
day unanimously concurred with their Lordships, 
with the remarkable addition of some words : viz. 
injurious to their Majesties' rightful title to the crown 
of this realm." 1 

It seems very difficult to acquit Burnet of dupli- 
city in constantly treating the son of James II. as a 
supposititious child. It was a political trick, and 
served to amuse the common people : but Burnet 
could not have believed his own assertions. In this 
light was the thing regarded by William, who never 
fulfilled his promise of examining the matter : but 

1 Kennet, iii. 549, 657. Salmon, i. 267. The Pamphlet 
" King William and Queen Mary Conquerors " was written by 
Mr. Blount. Ralph remarks that it contains no sentiment which 
had not been broached in Lloyd's (Bishop of Worcester) Sermon 
on the 5th of November, 1690, preached before their Majesties. 
Ralph, ii. 399. 



of ttje ^onjurorg. 75 

Burnet gravely asserts the spuriousness of the child, 
when it must be evident, that he knew the contrary. 
This circumstance seems to justify the severity of 
Lord Dartmouth's remark. In one of his notes on 
his History, his Lordship expresses an opinion, that 
Burnet would not designedly publish any thing 
which he believed to be false : but in another note 
on the second volume he writes : " I wrote in the first 
volume of this book, that I did not believe the Bishop 
designedly published anything he believed to be false : 
therefore think myself obliged to write in this, that I 
am fully satisfied that he published many things that 
he knew to be so." The following testimony is from 
a friendly pen : " Several other works shew him to be 
a man neither of prudence nor temper : his sometimes 
opposing and sometimes favoring the Dissenters, hath 
much exposed him to the generality of the people of 
England." 01 

Before we proceed further, a circumstance must 
be mentioned relative to Archbishop Sancroft, which 
may shield his memory from the imputation of a 
popish leaning. Besides his refusal to sanction the 
Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, he printed 

m Macky's Memoirs, p. 139. It appears from a disgraceful 
circumstance at his funeral, that Burnet was in no favour with 
the populace. The following extract, though disgraceful to the 
people, is sufficient evidence of unpopularity. " Last Tuesday 
night (March 22, 1714-15) the body of that great and good man, 
the late Dr. Burnet, Bishop of Sarum, was interred near the Com- 
munion Table, in Clerkenwell Church. As the corpse was con- 
veying to the Church, the rabble (that shews no distinction to men 
of great parts and learning, when once they conceive an ill opinion 
of them) flung dirt and stones at the hearse, and broke the glasses 
of the coach that immediately followed it." Gent's Mag. 1788* 
Vol. Iviii. 952. From a Letter containing an extract from a news- 
paper of the period. 



76 %'0torp of tt)e 

and circulated a series of Articles, which were sent 
to all the Bishops of his Province in July 1688. 
They shew, that the Archbishop was no enemy to 
liberty of conscience ; but only to the exercise of a 
dispensing power in the crown. These Articles were 
also accompanied with a Letter dated July 27, in 
which it is stated : " Yesterday the Archbishop of 
Canterbury delivered the Articles, which I send you 
enclosed, to those Bishops who are at present in this 
place : and ordered copies of them to be likewise 
sent in his name to the absent Bishops : by the con- 
tents of them, you will see that the storm in which 
he is, does not frighten him from doing his duty : 
and indeed, the zeal, that he expresses in these 
Articles both against the corruptions of the Church 
of Rome on the one hand, and the unhappy differ- 
ences that are among Protestants on the other, are 
such Apostolical things, that all good men rejoice to 
see so great a prelate at the head of our Church, who 
at this critical time has had the courage to do his 
duty in so signal a manner." In these Articles the 
Archbishop recommends Catechizing, and expound- 
ing the grounds of the Christian Religion. One is 
important, as shewing the Archbishop's consistency 
in opposing Popery, and yet adhering strictly to the 
order of the Church of England : " That they perform 
the daily office publicly in all market and other great 
towns, and even in villages and less populous places 
bring people to public prayers as frequently as may 
be : especially on such days and at such times as 
the Rubrics and Canons appoint, on Holy Days, 
and their Eves, on Ember and Rogation Days, on 
Wednesdays and Fridays in each week, and especially 
in Advent and Lent" I quote this Article, because 
in the present day, when it cannot be pleaded, that 



of tfje ^onjucor^ 

the danger of the introduction of Popery is so great 
as at the period of the Revolution, there are persons, 
who look upon a compliance with the Rubrics and 
Canons as a symptom of Popery, and who cannot 
oppose Romanism without opposing their own Church 
at the same time. These individuals have never 
done so much against Popery, or suffered so much 
for the sake of the truth, as Archbishop Bancroft : 
and it is evident, that the most consistent Churchmen 
are the most effective opponents of Rome. 

In the seventh Article, the Archbishop recommends, 
that the Clergy should explain to the people, at least 
four times a year, that the Papal Supremacy was an 
usurpation. Alluding in the tenth to the means 
adopted by the Romish Priests, especially with people 
in dying circumstances, he recommends the utmost 
diligence on the part of the clergy : " Thus with their 
utmost diligence, watching over every sheep within 
their fold (especially in that critical moment) lest 
those evening wolves devour them." 

Bancroft moreover recommended " more especially 
that they have a very tender regard to our brethren, 
the Protestant Dissenters : that upon occasion offered 
they visit them at their houses, and receive them 
kindly at their own, and treat them fairly wherever 
they meet with them, discoursing calmly and civilly 
with them : persuading them (if it may be) to a full 
compliance with our Church, or at least that whereto 
we have already attained, we may all walk by the 
same rule and mind the same thing. And in order 
hereunto, that they take all opportunities of assuring 
and convincing them that the Bishops of this Church 
are really and sincerely irreconcilable enemies to the 
errors, superstitions, idolatries, and tyrannies of the 
Church of Rome." In this way did he write, who 



of tlje 

lias since been traduced by party writers, as a Papist 
and a bigot." 

Not long before the day fixed by the Act for the 
deprivation of the Bishops a plot against the govern- 
ment was discovered, in which Lord Preston, Mr. 
Ashton and some others were implicated. Lord 
Preston and Mr. Ashton were tried and executed ; but 
the evidence on which the conviction was founded was 
of a very slender description. A quantity of letters 
was discovered in the possession of Lord Preston, 
among which were two, said to be written by Turner, 
Bishop of Ely. In one, the writer says, "I speak in the 
plural, because I write my elder brother's sentiments 
as well as my own, and the rest of the family, though 
lessened in number ; yet if we are not mightily out in 
our accounts, we are growing in our interest, that is in 
yours." In the second letter, the writer, after ex- 
pressing his determination not to swerve from his 
course, adds, "I say this in behalf of my elder brother, 
and the rest of my nearest relations, as well as for my- 
self." That these letters were written by the Bishop 
of Ely was never proved ; but Burnet and others 
chose to assert, that the proof was conclusive. It is 
indeed doubtful whether the other parties were en- 
gaged in any plot. " In December 1690, says Wood, 
there was a pretended discovery of a pretended plot 
of the Jacobites or Nonjurors, whereupon some of 
them were imprisoned ; and Dr. Turner being sus- 
pected to be in the same pretended plot, he withdrew 
and absconded. " p A proclamation was issued for 
the apprehension of the Bishop of Ely, but not for 
some time after, not indeed until the 5th of February, 

" See the Articles printed at the time. 

Ralph, ii. 2,55, where the correspondence is printed. 

P Wood's Athense. 



of tlje ^onfutorg. 79 

when the sees of the Bishops were become vacant by 
the operation of the Act of Parliament. This circum- 
stance seems to support the idea, that the charge 
against Turner was made for the purpose of reflecting 
odium on the Nonjuring Prelates, that so the govern- 
ment might have a better colour for filling up the 
vacancies. Tindal, who assumes the guilt of Turner, 
says that the discovery of the Bishop of Ely's corres- 
pondence gave the King a fair opportunity to fill up 
the vacant sees. q As Turner was permitted to live 
quietly afterward, we may assume that the govern- 
ment did not consider him guilty. Burnet says : 
" The discovery of the Bishop of Ely's correspondence 
in the name of the rest, gave the King a great advan- 
tage in filling these vacant sees, which he resolved 
to do on his return from the Congress." Burnet pro- 
duces no evidence against Turner : and I cannot but 
conclude, that the charge was not only unfounded, 
but that it was fabricated for the purpose of rendering 
the suspended Bishops obnoxious to the people at 
the period, when the strong step of removing them 
from their sees was about to be put in execution. 
The circumstances are peculiar. The plot was dis- 
covered in December : the trials occurred in January : 
Lord Preston and Mr. Ashton were executed during 
that month : and the First of February was the day 
fixed by Act of Parliament for the deprivation of the 
Bishops. A charge, therefore, against Turner, and 
such a charge as implicated Bancroft and the rest of 
the Bishops, was the very thing to excite the public 
mind, and to deprive them of that sympathy, which 
their sufferings in the cause of the Church in the 
previous reign, and their present misfortunes, were 

i Tindal, i. 166. 



of tt) 

likely to produce. Calamy rather improves upon 
Burnet : he says, the sees were not filled " till letters 
were discovered that shewed what correspondencies 
and engagements there were among them." q This is 
from a man who professed a great regard for truth 
and holiness : yet he joins in traducing men, without 
any evidence whatever. 

Some particulars respecting Mr. Ashton's trial and 
conviction may be acceptable to those, who may not 
have access to the works, in which the accounts are 
preserved. The charge was, that he had written 
letters and papers for the use of the King of France. 
A rumour was circulated that he was a Romanist : 
consequently several witnesses were produced to prove 
that he was a Protestant. Dr. Fitzwilliam alleged, 
that Asliton had received the Sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper only six months before in Ely Chapel. 
This was of course under Turner, the Bishop of Ely. 
A juryman, therefore, asked whether the Prayers 
were read for King William and Queen Mary ? the 
Doctor replied, that he could not say that they were 
altered : but, in reply to another question, he ad- 
mitted that the names, as inserted in the altered 
Prayers, were not mentioned. He added, that he 
had been a hundred times at Prayers in their altered 
state. The witness was then asked if he had taken 
the Oaths to the King and Queen. He replied : 
" No, I have not, Sir, that's my unhappiness : but I 
know how to submit and live peaceably under them." 
He also added, " If any one can say I have done or 
acted any thing against the government, I will readily 
submit to be punished for it." This was the case 
with the great mass of the Nonjurors : yet such men 

i Calamy, i. 485. 



f tlje lion/urorsf. Hi 

were branded as Papists, and by persons too who had 
gone all lengths with King James. 

Though there was much reason to doubt the actual 
guilt of Ashton, and it was probable that he knew 
not the contents of the papers which were found on 
his person, having picked up the parcel which had 
been dropped by Lord Preston, whom in honour he 
would not betray, yet he was convicted, and received 
sentence of death. He was executed on the 28th of 
January. At the place of execution he was attended 
by two clergymen, one of whom, as we find from his 
own statement in connexion with his absolution of 
Sir William Perkins and Sir John Friend, was Collier. 
He says, indeed, that he absolved Mr. Ashton by 
the imposition of hands, as in the latter case. In the 
paper delivered to the Sheriff, he declares himself a 
member of the Church of England. With respect to 
King James, he says : " When I add these conside- 
rations : that we had solemnly professed our allegi- 
ance, and often confirmed it with oaths ; that his 
Majesty's usage after the Prince of Orange's arrival 
was very hard, severe, and unjust: and that all the 
new methods of settling this nation have hitherto 
made it more miserable, poor, and more exposed to 
foreign enemies : and that the religion we pretend to 
be proud of preserving, is now, much more than 
ever, likely to be destroyed : there seemed to be no 
way to prevent the impending evils but the calling 
home an injured Sovereign." He then admits, that 
appearances were against him ; but he declares him- 
self innocent of the particular charge, namely, any 
knowledge of the contents of the papers. By the 
Nonjurors he was naturally regarded as a martyr to 
loyal principles. Kennet says that there was a plan 
for restoring James through the aid of France, and 

G 



82 %'0torj? of tlje 

that the royal clemency was so manifest, that Ashton 
only suffered. r 

In 1691 a small volume of Prayers was privately 
printed by a Nonjuror. With the volume there is a 
portrait of John Ashton : but whether this was the 
gentleman who was executed, or whether he was the 
author of the Prayers, I am unable to determine. It 
is not improbable that Grascome, or some other 
Nonjuring Clergyman was the author, and that the 
portrait of Ashton, who had recently been executed, 
and who was regarded as a martyr to Nonjuring 
principles, was inserted, both as a memorial of the 
sufferer in a manual of devotion, and as a recommen- 
dation to the volume. The book is a remarkable one, 
as exhibiting the views of the Nonjurors respecting 
King James, for whom there are several petitions, 
though he is not mentioned by name. The Prayers 
are generally couched in Scriptural language, and 
consist of confessions of sin, with supplications for 
divine mercy. 8 

r State Trials, iv. 485, 487. viii. App. 483, 484. Kennet, iii. 
575, 576. 

s An Office for Penitents. Or a Form of Prayer fit to be used 
in sinful and distracted times. 12mo. London. Printed in the year 
1691. 




CHAPTER III. 

A. D. 16901694. 

THE DEPRIVATIONS. NUMBERS. BANCROFT'S RETIREMENT. 
HICKES'S PROTEST. DODWELL'S LETTER TO TILLOTSON. BE- 

VERIDGE AND OTHERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VACANT SEES. 

KIDDER'S SCRUPLES. STILLINGFLEET'S LETTER. FORGERY 
BY YOUNG AND BLACKHEAD. THE DEPRIVED BISHOPS SEPA- 
RATE FROM THE CHURCH. SANCROFT DELEGATES HIS POWERS 
TO LLOYD. HICKES AND WAGSTAFFE CONSECRATED. DEATH 
OF SANCROFT. His CHARACTER AND SUFFERINGS. THE 
NONJURORS' DEFENCE OF THEIR PROCEEDINGS. SOME OBJECT 
TO A SEPARATION. THE DIFFICULTIES OF THEIR CASE. SE- 
VERITY OF THE GOVERNMENT. 

JHE Bishops and Clergy remained in pos- 
session of their respective preferments, 
until the day fixed by the act of Par- 
liament for their deprivation ; but from 
the Jirst of August 1690 to the Jirst of February 
1690-91, they were suspended from the performance 
of their ecclesiastical functions. This was a lay, not 
a canonical deprivation ; consequently no process was 
adopted against the Bishops and Clergy, as is the 
case, when parties are charged with any ecclesiastical 
irregularity. By the Act of Parliament, it was de- 
clared, that all Clergymen, who did not take the Oath 
of Allegiance before thej^r^ day of February 1690-91 , 
should be deprived of their benefices. When, there- 
fore, the day arrived, the patrons were at liberty to 
present other individuals : and the government con- 




84 ^tetorp of tlje 

sidered themselves in a situation to appoint to the 
sees of the deprived prelates. 

That the approach of the day was contemplated 
with much anxiety, by all parties, is evident. Some 
of those, who had hitherto scrupled to take the Oath, 
complied at the last moment, and thus avoided depri- 
vation : but the majority had counted the cost, and 
remained firm in their adherence to the principle, on 
which they had acted ever since the new Oath had 
been proposed. On ihejirst day of February, there- 
fore, Sancroft, Turner, Frampton, White, and Ken, 
were deprived by Act of Parliament of their sees. 
They were restrained from the exercise of their office 
in their dioceses, as well as deprived of the incomes 
of their respective bishoprics : but their spiritual 
character could not be touched by an Act of Parlia- 
ment. After thejirst of February 1690-9 1 they were 
bishops of the Catholic Church, though they were 
precluded from the public exercise of their sacred 
functions, by authority of the civil power. The ex- 
ample of the Bishops was followed by about four 
hiMidredofihe Clergy, most, if not all of whom, would 
have lived quietly and peaceably, discharging the 
duties of their office with diligence, if the government 
could have dispensed with the Oath of Allegiance. 
This was a considerable number; and when we con- 
sider, that all of them were so conscientious, as to 
prefer principle to expediency or interest, we cannot 
but regret, that some means were not adopted to pre- 
vent such a sad separation. The names of many of 
these peaceable sufferers are preserved in the Life of 
Kettle well. Some, however, were omitted, and it is 
not now possible to recover them. In this list are 
the names of some of the chief men in the kingdom, 
both with respect to learning and influence. Not un- 



of tfje |&on)ur0r&. $5 

frequently the Nonjurors are spoken of contemp- 
tuously, as men of narrow minds and perverted prin- 
ciples : but no one, who fully examines the subject, 
will indulge in such a tone of remark respecting men, 
who suffered so much from adherence to their prin- 
ciples. 21 

Most of the Clergy quietly quitted their livings 
on the first of February : but some of the Bishops 
and Dignitaries felt themselves bound to offer such 
resistance as they were able. Bancroft, therefore, 
did not immediately remove from his palace. He 
was permitted to remain for a season ; but only in 
the hope, that he would retire quietly, in obedience 
to the Act. During his continuance at Lambeth, his 
Chaplains, Wharton and Needham, were in constant 
attendance, even after they had taken the Oath to 
William and Mary. The Archbishop was also anxious 



a Kettle well, Appen. No. vi. for the List of Names. Mr. 
Bowles also has published a list differing only in some few names 
from that in the Life of Kettle well. He observes, that he was 
not aware of any published list. See also " The Hereditary Right 
of the Crown of England," pp. 71, 72. Mr. Hallam's testimony 
is too important not to be noticed. *' Eight Bishops, including 
the Primate and several of those who had been foremost in the 
defence of the Church during the late reign, with about four hun- 
dred of the Clergy, some of them highly distinguished, chose the 
more honourable course of refusing the new Oaths : and thus began 
the Schism of the Nonjurors, more mischievous in its commence- 
ment than its continuance, and not so dangerous to the govern- 
ment of William III. and George I. as the false submission of less 
sincere men." He adds in a note, after assigning reasons in favour 
of the imposition of the Oath, " Yet the effect of this expulsion 
was highly unfavourable to the new government : and it required 
all the influence of a Latitudinarian School of Divinity, led by 
Locke, which was very strong among the laity, under William, to 
counteract it." Const. Hist. iii. 148. Thus we have the unbiassed 
opinion of Mr. Hallam, that the Theology of the Revolution was 
of a Latitudinarian tendency. 



86 ^i0torp of tje 

to prevent a schism in the Church, which he per- 
ceived to be inevitable, if the Oath were enforced. 
The fact, that the Bishops were willing to remain in 
their sees, may be regarded as an evidence of their 
desire to comply with the existing government, as 
far as they could do so, without offering violence to 
their conscience : and had some relaxation in the 
matter of the Oath been permitted, the happiest con- 
sequences would have ensued. 

It was intended, that Tillotson should succeed the 
Archbishop ; yet his nomination did not take place 
until the 23rd of April 1691. He was confirmed in 
the see on the 1st of May. It is clear from this 
delay, that the government were reluctant to inter- 
fere : yet it is equally certain, that their reluctance 
arose only from the apprehension, that the public 
feeling would be against the measure. It was also 
hoped, that Sancroft would retire, and thus make 
way for Tillotson : but as the Archbishop did not 
recognize the authority by which he had been de- 
prived, he refused to quit the palace. A process of 
ejectment, therefore, was commenced. Judgment 
was given on the 23rd of June : and on the same 
day, as force would otherwise have been applied, the 
good Archbishop quitted the palace. He proceeded 
by water to the Temple, where he remained six weeks : 
after which he retired to Fresingfield, his native 
place, which he never quitted. 5 

b D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 462470. Birch's Life of Tillotson, 
246 248. " It must be acknowledged," says Comber, " by Dr. 
Sancroft's greatest enemies, that he acted on this occasion from 
principle, and on a thorough conviction, that it was not lawful to 
acknowledge any person as king during the life of James II. It 
was so manifestly against his interest, that a firm persuasion of its 
being his duty could alone have induced him to make so great a 
sacrifice." Comber's Life, 291. 



of ttje ^onjurorg* 

Hickes drew up a Protest against his ejectment 
and affixed it to the Cathedral Church of Worcester, 
of which he was dean. It was addressed to the Sub- 
Dean and Prebendaries. Mr. Talbot had been ap- 
pointed by the government : and against this appoint- 
ment Hickes protested as illegal. He, therefore, after 
asserting his own claims, called upon the Sub-Dean 
to support him in the maintenance of his rights. The 
Instrument, which is preserved in the Life of Kettle- 
well, was dated the 2nd of May 1691. c 

Before Tillotson's consecration, Dodwell endea- 
voured to dissuade him from accepting the Arch- 
bishopric. For this purpose, he addressed him in a 
letter, in which he beseeches him not to be the ag- 
gressor in the new schism, " in erecting another altar 
against the hitherto acknowledged altar of your de- 
prived Fathers and brethren. If their places be not 
vacant, the new consecrations must, by the nature of 
the spiritual monarchy, be null, and invalid, and 
schismatical." d It appears, that some reluctance to 
succeed Sancroft was manifested by Tillotson, which 
Dodwell endeavoured to strengthen. It is, however, 
probable, that his Erastian notions of ecclesiastical 
matters led him to think, that he was serving the 
Church by accepting the dignity, and that Sancroft 
was justly deprived for refusing the Oath. 

Beveridge was nominated to the see of Bath and 
Wells : but this eminent man, though he had taken 



c Kettlewell. Appendix. A pamphlet was published on the 
subject, under the following- title : " Passive Obedience in Actual 
Resistance : or Remarks upon a Paper fixed up in the Cathedral 
Church of Worcester, by Dr. Hickes, with Reflections on the 
present behaviour of the rest of the family." It is scurrilous and 
abusive; and, therefore, entitled to no consideration. 

(! Birch, 268, 269. 



iH0torp of tlje 

the Oath to the new government, positively refused 
to become the successor of Ken, during that Prelate's 
life. 6 At last, Kidder was commanded by the Queen 
to accept it : yet he complied with considerable re- 
luctance. Mr. Bowles gives, from a MS. preserved 
in the palace at Wells, a very curious account of 
Kidder 's acceptance of the see. This account was 
drawn up by Kidder himself. He states, that in the 
spring the bishopric of Peterborough was proposed 
to him for his acceptance, and that he had absolutely 
refused it. In his account of the manner, in which 
he had given his refusal, he says, " I added also, 
that I cared not to accept any other bishopric. And 
this I did, that I might avoid any further solicitation 
that way/' In this document he alludes to Beve- 
ridge's refusal, stating that the see remained vacant 
for some time after. He then wrote to Dr. Williams, 
that he would not refuse another bishopric, though 
he must decline Bath and Wells. Williams commu- 
nicated to Tillotson, that Kidder would accept a 
bishopric ; but he concealed the exception respecting 
Ken's Diocese. He says, " Though I cannot say I 
thought it unlawful, yet I did not think it convenient 
for me to do it. I knew very well that I should be 
able to do less good, if I came into a bishopric void 
by deprivation." Soon after, the Queen sent her 
commands : and Kidder replied that he would accept 



e Beveridge consulted Bancroft on the subject. Evelyn informs 
us that Sancroft told him : " That Dr. Beveridge came to ask his 
advice: that the Archhishop told him, though he should give it, 
lie believed he would not take it : the Doctor said he would : why 
then, says the Archbishop, when they came to aske, say Nolo, 
and say it from the heart : there is nothing easier than to resolve 
yourselfe what is to be done in the case : the Doctor seemed to 
deliberate," Vol. iii. 304. 



of tf) e $10 tt jurors* 89 

the see, unless her Majesty would excuse him, or 
select some other person. He adds, " And this per- 
haps 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 con- 
sult my ease. I have often repented of my accepting 
it, and looked on it as a great infelicity.'" f 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 sub- 
ject, containing some severe animadversions. g 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 con- 
sequent 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 proprie- 
tors. But in our case there is the least to be said for 



f Bowles's Life of Ken, ii, 210214. 

g 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. 



90 ^igtorp of tfje 

this caution, that can possibly be in any revolution ; 
for it is as vain a thing to hope to secure ourselves in 
such a revolution by prudence and caution, as it is 
for a man to fortify his house against the breaking 
in of the sea. If there ever be such a revolution as 
can unsettle what this hath done, God be merciful to 
this miserable nation." It is strange, that Stilling- 
fleet should use such language, as if the common- 
wealth could in any way be compared to the lawful 
government which existed previous to 1688. " What- 
ever," he proceeds, " may be pretended, the world 
will not believe that Doctor B refused a Bishopric, 
but either out of fear or conscience : the first calls in 
question the stability or continuance of the present 
government : the second the authority of it. Now 
this confirms the enemies of the government in their 
opinion of the unlawfulness to submit to it, and en- 
courages them to attempt its overthrow." Beveridge 
had been in a commission for administering the affairs 
of the Archbishopric, after the Archbishop's depriva- 
tion : and the charge of inconsistency is accordingly 
adduced. " He submitted to the government and 
took the Oath of Allegiance as early as any man : 
and never had the least scruple : and yet this was 
the time to have been scrupulous, if he would have 
been so : for it seems a little of the latest, when he is 
become a sworn subject to King William and Queen 
Mary, to question their authority to make a Bishop. 
And if the former Bishops were deprived, and new 
Bishops made, by such an authority as he can swear 
allegiance to, I cannot understand that it can be un- 
lawful to accept a bishopric from the hands of those 
whom he owns. Besides this Dr. B was one of 
those who, by commission from the Dean and Chapter, 
hath exercised archiepiscopal authority during the 



of tlje ^onjuror0. 91 

vacancy of the see by the deprivation of the A. B." 
It is assumed that Beveridge deemed it unlawful to 
accept Bath and Wells, which was not the case. 
However Stillingfleet urges the point : " If it be un- 
lawful to succeed a deprived Bishop, then he is the 
Bishop of the Diocese still : and then the law 
that deprives him is no law, and consequently the 
King and Parliament that made that law, no King 
nor Parliament : and how can this be reconciled with 
the Oath of Allegiance, unless the Dr. can swear 
allegiance to him who is no King, and hath no au- 
thority to govern." He argues that on such a sup- 
position the Church of England was schismatical, and 
Beveridge himself a schismatic. The tone of the 
Letter proves that Beveridge's refusal was a keen dis- 
appointment to the government. Stillingfleet, as one 
of the ablest controversialists of the period, was em- 
ployed to counteract the evils, which were appre- 
hended from the refusal of such a man as Beveridge. 

Beveridge was not the only clergyman, who refused 
to succeed to a see vacant by deprivation. Sharp, 
who had acted a conspicuous part previous to the 
Revolution, and who afterwards became Archbishop 
of York, entertained the same scruples. He was 
mentioned by the King as a proper person to succeed 
to one of the vacancies. Norwich was pressed upon 
him ; but he refused to accept of any ; not from 
scruples of conscience respecting the Oath, but from 
affection to the deprived Bishops. 11 

Some time after the deprivation of the Bishops, 



h Sharp's Life, i. 108 110. Birch's Tillotson, 276, 277. Scott, 
the author of the Christian Life, refused the bishopric of Chester 
with other posts because they were vacant by deprivation. Hickes's 
Discourses on some Late Sermons. Preface " A curious re- 



a most impudent forgery was perpetrated by two 
persons, Blackhead and Young, in order to implicate 
Archbishop Sancroft, Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, 
and others, in a correspondence with some persons 
in France. A document was dropped, by one of the 
parties, in the palace at Bromley : and when the 
information was laid against the Bishop of Rochester, 
this Paper was discovered in the spot where it had 
been placed by one of the conspirators, who had ap- 
plied to his Lordship with a forged letter, pretended 
to have been written by a clergyman. To the Paper 
were appended the names of the Archbishop, the 
Bishop, and others : and the imitations were so good 
that it was difficult to distinguish between them and 
the genuine autographs of the individuals. In this 
document, the French were invited to invade the 
country : and it is evident, that it was the intention 
of the framers to implicate the nonjuring Bishops. 
However, the whole was soon unravelled by the ex- 
amination and confession of one of the criminals. 
The Bishop of Rochester published a full account of 
the whole matter. 1 

The Bishops and Clergy being deprived, the ques- 
tion necessarily arose, what was to be done ? Were 
they to continue in communion with the Church of 
England as private persons : or were they to exercise 
their office, as they might be able, and separate al- 
together from the Church? They were by no means 
agreed on these very important points. " As the 
swearers so also the non-swearers were divided among 



port was circulated in 1687 respecting Stillingfleet. In a Letter 
from Leyclen that year : " There is a jealousy of Dr. Stillingfleet 
turning Papist." Marchmont Papers, iii. 72. 
1 Bishop of Rochester's Account. 



of tfje ^onjuror^. 93 

themselves in their opinions. Of them who dis- 
sented from the public on the political point, there 
were some who were not for puzzling themselves with 
the religious point." It is further said " there were 
no inconsiderable numbers, which were against making 
any separation at all in the Church, upon that ac- 
count. These went to the public assemblies, but at 
the same time declared, that to communicate in some 
of the Prayers, they thought contrary to truth and 
justice. And when others taxed them for this, they 
answered, that they neither did, nor ought to be 
supposed to join in those Prayers." k Some expressed 
their disapprobation publicly in the Churches, at the 
Prayers for the new Sovereigns. Others thought 
such a practice unlawful ; but even Tillotson con- 
curred with the Nonjurors in thinking that they 
could not join in the Prayers. 1 It was urged against 
them, that they could not join in the Prayer of St. 
Chrysostom in giving thanks to God, that " with 
one accord " they had made " their common suppli- 
cations to him." Others attended the Parish Churches 
on the ground of necessity, urging that they must 
otherwise be cut off from public worship : while 
some remained at the public assemblies, because the 
Clergy, under whose superintendence they had been 
placed, continued in their posts. On these several 
grounds many persons, especially among the laity, 
continued to worship in the parish churches, though 
they did not approve of the changes that had been 
made. The same feelings continued to influence 
considerable numbers during this and the succeeding 



reign . m 



k Kettlewell's Life, 138. * Ibid. 

m Kettlewell, 139, 140. 



94 ^i0totp of tje 

But the more strenuous Nonjurors were opposed 
to any such compromise. They argued for a separa- 
tion from the Church established. It has been said, 
that Sancroft was at first against a separation, and 
that his reluctance to encourage it continued for some 
time. This feeling, however, if it ever existed, ap- 
pears to have been relinquished after his retirement 
to Fresingfield : for he was accustomed to speak of 
the Nonjurors as the true Church of England, and of 
the National Establishment as an apostate and re- 
bellious Church." Thus in February 1691-2, San- 
croft delegated the exercise of his archiepiscopal 
powers, by a formal instrument, to Lloyd, the deprived 
Bishop of Norwich : a step which shews that he did 
not labour to prevent the schism, though perhaps he 
came reluctantly into the scheme. The following is 
an extract from this document. 

" William, by Divine Providence, an humble mi- 
nister of the Metropolitan Church of Canterbury, to 
the Right Reverend Father in Christ, and most 
dearly beloved brother in our Lord, William, by the 
same providence, still Bishop of Norwich, Greeting: 
Health and brotherly love in the Lord. Whereas, I 
very lately by a lay force being driven out of the 
house of Lambeth, and not able to find in the neigh- 
bouring city any place where I could safely or con- 
veniently abide, have therefore retired afar off, seek- 
ing where in my old age I could rest my weary head : 
and whereas there were even then remaining many 
affairs, and there do also daily arise many more, and 
those too of the greatest moment, as being the affairs 
of God and the Church, the which can no where so 
commodiously and expeditiously be transacted as in 

11 D'Oyley, ii. 39. 



of tlje jponjutot:0 95 

that grand theatre of business : to you my well-beloved 
brother, who, out of that fortitude of mind, where- 
with you excell, and that pious zeal for the house of 
God wherewith you are fired, do yet continue, and 
remain fixed in the suburbs of London, while the rest 
of us are every where wandering about : (so that I 
have not any one there who is so much one soul with 
me, or who hath such a natural concern as yourself 
for the Churches affairs and mine) : yea to you, I say, 
do I commit in the Lord, as confiding in you, and in 
your wonted dexterity for business, all whatever be- 
longeth to my place, and to the pontifical (or archi- 
episcopal) office, for the treating, consulting, and 
finally dispatching all those matters which thereunto 
do appertain : and by virtue of these presents, I do 
choose, make, and constitute you my Vicar for all 
that which is aforesaid, my agent of all things, and 
matters to me relating, Factor and Proxy-General, or 
Nuncio." 

Afterwards he adds, " Whomsoever you, my 
brother, as occasion may require, shall think fit to 
assume and adjoin to yourself, whomsoever you shall 
elect and approve, confirm and constitute, I also as 
much as in me, and as I rightfully can, do in like 
manner assume and adjoin, elect and approve, con- 
firm and constitute. In a word, whatsoever you shall 
of yourself do, or order to be done, in affairs of this 
kind, all that how great soever, or of what sort soever 
it be, boldly impute it to me : Lo I, William, have 
written it with mine own hand, and will stand by 
it." 

Kettlewell, 136, 137. A Collection of Letters concerning the 
separation of the Church of England into two communions. 1746. 
p. 49 53. The close of this document, dated February the 9th 
1691, is really touching: " Dated from my poor cottage (which 



96 ^fgtorp of tlje 

The instrument was dated from his own poor hired 
house within the district of the said (deprived) Bishop 
of Norwich. It was signed before a Notary Public 
the 9th of February, 1691-2, seven months after his 
removal from Lambeth. Still their affairs were by 
no means in a settled state. " So far was the pro- 
vision from settling the affairs of their little commu- 
nion, that there were new difficulties which succes- 
sively started up hereupon, not easily to be stated 
and resolved, or at least without extreme danger ; 
and though a separate communion was hereby kept 
up as a witnessing Church, according to the late 
Bishop of Worcester's hypothesis, who magnified the 
Providence of God in this case, though he himself 
held to the opposite side ; yet was not this so com- 
pacted as, from the principles upon which they 
proceeded, might reasonably enough have been ex- 
pected. " p 

Some time after the delegation of Bancroft's powers 
to Lloyd, another step was taken for perpetuating 
the schism. As long as they abstained from conse- 
crating Bishops and ordaining Priests, the deprived 
Prelates could scarcely be regarded as setting up a 
separate communion. Measures, however, were soon 
taken for continuing the succession of Bishops. King 
James was applied to, who ordered a list of the 
Nonjuring Clergy to be sent to him in France. 
Accordingly Hickes went over to the Continent with 
a list of those, who were known to have declined to 
take the Oath. The list was not perfect, since many, 



is not yet made a sufficient covering- for me in this sharp winter) 
here in Friesingjield, at this time indeed very hard frozen, situate 
within the bounds of your diocese." 
P Kettlewell, 137, 138. 



of tlje jponjurorg. 97 

who refused the Oath, did not wish to have their 
names mentioned. Lists were made by private 
persons ; but, lest they should fall into the hands of 
the government, they were preserved with great care 
and secrecy. Hickes procured as perfect a catalogue 
of names as possible ; and from the number the King 
appointed two, one to be nominated by the Arch- 
bishop, the other by the Bishop of Norwich. The 
former nominated Hickes, the latter, Wagstaffe. 
Hickes and WagstafFe were accordingly consecrated, 
the former by the title of Suffragan of Thetford, the 
latter as Suffragan of Ipswich. The Archbishop 
dying before the consecration, the solemnity was 
performed by Lloyd and the deprived Bishops of 
Peterborough and Ely on the 24th of February 1693. 
The consecration took place in the lodging of the 
Bishop of Peterborough, in Mr. Gillard's house. 
Henry Earl of Clarendon was present at the cere- 
mony. q 

An account of this matter was drawn up and left 
in MS. by Hickes ; and it is thus alluded to by 
Lindsay, a Nonjuror of eminence in the last century. 
"I have seen an account of this affair in MS. drawn 
up (I suppose) by Dr. Hickes himself; out of which 
I shall oblige my reader with the following par- 
ticulars : viz. that after the deprivation of the Arch- 
bishop and his brethren, they immediately began to 
think of continuing their succession by new conse- 
crations, and often discoursed of it, without taking 
any particular resolutions, till after the consecration 
of the intruders (as they called them) into their sees, 



i D'Oyley's Life, ii. 33, 34. Tillotson's Life, 269. Kettle- 
well, 134. Biog. Brit. Art. Hickes. Supp. Nichols' Lit. Anecdotes, 
i. 35, 36. 

II 



98 ^tetorp of tfje 

that then the deprived Archbishop and Bishops re- 
solved to continue the same, and to write to the late 
King James about it : that in their discourses on this 
matter, the deprived Bishop of Ely acquainted the 
Archbishop and his brethren with the letters in St. 
John's College Library in Cambridge, which had 
passed upon the like occasion between Chancellor 
Hyde and Dr. Barwick ; that thereupon they had 
recourse to those letters, and resolved to impart the 
secret to the then Earl of Clarendon, who had been 
his father's secretary in that correspondence ; that 
from those letters, and the additional light which 
they received from that noble Lord, it appeared that, 
in that case, in regard of the difficulties of making 
elections, it was resolved to consecrate the new Bishops 
with Suffragan titles, according to the statute of King 
Henry VIII. That therefore the deprived Arch- 
bishop and Bishops resolved upon the same method 
in this case also, and to write to the late King James 
for his consent to it in the way directed by that 
statute ; though (it seems) they judged it a matter 
of so great importance as to resolve to do it even 
without his consent rather than not at all : that upon 
their application, the late King James returned his 
answer, that he would readily concur with it, and 
required them to send some person over to him, with 
whom he might further confer about the matter, and 
along with him a list of the deprived Clergy : that 
Dr. George Hickes being made choice of for that 
purpose, set forward from London May 19th, 1693, 
and, after many difficulties, arrived at St. Germains 
in about six weeks time : that there the late King 
James acquainted him that, for the further satisfaction 
of his own conscience, he had consulted the Arch- 
bishop of Paris, and the Bishop of Meaux, and the 



of tlje $lonjuim% 99 

Pope himself, who severally determined that the 
Church of England being established by the laws of 
the kingdom, he (though a Papist) was under no 
obligation of conscience to act against it, but obliged 
to maintain and defend it, as long as those laws are 
in force : that the late King James put their said de- 
terminations into the Doctor's hands : which he read 
and found to be to the effect aforesaid ; that the said 
late King James also assured him, that he had on all 
occasions justified the Church of England since the 
Revolution. That the Doctor returned to London 4th 
of February, 1 693, and was consecrated on the 24th." r 
Such is Lindsay's account of this remarkable circum 
stance. 

The Archbishop died before these consecrations 
took place. On his retirement to Fresingfield he per- 
mitted Nonjurors only to perform divine service in his 
presence : and of course he did not attend the Parish 
Church. 5 He died the 24th of November, 1693.' 
When he perceived his end approaching, he expressed 
his satisfaction at the course which he had adopted, 
adding, that he should pursue the same were he 
called again to make his decision. On the 27th of 
November his body was deposited in the churchyard 
of Fresingfield, in a spot which had been selected by 
himself. 

In his last moments, he prayed for King James, 
being unable to renounce his allegiance. "I pray 
God Almighty for the poor and suffering Church, 
which is almost destroyed by this new Revolution, 

r Mason's Defence by Lindsay. Preface, Ixxxiii. iv. 1728. 
See also Macpberson's Original Papers, i. 452 455. 

R Letter out of Suffolk. Birch's Tillotson, 155160. Kettle- 
well, 159. 

* D'Oyley's Life, ii. 65. 



roo Uigtorp of tlj* 

and I beseech God to bless the King, Queen, and 
Prince, and in his due time to restore them to their 
just and undoubted rights."" "His virtue," says 
Nelson, " was uniform : for when he was in his greatest 
elevation he declined the commands of his lawful and 
rightful Prince, rather than obey him, to the preju- 
dice of the true religion and the established laws : yet 
he would not resist his Sovereign to save both, because 
he apprehended the laws of the land, as well as the 
precepts of the Gospel expressly forbid it : and chose 
rather the expulsion from all his honours and eccle- 
siastical revenues, than violate his conscience or stain 
the purity of those principles, which he had always 
maintained and defended. " w 

Though he had since his retirement communicated 
only with Nonjurors, who did not frequent the Parish 
Church, yet he was resorted to by many who had 
taken the Oath. Some, who visited him, asked his 
blessing, which was always bestowed without any 
hesitation. He remarked, sometimes, in allusion to 
those who complied, that "notwithstanding he and 
they might go different ways, with respect to the 
public affairs, he trusted yet that heaven-gates would 
be wide enough to receive both him and them." 1 
Though he did not attend the Parish Church, yet 
the Clergyman of the Parish frequently visited the 
Archbishop. His opinions respecting the Parochial 
Assemblies, in consequence of the prayers for the 
new Sovereigns, were very strong. Thus it is said, 
that on one occasion, when his sentiments were asked, 
he replied, " That there ought to be an absolution at 



Macpherson's Papers i, 278. 
Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, 356. 
Kettlexvell, 159. 



of tfjc ^onjucotff* 11 

the end as well as at the beginning of the Prayers to 
absolve them from the guilt they had contracted in 
joining, or seeming to join in immoral and unrighte- 
ous petitions." 7 Of Archbishop Bancroft's sincerity, 
integrity, and piety, no one can doubt, however we 
may question the prudence of some of his last acts, 
especially his consent to the steps, which were taken 
for the continuance of the succession. Though the 
consecration of Hickes and Wagstaffe did not take 
place till after his death, yet we must view the act 
as having received his sanction, because he had de- 
legated his powers to Lloyd. With his views of the 
Oath to the new Sovereigns, and of the deprivation 
of himself and his brethren, we cannot perhaps be 
greatly surprised at his consenting to a continuance 
of the succession. Still it would have been more 
consistent, had he followed in the steps of Ken, who 
took no part in the proceedings connected with the 
new consecrations, being content to suffer the penalties 
of non-compliance without any attempt to perpetuate 
a schism. 2 

We have seen, that Sancroft prayed for King 
James and the Prince of Wales. The Nonjurors could 
not join in prayers for the new Sovereigns. Kettle- 



y Kettlewell, 159. 

* It was said after the Archbishop's death, that he had com- 
municated with his Chaplains after their compliance. This how- 
ever, was not the fact, as is clear from The Letter out of Suffolk, 
Barberry's Admonition to Kennet and Marshall, and Bedford's 
Vindication of Sancroft. The Charge was also refuted in 1746 
by the publication of the Testimony of Thomas Martyn. Martyn 
states that he, with other gentlemen, repaired to the Archbishop 
September 19, 1690 : that they told his Grace of their dissatisfaction 
at the alterations in the prayers. He asked each if he wanted satis- 
faction, and on all declaring that they did, the Archbishop said that 
they " ought not to go to the publick, but get what opportunity 



102 ^igtorg of tlje 

well had very strong feelings on this point; and 
Bancroft and the Bishops entertained the same. Of 
Kettle well it is said, he " could not by any motives 
be persuaded to cease praying for those persons, whom 
at the commencement of the Revolution he had prayed 
for ; and whom he firmly believed to have the same 
right to his prayers now as then." 8 All the Non- 
jurors recognized James as their lawful Sovereign : 
and consequently they prayed for him in their as- 
semblies. They did not however mention his name ; 
but prayed for the King, the Queen, and the Prince. 
At all events, this was the general practice, though 
probably some might even introduce the King's 
name. 

Though my sympathies are with the deprived 
Bishops on many points, yet I cannot refrain from ex- 
pressing my opinion in this place, that they were not 
justified in attempting to perpetuate the schism by 
continuing the succession. They might have re- 
mained quiescent, having delivered their own con- 
sciences by not taking the Oath. Every one must 
revere them for their scruples, and for their adherence 
to principles, which enabled them to endure suffer- 
ing and privation ; but I cannot think, that they were 



they could otherwise." Mr. Snat promised to find out some means 
of affording- them the privilege of Divine worship, the Archbishop 
expressing his approval. It seems, that Snat began thus early to 
officiate privately to some of those, who scrupled to attend the 
Parish Churches. Previous to the Archbishop's removal from 
Lambeth, Martyn again resumed the question respecting the pub- 
lic prayers, on which occasion it was that his Grace replied, that 
they would need the Absolution at the end as well as at the 
beginning. See " A Collection of Letters concerning- the Sepa- 
ration of the Church of England into two Communions," pp. 
4548. 

51 Kettlewell, 117. 



of tfje $lcinjucor0* 103 

called upon, even by their own views, to take so strong 
a step as that of new consecrations. They could not 
proceed regularly. Of this they were conscious, and 
therefore they resorted to the expedient of Suffragan 
Bishops. Besides, it is clear, that Bancroft could not 
delegate his powers to be exercised after his own 
death. Whatever may have been the effect of the 
Instrument, by which Lloyd was empowered to act, 
it certainly ceased with the life of the Archbishop. 
This subject, however, will necessarily come under 
consideration in the details of the controversy be- 
tween the Nonjurors and their opponents : and I 
introduce it here, merely for the purpose of pointing 
out, what I conceive to have been an error on the 
part of the deprived Bishops. 5 

From the period of the new consecrations, there- 
fore, the schism must be regarded as having been 
completed. " Thus not only a separation in the 
Church of England was actually formed, Dr. San- 
croft being at the head of one communion, and Dr. 
Tillotson at the head of another : but a provision 
was made for perpetuating the former, in case the 
public affairs should stand in the same posture. 
However, for the more easy healing of this unhappy 
breach, and for avoiding disputes which might other- 
wise arise about the temporalities annexed to the 



b The leanings of the ruling powers are evident from the fol- 
lowing circumstance, relative to the 29th of May. " Though this 
day was set apart expressly for celebrating the memorable birth, 
returne, and restoration of the late King Charles II., there was no 
notice taken of it, nor any part of the office annext to the Common 
Prayer Book, made use of, which I think was ill don, in regard 
his restoration not only redemed us from anarchy and confusion, 
but restored the Church of England, as it were miraculously." 
Evelyn, vol. iii, 316. This was in 1692. 



104 l^igtorp of ttje 

spirituality of a Bishop, it was in favour of the 
Church in possession, provided, first, that none should 
be consecrated into any see : and secondly, that they 
who were consecrated should forbear to act till, upon 
failure of the Bishops now deprived, there would, for 
keeping up the succession, be a necessity for them 
to execute the powers committed to them, and to 
afford those who should adhere unto them orthodox 
and holy ministrations, as Mr. Kettlewell expresses 
it." c This writer states, that he shall not meddle 
with their reasons for so acting. 

Their statement of their case was couched in the 
following terms : 

" 1st. That in the year of our Lord 1688, the 
ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England was 
with the most reverend Father in God, Dr. William 
Bancroft : as Primate and Metropolitan of all Eng- 
land, and with the right reverend the Bishops (now 
deprived) in their dioceses, and that the acknowledged 
altars were with them, is agreed on both sides. 

2. That since that time, several Bishops and Priests 
subordinate to him and them, and to whom they were 
bound by oaths of canonical obedience, having rejected 
that authority, withdrew their obedience, and set up 
and owned another Primate and other Bishops against 
those acknowledged Bishops, is matter of fact. 

3. Whence a separation being made by them, 
and there being two parties divided, with the old 
metropolitan at the head of one, and the late Dean 
Dr. Tillotson at the head of the other : the question 
is with which of these the faithful are obliged to hold 
communion. Now if the Archbishop and the rest of 
the Bishops deserted any doctrines of the Church, or 

< Kettlewell, 134. 



of t|)e jponfutm% 105 

otherwise made themselves irregular and so deserved 
deprivation : or if the civil power hath authority to 
deprive Bishops without a Synod : and if a legal 
civil power hath deprived these : Then they have no 
longer any ecclesiastical authority over the faithful. 
But if on the other hand, they are deprived for main- 
taining the Doctrine of the Church and for adhering 
to their duty : if the civil power cannot but in a 
Synodical way deprive Bishops, or if the power which 
pretendeth to do it is not legal : Then the sentence 
of deprivation is not only unjust, but null in itself, 
and the authority of the Bishops is in full force as 
before, and the obligation to adhere to their com- 



munion as strict as ever." d 



This is the way in which the case was stated by 
the early Nonjurors. It will be seen that it is ex- 
pressed with great moderation : with much greater 
indeed than was adopted at a later period, when the 
controversy became warm. It does not pronounce 
the Bishops and Priests, who complied, heretics. 
Though, therefore, I consider that the Nonjurors were 
in error in continuing the Schism, by providing for the 
succession, yet I must allow, that there was a strong 
colour for their proceedings, and that the great fault 
was with King William's government, in proceeding 
to deprive the Bishops and Clergy, who were so con- 
scientious as to scruple the Oath. The mischief 
would have been avoided, if the Bishops and Clergy 
had been permitted to remain in possession of their 
preferments. It would have been wise in the rulers 
to have acted, as in an ordinary case of the ac- 
cession of a new Sovereign. Ecclesiastical persons 
are not required in such a case to take the Oath 

d Kcttlowell, 135. 



106 %'0torp of tlje 

afresh, unless on a new appointment. Had King Wil- 
liam's government acted on this principle, no schism 
would have taken place in the Anglican Church : 
and surely such an indulgence was due to a body of 
conscientious men. The difficulties, with which they 
had to cope respecting the Oaths, were of no ordi- 
nary character. No person, who understands the 
question, will load their memory with reproach on 
that head. No doubt the Bishops and Clergy, who 
complied, were conscientious men, and acted on prin- 
ciple : but it would be uncharitable to condemn those 
who refused. The difficulties were of such a charac- 
ter, as to make us very cautious in pronouncing an 
opinion against such a body as the Bishops and 
Clergy, who submitted to deprivation rather than go 
against their conscience. These remarks apply espe- 
cially to the first race of Nonjurors, who were not 
responsible for the proceedings of those who suc- 
ceeded them, and whose case will be considered in 
the course of our narrative. 

The perpetuation of the schism by the new conse- 
crations, however, was not approved of by all the Non- 
jurors : so that even at this early period the house 
was divided against itself. The deprived Bishops 
had no sphere in which to exercise their functions. 
A lay power, even an unlawful power, may deprive a 
Bishop of his jurisdiction. I mean that when a Bishop 
is forcibly removed from his sphere, by the civil power, 
he cannot continue to exercise his authority. We 
need not discuss the question respecting the legality 
of the government of King William. All persons are 
satisfied with our present constitution : and though 
there were many acts, of which we may disapprove, yet 
no one will call the legality of the government of that 



of tlje ^onjucoi% 10? 

day in question. But it is quite sufficient for my pur- 
pose to assume, that when a Bishop is removed, even 
forcibly and illegally, it becomes a question how far 
he can act ; or whether he must not submit to the 
trial until the Providence of God sees fit to make 
his way clear. Bishops from another Church are 
true Bishops in England ; but they cannot exercise 
their functions in this country without permission. 
And this, I conceive, was precisely the position of 
the deprived Bishops. This view, moreover, was 
adopted by many Nonjurors, as will be seen in another 
chapter. The principle on which they acted, in 
continuing the succession, does not admit of the same 
justification as their refusal to take the Oaths. 

I have already alluded to the number of the Clergy 
who submitted to deprivation. Remarks were made 
at the time on the comparative smallness of the num- 
ber ; but I confess that my surprise is, that there were 
so many. When we remember how easy it is to go 
with the stream : when we recollect, that many com- 
plied with the existing authorities without inquiry, 
and that many more entertained scruples, though 
they did not separate from the Church, we cannot 
but be surprised that so large a number as/owr hun- 
dred should have refused the Oath. Thankful too 
should we be, that the consequences of the schism 
were not more disastrous : especially as we know, 
that if the government had forborne to press the Oath, 
all would have continued in their posts as quiet and 
peaceable subjects of the new Sovereigns, though 
they could not recognize their authority by an Oath. 

The Bishops and other dignitaries, who refused to 
comply, were very cautious in giving their opinion 
respecting the Oath before the period fixed by the 



108 Djigtorp of tfje 

Act for their deprivation : and therefore many who 
took it, did so, because they conceived, that thei r 
ecclesiastical superiors, by their silence, sanctioned 
them in such a course. " Hence it came to pass, 
that some who took the Oath were willing to lay 
the occasion thereof upon the very Bishops whom 
they departed from in so doing.'" The Bishops 
did not influence the Clergy: they did not express 
their opinions publicly on the proceedings of the 
government : and consequently some, who complied, 
were disposed to attribute their compliance to the 
Bishops themselves. But on the other hand it may 
be remarked, that the views of the Bishops were 
generally known. They had several meetings at 
Lambeth : and some of the Clergy did actually apply 
to them for their advice and assistance, which were 
never refused. 

Alluding to the argument derived from the com- 
paratively small number of the Nonjurors, Leslie 
somewhat coarsely remarks : " This is the common 
topic, and runs through them all, and yet there is 
not one of them but knows full well that this means 
nothing at all, that truth was never tried by rolling 
and telling of noses : that numbers were never any 
evidence of a good cause. At this rate the Alcoran 
will vie with the Gospel, and Turcism will be not 
only better than Popery, but even than Christianity 
itself. This therefore is nothing else but cheating 
and deluding the people, instead of informing and 
instructing them. And they are hard put to it sure, 
when to save their own credit, and to blast others, 
they are forced so frequently to inculcate such an 
argument, which they themselves in their own con- 

e Kettle well, 108. 



of tlje ^onjuror^. 1C9 

sciences (if they have any) know to be none at 
all." d 

At all events, no one can deny, that their sincerity 
was put to a very severe test. By complying, the 
Archbishop, Bishops and Clergy might have retained 
their posts : the Bishops would have ended their days 
in affluence and surrounded with worldly honours : 
and the Clergy would have lived in comfort and in 
most cases in plenty. But by adopting the opposite 
course, they spent the remainder of their days in 
poverty and seclusion. There was no worldly in- 
ducement to such a course. It is not in human nature 
to choose poverty for its own sake. Some strong 
principle must have influenced them in their decision, 
and supported them in their subsequent course. In 
short they were moved by their own consciences : 
and it is not uncharitable to assert, that few of the 
complying Bishops were actuated by so strong a 
principle as the despised Nonjurors. Nor were they 
encouraged by King James. On the contrary they met 
with great discouragement. 

James's infatuation with respect to Popery was so 
great, that he usually endeavoured to induce those 
Nonjuring divines, who visited him in France, to join 
the Church of Rome. These attempts were known 
and could not fail to cause any, who might be wavering 
in their opinions, to adhere to the new government, 
despairing of the safety of the Church of England 
under King James. Thus, when the Protestant 
members of his court at St. Germains requested per- 
mission for a chapel, in which the service of the 



d Remarks on some late Sermons : and in particular on Dr. 
Sherlock's Sermon at the Temple, Dec. 30th, 1694. In a Letter 
to a Friend, p. 11. 



1 10 ^t0torp of tlje 

Church of England might be conducted, the King 
again consulted the Jesuits, and refused the request. 
Dr. Granville, who had quitted the Deanery of 
Durham, was even obliged to leave St. Germains, in 
consequence of the insults to which he was sub- 
jected. e None of his Protestant followers were 
trusted. Colonel Cannan refusing to join the Church 
of Rome was reduced to a very small allowance. 
Being sick, he received the Sacrament of Dr. Gran- 
ville, but some priests actually thrust a wafer down 
his throat after he became insensible, and published 
that he died a member of the Church of Rome. f It 
seems that the priests, and no doubt the King ap- 
proved, endeavoured to bring over every Protestant 
to their own Church. 8 

The new government, as it appears to me, acted 
in some cases with unnecessary severity against 
those, who were suspected of favouring King James. 
Generally the Nonjurors remained quiet, though of 
course their affections were with the exiled monarch. 
There were, however, exceptions; but the evidence 
in some cases would not in our day be sufficient for 
conviction of a crime, to which the forfeiture of life 
is attached. Mr. Ashton's case was alluded to in 
the previous chapter : and it appears to me that Mr. 
Anderton, who was arraigned in June 1693, was 
convicted on evidence, which, in the present day, 
would not be deemed sufficient. He was indicted 
for printing two Pamphlets, entitled "Remarks upon 
the Present Confederacy and Late Revolution in Eng- 
land," and " A French Conquest neither desirable 



e Life of King James, 8vo. 1705. pp. 390, 391. Macky's Me- 
moirs, xxix. 

f Macky, xxxvi. Ibid, xliii. 



of ttje $tonjuror0, 1 1 1 

nor practicable." Grascome wrote an account of the 
trial under the title, " An Appeal of Murder," which, 
as well as that from the Sessions Paper, is printed in 
the State Trials. Anderton avowed himself a mem- 
ber of the Church of England ; still he declined the 
services of the Ordinary, who appears to have con- 
ducted himself with much impropriety towards the 
prisoner. A Nonjuring Clergyman, probably Gras- 
come, attended him in his last moments, using por- 
tions of the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, with 
such alterations as were suited to the circumstances 
of the sufferer. 11 

The narrative of facts has now been continued to 
the year 1694 : but other matters of no small import- 
ance occurred during this period relative to the con- 
troversies, in which the various parties were engaged. 
These will be discussed in the ensuing chapter. 

h State Trials, viii. 71, 72. 



CHAPTER IV. 



A. D. 16901694. 

CONTROVERSIES. COLLIER. CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE 
OATH. SHERLOCK. SOME COMPLIERS RETRACT. CONTRO- 
VERSY RESPECTING THE DEPRIVATIONS. STILLINGFLEET. 

GRASCOME. WILLIAMS. SHARPE, HICKES. HILL'S SOLO- 
MON AND ABIATHAR. ANSWERED BY GRASCOME. THE 
EARLIER WRITINGS OF SOME OF THE COMPLIERS CONTRASTED 
WITH THEIR PRODUCTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO THE REVOLUTION. 
BISBY'S UNITY OF PRIESTHOOD. HODY AND THE BAROCCIAN 

MS. DODWELL. HE ENGAGES IN THE CONTROVERSY WITH 

HODY. KETTLEWELL'S VIEWS OF THE SEPARATION. STIL- 
LINGFLEET ON THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 




N the previous chapter the principal facts 
connected with the separation have been 
detailed ; but there are other matters 
referring to the same period, which re- 
quire a distinct notice. I allude to the various con- 
troversies which sprang out of the separation : some 
of which were carried on among the Nonjurors them- 
selves, while others arose between the latter and the 
supporters of the National Church. In the present 
chapter I shall confine myself to the disputes of the 
latter description. 

Discussions arose almost as soon as it was foreseen, 
that the debates in the convention were likely to issue 
in the settlement of the crown on William and Mary. 
Collier was one of the first to enter the controversial 



of ttje Um)ttroi& 1 13 

arena, and to support publicly the claims of King- 
James. This he did in a small tract under the title 
of " The Desertion Discussed :" the first direct attack 
upon the principles of the Revolution/ It appears 
to have been written just after the Commons had 
declared the throne vacant : and doubtless was in- 
tended to influence the decision of the Upper House. 
In addressing his correspondent he asks, a how (say 
you) can the seat of the government be empty, while 
the King, whom all grant an unquestionable title, is 
still living, and his absence forced and involuntary." 
Collier assumes, that the flight of James was forced, 
though it is clear that he might have remained ; 
and had he remained, he would have preserved his 
crown. In alluding to the plea of necessity, he says, 
" This pretended necessity is either of their own 
making, or of their own submitting to, which is the 
same thing." He labours to show that the King was 
in danger before he quitted the country, and that 
consequently his removal was not an abdication : and 
that the throne could not be considered vacant. The 
author was afterwards imprisoned on account of this 
publication, but he was discharged without being 
brought to trial. Collier arraigns the legality of the 
convention from its not having been summoned by the 
King's writ, in the usual and constitutional manner. 
He contended, that as they had neither the authority 
of law, nor the plea of necessity to urge, they must 
expect that their proceedings would be subjected to 
examination. Alluding to Burnet's pamphlet, he 
remarks, that the Commons appear to have a great 

' The Desertion Discussed, in a Letter to a Country Gentle- 
man. In State Tracts, vol. i. It was a reply to a pamphlet of 
Burnet's, entitled "An Inquiry into the Present State of Affairs," 
in which King- James is considered as a deserter of the crown. 



1 14 %'gtorp of t|)e 

regard to his judgment, inasmuch as their chief votes 
are transcribed from one of his paragraphs. " We 
are now, says he, fallen upon times in which the 
most extravagant and almost impossible things are 
swallowed without chewing, and the plainest truths 
outfaced." 

This Tract was answered by Bohun, the author 
of " A History of the Desertion" containing an 
account of all the proceedings connected with the 
Revolution. This gentleman, in his reply to Collier, 
enters upon a review of the King's Acts, which led 
to the attempt of the Prince of Orange. He shews, 
that Whigs and Tories acted in unison in receiving 
the Prince : that, on the King's departure, it was 
necessary to do something : and that a convention of 
the Three Estates was the most unexceptionable ex- 
pedient in their difficulty. He adds, that his Majesty 
would have been in no danger by remaining in the 
country : and that, so far from being forced away, 
he was persuaded to go by his counsellors, rather 
than remain and redress the grievances of the nation. 
He contends, that had he summoned a Parliament, 
he need not have withdrawn ; and that, by quitting 
the country, he had voluntarily abdicated the throne. 
He thinks, that the judgment of the three estates was 
conclusive, though the public might not be acquainted 
with all the reasons, by which they were influenced 
in the settlement of the crown. This last argument 
probably was conclusive with many persons, and in 
general it must be regarded as sufficient to satisfy 
the majority of a nation, in any change of govern- 
ment. 6 



b Collier was again imprisoned in 1692, on a charge of having 
maintained a correspondence with King James. The charge was 



of tlje |ionjurot#. 1 15 

We need not, however, enter at length upon this 
point, since the arguments on both sides are gene- 
rally known. But there are other questions, which 
though now nearly forgotten, are of considerable 
interest, and such as cannot be passed over in a 
history of the Nonjurors. It has been remarked, 
that a history of the controversies of any particular 
time is a history of the period : and the remark ap- 
plies with full force to the Nonjurors. 

Many pamphlets and tracts were published on the 
subject of the Oath to the new Sovereigns : and some 
very remarkable changes in practice occurred within 
a few years after the Revolution. Some persons 
complied after a resistance or a refusal of several 
months ; while others, who had taken the Oath, re- 
canted, and were received into communion with the 
Nonjurors. Among the former the most conspicuous, 
perhaps, was Sherlock, who had actually been de- 
prived for his refusal. I have given some account 
of Sherlock's sudden change in a former work, to 
which I would refer the reader/ In that work, I 
have expressed my opinion, that he was seeking for a 

not proved. Bail was allowed, but this he refused to find; be- 
cause, by doing so, he considered, that he should recognize the 
authority of the court, which he denied. At length he was re- 
leased at the intercession of friends. Chalmers's Biog. Diet. 

c A History of the Convocation of the Church of England. A 
bookseller seeing him handing his wife along St. Paul's Church- 
yard, said, " There goes Dr. Sherlock, with his reasons for taking 
the Oath at his fingers' ends." It has been said, " The party he 
had deserted were not convinced by his pamphlet. Bishop Over- 
all's Acts and Canons had not converted them, or their wives had 
not taken the same pains, or had not been so skilful in their persua- 
sions." He was succeeded by his son in the mastership of the 
Temple, who subsequently became Bishop of London. He too 
had some scruples like his father. He preached a sermon the 
Sunday after the battle of Preston, strongly in favour of George I., 



1 16 ^i0torg of tlje 

pretence to enable him to submit : and I have not 
seen any reason to alter that opinion. Probably he 
imagined at first that King James might be able to 
return : but when he saw William firmly seated on 
the throne, after his success in Ireland, he began to 
consider by what means he could retrace his steps. 
Overall's Convocation Book was the pretence; for 
having assigned many reasons for refusing the Oath, 
he was anxious to have some plea for his change of 
opinion. Posterity certainly will not consider his 
arguments of much force. Some of the pamphlets 
and sarcastic attacks upon the Doctor are mentioned 
in my former work/ Sherlock published his " Case 
of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, $c." in 
order to vindicate himself in taking the Oath. " It 
was no small alarm to those whom he had left, that 
a person of his figure, who had so strenuously main- 
tained the doctrine of nonresistance, in one of his 
most celebrated pieces, and thereby opposed the prin- 
ciples of the Revolution, and of the establishment 
thereupon : and who had also held out so long in this 
opposition, for the sake of his old opinion, by re- 



which, the Benchers remarked, should have been delivered the 
Sunday before. The following lines were written on him : 

As Sherlock the elder, with his jure divine, 
Did not comply till the battle of Boyne ; 
So Sherlock the younger still made it a question, 
Which side he would take till the battle of Preston. 

Noble, i. 91. 

d The following extracts are from a pamphlet of the period. 
" A Catalogue of Books of the Newest Fashion, to be sold by 
auction at the Whigg's Coffee House, &c. near the Deanery of St. 
Pauls." " Si Fortuna Velit fies, De, &c. Gravel Lane to-day. 
D n of P s to-morrow, and Gravel Lane again, as moody For- 
tune or Spouse pleases. By Smock-Peckt Sh k. " Dux 



of tfje ^onjur0t;0+ 117 

fusing the qualification which was enjoined all the 
Clergy, for the security of the government upon that 
footing; should now go over to the other side, by 
the help of Bishop Overall's Demonstration, which 
had lain dormant till then ; and turn an advocate for 
that very cause which he had so long withstood ; 
and for that government which he had shewn himself 
hitherto so little a friend to, and whose very founda- 
tions had been undermined by him in his former 
works." 6 Kettlewell replied to Sherlock, in The 
Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True Grounds." 1 
Sherlock's aim was to shew that allegiance might be 
given to William and Mary, as the possessors of the 
throne, even though they had no legal right, or right 
by inheritance, a doctrine which he had denied in 
his previous writings. 

Sherlock had been one of the most strenuous ad- 
vocates of the very doctrine, which the Revolution 
seemed to assail. He had published his " Case of 
Resistance :" and it was to be supposed that it would 
be compared with his "Case of Allegiance." The 
views of the two works were diametrically opposite. 

Fcemini Facti ; Conquest the best title to body and conscience, 
by Dr. Sh k's wife, dedicated to her humble servant her hus- 
band ; wherein these two points are proved at large : first, that 
no man is a good husband who will not sacrifice his conscience to 
the importunity of a wife : and secondly, that the Doctor was 
visibly under her power, and therefore he was forced to submit, 
and might do so according to his hypothesis of force, which dis- 
solves all obligation, especially since the female usurpation had 
been for a long time and thoroughly settled." A list of " Cases 
of Conscience and Queries " follows, from which I take the fol- 
lowing : " Whether Julian or Sherlock deserve the whetstone, 
since Julian has been always true to a false principle, and Sher- 
lock traitor and false to a true one." 

e Kettlewell's Life, 122. 

f Kettlewell's Works, vol. ii. 197, &c. 



118 H?tetorp of ttje 

Still Sherlock was not the only inconsistent man of 
that period. Burnet and Tillotson, in the time of 
Charles II, held the same opinions. They opposed 
Popery : but they maintained that opposition to the 
Prince could not be justified : and that the authority 
was in his person, not in the law. Had Sherlock 
complied at the Revolution without scruple, he would 
have been in the same situation with Burnet, Stil- 
lingfleet, and Tillotson, all of whom had written in 
defence of the doctrine at which he stumbled. They 
complied at first ; while he hesitated, but yielded 
afterwards. His two works, " Obedience and Sub- 
rnission to the Present Government, &c. 51 and the 
"Case, of Allegiance, &c." were attacked by several 
of the Nonjurors. One of the keenest answers was 
written, I believe, by Wagstaffe. It is attributed to 
Ken in the Biographia Britannica ; but this is clearly 
a mistake; and in a copy now in my possession, 
which was once the property of a Nonjuror, a con- 
temporary of Sherlock's, it is assigned to Wagstaffe. 2 



ff An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entituled Obedience and Sub- 
mission, &c. ; with a Postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case 
of Allegiance. 4to. Previous to the appearance of Sherlock's 
" Case of Allegiance" a work was published by a Nonjuror en- 
titled " The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession. Printed 
in the year 1691." Neither the name of the place nor of the 
printer is given. This work was noticed by Sherlock : and the 
circumstance produced the following repty : " An Answer to Dr. 
Sherlock's Case of Allegiance to Sovereign Power s, in Defence 
of The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession. In a Letter 
to a Friend. London, Printed in the year 1691." " The 
Trimming Court Divine," a severe satire upon the Doctor, was 
noticed in my History of the Convocation. There was also a 
clever attack under this title : " A Review of Dr. Sherlock's Case 
of Allegiance, &c. with an Answer to his Vindication, &c. : and 
from the whole proved, that neither the present Church of Eng- 
land nor the present Government are beholden to him. 4to. Lon- 



of ttje ^onjurorg. 1 19 

Sherlock replied in " A Vindication of the Case of 
Allegiance;" but nothing could relieve him from the 
charge of fickleness and inconsistency. Sherlock had 
told the Bishop of Killmore, that " he would be sa- 
crificed before he took the new Oath of Allegiance." 
This is stated by Hickes, who very justly remarks, 
" if those, who took that Oath with so much difficulty 
would but remember their own case, they would 
have more compassion for those who could not take 
it at all." h There were, however, some who stepped 
forward in Sherlock's defence. One writer in par- 
ticular asserts, that more would have complied but 
for the schemes of some of the leaders in the oppo- 
sition to King William. He lauds the government 
for its leniency. " They were very zealous to have 
got the Act for taking the Oaths to their Majesties 

don, 1691." The author states, that on passing through St. Paul's 
Church-yard on the 3rd of November, he saw The Case of Alle- 
giance : that in three hours returning he found a new title printed, 
and the book announced as a second edition. He says, that he 
began to consider whether there were two Dr. Sherlocks. This 
writer shews that Overall's Convocation Book was of no authority. 
" In the beginning of the broil he had been the champion of the 
party against all comers : and now he was become as great an 
undertaker on the other side." Ralph, ii. 270. In a very severe 
pamphlet the author says, alluding to the Battle of the Boyne, 
" Then it was that Bishop Overall's book gave you greater free- 
dom and liberty. Egeria appeared to you on the banks of the 
Boyne, and inspired you with new and freer notions, and shewed 
you how your former reasoning contradicted the general sense of 
mankind, and revealed unto you a divine and safer principle, upon 
which you might swear allegiance, without the imputation of 
apostacy or renouncing the doctrine of the Church of England, 
to Willielmus Nass. Aug. Scot. Hiber. a Deo Datus Augustus, 
and also swear it back again to King James, if ever he should re- 
cover the throne in a recuperative war." Ibid. 

h Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson : occa- 
sioned by the late Sermon of the Former on the Latter. 4to. 
London, 1695, p. 55. 



] -20 ^i0torg of t!)e 

limited to a very short time, that men, having but a 
little time to bethink them, might more generally 
have refused them, as they did in Scotland : but the 
six months that was allowed (much against their 
wills) was so well employed, that the number of the 
non-swearers was very small in comparison ; and if 
these very men had not made it their business to tra- 
duce all that took the Oath as apostates, time-servers, 
and perjured men, perhaps it would have been much 
less than it was." Alluding to those who complied, 
he says : " Every man that taketh the Oath raiseth 
a new clamour : so that it is apparent to all the 
world, some men fear nothing more, than that there 
should be no non-swearers" Sherlock stated, in his 
Preface, that he had renounced no principle, except 
one in " The Case of Resistance ;" but he forgot, 
that that one was the hinge on which all turned. 14 

But while Sherlock, with some few individuals, 
separated from the Nonjurors, by taking the Oath to 
the new Sovereigns, there were others, who, having 
complied, repented of the course which they had 
taken, and who, therefore, separated from the Estab- 
lished Church. On admitting such into communion, 
the Nonjurors used a Form of Recantation, which was 
arranged by Kettlewell. This was probably used on 
subsequent occasions of a similar description. It is 
very bitter against the Church of England ; and in 
this respect is unlike the general tone of Kettlewell's 

1 A Letter to the Authors of the Answers to the Case of Alle- 
giance. 4to. pp. 4, 5. 

k South said of Sherlock, that there was hardly a subject, ex- 
cept Popery, but he had written for and against it. He might 
have excepted his " Practical Discourse on Death," which met 
with universal approbation. It is remarkable that this work was 
written during his suspension. 



of tfje ^onjuror0. 121 

writings, which are remarkable for their gentleness 
and moderation. The occasion was as follows. A 
Clergyman applied to Kettlewell respecting his scru- 
ples : and, when satisfied, he applied further to the 
deprived Bishop of Norwich, as the Vicar-General 
of Archbishop Bancroft in spirituals. This gentle- 
man had never attended his Church on the public 
fast days : he had declared in the Church, that he 
could not observe such days ; he had omitted the names 
of the Sovereigns in the public services, with all the 
new petitions in the forms for the state holidays : 
and when the new edition of the Book of Common 
Prayer was tendered to him at the Visitation, he refused 
to receive it, as coming from the new Archbishop. 
The forbearance of the Bishop of his diocese, as well 
as of the government, towards this gentleman was 
great, and proves, that lenient measures were adopted 
in the case of those, who, though they took the Oath, 
had some scruples respecting the prayers appointed 
by the Crown. However the gentleman in question 
drew up a penitential confession, which was ad- 
dressed, with a supplicatory epistle, to Bishop Lloyd. 
The letter and confession were prepared under Ket- 
tlewell's direction, and they bear this remarkable 
title: " The Confession, Retractation, Repentance, 
and Supplicatory Letter of N. N. Rector of N. to 
the Right Reverend Father in God, William, Lord 
Bishop of Norwich." 

The Form itself is a very curious document. It 
also furnishes us with a proof, that the government 
were not particular, provided the Oath was taken : 
for this gentleman tells us, that he took it with a 
protestation. His judgment, he says, was swayed 
by some eminent Clergymen, " who were permitted 
to take it with this declaration of their sense of it ; 



122 ^i0tor? of tijc 

Mr. Chancellor, we are come here to swear obedience 
to the laws, and a peaceable behaviour under this go- 
vernment, in which sense we understand and take 
this Oath" He states, that he was induced to take 
it in consequence of this free allowance ; but that 
now he sees that he had consulted a carnal policy. 
" When I observed the new Thanksgiving Prayer 
for Deliverance imposed, the scarcely tolerable use 
of the Liturgy without such omissions and alterations 
as exposed me to the virulent censures and reproaches 
of all the country : when I observed the contradictory 
petitions to what was violently driven in the Liturgic 
offices for the 30th of January and the 29th of May : 
the uncanonical deprivation of my Metropolitan with- 
out a judicial hearing : the new fast and thanks- 
giving days (and one of the latter too on a fast of 
the Church) : when the Expedition Prayer and the 
Island Prayer (as I rate them) were enjoined." When 
he considered these things, he tells us, that he was 
greatly troubled. At last he met with Kettlewell's 
Discourse of Christian Prudence, which led to a 
correspondence with the author. He confesses, there- 
fore, that he had violated the third commandment; 
"for which I accuse and judge and condemn myself. 
God be merciful to me a sinner.'" These words are 
repeated six times, at the close of so many para- 
graphs in the Confession, which is much too long for 
quotation. He states in this penitential confession, 
that, on the first of the new fast days, he called the 
clerk behind the church, to tell him that he could not 
offer up the new petitions. On ceasing to officiate 
himself, on such occasions, he procured the assistance 
of another clergyman. This he condemns : and con- 
demns himself for procuring another to do what he 
was unwilling to do himself. In the supplicatory 



of t$* ^onfucot% 123 

letter, which accompanied the confession, he states, 
that for a year he had neither officiated himself, nor 
permitted another to act as his substitute, on what 
he terms " the new discriminating days:" and that 
he communicated his refusal of the Prayer Book to 
the Archdeacon, on the ground, that it came from 
John Archbishop of Canterbury : and further, that 
he had not used the new petitions or thanksgivings 
in any of his ministrations. He then prays for his 
" consignation to the peace and unity and commu- 
nion of the Church." 1 

Another case also may be mentioned, though it 
occurred some time after the preceding. Mr. Pinch- 
beck of Barton in Lincolnshire, after reading Kettle- 
well's books on the one side, and those of Sherlock 
and Burnet on the other, was led to make a public 
retractation. He took occasion to declare, in his 
Church, that he had grievously sinned by his com- 
pliance. He prayed publicly by name for King 
James, Queen Mary, and the Prince of Wales ; and 
read also King James's Declaration of 1693. He 
was of course committed to prison, tried, and con- 
demned to the pillory, with a fine of two hundred 
pounds. The violent conduct of this gentleman, how- 
ever, was not approved by the Nonjurors. m Another 
instance is related in the diocese of Winchester, be- 
sides others among the laity. A singular recanta- 
tion from Mr. Ralph Lowndes of Middlewich, in the 
county of Chester, is preserved in the Appendix to 
the Life of Kettlewell. This gentleman declares, that 
he was induced to take the Oath by the soft inter- 
pretation put upon it by the magistrates. He then 

1 Kettlewell's Life, 14449. 
. m Ibid. 150, 151. 



124 Ii0torp of tlj* 

expresses his conviction, that it was sinful to take it 
in any sense, and contrary to his former Oath. This, 
however, occurred earlier, as it bears date September 
1690." The form used in Kettlewell's time, for ad- 
mitting converts to their communion, is very different 
from that, which was adopted at a later period. Both 
however will be found in the Appendix to this 
volume. 

We now turn to the question of the deprivations, 
which was long, and somewhat fiercely agitated by 
various writers. As soon as it became apparent, that 
the government would insist upon the Oath, the two 
parties began to make use of the press in defence of 
their respective views. The advocates of the govern- 
ment defended the Oath of Allegiance : while those, 
who could not take it, laboured to show, that it could 
not lawfully be imposed. 

Stillingfleet was, I believe, one of the first to enter 
the lists of controversy. Before the deprivations took 
place, as early as the year 1689, he published his 
" Discourse concerning the Unreasonableness of a 
New Separation." During that year there had been 
published " A History of Passive Obedience," in 
which was collected a large mass of evidence to prove 
that the Church of England disowned and discoun- 
tenanced the doctrine of resistance to the supreme 
powers. The quotations were given from the writ- 
ings of divines of the Anglican Church since the re- 
formation. It was intended, as far as possible, to 
prevent the Clergy and persons in authority from 
taking the Oath to William and Mary : and to shew 
that their allegiance could not be withdrawn from 
King James, to whom it had been given. It was ne- 

n Kettlewell's Life, 152 53, and Appendix, xix. 



p of tie lioniiirottf, 125 

cessary, therefore, that the effect likely to be produced 
by such a work, should be counteracted : and Stil- 
lingfleet, who had acted a conspicuous part in the 
recent controversy with the Church of Rome, and the 
Dissenters, entered upon the task. The main point, 
however, in his book relates to the Oath to the new 
Sovereigns, his aim being to prove, that no separa- 
tion could be justified on that account ; but he alludes 
also to the " History of Passive Obedience," so far as 
that work relates to the Oaths. A few extracts from 
this performance, inasmuch as it was one of the most 
able on the side of the government, will not be un- 
acceptable to the reader, as they exhibit the prin- 
ciples and arguments of the complying Bishops and 
Clergy. 

Alluding to the scruples entertained by many per- 
sons respecting the Oaths, after quoting some passages 
in which it is declared, that those who cannot take 
them, will feel themselves bound to separate from 
those who comply, he remarks : " I was not a little 
surprised at the reading of these passages; and I 
soon apprehended the mischievous consequences of a 
new schism ; but I can hardly think it possible, that 
those who have expressed so great a sense of the mis- 
chief of it in others, should be so ready to fall into 
it themselves, and that upon the mere account of 
scruples." He proceeds: u some think the Oaths 
lawful, and therefore take them : others do not, and 
therefore forbear: but is taking the Oaths made a 
condition of communion ? Is it required of all who 
join in our worship at least to declare, that they think 
the taking of them to be lawful ? If not what colour 
can there be for breaking communion on account 
of the Oaths? Suppose those who take the Oaths 
are to blame : if they act according to their con- 



126 ^i0torp of tje 

sciences therein, what ground can there be of separa- 
tion from them for so doing, unless it be lawful to 
separate from all such who follow an erroneous con- 
science ; and so there can be no end of separations, 
till all men's consciences judge alike." He then 
comes to the question, whether there were any cause for 
entertaining scruples respecting the Oaths. Should 
there be a reason, he remarks, " it must arise either 
from the continuing obligation of the former oaths, 
or from the nature of the present oaths." p 

The following passages appear to me to meet the 
case, as it was argued generally against the Nonjurors. 
He argues, that the rule and measure of oaths are 
not to be taken from the intention of the framers, but 
from the general good. " Whatever the intention 
was, if the keeping of an oath be really and truly in- 
consistent with the welfare of a people, in subverting 
the fundamental laws which support it; I do not see 
how such an oath continues to oblige." He clearly 
alludes here to the proceedings of King James : and 
then he shews, that if parents design the ruin of 
their children, obedience is not to be expected. " But 
that the public good is the true and just measure of 
the obligation in these Oaths doth further appear, in 
that the Oaths are reciprocal. Whereas, if only the 
good of the persons to whom Oaths of Allegiance are 
made, were to be our rule, then there would be no mu- 
tual oaths." q The single point, he says, is ; " whether 
the law of our nation doth not bind us to allegiance 
to a King or Queen in actual possession of the throne, 
by consent of the three estates of the realm ? and 



Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Sepa- 
ration, 4to pp. 1,2. 

P Ibid. p. 3. <* Ibid. p. 58. 



of tt)* $*0njuror0. 127 

whether such an oath may not lawfully be taken, not- 
withstanding any former oath ?" r He also enters upon 
the question relative to a king De facto, and Dejure : 
" A King De facto is one who comes in by consent 
of the nation, but not by virtue of an immediate here- 
ditary right : but to such a one, being owned and re- 
ceived by the estates of the realm, the law of England, 
as far as I can see, requires an allegiance. Or else 
the whole nation was perjured in most of the reigns 
from the conquest till Henry VIII." 8 

These extracts contain a full and explicit state- 
ment of the views of those, who regarded the Oaths 
as lawful, as well as of the principles, on which the 
Revolution was founded. These considerations sa- 
tisfied most of those, who took the Oaths at that time, 
and they are quite sufficient for ordinary circum- 
stances. There were still many difficulties : and 
though I regret the course pursued by the Nonjurors, 
yet I cannot condemn them in their refusal, because 
it is clear, that they acted according to their con- 
sciences. 

A reply was very soon published to Stillingfleet's 
work by Grascome. Stillingfleet's positions are com- 
bated with much skill. He enters into the question of 
the Oaths, and the deprivations consequent upon their 
enforcement. The time fixed by the Act had not 
yet arrived, so that the Bishops and Clergy were not 
actually deprived ; but they refused to take the 
Oaths. Grascome does not, as it appears to me, 
sufficiently distinguish between an actual deprivation 
from office and the taking away the jurisdiction of a 



r Discourse Concerning" the Unreasonableness of a New Sepa- 
ration, 4to. p. 9. 
5 Ibid. p. 30. 



128 ^i0torg of tje 

Bishop. He is correct in saying, that the former 
cannot be taken away by the civil power. He meets 
Stillingfleet's statements by asserting, that they were 
forced into the schism : " I cannot," says he, " see 
how a schism in the Church of England can be 
avoided, if these Oaths be imposed :" so that it is evi- 
dent, that the Nonjurors would have remained at 
their posts in the Church, if the government had been 
content with their silent acquiescence. In all pro- 
bability their uncomfortable feelings would soon have 
subsided, if the Oaths had not been imposed.* 

Grascome was answered by Williams, subsequently 
Bishop of Chichester, in " A Vindication of a Dis- 
course Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New 
Separation" Williams charges Grascome with a 
mistake in confounding deprivation with degradation. 
" All that the civil power here pretends to is to se- 
cure itself against the practices of dissatisfied persons ; 
and to try who are such, it requires an Oath of Alle- 
giance to be taken by all in office : and in case of 
refusal, by deprivation to disable such, as far as they 
can, from endangering the publick safety. But if the 
Clergy so deprived think fit to take the Oaths, they 
are in statu quo, without any new consecration or 
reordination." u 

Grascome answered Williams in another work, in 
which are some things relative to the substitution of 
King William's name for that of King James's in the 
Liturgy. Williams had argued, that the Bishops, 
though they could not take the Oaths, might still 
join in communion with the Church, and avoid a 

* A Brief Answer to a Late Discourse Concerning the Unrea- 
sonableness of a New Separation. 
u State Tracts, Will. III. vol. i. 618. 



of tlje $lonfurot#. 129 

separation. It appears that Grascome had formerly 
been of the same opinion, since in the passage quoted 
from his previous work, he makes the schism to depend 
upon the Oaths. On this point there were differences 
among the Nonjurors themselves; Grascome thus 
states the matter : " If the owning and praying for 
this be made a part of the daily office, it is made a 
condition of our communion." So again, " Are we 
not obliged to pray for the same thing in more ample, 
plain, and significant terms than we are to swear it? 
The matter and substance of these Oaths is put into 
the prayers of the Church, and so far it becomes a 
condition of communion. What people are enjoined 
in the solemn worship to pray for, is made a condition 
of communion : and if it be sinful, will not only jus- 
tify, but require a separation. " w In this work too 
he argues, that the deprivation, in the case of the 
Bishops and Clergy, was equivalent to a degradation 
from office. He has a very remarkable passage on 
this subject : " It is not long since, that a haughty 
member of the convention plainly told me, that it was 
in their power to take away our orders, and unpriest 
and unbishop us. By this you may see, that the 
saviours you adore, reckon that our being at any 
time in statu quo, lies wholly at their mercy, and 
that even yourselves, if you do not absolutely please 
your new masters and go through stitch, right or 
wrong, with their commands, can pretend to little 
benefit from your character or orders." x Undoubtedly 
many of the members of the convention were, as Gras- 
come states, Erastians, who looked upon the Church 



w A Reply to a Vindication of a Discourse Concerning the Un- 
reasonableness of a New Separation, 4to. 1691, pp. 6, 10. 
* Ibid. p. 11. 



130 ^tgtorp of tlj* 

merely as their creature, which they could create or 
destroy at pleasure. When, therefore, we reflect upon 
the character of that Parliament, we cannot but be 
thankful, that the Church was preserved unimpaired. 
Not a few in the present day, even among the Clergy, 
maintain the same erroneous notions respecting the 
relations between the civil power and the Church. 
They would allow the state to regulate all ecclesias- 
tical matters : they would even permit episcopal acts 
to be performed by others than Bishops. Undoubtedly 
we need to be cautioned, in the present day, against 
this unsound but prevalent opinion. 

Grascome admits, that the state can deprive the 
Bishops and Clergy for crimes. But he denies the 
lawfulness of the deprivations in question, alleging 
that therefore the Nonjurors deemed it necessary to 
exercise their ministry in a state of separation. He 
speaks out plainly in condemnation of those who 
complied. Thus he says : " From the foregoing 
discourse these consequences may be fairly drawn : 
first, that whosoever shall be put into the place of 
the deprived Bishops are not to be esteemed Bishops, 
nor ought either Clergy or people to regard them, 
but to adhere firmly to their former true Bishops. 
Secondly, that whosoever shall ordain such, or en- 
deavour to place them there, make themselves crimi- 
nals, and liable to ecclesiastical censure. Thirdly, 
that they and all their adherents are schismatics/' 7 

Sharpe, as has been noticed, refused to accept any 
one of the sees of the deprived Bishops ; but Tillot- 

y A Reply to a Vindication of a Discourse Concerning the Un- 
reasonableness of a New Separation, 4to. 1691, p. 24. Besides 
these works, on the part of the Nonjurors, in reply to Stillingfleet, 
there is another by Brown, the author of " The Nag's Head 
Fable Confuted ;" but it was not published until the year 1749. 



of tfje $fcon jurors 13 1 

son made an arrangement with the King for him to 
take Lincoln or York on a vacancy. The Arch- 
bishopric soon became vacant, and Sharpe was ap- 
pointed. On the 28th of June 1691, he preached a 
farewell sermon at St. Giles's. This sermon was 
examined in a Letter addressed to the Archbishop, 
and attributed to Hickes. The writer charges His 
Grace with having altered his views within the last 
two years, alluding to a sermon which he had preached 
before the Convention. He remarks, " I find you so 
altered, like many of your brethren, from yourself, 
that though Dr. Sharpe is still the same person, yet 
I do not find that the Dean of Norwich and the Arch- 
bishop are the same man." z 

Alluding to the complying Bishops and Clergy, 
the writer says, " I hope to see such Bishops and 
Priests become base and contemptible, that expound 
St. Paul as you and Dr. Sherlock have done, and 
advance allegiance to the government upon a prin- 
ciple that is destructive to it, and the true and last- 
ing peace of the kingdom, in which our happiness 
does consist."* He charges the Archbishop with 
having contradicted his former sermon : " Two years 
ago you were not of opinion, at least you were not 
fully persuaded, that the text (Romans xiii, 1) al- 
lowed us to pray in behalf of a king de facto against 
the king de jure, or in behalf of a king in posses- 
sion against the legal king, as you and Dr. Sherlock 
still acknowledge King James to be, though he is 
out of possession : or else why did you, at his house 
in the Temple, express so much dislike and dissatis- 



z An Apolog-y for the New Separation : in a Letter to Dr. John 
Sharpe, Archbishop of York ; occasioned by his Farewell Sermon. 
4to. 1691. P. 1. * Ibid. p. 4. 



132 I?i0torp of tlje 

faction at the prayers in the office for the First Ge- 
neral Fast ? but the world is since well mended with 
you, and what was matter of difficulty to you then 
is not so now : for since that time you have better 
studied the great Apostle at Canterbury than you 
did at Norwich, and plainly discovered that he is 
and always was for the uppermost, and directs us to 
pay our allegiance and devotion, without enquiring 
into titles, to the King in the throne." He adds 
soon after ; " My Lord, one Jacobite, could he turn 
to their Majesties upon his own principles, would be 
worth an hundred such subjects as you and Dr. Sher- 
lock : and whenever Providence shall remove the 
obstacles, which lie in the way of their allegiance to 
them, they will have reason to value them as so many 
jewels of their crown. " b Of the new appointments 
he observes : " But, my Lord, besides that which 
you call a State point, there is also a Church point, 
of which you take no notice, though it be another 
known cause of their separation, and that is the put- 
ting of new Bishops into the thrones of the old ones, 
whose deprivations they pretend to be null and un- 
just." In reply to the Archbishop's charge of " being 
distasted at the established worship, for which they 
were zealous before," the writer affirms that they are 
still as zealous " as far as the matter of the prayers 
is the same." c 

The question was also discussed in another work, 
" Solomon and Abiathar" attributed to Mr. Hill. 
This author acknowledges the difficulty of the case, 
and professes to give the arguments fairly on both 
sides, in a Dialogue between a Conformist and a 



b An Apology for the New Separation, pp. 6, 7. 
c Ibid. 10. 



of ttje jpcmjucorg. 133 

Recusant. The arguments are stated with much im- 
partiality ; but the author's own views are pretty 
evident. The fact, too, that the work was licensed 
for the press by the Bishop of London's Chaplain, 
is decisive of the author's own opinions, though, in 
the preface, he expresses his doubts as to the course 
to be pursued. d This production was answered by 
Grascome, who combats all its arguments in his 
usual style. One thing, however, was stated, which 
gave rise to a very curious passage in Grascome's 
reply. Hill had assigned as a reason for joining in 
the prayers, that King James and King William were 
not enemies. Grascome intimates, that King James 
may attempt to recover his rights : " and I am apt 
to think, that your little ambitious, Dutch saviour 
would think no man in the world so much his enemy 
as he that demands three kingdoms from him." e 



d Solomon and Abiathar : or the Case of the deprived Bishops 
and Clergy discussed between Eucheres a Conformist and Dys- 
cheres a Recusant. 4to. 1692. Calamy examined the work so 
superficially, that he considered it to be altogether in favour of 
the Nonjurors, whereas the aim of the author was to discounte- 
nance their claims. Calamy makes him represent the state of 
things under King William as worse than a deluge of Popery ; 
while the author had only made one of his speakers so represent 
it, that it might be confuted by the other. " Calamy's Abridge- 
ment, i, 510." So careless was Calamy in writing the history of 
that period. He could not have read the work. 

e Two Letters written to the Author of a Pamphlet entituled 
Solomon and Abiathar, or the Case, &c. 4to. 1692, p. 33. Gras- 
come has a singular passage respecting the efforts to procure some 
indulgence to the Nonjuring Bishops. ** On the 28th of January 
the Bishop of London and St. Asaph, and some others, presented 
themselves before your mighty King William, with a mournful 
address, in behalf of our reverend fathers, then drawing near to a 
civil suspension, and since more than uncivilly deprived. This was 
the pretence ; but it is reasonable to think, that it was a complotted 
thing, and that the real design was to get their authorities deputed 



134 It0torp of tlje 

Like most other controversies, this was conducted 
with considerable bitterness on both sides. The 
charge of schism was retorted by both parties. But 
though the introduction of the names of the new 
Sovereigns was made a strong point in the contro- 
versy, yet I feel convinced, that the greater number 
of the Clergy would have continued in their various 
posts, if the Oaths had not been enforced. 

The Nonjurors charged many of the men, who 
took a leading part in the controversy in favour of 
the government, with inconsistency : and to establish 
this charge passages were adduced from their former 
writings. In a collection of the works of the Non- 
jurors in my possession, which was once the property 

in such sure hands, as might effectually promote perjury, and the 
thrusting good men out of possession of their estates and exercise 
of their proper authorities : for the effect of this address was so 
far from being any kindness to them for whom it was pretended, 
that others were presently hereupon deputed to exercise their res- 
pective jurisdictions during their suspension, deprivation, and till 
their places should be filled : so that all they got by this pretended 
kindness to them, was to be stripped stark naked. But the ad- 
dressers having thus addressed themselves into their several juris- 
dictions, they then apply themselves to our reverend fathers, and, 
with a seeming humility and sorrowfulness, acquaint them how 
matters were ordered, requesting them, that since it must be so, 
they would not be displeased at them, if they, who were ready to 
do them all the service they could, did exercise those jurisdictions : 
to which they received an answer to this effect, that since it 
was resolved that it should be done, whether they would or not, it 
was in a manner indifferent to them by whom it was done, though 
they were as willing it should be done by those who applied them- 
selves to them as any others." Pp. 33, 34. Grascome alleges this 
as an answer to those who contended, that the deprived Bishops 
had delegated their authority to their successors. He remarks, 
that it did not imply consent, but only necessity. He speaks of 
the compliers as men " who have enervated her discipline, made 
wicked additions to her prayers, and attempted to make such al- 
terations as would not leave her the same Church." P. 5. 



of tlje ^onjucor0. 135 

of a Nonjuror in the county of Somerset, there are 
many passages from Stillingfleet and others written 
on the margins of the volumes passages which cer- 
tainly contain doctrines at variance with those, which 
were advanced by them, at the period of, and subse- 
quent to, the Revolution. Thus on the margins of 
a copy of Stillingfleet's " Unreasonableness of a New 
Separation," which came into my possession with a 
large number of contemporary works, on both sides, 
from the family of the Nonjuror alluded to, there are 
several quotations, in the hand of that gentleman, from 
other writings of Stillingfleet. A few may be selected 
as a sample. " I think it a part of a good Christian 
to be always a loyal subject." Vindication of Answer 
to King's Papers, p. 101. " No Church in the world 
can lay an obligation upon a man to be dishonest, 
i. e. to profess one thing and to do another. And no 
Church can oblige a man to believe what is false, or 
do what is unlawful : and rather than do either he 
must forsake the communion of that Church." Vin- 
dication, 106. " It is sufficient to my purpose to 
shew, that our Church doth not only teach them 
(passive obedience and non-resistance) as her own 
doctrines : but which is far more effectual, as the 
doctrines of Christ and his Apostles and of the primi- 
tive Church." Vindication, 389. 

Such passages as these, and many such may be 
found in the writings of Stillingfleet, Sherlock and 
others in the time of Charles II, and James II, cer- 
tainly countenanced the Nonjurors in their course : 
and we must admit, that the charge of inconsistency 
is more easily substantiated against the former, than 
against the latter. This point was urged with much 
sarcasm by Leslie. Thus he says : " Neither the 
clamour of the Jacobites, nor their own consciences, 



136 ^tetocp of tfje 

nor the satisfaction of the people, nor to clear their 
own reputation from so foul a scandal could ever yet 
persuade Dr. Patrick to answer his paraphrases, Dr. 
Stillingfleet, his Preface to the Jesuit's Loyalty, Dr. 
Burnet, his Dialogues, Dr. Sherlock, his Case of 
Resistance, his Sermons, &c. They have indeed 
advanced themselves to posts of preferment by clean 
contrary doctrines, which they preach, and preach 
over and over, but the other old doctrines stand still 
uncancelled, and have not been delivered away by 
any direct act and deed. They own and preach up 
other doctrines, but they will neither formally re- 
nounce these, nor yet reconcile them to their new 
opinions and practices ; and there is good reason for 
both, to reconcile them is impossible, and to renounce 
them inconvenient : for there may a time come when 
such doctrines may be in fashion again, even as 
heretofore." Alluding to certain attacks on Sher- 
lock, which he designated libels, Leslie retorts : 
11 These gentlemen had need talk of libels when they 
have taken such extraordinary pains to libel them- 
selves. Dr. Patrick's Paraphrases are a notorious 
libel against him : and Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to 
The Jesuit's Loyalty, is a terrible libel against him ; 
and Dr. Sherlock's Case of Resistance, and all his 
books and sermons before the Oath are venomous 
and inveterate libels against him, and against all 
that he hath preached and written since. These are 
libels, and perpetual libels, and will remain ever- 
lasting monuments of their infamy, except they can 
persuade the people to burn all their books, and 
forget all their sermons. So that (to give these 



f Remarks on some late Sermons : and in particular on Dr. 
Sherlock's at the Temple. Dec. 30th, 1694. P. 13. 






of ttje ^on)ucoi% 137 

gentlemen their due) they have saved their adver- 
saries all the trouble in this point, and they have 
something else to do than to beat so common and 
trite an argument to trouble the world with any more 
libels, when they find so many made to their hands 
by the gentlemen themselves." 8 

It would be almost impossible to specify, much 
less to notice at length, all the productions of the 
parties engaged in this controversy. I must content 
myself, therefore, with directing attention to some of 
the more important. 

In the year 1692 was printed anonymously and 
privately a work of considerable size, " The Unity 
of the Priesthood, $c." By the Nonjuror to whom 
I have already alluded, who lived at the time, the 
work is ascribed to Dr. Bisby. The writer com- 
mences by stating, that the appointment of a new 
Archbishop was the occasion of his undertaking: 
" Of the ill news you have sent me, none sits so 
close upon me as the news of a new Primate and new 
Bishops : the old ones being living, and neither 
canonically heard, nor judicially deprived : a project 
utterly dissonant to all primitive practice, to the 
ancient constitutions and canons of the Church : and 
which if not timely compromised, must necessarily 
beget and perhaps unavoidably propagate a lasting 
schism among us." h 

An ancient MS. had been discovered in Oxford, 
containing a set of Canons, which it was thought 

* Remarks on some late Sermons, &c. 28. 

h Unity of Priesthood necessary to Unity of Communion in a 
Church. With Some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the 
Preface annexed. Also a Collection of Canons, part of the 
said MS., faithfully transcribed into English from the Original, 
but concealed by Mr. Hotly and his Prefacer, 4to. 1692. 



138 ^tetorp of tie 

favoured the case of the new Bishops. This MS. 
was published by Hody, under the following title : 
" The unreasonableness of a separation from the new 
Bishops : or a treatise out of Ecclesiastical history, 
shewing that although a Bishop was originally de- 
prived, neither he nor the Church ever made a sepa- 
ration if the successor was not an heretic. Trans- 
lated out of an ancient MS. in the Public Library 
at Oxford, 4fo, 1691." In this work, therefore, the 
aim is to shew that a separation from the Church 
could not lawfully be made by the deprived Bishops, 
unless the new Bishops were guilty of heresy. Hody, 
however, omitted some of the Canons : and the author 
of the preceding work printed the omissions. He 
contends that the suppressed Canons favour the old 
Bishops, and not the new. He charges Hody with 
" Shamming the world with part of the MS. for the 
whole." Hody had said that there was a " Singular 
Providence in the discovery at that juncture : and the 
author hopes that the Canons, which he publishes, 
" may have as good a title to that singular Provi- 
dence'' 1 These Canons were written in the same 
hand with the previous portion of the MS., and the 
author of " The Unity of Priesthood " states, that 
Hody, as it was alleged, had declined to print them, 
on the ground that they did not appear to have been 
written by the same author. It certainly was disin- 

1 In the preface Hody says, " The Greek MS. from which this 
treatise is translated, is in that part of the Public Library at Ox- 
ton that is called the Baroccian. It is very likely that this is the 
only copy of this book now remaining in the world. And that it 
should be preserved till our times and yet hitherto be overlooked : 
and at this very juncture be taken notice of, and so opportunely 
brought to light, seems to be more than a fortuitous hit: it appears 
to have something of TO OE~WI> and a singular Providence in it." 



of tlje jponjurottf* 139 

genuous on the part of Hody not to publish the 
whole of the MS. The suppression led men to sup- 
pose, that there was a conviction in his own mind, 
that they rather opposed than supported his prin- 
ciple. 11 

The Canons in question contain the rule, one 
God, one Christ, one Bishop. This point, indeed, was 
admitted by both parties, and the question was, 
who were the lawful Bishops. The author of the 
" Unity of the Priesthood " argues for the deprived 
Bishops, as being the first, and not canonically de- 
prived. " The first Bishop (if canonically placed in 
the see) was ever accounted the true and Catholic, 
and the second the false and schismatical Bishop : 
and the Church was ever adjudged to go along with 
those, who by a lawful ordination were first set up 
in it : and the schism with those, who were after- 
wards superinduced and clapt upon them." 1 Ac- 
cording to this writer the Ordainers were the more 
to be censured. " Those Bishops I mean that first 
dressed up the ape, set him in the chair, and bad 
God speed unto him ; hence, though submission and 
penance might reconcile the other Clergy, yet nothing 
less than utter deprivation and loss of their sacerdotal 
honours could atone for such." m It was argued, by 
the supporters of the government, that the rejection of 
the interference of the state in this case involved also 
the rejection of the proceedings with the Bishops, who 
were deprived at the Reformation. This argument 
is met in the present work at considerable length. 
The author alludes to the Book of Common Prayer, 
which was duly and lawfully set forth by Parliament 



k See these Canons, in Unity of Priesthood, pp. 67 70. 
1 Ibid, p. 11. Ibid, 18. 



140 1i?t0torj> of ttje 

and by convocation : so that on this ground the Ro- 
mish Bishops were lawfully deprived for noncom- 
pliance. Other reasons are adduced to prove, that 
the cases of the Bishops, at the Reformation and at 
the Revolution, were not by any means parallel." 

There is, I think, evidence even in this volume in 
support of the view which I have frequently ex- 
pressed, namely, that notwithstanding some scruples 
respecting the Prayers for the Sovereigns, and the 
Petitions on Fast and Thanksgiving days, the Clergy 
would have complied, if the Oath had not been im- 
posed. Thus he says : "I have freely delivered my 
thoughts concerning this subject, insomuch that if 
you and others will but seriously reflect and consider 
what hath been offered thereon from authentic and 
undeniable testimonies, you may readily perceive 
the reason why so many of us at present refuse the 
communion of the new Bishops and perform our 
devotions separate by ourselves, under the presidency 
of our old ones. The communion itself was difficult 
(if at all tolerable) before the rent was made : for 
how could we make him our enemy, or pray that 
God would confound his devices, whom we durst not 
lift up our hands against, nor so much as curse, no 
not in our thoughts ? This was the difficulty we 
laboured under then, and should we now any longer 
consent and communicate with them, seeing they 
have cut themselves off from their lawful Bishops 
and turned subjects to those that have usurped their 
thrones, we should unavoidably involve ourselves in 
their schism." 



n Unity of Priesthood, 40 50. 

Ibid, 55, 56. The author of The Hereditary Right alludes 
to previous periods, when, on a change of government, only the 
great men, who held lands upon secular services, as he thinks, 



of tlj* $lonjuror0. 141 

Hody, as before mentioned, laboured to prove, from 
his ancient MS, that no separation ever took place 
from a new Bishop, even though uncanonically in- 
troduced, unless he was guilty of schism. This 
position is controverted by the author, who argues 
that a new Bishop must not only be orthodox in the 
faith, but canonically introduced into a vacant see, 
that is a see vacant, according to the Canons of the 
Church. p 

It is singular, that Watt should make so many 
mistakes, in his laborious and most valuable work, 
" The Bibliotheca Britannica" respecting the writ- 
ings of the Nonjurors. He very properly attributes 
the account of the MS to Hody : but he also makes 
him the author of the reply, " The Unity of the Priest- 
hood." This is an absurdity, the two works being in 
opposition to each other. Watt makes another sin- 
gular mistake, in ascribing Hickes's first volume of 
Tracts, " The Bibliotheca Scriptorum, $c." to Gandy, 
though the author's name appears on the title page. 

Hody replied to the author of the " Unity of Priest- 
hood," in " A Letter to a Friend Concerning the Ox- 
ford Treatise against Schism. 4to. 1692." 

One of the most learned of the Nonjurors, and in- 
deed one of the most learned men of that, or of any 
other period, Henry Dodwell, now came forward in 
this controversy. Before, however, I notice his works, 
a brief account of his history to the period in ques- 
tion is necessary. q 

took the Oaths. He says: " Had the Clergy of England enjoyed 
this privilege at the time of the late Revolution ; near four hundred 
of them had quietly continued in the possession of their livings, 
of which they were for no other reason deprived but because they 
were Nonjurors." Pp. 71, 72. 

P Unity of Priesthood, 5861. 

q We have the most unexceptionable testimony to Dod well's 



142 l(0tocp of tlje 

Dodwell was resident at Oxford, as Camdenian 
Lecturer, at the Revolution. At an early period, he 
endeavoured to prevent persons from taking the Oath 
of Allegiance to the new Sovereigns. As some in- 
dividuals imagined, that the Oath only required them 
to live peaceably under the new government, without 
attempting to disturb the Revolution settlement, Dod- 
well came forward in " A Cautionary Discourse of 
Schism with a particular regard to the case of the 
Bishops who are suspended for refusing to take the 
new Oath." At that time he hoped to prevent the 
deprivation of the Bishops. With respect to the 
Oath, he argued that it pledged the parties, who took 
it, never to do any thing to promote the cause of the 
King de jure. This, he said, was the view of the 
loyalists in the time of Cromwell, who could not take 
the Oaths which were then adopted. His great 
anxiety, therefore, was that the Oath should not be 
imposed, foreseeing that a schism must inevitably 
arise, should such be the case. His main points in the 
" Cautionary Discourse" were these ; that neither the 
state, nor their fellow Bishops could deprive them of 
their spiritual characters, and that they could not be 
deprived by a Synod, since the Bishops, who would be 

talents in Calamy's Account of his residence in Oxford. " I had 
also, while at Oxford, frequent and familiar conversation with the 
celebrated Mr. Henry Dodwell, certainly as great a master of the 
historical part of learning as mostmen." Calamy says that he wished 
to ingross the conversation to himself; that this was disliked : " but 
it suited my purpose well enough, who aimed at nothing by being 
in his company, but the getting some benefit from his great read- 
ing. I soon discovered his usual time of being at the coffee house, 
and would often contrive to be there, that I might have his com- 
pany." He remarks that he was pleased when difficulties were 
proposed: " upon starting anything of this kind, he would pour 
out a flood of learning with great freedom." Calamy's Life, i. 
281, 282. 



of t&e ^onjutor0. 143 

judges, bad become responsible to the laws of the 
land and the Canons of the Church, for deserting the 
doctrine of passive obedience. He closes with an 
address to the complying Bishops, to prevent a schism 
in the Church/ In his letter to Tillotson he had 
argued, that the appointment of new Bishops would 
be to erect altar against altar : and that they would 
be cut off from communion with the Church.* 

When the time came for taking the Oath he re- 
fused : consequently he was deprived of his post at 
Oxford. He obtained the following certificate of his 
removal from the Vice-chancellor. " Nov. 19, 1691. 
These are to certify whom it may concern, that Mr. 
Henry Dodwell was dismissed from the Camdenian 
Lecture of History in Oxford, for not taking the Oath 
of Allegiance to their Majesties King William and 
Queen Mary, as the statute requireth. Jonathan 
Edwards, Vice-chancellor of Oxon." 1 He did not 
separate from the Parish Churches until the new 
Bishops were actually appointed, though he had a dif- 
ficulty in saying Amen to some of the prayers, which, 
however, he did not consider a sufficient ground for 
separation. But when other Bishops were placed in 
the Sees of the deprived Prelates, he quitted the 
communion of the Church. Looking upon the new 
Bishops as secundi, and consequently nulli, he could 
not hold communion with them. He regarded them 
as schismatics, who had intruded into sees not canoni- 



r Dodwell's Life, pp. 225234. "Mr. Dodwell first published 
his Cautionary Discourse of Schism, upon the suspension of Arch- 
bishop Bancroft and his six suffragans, with a particular regard to 
their case, and with a design to prevent if possible the new conse- 
crations." Kettlewell's Life, 126. 

s Dodwell's Life, 220. 

* Ibid. 221. 



144 ^tgtorp of rije 

cally vacant : so that, in his opinion, the Nonjuring 
Bishops retained their authority, and might challenge 
their rights. He was one of the most powerful advo- 
cates of the party : and having been so long prac- 
tised in controversy, he was well qualified for the 
work. Accordingly he made his appearance against 
Hody and the Baroccian MS. U 

Dodwell first assails the MS. for the want of an- 
tiquity, since it was not written before the thirteenth 
century, and was consequently too late as an evidence 
of facts. He then comes to Hody's principle, that 
no separation was allowed even though Bishops were 
unjustly deprived. All the cases are examined by 
Dodwell with his usual ability. A brief account of 
his arguments is also given in his Life. w Dodwell 
built a good deal on the fact, that the deprived 
Bishops asserted their rights, and challenged the 
duty of the people. He also contended that, on St. 
Cyprian's principles, Bishops placed in sees vacant 
only by the authority of the secular magistrate, were 
not only schismatics, but nulli. He even charges 
the new Bishops with heresy, on the ground that 
they justified their schism by principles. " When 
it is defended by principles, it turns into false doc- 
trine." 1 In considering the Canons suppressed by 

u A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, asserting their spiritual 
rights against a lay deprivation, against the charge of Schism as 
managed by the editors of an anonymous Baroccian MS. In Two 
Parts. I. Shewing that though the instances collected in the said 
MS. had been pertinent to the editor's design, yet that would not 
have been sufficient for obtaining their cause. II. Shewing that the 
Instances there collected are indeed not pertinent to the editor's 
design, for indicating the validity of the deprivation of spiritual 
power by a lay-authority. London, 4to. 1692. 

w Dodweil's Life, pp. 23553. 

x Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. p. 24. 



of tf)e ^ortjurorg. 145 

Hody, he remarks, that the lay deprivations must be 
condemned if they are admitted. 

Hody published " A Reply to Dodwell," in which 
the usual arguments are re-stated, with others which 
had been suggested by the Vindication. 7 From some 
cause, Dodwell did not again come forward for two 
years ; so that the question between these eminent 
individuals may be reserved for further consideration 
in another chapter. 

Kettlewell also took a prominent part in this 
controversy. In the year 1692 he published his 
" Christian Communion," in which the questions at 
issue between the Nonjurors and their opponents are 
elaborately discussed. 2 It appeared first as a sepa- 
rate work, and was reprinted with his collected works 
in 1719. Much was said by the Nonjurors of im- 
moral prayers ; and Kettlewell argues for the sepa- 
ration, on the ground, that it was the duty of faithful 
Bishops and Pastors to provide the means of wor- 



y The case of the sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical de- 
privation stated, in answer to a piece entitled A Vindication of the 
deprived Bishops : together with several pamphlets published as 
answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 4to, 1693. 

z Of Christian communion to be kept in the unity of Christ's 
Church, and among the professors of truth and holiness ; and of 
the obligations both of faithful Pastors, to administer orthodox 
and holy offices, and of faithful people, to communicate in the 
same. Fitted for persecuted, or divided, or corrupt states of 
Churches : when they are either borne down by secular persecu- 
tions, or broken with schisms, or defiled with simple offices and 
ministrations, 4to. 1692. Also in his works, vol. ii. p. 471. Ket- 
tlewell published two very valuable devotional forms, " A Com- 
panion for the Persecuted, or an Office for those who suffer 
for Righteousness, containing particular Prayers and Devotions 
for particular Graces, and for their Private or Public Wants and 
Occasions." And " A Companion for the Penitent, and for Per- 
sons troubled in Mind," &c. 



146 ^(gtocg of ttie 

ship for the people free of immoral prayers, though 
they cannot prevent immoral practices. The force 
of state deprivations : the royal supremacy : schism, 
with other points, are discussed at great length. 
Respecting the ordination of Anti-bishops, his opi- 
nions did not differ materially from DodwelFs : for 
on quoting St. Cyprian's dictum, that an Anti- 
bishop was no Bishop, he says : " But however it 
might be in the opinion of St. Cyprian and the 
African Church of that age, the Africans carrying 
the effect of schism farther than others, to the nulling 
of their baptisms and ordinations : I think this nulling 
of all ordinations of opposite or Anti-bishops, or making 
them null in themselves, is no Catholic doctrine, nor 
did the Church tye itself thereto, or proceed thereby in 
other ages." After alluding to the Novatian schism, he 
remarks : " Excepting St. Cyprian, and the Africanes, 
whom St. Basil notes to have strained the effects of 
schism too far, and to have outshot the mark in these 
points ; though there were Anti-bishops, the Catholic 
Church did not look upon them, and the Priests or- 
dained by them as mere laymen, or null their ordi- 
nations, baptisms, or other Church ministrations." 
It was on this ground that Dodwell acted subse- 
quent to the death of Lloyd. Kettle well admits that 
the people, though not the Clergy, may resort to the 
communion of the Anti-bishops, when they cannot 
communicate with the rightful Bishops. After pro- 
posing the question, he replies : " I hope they may, 
and that the necessity of having public worship and 
ministerial offices, will excuse the faultiness and 
obliquity of having it at the hands of one communi- 
cating in a schism, or out of the unity of the Church." a 



Works, vol. ii- 6'21, 6'22, 635. 



of tfje ^onjurot% 147 

God, he says, permits what he calls abatements of 
duties in cases of necessity : " He has not required 
that man should stick so fast to those duties, or parts 
of duties, which are inferior, or subservient, or ap- 
pendages unto others ; as that for their sakes they 
should drop other duties, which are principal or 
superior to them. So that to think he will abate 
and relax something of the duty of Church union, 
when that is necessary to keep on the more important 
duty of public ministrations : and that he doth not 
tye the people up to such strict state of communi- 
cating in the unity of the Church, as must drop or 
let fall all communion in ministerial offices, when 
they are not to be had, but at the hands of those who 
minister in breach thereof: is only to think that he 
is ready to make the same equitable allowance on 
any competition in these, as he doth on like compe- 
tition, in other duties." 5 He then cites certain in- 
stances from the Old Testament : after which he 
remarks : " It did the same in our own great rebel- 
lion, when our Bishops were all driven out and de- 
posed with the King. For then the orthodox took 
up with the communion of the Parish Churches, and 
thought, that for the sake of public worship and 
ministerial offices, they might do so, where they had 
no ministers of their own to communicate with. So 
that in the opinion of those, our ancestors, it was a 
good excuse for having divine offices in such assem- 
blies, when they could have better no where else. 
Lastly, this necessity of having some ministerial 
offices is generally thought to legitimate communion in 
those Churches which have no Bishops. They must 
have some divine service and religion. And if they 

11 Works, &c. 639. 



148 ^tgtorp of t^e 

can have no ministration thereof in an Episcopal 
communion, they must take up with it from such 
other as they can have." This principle he applies 
only to the people, but on the same ground he thinks, 
that the Clergy may in cases of necessity minister 
" without episcopal powers."' 

A distinction is drawn between Rome and the 
Church of England. He argues the impossibility of 
communicating with Rome, because she imposes a 
compliance with her corruptions as a condition of 
partaking in the sound portions of her offices. He 
remarks that " The necessity of having ministerial 
offices, as it will excuse the faultiness of meeting 
with those who are in a schism : so, I conceive, will 
excuse men too in bearing with these corrupt matters 
and immoral additions, whilst they can be allowed 
sufficiently to signifie and express their dissent from 
them. " c With respect to public fasts or thanks- 
givings he says : " It is insincere for those, who 
abhor that design which they are appointed to carry 
on, to afford their presence, or meet at them. But 
I think it is not so with any particular passages and 
petitions, in the ordinary devotions, at other times." 1 

Another extract will be acceptable, inasmuch as 
it proves that Kettlewell acted with great modera- 
tion, and that his opinions differed from those of 
Hickes and his friends at a later period. " And 
thus, I think, it may appear both how careful we 
ought to be in shunning the communion of Anti- 
bishops and their schismatical adherents, when we 
have other opportunities : and how, for the benefit of 
some ministerial offices, we may be at liberty to take 
up with them, when we can have the same from none 

c Works, vol. ii. 643, 648 650. d Ibid. 652. 



of tfje jponjttrorg* 149 

else. Yea, for all they happen at any time to have 
made an addition of immoral mixtures to a body of 
otherwise good and sufficient prayers, if we openly 
and sufficiently express our dislike, and standing off 
from them, whilst we as openly concur and join in 
others." Some persons pleaded a zeal against Popery 
for complying with the new order of things. Kettle- 
well, who was as much opposed to Popery as any 
who complied, remarks : " The zeal against Popery, 
is given out often in these latter days, of the world, 
to go furthest in blinding many. But though Popery, 
on account of the many dangerous errors and un- 
lawful practices thereof, is a most dangerous religion : 
yet must they be a strange sort of religious persons 
who can think nothing but Popery will endanger 
them. And I beg all such as are in earnest for the 
salvation of their souls, to consider that it is as 
wretched a part, both of folly and wickedness, to 
throw away their souls in any immoral or otherwise 
unlawful ways, to keep out Popery : as it would be 
to throw them away in turning to it." e These ex- 
tracts show that Kettle well's views were more mode- 
rate than those of Collier, Hickes, and other leaders 
in the schism. 

There was scarcely a controversy of that period, in 
which Stillingfleet, the great controversialist of the 
age, did not take a part. I have already alluded to 
several of his treatises : but his views of the Oath of 
Allegiance and the Prayers are perhaps no where 
more fully and distinctly stated, than in the following 
extracts. 

In a sermon intended for the Thanksgiving in 1694 
he says : " But there are many persons among us 

e Works, 654, 655. 



150 ^tetorp of ttje 

who are still, as they say, unsatisfied in point of con- 
science as to this government, and therefore cannot 
join with us on such days as this, nor in the public 
offices of devotion in our Church." After quoting 
Mezeray respecting one of the Revolutions in France, 
" that when God designs to change the government 
of a nation, he strangely disposes the minds of the 
people to it ;" he adds : " I do not think this a 
sufficient reason : because the people may change 
their opinions without reason : but when this is 
joined with other circumstances, of an injured prince, 
a just war, unexpected success, a public design against 
religion and liberties, no means left for any farther 
securing of them, but a wilful leaving the nation and 
government to shift for themselves, then the free con- 
sent of the people in such a way as it can be had, is 
of very great moment and consideration." He touches 
the two questions of the Deprivations and the Public 
Offices. He remarks that the Bishops refused to act 
when invited to do so, and that the separation was 
groundless. " Here, says he, was no such force as 
was used in St. Chrysostom's case, when he was 
taken from his see, and by a guard of soldiers was 
hurried from place to place, till he was wearied out 
of his life. Here were no such violent proceedings 
as in the cases of Euphemius, Macedonius, Elias and 
others. Nothing required of them contrary to Scrip- 
ture, Fathers, and Councils, or the Articles of our 
Church : nothing but what the law required as a 
security to the present government : and if their con- 
sciences were not satisfied as to the giving of that, 
they might have retired and lived quietly. But why 
a separation ? Where is there any precedent of this 
kind in the whole Christian Church, viz. of a poli- 



of ttje /ponjurot# 151 

tical schism, where all the offices of religion are the 
same : only some are deprived for not doing what 
the law of the land requires : i. e. they rather chose 
to lose their places than to do their duties ; which is 
a very new ground of separation, and utterly unknown 
to the Christian Church." He thus alludes to the 
other question : " As to the public Offices of the 
Church, with respect to their Majesties, I can find 
no one instance, in the Greek or Latin Church, where 
these were scrupled to be used with respect to those 
who were in actual possession of the throne by the 
providence of God, and consent of the people. And 
I have this plain evidence against it, that nothing 
more than these is put into the Offices themselves." ' 
Elsewhere he remarks, " It is said by a learned 
Greek ritualist, that their prayers for the Emperors 
were to be used, whether they came to the throne by 
succession, election, or revolution. That in case of 
any doubt concerning different persons, the prayers 
were made for those who were in actual possession 
by the providence of God." g 

A strong pamphlet was published at this period, 
entitled " Querela Temporum, or The Danger of the 
Church of England." The writer's aim was to induce 
the belief, that the danger from Presbytery, at that 
time, was as great as the danger of Popery, prior to 
the Revolution. Many acts of the government, such 
as the setting aside episcopacy in Scotland, and the 
promotion of men of latitudinarian principles, are 
adduced. It does not appear that any effect was 
produced by this work. Ralph says : " How 



f Stillingfleet's Miscellaneous Discourses, 432 436. 
8 Ibid. 418. 



152 11?i0torp of ttje 

earnestly and sincerely soever they laboured to 
render it effectual, it had not the desired effect : the 
Clergy, satisfied that their rents and revenues were 
safe, had no inclination to countenance any such 
measure as might perhaps really endanger them." h 
The pamphlet was probably written by Hickes. ! 

h Ralph, ii. 533. 

1 This work contains some singular particulars respecting the 
state of Episcopacy and Presbytery in Scotland. It is evident 
that the majority of the people in many parts, and especially the 
upper classes, were Episcopalians. Yet some persons pretend, 
that the country, with a few exceptions, was Presbyterians. 




CHAPTER V. 



A. D. 16941701-2. 

TILLOTSON'S DEATH. HICKES'S REMARKS ON BURNET AND TIL- 
LOTSON. ATTACKS ON THE ARCHBISHOP. ON BURNET. 
FUND FOR THE RELIEF OF THE NONJURING CLERGY. PRO- 
CEEDINGS OF THE GOVERNMENT. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE 

DEPRIVED BISHOPS. THE ABSOLUTION OF PERKINS AND 

FRIEND BY COLLIER, COOK, AND SNATT. WORKS ON THE 
SUBJECT. SIR JOHN FENWICK. DEATH OF BISHOP WHITE. 
THE SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE. DODWELL AND HODY. 
DEATH OF BISHOP TURNER. DEATH OF KING JAMES. 
OATH OF ABJURATION. DEATH OF KING WILLIAM. 

RCHBISHOP Tillotson, the successor of 
Bancroft, died shortly after his excellent 
predecessor in 1694. Tillotson was a 
man of no ordinary character : but, from 
his position as Archbishop of Canterbury at such a 
period of excitement, he was exposed to severe anim- 
adversions from the Nonjurors, who regarded him as 
the leader of a schism in the Anglican Church. It 
must, however, be confessed, that Tillotson 's views 
of ecclesiastical matters were what were termed lati- 
tudinarian. In this work, it is no part of my business 
to enter into particulars respecting those persons, 
who complied at the Revolution, except so far as it 
may be necessary for the purpose of throwing light 
on the subject, of which I am treating. Consequently 
I shall not be expected to give an account of Tillot- 
son's life. It will be sufficient to confine myself to 




154 %'0torj? of tje -(ionfurow, 

those points, which are immediately connected with 
the Nonjurors. 

Soon after the Archbishop's decease, Burnet pub- 
lished the sermon which he had preached on occa- 
sion of his funeral. This was a signal for renewed 
attacks upon the Bishops and Clergy, for their com- 
pliance with the new order of things. Hickes was 
perhaps the most severe in his animadversions, which 
must be regarded with some suspicion, since they 
proceeded from a man, to whom the Archbishop, 
in consequence of the line which he had taken, was 
most obnoxious. I am, however, inclined to think, 
that the severe remarks were partly called forth by 
the strain of panegyric, in which the preacher so 
largely indulged. " Burnet,' 1 says Ralph, " preached 
his funeral sermon ; and the character he gave of 
the deceased (severely true, as he declares it was, 
and rather less than larger than the life) together 
with the overflow of rancour, which in the same 
breath he rashly discharged against the deprived 
clergy, drew both on the dead and the living as 
severe invectives : according to the preacher, Til- 
Jotson was a man whose life was free from blemishes, 
was shining in all the parts of it, was an example of 
all sublime and heroical piety and virtue, and a pat- 
tern both to Church and State : according to those 
who answered him, supposing these things to be 
true, they were not to be admitted on the authority 
of him who delivered them : according to them, 
Burnet had no authority, and Tillotson's life abounded 
more with blemishes than beauties : and the truth of 
the matter is, that prejudice was equally predominant 
on both sides." a Undoubtedly Tillotson was a man 



Ralph, ii. 535, 536. 



of tfte ^onjurorg* 155 

of high character ; but on Church matters his opinions 
were extremely lax. That the invectives of Hickes 
were unjust may be admitted, without involving an 
approval of all the praises of Burnet. 

Some of Hickes's statements are extremely curious. 
For example, we are told, that Burnet was once 
turned out of the house by Dr. Dove, for arguing too 
warmly in favour of the Oath, though the latter had 
complied. Hickes remarks of Scott and Dove, that 
they were men of a different stamp from Burnet, who, 
having experienced a difficulty themselves respecting 
the Oath, retained a tender compassion for those who 
refused. It was alleged, that some of the complying 
Clergy acted very unkindly towards the sufferers, 
especially in preventing their private meetings, and 
in suppressing their books. According to Hickes, 
many of their books were actually destroyed. " There 
must," says he, " be something formidable in their 
writings, and some reasonings in them which these 
men of latitude cannot well answer, that they use so 
much diligence to suppress them, at a time when 
atheists, heretics, and republicans print and publish 
what they please, with little or no molestation." He 
prints a paper containing an account of the seizure, 
by the government, during the years 1692, 1693, 
and 1695, of five printing presses, with a consider- 
able number of pamphlets. The titles of several of 
the works, which were seized and suppressed, are 
given by Hickes, together with a list of books, which, 
as he states, had not been answered. The circum- 
stance shews, that the government acted with consi- 
derable severity : they would not permit the Non- 
jurors to publish their reasons for non-compliance. 
Anderton, whose case has been already mentioned, 
was one of the printers. 



156 ^tetorp of t|)e 

That many of the Clergy of the Revolution were 
latitudinarian in their opinions, is, as we have seen, 
admitted by Mr. Hallam, than whom a more un- 
exceptionable witness could not be adduced. This 
charge is strongly urged by Hickes against Burnet. 
In his sermon, Burnet had said, that Tillotson left 
men to use their own discretion in small matters. 
Hickes, commenting on this assertion, states, that the 
Archbishop was accustomed to administer the Lord's 
Supper to some persons sitting, and that especially a 
certain lady of Dr. Owen's congregation was so ac- 
customed to receive it in the chapel of Lincoln's Inn : 
that he walked round the chapel, administering the 
elements first to those who were seated in their pews, 
and then to those who were kneeling at the rails, not, 
however, going within himself, but standing without. 
This was a direct breach of the order of the Church, 
and may be regarded as an evidence of the extent of 
latitudinarian practices. It seems that Tillotson did 
not stand alone in this particular : for Hickes asserts, 
that the Bishop of St. Asaph adopted the same prac- 
tice, at Kidder's church, in administering the Lord's 
Supper to Dr. Bates, and other nonconformists. 5 When 
we contemplate such proceedings on the part of men 
high in station in the Church, we cannot close our 
eyes to the fact, that the latitudinarian principles, 
which prevailed to a considerable extent after the 
Revolution, did really place the Church in some 
danger. By the good providence of God, however, 
the Clergy in general were actuated by purer notions: 
and within a few years the danger was averted. 



b Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, occa- 
sioned by the Funeral Sermon of the Former upon the Latter. 
4to. 1695. Preface, and pp. 72, 73. 



of tfK ^onjurorg* 157 

It was not unnatural for the Nonjurors to form 
harsh views of Tillotson, viewing him as they did as 
an intruder into the place of Sancroft, whom they 
regarded as a confessor : but in some of their pro- 
ductions they over-stepped the bounds of truth and 
justice, to such an extent, that they injured their own 
cause. Thus the charge of Socinianism was alleged 
shortly after the Archbishop's death a charge of a 
most unfounded description, though, undoubtedly, 
Tillotson's latitudinarian notions on many subjects 
appeared to afford some colour for the allegation. 
One work in particular, supposed to have been written 
by Leslie, abounded in severe and unfounded remarks 
on this subject. At a later period, after Birch had 
published his very laudatory Life of the Archbishop, 
all the old charges were revived by Smith, in his 
Remarks on that production. An account of Smith 
and his writings will be found in a subsequent chap- 
ter; but this is the proper place for alluding to his 
work on the Archbishop. It is a most severe and 
unjust attack upon Tillotson's memory. While Birch's 
work partakes of the character of Burnet's Sermon, 
Smith's volume resembles in its bitterness the ani- 
madversions of Hickes. His censures on the Arch- 
bishop, for entering upon the see of Sancroft, may 
be pardoned in a Nonjuring writer; but no excuse 
can be pleaded for the severity which is displayed, 
in almost every page, against a kind and amiable man. 
Some of Smith's works were distinguished for can- 
dour and good temper ; but, in speaking of Tillotson, 
he forgets himself so far as to indulge in very great 

c The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tiliotson considered, 
&c. By a true Son of the Church of England, 4to. 1 695. Birch's 
Life of Tillotson, 322324. 



158 ^tetocj of tfce jjionfucorg. 

bitterness. Birch's was a very partial and a very 
prejudiced production ; yet, neither the work itself, 
nor the Archbishop, merited the treatment which they 
received from Smith. Some of Tillotson's views and 
practices were justly liable to censure ; but no justi- 
fication can be pleaded for the acrimony and personal 
abuse, with which the Remarks abound. Probably 
there was some foundation for Smith's charge, that 
Tillotson recommended the abolition of episcopacy 
in Scotland : but he further alleges that the Arch- 
bishop would also have sacrificed it in England, if 
the Revolution could not have been completed without 
its destruction. In some things Birch, who was ever 
ready to throw out insinuations and reflections against 
the Nonjurors, is subjected to deserved castigation. 
One of Birch's charges is thus indignantly, but justly 
repelled by the author : " he brings a charge against 
the non-swearing Clergy, which is most injurious and 
false : that they hoped and wished the alterations in 
the Liturgy might have been made by the convoca- 
tion, that they might have been furnished with more 
specious pretences for a separation. For the Arch- 
bishop and Bishops of that communion did not sepa- 
rate at all from the Church of England, either in 
doctrine, worship, or government. It is, therefore, 
a calumny to assert, that they hoped and wished for 
the alterations, since they did all they could to put a 
stop to such a dangerous project : and they used their 
strongest interest and the best arguments they could 
think of with the more orthodox part of the comply- 
ing Clergy, who never betrayed their order, and were 
against comprehending away the Church, and re- 
tained a very tender respect for their old brethren, 
and wished they might come again to communion 



of ttie /Ponfurovg, 159 

with them." d Smith's statement is strictly true, and 
Birch must be regarded as a calumniator of the de- 
prived Bishops and Clergy, in imputing to them such 
a wish. It is an undoubted fact, that they used their 
utmost exertions to prevent the contemplated altera- 
tions. 

Burnet's conduct was, in many respects, as will be 
gathered from a preceding chapter, more open to 
animadversion than Tillotson's : and his Funeral 
Sermon on the Archbishop was the occasion of re- 
newed attacks upon him, for the part he had acted in 
the Revolution. He had formerly preached strongly 
against the power of the people, and in favour of 
non-resistance. " Less disorder," said he on one 
occasion, " was to be apprehended from the preten- 
sions of the Roman Bishops, than from those maxims 
of judging and controlling the magistrate, and which 
opened a door to endless confusion, and set every 
private person in the throne." To these passages 
from his own writings, " they opposed," says Ralph, 
" his own practice in persuading the Princess of 
Orange to the unnatural invasion of her father's 
crown. 1 ' 6 Thus, we are told, " he was engaged in aid 
of the deepest and most heinous treason, that subject 
ever was engaged in : I mean in persuading the 
Princess of Orange to consent to the unnatural inva- 
sion of her father's kingdom, by the Prince, which 
then was resolved upon, and with him to take his 
crown, if the invasion should succeed. This he 



d Remarks upon the Life of the Most Reverend Dr. John Til- 
lotson, compiled by Thomas Birch, D.D. 8vo. London 1754. pp. 
45, 79, 80. 

e Ralph, ii. 536. 



160 ^igtorp of tfce 

thought so meritorious and honourable a piece of 
service, that soon after he came to London, he could 
not deny himself the satisfaction of telling some friends 
that he was the man pitched upon to break the de- 
sign of deposing the King her father, to her Royal 
Highness, two years before the Revolution : and that 
he gained her consent upon condition, that the Prince 
might assume the royal power with her, and be 
crowned with her. He told it to this purpose in the 
Deanery House of St. Paul's, and for the truth of it 
I appeal to the then Dean of that Church, I mean 
Dr. Stillingfleet, and to the worthy Bishop of Peter- 
borough, I mean Dr. White, who was present, when 
he spoke to that eifect." f Hickes is undoubtedly 
more severe on Burnet, than truth and justice re- 
quired ; but it cannot be denied, that the Bishop was 
too much of a partizan to be an honest actor in such 



f Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, &c. &c. 
pp. 12, 13. Some curious particulars of Burnet, though of a dif- 
ferent description, are given in this work by Hickes. In the year 
1673, he published " A Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, 
and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland," with a Dedica- 
tion of a highly laudatory character to the Duke of Lauderdale. 
A large number of copies was sold by the author to Moses Pitt. 
Some time after, Burnet quarrelled with the Duke, on which ac- 
count he requested Pitt to cancel the Dedication in the unsold 
copies. Pitt replied that he could not sell an imperfect as a perfect 
book. Burnet, therefore, received the unsold copies again, and 
they were afterward circulated in a mutilated form : so that when 
Hickes wrote in 1695 it was difficult to meet with a perfect copy. 
Ibid. p. 19. At present the book is met with in both states, some 
copies having the Dedication, others being destitute of it. It is 
singular that Burnet' s Work on the Articles, the work by which 
perhaps he is best known, should have been condemned by the 
Lower House of Convocation, on the ground that it encouraged 
diversities of opinions, which the Articles were especially intended 
to prevent. His ** Own Times " is a work full of gossip : but he 
did a service to the Church in his " History of the Reformation." 



of ttje jponftum% 161 

times as those, in which he lived. He was unchari- 
table towards the Nonjurors, who on their part re- 
garded him as a man of no principle. His predilec- 
tions for the Prince of Orange were so strong, that 
on some occasions, in his zeal for William, he ap- 
pears almost to have lost the sense of right and wrong. 
Calamy states, that there were only five Nonjurors in 
Burnet's diocese, a circumstance which he conceives 
redounds to the Bishop's credit. Calamy mentions 
Martin, who was continued in his living though he 
refused the Oath : Spinkes, who was permitted to 
serve his parish by a curate : Jones, who was allowed 
to nominate his successor : Dickson, who died shortly 
after the period fixed for the deprivation : and Beale, 
who retained his living two years after ihejirst of 
February 1690. 8 It certainly happened, that there 
were fewer Clergymen, who refused the Oaths in the 
diocese of Salisbury, than in some others : but this 
circumstance cannot be attributed to the Bishop's in- 
fluence, or to the affection of the Clergy for his lord- 
ship : for it is certain, that he was very unpopular 
with many. There were, however, more than five 
Clergymen in the diocese of Sarum, who refused the 
Oath : nor is Calamy 's account of Burnet's lenity in 
the cases already cited to be depended on. The 
Bishop was not lenient with the Nonjurors. His dis- 
like to them was too strong to permit him to connive 
at their remaining in their livings, after the period 
fixed by the Act of Parliament for their deprivation. 
In many other dioceses they were kindly treated by 
the Bishops, though in none were they permitted to 
hold their livings, after they had refused the Oath. 
Indeed, the Bishops had no such power : for when the 

g Calamy 's Abridgement. 
M 



162 ^tetorp of tlje 

appointed day arrived, the patrons were at liberty to 
present other Clerks for institution. 

We have seen, that the Nonjurors, both Bishops 
and Clergy, suffered the loss of all things, rather 
than act against their consciences. Worldly sub- 
stance, honours, station all were given up by these 
truly devoted men. Their conduct, throughout their 
whole career, is a triumphant answer to the flippant 
charge of a popish leaning. Had such been the 
case they would have taken the Oath, in order that 
they might secretly promote their own designs. But 
they resorted to no unworthy arts. They were con- 
tent to suffer in what they deemed a righteous cause. 
Their sufferings and self denial are little known to 
the public, because no chronicler has yet been found 
to gather up the scattered materials of this despised 
but interesting body. Calamy and others laud the 
patience of the ministers ejected in 1662 ; but their 
sufferings were in no case greater, while, in many 
instances, they were less, than those of the Non- 
jurors. There is, moreover, this striking difference 
between the two classes of sufferers. The ejected 
ministers did not suffer in silence : they raised their 
cry, and it was heard : they found numerous ad- 
vocates ; but the Nonjurors were left to themselves ; 
they endured their trials in silence and with meek- 
ness ; and few persons were found to afford them so 
much as their sympathy. 

Some even of the Bishops, men who had lived in 
honour and affluence, were reduced to the greatest 
extremities ; becoming dependent on the bounty of 
others ; though previous to the Revolution they pos- 
sessed an abundance. In some cases they were in a 
state of actual poverty : while in none did they pos- 
sess more than a mere pittance. Ken lived chiefly 



of; tlje ^onjurot% 163 

with his noble friends at Long-leat : and Bancroft had 
only a trifle to sustain him in his last days. The 
Primate of the Anglican Church, who had been the 
occupier of more than one Palace, was brought to 
end his days in a cottage. In the time of Queen 
Elizabeth the Deprived Romish Bishops were pro- 
vided for ; but in the case of the Nonjuring Prelates 
no provision was made by persons in authority. 

In January 1694-5 a plan for the relief of the 
suffering Clergy was devised by Mr. Kettlewell, by 
whom also a model was drawn up for the manage- 
ment of a fund, which was placed under the control 
of the^ Deprived Bishops, with such clergymen, as 
they might think proper to associate with them for 
its distribution. Something of the kind was rendered 
necessary by the indigent circumstances, in which 
they were placed. An inquiry was to be made re- 
specting the incomes of the deprived Clergy, as also 
their expenses ; but, to guard against pretenders, evi- 
dence was required, that the deprivations had taken 
place on account of the Oaths. It was thought, that 
by granting them relief, they would not be under the 
temptation of deserting the truth or acting dishonour- 
ably. There is a curious regulation respecting the 
Clergy in London. "The Clergy here who have no 
business, but stay in Town as the best place of gifts, 
may be sent into the counties, where they will be 
much better maintained at half the charge, and 
where they may do service. And others will have 
no excuse to spend most of their time in Coffee- 
Houses and hunting after gifts ; but when they are 
not employed in their holy functions, may follow 
their studies to improve themselves." All was managed 
with prudence so as not to give offence to the govern- 
ment. " In speaking of themselves, if they add an 



164 ^i0torg of tlje 

epithet, noting only the actual suffering and force 
they are under, but not the justice of it on one side 
or other, they would neither assert their titles to 
offend others, nor any ways forego or give them up 
to prejudice themselves." h 

Kettlewell died April 12, 1695, before the plan 
could be carried into effect. An account of his last 
moments is given in a letter to Nelson his Executor, 
by an individual who was present. He was resigned 
and cheerful in the prospect of entering the eternal 
world. Ken performed the Funeral Service over the 
grave of his friend in his episcopal robes, having also 
read the Evening Service, by permission of the minis- 
ter of the Parish. He was buried in the Parish Church 
of All-Hallows, near the Tower, and in the same grave, 
in which the body of Archbishop Laud had rested, 
from his death until the Restoration, when it was re- 
moved and deposited in the chapel of St. John's 
College, Oxon, of which he had been a member, and 
to which he was so liberal a benefactor. 1 

The plan, however, was sanctioned by the Deprived 
Prelates, who wrote the following letter in its recom- 
mendation : 

" To all Christian people, to whom this charitable 
recommendation shall be presented, Grace be to you, 
and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 

" Whereas, We, the present Deprived Bishops of 
this Church, have certain information that many of 
our deprived brethren of the clergy, with their 
wives, children, and families, are reduced to extreme 
want, and unable to support themselves, and their 



h Ibid. App. These extracts are from the model. 
1 KettlewelFs Works, i. 177, 187, and Appendix. 



of t&e ^onjucorg* 165 

several charges, without the charitable relief of pious 
and well-disposed Christians : and being earnestly 
moved by several of them to represent their distressed 
condition to the mercy and compassion of such ten- 
der-hearted persons, as are inclined to commiserate 
and relieve the afflicted servants of God. 

" Now We, in compliance with their intreaty, 
and with all due regard to their suffering circum- 
stances, have thought it our duty, (as far as in law 
we may) heartily to recommend their necessitous 
condition to all pious, good people : hoping and 
praying, that they will take their case into their 
serious consideration, and putting on the bowels of 
charity, extend their alms to them, and their needy 
families." 

" And we will not cease to pray for a blessing upon 
such their benefactors ; and remain in all Christian 
Offices, Yours, 



William, Bp. of Norwich 
Robert, Bp. of Gloucester 
Francis, Bp. of Ely 
Thomas, Bp. of Bath and Wells 
Thomas, Bp. of Peterborough 
July, 22, 1695." 



now 



Deprived k 



It might have been supposed, that no one could 
have been offended by this simple appeal to the sym- 
pathies of the affluent, in behalf of a body of peace- 
able sufferers for conscience sake. Yet the jealousy 

k Kettle well's Works, Life, 163, 169, and Appendix, xxv-vii. 
It seems not to have been an unusual thing to enter the private 
meetings of the Nonjurors. Thus, it is said, that Grascome was 
interrupted by a Messenger, while he was ministering to his little 
congregation in Scroop's Court, near St. Andrew's Church. Ralph, 
ii. 526. 



166 ^i^torp of tfje 

of the government was aroused by this proceeding on 
the part of the Bishops. The pious Ken was sum- 
moned before the Privy Council to answer certain 
interrogatories. He was asked, " Did you subscribe 
this Paper r He replied, " My Lords, I thank God 
I did, and it had a very happy effect : for the will of 
my blessed Redeemer was fulfilled ; and what we were 
not able to do ourselves, was done by others/' It was 
said by the council, " No one condemns charity, but 
the way you have taken to procure it : your Paper is 
illegal" This was an extraordinary charge ; and 
was thus met by Ken : "My Lords, I can plead to 
the Evangelical part : I am no lawyer, but shall want 
lawyers to plead that." He then states, that the pro- 
ject originated with Kettlewell, who was now de- 
ceased : that having signed it he retired to the 
country in an obscure village, " where I live above 
the suspicion of giving umbrage to the government." 
It was then objected by the council, that the money 
had been given to immoral men : "particularly to 
one, who goes in a gown one day, and in a blue silk 
wastcoat another " Ken remarked, that to give to 
an ill man might be a mistake, but not a crime. He 
stated also, that a thousand persons were imprisoned 
in his Diocese, after Monmouth's rebellion ; that he 
had relieved their wants ; and that King James had 
never complained of his conduct. They admitted, 
that they did not charge him individually with giving 
to improper persons, but that it had been done by 
others. But they add, " The Paper comes out with a 
pretence of authority, and it is illegal, and in the na- 
ture of a brief" Ken replied, that he was not pre- 
pared to argue the legal point. It was then pretended 
that the Bishops by their Paper had " usurped Eccle- 
siastical Jurisdiction." The Bishop replies to this 



of tfje ^onjuror^ 167 

strange charge : " My Lords, I never heard that beg- 
ging was a part of ecclesiastical jurisdiction : and in 
this Paper we are only beggars, which privilege I 
hope may be allowed us." 

Ken left the account behind him signed with his 
own name, and dated April 28 1696. k The govern- 
ment must have been under some very erroneous im- 
pression to pursue so singular a course. Nothing 
could have been more harmless than the plan adopted 
by the Bishops : and, therefore, I am convinced, that 
some prejudiced persons must have persuaded the 
authorities to take up the matter, and summon Ken 
to London to answer the interrogatories of the council. 
The Clergy were in a starving condition ; yet some 
persons were unwilling that the hand of charity 
should be opened for their relief. The council must 
have felt the reproof conveyed by the fact, that Ken 
had relieved the persons who had been implicated 
in Monmouth's rebellion, and that King James did 
not complain of his conduct. 

All the Bishops were in very narrow circumstances. 
This was especially the case with Turner, who was 
chiefly dependent on the charity of others. The man, 
who, by adhering to the new Sovereigns and taking 
the Oath, might have ended his days amidst an abun- 
dance of earthly blessings, was actually sustained, in 
his declining years, by the bounty of those who sym- 
pathized with him in his distresses. Yet this man 
was exposed, while living, to all kinds of charges : 
and after his death, his memory was traduced by a 
set of men, whose principles allowed them to adopt 
any line of conduct in support of their worldly in- 

k Hawkins's Short Account, pp. 48 56. Kettlewell. Appen- 
dix, pp. xxviii-ix. Biog. Brit. Art. Ken. 



168 %f0torp of ttie 

terest. There is something exceedingly painful in 
the fact, that men, who preferred a good conscience 
to a bishopric, should not only have been in poverty, 
but also maligned and traduced by many, whose 
principles changed with their circumstances. 

We now come to a singular circumstance, on the 
part of Collier, and some of his brethren. In the year 
1696, a plot was discovered against the life of King 
William : and Sir John Friend and Sir William Per- 
kins were brought to trial on a charge for being impli- 
cated in the conspiracy. These gentlemen were found 
guilty, and sentenced to death. At the place of execu- 
tion, Collier, Cook, and Snatt appeared on the platform 
with the criminals: and just previous to the completion 
of the sentence, Collier publicly absolved the parties, 
performing the ceremony with the imposition of 
hands. It struck many persons as strange,jrs, that 
absolution should have been granted under such cir- 
cumstances, and secondly, that the ceremony of im- 
position of hands, which was not practised by the 
Church of England, should have been used. 

So great an impression was made on the public 
mind by the circumstance, that the two Archbishops 
and ten Bishops published a declaration against the 
practice, intitled : " A Declaration of the Sense of 
the Archbishops and Bishops now in and about Lon- 
don upon the occasion of their attendance in Parlia- 
ment, concerning the irregular and scandalous pro- 
ceedings of certain clergymen, at the execution of 
Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins." The 
document is somewhat curious, as expressive of the 
opinions of the Bishops respecting the schism, which 
had now occurred. A paper or papers had been 
delivered by the criminals to the sheriffs, which were 
afterwards printed and circulated, and in which Sir 



of tf)0 ^onjurorg. 169 

John Friend speaks of the Church of the Nonjurors 
as the Church of England. The Bishops say, that 
they felt themselves obliged to express their sense of 
the conduct of the three clergymen. Alluding to Sir 
John Friend's expression, they remark of the Church 
of England, " that venerable name is, by the author 
of that paper, appropriated to that part of our Church 
which hath separated itself from the body ; and more 
particularly to a faction of them, who are so furiously 
bent upon the restoring of the late King> that they 
seem not to regard by what means it is to be ef- 
fected." His words were as follows : 

" I profess myself, and I thank God I am so, a 
member of the Church of England, though, God 
knows, a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it, 
of that Church which surfers so much at present, for 
a strict adherence to the laws and Christian prin- 
ciples. 

For this I suffer, and for this I die/' 

The Bishops add, that they conceive, that Sir Wil- 
liam Perkins used the term in the same sense, " be- 
ing assured (as we are by very good information) 
that both he and Sir John Friend had withdrawn 
themselves from our public assemblies some time 
before their death." They then proceed to arraign 
the conduct of the three clergymen, Collier, Snatt, 
and Cook : " For those clergymen, who took upon 
them to absolve these criminals at the place of exe- 
cution, by laying, all three together, their hands 
upon their heads, and publicly pronouncing a form 
of absolution ; as their manner of doing this was 
extremely insolent, and without precedent, either in 
our Church or any other that we know of, so the 
thing itself was altogether irregular. The rubric in 
our office of the Visitation of the Sick, from whence 



170 ^tetorp of tlje 

they took the words they then used, and upon which, 
if upon any thing in our Liturgy, they must ground 
this their proceeding, gave them no authority nor 
pretence for absolving these persons." They further 
state, that the rubric relates to sick persons who 
have made a confession ; while these clergymen ab- 
solved notorious criminals, without even moving them 
to make a special confession of their sins, the parties 
themselves not desiring absolution. It is alleged, 
that the Clergy, as they knew nothing of the state 
of mind in which the criminals were, could not ab- 
solve them, without a breach of the order of the 
Church. The Bishops also add, that the Clergy, if 
they were aware of the sentiments of the criminals 
declared in their papers, must have viewed them as 
hardened impcnitents, or martyrs. The Bishops con- 
sider the former supposition as quite out of the ques- 
tion : but they remark on the other, " If they held 
these men to be martyrs, then their absolving them 
in that manner was a justification of those grievous 
crimes for which these men suffered, and an open 
affront to the laws both of Church and State." The 
Bishops then add, that they were moved by a desire 
to prevent the Church from being misunderstood ; 
and that, therefore, " we disown and detest all such 
principles and practices ; looking upon them as highly 
schismatical and seditious, dangerous both to the 
Church and State, and contrary to the true doctrine 
and spirit of the Christian religion." 1 

It was to be supposed, that the government would 



1 State Tracts, vol. iii. 692-3. Ralph remarks, that among the 
Bishops " were Crew of Durham, Mew of Winchester, and Sprat 
of Rochester." Vol. ii. 646. These three Prelates had acted 
very inconsistently in the preceding reign. 



171 

not remain quiet, especially after such a document 
from the Bishops. Some of their advocates indeed 
charged the act as popish a very convenient charge 
at all times for what is disliked, or cannot be dis- 
proved. The act of the Bishops was made the ground 
of a proceeding against the three Clergymen. " In 
pursuance of this, the Court of King's Bench gave 
orders for an indictment against them, on the 7th of 
April following : and Mr. Cook and Mr. Snatt were 
committed to Newgate on suspicion of High Treason, 
and treasonable practices : but such was the lenity of 
the government, and his Grace of Canterbury's mo- 
deration, in interceding for the delinquents, that no 
manner of punishment was inflicted on them, and 
Mr. Collier was not so much as called in question, 
on account of his great endowments and parts, for 
justifying his practice in several printed papers." m 
In the present day we may feel surprise at this 
statement, as if the men had really been guilty of 
any crime, at which the government could justly take 
offence. 

Collier absconded, but Cook and Snatt were ad- 
mitted to bail. Collier refused to give bail, because 
he imagined that by doing so, he should acknowledge 
the government of King William. He was accord- 
ingly outlawed : and under this sentence he conti- 
nued, because he refused to submit He printed his 
" Case of Giving Bail," of which it was said, only 
five copies were struck off. If, therefore, he was 
not called to account, it was because he was not dis- 
covered. 

But though outlawed and living in retirement, 



m LifeofTennison, 60, 61. 



172 

Collier was not the man to remain silent. Soon after 
the appearance of Sir John Friend's paper, a Pam- 
phlet was published containing animadversions on 
that document, taking it in separate paragraphs. 11 
In the outset, the writer charges the authorship 
upon the three Clergymen. He grounds this charge 
on alleged internal evidence, arid on certain circum- 
stances, which in his opinion, rendered it impossible 
for Sir John Friend to write it. Sir John said, that 
the cause for which he suffered, was the cause of 
God and true religion. On his trial he had denied 
the charges alleged against him : and moreover 
proved by witnesses, that he had attended the church 
in which King William was prayed for. The author 
of The Letter, therefore, charges him with hypocrisy 
if he considered the cause of King James as the cause 
of God. He prayed for King James's restoration in 
the very paper given to the Sheriffs. 

Collier found means, in his retirement, to publish a 
defence of his conduct in the absolution of the two 
criminals at the place of execution. In an adver- 
tisement he states that Cook and Snatt " have been 
altogether unacquainted with, unconcerned in, and 
unconsenting to, the penning or publication of these 
two Papers." Whatever appearances may be, at first 
sight, against Collier, no one ought to come to a con- 



n A Letter to the Three Absolvers, Mr. Cook, Mr. Collier, and 
Mr. Snatt, being reflections on the Papers delivered by Sir John 
Friend, and Sir William Parkyns, to the Sheriffs of London. At 
Tyburn, April 3, 1696, which said paragraphs are printed at length 
and answered, paragraph by paragraph. Fol. London, 1696. 

A Defence of the Absolution given to Sir William Perkins 
at the Place of Execution. With a further Vindication thereof, 
occasioned by a Paper, entitled, a Declaration of the Sense of the 
Archbishops and Bishops, &c. 



Ufigtorp of tlje $lonjucot% 173 

elusion, until his defence has been considered. He 
commences by stating, that his being present at the 
execution had been misunderstood. It seems that 
strong censures appeared in some of the newspapers, 
and that Collier, in consequence of what he heard, 
secreted himself. He adds, " not without reason ; 
for on Monday about twelve at night, six or eight 
persons rushed into my lodgings, broke open a trunk, 
and seized some Papers of value, though perfectly 
inoffensive and foreign to their purpose. And since 
I understand there is a Bill found against me for 
high misdemeanor. And now one would think I had 
done something very extraordinary . p " 

Collier then gives a narrative of his proceedings. 
After his trial, Sir William Perkins, whom he had 
not seen for four or five years, sent for Collier, who 
visited him in Newgate. After two days he was not 
permitted to see the prisoner alone : and at length 
he was refused altogether, so that he did not see him 
from Wednesday, April 1, until Friday, at the place 
of execution. Sir William had spoken freely to 
Collier on the state of his mind, and desired that 
the absolution of the Church might be pronounced 
the last day. On Friday Collier was refused admit- 
tance to the prison : and therefore he went to the 
place of execution and gave the absolution there, 
since he was not allowed to give it elsewhere, using 
the Form in The Office for The Visitation of the 
Sick. Collier states, that when a man had declared 
his sorrow for his faults, the Absolution was not to 
be denied. He then comes to the imposition of hands, 
arguing for it as an innocent and an ancient ceremony. 
Others, he says, are shocked at the thing itself; and 

P Defence, &c. p. 1. 



174 t^wftorj? tf ft* 

he asks, " are all people damned that are cast in a 
capital indictment ? If so, to what purpose are they 
visited by divines ; why are they exhorted to re- 
pentance, and have time allowed them to fit them for 
death ?" He asserts that he considered Sir William 
to have a right to the privileges of communion ; and 
that, in refusing him absolution, he should have 
failed in his duty. In reply to the objection alleged 
against the publicity of the ceremony, Collier declares, 
that it would have been performed in private, if the 
authorities had admitted him to the prison. He also 
denies, that Sir William confessed to him that he was 
privy to the Assassination. The Jirst Paper was 
dated April 9th, 1696. 

The second paper was printed a fortnight later, in 
consequence of the Declarations of the Bishops. 
Collier regards their paper as an unsupported censure. 
In this paper he enters, at some length, on the defence 
of the practice of the imposition of hands, on the 
ground of its primitive use. To the charge, that no 
such ceremony is enjoined by the rubric, he replies : 
" true ; neither is there any prohibition. The Ru- 
bric is perfectly silent both as to posture and gesture, 
and yet some circumstances of this nature must of 
necessity be used. Now since our Church allows 
the priest imposition of hands in another case, and 
does not forbid it in this, is it any harm if our 
liberty moves upward, and determines itself by ge- 
neral usage and primitive practice ?" q Some " Ani- 
madversions" on Collier's Two Papers were speedily 
published. They were written by Hody, and at 
the command of the Archbishop, Tennison. Col- 
lier, who seldom allowed an opponent to remain 

i Defence, &c. p. 9. 



of ttje $l0njur0r0 157 

unanswered, was soon ready with a reply. The only 
point which it is necessary to notice, relates to the 
same question as the preceding extract : and as Col- 
lier enters fully into the matter, which is really one 
of great interest, another quotation will not be unac- 
ceptable to the reader. The animadverter states, 
that the ceremony is not retained by the Church of 
England : and that consequently ministers should not 
make use of any, which are not positively enjoined. 
Collier replies as follows. " His affirming that imposi- 
tion of hands is not retained in the Church of Eng- 
land, will not hold generally speaking. For this 
ceremony is retained both in orders and confirma- 
tion : which is a sufficient argument of its being ap- 
proved by the Church. But the Church does not 
retain it in her absolutions. I grant 'tis not in the 
rubric for that purpose. And therefore, had it been 
used at the Daily Service or upon any solemn occa- 
sion regulated by the Church there might have been 
some pretence for exception : but the rubric and act 
of uniformity, mentioned by the animadverter, provide 
only against innovations, in stated and public admi- 
nistrations. Tis in Churches and Church appoint- 
ments that the rubric condemns adding or diminishing. 
But this is none of the present case. For the Church 
has not prescribed us any office for executions. Every 
priest is here left to his liberty, both as to office and 
gesture, to substance and ceremony. The devotion 
may be all private composition, if the confessor 
pleases. And when out of respect to the Church, he 
selects any part of her liturgy, though the form is 
public, the choice and occasion are private, which 
makes it fall under another denomination. The se- 
lected office in this case, is like coin melted into 
bullion. The public impression is gone : and with 



176 ^tetorp of rtje 

that the forfeitures for clipping and alloy are gone 
too : and the honest proprietor may add to the quan- 
tity, or alter the figure as he thinks fit. I confess had 
the Church excepted against the imposition of hands 
in absolution : had she condemned the ceremony thus 
applied, and laid a general prohibition upon it : her 
members ought to govern themselves accordingly, 
and not to use it, so much as in private : but since 
the Church prescribes this rite in her rubric, and 
takes notice of it only by way of practice and appro- 
bation : when matters stand thus, I say, her non-pro- 
hibition implies allowance in private ministrations, 
and in cases no way determined by herself. For pray 
what is liberty, but the absence of command, the 
silence of authority, and leaving things in their na- 
tural indifferency? Thus the point was understood 
and practised by the famous Bishop Sanderson, upon 
one of the most solemn occasions, and in which him- 
self was most nearly concerned. This eminent casuist 
about a day before his death, desired his Chaplain 
Mr. Pull in, to give him absolution : and at his per- 
forming that office he pulled of his cap, that Mr. Pul- 
lin might lay his hand upon his bare head"* 

This is a curious, and by no means an uninterest- 
ing question : and whatever we may think of Col- 
lier's prudence in using the ceremony of imposition 
of hands, we certainly cannot allege that he was 
guilty of any crime. It was unwise on the part of 
the government to prosecute him for such an act, and 
on the part of the Archbishops and Bishops to publish 
a Document with so much solemnity. The thing was 
magnified into a matter of importance by the proceed- 



r An Answer to the Animadversions on the Two Pamphlets 
lately published by Mr. Collier, &c. 4to. pp. 9, 10. 



of ttje 4ponjuror0+ 177 

ings of the government and the Bishops. It can 
scarcely be supposed, that a clergyman in repeating 
the Absolution from the order " For the Visitation of 
the Sick" in a sick room, is restrained from placing 
his hands upon the head of the individual, if he be 
so disposed. All ceremonies must necessarily be per- 
formed with some attendant circumstances. The Ab- 
solution is to be repeated : but the Church does not 
prescribe the particular manner. As, however, it 
relates to an individual, and not to a congregation, 
it seems reasonable to suppose, that the placing the 
hand, on the head of the sick person, is a ceremony 
innocent in itself, though significant to the individual, 
and such as the Church could scarcely mean to pro- 
hibit, if the Clergy should feel disposed to adopt it, 
in their private ministrations. 8 

Collier published another pamphlet on the same 
subject in reply to a fresh attack. This was entitled 
" A Reply to the Absolution of a Penitent, according 
to the Directions of the Church of England, &c. &c." 
The same arguments are enforced with Collier's 
usual ability. 1 



s Ralph remarks, " though it should be acknowledged, that a 
more seditious use could scarce be made of the Priestly Office, 
there was more of passion than policy in the methods taken to punish 
these men for this misdemeanour : where there is no law there is 
no transgression : and yet the Grand Jury were prevailed upon by 
a remonstrance from the Bench, exhibited by Chief Justice Holt, 
to present the said clergymen, for having countenanced the trea- 
son by absolving the traitors." Vol. ii. 646. 

* Evelyn says, April 19th, " Greater offence taken at the three 
ministers, who absolved Sir William Perkins and Friend at Tyburn. 
One of them (Snatt) was a son of my old schoolmaster. This pro- 
duced much altercation as to the canonicalnesse of the action." 
Vol. iii. 350, 351. The circumstance is also alluded to by Galamy 
under the same date. Calamy's Life, vol. i. 382, 383. 

N 



178 l&feftorp of ttje 

Sir John Fenwick also was brought to trial, the 
same year, for conspiring against the government. 
There were, however, difficulties in his case, which 
might have led to his acquittal by a jury : and 
therefore he was proceeded against in Parliament by 
way of attainder, a practice not uncommon in those 
times. Nelson was induced, by Sir John's wife, to 
apply to Tennison to procure his support against the 
attainder; but the Archbishop replied, that, as he 
considered him guilty, he could not declare him in- 
nocent. All interposition, therefore, in his favour 
failed : and he was condemned and executed. The 
majority for the Bill in the Lords was only seven ; so 
that the government might reasonably have spared 
his life ; and it is evident, that a jury would not have 
found him guilty, in a case in which the penalty was 
death. He avowed himself a member of the Church 
of England : and he was permitted to seek the aid of 
any of the clergy, who had taken the Oaths : or any 
of the Bishops, who had opposed the Bill of Attain- 
der against him. On his refusal, the names of three 
or four Nonjurors were mentioned to him ; but these 
individuals declined to attend, on the ground, that the 
Oaths might be tendered to them, and that, on their 
non-compliance, they might stand convicted. This 
circumstance shews the distressing state of fear and 
apprehension, in which the Nonjuring Clergy were 
placed, and how ready the authorities were to lay hold 
of any thing, which might occur to their disad- 
vantage. u The Author of the Letter in the State 
Tracts says, they might as well have trusted the 



u State Tracts, vol. ii. 561. 



of tjje jponjurocg* 179 

honour of the government as live under its protection ; 
but surely the cases were very dissimilar. w 

White, the deprived Bp. of Peterborough, died in 
the year 1698, having lived in retirement since his 
deprivation. The circumstance is thus mentioned by 
Evelyn : " June 5. Dr. White, late Bishop of Peter- 
borough, who had been deprived for not complying 
with government, was buried in St. Gregory's Church- 
yard or Vault, at St. Paul's. His hearse was accom- 
panied by two Nonjuror Bishops, Dr. Turner of Ely, 
and Dr. Lloyd, with forty Nonjuror Clergymen, who 
could not stay the office of the burial, because the 
Dean of St. Paul's had appointed a conforming mi- 
nister to read the office, at which all much wondered, 
there being nothing in that office which mentioned 
the present King." * Certainly, the retirement from 
the grave was a singular circumstance, and contrary 
to their practice in many other cases, in which they 
attended at those services, which did not mention the 
name of the reigning sovereign. 

The succession to the throne was a question of 
serious and anxious consideration during this reign. 
Having excluded one sovereign on account of his faith, 
the country decided that none but a Protestant should 
be permitted to reign. Anne, the second daughter of 

w The severity of the Government appears to have caused a re- 
action in favour of the Nonjurors. Whiston, speaking- of Lloyd, 
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, says : "I remember to have 
heard him once say, that after the Assassination Plot, A.D. 1696, 
the odium of it was so great, that not a Jacobite would have re- 
mained in the nation, had not the extreme rigour of the following 
Act of Parliament against those, who would not sign an association, 
kept up the spirit of opposition to the government ever afterward." 
Whiston's Memoirs, 132. 

* Evelyn, iii. 364, 365. 



180 !tetorp of tfje 

King James, was next in succession to King William, 
according to the settlement made at the Revolution : 
but the death of her son, the Duke of Gloucester, in 
the year 1700, filled the nation with alarm, and pointed 
out the necessity of taking some further step, in this 
very important matter, especially as there was no 
prospect of other issue from the Princess. To cut off 
the hopes, therefore, of the Jacobites, a new settle- 
ment was made. Besides James's son, respecting 
whose legitimacy there was no reason whatever to 
doubt, there were, first, the Duchess of Savoy, the 
daughter of Henrietta, the sister of Charles II., and 
secondly, several of the Palatine Family. But all these 
were Roman Catholics ; and though some of them 
might have embraced Protestantism, in the hope of 
ascending the English throne, yet the Parliament 
were resolved not to offer them such a temptation. 
It was determined that all Roman Catholics should 
be excluded : and, therefore, the Princess Sophia of 
Brunswick, the grandaughter of James I. and the 
next Protestant heir, was made the source of the new 
line. 

In this settlement, all parties acted with much 
craft and dissimulation, except the Nonjurors, who 
remained true to their principles, even though they 
might be erroneous. The question of the settlement 
was accomplished chiefly by the Tories, under the 
guidance of Harley. y The Princess Anne, it was 
thought, would favour her brother's cause : so that 
the Jacobites and the Nonjurors looked forward, with 
satisfaction, to her accession. " For six years she had 
maintained a fair correspondence with her Father, 
full of assurances of duty and expressions of repent- 

y Hallatn, Hi. 246, Macpherson, ii. 187. 



of tlje jponfurocg. 181 

ance." She wrote, however, to ask him if he would 
allow her to succeed according to the Act of Settle- 
ment, in the event of William's death, urging that she 
should thereby serve her Father. James was dis- 
pleased, and the proposal was not entertained. 2 Still 
the friends of the late King continued to look to the 
Princess. Even William was indifferent respecting 
the future, provided the crown was secured to him 
during his own life. Circumstances, which were 
unknown at the time, have since been brought to 
light by the production of documentary Papers. 
Thus, in 1697, in the negotiations for a Peace, Wil- 
liam secretly entered into an arrangement in favour 
of James's son. u Lewis, unwilling to desert James, 
proposed, that the Prince of Wales should succeed 
to the crown after the death of William. The King 
with little hesitation agreed to this request. He even 
solemnly engaged to procure the repeal of the act of 
Settlement, and to declare by another, the Prince of 
Wales his successor in the throne. Those, who as- 
cribe all the actions of William to public spirit, will 
find some difficulty in reconciling this transaction to 
their elevated opinion of his character. In one con- 
cession to France, he yielded all his professions to 
England ; and, by an act of indiscretion, or through 
indifference, deserted the principles, to which he owed 
the throne. The deliverance of the nation, however, 
was not the sole object of this Prince. The projected 
peace was to secure the crown in his possession for 
his life. The successors provided by the Act of 
Settlement, he either despised or abhorred. Though 
James had displeased the nation, he had not injured 
William. The son had offended neither. The sup- 

z Macpherson, ii, 121 , 



182 %'0torp of tije 

posed spuriousness of Jiis birth, had been only held 
forth to amuse the vulgar." a 

This project, however, was defeated by King James, 
who would not allow his son to be made a party to 
such an arrangement. Thus did James sacrifice the 
only prospect of the restoration of his family. 5 Still 
from the general dislike of the nation to George I. it 
has been supposed, even by Mr. Hallam, that the 
Pretender might have obtained the throne, if he had 
embraced Protestantism. 

We must now revert to the controversy arising 
from the deprivation of the Bishops, in which we 
left Dodwell engaged in the year 1692. It was not 
until the year 1695 that Dodwell published his De- 
fence of the Vindication, in reply to Hody. c In this 
work he contends that the oath of canonical obedi- 
ence to the deprived Bishops was binding. This 
argument explains Dod well's subsequent views, when, 
after Lloyd's death, Ken ceased to claim the submis- 
sion of the Clergy ; and it is quite consistent with 
his return to the established Church at that time. It 
is a most elaborate and able performance. 41 

a Macpherson, ii. 123-4. b Ibid. 125. 

c A Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops. Wherein 
the case of Abiathar is particularly considered, and the invalidity 
of lay deprivations is further proved, from the doctrine received 
under the Old Testament, continued in the first ages of Christi- 
anity, and from our own fundamental laws. In a reply to Dr. 
Hody and another author. To which is annexed the doctrine of 
the Church of England, concerning the independency of the Clergy 
on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely 
spiritual, reconciled with our oath of supremacy and the lay depri- 
vations of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation. 
By the author of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops. London. 
4to. 1695. 

d See the Defence, &e. See also Dodwell's Life, for an ab- 
stract, 254, 267. 



of tljc ^onjui'org* 183 

It will be seen from the title page of the preceding 
work, that a treatise on The Independency of the 
Clergy of the Lay-power was intended to accompany 
the volume. From some unknown cause this trea- 
tise was suppressed in 1695. The author of his Life 
states, that it was suppressed because it could not be 
answered. 6 At all events, it was published as a sepa- 
rate work in 1697. It appears strange, that any in- 
terference should have been employed, to prevent the 
free and full discussion of a subject of so much in- 
terest. Dodwell enters fully into the question, which 
had been raised by Hody, relative to the deprivations 
at the commencement of the reign of Queen Eliza- 
beth : and, after pointing out the dissimilarity be- 
tween the two cases, he admits that, if the recent 
deprivation had been synodical, even though unjust, 
they ought to have submitted. Kettlewell, on the 
other hand, denied this position, contending that it 
would be a sin to submit to such deprivations/ The 
difference between these two eminent men was very 
material. In Dodwell's case, his principle led him 
only to continue the separation during the lives of 
the deprived Bishops : while Kettlewell's went to 
perpetuate it by new consecrations. This point, how- 
ever, will necessarily come under our notice in an- 
other chapter. 

On Nov. 2nd, in the year 1700, Turner, the de- 
prived Bishop of Ely, died in very straitened circum- 
stances. So that now three only of the deprived 
Prelates, Lloyd, Ken, and Frampton, survived. Bp. 
Nicolson, writing to the Earl of Thanet, says : " My 
Lord, the deprived Bishop of Ely is (to my know- 
ledge) in very needy circumstances : having a large 

e Dodwell's Life, 268. f Kettlewell's Life, 126. 



184 ^igtorg of tlje 

family, and no support out of the common bank of 
charity : but if your Lordship thinks fit to have Mr. 
Carlton's sum thrown together into the public stock, 
your commands will be punctually observed." 8 This 
letter is dated 1706, consequently there must be an 
error in the date or the name, as Turner died in 
1700. But in either case the circumstance shews 
the sad state in which the deprived Bishops were 
placed, and how much they suffered for conscience 
sake. Probably none of their detractors ever suffered 
for conscience. He had lived in retirement since 
his deprivation : and was buried in the chancel of the 
church of Therfield, Herts, of which place he had 
formerly been rector. One word only was inscribed 
on the stone by which his mortal remains were covered, 
EXPERGISCAR ! He was a man of considerable emi- 
nence and of great sincerity. 

King James died on the sixth of September 1701, 
at St. Germains, after which the King of France 
recognized James's son as King of England, Scot- 
land, and Ireland. This led to certain Parliamentary 
enactments against him under the designation of the 
Pretender, the name by which he is usually known 
in English history. Thus an Act was passed for 
securing the succession, and for extinguishing the 
hopes of the pretended Prince of Wales. All official 
persons, including ecclesiastics, were required to take 
an Oath of Abjuration before the 1st of August 1702, 
the penalty of refusal being the forfeiture of their 
posts or preferments. 11 Thomas Turner, brother of the 
deprived Bishop of Ely, who complied at the Revolu- 
tion, stumbled at the Abjuration Oath. He went, on 



* Nicolson's Epistolary Correspondence, i. 305. 
h Life of Queen Anne, i. 64. 



p Of tfje |iimjUCOr& 185 

the passing of the Abjuration Act, from London to 
Oxford, with the intention of not taking the Oath. 
He did not, however, resign his preferments : nor 
was he called upon to take the Oath : so that he 
held all his places until his death in 1714. But in 
most cases the Oath was required to be taken, and 
especially in those which were suspected. It was 
an impolitic act, since it grieved the consciences of 
many good men, and really did nothing towards 
strengthening the government. Not a few of the 
Nonjurors would have complied, after King James's 
death, but for this Oath of Abjuration. They con- 
sidered themselves released from their Oath to King- 
James by his death : and they would have submitted 
to the government. But they looked upon the Oath 
of Abjuration of the rights of the Pretender as so 
unnecessary, that they could not take it : and even 
some, who had formerly complied, now became Non- 
jurors. Whiston tells us : " Mr. Billers and Mr. 
Baker, who loved their religion and their country as 
well as any jurors whomsoever, but having once taken 
an oath to King James, could not satisfy their con- 
sciences in breaking it, while he lived, for any con- 
sideration whatsoever. I well remember that when 
King James died, which was in 1701, they began 
to deliberate about taking the Oath, and coming into 
the government, till the unhappy Abjuration Oath, 
which was made the same year, had such clauses as 
stopped all their farther deliberations." 1 

1 Whiston's Memoirs, p. 32. Mr. Hallam very justly remarks 
of this new Oath : " Of all sophistry that weakens moral obliga- 
tion, that is the most pardonable which men employ to escape from 
this species of tyranny. The state may reasonably make an entire 
and heartfelt attachment to its authority the condition of civil 
trust : but nothing more than a promise of peaceable obedience 



186 Iktgtorp of tfje 

Ken too was deeply distressed at this new Oath. 
Writing to his friend Harbin, he says: " I am troubled 
to see the nation likely to be involved in new univer- 
sal oaths, but hope they will be imposed on none but 
those who were employed or promoted in Church 
and State." k The Oath made William rightful King, 
at which many were staggered, who were willing to 
render him allegiance, and who would not endeavour 
to disturb his government. It was almost the last 
thing that William did. Indeed the Bill was signed 
by Commission, as the King was too ill to attend in 
Parliament for that purpose. King William died on 
the 8th of March 1701-2. 

From the various statements of the preceding pages, 
it will be seen that King William was not influenced, 
as some of his panegyrists have insinuated, only by 
a desire to promote the civil and religious liberties 
of the people of England. He sought his own in- 
terest, at all events, as well as that of the public. 
Since his death, many things have transpired, which 
prove that he was determined, if possible, to ascend 
the English throne, though the Church and the coun- 
try might have been saved by the establishment of a 
regency in the person of the Prince of Orange. 1 Un- 
doubtedly a signal deliverance was wrought for the 
country in 1688 : and the present generation have 



can justly be exacted from those who ask only to obey in peace. " 
iii. 265. Baker wrote Socius Ejectus on his books. See Life, 
34. 

k Bowles's Ken, i. 228. 

1 Mr. Hallam, speaking of the opinions of the actors in the 
Revolution, admits the risk which was incurred. " Notwithstanding 
the splendid success of the opposite counsels, it would be judging 
too servilely by the event, not to admit that they were tremen- 
dously hazardous." iii. 111. 



of ttje ^onjucorjs* 187 

reason to be thankful for the interposition of King 
William : but our gratitude must not make us blind 
to his errors, or lead us to represent him as free from 
selfish and sinister motives. That all his proceedings 
were overruled, for the welfare of the nation, we have 
reason to be abundantly thankful : still the success 
must not be attributed to William's intentions, or to 
his disinterested conduct ; for the preceding pages 
shew, that he did not, on all occasions, adhere to 
rigid principles of virtue. A concurrence of circum- 
stances, as I have shewn, favoured his enterprise : but 
had he fairly and honestly told the people of England, 
in his First Declaration, that he was coming to seat 
himself upon the throne of his father-in-law, much 
as they were opposed to King James's measures, and 
great as were their fears of the introduction of popery, 
they would not have accepted deliverance on such 
terms. While, then, we have reason to be grateful, 
that the events of the Revolution were so graciously 
overruled, we have also much cause for gratitude to 
Almighty God, that the various motives of many of 
the actors were not so marked, by the Divine dis- 
pleasure, as to involve the nation in trouble and con- 
fusion." 1 



m King William's views and motives, in coming into England, 
have been considered in a former chapter : but I wish to add, in 
reference to his Declaration respecting the Prince of Wales, the 
following passages from Mr. Hallam. " It is the only part of the 
Declaration that is false." And again : "It cannot be said 
without absurdity, that James was guilty of any offence in becoming 
the father of this child : yet it was evidently that which rendered 
his other offences inexpiable." Hallam, iii. 112, 113. 



CHAPTER VI. 

A. D. 17011711. 

ANNE'S ACCESSION. STATE OF PARTIES. DEATH OF KIDDER. 
DODWELL'S CASE IN VIEW. CONTROVERSY. DODWELI/S 
PAR^LNESIS. His FURTHER PROSPECT, &c. ITS ARGUMENTS. 
DEATH OF BISHOP FRAMPTON. DEATH OF BISHOP LLOYD. 
APPLICATIONS TO KEN. His REPLY. WISHES THE SCHISM 

CLOSED. DODWELL, NELSON, AND BllOOKSBY, RETURN TO 

THE NATIONAL CHURCH. HICKES'S VIEWS. LETTERS OF 
NELSON AND BROKESBY. DODWELL'S CASE IN FACT. AR- 
GUMENTS. DODWELL'S DEATH. REPLIES TO DODWELL. 

INNE succeeded King William according 
to the Act of Settlement, by which the 
crown was secured to her, as the next 
Protestant heir of the family of King 
James. When the New Parliament was summoned, 
it was found, that the majority were Tories : conse- 
quently the Whigs were displaced from office, their 
opponents succeeding in their room. 3 At this period 
there were four parties in the state, all possessing 
more or less influence : the Tories, the Whigs, the 
Roman Catholics, and the Nonjurors. The Tories 
were the friends of the Church, while the Whigs 
were more inclined towards the Dissenters. The 
Whigs were avowed friends to the Protestant succes- 
sion : but they did not view the Church of England 




Macpherson. 



of tlje ^onjttcorg, 189 

with a favourable aspect. Thus they endeavoured 
to persuade King William, that his success was 
owing to their support, and that the Tories were his 
enemies. It is remarked, by a writer who understood 
the state of parties, that King William found the 
Tories the better subjects, as the Whigs wished to 
restrain the royal prerogative in various instances, 
which was by no means agreeable to his Majesty. 
Burnet places this circumstance to the credit of the 
Whigs, who, he says, were jealous of the liberties of 
the country. " But," says the writer to whom I have 
alluded, " notwithstanding the opinion of this Right 
Reverend Father of the Church, I am apt to think 
from the known conduct of the Whigs, that they 
were less afraid of arbitrary power, than of their 
being themselves out of all power : for we have seen 
them, as well as the Tories, advocates for, and stretch- 
ing the prerogative while they had the helm of go- 
vernment in their hands, though when out of power, 
as violent for restraining it, and extending the liberties 
of the people, at the expence of the rights of the 
crown." b They consented to set aside Episcopacy 
in Scotland, though, as will be shewn in another 
chapter, it might have been retained with the appro- 
val of the country. They therefore viewed the Church 
with suspicion. Exceptions there were : but still 
the charge, with respect to the majority, is correct. 
Those Whigs, who were attached to the Church, 
were Whigs in politics only, and not in Ecclesiastical 
matters, on which they agreed with the Tories. Of 
this class was Swift, during the early portion of his 
political career a Whig in Politics, but on all Ec- 
clesiastical subjects standing forth as the unflinching 

b Life of the Duke of Ormonde, 1747. p. 118. 



190 1t0torp of tt) 

advocate of the Church. Barley's views were at one 
time of the same character : as were also those of 
many other distinguished men of the period. 

The Tories also were divided into two sections 
one secretly devoted to the exiled family, and con- 
sequently anxious for their restoration, whenever it 
could be accomplished, the other strongly attached 
to the Protestant succession. During this period of 
strong party feeling, it was usual to charge the whole 
body of the Tories with a secret attachment to the 
Pretender : and the same charge is still alleged by 
some modern writers. 

While, however, it is certain that a section of the 
Tories favoured the cause of the exiled line, it is 
equally certain, that many of the leading Whigs held 
a secret correspondence with the Pretender. Had 
they been able to have secured the ascendancy of 
their party, they would have been ready to have 
placed the Pretender on the throne, though some 
may have acted from no other motive than a wish to 
embarrass the government. It is clear, therefore, 
that, if some of the Tories wished to restore the Pre- 
tender, many of the Whigs were by no means anxious, 
that his family should become extinct. His name 
was a very convenient pretence to the Whigs, when- 
ever they wished to excite the popular feeling against 
their opponents. If then it were criminal in the 
Tory section to favour the Pretender, it was equally 
criminal in the Whigs, no matter from what motives, 
to hold a secret correspondence with him, and thereby 
endanger that Protestant succession, respecting which 
they were always declaiming in their speeches in 
Parliament, and in their addresses to the people. 
Under such circumstances, it was not strange that 
Swift, Harley, and other Whigs, who were the warm 



of tfje $&0njur0t#. 19 1 

supporters of the Church of England, should unite, 
in the latter part of this reign, with the Tories. The 
administration of the last four years indeed was com- 
posed of the two parties united : but whatever may 
have been the errors of the Tories during the reign 
of Queen Anne, nothing could have been more incon- 
sistent and selfish than the conduct of the Whigs. 

A very acute observer remarks, " What the wishes 
of many of the Tories were, was little attempted to 
be concealed : and that some of the Whigs were not 
acting on a fixed principle of attachment to the Pro- 
testant succession, is now clear from their correspon- 
dence with the Court of St. Germain's in the reigns 
of King William and Queen Anne, especially the 
latter." c In short, the Whigs were ready to sacri- 
fice any thing and every thing to place : and could 
they have seen it their interest to restore the family 
of King James, they would not have hesitated for a 
moment. They had differences with King William 
at an early period respecting the succession to the 
throne. Men appeared to have changed. The Tories, 
who once wished to preserve the rights of James's 
family, were now opposed to their pretensions : while 
the Whigs interposed to prevent their hopes from 
being extinguished. Thus it was remarked, " The 
Whigs were quite as troublesome to King William 
as the Tories. " d 

Kidder, the successor of Ken, was killed in his bed 
with his wife, by the falling of a stack of chimneys, 
in the palace at Wells, on the night of the great 
storm the 26th and 27th November 1703. On the 
Queen's accession an offer was made to restore Ken 



c Rose's Observations on Fox's History, Int. xxx. 
d Life of Bolingbroke, p. 70. 



192 ^tetorp of tfje 

to his diocese, in which case Kidder would have been 
removed to another see. He declined, however, on 
the ground of age and health, and probably because 
he was not satisfied about the Oaths. This latter 
supposition, indeed, appears more than probable ; for 
it is stated that Ken refused on taking a new excep- 
tion to the Oath of Abjuration. On Kidder's death 
he persuaded Hooper to accept it. In an original 
letter published by Mr. Bowles, Ken says : " I hear- 
ing yt ye Bishop of St. Asaph was offered Bath and 
Wells, and that on my account he refused it, wrott 
to give my assent to it. I did it in regard to ye 
diocese, yt they might not have a latitudinarian tra- 
ditor imposed on them, who would betray the bap- 
tismal faith." 6 On the 6th of December 1703, he 
thus writes to Hooper : " I am informed yt you have 
had an offer of Bath and Wells, and y* you refused 
it, which I take very kindly, because I know you did 
it on my account : but since I am well assured y* ye 
diocese cannot be happy to y* degree in any other 
hands than in your owne, I desire you to accept of 
it. I told you long agoe at Bath how willing I was 
to surrender my canonical claim to a worthy person, 
but to none more willingly than to yourselfe." On 
the 20th of December Ken writes to congratulate 
Hooper on his acceptance of the see. Some of the 
Nonjurors were displeased at Ken's resignation : and 
he alludes to them in this letter. " I could easily 
foresee," says he, "y* by my concerne for you I sh d 
incurre y e displeasure of some of my brethren, but 
this is not y e first instance in w ch I have dissented 
from them, and never had cause to repent of it." 
When the Queen proposed the see to Hooper, he 

e Bowles's Ken, ii. 242. 



of ttje ^ottjucoreL 193 

suggested Ken's restoration. Her Majesty was pleased 
at the idea, and ordered Hooper to make the offer. 
Ken thanked her Majesty, but was unwilling to re- 
turn again to the business of the world. d In a letter 
to Lloyd of April 1st, 1704, he says, " I perceive by 
youre two last that your Lordship is very shy of own- 
ing your approbation of my action." He alludes to 
his resignation, of which Lloyd did not approve. He 
says that he foresaw the censures that were bestowed 
upon him : and he assures Lloyd, " I never did any 
thing in my life more to my satisfaction than my 
seceding." 6 

For a few years after the death of King William 

d Bowles's Ken, ii. 249253, 256. 

e Ibid. 263. D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 448. Ken thus gave utter- 
ance to his feelings in verse : 

But that which most of all my eye-lids drain'd, 

My lambs, my sheep, were by their wanderings baned : 

They broke from Catholic, and hallow'd bounds, 

And for the wholsome chose th' impoison'd grounds, 

Contracting latitudinarian taint, 

In faith, in morals, suffering no restraint. 

In allusion to the answer to his prayers, he says : 

But I adore benignity Divine, 

Who did to hear my worthless cares incline, 

And while I mourn'd for the tremendous stroke, 

Which freed my flock from uncanonic yoke, 

Heaven, my Lord, supereffluently kind, 

In you sent a successor to my mind. 

Elsewhere he alludes to the same subject : 

Forc'd from my flock I daily saw, with tears, 
A stranger's ravage two sabbatic years : 
But I forbear to tell the dreadful stroke, 
Which freed my sheep from their Erastian yoke. 

By the two sabbatic years, Ken alludes to the period, fourteen 
years, of Kidder's occupancy of the see. Biog. Brit. Art. Ken. 

O 



194 ^igtorp 

the Nonjurors proceeded very quietly in their course; 
but at length circumstances arose, which led to 
divisions in their little body. Dodwell, who did not 
wish to continue the schism after the death of the 
deprived Bishops, saw that the time might soon ar- 
rive, when, according to his principles, it would be 
a duty to return to the National Church, and close 
the breach. To give time and opportunity to con- 
sider the subject, he published in 1705 his " Case in 
View considered"* At this time Lloyd, Ken, and 
Frampton alone survived of the deprived Bishops. 
Neither Ken nor Frampton were likely to challenge 
the obedience of the Nonjurors: and, therefore, the 
question which Dodwell wished to discuss must be 
settled at the death of Lloyd. The title fully explains 
the writer's object. His view was, that in case the 
deprived Bishops should leave their sees vacant by 
death or resignation, the Nonjurors would not be 
under any obligation to continue the separation. He 
very wisely suggested, that it would be better to 
consider the case beforehand, than leave it to be dis- 
cussed for the first time when, in his opinion, it would 
be necessary to act. At this time he viewed the 
complying Bishops as guilty of schism in setting up 
altar against altar ; but, on the death of the deprived 
prelates, or their resignation, he considered that the 
possessors of the sees would be no longer schismatics, 
and that the Clergy might yield them obedience. He 
thus commences his Case in View : 



f A Case in View considered : in a Discourse proving that (in 
case our present invalidly deprived Fathers shall leave all their 
Sees vacant, either by Death or Resignation) we shall not then be 
obliged to keep up our Separation from those Bishops who are as 
yet involved in the Guilt of the present unhappy Schism. By 
Henry Dodwell, M.A. London, 8vo. 1705. 



of t$e $l0njurot#. 195 

" Our little flock (however sorry for the unhappy 
occasion) are competently well agreed in our prac- 
tice, in relation to our present schism. We are agreed 
in asserting the spiritual rights of our surviving fathers, 
who are still pleased to claim them, which no lay 
deprivations can take from them. We agreed in 
abstaining from the communion, not only of the rival 
Bishops themselves, who are the principal schisma- 
ticks ; but of all others also, who have made them- 
selves accessary to the schism by any sacred commu- 
nion with those rivals. Nor can we think ourselves 
at liberty from the duty of asserting those rights till 
they, to whom we owe that duty, shall think fit to 
discharge us from it by some explicite or, at least, 
implicite, renunciation of their title to them. But 
there is a case in view wherein we may, perhaps, 
not prove so unanimous, unless we provide for it be- 
fore it come to pass. That is on a supposition that 
all our present survivors' sees were fairly vacated by 
death or renunciation. This being supposed, the in- 
quiry will be, whether such vacancies of either kind 
will suffice to put an end to the schism ? Or whether 
we shall still be under any obligation, even in that 
case, to keep up our opposite assemblies ? And now 
is the fittest season for examining it, whilst our 
brethren are most indifferent to follow, what upon 
examination, is found true. Before they shall have 
declared their opinions, before they are divided into 
parties, before any ferment has risen, which is a na- 
tural consequence of such subdivision into parties, 
which may make them less equal judges of reasons 
produced for a cause opposed by them." d 

The above is Dodwell's first paragraph ; and it 

d Dodwell's Case in View, pp, 1, 2, 3. 



196 ^tetorj? of tlje 

contains a most clear exposition of the state of the 
question. He next presses this proposition, that sen- 
tence is to be given in favour of the actual possessors 
of sees, when there is no dispossessed rival, who can 
present a better title. 6 The point is pursued at con- 
siderable length : and then the author advances ano- 
ther position, that when there is only one Bishop in a 
district, a separation can no more be justified than it 
could have been before altar was erected against 
altar/ After discussing this position, he argues that 
the nullity of schismatical consecrations and ordina- 
tions ceases when there are no rivals, and that orders 
then become valid, though they were not so originally 
while the rival Bishops survived. He supposes, that 
some of the Nonjurors might consider new consecra- 
tions necessary, before the complying Bishops, who 
were regarded as schismatics, could receive the 
powers, which in their opinion they had not while 
the schism existed. His own opinion was different. 
He says, " I see no reason why the nullity may not 
cease together with the schism : on the contrary, it 
ought to do so, if the nullity was wholly grounded on 
the schism : if their being nulll be a consequence of 
their being secundi"* 

From this question, he proceeds to another, that of 
doctrine. He is of opinion, that their attachment to 
the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance 
will not oblige them to keep up the separation. This 
is a point of great importance in the controversy : and 
most persons must wish to see the workings of such 
a mind as Dodwell's on such a subject. He thus 
argues the question, after alluding to the separations 

Case in View, p. 4. f Ibid. p. 21. 

Ibid. p. 27, 28. 



of tlje /on)ur0t#* 197 

in the early Church from heretical Bishops, whose 
sees were never regarded as full by the orthodox. 

" This some of our beloved brethren might take to 
be the case in relation to the doctrines disputed be- 
tween us and the prevailing separation. But lovers 
of peace will find cause to bless God, that this is not so 
really the case, as less attentive persons may imagine. 
Our truly catholic doctrines of passive obedience and 
non-resistance are still maintained by many of our 
late fathers and brethren, notwithstanding their new 
erected altars. But by none more openly and avowedly 
than the present excellent metropolitan of York." h 

Having shewn, that the doctrines were still held by 
the Church of England, he proceeds to shew, that 
they were in greater danger from the practice of oc- 
casional communion, and that the evil would be best 
avoided by their re-union, when the sees of the de- 
prived Bishops were actually vacant. Dodwell feared 
that the Dissenters, by being admitted to occasional 
communion, might vote on Church matters as Church- 
men, and then declare, that certain doctrines were not 
those of the Church of England : and that such a 
proceeding might be deemed an act of the Church 
herself/ 

He discusses also another doctrine, the indepen- 
dency of the Church on the State. This he says was 
so generally admitted by their divided brethren, that 
they need not continue the separation on that account. 
The doctrine was involved in their not acknowledging 
the validity of the lay-deprivations. But he consi- 
ders, that the doctrine was received by the English 
Church, as established by law : and that many of 



h Case in View, &c. p. 47. 
i Ibid. p. 53. 



198 %(0torp of 

the opponents of the Nonjurors used other plausible 
arguments against them, so as to evade the recogni- 
tion of the right of the civil magistrate to deprive. k 

On such grounds, which are stated at great length 
and enforced with much learning and argument, 
Dodwell urges the re-union with the Bishops in pos- 
session, whenever the sees of the deprived Prelates 
should be vacant by death or resignation. Such is 
the aim of the " Case in View/' &c. the title of which 
most distinctly explains the character of the work. 

In the previous year, 1704, he published in Latin 
his " Par&nesis to Foreigners" concerning the Eng- 
lish Schism. This work charges the schism on the 
complying Bishops ; but still there was nothing in- 
consistent between his views at this period, and those 
which are put forth in his " Case in View" and his 
subsequent publications. He always charged the 
schism on the Bishops, who complied, though, when 
the deprived Prelates were removed by death, he 
thought that the breach should be healed by a sub- 



k Case in View, pp. 62, 63. Many severe reflections were cast 
upon the Nonjurors, as if they were determined to overturn the 
government. The great majority, however, had no such desire. They 
merely wished to live quietly under the government. The case is well 
put in the following extract : " If it be said that this negative con- 
tains something positive, and implies malice and enmity against the 
government, I answer, this is their construction, not ours : why 
may it not imply as well tenderness of mind and conscience to- 
wards God ? Or why may it not imply a disability to wind ourselves 
out of our former principles ? Charity would think one of these. 
'Tis hard that they will judge of our thoughts, but 'tis harder yet 
to fasten an arbitrary sense of them, and then to punish that sense 
of their own imposing, which is to punish not our thoughts, but 
their own, nay 'tis to punish us for their thoughts." The Present 
State of Jacobinism in England. A Second Part in Answer to 
the First, 4to. London, 1702, p. 10. 



of tfje $*0nfuror0. 199 

mission to the Bishops in possession. The " Parce- 
nesis " contained a Summary of the views, which he 
had advanced and defended in his previous publica- 
tions. It was intended for foreigners, and on that 
account was composed in Latin. He argues in this 
work that the deprived Bishops were not the cause of 
the breach : and that the civil power could not de- 
prive them of their authority in the Church. He as- 
serts, as he continues to do in his subsequent works, 
the independency of the Church on the civil magis- 
trate, recommending both Protestants and Romanists 
abroad to do the same. One of the positions in the 
" Parcenesis " is so generally applicable to all times 
and circumstances, that it can never be too repeatedly 
put forward. It is this : that we have as great a 
certainty, if not a greater, of the settlement of Bishops 
to govern Churches, as of the Canon of Scripture 
itself namely, the universal tradition of the Church, 
even in the second century. 1 It would be well, if 
those persons who pretend, that episcopacy is not of 
primitive institution, would examine the evidence for 
the authenticity of Scripture, and then judge whether 
it is in any way superior to that, which may be 
adduced in favour of Bishops as governors of the 
Church. 

No one was more strenuous in defending the rights 
of the deprived Bishops : yet no one was more anxious 
to heal the breach than Dodwell. He was consistent 
with himself throughout the entire controversy : and 
had all the Nonjurors been men of a similar spirit, 
the schism would have been closed, when Dodwell 
and Nelson entered into communion with the Bishops 



Dodwell's Life, 277, 300. 



200 !i?(0totp of tje 

in possession of the Sees. In the year 1707, the Abju- 
ration Act was ordered by Parliament to be enforced 
in the case of all suspected persons : and this proceed- 
ing tended to keep back some persons, who otherwise 
might have returned to the national communion. 

I have before alluded to Kettlewell's opinions. 
Though he differed from Dodwell, as has been shewn, 
yet there is reason to believe, that had he lived 
until the death of Lloyd, he would have acted with 
Nelson and Brokesby. The writer of the Life of 
Kettle well thus speaks of Dodwell's " Case in 
View:" "When he had lived to see all (speaking of 
the deprived Bishops) except one or two of them go 
before him into eternity, he began thereupon to re- 
consider what had been written by him so early after 
the Revolution : and being desirous that this rupture 
might be closed, and an end put to this most unhappy 
schism, that he might dye in peace, he wrote and 
published his Case in View> to shew that in case 
these his invalidly deprived Fathers should, either by 
death or resignation, leave all their sees vacant, none 
would be then longer obliged to keep up their sepa- 
ration from those Bishops, who, according to him, 
were as yet involved in the guilt of schism." n 

In the year 1707, two years after the publication 
of the Case in Vieiv, Dodwell put forth another work 
on the same subject, entitled " A Further Prospect of 
the Case in View, in answer to some new objections, 
not there considered." Certain objections were raised 
against a return to the established communion, which 
were not considered in the Case in View. These ob- 
jections are stated and met in The Further Prospect. 
The chief of them refer to the Prayers for the exist- 

Life of Kettlewell, 127, 128. 



of ttjc ^on/urottf. 201 

ing Sovereign, which the Nonjurors could not use : 
and Dodwell undertakes to shew, that they need not 
be a bar to the healing of the schism. He contends, 
therefore, that they could not oblige the Bishops 
in possession to make reparation for what they had 
done, when they should have no Bishops of their own ; 
for in such a case they would be only private commu- 
nicants, " who cannot pretend to any right to give 
laws of communion, but must be obliged to receive 
them, from those who have the power of the sacra- 
ments, if we will have any communion at all." From 
this passage it is clear, that Dodwell did not admit 
the validity of the consecrations of Hickes and Wag- 
staffe ; and probably he did not know, that any thing of 
the kind had taken place. We shall see presently that 
he disavowed all such consecrations : and, therefore, 
after Lloyd's death, be considered that, as a party, 
they had no Bishops. 

He then comes to the question of the Prayers, and 
argues, that all Prayers to which they cannot assent, 
do not oblige them to separate, not even false or 
immoral Prayers, when the Church is not blameable 
for them. The Further Prospect was published as a 
letter : and he thus addressed the party to whom he 
writes, on the point in question : " I proceed now to 
your other objection, which, I confess, I never looked 
on as sufficient to justifie a separation of communion. 
It relates to the Prayers in the public offices to which 
we cannot heartily say Amen." p Dodwell meets the 
objection by another case, that of Titus Gates. A 
Plot was pretended to be revealed by Gates, and a 



A Further Prospect of the Case in View, in Answer to some 
New Objections not there Considered. 8vo. London 1707, p. 10. 
i' Ibid. p. 19. 



202 ^tetor? of t&* 

Form of Prayer was set forth by the Crown ; though 
many persons did not believe in the existence of the 
plot. They knew indeed the contrary. He, there- 
fore, says : u Yet the offices then imposed generally 
supposed the truth of it. And the Prayers then 
offered were for things not desirable. But upon that 
supposition must we, therefore, even then have been 
obliged to separate from those Prayers, and the whole 
communion wherein they were used, when we were 
satisfied that the witnesses did not deserve credit, 
that their narratives were otherwise unlikely and in- 
consistent, and that the petitions desired, pursuantly 
to the belief of them, were therefore needless and un- 
reasonable, as grounded on false suggestions ? Could 
we have been excuseable if we had done so ?" q Dod- 
well also remarks : " In the reign of James II. we used 
that petition in the Litany, that God would keep and 
strengthen him in the true worship. And we were 
upbraided for it by the Papists, pretending, that we, 
doing so, owned his Popery, then professed by him to 
be the true worshipping of God : and that we prayed 
God to keep and strengthen him in it. And un- 
doubtedly this petition was designed for a Prince 
whose worship the Church believed true : such as 
the Prince was when the Litany was composed : and 
ought to have been altered when the case was altered. 
Ought we, therefore, even then, to have begun our 
separation from the public assemblies ? No ! certainly. 
We could not have done it without very great in- 
justice. It was very certain that none of our Church's 
true communion could believe these expressions true 
in the sense in which our adversaries are pleased to 
upbraid us with them." r He then argues, that private 

i Further Prospect, &c. pp. 19, 20. r Ibid. pp. 23, 24. 



of tfc* ^onfurottf, 203 

communicants cannot make changes : that they cannot 
join in prayers which suppose an approbation of an 
opposite faith : " much less for petitions for keeping 
and strengthening a soul in a belief which themselves 
think destructive of his salvation :" but that in the 
present case no justification could be pleaded. He 
concluded, that their presence at prayers, which they 
could not approve, would not imply that they were 
of the same mind. 8 He also thought that they might 
shew their dissent by not answering Amen to the pe- 
titions in question. 

The whole argument in the " Further Prospect of 
the Case in View" is most elaborately managed. 
Three Bishops now survived, Frampton, Lloyd, and 
Ken. The next year the number was reduced to two? 
as Frampton died in 1708, at the age of eighty-six, 
and was buried privately at Standish in Gloucester- 
shire. Frampton never had a desire to continue the 
separation. He could not take the Oath of Alle- 
giance, and was prepared to suffer the consequences : 
but beyond this he did not wish to proceed. As long 
as he was able, he attended the service of the parish 
church in which he resided. He frequently cate- 
chized the children in the afternoon, and expounded 
the sermon, which had been preached by the paro- 
chial clergyman/ 

On the Jirst of January 1709, or 1710 according 
to our present reckoning, Lloyd, the deprived Bishop 
of Norwich, also died at Hammersmith : so that now 
Ken only survived of all those prelates, who, at the 
Revolution, had refused to take the Oath to William 
and Mary. Dod well's Case in View was now become 



3 Further Prospect, &c. 111. 

x Marshall's Defence, 165, 166. Calamy's Own Times, ii. 119. 



204 ^i0torp of t& 

the Case in Fact : for Ken actually resigned his pre- 
tensions and claims to Hooper, who succeeded Kidder 
in the diocese of Bath and Wells. Dodwell and 
others applied to Ken to know if he challenged their 
subjection : who replied, that he did not, and who 
further expressed his wish, that the breach might 
now be closed by their union with the Bishops in 
possession of the sees. The particulars connected 
with the return of Dodwell, Nelson, Brokesby, and 
others to the National Church, are so full of in- 
terest, that they demand our special notice. Dodwell 
writes to a friend, under the date of January 1 1 th, 
1709-10, Lloyd having died only ten days before, 
concerning the schism. The letter is as follows : 

" I have received yours, and have already written 
to my Lord of Bath and Wells, as the only survivor 
of the invalidly deprived Bishops, and as thereby 
having it in his power now to free not only his pri- 
vate diocese, but the whole National Church, from 
the schism introduced by rilling the sees, which were 
no otherwise empty than by the invalid deprivations. 
This I take to be sufficient upon our principles, who 
cannot justify our separate communion on any other 
account than that of the schism, provided there be 
no other, whom we do not yet know of, who does 
claim, and can prove a better title to some one epis- 
copal altar of our National Church by succession to 
some of our deceased fathers, than the present in- 
cumbents. 

" This I had no mind to signify to Mr. K before 
others in his shop, when he would have me declare 
myself satisfied, that the schism would end with the 
life of my Lord of Norwich. I had no mind then to 
intimate the case of clandestine consecrations by our 



of tfce ^onjutot0. 205 

deceased Fathers, before persons who were not con- 
cerned for the satisfaction of their own consciences : 
but might thence easily take occasion to represent 
my case as the same with theirs : that the Case in 
View would immediately fall out upon the decease of 
my Lord of Norwich. 

" But if my Lord of Bath and Wells declare that 
he will not so far insist on his right, as to justifie 
our separate communions upon his account : we must 
then enquire, whether any claim appear derived from 
his deceased brethren, for keeping any one see full, 
which had been otherwise vacant by their death : 
and what evidence appears for supporting that claim : 
and whether that evidence be satisfactory ? And the 
information concerning these facts must be expected 
from our friends in London. But it will, I believe, 
be most prudent not to enquire into secrets, the dis- 
covery of which may be dangerous to the persons 
concerned in them. The persons concerned in a good 
right so derived, may, and that commendably, in 
prospect of the peace which may follow from their 
concealment of what they have to say upon that 
argument, wave their right, how good soever other- 
wise. And we have reason to presume it is their 
design to do so, if they do not claim their right at 
this proper time of claiming it, and publish their 
evidences for the satisfaction of the ecclesiastical sub- 
jects. And we may securely practice as if they had 
no right at all, as presuming that they have waved 
it. Nor can there be any schism without a known 
altar, against which an opposite altar may be erected. 
It will not therefore be sufficient to prove them va- 
lidly consecrated Bishops, unless they were also put 
in possession of some particular Church, by the same 



20G 

provincial Synod, by which they were consecrated. 
Which I am apt to think was a thing not foreseen, if 
there were any such clandestine consecrations. 

" The other arguments, distinct from this of the 
schism, cannot, I think, be justifiable upon catholick 
principles. Nor can we therefore second our brethren 
who will continue the separation upon them. The 
adjusting these things will require some time before 
we can be resolved what to do. And the respite will 
be convenient for the unanimity even of those who 
act upon the same principles. 

" Thus you have my thoughts, in short, concern- 
ing this whole matter. It concerns us all to join our 
prayers, that our own concord be broken as little as 
is possible, by our reconciliation into one communion 
with our adversaries." y 

This is a most interesting and important document, 
as expressive of Dodwell's views on the question of 
the continuance of the separation. It is clear too 
that Dodwell was uncertain about the new consecra- 
tions. He had evidently heard a rumour of such a 
thing, but he had no positive knowledge of the fact. 
He writes from Shottesbrooke again nearly two months 
later, under the date of March 2nd, to another friend. 
At this time he had received Ken's answer. 

" Since the decease of my Lord of Norwich, I have 
written to the excellent Bishop Ken, as the last sur- 
vivor of the invalidly deprived Bishops, and have 
received his answer : as I have also seen another 
answer to another person, who consulted him on the 
same occasion. Both are very full in owning his 
not insisting on his just right. 

y Marshall's Defence of our Constitution in Church and State, 
&c. Appendix No. III. 



of tfce ^onjuror^* 20? 

" By these therefore and other informations, we are 
here fully satisfied, that there is not now any longer 
any altar in our National Church opposite to another 
altar of the same Church, that can justifie the con- 
tinuance of our separation. Accordingly our two 
families here were at church on February the 26th, 
the first Sunday in Lent. 

" But there are several, who still scruple the 
prayers. Endeavours are however using, that this 
difference of practice may make as little animosities 
in our flock as may be : whose endeavours will de- 
serve the prayers of all who desire the good as well 
as the peace of this afflicted Church." 55 

The other letter from Ken, to which Dodwell 
alludes, was undoubtedly one which was sent to Nel- 
son. Thus, writing to a friend on the same subject, 
under date of February 21st, 1709-10, Nelson says : 

" In order to satisfie your inquiry, I can acquaint 
you, that I have received a letter from Bishop Ken, 
who assures me, ' that he was always against that 
practice which he foresaw would perpetuate the 
schism, and declared against it, and that he had 
acted accordingly, and would not have it laid at his 
door, having made a recess (as he says) for a much 
more worthy person : and he apprehends it was 
always the judgment of his brethren, that the death 
of the canonical Bishops would render the invaders 
canonical, in regard the schism is not to last always/ 
Afterwards his Lordship adds this : ' I presume Mr. 
Dodwell, and others with him, go to church, though 
I myself do not, being a public person : but to com- 
municate with my successor in that part of the office 
which is unexceptionable, I should make no difficulty.' 

* Marshall, App. No. IV. 



208 ^tgtorp of tje 

" This letter I communicated to Mr. Dodwell when 
in town, which he thought clear enough for closing 
the schism, and I suppose in a short time he may 
have one to the same purpose." 

On the 5th of March, Brokesby writes to a gentle- 
man on the same subject for Dodwell, whose weak 
sight at that time prevented him from writing him- 
self. He cites Ken's answer to Dodwell, the same 
in substance as that to Nelson. It was as follows : 

" In that you are pleased to ask me, whether I 
insist on my episcopal claim ? my answer is, that I 
do not : and that I have no reason to insist on it, in 
regard that I made cession to my present most wor- 
thy successor : who came into the fold with my free 
consent and approbation. As for any clandestine 
claim, my judgment was always against it: and I 
have nothing to do with it, foreseeing that it would 
perpetuate a schism, which I found very afflicting to 
good people scattered in the country, where they 
could have no divine offices performed." 

Brokesby adds : 

" We are here satisfied the schism is at an end, 
when there is no altar against altar, nor any other 
Bishops but Suffragans to require our subjection. 
And therefore we go all to church. " b 

In Hickes's Constitution of the Catholic Church, a 
work not published until the year 1716, as will be 



a Marshall, App. No. V. 

b Ibid. App. No. VI. It seems that the Archbishop of York 
was instrumental in bringing back Nelson. On the 27th of 
January 1709, the Archbishop records, in his Diary, a notice to 
this effect, that Nelson was considering the subject : and on the 
15th of February he records the fact itself. Nelson received the 
Sacrament from the hands of the Archbishop on Easter Day fol- 
lowing. Life of Archbishop Sharpe, ii. 31, 32, 33. 



of tlje ^onjurorg* 209 

noticed in the proper place, there is a letter " written 
for the use of a gentleman who lived in the communion 
of the faithful remnant of the Church of England, till 
the death of the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. 
William Lloyd, Lord Bishop of Norwich : but shortly 
after his death left it, and joined himself to the other 
opposite communion of the Church of England, be- 
fore this letter could be finished." The gentleman in 
question was Nelson, who applied to Hickes on the 
subject. The publisher speaks as one of the party, 
and therefore was probably Brett. He says that after 
the death of Lloyd " another question was started 
among us." This was, " whether the schism did not 
end, and the schismatical Bishops become catholic, 
by the death or cession of all the deprived Bishops." 
Dodwell held this view : but the publisher of Hickes's 
papers affirms, that the principle was repugnant to 
reason and the practice of the primitive Church, and 
" contrary to his former writings," alluding for a 
proof to " The Conference between Gerontius and 
Junius." Hickes, it seems, was ill at the time, yet 
he desired Nelson to wait till he could draw up a 
paper. Nelson replied, that he would only wait till 
Easter, the Bishop of Norwich dying on the 30th of 
January. Hickes was unable to write, and Nelson 
went to his parish church. The former proceeded with 
his letter : but before it was completed the latter died. 
The publisher labours to weaken the force of Nelson's 
example, remarking, that " Mr. Nelson's practice 
was founded upon Mr. Dodwell's reasons, and if they 
are not good, he was certainly in the wrong." In 
the letter itself, which was circulated in MS. after 
Nelson's death, Hickes enters largely upon the ques- 
tions discussed by Dodwell, and especially on the 
argument derived from Ken's resignation. He states, 

p 



210 ^(gtorp of tfj* 

that Ken had expressed his approval of the conse- 
cration of himself and Wagstaffe, though it would 
seem from the Bishop's letters that Hickes was mis- 
taken. He calls Ken's wish to resign a strange 
humotcr, alleging, that the reason respecting the 
healing of the schism, " if good, should have obliged 
him to have resigned at first, and not to have kept 
his diocese twelve years or more in schism. " a The 
letter was seen by Dodwell, who commented upon it 
in another letter, which is given by Marshall. Hickes 
had thrown out a notion respecting the continuance, 
in cases of necessity, of the succession by Presbyters : 
and Dodwell argues that such a thing would be im- 
possible. He also repeats in this letter, that Ken 
was altogether against continuing the separation, and 
that the Irish prelates were of the same mind. b 

Dodwell was resident in the diocese of Sarum, of 
which Burnet was Bishop, than whom no man could 
have been more obnoxious to the Nonjurors : yet this 
did not prevent him from carrying out his principles. 
The step, however, was a cause for animadversion : 
and he thus defends his practice : 

" I have seen a letter of yours to a third person, 
the last paragraph whereof is spent in censure on me 
for returning to the communion of our old Fathers 
and brethren ; especially for returning so soon, and 
that in the diocese of a Bishop so justly exception- 
able as ours is, above the rest of his brethren. 

" You say you always proposed waiting to the end 
of this session of Parliament. You did so. But I did 
not think myself at liberty to stay out of the true 
episcopal communion, when I could unite with it 



a Constitution of the Catholic Church. 8vo. 1716. P. 227. 
b Marshall's Defence, App. No. VII. 



^onfurot% 21 1 

consistently on Catholic principles. Nor was I 
satisfied of continuing in our late communion since 
the death of my Lord of Norwich, and an assurance 
from my Lord of Bath and Wells, under his own 
hand, that he does not insist on his own right, as the 
last survivor of the deprived Bishops. This satisfied 
me that Dr. Hooper is no schismatic, and that no 
other Bishop of England contracts any contagion of 
schism in communicating with Dr. Hooper now, as 
administering Bishop of the Diocese of Bath and 
Wells. 

" But you object the intemperate heat of our par- 
ticular diocesan against our doctrine of nonresistance. 
And you add " that the whole world must think it 
a betraying our principles to come over to those who 
openly defy them." But whilst we live in his diocese, 
Providence has not left us at liberty to deny him that 
duty which is owing to him by the rules of the 
spiritual society, on account of our being inhabitants 
of his particular district. Nor can we whilst we live 
here communicate with the more orthodox Bishops 
of the same communion, otherwise than by commu- 
nion with him who is in actual communion with his 
more orthodox brethren." 

There is much more on the same subject in the 
letter, from which the extracts are taken : but these 
are sufficient to show what Dod well's principles were, 
and to prove his consistency in carrying out those 
principles, even in Burnet's diocese. 

Nelson was asked at the same time, whether a man 
could join in communion with a Church which used 
unlawful prayers. He replied that the unlawful 
prayers could not be assented to : but he might law- 



Marshall, App. No. VIII. 



2 1 2 ^(0 torg of tt)e |ionf urorg, 

fully hold communion with such a Church : that not- 
withstanding such mistakes in a Church Christ holds 
communion with it : " and where Christ holds com- 
munion we are obliged to hold it : for it's there as 
with the soul in the body which leaves not the body 
for the head-ach, or a wound that is not mortal." 
He adds : " if that were true, we should hold no com- 
munion with any Church in the world : because it's 
more than probable, that no Church in its offices is 
so perfect as to be without error or mistake in them." 

Nelson then meets an objection, which he puts in 
the following form : " If it be said why do we then 
forsake the communion of the Church of Rome?" 
This objection is met so conclusively, and is so cal- 
culated to disprove the unreasonable charge of Popery, 
so flippantly alleged by some modern writers, that I 
shall quote his reply at length. 

"I.I answer, that that Church is not to be held 
communion with, though its offices were pure, because 
of the doctrines and practices of it, which are cor- 
rupted in the vitals of them. 

"2. The very offices do partake of the corruption, 
are vitally corrupted, as in respect of the object of 
worship, saints and images, or of the things prayed 
for, or the things acknowledged therein. 

"3. They are so incorporated, that there is no 
communicating without them, the body of their ser- 
vice being made up of them. 

" 4. These are among them made necessary terms 
of communion : so should any of a contrary opinion 
hold communion with that Church in fact, as he is 
ipso facto an heretick, and stands excommunicated 
by their Maundy Thursday Bull, so, if discovered, 
would be prosecuted as such." f 

f Marshall, App. No. IX. 



of tlie ^onjucot^ 213 

In this way does Nelson prove that the cases were 
not similar. And the extracts, while they support 
his argument, are also calculated to shield his memory 
from the attacks of prejudiced persons in our own 
times. 

Much correspondence took place at this period 
between the Nonjurors, since many dissented from 
Dodwell's view. Brokesby, as well as Dodwell, enters 
largely upon the subject. In a letter of October 19th 
1710, he thus writes : 

" That we could not communicate with the present 
possessors formerly because there was altar against 
altar ; which cannot now be said : that we could not 
communicate with them while our excellent Fathers 
were alive : that these might if they had pleased have 
ordained Bishops into vacant sees : that this was not 
done, (which alone could have hindered it) and hence 
upon the death of our deprived Fathers a right ac- 
crued to the present possessors, there being none else 
who could justly challenge it: that when our de- 
prived Fathers consecrated other Bishops, they capa- 
citated them to perform episcopal functions, gave 
them a right to ordain others, and hereby a power to 
prevent the failure of this order, which might other- 
wise be feared as in Scotland : and they might have 
commissioned them to exercise their episcopal offices : 
but they could not commission them to do it after 
their deaths, the commission determining with the 
life of their commissioner, nor could give them right 
to act in full sees." g 

Brokesby alludes to a report, that the deprived 
Bishops agreed that a power was given the new 
Bishops, that is, Hickes and Wagstaife, equal to that 

c Marshall, App. No. X. p. 41. 



214 li?tetorp of tj 

of the Bishop of Norwich, and that it was to be exer- 
cised after the death of the Bishops. He says in 
reply : " It can hardly be imagined that those wise 
and good men should grant such a power : in that if 
they had had a mind in their life time to have closed 
the schism, this might have precluded them from 
doing it. But further, this power could not have 
been granted without an unanimous consent of all 
the deprived Bishops, in that if any one had stood 
out this would have rendered the grant invalid, be- 
cause he might have insisted on his own right : now 
we have reason to think that Bishop Ken never con- 
curred to the grant of such a power." h 

Marshall doubts whether any notification was made 
of the appointment of suffragans, Hickes having 
stated, that it was sufficient to do so as occasion offered. 
He says he knew a lady, who earnestly desired one 
of these suffragans to notify his consecration on the 
death of Lloyd : as she had no other objection to their 
communion, than the want of Bishops, of which she 
had no proof. Marshall adds : " The suffragan had 
no reason to mistrust her secresy nor her fidelity to 
his interests, and a good deal of personal obligation 
to do all in his power for her satisfaction : and yet 
he suffered her to come over to us, for want of suffi- 
cient notification." 1 I do not, however, see the force 
of this reasoning : because it is clear that the lady 
wanted a public notification, which the suffragan was 
probably afraid to make. It will be seen, in a sub- 
sequent chapter, that Hickes did not conceal the 
matter. 

A second letter was written by Brokesby, dated 
Nov. 18, 1710, to the same party. It appears that 

h Marshall, App. No. X. p. 41. * Marshall, 176, 177. 






of tt)c /ponjurorg* 215 

the individual had insisted on the right of the de- 
prived Bishops to appoint successors. Brokesby takes 
up Dodwell's position, and contends that such a grant, 
if made, must be fully attested : and that then the 
question whether the deprived Bishops had such 
a power must be considered. It appears also, that 
during these discussions, the consecrations of Hickes 
and Wagstaffe were fully made known ; or at all 
events they were pleaded in the letter to Brokesby. 
This is certain, since Brokesby thus argues : 

" You make this grant a subsequent act to those 
persons being ordained suffragan Bishops, and to be 
a synodical decree of our deprived Fathers. Ad- 
mitting the first, their being ordained : we insist on 
the proof of the subsequent grant, the enlargement 
of their power, and this over the whole Church of 
England. If it was a synodical determination, then 
let the Acta synodalla be produced, and this under 
the hands of the Bishops, who were members of the 
synod, according to the forms used in synods. " k He 
afterwards adds : " Suppose our deprived Fathers 
had intended to convey such a power to those worthy 
suffragans, and agreed among themselves to do it : 
if they did not by some formal act convey it, no such 
power accrues to them, neither can they, by virtue of 
such an intention, challenge any jurisdiction." 1 
Brokesby therefore urges the production of the grant 
before its legality be discussed. Another letter was 
written by Brokesby in 1712 ; but he only re-asserts 
his previous arguments. It does not appear that 
any grant, by which Hickes and Wagstaffe were 
authorized to act as diocesan Bishops, was produced : 
though had such been the case, it would have been 

k Marshall, p. 45. l Ibid. p. 46. 



216 1i?i0tocp of tlje 

of no avail, as the deprived Bishops possessed no such 
power. This point was discussed by Dodwell in 
another work, which I shall presently notice. 

Granting that the deprived Bishops had the power 
to appoint suffragans : it must be admitted, that they 
could not appoint them as their successors. A suf- 
fragan acted only by commission : and that com- 
mission was always dissolved by the death of the 
diocesan. " I may have leave to ask," says Marshall, 
" what authority a suffragan hath, independent on the 
commission, whereby he acts : and when the relation 
is dissolved between him and the person who so 
commissioned him?" m 

It will be seen from the foregoing extracts, that 
Dodwell and his friends were not privy to the conse- 
crations of Hickes and Wagstaffe : and further, that 
they did not admit, that the deprived Bishops could 
do more than appoint suffragans to act during their 
own lives. His views were fully stated in his " Case 
in View " and the " Further Prospect:" and therefore, 
after Lloyd's death and Ken's resignation, he communi- 
cated with the National Church. Being exceedingly 
anxious to put an end to the schism, he published 
" The Case in View now in Fact."" 

This is a very important work in the controversy. 



m Marshall's Defence, 173. 

n The Case in View now in Fact ; proving the Continuance of 
a Separate Communion, without Substitutes in any of the late in- 
validly-deprived Sees, since the Death of William, late Lord Bishop 
of Norwich, is Schismatical. With an Appendix, proving that 
our late invalidly-deprived Fathers had no right to substitute Suc- 
cessors, who might legitimate the Separation, after that the Schism 
had been concluded by the Decease of the last Survivor of those 
same Fathers. By the Author of The Case in View. 8vo. Lon- 
don 1711. 



of tl* jponjuvotg, 217 

To this period every Churchman must deeply sym- 
pathize with the Nonjurors. Our sympathies, how- 
ever, cannot be of the same character with the later 
Nonjurors, who continued the separation on prin- 
ciples, which were repudiated by such men as Ken, 
Frampton, Dodwell, Nelson, and Brokesby. 

Dodwell now charges the schism on those, who 
continued the separation from the National Church. 
At the head of this party was Hickes, who was sup- 
ported by many men of great talents. " The Case 
in View now in Fact" was intended for those, who 
continued the separation. Dodwell laments, that 
" they are striving their excellent wits to find new 
pretences every day for continuing the new schism, 
as conscious that the only justifiable reason has in- 
deed failed them, and yet unwilling to unite with 
their old friends and fellow communicants." He even 
fears that the divisions may " end in Atheism or 
Popery." " They cannot," he says, " continue their 
separation without commencing a new schism, to be 
imputed to themselves against the whole Church of 
England, which is now united against them, and is 
indeed the Church which is opposed by their sepa- 
ration. And the orders, which we suppose the Bishops 
we are speaking of to have derived from our deceased 
constant Fathers, now with God, can give them no 
more authority than what was lodged in our Fathers, 
from whom they are supposed to have received it. 
But those Fathers also had been schismaticks, if they 
had erected altars in full sees." p The rights of the 
deprived Bishops were extinguished with their lives : 
and they could not appoint Bishops to succeed them 
in their dioceses. 

The Case in View now in Fact, p. 3. P Ibid, p. 29. 



218 %0torp of tfi 

He alludes further to the prayers for the Sove- 
reign, and his view is, that those who join in them 
are only guilty of what he terms a sinful fact, not of 
heresy in doctrine. He admits that they are to re- 
fuse their assent to those prayers. q 

In this work Dodwell argued, that the deprived 
Bishops would have appointed successors in some of 
their sees, if they had intended to continue the schism 
after their decease : but in the Appendix he contends, 
that no such right or power belonged to them. Such 
substitutes, he says, would fall short of the title of 
their predecessors, a circumstance which he regards as 
favourable to the actual possessors of the sees. Such 
substitutes, he argued, would want several things 
which the deprived Bishops possessed. The Bishop 
was consecrated by the Provincial College into a 
vacant see, which could not have been the case with 
the substitute. He considered that there were then 
no altars capable of being injured by other altars, 
except those of the possessors, which could not be 
invaded without schism. The Bishops themselves, 
he says, would have been schismatics, if they had 
consecrated into full sees : and consequently, they 
could not convey powers to others, which could not 
have been exercised by themselves. He shews, that 
the separation arose in consequence of injury done 
to the deprived Bishops ; that its continuance after 
the death of the last of them was no assertion of their 
rights ; and that the injury being ended, another 
cause must be sought, if the separation must be con- 
tinued. No persons could be injured except the 
actual possessors ; so that the separatists would be 
the authors of the injury, and therefore schismatics. 

i Case in View now in Fact, p. 115. 



of fyz iponjuror^ 219 

Another argument was forcibly put, namely, that the 
deprived Bishops could not acquire new rights by 
their deprivation ; and that, without new powers, 
they could not appoint others to succeed them after 
their own death. He concludes : 

" The sum of what has been said is this : there 
can be no schism by contagion, where there is no 
principal schismatick : the death of the last survivor 
of our late invalidly deprived Fathers made the rival 
of that same survivor no longer a schismatick, by 
making his occupyed possession a vacancy, which 
was all that he wanted before for making his occu- 
pyed possession perfectly canonical. That death 
therefore put an end to the last principal schismatick, 
as a schismatick, as well as to the last invalidly de- 
prived survivor. All the diocesan districts of our 
National Church are fairly and canonically possessed. 
Nor could such canonically-possessed districts be in- 
vaded by any of our late invalidly-deprived Fathers, 
or all of them, though synodically assembled, without 
commencing a new schism from the time of that 
invasion. What they could not validly, nor without 
schism, act in their own persons, that they could not 
authorize others to act in their name. If those Fathers 
themselves might be allowed such a liberty of in- 
vading occupyed districts, they must necessarily have 
acquired new powers by their invalid deprivations. 
These things therefore being so, no commissions for 
powers derived from our late Fathers can excuse the 
present continuance of the separation from being 
schismatical." r 

In Dodwell's opinion they were not called upon to 
inquire, whether there were any commissions from 

r Case in View now in Fact. Appendix, pp. 47, 48. 



220 lljfeftorp of tfi* 

the deprived Bishops, nor whether they were au- 
thentically attested, nor whether they were publicly 
notified. If the facts are true, he argues, they are of 
no avail, if the deprived Bishops had no right to 
convey such powers to others as would legitimate a 
separation. "All would not suffice for giving others 
a right to powers, that ceased to be their own at the 
time, when the persons were to exercise the powers 
so conveyed to them. Till our friends can first an- 
swer these reasons satisfactorily, it will be in vain to 
produce or insist on such evidences of facts, if they 
be pleased to consider how little they could thereby 
advance their cause, though they should answer the 
expectation that even themselves might raise of them, 
as to the proof of the facts pleaded by them." 3 

The same year in which " The Case in View now 
in Fact" was published, the year 1711, Dodwell died. 
On the 6th of June he heard evening prayers in his 
room, and died shortly after four o'clock on the morn- 
ing of the seventh* The writer of his Life was sum- 
moned to his room at one o'clock in the morning, 
when it was evident that he was dying. His ejacu- 
lations were such as these, " Lord Jesus, have mercy 
on me : Lord, lift up the light of thy countenance 
upon me." Shortly before, he had received the Holy 
Eucharist in the parish church. He was buried in 
the chancel of Shottesbrooke church, his grave being 
marked by an inscription on a plain stone. He had 
arrived at the age of seventy years. u 

After the death of this eminent man, Gandy, who 
with Hickes was strenuous for continuing the separa- 



9 Appendix to Case in View now in Fact, p. 49. 
' Dodwell's Life, 542. u Ibid. 549, 550. 



of ttje ^onfurortf, 221 

tion, published a reply to " The Case in View now in 
Fact"* We are informed in the Preface, that it was 
finished at the time of Dodwell's death. This is 
stated by Gandy, lest any of Dodwell's new friends 
should say, that no one could answer him in his life- 
time. 

Gandy 's book is in the form of a dialogue : and in 
order to lessen Dodwell's reputation, the speakers 
commence with an allusion to his work on the soul, 
in which some singular views are promulgated. One 
of the speakers professes to follow Dodwell in his 
arguments on this subject : the other argues, that his 
opinions were erroneous, and that, therefore, such a 
man could not be trusted. He is, in short, treated 
most disingenuously by Gandy, whose aim evidently 
was to induce the belief, that because Dodwell may 
have been in error on some points not fundamental, he 
was not to be trusted in any. Afterwards he unsuc- 
cessfully endeavours to prove, that Dodwell had con- 
tradicted himself. For this purpose he quotes from 
the " Vindication of the deprived Bishops :" but there 
is not a passage in that work, which is not recon- 
cileable with his views at the period of his return to 
the National Church. Dodwell's arguments against 
the continuance of the separation are considered by 
Gandy, who conceived, that the reasons for its con- 
tinuance were as strong as they were for its com- 
mencement. 

Another work appeared also against The Case in 
View. It is without date : but the internal evidence 



w A Conference between Gerontius and Junius. In which Mr. 
Dodwell's Case in View now in Fact is Considered. Svo. London, 
1711. 



222 %t'0torp of tl)e 

proves, that it was published after Dod well's death.* 
The author quotes Gandy's work, a circumstance 
which must be regarded as conclusive as to the date 
of its publication. He commences with the assertion, 
that a schism can never be closed on Mr. Dod well's 
principles. He also argues, that no powers could be 
given in schism, and consequently, that the possessors 
of the sees were not true Bishops. In short, several 
very influential individuals were resolved to continue 
the separation by means of Hickes and Wagstaffe, 
who had been consecrated to the episcopal office by 
some of the deprived Bishops, as has been shewn in 
a preceding Chapter. 

* Mr. Dod well's Case in View Thoroughly Considered. Or the 
Case of Lay-Deprivations and Independency of the Church (in 
Spirituals) set in a True Light. By a Presbyter of the Church of 
England. 




CHAPTER VII. 

A. D. 1710-1720. 

SEPARATION CONTINUED. DEATH OF KEN. WAGSTAFFE'S 
DEATH. NEW CONSECRATIONS. CONTROVERSIES. HIGDEN. 
BEDFORD. SACHEVEREL. DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE AND 
ACCESSION OF GEORGE I. THE WHIGS. DEATH OF NELSON 

AND OTHERS. DEATH OF CoMPTON. LoCKHART's MEMOIRS. 

DEATH AND CHARACTER OF HICKES. BONWICKE. BRETT 

JOINS THE NONJURORS. Is CONSECRATED A BlSHOP. TlIE 

REBELLION. SUFFERINGS OF THE NONJURORS. WELTON'S 
CONDUCT. QUESTION HOW FAR THE NONJURORS IMPLICATED. 
WRITINGS. BENNET'S NONJURORS' SEPARATION. HOAD- 
LEY'S PRESERVATIVE. HICKES'S CATHOLIC CHURCH. MAR- 
SHALL'S DEFENCE. EARBURY. INTERNAL DISPUTES ON THE 
USAGES. NEW COMMUNION OFFICE. COLLIER'S WORKS IN 
DEFENCE OF THE USAGES. SPINKES'S WORKS IN OPPOSITION. 
LESLIE'S VIEWS. BRETT'S WORKS. COLLIER'S DESERTION 
DISCUSSED. SEPARATION OF NONJURORS INTO TWO COMMU- 
NIONS. VARIOUS WORKS. CAMPBELL'S MIDDLE STATE. 

SCLATER AND KlNG. 

|E are now entering on a most important 
period in the history of the Nonjurors. 
Some of the more eminent of their number 
had returned to the communion of the 
National Church : but many others resolved on the 
continuance of the separation under the Bishops, who 
had been consecrated by the deprived Prelates. 
Among the latter were Collier, Wagstaife, Gandy, 
and other individuals of considerable eminence. After 
the return of Dodwell, Nelson, and Brokesby to the 




224 !i?tetorp of tfie 

National Church, consequent on the death of Lloyd 
and the resignation of Ken, the Nonjurors, who per- 
sisted in continuing the separation, acted on principles 
different from those by which that section, who re- 
turned to the Church, had been guided from the 
period of the Revolution to the year 1710. Our sym- 
pathies, therefore, cannot be so strong in favour of 
the men who continued the separation. At the Re- 
volution 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 suc- 
ceeded them ; but after their death it seems reason- 
able 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 gene- 
ration of Nonjurors, it appears difficult to understand 
the grounds, on which they proceeded to appoint 
Bishops and Priests, and thus continue the succes- 
sion and the separation. 
We have considered the particulars connected with 



of t&* jlionjucor0. 225 

Ken's resignation, which led to the publication of 
DodwelFs Case In Fact, and to the return of several 
of the Nonjurors to the National Church. In a short 
time the pious Bishop himself was removed from 
time to eternity, dying in March 1710, or 1711, ac- 
cording to our present reckoning. Even Ken was 
exposed to the attacks of envy and malice. Among 
other charges, it was alleged, that he had united with 
the other Lords in inviting the Prince of Orange to 
come into England. How such a charge could have 
been advanced, it is difficult to imagine, Compton 
being the only Bishop who signed that document. 
The summer and autumn of 1710 were spent by the 
Bishop, at the Hot Wells, Bristol : and he expired at 
Longleat on the 19th of March. For many years he 
had travelled with his shroud in his Portmanteau, 
remarking that it might be wanted as soon " as any 
other of his habiliments." The shroud was actually 
put on by himself some days before his death, in 
order that his body might not be stripped. " He 
was buried at Frome Selwood, it being the nearest 
parish within his own diocese to the place where he 
died, as by his own request, in the churchyard, under 
the east window of the chancel, just at sun-rising, 
without any manner of pomp or ceremony, besides 
that of the Order for burial in the Liturgy of the 
Church of England ; on the 21st day of March 1710, 
anno aetat. 73. " b The following extract from his 
Will is very characteristic of the man. " As for my 



b Hawkins, 44, 45. The additional Letters of Ken, which 
have been collected by Mr. Round, are of the same character as 
those which had been previously published, and prove, that the 
Bishop was averse to continuing the separation after the death of 
Lloyd, 



226 ^igtorp of tlje 

religion, I die in the Holy Catholic and Apostolick 
Faith, profess'd by the whole Church before the dis- 
union of East and West : more particularly I die 
in the communion of the Church of England, as it 
stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan in- 
novations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the 



cross." 6 



A work entitled The Royal Sufferer has sometimes 
been attributed to Ken : but I can scarcely conceive 
that he was the author. At all events the authorship 
is doubtful. It is, however, a curious volume. The 
writer expresses a wish that King James were a Pro- 
testant ; but still he declares his allegiance to his Ma- 
jesty. He ventures to assert, that as a member of the 
Church of England he would be in the safer course. 
" If I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and made 
a Christian by true baptism, believing the Scriptures: 
can it be supposed that I shall suffer damnation for 
not equally believing traditions? If I make con- 
science to serve and worship God, can it be thought 
I shall perish for not worshipping images ? If I pray 
to God, as our blessed Saviour hath taught me, who 
can think I should incur the sentence of damnation 
for not invocating saints and angels?" After an ex- 
pression of humility, in urging such topics, he adds : 
" if through the divine blessing they should be made 
efficacious to cause your Majesty to return to and em- 
brace the religion professed by your royal Father, it 
would be the joy and rejoicing of all your people : 
and would open a door of hope to 'em even in this 
Valley of Achor." 

In the Meditation on Affliction, the writer freely 
censures the measures of the King, commencing with 

Hawkins, 26, 27. 



of tfje Sonjucorg. 22? 

the executions in the west after Monmouth's rebellion. 
He says : " had the King's ministers (to whom he en- 
tirely left it) made as much use of mercy as they did 
of justice, I am sure they would have done the King 
more service." He further says, in enumerating the 
causes of his Majesty's troubles, " it was a great piece 
of injustice to set up a new court for the management 
of ecclesiastical affairs, contrary to the express laws 
of the land : whereby the Church and Clergy of 
England were subjected to the wills of some men 
that were enemies to both. It was likewise a great 
piece of injustice to suspend the Right Reverend the 
Bishop of London from the exercise of his pastoral 
charge, for that which in itself was no offence." The 
declaration for liberty of conscience is censured as 
against law, and as intended to serve the Church, of 
Rome. With respect to the order for reading it in 
Churches he asks : " why should the Bishops be 
denied liberty of conscience, when it was granted to 
dissenters? Not that the Bishops were against in- 
dulgence to dissenters, when it should be proposed in 
Parliament, but they then saw there was latet anguis 
in herba, which many were not aware of." Referring 
to the imprisonment of the Bishops, which he cen- 
sures, he says : " I have, however, this consolation in 
myself, that what I acted at that time was out of duty 
both to God and the King : and that I am no way 
to be charged with what afterwards followed there- 
upon." This passage has been supposed to fix the 
authorship on Ken, since the writer was one of the 
suffering parties ; but it does not warrant us, in the 



1 The Royal Sufferer. A Manual of Meditations and Devo- 
tions. By T. K. D.D. 8vo. 1699, and 12mo. 1701. See the 
latter edition, pp. 64. 66. 70. 



228 %'0tocp of ttje 

absence of other evidence, in coming to the conclu- 
sion that it was his production. 

Instead of pursuing the course adopted by Dodwell 
and his friends, Hickes and those who concurred with 
him, took steps to perpetuate the schism. They con- 
ceived that the deprived Bishops had authority to 
appoint successors, without regard to dioceses, to act 
for the Church of England. So that, in their esti- 
mation, the national Church was not a true Church. 
It will be remembered that Hickes and Wagstaffe 
were consecrated in 1693, just after Bancroft's death: 
but the deprived Bishops never ordained any others. 
Wagstaffe died in the year 1712 ; so that Hickes was 
left alone. He, therefore, could not continue the suc- 
cession himself, because three Bishops are required 
by the canons at consecrations. Under these circum- 
stances, he had recourse to Scotland, and Campbell 
and Gadderar assisted in 1713 in consecrating Jere- 
miah Collier, Samuel Hawes, and Nathaniel Spinkes. 
Hickes must have known, that the Bishops of Scotland 
could not lawfully interfere in another province. 
Rather, however, than lose the opportunity of con- 
tinuing the schism, he adopted this irregular pro- 
ceeding, fearing probably, that some of the Nonjurors 
would have returned to the national communion, 
unless a provision were made for the succession of 
Bishops. For this act it is not easy to make an ex- 
cuse : consequently our sympathy for them as a party 
must from this period be considerably diminished. 

Wagstaffe was a man of great eminence among the 
first generation of Nonjurors. After his deprivation, 
he practised physic in London. Besides the " Letter 
out of Suffolk" containing an account of Sancroft, he 
was the author of " A Letter out of the Country con- 
cerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now 



of tfje ^Ponfucorg* 229 

under suspension : an " Answer to a late Pamphlet, 
Obedience Demonstrated by Overall's Convocation 
Book;" an "Answer to Sherlock's Vindication: 19 
" Remarks on Some Late Sermons : " " The Present 
State of Jacobinism in England, 1700, A Second Part 
in Answer to the First" with several other productions 
of a similar character. The last mentioned pamphlet 
was written in reply to one by Burnet. 6 Wagstaffe's 
son resided for some time at Rome in the somewhat 
singular character of Protestant chaplain to the Che- 
valier St. George, and afterwards to his son. It is 
remarkable that the Pope should have permitted any 
one to reside, in his capital, in such a character : but 
the fact proves, that Rome herself often acts from 
motives of policy, as well as the secular and more 
political states. There are extant several letters from 
a Thomas Wagstaffe to Hearne, on various matters, 
but chiefly antiquities, to the study of which he seems 
to have devoted himself with much enthusiasm/ But 
if the account by Nichols of the death of the Pre- 
tender's chaplain be correct, this could scarcely have 
been the same person. It is stated, that he died at 
Rome in 1770, at the age of 78, and the letters to 
Hearne were written, some of them, as early as the 
year 1715.' 

At this period the controversy respecting the Oaths 
was carried on with great bitterness on both sides. 
Higden appears to have been the first to renew the 
warfare on this particular point. He had himself 

e Wagstaffe was the able vindicator of King Charles the First's 
claim to the authorship of the I/cwv Bao-iXtfCij, the controversy res- 
pecting which has frequently been revived but never settled. A 
list of his publications is given in the Biog. Brit. Supp. 220 : and 
in Nichols's Lit. Anec. i. 35, 36. 

f See Aubrey's Letters. Nichols, i. 36. 



230 ^(0torg of 

been a Nonjuror, and, like Sherlock, on his compli- 
ance, he seems to have deemed it necessary to vindi- 
cate his conduct. Accordingly, he published his 
View of the English Constitution* He states in an 
Address to the Reader ; " after I had passed so many 
years of my life, without being able to reconcile my- 
self to the Oaths ; in the course of my studies, I met 
with some passages, which gave me cause to suspect 
that I had in some particulars mistaken the English 
constitution. They made me pause, gave me occa- 
sion for reflection, and inclined me once more to take 
a review of the judgment I had made so many years 
ago : with an intention, that if upon this inquiry, I 
should find my former judgment was well grounded, 
to sit down under it in a quiet and inoffensive way, 
whatever inconveniences might attend it : if not then, 
with my judgment, to alter my practice." The prin- 
ciple, on which he proceeds, is directly the reverse of 
that, on which he formerly acted, namely, that the 
Prince in possession could claim the allegiance of 
the subject. During the same year the Book was 
answered, in an anonymous publication, and with 
much cleverness. ! In the outset the writer says : 
" you are come into the government. But upon 
what terms ? You once thought it all a wickedness 
and usurpation. And have you altered your mind ! 
No. You still think it was so. But you have 
found reasons, that, notwithstanding all that, you 



h " View of The English Constitution, with respect to the So- 
vereign Authority of the Prince, and the Allegiance of the Sub- 
ject. In vindication of the lawfulness of taking the Oaths, to Her 
Majesty, by Law required." 8vo. London 1709. 

1 A Letter to the Reverend Mr. William Higden, on account 
of his View of the English Constitution, &c. By a Natural Born 
Subject. 8vo. 1709. 



of tf)* ^onfucor0. 231 

ought to comply with it. So that this is no justifi- 
cation of the government, but only of your own com- 
pliance. And you are as free to part with it to- 
morrow, if it keep not its ground, and comply again 
with whatever may rise up in its place. Therefore, 
the government is not beholding to any convert who 
shall come in otherwise than upon revolution prin- 
ciples." k In allusion to Momnouth he says, " if he 
had succeeded, he would have been as good a King 
for Mr. Higden, as any hereditary monarch in Eu- 
rope." * At the close of the volume is a singular ad- 
vertisement concerning the Jacobite converts. " In 
all revolutions there have ever been dissatisfied per- 
sons." Then, after stating, that changes afterwards 
take place, he adds : " of this sort we have had 
but two since the Revolution, Dr. Sherlock and now 
Mr. Higden. The first perplexed the cause, and 
shook the principles of the Revolution, nor has the 
latter come up to them. And both have given 
greater occasion against the establishment, than we 
heard from the Jacobites before. Mr. Hoadley has 
long pursued the Lord Bishop of Exeter, for assur- 
ing the world, (as he says) that her Majesty's title 
is only that of a successful usurpation. Which he 
would draw as a consequence from his Lordship's 
principle of non-resistance. But Mr. Higden, with- 
out the trouble of consequences, openly maintains 
the title of a successful usurpation, and gives her 
Majesty no other right or title whatever. This is 
all she gets by the Jacobite converts. They expose 
her to excuse themselves. The Jews compassed sea 
and land to make proselytes, but they had a maxim, 

k A Letter to the Reverend Mr. William Higden, &c. pp. 1,2. 
1 Ibid. 22. 



232 H?tetorp of tl> 

not to trust a convert to the third generation. For 
they made him twofold more than themselves." 

Another writer also published " Remarks on Mr. 
Higdens Utopian Constitution :" and to this and the 
preceding, the author replied in A Defence of the 
View, in which the same ground is again gone over. 
But the most important work on this subject was 
published in 1713, in a small folio. m The actual 
author of this work was not known ; but it was sup- 
posed to have been written by Harbin, a nonjuring 
clergyman, and the Preface by Theophilus Downes, 
once Fellow of Balliol College. Hilkiah Bedford, 
however, a Nonjuring Clergyman, was tried at the 
Guildhall, London, Feb. 13, 1713, and found guilty, 
on the ground of the work being a seditious Libel. 
He was charged with writing, printing, and publish- 
ing the book : and, on the 4th of May following, was 
sentenced to pay a fine of 1000 marks, to be im- 
prisoned for three years, and, at the expiration of 
that period, to find sureties for his good behaviour 
during life. There was another strange part of the 
sentence, namely, that, on the following Friday, he 
should be brought before the court, with a paper on 
his hat, expressing the crime and the judgment. On 
the Friday, however, a warrant was produced under 
her Majesty's hand, remitting this part of the sentence, 
on the ground that he was a Clergyman. It was 



m The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted : 
The History of the Succession since the Conquest cleared : and 
the true English Constitution Vindicated from the Misrepresenta- 
tions of Dr. Higden's View and Defence, &c. By a Gentleman. 
London, fol. 1713. Several persons were supposed to have been 
concerned in this work : but there was no foundation whatever for 
Rennet's insinuation, that Nelson was, in any way, implicated. 
Nichols, i. 400. 



of tlje /(ion/ucor0. 233 

supposed, that the author or authors, had, by some 
means, seen Lord Hales's MSS. of The Pleas of the 
Crown. When, therefore, the works of that learned 
individual were published, the obnoxious passages, 
which had been quoted in The Hereditary Right, 
were omitted ; a process, which in the present day, 
would scarcely be deemed honest. It seems that 
Bedford knew the author ; but he preferred impri- 
sonment and fines to a breach of confidence. Nor 
was he a loser in the end : for he afterwards estab- 
lished a school, which was carried on with so much 
success, that he left a considerable fortune to his son 
Dr. Bedford, a Physician, who died sometime after 
the middle of the last century. n The son took the 
Oaths as a qualification for office, on being appointed 
Register of the College of Physicians. Harbin, the 
supposed author of The Hereditary Right, resided 
with Lord Weymouth, who gave him a hundred 
pounds to take to Mr. Bedford, his Lordship con- 
cluding, that he was the writer of the Book. "Though 
not the Author, he submitted to be thought so from 
zeal to the Cause, and affection for the real author." 
This is the remark of Nichols, who also alludes to the 
singular circumstance, that Harbin, the real Author, 
should take the money to Bedford. The following 
account of the author was written by Mr. James 
West, on a copy of the book, in which certain MS. 
notes had been written by Bishop Kennett : " Upon 
shewing the above notes by Bishop Kennett, to Mr. 
Harbin, he told me he was the author of the annexed 
Book : and immediately produced the original copy 
of the same, together with three large volumes of 
original documents from whence the same was com- 

n State Trials, vol. ii. 682. 



234 fttftOCpOfttl 

piled. He was chaplain to Dr. Ken, Bishop of Bath 
and Wells, and was the head of the Clergy of the 
Nonjuring persuasion at that time. A man of in- 
finite knowledge and reading : but of a weak, pre- 
judiced, and bigoted judgment. " The Book was 
considered as setting aside the succession of the 
House of Hanover : consequently the Hanoverian 
minister made a complaint to the government. The 
evidence against Bedford was, that he had given the 
copy to the Printer. Calamy says, that the book 
was greatly dispersed, and that many copies were 
presented to men in power , p The mercy that was 
extended to Bedford, says a contemporary, " served 
to improve the suspicion, that the man and the Book 
and the Cause had some interest at court. " q 

In an anonymous work of the last century, it 
is stated, that the book was actually presented to 
her Majesty. "A book in folio, concerning the Here- 
ditary Right to the Crown, wrote by one Nonjuring 
Clergyman and fathered by another, was presented 
to the Queen, and well received by her : though it 
was so plain against the Revolution settlement, that 
it made a very great noise, and the ministry could 
not prevent the law taking place against Bedford, 
the supposed author, who was fined and imprisoned, 
and sentenced to stand in the pillory. But being a 
clergyman great interest was made with the Queen 
to have the ignominious part of the sentence remitted, 
which was procured." 1 

Nichols's Lit. Anec. i. 167, 168. Harbin's production shews 
that his judgment was not weak. Because he differed from himself, 
Mr. West pronounced him weak and bigoted. 

P Calamy's Life, ii. 268, 269. 

* Wisdom of Looking Backward, 351, 352. 

T Memoirs of Queen Anne, &c. 8vo. London, 1729. p. 253. 



of tfje jponfucottf. 235 

Bedford was the author of several works of con- 
siderable value, especially an Essay on the Thirty- 
nine Articles. In this volume, the question relative to 
the disputed clause in the xx th article is fully and 
ably discussed. Collier, in his History, gives the 
whole of this portion of Bedford's work. He also 
was the editor of the Life of Barwick, of which he 
published an English translation. This is a work of 
great merit. As it will not be necessary to refer 
again to Bedford, it may be mentioned, that he lived 
a few years after his trial, dying in the year 1724. 

It would scarcely fall within my province, in this 
work, to notice, at length, the affair of Sacheverell : 
but, as on many points the views of his supporters 
coincided with those of the Nonjurors, some allusion 
to the matter may be permitted. The Whig ministry 
acted most unwisely in the prosecution, which issued 
in the accession of the Tories to power. It also led 
many of the Clergy to believe, that they were not 
sincere friends to the Church of England. Sach- 
everell did not directly impugn the Revolution. The 
charge against him was, that he had maintained, 
that the proceedings of that period were not a case 
of resistance to the supreme power : so that the Re- 
volution could not be adduced against the doctrine 
of passive obedience. The managers of the trial 
laboured to shew, that the Revolution was an act of 
resistance ; and that consequently at times resistance 



Boyer intimates that it was countenanced by Secretary Bromley : 
but that the ministry thought it incumbent to notice the work on 
account of some manuscripts, which must have been obtained from 
the Lord Treasurer's Library. This writer also insinuates, that 
the book was the production of several Nonjurors, instancing Les- 
ley and Nelson. The supposition with respect to Nelson is absurd. 
Boyer, 657, 658. 



236 ^tetorg of rtje 

was lawful. He was violent in his opposition to 
Dissenters ; to occasional Conformists ; and to all the 
Whigs. The House of Commons resolved to prose- 
cute him for his two sermons, one at the assizes at 
Derby in August, the other at St. Paul's on the 5th 
of November 1709, intitled " Perils among False 
Brethren." The Commons attended in Westminster 
Hall as his accusers. He read his own defence, after 
which the Lords entered into a very warm debate on 
the subject. The proceedings continued three weeks, 
the Queen being present in secret every day. Her 
sedan, as she proceeded to the Hall, was surrounded 
by the mob, who cried, " God bless your Majesty 
and the Church. We hope your Majesty is for Dr. 
Sacheverell." There was a wide difference of opinion 
among the Lords. None of them actually defended 
non-resistance ; but Hooper, Bishop of Bath and 
Wells, thought, that resistance was only allowable in 
extraordinary cases. He contended, however, that the 
maxim should not be put forth, as the people were 
too ready to resist : that the Revolution could not 
be boasted of, or made a precedent : that a mantle 
should be cast over it ; that it should rather be called 
a vacancy : that those who examined it too nicely 
were not its best friends : and that at a period, when 
resistance was openly justified, there appeared to be 
a necessity for preaching non-resistance. The Duke 
of Leeds said, that, prior to the Revolution, he never 
expected that the crown would have been settled 
upon the Prince : that the Prince had often told him 
he had no such design : that a distinction should be 
made between resistance and a revolution : and that 
the attempt, had it not succeeded, would undoubtedly 
have been a rebellion. Trimmel, Bishop of Norwich, 
spoke of SacheverelFs presumption in publishing a 



of t&e 4ponfur0c0,. 237 

Collection of Prayers in the time of his persecu- 
tion, when he was only prosecuted according to 
law.' 

Probably Sacheverell was induced to publish the 
Prayers, to which the Bishop alluded, by the success 
of his Sermon : or the booksellers may have persuaded 
him to publish something of the kind. Of his Sermon, 
Perils Among False Brethren, no less than forty 
thousand copies were sold in a few weeks. The 
Prayers were published at the beginning of his trial : 
" Prayers and Meditations on the Day of his Trial. 
Price one Penny." Among the petitions were the 
following : " O Thou God of patience and consola- 
tion, grant me patience and resignation under my 
sufferings. Give me Christian courage to perform 
the cause which I have in hand." Prayers were also 
desired, in the Queen's Chapel, for Dr. Henry Sache- 
verell under persecution, by Mr. Palmer, for which he 
was removed from his post. At the close of the trial 
another Tract was published, Dr. SacheverelFs 
Prayers of Thanksgiving for his great Deliverance 
out of his Troubles. 1710;" so that he evidently 
viewed his conviction as a victory.* 

The Lords decided on his suspension : his sermons, 
together with A Collection of Passages used at the 
trial, were ordered to be publicly burned : but still 
his conviction was a triumph. Bisset endeavoured 
to turn the tide of popular feeling against Sacheverell, 
by publishing his Modern Fanatic. Three parts of 
this work made their appearance ; but the Author 

Tindal, iv. 157. Macpherson, ii. 394 398. 

* The Wisdom of Looking Backward, to Judge the better of one 
side and t'other by the Speeches, Writings, Actions, and other mat- 
ters of Fact on both sides for the four years last past. London, 
1715, pp. 10, 19. Tindall, iv. 157. 



238 ^igtorp of tfje |5onfurot#* 

was most severely handled by some of Sacheverell's 
supporters. Bissett completely failed in his object. 
Nay, it is questionable, whether he did not injure his 
cause : for he adduced certain charges affecting 
Sacheverell's private character, which were mani- 
festly false. In short, if Sacheverell was the tool of 
the Tories, Bisset was no less the tool of the Whigs. 

It was said at the time, that Sacheverell's friends, 
foreseeing the result, pushed the matter forward. Some 
of the Whigs, after the trial was over, asserted, that 
the preaching the Sermons was a Tory attempt to 
supplant the Whigs. But surely this assertion im- 
plies, that the Whigs were less keen sighted than 
their adversaries. The supposition, while it attri- 
butes deep policy to the Tories, renders the Whigs 
ridiculous, as being duped by their opponents. 11 

It is singular, that Compton defended Sacheverell's 
views. Sharpe, Archbishop of York, was also among 
his supporters. Both voted, that he was not guilty. 
Among the Prints, published on the occasion, there 
was one, in which Sacheverell is surrounded by va- 
rious individuals who supported him, and Sharpe 
and Compton are of the number. 

The suspension expired in 1713, March 23rd, and 
the day was celebrated with great rejoicings in Lon- 
don and several other places. On the following 
Sunday he preached at his Church, in Southwark : 
and on the 29th of May he was appointed to preach 
before the House of Commons, by whom he was 
thanked for his sermon. In a little time the court 
bestowed upon him the valuable rectory of St. 
Andrew's, Holborn. His conviction proved his 
greatest triumph over his prosecutors : for the popu- 

u Memoirs of Queen Anne, 8vo. 1729, 61. 



of tf)* ^onfurorg* 239 

lace every where viewed him as a martyr, and re- 
ceived him, in his progress through the country, with 
the most enthusiastic demonstrations of respect. The 
Queen too was probably inclined to favour his cause : 
for the arguments and statements of the managers 
were such, as could not be pleasing to royal ears. 
This circumstance was not forgotten by some of 
those about her Majesty, who reminded her of being 
taken to school by her ministers, to be instructed in 
revolution sentiments, as it was supposed, that the 
royal attendance was in compliance with the wishes 
of her advisers. The result is well known. The 
Whigs were soon removed from office : the country 
was against them : her Majesty was opposed to them : 
and this trial completed their downfall. w 

I shall not enter into the question respecting Queen 
Anne's views of her brother, or whether she wished 
him to succeed after her death. She died in 1714 : 
and the Elector of Hanover succeeded quietly to the 
throne. Had the Queen lived some years longer, 
probably an attempt might have been made to secure 
the throne to her brother's family. However, all 
such intentions, if indeed they were entertained, were 
frustrated by the death of the Queen. The Whigs 
were overjoyed at her death, for they viewed the 
event as the harbinger of their return to power : and 
some of the Dissenters, regardless of their former 
inconsistency in the reign of James II, were guilty 
even of profanity in speaking of her Majesty's de- 
parture. One person writes : " they were waiting 
for an opportunity to restore the Pretender : which 
while they were waiting for, the Divine Providence, 
that had so often saved a sinking nation, stept in, 

v Life of Bolingbroke, 183, 184. 



240 t(0torp of tt)f 

and, August 1st, 1714, takes away the unhappy 
Princess." 1 

The Whigs represented themselves as the only 
true friends of the Protestant succession : yet subse- 
quent discoveries have proved, that they rather con- 
sulted their own interest, than the welfare of the 
country or of the Church. Whenever they were out of 
power, they used every means of annoyance towards 
their opponents : and the Pretender was a very con- 
venient pretence for their purpose. Thus, some time 
after their removal from office consequent on Sach- 
everell's trial, they actually sanctioned the circulation 
of false statements in the newspapers, with a view 
to embarrass the Queen's ministry and excite the 
people against them. This was done by coining 
articles of foreign news and publishing them as true. 
The following is a specimen : " Paris, July 5, 1712. 
The Chevalier de St. George is at Chaillot, where he 
is to be retired some days, and lay aside the title of 
King. 'Tis not yet said what other title he will take; 
though it is not doubted, but that it will be that of 
Prince of Wales, and that all this is done in concert, 
because it would not be convenient for him to go to 
England with the title of King, but with that of the 
presumptive heir." J It is asserted, that had the 
Pretender renounced Popery, Queen Anne would 
have promoted his interests ; and that efforts were 
used to induce him to comply, though without effect, 
as he protested against such a course. He promised, 
however, to engage a Protestant clergyman, in the 
event of his coming to England, to officiate to his 
Protestant servants. 1 This latter promise, it is said, 



Bennet's Memorial, 399. y Life of Bolingbroke, 242. 
z Macpherson, ii. 518. 



f tfje jponjucot#. 241 

was broken when he actually came into the country.* 
Among the rumours of the day one was, that he had 
positively renounced Popery, and that his chaplain 
performed divine service daily in his presence, accord- 
ing to the order of the Anglican Church . b The 
Queen's death, however, destroyed the hopes of his 
friends : but had she lived some years longer, and 
the Pretender had openly joined the Anglican Church, 
it is not possible to say, whether he would have been 
rejected by the people of England. 

Several men of eminence among the Nonjurors 
were removed by death during the reign of Queen 
Anne. Nelson, no longer, however, a Nonjuror, died 
January 16th, 1714, leaving 200 by will to Hickes 
and Spinkes. By a codicil also he gave Mr. Hilt 
20 per annum. It is unnecessary to enter upon a 
history of his life. His secession from the Nonjurors 
influenced many others, and was one of the first steps 
that weakened their body. 

Thomas Smith, another clergyman of celebrity, 
died in the year 1710. He was deprived of his fel- 
lowship in the University for refusing to take the 
Oath of Allegiance in 1692. Several of bis works 
display much learning and great abilities. He was 



a Life of Argyle, 153. b Memoirs of Queen Anne, 239. 

c Like all the Nonjurors, Nelson was exposed to the charge of 
Popery, though he did so much to oppose it. His circumstances 
were very peculiar and distressing: for his wife, to whom he was 
tenderly attached, was a member of the Church of Rome, a cir- 
cumstance unknown to him at the time of the marriage. She 
even wrote in defence of Romanism, while he was engaged in the 
controversy on the opposite side. Subsequent to the Revolution, 
Nelson lived on the closest terms of intimacy with Tillotson, who 
actually expired in his arms. After his return to the communion 
of the National Church, he lived on the same friendly terms with 
the Nonjurors. Biog. Brit. Birch's Life of Tillotson. 

R 



242 ^tetorg of rije 

the author of " Vita Quorundam eruditissimorum et 
illustrium Virorum. 4to. 1707." This is a useful 
work, containing the lives of several men of great 
eminence in the Church. d He suffered much for his 
principles, and died in great poverty. 

Not long before the close of Queen Anne's reign 
died Henry Compton, Bishop of London, who, per- 
haps, next to Burnet and Tillotson, was more ob- 
noxious to the Nonjurors than any other prelate. 
His solemn denial, that he had not concurred in the 
invitation to the Prince of Orange, is a stain upon 
his memory, a blot upon his integrity. But notwith- 
standing his conduct at the Revolution, he was not 
advanced in the Church, though the see of Canter- 
bury was twice vacant during his life. He was 
Bishop of London before the Revolution, and he con- 
tinued Bishop of London till his death. A glowing 
character was given of him by his chaplain in a ser- 
mon before the Lord Mayor at St. Paul's. The 
author says, that at the Revolution " he was called 
peculiarly The Protestant Bishop." He adds, what 
will scarcely be admitted now, " and indeed he was 
the ornament and security of the Protestant Cause" 
This writer talks of jealousies against him and in- 
sinuations, which prevented his advancement. 6 

d Biog. Brit. Art. Smith. Nichols, i. 15, 16. In these works 
a list of his various publications is given. Hearne, writing to 
Dodwell, says, " this great man died a true confessor of this dis- 
tressed and afflicted Church, and the public has received a great 
loss by his fall." Aubrey's Letters, i. 203. 

e A Sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord 
Mayor and Aldermen at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, July 
26th 1713, on occasion of the much lamented death of the Right 
Hon. and Right Rev. Henry late Lord Bishop of London. By 
Thomas Gooch, D. D. lately one of his Lordship's domestic chap- 
lains, 8vo. London, 1713. 



p of tlje ^onjucottf. 243 

In the year 1714 the "Memoirs concerning the 
affairs of Scotland" were published without the con- 
sent of the writer, Mr. Lockhart, who had himself 
acted a conspicuous part in the Pretender's service. 
Lockhart lent the manuscript to a friend, under a 
strict injunction not to let it be seen. This friend, 
however, was so imprudent as to employ some one 
to transcribe it : and this individual gave a copy to 
a second party, by whom it was published, with a 
preface written by Sir David Dalrymple. The cir- 
cumstance is thus misrepresented in one of the pub- 
lications of the period. " July 20th, 1714. The Jaco- 
bite party were so sure of their game that a history 
of the Pretender, and of the faithful attempts of his 
friends in Scotland, was drawn up at large : and 
several copies of it delivered for secret service : till 
one of the transcribing clerks, for want of suitable 
reward, conveyed a transcript to the press. " f It is 
scarcely possible to conceive, that the writer of this 
extract did not know, that the manuscript had been 
treacherously given to the public, though he avers 
that one of the transcribers had done it in consequence 
of being inadequately rewarded for his labour. The 
notion is absurd, as he might have relinquished or 
declined the task. But the propagation of the false- 
hood served a party purpose, which was precisely 
the aim of the writer. A Key was also published, 
in which the names of the parties were written at 
length, the initials and concluding letter only being 
given in the work itself. Several editions were called 
for within the year. The Key simply contained the 
names written at length. But during the same year 
another tract was published, called " A Protestant 



f Wisdom of Looking- Backward, 369. 



244 !(0torp of ttje 

Index to Mr. Lock Cs Memoirs^ concerning the 

Affairs of Scotland." In this tract the pages are 
specified, in which the most obnoxious passages are 
to be found. 8 A descendant of Lockhart's published 
the "Memoirs" in 1817, together with the other 
papers of his ancestor. In this republication, there 
is an additional preface in answer to Dalrymple's in- 
troduction, which was prepared by the author, and 
left with the copy intended for publication after his 
decease. Various reasons prevented the publication 
until 1817, which are stated in the preface by the 
editor. 11 



^Memoirs concerning the Affairs of Scotland from Queen Anne's 
Accession to the commencement of the Union, &c. To which is 
prefixed an Introduction, shewing the Reason for publishing these 
Memoirs at this juncture. To which is added an Appendix, Lon- 
don, 8vo. 1714. A Key to the Memoirs, &c., London, 1714. A 
Protestant Index, &c., 8vo. 1714. These are all by different 
publishers. The book without the Key is common ; with the key 
and the index, it is scarce. 

h The Lockhart Papers, 2 vols. 4to., London, 1817. The 
writer of " The Wisdom of Looking Backward " has the following 
entry: " March 5th, 1713-14. The Jacobites began to prepare 
their psalms of thanksgiving against a time expected ; and for the 
use of their people they published some select psalms in English, 
with the Latin version of Buchanan, entitled " The Loyal Mans 
Psalter: or some select Psalms in Latin and English verse, fit for 
the Times of Persecution." He gives the following specimens: 

" Bless'd is the loyal man whose steps 

No trayterous counsel lead aside, 

Nor stand in rebels ways, nor sit 

Where God and justice men deride. Psalm 1. 

Confounded be those rebels all 

That to usurpers bow ; 

And make what Gods and Kings they please, 

And worship them below." Psalm 97. 

Wisdom of Looking Backward, 337, 338. 



of tf)* $*onfuror#, 245 

Hickes did not long survive the consecration of 
Collier, Spinkes, and Hawes. He died in the year 
1715, at the age of 74, leaving behind him the cha- 
racter of a learned and pious man. Of course he 
had his failings : but his works will remain as a 
monument of his learning and piety as long as the 
English language is used. He was born in the year 
1642. He was on intimate terms with Kennet and 
several other clergymen who complied, and who were 
anxious to direct his attention to the study of the 
northern antiquities. His protest against Mr. Talbot 
was considered as an act of rebellion against the 
government : and proceedings being commenced, he 
withdrew into a place of concealment until 1699, 
when Lord Somers, the Chancellor, ordered the 
Attorney-General to enter a noli prosequi to all pro- 
ceedings against him. During a portion of this 
period he resided with White Kennet, wearing a 
lay-habit, and affecting to be unknown. Disagreeing 
as they did, they could not converse on ecclesiastical 
matters : consequently they met on the common ground 
of literature. At Kennet's suggestion he undertook 
his most laborious work, the " Thesaurus.'" At last, a 
fellow of a college in Oxford, coming to Kennet's 
house, knew him, and called him by his name. This 
alarmed him : so that he immediately repaired to 
London, where he remained until the Lord Chancellor 
interposed. It is stated that he once contemplated 
taking the Oaths : but the authority on which the 
report rests appears doubtful. 1 The inscription on 
his tomb, written by his own direction in his will, 
is adduced as evidence, simply because it does not 
notice the fact of his appointment as a suffragan 

1 Kennet's Life, p. 14, 47, 48. 



246 ^igtorp of d) 

Bishop. The inscription was as follows : " Depositum 
Georgii Hickes, S. T. P. non ita pridem Coll. Line. 
Oxon. Socii, et Ecclesise Cathedralis Wigornensis 
Decani, qui Obiit 15 Die Decembris 1715." It is very 
properly remarked, that no mention of the title of 
suffragan would at that time have been permitted : 
consequently nothing can be inferred in favour of 
the notion that he disclaimed the title. k 

Some notice of Leslie will be given in a subse- 
quent page ; but it may be mentioned here that he 
was supposed to be the author of " The Mitre and 
the Crown : or a real Distinction between them " in 
1711, and " A Continuation of the Mitre and the 
Crown" in 1712. In the year 1713 he published 
" The Case Stated between the Church of England 
and the Church of Rome." It was answered by a 
Romanist in " The Case Re-stated." Even this book 
was cavilled at by the opponents of the Nonjurors. 
The object was to bring odium upon them as favourers 
of Popery : and when this could not be done, the 
next thing was misrepresentation. A more effective 
work against Rome could scarcely be named than 
Leslie's " Case Stated, " and " Case Truly Stated; " 
yet the following notice appeared at the time. " Feb. 
27th, 1713-14 : The hopes of bringing over the Pre- 
tender to profess the Protestant religion began to 
diminish every day : especially when men saw that 
the book writ for that purpose by Mr. Leslie, and 
called the * Case Stated, ' was heinously taken by 
the Papists, and boldly answered by one of them in 
a tract, < The Case Re-stated:' to which Mr. Leslie 
thought proper to reply in a Defence of what he had 
before said, but with no manner of suggestion that 

k Biog. Brit. A list of his writings is given in the article. 



of ttj* ^ottfurorgL 247 

he was likely to succeed in his first design of 
writing." 1 Somewhat earlier, the same writer says 
the " Jacobites now drank to the Protestant suc- 
cession, upon hopes the Pretender was to be con- 
verted by Mr. Leslie." m So that at one time all the 
Nonjurors were Papists ; at another, they were labour- 
ing to convert the Pretender to Protestantism. 

The case of a youth, Ambrose Bonwicke, son of a 
Nonjuror of the same name, may be adduced as an 
illustration of the force of those feelings, by which 
the Nonjurors were actuated. This youth was born 
in 1691 : in 1702 he was sent to Merchant Taylor's 
School. In 1709, though captain of the school, he 
lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, in 
consequence of his Nonjuring scruples. The head 
scholars were accustomed to read the prayers, which 
were daily used in the school, and which were taken 
from the Liturgy. The first Collect for the King in 
the Communion Service was one of the Prayers se- 
lected for daily use. This Collect young Bonwicke 
scrupled to read. Efforts were used in vain to terrify 
him out of his scruples : for he was resolved to make 
any sacrifice rather than violate his conscience. At 
the election, therefore, in 1710, he was told that his 
qualifications marked him out for election ; but he 
was asked why he did not read the usual prayers. 



1 Wisdom of Looking- Backward, 333, 334. 

n Ibid. 225. It must strike persons as strange, yet such was 
the fact, that Leslie's " Method with the Deists " was actually 
charged as Popish. It was attacked in a work with the following 
title : " A Detection of the true Meaning and wicked Design of 
a book entitled * A plain and easy Method with the Deists.' 
Wherein is proved that the Author s four marks are the marks 
of the Beast, and are calculated only for the cause and service 
of Popery ," 8vo. London, 1710. 



248 Ig&torp of ttje jlionfurorg, 

His reply was, " Sir, I could not do it." The master 
applauded the youth for his honesty, but expressed 
his sorrow at the loss of his election. The disap- 
pointment was cheerfully borne. He subsequently 
entered at Cambridge, but was cut off by an early 
death in the year 1714-15. n 

After Hickes's death, Collier was, undoubtedly, 
the most able man of the party, and continued to be 
their leader, until the body separated into two sec- 
tions, in consequence of the controversy respecting 
the Usages. Collier was prepared to uphold the 
separation at all hazards : consequently in the year 
1716, Henry Gandy and Thomas Brett were conse- 
crated to the episcopal office by Collier, Spinkes, 
and Hawes. 

Gandy was the author of several works in this con- 
troversy, and appears to have been as strenuous in 
his views as any one of the party. But the circum- 
stances connected with Brett are very remarkable. 
He was ordained in the year 1690, at which time he 
entertained some scruples respecting the Oaths. He 
saw that the Tories, who had sworn allegiance to 
King James, took the Oath to William and Mary. 
He had never taken an Oath to James, and therefore 
he was not hampered by any preceding engagements. 
On becoming acquainted soon after with Gery, he 
imbibed that gentleman's views. The pupil, how- 
ever, proceeded much farther than the instructor : for 
the latter died Vicar of Islington in 1707, while the 
former became a Nonjuror. After taking the Oath 

n Nichols, v. 120, 121, 156. 

e I have a copy of Tertullian's work, De Pallio, with the fol- 
lowing words written on the fly-leaf, in the handwriting- of Brett : 
" Tho. Brett Liber ex Dono Reverendi Georgii Gery, Vicarii 
De Islington. A. D. 1694." 



of ttje 0onfuror0* 249 

of Allegiance several times, his scruples became so 
strong, and especially after the trial of Sacheverell, 
that he quitted the National Church. In considering 
the proceedings connected with that memorable trial, 
he came to the conclusion, that he had committed an 
error in taking the Oaths : and he soon resolved not 
to take them again. Still he did not scruple for some 
time to pray for the Queen, nor to remain in the 
Church. But on the accession of George I, when all 
persons holding offices were compelled to take the 
Oaths afresh, he found, that he could not comply, 
and wrote to the Archbishop to that efTect. p His 
Grace very kindly requested him to pause. He, 
therefore, remained in the Church, until his non-com- 
pliance with the order for taking the Oath vacated 
his post. For a time he continued to attend his parish 
church as a private person ; and it is probable, that 
he might have continued to do so, but for the inter- 
ference of Hickes, who, hearing of his scruples, per- 
suaded him to cease to communicate with, or attend 
the worship of, the National Church. He was ad- 
mitted into the Nonjuring communion July 1, 1715, 
according to a Penitential Form prepared especially 
for such occasions. The year after, he was conse- 
crated a Bishop. He was accustomed, like many 
other Nonjurors, to officiate privately in his own 
house. His literary labours were very numerous, and 



P It appears to have been the Oath of Abjuration, rather than 
that of Allegiance, which led to his scruples. The Lord Chief 
Baron Gilbert had many conversations with him on the subject, 
with a view to bringing him over to Whig principles : but a con- 
trary effect was produced, for he became still more fixed in those 
which he had imbibed. It is said, that he read Dod well's tracts 
in favour of communion with the National Church, but that he 
was not convinced by the arguments. 



250 %'0torg of tije 

all of them were distinguished for great ability and 
extensive learning. Brett was once presented at the 
assizes for holding a conventicle in his house : but 
an Act of Indemnity rescued him from the penalties. 
He afterwards spent his time between Faversham and 
Canterbury, in which places he had congregations. q 
Unquestionably theNonjurors made a wise and judi- 
cious choice in selecting Brett as a Bishop. The 
choice was made probably at the desire of Hickes, 
though he died before the consecration. 

Before we enter upon the controversies of this 
period, a few remarks may be offered on the Rebel- 
lion of 1715. The Nonjurors, properly so called, 
those, who sacrificed all their prospects, rather than 
take the Oaths, were generally quiet and peaceable 
men : and though attached to King James, they did 
not make any attempt towards the restoration of his 
family. Of those who were implicated in the Re- 
bellion, many had taken the Oaths, while others, 
from not occupying any public station, had not been 
called upon to make their decision. The fact, that 
some of the individuals, who were implicated, pro- 
fessed Nonjuring principles at the time of execution, 
is no proof that the body were involved in that at- 
tempt. Very few, if any, of the actual Nonjurors 
were concerned. Thus Mr. Paul asked forgiveness 
of God, on the scaffold, for having taken Oaths in 
favour of what he termed a usurpation. He avowed 
himself a member of the Nonjuring Church, as a 
party separate from the National Church. " You 
see by my habit, that I die a son, though a very un- 
worthy one, of the Church of England : but I would 
not have you think, that I am a member of the schis- 

* Nichols, i. 408, 409. 



of tfje ^onjucoc^ 251 

matical Church, whose Bishops set themselves up in 
opposition to those orthodox fathers, who were un- 
lawfully and invalidly deprived by the Prince of 
Orange : I declare that I renounce that communion, 
and that I die a dutiful and faithful member of the 
Nonjuring Church, which has kept itself free from 
rebellion and schism : and I desire the Clergy, and 
all members of the Revolution Church, to consider 
what bottom they stand upon, when their succession 
is grounded upon an unlawful and invalid deprivation 
of Catholic Bishops : the only foundation of which 
deprivation is a pretended Act of Parliament." He 
added : " the Revolution, instead of keeping out 
Popery, has let in Atheism." Mr. Hall, another suf- 
ferer, though not a clergyman, made a similar decla- 
ration. " I declare that I die a true and sincere 
member of the Church of England : but not of the 
Revolution schismatical Church, whose Bishops have 
so shamefully given up the rights of the Church, by 
submitting to the unlawful, invalid, lay-deprivations 
of the Prince of Orange. The community I die in, 
is that of the true Catholic Nonjuring Church of 
England." r 

The case of Shephard, a youth only eighteen years 
of age, excited much attention, and led many persons 
to think, that unnecessary severity was exercised by 
the government. At almost any other period, the 



T See A Collection of Dying Speeches of those People called 
Tray tors, executed in this reign. From Colonel Henry Oxburgh 
to the late Mr. James Shepheard. To which is added, some of 
the Speeches left by the like sort of People executed in Former 
Times. By comparing which, it will appear that it has been the 
practice of most times for men to justify their own conduct on all 
occasions, even to the last. 8vo. 1718. Calamy's Life, vol. ii. 
357, 358. 



252 ^f0tocp of tfje 

youth would have been confined, on the ground of 
insanity : but the government permitted his execution 
to take place. Mr. Orme, a Nonjuring clergyman, 
attended him on the scaffold. 

At this period the Nonjuring Clergy were sub- 
jected to much hardship in consequence of the Re- 
bellion : for the Oaths were tendered afresh to all 
suspected persons. Those who refused were com- 
mitted to prison : while several magistrates were re- 
moved from the commission for what was deemed 
undue leniency in imposing the Oaths. 8 In many 
cases, uncalled for severity was exercised. Individuals 
were even punished for wearing white roses, which 
were considered as badges of the Pretender's. With 
what strange feelings must such a passage as the 
following be read ! " Two soldiers whipped almost 
to death in Hyde Park, and turned out of the ser- 
vice, for wearing oak boughs in their hats the 29th 
of May." 1 Dr. Welton, who had been deprived of 
the Rectory of Whitechapel, and who had assembled 
together about 250 Nonjurors in a private house for 
divine service, was surprised by the magistrates. Mr. 
Hawkes, another clergyman, officiated for some time 
in his own house opposite to St. James's Palace; but 
because he omitted the name of the King, in reading 
the Common Prayer, he was fined under the Con- 
venticle Act. u 

The Nonjurors were at this time deterred, by 
these severities, from defending their principles by 
means of the press. Some few, however, ventured 
to stand forward, though they were generally sub- 
jected to punishment. Laurence Howell, so well 

8 Salmon's Chron. His. ii. 56. * Ibid. 

u Ibid, 69, 78, 83. 



of rfje jponjuror^ 253 

known in the learned world, appeared as a contro- 
versialist on behalf of his party. Some crown mes- 
sengers, searching for a paper called " The Shift 
Shifted" discovered in the printing office a book 
intitled, " The Case of Schism in the Church of Eng- 
land truly Stated" by Howell, who was committed 
to Newgate for the offence. He naturally argued, 
that the complying Clergy were schismatics. w Red- 
mayne, the printer, was indicted for printing the 
book, which was denominated a libel : and Dalton 
was fined, imprisoned, and sentenced to the pillory, 
for printing the Shift Shifted.* Howell was tried and 
convicted at the Old Bailey, being sentenced to a 
fine of 500, three years imprisonment, to be whipped, 
and to be degraded and stripped of his gown by the 
hands of the public executioner. He asked, " Who 
will whip a clergyman ?" but the Court replied : 
" We pay no deference to your cloth, because you 
are a disgrace to it, and have no right to wear it : 
besides, we do not look upon you as a clergyman, in 
that you have produced no proof of your ordination, 
but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the 
Bishop of Thetford : which is illegal and not accord- 
ing to the constitution of this kingdom, which has 
no such Bishop." The executioner was ordered to 
pull off his gown at the bar, which was accordingly 
done. The pamphlet was probably intended only 
for private sale or gratuitous distribution. All his 
papers were seized by order of the government, among 
which were his Letters of Orders from Dr. Hickes, 
dated 1712, and also The Form of Absolution and 
Reception of Converts. The Letters of Orders were 
thus expressed : " Tenore Prsesentium, Nos Georgius 



Calamy's Life, ii. 358. x Salmon, ii. 68. 



254 li?fctorg of ttje 

Hickes, permissione divina Episcopus Suffraganeus 
Thetfordiensis, notum facimus universis, quod nos 
prsefectus Episcopus, in Oratorio Nostro, in Parochia 
Sancti Andreae Holbourn in comitatu Middlesex, 
sacros ordines, prsesidio divino celebrantes, Dilectum 
Nobis, in Christo Laurentium Howell, A.M., de vitae 
suae probitate morumque integritate nobis sufficienti 
Testimonio Commendatum, et sacrarum literarum 
cognitione et scientia laudabiliter institutum, et per 
nostrum examinatorem nobis approbatum, ad sacrum 
Presbyteratus ordinem, juxta morem et consuetudi- 
nemEcclesiae Anglicanse in hac parte salubritereditam 
et provisam, admismus et promovimus : ipsumque 
instituimus et ordinavimus tune et ibidem. In cujus 
rei testimonium Sigillum Nostrum Episcopale prae- 
sentibus apponi fecimus, secundo die Mensis Octo- 
bris, Annoque Domini Millesimo Septingentesimo 
Duodecimo, Nostraaque Consecrationis 18 Georgius 
Hickes." y 

In the year 1716, a most sarcastic attack on the 
defenders of the Revolution was published, profess- 
ing to give extracts from Burnet and Kennet. " Since 
the lawfulness of the Revolution," says the writer, 
" on which his Majesty's title is founded, is ques- 
tioned by some, and condemned by others, it is 
thought convenient at this juncture to lay in one 
view an account of the principles on which it is es- 
tablished." Burnet had said, that James's ambas- 
sador " pressed the Pope to admit the King to 
mediate between the courts of Rome and Versailles, 
and said that when that was brought about, the two 
Kings would effectually serve the Church, and begin 
with the destruction of Holland. This the Pope told 



y Nichols, i. 31, 32; 105, 106. Noble. Salmon, ii. 70. 



of tlje lionfurorsL 255 

to the head of the imperial faction at Rome, who wrote 
it to the Emperor, and the Emperor wrote to the Prince 
of Orange." The writer remarks upon this, " what 
can justify the Prince, if King James's and the French 
King's design to ruin them and their religion can- 
not ? Or what better authorities could they have for 
the truth of it, than the Pope and the Emperor to 
prevent it, by informing the Prince of Orange what 
danger the Protestant religion was in? Which will 
undoubtedly be secure for the future, since the Pope 
is against the growth of Popery, and the Emperor 
become guardian of the Protestant religion." He 
adds : " in short, some body told some body, that 
the King of France and King James were for intro- 
ducing Popery : to prevent which, the Pope, the 
Emperor, the Prince of Orange, the Dutch and Eng- 
lish, abdicate King James, and enter into an alliance 
to make the King of France submit to the Pope's 
authority." In the same strain, after quoting some 
passages from Burnet's early writings, in which the 
resolving of all power into the people is attributed 
to the assertors of the Pope's deposing power, he 
remarks : " and now with what face can any Papist 
be for the Pretender? Or how can the Pretender 
claim the crown, if a Papist ? We see it was by a 
Popish principle and a Pope's advice that King James 
was deposed ; and therefore the Pretender must either 
protest against his infallibility and supremacy, which 
is in effect to turn Protestant; or allow the justice 
of the Revolution, which is to destroy his own pre- 
tensions to the crown." 

The writer then specifies some of the advantages, 
which the Pope gained by the Revolution. One 
was the abrogation of the Oath of Supremacy : se- 
condly, an alliance formed against France. Pro- 



256 IW0torp of tfje 

ceeding in a sarcastic strain, he quotes from Kennet, 
relative to the alliance, that the Emperor and King 
William would make no peace " with Louis XIV till 
he has made reparation to the Holy See, and till he 
annul all those infamous proceedings against the 
Holy Father Innocent XI." He closes thus : " the 
Dutch were well paid for sending us a King : the 
Prince of Orange got a crown : and we above twenty 
years ruinous war : the establishment of Presbytery 
on the ruins of Episcopacy in Scotland : and in the 
Church of England a woful schism and a succession 
of prudent, pious Protestant Princes : together with 
a free parliament: an impartial distribution of jus- 
tice, and a glorious prospect for us and our posterity : 
every way answering the merits of an English Re- 
volution, a Scotch Reformation, and an Hanover suc- 
cession." 7 ' 

Welton's feelings, while Rector of Whitechapel, 
in favour of the exiled family were not concealed. 
He became obnoxious to censure in consequence of 
an Altar Piece, a representation of the last Supper, 
which was placed in his church. White Kennet 
had written an answer to Sacheverell's Sermon, Perils 
among False Brethren, which, with several other 
publications, had rendered him very obnoxious to 
the Nonjurors. In the picture in Welton's Church, 
Kennet's portrait was inserted for Judas Iscariot. 
It is said, that the sketch was intended for Burnet, 
but that an action at law being apprehended, the 



z A Short History and Vindication of the Revolution, collected 
out of the Writings of the Learned Bishop Burnet and Dr. Ken- 
net. 12mo. London. Printed in the year 1716. This is a short 
tract of only eight pages, the authorship of which I am unable to 
determine. 



ot* ttje ilJonfucorg, 257 

likeness of Kennet was substituted for that of the 
Bishop. Crowds flocked daily to the Church to 
examine the picture : so that the Bishop of London 
interposed, and the Altar Piece was removed. In 
1710 Welton preached a sermon, which induced the 
government to interfere, and he was removed from 
his living. 1 From a contemporary publication, we 
learn, that some persons imagined, that the picture 
of St. John was intended to represent the Chevalier 
St. George. Welton published a sermon in defence 
of his conduct, giving in the preface an account of 
the proceedings connected with the removal of the 
Altar Piece. b After his deprivation Welton preached 
to a Nonjuring congregation. 

It is evident, that the rash conduct of some few of 
the Nonjurors involved the whole body in difficulties. 
They were regarded by the government as enemies. 
Some persons even have alleged, that they were more 
active at the period of the Rebellion, in disseminating 
their principles, than they had been for several years. 
Thus we are told, " the controversy of the new 
schism made a much greater noise upon the late 
tumults and rebellion, than it had ever done since 
the filling of the deprived sees by King William : 
and the Jacobite conventicles were more frequented 
in the cities of London and Westminster : and Priests 
of that way were sent down to gather the like con- 
gregations in country towns : and many of the high 
folk, especially the women, seemed to come to the 

* Noble. Soloman against Welton, or that Prince's Authority 
brought against the Insolence of the White Chapel Priest. Being 
a Defence of the Resistance made to the late King James, &c. by 
way of Remark on the Dr's. Sermon. 8vo. London, 1710. Ni- 
chols's Lit. Anec. i. 397. 

h Wisdom of Looking Backwards, 347, 360-63. 

S 



258 %'0tocg of tf)e 

parochial churches in and about London, for the 
sake of their pews and their cloaths, rather than for 
conformity to the public worship. For they would 
not join in any part of the Prayers for King George, 
and his royal family, but at the mention of those 
names, they would rise up or sit down, or, at least, 
express their dissent in some visible manner." This 
statement must be taken with certain deductions, for 
the writer usually traduces the Nonjurors. The 
following extract exhibits the character of the writer's 
own principles. " In the mean time too many of the 
Church clergy, though offended with Dr. Hickes for 
urging a separation from Parochial Churches, yet 
they gave in very much to the principles, upon which 
that practice was founded, viz. The Independency of 
the Church from the State, the more than spiritual 
power of the Church." Such a man could scarcely 
form an impartial judgment of the Nonjurors, when 
he had conceived such views of the complying 
Clergy. 

Still, few of the actual Nonjurors were implicated 
in the Rebellion. This statement is fully supported 
by contemporary writings. The following passage 
is so pertinent, that no apology is needed for its in- 
sertion. " The principles, on which the legality of 
the present establishment is maintained, are, I think, 
but improperly made a part of the present quarrel, 
which divides the nation. There are but few, who 
have not precluded themselves on this point : those 
I mean, who have had courage and plainness enough 
to own their sense and to forego the advantages, 
either of birth or education, rather than give a false 
security to the government, which under their pre- 

c Life of Kennet, 161, 162. 



of tfje /ponjucottf. 259 

sent persuasion they could not make good. To these 
I have nothing more to say, than to wish them what 
I think they well deserve, a better cause : but to us? 
who had bound ourselves by previous oaths and ob- 
ligations in the most solemn manner in the world, 
the accession of his Majesty could administer no 
occasion of reconsidering this question : there was 
nothing new required of us : we had no faith to give 
which was not already plighted, and bound upon our 
souls by the most sacred engagements." d This is 
honourable testimony from a candid man : and may 
be regarded as conclusive evidence, that the actual 
Nonjurors, with few exceptions, were not implicated 
in this Rebellion. 

After the suppression of the Rebellion, several im- 
portant works, of a controversial character, were 
published, both by the Nonjurors and by their op- 
ponents. These productions require a particular no- 
tice ; for the very history of the Nonjurors is bound 
up as it were with their controversies. It appears, 
that the advocates of the government entered afresh 
on the controversy, after the suppression of the Re- 
bellion. Two works in particular made a great noise 
at the time, namely, one by Bennet, and the other 
by Hoadley. 

It would appear that at this time the Nonjurors 
were in some danger, probably from being suspected 
of consenting to the recent Rebellion, in favour of the 
son of King James. Most of them were quiet and 
peaceable men : and it was harsh on the part of the 
government to subject them to such treatment. It 

d Sherlock's Sermon before the Commons on the day of Thanks- 
giving for Suppressing the Rebellion. 8vo. London, 1716, pp. 
19, 20. 



260 %'0torg of tlje 

certainly was not the way to bring them over to take 
the Oaths. We find that many of their works of 
this period were published without the name of the 
printer, a method resorted to undoubtedly for the 
purpose of concealment. The feelings of the govern- 
ment must have been very sore against the Nonjurors, 
for Bennet closes his preface with the following noti- 
fication : 

" If any person shall think it unsafe for him to 
publish an answer to this tract, I entreat him to send 
his papers to me, by such a way as he shall choose, 
(with this single hint, that the parcel comes from an 
unknown hand) and I do solemnly promise, that if 
they are written as becomes a Christian and a scholar, 
(of which such Nonjurors shall be judges as their 
brethren will readily confide in) I will make no in- 
quiry after the author : but in a reasonable space of 
time, will either return him thanks for confuting me, 
or else reply in such a manner that he shall have no 
reason to complain of my misrepresenting his sense, 
or injuring his arguments." 6 

It is clear from this notice that great severity was 
practised towards the Nonjurors ; and that they could 
not openly appear in defence of their principles. 

Bennet 's work may be regarded, as expressive of 
the views of a large body of the members of the 
Church of England on the subjects at issue between 
them and the Nonjurors. His aim was to prove 
them guilty of schism on their own principles. At 
this time, the chief differences between the Church 



* The Nonjurors' Separation from the Public Assemblies of the 
Church of England examined, and proved to be Schismatical on 
their own Principles : by Tho. Bennet, D. D. Svo. London, 1716, 
p. 2. 



of tfje $onfuroi#. 261 

and the Nonjurors related to the Oaths. Thus Ben- 
net, speaking of the Nonjurors' assemblies, states that 
" the Book of Common Prayer is used (excepting 
some passages relating to our present temporal gover- 
nors)." We learn also from this work, that many re- 
mained in the communion of the national Church, who 
did not take the Oaths to the ruling sovereign. 

To bring the dispute within a narrow compass, the 
author fixes upon the diocese of London. His first 
position is, that Compton, who was Bishop of the 
diocese at the Revolution, continued rightful Bishop 
as long as he lived : that he neither ceased to be its 
Bishop by resignation nor deprivation. He allows 
it to be granted that the Revolution was unjustifiable : 
and that the successors to the deprived Bishops were 
schismatical intruders : but even then he argues, that 
Compton remained the rightful Bishop of the diocese 
of London. In his third chapter he meets the ob- 
jection, that Compton contracted the contagion of 
schism by recognizing the successors of the deprived 
Bishops, and that all who communicated with the 
Bishop of London were involved in the same guilt. 
The Jifth chapter is occupied with the consideration 
of an objection derived from the second canon of 
1603, in which it is enacted that a denial of the 
King's supremacy exposes the party to an ipso facto 
excommunication. Bennet shews that no such ex- 
communication is of any effect, until a sentence decla- 
ratory is given. He then argues, that they separated 
from Compton, setting up an altar against that which 
already existed, and that consequently they are guilty 
of schism. He meets the objection, derived from 
the alleged immoral prayers, much in the same way 
as Dodwell and Nelson did, on their return to the 
communion of the National Church. He reminds the 



262 ^(0tOtJ Of t 

Nonjurors, however, that they had attended the public 
Churches from the Revolution until 1691, a space of 
two years and six months, when the Bishops were 
deprived for refusing to take the Oaths. He infers, 
that they did not join in the prayers for William 
and Mary, and that, therefore, they did not consider, 
that those petitions were imposed as terms of com- 
munion. He also mentions that many Nonjurors 
were at that time worshipping in the National Church : 
so that they could not regard the prayers in question 
as terms of communion. 

In the last chapter he applies the principle, which 
he had previously confined to London, to the rest of 
England. 

" As for those dioceses whose Bishops were de- 
prived, whatever might have been pleaded, whilst 
the deprived Bishops themselves were alive ; yet since 
that personal contest is at an end, and the schism of 
co-ordination is thereby perfectly ceased, (because the 
deprived Bishops themselves are dead; and those who 
were consecrated by the deprived ones, or derive their 
succession from them, do not pretend to be other than 
suffragans) therefore those Bishops that have been 
elected and consecrated, and publicly and unani- 
mously received and owned by their comprovincials, 
as Bishops of those once controverted sees, are now, 
by all the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, the only 
lawful Bishops of them : nor indeed is there any 
other claimant in opposition to them. And therefore 
separation from their communion is undoubtedly 
schisrnatical, there being no just cause for it. 

" Whether those suffragans who were consecrated 
by the Nonjuring Bishops, or derive their succession 
from them, have now any power in those dioceses, 
for which ('tis presumed) they were consecrated, their 



of tt)C $lonfut:0r& 263 

principals may inquire and determine, if they judge 
it proper so to do. But if those suffragans have any 
power at all, I am sure it must be exercised in due 
subordination to their principals. Otherwise 'tis 
notoriously schismatical, even within the bounds of 
the several dioceses they were intended to officiate 



in." f 



Bennet had written with much force against the 
Dissenters, proving them to be guilty of schism in 
separating from a pure branch of the Catholic Church; 
and upon the appearance of the preceding publica- 
tion, Peirce, who had been long employed in con- 
troversy, wrote some strictures on the work. He 
attempts to show, that such principles, as were ad- 
mitted by Bennet, were sufficient to justify any sepa- 
ration. However it is clear that Peirce only rejoiced 
in the divisions among Churchmen. One fact is 
incidentally mentioned by him, which is somewhat 
curious and not without interest, namely, that Hickes's 
consecration was not generally known till seventeen 
years after it had taken place. 8 

Hoadley also appeared against the Nonjurors in a 
work of a different description from that of Bennet. 11 
He was one of those latitudinarian Churchmen, by 



f Bennet, pp. 61. 62. 

e A Letter to Dr. Bennet, occasioned by his late Treatise con- 
cerning the Nonjurors' Separation, &c. : by James Peirce, 8vo. 
1717, p. 52. The first public intimation of Hickes's consecra- 
tion appears to have been given in the collection of papers pub- 
lished in 1716. Kennet's Life, p. 160. The fact, however, was 
known to many. 

h A Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the 
Nonjurors both in Church and State. Or an Appeal to the Con- 
sciences and Common Sense of the Christian Laity : by the Right 
Reverend Father in God, Benjamin, Lord Bishop of Bangor, 8vo. 
1716. 



264 l^tetorp ot" tfje 

whom the Church has been occasionally afflicted. 
So far from supporting, Hoadley broached principles, 
in many of his publications, which tended to weaken 
and destroy the Church. One work, that on Confor- 
mity , must be excepted from this condemnation : but 
most of his other productions are obnoxious to the 
very serious charge above mentioned. His " Pre- 
servative" was one of the most obnoxious ; but his 
works served to recommend him to the Whig Minis- 
try, and to pave his way to the episcopal bench. In 
the " Preservative, " he defends the exercise of the 
power of the State in depriving the Nonjuring Bishops 
and Clergy of their preferments. It is intimated at 
the commencement, that, at this time, the Nonjurors 
were particularly active in putting forth their claims. 
Hoadley thinks, moreover, that too much forbearance 
had been exercised towards them : yet they had less 
liberty than Dissenters, who were permitted to assail 
the Church of England, and to traduce the Nonjurors. 
It must be evident, when the Nonjurors were scarcely 
allowed to defend themselves through the press, that 
any thing but forbearance was manifested by the 
government. Hoadley 's work contained so much of 
what was unsound, that several of its positions were 
censured by the Lower House of Convocation. 1 

Some very important works were also published 
about this time by the Nonjurors. A posthumous 
work of Hickes's among others made its appearance, 
a work frequently alluded to by their opponents. 
This volume was sent forth to the public by some 
of Hickes's friends. It contains answers to all the 
arguments, which were urged against them by those 
who attacked their principles. Prefixed to the work 

* See the Author's History of the Convocation, pp. 375, 376. 



of tjje $hmjuror0* 265 

is an account of the various papers, of which it con- 
sists, by the publisher : from which it appears, that 
soon after the deprivations, Hickes entered upon cer- 
tain conferences with a Serjeant at Law respecting 
the recent events, especially with reference to Church 
communion. The Serjeant puts a question, whether 
it is lawful to communicate with a Church, that 
prays for an usurper, which is answered in the nega- 
tive. Hickes even condemns being present in such 
congregations : alleging, that, if it were lawful to be 
present, it would be necessary to protest publicly, 
against what he calls the rebellious prayers. He 
further declares, that if any Bishops are deprived by 
such powers, the people are bound in conscience to 
adhere to the sufferers. The Serjeant asks whether 
a public refusal to own the usurper be not sufficient : 
but Hickes decides as before against being present 
at such assemblies, and condemns remaining on the 
knees, though the individuals join not in the peti- 
tions. 

In another Letter, the Author submits to the Ser- 
jeant forty propositions concerning the Constitution 
of the Catholic Church, observing that they are laid 
down in a mathematical method, " wherein what 
follows is the consequent of what goes before." 
Church power of the most exalted kind is asserted 
in these propositions : that kings cease to be mem- 
bers of the spiritual corporation by excommunication, 
heresy, or apostacy : that in divisions the lawful 
society is in the lawful head, and the members who 
adhere to him, though the smaller number, and in 
every diocese in the rightful Bishops as the principle 
of unity : that kings obtain nothing by baptism, but 
a stronger obligation to defend the Church, and that 
they are equally subjects of the Church : that the 



266 i?t'0torp of tti 

union of Church and State is broken when the latter 
persecutes the former, which takes place whenever 
the temporal powers persecute the spiritual : that it 
is the duty of the people to adhere to deprived 
Bishops. He asserts, therefore, that such depriva- 
tions as those of the Nonjuring Bishops were unlaw- 
ful : and that their successors had no power. He 
adds : " The true Church regent, or College of 
Bishops in England depending upon it, are both in 
the little and faithful suffering number, and will be 
in those who regularly succeed them in the royal 
priesthood to the end of the world." 

The Serjeant remarked on the severity of the pro- 
positions as involving all the nation, except a very 
few, in Schism. Hickes replies, that he is not more 
severe than the Ancient Fathers, and refers to the 
notes on the Propositions. Other testimonies are 
also added. He says, principles are rigid things : 
" They are like glass drops, you may easily break 
them, but you cannot bend them." Farther, the 
Serjeant objected the small number of the deprived 
Bishops : to which Hickes replies, that the contro- 
versy is one of right and wrong, not of faith. He 
reminds the Serjeant of his own wish, that all had 
been deprived, though the case would have been the 
same had one only been subjected to deprivation. 

On the title page of the volume the letter R was 
affixed to the word Reverend ; so that the style of a 
Bishop was thus awarded to Hickes : and though his 
consecration was, as I have previously remarked, 
known to many, if not to all the Nonjurors ; yet this 
seems to have been the first public intimation of the 
fact. The Publisher mentions the particulars of the 
consecration by Turner, White, and Lloyd : and ar- 
gues, that no man was more qualified to answer the 



of tf)0 Uonfuror& 267 

objections against the appointment of successors to the 
deprived Bishops. The Publisher further mentions, 
that the forty propositions had been printed at the 
end of 11 The Character of a Primitive Bishop" though 
in an imperfect state, and that many copies had been 
circulated in the life-time of the Author. k His argu- 
ments need not be largely entered into, since they are 
similar with those, to which we have previously re- 
ferred in the works consequent on Dodwell's and 
Nelson's return to the National Church. One pas- 
sage, however, respecting Anti-Bishops is remark- 
able. He makes several kinds of Anti-Bishops, some 
being so by usurpation, others by professing false 
doctrines, others in both these respects. Alluding 
to the second sort he says, " such Anti-Bishops are 
also the Popish Bishops, now in all parts of the 
world, to the reformed Bishops, more particularly in 
Ireland." This is a strong assertion, and confutes 

k In one Letter to the Serjeant, Hickes had submitted twenty- 
three propositions concerning the Constitution of the Catholic 
Church. These he enlarged to forty in a subsequent Letter. In 
the year 1710 a Tract appeared under the following title : " The 
High Church Catechism, with Riches's Thirty-Nine Articles."" 
The number of propositions was forty; but the Author of this Tract 
omits the seventeenth altogether, making the eighteenth take its 
place, thus reducing the number to thirty-nine, merely for the 
purpose, as is evident, of insinuating, that Hickes wished to substi- 
tute them instead of the Articles of the Anglican Church. The 
preface to the Tract shews, that the writer was an enemy, not only 
to the Nonjurors, but also to the Church of England. His omission 
of one of the propositions, for the purpose of making the number 
correspond with the Articles of the Anglican Church, was a dis- 
honest attempt to blacken the character of a pious and learned 
man. 

1 The Constitution of the Catholic Church and the Nature and 
Consequences of Schism, set forth in a collection of Papers writ- 
ten by the late R. Reverend George Hickes, D. D. 8vo. Printed 
in the year 1716. 



268 %(0tocp of ttje 

the notion that Hickes had a leaning towards Rome. 
He classes the revolution Bishops under the third 
head, making them usurpers and maintainers of false 
doctrines. The false doctrines are the doctrine of 
resistance and the validity of lay-deprivations. He 
says, " before I proceed to insist upon the Prayers, I 
must apply what I have said of doctrines : and take 
the freedom to tell you, that the Bishops to whose 
altar you are going, are still Anti-Bishops (viz. in the 
second sense, upon the score of damnable and dan- 
gerous doctrines) to those, whom it is said our de- 
prived fathers left behind them to succeed them, not 
as diocesan but Catholic successors, or as Catholic 
Bishops in a nation overrun with schism as well as 
rebellion : in which capacity, as Catholic Bishops, 
they acted out of their dioceses all their time in con- 
firming, ordaining, " m &c. He then enters on the 
question of the Prayers ; but as this point has been so 
fully discussed already, it need not be enlarged upon 
further. The Bishops, who complied at the Revolution 
and had been continued in their sees, are set aside on 
the ground of being partakers of the guilt of the 
intruders, by making themselves one body with them. 
It is, however, important to see how Hickes justi- 
fies the Nonjurors against the arguments of Dod- 
well and Nelson, relative to the new consecrations. 
It was argued, that the new consecrations were void, 
because there was no notification, or that their claims 
were waived. Hickes pleads in answer the state of 
the times, and asks whether the want of notification 
is a waiving of claims, when such an act would in- 
volve the ruin of the party ; and whether the notifi- 
cation to their Presbyters and laity, as there is occa- 



m Constitution of the Cutholic Church, &c. pp. 173, 205. 



of ttjc ,00nfuror0, 269 

sion, is not sufficient. He argues, too, that consecra- 
tions performed by one Bishop, when more cannot 
be obtained, are valid. The want of public registers 
had also been alleged ; but this objection is met, by 
a reference to the state of things from 1640 to 1660, 
during which period many were ordained by the de- 
posed Bishops, and also to the Church of Scotland 
at that time. Bp. Ken's non-concurrence in the new 
consecrations was also pleaded against their validity : 
but Hickes answers, that a synod is composed of the 
majority of the Bishops of the province, and that 
the minority, however large, are concluded by their 
decision. His assertion that Ken had consented by 
letter to Turner has been previously noticed. He con- 
tends, that the rights of the deprived Bishops could 
not devolve on those, who were in possession of the 
sees, and whom he calls intruders. He strongly 
urges, that the allowing of lay- deprivations and re- 
sistance is a heresy, which he charges upon what he 
terms the revolution Church. The publisher, how- 
ever, in the preface, says, " wherever in this book 
he shall find schismatical ordinations called null and 
invalid, he is not to suppose that the author meant 
null and invalid in themselves, so as to require a new 
ordination, but null and invalid as to any spiritual 
purposes, so that the person thus schismatically or- 
dained cannot by virtue of those orders do any sacer- 
dotal act, till he returns to the Church, and has his 
orders confirmed : and whatever ministrations he 
performs during his schism are of no use or profit to 
the persons who receive them, till they also come 
over to the Church." The publisher states : " When- 
ever he performed that part of his episcopal office of 
receiving a penitent schismatical Clergyman into our 
communion, he never required that he should be 



270 ^Wtorp of 

reordained, but only that his orders should be con- 
firmed. And this continues to be the practice of our 
Church since it pleased God to take him out of this 
troublesome world, and remove him into a better." 
The publisher, therefore, was a Nonjuror. 

Another considerable work appeared about the 
same time, in opposition to the Nonjurors, from the 
pen of Nathaniel Marshall; so that, if they, asHoadley 
intimates, were particularly active, their opponents 
were no less vigilant in labouring to counteract their 
efforts." 

Both Hoadley and Marshall refer to what they 
term an attack on the Church of England, on the 
part of the Nonjurors. They evidently allude to the 
charge of heresy and schism, which was alleged against 
the Anglican Church in Hickes's " Constitution of 
the Catholic Church :" and Hoadley and Marshall, 
though in different ways, undertook to repel the 
charge. Hickes's papers, however, contain no charge 
that had not been adduced before ; yet some of the 
Clergy acted, as though it were then brought forward 
for the first time. To Hickes's work, therefore, are 
to be attributed Hoadley 's Preservative and Mar- 
shall's Defence, two of the most celebrated produc- 
tions of this period against the Nonjurors. 



B A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State : or an 
Answer to the late Charge of the Nonjurors, accusing us of heresy 
and schism, popery and treason : with an Appendix of several 
Papers never before published: by Nath. Marshall, LL. B. 8vo. 
London, 1717. The Appendix contains Bancroft's commission to 
Lloyd : Hickes's opinion respecting joining in worship, supposed 
to be immoral in some of its offices : and several letters of Dodwell, 
Nelson, and Brokesby, written after the death of Lloyd. 

Many who wrote against the Nonjurors objected to Hoadley 's 
principles. The following may serve as an instance : " What 



of tfje ^0njuror0+ 27 1 

Marshall enters into a defence of the deprivations 
subsequent to the Revolution, as Hoadley had done 
just before, though his method of handling the sub- 
ject is different from the Bishop's. In many respects 
Marshall's is a valuable work : and may be regarded 
as the best defence against the charges alleged by 
the Nonjurors. The author was a man of erudition 
and piety : and he will be ever held in estimation in 
the Church for two most able and learned works, 
the Translation of Cyprian's Works, and The Peni- 
tential Discipline of the Primitive Church. His 
Defence is written with much moderation. It ap- 
pears too, that he had lived on terms of intimacy with 
Hickes down to the period of his death. He alludes 
to the fact, that when the Depriving Act passed, 
none of the Bishops, who were subsequently sub- 
jected to its operation, were present in Parliament 
to enter their protest against the proceedings : and 
because none of the complying Prelates opposed the 
Bill, he infers their consent to the deprivations of 



shall I say to those of my brethren who have formed a new sepa- 
ration. I cannot with the Bishop of Bangor admire the long and 
extraordinary lenity of the government to them : much less can I 
think that he (though he has plundered Hobbes, and Locke, and 
Sydney, and the authors of the rights of the Christian Church) has 
said any thing that may convince men of the Christian nature of 
revolution principles. I am satisfied that they refused to take the 
Oaths proposed to them out of a true principle of conscience : and 
because they knew of no Prince, Prelate, or Presbyter who could 
absolve them from the Oath of Allegiance and supremacy, which 
they had taken to their lawful Sovereign. It was not a factious, 
hypocritical, treasonable covenant, which they held up as a shield 
against the new Oaths : but it was the obligation of a lawful Oath, 
and imposed by law : and none can pretend there was any thing 
in it contrary to the law of God, or the practice of the first and 
purest Christians." Milbourne's Legacy, ii. 333, 334. 



272 3i?tetocp of tl) 

their brethren. 11 This mode of reasoning, however, 
is disingenuous. At that time the Bishops, who 
scrupled the Oath, considered it to be their duty to 
suffer in silence : nor can they be charged with in- 
consistency in so doing : while the Prelates, who 
were present, could not, by any act of theirs, give 
an ecclesiastical sanction to a proceeding against 
their brethren. Hickes had stated, in his Constitution 
of the Catholic Church, that the deprived Bishops 
had left behind them certain persons to succeed them, 
not as diocesan, but as Catholic successors: and Mar- 
shall contends that such a procedure was unsanc- 
tioned by the practice of the early Church. q Al- 
luding to the charge of Immoral Prayers, the author 
remarks, that the deprived Bishops did not, by any 
authentic act, claim the obedience of their ecclesi- 
astical subjects for several years after their depriva- 
tion : and that the Nonjurors communicated, long 
after the filling up of the vacant sees, with those 
whom they now deemed schismatics. He admits, 
however, that they did not use the prayers, against 
which the charge was preferred. Hickes himself, 
he states, had communicated with members of the 
National Church, who were now charged with schism/ 
He mentions also that one of the consecrators of 
Hickes, as late as 1697, administered theLord's Supper 
to a lady, supposed to be upon her deathbed, a mem- 
ber of the Church of England, who asked the Bishop 

P Marshall's Defence, p. 12. 1 Ibid. pp. 32, 33. 

r He assures us also that ten years before Hickes agreed, that 
the immorality of the prayers was not a sufficient reason for avoiding- 
the communion of the National Church. He is, however, mis- 
taken in some of his statements. Sancroft, for example, never 
held communion with the National Church after his deprivation. 
The statements are denied by Earbury. Marshall, 181. 



of tfje ^on(uror0* 273 

respecting her safety in that Church. His reply 
was " For that, child, my soul be with yours'' Mar- 
shall's object is to prove an inconsistency between 
their former practice, and the charge of schism, which 
was now generally alleged by the Nonjurors against 
the National Church. 8 

Marshall seems to intimate, that Bancroft acted 
inconsistently in appointing a commission to act in 
his name before his suspension; but a most ample 
defence may be set up for the Archbishop. This 
was indeed well done by Barbery, who thus meets 
the case : " I cannot see that the Archbishop acted 
inconsistently in this commission, his seeming to 
acquiesce in the Prince of Orange's making use of the 
regale was justifiable, provided he looked upon him 
as an usurper : because it did not imply an acknow- 
ledgment of the Prince of Orange's title, but only 
a tacit concordate made to let him enjoy the privi- 
lege of nominating to sees, provided he offered no 
injury to the rights of the Church : 'tis no necessary 
consequence that the Church should be overturned 
with the state. Archbishop Bancroft, if prayers had 
not been forced into Churches, which he could not 
comply with, and if no state deprivations had fol- 
lowed, in all probability would have acquiesced with 
having even Dr. Burnet imposed upon the Church, 
if it would have prevented the schism." 1 It is clear, 
as has been remarked repeatedly in the course of our 
narrative, that if the Oath had not been enforced, no 



8 Marshall's Defence, 162, 163. 

* A serious Admonition to Dr. Kennet in order to persuade him 
to forbear the Character of an impartial Historian, &c. To which 
is added, A short but compleat Answer to Mr. Marshall's late Trea- 
tise called " A Defence," &c. By Matthias Earbery, Presbyter 
of the Church of England, p. 122. 



274 l?tetorp of ttje 

separation would have taken place. Barbery also 
meets the remark, that the Bishops never entered any 
claim of right. He asks whether, if they had done 
so, Marshall would have conceded any thing in their 
favour : and then he urges their conduct as sufficient 
evidence of their claims. 

One point is stated by Marshall with much effect, 
namely, that the deprived Bishops could not act in 
other dioceses, whatever may have been the case in 
their own. Had they not been deprived, they could 
not have exercised jurisdiction in other dioceses : 
much less could they do so after deprivation. " At 
least," he says, " their first trial should have been 
with their own Clergy and people, before they had 
made any efforts elsewhere. They should have 
begun at home, before they had attempted anything 
abroad. And because antiquity is so much and so 
often appealed to in this debate; I do likewise lodge 
my appeal with antiquity upon this head of argu- 
ment ; and do challenge any man to produce an in- 
stance thence, which shall be favourable to the prac- 
tice of our Nonjurors. There is not, I will be bold 
to affirm, any one example of an ancient Bishop, in- 
validly, or incompetently deprived, and insisting 
upon his personal rights ; who ever pretended to 
translate those rights from his local district, and to 
claim the exercise of them in any other. No ! The 
course was then, for such a Bishop, to retain as many 
of his own flock as he could in his interest, and to 
secure the continuance of his colleagues in it : but 
never to stroll about and gather a church out of 
another diocese, in opposition to its proper Bishop." 
Marshall then remarks, that the chief efforts of the 
Nonjurors were confined to London, a diocese which 



of tfje /ponjurorg. 275 

had not become vacant by deprivation." It appears, 
however, that the Nonjurors acted on the grant of 
Bancroft to Lloyd, to exercise Archiepiscopal powers. 
On this ground alone could they pretend to a juris- 
diction in other dioceses, except those which became 
vacant by deprivation. 

Barbery, alluding to Marshall's statement respect- 
ing Sancroft, says : " The Archbishop was so far 
from being an admirer of the Church, that he never 
came into it alive or dead, but lies now exposed to 
storms and tempests, as he was in his life." He 
mentions the remark of Sancroft respecting Absolu- 
tion, as a proof that Marshall is not correct, in stating 
that no public separation occurred until 1694. Ear- 
bery has the following severe observations on Kennet 
and Marshall, at the close of his work. " Dr. 
Kennet set out young in the world with full resolu- 
tions to make his fortune in King James's reign : and 
he accordingly courted popery, and was just upon the 
point of complimenting his religion away to please 
that monarch, till he received advice of the Prince of 
Orange's preparations. Dr. Kennet at that time was 
convinced in his conscience, that King James's cause 
grew more wicked every day, and was arrived to an 
enormous height of impiety after the battle of La 
Hogue. Mr. Marshall has entertained the same 
sentiments of Jacobitism since the surrender of Pres- 
ton ; he could find no damnable schism, nor horrid 
separation before." 

All these works were called forth by Hickes's 
Constitution of the Catholic Church. Lawrence 
Howell had also published a work in 1715, in which 

n Marshall's Defence, 168, 169, 170. 



276 ^tetorj of tlje 

the same charge of heresy, schism and treason, 
was alleged. It was, therefore, to be expected, 
that those who considered the Revolution lawful 
would defend themselves. Besides the works already 
mentioned, there was one, in which the case of the 
compilers appears to be very moderately stated, 
intitled " The Sin of Schism most unjustly charged 
by the Nonjurors upon the present established Church 
of England, and the Charge made good against them- 
selves. In a Letter to a Nonjuring Clergyman" 
The writer admits " the ministerial function of the 
Bishops and Clergy is of Divine institution : but the 
limitation of the exercise of this function, within this 
or that diocese, parish, or district, is altogether of 
human appointment. When the Nonjuring Bishops 
and Clergy were, by act of Parliament, deprived of 
their respective preferments, nothing was pretended 
to be taken away that was of divine institution." 

We must now proceed to those internal disputes, 
by which the body was agitated, and which issued 
in a separation among themselves, a separation into 
two distinct communions. Loudly as they had pro- 
tested against alterations in the Book of Common 
Prayer, some of them were now ready to introduce 
them. The controversy did not spring up till after 
the death of Hickes : but similar views, with those 
entertained by the advocates for alterations, had been 
advanced in his Christian Priesthood, which may 
have had some influence in the disputes. It is re- 
markable, that the men, who deprecated any changes 
in 1689, should have been the first to alter the Com- 
munion Service. They actually split upon the very 
rock, that of alterations, which by the good Provi- 
dence of God, the Church had avoided and avoided 
too by the opposition of the very men, who now ad- 



of tfie ^onjuror0. 277 

vocated the change. Any material alterations at the 
Revolution might have endangered the Church : and 
the changes made by some of the Nonjurors weak- 
ened them so much, as a party, that they never as- 
sumed so compact a form after this period. The 
divisions, indeed, which now sprang up, may be as- 
signed as the remote cause of their extinction. 

The Communion Office, in the First Book of King 

7 O 

Edward, A.D. 1549, differed, as is well known, from 
that of The Second, and of all our succeeding Books, 
in several particulars. Certain practices and several 
petitions were laid aside, when the book was revised 
in 1552. In the year 1717, when this dispute com- 
menced, a reprint of the First Communion Book was 
published by the Nonjurors, who wished to adopt the 
usages, which were rejected when the book was re- 
viewed. 

Collier took the lead in this controversy. Hickes 
had expressed his preference of the First Communion 
Book, but during his life no formal proposal was 
made by Collier to publish a New Book. In the 
year 1717, appeared the " Reasons for Restoring 
Some Prayers, $c." x The work was published by 
Morphew, who was the printer of The Communion 
Office: from which circumstance, we may infer the 
probability, that Collier, or one of the Nonjurors, was 
the originator of the latter. 

This Tract was written in a candid and moderate 
tone. The Author enters very abruptly upon his 
work : for the very first sentence in the Tract is the 



x Reasons for Restoring some Prayers and Directions as they 
stand in the Communion Service of the First English Reformed 
Liturgy, compiled by the Bishops in the 2nd and 3rd years of the 
reign of King Edward VI. London, 1717. 



278 ^itftocp of rfje 

following : " The Rubric orders the putting a little 
pure water to the wine in the Chalice." He then 
proceeds to adduce evidence in proof of the antiquity 
of the practice. Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, St. Cyprian, are quoted as authorities 
for the practice in early times, besides the Apostolical 
constitutions. The Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, 
the Council in Trullo, and the Liturgies of St. Basil 
and St. Chrysostom are also cited/ 

The next point is the introduction of the words 
" Militant here on Earth," after the words " Let us 
Pray for the Whole State of Christ's Church." The 
previous words, he says, " seem inserted to exclude 
Prayer for the Dead." In the first book there was 
a petition for the dead : and he contends, that such a 
recommendation of the departed to the mercy of God, 
" is nothing of the remains of Popery, but a constant 
usage of the Primitive Church." Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, St. 



y It appears from the following extract that Hickes always used 
the Office in the First Book of King Edward : and undoubtedly 
Collier and those who agreed with him did the same, while Spinkes 
and his friends adhered to our present Office. Alluding to Grabe, 
Campbell says : " This very learned and pious doctor had not 
the least tendency to the corruptions of Popery, as his excellent 
elaborate works do abundantly testify ; and at his death he made 
choice of the Right Reverend and very learned Bishop George 
Hickes, for his confessor, from whose hands he received the Holy 
Eucharist, the last time of his life, as he had done several times 
before, according to the First Liturgy of King Edward VI. ; for 
he did not care to communicate by the present Liturgy, as be- 
lieving it defective in several parts of that Office, and looking upon 
the other as approaching nearer to the Primitive Forms, by reason 
of the Mixture, the Invocation of the Father for the Descent of 
the Holy Ghost upon the Elements, the Oblation rightly placed, 
and Prayers for the Dead. And Bp. Hickes never gave him the 
Holy Eucharist by any other Form." Campbell's Middle Sate, 79. 



of tfje $l0njucoc0. 279 

Chrysostom, St. Augustin, and the Apostolical Con- 
stitutions, with certain Ancient Liturgies, are quoted 
in support of this statement, besides certain indivi- 
duals, who actually prayed for deceased friends. 
Collier argues, that the Church of England, though 
she condemns the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, 
has not condemned Prayers for the Dead : and he 
says : " Where the Church of England has left her 
meaning doubtful, the greatest honour we can do 
her, is to interpret her to a conformity to primitive 
practice." z Respecting the custom itself, he says : 
" This custom, which began in the Apostolical age, 
and was continued through the whole Church till the 
Sixteenth Century : this custom, we conceive, is very 
serviceable to the ends of religion : it supposes our 
friends but removed to a distant country, and existing 
in a different condition : and that they only die in 
one place to live in another. It refreshes the belief 
of the Soul's immortality, draws back the curtain of 
the grave, and opens a communication between this 
world and the other." 3 

The third passage, which he wished to be restored, 
was the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost on 
the sacramental elements. In the First Liturgy was 
this petition : " Hear us (0 Merciful Father) we 
beseech Thee, and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word 
vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and 
creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto 
us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved 
Son, Jesus Christ." 5 He then adduces testimonies 
from antiquity in favour of the petition. He admits 
that the force of the invocation may be contained 



Reasons, &c. p. 20. a Ibid. 21. b Ibid. 22. 



280 %i0torp of ttje 

in our present office : but he thinks that express terms 

are desirable. 

A fourth thing is specified, namely, the Resto- 
ration of the Oblatory Prayer, which in the First 
Liturgy came after the Consecration Prayer. In that 
prayer are the following words : " We thy humble 
servants do celebrate and make here before thy 
Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the me- 
morial which thy Son hath willed us to make." 
Collier's view of this prayer is thus stated : " The 
Oblatory Prayer goes upon this ground, that the 
Holy Eucharist is a proper sacrifice : and that Our 
Blessed Saviour, at His last supper, offered the bread 
and wine to God the Father, as the symbols of his 
body and blood, and commanded His apostles to do 
the same." As before, several testimonies from an- 
tiquity are produced, besides the authority of Hickes 
in his Christian Priesthood, and Johnson in his Un- 
bloody Sacrifice. He closes with an allusion to Bucer 
Calvin, and Peter Martyr, to whom our reformers 
are supposed to have yielded, in rejecting these four 
practices. " From hence we infer," says he, " that 
the explanations, as they are called, in the Second 
Book, were not made without compliance with the 
weakness of some people ; not without condescen- 
sion to those who had more scruples than understand- 
ing, more heat than light in them." d 

In a very short time, an Answer was published by 
a Nonjuror* Collier had written with moderation, 
and the reply evinces a similar spirit. The writer is 

c Reasons, &c. 26. d Reasons, &c. 34. 

* No Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of 
Edward VI. 's First Liturgy. By a Nonjuror. London, 1717. 
Spinkes was, I believe, the Author. It is assigned to him by 
Watt. 



of ttje ^onjurorg* 281 

anxious to prevent divisions among themselves : and 
he is apprehensive of danger from the proposed 
changes. He takes up the four points, in the order, 
in which they are ranged by Collier. 

With respect to the mixture, he contends that it 
cannot be shewn to be necessary from Scripture, and 
that the first mention of it occurs not, until one hun- 
dred and fifty years after our Lord, by Justin Mar- 
tyr. As Justin Martyr mentions the salutation by a 
kiss, which was known to be an Apostolic custom, 
he argues, that it might be revived with more reason 
than the mixture, which does not appear to have been 
known to the Apostles. The author intimates, that 
Cyprian and others might have been mistaken in the 
Tradition, alleging the well known case respecting 
Easter, in which both parties pleaded Apostolical 
Tradition/ All the authorities cited by Collier are 
examined : and the writer infers from the whole, that 
the custom cannot be proved to be of perpetual obli- 
gation. 

In the next place, the authorities quoted in favour 
of Prayer for the Dead are examined with great 
minuteness ; but he thinks, that they do not prove the 
necessity of a change. Alluding to the quotation from 
Tertullian, he remarks, "that this Father expressly 
declares, that there is no Scripture authority for the 
practice." " So that," says he, " all is resolved into 
bare tradition, without which there was nothing to 
be said in their behalf. And yet I could never find 
that our Saviour has any where referred to tradition, 
as a sure ground to go upon in imposing necessary 
duties, that he has said nothing of. I own it is of 
great use, when it is truly primitive, for establishing 



f No Reason, &c. 7. 



282 ^ftftorp of tf)e 

and explaining such duties as are not so fully taught 
in Scripture, but that disputes may arise about them. 
But that tradition alone, when not evidently Aposto- 
lical, will make that necessary, which is not otherwise 
so, is what I am yet to learn." 8 In replying to Col- 
lier's remark respecting the advantage of the practice, 
he says : " Had our Saviour and his Apostles thought 
so, it is not conceivable, that they would have given 
no manner of direction about these sort of prayers. 
We are taught to pray for one another, and to desire 
each other's prayers here : and what reason can be 
conceived, why we should not have been likewise some 
way directed to pray for the saints departed in general, 
or so much as for our deceased friends and relations, if 
our prayers might be truly profitable to them?" h 

The Prayer for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon 
the Sacramental Elements is considered as unneces- 
sary, on the ground, that it is not enjoined in Scrip- 
ture, nor can be proved to be of Apostolic origin, 
Collier not having traced it higher than the middle 
of the third century. Both the author, and Collier, 
however, concur in opinion, that the force of the invo- 
cation is retained by implication in our present ser- 
vice. 

With respect to the Oblatory Prayer, the author 
concurs in opinion with Hickes, Johnson, and Mede, 
that the Eucharist is the Christian Sacrifice : but he 
does not consider, that, on this account, there was any 
necessity for restoring the prayer. " Alterations in 
matters of a public nature, are not to be made upon 
every appearance of making them to advantage, lest 
such unforeseen ill consequences follow upon them, 
as are more than are equivalent to any benefit that 

No Reason, &c. 53. h Ibid. 69, 70. 



of tlje ^onjuvorg, 283 

can arise from them." 1 He thinks too, with Johnson, 
that the prayer is virtually contained in the Prayer 
of Consecration, and the words of institution. " The 
sum of all this is, that changes are not to be easily 
made in a Church already settled, and especially in 
matters that have been of a long continuance : that 
there is no sufficient reason for the changes here de- 
sired, the two former having no foundation in Scrip- 
ture, or even truly Apostolical tradition, and the others 
being virtually in our service as it stands without 
them." k 

Leslie also appeared, in the controversy, against 
Collier, in a short tract of seven pages. 1 His object 
was to prevent a division. " I see no ground," he 
says, " for a breach upon that account, the utmost they 
can amount to is probable opinions." Referring 
Collier to Usher, Leslie remarks, " That nothing is 
to be received as faith or Christian doctrine, but what 
is written in the holy Scriptures, which are so perfect 
a rule, that nothing is to be added to them, which if 
any do, let him fear that woe denounced against such." 
He adds, afterwards : " In short, we must first find our 
rule of faith, before we apply any thing to it or it to 
any thing ; if it be Scripture, we know where we are, 
but if it be tradition, we launch into an ocean which 
has neither shore nor bottom, nor we any compass 
to steer by, where we must be driven about with 
every wind of doctrine." 

From this pamphlet it appears, that some of the 
Nonjurors went over at this time to the Church of 



1 No Reason, &c. 83. k Ibid. 90. 

1 A Letter from Mr. Leslie to his Friend, against Alterations or 
Additions to the Liturgy of the Church of England. 
m Leslie's Letter, p. 4, 5, 



284 %i0torp of tlje 

Rome, though this was not the case with any of the 
leaders. " I am grieved that so many of the handful 
shew inclinations to popery : I am told that about a 
dozen are gone off lately, and others send their chil- 
dren to be educated in popish, and even in Jesuit se- 
minaries. Let me know, if this of the reasons for re- 
storing some Prayers is all the dispute, which now 
makes new divisions amongst us, even as I am told, 
to the abstaining from each other's communion." 11 

Collier, Brett, and Campbell the Scottish Bishop, 
were the chief of that section, by whom the restoration 
of the prayers and directions was advocated : while 
Spinkes, Gandy, Taylor, and Bedford strenuously 
contended for a strict adherence to the Liturgy, as now 
used in the Church of England. 

At the commencement of the year 1718, Collier 
published an answer to the Reply to his former Pam- 
phlet, in which he meets the objections alleged by his 
opponent against the restoration of the prayers. 
Collier asks, whether Justin Martyr is not early 
enough, the author of " No Reason, fyc" having ob- 
jected on the ground, that he was too late as an evi- 
dence in such a matter. It would occupy too much 
space to go over Collier's reasoning. It may, there- 
fore, be sufficient to observe, that he enters at great 
length into all the arguments advanced by his op- 
ponent, with a view to the establishment of his former 
positions. He closes in these words : " The best ser- 
vice we can do the Church of England, is to recover 
the main of her first Reformation : to retrieve what 



n Leslie's Letter, p. 5. 

A Defence of the Reasons for Restoring some Prayers and 
Directions of King Edward the Sixth's First Liturgy : being a 
Reply to a Book entituled No Reason for Restoring them. Lon- 
don, 1718. Two Parts. 



of tfce Jponjuror^ 285 

she has suffered by interested views, by foreign direc- 
tion, and Calvinistical alloy. Thus I humbly con- 
ceive she will be remarkably Decus et tutamen, and 
have new strength and lustre upon her. Thus she 
will better endure the test of antiquity, be more 
covered from assault, and stand impregnable. " p 

The author of " No Reason for restoring" &fc. 
very soon published another Pamphlet in reply to 
Collier, in titled " No Sufficient Reason for Restoring 
some Prayers and Directions of King Edward VI "s 
First Liturgy" Collier immediately replied, for 
his answer was published in the same year. q This 
is a work of considerable size ; and every page af- 
fords evidence of the learning and talents of the 
author. " The Vindication " was replied to by the 
author of " No Reason" $c. and " No Sufficient 
Reason :" 8$c. After which Collier published in the 
year 1720, " A Farther Defence fyc. being an 
Answer to a Reply to the Vindication of the Reasons 
and Defence for Restoring ," <*c. 

Collier preferred the First Communion Book, 
while his opponent was strenuous for adhering to 
our present Form. The latter considered the prac- 
tices as immaterial : and consequently, that no suf- 
ficient reason could be pleaded for their restoration. 
It will be seen, that the controversy continued several 
years : and that the parties became embittered to- 
wards each other as it proceeded. r 

P A Defence of the Reasons, &c. p. 122. 

i A Vindication of the Reasons and Defence, &c. Part I. 
Being a Reply to the First Part of No Sufficient Reason, &c. 
1718. Part II. Being a Reply to the Second Part of No 
Sufficient Reason, &c. 1719. 

r After Collier's death these Tracts were collected tog-ether and 
issued with a new Title Page of the date of 1736, with a Por- 
trait of the Author. 



286 ^(0torp of tljc 

During the progress of this controversy, between 
the two sections of the Nonjurors, the New Com- 
munion Office was actually published. 8 

In the Prayer for the King no name is used, but 
only a petition for the Sovereign : and of course the 
four points contended for by Collier and Brett are 
incorporated into the Office. 

Brett took an important part, with Collier, in the 
controversy. In the year 1718 he published his 
work on Tradition, in which he assails the positions 
advanced by the Author of " No Sufficient Reason 
for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King 
Edward the Vlth's. First Liturgy '."' Unquestion- 
ably this is a most valuable work : and though I do 
not assent to all the Author's positions, yet I must 
confess, that the use of tradition is most clearly 
pointed out. The Postscript is occupied with the 
statements advanced in " No Sufficient Reason, " fyc. 

Two other important works were published by 
Brett, about the same time, on subjects, which were 
matter of controversy between the Nonjurors, and 
some of the clergy of the National Church. Into 
the arguments I cannot, however, enter in this work : 
but must content myself with subjoining the titles." 

3 A Communion Office taken partly from Primitive Liturgies 
and partly from the first English Reformed Common Prayer 
Book : together with Offices for Confirmation and the Visitation 
of the Sick. 8vo. London, 1718. 

* Tradition necessary to Explain and Interpret the Holy Scrip- 
tures. With a Postscript in answer to that part of a Book lately 
published (called No Sufficient Reason, &c.) which seems to de- 
preciate Tradition. And a Preface containing some remarks on 
Mr. Toland's Nazarenus. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. 1718. 

u The Independency of the Church upon the State, as to its 
pure spiritual Powers : proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the 
Writings of the Primitive Fathers. With Answers to the most 
material Objections. London 1717. 



of tlje jponfttrortf* 287 

A short time before, Brett was compelled to come 
forward publicly to defend himself from the charge 
of Popery, which was alleged against him by some 
persons, who could not confute his arguments. I 
have previously noticed the constant charge of Popery 
against the Nonjurors a charge of the most un- 
founded description. It was then the custom with 
certain persons, as is the case in our day, to cry out 
Popery against principles and arguments, which they 
could not refute. In this respect, there is a great 
similarity between those times and the present. Even 
now, whenever a man stands up for the principles of 
the Church, in matters of discipline and government, 
the cry of Popery is immediately raised by Dissenters, 
who never refuse to act with Papists, and by loose 
Churchmen, who never refuse to unite with Dis- 
senters the allies of Popery, and who see no evil in 
Dissent. Brett considered it necessary to publish a 
Defence of himself." Newspapers were then, as at 
present, the ordinary vehicles for the publication of 
calumny. In the work in question, Brett enumerates 
the peculiarities of Popery, and then enters into a 

The Divine Right of Episcopacy, and the necessity of an Epis- 
copal Commission for preaching God's Word, and for the valid 
Administration of the Christian Sacraments, proved from the Holy 
Scriptures, and the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, 
together with an impartial Account of the false Principles of Papists, 
Lutherans, and Calvinists, concerning the Identity of Bishops and 
Presbyters. Also the valid Succession of our English Bishops 
vindicated, against the Objections of Presbyterians and Romanists. 
And the Popish Fable of the Nag's Head Consecration of Arch- 
bishop Parker fully refuted. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. London, 
1718. 

" Dr. Brett's Vindication of Himself from the calumnies thrown 
upon Him in some late Newspapers, wherein he is falsely charged 
with turning Papist, in a Letter to the Honourable Archibald 
Campbell. London, 1715. 



288 5?i0torp of tlje 

most masterly confutation of them. He then specifies 
the particulars alleged against him as Popish, which 
were these : " The Independency of the Church, of 
the State, as to pure spiritual powers. The Divine 
Right of Episcopacy. The Oblation in the Eucharist. 
The Necessity of Sacerdotal Absolution. The Unc- 
tion of the Sick. And the Middle State of separate 
Souls." These various opinions are explained and 
defended from the charge of Popery. Now, whatever 
we may think of the views of Brett, on these subjects, 
we have no right to call them Popish, because we do 
not receive them. Whether erroneous or not, they are 
not Popish. 

Several works appeared on both sides, besides those 
already enumerated. Among others I wish to specify 
one in particular, because it contains an account of 
the discussions, which led to the separation into two 
distinct communions. This work was intitled briefly 
" Mr. Colliers Desertion Discussed," and Collier is 
charged, as the title implies, with having deserted the 
Church of England. x The author commences by 
lamenting the divisions in their little flock, and asks 
what is to be thought of the Bishops, Clergy, and 
convocations of the Church, who served God by the 
Established Liturgy ; and in the constant reception 
of the Holy Sacrament according to her Communion 
Office, even to their last breath, and dying devotions : 
never imagining, that not praying for the dead, and 
not mixing water with the eucharistical wine were 

x Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed : or the Offices of Worship 
in the Liturgy of the Church of England Defended : against the 
bold attacks of that gentleman, late of her communion, now of his 
own. In a Letter to a Friend. To which is added a second Letter 
by way of Appendix, containing some desiderata. Second Edition, 
London, 1720. The first Edition was published in 1718. 



of Hje ^onjurorg* 289 

just causes for breaking the unity of the Church ? 
Collier undoubtedly acted injudiciously in pressing 
the points : since, whether primitive or otherwise, they 
had been rejected by the Church, and could not be 
revived without a reflection on her Bishops and 
Clergy since the Reformation : but it is evident, that 
all the violence was not on his side. He was in- 
discreet, but he did not favour the Church of Rome. 
The author of Mr. Collier s Desertion Discussed, 
himself a Nonjuror, positively charges Collier with 
popery with setting up as the head of a new schism, 
" and so by unsuspected ways " leading " his se- 
quacious disciples, by degrees, at last into the com- 
munion of the Church of Rome. At least it seems 
to me, that he has his conscience so disposed, as per- 
haps his Library may be : at that end Papists, and at 
that end Protestants, and he comes in the middle, as 
near one as the other." y Such a passage as this was 
unwarranted by the circumstances. 

Apart, however, from these blemishes, the work is 
one of great interest, as containing the particulars of 
the disputes and the subsequent separation. Brett 
also has given his account : so that, in these two 
works, we have the particulars stated by two leading 
persons of the two divisions or sections of the party. 
The author of Collier s Desertion Discussed enters 
largely into the questions of the mixture and Prayers 
for the Dead: and, after enlarging on these topics, 
he remarks, that Collier and his friends had separated 
from a Church " reformed by full and sufficient au- 
thority^ upon most mature and serious deliberation, 
with a perfect submission to the rule of the Holy 
Scripture, and with a proper deference and regard to 

y Collier's Desertion Discussed, p. 3. 
U 



290 l&fgtocg of tlje 

the first and purest ages." Then he adds : " and 
now ye gentlemen of the concision, consider, I pray, 
what ground there can be to justify your separation 
from such a Church." 2 

In the Appendix the Author gives an historical 
Sketch of the division. On the 23rd of July 1717, 
some mention was made in conversation of King Ed- 
ward the Vlth's First Liturgy, with certain proposals 
for its revival. After several conversations, the ad- 
vocates for its revival wished a time and place to be 
fixed, for the consideration of the subject. At the 
first interview few persons were present ; but a 
chairman was appointed, who was to summon the 
parties to future meetings. Nothing, the author 
says, was settled at this meeting, except the appoint- 
ment of another, though some individuals stated, 
that the points were determined. The second meeting 
took place on the 27th of July. A Petition in favour 
of the alterations was produced and read : but the op- 
ponents of change did not expect, that any such step 
would have been adopted, or many more signatures 
would have been procured to an opposite Paper. A 
large majority, however, decided against any altera- 
tions : after which it was moved, that each one 
should be left at his own option. For some time all 
things proceeded as usual : but at length, it was 
whispered abroad, that every one was left to his own 
liberty in the matter : " whereas," says the author, 
" in fact every one knew, the only vote which passed 
was, No alterations. This candid report thickened 
about midsummer 1717." At length the Advocates 
for the changes sent two proposals to the other party ; 
and on their refusal to depart from the decision of the 

z Collier's Desertion Discussed, p. 105. 



of tlje $onjucot% 291 

last meeting, the parties, who wished for the restora- 
tion of the Prayers and Directions, met and agreed, 
in a declaration on the 19th of December 1717, that 
it was necessary to restore them as primitive usages. 
On the 20th of December, two of them gave orders 
for an alteration in the service. A new office was 
then composed : communion with those who adhered 
to the Book of Common Prayer was prohibited : and 
the New Service was actually used at Easter in the 
year 1718. 

The same divisions existed also in Scotland, as will 
be shewn in a distinct chapter ; but it may be men- 
tioned in this place, that the dispute was referred to 
the Scottish Bishops for their opinion on the matter. 
Skinner, however, says that the source even of the 
Scottish divisions "was in England, whence it reached 
Scotland." Mr. Peck went to Scotland in 1718, on 
behalf of Collier and his friends, or the Usagers, as 
they were designated, requesting Bishops Rose and 
Falconer to procure a sy nodical determination. This 
was prudently declined by the Scotch Bishops, who 
recommended peace. Spinkes too, on his part, wrote 
to the same Bishops, who replied in the same way to 
his application. They however employed Dr. Rattray 
to draw up proposals for an accommodation, which 
did not give satisfaction. Campbell and Gadderer, 
the two Scottish Bishops resident in London, espoused 
the views of Collier in this question. Of the Bishops 
in Scotland some were opposed and some were neu- 
tral. 3 

It appears, that the new office was at first sanc- 
tioned only by eight English and six Scotch clergy - 



a Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, ii. 623 626. 



292 l?tetorp of tlje 

men. Of these, says the writer, "one made no long 
delay to declare for the Church of England : another, 
like the scape goat, was sent packing into the wilder- 
ness of Popery : and a third, if of any communion, has 
wandered into the same broad way. These were some 
of their first fruits and early triumphs." b 

Brett, who went with Collier, admits that the ma- 
jority were against any alterations, alleging that they 
had no authority to recede from the public Liturgy. 
He does not vary from the preceding account : but he 
adds, " Finding that their brethren would by no 
means join with them to make these alterations, they 
saw a separation was unavoidable :" Brett argues, 
that the communion could not be received unmaimed 
according to the Liturgy of the Church of England : 
and Collier proposed, in his Vindication of The Rea- 
sons, the restoration of the four points, with a view to 
prevent a separation. " However," says Brett, u our 
brethren thought it not proper to comply with these 
proposals, whereby the schism became unavoidable." 
Brett admits that The Nonjurors were now reduced 
to a very inconsiderable number, but he hopes that 
the Clergy of the Church of England will feel them- 
selves concerned in the matter. 

Having concluded that separation was unavoidable, 
Brett tells us, that they composed the new Commu- 



b Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed, pp. 184 190. 

c A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, Used by the Christian 
Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist : particularly the 
Ancient, viz. the Clementine, as it stands in the book called the 
Apostolical Constitutions : The Liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, 
St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, &c. Translated into English by several 
hands. With a Dissertation upon them, shewing their usefulness 
and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and inter- 
polations. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. 8vo. 1720. pp. 359 62. 



of tfje ^onfucorg. 293 

nion Office after the First Liturgy of King Edward. 
He also enters into particulars, stating the reasons 
for departing in some things from Edward's First 
Book, and for preferring the older Liturgies. d The 
arguments, in favour of all the disputed points, are 
most elaborately stated : and the work itself was ori- 
ginally intended as a defence of the points at issue 
between the two parties. All the Liturgies, which 
are reprinted in the volume, contain the Prayers and 
Directions ; so that, it was thought, that no more 
effectual method could be adopted, than the repub- 
lication of these ancient offices. Accordingly Brett 
states, that they sometimes depart even from King 



d Brett, 380, 381. Sir John Hawkins says : " Johnson once 
told me, he had heard his father say, that when he was young in 
trade King 1 Edward VTs. Liturgy was much inquired for, and 
fetched a great price ; but that the publication of this book which 
contained the whole Communion Office, as it stands in the former, 
reduced the price of it to that of a common book." Hawkins's 
Life of Johnson, 448. How different a result has been produced 
in our day by the reprints of King Edward's Books. Attention 
being directed to the originals, their price is greatly enhanced. I 
need only refer to the sale of the library of the late Duke of 
Sussex. The Books of 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1604, are of ex- 
cessive rarity. The last, that of 1604, being the first of the reign 
of James I, is perhaps rarer even than the earlier editions. Of 
this I had evidence when preparing my History of the Convoca- 
tion for the press, being unable to procure a copy by any means. 
Since its publication, however, I have met with a fine copy of this 
very scarce book. I am unable to account for the excessive 
rarity of the Book of 1604. While on this subject, I may be 
permitted to mention, that I possess the book of 1625 the iden- 
tical copy used by Secretary Nicholas, during the civil wars, in 
his own family. In the margin, opposite the Prayer for the King 
in the Communion Service, the following clause is written in 
Nicholas's own hand : " may turn and submit unto him and 
faithfully." 



294 %'0tocg of ttje 

Edward's First Book, to follow the more ancient 

Liturgies. 

Several Clergymen of the Anglican Church would 
have preferred the restoration of the usages, as they 
were termed ; but they did not consider them essen- 
tial, as was the case with Collier and Brett. Thus 
Johnson, in his valuable work " The Unbloody Sacri- 
fice" decidedly expresses his preference for these 
practices ; but as he did not consider them essential, 
he was ready to comply with the authorized office. 

It is very remarkable also, that Whiston, who on 
many important points entertained dangerous opi- 
nions, should in this matter have altogether agreed 
with Collier and Brett. He is quite as much in 
favour of the usages as themselves : and defends 
them as strongly. Accordingly, in his Revised 
Liturgy, they are all introduced. All the peculiarities 
of the New Communion Service were retained by 
Whiston, who argued, as the Nonjurors did, that 
they were primitive practices, and that the Church 
could not dispense with them. 6 

Deacon, who will be more specifically mentioned 
in a subsequent chapter, also appeared in this con- 
troversy/ His chief object was to prove, that there 
was no necessary connexion between the Romish 
Doctrine of Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead. 
The work may be regarded as another evidence, that 



e The Liturgy of the Church of England reduced nearer to the 
Primitive Standard. Humbly proposed to Public Consideration. 
8vo. London, 1750. 

f The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Purgatory, 
proved to be contrary to Catholic Tradition, and inconsistent with 
the necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as practised in the 
Ancient Church. By Thomas Deacon, Priest. London, 12mo. 
1718. 



of tfje ^onjuror* 295 

the Nonjurors had no leaning towards Rome, though 
the charge was so ignorantly adduced. Thus he 
says, that the design of his work was " to demon- 
strate the unlawfulness of being a member of the 
Church of Rome, and to overthrow her pretended 
infallibility, by proving her erroneous in no less a 
point than an article of faith." This is from the 
Dedication to Brett. He proceeds : " As you are a 
true Catholick yourself, so I cannot in the least doubt 
your approbation of my endeavours to establish the 
Ancient Christian Doctrine, concerning the state of 
the dead, to shew the falsity of the Roman Purgatory, 
and thereby to strip the Papal sect of the glorious title 
of Catholick, which without any right she assumes to 
herself." Deacon also enters upon the other points, 
which were comprehended under the general desig- 
nation Usages. The work is managed with consi- 
derable ability : and whoever reads it will see that 
Deacon was not a Papist, as his enemies asserted. 
It is indeed distinguished by so much good sense, 
that I venture to quote a few passages. The follow- 
ing remarks, from the preface, appear to me to be 
deserving of attention in the present day. " I have 
often observed with concern the usage, which Pro- 
testants and Romanists have given each other in con- 
troversies ; sometimes they accuse each other of prac- 
tices, which cannot be charged upon the body : or if 
they could, yet would signify nothing to the matter 
of communion. Sometimes they argue against the 
opinion of private men, as if they were the tenets of 
the sect they were opposing : and sometimes they 
deny the doctrine of their own church, and misrepre- 
sent that of their adversaries. This management has 
been practised on both sides.'' 

Deacon's book was a reply to a Romish paper on 



296 ^i^torp of tlje 

the subject of Purgatory. He contends for Prayer 
for the Dead, but argues against Purgatory. The 
following extract, perhaps, shews the views of the 
Nonjurors on this subject. " You see then that we 
agree in practising Prayer for the Dead : but you 
must not think that therefore I own the lawfulness of 
your way of praying for the dead : for I utterly con- 
demn it, because it is founded upon the doctrine of 
Purgatory. So that though we both practise the 
same thing, yet we differ entirely in the end and 
design for which we practise it. You pray for those 
souls whom you believe to be in torment, that their 
sufferings may diminish, and at length cease. I pray 
for those, whom I believe to be in a state of bliss, 
that their condition may be improved, that they may 
have a happy resurrection, and a good and merciful 
trial at the day of judgment. Let the Primitive 
Church judge in this difference between us." g 

He closes his book with a definition of a Catholic. 
"My definition is this : ' a particular Catholic Church 
is a rightful Bishop, with his Clergy and the laity 
united to them, professing the true Christian faith, 
without the addition of false doctrine : and practi- 
sing the necessary Christian worship without corrup- 
tion.' This is a definition which I suppose you your- 
self cannot deny is adequate and just: and by that 
do I offer to try the cause betwixt your Church and 
that of which I am a member. Do you shew that 
any part of your Church answers to this definition, or 
that ours does not, and I will be your convert. But, 
Sir, I know this is impossible for you to do : for your 
Church has added many false doctrines to the true 



Deacon's Doctrine of the Church of Rome, &c. p. 7. 



p of tfje ^onjucor0. 297 

Christian worship. She has departed from the Pri- 
mitive Church, and deviated from Catholic Tradition, 
and therefore it is dangerous for any one to be in her 
communion." h The reader will perceive, that what- 
ever opinions the Nonjurors may have held, they 
were not Romanists. 1 

Some of the opinions, respecting which the Non- 
jurors divided into two communions, had been put 
forth by Hickes and others, without causing any 
division, at an earlier period. But as long as Hickes 
survived, no attempt was made to make any of these 
opinions terms of communion. There is another im- 
portant work, to which I must direct the reader's 
attention, the first edition of which was published 
before the discussions, which issued in the separation 
of Collier and his adherents, from Spinkes and those, 
who concurred with him on this particular question. 
This work was published in 1713. k The preface 

h Ibid. p. 142. 

1 It is known that Johnson was accustomed to mention his de- 
ceased wife in his Prayers. Sir John Hawkins deems it neces- 
sary to defend him from the suspicion of Popery, as if he had 
believed in Purgatory. He informs us that Johnson adopted the 
views of Brett on this subject, in consequence of the controversy 
which was then carried on. Johnson had also associated, in his 
early years, with some of the Nonjurors, and had imbibed certain 
of their views. Hawkins, 448 451. 

k Some Primitive Doctrines revived : or the Intermediate or 
Middle State of departed Souls (as to happiness or misery) before 
the Day of Judgment, plainly proved from the Holy Scriptures, 
and concurrent testimony of the Fathers of the Church. To which 
is prefixed, the Judgment of the Reverend Dr. George Hickes 
concerning this Book and the Subject thereof. London, 8vo. 
1713. 

I subjoin the titles of two works from the opposite section, or 
those who rejected the New Communion Office. 

Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism. In Two Letters to Dr. 
Brett, and the Author of a late Pamphlet ironically intitled Mr. 



298 ^igtorg of tfje 

contains a summary of Hickes's views on the subject: 
and in the work, the whole matter is elaborately dis- 
cussed. Though anonymous, the book was known 
to be the production of the Honourable Archibald 
Campbell, one of the Scottish Bishops. After the 
subject had been long discussed and the Nonjurors 
were divided into two communions, Campbell pub- 
lished another edition, greatly enlarged, from an octavo 
to a folio, with his name on the title page. This was 
published in 1721 : and certain other treatises were 
appended, on the same and kindred subjects. The 
title itself is exceedingly curious. " The Doctrine 
of a Middle State between Death and the Resurrec- 
tion : of Prayers for the Dead : and the Necessity of 
Purification : plainly proved from the Holy Scrip- 
tures : and the Writings of the Fathers of the Primi- 
tive Church : and acknowledged by several learned 
Fathers and great Divines of the Church of Eng- 
land, and others, since the Reformation. To which 
is added, an Appendix concerning the Descent of 
the Soul of Christ into Hell, while his Body lay in 
the Grave. Together with the judgment of the Re- 
verend Dr. Hickes concerning this Book, so far as 
relates to a Middle State, Particular Judgment, and 
Prayers for the Dead, as it appeared in the First 



Leslie's Defence from some dangerous and erroneous Principles. 
By Mathias Barbery, Presbyter of the Church of England. Lon- 
don, 1720. 

The Doctrine of the Eucharist stated : and the Harmony be- 
tween the Primitive Church and the Reformed Church of Eng- 
land manifested. By which the Conduct of our new Essentialists 
is censured. By a Presbyter of the Church of England. London, 
1720, This author gives the initials S. W. at the end of his 
Letter. 



oE rt)* ;fonjuc0i% 299 

Edition. And a Manuscript of the Right Reverend 
Bishop Overal, upon the subject of a Middle State, 
c. never before printed. Also a Preservative against 
several of the Errors of the Roman Church, in six 
small Treatises. By the Honourable Archibald Camp- 
bell. London, fol. 1721." 

The author argues in defence of the following 
propositions, which were generally received by this 
section of the Nonjurors. 

" That there is an intermediate or middle state for 
departed souls to abide in, between death and the 
resurrection, far different from what they are after- 
ward to be in, when our blessed Lord Jesus Christ 
shall appear at his second coming. 

" That there is no immediate judgment after death. 

" That to pray and offer for, and to commemorate, 
our deceased brethren, is not only lawful and useful, 
but also our bounden duty. 

" That the intermediate state between death and 
the resurrection is a state of purification in its lower, 
as well as of fixed joy and enjoyment, in its higher 
mansions. 

" And that the full perfection of purity and holiness 
is not so to be attained in any mansion of Hades, higher 
or lower, as that any soul of mere man can be ad- 
mitted to enter into the beatific vision, in the highest 
heavens, before the resurrection, and the trial by 
fire, which it must then go through." 

After quoting largely from the Fathers, Campbell 
cites many passages from English divines since the 
Reformation. He remarks of Smallridge : " These 
are the sentiments of a Bishop of England, who was 
a thorough Revolutioner, a juror, and who did swear 
to all who have possessed the throne of England, 



300 Hf fgtorp of t!je 

ever since the Revolution in 1688. And therefore 
it appears that non jurors are not singular in main- 
taining these notions." 

It is a most singular circumstance, that in a Form 
of Prayer for the 30th of January, published by 
royal authority in 1661, there is a prayer for the 
dead. The Form had only the authority of the crown, 
and the particular prayer was omitted in the autho- 
rized Service in 1662 ; but still it is remarkable, that 
it should have been introduced. The prayer is as 
follows, as quoted by Campbell : 

" And we beseech thee to give us all grace to re- 
member and provide for our latter end, by a careful, 
studious imitation of this thy blessed saint and martyr, 
and all other thy saints and martyrs that have gone 
before us, that we may be made worthy to receive 
benefit by their prayers, which they in communion 
with thy Church Catholic offer up unto thee for that 
part of it here militant, and yet in fight with and danger 
from the flesh : that following the blessed steps of 
their holy lives and deaths, we may also shew forth 
the light of a good example : for the glory of thy 
name, the conversion of our enemies, and the im- 
provement of those generations we shall shortly leave 
behind us, and with all those that have borne the 

1 Campbell, p. 175. To specify all the works in this contro- 
versy would be perhaps impossible. Collier, Brett, and their sup- 
porters deemed the Usages essential; and in consequence the 
term Essentialists was applied to them, to distinguish them from 
those who adhered to the Liturgy in its unaltered state. In 1719, 
a pamphlet was published, in which the term Essentialist was 
adopted : " A Dialogue in Vindication of our present Liturgy and 
Service ; between Timothy a Churchman and Thomas an Essen- 
tialist." This was directed against Thomas Deacon, at that time 
a young man, who had just published his work on Purgatory, in 
which the Usayes are defended. 



of tlje ^anjucor0. 30 1 

heat and burden of the day, (thy servant particularly 
whose sufferings and labours we this day commemo- 
rate) receive the reward of our labours, the harvest 
of our hopes, even the salvation of our souls : and 
that for the merits, and through the mediation of 
thy Son, our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ." 

Campbell quotes a letter from Grabe to Wag- 
staffe, in which is the following request : " I pray 
you likewise to pray, whenever you please, and offer 
the most holy sacrifice to God, for the soul of one 
young man of my relation, in Prussia, lately departed 
this life : whose name was Frederick : and was pious 
and solicitous to save himself in this confused state 
of the Church. He was once much inclined to go to 
the Roman Church, but could not satisfy his con- 
science about some of their abuses and errors, and 
therefore stayed back. God have mercy on him, and 
bless his soul in peace.'' m 



m I find a prayer composed by Grabe himself for the soul of a 
departed person. It is set forth as " A Prayer of the Reverend Dr. 
Grabe, which he composed for the Soul of a Woman departed." 
After thanking God for delivering his sister from the present sin- 
ful world, we have the following petitions : " We beseech thy 
Divine Majesty, that thou wouldest likewise give to her immortal 
spirit thy peace and everlasting rest, in the bosom of Abraham 

the father of the faithful. Absolve the soul of thy servant 

from all the bonds of sin and errors of her life past, which she 
either by the weakness or perverseness of her understanding and 
will, hath committed : and grant unto her a full release and per- 
fect remission of all whatsoever hath been in her amiss. Remem- 
ber, O everlasting God, in the highest heavens, our dear sister 

for the best. Comfort the soul of thy servant as long as 
she is walking thro' the valley of the shadow of death, and grant 
now unto her, and to us all, a safe, easy, and quick passage 
through it, and in the end let us meet with a merciful Judge." 
Grabe, therefore, fully concurred with Collier, Brett, and their 
friends on this subject. See The Unity of the Church and Ex- 



302 It0torg of ttje 

He also mentions, that Hickes gave him a prayer, 
not long before his death, which he wished to be 
offered for him after his departure. It contains the 
following petitions : 

" Do thou, O Lord, now look upon this thy ser- 
vant, whom thou hast chosen, and taken from this 
into the other state. 

" O thou lover of men, forgive him all his offences, 
which he hath committed willingly or unwillingly 
against thee, and send thy benevolent holy angels to 
him, to conduct him into the bosom of the patriarchs, 
prophets, and apostles, &c." n 

Among the works of this period, from the pens of 
Nonjurors, to whom the theology and the literature 
of the eighteenth century were so deeply indebted, 
may be noticed Sclater's Answer to King. As early 
as 1691, King, who subsequently became Lord Chan- 
cellor, published the first part of " An Inquiry into 



pediency of Forms of Prayer, &c. London, 8vo. 1719. These 
are two pieces translated from St. Cyprian. Dr. Grabe's prayer 
is prefixed. There is also a Preface of considerable length, in 
which the Usages are discussed and recommended. The author 
also alludes to the breach in communion among the Nonjurors, 
which he laments. Preface, p. 8. The following extract will 
shew how ready the opponents of the Nonjurors were to load them 
with the charge of Popery : " June 5, 1713. About this time, to 
carry on the design of representing Popery on the smoother and 
softer side, there came out a tract, entituled Some Primitive Doc- 
trines Revived. Both the author and the recommender are not 
only for a middle state of souls in some intermediate places, dis- 
tinct from heaven and hell, but as a consequence of this doctrine, 
they do affirm, that prayer for the dead is lawful and useful, and 
would have it restored to our public service. It is very hard to 
distinguish this doctrine from gross Popery: for if there be a 
middle state, why may it not be called a Purgatory ?" Wisdom 
of Looking Backward, 286, 287. 
Campbell, pp. 178, 179. 



of ttje ^onjuror0* 303 

the Constitution, Discipline, 8$c. of the Primitive 
Church" In this work, the author labours to prove, 
that no settled form of Church government could 
be gathered from Holy Scripture and primitive prac- 
tice a sentiment quite compatible with the latitu- 
dinarian notions of the day. A second part was 
subsequently published : and editions of the complete 
work were extensively circulated. As no answer ap- 
peared after several years, the enemies of the Church 
pretended, that King's Inquiry was unanswerable. 
Undoubtedly many of the Clergy, influenced by the 
Erastian notions of the day, were indifferent on the 
subject. Sclater at length stepped forward, and it 
is said that King was not only convinced by his ar- 
guments, but that he made him the offer of a living 
in the Church of England. Sclater was a Nonjuring 
Clergyman : consequently he could not accept of 
preferment in the Anglican Church, which involved 
the taking the Oath of Allegiance. All the argu- 
ments in King's book were considered by Sclater 
with the greatest candour and ability. The author 
was a man of singular modesty, of unaffected piety, 
and of uncommon learning, of which this work affords 
the most abundant evidence. 



An Original Draught of the Primitive Church : in Answer 
to a Discourse intituled, " An Inquiry, &c." By a Presbyter of 
the Church of England. London, 8vo. 1717 



CHAPTER VIII. 

A. D. 17201724. 

CASE OF MR. HENDLEY. His TRIAL. CONDUCT OF THE JUDGE. 
THE SUFFERINGS OF THE CLERGY. THE NONJURORS' COR- 
RESPONDENCE WITH THE GREEK CHURCH IN THE EAST. THE 

CONTEMPLATED UNION. ITS FAILURE. AllSENIUS ARCH- 
BISHOP OF THEBAIS. CHARGE OF POPERY REFUTED BY THIS 
CORRESPONDENCE. 




EFORE we proceed with the narrative of 
the Nonjurors, it may be well to gather 
up some particulars respecting the state 
of the members of the Anglican Church, 
who were oftentimes subjected, in those days of pro- 
fessed liberty, to much annoyance and even suffering. 
It must strike reflecting persons, as a mark of the 
Divine goodness towards the Church, that she was 
preserved in her integrity, when so many persons in 
authority were unwilling to afford their countenance 
and support. That the Church was maintained in 
connexion with the state must be attributed, not to 
the affection of the Whig ministers, but to the noble 
and consistent course of the great majority of the 
Clergy, who interposed, and prevented the evils, 
which, but for their exertions, would have overtaken 
the land. With the Clergy and the people in favour 
of the Church, it was not possible for any political 
party to effect very serious innovations. Still indi- 
viduals were frequently exposed to much trouble 
and inconvenience, simply because they evidenced 



of tfje /ponfucoc^ 305 

their strong attachment to the Church. The case 
of Mr. Hendley, to which I shall now refer, affords 
a striking illustration of the persecutions, to which 
even men, who took the Oaths, were subjected. Dis- 
senters and others were ready to fasten the brand of 
disloyalty and Jacobinism on men, who refused to 
yield to the latitudinarian feelings of the age. 

Mr. Hendley, a clergyman, who resided at Isling- 
ton, obtained permission from the Rector of Chisel- 
hurst, and also from the Diocesan, the Bishop of 
Rochester, to preach sermons in the parish Church, 
in aid of St. Ann's Charity Schools, Aldersgate 
Street. In order to render the appeal more effectual, 
the master and some of the children were sent down 
to Chiselhurst on Saturday, August 23rd, 1718. On 
Sunday, August 24th, he preached in the Church. 
After sermon Mr. Wilson, the Rector of the parish, 
commenced reading the Offertory, the collectors pro- 
ceeding to receive the alms of the parishioners. A 
gentleman present seized one of the collectors, alleging, 
that the act was illegal. After much confusion, some 
persons declaring that they cared neither for the 
Bishop nor the Archbishop, the collection was relin- 
quished. In the evening of the same day, the rector, 
the preacher, and the persons who took the children 
to Chiselhurst, were actually taken into custody, as 
though an offence against the laws had been com- 
mitted. Bail was taken by the magistrates for their 
appearance at the Sessions : and afterwards, on a 
charge of being rioters and vagrants, Mr. Hendley 
and the other parties were bound over to make their 
appearance at the assizes for trial. a 

a It is difficult to understand how any magistrates could be 
found to act in such a case. Two of the body were at the Church, 



x 



306 l?(0torp of 

At the assizes a true bill was found against the 
parties for sedition. It was proved at the trial, 
that the preacher had the consent of the Bishop and 
the incumbent : and it was alleged in their defence, 
that the Archbishops had preached in various churches 
for charities connected with other parishes : and that 
the House of Lords had attended on some such occa- 
sions. The counsel for the prosecution contended 
that the practice was illegal ; but the most extraordi- 
nary part of the business was the summing up of the 
judge, who descended so far to degrade the seat of 
justice as to tell the jury, that Mr. Hendley probably 
had permission from Cardinal Alberoni, as well as 
from the Bishop of Rochester. In our day no judge 
could so forget himself. The circumstance affords a 
sad specimen of the state of courts of justice at that 
time. From the bench of justice, Sir Littleton Powys 
actually insinuated the most unfounded charges 
against a respectable clergyman, who was standing 
before him on a groundless charge of sedition. The 
jury, after such a charge, found Mr. Hendley and his 
companions guilty, when the judge inflicted a fine 
of six shillings and eightpence on each person, telling 
them that if they were dissatisfied, they might bring 
a writ of error. b 

Sir Littleton Powys, the judge, before whom the 
case was tried, wrote a letter to the Lord Chancellor, 



and actually headed the opposition. They certainly were the cri- 
minals, not Mr. Hendley and Mr. Wilson. One of these notable 
justices ordered a constable to cause the congregation to disperse. 
The pretence was, that the parties were collecting money for the 
Pretender. 

b Charity still a Christian Virtue : or an impartial Account of the 
Trial and Conviction of the Reverend Mr. Hendley, for Preaching a 
Charity Sermon at Chiselhurst. And of Mr. Chapman, Mr. 



of tfi* /ponj'uror^ 307 

dated August 4th, 1719, giving an account of this 
singular trial. It affords striking evidence of the 
hard condition, to which the Clergy of that day were, 
or at least might be, subjected, simply from their 
faithful attachment to the Church. In this letter he 
tells the Chancellor what he had said to the jury : 
and among other extraordinary assertions he remarks, 
" No collection even for charity (unless for the poor 
of the same parish) is by law to be made, but by the 
leave and permission of the King. I told the jury 
that this was a case of dangerous consequence, and 
was an invasion, not only on the King's prerogative, 
but also upon the legislature, and that I thought the 
defendants guilty." He also tells the Chancellor that 
he had not inflicted a heavy fine, lest compassion 
should have been excited, and a collection made for 
the parties. In the same letter he alludes to the 
Bishop of London : " I gave Mr. Woodford a news- 
paper, wherein was an advertisement, which I thought 
very fit to be shewed to superiors : that the Bishop 
of London had issued a circular letter to all his 
Clergy, to collect charities in their parishes for the 
poor vicarages in England, which I thought much 
akin to the late collection in Kent, or rather more 
dangerous, not only by raising a vast sum of money, 
(if the like in all dioceses) but also by marking out 
people how far affected to the Church throughout 



Pratt, and Mr. Harding, for collecting at the same time the Alms 
of the Congregation. At the Assizes held at Rochester, on Wed- 
nesday July 15th, 1719. Offered to the consideration of the Clergy 
of the Church of England, 8vo. London, 1719. There is a. fron- 
tispiece to this extraordinary account, in which the Clergy are 
represented at the rails, and the people are pressing forward to 
offer their alms. The account in the State Trials is taken from 
this volume. State Trials, Vol. X. Appendix 89-91. 



308 

England." The judge, and probably many other 
persons, were fearful lest it should appear, that the 
great mass of the people of England were well affected 
towards the Church. But what a picture of oppres- 
sion is presented to our view in this letter. The 
Bishop of London is even complained of for an act of 
charity towards the Church. 

It should be mentioned, that Mr. Wilson, the In- 
cumbent of Chiselhurst, died within forty-eight hours 
after his return from the Sessions, at which the parties 
were bound over to appear at the Assizes : and his 
death was caused by the fatigue of that journey. 
This year, 1718, was, it has been said, " remarkable 
for the severity of the ministry, and the Parlia- 
ment through them, in punishing the authors of 
obnoxious publications.'" 1 Mr. Hendley did not very 
long survive : so that no further proceedings were 
adopted in this extraordinary case. 

The harsh proceedings of the government have 
been alluded to in the previous pages : but perhaps 
the period of Hendley 's trial was the time of the 
greatest severity. Nothing could have been more 
severe than their conduct towards Matthews, a 



State Trials, Vol. x. App. 91. 

d Noble, iii. 142. Mr. Hendley published the Sermon, which 
he had preached at Chiselhurst, on occasion of the collection, with 
the following title : "The Rich Man's Proper Barns, a Srmon 
preached at the Parish Church of Chiselhurst in the county of 
Kent; on Sunday, August 24, 1718. For the benefit of the 
Charity Children belonging to St. Ann's, within Aldersgate, 
London. By W. Hendley, Curate and Lecturer of St. Mary at 
Islington, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable Charles, Lord 
Fitzwalter. 8vo. London, 1720." He states, that he published it 
because the people generally " imagined it to be upon the account 
of what was contained in my Sermon, that the prosecution was at 
first begun, and afterwards carried on against me." 



of ttje ^onjurottf* 309 

Printer's Apprentice, who had printed a Pamphlet, 
intitled, " Ex Ore Tuo Te Judico, Vox Populi Vox 
Dei" He was brought to trial at the Old Bailey, 
Oct. 4th, 1719, on a charge of maintaining the rights 
of the Pretender to the crown of Great Britain. He 
was found guilty, and actually executed at Tyburn, 
being only in the nineteenth year of his age. 

I now proceed to some circumstances of especial 
interest, in connexion with the Anglican and Scot- 
tish Nonjurors. They relate to a project, which 
some of the Nonjurors entertained, respecting a union 
with the Greek Church in the east. The scheme 
was first thought of in 1716, when Arsenius, an 
Archbishop of the Eastern Church, was in London 
soliciting assistance for his afflicted brethren in 
Alexandria. Campbell, one of the Scottish Bishops, 
became acquainted with the Archbishop : " and," as 
Skinner says, " having a scheming turn for every 
thing which he thought of general usefulness to the 
Church, took occasion in conversation to hint some- 
thing of this kind." Campbell mentioned the matter 
to his friends at a meeting. At first all were united : 
but the disputes respecting the usages having arisen, 
Spinkes, though he had previously translated their 
proposals into Greek, together with Hawes and 
Gandy, declined to proceed any further in the busi- 
ness, which was subsequently carried on by Collier, 
Brett, and Griffin, with the Scottish Bishops Camp- 
bell and Gadderer. Skinner says, that there never 
was much probability of success, and that, in the 
event of success, no good end would have been 
answered. 

An account of the correspondence, between the 
Nonjurors and the Patriarchs of the oriental Church, 
was drawn up by Brett, some few years after the 



310 ^i0torp of ttje 

scheme had failed. It is preserved among Bishop 
Jolly's MSS. Having been furnished with a copy, 
I now submit to the Public all the letters and Papers, 
which were written by the Nonjurors, contenting 
myself with giving certain extracts only, though suf- 
ficient to exhibit a summary of their arguments, from 
the replies of the Patriarchs. 

"In the month of July 1716, the Bishops called 
Nonjurors meeting about some affairs relating to their 
little Church, Mr. Campbell took occasion to speak 
of the Archbishop of Thebais then in London ; and 
proposed that we should endeavour a union with 
the Greek Church, and draw up some propositions in 
order thereto, and deliver them to that Archbishop, 
with whom he intimated, as if he had already had 
some discourse upon that subject. I was then a 
perfect stranger to the doctrines and forms of worship 
of that Church, but as I wished most heartily for a 
general union of all Christians in one communion, J 
was ready to have joined with Mr. Campbell on this 
occasion. But Mr. Lawrence being in the room, 
drew me aside, and told me, that the Greeks were 
more corrupt and more bigoted than the Romanists, 
and therefore vehemently pressed me not to be con- 
cerned in the affair : but Mr. Collier, Mr. Campbell, 
Mr. Spinkes joined in it, and drew up proposals, 
which Mr. Spinkes (as Mr. Campbell informed me) 
put into Greek, and they went together and delivered 
them to the Archbishop of Thebais, who carried them 
to Moscovy, and engaged the Czar in the affair, and 
they were encouraged to write to his majesty on that 
occasion, who heartily espoused the matter, and sent 
the proposals by James, Proto-Cyncellus to the Pa- 
triarch of Alexandria, to be communicated to the 



f tlje istoiijuroc& 311 

four Eastern Patriarchs. Before the return of the 
Patriarch's answer to the proposals, a breach of 
communion happened among the Nonjurors here, 
Mr. Hawes, Mr. Spinkes, and Mr. Gandy on the 
one side, and Mr. Collier, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gad- 
derer, and myself on the other. So that when the 
Patriarch's answer came to London, in 1722, Mr. 
Spinkes refused to be any further concerned in the 
affair, and Mr. Gadderer and I joined in it. After 
Mr. Gadderer went to Scotland, Mr. Griffin, being 
consulted, joined with us. The rest of the story 
relating to this matter may be gathered from the 
letters and the subscriptions to them. Mr. Collier 
subscribes Jeremias, Mr. Campbell Archibaldus, Mr. 
Gadderer Jacobus, and I, Thomas, 

Sic. Sub. THOMAS BRETT." 

March 30th, 1728. i 

" A Proposal for a concordate betwixt the othodox 
and catholic remnant of the British Churches, and 
the Catholic and Apostolic Oriental Church. 

" 1. That the Church of Jerusalem be acknowledged 
as the true mother Church and principal of eccle- 
siastical unity, whence all the other Churches have 
been derived, and to which, therefore, they owe a 
peculiar regard. 

" 2. That a principality of Order be in consequence 
hereof allowed to the Bishop of Jerusalem above all 
other Christian Bishops. 

"3. That the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and 
Constantinople, with the Bishops thereof, his col- 
leagues, be recognized as to all their ancient canoni- 
cal rites, privileges, and pre-eminences. 

" 4. That to the Bishop and Patriarch of Constanti- 
nople in particular an equality of honour with that 



312 %'gtorp of tljs 

of the Bishop of Rome be given, and that the very 
same powers and privileges be acknowleged to reside 
in them both alike. 

" 5. That the Catholic remnant of the British 
Churches, acknowledging that they first received 
their Christianity from such as came forth from the 
Church of Jerusalem, before they were subject to 
the Bishop of Rome and that Church, and professing 
the same holy Catholic faith, delivered by the Apostles, 
and explained in the councils of Nice, and Constanti- 
nople, be reciprocally acknowledged as part of the 
Catholic Church in communion with the Apostles, 
with the holy fathers of these councils, and with their 
successors. 

" 6. That the said Catholic remnant shall thereupon 
oblige themselves to revive what they long professed 
to wish for, the ancient godly discipline of the Church, 
and which they have already actually began to restore. 

" 7. That in order still to a nearer union, there be 
as near a conformity in worship established as is 
consistent with the different circumstances and cus- 
toms of nations, and with the rites of particular 
Churches, in that case allowed of. 

" 8. That the most ancient English Liturgy, as more 
near approaching the manner of the Oriental Church, 
be in the first place restored, with such proper addi- 
tions and alterations, as may be agreed on to render 
it still more conformable both to that and the primi- 
tive standard. 

" 9. That several of the Homilies of St. Chrysostom, 
and other approved Fathers of the said Oriental 
Church be forthwith translated into English and read 
in our holy assemblies. 

11 10. That in the public worship, when prayer is 
made for the Catholic Church, there be an^express 



of tlje l&onfutorsf* 313 

commemoration made of the Bishop of Jerusalem, 
and that, especially in the Communion Service, 
Prayer be offered up for him and the other Patriarchs, 
with all the Bishops of the same communion, and for 
the deliverance and restoration of the whole Oriental 
Church. 

"11. That the faithful and orthodox remnant of the 
Britannic Church is to be also, by the said Oriental 
Church, on proper occasions, or on certain days pub- 
licly commemorated and prayed for. 

" 12. That there be letters communicatory settled 
betwixt one and the other, and the acts and deeds on 
both sides be mutually confirmed. 

"Wherefore in order to establish such a concordate, 
until that a firm and perfect union can be fixed, the 
suffering Catholic Bishops of the old constitution of 
Great Britain have thought fit hereby to declare, 
wherein they agree and wherein they cannot come to 
a perfect agreement. 

" 1. They agree in the twelve Articles of the Creed 
as delivered in the first and second General Councils, 
which they take to be sufficient for faith, and there- 
upon cannot agree with the Latin Church, which hath 
superadded thereto twelve other articles of faith. 

" 2. They agree in believing the Holy Ghost to be 
jonsubstantial with the Father and the Son, accord- 
ing to the orthodox confession of the Oriental Church ; 
ind moreover, that the Father is properly the foun- 
tain and original whence the Holy Ghost proceedeth ; 
and that it is altogether sufficient for salvation to be- 
lieve herein what Christ himself hath taught. 

"3. They agree that the Holy Ghost is sent forth 
by the Son from the Father, and when they say in any 
of their confessions, that He is sent forth or proceedeth 



3 14 ^tetorg of tlje $onfucot#, 

from the Son, they mean no more than what is, and 
always has been confessed by the Oriental Church, 
i. e. from the Father by the Son. 

"4. They agree, that the Holy Ghost did truly 
speak by the prophets and apostles, and is the genuine 
author of all the Scriptures. 

" 5. They agree, that the Holy Ghost assisteth the 
Church in judging rightly concerning matters of faith, 
and that both general and particular orthodox coun- 
cils, convened after the example of the first council of 
Jerusalem, may reasonably expect that assistance in 
their resolutions. 

" 6. They agree, in the number and nature of the 
charismata of the Spirit. 

" 7. They agree, that there is no other foundation 
of the Church but Christ alone, and that the prophets 
and apostles are no otherwise to be called so, but in 
a less proper and secondary sense respectively only. 

" 8. They agree that Christ alone is the head of the 
Church, which title ought not therefore to be assumed 
by any one, much less by any secular power, how 
great soever, and that Bishops under him have a 
vicarious headship, as his proper representatives and 
vicegerents, being thence subject in spirituals to no 
temporal power on earth : and in consequence hereof 
they hope the patriarchs of the Oriental Church will 
be pleased, by an express article, to signify, that they 
own the independency of the Church in spirituals 
upon all lay powers, and consequently declare against 
all lay deprivations. 

" 9. They agree, that every Christian ought to be 
subject to the Church, and that the Church is by 
Christ sufficiently instructed and authorized to exa- 
mine the writings and censure the persons of her sub- 
jects or ministers, though never so great. 



of ttje $l0nfuroi% 315 

" 10. They agree, that the Sacrament of the body 
and blood of Christ ought to be administered to the 
faithful in both kinds, and that the Latin Church 
have transgressed the Institution of Christ by restrain- 
ing from the laity one kind. 

"II. They agree, that Baptism and this are of 
general necessity to salvation, for all the faithful, and 
that the other holy mysteries instituted by Christ, or 
appointed by his Apostles, which are not so generally 
necessary unto all, ought nevertheless to be received 
and celebrated with due reverence, according to Ca- 
tholic and immemorial practice. 

"12. They agree, that there is no proper purgatorial 
fire in the future state, for the purgation of souls, nor 
consequently any redemption of souls out of the fire 
of purgatory by the suffrages of the living : but that 
notwithstanding none do immediately ascend into the 
heaven of heavens, but do remain until the resurrec- 
tion in certain inferior mansions, appropriated to them, 
waiting in hope for the revelation of that day, and 
joining in the prayers and praises of the militant 
church upon earth, offered up in faith." 

" As to the points wherein they cannot, at present, 
perfectly agree, they declare. 

" 1. They have a great reverence for the canons of 
ancient general councils, yet they allow them not the 
same authority as is due to the sacred text, and think, 
they may be dispensed with by the governors of the 
Church, where charity or necessity require. 

"2. Though they call the mother of our Lord 
blessed, and magnify the grace of God, which so highly 
exalted her, yet are they afraid of giving the glory of 
God to a creature, or to run into any extreme by 
blessing and magnifying her, and do hence rather 



316 ^i0torg of tfje 

choose to bless and magnify God, for the high grace 
and honour conferred upon her, and for the benefits 
which we receive by that means. 

"3. Though they believe that both saints and 
angels have joy in the conversion of one sinner, and in 
the progress of a Christian, and do unite with us in 
our prayers and thanksgivings, when rightly offered to 
God in the communion of the Church : yet are they 
jealous of detracting from the mediation of Jesus 
Christ, and therefore cannot use a direct invocation 
to any of them, the ever blessed Virgin herself not 
excepted, while we desire nevertheless to join with 
them in spirit, and to communicate with them in per- 
fect charity. 

" 4. Though they believe a perfect mystery in the 
Holy Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy 
Spirit, upon the elements, whereby the faithful do verily 
and indeed receive the body and blood of Christ, 
they believe it yet to be after a manner, which flesh 
and blood cannot conceive ; and seeing no sufficient 
ground from Scripture or tradition to determine the 
manner of it, are for leaving it indefinite and unde- 
termined : so that every one may freely, according to 
Christ's own institution and meaning, receive the same 
in faith, and also worship Christ in spirit, as verily 
and indeed present, without being obliged to worship 
the Sacred symbols of his presence. 

" 5. Though they honour the memory of all the 
faithful witnesses of Christ, and count it not unlawful 
in itself to assist the imagination by pictures and re- 
presentations of them and their glorious acts and suf- 
ferings, yet they are afraid of giving thereby, on one 
hand, scandal to the Jews and Mahometans, or on 
the other, to many well meaning Christians : and they 
are moreover apprehensive that, though the wise may 



f tf)* ^oixfuroc0* 317 

be safe from receiving any damage, by a wrong ap- 
plication, yet the vulgar may come thereby to be en- 
snared, and be carried to symbolize too much with the 
custom of idolaters, without designing it : to prevent 
which they therefore propose, that the 9th Article of 
the second Council of Nice, concerning the worship 
of Images, be so explained by the wisdom of the 
Bishops and Patriarchs of the Oriental Church, as to 
make it inoffensive, and to remove the scandal, which 
may be occasioned by a direct application to them. 

" If a concordate can be agreed on with some limi- 
tations and indulgences on both sides, then it is pro- 
posed that a Church, to be called the Concordia, be 
built in or about London, which may be under the 
jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and in 
which, at certain times to be agreed on, there shall 
be the English service of the united British Catholics 
performed according as the same shall be approved 
or licensed by that Patriarch, or by the representa- 
tives of the Oriental Church. And that on the other 
side, if it should please God to restore the suffering 
Church of this island and her Bishops to her and 
their just rights, they promise to use their endeavours, 
that leave be granted to a Greek Bishop here for the 
time residing, or to such as shall be deputed by him, 
to celebrate, upon certain days, divine service in the 
cathedral church of St. Paul according to the Greek 
rites. But if one common Liturgy could be on both 
sides agreed on, which should be unexceptionable, 
being compiled out of the ancient Greek Liturgies, 
some passages and rites only omitted, which are not 
of the substance, and which may give offence to one 
side, it is thought that nothing can more conduce to 
the establishing a union and communion betwixt both 
parties on catholic terms, would but the Patriarchs 



318 ^igtorp of t$ 

of the Oriental Church graciously condescend, that 
the same common Liturgy should be used in Great 
Britain, both by the Greeks themselves here residing, 
and by the united British Catholics. 

" None to be excluded from entering into this con- 
cordate who are willing, and all endeavours to be 
used on both sides to heal the breaches of Christen- 
dom, and to promote and propagate Christian unani- 
mity and peace. 

London. 
August 18th, 1716." 

" A Letter to the Czar of Moscovy relating to the 
preceding proposal. 

"Sin, The Archimandrite, who attended the Arch- 
bishop of Thebais at London, acquaints us, that your 
Majesty is pleased to encourage the proposal of union 
between the Greek and Britannic Churches, and that 
your Majesty has graciously offered to send the Ar- 
ticles to the four Eastern Patriarchs. This welcome 
information has made it our duty, to return your Ma- 
jesty our most humble thanks for the honour of your 
countenance. And since God hath put it into the 
heart of so great a Prince, to assist in closing the 
breach of the Catholic Church, and restoring the 
harmony designed by the Christian institution, we 
hope the undertaking will prosper in your Majesty's 
hand. 

" Some late practices with respect to Church and 
State have reduced our Communion to a few ; but 
your Majesty knows truth and right do not depend 
on numbers. That God may reward your Majesty's 
pious endeavours, and long continue you glorious 
and happy to yourself and subjects, is the unfeigned 



of tije ^oujuroi% 319 

prayer of us, who are with the most profound regard, 
Your Majesty's most Obedient Servants." 
Oct. 8th, 1717. 

" Copy of a Letter of the Archbishop of Thebais in 
Egypt, by whom the first proposals from Britain were 
transmitted to the Eastern Patriarchs." 

" To the Most Venerable and Wise Bishops, Mr. 
Campbell, and the rest, and to the Reverend 
Priests and beloved Laicks and all worthy Chris- 
tians, Arsenius, Metropolitan of Thebais, wisheth 
prosperity." 

This Letter is dated from St. Petersburgh, August 
16, 1721 . It was brought by James, the Patriarchal 
Proto-Cyncellus, who had carried the questions to 
the Patriarchs. He also brought with him a very 
long answer from the Eastern Patriarchs, intitled 
" The Answer from the Orthodox of the East to the 
proposals sent from Britain for an union and agree- 
ment with the Oriental Church." 

In this document the Patriarchs refuse to make the 
desired concessions, giving their reasons at great 
length. To the first five proposals they state, that 
they shall give one answer, since they all relate to 
one point, namely, the order of the five Patriarchal 
thrones. "They who call themselves the remnant of 
primitive orthodoxy in Britain, would (if this be their 
meaning, which will be shewn to be otherwise here- 
after) have them dispossessed of their situation given 
them by orthodox princes, and confirmed by divine 
and holy synods, and be settled in a new and different 
order : so that neither the Roman nor Constantinopo- 
litan throne should any longer have the preference, but 



3:20 ijtetorj? of tlje 

that of Jerusalem. But somebody may thus bespeak 
them, if gentlemen, the subject of your union with the 
orthodox Oriental Church be matter of doctrine and 
holy faith, to what purpose should the order of the 
Patriarchal thrones be changed, which can neither 
the one way nor the other, be any advantage or detri- 
ment to religion ? It would rather create divisions 
than conciliate an union, for it has the face of an in- 
novation ; whereas our Oriental Church, the immacu- 
late Bride of the Lord, has never at any time admitted 
any novelty, nor will at all allow of any. And why 
should they have the preference given to the throne 
of Jerusalem ? Because, say they, from thence came 
out the evangelical law of grace and truth, according 
to that prophesy, ' but out of Zion shall go forth the 
law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.' Now 
they would by these words seem wiser and more pro- 
vident, than those who place the thrones in this order, 
as if they had acted rashly and unadvisedly in mak- 
ing such an appointment, which God forbid. For the 
authors and legislators of this order were divine men, 
of extensive knowledge and judgment, and had the 
Spirit of the Lord : nor can we pretend to be better 
and more sagacious than they, or to overturn, or in 
the least disorder their wise settlements, lest we be 
found to fight against the saints and against God." 

They afterwards say : 

" Some time since, the Pope of Rome, being de- 
ceived by the malice of the devil, and falling into 
strange novel doctrines, revolted from the unity of 
the holy Church, and was cut off: and it is now like 
a shattered rag of a sail of the spiritual vessel of the 
Church, which formerly consisted and was made up 
of five parts, four of which continue in the same state 
of unity and agreement : and by these we easily and 



of ttie ^onfurocg, 321 

calmly sail through the ocean of this life, and without 
difficulty pass over the waves of heresy, till we arrive 
within the haven of salvation. But he who is the 
fifth part, being separated from the entire sail, and 
remaining by himself in a small piece of the torn 
sheet, is unable to perform his voyage, and therefore 
we behold him at a distance tossed with constant 
waves and tempest till he return to our Catholic, 
Apostolic, Oriental, immaculate faith, and be rein- 
stated in the sail from whence he was broken off: for 
this will make him secure, and able to weather the 
spiritual storms and tempests that beset him. Thus 
therefore the holy Church of Christ with us subsists 
on four pillars, namely, the four Patriarchs, and con- 
tinues firm and immoveable. The first in order is 
the Patriarch of Constantinople. The second the 
Pope of Alexandria. The third of Antioch. The 
fourth of Jerusalem." 

They grant however : 

" If those who are called the remains of the primi- 
tive orthodoxy, out of any particular affection of piety 
to the holy and Apostolical throne of Jerusalem, would 
prefer and esteem it above the rest, we have no ob- 
jection to it: for we ourselves,, though for order's sake 
we number it in the 4th place, yet pay it the utmost 
reverence and respect, and honour it as the place 
where the light of religion and salvation arose, where 
the redemption of man and the preaching of the 
Gospel shone out into all the world, and because 
there our Lord suffered for us, and there shed his 
precious blood. And if this be the desire of the 
pious remnant in Britain, we grant and allow it, 
only let them not despise the ancient order, nor accuse 
it of error, nor reject it." 

They add further on this point : 



322 ^t0torp of tlj* 

" But it is necessary also that he should, either 
immediately or by deputation, consecrate the British 
Bishops by the grace of the Holy Spirit, no other 
Patriarch but that of Jerusalem daring to ordain in 
Britain, or to enter upon his jurisdiction." 

To the 6th proposal respecting the ancient disci- 
pline they remark, " that they are ignorant of what is 
intended. If it be to make the Patriarch of Jerusalem 
supreme over all, they cannot consent, as it would 
subvert the ancient order : but if they only wish him 
to be primus in Britain, they consent. If the things 
to be revived were such as needed a synodical exami- 
nation, they promise to submit them ' to a council of 
the universal Church.' ' : 

To the 7th proposal they observe, that it is obscure, 
but they promise, that all such things shall be settled, 
if the union should be accomplished. 

To the 8th proposal respecting King Edward's 
First Liturgy, they say : " The Oriental orthodox 
Church acknowledges but one Liturgy, the same 
which was delivered down by the Apostles, but 
written by the first Bishop of Jerusalem, James the 
brother of God, and afterwards abbreviated upon ac- 
count of its length by the great Father, Basil, and 
afterwards again epitomized by John, the golden- 
tongued Patriarch of Constantinople, which from the 
times of Basil and Chrysostom, until now, the Ori- 
ental orthodox Church receives and uses every where, 
and by them administers the unbloody sacrifice in every 
Church of the orthodox. It is proper, therefore, that 
those, who are called the remnant of primitive piety, 
should, when they are united to us, make use of those, 
that in this point also there be no discord between 
us, but that they as well as we should on proper 
days officiate by the Liturgy of St. Basil, and daily 



of ft)* jpDftftiMtg* 323 

by that of St. Chrysostom. As for the English 
Liturgy we are unacquainted with it, having never 
either seen or read it, but we have suspicion of it, 
because many and various heresies and schisms and 
sects have arisen up in those parts, lest the heretics 
should have introduced into it any corruption or de- 
viation from the right path. Upon this account it is 
necessary that we should both see and read it, and 
then either approve it as right, or reject it as dis. 
agreeable to our unspotted faith. When, therefore, 
we have considered it, if it needs correction, we will 
correct it, and if possible will give it the sanction of 
a genuine form. But what occasion have those for 
any other Liturgy, who have the true and sincere 
one of the divine Father Chrysostom, which is made 
use of in all the Oriental Churches of the Orthodox 
Greeks, Russians, Iberians, and Arabians, and many 
other orthodox nations ? For if they who are called 
the remnant will receive this, they will thereby be 
more intimately united, and more nearly related to 
us : for the people do not so much look upon the 
heart as the appearance." 

To the 9th Proposal, respecting the Homilies of 
Chrysostom, they assent, and commend it. To the 
10th Proposal also they assent, as well as to the 1 1th, 
which they regard as of the same character. With 
respect to the 12th Proposal, they promise to trans- 
mit the decrees of their canons, and to receive the 
public and synodical determinations from Britain, and 
to take them into their consideration. 

The Patriarchs then proceed to the points, in which 
the Nonjurors express their agreement with the 
Eastern Church. To the first four, a general agree- 
ment is expressed, only, with regard to the fourth, 
they wish them to add, that the Holy Ghost also " spake 



324 %'0tor? o tfi 

by the Holy Synods and Divine Fathers, and then 
they will be in the right, and not far from the truth." 
To the rest of the propositions also a general agree- 
ment is expressed ; only they state their belief in 
Seven Sacraments, though two only " exceed in neces- 
sity, and are such as no one can be saved without 
them." On the question of Purgatorial fire, they 
remark : " As for Purgatorial fire, invented by the 
Papists to command the purse of the ignorant, we 
will by no means hear of it. For it is a fiction and a 
doting fable invented for lucre, and to deceive the 
simple, and, in a word, has no existence but in the 
imagination. There is no appearance or mention of 
it in the Holy Scriptures or Fathers, whatsoever the 
authors or abettors of it may clamour to the contrary." 
They contend, however, for Prayers for Saints de- 
parted. 

In the next place, the Patriarchs and Bishops pro- 
ceed to the points of disagreement, as expressed by 
the Nonjurors, remarking that they constitute the 
greatest difficulty. " But, say they, this is not to be 
wondered at, for being born and educated in the 
principles of the Lutheran Calvinists, and possessed 
with their prejudices, they tenaciously adhere to 
them, like ivy to a tree, and are hardly drawn off." 
They answer the points in the order, in which they 
were placed by the Nonjurors. 

To the First they say, that the proposition cannot 
be received, for they cannot allow the decrees of 
Synods to be despised. To the Second respecting the 
Virgin Mary, they say, " Here we may fairly cry 
out with David, ' They were in great fear where no 
fear was :' ' and then they proceed to shew, that 
they do not give her divine honours. In replying to 
the Third point, they contend that the saints may be 



of rfje ^onjuror0 325 

invocated and addressed as helpers. The Fourth 
proposition relative to the Eucharist is termed blas- 
phemous, and the Patriarchs express their belief in 
Transubstantiation. To the Fifth point, respecting 
Images, they state, that to honour the saints by pic- 
tures is an ancient piece of devotion, which they 
daily practice. They argue at some length that the 
honour paid to them is only relative. The proposal, 
at the end of the points of disagreement, respecting 
a church in or near London, is approved of and ac- 
cepted : and also that the Eastern Bishops, or those 
appointed by the Patriarch of Alexandria, should, in 
the event of a change in the government, perform 
divine service in St. Paul's in Greek and English. 
They then recommend the translation of the Greek 
Liturgy for general use. 

At the close of the answers, it is added : 
" The answers here transcribed to the proposals 
sent from Britain, were drawn up by a synodical 
judgment and determination of the Eastern Church, 
after the most mature deliberation, of the Lord Jere- 
mias, the most holy oecumenical Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, the new Rome, and the blessed and 
most holy Patriarchs, the Lord Samuel of Alexandria, 
and the Lord Chrysanthus of Jerusalem, with the 
holy metropolitans, and the holy Clergy of the great 
Church of Christ in Constantinople, in council assem- 
bled, in the year 1718, in the month of April, day 
the 12th." 

Then follows a synodical answer to a question, 
respecting the sentiments of the Greek Church, sent 
into Britain in the year 1672. The same decisions 
are expressed as in the preceding answers. It was 
signed by thirty-seven Patriarchs, Archbishops and 
Bishops. Another Synodical Decree is also given, 



326 ^igtorg of ttje 

on the same points, bearing the date 1691, and sub- 
scribed by several Patriarchs and Bishops. 

The following is the reply of the Nonjurors to the 
communication from the Patriarchs. 

" Copy of a Reply to the Answers of the Orthodox 
of the East. 

" Before the Catholic remainder of the British 
Church proceed to reply to the answers of the four 
most Reverend Patriarchs of the Catholic Oriental 
Church, they think themselves obliged to return their 
most hearty thanks to their Patriarchal Lordships for 
the trouble they have given themselves, in drawing 
up an answer to our proposals, and transmitting it to 
so distant a country as Great Britain : hoping that 
this charitable disposition and generous ardour their 
Patriarchal Lordships express for preserving an har- 
mony between us, and enlarging the union of Chris- 
tendom, may be carried on to a happy conclusion ; 
and as the Catholic remnant of Britain will omit 
nothing, in order to so desirable an issue, but wil- 
lingly stretch to the utmost of their power : so having 
the satisfaction to understand, that their Patriarchal 
Lordships refer the difference of sentiments between 
us to the decision of the Scriptures and primitive 
Church, they have no uncomfortable prospect of a 
coalition. For since the determining rule is equally 
received by the Oriental Churches and the Catholic 
remainder in Britain ; since the inspired writings of 
the Old and New Testament, as interpreted by the 
primitive Fathers, are the common standard of faith 
and worship to both, we do not despair, but by the 
blessing of God, when the case shall be further ex- 
amined by the Catholic Oriental Church, such allow- 



of tlje /Ponjurorg, 327 

ances and concessions may be made, as may dispose 
both parties to unite in communion with each other. 
And now, after this short mention of our wishes and 
regard, we shall proceed to speak of the answer their 
Patriarchal Lordships have done us the honour to 
send us. 

As to the Articles agreed on between us, they 
shall be passed over unmentioned except as they 
stand in number. 

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To the answers to the first five pro- 
positions we have nothing to except, only we con- 
ceive, that the British Bishops may remain indepen- 
dent of all the Patriarchs. 

6. Under this Article we never intended to pre- 
scribe to the wisdom, or question the learning of the 
Catholic Oriental Church, our meaning by the word 
TraiSaa relating only to points of discipline. 

7. The answer of their Patriarchal Lordships is 
here agreed to. 

8. It is likewise agreed, that the Liturgy by which 
we now officiate shall be translated into Greek, and 
transmitted to their Patriarchal Lordships to be in- 
spected by them. 

9. 10, 11, 12. The answer is agreed to. With 
respect to the 12th, we believe the prayers of the 
living, together with the Eucharistic Sacrifice, are 
serviceable to the dead, for the improvement of their 
happiness during the interval between death and the 
resurrection, but then we declare no further upon 
this Article. 

As to the last five Articles, in which there still 
continue some differences to be adjusted, we desire 
to observe in general, that what conjectures soever 
the Catholic Oriental Church might have to suspect 
us of Luthero-Calvinism, we openly declare, that 



328 ^i0torp of rf) 

none of the distinguishing principles of either of those 
sects can fairly be charged upon us, and we further 
believe, that upon perusal of our reply they will most 
readily acquit us of any such imputation. 

To come now to particulars. 

I. Our reply to the answer to the 1st Proposition, 
relating to the reception of the seven general Councils 
as of equal authority to the Holy Scriptures, must 
be made with somewhat an abatement of regard. We 
willingly declare, we receive the faith decreed in the 
first six general Councils, as being agreeable to the 
Holy Scriptures, though our sentiments cannot ad- 
vance so far as to believe the Fathers of those Coun- 
cils assisted with an equal degree of inspiration with 
the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; but here 
we desire not to lie under any restraint imposed by 
the disciplinary of those Councils. To this we must 
subjoin, that as to the seventh General Council as- 
sembled at Nice, we think ourselves obliged to de- 
clare, that we cannot assent to the giving even the 
worship Dulia to angels or departed saints. Some 
of our reasons are these. 

1. There is no clear instance in the Old Testament 
that the Jews worshipped angels, but rather the con- 
trary. Had that nation believed the worship of these 
superior beings lawful, they had particular motives for 
such an application : for angels had appeared to the 
Patriarchs, delivered the Mosaic laws, conducted them 
through the wilderness, and Michael is said to be 
their prince, and to have the guardianship of their 
country. Dan. x. 'Tis true Abraham is said to 
bow down before the angels : but it is plain by this 
entertainment he took them to be men. 'Tis granted 
Moses and Joshua are commanded to put off their 
shoes, and told the place was holy ground by the 



of ttje ^onfuroc^* 329 

angel that appeared. But the Fathers generally 
believed it was our Saviour under this quality and 
denomination. Particularly St. Justin Martyr, St. 
Irenseus, Tertullian, and St. Athanasius declare for 
this opinion. Justin Martyr, Cum Try. Iren : lib. 4. 
cap. 22. Tertul. lib. acta Judeos. Athan. lib. 4. 
Cont. Arian. Thus the Fathers observe, that when 
the angels appeared, they refused adoration, as the 
angel that appeared to Manoa and St. John. Judges 
and Revelation. Besides it is not the same thing to 
worship visible and invisible angels. When they 
are visible there is a regard due to the superiority of 
their nature, to their character and message ; which 
reasons for regard don't hold, when they are unseen 
and possibly out of reach. Further Origen tells 
Celsus he slandered the Jews (Origin Cont. Cels. 
lib. i.) in saying they worshipped angels. " That 
nothing is to be worshipped but God Almighty : 
neither are prayers addressed to any but the sovereign 
being. That the right way of worshipping God is 
by directing our devotions to him, without any appli- 
cation to angels. That if we are so happy as to 
have God's favour, all the angels and blessed spirits 
will be our friends, and pray for us without applica- 
tion." Ibid. There are several texts in the Old and 
I 

New Testament from whence we may conclude the 
worshipping of angels unlawful. Deut. iv. 13, with 
reference to verse 4. 1 Sam. vii. 3, where the word in 
LXXII. is SaSemrare, which overthrows the distinction 
between Latria and Dulia. To these we may add 
Luke iv. 8, Col. ii. 18, 19, with Theodoret's com- 
ment. To mention some more of the Fathers, Irenaeus 
(lib. 2. cap. 1.) declares expressly, " The Church 
did not work any miracles by invocation of angels, 
or by an unlawful curiosity." Theophilus Antio- 



330 IHgtorg of tije 

chenus gives the reason why the Christians could not 
adore the Emperor, " Thus because his Majesty was 
not God." Ad. Autoly. The council of Laodicea, 
Canon 25, denounced an anathema against those that 
worshipped angels. But here it is pretended, this 
Canon is only levelled against those heretics who 
held the angels brought salvation by delivering the 
law, and worshipped them exclusively of our Saviour. 
But that this is not the meaning of the Council may 
be made good. 1st. Because the Council condemns 
angel worship on general and comprehensive terms, 
without any restraining clause or limitation. Whereas 
had they thought it lawful in any respect, such a 
prudent assembly as we may reasonably collect would 
have distinguished the case, remarked the fault, and 
pointed their anathema only upon the irregularities and 
excesses of such a worship. 2nd. Though those that 
are censured are said to forsake the Church, yet this 
implies no more than that they held private conven- 
ticles, as the Canon intimates. For had they main- 
tained the angels brought salvation by publishing the 
law, had they looked upon them as their proper and 
primary mediators, had they neither prayed to our 
Saviour, nor worshipped him, they had been no 
Christians. And if so, they were out of the juris- 
diction of the Council. For as St. Paul says, what 
have we to do with them that are without? 'Tis not 
the custom of the Church to excommunicate Jews, 
pagans, or apostates : for that would be to exclude 
those from her society that had gone off already. 
And besides, her power does not extend beyond the 
state of Christendom. 'Tis plain therefore the ana- 
thema of the Council is levelled against those who 
had not wholly abandoned the worship of our Saviour ; 
what therefore could they be condemned for but for 



of rt)c $tonfuror0, 331 

worshipping the angels together with him, and making 
more mediators in religious worship than one? St. 
Athanasius in his discourse against the Arians (lib. iv.) 
having proved, that the angels waited on our Saviour 
and worshipped him, adds, " They adored him not 
because he was an higher order than themselves, but 
because he was a distinct, an uncreated nature." For 
if dignity and height of station were sufficient ground 
for adoration, all inferior angels should worship their 
Superiors. But it is not SO, /crtoym yap /creation Trpoff- 
KVVEIJ for one creature is not to worship another. 
And after he has produced the instances of St. Peter 
forbidding Cornelius to worship him, Acts x, and 
the angels forbidding St. John, Rev. xix, he concludes 
"That God alone is to be worshipped." Athan. 
Cont. Arian, pp. 286, 394, ed. Paris. Epiphanius, 
reporting the heresy of those that worshipped the 
B. Virgin, argues thus, " Neither Elias, who was 
carried in a fiery chariot to heaven, and is now living, 
nor St. John, who was particularly favoured by our 
Saviour, nor any of the saints is worshipped. If 
God does not allow angels to be worshipped, much 
less the daughter of Joachim." Epiph. Haeres. 79. 
And elsewhere he declares " that no created being 
ought to be worshipped." To those we shall only 
subjoin one testimony from St. Augustine, who though 
a Latin Father, was a person of great character for 
piety and learning, and wrote in some part of the 
fourth and fifth centuries. This Father remarks, " that 
the angel in the Revelation forbid the paying him 
any worship, that he was the Apostle's fellow, and 
that God was only to be worshipped." Aug. De 
Dioct. Christiana, lib. i. cap. 33. To draw towards 
a conclusion. As some of these testimonies expressly 
discountenance religious applications to saints, so 



332 

those other authorities, which point particularly upon 
the angels, seem by more than parity of reason, to 
comprehend the faithful departed under the same 
direction. For if the angels, whom the Scriptures 
declare guardians and ministering spirits, to the heirs 
of salvation (Ps. xxxiv, Heb. i.) are not to receive 
application and worship, the consequence of this 
prohibition will come stronger upon the saints de- 
parted, because they have no such commission for 
protecting mankind, no such liberty for revisiting 
this world, at least that we know of, and therefore 
our reasons for address and acknowledgment must 
proportionably abate. As to the texts of Scripture 
produced for maintaining application to the saints 
departed, we conceive that the proof alleged falls 
short of conviction. For instance, King Hezekiah, as 
being delivered from Senacherib's army by David, 
though deceased, this passage seems plainly foreign 
to the argument. For the text only says that God 
promised to defend Jerusalem for his servant David's 
sake and for his own sake ; but here is not the least 
mention, that the Jews made any application to David 
for his intercession, without which their Lordships' 
arguments can't bear. Their next citation from Acts 
xii, 5, where it is said that prayer was made without 
ceasing of the Church unto God for St. Peter ; this 
proves no farther, than that one part of the Church 
militant prayed for another ; neither does St. Paul's 
desiring the Romans to join with him in prayer to 
God, for his deliverance from the unbelieving, reach 
any further. Neither do we deny any such media- 
tion. Farther, we are willing to grant that the 
saints departed intercede for the faithful upon earth : 
but this does by no means prove, that we are to 
address them for this purpose, both because we may 



of tje ^onfucocg* 333 

reasonably conclude the benevolence of their nature 
will prompt them to assist us without religious sub- 
missions : and besides, we are not assured they are 
within the reach of our petitions. Tis too well 
known indeed that the ill nature of men is often such, 
that they will do nothing without worship and servile 
application : they spoil the grace of obligation by 
delays and distance, and morose behaviour, and 
sometimes there is more trouble with them than the 
thing is worth. They believe their greatness consists 
in the littleness of others, and therefore they will not 
part with their favours without submission : they 
think they are slighted when they are not flattered ; 
and endeavour to make up their defects in solid ad- 
vantages, by haughtiness and pretending. But all 
this proceeds from scandalous principles, from igno- 
rance and weakness, and malice. This climate of 
this miserable world does not differ more from the 
regions of happiness, than such a temper from those 
that dwell there. The blessed spirits understand 
their own height too well to fancy our obeisance can 
make any addition, are too good to have any thing 
of state or exceptionness in them. There has been 
no pride in the mansions of bliss since Lucifer was 
thrown out, and therefore we need not fear that those 
who are there will be disobliged with the omission of 
a little ceremony, especially when they know we 
do not forbear it out of disrespect but for fear of 
offending God. Their goodness is too absolute to 
clog their assistance with any encumbrance. Their 
greatness is without vanity, their kindness is without 
design, and therefore all their favours will arise un- 
bespoken of themselves. Their generous charity is 
sufficient to oblige them to do their utmost : so that 
it is needless for us to go about to waken their bene- 



334 ^fgtotp of tfje 

ficence by importunity and homage. And whereas 
they assert that our Saviour's mediation relates only 
to original sin, and that we are to address the saints 
to intercede with the God of the Universe for the re- 
mission of post-baptismal sins, this assertion, with all 
due regard to their Patriarchal Lordships, we con- 
ceive repugnant to plain Scripture, and derogatory 
to the mediatorial office of our Saviour as God and 
man. For our blessed Saviour plainly commands the 
Apostles, and by consequence all the faithful, to 
apply immediately to God, John xiv. 13, 14, and 
chap. xvi. Our Saviour assures his disciples, that 
whatsoever they shall ask the Father in his name he 
will give it them. From whence our Lord continues, 
" Hitherto ye have asked nothing ; ask and ye shall 
receive, that your joy may be full." Thus we see 
there is an express command for addressing God 
directly for all the blessings relating to this life and 
the other. And that the same holds for immediate 
application to God for the remission of post-baptismal 
sins, we may learn from the same Apostle, 1 Epist. ii. 
1, where we are told "if any man sin, we have an 
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, 
and he is the propitiation for our sins." By the 
Apostle declaring, that if any man sin we have an 
advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, it is evident 
only actual sins are meant, for original sin was con- 
tracted long before any persons were in being in St. 
John's time. Besides, the Apostle's affirming our 
Saviour to be then an advocate and propitiation for 
our sins manifestly implies his intercession with God 
the Father, for post -baptismal sins ever since his 
ascension. 

4. As for their Patriarchal Lordships' sentiment, 
maintaining the bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist 



of tf)0 jlslonfurowf. 335 

being changed, after consecration, into the actual 
body and blood of our Saviour, nothing of the ele- 
ments remaining excepting the bare accidents void of 
substance, we can by no means agree with their 
Lordships' doctrine : such a corporal presence which 
they call Transubstantiation having no foundation in 
Scripture, and being by implication, and sometimes 
plainly denied by the most celebrated Fathers of the 
Primitive Church. As to the Scripture, 'tis true our 
Saviour calls the Eucharistic bread and wine his body 
and blood, but that these words are not to be restrained 
in a literal sense we may collect from other places of 
Scripture, where our Saviour calls him a vine, an 
olive, and in other places of Holy Writ he is called 
the lamb of God, and the lion of the tribe of Judah. 
All which texts we doubt not, but the Oriental Church 
will allow must be construed to a metaphorical sense, 
and if these texts are to be figuratively interpreted, 
why not the other at the institution of the Holy Eu- 
charist, which if restrained to the letter is no less 
shocking than the rest? Farther, St. Paul calls the 
Eucharistic element bread, even after the consecra- 
tion, when it was to be received, 1 Cor. xi. 28. And 
to allege some testimonies from the primitive Fathers. 
St. Justin Martyr declares that our bodies are nou- 
rished by the consecrated bread and wine. Apo. 2. 
From whence the inference is plain, this Father be- 
lieved the substance of the Eucharistic elements to 
remain after consecration. For if the doctrine of 
accidents had been established, which 'tis plain the 
primitive Fathers knew nothing of, supposing this 
doctrine current, which way would St. Justin Martyr 
conceive our bodies could be nourished by bare ac- 
cidents ? For accidents are out of all substance, and 
then which way can it be supposed a body can receive 



336 ^igtorp of tfje 

nourishment and addition of parts from that which is 
no body ? St. IrenaBus, who lived in some part of 
the same second century with St. Justin, informs us 
the Holy Eucharist consists of two parts, an earthly 
and a heavenly : the first is the bread and wine, the 
other consists in the mystic force and efficacy con- 
veyed by the descent of the Holy Ghost. St. Cyril 
of Jerusalem, it is granted, has a passage that sounds 
strongly towards transubstantiation. Catech. Mystic. 
4. He observes, " that as our Saviour turned water 
into wine at Cana in Galilee, so we have no reason 
to question but that he gave his body and blood at 
the Institution. Therefore that we may be certainly 
assured, that we receive his body under the species 
of bread, and his blood under the species of wine." 
But that these expressions, .how strong soever, are not 
to be mounted to Transubstantiation, seems pretty 
plain from his discourse upon the Holy Chrism, Nat. 
Myst. 2. The words are these, " as the Eucharistic 
bread, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no 
longer mere or common bread, but the body of Christ, 
so the holy ointment remains no longer mere or com- 
mon ointment after the invocation, but becomes ^apic^ua 
or grace of Christ, and the very presence and divinity 
of the Holy Spirit." From this reasoning we may 
conclude, that as the Holy Chrism cannot be sup- 
posed to be raised to essence and sublimity of the 
deity, so neither, by the force of the comparison, can 
we infer, that this Father meant any more, than that 
the Eucharistic elements had a supernatural force 
and beneficial energy transfused by consecration upon 
them. The next testimony shall be the famous St. 
Chrysostom in the Epistle to Casarias. Here this 
Father, disputing against the heresy of Appolonaris, 
brings an instance, by way of illustration, from the 



of tf)e ^onjucot0. 337 

Holy Eucharist. "The bread," says he, " before 
consecration is called bread, but after it has passed 
through the force of the solemnity and been con- 
secrated by the Priest, it is then discharged from the 
name of bread, and dignified by the name of the 
Lord's body, though the nature of the bread still 
remains in it." And thus by the form of the ex- 
pression and the application of the instance, he shews 
clearly that he believed the nature or substance of 
bread remained, after the consecration. Theodoret, 
who is the last Greek father we shall mention, has a 
passage full to the same purpose. It is in his second 
dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes : the 
latter of these two persons represents an Eutychian. 
Now by the doctrine of the Eutychian heresy our 
Saviour's human nature was absorbed in the Divine. 
To make good this point Eranistes argues from the 
change of the elements in the Holy Eucharist. " As 
the symbols of our Saviour's body," says he, " are 
one thing before the invocation of the Priest, but 
after the Prayer of consecration has passed upon 
them, they are changed and become another, so our 
Lord's body after his ascension is changed into the 
divine substance." " You are catched in your own 
net," replies Orthodoxus, who stands for Theodoret. 

Ou yap fjLtra rov ay tag p,ov ra pvariKa. <rv/i)3oXa Trig oi^tac 
c&orarat tyvffeag /ntvti yag CTTI Trig irpoTepag ovaiag, &C. 
That is, " the mysterious symbols dont lose their 
nature upon consecration, but continue in their former 
substance." And to apply this matter farther, it is 
well known St. Chrysostom and Theodoret were 
never charged with any unorthodoxy or singularity 
of opinion with regard to the Holy Eucharist. We 
may therefore safely conclude, that their opinions in 
the matter were no other than the Catholic doctrine 



338 3t0torg of 

of the Primitive Church. These authorities of the 
Eastern Fathers shall be fortified, by three of the 
Western Churches of famous memory. The first is 
Tertullian, who wrote in the beginning of the third ; 
the others are St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, and 
Gelasius the First, who lived in the fourth and fifth 
centuries. Tertullian reports, contra Marcion, " that 
our Saviour by what he calls his body in the Holy 
Eucharist meant the symbol representation of his 
body. Corpus meum, hoc est figura corporis mei." 
St. Augustine lays down the following rule as a 
maxim for interpreting Scripture. " If the text," says 
he, " forbids something that is wicked and flagitious, 
and commands what is serviceable and beneficial, 
then the precept is to be literally understood ; but if 
it seems to command a wicked action, and forbid a 
good one, then it is a figurative expression." And 
to apply and illustrate this maxim, he instances the 
text in St. John's Gospel, chap. vi. urged some- 
times in proof of the corporal presence, " Unless 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his 
blood, ye have no life in you." "Here something 
very ill and inhuman seems commanded, therefore 
the place has a figurative meaning. The sense is, 
that we ought gratefully to recollect our Saviour's 
passion and entertain our memory with the con- 
templation, that his flesh has been crucified and 
wounded for us." His words are " figura est ergo 
prsecipica passioni ejus esse communicandum et 
suaviter et utiliter in memoria recollendum, quod pro 
nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit." Augus. De 
Doct. Christiana. Lib. iii. cap. 15. And in the 
same book he expressly pronounces, " That it is not 
really and strictly speaking our Saviour's body, 
which will not continue with him to all eternity." 



of tlit ^onjurorg* 339 

Ibid. cap. 33. From hence nothing can be more 
evident, than that this celebrated Father did not 
believe the Eucharistic elements were Transub- 
stantiated into our Saviour's natural body. For it is 
granted on all hands, that the Eucharistic Sacrifice 
will for ever cease at the day of Judgment. For 
when the final decision is past, and every one's fate 
is fixed, where will be no more remission of sins, or 
need of grace against temptations, the reason for sa- 
crificing of course must drop. And when the Eu- 
charistic elements are no longer consecrated, the 
natural body of our Saviour supposed to emerge 
from them, can no longer be produced, and by con- 
sequence cannot continue with him to all eternity. 

Pope Gelasius is no less strongly determining 
against Transubstantiation. This Pope, who wrote 
in the latter end of the 5th century, plainly declares, 
" the substance and nature of the bread and wine 
remains after consecration." Tis in Test. Contra 
Nestorium et Eutych . 'Tis true he there tells us, 
"the elements are changed into a divine thing," are 
raised to a divine offering by the operation of the 
Holy Ghost ; which change we most willingly con- 
fess, viz. that there is a mystic virtue and super- 
natural force transfused upon the elements, by the 
Priest's pronouncing the words of consecration, and 
his Prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost. 

As to what has been urged from these Latin 
Fathers, their testimony can't be justly excepted to, 
for since they are early in time and considerable in 
character, their being members of the Western 
Church can be no disadvantage to their authority. 
For they lived several centuries before a rupture 
between the Greek and Latin Churches. And as 
for their not writing in Greek, we conceive their 



340 ^i^tocp of 

Patriarchal Lordships will not consider them with 
abatement on that score. 

Our reply to the answer to the 5th Article, is, that 
since we cannot be convinced of any liberty for invo- 
cating the saints and paying religious worship to them, 
we conceive the argument lies strongly against giving 
relative worship or religious respect to their images. 
For since the prototype cannot be thus addressed, 
'tis still more difficult to imagine the bare representa- 
tion of such a being can claim any such honour. 
To proceed That neither the worship, nor so much 
as the use of them, was very early in the Christian 
Church, is pretty plain from St. Epiphanius, Bishop 
of Constantia, in Cyprus, in his letter to John of Je- 
rusalem, where he declares strongly against this prac- 
tice. " When I came into a country church of Pales- 
tine, called Anablatha, I found a certain hanging 
over the door, upon which there was a picture painted 
like that of our Saviour or some saint, for I cannot 
certainly remember whose picture it was. However, 
seeing the figure of a man in the Church of Christ, 
contrary to the authority of the Holy SS, I tore it, 
and gave orders to the church-wardens to wrap it 
about some corpse and bury it, &c." And though 
this Father went too far in asserting the unlawfulness 
of having images in Churches, yet we may fairly in- 
fer, that this practice was not customary in Cyprus or 
Palestine in Epiphanius's time. See Council of Nice 
2nd : Epiph. Hseres : 27, which last agrees with the 
testimony cited. 

To this we may observe, that the Council of Con- 
stantinople held under Constantine Copronymus, 
against images, asserts, that there was no prayer in 
the Church Service for consecrating images, which 
suggestion the 2nd Council of Nice does not deny. 



of t!)e jflonjurorg* 341 

Baron A. D. 754. Concil. Labb. Tom. 7. And St. 
Augustine mentioning some superstitious Christians, 
(for so he calls them) says, he knew a great many 
who worshipped pictures." August. De Moribus 
Eccl. Cath. cap. 34. And for a farther declaration 
of our sentiments upon this article, we willingly ac- 
knowledge, that the use of images in Churches is not 
only lawful, but may be serviceable for represent- 
ing the history of the saints, for refreshing the me- 
mory and warming the devotion of the people. And 
thus one reason for alleging the foregoing testimonies 
is not against the use, but only against the worship 
of images. For if the bare usage was sometimes con- 
demned, and nowhere generally practised in the pri- 
mitive Church, it follows a fortiori, that the worship 
of them in those early ages cannot be supposed. 

And thus having represented the difference between 
us, we are now to suggest a temper, and offer a com- 
promise. If our liberty is left us therefore in the in- 
stances above mentioned ; if the oriental Patriarchs, 
Bishops, &c. will authentically declare us not obliged 
to the invocation of saints and angels, the worship of 
images, nor the adoration of the host. If they please 
publicly and authoritatively, by an instrument signed 
by them, to pronounce us perfectly disengaged in these 
particulars : disengaged we say, at home and abroad, 
in their Churches and in our own. These relaxing 
concessions allowed, we hope may answer the over- 
tures on both sides and conciliate an union. And 
we further desire their Patriarchal Lordships, &c. 
would please to remember, that Christianity is no 
gradual religion, but was entire and perfect when the 
Evangelists and Apostles were deceased : and there- 
fore the earliest traditions are undoubtedly preferable, 
and the first guides the best. For the stream runs 



342 ^igtorp o ttje 

clearest towards the fountain head. Thus whatever 
variations there are from the original state, whatever 
crosses in belief or practice upon the earliest ages 
ought to come under suspicion. Therefore as they 
charitably put us in mind to shake off all prejudices, 
so we entreat them not to take it amiss if we humbly 
suggest the same advice. We hope therefore your 
Lordships' impartial consideration will not determine 
by prepossessions, or by the precedents of latter times, 
but rather be governed by the general usages and 
doctrines of the first four centuries, not excluding the 
5th : that they will not think themselves unalterably 
bound by any solemn decisions of the East in the 8th 
century, which was even then opposed by an equal 
authority in the West. And thus presuming both 
parties will hold the balance and wish for truth to 
prove it, we are not without expectation of advancing 
so far towards uniformity, as may make up the un- 
happy breach, and close the distance between us. 
And to release their Patriarchal Lordships, we take 
leave with our most earnest prayers, "That the All- 
wise and Merciful God, who makes men to be of one 
mind in an house, who is the Author of peace and 
Lover of concord," may graciously please to continue 
their benevolent wishes, animate their zeal, and direct 
their measures, for finishing so glorious a work. That 
the orthodox oriental Church and the Catholic rem- 
nant in Britain, may at last join in the solemnities of 
religion, and be made more intimately one fold under 
our Shepherd Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and 
Saviour, to whom with the Father and the Holy 
Ghost be all honour and glory, world without end. 
Amen." 

" This reply was concluded and delivered to some 



of ttie $*onjuror& 343 

Greeks in London, to be by them transmitted to the 
Four Eastern Patriarchs. May 29th, 1722." 

" To the Most Venerable and Wise Bishop Arsenius, 
the Metropolitan of Thebais, the remnant of the 
Catholic Bishops and Clergy of Britain wish 
prosperity. 

" We were much refreshed by your letter, which you 
sent us by the Rev. James, the Patriarchal Proto-Cyn- 
cellus, as being an evident testimony of the great 
desire you have of bringing a coalition between the 
catholic eastern Churches, and the catholic remnant 
of the British Churches to bear upon such terms as 
may give us both the comfortable hope of its being 
permanent. We have now together with this sent 
our answers to the four Patriarchs founded upon Holy 
Writ, as interpreted by the Fathers of the Primitive 
Church, and in such terms, as we hope, will make our 
sincere desires and endeavours to promote and finish 
a blessed concordate very apparent to them and to 
you. And we return you our hearty thanks, for the 
great pains you have been at, in bringing it this length, 
and doubt not of your doing your utmost to finish what 
you have so charitably carried on hitherto, under such 
discouragements from the situation of public affairs, 
and the great distance we are at from one another. 
Nor need we inform you of the many difficulties and 
discouragements that we have to struggle with on this 
occasion. For while we had the happiness of your 
residing amongst us, you were pretty fully apprised 
of a good share of them, and they are not fewer now 
than they were then. Yet no difficulty or discourage- 
ment of this nature shall hinder us, by God's help, 
from doing our utmost endeavours to promote so good 



344 ^igtocj of tlje 

a design. It is no small grief to us, that under our 
present pressures we have not been able to offer such 
civilities to the diligent and faithful Proto-Cyncellus, 
as we willingly would, but he is most acceptable to 
us, and we have a deep sense of the great pains he 
has taken in this affair. 

Our hopes of a happy conclusion in this affair are 
increased, by the generous encouragement, which we 
are glad to understand, his Imperial Majesty is gra- 
ciously pleased to give it, and which will redound to 
the immortalizing of his name. And we are very 
sensible, that we owe his Majesty's being rightly ap- 
prized of this affair to your faithful representations 
of it to him, as we do his countenancing and encou- 
raging of it to his own greatness of soul and catholic 
charity. 

Archibaldus, Scoto-Britanniae Episcopus. 
Jacobus, Scoto-Britannise Episcopus. 
Jeremias, Primus Anglo-Britanniag Episcopus. 
Thomas, Anglo-Britannia3 Episcopus. 

Dated, A. D. 1722, 
Mail Die Tricesimo." 

" To the Right Honourable Council for Ecclesias- 
tical Affairs, at His Imperial Majesty's Palace 
in Petersburgh. 



" We the underwritten Bishops of the Catholic r 
mainder in Britain, have thought ourselves obliged, 
in point of regard to this right Honourable Board, 
to acquaint your Lordships, that by the hands of the 
Rev. Gennadius Archimandrita, and the Rev. 
Jacobus Proto-Cyncellus, we have lately received an 
answer from the four Patriarchs to some proposals of 



. 



of ttje ^on/uror#* 345 

ours in order to a coalition, to which answers we have 
now returned a reply, with a transcript of it to your 
Lordships : humbly desiring your Lordships would 
give the Greek copy the conveyance to the most 
reverend Patriarchs. And the design of this projected 
union, being apparently undertaken upon true 
Christian motives, without any interested views on 
either side, we hope your Lordships' countenance and 
recommendation will second our endeavours. And 
being sensible that some difficulties with respect to 
authority and expense may probably arise, which 
neither party are in a condition to remove, we most 
humbly beg His Imperial Majesty will please to 
condescend so far as to lend his favour and assistance. 
And thus having the honour of encouragement and 
protection from so glorious a monarch, the affair, by 
the blessing of God, may be conducted to a happy 
conclusion. And we entreat, this Right Honourable 
Board would please to believe we have nothing more 
at heart, than that the issue may prove successful, 
and answer the overtures made by us, who are with 
the greatest regard. Your Lordships' most obedient 

Servants." 

Signatures as before. 

The next Letter is addressed to Le Compte De 
Galowskin, the Grand Chancellor, and is as follows : 

" MOST NOBLE LORD. These are to return your 
Lordship our humble thanks for the trouble you have 
been pleased to give yourself, in promoting the union 
between the Orthodox Oriental Church, and the 
Catholic Remainder in Great Britain. And as an 
affair of this nature stands in need of inclination and 
encouragement from those, at the head both of Church 



346 %0torp of tlj 

and State : so we hope your Lordship's countenance 
and assistance will prove considerably instrumental, 
for the success of so great an undertaking. We 
therefore humbly intreat your Lordship would please 
to continue your favour and protection, without which 
we are afraid the business must languish and mis- 
carry. My Lord, as to the Archimandrite, we are 
entirely satisfied with his conduct and good inten- 
tions, and hope he will still reside with us, for the 
carrying on of what he has hitherto so worthily en- 
gaged in." 

Signed as the first, only Bretfs 
May 31, 1722. signature is omitted. 

Next follows a Letter from Arsenius, dated June 
llth 1722, expressive of his sorrow at not having 
received the answers to the Papers of the Patriarchs. 
He presses for a speedy reply. The Letter is ad- 
dressed " To the Most Venerable Bishop, and Wise 
Brother Mr. Campbell, and all the Brethren." A 
Letter then follows, from the Proto-Cyncellus, who 
conveyed the reply to the Patriarchs. This was 
written from Petersburgh, and commences thus : 
" Most Reverend Fathers." They are also in this 
Letter styled " Your Lordships." He states that the 
court was at Moscow, to which place he was about 
to proceed. 

The next Document consists of another Letter from 
Arsenius, dated December 9th 1722, from Moscow. 
It is addressed "To the Most Reverend Brethren and 
Bishops beloved of God, the Lord Jeremias, the 
Lord Archibald, the Lord Thomas, the Lord James, 
and to all the rest my most beloved Sons in Christ." 
Arsenius states, that he had received their Letter, 
with the Reply to the Patriarchs in November. He 
mentions the absence of the Emperor from Moscow, 



of rtj* ^onjurorg* 347 

and promises after his return to forward their reply to 
the Patriarchs. In a postscript he requests, that 
future letters to him may be written in Latin. 

The British Bishops reply to the Letter of Arse- 
nius as follows : 

" To the Most Rev. and Holy Lord, The Lord Ar- 
senius, Sec. The Bishops of the Catholic Church 
of Britain wish all prosperity and happiness in 
Christ. 

" Your letter, most eminent Prelate, full of all love 
and affection, dated at Moscow, we have received 
with all joy and thankfulness, chiefly delighted, that 
so earnest a desire of peace and concord fills your 
heart, as that we may assuredly expect everything 
in your power to procure it. You have done us the 
greatest kindness in delivering our Letters to the 
most eminent Lord, the Lord Great Chancellor, to 
whom we are also exceedingly obliged, that of his 
goodness, he has promised us his favour. Nor are 
we less obliged to you, for your purpose to recom- 
mend our letter and our cause to the protection of 
His Imperial Majesty, and to incline the heart of 
that great Emperor to be favourable to us. We as- 
sure you, that we are not discouraged by the distance 
of place, or any other obstacle that may occur to 
obstruct an union between us, but with most earnest 
and sincere desires hope for an agreement, to obtain 
which we shall leave nothing undone, that may be 
done with a good conscience. 

The Archimandrite Gennadius, a man worthy of 
all commendation, is most dear to us : and we are 
very sorry that the strait circumstances, under which 
we labour have hindered us from giving him greater 
testimonies of our friendship. To your labours the 



348 Ijtetorp of tfje 

most holy Patriarchs have added gifts, and of their 
great good will have presented us with excellent 
books, which kindness of theirs we shall always grate- 
fully acknowledge. 

We earnestly desire you to salute the Rev. Proto- 
Cyncellus in our names : his works and labours of 
love are, and always shall be, written in our hearts. 
But you, most Reverend, go on to perfect these your 
offices of love. Send our answers to the most holy 
Patriarchs, and believe us to be exceedingly indebted 
to you for this. May you live prosperously and en- 
joy your health, may the most gracious God prosper 
your undertaking and grant you a long continuance 
here, for His Church's sake. 

These things, most dear Brother, have we written 
to you at present. The rest of our colleagues have 
not subscribed their names with us, being at a great 
distance in the country. Yet in this, as in all other 
matters, they agree with us, that they have a most 
high esteem for you. 

Jeremias, Anglise Episcopus. 

Dated, London, Archibaldus, Scotiae Episcopus." 
Jan. 28, 1722-3. 

Arsenius addressed a letter to the Bishops in reply, 
styling them " the Lord Jeremias, Lord Archibaldus, 
Lord Thomas, and Lord James." He states that the 
answers were forwarded to the Patriarchs, and that 
the Emperor entered most warmly into the subject. 
He further requests, at the wish of the Emperor, that 
two of their party might be sent to Russia for the 
purpose of mutual and friendly conferences : but to 
prevent the appearance of submission, he requests, 
that they have only power to debate the two points, on 
which the English Nonjuring Bishops were in doubt. 



349 

In this same letter, Arsenius mentions, that the Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople had signified to the Russian 
Governing Council his reception of their answers, 
and that they should be examined as soon as a Synod 
could be convened for the purpose. This letter is 
dated from Moscow August 25th, 1723. 

The Governing Council also addressed a letter 
" to the Very Reverend the Bishops of the Catholic 
Church in Great Britain," in which they mention 
the forwarding of the answers to the Patriarchs writ- 
ten in Greek, and promise to promote the cause to 
the utmost of their power. They also state the Em- 
peror's wish, that two persons should be sent to hold 
conferences on the points at issue. This is dated 
February 1723. Next year, in the month of Feb- 
ruary, they addressed another letter to the Nonjuring 
Bishops. It seems that the former had not been for- 
warded, as the Archimandrite had not been able to 
prosecute his journey. They express the same wish 
for a conference as in the previous letter. At this 
time the answers of the Patriarchs had been received 
at St. Petersburgh, and were forwarded to England 
by the same channel. The document is addressed 
"To the Most Reverend the Bishops of the Catholic 
Church in Great Britain, our dearest brothers." It 
is called " The Orthodox Confession of the Aposto- 
lical, Catholic, and Oriental Church of Christ." A 
Synod had been assembled to consider the previous 
answer of the Nonjuring Bishops ; and the decision 
was now transmitted to England. They acknowledge 
the reception of the Nonjurors' reply ; but they add, 
that they have nothing further to remark, in addition 
to their previous answer. They state, however, that 
the doctrines have been decided upon, and " that it 
is neither lawful to add any thing to them nor take 



360 l^tgtorp of tlje 

any thing from them : and that those, who are dis- 
posed to agree with us in the divine doctrines of the 
orthodox faith, must necessarily follow and submit 
to what has been defined and determined, by ancient 
Fathers and the holy (Ecumenical Synods, from the 
time of the Apostles and their holy successors, the Fa- 
thers of our Church to this time. We say they must 
submit to them, with sincerity and obedience, and with- 
out any scruple or dispute. And this is a sufficient 
answer to what you have written." With this letter 
they forward " An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" 
of the Eastern Church, agreed upon in a Synod 
called the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, and printed in 
1675. With respect to " custom and ecclesiastical 
order, and for the form and discipline of administer- 
ing the Sacraments, they will be easily settled," say 
they, " when once an union is effected. For it is 
evident from ecclesiastical history, that there have 
been and now are different customs and regulations 
in different places and churches, and that the unity 
of faith and doctrine is preserved the same." This 
letter is signed by the Patriarchs and several Arch- 
bishops and Bishops, and dated September 1723, 
from Constantinople. An edition of The Synodus 
Bethlehemetica, to which the letter refers, was printed 
at Paris in 1676 : and a translation of portions is 
given in the MS. translated by the Nonjurors. In 
this document the doctrine of Transubstantiation is 
strongly stated ; and the statement respecting images 
is similar to that contained in the previous answer of 
the Patriarchs. After the translation of the decision 
of the Synod, follows a letter from Bartholomew 
Cassano, alluding to his services, and requesting the 
Bishops to give him a commission to act in their 
behalf. The next document is a letter to the Archi- 



of rtje $i0njurot#, 351 

mandrite, the uncle of Cassano, requesting him to 
allow his nephew to accompany their brethren to 
Russia. It is as follows. 

" REV. SIR, We earnestly desire you to send your 
kinsman, Bartholomew Cassano, to accompany our 
two brethren to Russia to be their interpreter in our 
common affairs, which will be pleasing to us, and 
necessary for them. 

" Your brothers in Christ, and most humble ser- 
vants, 

Archibaldus, Episcopus Scoto-Britannica3. 
Jeremias, Primus Anglo-Britannico Epis- 
copus." 

The next document is a letter to Arsenius at Pe- 
tersburgh. 

" We cannot but acknowledge the great obliga- 
tions we lie under to your Lordship, for so long con- 
tinuance in Muscovy, in order to promote an happy 
union betwixt our Church and your own. For by 
that means we have been enabled to treat with the 
most holy Patriarchs of the East, in a much better 
manner, than we could have hoped for by any other 
means. It is your merit and interest, next to your 
own innate goodness, that has obtained for us the 
favour of the great Emperor of Russia, and has en- 
gaged him to condescend to take notice of us, and 
not only to order the transmission of our letters to 
the most holy Patriarchs, and the return of their an- 
swers, but also to encourage the sending two persons 
to confer with such as may be appointed to discourse 
the matters, wherein any difference remains. Accord- 
ingly we acquainted the Rev. Archimandrite and 
Proto-Cyncellus, that we would send them. But one 



352 %'gtorp of 

of those, whom we had chosen for that purpose being 
at a great distance, it was so long before he was 
arrived and could settle his private affairs, as made 
their coming this summer impracticable. But if it 
please God, they will not fail to wait on you as early 
as conveniently may be the next summer. In the 
mean time, we must desire you to make an apology 
for us to the Emperor, the Chancellor, and the great 
Synod, that they may not think us negligent in an 
affair of such moment, which indeed we have much 
at heart. May Almighty God pour forth his bless- 
ing upon our endeavours, upon you, and upon all 
who have a helping hand to the advancement of this 
great work. We commit your Lordship to his pro- 
tection, and subscribe ourselves, 

Jeremias, Primus- Anglo- Britannia^ Episcopus. 
Thomas, Anglo-Britannia? Episcopus. 
Johannes, Anglo-Britanniae Episcopus. 

July 13, 1724." 

They also addressed a letter to the Ecclesiastical 
Synod of Russia. 

" MY LORDS, Twas with no small satisfaction we 
received your Lordships' letters. The honour of your 
correspondence, and the indication of your zeal for a 
coalition, are strong motives for an acknowledgment, 
and make the prospect look not unpromising. And 
since an union is thus earnestly desired on both 
sides, we hope the means of effecting it may not 
prove impracticable. To close the breaches made in 
the Catholic Church is a glorious undertaking, and 
which nothing but the parting with essential truths 
ought to prevent. And though there may be a 
distance remaining in some few branches of belief, a 



of ri)0 ^otijtiror0, 353 

charitable latitude may be left open for the repose of 
conscience and reviving an harmony in worship. 
And thus we may join in all the offices of com- 
munion and walk in the house of God as friends. 

As to his Imperial Majesty, none can be more sen- 
sible of his condescending goodness and princely 
generosity than ourselves, and for which we entreat 
our most bumble thanks may be returned. 

Tis not without regret, that we cannot send two 
of our clergy to wait on your Lordships this summer, 
pursuant to what we promised the Rev. Archiman- 
drite and Proto-Cyncellus, but accidents unforeseen 
will sometimes happen, and which we hope you will 
please to excuse. The case is this : one of the 
gentlemen came but lately to town, and could not pos- 
sibly put his private concerns in any tolerable order 
till the season for his voyage would be past. But as 
soon as the next spring presents fair, they will cer- 
tainly, God willing, attend your Lordships, with our 
worthy friend Mr. Cassano. We own ourselves 
much obliged to the Proto-Cyncellus for the great 
fatigue and hazard he has undergone in this affair : 
and are sorry our circumstances would not give us 
leave to shew the marks of our regard with better 
significancy. And the same we likewise add with 
reference to the Archimandrite and his nephew. 
This latter at his coming will more particularly ac- 
quaint you with some disadvantages we lie under, and 
give further assurance how much we are, my Lords, 
your Lordships' most humble and obedient servants, 
Archibaldus Scoto Britannise Epis- 

copus. 

Jeremias, Primus Anglise Episcopus. 
Thomas, Anglioe Episcopus. 
July 13, 1724. Johannes, Anglia? Episcopus." 

A A 



354 ^fgtorp of tfje 

A Letter was also addressed to the Chancellor. 

" MY LORD. The lustre and interest of your station 
in the Emperor of Great Russia's Court, makes us 
repeat our address, and humbly solicit your Lord- 
ship's recommendation of the endeavours for a coali- 
tion between the Great Muscovitic and Britannic 
Churches. To this we are the more encouraged by 
your Lordship's disposition to promote that Christian 
design. We are likewise deeply sensible of his Im- 
perial Majesty's condescension and bounty, and for 
the liberty his Majesty is pleased to give us for 
debating matters with some of the Russian clergy, 
and concerting measures for settling the union. This 
indulging a personal conference is a fresh instance 
of his Imperial Majesty's goodness, and will prevent 
the delay of corresponding by letters." 

They specify, as in the preceding letters, the cause 
of the delay : and subscribe themselves as before. 
They then add a receipt for Books. 

" The names underwritten testify that we Bishops of 
the Britannic Churches have received from the hands 
of James, the Rev. Proto-Cyncellus of Alexandria, 
four very learned Books, which were sent hither as a 
present for the use and benefit of the Catholic 
remainder of our Church, by the most Blessed Lord, 
the Lord Chrysanthus, Patriarch of the Church of 
Jerusalem, and with the greatest care and faithful- 
ness delivered to us by the Rev. Proto-Cyncellus, 
for which we acknowledge many thanks to be due, 
and freely give them. Dated the 13th of the month of 
July in the year of Christ 1724." 



of rfje ^onfurortf. 355 

This document was signed by the four Bishops as 
before : then the following minute occurs, dated 
March 8th, 1724-5 : 

" Mr. Cassano is desired to write that we were 
ready till the melancholy news arrived of the Em- 
peror's death, which has put a stop to the affairs 
till we receive fresh directions from court." 

They also wrote to the Synod on the same sub- 
ject. 

"We are sensibly affected with the melancholy 
account of the great Emperor of Russia's death, and 
heartily condole with your Lordships upon this un- 
happy occasion, though we hope the loss may be 
made up by the accession of her Imperial Majesty 
to his throne. This misfortune has put a stop to 
the affair between us till we receive fresh directions, 
and know your Lordships' pleasure. For which 
purpose we have desired our worthy friend Mr. 
Cassano to wait upon your Lordships, upon whose 
fidelity and care we entirely rely. We commend 
your Lordships to the Divine protection, and remain, 
&c. April llth, 1725." 

This letter was subscribed by the four Bishops, 
like the preceding, and in the same form. A letter 
of similar import was also addressed by the same 
parties to the Chancellor : and another to Arsenius 
as follows : 

" 'Tis with great concern that we received the 
news of the Emperor of Russia's death, which has 
put a stop to our affair till we have fresh directions 
from that court. We have now by our friend Mr. 
Cassano sent a letter to the Holy Synod and another 



of tlje 

to the Great Chancellor, of which he can give your 
Lordship a full account. We desire that your Lord- 
ship would be pleased to inform us of the situation 
of affairs, so far as relates to the religious negocia- 
tion between us, and shall always think ourselves 
happy in the continuance of your friendship and 
favour. We commit your Lordship to the divine 
protection, and shall always remain, &c." 

This Letter was dated April 11, 1725, and signed 
by three of the four Bishops. The Chancellor 
acknowledges the receipt of the Letter to him under 
the date of September 16, 1725, in which, after ex- 
pressing his thanks to the Bishops, whom he styles 
Lords, for their sympathy respecting the Emperor, 
he assures them that the affair of the union will be 
promoted by her Imperial Majesty in the same way 
as by her predecessor. 

No further steps, however, were taken, and the 
matter was dropped. At the end of the correspon- 
dence between the Nonjurors and the Eastern Church 
there is an index of the various papers. It is stated, 
too, that the papers were written some in Greek, 
some in Latin, and some in English, though in the 
collection prefixed all were in English. After the 
index is an account of Arsenius. 

" Arsenius, Archbishop of Thebais, was sent in 
17 12, by Samuel, Patriarch of Alexandria, from Grand 
Cairo in Egypt, to represent to the Protestant Princes 
and States in Europe the truly deplorable circum- 
stances of the Greek Church under the severe tyranny 
and oppression of the Turks, and to solicit a sum of 
money, particularly for the Patriarchal See of Alex- 
andria brought under a load of debt of 30,000 dol- 
lars, by one Cosmo, formerly Archbishop of Mount 



ot* tlje jonjuc0r& 357 

Sinai, his pretending to deprive said Samuel of his 
right to the Patriarchate of Alexandria and to take 
possession for himself, having by the force of money 
procured himself to be invested by the Grand Vizier 
in said Patriarchal throne, whose Clergy made a 
noble stand for their Patriarch, Samuel, and would not 
suffer him to be deprived by his adversary. For 
which cause, to raise money, Samuel was forced to 
sell and lay in pawn many of the sacred vessels, 
patriarchal habits, and other utensils of the Church. 
Cosmo at length renounced all title to Alexandria, and 
was then duly elected Patriarch of Constantinople, 
upon which a firm peace and friendship commenced 
between Samuel and him. At what particular time 
Arsenius arrived in England I have not yet discovered, 
but that he was in London in 1714, and 1716 is very 
certain. He received from Anne, 300 Sterling, and 
from George I. 100, for the Church of Alexandria. 
But Arsenius by his long stay in London, being nine 
in family, had contracted debts for necessary subsist- 
ence on the most ordinary food : for the payment of 
which he was obliged to apply in the way of humble 
petition to all charitable and tender-hearted Chris- 
tians. He was attended by Father Gennadius (whom 
I take to be the one called the Archimandrite in the 
foregoing correspondence) Abbot of the monks of 
the See of Alexandria, and by Deacons and other 
domestics. All this is set forth at large in a 4to. 
Pamphlet of twenty pages including title page and 
preface, intitled l Lachrymas et Suspiria Ecclesise 
Graecae ; or the distressed State of the Greek Church 
humbly represented in a Letter to her late Majesty 
Queen Anne.' Printed at London, 1715. 

" Not only the death of the Czar, put a stop to the 
much desired union between the Greek Church and 



358 %'0torp of tfje jfronjurorg, 

British Nonjurors : but likewise the indiscretion of the 
Patriarch of Jerusalem in writing to Wake then Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and sending copies of proposals 
to him, &c. quite knocked that scheme in the head. 
Wake behaved with great prudence and discretion 
in the case, not exposing the papers nor suffering 
them to be ridiculed. 

" I have frequently heard that the late Right Re- 
verend Dr. Thomas Rattray, of Craighall, having 
been in London in 1716, assisted Mr. Spinkes in trans- 
lating into Greek the proposals from the Nonjurors 
to the Oriental Church." 

Thus the MS. account of the correspondence closes. 
My object was to exhibit the views, and feelings of 
the Nonjurors, which is fully attained by the plan, 
which I have adopted. The answers sent by the 
Patriarchs do not bear on the History of the Non- 
jurors: but merely contain the opinions of the Oriental 
Church, the nature of which will be gathered from 
the replies of the English Nonjuring Bishops. While, 
therefore, I have omitted the greater part of the docu- 
ments from the East, alluding to them only for the pur- 
pose of elucidation, I have submitted the whole of the 
correspondence on the part of the Nonjurors, because I 
feel convinced, that anything from them, not generally 
known, must be received with favour by the public. 

The pamphlet to which Brett alludes is a curious 
document. The writer of the preface zealously es- 
poused the cause of Arsenius, as a few extracts will 
testify. " The following papers set forth the deplor- 
able circumstances of the Greek Church of Alexan- 
dria, venerable for a most ancient and uninterrupted 
succession of Bishops from the Apostles, who have 
handed down the Christian faith, doctrine and dis- 
cipline as pure as any other part of the Christian 



of tfje ^onjuroitf. 359 

world." The late Queen had given 300, of which 
200 were still in the hands of the Bishop of London. 
George I. had also given 100 for the same object, 
namely, for the Church of Alexandria, so that these 
sums could not be appropriated to the payment of the 
Archbishop's debts. The writer then mentions, as a 
motive to charity, the benefits received from that 
Church. " If we have profited by the labours of the 
learned and pious Fathers of that Church ; if we have 
been obliged to Clemens, Origen, Dionysius, Athana- 
sius, Cyril, Chrysostom and others, for handing down 
the faith of the Church in opposition to heretics and 
infidels ; we are obliged to them for Spiritual things, 
and ought now to minister unto them in carnal things." 
The Petition is addressed, " To the Most Noble, Most 
Reverend, Honourable and Worthy, the Nobility, 
Clergy, Gentry, and Commons, Citizens or Strangers, 
in the kingdom of England whose hearts God hath 
touched with divine love and charity, to commiserate 
the distresses of their afflicted brethren." The Peti- 
tion then gives a summary of the facts of the case : 
that the Archbishop was sent by the Patriarch of Alex- 
andria in 1712, to represent the sad state of the Greek 
Church under the tyranny of the Turks : that the ex- 
pences of so long a journey had involved him in debts 
which had been contracted on the credit of what he 
and his family, being nine in number, had expected 
to receive : and that the state of public affairs had been 
a hindrance to obtaining the relief, which they had 
anticipated. The document is dated August 18, 
1715. In the petition the Church of England is de- 
scribed as " for orthodoxy and piety, famed over the 
earth." With the Petition of Arsenius is coupled 
the Letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria, to Queen 
Anne, in which a most deplorable account is given of 



360 Hjtetorp of tlje 

the sufferings of the Greek Church in Alexandria. 
Further the Patriarch's statement is attested by the 
British Consuls at Cairo, and Tripoli, as well as the 
Consul for the Netherlands at Tunis. The results of 
this application to the British public I cannot state. c 
The preceding correspondence concerning the pro- 
jected union is a sufficient refutation of the malignant 
charge of Popery, so frequently alleged against the 
Nonjurors. Some of them held peculiar opinions, on 
what were termed the Usages ; but even this section 
was no more inclined towards Rome, than the par- 
ties, by whom the charge has been alleged. If in- 
deed actions are to be regarded as the criterion of 
principles, then the Dissenters of the period of the 
Revolution for supporting King James, and those of 
the present day for uniting with Romanists, are much 
more obnoxious to the charge than the Nonjurors, 
who ever acted consistently with their principles, in 
opposition both to Popery and Dissent. The parties, 
who make this charge, who are generally Dissenters, 
or Churchmen of lax principles, to whom the Church 
and Dissent are equally agreeable, should remember 
the period of the Revolution, when, but for the exer- 
tions of many, who became Nonjurors, Popery must 
have prevailed in England. Undoubtedly some of 
the Nonjurors were uncharitable in speaking of the 
Church of England : but they are not, on that ac- 
count, by way of retaliation, to be charged with 
errors, of which they were innocent. While we la- 

The full Title of the Pamphlet is as follows. " Lachrymae et 
Suspiria Ecclesiae Graecae : or the Distressed State of the Greek 
Church. Humbly represented in a Letter to Her late Majesty, 
Queen Anne, from the Patriarch of Alexandria : by the hands of 
Arsenius, Archbishop of Thebais, now residing in London." Lon- 
don. Printed in the year, 1715. 



of tlje ^onjttrortf* 361 

ment the bitterness, into which they were sometimes 
betrayed, we need not copy their example. On the 
contrary, it behoves us to remember the sufferings, 
which they so patiently endured, and the many pro- 
vocations to which they were subjected. 

The correspondence also furnishes evidence of the 
straitened circumstances of the Nonjurors, as well as 
of the suspicion and severity of the government. They 
had not the means even of shewing ordinary hospi- 
tality to the foreigners, with whom they were in com- 
munication respecting the union with the Oriental 
Church. This is mentioned incidentally in their 
letters : and they distinctly state, that their circum- 
stances, with respect to liberty of conscience, were in 
no way improved. If, therefore, these conscientious 
men were sometimes betrayed into a tone of speaking, 
which cannot be justified, their circumstances should 
be remembered, not in the way of justification, but 
by way of palliation. But after all, their conduct 
presented a striking contrast to that of many of their 
opponents, for whose rancour, and malice, and bitter- 
ness, no excuse can be pleaded. 




CHAPTER IX. 



A. D. 1720 1800. 

THE NONJURORS DIVIDED INTO TWO COMMUNIONS. BOTH OR- 
DAIN BISHOPS. DEATH OF COLLIER; OF SPINKES; OF LESLIE; 
OF LAURENCE HOWELL. THE SUCCESSION CONTINUED. THE 
DIVISIONS ON USAGES CEASE. COMMUNION OFFICE GENERALLY 
ADOPTED. BLACKBURN AND LAW. ORME. JENKIN. DEATH 
OFGAMDY; OF SAMUEL PARKER. ACCOUNT OF HEARNE. 
HARTE. CONTROVERSIES. WATERLAND AND SMITH. NON- 
JURORS AGAIN DIVIDED. LAWRENCE A BlSHOP OF THE SEPA- 
RATISTS. His WORKS ON LAY-BAPTISM. DEATH OF BRETT; 
OF BAKER. THE REBELLION, 1745. SUFFERINGS OF THE 
NONJURORS. DEACON. His WORKS. BLACKBURN'S DEATH. 
GEORGE SMITH'S DEATH. LINDSAY. His WORKS. CON- 
TROVERSIES. WILLIAM LAW. CARTE THE HISTORIAN. THE 
PRETENDER. QUESTION RESPECTING HIS RELIGIOUS VIEWS. 
His DEATH. GORDON, THE LAST BISHOP OF THE REGULAR 
BODY. THE LINE CEASES. BISHOPS OF THE SEPARATISTS' 
LINE. EXTINCTION OF THIS LINE, AND OF THE PARTY IN 
ENGLAND. SERVICES RENDERED BY THE NONJURORS. 




HE Nonjuring communion was now broken 
into two sections, under their respective 
leaders. Both parties were hostile to the 
National Church : but Spinkes, with his 
supporters, dissented only on the questions of the 
Oaths and the Prayers for the reigning Sovereign; 
while Collier and Brett, and those who concurred 
with them, introduced, as we have seen, a New Com- 
munion Office, involving several important practices, 
which had been deliberately rejected by the Church 



of tlje ^onjurorg* 363 

of England. After this separation, much bitterness 
was manifested in the controversy, which was carried 
on between the two sections : and some from both 
parties sought refuge in the bosom of the National 
Church. The Usages may be regarded as matters of 
indifference : still I cannot but think, that Collier 
and Brett, who had subscribed to the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, should have yielded their own private 
views and feelings for the sake of union and peace. 
They contended, that the alterations from the first 
Liturgy of King Edward were made to suit the pre- 
judices of Calvin : but they should have remembered, 
that the Book of Common Prayer was subjected to 
revision in 1661, when no such influence was in 
operation. Whatever may have been the influence 
of the foreign Reformers in 1551, when Edward's 
Book was revised, it cannot be alleged, that the Con- 
vocation in 1661 was in any way swayed by the 
opinions of Calvin. 

After the separation, therefore, the two sections 
proceeded, in their respective courses, as two distinct 
parties, differing as widely from each other, as both 
differed from the National Church. The one party 
adopted the New Communion Book, the other ad- 
hered to the Book of Common Prayer. 

As a matter of course, each party took steps to con- 
tinue the succession of Bishops. In the year 1720 
Hilkiah Bedford and Ralph Taylor were consecrated 
among those who rejected the usages, by Spinkes, 
Hawes, and Gandy. Hawes died in 1722, and Bed- 
ford in 1724. 

In the year 1722, the other section also proceeded 
to increase the number of their Bishops, and John 
Griffin was consecrated by Collier, Brett, and the 
Scottish Bishop Campbell. 



364 %i'0tocp of tlje jfionfurorg. 

Being once divided, other minor separations or sub- 
divisions soon followed. Thus in 1723-4 Robert Wei- 
ton was consecrated a Bishop by Ralph Taylor, who, 
contrary to the canons of the Church, took upon himself 
to act in his individual capacity. No precedent could 
be pleaded for such a proceeding, which must, there- 
fore, be regarded as an innovation on the practice of 
the universal Church, from the Apostolic age. Tal- 
bot also was consecrated by Taylor and Welton. 
These consecrations, therefore, were viewed as irre- 
gular, and uncanonical. It appears, that Taylor 
and Welton were never recognized as Bishops, by 
the rest of the body : yet both exercised the Episcopal 
functions in the American Colonies. The govern- 
ment, at the desire of the Bishop of London, at length 
interposed, when Welton retired to Portugal, where 
he died in 1726, and Taylor returned to the com- 
munion of the National Church.* The particulars 
of Welton 's removal from the Rectory of St. Mary's 
Whitechapel have already been detailed. Taylor was 
for some time chaplain to the Protestants at the Court 
of St. Germairis. 5 

Collier died in the year 1726. Many particulars 
respecting him and his writings are recorded in the 
preceding chapters. His Church History is still one 
of our most, if not the most valuable, of our ecclesias- 
tical histories : and all his works display talents of no 
ordinary kind. He was one of the most conspicuous 
actors in the controversies, which had been carried on 
since the Revolution. As he refused to surrender 
himself to the government, he lived in a state of out- 
lawry for several years, though perhaps the authorities 
were not anxious to secure his person. He was as 

Perceval's Apostolical Succession, 224. b Noble, 150. 



of tf) jponjurorg, 365 

long as he survived, the leader of that section of the 
Nonjurors, by whom the Usages were introduced. 

The next year, 1727, witnessed the death of Spinkes, 
who had been Collier's chief antagonist on the subject 
of the Usages. Thus the labours and the controversies 
of these two eminent men were terminated, by the 
last messenger, at nearly the same period. Spinkes 
was in no way inferior to Collier in learning and 
ability. In the controversy respecting the Usages, 
he advocated a strict adherence to the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. He was often in great pecuniary dis- 
tress : but he never swerved from his principles. The 
fund for the relief of the Nonjuring Clergy, of which 
some account has been given, was managed by Spinkes. 
It has been remarked, in reference to his consecra- 
tion as a Bishop, " happy would it have been for any 
Diocese had he been legally appointed to it." The 
following description of his person and acquirements 
is full of interest : " he was low of stature, venerable 
of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no 
wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was ortho- 
dox in his faith : his enemies being judges. He had 
uncommon learning and superior judgment : and his 
exemplary life was concluded by a happy death. 
His patience was great : his self denial greater : his 
charity still greater : though his temper seemed his 
cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution 
and grace), having never been observed to fail him in 
a stage of nine and thirty years." He was buried on 
the North side of the cemetery of St. Paul's Church, 
London. 

Charles Leslie's death occurred somewhat earlier ; 



c Noble, iii, 148, 149. Some of his works are still among- the 
most popular writings in our language. 



366 %i0torg of tlje 

but this appears to be the place for the remaining 
particulars of this eminent man. His abilities were 
of no common order, and the greatest industry marked 
his whole life ; for a very large number of Tracts and 
pamphlets, relative to the various points at issue be- 
tween the Nonjurors and their opponents, proceeded 
from his pen, all of them displaying talents of no 
ordinary kind. His various practical works, as well 
as those controversial pieces, which relate to the 
Church of Rome and the Dissenters, are too well 
known to require a particular notice. His Theological 
works were collected and published in two volumes, 
Folio, in the year 1721. Leslie was the son of the 
Bishop of Clogher. Previous to the Revolution he 
acted with great zeal against Popery : and it would 
be well, if those, who charge the Nonjurors with lean- 
ing towards Rome, were as free from the imputation 
themselves. On one occasion, when a Roman Ca- 
tholic had been nominated by King James to the 
office of sheriff, he was actually carried to the Ses- 
sions, though labouring under disease at the time, 
and took his place as a Magistrate upon the Bench. 
When the proposed Sheriff was questioned respecting 
his qualification, he replied, " That he was of the 
King's own religion, and that it was his Majesty's 
will that he should be Sheriff." Leslie answered, " that 
they were not inquiring into his Majesty's religion, but 
whether he had qualified himself according to law."' 
After his deprivation, he occasionally visited King 
James, and also his son the Pretender : on which ac- 
count, and in consequence of some of his writings, he 
became obnoxious to the government ; so that, in the 

4 Biog-. Brit. Art. Leslie. A list of his works is given in that 
article. Nichols, i. 195, 6. Salmon, ii. 122. 



of ttje $tonjurot& 367 

year 1713, he deemed it necessary, for his own safety, 
to quit the country. Proceeding to the Continent, he 
resided in the Pretender's court, and was permitted, 
for a time, to perform divine service in a private chapel, 
according to the rites of the Anglican Church. In 
the year 1721 or 1722 he returned to Ireland, his native 
country. The Rehearsal, a periodical paper, was his 
production. He died on the 13th of April, 1722. 

Laurence Howell's death occurred also during the 
reign of George I. His heavy sentence has already 
been mentioned. The degrading part of it, however, 
was remitted by his Majesty : but the prisoner died 
in Newgate in the year 1720. Whatever may have 
been his conduct with respect to the government, it 
appears, that his punishment was far heavier than the 
offence merited. His various works testify that he 
was a man of most extensive acquirements. His Sy- 
nopsis Canonum is a most valuable production. Two 
volumes were published, the one in 1709, the other 
in 1710 : and a third was actually in the press, when 
it was accidentally destroyed by fire. In 1715, how- 
ever, the third volume was announced in the follow- 
ing manner : " The MS. copy of the third and last 
volume of Mr. Howell's Synopsis Can. Condi. Eccles. 
Grtec. Lat. being burnt in White Fryars Jan. 1712, 
this is to give notice, that Mr. Howell hath once more 
finished the third volume." 6 The author was not 
discouraged by the loss of one copy of his manuscript, 
but immediately commenced the laborious task of re- 
writing the volume. One of his works, The History 
of the Pontificate, is directed against the pretensions 
of Rome, and may be appealed to in refutation of the 
silly charge of Popery against the Nonjurors. In the 

Nichols, i. 105, 106. 



368 ^ytorp of 

Preface he says, " Among the many remarkable im- 
presses of truth our Church bears, it is one, that she 
does not blindfold her proselytes, but leaves them the 
use of their faculties ; and does not, by intruding on 
them an implicit belief, force them to lay down their 
reason, when they take up their faith." 1 

After Collier's death, it became necessary to con- 
secrate other Bishops in that section, of which he had 
been the leader. Accordingly, in 1727, Thomas Brett, 
junior, was consecrated by Brett, senior, Griffin, and 
Campbell: and, in 1731, Timothy Mawman was set 
apart to the Episcopal Office, by the two Bretts and 
George Smith. 

The other section, both being anxious to continue 
the succession, applied to the Bishops in Scotland, 
and, in the year 1726, Henry Doughty was conse- 
crated by four Scottish Prelates to assist their friends 
in England. During the same year, John Blackburn 
and Henry Hall were consecrated by Spinkes, Gandy, 
and Doughty. After the death of Spinkes, the leader 
of this section, Richard Rawlinson, was consecrated 
in 1728, by Gandy, Doughty, and Blackburn; and 
George Smith, by Gandy, Blackburn, and Rawlin- 
son. 

It appears, that Smith assisted the Bishops of the 
other line in consecrating Mawman in 1731 : so that 
the disputes respecting the usages must have sub- 
sided. This is evident also from a letter of Carte's, 



f The History of the Pontificate : from its supposed beginning-, 
to the end of the Council of Trent, Anno Domini 1563, in which 
the corruptions of the Scriptures and sacred antiquity, forgeries in 
the councils, and incroachments of the Court of Rome on the 
Church and State, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and 
other modern doctrines, are set in a true light. By Laurence 
Howell, A. M. 8vo. London, 1716. 



ot ttje ^onjui'org. 369 

written in the same year, and addressed to Corbet 
Kynaston. "I sent you word just as I left this place 
in July, of the opposition made by some Presbyters 
to the re-union among the Nonjurors, all whose Bi- 
shops agreed in it except I. B. a copy of whose letter 
I send you in this. I must now acquaint you with 
what passed after I left the Town. Those of their 
Presbyters that opposed it, drew up a representation 
against it, a very pompous empty declamation (the 
penman supposed to be Mr. William Law) and got 
in several to sign it, who had appeared friends to the 
union before : but Mr. J. Creyk has a great influence, 
having the disposal of a great deal of money, left by 
Mrs. Pincham and others to be distributed to the 
Nonjurors. 

"After this representation was sent, answer was 
made to it both by Dr. Brett and Mr. Smith of Dur- 
ham, in which it was proved that what was de- 
sired was no alteration, for a declaration of their sense 
in interpreting any passage of the Liturgy was no 
alteration in it : nor in reality was the mixture any : 
for in King Edward's Liturgy, after water had been 
mixed with the wine, in the sight of all the people, 
the rubrick went on to say, " Then shall the Priest 
put the bread and wine on the Table." Here the 
word wine was certainly used for the mixed cup. In 
the second Liturgy of King Edward, all this rubrick 
was left out, and no directions at all given about the 
cup : and so it stood, till after the Restoration. Then 
the word " oblations" was added to the Prayer for the 
Church Militant, and to prevent the Clerk or Sexton's 
placing the elements on the Altar, which they consi- 
dered as an oblation, a rubrick was made directing 
the Priest to place the bread and wine on the Altar. 
So it stands now ; and yet I cannot see that the term 

B B 



370 %t0torp of rtje 

wine can now be interpreted to exclude the mixture, 
when in King Edward's first Liturgy it undeniably 
expressed it. And yet this mixture is the only thing 
that looks like an alteration : so that the great stir 
made in the representation about giving up the Church 
of England, has something in it ridiculous as well as 
intemperate. 

" The country Layman reflected on in the repre- 
sentation, is Mr. Smith of Durham, an excellent man, 
and what his learning is, his notes upon Bede's Ec- 
clesiastical History sufficiently shew. Endeavours 
were made to get the Presbyters to recede from this 
representation, and there were hopes of succeeding, 
when Mr. B. sent the inclosed letter to Mr. Gandy, 
and therein quoted a passage, which he says was writ- 
ten by our master's direction. This knocked all on 
the head again. Now I can hardly think that our 
master ever gave such directions ; or if he did, the 
affair must have been strangely misrepresented to him. 
I could wish, therefore, it was stated to him in its true 
light, for then I am persuaded he would give his ap- 
probation of it, and if he did, and that was once sig- 
nified here, the union would be brought about, and 
executed here without any difficulty. This is therefore 
a very material point, and I should be very glad to have 
the matter cleared up, this pretence of his being 
averse to it being the main obstacle to so desirable 
an union. I sent you the terms before, so that I need 
not repeat them, only I shall mention one alteration 
I proposed, to get over Mr. Blackburn's objection : it 
was to be declared that the words in the Prayers for 
the Church Militant, " that we with them may be 
partakers" should be understood in the same sense as 
those in the Burial Office. Mr. B. saying he did not 



of t&e ^onjucor^ 3/1 

understand them in the same sense, I proposed it to 
be expressed thus, in a sense agreeable to that pas- 
sage in the Burial Office : he could not oppose this 
without making the Church inconsistent, so my amend- 
ment was agreed to. I wish you could communicate 
this to our friend, to whom I desire my humble duty 
may be acceptable : and if something could still be 
done in this affair, it would be infinitely to the satisfac- 
tion of, Dear Sir, yours entirely, Thomas Carte. " R 

This is an interesting letter. Law was among the 
opponents of the Union, because the Usagers proposed 
it on their own terms. It does not appear that there 
was to be any thing like mutual concession. Un- 
doubtedly the majority of the Nonjurors were Usagers, 
but as Law and Blackburn never yielded, we may 
infer that the two Communions yet continued distinct : 
Carte was among those who adopted the usages. Pro- 
bably, Mr. Kynaston, to whom the letter was written, 
had access to the Pretender, who is called, by Carte, 
their master. In the Lockhart Papers, there is evi- 
dence, that the Pretender was displeased at these in- 
ternal disputes : but Carte imagines, that the question 
had not been fairly represented. It is clear, there- 
fore, that the New Communion Office was now adopted 
by some of those who had previously rejected it : and 
" it is mentioned," says Mr. Perceval, " that in 1733, 
all the Nonjuring Bishops of this time were in com- 
munion, except Blackburn, who stood alone, but on 
what account is not stated. " h It is, I think, clear 
from Carte's letter, that Blackburn stood apart on the 
ground of the usages, which were made terms of com- 



e Nichols's Illustrations, v. 155 157. 
h Perceval's Apostolical Succession, 225. 






372 ^tgtorp of ttje jponjurorg* 

munion, and to which he could not consent. Having 
acted and agreed with Spinkes, he could not relin- 
quish the use of the Office of the Anglican Church. 

George I. died in 1727 ; but the state of the Non- 
jurors continued the same under his successor George 
II. at least for several years after his accession. The 
case of Atterbury scarcely falls within my province; 
for though he secretly favoured the Pretender, he was 
not a Nonjuror. It may, however, be adduced as a 
proof, that it was possible to regard the Pretender's 
claims with favour, without going over to the Church 
of Rome. In his exile, though every temptation was 
presented to him, he remained firm in his attachment 
to the Anglican Church, dying in the year 1731. 

About the time that the two sections of the Non- 
jurors became united, several of the body were re- 
moved by death. Mr. Orme died in the year 1733. 
He had been deprived under King William for de- 
clining the Oath of Allegiance. The following extract 
from a letter to Bowyer the Printer, on occasion of 
his great loss from the destruction of his Printing 
Office, furnishes a striking picture of the man. " Jan. 
31, 1712. I mourn for your misfortune : I hope our 
loving God will sanctify it to you, and that your great 
loss will in the end be your great gain. I doubt not 
but you are more a Christian than not to bear this or 
any other worldly loss, with such patience as becomes 
our holy profession, and the disciples of our blessed 
Lord and Redeemer." He was a man of great meek- 
ness, gentleness, and piety.' 

Of the same character was Robert Jenkin, D.D. 
He became Chaplain to Bishop Lake ; but lost his 
preferment, subsequent to the Revolution, in conse- 

1 Nichols, i. 52, 53. 



of tt)c ^onjurottf , 373 

quence of his refusal to take the Oath of Allegiance. 
He was one of the subscribers to the Bishop's dying 
declaration. On quitting his living he retired to his 
fellowship in St. John's College, Cambridge, the 
Oath not being required, unless the Bishop of Ely, 
the visitor of his College, should deem it necessary 
to exact a compliance. By a statute of the College 
moreover the Bishop was not at liberty to visit, unless 
called upon to do so by a majority of the fellows : so 
that many individuals retained their fellowships after 
they had been removed from parishes. At length he 
complied, and took the Oath to Queen Anne. About 
the same time he was chosen Master of his College. 
On the accession of George I. an act was passed, en- 
joining all persons, who held a post of the value of 
five pounds per annum, to take the Oaths of Allegi- 
ance and Abjuration : so that Dr. Jenkin was under 
the painful necessity of ejecting some of the fellows. 
This was to him a most distressing step : for having 
experienced the same scruples himself, he keenly felt 
for those who could not take the Oaths. Baker pro- 
bably and others would have complied, if the Oath of 
Abjuration had not been imposed. Besides the " De- 
fence of the Profession" of Bishop Lake, he wrote 
several other works. The Reasonableness of the Chris- 
tian Religion is well known to those, who are conver- 
sant in such studies. He died in the year 1727.* 

Henry Gandy, who, after Spinkes, was perhaps 
one of the ablest of the opponents of the Usages, died 
in the year 1733. It is singular, that Granger and 
Noble should have represented him as a Roman Ca- 
tholic. The preceding pages prove him to have been 
one of the best divines of the period. 1 

k Nichols, iv. 241 248. Noble, iii. 173. 



374 ^?f0torg of tlje 

In the same year also died Samuel Parker at 
Oxford. He was the son of the Bishop of Oxford, 
whose proceedings in the case of Magdalen College, 
in the reign of King James, rendered him somewhat 
notorious. His particular friends were Hickes, Col- 
lier, Dodwell, Leslie, Nelson, and Grabe : with whom 
he was accustomed to associate, being engaged, as 
they also were, in learned and laborious pursuits. 
His works were various and valuable, but perhaps the 
most important is his Bibliotheca Biblical It is 
thought that his death was hastened by his great ex- 
ertions in writing this learned work. To the last 
volume of his Bibliotheca Biblica, published after his 
decease, a sketch of his life is prefixed, in which the 
writer says : " he had from the beginning embraced 
the principles of the Nonjurors, and as he constantly 
observed a strict uniformity in his principles and 
practice, he thought himself obliged to refuse those 
advantages of preferment, which not only his parts 
and education seemed to entitle him to, but which 
were actually offered to him." The same writer, al- 
luding to the Bibliotheca, says, " In short it was the 
unhappy occasion of his death." The following MS. 
memorandum is written on the flyleaf of a copy of the 
Bibliotheca now before me : " On Tuesday, Oct. 
1733. Died at Oxon, of the Dropsie, the great 
and learned Mr. Samuel Parker, son of the Bishop 
of Oxford of that name, and author of various learned 



111 Bibliotheca Biblica. Being; a Commentary upon all the 
Books of the Old and New Testament. Gathered out of the genuine 
Writings of the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Historians, and Acts of 
Councils, down to the year of our Lord 451, being that of the 
fourth General Council : and Lower, as occasion may require, &c. 
4to. Oxford, 1720. Six Volumes only, including the Pentateuch, 
were published. 



of rtje $lcmjucortf* 376 

works, particularly this Bibliotheca Biblica, of which 
he published several parts, a proof of his excellent 
learning and skill in the eastern languages and cus- 
toms : he refused the Oaths at the Revolution, and 
lived retired ever since at Oxford, well esteemed for 
several valuable qualifications, particularly his art of 
pleasing in conversation. I had the honour and hap- 
piness to be intimately acquainted with him. HEIST. 
FISHER." 

Many of the Nonjurors resided in the Universities, 
in order that they might enjoy the advantages of the 
Public Libraries. Being engaged in learned pursuits, 
and having no means of purchasing books, they ne- 
cessarily took up their abode in such places as Ox- 
ford and Cambridge. John Wesley said in the early 
period of his life, that " Oxford was paved with the 
skulls of Jacobites" He evidently alluded to the 
number of Nonjurors residing in that city. Unques- 
tionably there was a bright constellation of talent 
among the Nonjurors in Oxford in those days men 
who preferred poverty to perjury, and living in ob- 
scurity, with a good conscience, to station and worldly 
honour. 

Hearne died in the year 1735, in his rooms in St. 
Edmund's Hall. His case may be cited as an instance 
of the difficulties, in which many good men were 
placed by the Oaths. Though he would not have 
assisted in restoring the Pretender, yet he could not 
swear allegiance to the reigning Sovereign. On this 
account he declined the chaplaincy of Corpus Christi 
College, with some other important posts. At one 
time, however, he had entertained different views : 
and these had been expressed in a manuscript, which 
had been sent to Cherry, at whose death it came into 
the possession of parties, who were anxious to damage 



376 ^tetorg of tfje 

the author's reputation. Cherry's papers were left by 
will to the Bodleian Library : and Hearne asserted 
his claim to this paper on the ground, that it had not 
been given to his friend. The Curators pleaded the 
will, though, on examination, it was found that the 
MS. was not specified. The truth is, his enemies 
were resolved on publishing the paper, though Hearne 
had expressed his disavowal of the views of his earlier 
years. In the year 1731 it was actually published 
with a preface, in which sneering allusions were made 
to the author's change of views. " His reasons for 
compliance (how weak soever in the eyes of a dif- 
ferent persuasion) were doubtless good in his own : 
and if he has discovered better now for refusing the 
Oath, than he before gave for the taking it, 'tis an 
argument, I think, of his constant inquiry after truth, 
and of his discharging his conscience as he improves 
in knowledge." The publication did him no harm ; 
but only exhibited the bitterness of his enemies. The 
publisher of the work expressly declares that it was 
left to the Bodleian by will, though it was not men- 
tioned, and it is questionable whether Mr. Cherry 
had any such power to dispose of it, and certainly he 
would not have exposed his friend, by placing such 
a document within the reach ef his detractors. " Why 
Mr. Cherry," says the writer, " should suffer this letter 
to be placed in a public library (where he knew every 
thing was to be seen) had he not apprehended it to 
be for Mr. Hearne's credit, I cannot conceive." The 
writer knew that Mr. Cherry did not intend to leave 



n A Vindication of those who take the Oath of Allegiance to 
his present Majestie from Perjurie, Injustice and Disloyalty, 
charged upon them by such as are against it. In a Letter to a 
Nonjuror, 8vo. Printed in the year 1731. 



of tlje ^onjuror0, 377 

that particular paper to the public library : and, there- 
fore, alluding to this fact, which he speaks of as a 
rumour, he expresses himself satisfied with the Re- 
gister of Benefactors, in which the bequest is recorded. 
Not content with attempting to injure him while living, 
his enemies traduced his memory after his death, 
giving out that he had died a Roman Catholic. 
Hearne was singular in his habits, and in his religious 
opinions; but the rumour of his being reconciled to 
the Church of Rome, in his dying moments, was des- 
titute of any foundation whatever. 

Walter Harte was another Nonjuring Clergyman 
of this period, of whom some notice may be given. 
He was Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford, Pre- 
bendary of Wells, and Vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, 
Taunton, all of which he lost for refusing the Oath 
of Allegiance at the Revolution. Kidder, Hooper, 
and Wynn, the successors of Ken, in the See of Bath 
and Wells, contrived to secure to him the profits of 
his Stall at Wells ; so that he was not left quite des- 
titute in his declining years. He retired to Kent- 
bury, Berks, at which place he died in the year 1736, 
at the advanced age of 95. His son, Walter Harte, 
Canon of Windsor, was the well known author of 
the Life of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden. p 

It may be mentioned that several laymen, though 
they were not called upon to take the Oaths, which, 
however, they would have refused, were Nonjurors 
in principle, and considered themselves as members 
of the body. Bowyer and Bettenham, two eminent 
printers, were Nonjurors : and by them many of the 
works of the party were published. In the year 



Life of Hearne, 23, 26, 27, 28, 121124. 
P Noble, iii. 147, 148. 



378 %'0tot7 of tft 

1724, Negus published a list of the printing offices 
in London, distinguishing the printers into classes, 
according to their acknowledged or supposed opi- 
nions. Under the head of Nonjurors are reckoned 
Bowyer, Bettenham, and Dalton. q 

The views entertained by the Nonjurors, and ex- 
pressed in their new Communion Office, respecting the 
Eucharist, were opposed by many of the Clergy, 
though some few concurred in opinion with the com- 
pilers of the New Service. Johnson of Cranbrook had 
expressed similar views, though he remained in the 
Church of England. But at length the doctrine of 
the Nonjurors on this subject was assailed, and by 
no less a person than Waterland. In the year 1738, 
Waterland, then Archdeacon of Middlesex, published 
a Charge to the Clergy, in which the notion of a 
sacrifice in the Eucharist was condemned/ This 
led to a controversy, in which Brett and George Smith 
took a prominent part. Waterland's works are gene- 
rally known ; but those of the Nonjurors have been 
examined only by comparatively a small number of 
persons. Some account, therefore, of the writings of 
the Nonjurors on this subject will not be unaccep- 
table. 

Waterland was a man of genius and of great 
learning : and the Nonjurors were always ready to 
acknowledge his merits. He was moreover a man of 
candour; so that none of his opponents were in danger 
of being misrepresented. He opposed some of their 
views, but he did not, as was too frequently the case, 

i Nichols, i. 302, 303. 

r He also published a volume of considerable size, in which the 
same view was maintained : "A Review of the Doctrine of the 
Eucharist as laid down in Scripture and Antiquity. By Daniel 
Waterland, D.D." 8vo. London, 1737. 



of tlj* ^onjucottf, 379 

impute to them opinions which they repudiated. Thus 
the charge of Popery, which was founded on the Non- 
jurors' Views of the Christian Sacrifice, was shewn 
by this eminent and candid man to be most unjust. 
Smith, in his " Epistolary Dissertation" thus alludes 
to Water-land's conduct in this particular. " Our 
doctrine of the sacrifice was, in the dispute between 
the late Dr. Hickes and his opponents, formerly cried 
down as Popish. Of this imputation Dr. Waterland 
has been so just as to clear it, for which we cannot 
but return him our thanks ; because it is evident it 
is entirely inconsistent with the Popish, and quite over- 
throws it : there being as much difference between it 
and the Romish, as between the substance of bread 
and wine, and the substance of our blessed Saviour's 
body and blood. And this the Papists are so sensible 
of, that they endeavour all they can to render our 
notion of a sacrifice contemptible." Smith, however, 
remarks that Waterland, though he had cleared their 
view from being Popish, charged it with being Jewish : 
and this point is discussed at considerable length. 9 
The question which had been so learnedly handled 
by Hickes, Johnson and Brett, was most ably main- 
tained in this work : but the controversy is conducted 
in a meek and charitable spirit, altogether different 
from that of The Remarks on The Life of Tillotson, 
which have been noticed in a previous chapter. 
In 1740, Smith published An Account of the 



8 An Epistolary Dissertation addressed to the Clergy of Mid- 
dlesex. Wherein the Doctrine of St. Austin concerning- the 
Christian Sacrifice is set in a true light : by way of reply to Dr. 
Waterland's late charge to them. By a Divine of the University 
of Cambridge. London, 8vo. 1739, pp. 3,4. The work is anony- 
mous : but there is no reason to doubt that it was written by Mr. 
George Smith. 



380 ^fgtorp of tfje 

Primitive Invocation, which he called a supplement 
to Waterland's Review of the Eucharist. He does 
not exactly controvert Waterland's positions, but 
seems rather to view them as falling below the reality. 
This is implied in the title of his work. The au- 
thor gives a most interesting historical sketch of the 
whole subject. 1 Brett also took a part in the contro- 
versy, publishing " Remarks on Waterland's Charge" 
and " A Supplement to the Remarks." In the former, 
he contends, that the differences between Hickes and 
Johnson on the one side, and Waterland on the other, 
were rather verbal than real : in the latter, he de- 
fends Johnson's view of a material sacrifice in the 
Eucharist, which was opposed by Waterland. u 

It has been already mentioned, that the disputes 
among the Nonjurors, respecting the Usages, were 
terminated, the whole body, with very few excep- 
tions, concurring in their adoption. The few, who 
refused to receive them, did not offer any active 
opposition, but contented themselves with adhering 
to the Book of Common Prayer. Probably some, 
who dissented from the majority, united with the 



1 A Brief Historical Account of the Primitive Invocation, or 
Prayer for a Blessing upon the Elements, in Confirmation of some 
things mentioned in the learned Dr. Waterland's Review, &c., 
and by way of Supplement to it. In a Letter to his Grace the 
Archbishop of Canterbury. To which is added, a full Confutation 
of Beza's Arguments against the Primitive Doctrine of the Eu- 
charist, &c. 8vo. 1740. 

u Some Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Review of the Doctrine 
of the Eucharist, with regard to the seeming Difference between 
his and Mr. Johnson's concerning the Sacrifice and some other 
Points. In defence of myself and some others, who maintained 
Mr. Johnson's Opinions in our late Answers to the Plain Account. 
8vo. London, 1738. 



ll|f gtorp of tlje jponjurorg. 38 1 

National Church, as the best security against inno- 
vations. 

In the year 1741, Robert Gordon was consecrated 
to the Episcopal office by Brett, George Smith, and 
Mawman. He was the last Bishop of the regular 
Nonjurors. 

About the time, when the disputes respecting the 
Usages terminated, another breach sprang up among 
the Nonjurors. Mr. Perceval is of opinion, that it 
commenced, in the year 1733, in the consecration of 
Roger Lawrence, the learned author of Lay-Baptism 
Invalid? This line, however, was not recognized by 
the regular body, on the ground, that the first conse- 
crations were uncanonical. Lawrence himself was 
consecrated by Campbell, the Scottish Bishop, who 
acted by his own authority : so that the act, being con- 
trary to the Canons, was deemed invalid. Campbell 
and Lawrence, therefore, were now the leaders of a 
new section in the already diminished numbers of the 
Nonjurors. Subsequently, Campbell and Lawrence 
consecrated Thomas Deacon, who, on his part, and 
by himself, appointed to the Episcopal office J. P. 
Brown, whose real name is supposed to have been 
Johnstone, a brother of the Earl of Annandale. 

The name of Lawrence is well known from his 
learned works on the Invalidity of Lay Baptism : but 
probably it is not so generally known, that he was a 
Nonjuror. His parents being Dissenters, Lawrence 
was baptized in the body to which they belonged. 
Entertaining doubts respecting the validity of the Act, 
he was led to an extended examination of the whole 
subject, which issued in the publication of his valu- 

w Perceval, 226. 



382 

able and learned work : Lay Baptism Invalid? The 
book was assailed by Dissenters, because the author 
had reduced their ministers to mere laymen, which 
was most distasteful to the body : it was also attacked 
by some members of the Church of England. He 
fully, as I conceive, establishes the position, that Lay 
Baptism is not recognized by the Anglican Church, 
whatever may be the decisions of the ecclesiastical 
courts respecting the right, which Dissenters have to 
the performance of the Burial Service, in the case of 
those who are baptized by their own ministers. Two 
Sermons were preached at Salisbury, by Burnet, in 
1710, in which Lawrence's positions were assailed. 
This circumstance led him to publish, in reply, his work 
on the Sacerdotal Powers. 7 A few years later there 
appeared another volume on Dissenters' Baptisms. 1 - 



* Lay Baptism Invalid. An Essay to prove that such Baptism 
is null and void, when administered in opposition to the divine 
right of the Apostolic succession. Third Ed. With an Appen- 
dix: wherein the boasted unanswerable objection of the B. of S. 
and other new objections are answered. By a Lay-hand. 8vo. Lon- 
don, 1712. 

The Second Part of Lay-Baptism Invalid : Shewing, that the 
Ancient Catholick Church never had any Ecclesiastical Law, Tra- 
dition or Custom, for the Validity of Baptism performed by persons, 
who never were commissioned by Bishops to baptize. London, 
1713. 

y Sacerdotal Powers : or the Necessity of Confession, Penance 
and Absolution, together with the Nullity of Unauthorized Lay- 
Baptism asserted in an Essay occasioned by the publication of Two 
Sermons, Preached at Salisbury the 5th, and 7th of November, 
1710. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. 8vo. London, 
1711. 

B Dissenters and other unauthorized Baptisms null and void, by 
the Articles, Canons and Rubrics of the Church of England, in 
Answer to a Pamphlet, called the Judgment of the Church of Eng- 
land, in the case of Lay- Baptism, and of Dissenters' Baptism. 
By the Author of Lay- Baptism Invalid. 8vo. London, 1713. 



of tfjc ^onfuroctf. 383 

The Bishop of Oxford also having alluded to the sub- 
ject, in his Charge, Lawrence sent forth a reply to his 
Lordship. 3 These are, I believe, all the works of this 
learned writer, respecting whose talents there can be 
no difference of opinion, whatever may be the case 
concerning his views. On the question of Lay Bap- 
tism, most churchmen will agree with him in senti- 
ment. It will be seen, that the above works were all 
written many years before his consecration as a Non- 
juring Bishop. Brett wrote a short Tract on the sub- 
ject, defending Lawrence's views against the objections 
of Burnet. 5 Little is known of Lawrence beyond 
what is to be gleaned from his works, and the replies 
which they called forth. 



a The Bishop of Oxford's Charge Considered, in reference to 
the Independency of the Church upon the State. A Proper Sa- 
crifice in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The nature and ne- 
cessity of Sacerdotal Absolution. And the Invalidity of Baptism 
administered by persons not Episcopally ordained. In an humble 
address to his Lordship. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. 
8vo. 1712. 

b A Letter to the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid : wherein the 
Popish Doctrine of Lay- Baptism, taught in a Sermon, said to have 
been preached by the B of S is censured and condemned by the 
Greek Church : the Church of England: The Reformed abroad : and 
even by our English Presbyterian Sectaries. Which may be added 
as an Appendix to a book entitled Sacerdotal Powers. 8vo. 1711. 

c The Author of the Wisdom of Looking Backward affects to 
treat Lawrence with contempt, though the name of the latter will 
be handed down to latest posterity, while that of the former is un- 
known. Thus, in alluding to his work on Lay -Baptism, he says : 
" by one Lawrence a Book-keeper in London, who being ashamed 
of his baptism among the Dissenters, was re-baptized by the Reader 
of Christchurch without knowledge of the Bishop or Vicar : and 
then would impose his own hasty practice for a standing rule and 
principle to others ; wherein he was much encouraged and assisted 
by Dr. Hickes." p. 88. The same thing is repeated, p. 245, 
246. So again, mentioning Lawrence's Remarks on the Bishop 



384 Utgtorp of tije 

Thus the Nonjurors were again divided into two 
sections, notwithstanding the closing of the breach 
which had been occasioned by the Usages. Brett 
was at the head of the regular body, Campbell and 
Lawrence being the leaders of the Separatists. These 
particulars must be borne in mind, in considering the 
proceedings connected with the Rebellion in 1745. 

Brett, of whom many things are recorded in the 
preceding chapters, was one of the most learned as 
well as most active, of the body : but his labours 
were terminated by death in the year 1743. On a 
flat stone over his grave at Wye there are inscriptions 
to the memory of several of his ancestors, commenc- 
ing with Gregory Brett, in 1541. Thomas Brett is 
thus mentioned. " Thomas Brett of Spring Grove, 
son of Thomas, born September 3rd, 1667 : Doctor 
of Laws, 1697 : became rector of Betshanger 1703 : 
and of Ruckinge, 1705: resigned both in 1714, be- 
cause he could not comply with the terms then im- 



of Oxford's Charge, he adds, " By Mr. Lawrence bred to accounts 
in Spain," 265. Under the year 1713, the Author says: " the 
University of Oxford had lately given the Degree of M. A. to a 
man bred only to books of accounts, and living properly in the 
service of a London merchant, and a professed enemy to the 
Revolution, and the Hanover succession." He then gives the 
particulars ; " One Mr. Wheatley (or some such name) a young 
preacher, about town falling into acquaintance with Mr. Lawrence, 
a disciple of Dr. Hickes, at Child's Coffee House, took a great 
affection for him, and having before heard him called in the Uni- 
versity, the Learned Layman, he invited him down to Oxford 
with him, being himself fellow of St. John's, and prevailed with the 
Proctor in that House to propose the getting him an honorary de- 
gree of M. A. without education or exercise ; which was effected 
by a surprise upon some and a cowardice in others." p. 284, 285. 
This one Mr. Wheatley was no less a person than the well known 
and learned author of the Illustrations of the Book of Common 
Prayer. 



of ttjc 0onfum0. 385 

posed with a safe conscience : Died, March 5th, 1743." 
His refutation of the charge of Popery was noticed in 
a previous chapter ; but it may be added, that, in 
Ballard's Collection of Letters, it was actually stated, 
that he had become a Papist, and had formed a se- 
parate congregation. The latter assertion was true : 
and it is contradictory of the former, since, had he 
become a Papist, he would not have formed a sepa- 
rate congregation, but would have united himself 
with the Church of Rome. The circumstance shews 
how ready many persons were in those days as well 
as in our own, to allege the charge of Popery against 
men of sound and orthodox principles. d 

Thomas Baker, the learned antiquary, died in the 
year 1740, in the 80th year of his age. Some notices 
of his labours have been given in a preceding chapter : 
but a few particulars may be added. He lost his 
living in 1690, for declining the Oath of Allegiance, 
on which occasion he retired to his fellowship in St. 
John's College Cambridge, which he held until the 
year 1716. Those who had taken the degree of B. D. 
were undisturbed in their fellowships, until the reign 
of George I., when the Oath of Abjuration was im- 
posed. Jenkin, the Master of the College, was anxious 
to leave things as they were : but he was informed by 
those in authority, that the Oaths must be pressed. 
Baker's correspondence was very extensive : and even 
Burnet held him in much estimation. There is a 
Letter from Burnet, which really exhibits the Bishop 
in a more amiable light, than that in which he 
usually appeared, when discussing the Nonjuring 
questions. Alluding to " The Hereditary Right of 
the Crown Asserted," the Bishop, after stating that he 



d Nichols, i. 409-412. 

c c 



386 ^tetorp of tfje 

had suspected that it was written by a member of St. 
John's College, since it was composed " with a great 
deal of gravity and decency," observes : "I never 
think the worse of men for their different sentiments 
in such matters : I am sure I am bound to think much 
the better of them : for adhering firmly to the dictates 
of their conscience, when it is so much to their loss, 
and when so sacred a thing as an Oath is in the case." 
He also expresses his regret that the Church should 
lose the services of such men as Baker. Burnet was 
indebted to Baker, for correcting some mistakes in his 
First and Second Volumes of The History of the Re- 
formation. 

Masters, the writer of his life, remarks, that Baker 
was much distressed at being removed from his fel- 
lowship, because some of his friends so readily con- 
curred in the measure. Twenty-two Fellows were 
ejected at the same time. It was from this period, 
that the words Socius Ejectus were written on his 
books. He was, however, permitted to retain his 
rooms in the College until his death in the year 1740. 
His Biographer has given a catalogue of his Manu- 
script Remains, which are preserved in forty-two 
volumes of considerable size. 6 

Before the Rebellion in 1745, the Nonjurors, though 
consisting of two parties, were greatly diminished in 
number ; but all, who were implicated in that affair, 
were considered to belong to their body. Some Non- 
jurors were undoubtedly concerned in the transactions 
of 1745 ; but they were members of the Separatists' 
Section, and not of the regular party, while the great 
majority of the actors were connected with neither. 



Memoirs by Masters, 32, 33, 34, 83, 93, 139. Nichols, iv. 
249; v. 107-17. Gents. Mag-, vol. liv. 194, 329. 



of tlje ^onfurorg. 387 

It is unnecessary to enter into particulars respect- 
ing the Rebellion : but it may be observed, that se- 
verity was exercised towards all who were found 
guilty. Mr. Hallam says, " that it was disgraceful 
to the British Government." f Mr. Ratcliffe, who had 
escaped from prison in 1716, after his condemnation, 
was now executed on the former conviction. After 
the lapse of thirty years, the sentence passed in 1716 
was read over to him, and he was put to death in 
1746. 

Some undergraduates in Oxford were guilty, dur- 
ing the progress of the Rebellion, of certain acts of 
indiscretion, such as shouting King James and Prince 
Charles for ever ; but this circumstance afforded no 
just indication of the state of feeling in the university. 
It was merely an ebullition of youthful ardour. 6 

None of the regular body of the Nonjurors, however, 
were involved in the Rebellion. Whatever charges 
may be alleged against them on other grounds, it can- 
not be said, that they did not practise what they had 
taught on the subject of passive obedience. This fact, 
which could not be disputed even at the time, ought 
to have procured for them better treatment, than they 
sometimes experienced. Like the deprived Bishops, 
the Nonjurors of this period could not recognize the 
new order of things, by taking the Oaths ; but at the 
same time they would not disturb the government by 
any attempt to restore the exiled line. They were 
prepared to submit to the privations, which such a 
course involved ; and they with safety might have 
been permitted to enjoy their liberty, without annoy- 
ance on the part of the authorities. 



f Hallam, iii. 312, 454. 

* Blacow's Letter to King, 8vo. London, 1755. 



388 U?f#torp of tfje 

These remarks, indeed, are not applicable to all 
the Nonjurors of the other section : for some of the 
members of that party, of which Campbell at one time, 
and then Deacon were the leaders, were implicated 
in the Rebellion, and suffered as traitors. Among the 
criminals was Thomas Deacon, a young man, the son 
of the Bishop, residing in Manchester. The Bishops 
and Clergy among the Nonjurors often followed some 
other occupation as a means of support. Deacon, 
the father of the young man, practised physic in the 
town of Manchester, where he was highly respected 
by a large circle of friends, who did not entertain the 
same principles. When the Pretender's army came 
to this place, young Deacon joined it immediately. 
It was proved, on his trial, moreover, that he had been 
very active in getting the Pretender's manifesto printed 
and circulated : so that, though a brother was spared, 
mercy could not be extended to this unfortunate 
youth, who was only twenty-two years of age. Dr. 
Deacon was singular in giving two or more names to 
his children, commencing with the same letter. Thus 
this young man was baptized by the names of Thomas 
Theodorus. At the place of execution, he said, " I 
profess I die a member, not of the Church of Rome, 
nor yet of that of England, but of a pure episcopal 
church, which has reformed all the errors, corruptions, 
and defects, that have been introduced into the modern 
churches of Christendom : a church which is in perfect 
communion with the ancient and universal Church 
of Christ, by adhering uniformly to antiquity, uni- 
versality, and consent : that glorious principle, which 
if once strictly and impartially pursued, would, and 
which alone can, remove all the distractions and unite 
all the divided branches of the Christian Church. 
This holy Catholic principle is agreed to by all 



of tl)z /ponfurottS, 389 

churches, Eastern and Western, Popish and Protest- 
ant ; and yet unhappily is practised by none, but the 
Church in whose holy communion I have the happi- 
ness to die. May God of his great mercy daily in- 
crease the members thereof : and if any would inquire 
into its primitive institution, I refer them to our Com- 
mon Prayer Book." 

Sydall, another of the sufferers, made an exactly 
similar declaration with Deacon. h 

It was rumoured that the speeches were written by 
Mr. Creake, a clergyman of that section of the Non- 
jurors. The Book of Common Prayer, to which they 
referred, was compiled by Deacon, the father of one 
of the sufferers. It is a singular volume, with a some- 
what remarkable title. 1 After the separation of Dea- 
con and Campbell from the regular body, this Book 

h State Trials, ix. 565, 566. 

1 A compleat Collection of Devotions, both public and private : 
taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies, 
and the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England. In 
Two Parts. Part I. comprehending the Public Offices of the 
Church ; humbly offered to the consideration of the present Churches 
of Christendom, Greek, Roman, English, and all others. Part II. 
Being a Primitive Method of Daily Private Prayer, containing 
Devotions for the Morning and Evening, and for the ancient hours 
of Prayer, Nine, Twelve, and Three ; together with Hymns and 
Thanksgivings for the Lord's Day and Sabbath, and Prayers for 
Fasting Days : as also Devotions for the Altar, and Graces before 
and after Meat, all taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, and 
the ancient Liturgies, with some Additions : and recommended to 
the Practice of all Private Christians of every Communion. To 
which is added, an Appendix in justification of this undertaking, 
consisting of Extracts and Observations, taken from the Writings 
of very eminent and learned Divines of different Communions. 
And to all is subjoined, in a Supplement, an Essay to procure Ca- 
tholic Communion upon Catholic principles. London, printed for 
the Author, and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westmin- 
ster, 1734. Price bound in calf, six shillings. 



390 !i0torp of tl) 

of Devotions was used by this party in their assem- 
blies for public worship, while the rest retained the 
new Communion Office, which was compiled by 
the Usagers in 1718. Deacon's book, therefore, 
must not be regarded as having been sanctioned by 
the Nonjurors as a body, since it was adopted only 
by that small section, of which the author was the 
leader. 

Besides the works published by Deacon, at an 
early period of his life, which have been already no- 
ticed, he put forth another very singular volume in the 
year 1747. This, like the preceding, has a most extra- 
ordinary title. In this volume all the peculiar prac- 
tices comprehended under the general term Usages, 
as it was used by the Nonjurors, are defended and 
enjoined, besides others, such as Infant Communion, 
which were never received by the regular body.* 
Deacon, as we have seen, was consecrated by a single 
Bishop ; and he himself, by his sole authority, conse- 
crated others. In the work just mentioned he has a 
chapter, " Of the Election, Ordination, and Consecra- 

k A full, true, and comprehensive View of Christianity : con- 
taining a short Historical Account of Religion from the Creation of 
the World to the fourth Century after our Lord Jesus Christ : as 
also the complete Duty of a Christian in relation to Faith, Practice, 
Worship, and Ritualls, set forth sincerely, without regard to any 
modern Church, Sect, or Party, as it is taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures, was delivered by the Apostles, and received by the universal 
Church of Christ during the first four Centuries. The whole suc- 
cinctly laid down in Two Catechisms, a shorter and a longer, each 
divided into two Parts ; whereof the one comprehends the Sacred 
History, the other the Christian Doctrine. The shorter Catechism 
being suited to the meanest capacity, and calculated for the use of 
Children ; and the longer for that of the more knowing Christian. 
To it is prefixed a Discourse upon the Design of these Catechisms, 
and upon the best Method of instructing Youth in them. 8vo. 
London, 1747. 



p of tlje ^onjurocg, 391 

tion of the Clergy" in which we find a reason for 
acting, in the ordering of Bishops, by his own autho- 
rity. " Bishops are consecrated by the Metropolitan 
and as many of the Bishops of the province as can con- 
veniently come together ; but they must not proceed 
to a consecration, unless the majority of them either 
are present, or have signified their consent : nor unless 
three Bishops are actually present, except in the case 
of persecution or some such other very necessary oc- 
casion, when one Bishop is sufficient to make the 
consecration valid." 1 He evidently considered, that 
the plea of necessity might be urged, or that they 
were under persecution. That he was justified, in so 
acting, even on his own principle, cannot be admit- 
ted, since the regular Nonjurors had a sufficient num- 
ber of Bishops. The work displays much learning, 
though some of the author's opinions are very sin- 
gular. 

The charge of Popery was brought, by Owen a 
Dissenter, against Deacon, of whom he speaks in no 
measured terms. Some of the Nonjurors at Man- 
chester were accused of paying religious adoration to 
the heads of the rebels, which had been suspended, 
in that town, according to the sentence. The charge 
was advanced first in The Whitehall Evening Post, 
in an anonymous letter, which was afterwards ac- 
knowledged to be Owen's. " The two rebel heads 
are revered and almost adored, as trophies of martyr- 
dom. The father of one of them (who is a Nonjuring 
Bishop) as he passes by 'em, frequently pulls off his 
hat, and looks at them above a minute with a solemn 
complacential smile. Some suppose he offers up a 
prayer for them, others to them. His church daily 

1 A full, true, and comprehensive View, &c. i. 430. 



392 ^i^torp of tt)e 

increases, and he is in the highest credit and intimacy 
with most of our clergy." The letter, accompanied 
with remarks by a person at Manchester, was also 
published in The Gentleman's Magazine. In the 
remarks the charges are denied, except that Dr. Dea- 
con had once only passed by his son's head, on which 
occasion he had taken off his hat. The same writer 
very naturally asks what connexion there is between 
the Doctor's peculiar views and politics, specifying 
Infant Communion, and the restoration of the Usages : 
and, in allusion to the assertion of his intimacy with 
the Clergy, he admits, that the Doctor was esteemed 
and valued by that body. He closes his remarks with 
an expression of opinion, that it was less dangerous 
to associate with a Nonjurmg Bishop, than with a 
Dissenter. 

Owen commented on the remarks in a letter ad- 
dressed to the Gentleman s Magazine, affirming or 
rather insinuating his previous charges, and adding 
another, that Deacon had absolved Paul and Hall 
after the Rebellion in 1716." This produced a second 
letter from the remarker, from which I give the fol- 
lowing extract, containing a severe but just censure 
of the Dissenters of that day for the avidity with 
which they raised the cry of Popery. The remarker 
had charged a certain set of people with making use 
of a canting evasion : and Owen calls upon him to 
name them. He replies as follows : " I mean that 
tribe of sectaries who have for more than a century 
past shewn the utmost enmity and hatred to the 
Church of England, exemplified their hatred once by 
a total subversion of episcopal government, and again 



Gents. Mag. vol. xvi. p. 579, 580. 
Ibid. vol. xvi. pp. 688, 691. 



of rtje ^onfucocg* 303 

by an interested, servile compliance with a Popish 
Prince in his Popish designs, merely to raise them- 
selves to some degree of power, which had been 
wisely denied them before. These are the men, who 
have always used the cry of Popishly affected to run 
down the steadiest friends of our ecclesiastical estab- 
lishment." 

Owen now published a second edition of a work, 
in which he examines some of the positions of Deacon's 
" View of Christianity. " p In the Preface he ac- 
knowledges himself the author of the letter in The 
Gentleman's Magazine. As Owen, therefore, had 
confessed himself the author of the calumnies, Deacon 
deemed it necessary to reply to them in a letter to 
the same Magazine. In reference to Paul and Hall, 
Deacon states, that they were attended, not by himself 
but by the Rev. Francis Peck, and that neither he 
nor any other person absolved the prisoners. To the 
charge of having a dispensation Deacon says : " This 
is a charge of such a kind that I can only answer it 
by sincerely affirming that I neither had any such 
dispensation, nor made any such declaration." In 
short, all the assertions were proved to be groundless, 
the fruits of Owen's malice and hatred. q 

Having given a detail of the proceedings of the 
Separatists among the Nonjurors, until the suppression 
of the Rebellion, it will be necessary to look back a 
little, to gather up the materials respecting the main 



Gents. Mag*, vol. xvii. p. 76. 

P Jacobite and Nonjuring- Principles freely examined : In a 
Letter to the Master Tool of the Faction at Manchester, with Re- 
marks on some part of a book lately published, entitled A Full, 
Free, and Comprehensive View, &c. wrote by Dr. Deacon. By 
J. Owen, Manchester, 1748. 

1 Gents. Ma. vol. xviii. p. 206. 



394 l^t'sftorp of ti)0 

body, none of whom, as I have stated, were implicated 

in that transaction. 

Of Blackburn an account has already been given : 
but the following particulars from the MSS. of the 
Rev. Richard Bowes, D.D. respecting his death are 
too important to be passed over. " Nov. 17th, 1741, 
departed this life the Rev. Mr. John Blackbourne, 
M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge. Soon after 
the Revolution he became one of those few truly con- 
scientious who refused the new Oaths. From that 
time he lived a very exemplary good life, and studied 
hard : endeavouring to be useful to mankind both as 
a scholar and divine. To keep himself independent 
he became corrector of the press to Mr. Bowyer, 
printer : and was, indeed, one of the most accurate 
of any who ever took upon him that laborious employ. 
He has given us a curious edition of Lord Bacon's 
Works, 1740. As I had the happiness of being long 
known to my most valuable friend, he was so kind 
to communicate the following particulars. That Op- 
probrium Historise, Burnet's Memoirs, were first put 
into his hands to be corrected for Bowyer's press. 
But the honest sons of the Bishop made shamefully 
free with their father's manuscript. Mr. Blackburn 
shewed some pages left out, relating to the Prince of 
Orange, where his character was more at large and 
better drawn, more to truth and life. Several sheets 
concerning the Scots especially left out. As he was 
too honest to deal with such as have no honesty, he 
advised Mr. Bowyer to be concerned no further in 
the impression : so it was taken out of his hands. 
This good man for several years past has been a Non- 
juring Bishop equal to most of our bench. I waited 
on him often in Little Britain, where he lived almost 
lost to the world, and hid amongst old books. One 



Of tlje ^0U)Utm% 395 

day, before dinner, he went to his bureau and took 
out a paper. It was a copy of the testimonial sent 
to King James (as he called him), signed by his Lord- 
ship (Winchelsea) and two others (I think) in his 
behalf. He afterwards shewed me the commission 
for his consecration. Upon this I begged his blessing, 
which he gave me with the fervent zeal and devotion 
of a primitive Bishop. I asked him if I was so 
happy as to belong to his diocese ? His answer was 
(I thought) very remarkable : Dear friend, (said he) 
we leave the sees open, that the gentlemen who now 
unjustly possess them, upon the restoration, may, 
if they please, return to their duty, and be continued. 
We content ourselves with full episcopal power as 
suffragans. " r 

Blackburn, as has been seen, stood out from the 



r 



Nichols, i. 252, 2,53. Blackbourne was buried in Islington 
Churchyard, and Nichols mentions, " when a schoolboy, I have 
often gazed with astonishment at the following epitaph, the meaning 
of which I was then unable to comprehend : 

Hie situm est quod mortale fuit 

Viri vere reverendi 

Johannis Blackbourne A. M. 

Ecclesise Anglicanse Presbyteri, 

Pontificorum seque ac Novatorum Mallei, 

Docti, clari, strenui, prompti: 
Qui (uti verbo Dicam) caetera enim quis nescit ? 

Cum eo non dignus erat, 
Usque adeo degener, mundus, 

Ad Beatorum Sedes 
Translatus est, 17 die Novembris 

A.D. MDCCXLI. 36tat. SU3B LVIII. 

On the foot stone : 

Christo qui vivit, morte perire nequit. 

Resurgam. J. B. 

Nunc, amice Lector, quisquis sis, 

Ex hinc disce, qui es, et quid eris." 



396 ^fgtorp of ttje 

rest of the body in 1733 on the ground of the usages: 
nor is there any reason for believing that he adopted 
them previous to his death. He was, therefore, the 
lasto f the Nonjurors, who adhered to the Church of 
England as she stood at the period of the separation. 
By all the rest, subsequent to 1733, the usages were 
adopted, however they might differ on other subjects. 
Thus Deacon and his friends, who formed a new 
separation, adhered to the usages, making also some 
additions themselves. 

After the death of Brett, Lindsay acted a very pro- 
minent part amongst the regular body. He was the 
author of several publications of considerable power. 
Patrick Cockburn, who had once been Curate of St. 
Dunstan's, and then aNonjuror, after having officiated 
for a season at Aberdeen, returned to the National 
Church, on which occasion he deemed it necessary 
to publish a defence of his conduct. Lindsay pub- 
lished a reply to this gentleman, in which he enters 
on the question of the prayers for the reigning Sove- 
reign, contending that they could not be lawfully 
used. 8 

Just after the Rebellion, a volume of Letters was 
published by the Nonjurors, from which we may 
infer, that, though they were diminished in numbers, 
their opposition to the Established Church was be- 
come, if possible, stronger, than at any previous pe- 
riod. The charges of heresy, schism, and immoral 
worship are alleged against the complying Clergy, 
and alleged with considerable acrimony. Whether 
Lindsay were the author, I cannot determine. Per- 
haps several of the party were concerned in the pro- 



An Expostulatory Letter to the Rev. Mr. Patrick Cockburn. 
8vo. London, 1740. 



of tlje ^onfurorg, 397 

duction. The writer says, addressing his friend, " I 
hope, in a clear and concise manner, to convince you 
of the justice of the charge exhibited against you, 
and consequently to prevail on you to separate your- 
self from those followers of Corah, lest partaking of 
their guilt, you become also partaker in their punish- 
ment."* A sketch of the characters of Sancroft and 
Tillotson, as the heads of the two bodies into which 
the Church was divided at the Revolution, is given 
in the Preface. Bancroft's picture is justly and accu- 
rately drawn : but Tillotson's is much distorted. The 
Jirst letter is dated 1741, and contains a charge of 
schism against the complying Clergy. In the second, 
written in 1742, the question raised by Dodwell, 
respecting the healing of the breach on the death of 
Lloyd, is discussed : and the party, to whom it is ad- 
dressed, is referred to Gandy's Dialogue between Ge- 
rontius and Junius, and to Hickes's Constitution of 
the Catholic Church. Prayers for governors, without 
reference to the question of right, are condemned as 
sinful. In a third letter, dated Ash Wednesday 1743-4, 
it is asserted, that no schismatic can enter heaven : 
that, therefore, it behoves all persons to consider their 
position : and that the schism was with those, who 
removed Sancroft and his brethren. " I shall not 
think it necessary," says the writer, " to dispute the 
authority of that Convention, who metamorphosed a 
Dutch P- - into an English K , and placed him in 
the throne of their natural sovereign liege Lord, still 
living and claiming his right to the same ; nor the 
authority of this Convention-made K , who (as one 
good turn deserves another) moulded them into a 



* A Collection of Letters concerning the Separation of the 
Church of England into two Communions. 1746. P. 4. 



398 %'0torg of tfje 

P ." The fourth letter continues the subject, and 
is dated, Feast of St. Michael 1745. 

George Smith, of whom many particulars have 
been given, ended his labours in the year 1756, and 
was buried in the church-yard of St. Oswald, in the 
city of Durham. Besides the edition of Bede, which 
had been left unfinished by his father, he published 
many other works, some of which, especially such as 
bear on the history of the Nonjurors, have been spe- 
cified in this volume. His talents were of a high 
order, as his various productions, and particularly 
his controversy with Waterland, testify." 

A considerable number of works, on the contro- 
versy between the Nonjurors and members of the 
Church of England, was published by Lindsay . w In 
a work on Parochial Communion, the fact of two 
communions, a public and a private, in the Church 
of England, is stated, in Bennet's words, from his 
Nonjurors' Separation : and the question is put, 
" which of these two is the true Church of England?" 
The old arguments are then repeated. 1 Three years 
later, the subject is continued in another work, in 
which a Vicar of a parish is introduced as one of the 
interlocutors. In consequence of certain allusions, 
on the part of the Neighbour, the Vicar brings for- 
ward the question of the prayers for the existing 
Sovereign. At this time the feeling of the body 



11 Nichols, i. 170, 705. 

w They were generally put forth anonymously : but the pieces 
to which I refer are ascribed to him by the Nonjuror, some of 
whose books are in my possession. 

x The Grand and Important Question about the Church and 
Parochial Communion fairly and friendly Debated in a Dialogue 
between a worthy Country Gentleman and his Neighbour newly 
returned from London. London, 8vo. 1756. 






of tfje jponjurorg. 399 

towards the family of Hanover had, in no degree, 
abated. " All other parts of the Liturgy," says the 
Vicar, " remain nevertheless pure and unexception- 
able, as they were before, without any alteration." 
The Neighbour replies, " so they are supposed to 
be, but that is another consideration : " to which 
the Vicar answers, upon that supposition, however, 
many pious and devout people do still think them- 
selves bound to keep to their Church, and frequent 
her prayers : though possibly some of them may 
have been unhappily possessed, as you are, with 
scruples and objections to some of the petitions." 
The Neighbour asks, whether any dissent is expressed 
against the objectionable portions? The Vicar re- 
plies in the negative : and the other speaker con- 
cludes, that " they must be presumed to join in the 
whole office ; and so to render it their Common 
Prayer." He adds, that, as he cannot join in the 
whole service, he abstains from Church altogether. 
Dodwell's example is urged by one party : but by 
the other, his later works are regarded as inconsistent 
with his former; while the principles on which he 
acted, in returning to the Church of England, are 
condemned as unsound/ 

Lindsay was a man of very considerable powers. 
Whatever subject he touched was handled in a mas- 
terly manner. Some of his productions are on sub- 
jects of general interest : and one intitled " The 
Happy Interview " is rather of an amusing descrip- 
tion, the object being to ridicule the alteration of the 

y The Grand and Important Question about the Church and 
Parochial Communion further Debated, in a fair and friendly Con- 
ference between a Country Gentleman and his Neighbour, toge- 
ther with the Reverend Vicar of the Parish also. 8vo. London, 
1759. 



400 l^tetorp of 

Style in 1753. Truth and Common Sense meet in 
St. Paul's on the 2nd of September, the day set apart 
as a fast to call to remembrance the Fire of London 
in 1666. 2 " Tis strange," says Truth, " that Com- 
mon Sense should not reflect upon the notorious ab- 
surdity of addressing our prayers in solemn comme- 
moration of an event, as happening on this day : 
whereas the proper anniversary appointed by autho- 
rity is yet to come eleven days hence, and will then 
be passed over here without any notice." Truth 
further argues, " how absurd it is, to celebrate this 
and the other three anniversaries of the Martyrdom, 
the Restoration, and the Gunpowder Treason (which 
are all four solemnities peculiar to this nation) on the 
nominal days instead of the real ones." Common 
Sense is at last convinced, that the people are de- 
ceived by Almanacks and Calenders* 



* A special service was appointed for the 2nd of September, 
which was for some time, after the fire in 1666, used generally 
in the churches. At the present time, however, it is only read 
in two churches St. Paul's Cathedral and the Church of Alder- 
Mary. In some of the Books of Common Prayer of the reigns 
of Charles II and James II, the Form of Prayer was printed with 
the other annual Services of the same character : but as it is not 
found in all the copies, it is not very generally known in the pre- 
sent day. During the last century, the Form was printed in a 
separate state, on the ground, as it was even then alleged, that 
copies of the Prayer Book containing this particular Service were 
uncommon. 

a The Happy Interview : or Long-looked-for found out at last. 
A plain Narrative ; giving an Account how Common Sense, 
having withdrawn himself, in disgust, from the Public View, was, 
after the indefatigable search and enquiries of his Friend, Plain 
Honesty, found out, in his Retirement, under the Directions of 
Truth. London, 1756. The following passage is curious. u It 
was but a week ago last Tuesday, that I was here, to join with the 
congregation in the service of the Church appointed for the Fes- 



of ttje jonfuroi% 401 

The author was also an able antagonist of Roman- 
ism. Like his brethren, though exposed to the charge 
of Popery, he was a more effective opponent of the 
errors of Rome, than the persons by whom his cha- 
racter was assailed. His Seasonable Antidote was 
published, in consequence of the apostacy of one of 
his congregation to the Church of Rome. The fol- 
lowing extract may be taken as a specimen of the 
manner of his handling the controversy, and also 
as an evidence of the soundness of his own prin- 
ciples. " The decision of the Church (I mean the 
Catholic Church of Christ, properly so called) is 
expressly contrary to that of modern Rome, in all the 
points in controversy with the Church of England : 
as I am able and ready to prove to the conviction 
of all, whose eyes are not blinded with prejudices 
against the truth. Let me ask you, in the name of 
God, can you so firmly believe, as to admit of no 
longer doubt, that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, 



tival of St. Bartholomew, being the 24th of August : and that 
indeed might, according to the variation of the Style, be the pro- 
per day, for aught I know : considering how many ages have 
passed since those Saints' Days were at first instituted. But sure 
I am, this, though it may be now reckoned the second of Septem- 
ber by the New Style, cannot possibly be the proper anniversary 
of the Fire of London : for since that dreadful calamity there 
are still remaining eleven days to complete the ninetieth year : so 
that our solemn addresses to God, for pardon, cannot, with any 
due regard to religion or propriety, be offered up as an annual 
commemoration before the 1 3th. But what makes the absurdity 
still more glaring and ridiculous is, that to-morrow we are to see 
the magistrates of this great city, who have been here this day, 
marching to Smithfield in the like formality, there to proclaim 
the Fair ! Thus it is wisely contrived, by the reformers and cor- 
rectors of our Style, that the 2nd of September comes now as of 
course, the day before the 23rd of August, and the Feast of St. 
Bartholomew ten days before the eve of it." Pp. 8, 9, 10, 11. 

D D 



402 ^igtorp of rije 

there is truly, really, and substantially contained 
whole Christ, God man, body and blood, bones, 
nerves, soul and divinity, under the species and ap- 
pearance (only) of bread and wine ? That the same 
body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in 
heaven? That upon consecration, there is a conver- 
sion of the whole substance of the bread into the sub- 
stance of Christ's body ? Can you believe, and no 
longer doubt, that divine worship is due, or can be 
paid, without danger of idolatry to the consecrated 
Host?" 

The man who penned this passage was quite as 
far from Rome as his accusers : and the remark will 
apply to the Nonjurors general ly. b Lindsay, it ap- 
pears, officiated to the Nonjuring congregation, at 
Trinity Chapel, Aldersgate Street, being probably 
their last minister. For some years he acted as cor- 
rector of the Press to Bowyer, a task for which he 
was eminently qualified. He died at the advanced 
age of 82, and was buried in Islington church- 
yard, in the year 1768. The inscription upon his 
grave existed in 1808 : and probably it exists still. 
In one of the extracts from his letters preserved by 
Nichols, he settles the authorship of some of the 
works, which were written at an early period of the 
separation. " The Case of Allegiance to a King in 
Possession" says he to Zachary Gray, (" as well as 
a Defence of it") were Mr. T. Browne's, formerly 

b A Seasonable Antidote against Apostacy. Containing, I. 
Some plain Propositions, recommended to the serious consideration 
of all those who may be under any Temptation to forsake the 
Church of England, and revolt to that of Rome. II. A Paper, 
pretended to be an Answer to the foregoing Propositions. And, 
III. Remarks, at large, upon the said pretended Answer, by the 
Author of the Propositions. With a Preface shewing the special 
reasons and occasion of making the same public. London 1758. 



of tje i0nfur0r& 403 

of your College, St. John's, B.D. The Answer to 
Obedience and Submission (as well as to Sherlock's 
Vindication on the same subject) were written by 
Mr. Wagstaffe. The Examination of the Arguments 
from Scripture and Reason, by Mr. Theophilus 
Downes. Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance con- 
sidered, by Mr. Jeremiah Collier." In the year 1747 
he writes, " as I gladly embrace all opportunities of 
paying my respects to you, the inclosed letter from 
my brother, (sent by one of his sons lately come to 
London) presents me this occasion to acquaint you, 
that I removed last Christmas, from the Temple, 
and took a lodging in Pear-Tree Street, near St. 
Luke's, Old Street, where I spend my time chiefly 
among books, or in my garden. That I am still a 
dealer in the former you may perceive by these pro- 
posals. You know I published the greater part of 
Mason's works several years ago ; but had not then 
the whole. Now having luckily procured the last 
sermons, which I had been so long in quest of, I 
have printed them in the same paper and letter with 
the rest, which makes the collection complete. There 
are a good many copies of the former still on my 
hands, which I hope may go off now. Those who 
have the rest already may have these sermons by 
themselves. I presume, Sir, upon the favour of your 
interest to promote this method of distributing them." 
On publishing Mason's " Vindication" he resided at 
Islington, the preface being dated from that place : 
but it appears that he moved frequently from place 
to place. 



c Nichols, i. 374, 376. Lindsay was the author of a work in 
defence of Charles I. against the Monthly Reviewers, who had 
assailed the memory of that unfortunate monarch. Charles's 
character was ably and successfully defended by our Author. 



404 I?i0torp of tje 

William Law was contemporary with Lindsay. 
He was born in 1686, at Kingscliffe, in Northamp- 
tonshire. So that when the schism originated, he 
was only an infant. His father was a grocer in that 
village : but whether he had adopted the principles 
of the Nonjurors, I am unable to determine. William 
was sent to Cambridge, where he took the degree of 
B.A.in 1708, and that of M.A. in 1712. Atthistime, 
therefore, he could not have been a Nonjuror : but 
after the accession of George I. when the Abjuration 
Oath was rigorously enforced, he refused to submit, 
and consequently lost his fellowship. Still, as a man 
of peace, he remained in the communion of the 
Church, attending divine service in his own parish. 
His writings are rather voluminous : and some of 
his practical works, especially his Serious Call, and 
his Christian Perfection, are still most extensively 
circulated. He took a prominent part in the Ban- 
gorian Controversy, defending the Church and the 
Priesthood against Hoadley, with much ability and 
force of argument. He died in the year 176 l. d 

Lindsay and Law were among the last generation 
of the Nonjurors : and Carte may be reckoned in 
the same class. During his life the labours of Carte 
were not duly appreciated, though they are now 
ranked among the most valuable of our historical 
writings. The author graduated at Oxford, taking 
his B.A. in 1702, and M.A. at Cambridge in 1706. 
On these occasions he must have taken the Oath of 
Allegiance : but on the accession of George I. he 
refused to take the Oath of Abjuration. At this time 
Collier was accustomed to preach to a Nonjuring 
congregation in an upper room of a house in Broad 

d Gents. Mag-, vol. Ixx, pp. 720, 103840. 



of rtje jl20njuror, 405 

Street : and Carte appears on some occasions to have 
assisted him in his labours. On the Sunday he also 
performed divine service in his own family. In 1715, 
he was obliged to conceal himself, from an active 
search of the king's troops, in the house of Mr. 
Badger, the Curate of Coleshill. In the year 1722, 
a charge of Treason was alleged against him, a re- 
ward of 1000 being offered for his apprehension. 
To avoid a prosecution he escaped to France, where 
he resided under the assumed name of Philips, spend- 
ing his time in laborious study, various public and 
private libraries being opened to his researches. His 
great works, The Life of the Duke of Ormond, and 
the History of England, are now much better known 
and much more valued than they were at the time 
of, and many years subsequent to, their publication. 
Queen Caroline obtained permission for him to return 
to England, sometime between the year 1728 and 
1730. Falling under suspicion in 1744, he was 
taken into custody : but his liberation was soon ac- 
complished. The Duke of Newcastle asked him, 
during the examination to which he was subjected, 
whether he were not a Bishop? " No, My Lord," he 
replied, " there are no Bishops in England but what 
are made by your Grace ; and I am sure I have no 
reason to expect that honour." The first volume of 
his History of England was finished in 1747: and 
its credit was very materially damaged by a note re- 
specting The King's Evil. An account is given of 
an individual, who went over to the Pretender in 
1716, to be touched for the disease, according to the 
custom in such cases, and who, as was alleged, was 
cured of the malady under which he laboured. The 
author was sharply attacked on account of this note. 
In his reply he states, that having occasion to speak 



406 %'0torp 

of the royal unction, he was led to notice the extraor- 
dinary effects ascribed to it by certain writers : and 
that the obnoxious note was inserted in order to shew, 
that the supposed sanative virtue in the royal touch, 
was erroneously ascribed to the anointing. In con- 
sequence of this note, the History did not then meet 
with that approval which it so well merited. The 
Author died in the year 1754, at Caldecot House, 
near Abingdon, Berks. 6 

Among the last race of the Nonjurors there were 
many quiet and peaceable men, whose names are now 
forgotten. Of this character was the Rev. William 
Andrews, a native of Croscombe, in the county of 
Somerset. He was one of those conscientious men, 
who, though he had taken the Oath of Allegiance, 
could not take the Oath of Abjuration. When, there- 
fore, the latter Oath was imposed, after the accession 
of the House of Hanover, being then in Deacon's 
orders, he on principle declined to proceed to the 
order of Priesthood, as well as to the degree of M.A. 
and subsequently, when preferment was offered him, 
he refused to accept it on the same ground. In the 
year 1744, having devoted himself, like so many of 
the Nonjurors, to the pursuit of literature, he pub- 
lished in two volumes a translation of PascalFs 
Provincial Letters; but so great was his modesty, 
that his initials only, W. A. are appended to the 
Preface. He resided, during many years, at Wed- 
more, in the county of Somerset, where he fitted up 
a study over the Church Porch, in which his books 

e Nichols, ii. 471 506. It is to be regretted, that the govern- 
ment deemed it necessary to press the Abjuration Oath, since in 
all probability Law and Carte and others would not have been 
Nonjurors, but for that measure : while many who had stood out 
would probably have complied. 



of tljc .iponjui'ocg. 407 

were deposited. He died in the year 1759 at Bath, 
and was buried in the Abbey Church in that city/ 

James II. lost his crown from his attachment to 
Rome : and it is said, that his grandson in 1745 was 
ready to renounce Romanism, in order to regain what 
had been lost by his grandfather. Lord Kilmarnock 
denied that the object contemplated by the restora- 
tion of the exiled family was the restoration of Popery. 
He added that Charles Edward had no concern about 
any outward profession of religion. 

King believed, that he would have conformed to the 
Church of England, on the ground of indifference to 
either Creed. " As to his religion, he is certainly free 
from all bigotry and superstition, and would readily 
conform to the religion of the country. With the 
Catholics, he is a Catholic : with the Protestants, he 
is a Protestant : and to convince the latter of his sin- 
cerity, he often carried an English Common Prayer 
Book in his pocket, and sent to Gordon, a Nonjuring 



f A Tablet, containing an inscription, still remains on the Wall 
of the room over the Porch of Wedmore Church. It was erected, 
on his leaving that village for the last time, previous to his taking 
up his residence in Bath. The copy of the Inscription has been 
sent to me by one of his collateral descendants, and is as follows : 

In Memoriam 
Johannis et Gulielmi 

Andrews, 

Quorum Prior, 

Obiit et sepultus est Bristol : 

MDCC,XLVIII. 
Alter adhuc est superstes, 

Minime Pendens, 

Ubicunque moriturus, 

Ubicunque sepeliendus. 

Soli Deo 

Gloria ! 



408 3i0tocp of rlje 

clergyman, to christen the first child he had by Mrs. 
WV' g This is remarkable, inasmuch as he would not 
have been in exile, if King James had adhered to the 
Anglican Church. The Nonjurors also, from the 
commencement of the Revolution, were convinced, 
that Popery was the cause of the King's troubles. 
Accordingly we find them using means to procure at 
least a promise of support for the Church of England, 
in the event of his Restoration : and King James 
assures us, that it was proposed to four Roman Ca- 
tholic English divines, in 1693, whether he might 
lawfully promise to support the Church of England. 
They replied that he could not promise to defend a 
religion, which he deemed to be erroneous ; but that 
he might promise to protect the members of the Church 
of England, as by law established, in the free and full 
exercise of their religion. 11 Mr. Hallam admits, that 
Popery alone kept the Pretender from the throne. 
" It is almost certain, that, if either the claimant or 
his son had embraced the Protestant religion, and had 
also manifested any superior strength of mind, the 
German prejudices of the reigning family would have 
cost them the throne, as they did the people's affec- 
tions." 1 

The First Pretender, the son of James II. who was 
born in 1688, died in 1765, after which Charles Ed- 
ward, the Second Pretender, assumed the style and 
title of King of England. Charles Edward was born 
in 1720, so that he was twenty-five years of age 
when he entered Scotland in 1745. It is said that 



g King's Political and Literary Anecdotes of his own Time, pp. 
191, 192, 193. 

11 Life of James II. from the Stuart MSS. ii, 508, 9. 
1 Hallam, iii. 342. 



of tfje ^cmjucorg* 409 

he visited England on two subsequent occasions. 
Thus David Hume asserts, in a letter written in 1773, 
that he was certainly in London in 1753. Hume had 
the information from Lord Marechal, who had re- 
ceived the particulars from the lady, at whose house 
the Pretender took up his abode. According to this 
account, he arrived when the lady had a large party. 
He walked once through St. James's Park, and also 
in the Mall. Hume told the story to Lord Holder- 
ness, many years after, who was Secretary of State at 
the time, and who acknowledged that such was the 
case, and that he had first obtained his information 
from the King himself. It is further stated, on the 
authority of Lord Marechal, that he was actually pre- 
sent at the coronation of George III. Hume adds, 
that some of the Jacobites assured him, that Charles 
Edward formally renounced Romanism in 1753, at 
the JNew Church in the Strand, and that on this ac- 
count he was ill treated by the Court of Rome. k 

A writer in the Gentleman's Magazine corrected 
some portions of Hume's statement. He says, that 
the Pretender renounced Popery, at the Chapel in 
Gray's Inn Lane, and not at the Chapel in the Strand ; 
and that he was accustomed to read the Service of 
the Church of England to his household, when no 
Clergyman was present. 1 

Various opinions have been expressed respecting 
Charles Edward's religious views. By some persons 
he has been represented as a bigot to the Church of 
Rome : by others, as a Protestant : but probably 
King's statement, that he was indifferent to all creeds, 



k Gents. Mag. vol. Iviii. pp. 393, 359, 642. Chamber's Re- 
bellion, i. 284. 
1 Ibid. 509. 



410 Ijtgtorp of tlje 

is nearest the truth. It is said that, on one occasion, 
while witnessing a procession at Rome, he exclaimed 
to a Roman Catholic Peer, " Oh that our family 
should deprive themselves of three kingdoms for such 
nonsense."" 1 He died at Rome in 1788, and was 
buried, with great pomp and splendour, in the Church 
of Frescati, of which his brother Henry, the Cardinal 
of York, was Bishop." 

At the period of Charles Edward's death, few 
Nonjurors survived. For several years, notwith- 
standing the efforts of some active individuals, they 
had been gradually diminishing in numbers. Gordon, 
the last Bishop of the regular body, died in 1779 : 
so that the Nonjurors became extinct, as a regularly 
constituted Church, with its Bishops, Priests and 
Deacons, at that time : but the Separatists continued 
some years longer, and individual Clergymen of the 
other body survived, until a comparatively recent 
period. Of Gordon an unfavourable, and probably 
not a true picture, is drawn by King. " It never 
entered my thoughts/' says he, " that a Nonjuring 
Clergyman, who values himself much upon the sanc- 
tity of his manners, and with whom I had once lived 
in some degree of friendship, should conspire with 
two or three villanous attorneys to traduce me by a 
public advertisement. I don't know whether he 
would be a martyr, but no man is a greater enthu- 
siast in religion than he is in the Jacobite cause. 
Hereditary right and passive obedience are the chief 
articles of his creed. And this is the doctrine which 



m Gents. Mag. vol. lix. 5. 

n Ibid. vol. Iviii. 179, 180. Some curious particulars are 
recorded in this volume respecting the Pretender's family, and 
also respecting his funeral. 



Itjfgtorp of ttje jponjuror^. 41 1 

he teaches in his little congregation, over which he 
presides as a pastor : where, while he boasts of the 
purity of his religion, and a steady adherence to his 
political system, he departs from every principle of 
humanity, and devotes his country to ruin." It is 
added in a note, " There is indeed a latent cause of 
this man's enmity to me, besides the reason which 
he hath given the public for his resentment. I have 
lately been unfortunately engaged in a lawsuit with 
one James Bettenham, a printer, a sanctified member 
of Gordon's congregation, but one of the greatest 
knaves I have ever known. This man, who had great 
obligations to me, and taken a great deal of my 
money, endeavoured, in settling a final account, to 
cheat me of 100. In this attempt he was assisted 
and justified by his father confessor." There is, 
however, no reason for supposing that King's impres- 
sions were correct, respecting either Gordon or Bet- 
tenham. Differences had arisen, and he gives vent 
to his anger in this severe attack. 

The Nonjurors of the Separation, which commenced 
in 1733 or 1734, continued their succession of Bishops 
several years after Gordon's death. The breach, 
which had been occasioned by the Usages, was, as 
has been shewn, closed in 1733, with the exception 
of Bishop Blackburn and a few of his Presbyters, 
who made no attempt to continue the succession apart 
from the general body. But no sooner had they 
become a united party, by the healing of this breach, 
than another separation occurred, on totally different 
grounds. The Separatists proceeded to consecrate 
Bishops of their own, apart from the regular body. 
But as the schism was headed only by one Bishop, 

King's Anecdotes, 201. 



412 li'0torp of tlje 

he actually consecrated others, by his own authority, 
contrary to the canons of the Church : consequently 
these consecrations were not recognized by the legi- 
timate Nonjurors ; nor could they have been allowed 
by the deprived Bishops, supposing the schism to 
have occurred at an earlier period. The particulars 
of this separation were given in a previous chapter. 
In the year 1780, Price and Cartwright were conse- 
crated by Deacon alone, Garnet was consecrated by 
Cartwright in 1795, and Boothe at a later period by 
Garnet. Boothe's was the last consecration. As 
they refused to take the Oaths, they were Nonjurors ; 
but in many important particulars, as will be shewn 
in the concluding chapter, they were as much at issue 
with the regular body as with the National Church. 

Cartwright resided at Shrewsbury, practising as a 
surgeon, and died in the year 1799. Before his 
death, he had become, says Mr. Hallam, " A very 
loyal subject to King George : a singular proof of 
that tenacity of life by which religious sects, after 
dwindling down through neglect, excel frogs and tor- 
toises : and that even when they have become almost 
equally cold-blooded." On his deathbed, he declared 
his conformity to the National Church, in the pre- 
sence of the Curate of the Parish. Mr. Hallam adds, 
" I have heard of similar congregations in the West 
of England still later. " p I have been informed by 
a gentleman residing in the West of England, that a 
Nonjuring Clergyman was living so late as the year 
1815. Boothe, the last of the irregular Nonjuring 
Bishops, died in Ireland in the year 1805. 

Before the death of Gordon and Cartwright, the 
last Bishops of their respective lines in England, the 

P Hallam, iii. 341. 



413 

Nonjurors were divided in practice as well as in 
opinion. Some objected altogether to the worship 
of the National Church, on the ground of what were 
termed immoral prayers : others, like William Law, 
though they could not take the Oaths, were content 
to communicate with the Church of England as pri- 
vate individuals. There were others, who, though 
they attended their parish Churches, probably because 
they were not sufficiently numerous to form a sepa- 
rate congregation with a Clergyman of their own, 
took with them a prayer-book printed before the 
Revolution, in order that they might not join in the 
prayer for the reigning Sovereign. This probably 
was not an uncommon practice. A gentleman in the 
West of England, a district in which many Nonjurors 
resided, and in which they lingered longer than in 
any other part of the country, informs me that this 
practice was adopted by several of his ancestors. 




CHAPTER X. 

A. D. 16881792. 

SCOTTISH BISHOPS IN 1688. BISHOP ROSE AND KING WILLIAM. 
CAUSES OF THE ABOLITION OF EPISCOPACY. THE CONVEN- 
TION. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. SUFFERINGS OF THE CLERGY 
FROM THE RABBLE : FROM THE PRESBYTERIANS. THE ASSUR- 
ANCE. STATE OF THE EPISCOPAL CLERGY WHO COMPLIED. 
CONDUCT OF THE PRESBYTERIANS. QUEEN ANNE'S ACCESSION. 
CONDITION OF THE CLERGY BETTERED. ATTEMPT AT A TO- 
LERATION. GRAME'S CASE. UNION. GREENSHIELD'S CASE. 
HOSTILITY TO THE LITURGY. A TOLERATION. INTRO- 
DUCTION OF LITURGY. REBELLION IN 1715. SEVERE LAWS 
AGAINST THE CLERGY. THE APPEAL OF THE CLERGY. DIVI- 
SIONS ON THEUSAGES rDlSCUSSIONS. RELAXATION OFPfiNAL 

LAWS. REBELLION OF 1745. SEVERE MEASURES. GEORGE 
III. COMMUNION OFFICE. CONDITION OF CLERGY IM- 
PROVED. CONSECRATION OF BISHOP SEABURY. BISHOPS 
AND CLERGY COMPLY IN 1788 ON THE DEATH OF CHARLES 
EDWARD. PENAL LAWS REPEALED. OPPOSITION TO COM- 
MUNION OFFICE FROM ENGLISH CLERGYMEN. ITS UNREASON- 
ABLE CHARACTER. 

| AVING followed the history of the Eng- 
lish Nonjurors, from the year 1688, to 
the time of their extinction as an orga- 
nized body, it is necessary, in order to 
complete the subject, to submit a sketch of the pro- 
ceedings in Scotland, with respect to the Episco- 
palians, during the period comprehended in the pre- 
ceding chapters. While some only, in England, 
who adhered to Episcopacy, refused the Oath of 
Allegiance, in Scotland the greater number of the 




of tlje ^onjucor^, 415 

Episcopalians became Nonjurors. Nor were their 
sufferings, under the domination of Presbytery, less 
than those of their brethren in England. They would 
have been satisfied, like their brethren in this country, 
with the establishment of a Regency, in the person of 
the Prince of Orange : but they could not consent to 
set aside King James, and swear allegiance to a new 
Sovereign. 

The Scottish Bishops were informed of the Prince's 
intended invasion in October, 1688 : and, in conse- 
quence, they prepared an address to King James. 
As soon as they heard that the Prince had actually 
arrived in England, they deputed two of their body 
to proceed to London, with a renewed tender of their 
duty to King James, and also for the purpose of con- 
sulting the English Bishops. For this mission the 
Bishops of Edinburgh and Orkney, Dr. Rose and Dr. 
Bruce, were selected by their brethren : but the latter 
Prelate falling ill, the former proceeded to London 
alone. 

An interesting detail of his proceedings was given 
by Bishop Rose in a letter to Campbell, in the year 
1713. Campbell, who had associated himself with 
Hickes, was anxious to obtain an account of the pro- 
ceedings in 1688, and as Bishop Rose was then living, 
he applied to that Prelate by letter. 

At the time of Rose's arrival in London, the per- 
secution of the Clergy by the rabble had commenced. 
The Bishop, therefore, requested the Bishop of Lon- 
don to beseech the Prince of Orange to interpose ; 
but nothing was attempted : and when an application 
was made to Burnet, he replied, that he did not 
meddle with Scotch affairs. How Burnet, who 
meddled with all matters that suited his purpose, 
could make such an assertion, it is not easy to con- 



416 ^ijUtorp of tf)e 

ceive. The Bishop was requested by Compton and 
the Viscount Tarbat to address the Prince on the 
subject: but it was admitted, that it would be neces- 
sary to compliment him on his coming to deliver the 
country from Popery and slavery. This he could 
not do, as he had received no such instructions. The 
Bishop continued in London until the vote of Abdi- 
cation had passed, when he began to think of returning 
to Scotland. The Bishop of London, even at that 
time, before William was seated on the throne, desig- 
nated him as the King, and was anxious to induce 
Rose to wait upon him, on behalf of the suffering 
Episcopal Clergy in Scotland : but he replied, that, 
as the Prince had been already addressed by several 
of the nobility, as well as by the sufferers themselves, 
it would be useless for him to make the attempt. He ? 
however, consented to go to the Prince, if the Bishop 
of London considered it desirable. Accordingly the 
Bishop of Edinburgh and Sir George Makenzie at- 
tended, at Whitehall, where they were met by Comp- 
ton. The Prince declined to see more than two at 
one time, lest the Presbyterians should be offended. 
From the Bishop of London's remark, we may infer 
the state of feeling at the time. " My Lord, you 
see that the King, having thrown himself upon the 
water, must keep himself a swimming with one hand. 
The Presbyterians have joined him closely, and offer 
to support him, and therefore he cannot cast them off, 
unless he could see how otherwise he could be served. 
And now the King bids me tell you that he now 
knows the state of Scotland much better than he did 
when he was in Holland : for while there he was made 
believe that Scotland generally, all over, was Presby- 
terian, but now he sees that the great body of the 
nobility and gentry are for Episcopacy, and it is the 



of tlje ^onjuror^ 417 

trading and inferior sort are for Presbytery ; where- 
fore he bids me tell you, that if you will undertake to 
serve him to the purpose, that he is served here in 
England, he will take you by the hand, support the 
Church and order, and throw off the Presbyterians." 
The Bishop expressed his thanks for the offer ; 
but he added, that such a Revolution was not ex- 
pected, and that consequently, having no instructions, 
he could only give his private opinion, which was, 
that the Bishops of Scotland would not consent to 
make the Prince their Sovereign. Compton replied, 
that the King must be excused "for standing by the 
Presbyterians" The Bishop did not speak to the 
Prince that day : but on the following morning he 
was admitted into his presence. " He came," says 
the Bishop, " three or four steps forward from his 
company, and prevented me by saying, my Lord, are 
you going for Scotland ? My reply was, yes, Sir, if 
you have any commands for me : then he said, I hope 
you will be kind to me and follow the example of 
England : wherefore, being somewhat difficulted how 
to make a mannerly and discreet answer, without en- 
tangling myself, I readily replied, Sir, I will serve 
you so far as law, reason, or conscience will allow 
me. How this answer pleased I cannot well tell, 
but it seems the limitations and conditions of it were 
not acceptable, for instantly the Prince, without saying 
any more, turned away from me and went back to 
his company." The Bishop believes that the Prince 
would have cast off the Presbyterians, since they had 
committed themselves too far to return to King James. 
Duke Hamilton " told us, a day or two before the 
sitting down of the Convention, that he had it in 
special charge from King William that nothing should 
be done to the prejudice of Episcopacy in Scotland, 

E E 



418 Ijigtorp of ttje 

in case the Bishops could by any means be brought 
to befriend his interest, and prayed us most patheti- 
cally for our own sake to follow the example of the 
Church of England." 3 

There can be no doubt that William would have 
patronized Episcopacy in Scotland, as well as in 
England, if he could have succeeded with the Bishops. 
It is clear, therefore, that the Bishops and Clergy of 
Scotland acted conscientiously, like their brethren in 
England. They had everything to gain by com- 
pliance with William : and nothing whatever to lose; 
but they had courage to hold to their principles, re- 
gardless of consequences. 13 We cannot indeed sup- 
pose that William had any preference for Episcopacy. 
He only considered his own interests in the matter : 
and knowing, that the Presbyterians were committed, 
he would have been ready to have made a compromise 
in favour of the Episcopal Church. 

The Presbyterians began to act with the Prince, as 
soon as he came to London : and in consequence of 



a This letter was, I believe, first printed in 1746 in " A Col- 
lection of Letters concerning the Separation of the Church of 
England into two Communions." It was also printed by Bishop 
Keith in 1755. Keith's Historical Catalogue of the Scottish 
Bishops, by Russell, p. 65 72. 

b Keith's Historical Catalogue. App. 494, 5. This is admitted 
by Laing, who quotes Keith and Burnet as his authorities. His 
words are remarkable: " William, indifferent to forms of worship 
if toleration were established, would have concurred in preserving 
Episcopacy, if the Episcopal party had contributed to his support." 
vol. iv. 214. Tindal also makes the same admission. " The 
Prince answered, he would do all he could to preserve them, grant- 
ing a full toleration to the Presbyterians. But this was, in case 
they concurred in the new settlement of the Kingdom." He adds, 
that the Bishops and others " declaring in a body with so much 
zeal, in opposition to the new settlement, it was not possible for 
King William to preserve Episcopacy there." Vol. i. 72, 73. 



of tlje ^onjticor, 419 

the refusal of the Bishops to give him their support, 
Presbytery was received into favour. From Bishop 
Rose's Letter, it will be seen, that the persecutions 
commenced as soon as, if not before, William landed. 
The rabble began an attack upon the Clergy, which 
they were permitted to continue without interruption 
by any of the authorities. " On Christmas Day," 
says an able writer, by no means favourable to Epis- 
copacy, " the Episcopal Clergy were dragged from 
their pulpits or altars ; they were conducted through 
their parishes in mock procession ; stript of their 
gowns, and expelled by force, or were permitted 
peaceably to depart, on a solemn assurance never to 
return. Two hundred Clergymen of the Episcopal 
persuasion were thus ejected; and as the same 
violence prevailed for some weeks through the rest of 
Scotland, the Revolution was almost equally complete 
in the Church and in the state." This is the ad- 
mission of a writer, who even applauds the Camero- 
nians for abstaining " from a massacre of the esta- 
blished Clergy." Such admissions, therefore, may 
be regarded as confirmatory of the statements of the 
friends of the Clergy. These however were only the 
beginning of sorrows. After the abolition of the 
Church of Scotland, as an established Church, the 
Clergy were doomed to suffer from two quarters, from 
the rabble, and from the Presbyterians. 

As William supported Presbytery in Scotland, 
because the Episcopalians refused to recognize him 
as their Sovereign, the Presbyterians have no room 



c Laing's History of Scotland, iv. 194. It seems, that a rumour 
was designedly circulated that some Irish Papists had landed, as 
a signal to the rabble to attack the Clergy, who were treated with 
the greatest violence. Somers Tracts, xv. 133 136. 



420 ^i0tOC Of t&e 

for boasting that their system was adopted in prefe- 
rence to Episcopacy. It certainly was not chosen on 
account of its purity, as they choose to imagine or to 
assert, but because King William found them more 
ready to render him their support, than the Bishops 
and Clergy. Whether the refusal of the latter was 
a blot upon their memory, posterity will decide. At 
all events, they were honest in their course, for it led 
to the loss of all their worldly goods. The Bishop 
of Edinburgh's reply was frank and open. He had 
not expected any such Revolution, and he had the 
courage to say so. Perceiving that the Bishops and 
Clergy would not support him, the King threw him- 
self into the arms of the Presbyterians. 

Not a few Presbyterian writers pretend, that the 
bulk of the nation were Presbyterians. This asser- 
tion, however, is contrary to the fact. Candid persons 
even on the Presbyterian side of the question admit, 
that Scotland was almost equally divided between 
the friends of Prelacy and Presbytery ; the lower 
and middle classes adhering to the latter, the nobles 
and gentry to the former/ 1 Carstairs used his in- 
fluence with the King, alleging two special reasons 
in favour of Presbytery First, that the Presbyte- 
rians were generally Whigs : Secondly, that the set- 
tlement of Presbytery in Scotland would shew the 
Dissenters in England what they might expect, when 
the King should be able. e Carstairs introduced the 



d Dalrymple's Memoirs, i. 418. It was truly remarked by the 
author of the Life of Kettle well : " Episcopacy was abolished, and 
Presbytery established upon the inclinations of the people, though 
not a third part at that time were Presbyterian, and some say not 
a fourth." Life, 124. 

Dalrymple, i, 551. 



of tlje /ponjurorg* 421 

Presbyterian ministers to the Prince in London, 
assuring him that they were devoted to his service. 
They had gone to London at the suggestion of that 
gentleman, who cunningly arranged most of the 
Scottish affairs of this period. But though anxious 
for Presbytery himself, he admits, that the King 
would have given his sanction to Episcopacy : and 
that he consented to abolish it with difficulty/ 

It is unnecessary to detail in this work the proceed- 
ings of the Scottish Convention, which issued in a 
tender of the crown to William and Mary, since my 
object is to give an account of the sufferers for con- 
science sake, who were deprived, as in England, of 
their preferments, for not taking the Oath to the new 
Sovereigns. It will, therefore, be sufficient to state, 
that the Presbyterian Church government was set up 
by Act of Parliament in 1690 : and the ancient plat- 
form was cast down. Justice, however, must be done 
to William's character. He was anxious to tolerate 
such Episcopal Clergymen as were prepared to re- 
tain their stations, under the new order of things, 
provided they did not disturb his government : and in 
this respect, his conduct presents a bright contrast 
to that of the Presbyterians, who acted with all 
their former intolerance. Even Carstairs appears to 
have been afraid of the very men whom he had 
assisted to bring into power in the Church. 8 

When the Convention met, the Bishops as usual 



f Carstairs's Life, &c. pp. 36 44. Birch admits, that " the 
true reason of the destruction of Episcopacy there, after the Revo- 
lution, is to be attributed to the conduct of the Bishops themselves, 
both previous and subsequent to it." He adds, that it was not 
possible for King William to preserve Episcopacy. Birch's Life 
of Tillotson, 308, 309. 

Carstairs, 4450. Hallam, iii. 442, 443. 



422 %'0torp of tlje 

took their seats. The proceedings were opened with 
Prayer by one of the Prelates ; and, as the Book of 
Common Prayer was not used in Scotland, the offi- 
ciating Bishop was left to his own discretion. 11 The 
house, therefore, made a particular order, that " the 
Bishops in their Prayers should not mention or in- 
sinuate anything against their acts or proceedings." 
On the day on which the throne was declared vacant, 
" when all the business of the day was over, one of 
the Bishops offered to say Prayers according to cus- 
tom. Upon which it was moved, that King James, 
being then no longer King of Scotland, that the 
Bishop should be admonished to pray for him at his 
peril. Which the Bishop observing, to avoid the 
incurring a penalty, very discreetly said only the 
Lord's Prayer : and so the house adjourned.'" 



h Tindal says the Bishop of Edinburgh, and that " he prayed 
for the safety and restoration of King James." vol. i. 64. 

1 History of the Late Revolution in Scotland, London, 1690. 
pp. 92 100. There was much management required to mould 
the Convention into a proper state. It is remarkable, that in 
1687, when King James published his Declaration of Indulgence, 
very few of the gentry took advantage of it to forsake their 
parish Churches. For several years, in the North of Scotland, 
after the Revolution, the people refused to admit the Presbyterian 
Ministers, and set the General Assembly at defiance. Yet the 
Convention voted that Episcopacy was contrary to the inclinations 
of the people. The truth is, the Episcopalians refused to sit in 
the Convention, or, after attending once, declined to attend fur- 
ther : while some were driven away by the mob, which was with 
the Presbyterians. When the vote, therefore, was carried, not 
more than a third of the members were present : consequently, 
the Presbyterians were able to carry any vote they pleased. Even 
Tindal, partial as he generally is, gives an honest account of this 
matter. " But the Bishops, and those who adhered to them 
having left the Convention, the Presbyterians had a majority of 
voices to carry every thing as they pleased, how unreasonable 
soever, and upon this the abolishing of Episcopacy was made a 
necessary article of the New Settlement." vol. i. 72. 



tfcfatorj; of tfje jponjucoctf. 423 

All the Clergy, who refused to take the Oath of 
Allegiance to the new Sovereigns, were removed from 
their Parishes ; and " from their refusal, they soon 
acquired the appellation of Nonjurors." 1 Mr. Laing 
even makes Presbytery the condition, on which Wil- 
liam was admitted to the throne, thereby insinuating, 
that the people of Scotland would not have received 
him on any other terms. Yet, had the Bishops yielded 
to the King's wishes, the government would have been 
settled on such conditions as would have prevented 
Presbytery from being established. " As Presbytery 
was the condition on which he was admitted to the 
throne, an Act was passed to abolish prelacy and 
pre-eminence in Ecclesiastical Office ." l Undoubtedly 
William was placed in circumstances of difficulty. 
By favouring the Episcopal Clergy, he immediately 
gave offence to the Presbyterians. The mistake, 
however, in Scotland, as well as in England, was the 
imposition of the Oath upon the Clergy, who were 
in possession of benefices. It would have been suffi- 
cient for the safety of the government to have enjoined 
the Oath in all new appointments ; but this wise and 
moderate course did not suit the views of either the 
Scottish, or the English advisers of King William : 
and hence the sad and lamentable schisms and divi- 
sions in both countries. 

Such Episcopal Clergymen as took the Oath of 
Allegiance, and acknowledged Presbytery as the only 
legal establishment, were allowed by the State to re- 
tain their churches, and also to be admitted, with the 
Presbyterian Clergy, to a share in the Ecclesiastical 
government. To assent to Presbytery, as established 

l! Laing's History, iv. 211. l Ibid. iv. 214. 

111 Ibid. iv. 233. 



424 %'0torp of ttjc 

by law, did not involve any opinion respecting its 
Scriptural or primitive character, which no Episco- 
palian could possibly admit. Besides, as no form of 
Prayer was imposed by the Presbyterians, the Clergy 
could proceed in the management of public worship, 
nearly in the same manner as previous to the Revo- 
lution. Accordingly a considerable number of the 
Episcopal Clergy complied, and continued in their 
respective Parishes. 

But though King William was anxious to compre- 
hend, within the establishment, as many of the Clergy 
as possible, the Presbyterians were by no means 
pleased with their compliance : consequently all kinds 
of expedients were adopted, in order to get rid of such 
Clergymen as were known to favour Episcopacy. 
Nor was the King much in favour with the more rigid 
of the Presbyterian party, in consequence of his 
notions of a comprehension, and a toleration. The 
means resorted to for the purpose of removing the 
Clergy may now be specified. 

It has been mentioned already, that the rabble 
commenced the work of persecution, as soon as the 
news of the arrival of the Prince of Orange reached 
Scotland. Some notices of the harsh treatment, which 
the Clergy received, may be submitted to the reader 
as evidences of the persecuting character of Presby- 
tery : and it will be seen, that hostility to Episcopacy 
was so wrought into the very nature of the Presby- 
terians, that they could not tolerate a man, who con- 
sidered Bishops as the only lawful governors of the 
Church of Christ. 

In a contemporary publication the sufferers are di- 
vided into four classes, as follows : 

" First those persecuted by the mobility before the 
L3th day of April 1689, and not noticed by the estates, 



oi r tljc ^onjucorg. 425 

but totally neglected, as deserts, and left without the 
Protection of the Government. 2. Those who com- 
plied, and were persecuted by the rabble : or those, 
who after they complied, were deprived by the coun- 
cil, because they did it not on the individual day 
appointed, when the proclamation came not to their 
hands against the time required, nor could they have 
the opportunity of observing it sooner, than when 
they obeyed it. 3. Those who were deprived by the 
council for non-compliance, there being not so much 
as twenty-four hours given some of them to advise in 
so weighty an affair. 4. Those who are now deposed 
by the Holy Inquisition of the Presbyterian As- 
sembly." 

More than three hundred Clergymen were thrust 
out of their houses and their parishes by the rabble, 
and then deprived of their possessions for no crime 
whatever, but solely on account of their views of 
Church government, and because they were obnoxious 



11 A Late Letter concerning the Sufferings of the Episcopal 
Clergy in Scotland. 4to. London 1691, p. 20. Tindal's admissions 
are fully confirmatory of this account. He admits that Lord Mel- 
vill deemed it his interest to secure the Presbyterians, " which he 
found no method so effectual to do as by abandoning- the ministers 
of the Episcopal persuasion to their fury." To accomplish his 
object Melvill set up the Earl of Crawford to act as the head of his 
party, who " received and encouraged all the complaints that were 
made against the Episcopal ministers." The Convention had or- 
dered a proclamation to be read in the churches, which did not 
reach the Clergy till the Sunday morning, and in some cases not 
till the next day: yet, lt complaints were brought to the Council 
of all those, who had not read nor obeyed the proclamation ; and 
they were in a summary way deprived. Those who did not read 
the proclamation on the day appointed had no favour, though they 
did it afterwards : and upon any word that fell from them, either 
in their extemporary prayers or sermons, that shewed disaffection 
to the Government, they were also deprived." Vol. i. 105. 



426 ^tgtorp of tfje 

to the Presbyterians, to whom the mob was subject. 
The Presbyterians did not interpose to check the 
rabble, or to restrain their excesses : and Gilbert Rule, 
the great defender of the Kirk in that day, actually 
admits the charge. " If few did it," says this author, 
that is, preach against such unchristian conduct, " it 
was because they, who were the actors in that scene, 
little regarded the preaching of the sober Presby- 
terians." Sage sarcastically remarks : " it might,be 
of use to inquire what kind of scene he took it to be ? 
Whether tragical or comical ? or both ? Tragical to 
the Prelatists, and comical to the Presbyterians ? It 
was worth inquiring likewise, whom he meant by 
sober Presbyterian preachers ? If there are any such 
in the nation? How many?" Rule had said, that the 
ministers had publicly spoken against the practices of 
the rabble, " both before they were acted for prevent- 
ing them, and after, for reproving them and prevent- 
ing the like;" from which Sage infers, that the rab- 
bling of the Clergy was not by accident, but a devised 
scheme ; that the Presbyterians were aware of the 
plan, though they did not concur with the mob. He 
assures us also, that some, to his own knowledge, ad- 
mitted, that " it was the surest way to have the curates 
once dispossessed. 1 



"o 



The Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, as it hath been lately 
established in the Kingdom of Scotland, Examined and Disproved, 
by the History, Records, and Public Transactions of our Nation. 
Together with a Preface : wherein the Vindicator of the Kirk is 
freely put in mind of his habitual infirmities. 8vo. London, 1695. 
Preface. Two works by this Author cannot be too highly praised. 
The Principles of the Cyprianic Age, with regard to Episcopal 
Power and Jurisdiction : asserted and recommended from the ge- 
nuine Writings of St. Cyprian himself, and his Contemporaries. 
By which it is made evident that the Vindicator of the Kirk of 
Scotland is obliged, by his own concessions, to acknowledge that 



j> of tlje ,00nfttt:ot#, 427 

The very attempts of the Defenders of the Pres- 
byterians prove the truth of the Charges : and the 
anxiety of some of their writers to palliate or explain 
away the conduct of the rabble, with the tacit ad- 
missions of others, may be regarded as evidence of the 
substantial accuracy of the statements of the suffer- 
ings of the Episcopal Clergy. " A great part of the 
ministers of the nation, legally and ecclesiastically 
settled in their churches, were, without being accused, 
convicted or judged for any fault, turned out with their 
wives and infants in the winter season, from their 
houses, offices, and livings, in a most unworthy and 
reproachful manner by insolent rabbles, against 
which the Presbyterian ministers did never remon- 
strate, nor has there been to this day any kind of 
redress of a barbarity so unbecoming a Christian 
nation." p 

But in addition to this treatment from the mob, 
they were subjected to oppressions from the Presby- 
terians, who were anxious to remove all the Episcopal 
Clergy. In the first General Assembly after the Re- 
volution, it was attempted to exclude all persons from 
being present, except the friends of Presbytery. " If 
any of the Episcopal party were discovered, there 
was a cry presently, Conformists are here : and the 
officers were sent to thrust them out." q Some few 

he and his associates are Schismaticks. In a Letter to a Friend. 
By J. S. 4to. London, 1695. A Vindication of a Discourse, en- 
titled the Principles, &c. Being a Reply to Gilbert Rule's Cy- 
prianic Bishop Examined and found not to be a Diocesan, fyc. 
4to. London, 1701. 

P Case of the Episcopal Clergy, p. 1 1 . 

i An Historical Relation of the late Presbyterian General As- 
sembly held at Edinburgh from Oct. 16 to Nov. 13, in the year 
1690, in a Letter from a Person in Edinburgh to his Friend in 
London. London, 1691. P. i. 



428 ^igtoup of tlje 

of the friends to the ancient order of Church govern- 
ment, however, obtained admission to all their meet- 
ings, and from them the particulars respecting the 
proceedings of this assembly have been derived. 
When it was demanded, why there should be so 
much anxiety to remove the Episcopal Clergy, it was 
answered ; " that there was less prejudice both to 
Church and people, by the want of preaching, than 
by the preaching of men of Episcopal principles and 
persuasions." One of their preachers boldly declared 
in a sermon before the Parliament, " that it was 
better that the temple of the Lord did lie sometimes 
unbuilt and unrepaired, than be reared up by Gibeon- 
ites and Samaritans." In short, the chief business 
consisted of hearing libels and citations against Epis- 
copal Ministers/ The process was not very dissimilar 
to that, which had been adopted under the reign of 
Presbytery in England. In both cases the Clergy 
were not only removed from their parishes, but the 
most iniquitous means were resorted to, for the pur- 
pose of injuring their reputation. 

Though Episcopacy was abolished, " it was not 
so easy to settle Presbytery." This is the admission 
of Tindal, who says, " if they had followed the pattern 
set them in the year 1638, all the Clergy in a parity 
were to assume the government of the Church : but 
those being Episcopal, they did not think it safe to put 
the power of the Church in such hands. It was there- 
fore pretended, that such of the Presbyterian minis- 
ters as had been turned out in the year 1662, ought 
to be considered as the only sound part of the Church. 
And of these there happened to be then threescore 
alive. The government of the Church was therefore 

r An Historical Relation, &c. p. 9. 



of tfje ^onjucorg, 429 

lodged with them : and they were impowered to take 
to their assistance, and to a share in the Church 
government, such as they should think fit.' 1 He then 
alludes to some furious men who had been secretly 
ordained by the Presbyterians, and who " were pre- 
sently taken in. This was like to prove a fatal error 
at their first setting out. The old men, who by reason 
of their age or their experience of former mistakes, 
were disposed to more moderate counsels ; but the 
taking in of such a number of violent men, put it 
out of their power to pursue them." These men, he 
remarks, were full of rage against such of the Epis- 
copal Clergy " as had escaped the rage of the former 
year. Accusations were raised ; but these were only 
thrown out to defame them : and when they looked 
for proof, it was in a way more becoming Inquisitors 
than Judges : so apt are all parties in their hours of 
power, to fall into these very excesses of which they 
did formerly make such tragical complaints."' These 
are the admissions of a man who was favourable to 
their claims. 

No Liturgy was used in Scotland between the Res- 
toration and the Revolution, though Episcopacy was 
the government established by law ; but each Clergy- 
man conducted public worship according to his own 
method. One gentleman was, therefore, charged in 
this Assembly with having said, on an occasion 
when some person had expressed his fears of the 
English Liturgy, " God send us no worse." He told 
the Assembly that he was indeed sorry, if any such 
expression had dropped from him, " because he was 
sensible it was too mean for so great and so glorious 

s Tindal, i. 124. 



430 l&feftorp oC tfje 

a Church as that of England." Another Clergyman 
was charged with having circulated superstitious and 
erroneous books, among which were The Whole 
Duty of Man and ScougalFs Catechism. At the 
opening of the Assembly, the Preacher drew a 
parallel between Presbytery and the cleansing of the 
Temple of the Buyers and Sellers : and at one of 
their sessions the presiding minister, after recognizing 
Christ as Supreme Head of the Church, added in his 
Prayer ; " Thou knowest, O Lord, that when we 
own any other it is only for decency's sake." On 
another occasion, the minister who officiated, after 
praying for moderation, added, " O Lord, to be free 
it would be better to make a clean house." At some 
of their special meetings for Prayer, eight or ten in- 
dividuals prayed in succession, which, coupled with 
their actions in removing so many exemplary Clergy- 
men, led some persons to observe that they were prac- 
tising what our Lord condemns in the Sixth Chapter 
of St. Matthew, and others, that they were imitating 
the Popish Masses. 

This account of the Assembly is confirmed by the 
admissions of writers, who usually speak favourably 
of the Presbyterians. " The truth was, that the Pres- 
byterians, by their violence, and other absurd prac- 
tices, were rendering both odious and contemptible. 
They had formed a General Assembly at the end of 
the former year, in which they very much exposed 
themselves by the violence of their conduct. Little 
learning or prudence appeared among them : poor 
preaching, and wretched haranguing : partialities to 
one another, and violence and injustice to those who 
differed from them, appeared in all their meetings. 
And these so much sunk their reputation, that they 



of tljc ^onjtum% 431 

were weaning the nation most effectually from all 
fondness to their government.* " 

It is singular that in Scotland at this time, as was 
the case in England after the year 1640, the most 
iniquitous courses were pursued, by the Presby- 
terians, against the Clergy, under the garb of sanctity 
and purity." 

Besides citations and libels, the Assembly had also 
to consider the appeals of some of the Clergy, whom 
they wished to remove. At these they were exceed- 
ingly puzzled. " The Assembly was just so puzzled 
with the appeals of the Episcopal Clergy, as their 
ancestors the Pharisees were with the question about 
John's baptism : for on the one side, they feared the 
court, who desired and required them to be moderate : 
but on the other hand it was against their interest to 
condemn the proceedings of the Presbyteries." 1 One 
Clergyman was asked, whether he acknowledged the 
civil government, and whether he would submit to 
that of the Church ? and on answering in the affirm- 
ative, he was asked " if he repented of his com- 
pliance with Episcopacy?" To this question, he 
replied, " if it was a sin, he would repent of it.*' 
The moderator observed, that he doubted on the 
subject : and the poor man was prohibited from 
preaching. 7 

In the year 1693, it was ordered, that, beside the 

* Tindal, i. 182. 

u Historical Relation, &c. pp. 11, 12, 18, 23, 35, 36. " To 
annoyances incessant, and almost inconceivable, was added the 
moral martyrdom of calumnies the most gross, that the people 
might believe the Clergy to be as their enemies designed them, 
Scandalous Ministers." Bishop Walker's Charge, &c. 8vo. Edin- 
burgh, 1833, p. 35. 

x Ibid. 39. 

y Ibid. 42, 43. 



432 %'0tori? of tlje 

Oath of Allegiance, the Clergy and all official per- 
sons, should sign an assurance, in which William 
and Mary were recognized as lawful and rightful 
Sovereigns, or King and Queen De Jure, as well as 
De Facto. To this assurance many of the Presby- 
terians had a most decided objection, viewing it as 
involving a question which they could not decide. 
Endeavours were not wanting, though at first without 
success, to procure a dispensation in favour of the 
Presbyterians. A despatch was made up for Scotland, 
ordering that the Assurance should be imposed in 
all cases ; but Carstairs, who resided in the court, 
and was high in favour with the king, ventured to 
keep back this particular document. When Carstairs 
acquainted his Majesty with what he had done, the 
King manifested some degree of anger ; but in a 
short time he yielded to the representations of the 
Scotchman, and the Assurance was dispensed with 
in favour of the Presbyterians. It appears that some 
even of the Presbyterians could not take the Oath of 
Allegiance to William, on the ground that the terms 
of the Oath to King James were so strong, that they 
could not transfer their allegiance to another family : 
consequently the Oath of Assurance was much more 
unpalatable. It has indeed been supposed, that the 
Presbyterians would have excited a rebellion, if Car- 
stairs had not interposed. 2 Thus the Presbyterians 



z Carstairs, 5263. Russell's Keith, 497, 504. Russell's 
History of the Church in Scotland, ii. 376, 377. There was ap- 
parently some truth in the following- sarcastic remark : " Carstairs, 
a Super-Presbyterian, that is, a Cameronian Preacher, attends 
King Williams person, both at home and abroad, like a jewel in 
his ear: we make a shew in the Chapel, but he exercises the 
office of Confessor in the Closet. His advice is taken in all the 
Spiritual promotions of our Church : and we feel the elfects of it 
very sensibly." Querela Temporum, p. 16. 



of ttje ^onjucor^ 433 

were indulged in their scruples, while the Assurance 
was pressed upon the Episcopal Clergy, some of 
whom, however, complied, submitting to Presbytery 
as a legal establishment, and hoping to be permitted 
to exercise their ministry quietly. 

But the compliance of any of the Episcopalians 
was exceedingly distasteful to the Presbyterians, who 
contended that the Clergy who submitted would only 
acknowledge the De Facto title, until they were in a 
capacity to raise a rebellion. Though some Presby- 
terians pleaded for the De Jure title, while others 
opposed it, yet the Episcopal Clergy were persecuted 
by both parties. Notwithstanding the fact that many 
Presbyterians were so averse to the Assurance, a 
writer of that party infers the disaffection of the Epis- 
copal Clergy from " their behaviour now, seeing they 
universally refuse the Assurance, though many of 
them formerly had sworn allegiance, which is in plain 
English no other than a granting of the premises, and a 
denying the conclusion : or according to the example 
of a certain gentleman in England, granting the ab- 
dication, and denying the vacancy." 3 Hence, what 
was a crime in an Episcopalian, was deemed a virtue 
in a Presbyterian, 

The Presbyterians were greatly annoyed with the 
submission of some of the Clergy to Presbytery, as 

a The Scots Episcopal Innocence : or the Juggling of that 
Party with the late King, his present Majesty, the Church of 
England, and the Church of Scotland demonstrated. Together 
with a Catalogue of the Scots Episcopal Clergy, turned out for 
their Disloyalty, and other Enormities since the Revolution. And 
a Postscript, with Reflections on a late malicious Pamphlet, en- 
titled The Spirit of Malice and Slander. Particularly addressed 
to Dr. Monroe, and his journeymen Mr. Simon Wild, Mr. An- 
drew Johnston, &c., near Thieving Lane, Westminster, by Will. 
Laik, London, 4to. 1694, p. 7. 

F F 



434 !i?i0torp of t\)t 

the legal establishment, charging them with sub- 
scribing " The Confession of Faith as that of the 
nation, but not their own." The charge was perfectly 
true ; and the Clergy were quite consistent in their 
course, which was also in accordance with the views 
of the Government, who only called upon them to 
submit to Presbytery, as the legal establishment. 
King William was therefore compelled to interpose 
to check the Presbyterians. b Had a disclaimer of 
Episcopacy been required, not one Episcopal Clergy- 
man would have remained within the establishment. 
William wished to embrace all, while the Presbyte- 
rians were anxious to exclude all. " He disobliged 
the Presbyterians (the only party on whom he could 
rely in Scotland) to gratify," says the writer just 
quoted, " the Prelatists, in forbearing to punish those 
who had forfeited their lives by overturning the con- 
stitution of government in the late reigns : nay, and 
that which was more, advanced some of them to the 
highest places of power and trust, while he turned 
out Presbyterians who ventured all for him, and were 
steadfast to him. He disobliged the Presbyterians 
by ordering the General Assembly to admit the Epis- 
copal Clergy on such terms as the Parliament have 
thought fit to refuse, and then by dissolving them for 
their declining it." c Thus is it avowed, that the 
Presbyterians would have had execution done upon 



b Birch's Life of Tillotson, 310, 31 1, 312. " This was a strain 
of moderation that the Presbyterians were not easily brought to. 
A subscription that owned Presbytery to be the only legal govern- 
ment of that Church, without owning any divine right in it, was 
far below their usual pretensions. And this act vested the King 
with an authority very like that which they used to condemn as 
Erastianism." Tindal, p. 246. 

c Scots Episcopal Innocence, pp. 9, 10. 



of ttje l-lonfutorg. 435 

persons, who merely administered the law in the two 
previous reigns : and King William is reproached 
for not executing their cruel demands. What then 
could the poor Clergy expect from such men ! Had 
they been left to the tender mercies of their enemies, 
their case would have been sad indeed. 

This author gives a list of the Clergy, who had 
been deprived up to the period of his writing. First, 
we have a considerable number deprived by the Com- 
mittee of Estates, in the month of May, 1689, for 
not reading the Proclamation enjoined by the State : 
and this the author considers a crime of sufficient 
magnitude to justify deprivation. Secondly, he gives 
another list of Clergymen " turned out afterwards 
by the Council." These are numbered, and their 
alleged offences are specified. The perusal of it 
revives the recollection of White's Infamous Centurie 
in 1643, when the same custom of blackening the 
characters of the Clergy, in order to ejection, was 
adopted. The crimes alleged were not praying for 
the King and Queen by name : not reading the various 
Proclamations : d encouraging the disaffected: not 
obeying the Thanksgiving : having been appointed by 
the Bishops : leaving the Church when the papers 
were read by others. Such were the charges. If the 
Clergy did not appear, they were deprived on the 
ground of their own confession, their absence being 
regarded as an acknowledgment of guilt. Thus this 
unscrupulous writer, who gives an account of each 



d It has been already proved that some of the Clergy never 
heard of the Proclamations, until the period fixed for reading them 
had elapsed. See " A Representation of the Church in North 
Britain, as to Episcopacy and Liturgy, and of the Sufferings of 
the orthodox and regular Clergy, from the enemies to both, 8vo. 
London, 1718." P. 16. 



436 I?i0torp of tt)e 

individual, writes against the names of some who did 
not appear, " Absent, and holden as confest. De- 
prived"* This second list contains the names of 
one hundred and eighty-four Clergymen, besides the 
twenty names in the preceding list : and all of them 
were deprived in the summer of 1689. These acts 
were perpetrated at the commencement of the Revo- 
lution : and, as considerable numbers actually sub- 
mitted to the Government, the Presbyterians them- 
selves prove most incontestably, as I have already 
shewn, that their Church was set up, not because it 
was the best and purest system, or because the majo- 
rity wished it ; but because, on political grounds, it 
suited King William's interests. They cannot boast r 
therefore, that Presbytery was established for its own 
sake ; but they must admit that William would have 
sanctioned Episcopacy in the Church, if the Bishops 
and Clergy could have sanctioned the change in the 
government of the State. Such was the origin of 
the Presbyterian establishment in 1689, though its 
advocates affect to believe, that it was owing to the 
express voice and wish of the nation. It originated 

8 It should be mentioned that the Churches, from which the 
Clergy had been expelled by the rabble, were declared vacant, 
"from the date of the rabbling." Representation, &c. p. 16. 
Somers' Tracts, xv. 133, 136. The causes to which the aboli- 
tion of Episcopacy must be attributed, have been already stated : 
but it remains to be mentioned that many difficulties were expe- 
rienced in planting Presbyterian ministers in many parishes, the 
people being Episcopalians. The Convention abolished patronage, 
or the difficulties would have been still greater, since almost all 
the gentry, to whom the advowsons belonged, would have refused 
to present Presbyterians. But the dominant parties were exceed- 
ingly inconsistent with their own principles : for finding that the 
people were opposed to them, they placed the calling of ministers 
in the hands of the Presbytery, and not in the parishes, though 
they had pretended a jure Divino for popular suffrage. 



p of tfje ^onjurorg, 437 

only in what may be termed the accidental circum- 
stance of the refusal, on the part of the Bishops and 
Clergy, to take the Oath of Allegiance to King Wil- 
liam and Queen Mary. 

De Foe laboured, in his day, to defend the Pres- 
byterians in their crusades against the Episcopal 
Clergy : but his very admissions prove all the charges 
which he attempts to refute. " The first, respects 
the conduct of the people, when they took up arms 
in a tumultuous manner at the beginning of the 
Revolution. The next respects the judicial proceed- 
ings against the Episcopal party since." The people, 
he says, first attacked the Church, because the Church 
had been the aggressor previously : and he thinks 
that less violence was committed than could have 
been expected. But, says he, the utmost violence 
was no more than " an over hasty turning the said 
Episcopal ministers out of the Parsonage houses, 
which it was their opinion were unlawfully possessed." 
He cannot ascertain that any were killed ! now surely 
on such principles any outrages or crimes may be 
justified. He even adduces the conduct of the rabble 
as " a great testimony of the moderation of the Pres- 
byterians in Scotland." 1 The deprivations by the 
State he justifies as a matter of course : but he for- 
gets that Presbytery was set up, merely because the 
Bishops and Clergy could not renounce their allegi- 
ance to King James. g 



f Memoirs of the Church of Scotland, 8vo. London, p. 312, 
313, 314. An Account of the Parliament of Scotland in 1703. 
8vo. p. 77. 

g No Scottish publisher could be induced to undertake the pub- 
lication of Sage's Fundamental Charter of Presbytery , in con- 
sequence of the apprehension of persecution : and the work was 
actually printed in London in the year 1695. This circumstance 



438 %'0torp of tlje j[*lot\juror0* 

The Act of Comprehension, which must be re- 
garded as the act of his Majesty and his advisers, 
and not that of the Presbyterians, except so far as it 
was sanctioned unwillingly by as many of that body 
as had seats in Parliament, is actually adduced as 
a specimen of Presbyterian moderation. By this 
Act, which was passed in July 1695, all Episcopal 
clergymen, who had not been deprived, neither had 
yet qualified themselves, were allowed until Septem- 
ber in that year to come in and take the Oath of 
Allegiance, and to subscribe the Assurance. h 

By the Comprehension, they were permitted to 
retain their benefices, though not to have any share 
in the government of the Church : but as the Oath 
and the Assurance were imposed as conditions, few 
only accepted of the terms. It is said by Presby- 
terians that they were dissuaded from compliance by 
certain noblemen. 1 Some, however, complied after- 

proves that the Presbyterian authorities ruled with an iron hand 
in Scotland. They would have no discussions, even imitating- on 
this, as on many other occasions, the conduct of the Church of 
Rome. Keith, 520. 

h They were to continue in their benefices " under the King's 
protection without being subject to the power of Presbytery. This 
was carried with some address before the Presbyterians were aware 
of the consequences of it : for it was plainly that which they 
called Erastiamsm. By a zealous and dexterous management 
about seventy of the best of them were brought to take the Oaths." 
Tindal, i. 286. " It appears by this Act," says a Presbyterian, 
" that some of them had been about six years in possession of their 
benefices, without taking the Oaths to the King and Queen, 
though there were express laws for dispossessing such as refused 
the said Oaths : and about three hundred and fifteen were turned 
out in 1689 and 1690 by the Committee of Estates and the Privy 
Council, as may be seen by the Journals." Account of Parliament, 
82. The outed Clergy, as they were termed, or the Nonjiirors, 
were not permitted to baptize, or to solemnize marriages. 

1 Ibid. p. 88. 



of tt)e jponjurovg, 439 

wards. Thus Sir James Ogilvie mentions one hundred 
and sixteen in 1695, in his letter to Carstairs. In the 
same year, Mr. David Blair proposes to have an 
assembly to check the intemperance of the young 
ministers, Carstairs being afraid of calling one. k The 
clergy thus comprehended were called Protected mi- 
nisters: and as they had no share in the government of 
the Church, it was also understood, that they should 
not be subjected to the Church judicatories. Yet 
the Presbyterians attempted to bring them under their 
Church courts. Thus the Lord Advocate, writing 
to Carstairs in 1699, mentions two cases in which 
clergymen had been charged with crimes, and cited 
before the Presbytery. He condemns the Presby- 
terians : and it appears, that their purpose was 
defeated. The Lord Advocate observes, " I wrote 
to the Presbytery, that, though it were not provided 
in the Act of Parliament, that the Protected should 
be exempted ; yet the Parliament, on the other hand, 
did expressly wave the making them subject to Pres- 
byteries, and other Church judicatories; but pro- 
vided, that upon their application, the Church might 
assume them or not ; and therefore it was by my 
advice, that the Presbytery should look upon them 
as persons without, and pass from the judgment and 
censure they had pronounced by letting it fall to the 
ground." So that the Presbytery actually censured 



k Castairs, 263, 264. Laing, iv. 259. 

1 Carstairs, 495, 496. It may be remarked, that until this Act 
of Comprehension passed,%the Clergy were constantly harassed by 
the Presbyterian Church courts. By the Act of 1695, therefore, 
their condition was bettered, inasmuch as they were protected from 
the Church courts, provided they took the Oaths. Some " embraced 
their peace on these conditions, and qualified themselves on terms 
of law." See Representation of Church, &c. p. 17. 



440 li?&torp of tije 

them ; but the Government interposed to prevent the 
execution of the sentence. Such was the state of the 
Episcopal Clergy in Scotland during the reign of 
King William. 

On the accession of Queen Anne, the Clergy ex- 
pected some relief: but for some time they were 
subjected to disappointment, in consequence of the 
active opposition of the Presbyterians, who never 
failed to represent them, if they scrupled the Oaths, 
as ready to enter into a rebellion, or, if they took the 
Oaths, as still disaffected to the Government. The 
Queen, however, in 1702, addressed a Letter to the 
Privy Council, in which she expressed her wish, that 
the Episcopal Clergy should be permitted the free 
exercise of public worship : for she knew well, that 
hostility to Episcopacy was the cause of the hatred 
entertained by the Presbyterians. The Episcopal 
Clergy, therefore, presented an address to her Majesty, 
in which, after expressing their satisfaction at having 
a Queen of their ancient race of Kings, they be- 
seech her to give liberty to those parishes, whose 
inhabitants were chiefly Episcopalians, to select 
ministers of their own principles. The next year 
another address was presented, in which they mention 
the sufferings of the Clergy in 1688 and 1689, and 
subsequent years. The Queen returned them a very 
kind and gracious answer. 

m Life of Queen Anne, vol. i. 153, 181. Tindal, with his usual 
partiality asserts, that the address to the Queen was procured by 
indirect means ; yet he does not give one particle of evidence in 
proof of his assertion. In fact, it was altogether false. Tindal, 
iv. 595. Many of the Clergy never complied so far as to take the 
Oaths, though they were not more attached to the exiled Prince, 
than some of those who took them. The latter complied with the 
existing Government, and intended to live quietly : but their in- 
clinations were in favour of King James and his Son . A the 



ot" tlje ^onjurorg, 441 

The Convention Parliament, which had been con- 
vened at the commencement of the Revolution, and 
by whom the crown had been conferred on William 
and Mary, had continued ever since : for the Presby- 
terians were afraid to hazard their establishment by 
a new election. As that Parliament had set up 
Presbytery, the party were anxious to continue it, 
lest a new one should favour Episcopacy. This 
circumstance affords a singular proof, that the country 
in general did not, as the act of 1690 declared, view 
Episcopacy as a grievance. A new Parliament was 
now, therefore, summoned ; and an Act of Toleration 
was proposed, at which the Presbyterians became 
greatly alarmed. In an address to the Lord High 
Commissioner, the General Assembly say, " they 
are bold in the Lord, and in the name of the Church 
of God to attest his Grace, and the most honourable 
estates, that no such motion of any legal Toleration, 
to those of the prelatical principles might be enter- 
tained by the Parliament." To tolerate " those of 
that way " said these meek and humble ministers of 
the Gospel, lf would be to establish iniquity by a 
law :" and so artfully did the Kirk manage matters, 
that the act for a Toleration was dropped for this 



Presbyterians found it very difficult to supply the churches, a con- 
siderable number of Episcopal clergymen were permitted to retain 
their benefices without taking the Oaths. Keith, by Russell, p. 
502. See also Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, 54. I have a copy 
of this Address, printed on a single page, the reverse being blank. 
It is one of the original copies, which were printed for circulation 
among the friends of the Clergy. On this copy is the following 
memorandum in, I believe, the handwriting of Brett. " This 
address was presented by Dr. Skeen and Dr. Scott, who were in- 
troduced by ye D. of Queensbury and ye Viscount of Tarbat, 
March 1703." 



442 l&feftorp of tlje 

Session. n The time was not fully arrived, and the 
friends of the Clergy permitted the Bill to be laid 
aside. The bare proposal filled the Presbyterians 
with alarm. " They published several books against 
it, and were the aggressors in the paper war that then 
commenced upon that subject. Mr. George Mel- 
drum, a chief man amongst them, and moderator of 
their General Assembly, preached his sermon against 
Toleration before her Majesty's High Commis- 



sioner." 



Meldrum had been an Episcopalian ; but in con- 
sequence of some offence he joined the Presbyterians 
in 1687, and now wished to persecute his old friends. 
Sage's Work, consisting of several Letters, originated 
in Meldrum's Sermon. In the close of his Preface 
he says : " I cannot think but that all good men, and 
true sons of the Church of England, are sensibly 
affected with the calamities of their sister Church of 
Scotland ; and it must move their pity to see her in 
the dust, for no other reason, but because she is 
Episcopal, and consequently Apostolical." 

The intolerable tyranny exercised at this time, by 
the Presbyterians in Scotland, may be illustrated by 
the case of Mr. James Grame. This gentleman was 
a complying Episcopal clergyman at Dumfermline. 
Not only did he comply, but he was even a defender 



n Life of Queen Anne, vol. i. 183, 185, 186. Account of the 
Parliament of 1703, pp. 3842. Tindal, iv. 599. 

Sage's Reasonableness of a Toleration enquired into, purely 
on Church Principles. London, 8vo. 1705. Preface. This is 
a very learned and able work, as indeed are all the productions of 
Sage. See the Petition to the Parliament against the proposed 
Toleration in Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, p. 65. See also 
the Somers' Tracts for specimens of Presbyterian hostility to a 
Toleration, vol. xii. 490-1. 



of tfie $0njuror& 443 

of the Revolution : yet because he believed Episco- 
pacy to be of Apostolic institution, he was persecuted 
by the Presbyterians. 

Mr. Grame was summoned to appear before the 
Provincial Synod of Fyfe, in the year 1701 : when 
it was alleged that he had reflected on the covenant, 
and that he had asserted that Christ died for all men. 
For these alleged crimes, he was actually deposed 
from the ministry by the Presbyterian Church court. 
This is only one, among many, of the tyrannical acts 
of the party at the period now under review. 1 ' 

Though the proposed toleration was not carried, 
and the state of the Episcopal Clergy was not much 
improved, yet they had the satisfaction of knowing, 
that the Queen wished to relieve them from the 
tyranny of the Presbyterians. The Union of England 
and Scotland took place, according to the Act, on 
the 1st of May, 1707 : but the Episcopal Clergy 
were not affected by that important measure, which 
was carried as a matter of policy, though some of the 
Presbyterians represented it as an apostacy. The 



P The Famous Tryal of the late Reverend and Learned Mr. 
James Grame, Episcopal Minister of Dumfermline : formerly 
Professor of Humanity at St. Andrew's, before the several Courts 
of Church Judicature in Scotland ; who was, amongst other things, 
arraigned by the Commissioners for the Kirk Session at Dumferm- 
line, condemned, and at last deposed by the Provincial Synod of 
Fyfe, on the 20th of June, 1701, for having advanced and main- 
tained two of the great and capital truths of the Christian religion, 
viz. 1. That Christ died for all those that profess the Gospel; 2. 
That he hath purchased pardon and salvation for them, upon con- 
dition that they believe in him and repent of their sins. Being a 
true and impartial narrative of the Presbyterian proceedings against 
Mr. Grame : together with his Defences at large. The whole 
writ by the defendant soon after he was deposed, and now first 
published for the information of such as are strangers to the doc- 
trines and tenets of Presbyterians. London, 8vo. 1719. 



444 l^igtocp of tlje |5onjuror0, 

opponents to that measure considered, that they were 
pledged, by the covenant, to urge perpetual war 
against Prelacy : whereas, the union would connect 
them with a country, whose Church was Episcopal, 
and which they feared might swallow up their own 
beloved Presbytery. Those Presbyterians who con- 
sented were regarded, by their more zealous brethren, 
as Apostates from the faith of their fathers, as Eras- 
tians, or as persons indifferent alike to all forms and 
all systems. Many preached against it, and others 
prayed against it : still the measure was carried. q 
The first Parliament of Great Britain was opened on 
the 23rd of October, 1707. 

At this period the Episcopalians were in no way 
diminished in numbers, though official posts could 
only be filled by Presbyterians ; and they had 
nothing to hold out to proselytes, except a prospect 
of persecution by the Kirk. Previous to the Union, 
and during the progress of the proceedings which 
led to it, some of the adherents of the Pretender 
were engaged in a scheme for an invasion. Ker, a 
Presbyterian, who was acquainted with many of the 
Jacobites, was employed by the Government as a 
spy. This gentleman has left us various notices of 
the Episcopalians in The Memoirs of His Life, 
which were published in 1726. His evidence on 
the subject may be depended upon, because, as a 
Presbyterian, he was necessarily opposed to Episco- 



q Somerville, 213. The rig-id Presbyterians objected to receive 
laws from a Parliament where Bishops sat as members. They 
looked upon such a thing as contrary to the covenant. Ker's 
Memoirs, p. 29. One of the Preachers of the Cameronians stated 
publicly, that the Queen had forfeited her right to the crown, by 
imposing the union on the country. Ibid. p. 53. 



of ttie $lonjur;or;. 445 

pacy. He states the Episcopal party to have been 
then " near one half of the nation." 1 So little were 
the Presbyterians indebted, either to their numbers, 
or their principles, for the ascendancy of their 
system. 

But many of the Presbyterians, like some of the 
English Whigs at the same period, were secret 
favourers of the Pretender's claims, though, only a 
few years before, they had denounced the Episcopal 
Clergy because they could not take the Oaths. 
Especially was this the case subsequent to the Union : 
so that, in consequence of their dislike to that mea- 
sure, they were even ready to restore the son of 
James II. This is a singular circumstance : but 
abundant evidence of the fact is furnished by Ker, 
by Hooke, and by Lockhart. They agreed to sup- 
port the Pretender on condition, that he never con- 
sented to the Union, and that he supported the Pro- 
testant religion. Could they have set the Pretender 
on the throne, on these conditions, they would have 
done so, in consequence of their hostility to the 
Union . s 

The Union occupied the Presbyterians so com- 
pletely at this period, that their attention was for a 
time drawn off from the Episcopal Clergy : but when 
the feeling, which that measure created, had sub- 
sided, they did not overlook a body of men, whose 



r Ker's Memoirs, p. 16. At this time none of the Episcopal 
Clergy were legally tolerated except those who held Parish Churches 
under the Comprehension Act : but in consequence of the Queen's 
countenance and support, the worship of others in private houses 
was connived at. Keith, by Russell, 506. 

5 Ker's Memoirs, pp. 28-9. Hooke's Secret History of Nego- 
tiations in Scotland in 1707, pp. 11, 31, 4347. Lockhart 
Papers, i. 302308. 



446 %'0t0rp of tj 

principles they so much disliked. 1 A case occurred 
in the year 1709, which excited all their ancient 
hatred, and which may be regarded as one of the 
grossest instances of intolerance recorded in the 
annals of bigotry. Mr. Greenshields, whose father 
had been rabbled out of his Church at the Revolution, 
was ordained by one of the Scottish Prelates : and 
after serving a curacy in Ireland, he ventured to 
return to Scotland. Having opened a meeting house 
in Edinburgh, he commenced the use of the English 
Liturgy, which had not yet been adopted in the 
Episcopal congregations. 

By the Act of Comprehension, the Episcopal 
Clergy were protected and exempt from the Church 
courts, provided they took the Oaths and the Assur- 
ance. Greenshields had complied according to law, 
and also prayed for her Majesty : consequently, the 
Presbyterian Church courts had no authority in such 
a case, since he was specially exempted from their 
jurisdiction. u 



i The writer of the Life of Carstairs says of the Union, " The 
Union of the kingdoms, though attended with other happy conse- 
quences, gave a fatal blow to the importance of the Church of 
Scotland in the eye of Government : and the General Assembly 
was no longer formidable to administration, as it had been from 
the Revolution down to this period." Surely this was a happy 
result. Carstairs, 78. 

u Lockhart Papers, i. 345 348, 520 528. In 1703, a riot 
took place at Glasgow in consequence of the English Service. 
Mr. Burges, who had taken 'the Oaths, attempted to conduct the 
Service according to the Liturgy, upon which the mob broke into 
the meeting, and, but for the interference of the magistrates, would 
have proceeded to acts of violence against the congregation. Somer- 
ville, 468. In two years, twenty thousand copies of the Book of 
Common Prayer were circulated in Scotland, notwithstanding the 
attempts of the Presbyterians to suppress it, as the English Mass. 
Somers' Tracts, xii. 490,491. 



of tlje ^onjuim% 447 

De Foe published his History of the Union, while 
Greenshields's case was before the public. Had he 
waited until the decision of the House of Lords had 
been awarded, it is not unlikely, that he would have 
expressed himself in terms somewhat different. His 
conduct, however, in this matter, proves him to have 
been dishonest and unprincipled as a writer of history, 
whatever may have been the case with him in other 
matters. While the cause was pending, this un- 
scrupulous writer insinuated, that the matter was 
devised by the Nonjurors, to bring " the people to 
prosecute and attack them." He says, that the 
Government and magistrates were so lenient, that 
they would not persecute the Nonjurors, though they 
even prayed for the Pretender, and that, therefore, 
another expedient was devised, " which they are as- 
sured the Scots will not bear : and this was erecting 
the Common Prayer or English Liturgy in Scotland." 
He proceeds : " the people that made this attempt, 
behoved to get somebody to do it : that, however 
Jacobite he might be in principle, was yet Latitudi- 
narian enough in conscience, that he could swallow 
all the Oaths. The design being concerted, they 
found a tool : a poor curate of 15 lib. a year in Ire- 
land, but born in Scotland, comes over to Edinburgh 
to mend his commons : and having taken the Oaths, 
he falls in with this party, who finding him a person 
of prostituted morals, a large stock in the face, and 
ready, if well paid, to do their work, they promise 
him fourscore pounds a year, and accordingly begin a 
subscription for it." He asserts, that the plea that it 
was used to accommodate the English strangers was 
not true. "The people," says he, "as every body 
knew they would, immediately took fire at the thing, 
but not doing him the honour to rabble him, which 






448 %'gtory of t^e $onjucot% 

seemed to be what his party expected, they complained 

to the magistrates. " x 

The case was taken up by some of Greenshields's 
friends, or rather the friends of the Church in Lon- 
don, who, in the Preface to the published account, 
express a hope, that it may issue in putting the 
Scottish Episcopalians in possession of those bless- 
ings, which were enjoyed by all the rest of the 
nation. In that account it was stated that they only 
wished for liberty to worship God in that way 
which their consciences dictated. 7 

From this account, and also from De Foe, we 
learn, that the General Assembly interposed. Some 
of the people of Edinburgh petitioned the Com- 
mission of the Assembly on the subject, in which 
they stated, that the English service " was very 
grievous and offensive " to them, and would prove 
" of dangerous consequence to the Church if not 
speedily remedied." Like the Presbyterians of a 
former age, the Petitioners pretend, that the Clergy, 
who preached in the Meeting Houses, were not only 
" unsound in their judgments ; but scandalous and im- 
moral in their lives and practices." The Commission 
of Assembly soon passed an Act, in which it was 
alleged, that the Union was infringed by the use of 
" set forms, rites, and ceremonies :" and that such 



x De Foe's History of the Union of Great Britain. Fol. Edin- 
burgh, 1709. Preface, pp. xix. xx. 

y The True State of the Case of the Reverend Mr. Greenshields, 
now Prisoner in the Tolbooth in Edinburgh, for reading the Com- 
mon Prayer in an Episcopal congregation there : though qualified 
by taking the Oaths, and praying for the Queen and the Princess 
Sophia, with copies of several Original Papers relating to his ac- 
cusation, defence, imprisonment and appeal to the Lords of the 
Session, and since to the House of Lords. London, 8vo. 1710. 



of tlje iffconjurorg* 449 

innovations were dangerous to their Church, and 
contrary to their confession, which declares, " that 
nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God, but 
what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." Yet 
how many things are practised in Presbyterian wor- 
ship, which are not prescribed in the Sacred Volume. 
They then prohibited all such innovations ! They were 
of course at liberty to prescribe anything in their 
own Churches ; but it is difficult to understand how 
they could exercise jurisdiction over those, who did 
not belong to their Communion. The case was, 
therefore, referred to the Kirk judicatories. Thus a 
law was made, and then Greenshields was brought 
under its operation. 

In consequence of this Act of Assembly, the Kirk 
Session presented Greenshields to the Presbytery, 
by whom he was examined respecting his orders ; 
for it seems that, having the case of England before 
their eyes, they were anxious to avoid the question 
of the Liturgy : or rather wished to punish him on 
other grounds. They therefore deposed him from 
the exercise of the ministry : and on his refusal to 
recognize their authority, they requested the magis- 
trates to execute their sentence. At the call of the 
Presbytery, the magistrates, as he did not cease to 
officiate, committed him to the Tolbooth, in which 
prison he was lying when the case was published in 
London. Some few years before, the Presbyterians 
wrote and preached in favour of liberty of conscience, 
but now it was denied to a man who used the Eng- 
lish Liturgy. He had taken the Oaths to her Majesty : 
and yet he was punished. 

During the same year a Reply to the case of Green- 
shields was published in London, in which it was at- 
tempted to justify the Presbytery in their proceed- 

G G 



450 ^tgtocp of tlje 

ings. Like De Foe, the writer pretends that the in- 
dividual was not imprisoned for reading the Liturgy : 
but for exercising his ministry without authority. He 
would not however have been disturbed but for the 
Liturgy. The author deprecates the depriving of 
the Church of Scotland of the power to call any 
preachers to account, whether Episcopalians or Pres- 
byterians : adding, that this power was once pos- 
sessed and ought to be continued. To prove the 
moderation of Presbytery, he subjoins a list of Epis- 
copal Clergymen, who, at that time, occupied 
Churches and Manses. This privilege, however, 
was granted by the Parliament, not by the Scottish 
Church, which used all its exertions to prevent any 
such indulgence. " To show how little cause the 
Episcopal party in Scotland have to complain of the 
Presbyterians there for want of moderation, 'tis thought 
fit to add the following list, wherein those marked 
N. J. are Nonjurors, who don't pray for the Queen." 
There are one hundred and twelve names in the list, 
of which ten only are marked as Nonjurors. Then 
it is added, " besides a great many others, that preach 
in meeting houses, where some pray for the Pretender : 
others, who do not refuse to pray for the Queen : and 
some pray only for their Sovereign, without naming 
any body, but mean the Pretender." 2 

No one doubts that many Episcopal Clergymen 
retained their benefices : but no merit can be pleaded 



z Remarks on a Pamphlet entitled A True State of the Case 
of the Revd. Mr. Greenshields, &c. The notorious Falsehoods 
contained in it laid open ; and the Proceedings against him in 
Scotland vindicated. With the Answers of the Magistrates of 
Edinburgh to his Bill of Suspension, &c. And a List of the Epis- 
copal Ministers, who enjoy Churches and benefices in Scotland, 
without being obliged to conformity. 4to. London. 1710. 






of ffje |^on jurors 451 

for the Scottish Church on this ground, since the 
permission was granted by the State, against her 
wishes. This writer, therefore, unwittingly adds his 
testimony to the fact, that Presbytery was not set up 
because the majority wished it, but as an act of poli- 
tical expediency.* 

So inveterate was the hatred of the Presbyterians 
to the English Liturgy, that they would not allow its 
use, in the case of English regiments stationed in 
Scotland. Mr. Chamberlayne, writing to Carstairs, 
himself an advocate for the use of the Liturgy, where- 
ever it was wished, remarks : " The inclosed account 
of the great severity of your Church against chap- 
lains of English regiments, for reading the Liturgy 
to their own people only, is so like the Inquisition, 
that it must needs raise an indignation in the minds 
of all good Christians." An English officer, writing 
from Edinburgh, says : " Though our chaplain was 
here, yet he was not suffered to preach : which is 
what we were never denied in the most rigid Roman 
Catholic countries. " r> Carstairs was a man of too 
much sense and moderation to fall in with the rigid 
Presbyterians. These cases disprove the assertion, 
in the pamphlet against Greenshields, that he was 



a In some parts of Scotland the majority of the people avowed 
themselves Episcopalians, when the penal laws were removed, a 
circumstance quite in the teeth of the assertions so commonly 
made, that the population was altogether Presbyterian. 

b The hostility to the Liturgy was quite as strong as in the days 
of Charles the First, when Janet Geddes threw the stool at the 
Dean of Edinburgh. There was still the same desire to dictate 
to, or to interfere with, England. *' They pray publickly for the 
conversion of England from their superstition and idolatry, 
meaning our Episcopacy and Liturgy : and hope once more to 
send their covenant for a text to us. Would we had their zeal, 
or they our truth" Sage's Vindication. Preface. 






452 5?fgtorp of tlje 

not imprisoned for reading the Liturgy. Alluding 
to the violence of some of the Presbyterians, the 
writer of the Life of Carstairs says, " he felt this in a 
variety of instances, during the course of those prose- 
cutions which were carried on by his more rigid 
brethren, in different corners of Scotland, against 
some of the Episcopal Clergy, who, by virtue of the 
powers entrusted with Presbyteries, were, upon the 
most frivolous pretexts, turned out of their livings. 
But he felt it most of all in the case of Greenshields. 
Having in vain attempted to dissuade his brethren 
and the civil magistrate from so impolitic a step as 
that of stating themselves in downright opposition to 
the Church of England, at the bar of the House of 
Peers, he ventured to prognosticate that their severity 
in that instance would only open a door for other en- 
croachments." He adds : " Accordingly it is well 
known that it was the proceedings in the affair of 
Greenshields which laid the foundation, as it afforded 
the fairest pretext for the Act of Toleration, and the 
Act restoring patronages, which in the circumstances 
of the country at that time were considered as pre- 
ludes to the restoration of prelacy and the Pre- 
tender." 

Yet De Foe laboured to prove that the refusal to 
permit the English Liturgy to be used was not an 
act of persecution. The House of Lords had not 
given their decision, at the period of his writing : 
or perhaps, as a professed advocate of liberty of con- 
science, he might not have adopted such an unreason- 
able course. He asserted that the attempt to intro- 
duce the Liturgy was " a political design to carry on 
a party interest among us in England, and embroil, 



Carstairs, 79, 776, 782, 783. 



p of ttje yponfucoc^ 453 

if possible, the people of Scotland with the Govern- 
ment." Then he says: "After all, the Church of 
England have no reason to take it ill that the Scots 
do not make use of the Common Prayer, any more 
than the Scots have to take it ill, that the Church of 
England do not make use of the Presbyterian disci- 
pline." And again : "if any have reason, therefore, 
to take ill any thing from the other, the Church of 
Scotland has the first offence given her, by this at- 
tempt of invading her uniformity." d 

It appears difficult to comprehend the author's 
views of Toleration : for while he pleaded for the most 
perfect liberty of worship in England, he opposed the 
use of the Liturgy in Scotland. His disingenuous- 
ness, not to say dishonesty, is obvious in the pre- 
ceding extracts. It was never attempted to force the 
Liturgy upon the Church of Scotland. All that was 
required was the liberty to use the Book of Common 
Prayer in Episcopal congregations. His parallel 
between the Liturgy and the Presbyterian discipline 
is unsustained : for any congregations, in England, 
separating from the Church, were at liberty to adopt 
the Presbyterian discipline, or any form which might 
suit their inclinations. The Episcopalians only re- 
quired the same liberty in Scotland, without wishing 
to interfere with the national establishment : but this 
reasonable request was denied by the Presbyterians. 

The matter was viewed very differently in the 
House of Lords. Writing to Wake, then Bishop of 
Lincoln, Bishop Nicolson says : " We believe that 
the Presbyterian Discipline, and Confession of Faith, 
are there established by law : and that the treaty of 
Union hath confirmed both those : but we know of no 

d De Foe's History of the Union. Preface xxviii. xxix. xxx. 



454 H?i0torp of tlje 

Act of Uniformity which ratifies their peculiar way of 
worship. If the extemporary prayers of the Presby- 
terians are current on this side of the Tweed, why 
should not the Episcopal set forms be likewise received 
on the other." He then alludes to the objection, 
that it would inflame the Scots, and asks : " And what 
if it should ? We, who live nearest them, have no 
astonishing apprehensions of the consequences of any 
heats that can happen on such an occasion. It would 
look somewhat oddly, that a moderator of a Northern 
Presbytery should have the liberty of worshipping God 
in his own way at Lincoln or Carlisle, and that you 
and I should be debarred the like indulgence at Edin- 
burgh or Glasgow." 11 The subject was noticed by 
Swift in the Examiner. " It is somewhat extraordi- 
nary," says he, " to see our Whigs and Fanatics keep 
such a stir about the sacred Act of Toleration, while 
their brethren will not allow a connivance in so near 
a neighbourhood : especially if what the gentleman 
insists on in his letter be true, that nine parts in ten 
of the nobility and gentry, and two in three of the 
commons are Episcopal : of which one argument he 
offereth is the present choice of their representatives 
in both Houses, though opposed to the utmost by the 
preachings, threatenings, and anathemas of the Kirk. 

e Nicolson's Epistolary Correspondence, ii. 398, 399. Green- 
shields remained in prison until liberated by the decision of the 
House of Lords. Somerville, 469. Somerville remarks, " Though 
this sentence was agreeable to every principle of liberality and 
justice, yet it gave great offence to the Clergy and members of the 
establishment." Ibid. That the English Dissenters agreed with 
the Presbyterians is clear from their writers. They demanded a 
toleration for themselves : but denied it to others. Thus says one : 
" Three famous Incendiaries, Sacheverell in England, Higgins in 
Ireland, and Greenshields in Scotland, are punished only with pre- 
ferments." Bennet's Memorial, 398. 



of t&e 4pon/uror0, 455 

If these be the principles of the High-Kirk, God 
preserve at least the southern parts from their tyranny." 
Greenshields was liberated by the decision of the 
House. 

Greenshields's persecution was the fore-runner of 
that toleration, which at last became established in 
Scotland as in England. It led the friends of the 
Clergy to see that they were not safe under the Act 
of Comprehension. Though they were protected and 
exempted from the Church Courts, yet the Presby- 
teries were constantly claiming authority, and anxious 
to execute it. The case of Greenshields, there- 
fore, brought the matter to an issue : for the English 
Parliament perceived, that the Clergy in Scotland 
were still at the mercy of the Presbyterians. Two 
measures were accordingly proposed in Parliament, 
the one an Act of Toleration : the other an Act for 
restoring Patronage to those who had formerly en- 
joyed it. Both measures were triumphantly carried 
through Parliament : though both were vehemently 
opposed by the Presbyterians. They could not tole- 
rate the Liturgy. The Kirk therefore presented a 
petition against the measure, in which they deprecated 
the evils that would ensue. By the Toleration Act 
the Episcopal Clergy, who took the Oaths were per- 
mitted to use the English Liturgy without molestation. 
In the House of Commons the minority against the 
Bill only amounted to seventeen/ It was specially 
enacted that no pain or forfeiture should be in- 
curred u by reason of any excommunication by the 
Church Judicatory in Scotland." Thus were the Pres- 
byterians deprived of that tyrannical power, which, 
notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they had fre- 

f Somerville, 469, 470. Tindal, ii. 243. 



456 ^t^torg of tf)$ 

quently exercised. 8 The Bill, though in favour of the 
Book of Common Prayer, was opposed by Burnet. 
It was carried in 1712. 

From this period until the year 1716, the Episco- 
palians enjoyed the liberty of public worship. The 
toleration also removed the odium, under which the 
Scottish Kirk had been placed : and the Act for re- 
storing patronage to the men of property, gave them 
an interest in the established Church, which they did 
not previously feel. Though, therefore, both mea- 
sures were opposed by the Presbyterians, yet both 
tended to advance the interests of the Kirk. h Still 
many mourned over the loss of that spiritual tyranny 
which they had formerly exercised. Another Act 
was passed, which provided for the discontinuance of 
the sittings of the Courts of Law at Christmas, as in 
England : and this also gave great offence to the 
Presbyterians. The benefits of the changes have been 
abundantly reaped by the Church of Scotland : but 
the rigid Presbyterians conceived that their Church 
was shorn of its chief glory the power to persecute 
others. Accordingly one of her Advocates, alluding to 
the three Acts, thus closes his very partial and one- 
sided history. Speaking of what he calls the 
" Church's Grievances" he says : " The Acts are 
particularly, 

1. The Act for restoring Patronages. 

2. The Act for Tolerating Episcopal Ministers. 



s Life of Queen Anne, ii. 508 512. Swift's Four Last Years, 
& c . 226 230. Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, 543. There is 
great truth in the remark ; " the severest penalties ever inflicted 
in a Protestant country met with most submission," from the Epis- 
copal Clergy of Scotland. Keith, by Russell. Life, p. xxiii. 

11 Swift's Works, Scott's Ed. vol. v. 141. 



of tf)c ^onjucor^ 457 

3. The Act for the Yule Vacancy : that is, for 
keeping Christmas. 

" If these three are obtained, the Church will then 
be restored to her full lustre and authority, and it's 
hoped will never more have any occasion to complain 
of being oppressed." 1 So these Acts, reasonable as 
they were, and beneficial as they have proved to be, 
were viewed as acts of oppression towards the Church 
of Scotland. Even De Foe, acute as he was in most 
matters, was in this totally blinded by his strong 
prejudices. 

The author of the Life of Carstairs, writing in 
the year 1774, was fully sensible of the advantages 
which had accrued from the proceedings of this period. 
"The experience of sixty years has at last evinced, 
what it was impossible for human sagacity then to 
discover, that the Act of Toleration and the Act 
restoring Patronages, which were considered by the 
friends of the Church of Scotland as fatal to her in- 
terests, and which were probably intended as the pre- 
ludes to greater changes, have proved the source of 
her greatest security. Upon the one hand, the Act 
of Toleration, by taking the weapon of offence out of 
the hands of the Presbyterians, removed the chief 
ground of those resentments which the friends of Pre- 
lacy entertained against them, and, in a few years, 
almost annihilated Episcopacy in Scotland. Upon 
the other hand, the Act restoring Patronages, by re- 
storing the nobility and gentlemen of property to their 
wonted influence in the settlement of the Clergy, re- 
conciled numbers of them to the established Church, 
who had conceived the most violent prejudices 

1 De Foe's Memoirs of the Church of Scotland. Appendix. 



458 %0torp of tlje 

against that mode of election, and against the Pres- 
byterian Clergy, who were settled upon it. It is like- 
wise an incontestable fact, that from the date of these 
two Acts, the Church of Scotland has enjoyed a state 
of tranquillity to which she was an utter stranger be- 
fore.'^ 

An unfavourable picture of the Episcopal Clergy 
is given to Archbishop Wake, in 1710, by Nicolson, 
Bishop of Carlisle, who states, that the greatest 
number of the Episcopalians were under the Bishop 
of Edinburgh, " who is entirely in the interest of the 
Pretender;" that he would not permit his Clergy to 
pray for the Queen, so that the prayers, when they 
were used, " were mangled and curtailed." He af- 
firms that these men were as great enemies to Green- 
shields, as the Assembly itself, adding, "they dread 
the ruin of their own party upon the prevalency of 
our Common Prayer." According to Nicolson, there 
were one hundred and thirteen Episcopal Clergymen 
in possession of parishes, whereof eleven only were 
Nonjurors. He mentions also the singular circum- 
stance, that the number of the old covenanted Pres- 
byterians was four times as great, " who, (though they 
never pray for the Queen, nor have ever taken the 
Oath of Allegiance to her) are overlooked, and winked 
at, by the General Assembly." 1 Bishop Nicolson, 
residing on the borders of Scotland, appears to have 
taken considerable interest in the affairs of the Epis- 
copalians in that country, though it must be admitted 
that his judgment of their proceedings was unjust. 
It can scarcely be conceived, that any of the Clergy 



k Carstairs, 85. 

1 Ellis's Letters, First Series, i. 359. 



11? igtory of t!)c ^onjucor^ 459 

were enemies to Greenshields, on account of the 
English Liturgy." 1 

After the Toleration Act in 1712, the English 
Liturgy was extensively used by the Episcopalians 
in Scotland. The Church, says a writer, who well 
knew the circumstances, " was put in a much better 
condition than at any time since the Revolution : 
Meeting Houses were set up in several towns and 
villages, where both pastors and people manifested 
the greatest forwardness for embracing the English 
Liturgy, and it was brought into several parish 
Churches. Prayer Books were sent from England 
to supply the wants of the people. All this was in 
a great measure owing to the generous charity of 
many pious and well disposed persons of all ranks, 
of the Church of England, particularly of the famous 
University of Oxford, at whose charges and charitable 
contributions, without any brief to further it, above 
nineteen thousand Common Prayer Books, and other 
devotional edifying books relating to it, were remitted 
from London in the space of two years."" The Pres- 
byterians were annoyed and perplexed : they called 



m Archbishop Sharp formed a much more correct opinion on the 
sufferings of the Episcopal Clergy. When the Bishop of Edinburgh 
wrote to him on the subject, the Archbishop sent a letter directly 
to the Queen. He also " spoke earnestly to her Majesty about the 
Episcopal Clergy. He told her Majesty of the Judge Advocate's 
circular letter for shutting up all the Episcopal Meeting Houses ; 
in which letter he said he had orders from the Queen, under her 
hand and seal, to do this. The Queen said it was not so." This 
was before Greenshields' s case occurred : and for some time, the 
Clergy were permitted to enjoy a little peace. The Archbishop 
also induced the Queen to make a grant of money to several of the 
Scottish Bishops. Life of Archbishop Sharp, i. 393 398. 

n Representation of the State of the Church in North Britain, 
p. 19. 



460 ^totorp of rfje 

the Prayer Book the English mass : they designated 
it idolatrous and superstitious, alleging even that the 
Scottish Episcopacy was tolerable in comparison, 
because there was no Liturgy : but still they could 
not prevent its introduction. 

The Clergy were quiet and peaceable. " They 
have it for a principle not to disturb the peace of the 
kingdom they belong to:" and " though some of them 
could not comply with all the tests required by the 
Government, yet there cannot one instance be given 
of any Clergyman's being prosecuted for tumultuous, 
seditious, and treasonable speeches and practices." 4 
However the Presbyterians were anxious to commence 
a persecution against the Episcopal Clergy under 
the plea of sedition and treason : though Episcopacy 
and the Liturgy were the causes. Those who refused 
to take the Oaths were subjected to certain penalties ; 
but still, by the Act of Toleration, no person was 
permitted to interrupt their worship ; nor were the 
Presbyteries permitted to interfere. The Queen and 
her Government well knew that the Nonjurors were 
peaceable men : and therefore the Oaths were not 
exacted from them, though they were required by the 
Act. This was a wise policy, and well would it have 
been if the same course had been pursued from the 
beginning. But this state of things was soon changed. 
The Queen died in 1714 : the Whigs were restored 
to office : the laws against Papists and Nonjurors 
were ordered to be enforced : and the most lament- 
able consequences ensued. Had Queen Anne's pacific 
course been followed, the Rebellion of 1715 might 
not have taken place. 



Representation, &c. 21. Russell's Keith, .507. Russell's 
History of Church in Scotland, ii. 390, 391. 



%'0torp of tlje jp0nfurot#. 461 

The Rebellion, however, was made the pretence 
for putting the laws in force against those who, 
though they had not taken the Oaths required by 
the Toleration Act, were yet living quietly and peace- 
ably, without any wish to disturb the Government. 
The Liturgy, as we have seen, was generally used : 
and against this form of sound words the ire of the 
Presbyterians was now stirred up. Wherever the 
Government troops came, the Episcopal congregations 
were broken up and dispersed. At Aberdeen, the 
Liturgy had been used more than four years : but 
the congregations were scattered. An English gen- 
tleman, well affected to the Government, assembled 
some of the people ; but he was not permitted to 
read the Liturgy, though protected by the Act of 
Toleration. All the Chapels and houses where the 
Liturgy had been used were immediately closed : 
the Clergy were shamefully used : and the people 
were prevented from assembling for public worship. 
Nor did the Presbyterians rest content with closing 
the Chapels ; but even the Clergy, who had retained 
their Churches according to law, were imprisoned 
only because they were Episcopalians. For several 
years, therefore, the Clergy were subjected to perse- 
cutions of various kinds. p 

The Episcopal Clergy of Aberdeen indeed ren- 
dered themselves obnoxious by addressing the Pre- 
tender : but no other address was presented from 
any of the Clergy. They commence : " We, your 
Majesty's most faithful and dutiful .subjects, &c." 
The citizens of Aberdeen also copied the example of 
the Clergy. q After the Rebellion was crushed, many 



P Representation of the State of the Church in North Britain, 
25, 30. n Life of Argyle, 237, 240. 



462 1i?f0torp of tlje 

of the prisoners were confined at Carlisle. The 
Bishop was, as he states, frequently importuned by 
the friends of some of the unhappy men. Writing 
to Wake, he says : " Among the rest the Bishop of 
Edinburgh warmly recommends to my counsel, direc- 
tion, and favour a son of his, who is one of our guests. 
He gives broad hints that his child suffers for right- 
eousness sake." Nicolson remarks, that he had told 
the Bishop, whom he calls " A mischievous Prelate," 
that he would no more interfere in behalf of his son, 
than he would for his own in similar circumstances. 
The son of another Bishop was also implicated. Arch- 
bishop Wake procured a memorial in his favour : 
and the Bishop of Carlisle was anxious for his safety, 
as well as for that of the son of the Bishop of Edin- 
burgh, remarking that both " were as duly trained 
up to revolt against King George by their respective 
parents, as ever Moss-trooper's children were bred to 
stealing." He wished to save them on the ground 
of their education, throwing the blame upon their 
parents. The judges, he says, were directed to be 
indulgent to sons, who were led by their fathers : 
" which I think brings them as fairly within this rule 
as if the two prelates had galloped before them into 
the battle." 1 

The crimes alleged against the Clergy were " Praying 
for the Pretender, keeping fasts and thanksgivings, 
and not praying for King George in express terms." 3 



r Ellis's Letters, First Series, iii. 3678, 3956. 

8 The Appeal of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland to the Lords 
in Parliament. Wherein the proceedings of the Presbyterian 
judicatures against Episcopal Ministers are proved to be contrary 
to the laws of the land, to express Acts of Parliament, to common 
Equity, and to former Precedents in the like Cases. 8vo. 1718. 
p. 29. 



of ttje /ponwrortf. 463 

These charges were never proved ; hut in any case 
the Presbyteries had no jurisdiction in such matters. 
The fact, that they were permitted to tyrannize, shews 
the miserable state of things at this time in Scotland. 
The Clergy pleaded " that they are not at all subject 
to the jurisdiction of any of the Presbyterian judica- 
tures : not being of their communion." In proof of 
this they refer to the Toleration Act. 4 The charge 
of keeping fasts and thanksgivings rested on nothing 
more than the fact, that some of the Clergy observed 
the particular days appointed by the Church, on 
which occasions they preached against the errors of 
Rome, without any allusion to the Pretender." On 
such grounds did the Presbyterians interfere : though 
they had no jurisdiction. It is argued in the Appeal, 
" 'Tis against all reason that they should be subject 
to their jurisdiction, either as to their practice or 
opinion, doctrine or discipline, worship or sacraments. 
For their being permitted, tolerated, and protected, 
would be of no manner of use to them in that case. 
It is easy to imagine, if the Presbyterians were judges, 
what doctrine they would deem erroneous, what devo- 
tion they would look upon as superstitious, what 
worship they would censure as idolatrous, and what 
ordination they would esteem unlawful. For the ap- 
pellants stand already condemned in all these matters 
by the acts of general assemblies. And are those to 
be the appellants' judges." They proceed : " They 
need not seek a repeal of the Toleration Act in Scot- 
land, which is so grievous to them : if they may put 
what glosses they please upon it : if they can censure, 
depose, and incapacitate those who are entitled to 
the benefit thereof. " w The appellants argued that 

The Appeal, &c. 38. Ibid. 104. * i bid> 45> 



464 ^feftorp of tlje 

offences against the State were only cognizable by the 
State. This point was settled by the law : yet, in 
persecuting the Episcopal Clergy, the Presbyterians 
were permitted to violate the principles of law and 
of equity. Thus it is clear, not only that the Act 
securing Episcopal Clergymen in their benefices was 
violated, under the pretence of treason, after the Rebel- 
lion ; but also that the benefit of the Toleration Act 
was not for a long period extended to Episcopalians 
in Scotland, who were not permitted to use the Liturgy 
in private. 

In 1719 an Act was passed " For making more 
effectual the laws appointing the Oaths:" but as several 
years had elapsed since the Rebellion, there was some 
relaxation in the persecutions, to which the Clergy had 
been subjected. By this Act an Episcopal Minister, 
performing divine service without taking the Oaths, 
was subjected to imprisonment ; but the Government 
had grown wiser, and it was not rigorously enforced : 
so that from a few years after this period until 1746 
the Episcopal Church enjoyed much prosperity. 1 

But we must now turn to the divisions, which began 
to exist soon after this period among the Clergy 



x Keith, by Russell, 509. In 1718 a collection was made in 
England for the suffering Clergy after an application attested by 
Campbell and Gadderer. In a note to the Case of the Church of 
Scotland, we have the following melancholy proof of Presbyterian 
violence. " There are at present about an hundred and twenty 
Priests of the Church of Scotland, whose melancholy circum- 
stances cry loudly, and plead more powerfully than can be ex- 
pressed by words : and since the suppression of the chapels and 
meeting houses for the Service of the Liturgy, and some other 
desolating emergencies, the number of individual sufferers is grow- 
ing daily greater, and God only seeth the end thereof: whose 
blessed will be done." Somers' Tracts, xii. 492. 



of tljc jponjuror^. 465 

themselves respecting the usages. We have seen, 
that the Scottish Bishops were divided in opinion, 
when Collier and Spinkes consulted them on the 
subject ; but no decision was given on the question 
which had so agitated the Anglican Nonjurors. And 
though the section, adhering to Collier and Brett, 
adopted the New Communion Office ; yet no such 
measure seems to have been contemplated for some 
years in Scotland. On the contrary, it is a well 
established fact, that the English Liturgy, in all its 
parts, was generally used in Scotland, without any 
hesitation, for several years subsequent to the dis- 
putes in England. For some time the Clergy had 
to contend with the Presbyterians, in favour of the 
English Liturgy. 7 The old slander was revived, that 
the Prayer Book was the Mass Book in English : and 
one fanatical Preacher ventured to assert that the 
devils, who had previously been chained up, had 
broke loose since the introduction of the English Ser- 
vice Book. 2 The Citizen of Aberdeen, however, after 
a general defence of the Liturgy against the cavils of 
the Presbyterians, admits his preference for the First 
Communion Office: from which we may infer, that 
he and others, who used the English Book, were in- 
clined to the Usages, though they did not deem them 
matters of so much importance, as to break the unity 
of the Church in consequence. Skinner says, that 
the Scottish Office was not introduced at first on 
account of the scarcity of the Book of 1637, and the 



y See as a specimen : " An Apology for the Use of the English 
Liturgy and Worship against the Cavils and Exceptions of the 
Presbyterians in North Britain, &c. &c. By a Citizen of Aber- 
deen. 8vo. London 1718." 

* Ibid. p. 1, 2. 

H H 



466 l^fgtorp of 

impossibility of procuring a reprint. He argues, 
therefore, that necessity led to the use of the English 
Form : but that, though introduced, yet the Clergy 
were not pledged to its adoption in all particulars, 
being at liberty to adopt any authorized form, or any 
one sanctioned by the Bishops.* For some time the 
matter was allowed to sleep : but, after the death of 
the older Bishops, the question was revived. In the 
year 1712, the Earl ofWinton reprinted the Scottish 
Liturgy of 1637 : yet it was used only in his own 
chapel at Tranent, and even then against the remon- 
strances of the Bishop of Edinburgh. 5 As long as 
Bishop Rose survived, the use of the English Service 
alone was encouraged. He died in 1720 : and then 
the disputes were revived. In 1723 a sort of defence 
of the Scottish Communion Office was published. 
This service was nearly similar, in the points res- 
pecting the Usages, to the First Communion Office 
of King Edward. The author enters into some par- 
ticulars respecting its history : from which it appears, 
that, after the reprint by the Earl of Win ton, the 
Bishop, at length, consented to its use in his Lord- 
ship's Chapel. The various points of difference 
between it and the English Office are pointed out : 
and the writer claims for it a nearer affinity to the 
Ancient Liturgies and the primitive practice. 

a Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, ii. 627. 

b A Defence of the Communion Office of the Church of England, 
proving that there is neither reason nor authority for laying it 
aside. In a Letter, to a Friend. Preface xix. This letter was 
written by George Smith, one of the Nonjuring Bishops in England 
who agreed with Spinkes : but it was published in Edinburgh in 
1744, with a Preface by another hand. The Preface contains an 
account of the Scottish and English Liturgies. 

c An Enquiry in the Decent and Beautiful Order of the Admi- 
nistration of the Lord's Supper, for the Use of the Church of Scot- 



of tfje /ponfurorg, 467 

The differences of opinion among the Bishops were 
considerable. Lockhart, writing to the Pretender in 
1722, alludes to the divisions among the English 
Nonjurors, and calls the breach a " prejudice and 
discredit to the whole party." " Of those," says he, 
" who sett up for alterations, two of our Scots Bishops, 
Campbell and Gatherer, made a considerable figure 
at London, where they have resided many years ; and 
Falconer favoured them in Scotland. There have 
been several meetings of the Bishops, and all but 
Falconer and Gatherer are against all alterations or 
innovations. They think what is desired not so 
essential, as to be laid in the balance with the mis- 
constructions their enemies will put upon them." He 
states, that the Bishops opposed to the Usages wished 
to know the opinion of the Pretender's trustees, who 
advised him on Scottish and English affairs. He also 
mentions that he attended a meeting, at which 
both parties endeavoured to justify themselves by 
the practice of the Fathers and the primitive ages. 
Lockhart recommended an agreement among them- 
selves : stating, that he was instructed by the Pre- 
tender to give them that advice, and that they 
should not move until his pleasure were known. 
Falconer, it seems, yielded to the other Bishops ; but, 
says Lockhart, Gadderer advanced his " usages, as 
he termed them, in the Northern Countries," against 
the advice of the Bishops and the Prince's trustees. 
It seems, from Lockhart's Letter of May 21, 1723, 
that the Bishops even thought of suspending Gad- 
derer. He adds, that their enemies alleged, that the 



land, and that conform to the Text of Sacred Scripture, and of 
Ancient and Modern Authors, in opposition to all Popish Super- 
stitions. By a Gentleman of the Church of Scotland, 8vo. 1723. 



468 

Episcopal Clergy were advancing towards Rome, and 
that the Pretender's cause was thereby prejudiced. 
Other divisions also are mentioned by Lockhart. 
Archibald Campbell being elected Bishop of Aber- 
deen, the Bishops would not confirm him in his post, 
unless he pledged himself not to introduce the Usages. 
He, however, chose to consider himself as duly ap- 
pointed, and sent Gadderer with a commission to act 
in his name. d At length Gadderer submitted, per- 
ceiving that the Bishops were determined to act. 
He defended the practices : but the Bishops viewed 
them as matters of indifference, which were not to be 
introduced, especially as they supplied their enemies 
with arguments to their prejudice. 6 

Thus the Scottish Clergy were as much divided 
in opinion respecting the Usages as the English. In 
the year 1728 a sensible Tract was published against 
their introduction. The author contends, that they 
are not of sufficient importance to justify the warmth 
of their advocates. He alludes to the unanimity 
which prevailed before the agitation of this question : 
and then enters upon an examination of the various 
points, which, though brief, is very comprehensive. 
He goes over the same ground as Campbell ; but he 
concludes, that the Reformers acted wisely in reject- 
ing the Usages.* 

d Lockhart, ii. 98 104. 

* Lockhart, ii. 123130. 

f The Antiquated Usages, which have made so great a noise 
amongst us, briefly examined, and found insufficient to justify the 
zealous endeavours of some persons to introduce them. Together 
with a humble and affectionate Address to all the Episcopal Com- 
munion in Scotland, to demean themselves agreeably to the me- 
lancholy condition of this afflicted Church. By One who hath her 
peace and welfare much at heart. Edinburgh, printed in the year 
1728. 



ot" tlje ^onjurortf. 469 

In consequence of the disputes, the Bishops as- 
sembled and agreed, that the use of the Scottish 
Office should be permitted to those who wished it : 
and they expressed their hope, that as the two offices 
were substantially the same, all disturbance might be 
prevented. 8 The calm, however, did not long con- 
tinue; for the communion became broken into parties 
respecting the Usages and the appointment of 
Bishops. In 1731 a concordate was arranged, by 
which they agreed, " That we shall only make use 
of the Scottish or English Liturgies in the public 
divine service, nor shall we disturb the peace of the 
Church, by introducing into the public worship any 
of the ancient usages, concerning which there has 
been lately a difference amongst us, and that we shall 
censure any of our Clergy that shall act otherwise." 
They agreed also, that no one should be appointed a 
Bishop but with the consent of the majority of the 
other Bishops : that on the demise of a Bishop, the 
Presbyters should not elect another without a man- 
date from the Primus, acting with the consent of his 
brethren : and that the Primus, whose duty it should 
be to assemble and preside over the meetings of the 
Clergy, should be chosen by a majority. By the 
ancient Usages, they meant Immersion in Baptism, 
Chrism in Corifirmation, and Anointing the Sick, with 
some other practices, which were not retained in the 
Scottish Book. In general by the Usages were un- 
derstood the four practices, which have been so fre- 
quently noticed : but these were retained in the Scot- 
tish Office, which by this concordate was allowed. 
In this agreement, therefore, the additional cere- 



s Skinner, ii. 633, 634. A Defence of the Communion Office, 
&c. Preface xx. 



470 ^tgtorp of tje $lonjur;oc0. 

monies are comprehended in the term usages. Thus 
by the Concordate both offices were placed upon the 
same footing. 11 Both were to be used at the option of 
the Clergy : but neither party was to introduce usages 
not contained in and enjoined by these offices. It 
seems, however, that some of the Clergy violated the 
compact, which led to the publication of Bishop Smith's 
Letter in 1744, in defence of the English Office. 

It appears, that the Pretender was usually con- 
sulted in the appointment of the Scottish Bishops, 
of which various instances are related by Lockhart. 
Some contended, that the election by the Clergy was 
sufficient : while others argued, that the consent of 
the King, meaning the Son of James II. and the 
college of Bishops was necessary. This dispute con- 
tinued several years : and Lockhart designates those 
who opposed the college, as factious Bishops, because 
they paid no respect to the King and their brethren.* 
We find, that on some occasions, the Pretender named 
the persons ; but of course they had been previously 
suggested to him by his friends in Scotland. They 
looked forward to his restoration : and though they 
took no steps to effect it, they still wished to keep 
up the succession, in what was deemed the regular 
way. k In 1726 the Pretender addressed a letter to 
the College of Bishops, in which, alluding to the in- 
firmities of the Bishop of Edinburgh, he says, " I 
have found it necessary, by this letter, to desire and 
direct, that Bishop Cant, and failing of him by 
decease, or his being rendered incapable by infirm- 
ities, that Bishop Duncan should reside at Edinburgh 



h Skinner, ii. 647. Defence of the Communion Office. Preface. 
* Lockhart, ii. 3542, 237, 238, 323330, 333336. 
k Lockhart, ii. 7781, 271, 272. 



of tlje ^onjurorg, 471 

and preside amongst you, and take care of the affairs 
of the Church in my capital of Scotland, and diocese 
thereof, until I be able to determine myself in the 
choice of a person duly qualified and agreeable to 
my people, to be settled in a post of such conse- 
quence. 1 " In another letter the Prince recommends 
Gillan for consecration : and in another he says : 
" When there shall be any vacancies in the College 
of Bishops, or when you shall think proper that others 
be added to your number, you give into my Trustees 
a list of such persons as you may think every way 
qualified for discharging the office of a Bishop in the 
Church, which my Trustees are to send to me, with 
their opinion upon it, that thereby I may be the 
better enabled to give the proper and necessary 
directions in that respect. And further, it is my 
will and pleasure, that no Bishop amongst you shall 
be appointed to have the care and inspection of any 
particular district, without my previous authority, 
and that when you think an appointment necessary, 
that you give me your opinion in writing to my 
Trustees, to be transmitted to me as above. m " 

Apart from the divisions amongst the Bishops and 
Clergy, the Nonjuring Church of Scotland was in a 
flourishing condition for several years previous to the 



1 Lockhart, ii. 289. 

m Lockhart, ii. 310, 311. In a little time the Bishops were ap- 
pointed by the Clergy and Bishops without consulting the Pre- 
tender. Thus in 1790, Skinner remarks that the charge of being 
recommended by the Pretender applied only to the Bishops of a 
distant period, and not to the present, who had no connexion with 
him relative to the obtaining orexercising their Episcopal functions. 
The practice of applying to the exiled family prevailed only during 
a few years. Skinner's Annals of Scottish Episcopacy, pp. 191, 
192. 



472 l^igtorp of tfje 

troubles of 1745, and 1746. n It is remarked by 
Bishop Russell, that "the Scottish Bishops for twenty 
years after being umpires became parties," in the dis- 
putes concerning the usages. Campbell resigned his 
post in Scotland in consequence of these practices, 
and resided in London. His work on " The Middle 
State," is written on principles involved in the usages? 
We have seen, too, that other divisions existed re- 
specting the appointment of Bishops. Still the Church 
was in a flourishing state when the Rebellion broke 
out. The Nonjurors, however, were not the only party 
from whose ranks the supporters of the Rebellion were 
drawn. Many who had taken the Oaths were also 
implicated : and many Presbyterians, as well as Non- 
jurors, enrolled themselves under the Pretender's stan- 
dard." 1 Skinner observes, that whether their Church 
" was blameable or not, she was soon involved in the 
dismal consequences of it." Meeting-houses were 
burnt down by the soldiers in the villages ; and in the 
towns they were shut up or demolished. The Clergy 
were obliged to live in concealment, being suspected. 
The laws were suspended for three months, and a 
military government established. An Act also was 

n Keith, 509 512. 

Keith, Preface, xxviii. 
P Keith, 530, 531, 532. 

1 Skinner, ii. 662. I have already refuted the assertion that 
the people in 1688 were generally Presbyterians: but it may be 
added, that there were, in 1740, after all the sufferings to which 
they had been exposed, three hundred Episcopal Clergymen, in 
Scotland, with large and respectable congregations. This fact is 
cited by Bishop Walker, as a proof that the Episcopal Church 
could not have been so contrary to the inclinations of the people, 
as was represented. The Bishop remarks, that if Episcopal prin- 
ciples had not obtained a firm hold on the affections of the people, 
they could not have survived the restrictions imposed in 1716. 
Bishop Walker's Charge, pp. 36, 37. 



of ttje jlJonfucorg. 473 

passed, by which every Episcopal Clergyman, exer- 
cising his functions without taking the Oaths, was 
subjected to imprisonment for the first offence, and for 
the second , to transportation. Every assemblage of five 
persons was deemed by the Act an Episcopal Meet- 
ing/ Hitherto the laity had escaped : but in 1 746 all 
persons frequenting such illegal meetings were com- 
manded to give information, under a penalty of fine 
and imprisonment. In 1748, the Act was revised, 
when it was enacted, that none but English or Irish 
Letters of Orders should be deemed sufficient to 
qualify any minister for the exercise of his Office in 
Scotland. The injustice of this clause was so obvious, 
that it was opposed by all the English Bishops. Still 
it was carried. The Clergy could not perform divine 
service in any place except their own houses. For a 
time, therefore, the Clergy could only act in the most 
private manner ; but at length the Government began 
to relax in their vigilance, knowing that the Episco- 
palians were quiet and peaceable, though they did not 
take the Oaths. The Bishops, however, took care to 
continue the succession, appointing others as vacancies 
occurred. 3 

1 Skinner, ii. 663 665. It is a curious fact, that, notwith- 
standing the hostility of the Presbyterians to the English Liturgy, 
several editions of the Book of Common Prayer were printed at 
Edinburgh by the King's Printer. They must have been used by 
the Episcopal congregations : but it is remarkable that the Pres- 
byterian authorities did not interpose. The books are scarce, yet 
I have no less than four copies, all different editions, printed be- 
tween the years 1719 and 1761, one by Watson, 1719, another 
by the same, 1720, one by Basket, 1727, and another by Watkins, 
1761. They are small editions, and beautifully printed. 

s Skinner, ii. 670, 671. The trials to which the Clergy were 
exposed are detailed with much minuteness in the Life of Skinner, 
the author of the Ecclesiastical History. "The writer of this 
memoir," says his biographer, " has often heard him tell, that on 



474 %0torp of tfte 

Such was the state of things until the accession of 
George III. in 1760. From this time the Church 
of Scotland began to revive, a prospect of better 
days appearing. Ever since 1746 the members had 
only met privately : but now they ventured to make 
an attempt for an extension of privileges. 1 In 1765 



coming home one evening, from performing an occasional office in 
the way of his duty, he found his house in the possession of a mi- 
litary party : some of them guarding the door with fixed bayonets, 
and others searching the several apartments, even the bedchamber 
where Mrs. Skinner was lying in of her fifth child. No lenity 
was to be looked for from such unfeeling visitors, who pillaged the 
house of every thing they could carry with them, hardly leaving a 
change of linen to father, mother, or child in the family. The 
chapel with all the furniture was destroyed, and for several years 
the congregation could find no place to meet in for public worship 
but the Clergyman's house." Life of Skinner, p. ix. Prefixed to 
his Theological Works. He was subsequently imprisoned for of- 
ficiating as a clergyman to more than four persons besides his own 
family. Life, xi. xii. Bishop Russell states, that many clergy- 
men officiated sixteen times on the same Sunday, in order to keep 
within the terms of the law. Russell's History of the Church in 
Scotland, ii. 405. It seems that the Clergy went from house to 
house to visit their people and perform the service of the Church. 
Chambers's History of the Rebellion, 295, 298. Chambers also 
mentions instances of suffering. On one occasion a clergyman was 
obliged to baptize a child under a tree to avoid discovery, vol. ii. 
339, 40. The circumstance is recorded in the Register of the 
Episcopal Chapel of Muthill in Perthshire. It is under the date of 
the 20th of March 1750. N. B. " With such excessive severity were 
the penal laws executed at this time, that ANDREW Mom, having 
neglected to keep his appointment with me at my own house this 
morning, and following me to LORD ROLLO'S house of Duncrub, 
we could not take the child into a house, but I was obliged to go 
under the cover of the trees in one of Lord Rollo's parks to prevent 
our being discovered, and baptize the child there." Bishop Wal- 
ker's Charge, &c. p. 38. 

* Had the Oath of Abjuration been repealed on the accession of 
George III. no Jacobite would have existed. Keith, by Russell, 
513. 



/ponjurorg* 475 

the Communion Office was revised, the differences on 
the usages having long since ceased. The work was 
undertaken by the Bishops, and brought into its pre- 
sent state. From this period, it has been the practice to 
use the English Liturgy, with the exception of the 
Communion Office. As the Scottish Episcopalians 
generally preferred the Office of King Edward's First 
Book, or that of the Book of 1637, they framed their 
service after the model contained in these two Books, 
rather than after that which is adopted by the Church 
of England. In all other respects the uniformity be- 
tween the two Churches is complete. Some persons 
have charged the Scottish Office with Popery : but 
better judges than any of those, who have, within the 
last few years, deserted the Communion of the Church 
of Scotland, have pronounced it a truly sound and 
primitive Form. Bishop Horsley in 1 806, a man whom 
no one can charge with Popery, writes thus respecting 
the Scottish Office : " with respect to the comparative 
merits of the two offices for England and Scotland, I 
have no scruple in declaring to you, that I think the 
Scotch Office more conformable to the primitive 
models, and in my private judgment more edifying 
than that which we now use : insomuch, that were I at 
liberty to follow my own private judgment, I would 
myself use the Scotch Office in preference. The altera- 
tions which were made in the communion service, as it 
stood in the first Book of Edward VI. to humour the 
Calvinists, were, in my opinion, much for the worse : 
nevertheless, I think our present office is very good."" 
This testimony is more than sufficient to counterba- 



u Skinner's Office for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or 
Holy Communion, according" to the Use of the Episcopal Church 
in Scotland. 8vo. Aberdeen. 1807, p. 157. 



476 %'gtorp of tlje 

lance the assertions of certain persons in the present 
day, who have scarcely examined the subject, or, if 
they do examine it, are incompetent, from the strong 
influence of prejudice, to form a correct opinion. w 

But though, after the accession of George III. their 
condition was improved, no legislative interference 
was yet brought to bear upon their case. The laws 
still remained in force. But in 1784 the Episcopal 
Clergy in America applied to the Scottish Prelates 
to consecrate one of their number a Bishop. Dr. 
Seabury, the Clergyman selected by the American 
Church, had applied to the Anglican Bishops ; but, 
in consequence of a difficulty respecting the Oaths, 
he was advised to seek consecration in Scotland. The 
Scottish Bishops, anxious to proceed in such a manner 
as not to offend the Government, consulted Archbishop 
Moore, who assured them, that the act would really 
be appreciated in England. Accordingly the conse- 
cration took place : and the Scottish Bishops were 
the instruments of preserving Episcopacy in the United 
States/ 

Four years later, in 1788, Charles Edward Stuart, 



w The gracious intentions of his Majesty were not agreeable to 
some fanatical Clergymen of the English Church. Accordingly ? 
in 1767, Norman Sieveright, an English clergyman, published a 
sort of Caution against the Scottish Church. This gentleman was 
located in Scotland, and appears to have acted on principles simi- 
lar to those by which Sir William Dunbar and Mr. Drummond 
are at present influenced. He called himself the minister of an 
Episcopal congregation at Brechin: but Skinner asks, " What is 
an Episcopal congregation? The old notion, (whether right or 
wrong) was a congregation under a Bishop. If so, tell us, what 
Bishop your Brechin congregation is under : and who authorized 
this Episcopal congregation." Sieveright's attempt exposed him 
to the contempt of sensible men. Skinner's Life, xxi. xxvii. 

* Skinner's Ecc. Hist. ii. 683687. Keith, 51316. 



of rtje $lonjuror, 477 

the Pretender, the grandson of James II. died with- 
out issue. This, as it related to the Scottish Church, 
was an important event, since it removed the only 
obstacle to the full recognition of the English Sove- 
reign. On the 24th of April, the Bishops met at 
Aberdeen, and, with the concurrence of the Clergy, 
resolved to submit to the Government as vested in 
the person of George III. On the 18th day of May, 
the Clergy, in all their congregations, gave public 
notice, that on the following Sunday, the name of 
King George would be introduced in the Public 
Liturgy. y 

The following notice was agreed upon by the Scot- 
tish Bishops, and published in the Chapels. 

Intimation to the Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal 
Church in Scotland. 

" The Protestant Bishops in Scotland, having met 
at Aberdeen, on the 24th of April, 1788, to take into 
their serious consideration the state of the Church 
under their inspection, did, upon mature deliberation 
with their Clergy, unanimously agree to comply with 
and submit to the present Government of this kingdom 
as vested in the person of his Majesty King George 
III. They also resolve to testify this compliance, 
by uniformly praying for him by name in their public 
worship, in hopes of removing all suspicion of disaf- 
fection, and of obtaining relief from those penal laws, 
under which this Church has so long suffered. At 
the same time, they think it their duty to declare j 
that this resolution proceeds from principles purely 
Ecclesiastical : and that they are moved to it by the 

y Skinner's History, ii. 688, 689. Every Clergyman complied 
except the Rev. James Brown, of Montrose. Skinner's Annals, 78 . 



478 i^igtorp of tije 

justest and most satisfying reasons, in discharge of 
that high trust devolved upon them in their Episcopal 
character : and to promote, as far as they can, the 
peace and prosperity of that portion of the Christian 
Church committed to their charge. 

" For obtaining of this desirable end, they there- 
fore appoint their Clergy to make public notification 
to their congregations upon the 18th day of May next, 
that upon the following Lord's day, nominal Prayers 
for the King are to be authoritatively introduced, and 
afterwards to continue in the religious assemblies of 
this Episcopal Church : and they beg leave to recom- 
mend, as to their Clergy, whose obedience they ex- 
pect, so likewise to all good Christian people, under 
their Episcopal care, and do earnestly intreat and 
exhort them, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, that they 
will all cordially receive this determination of their 
Spiritual Fathers." 

This Document was subscribed by 

Robert Kilgour, Bishop and Primus. 

John Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen. 

Andrew Macfarlane, Bishop of Ross and 
Moray. 

William Abernethy Drummond, Bishop of 
Edinburgh. 

John Strachan, Bishop of Brechin. 1 

At this time, therefore, the Church of Scotland 
ceased to be a Nonjuring Church. It is a remark- 
able circumstance, that the Pretender should have 
died just one hundred years after the Revolution ; and 
that the Nonjuring schism should have lasted just a 
century/ 

55 Gents. Mag. Iviii. 401. 

a It seems that Brown afterwards formed a party, who com- 



of t&e jfi2onfur;ot#. 479 

My narrative might here be closed, since the Scot- 
tish Bishops and Clergy were no longer Nonjurors : 
but as several years elapsed before they were put in 
possession of the rights and privileges of all other 
British subjects, I shall subjoin a few notices of this 
primitive Church, until the penal enactments were 
removed by legislative interposition. At this time 
they were not molested in their worship, because the 
Government would not permit any such violation of 
the principles of justice : but still the penal laws of 
1746 and 1748 remained unrepealed. 

The determination of the Bishops was approved 
and commended by his Majesty, King George III. : 
and a communication to that effect was made by one 
of the Secretaries of State. The King expressed 
his satisfaction at the proof of their attachment, 
which they had given. The Bishops were also 
assured, that the penal statutes would be repealed. 
In 1789, three of the Bishops proceeded to London, 
just at the time of the King's recovery from a severe 
illness. A Bill for their relief was brought into the 
Commons, and passed without any opposition. Mr. 
Dundas, afterwards Lord Mellville, though a Presby- 
terian, bore his most unqualified testimony in favour 
of the Scottish Episcopalians : stating, that as they 
had submitted to poverty and distress for one hun- 
dred years, from a conscientious, though mistaken, 



plained of what the Bishops had done. Brown, moreover, made 
an attempt to continue the succession through himself. He went 
to Bishop Rose, then in a state of imbecility, and, it is said, caused 
him to perform the office of consecration. When the aged Prelate 
was questioned on the subject, he replied in the simplicity of child- 
hood, " My sister may have done it, but not I." The disaffected 
were removed in a few years by death ; and the disaffection ceased. 
Skinner's Annals, 83. 



480 i?!0torp of tlje 

adherence to what they conceived to be their duty, 
they would now, since they could transfer their alle- 
giance to the Sovereign, become some of the most 
faithful subjects of his Majesty. In the Lords, how- 
ever, the Bill was opposed by Thurlow, the Lord 
Chancellor. 

As the chief men among the Presbyterians were 
friendly to the measure, it seemed strange, that it 
should meet with opposition from English Church- 
men. b An account of the whole proceedings was 
left in MS. by Bishop Skinner, which was afterwards 
published by his son in the Annals of Scottish Epis- 
copacy. The Bishops, in an address to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, stated, that the penal laws were only 
intended to repress the political disaffection ascribed 
to the Clergy and lay-members of the Episcopal 
Church, and they only asked to be placed on the 
same footing, as to toleration, with English Dis- 
senters. They expressed their approval of the En- 
glish Liturgy : and added, that, though they used 
generally the Scottish Office, the Clergy had a dis- 
cretionary power to adopt either, and that some 
actually did use the English Form. The Archbishop, 
Horsley, Bishop of St. David's, and indeed most of 
the Anglican Prelates, maintained a friendly inter- 
course with their Scottish brethren, during their stay 
in London. A case was drawn up, in which the 
penal laws were enumerated, and the compliance with 
the acts in praying for the King and Royal Family 
was specified. c The Bishops also addressed Thur- 
low, having been apprised of his dislike of the mea- 
sure before Parliament. In a second letter to his 
Lordship, they confess the political scruples, which 

b Skinner's Annals, pp. 94, 176. c Ibid. pp. 95, 99, 109. 



of tfje /ponjurorg* 481 

had so long prevented them from testifying their alle- 
giance to the Government; but they add, that as 
soon as the cause of their disaffection was removed, 
they recognized his Majesty's authority. Thurlow 
had alluded to the Oath of Abjuration, which, as 
being retrospective, they admitted they could not 
take, without involving themselves in perjury, since 
no person could take it, who had ever recognized the 
rights which it disclaimed. In July, the Bishops 
returned to Scotland ; Thurlow's opposition was suc- 
cessful : and the bill was lost. d 

The next year, Lord Gardenston, one of the Scotch 
judges, and a Presbyterian, addressed Lord Thurlow 
on the subject. " Though bred a Presbyterian," he 
says, " I have ever revered the order and decency of 
the Episcopal Church. In doctrine they are soundly 
protestant. Their principles in regard to Govern- 
ment are now reformed, and not less loyal than ours." 
This was unsolicited and unsuspected testimony ; 
still it was deemed desirable to delay the prosecution 
of the measure for the present. In the mean time the 
Case of the Episcopal Clergy was reprinted and cir- 
culated. The subject was again submitted to Parlia- 
ment in 1791, when Thurlow said, that he should 
not oppose the principle, but that he wished to make 
some observations on the Bill. He unhesitatingly, 
however, condemned the Statutes of Queen Anne and 
George II. as unnecessarily severe, though he was 
still anxious for some restrictions. The Bishop of 
St. David's spoke strongly in favour of the measure : 
and in reply to Thurlow's notion, that Clergy of 
English Ordination might meet the case, he expressed 
himself in language, which some persons in the 



d Skinner's Annals, pp. 114, 122. 
I I 



482 ^tetorp of tfje 

present day would do well to consider. " The credit 
of Episcopacy will never be advanced by the scheme 
of supplying the Episcopalian congregations in Scot- 
land with Pastors of our ordination : and for this 
reason, that it would be an imperfect crippled Epis- 
copacy that would be thus upheld in Scotland. 
When a Clergyman ordained by one of us settles as 
a pastor of a congregation in Scotland, he is out 
of the reach of our authority. We have no autho- 
rity there : we can have no authority there : the 
legislature can give us no authority there. The 
attempt to introduce any thing of an authorized 
Political Episcopacy in Scotland would be a direct 
infringement of the Union. As to the notion, that 
Clergymen should be originally ordained by us to 
the ministry in Scotland, the thing would be contrary 
to all rule and order. No Bishop, who knows what 
he does, ordains without a title, and a title must be 
a nomination to something in the diocese of the 
Bishop that ordains. An appointment to an Epis- 
copal congregation in Scotland is no more a title to 
me, or any Bishop of the Irish Bench, than an ap- 
pointment to a Church in Mesopotamia." e 

Lord Thurlow was content, with subscription to 
the xxxix Articles, on the part of the Scottish 
Clergy, as a test of their principles. This was 
agreed to on the part of the Bishops : and a Bill for 
the relief of the Scottish Episcopalians received the 
Royal assent on the 15th of June, 1792. This Bill 
repealed the clauses of the Acts of Queen Anne, 
George I. and George II. by which any penalties 
were imposed. It then provides, that the Clergy 
should take the usual Oaths, subscribe a declara- 

Skinner's Annals, pp. 210, 211. 



of ttje ^onjurorg* 483 

tion of assent to the xxxix Articles, and pray for 
the King and Royal Family, as directed in the 
Liturgy of the Church of England. By the same 
Bill, however, it was enacted, that no clergyman 
should be permitted to officiate in England, except 
he had been ordained by some Bishop of the Church 
of England or Ireland/ This restriction is now 
removed, and any Scottish Clergyman is permitted 
to officiate in England, under a License from the 
Archbishops or Bishops in their respective dioceses. 
In 1804 it was agreed that the xxxix Articles 
should be adopted as the standard of the religious 
principles of the Church of Scotland : so that, 
from this time all candidates for Holy Orders were 
required to make the same subscription as in Eng- 
land. 8 All the right-minded clergymen of English 
ordination, who had been officiating in Scotland, 
gave in their adhesion to the Scottish Bishops. The 
plea of necessity no longer existed : and they were 
glad to give evidence of the soundness of their 
principles as Churchmen. Some clergymen there 
were, who, like the present schismatics in Scotland, 
continued in a state of separation : but their refusal 
arose, not from the love, but from the dislike of Epis- 
copacy, since they could scarcely be deemed Episco- 
palians, when they were under no subjection to 
Bishops. The use of a portion of the Liturgy does 
not constitute a man or congregation Episcopalian : 
otherwise the Wesleyan methodists and Lady Hunt- 
ingdon's party are such. Horsley expressed his 
opinion pointedly and strongly to a gentleman, who 
published a pamphlet in favour of the separation, 
which he sent to the Bishop : and his remarks are 

f Skinner's Annals, pp. 220, 229. Ibid. pp. 349, 358,361. 



484 %i0torp of tfje 

applicable to the state of things in some parts of 
Scotland at present. The Bishop says, " It has long 
been my opinion, and very well known, I believe, 
to be my opinion, that the laity in Scotland of the 
Episcopal persuasion, if they understand the genuine 
principles of Episcopacy which they profess, ought, 
in the present state of things, to resort to the ministry 
of their indigenous pastors. And the clergymen, of 
English or of Irish Ordination, exercising their func- 
tions in Scotland without uniting with the Scottish 
Bishops, are, in my judgment, doing nothing better 
than keeping alive a schism." h 

Little more remains for me to add on the subject 
of the Scottish Church. During a long time the 
Church of Scotland had no Liturgy, for that of 1637 
was never generally adopted. Nor was the English 
service introduced, until the reign of Queen Anne : 
and even then its use was left to the discretion of the 
Clergy. The disputes respecting the usages have 
been detailed, as well as the particulars relative to 
the English and Scottish Offices for the Holy Com- 
munion. For many years, the Office framed after the 
model of King Edward's First Book of Common 
Prayer, and the Book of 1637, was used indifferently 
with the Anglican Form : but occasionally objections 
were raised against the former, by persons in Eng- 
land. This was especially the case during the de- 
bates in Parliament, respecting the removal of the 
penal laws. The objection, however, was most un- 
reasonable. " The Episcopal Church in Scotland 
having adopted the same articles of religion with the 
united Church of England and Ireland, one would 
have thought, that even the suspicion of a difference, 

h Skinner's Annals, p. 391. 



of tfje jponjurorg. 485 

in the principles of the two Churches, would have 
been for ever laid to sleep. But, no ! the Scottish 
Communion Office is adduced as an instance of a 
difference even now subsisting." ' The writer chal- 
lenges any one to produce a passage which does not 
accord with the standard of faith in the purest ages. 
" Here is nothing introduced without unexceptionable 
warrant : nothing of late beginning : here is no appli- 
cation to saints or angels : no worshipping of images : 
no praying of the dead out of purgatory : here is no 
adoration of the consecrated elements, nothing that 
supposed a corporal presence, either by way of Tran- 
substantiation, Consubstantiation, or of Infusion ! In 
short, here is nothing set down as contended for, or as 
practised, but what is strictly scriptural and strictly 
Primitive." 1 The Church of Scotland, though 
agreeing in principles and doctrines with the Angli- 
can Church, was at perfect liberty, according to our 
xxxivth Article, to deviate from us in rites and cere- 
monies, without being exposed to the charge of dis- 
senting from us in principle. 

In other respects, the Scottish Clergy adhered for 
a long time to the English Liturgy, except in some 
slight rubrical injunctions ; but even this variation 
was found to be inconvenient, since different Clergy- 
men adopted a different practice. The evil was forcibly 
pointed out by Bishop Gleig in a letter to Bishop 
Skinner in 1816. " As every man in my diocese," 
says he, " varied the form according to his own judg- 
ment and caprice, I found that I could not officiate 



1 The Office for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy 
Communion, according to the use of the Church of Scotland, &c. 
By the Rev. John Skinner, A.M. 8vo. Aberdeen 1807. 

* Skinner's Preface, p. 7. 



486 %'gtorp of ttje 

for some of my own Clergy, without either shewing 
the people that he and I think differently of our 
forms of prayer, or taking a lesson from him how to 
read before going in the morning into the chapel." 1 
The year after this letter was written, the Scottish 
Bishops and Clergy met in Synod, when they drew 
up a body of Canons for the regulation of their Church. 
In one of them the Scottish Communion Office is 
considered as the authorized service : but permission 
is granted to use the Anglican Form in all congre- 
gations where it had previously been adopted. By 
another Canon it was decided, that no alterations or 
insertions should be permitted in the Daily Service, 
and that a strict adherence to the English Liturgy 
should be enforced upon all the Clergy. This de- 
cision was made known to the Archbishops and 
Bishops of the united Church of England and Ire- 
land. 1 At the present time, therefore, the Articles, 
and the Liturgy of the Church of England, with the 
exception of the Communion Office, are adopted in 
Scotland: so that no difference exists between the 
two Churches. 

It must then be a source of deep regret to all, who 
are anxious to promote the unity of the Church of 
Christ, that some persons in Scotland and England 
should endeavour to introduce discord, in conse- 
quence of the simple fact, that the Scottish Com- 
munion Office agrees rather with the First Book of 
King Edward, than with the Form now used in the 
Anglican Church. That these individuals can de- 
sire the peace and prosperity of the Church we can- 
not by any means believe : since their conduct con- 
tradicts any professions which they may make. Dis- 



Skinner's Annals, p. 491. ' Ibid. p. 516, 517. 






of tfje ^onjuim% 487 

turbers of the peace of the Church will always be 
found within her communion : and it would be 
strange if the Church of Scotland should escape. 
These gentlemen certainly do not agree with the ex- 
cellent Bishop Home, who thought so well of the 
Church of Scotland and her primitive Episcopacy, 
that he expressed it as his opinion, that were the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles on Earth, he would 
probably unite himself to the Scottish Episcopalians, 
in preference to any other body, and " as most like to 
the people he had been used to." m To me it appears 
very evident, that the persons, whether in Scotland or 
in England, who are against a union with the Scot- 
tish Church, are either profoundly ignorant of the 
principles of Episcopacy, or in reality hostile to Epis- 
copal government in the Church. Supposing the 
latter alternative to be correct, it would be far more 
consistent to unite with the Presbyterian Establish- 
ment in Scotland. 

It is utterly impossible for a man, who really 
maintains the doctrine and discipline of the Church 
of England, to act as those gentlemen have done who 
have withdrawn from their allegiance to the Scottish 
Bishops. They are quite as much seceders from the 
Church of England, as if they had set up separate 
congregations in this country. The pretence of being 
subject to English Bishops is paltry and evasive, 
because no English Prelate can exercise any jurisdic- 
tion in Scotland, while no man can be an Episco- 
palian, whatever may be his profession, who is not 
subject in his ministrations to some Bishop. " No 
maxim," says Bishop Sandford, " is more undisputed 
among Episcopalians, than this, that without connex- 

m Jones's Life of Bishop Home, p. 151. 



488 l?tstorp of ttje 

ion with a Bishop there is no Church." He adds, 
also, " to this Communion, it appears to me, that all 
Protestant Episcopalians residing in Scotland, are 
bound, by their profession as Episcopalians, to belong: 
for otherwise, neither they, nor the Clergy, who of- 
ficiate in their Chapels, will find it easy to say of 
what Church they are really members. While they 
reside in Scotland, they neither are, nor can be, 
strictly speaking, members of the Church of England. 
The Bishops of the Church of England have no 
authority in Scotland, and never lay claim to such 
authority." The Bishop naturally and justly adds, 
" Those who profess Episcopalian principles in this 
country, Clergy as well as laity, must be content, 
while they reside here, to consider and conduct them- 
selves as members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, 
or they can scarcely lay claim to the title of Episco- 
palians." Let the Clergy, who act in defiance of 
the Scottish Bishops, proceed, if they please, to 
preach in their Chapels : but let them be honest and 
not adopt the miserable subterfuge or evasion, that 
they are still Episcopalians, since every officiating 
minister in an Episcopal Church must of necessity 
be subject to some one Bishop. There was, it seems, 
a pretence, that such Clergymen were subject to the 



n Remains of the late Right Reverend Daniel Sandford, D. D. 
Oxon. Bishop of Edinburgh, in the Scottish Episcopal Church, &c. 
In two volumes, 8vo. Edinburgh, 1830. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333. 
Bishop Sandford further remarks, " Let them say to which of the 
dioceses of England they belong, and to which of the English 
Prelates they owe Ecclesiastical submission." He asks, *' how 
can those be esteemed members of the Church of England, who do 
not dwell within the bounds of that Church : who do not and can 
not acknowledge the authority of her Prelates : and who attend the 
ministration of Clergy who neither have, nor can have, the license 
of any of those Prelates to discharge their clerical office ?" 

Ibid. 



o tfje ^onjurorg, 489 

Bishop of London ; but this evasion is wrested from 
their hands by his Lordship's disclaimer of all juris- 
diction in Scotland. Surely they cannot pretend to 
be under his Lordship's control, when he disclaims 
any authority in that country. If then they choose 
to call themselves Episcopalians, they must be schis- 
matics, inasmuch as they are separated from the 
Bishop, who is necessarily the centre of unity in an 
Episcopal Church, and without whom there can be 
no such thing as an Episcopalian. Whatever, there- 
fore, may be said of such men in England or in Scot- 
land ; though their piety may be spoken of as ex- 
emplary, and their conduct may be regarded as praise- 
worthy, by Dissenters and Churchmen whose prin- 
ciples differ not from those of Dissenters ; though 
they may be men of irreproachable morals, and 
amiable in all the relations of life : there is still a 
blot upon their character a blot which is an evi- 
dence of weakness or dishonesty, namely, that they 
profess to be Episcopalians, while they reject all 
Episcopal authority, and mark out a line for them- 
selves, which, by the principles of Episcopacy, de- 
volves upon the diocesan, under whose jurisdiction 
their lot, in the Providence of God, may be cast. To 
withdraw from allegiance to the Scottish Bishops, 
under the pretence of being in some way under the 
jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of England, 
is only adding duplicity to dishonesty. p It would be 



P tl The officiating" Clergy in Scotland" says Archdeacon Dau- 
beny, " who make their supposed connexion with the Church of 
England a plea for their separation from the Church of Scotland, 
act in direct defiance of that principle, by which the constitution 
of the Church is maintained : for they are living in a state of ex- 
emption from all Ecclesiastical government whatever. The con- 
duct of the Clergy, who set up this pretended connexion with the 



490 ^idtorp of tl) 

far more consistent to acknowledge themselves to be 
separatists, or even to become Presbyterians, since 
their principle of acting for themselves, without re- 
gard to a Bishop, is Presbyterian rather than Epis- 
copal. 

It should be mentioned, that the introduction of 
English Clergymen into Scotland, to act indepen- 
dently of the Scottish Bishops, arose from a state of 
things, which does not now exist. There were neces- 
sarily some English Episcopalians in that country : 
some also who held official posts : and they thought, 
that they could not safely or consistently attend the 
ministrations of the Nonjuring Clergy. To meet 
their case, certain Clergymen were sent from England. 
But as the cause no longer exists for such an irre- 
gularity, the practice ought to cease. Such Clergy- 
men in Scotland, as refuse to submit to the Bishops, 
are in reality the same as the Preachers among the 
Independents in England, some of whom adopt the 
English Liturgy. 

The reader will perceive, that a great many events 
are crowded together in this chapter. It could not 
be otherwise, as a sketch of the Scottish Church was 
necessary to complete my plan ; and a larger space 
could not be devoted to the subject. I hope, how- 
ever, that the sketch, brief as it is, will be found to 
embrace all the particulars connected with the Scot- 
tish Episcopalians as Nonjurors : and I trust, that the 
perusal of it may not be without instruction. Unless 

Church of England, as the plea for their non-union with the 
Church of Scotland, not only, so far as they are concerned, anni- 
hilates Ecclesiastical government, but directly militates at the same 
time against the essence of Ecclesiastical unity. " A Layman's 
account of his Faith and Practice, as a member of the Episcopal 
Church in Scotland, published with the approbation of the Bishops 
of that Church. 12mo. Edinburgh, p. 177. 



ot* t\)z ^onjuroi% 491 

I am greatly mistaken, I have proved, that many 
circumstances combined together to favour the setting 
up of Presbytery at the Revolution, and that the vote 
of the Convention, that Episcopacy was contrary to 
the inclinations of the people, was directly the reverse 
of the truth. It has been seen, that the Conven- 
tion, which consisted of a small number of Presby- 
terians, the Episcopal party having either refused to 
act, or been driven away by the mob, was continued 
many years, the ruling party being fearful of trusting 
to another election. Even as late as the year 1701, 
a Challenge was put forth by Bishop Sage in the 
following words. " If the objection be the inclina- 
tions of the people, and that they will not have it 
otherwise, the Episcopal party, there, desire that 
this may be put to the test, by letting the immediate 
sense of the nation be known in a free election of 
their representatives in Parliament, which they have 
not had since this revolution. And though many 
and pressing instances have been made for a free 
election in that country, as has been granted to 
England, yet can it not be obtained. The Presby- 
terian party have interest to render all these attempts 
ineffectual. Well knowing, at least fearing, that a 
free Parliament there would shew the inclinations of 
the people to be far otherwise than they have repre- 
sented them." q Whatever was the cause, the fact 
is indisputable, that the Convention Parliament was 
continued for many years : nor can there be much 
room to doubt, that their fears of the people pre- 
vented the Presbyterian rulers from resorting to a 
new election. 



i Sage's Vindication of a Discourse entitled the Principles of 
the Cyprianic Age, &c. 4to. London, 1701, preface. 



CHAPTER XI. 

OFFICES OF NONJURORS. COMMUNION OFFICE. DEACON'S COL- 
LECTION. ITS DEPARTURES FROM THE BOOK OF COMMON 
PRAYER. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SEPARATISTS AND THE 
REGULAR BODY. REFLECTIONS. NEGLECT OF CERTAIN RU- 
BRICS TRACED TO THE L.ATITUDINARIAN SPIRIT AT THE REVOLU- 
TION, AND TO THE PRACTICES OF THE NONJURORS. TlIE 

RUBRICS CONSIDERED. OBEDIENCE IN GENERAL. LESSONS. 
MUTILATIONS. OMISSIONS. NEGLECTED RUBRICS. 
SURPLICE. PRAYER FOR CHURCH MILITANT. OFFERTORY. 
CONDUCT OF THE OBJECTORS TO THE RUBRICS. CONCLUSION. 




the principles on which the Nonjurors 
separated from the National Church, 
as well as of their internal divisions, 
an account has been given in the pre- 
vious chapters : but some further par- 
ticulars, relative to the Offices used by the two sec- 
tions, after the second separation in 1733, or 1734, 
are necessary to complete the history of the body. 
From a preceding page, it will be seen, that Hickes 
usually administered the Lord's Supper according to 
the Form in King Edward's first Liturgy : but this 
practice was by no means common until the discus- 
sions arose respecting the Usages, the Nonjurors 
previously adhering to the Book of Common Prayer, 
in all its Offices, rejecting only the name of the 
reigning Sovereign. This is particularly mentioned 
by Bennet in 1716; so that the majority did not 
follow the example of Hickes. After the new Com- 
munion Office had been adopted by one section in 



of tlje ^onjurorg. 493 

1718, the Book of Common Prayer was still used by 
the other : and even those, who received the new 
Office, still adhered to the Liturgy of the National 
Church in all other particulars. Subsequent to 1733, 
however, a considerable change took place. All the 
Nonjurors, with the very few exceptions previously 
specified, had then adopted the new Communion Of- 
fice, or at all events the Usages: but in 1734 the 
parties, who separated from their brethren, and whom, 
for the sake of precision, I have denominated Separa- 
tists, departed altogether from the Liturgy of the 
Church of England, and adopted a new Book of 
Common Prayer. In Scotland, the English Book, 
with the exception of the Office for the Communion, 
was received by the Nonjurors : and, when they ceased 
to be a Nonjuring Church, the Prayer Book was re- 
tained as a matter of course, and is continued at the 
present time. I proceed, therefore, to give some ac- 
count of the Communion Office, adopted by the re- 
gular body, and also of the Book which was intro- 
duced into public worship among the Separatists. 

The new Communion Office is founded on that of 
King Edward's First Book, A. D. 1549, in which 
the particular practices, comprehended under the ge- 
neral term Usages, were retained. Not a few of our 
most eminent theologians, at various periods, have 
expressed their preference of the Communion Office 
in the First Book of Common Prayer, though they 
considered our present form as sufficient. This cir- 
cumstance, therefore, should certainly make us cau- 
tious, in condemning the Nonjurors, or our Scottish 
brethren, for adopting that form, which, though re- 
jected by our own reformers at the revision of the 
Prayer Book in 1551, was rejected in consequence of 
the scruples of some of the foreign reformers, for the 
sake of preserving peace and union. The four par- 



494 ^igtorp of tlje 

ticulars, which have been specified in a previous 
chapter, and which are known as the Usages, were as 
a matter of course retained in the New Book. In 
the structure of the Office, the form of 1549 is fol- 
lowed, rather than that in our present Liturgy, though 
even the former is not regarded in every particular. 
The Usages were four, namely, mixing water with the 
wine? Prayer for the Dead? the Prayer for the De- 
scent of the Holy Spirit upon the Elements? and the 
Oblatory Prayer? They were not however placed 
in precisely the same order in which they stood in 
King Edward's First Book. By this new form, there- 
fore, the Holy Communion was celebrated by Collier's 
party, after the year 1718, and by all the regular 
body, subsequent to the union in 1733, until they 
became extinct. 

Appended to the Office for the Communion were 

R The Rubric in the New Office orders : " And putting' into 
the Chalice, or else into some fair and convenient cup, &c, putting 
thereto in the view of the people a little pure and clean water." 

b The Prayer is restored as follows : " We commend unto thy 
mercy, O Lord, all thy servants, who are departed with the sign 
of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace : Grant unto them, 
we beseech thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace : and that at 
the day of the general resurrection, we and all they, who are of 
the mystical body of thy Son, may all together be set on his right 
hand." 

c The restored Prayer stands thus : " And send down thine 
Holy Spirit, the witness of the passion of our Lord Jesus, upon 
this Sacrifice, that he may make this bread the body of thy Son, 
and this cup the blood of thy Son." 

d In the New Office there are two passages, which though not 
precisely similar to the clauses which Collier and his supporters 
wished to be restored from King Edward's First Book, are the 
same in effect. One in the name of the Ministers is as follows : 
" That we may be worthy to offer unto thee this reasonable and 
unbloody sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the people. Receive 
it, O God, as a sweet smelling savour, &c. And as thou didst ac- 
cept this worship and service from thy Holy Apostles : so of thy 



of tlje /Ponfurorg. 495 

two others, for Confirmation and the, Visitation of the 
Sick. Both these vary in some respects from our 
present Offices. The Chrism or Ointment is retained 
in the Office for Confirmation, together with the sign 
of the Cross. There is also a Form for Consecrating 
the Chrism.* It is stated in one of the Rubrics, that 
the matter of the Chrism is sweet oil of olives and 
precious Balsam, commonly called Balm of Gilead. 
In the Office for the Visitation of the Sick, the Priest 
is directed to place his hand on the head of the sick 
person, while he pronounces the absolution. The 
anointing with oil is also enjoined ; and a form for 
administering the Holy Communion to the sick per- 
son is appended/ 

These are the chief peculiarities of the new Com- 
munion Office. But it is necessary to remark, that 
whenever I have spoken of this Office, the forms for 
Confirmation and the Visitation of the Sick are to be 
understood as comprehended in the Designation, the 
name by which the Book is usually known. 

goodness, O Lord, vouchsafe to receive these offerings from the 
hands of us sinners, &c." The prayer from which this is taken is 
called A Prayer of Acceptance , and is abridged from the Liturgy 
of St. Basil. The other stands thus : " We offer to thee, accord- 
ing to his Holy institution, this bread and this cup, &c. and we 
beseech thee to look favourably on these thy gifts, which are here 
set before thee, O thou self-sufficient God : and do thou accept 
them to the honour of thy Christ." 

e " He shall anoint every one, &c. with the Chrism or ointment, 
making the sign of the cross upon their forehead, and saying : 

N. I sign thee with the sign of the cross, I anoint thee with 
Holy Ointment." 

In the Rubric for the consecration of the Chrism, the Bishop is 
directed to " take some Chrism or Ointment: and putting it into 
a decent vessel, he shall stand and consecrate it in manner and 
form following." 

f " Then shall the Priest anoint the sick person upon the fore- 
head, making the sign of the cross and saying." 



496 ^fgtorp of tije 

Deacon's book was adopted by the Separatists .* 
and an examination of its various Offices will shew 
how widely this party differed from their Nonjuring 
brethren, as well as from the Anglican Church. Dea- 
con, though a man of considerable learning, was evi- 
dently fond of novelties. As the leader of the party 
he published in 1734, a collection of Devotions, to 
be used in their religious services. From this Book, 
the singular title of which was given in a previous 
chapter, the prayers used at the execution of the 
author's son, after the Rebellion in 1745, were taken. 
It was called their Book of Common Prayer. 5 

Besides this book, he published another very sin- 
gular work, of which I have already given some ac- 
count, A Full, True, and Comprehensive View of 
Christianity : and to these two works we must refer 
for an illustration of the differences between his party 
and the rest of the Nonjurors. Certain practices are 
enjoined in The Devotions, which are explained and 
defended in the other work : and the two together 
furnish a distinct view of the points at issue between 
these two parties. The one work bears upon the 
other in a singular manner, since the practices pre- 
scribed in the Prayer Book are explained in The 
Comprehensive View. h It is true, that on the question 
of the Oaths, both parties were agreed : but the prin- 
ciples of the Separatists, in many important particu- 
lars, were different from those of the other body. 

* Campbell was doubtless the nominal leader of tbis section, 
until bis death, which took place in 1744: but as Deacon was 
the most active of the party, I am justified in speaking of him as 
the real leader even before Campbell's death. 

h This work indeed is a regular commentary on the Book of 
Devotions, just as Wheatley's or Nichols's volumes are comments 
on the Book of Common Prayer. A reason is assigned for the 
various ceremonies contained in the Collection of Devotions. 



of rlje 

Deacon's new Service Book contained an Order for 
Morning Prayer, and an Order for Evening Prayer, 
altogether different in structure from the Book of 
Common Prayer, to which the regular Nonjurors 
adhered. These Offices are so unlike the Services 
in the Anglican Book, that the original leaders of the 
Nonjuring separation could not possibly have sanc- 
tioned them. They were consequently rejected by 
all, except by Deacon's own party. After the Order 
for Morning and Evening Prayer there are Prayers 
for the Catechumens, the Energumens, the candidates 
for Baptism, and the Penitents. The Energumens 
were persons supposed to be possessed by evil spirits : 
and certain Prayers are appointed to be used by the 
Priest with special reference to such an opinion. 

The next form is called the Penitential Office, and 
was appointed to be used on Wednesdays and Fridays, 
and on other specified occasions : and it is ordered, 
that none should be present, except the Faithful and 
the Penitents. Next in order stands The Communion 
Office, which not only differs from our own, but also 
from the Book of 1718.' The designation even of 
the Office is peculiar, differing from that of the 
Nonjurors, as well as from our own : and by a special 
Rubric none but the Faithful were permitted to be 
present at the administration. In addition to the 
mixture of water with the wine, the Priest is directed 
to sign his forehead with the sign of the cross to 
administer the elements to the Deaconesses, and also 
to Infants, saying simply " The Body of Christ, and 
" The Blood of Christ, the cup of Life." Deacon, it 



1 The title is as follows : " The Holy Liturgy : or, the Form of 
Offering- the Sacrifice, and of Administering the Sacrifice of the 
Eucharist." 

K K 



498 ^fgtorp of tfje 

seems, was as much dissatisfied with the Book, which 
had been arranged by Collier and Brett, as with the 
Office in the Book of Common Prayer ; and there- 
fore, he put forth a new Form, to be used by those 
congregations in which his authority was recog- 
nized. k 

In " The Order of Confirmation " and " The Order 
for the Visitation of the Sick" Deacon differs from 
the Church of England, and also from the other 
Nonjurors. The Chrism is adopted, as in the Book 
of 1718, and the rite is ordered to be administered to 
infants. 1 

The remaining Public Offices in this collection 

k A most laboured defence of the practice of infant communion 
may be seen in The Comprehensive View. He contends, that 
among the heathen, infants partook of the idolatrous feasts after 
the sacrifices. He proceeds : " The Eucharist is a feast upon a 
sacrifice, and it is designed to distinguish those who belonged to 
Christ, as the others were to distinguish those who belonged to the 
false gods of the heathen." He asks : " Had the Devil his meat 
and his cup to betoken those, who had communion with him, and 
has Christ his meat and his cup to betoken those, who are in com- 
munion with him ? and is it reasonable to suppose, that he in- 
tended these should be as generally received by his family, as the 
others were by that of the Devil ?" He further argues at con- 
siderable length in favour of the practice, from the fact, that the 
Old Testament Sacraments, as he terms them, were allowed to in- 
fants. He contends, that the Jewish children partook of the Feasts, 
and of the Passover : that the arguments for infant communion are 
as strong as those for infant baptism : and that it was practised in 
the early Church, pp. 366, 393. 

1 At the commencement of the Service is the following Rubric : 
" At the time appointed, all that are to be then confirmed, being 
placed, the adults and the sponsors with the children in their arms 
standing in order before the Bishop, he shall begin the office." In 
his Comprehensive View, Deacon contends, that infants are ca- 
pable of receiving spiritual benefits, and that therefore Confirmation 
is to be administered to them, p. 238. 



of tlje ^onjtum% 499 

are "The Ministration of Public Baptism;" " The 
Ministration of Private Baptism ;" " The Churching 
of Women :" " The Order for the Burial of the 
Dead," " The Communion at the Burial of the 
Dead;" and " The Form of Consecrations ;" all of 
which differ very widely from our own. 

Public Baptism is only allowed between Easter and 
Pentecost. The sign of the Cross, a Form of Exorcism, 
the anointing with oil, and the Trine Immersion are 
enjoined. A portion of consecrated milk and honey, 
and white garments, as an emblem of innocency, 
were given to each child. m In the case of adults, the 
Priest was to retire, while the candidates were placed 
in the water, the males by the Deacons, the females 
by the Deaconesses. A Form for consecrating the 
milk and honey is appended to the office. 11 In 



m tt 



-phis dipping (j oes ver y significantly express the three great 
effects of Baptism : for as immersion necessarily implies three 
several states or conditions ; the descent into the water, the being 
totally covered with it, and the rising out of it again : so by these 
are represented Christ's death, burial, and resurrection: and in 
conformity thereto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its 
power, and our resurrection to a new course of life. By the per- 
son's descending into the water, is livelily represented his going 
down to the grave, and dying to sin : by his being totally covered 
with it, which is a kind of burial in the water, is denoted his being 
absolutely in the power of death, &c. and then by his emersion or 
rising up out of the water, is signified his entering upon a new 
course of life." He explains the trine immersion to represent the 
Trinity, and the three days burial of Christ, and his resurrection 
on the third day. Deacon's Comprehensive View, p. 231. He 
explains the white garments to signify " his having put off the lusts 
of the flesh." Ibid. 232. 

n Deacon thus explains the milk and honey. " After the kiss 
of peace he receives a taste of consecrated milk and honey, in 
token of his spiritual infancy, that, now he is a child adopted into 
God's family, for sweet milk is the nourishment of new born 
babes." Ibid. 232. 



500 l^tetorp of tfje 

Private Baptism, which was to be administered only 
in cases of necessity, the water was to be poured on 
the infant. As Deacon maintained the doctrine of 
Infant Communion, the Eucharist was ordered to be 
administered to the sick child. 

In the Office for Churching of Women, there is 
n^t any material variation from our own Form : while 
in the Burial Service, the alterations consist chiefly 
of additions of prayers for the departed. The Form 
for " the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist at the 
Burial of the Dead" differs in several particulars 
from that in the First Prayer Book of King E4ward. 

The last of the Public Offices, the Service for 
Ordinations and Consecrations, is peculiar, especially 
as one part relates to Deaconesses. The sign of the 
cross is retained ; the kiss of peace is also enjoined 
to be given by Bishops to the new Bishop, by the 
Bishop and Presbyters to a Priest, and by the Deacons 
to a Deacon. The service for Deaconesses is nearly 
similar to that for Deacons. 

The second part of the collection consists of Private 
Devotions. There are Devotions for the Morning : 
the Evening : for the ancient Hours of Prayer : to 



e Alluding to the Deaconesses, Deacon says that their office 
" is to assist at the baptism of women, that the ceremony may be 
performed with all possible decency : to instruct (in private) chil- 
dren and women who are preparing for baptism : to visit and attend 
women that are sick and in distress : to overlook the women in 
the Church : and to introduce any woman who wants to make ap- 
plication to a Deacon, Presbyter, or Bishop." He states that the 
order was always received in the Ancient Church. Comprehensive 
View, p. 429. Elsewhere he says " that all occasion of scandal 
and immodesty may be prevented in so sacred a mystery as baptism, 
men and women are baptized apart : and the latter have Dea- 
conesses to attend them, to undress, and dress them, &c." Ibid. 
231. 



of ttjc ^onjurorg* 501 

be used in the Church and at the Altar. There are 
also Offices for daily Private Communion, and for 
the Commemoration of the Dead. The Office for 
Private Communion contains a Form for a sick person 
to administer the sacrament to himself, the elements 
being reserved from the public administration. 15 

By the adoption of this book of Offices, Deacon's 
party, even apart from their irregular consecrations, 
was altogether at variance with the other, in the mode 
of celebrating Divine Service. But Deacon was not 
satisfied even with this new collection : for in the 
year 1746, he published, though without his name, 
another small volume, consisting of several special 
Forms, in which he departed still further from the 
other Nonjurors. q 

The Form for admitting converts is much stronger 
in its expressions and requirements, than that which 
had been drawn up by Kettlewell, and which had 
been always used by the other party. The Chrism 
and the sign of the cross were enjoined in such cases. 
The Litany was to be used on certain specified oc^ 
casions. 

This account of the Offices adopted by the Separatists 
is sufficient to mark the striking differences between 



P It may be remarked that the Chrism, the Milk and Honey,, 
the Balsam, the Kiss of Peace, with the other ceremonies in the 
Collection of Devotions, are all explained in the Comprehensive 
View. 

q The Form of admitting 1 a Convert into the Communion of the 
Church. London, Printed in the year 1746. The volume con- 
tains also A Litany for the Use of those who mourn for the Ini- 
quities of the Present Times. Prayers to be used upon the 
Death of Members of the Church: and, An Office for the Use 
of those who by unavoidable necessity are deprived of the ad- 
vantage of joining in offering the Sacrifice, and of receiving the 
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist ! 



502 ^tgtorp of t^e lion jurors 

them and the Nonjurors of the regular body, who 
adhered strictly, with the exception of the Book of 
1718, to the worship of the Anglican Church. It 
must strike the reader very forcibly, that all these 
differences would have been avoided, if the Nonjurors 
had followed the advice of Ken, or the example of 
Dodwell and Nelson. But the bitterness of feeling, 
under which many of them laboured, had greatly 
increased as early as the period of Ken's resignation 
to Hooper. Even before his resignation, he seems 
to have been anxious, that the schism should be 
closed. Writing to Hickes, he says, " I wrote to 
you not long ago, to recommend to your serious con- 
sideration, the schism which has so long continued 
in our Church, and which I have often lamented to 
my brother of Ely, now with God, and concerning 
which, I have many years had ill abodings." At 
this time the Clergy had made a noble stand in 
defence of the Church, and Ken imagined, that, in 
consequence, the breach might be healed. He, 
therefore, recommends Hickes to consult Bishop 
Lloyd, Dr. Smith, Wagstaffe, and Dodwell. Framp- 
ton he excepts, partly on account " of his remote- 
ness " and " partly because he never interrupted 
communion with the Jurors, which has been the 
practice also of our friends at Cambridge." He sug- 
gested a meeting with Hooper, then the prolocutor 
of the Lower House of Convocation ; but it is clear 
that no such interview ever occurred. In this Letter 
even, dated in the year 1700, Ken suggests his own 
and Lloyd's resignation ; and further, that they 
should print a circular letter, declaring that their 
views remained the same, but that, to restore the 
peace of the Church, they were willing to resign. 
He thought, that such a Letter would enable them 



of tlje ^onjucor^ 503 

to attend the public prayers without being mis- 
understood/ It is singular, that this Letter should 
have been written to Hickes, the man who laboured 
more than any other to prevent the closing of the 
breach, after Lloyd's death. 

It appears, that even Lloyd himself had some such 
thoughts, on the death of King William ; for he 
wrote, begging Ken to repair to London " in this 
nice conjunction of affairs," to assist them with his 
counsel. 9 Subsequently, when Ken actually resigned 
to Hooper, he was much censured by some of the 
party. " The Jacobites at Bristol," says he, " fomented 
by those at London, are thoroughly enraged against 
me for my cession to one, whom all mankind besides 
themselves have a high esteem of." It seems that 
some one had previously solicited Ken to adopt 
clandestine consecrations. " If I should produce the 
frequent letters, a certaine person wrote to me, for 
near two yeares together, to importune me to consent 
to clandestine consecrations, they would discover the 
temper of the man, and the zeal he shewed to make 
the schism incurable, which I was always for mode- 
rating, forseeing how fatall it would prove." ' This 
was written to Lloyd, who then approved of the step 
taken by Ken, though he afterwards endeavoured 
to retract his approval. In a subsequent Letter, 
Ken, alluding to the conduct of the Bristol people, 
says, " Though you are pleased to tell me, that others 
kindled this fire, and not yourself, I must take the 
freedom to tell you, that it is you yourself have 
most contributed to it. For it is still vehemently 



r Ken's Prose Works, by Round, 8vo. 1838, where this Letter 
is published for the first time, pp. 49-50. 

6 Ibid. p. 55. * Ibid. p. 69. 



504 Utetorp of tlje 

urged against me, that I acted quite contrary to 
your earnest remonstrances, which you know to be 
false : If I did, I do not remember that I ever put 
myself into your keeping, and was to do nothing 
but by your direction : but you yourself can acquit 
me in that particular, by only relating matter of 
fact." Ken then quotes Lloyd's own words, in 
which he had expressed his approval of his resigna- 
tion, and adds : " No, good Brother, your native 
thoughts were the same with mine, but when you 
heard a cry against me, you flew to the distinction of 
person and cession. " v 

From these letters, it is clear, that Lloyd, had he 
been left to his own judgment and feelings, would 
have acted with Ken, and thus the schism would 
have ceased : but he was prevailed upon by others, 
among whom no doubt Hickes acted a prominent 
part, to retrace his steps, and to discountenance Ken 
in the matter of the resignation. But though it is to 
be regretted, that such a course was not pursued, yet 
it must not be supposed, that the Nonjurors, after 
Lloyd's death, were unable to plead any thing in 
justification of their conduct. The previous pages 
will prove the contrary. As an individual, I regret 
that all did not concur with Dodwell : and I have 
less sympathy with the second than with the Jirst 
generation of Nonjurors : but I cannot join in an 
indiscriminate sentence of condemnation. On the 
contrary, I have done justice to their memory in this 
volume, having endeavoured to rescue it from those 
groundless charges, with which it has on many 
occasions been loaded by persons, who cannot be 



Ken's Prose Works, by Round, 8vo. 1838. 



oE tije Jlstonjucorg* 505 

compared with the Nonjurors, either in learning or 
piety. 

In reviewing the period embraced in this volume, 
the unbiassed reader must be struck with the im- 
portant services rendered, by the Nonjurors, to the 
religion and the literature of our country. He who 
imagines that, when the danger from popery was 
averted by the elevation of King William to the 
throne, the Anglican Church was exposed to no 
further perils, is greatly mistaken in the opinion 
which he has formed. It has been shewn, that a 
Latitudinarian spirit came in with the Revolution, 
obtaining a strong hold of some of the principal 
actors of that period, both in Church and State. 
Tillotson, and Stillingfleet, and Kidder, as well as 
Burnet, together with many other estimable men, 
were strongly influenced by this dangerous leaven. 
Against this system the Nonjurors made a noble 
stand : and providentially the majority of the com- 
plying clergy united with them, in resisting the in- 
novations, which otherwise would have been intro- 
duced. By their united efforts, the Anglican Church 
was rescued from the danger, by which she was 
threatened, and which, had it not been averted, would 
speedily have reduced her to a mere state establish- 
ment. She nobly withstood the shock of Romanism 
in the reign of King James : and, by the conduct of 
her Clergy, she was delivered from the danger, not 
less imminent than the former, arising from Latitudi- 
narian indifference. When we remember, that she 
was assailed by professed friends, as well as by open 
enemies by Latitudinarian Churchmen and Dissen- 
ters united in one common league against her sacred 
institutions we cannot but feel grateful to Almighty 



506 ^i0torg of tljc 

God, for preserving the Church in her integrity 
amidst the shocks consequent upon the Revolution. 
It cannot be denied, that King William was indif- 
ferent, whether Episcopacy or Presbytery prevailed 
in England : many of his supporters entertained 
similar views : and even some of the Bishops did not 
regard their own sacred order as necessary to the 
constitution of the Church. Happily the great body 
of the Clergy were attached to the Church, though 
they had renounced their allegiance to King James. 
Accordingly they rallied round the Church, when 
the dangers appeared : and the Prelates, who con- 
templated many serious changes, were thwarted in 
their designs, by their own Clergy. Between the 
regular Nonjurors and the great mass of the Clergy, 
there were no differences of opinion on any other sub- 
jects than those of the Oaths and the Usages. On all 
Church questions they were united. Alive to the 
danger by which the Church was menaced, by that 
latitudinarian spirit which regarded discipline and 
government as matters to be set aside at pleasure, 
the Clergy united in opposing all innovations in 
either, as well as any alterations in the Book of 
Common Prayer. Had all the Bishops entertained 
the same views as Burnet, and had the Clergy 
generally concurred in opinion with the minorities 
in the Lower House of Convocation, in the reign of 
King William, we should not now have been per- 
mitted to worship God, in our parish Churches, with 
an unmutilated Prayer Book. A spirit was brought 
in with the Revolution, which, had it not been re- 
strained, would have introduced most material changes 
in our Liturgy, our Articles, and our Ecclesiastical 
government : and it becomes all the friends of the 



of tlje jponfurocg. 507 

Anglican Church to be thankful, that the evils to 
which I have alluded were mercifully averted. x 

But though the danger was averted by the sound 
and orthodox portion of the Clergy, yet the latitudi- 
narian leaven was not completely cast out. It was 
restrained from effecting any organic changes, but it 
remained in the Church, working its way among 
some of the Clergy. A new school of Theology 
arose, which exercised considerable influence, and 
the more so from the support which it received often- 
times from the Government. The leaders of this 
school were men of learning, of moderation, and of 
piety, but being Erastian in theory, they were ready 
to* remodel every thing connected with the Church 
her ceremonies, her discipline, and the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. They would have proposed many 
changes, if they had not been restrained by the great 
body of the Clergy, who were resolved to maintain 
the Church in her integrity. 

For a series of years, some of the Rubrics in the 
Book of Common Prayer have been, not univer- 
sally, but to a considerable extent, neglected. The 
Clergy, in many cases, have not observed them, 
as they have not been enforced by the Bishops. It 
may, therefore, be asked, to what causes is this 
neglect to be attributed ? My own opinion is, that 
two causes, especially connected with the period to 
which this volume refers, may be assigned. These 
are, first , the Latitudinarian spirit of which I have 
spoken, and secondly, the practices of the Nonjurors. 



x Some persons at the period of, and subsequent to, the Revo- 
lution, had no better reason to assign for their partial conformity 
to the Anglican Church, than the fact, that it was established by 
Act of Parliament; nor is the race extinct in the present day. 



508 ^tetorp of tlje 

With regard to thejirst, it may be observed, that 
the individuals, who adopted the Latitudinarian 
principles, which allowed of so much laxity in all 
matters of discipline and ceremonies, would by no 
means be anxious to conform to the Rubrics. Yet it 
was from this class, that the bishoprics and dignities 
of the Church were generally supplied for some 
years after the Revolution. Those, who held such 
principles, were not ready as Clergymen to practise, 
nor as Bishops to enforce conformity. Hence arose 
a variety in practice. The Clergy, who wished to 
preserve the Church in her integrity, complied with 
all her regulations : while the men, who in 1689 had 
sanctioned the alterations adopted by the Eccle- 
siastical commission, were not likely to adhere very 
strictly to ceremonies, which they had sought to 
abolish. Laxity on the part of some of the Bishops, 
and indifference on the part of some of the Clergy, 
were the consequences : and the parties, who ad- 
vocated changes, soon ceased to comply with certain 
Rubrics, when their diocesans considered their breach 
as meritorious as their observance. The men, who 
were disappointed in not getting their proposed 
changes introduced, when promoted to high stations, 
were not very ready to enforce a compliance with 
Rubrics which they did not observe themselves. 7 



y Ken's fears relative to the Latitudinarian tendences of the 
age caused him to rejoice at the appointment to the See of Bath 
and Wells of Hooper, to whom he readily resigned his own claims, 
as a man, who he believed would check the evil. There are several 
instances of Ken's fears on this subject, in the Letters not long 
since published. Writing to Lloyd; he says : " You cannot imagine 
the universal satisfaction expressed for Dr. Hooper's coming to my 
See : and I make no doubt, but that he will rescue the Diocese 






of tlje ^Ponjutm% 509 

The second cause was not less operative in pro- 
ducing a neglect of some of the Rubrics, namely, the 
practices of the Nonjurors. That the Nonjurors 
were conscientious and scrupulous men is evident 
from the fact, that a regard to an oath led them to 
sacrifice station, influence, and worldly substance. 
The same feeling respecting oaths and pledges in- 
fluenced them in all their actions. They had taken 
an oath to King James, and they could not violate it. 
They had also pledged themselves to strict con- 
formity, and they could not break their pledge. 
Consequently, all the injunctions of the Church 
were strictly observed by these conscientious and 
upright men. Such conduct, therefore, on the part 
of the Nonjurors, was calculated to make the Lati- 
tudinarian section of the Clergy still more averse to 
strict conformity. Many of the Bishops, during 
several years, were indifferent about conformity : and 
as the Nonjurors were exceedingly particular in such 
matters, some of the Prelates did not scruple to let 
certain practices enjoined by the Church fall into 
comparative neglect. At a later period, when the 

from the Apostacy from " the faith once delivered to the Saints," 
which at present threatens us, and from the spirit of Latitudi- 
narianism, which is a common sewer of all heresies imaginable." 
Ken's Prose Works, p. 81. He was also encouraged by the course 
adopted by the Lower House of Convocation, thinking, as has been 
mentioned, that the schism might in consequence be healed. Thus 
in one of his recently published Letters, he says: "As for the 
schism, I believe I can propose a way to end it, but it is not practi- 
cable till the Convocation meets, and then if the face of affairs 
alter not, I make no question but Erastianism will be condemned, 
which by some of us has been proposed as a means of re- union.'* 
Ibid. 57. The plan to which he alludes was the resignation of 
himself and Lloyd, as was previously noticed. 



510 l^igtorp of rije 

Nonjurors adopted the Usages, and still later, when 
Deacon introduced ceremonies, which had never been 
recognized in the Anglican Church, the cry of Popery 
was raised even against some of the most excellent 
of the Clergy, while the laudable customs of the 
Church were neglected, lest, as it was ignorantly 
pretended, it should be supposed, that there was 
some foundation for such an unreasonable charge. 
To avoid the imputation of popery, some of the weak 
among the Clergy went into the other extreme, just 
as some in the present day, in their horror of Rome, 
rush into a state of schism and error not less dangerous 
than Popery. And it is well known how difficult it 
is to revive a practice after it has been discontinued. 
When, therefore, other Prelates, who were anxious to 
enforce conformity, came into dioceses in which in- 
conformity had been permitted, they found it difficult 
to depart from the practice of their predecessors. 
Thus the irregularities became perpetuated; and 
though there ever were many Clergymen, who ad- 
hered to the Rubrics, yet compliance was by no means 
general. 

These causes combined produced, by slow degrees, 
that state of things which at present exists. While 
some complied with the Rubrics, they were neglected 
by others. And as the Bishops, for some years after 
the Revolution, were selected from the school of Til- 
lotson and Burnet, the Clergy who were irregular 
were as much countenanced as those who conformed 
in obedience to their vows. The result was a very 
extensive disuse of some of the Rubrics in the Book 
of Common Prayer. 

At the last Review of the Liturgy in 1661 all the 
important directions of the previous Book were care- 
fully considered. After all the objections alleged by 



of tljc jfponjurorg. 511 

the Presbyterian party had been weighed, our present 
Rubrics were duly sanctioned by the authority of the 
Church. Nor was there any material deviation from 
the letter, until after the Revolution. The attempt to 
introduce alterations in 1689 failed, so that the Go- 
vernment did not even venture to submit the proceed- 
ings of the Ecclesiastical Commission to Convoca- 
tion : but the spirit, which prompted that attempt, 
produced, in subsequent years, indifference in prin- 
ciple and laxity in practice. 

About the middle of the last century, the fruits of 
the Latitudinarian leaven were evidenced in an attempt 
by certain Clergymen, to procure such a revision of 
the Liturgy as would have opened the door to persons 
of almost all creeds. Happily the effort was unsuc- 
cessful, and the Liturgy and the Articles were pre- 
served unimpaired. Yet these parties remained in 
the Church, though only a partial compliance with 
the Rubrics was observed. 

For several years matters have been greatly im- 
proving, A large majority of the Clergy are anxious 
to comply with their solemn pledges. Some indeed 
there are who violate their promises without scruple: 
but happily the number is daily decreasing. 

In considering the question therefore of the Rubrics, 
I shall Jirst allude to those obvious irregularities 
which no honest man can justify ; and secondly, to 
those Rubrical observances, which have been for a 
long time, not universally, as some would insinuate, 
but extensively neglected. 

It cannot be concealed, that many of the objectors to 
the practices, which I shall consider under the second 
division, are notoriously irregular in other matters, 
which cannot be classed among disused or neglected 
Rubrics, matters which are observed by all consistent 



512 H?igtorp of tlje 

churchmen, and which cannot honestly be disre- 
garded. Some of these may now be specified. 

There are Clergymen who pretend, that they can- 
not read an Apocryphal lesson who allege that their 
consciences will not permit them to do so. But it 
may be asked, how came such men in the Church ? 
or why do they remain in a Church which enjoins 
the reading of such lessons? But whether they 
read or omit these chapters, they have by their sub- 
scription assented to v the lawfulness of the practice. 
They have solemnly promised to read the Apocryphal 
Lessons at such times as they are appointed by the 
Church : and where is the difference, on the ground 
of conscience, between reading the chapters and de- 
claring an assent to the Books ? Then, surely, the 
violation of a solemn promise is a more heinous sin 
than reading an Apocryphal chapter. The men, who 
cannot re&d these Books, should not make the pro- 
mise: they should avoid the Church altogether. No 
right-minded person can allow the plea of conscience 
to be set up in such a case. As long therefore as 
individuals remain within her pale, the plea must be 
regarded as a mere pretence to cover their dishonesty, 
in making a promise which they never intended to 
keep. Their sincerity can only be proved by their 
secession. 

It is usually alleged, by those who object to the 
use of the Apocryphal Books, that they do not read 
them, because they are not canonical Scripture. This 
objection should be thought of before ordination : it 
would also justify any one, who entertained it, in 
quitting the Church : but it cannot be used, for not 
reading an Apocryphal chapter, by a man, who has 
solemnly promised that he will comply with all the 
regulations ef the Book of Common Prayer, to which 



of tfje ^lonfucoi% 513 

he has given his unfeigned assent and consent. 
Besides, how can a man declare his assent and con- 
sent to the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty- 
nine Articles, if he cannot read these Books ? The 
man, who subscribes the Articles and the Prayer 
Book, without intending to read only such lessons as 
the Church appoints, is obnoxious to the charge of 
dishonesty. 

But the parties, who object to these Books on the 
ground of their want of Canonicity, though they have 
promised to read them, might, with quite as much 
reason, object to a sermon of their own, which is quite 
as destitute of Canonicity. Yet the objectors are 
usually persons who make their own Sermons a 
matter of great importance, though in every one of 
their productions there are necessarily sentiments 
and expressions, which could not be justified, and 
which, in many cases, are much further from the 
truth than any thing in the Apocrypha/ 

It is remarkable, too, that such objectors are gene- 
rally the persons who are guilty of other irregularities, 



x The Answer of the Bishops to the exceptions of the Presby- 
terians, previous to the last review of the Book of Common Prayer, 
is so admirably suited to the present times, that it ought to be 
quoted. The Presbyterians objected, the Bishops replied as 
follows. " As they would have no saints' days observed, so no 
Apocryphal chapter read in the Church, but upon such a reason 
as would exclude all sermons as well as Apocrypha : viz. because 
the Holy Scriptures contain in them all things necessary either in 
doctrine to be believed, or in duty to be practised. If so, why so 
many unnecessary sermons? Why any more but reading of scrip- 
tures ? If their fear be, that by this means those Books may come 
to be of equal esteem with the canon, they maybe secured against 
that by the title which the Church hath put upon them, calling 
them Apocryphal." History of Nonconformity, 8vo. 1704. pp. 
235, 236. 

L L 






514 tgigtorp of tje 

such as omitting or mutilating- some of the Prayers, 
shortening the occasional services, and even changing 
the Sunday Lessons, which are always canonical 
Scripture. Such dishonest evasions and practices, 
however, are confined to comparatively few : and the 
number must soon be diminished by the operation of 
the Church Discipline Bill, by which the Diocesan is 
enabled in a summary way to correct these irregula- 
rities. Tt is indeed in the power of the parishioners 
to see that the Clergy are consistent, in such clear 
cases as those to which I have referred : for when- 
ever a Clergyman is reported to the Bishop for vio- 
lating express and obvious Rubrics, a commission of 
inquiry must be issued. Nor should the parishioners 
be deterred from doing their duty, by any pretence 
of unkindness to the Clergyman : for surely it is an 
act of greater kindness to prevent a man from vio- 
lating solemn vows and promises, than, by silence, to 
encourage him in a dishonest practice.* The Rubrics 
and the Calendar are as much a part of the Book to 
which the Clergy subscribe, as the various services 
which it contains : and the man, who urges the plea 
of Conscience for non-compliance, is guilty of dis- 
honesty in subscribing to regulations which he never 
intended to follow. 2 

y I can see no difference between the man who subscribes to 
the Thirty-nine Articles, when at the same time he rejects some of 
their doctrines, and the man who subscribes to all things con- 
tained in the Book of Common Prayer, and then refuses to comply 
with his solemn pledges both are equally dishonest. 

z Those persons who systematically violate the Rubrics, would 
do well to ponder the following passage. " And that whosoever 
among the Clergy either adds to it, or diminishes from it, or useth 
any other rule instead of it, as he is in the eye of the law a non- 
conformist, so it behoves him to consider with himself whether in 
point of conscience he be not a breaker of his word and trust, and 



of tlje ^onjuroi% 615 

But, Secondly, there are other Rubrics, which, from 
the causes already stated, are more generally disre- 
garded. When a Clergyman is in doubt respecting the 
meaning of a Rubric, the Church refers him to the 
Ordinary, whose decision is the law in that particular 
case. The Bishop may refer the matter to the Arch- 
bishop : but the decision of either, possessing the 
force of a Rubric, is binding. It is not in the power 
of a Bishop to dispense with any Rubric : he may 
recommend a Clergyman not to revive a practice* 
which, though enjoined, has been long discontinued, 
and the Diocesan's wish would not be likely to be 
disregarded : but still he cannot interfere so as to 
prevent compliance with anything positively enjoined, 
though it may have fallen into disuse. There is no 
power to dispense with disused Rubrics, should a 
Clergyman revive them, though a Bishop may not 
himself see it necessary to enforce them. a It seems 
necessary to notice this distinction in the present day : 



an eluder of his engagements to the Church." Sharp, pp. 8, 9. 
Such persons are very expert in charging others with a want of spi- 
ritual knowledge : but I cannot admit, that men, who make no 
conscience of vows and pledges, can either be considered as being 
spiritually minded themselves, or as judges of their brethren. The 
more spiritually minded a man is, the more anxious will he be 
to keep his pledges. 

a " I must observe to you in general," says Archdeacon Sharp, 
" that no custom, however confirmed, can take place against them : 
{the Rubrics) that we cannot transfer our breaches of them into 
the list of approved practices, nor justify our neglect of them, by 
pleading the connivance, or, if you will, the approbation of our 
superiors. It is true, the Ordinary may forbear to blame, and he 
may neglect to reform, any customable deviations from, or any 
open defiances of, express and positive Rubrics. But as he hath no 
power to alter them, or to dispense with alterations made in them, 
so he cannot excuse or discharge us from our obligations to con- 
form ourselves to them." Sharp on the Rubric, 9.7. 



516 ?tetorp of tlje 

since many persons, who deny the Bishop's authority 
to revive, imagine that he is able, by merely issuing 
his command, to prevent the Clergy from reviving a 
neglected practice : and from not attending to this 
distinction, no small degree of confusion has arisen. 

The questions, however, respecting which a divi- 
sion of opinion now especially exists, relate to the 
Use of the Surplice in the Pulpit, the Prayer for 
the Church Militant, and the Offertory when there 
is no Communion. In discussing these points, I shall 
confine myself strictly to the intentions of the Church, 
and to the meaning of the Rubrics, without reference 
to the question of the expediency of their revival. 
In my opinion the law of the Church is clear and 
express in each particular. 

Undoubtedly it is a matter of indifference in itself 
whether the surplice or the gown be worn in the 
pulpit ; and it is clear, that if the surplice is Popish 
in one part of our public services, it must be equally 
so in all : and in that case the Church of England is 
so committed, that nothing but the rejection of the 
vestment by Convocation can rescue her from the 
charge of favouring Popery. This consequence is 
inevitable, on the principle of those who pretend that 
the use of a particular vestment in a particular place 
a vestment too used on all other occasions indi- 
cates a tendency towards Rome. Yet this unreason- 
able sentiment has been very gravely put forth, though 
by persons little competent to give an opinion on such 
a subject. By the Puritans the surplice was branded 
as Popish, in the desk as well as in the pulpit : and 
there was a consistency, at all events, in their course, 
for they wished to abolish its use altogether. In the 
present day, however, there is no controversy res- 
pecting its use, except in the pulpit : but there is a 






of rfje ^onjurot'g* 517 

sufficient reason for not alluding to its adoption in 
the public services, namely, that to do so would de- 
prive the objectors of the character of Churchmen. 
Yet, from the tone adopted by many persons, it is 
evident that they rather sympathize with the Puri- 
tans, than with the Church, in this matter. To argue 
that the surplice, the vestment appointed by the 
Church for her most solemn ministrations, is the badge 
of a party, indicates the most lamentable ignorance, 
or the greatest obstinacy : for the allegation is nothing 
less than a charge against the Church herself. The 
question, therefore, is not whether the surplice be the 
badge of a party, but whether a Clergyman, who 
uses it in the pulpit, as well as in the desk, violates 
the laws and injunctions of the Church. 5 

That the Public Services cannot be celebrated 
except in the surplice, is admitted : but the Church 
neither prescribes nor sanctions the use of the gown 
in any part of her ministrations : and the only au- 
thority that can be pleaded in its favour is that of 
custom. If then the use of the gown be not enjoined 
by the Church in any way whatever, it would follow, 
if the surplice must not be used, that any vestment 
might be adopted. As the gown is nowhere pres- 
cribed, while the surplice is enjoined in all public 
ministrations, the objectors to the use of the latter 
in the pulpit must either resort to the plea of custom, 
or admit that the Church intended to leave the dress 
of the preacher indifferent, though in all her services 
a particular vestment is expressly enjoined. But if 
the matter be left to the preacher's choice, he is 



b In the diocese of Durham the surplice was constantly used 
by every preacher in the pulpit in 1753, when Archdeacon Sharp 
published his Charges. Sharp on the Rubric, p. 246. 



518 ^fetorj? of tlje 

certainly as much at liberty to use the one as the 
other. 

As a question of law, however, the matter is, I 
think, settled by the Rubrics, though the surplice is 
not actually specified. The Morning Service is to 
be read in the surplice, to the end of the Nicene 
Creed. Then follows the sermon. Singing is not 
prescribed : consequently singing was not intended 
at that part of the service, and it has only been in- 
troduced in order to allow the officiating minister to 
repair to the vestry. After sermon, the minister is 
to return to the Lord's Table, and read the Prayer 
for the Church Militant. This also must be read in 
the surplice. Now, as the Church does not pres- 
cribe singing, either before or after sermon, so as to 
allow of any pause for a change of dress, it appears 
scarcely possible to conceive, whatever the practice 
may be, that the surplice was not intended to be used 
in the pulpit, as well as at the communion table. 
As time is not allowed for a change of robes, it seems 
difficult to avoid the conclusion, that one and the 
same dress was intended to be used throughout. 

And why should a priest officiate in two dresses 
rather than a Bishop, who performs all the offices of 
the Church in the same habit. Whether he read 
prayers or preach, his dress is the same : and as the 
Church has not prescribed a second in the case of 
the Clergy, it is reasonable to suppose that she only 
contemplated one. 

c In College chapels, at least such is the case in Oxford, when- 
ever a sermon is preached, the surplice is invariably used. If 
then the argument, that the Clergy are to preach in their acade- 
mical dress, be sound, we might expect to see the adoption of the 
practice in the University. Yet it is only in the University Church, 
where the sermon is preached without the usual service, the audience 



of tlje ^onjucortf. 519 

But whatever may be said against the use of the 
surplice in the pulpit, it cannot be denied that the 
Prayer for the Church Militant is to be read immedi- 
ately after sermon, and in the same dress as was used 
in the former part of the service. To escape, there- 
fore, from the difficulty, this prayer has been alto- 
gether omitted : and thus one irregularity is followed 
by another. Undoubtedly the prayer has been 
omitted, because it was inconvenient to change the 
gown for the surplice. Yet this very inconvenience 
supplies a strong argument in favour of the use of 
the surplice : for we may rest assured that when the 
regulation was made, no difficulty was experienced. 
It is incumbent on those, who contend that the Church 
never intended the surplice to be used for preaching, 
to explain this difficulty, and not to cut the knot by 
omitting the prayer. It is not sufficient to introduce 
a psalm or hymn : for though the unseemliness of 
keeping a congregation in silence, while the Clergy- 
man is changing his robes, is thereby avoided, yet the 
difficulty is not removed, since no singing is pres- 
cribed at that particular time. If, however, it were 
intended, as I think is clear, that the whole should 
be performed in the same habit, that habit must be 
the surplice, since the gown was never enjoined by 
the Church/ 



having previously attended Morning Prayers in their respective 
chapels, that the gown is used. 

d I do not say that it would be desirable, as some persons are 
so strongly opposed, to enforce the observance of the Rubrics, 
which are so generally neglected : but I cannot refrain from giving 
expression to my opinion, that, all things considered, the course 
adopted by the Bishop of London, in his Charge in 1842, was the 
wisest and the most consistent. Had his Lordship's recommenda- 
tions been received, uniformity would have been secured in the 



520 ^ttOC2 Of tf) 

It is probable that some of the laity, who mani- 
fest so much sensitiveness on this subject, would, 
were they able, exclude the surplice from the desk, 
as well as from the pulpit. Their objections relate 
more to the thing itself, than to the place in which 
it is used. They can quietly witness obvious irregu- 
larities, such as changing the lessons, and mutilations 
in the Services ; they can tolerate deviations from 
clear and express Rubrics ; while all their virtuous 
feelings are aroused if a Clergyman, in obedience to 
his solemn vows, is particular in complying with the 
directions of the Church. How comes it to pass 
that they are so much more sensitive in the one case 
than in the other ? Surely they would be equally sen- 
sitive in both cases, if they were influenced only by 
affection for the Church of England. It is evident 
that some of the complainants could readily dispense 
with the observance of many other Rubrics, as well 
as of those which are now the subject of dispute. 
Even the reading of the prayer for the Church Mili- 

diocese, and a check would have been interposed to all innovations, 
whether in the way of addition or diminution. Nor can I avoid 
the conclusion, that those recommendations would have been quietly 
put in practice, if all the Clergy had been influenced by a regard 
for the welfare of the Church, and a desire to fulfil those pledges 
which are involved in their solemn engagements at ordination and 
institution. The laity would not trouble themselves about such 
matters, were they not secretly encouraged by some of the Clergy. 
It cannot be denied that the recommendations were agreeable to 
the injunctions of the Church : and as the Bishop of London was 
compelled, by the circumstances of the diocese, to pronounce an 
opinion, he could not have decided in opposition to Rubrics and 
Canons. It was not possible to maintain silence, because the Clergy 
on all sides were anxious for their diocesan to speak. He was 
obliged to speak according to the laws of the Church : and that 
he was right in his decisions is pretty clear from the fact that 
both the extreme parties were displeased. 



of t^e ^cnjurotgu 521 

tant is by some persons considered as an innovation, 
though no Rubric can be more clear or express than 
that by which it is enjoined ; and the Clergy who 
use it are censured as verging towards Rome by 
men, who, though calling themselves Churchmen, are 
verging fast towards dissent. e 

The question of the Offertory may, as it appears 
to me, be settled as to the law (the expediency I 
have no wish to discuss,) by a simple reference to the 
Rubrics, taken in connexion with the history of the 
Book of Common Prayer, and those occasional forms 
which, from time to time, have been issued. It is- 
asserted that the sentences are not to be read, nor the 
collection made, except when the Holy Communion 
is administered. Why the collection should be more 
appropriate at that time than on ordinary occasions, 
I cannot imagine. The Rubrics in the present book, 
taken in connexion with those in former books, appear 
to decide the question. That the Reformers intended 
a weekly collection, whether there were or were not a 
Communion, is certain : for in the Liturgy of 1549, 
the first of King Edward, the Offertory was expressly 
appointed to be read before the congregation dis- 
persed/ At the close of the service there is also a 

e Such objectors probably never attend divine service except on 
Sundays, or they would know that the Prayer for the Church Mi- 
litant is always read on holy-days in all Churches and Chapels in 
which the festivals of the Church are observed. Every town, there- 
fore, in the kingdom testifies of the practice on festivals, and 
why should the Sunday be excepted, when the Church places both 
on the same footing ! 

f " While the clerks do sing the Offertory, so many as are dis- 
posed shall offer to the poor man's box. Then so many as shall 
be partakers of the Holy Communion shall tarry still in the Quire, 
or in some convenient place nigh the Quire. All other (that mind 
not to receive the said Holy Communion) shall depart out of the 
Quire, except the ministers and clerks." Rubric, 1549. 



522 %'0torg of tfje 

Rubric, which removes all manner of doubt respecting 
the use of the Offertory, when there was no Com- 
munion. 2 

It becomes a question, therefore, seeing that the 
old Rubrics are decisive of the practices and inten- 
tions of the Reformers, whether any change in this 
respect has since been introduced. The present 
Rubric at the end of the Offertory enjoins : " While 
these sentences are in reading, the deacons, church- 
wardens, &c. shall receive the alms for the poor, and 
other devotions of the people." This is to be done, 
whether there be a Communion or not, since, by the 
very next Rubric, it is supposed at this point in the 
service to be uncertain, whether the administration 
will take place ; for it stands thus : " When there is 
a Communion, &c." Up to this part of the Service, 
the Priest is not supposed to be certain, whether a 
sufficient number of persons will remain to admit of 
the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Yet the alms 
are already collected : and thus it is clear that the col- 
lection is to be made without reference to the Com- 
munion. Then the Rubric at the close of the Office 
orders, that when there is no Communion, all the 
Service is to be used to the end of the Prayer for the 
Church Militant, including necessarily the Offertory. 

But it has been argued that the Offertory is abo- 
lished by the introduction of the Poor Laws. The 
objections, however, which lie against this argument 
are fatal. When the Book of Common Prayer was 
reviewed in 1661, the Poor Laws were in existence : 



8 " And though there be none to communicate with the priest, 
yet these days the priest shall put, &c. and say all things at the 
altar, (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord's Supper) 
until after the Offertory." Rubric, 1549. 



of tf)e ^onjutotg. 523 

yet the Rubrics respecting the Offertory were re- 
tained, though every part of the Service was carefully 
considered. Had the Convocation intended to abolish 
the Offertory, they would have rescinded the Rubrics 
by which it is enjoined. Besides, the argument de- 
rived from the Poor Laws would make against all 
Offertory collections, against those on Communion 
days, as well as those on other occasions. If the 
argument is of any force, it must go to prevent all 
such collections: so that, according to these objectors, 
the alms of the people could never be collected. This 
argument, therefore, cannot stand the test of the 
slightest examination, though it is most confidently 
put forth by its supporters. 

The disposal of the offerings has also given rise to 
disputes, though the question appears to be clearly 
settled by the Rubrics. " The money given at the 
Offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and 
charitable uses as the minister and churchwardens 
shall think fit, wherein if they disagree, it shall be 
disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint." It is 
clear that the money need not be all given to the 
poor: it is also clear that the minister and church- 
wardens are the judges : and provided the use to 
which it may be applied be a pious or charitable one, 
it is within the meaning of the law, and no one can 
interfere. Should the parties disagree, the sole dis- 
posal is in the Ordinary. It has been argued, that 
the pious and charitable uses are confined to the 
parish in which the alms are collected : but this is a 
mistake, for there is neither restriction nor limitation, 
and provided the minister and churchwardens agree 
in the disposal, or in case of their disagreement, the 
Ordinary is applied to, the decision is perfectly legal, 
whether the money be appropriated in the parish or 



524 ^t0torp of tje 

otherwise. As the Rubric is the law on the subject, 
and it contains no restrictive clause, the only question 
to decide, a question of very easy solution, is, what 
is intended by a pious and charitable use. h 

Considerable light is reflected on the whole subject 
of the Offertory, by the forms of prayer for special 
days of fasting and thanksgiving, which, from the 
period of the Reformation, were set forth at intervals. 

It was the custom in these Forms to print the entire 
Service, at least to the period of the Revolution, even 
the Lessons, in order that the Clergy might use only 
one Book on such occasions. They prove, that the 
practice of reading the Daily Morning Service, the 
Litany, and the Communion Service, never varied from 
the days of Queen Elizabeth : for all of them are pre- 
cisely similar in this respect, closing with the Prayer 
for the Church Militant. If then such a practice 
prevailed on these occasional days, there can be no 
doubt, that it was just the same on Sundays and 
other holy-days: for the directions in these special 



h When Archbishop Wake was appointed to the See of Lin- 
coln, in the year 1707, he published the Farewell Sermon, which 
he had preached at James's, Westminster: and with the sermon 
is a curious folding 1 sheet with an account of the expenditure of 
the Offertory money. " An account of the Offertory money in 
the parish of St James's, Westminster, as it stands upon our books 
for every year since I came to the parish." It comprehends the 
various years from 1694 to 1706 inclusive. The money was ap- 
propriated under the following- items : *' Apprentices bound out 
yearly : Clothing the poor : Coals for the poor : For the poor 
at the Hospitals, chirurgeons and apothecaries: Disposed of in 
visiting the sick : The master for teaching the Offertory boys ; 
The minister for reading the six o'clock prayers morning and 
evening " In this case the money was not all given to the poor. 
It is stated in the paper that certain sums were given to the poor 
at each public Sacrament, from which I infer, that the collection 
was made at other times, or on Sundays and other holy-days. 



of tje ^onjuroi% 525 

forms are precisely those of the Book of Common 
Prayer. These Services are, therefore, a most satis- 
factory comment on the Rubrics. By examining their 
structure, we ascertain the views of the Church from 
the period of the Reformation : and we find, that the 
Service was always performed in strict accordance 
with the Rubrics, as they stand in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer. In all these Forms, the Minister is 
directed to read the Morning Service to the end of 
the Litany : then follows the Communion Service : 
and after that the Sermon. The Minister is then 
directed to return to the Lord's Table, and after the 
Nicene Creed certain Offertory sentences are printed, 
the congregation being dismissed at the close of the 
Prayer for the Church Militant. Thus the manner of 
conducting Divine Service since the accession of Queen 
Elizabeth has ever been the same, as these Special 
Forms testify. The Communion was not administered 
on these occasions, yet some of the Offertory sentences 
were always read, for they are actually printed, and 
the Minister is directed to read them. Even as late 
as the last century, the Special Forms speak in a 
language not to be mistaken. In one of the date of 
1714, just after the accession of George I. certain of 
the Offertory passages are printed with this Rubrical 
direction, " Sentences at the Offertory :" and in another 
in 1720, they are accompanied with the following 
Rubric : " After which for the Offertory shall these 
sentences be used." 

It is not probable that the Minister changed his 
dress on these occasions. He is directed to proceed 
from the Lord's Table to the Pulpit, and to return 
and commence with the Prayer for the Church Mili- 
tant, without any lengthened pause. He must on 
such occasions have preached in the surplice : and if 



526 %'gtorp of tje 

on such occasions, undoubtedly he did the same on 
Sundays and other holy days. 

The actual printing and enjoining of the Offertory 
sentences, in all these forms, may, at all events, be 
regarded as a recognition of the principle of the 
Offertory. Whether the alms were collected on 
these occasions or not, the intention of the Church, 
and also the right of the Clergy to make the collec- 
tion, were recognized in the use of the Offertory 
sentences. Consequently, the introduction of the 
Offertory, when there is no Communion, is not an 
innovation, as is pretended by the opponents of the 
practice, but only a compliance with the Rubrics. It 
is now generally discontinued, except on Commu- 
nion days ; but it is as incumbent at one time as at 
another, if the intentions of the Church are to be 
regarded. 

Whatever, therefore, may be the present practice 
respecting the Offertory : even though to disturb the 
prevailing custom were inexpedient : yet it must be 
granted, by those who understand the subject, or will 
take the trouble to examine it, that the Church en- 
joins the use of some of the Offertory sentences, with 
the collection of the alms, and other devotions of 
the people. 

That the Communion Service, as far as to the end 
of the Prayer for the Church Militant, is to be read, 
on ordinary occasions, when there is no Communion, 
at the Lord's Table, has seldom been questioned : 
and it is with some degree of surprise, that I find a 
doubt on the subject entertained in a recent work. 1 



1 How shall we Conform to the Liturgy of the Church of 
England. By J. C. Robertson, M. A. 8vo. London. The Pres- 
byterians objected to reading the Service at the Communion Table, 



of ttje ^onjurot% 527 

To me the question appears to be so settled as to 
leave no room for doubt. After the sermon, the 
Priest is ordered to return to the Lord's Table to 
commence the Offertory : consequently he is supposed 
to have read the previous portions of the Service there, 
before he entered the Pulpit. No distinction in this 
respect is made between Communion and Non-Com- 
munion days. In the Occasional Forms to which I 
have referred, for seasons when no Communion was 
intended, the Minister was specially directed to stand 
at the north side of the Table, at the commencement 
of the second service : from which it must be evident, 
that such was the custom on Sundays and other holy 
days. Speaking of the Rubric, which orders the 
Minister to stand at the north side of the Table, 
Archdeacon Sharp observes, " which is to be under- 
stood even of that part of it which by another Rubric 
is appointed to be said, when there is no Communion/' 
He also meets the case of large Churches, in which, 
when the Table stands at the east end of the Chancel, 
it may not be possible for the Minister to be heard by 
the people, remarking : " but then, pray let us observe 
that where this necessity for breaking through the 
Rubric cannot be pleaded by us : that is, where this 
service may be conveniently enough performed at the 
Table itself situated in the Chancel ; there will be 
no excuse for us for reading it in the desk. Where 



and the Bishops urged the practice as primitive. The reply of the 
Presbyterians proves that both parties referred to non-communion 
days. " That all the Primitive Church used, when there was no 
Communion, to say service at the Communion-table, is a crude 
assertion, that must have better proof before we take it as con- 
vincing. To prove that they used it when there was a Communion, 
is no proof that they used it when there was none." History of 
Conformity, p. 237. 



528 

this Rubric cannot be observed, an absolute necessity 
must overrule the order : but no prescription of non- 
observance or customary neglect can avail to the 
setting it aside. It is true the Ordinary may connive 
at this customary neglect, but he cannot warrant, nor 
even excuse the minister in it, because he is bound 
by prior obligations of conformity, to obey the 
Church in what she commands in her Rubrics. And 
in all points where the Rubrics are plain and express, 
the Ordinary has no authority to release us from that 
obedience, as appears from the Preface concerning 
the Service of the Church, at the beginning of the 
Prayer Book. In which, though the Ordinary 13 
allowed to interpret and determine the sense of the 
Rubric for us in all doubtful cases ; yet it is with this 
proviso, that he shall not order nor determine any 
thing that is contrary to what is contained in the 
Service Book. That is, in points that are clearly 
expressed, the Ordinary is as much prohibited from 
making innovations, as the meanest parochial Minis- 
ter amongst us." k 

I am not contending for the revival of practices, 
which may have long been neglected : but, when 
Laymen, who usually are not much acquainted with 
such matters, presume to dictate to Bishops, and to 
designate a compliance with the Rubrics an innova- 
tion, it becomes necessary to expose such attempts. 
With respect to the matters, which I have discussed, 
it may be remarked, that if a Clergyman feels it to be 
his duty to practise them, the Bishop cannot pre- 
vent him : yet the Laity, who interpose, appear to 
imagine, that our Prelates can issue orders against 
the letter of the Rubrics, merely because they have 



k Sharp, on the Rubric, pp. 65, 66, 68, 69. 



of tfje /fhmjitwrg, 529 

been neglected. This is a mistake which ought not 
to be committed, yet they argue upon it, as though 
their position were indisputable. No Bishop can 
prevent a Clergyman from reading the Prayer for 
the Church Militant, from preaching in the Sur- 
plice, and from making a collection at the Offertory 
weekly. He may not enjoin these things, which he 
has the power to do : but he has no power to pro- 
hibit them. If therefore, a Bishop, who is as much 
confined by the law as the Clergy, makes any order? 
it must be an order for strict compliance with the 
letter of the Rubrics. He must do this, or he can 
do nothing. Were a Bishop to remain silent in 
such a diocese as London, for example, he would be 
reproached for pusillanimity : yet when he speaks, 
in obedience to the call of the Clergy, and delivers his 
judgment, as he necessarily must, in favour of strict 
compliance with the Rubrics, immediately his power is 
questioned, and an outcry is raised, from the mere 
circumstance of recommending obedience to the laws 
of the Church, as though some tremendous evil were 
impending. When, moreover, it is borne in mind, that 
the majority of those who raise the outcry, both Clergy 
and Laity, are not overscrupulous in complying with 
such Rubrics as have not fallen into disuse, an indiffer- 
ent spectator can scarcely avoid the conclusion, that 
they cannot entertain any strong degree of attachment 
to other practices, which rest on precisely the same 
grounds, namely, the Rubrics, as those against which 
their hostility is directed. The objectors might be 
regarded as consistent, if they were scrupulous in 
other particulars ; but it is notorious, that many of 
the Clergy, who object, are lax in conforming to 
Rubrics, which a Bishop must enforce, should the 
cases be brought before him : while some of the 

M M 



530 ^igtorp of tije 

protesting laity can witness a change of Lessons, 
when no power is given to the Minister in such a 
matter, or even mutilations and omissions in some 
of the services, without a murmur or complaint ; or 
even without manifesting any concern for the man, 
who can be so forgetful of his solemn vows and 
pledges. 

Having detailed such particulars respecting the 
Nonjurors as I have been able to collect : and having 
also traced the neglect, into which some of the 
Rubrics have fallen, to the latitudinarian tendencies 
originating in the Revolution, and to the excesses of 
some of the Nonjurors, the subject must now be left 
to the reader's consideration. It has been my aim to 
present a just picture of the Nonjurors, together with 
a candid view of the times to which this volume refers. 
My opinions on certain matters, which necessarily 
fell under my notice, have been formed after much 
reflection and careful examination : and though I 
cannot expect every reader to concur with me, in the 
conclusions at which I have arrived, yet I am pre- 
pared to maintain, that they are justified by the facts 
on which they are grounded. 



*** 
* 



THE END. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



A HISTORY OF THE CONVOCATION OF THE CHURCH 

OF ENGLAND. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

MEMORIALS OF EARNEST THE PIOUS, First Duke of 
Saxe Gotha, &c. 6s. 

THE GUNPOWDER TREASON. 3s. 6d. 
THE SPANISH ARMADA. 3*. 

A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR RO- 
BERT PEEL, BART. ON SUFFRAGE BISHOPS. Is. 

THE NATIONAL CHURCH, THE MEDIUM OF NA- 
TIONAL EDUCATION. 6d. 

THE OLD RELIGION. Seventh Thousand, 3d. 



Preparing for Publication, 

A NEW EDITION OF THE ENGLISH EPISCOPACY 

From 1640 to 1662. With NOTICES of the RELIGIOUS PARTIES of the 
TIMES. 



A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS 



ON 



HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, HERALDRY AND 

FAMILY HISTORY, OLD POETRY, AND THE DRAMA, 

PHILOLOGY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, FINE ARTS, 

DIVINITY, &c., &c., 

PUBLISHED OR SOLD BY 

JOHN RUSSELL SMITH, 

36, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON. (W.) 



CLASSIFIED INDEX. 

** The figures refer to the columns, which are numbered at the foot. 



Biography and Literary 
Hijlory. 

Autographical Mifcellany - 
Barker's Literary Anecdotes 
Bhkey's Angling Literature 
Britton on Junius 
Cartwright's (Dr. E.) Life - 
Chadwick's Life of De Foe 

Cox (Sir R.) Autobiography 
: Davies on Pope 

' Dunfter on Milton 

i Elliott (Ebenezer) Life 

i Fauriel's Literature of the Troubadours 

i Forman's Autobiography - 

i Gent (Thos.) Autobiography 

: Haiti well's Life of Recorde 

; Hand-Book of Autographs 

' Hunter on Milton ... 

" on Pope ... 
- on Robin Hood 

; Letters of the Kings of England - 
: Letters on Science, i6th Century 
! Lifter's Autobiography 

Lower's Contributions to Liteiature 
kMitford on Beaumont and Fletcher 

Borland (Sir Sam.) Life - 
Nalh,Welfl Bards - 
' Pettigrew on Amy Robfart 

Piozzi's Love Letters 
' Retrofpeclive Review 

Roberts' Duke of Monmouth 
: St. Anlelm .... 

Selden's Table Talk - 

Singer on Wayland Smith - 

Spence's Anecdotes of Books and Men 
. Vicars' England's Worthies 
Wefley (John) Life - > -_ - 
i Wright's Biographia Literaria 
--- Eaffys on Literature 

Shakefperiana. 

Anecdotes of Shakefpeare - 
Badham on Shakefpeare - 
Boaden on Shakefpeare MSS. 
Brown on Shakeipeare's Poems - 
Collier's Reafons ... 
Dyce's Notes on Shakefpeare 
-- Strictures on Collier 
Graves on Shakefpeare 
Gnmaldi Shakefpeare 
Grinfield on Shakespeare - 
Gnnfield's Stratford-on-Avon 
Harwell's Life of ShakeJpearc - 



COL. 

rarv 


COL. 
Halliwell Hand Lift - - - - 13 


cot. 
Buchanan on Figures - - -38 




on Merry Wives - - - 1 1 


Chatto on Playing Cards - 37 


- 8 


on Collier's Volume - -55 


Freeman's Llandaff Cathedral - 31 


- 6 
- 3 


Hamlet - 10 
Hunter's Life and Studies of Shake- 
fpeare - - - ' - 9 
Reply to Dyce - - - 10 


Heemfkerck's Prints - 38 
Holbein's Dance of Death - - 37 
Hume on Titian - - - 38 
Reynolds" (Sir Jofhua) Notes on Italian 


- 5 






- i 

- z 

- 7 
irs z 

: 1 

- 7 


Jervis on Shakefpeare - - - 55 
Madden's Shakefpeare's Autograph - 1 1 
Malone's Letter to Farmer - - - iz 
Rimbault's Jack Wilfon - - - n 
Scrutator on Collier's Volume - - 55 
Shakefpeare's Sonnets - - - 10 


Sandy's Canterbury Cathedral - - 26 

Archeology. 

Akerman's Archaeological Index - - zo 
Pagan Saxon dom - - - zo 
Archaeologia Cambrenfis - - - zz 


- 5 
- 3 


Story-teller - - - - n 
Smith, Bacon, and Shakefpeare - - iz 


Archaeological Inftitute at Chichefter - zi 
Bateman's Veftiges of Derbyfhire - zo 




Walker on the Text of Shakefpeare - 9 


B Ifaft M f CUm 


- 5 
. 8 


Verification of Shakefpeare - 9 
Wheler's Stratford - - - - iz 
Wilkins' Story of Pericles - - 1 1 


Cambrian Journal ... 2Z 
Cambridge Antiquarian Society's Pub- 


. I 


Wivell's Buft of Shakefpeare - - 12 


Herbert's Cyclops Chriftianus - - zz 


- 10 

- 8 

: t 

. 6 
- i 


Hiftory. 

Barber's Ancient Britons - - - zz 
Barnes' Ancient Britain - - - 4 


Lee's Antiq. Sketch Book - 
Reliquiae Antiquae Eboracenfis - 
Rhind's Britifh Archaeology - .49 
Roman Aldborough - - - . zj 
Caerleon - - -21 
North Leigh, Oxon- . - 28 
York i T 


- 55 
- 3 
- 3 


the Rofes ... -32 
Caxton Society's Publications - 56 
Farren's Ancient Egypt - "53 


Sepulchral Infcriptions - - zi 
Sepulchral Slabs 2Z 
Monuments - - - - 24 


- 7 
- 7 


Gilbert's Celtic Ireland - - 50 
Giles, Clafiic Writers on Britain 4 


Ulfter Archaeological Journal - - 21 
Williams (Archdeacon) Archaeological 
Effavs ... ti 


. z 


Hunter on Agincourt- - 4 


Wright's Archaeological EfTays - - 48 


- ii 


Lappenberg's Anglo-Saxons 4 
Normans - 4 
Pofte's Britannic Refearches 5 


Numijmatia. 

Akerman's Ancient Coins - - - 23 
Roman-Britifh, ditto - - 23 


- 12 

- IZ 


Wace's Norman Conqueft - i 
Walbran's Scotch Oath - - - 5 O 


New Teft Coins - - - 23 
Introduction to Coins - - zz 


- II 

- 9 

- 10 
- IO 
- 10 


Wright's Englifh Hiftory - - - 5, 

Architecture and the Fine 
Arts, 


Boyne's Local Tokens - - - 23 
Cardwell on Coins - - - - 24 
Madden's Roman Coins - - - 49 
Numifmatic Chronicle - - -24 
Pofte's Coins of Cunobeline - - 24 


- IZ 

- 9 


Biblia Pauperum - - - 37 
Blavignac, Swifs Architecture - -39 


Whelan's NumiTmatic Atlas - - Z4 
Wiltshire Tokens - . - -24. 



CLASSIFIED INDEX. 



Philology and Early 
Englljh Literature. 

JElfciCj A. S. Grammar - - - 15 
Anecdota Literaria - - - -17 
flicker's Dauifh Dialogues - - 17 
. Key to ditto - - - - 17 
Appolonius in A. S. - - - - 14 
Barnes' Philological Grammar - -14 
Anglo-Saxon Deledus - -13 
Bofworth's Anglo-Saxon Dictionary - 13 
Goodwin, A. S. St. Guthlac - - 13 
Goipelsin A. S. - - - - 13 
Halliwcll's Archaic and Provincial 
Didionary - - 17 
Johnes' Philological Proofs - - - 10 
King Waldere's A. S. Lay- - - 15 
Klipftein's Analeda Saxonica - - 14 
Langley's Anglo-Saxon - - -13 
N ares' Elizabethan Gloffary - - 17 
Norman's A. S. Hexameron - - 13 


COL. 
Huffey's Kent, Suffex, and Surrey 


COL 
Southwell's Poet. Works - - - 4 


Mutton's Blackpool - - 26 
Irving s Dumbarton (hire - - 31 
Jefus College, Cambridge - - :.| 
Jones and Freeman s St. D vicTs - .31 
Jordan's EnStone - - - 28 
King's Dartmoor - - 24 
Lower s Battel Abbey - - - 2,8 


Robert Bams- - - -J 
Webster's Dramatic Works- - - 4 
Wither's Hymns and Songs- - - 4 
Hallelujah - - - 4 

Stories^ Superftitions^ ant 

Folk- Lore. 

Aubrey's Mifcellanies- - - -4 
Akei man's Spring Tide - - -2 






Lees Caerleon 21 
Maton s Wiltshire - - - - 30 
Munfbrd's Norfolk Doincfclay - - 27 
Newton s Old London - - - 27 
Ords Cleveland, Yorkshire - - 30 
Pedler s Cornwall - - - - 49 
Raine's North Durham - - - 54 
Catterick Church - - - 55 
Auckland CaiUe - - - 55 
Richardfon s River Tyne - - - 28 
Roberts' Southern Counties - - 49 
Robinfon's Hackney - - - 20 
Sackville Welt s Withy ham - - 29 
St. Patrick's Dublin - - - - 50 
Sandy's KentiSh CuStoms - - - 25 
Simpion's Lancaftcr - - - - 26 
Smith (H. E.) Aldborough - - - 21 


King Arthur and his Knights of the 
Round Table - - - - - 4 
Mather's (I.) Remarkable Providences - 4 
(C.) Invisible World - - J 
Nurfcry Rhymes of England - -4 
Old Popular Rhymes - - - 4 
St. Patrick's Purgatory - - - 4 
Wiltshire Tales - - - j 

Bibliography. 

Bibliography of Englifh Dialeds - . 4 
Angling - - - -4 
Old Mufic Books - 4 


Piers Ploughman - - - - 16 
Popular Treadles in A. S. - - -15 
Reliquiae Antiquae - - - - 49 


Skelton's, Poet. Works - - -15 
Thomson's Archaic Numbers - - 17 
Torrent of Portugal - - - - 16 
Vernon's Anglo-Saxon (Juide - -14 

Provincial Dialers. 

Barnes' Dorfet Poems - - - 18 








(J. T.) London Cnes - -27 
Stark s Lincoln - - - - 26 
Surtees' Durham - - - - 54 
Tanfwell's Lambeth - - - - 28 
Thompfon (P.) Bofton - - - 26 




Cambridge Manuscripts - - - t 
Captain Cox's Trads - '- - t 
Caxton's Game of Chefs - - -4 
Dictionary of Old Plays - - - ! 
Holbrook's Manuscript - - - t 
Lettering Books - - - - < 
Sims' Hand-Book to the Library of the 
BritiSh Mufeuni - - - - \ 
The Douce Library - - - - < 
The Malone Library - - - - j 
Vernon Manufcript - - - - t 
Vincent's Royal Institution Catalogue - \ 

Divinity and Ecclefiajllca 
HIJlory. 

Biblia Pauperum - - - - I 
Christian Writers of the 2nd Century - t 
Church of our Fathers - - - ^ 
Common Prayer Disputes - - - 4 
Early Church in Ireland - - - 4 
Ecclefiaftkal History of New England - 5 
Hallelujah by Wither - - - t, 
Heathen Records - - - - 4 
Hymns of the Church - - - 1 


Trollope's Chriit's Hofpital - - 27 
Turner's Oxon Mems. - - - 28 
Tymms' English Counties - - - 32 
Waylen's Marlborough - - - 29 
Welibeloved s York - ' - - - 21 
Williamfs Radnor/hire -- - -32 
Wilkinfon's Broughton Giffbrd - - 30 

Heraldry^ Genealogy^ and 
Surnames. 

Archer Family - - - - - 33 
Banks' English Baronage - - - 35 
Bedford's Arms of EngliSh BiShops -34 
Berry's Hertfordshire Families - - 33 
Burke's Extind Baronets - - - 34 
Calendar of Knights - - - - 36 
Druce Family - - - - - 34 
Drummond s Noble Families - - 34 
Ellis on Heraldry - - - - 34 
Fawkes Family .... 6 
Houfe of Denmark - - - - 53 
Irifh Jacobite Families - - - 53 
Lawrence s British Gentry - - -36 
Lower s Patronymica Britannka - 33 


Clark's Effex Dialed - - - 18 
CorniSh Dialed - - - - 1 8 


Cumberland Gioffary - - - 18 
Dialed of Ulfler - - - 53 
Gloffary of Yorkshire Words - -20 
Grofe's Local Gloffary - - - 18 
HallamShire Gloffary - - -20 
Hogg's Devon (hire. Letters - - 18 
Leicestershire Words - - - 19 
Northamptonshire Gloffary - - 19 
Suffex Gloffary - - - - 19 
Teeidale Gloffary - - - - 19 
Tim Bobbin's Lancashire Dialed - 19 
Wiltshire Gloffary - - - - 19 
Westmoreland and Cumberland Dia- 
leds 19 
Yorkshire Dialed - - - - 20 

Topography. 

Alexander's BereSford Hall - - - 25 
Allies' Worcestershire - - - 30 
Atkinfon's Worthies of Westmoreland 7 
Barker's Wenileydale - - - 30 
Bateman's Derbyshire - - - 20 


Martin-Prelate Controversy - - 4 
Myftic Crown of Mary - - -1 
Quarles' Enchiridion - - - 4 
Raine's, St. Cuthbert - - - - J 
Rot among the EiShops 


Blake s Blandford - - - - 25 
Bowies' Abury - - - - 29 
Bowman s Yorkshire Antiquities -21 
Brooke's Liverpool - - - - 26 
Chichetfer Meeting - - - - 21 
Clark's Kidwelly - - - - 31 
Cooper's Winchelfea - - - 28 
Cotton's Plympton - - - - 25 
Davies's York - - - - -31 
Davis's Knight/bridge - - - 27 
Devlin's Hereford - - - - 25 
Erdefwicke s Staffordshire - - - 28 
FoSbrocke s Tourist's Grammar - - 32 
Freeman's LlandaSf - - - -31 
Gilbert's Dublin - . - - -31 
Giles* Bampton - - - - 28 
Greenwood s Dewfbury - - - 30 
Hadfield s Effex Architedure - - 3d 
Hakewill s North Leigh - - - 28 
Halls Tenby - - - - - 31 
Harland's Salley Abbey - - - 30 
Harrod s Norfolk - - - - 27 
Hastings - - - - - -29 
Henderibn's Berwickfhire - - - 31 
Herbert's Stonehenge - - - 22 
Holloway s Rye - - - - 29 
Romney MarSh - - - 26 




Newton's Heraldry - - - - 36 
Sackville Family - - - - 29 
Sims' Genealogifts' Manual - - -35 
Scrafe Family - - - - -33 
Tuckett's Devonfhire Families - - 33 

Poetry and the Drama. 

Boyd's Zion's Flowers- - - - 45 
Chapman's Homer's Iliad - - - 47 


St. Laurence O'Toole - - - 4 
Te Deum - - - - - - 1 
TouStalTs Sermon - - - - 1 

Mifcellaneous. 

Barnes' Labour and Gold - - - 5 
Calton's Calais - - - - - 3 
Clairbois' Naval Architecture - - j 
Drake's Bofton, U.S. - - - - 5 
FiShbourne's Naval Architecture '-5 
Greenhovv's Oregon - - - - J 
Halliwell's Freernaibnry - - - 1* 
Home's Mirror of Juftices - - - 5 
Illustrations of Eating - - - $ 




Crafhaw's Poet. Works - - - 45 
Drummond's Poet. Works - 41 
Freneau's Poems - - - ~ 54 
Halliwell's Dictionary of Old Plays - 39 
Home's Ballad Romances - - - 46 
Lilly's Dramatic Works - - - 47 
Mai iron's Dramatic Works - - - 46 


Mont St. Michel ... 
Parish's Buenos Ayres - - - 1 
Rivero, Memorias Scientificas - - 5 
Sandy's Chriitmaitide - - - - 4 
Saull on Aitronomy - - - - j 
Scandinavian Queition - - - 5 
Shepherd's St. Vincent's - - - $ 
Vaiey's Ox Tribe - - - - S 
Wackerbath, Arrglo-Eaxon MuSic - 4 


Old'Songs and Ballads - - - 46 
Overbury (Sir Thomas) Works - - 47 
Percy Society's Publications - - 59 
Sackville's Poet. Works - - - 47 
Skelton( John) Poet. Works - -15 



John Russell Smith, 36, 

Retrospective Review (New Series) ; 
confifting of Criticifms upon, Analyfis of, and 
Extracts from, curious, ufeftil, valuable, and 
fcarce Old Books. 8vo. Voia. u. and II. (all 
printed) cloth. IDS. 6d. (original price i. is.) 

1353-54 

!*?,efe two volumes form a good companion to the old feries of the 
Retroffective, in 16 voJs. ; the articles are of the (ame length and 
charader. 

Vlafter Wace, his Chronicle of the Nor- 
man Conqueft, from the Roman de Rou. 
Translated into Englifh Profe, with Notes and 
Illuftrations by EDGAR TAYLOR, F.S.A. 
8vo. many engravings from the Bayeux Tapes- 
try, Norman Architecture, Illuminations , &c. 
cloth, 155. (original price i. 8.) 1837 

)nly 250 copies printed, and very few remain unfold 5 the remain- 
ing copies are now in J. R. Smith's hands, and are offered at the 
above low price, in confequence of the death of Mr. Pickering; 
hitherto no copies have been fold under the published price. 

Contributions to Literature, Hiftorical, 
Antiquarian, and Metrical. By MARK AN- 
TONY LOWER, M.A., F.S.A., Author of 
" Sflays o*n Englifli Surnames, 1 ' " Curiofities 
<sf Heraldry," &c. Poft 8vo. woodcuts, cloth, 
75. 6d. 1854 

Contents: i. Local Nomenclature 2. The Bastle of Haftings, an 
Hiftorical Eflay 3. The Lord Dacre, his mournful end ; a Bal- 
lad 4. Hiftorical and Archaeological Memoir on the Iron Works 
of the South of England, with numerous illustrations 5. Win- 
chelfea's Deliverance, or the Stout Abbot of Battayle ; in Three 
Fyttes 6. The South Downs, a Sketch; Hiftorical, Anecdotical, 
and Deicriptive 7. On Yew Trees in Churchyards 8. A Lyttel 
Gefte of a Create Eele; a pleafaunt Ballade 9. A Difcourfe of 
Genealogy 10. An Antiquarian Pilgrimage in Normandy, with 
TL-oodcuts ii. Mifcellanea, &c. &c. &c. 

Barker. Literary Anecdotes and Con- 
temporary Reminifcences of ProfefTor Porfon 
and others, from the Manufcript Papers of the 
late E. H. Barker, Efq., of Thetford, Norfolk, 
with an Original Memoir of the Author. 
2 vols. 8vo. cloth, las. 1852 

Afingular book, full of ftrange ftories and iefts. 

Anecdotes and Characters of Books and 
Men. Collected from the Converfation of Mr. 
Pope and other eminent Perfons of his Time. 
By the Rev. JOSEPH SPENCE. With Notes, 
Life, &c. by S. W. SINGER. The fecond edi- 
tion, fcap. Svo. portrait, elegantly printed by 
Whittingham, cloth, 6s. 1858 

LARGE PAPER (for the connoifleur 

of Choice BoofcA Poft Svo. cloth, 75. 6d. 1858 

The 'Anecdotes' of kind-is^artcd Mr. Spence, the friend of Pope, 
is one of the beft books of anti vn the Englifh language." Critic. 

ope. Fa&s and Conjectures on the 
Dekent and Family Connexions of Pope, the 
Poet. By the Rev. JOSEPH HUNTER. Poft 
Svo. as. 1857 



Sobo Square, London. 

Pope. Additional Fa&s concerning the 
Maternal Anceftry of Pope, in a Letter to 
Mr. Hunter. By ROBERT DAVIES, F.S.A. 
Poft Svo. as. 1858 

Life, Progreffes, and Rebellion of James, 
Duke of Monmouth, &c. to his Capture and 
Execution, with a full account of the " Bloody 
Affize," under Judge Jefferies, and copious 
Biographical Notices. By GEORGE ROBERTS. 
2 vols. poft Svo. plates and cuts, cloth, 73. 6d. 
(original price i . 45.) 1 844. 

Two very interefting volumes, particularly fo to thofe connected 
with the Weft of England. 

Biographia Britannica Literaria, or Bio- 
graphy of Literary Charafters of Great Bri- 
tain and Ireland. ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD. 
By THOMAS WRIGHT, M.A., F.S.A., &c. 
Membre de Tlnftitut de France. Thick Svo. 
cloth, 6s. (original price izs.) 1842 

The Anglo-Norman Period. Thick 

8vo. cloth, 6s. (original price 125.) 1846 

Publifhed under the fuperintendence of the Council of the Royal 

Society of Literature. 
There is no work in the Englifh Language which gives the reader 

fuch a comprehenfive and connected Hiftory of the Literature of 

thefe periods. 

Effays on the Literature, Popular Super- 

ftitions, and Hiftory of England in the Middle 
Ages. By THOMAS WRIGHT, M. A., F.S.A. 
2 vols. poft 8vo. elegantly printed, cloth, i6s. 

1846 

Contents : Eflay I . Anglo-Saxon Poetry z. Anglo-Norman Poetry 
3 . Chanfons de Gefte, or hiftorical romances of the Middle 
Ages 4. Proverbs and Popular Sayings 5. Anglo-Latin Poets 
of the Twelfth Century 6. Abelard and the Scfaolaftic Philofo- 
phy 7. Dr. Grimm's German Mythology 8. National Fairy 
Mythology of England 9. Popular Superftitions of Modern 
Greece, and their connexion with the Englifh 10. Friar Rufh 
and the Frolicfome Elves n. Dunlop's Hiftory of Fid>ion iz. 
Hiftory and Tranfmiflion of Popular Stories 13. Poetry of Hif- 
tory 14. Adventures of Hereward the Saxon 15. Story of Eu- 
ftace the Monk 1 6. Hiftory of Fulke Fitzwarine -17. Popular 
Cycle or Robin Hood Ballads 1 8. Cpnqueft of Ireland by tho 
Anglo-Normans 19. Old Englifh Political Songs 20. Dunba 
the Scottifh Poet. 

Literature of the Troubadours. Hiftoira 
de la Poefie Provengale, par M. FAURIEL, 
publie par J. MOHL, Membre de 1'Inftitut de 
France. 3 vols. Svo. neiVyfenved, 145. (origi- 
nal price i. 45.) 1847 
A valuable work, and forms a fit companion to the Literary Hifto- 

ries of Hallam, Ticknor, and Ginguene. 

J. R. Smith is the only Agent in London for the fale of it, at the 
above moderate price. 

Milton's Early Reading, and tne prlma 
flamina of his " Paradife Loft," together with 
Extrafts from a Poet of the XVIth Century 
(Jo/hua Sylwfter}. By CHARLES DUNSTER, 
M.A. i zmo.r/. as. 6d. (original price 53.) 1800 



John Russell Smith , 36, Soho Square^ London. 

Milton; a Sheaf of Gleanings after his Robin Hood. The Great Hero of the 
Biographers and Annotators. By the Rev. 
JOSEPH HUNTER. Foil 8vo. as. 6d. 1850 

Junius. The Authorfhip of the Letters 
of Junius elucidated, including a Biographical 
Memoir of Lieut.-Col. Barre, M.P. By JOHN 
BRITTON, F.S.A., &c. Royal 8vo. with por- 
traits of Lord Shelburne, John Dunning, and 
Barre, from Sir JoJJiua Reynolds'* picture, cloth, 
6s. LARGE PAPER, in 4to. cloth, 93. 1848 

An exceedingly interefting book, giving many particulars of the 
American War, and the ftate of parties during that period. 

The Table Talk of JOHN SELDEN. 

With a Biographical Preface and Notes by S. 
W. SINGER. Fcap. 8vo. third edition, por- 
trait, cloth, 55. 1860 

LARGE PAPER (for the connolffeur 
of choice Books}. Poft 8vo. cloth, ys. 6d. 1860 



" Nothing can be more interefting than this little book, containing 
a lively picture of the opinions and conventions of one of the 
moft eminent fcholars and moft diftinguifhed patriots England has 
produced. There are few volumes of its fize fo pregnant with 
fenfe, combined with the moft profound learning; it is impoffible 
to open it without finding iome important faft or difcuffion, fome- 
thing practically ufeful and applicable to the bufmefs of life. 
Coleridge fays, ' There is more weighty bullion fenfe in this book 
than I ever found in the fame number of pages in any uninfpired 

writer.' Its merits had not efcaped the notice of 

Dr. Johnfon, though in politics oppofed to much it inculcates, for 
in reply to an obfervation of Bofwell, in praife of the French 
Ana, he faid, ' A few of them are good, but we have one book of 
that kind better than any of them Selden's Table Talk.' "Mr. 
Singer's Preface. 

The Life and Times of Daniel De Foe ; 
with Remarks, Digreflive and Difcurfive. By 
WILLIAM CHADWICK. 8vo. pp. 472, por- 
trait, cloth, tos. 6d. 1859 

" Daniel De Foe devoted his life and energies to the defence of free 
inftitutions and good government. He was the Radical of his 
day. He not only wrote, but fufiered for truth and liberty. He 
was impoverilhed and perfecuted for his labours in this caufe ; 
nay, he was repeatedly imprifoned for his prinaiples, or for his 
unfwerving attachment to them, and for his boldnefe and honefty 
in afferting them. He was the vigorous and indefatigable oppo- 
nent of prieftifrn, of ecclefiaftical domination, and of the Popifh 
tendencies of his time. We might not approve of all he wrote 
againft the Catholics, but we fhould remember that he faw and 
felt , as we cannot, how inherently oppofed to true freedom is the 
Catholic fyftem. Although we live in very different times from 
thofe in which DeFoe lived, yet his life is fulJ of pregnant leflbns 
for the liberals and friends of religious freedom of our day." 
Bradford Review. 

Wayland Smith. A DifFertation on a 
Tradition of the Middle Ages, from the 
French of G. B. PEPPING and FRANCISQUE 
MICHEL, with Additions by S. W. SINGER, 
and the amplified Legend by OEHLENSLAGER. 
i2mo. cloth, 35. 6d. Pickering, 1847 

*' Wayland Smith and his Cave/orm oaeor the Incidents in Sir 
W, Scott's " Kenilworth," 

3 



Ancient Minifterly of England, " Robin 
Hood," his Period, real Charafter, &c., in- 
veftigated, and perhaps afcertained, by the 
Rev. JOSEPH HUNTER. Poft 8vo. as. 6d. 

1851 

Notes on Ancient Britain and the Britons. 
By the Rev. W. BARNES, author of the 
" Philological Grammar," " Anglo-Saxon 
Deleftus," " Dorfet Dialed," &c. Foolfcap 
8vo. cloth, 35. 1858 

" Mr. Barnes has given us therefult of his Collections fora Courfeof 
Lectures on this fubjeft, and has produced a feries of Sketches of 
the Ancient Britons, their language, laws, and modes of life, 
and of their focial ftate as compared with that of the Saxons, 
which will be read with confiderable intereft." Notes and 
Queries. 

" We are very glad to meet with fuch pleafant andreadible 'Notes* 
as Mr. Barnes's. They are very unaffected efiays, imparting 
much warmth to the old carcafe of Britifh lore, and evincing 
fome real ftudy. He has found out the value of the old Welfli 
laws, and has made fome ufeful comparifons between them and 
thofe of the Saxons with much ffefhnefs if not abfolute novelty." 
Guardian. 

Taliefm ; or, the Bards and Druids of 
Britain. A Tranflation of the Remains of' 
the earlieft Welfh Bards, and an examination. 
of the Bardic Myfteries. By D. W. NASH, 
member of the Royal Society of Literature. 
8vo. cloth* 145. 1857 

Excerpta ex Scriptoribus Clafficis de^ 
Bdtania. A Complete Colle6lion of thofe 
pafTages in the Claflic Writers (124 m 
number), which make mention of the Britilh 
Ifles, Chronologically Arranged, from Ante-- 
Chrifti 560 to Anno Dom. 1333. By the 
Rev. Dr. J. A. GILES. 8vo. cloth, 3*. 
(original price ys. 6d.) 1846 

An Introduction to every Hiftory of Great Britain. 

Hifrory of England, under the Anglo- 
Saxon Kings. By Dr. J. M. LAPPENBERC. 
TranflatedbyBENj. THORPE, with Additions 
and Corre6lions, by the Author and Tranflator. 
2 vols. 8vo. cloth, las. (original price i. is.) 

1845 

Hiftory of England, under the Norman. 

Kings, with an Epitome of the early Hiftory 

of Normandy. ' By Dr. J. M. LAPPENBERG, 

, tranflated with Additions by BENJ. THORPE. 

8vo. cloth, 155. 1857 

Agincourt; a contribution towards an 
authentic Lift of the Commanders of the 
Englifh Hoft in King Hemy the Fifth's Ex- 
pedition. By the Rev. JOSEPH HUNTER.. 
poft 8vo. as, 6d. 185' 



John Russell Smithy 36, Xobo Square, London* 



Britannic Refearches ; or, New Facts 
and Rectifications of Ancient Britifh Hiftory. 
By the Rev. BEALE POSTE, M.A. 8vo. 
(pp. 448), with engravings ', cloth, 155. 1853 

" The author of this volume may juftly claim credit for confider- 
able learning, great induftry, and, above all, ftrong faith in the 
intereft and importance of his fubject. ... On various points 
he has given us additional information, and afforded us new 
views, for which we are bound to thank him. The body of the 
book is followed by a very complete index, fo as to render refe- 
rence to any part of it eafy: this was the more neceflary, on ac- 
count of the multifarioufhefs of the topics treated, the variety of 
perfons mentioned, and the many works quoted." Athenaum^ 
Oct. 8, 1853. 

** The Rev. Beale Pofte has long been known to antiquaries as one 
of the belt read of all thofe who have elucidated the earlieft an- 
nals of this country. He is a practical man, has inveftigated for 
himfelf monuments and manufcripts, and we have in the above- 
named volume the fruits of many years' patient ftudy. The ob- 
jects which will occupy the attention of the reader are I. The 
political pofitin of the principal Britifli powers before the Roman 
conqueft under the Roman dominion, and ftruggling unfucceff- 
fully againft the Anglo-Saxon race; z. The Geography of An- 
cient Britain ; 3. An inveftigation of the Ancient Britifh Hifto- 
rians, Gildas and Nennius, and the more obfcure Britifli chroni- 
clers ; 4. The ancient ftone monuments of the Celtic period ; 
and, laftly, fome curious and interefting notices of the early Bri- 
tifh Church. Mr. Pofte has not touched on fubjefts which have 
received much attention from others, fave in cafes where he had 
fomething new to offer, and the volume muft be regarded, there- 
fore, as an entirely new collection of difcoveries and deductions 
tending to throw light on the darkeft, as well as the earlieft, 
portion of our national hiftory." Atlas. 

Britannia Antiqua, or Ancient Britain 

brought within the Limits of Authentic 

Hiftory. By the Rev. BEALE POSTE. 8vo. 

pp. 386, map, cloth, IAS. l %57 

A Sequel to the foregoing work. 

Letters of the Kings of England. Now 
firft collected from the Originals in Royal 
Archives, and from other Authentic Sources, 
private as well as public. Edited, with 
Hiflorical Introduction and Notes, by J. O. 
HALLIWELL. Two handfome volumes, poft 
8vo. *witk portraits of Henry VIII. and 
Charles I., cloth, 8s. (original price i. is.) 

1848 

These volumes form a good companion to Ellis's Original Letters. 

The collection comprifes, for the firft time, the love-letters of Henry 
VIII. to Anne Boleyn in a complete form, which may be re- 
garded, perhaps, as the moft fmgular documents of the kind that 
have descended to our times ; the feries of letters of Edward VI. 
will be found very interefting fpecimens of compofition ; fome of 
the letters of James I., hitherto unpublifhed, throw light on the 
murder of Overbury, and prove beyond a doubt the King was 
implicated in it in fome extraordinary and unpleafant way ; but 
his letters to the Duke of Buckingham are of the moft fingular 
nature : only imagine a letter from a fovereign to his prime min- 
ifter commencing thus: u My own fweet and dear child, bleff- 
ing, blefling, bleffing on thy heart-roots and all thine." Prince 
Charles and the Duke of Buckingham's Journey into Spain has 
never been before so fully illuitrated v as it is by the documents 
given in this work, which alfo includes the very curious letters 
from the Duke aad Duchels of Buckingham to James I. 



Inquiry into the Particulars connected 

with the Death of Amy Robfart (Lady 
Dudley), at Cumnor Place, Berks, Sept. 8, 
1560 ; being a refutation of the Calumnies 
charged againft Sir Robert Dudley, Anthony 
Forfter, and others. By J. T. PETTIGREW, 
8vo., as. 1859 

The Fawkes's of York in the i6th 
Century, including Notices of Guy Fawkes 
the Gunpowder Plot Confpirator. By ROBERT 
DAVIES, F.S.A. Poft 8vo., is. 6d. 1850 

Hiftorical Sketches of the Angling Lite- 
rature of all Nations. By ROBERT BLAKEY. 
To which is added a Bibliographical Cata- 
logue of Englifli Books on Angling and 



Ichthyology, ismo. cloth, 55. 



:8 5 6 



The Pilgrim Fathers. Collections con- 
cerning the Church or Congregation of Pro- 
teftant Separatists formed at Scrooby, in North 
Nottinghammire, in the time of James I.,. 
the Founders of New Plymouth, the Parent 
Colony of New England. By the Rev. 
JOSEPH HUNTER, F.S.A., and an AJfiftant 
Keeper of Her'MajeJtys Records. 8vo. cloth, 8s. 

1854. 

This work contains fome very important particulars of thefe per- 
fonages, and their connections previoufly to their leaving England 
and Holland, which where entirely unknown to former writers, 
and have only recently been difcovered, through the indefatigable 
exertions of the Author. Prefixed to the volume are fome beau- 
tiful Prefatory Stanzas by Richard Monckton Milnes, Efq., M.P. 

Love Letters of Mrs. Piozzi (formerly 
Mrs. Thrale, the friend of Dr. Johnfon), 
written when me was Eighty, to the handfome 
aclor, William Auguftus Conway, aged 
Twenty-feven. Svo-fewed, as. *$4-3 

" written at three, four, and five o'clock (in the morning) 'by 

an octogenary pen ; a heart (as Mrs. Lee fays) twenty-fix years 
old, and as H. L. P. feels it to be, all your own." Letter V., 
3rd. Feb., l8zo. 

" This is one of tne moft extraordinary collections of love epiftles 
we have chanced to meet with, and the well-known literary repu- 
tation of the lady the Mrs. Thrale, of Dr. Johnfon and Mils 
Burney Celebrity confiderably enhances their intereft. The 
letters themfelves it is not eafy to charaderife; nor lhall we 
venture to decide whether they more befpeak the drivelling of 
dotage, or the folly of love; in either cafe they prefent human 
nature to us under a new afpeft, and furnilh one of those riddles 
which nothing yet dreamt of in our philolbphy can fatisfa&orily 
folve." Polytechnic Review. 

Life of Mr. Thomas Gent, Printer, of 
York. Written by Himfelf. 8vo. fine por- 
trait, engraved by Aug. Fox, cloth, as. 6d. 
(original price 95.) 183* 

The author of this curious, and hitherto unpublifhed, piece of Auto- 
biography is well known by the feveral works of which he was 
the author as well as printer. The Book requires m encomium t 
those who have read Scuthefs " Dofitr." 



John Russell Smlth^ 36, Soho Square^ London. 



Worthies ofWeilmoreland; or. Biogra- 
phies of notable Perfons born in that County 
fince the Reformation. By GEORGE ATKIN- 
SON, Efq. Serjeant at Law. a vols. poft Svo. 
cloth, 6s. (original price i6s.) J 849 

England's Worthies, under whom all the 
Civil and Bloody Warres, fmce Anno 1642 
to Anno 1647, are related. By JOHN VICARS, 
Author of "England's Parliamentary Chro- 
nicle," &c. &c. Royal izmo. reprinted in 
the old ftyle (Jimilar to Lady Willoughby' s 
Diary}, with copies of the 18 rare portraits 
after Hollar, Y., half-morocco, 55. 1845 

Lifter. The Autobiography of JOSEPH 
LISTER (a Nonconformift), of Bradford, 
Yorkmire, with a contemporary account of 
the Defence of Bradford and Capture of 
Leeds, by the Parliamentarians, in 1642. 
Edited by THOS. WRIGHT, F.S.A. 8vo. 



cloth, as. 



1842 



Forman. The Autobiography and Per- 
fonal Diary of Dr. Simon Forman, the cele- 
brated Aftrologer, 1552-1602, from unpub- 
lifhed MSS. in the Afhmolean Mufeum, 
Oxford. Edited by J. O. HALLIWELL. 
Small qkQ.fewed, 55. 1849 

Only 150 copies privately printed. It will form a companion to 
Dr. Dee's Diary, printed by the Camden Society, who alfb 
printed this work but afterwards fupprefled it. 

Life, Poetry, and Letters of Ebenezer 
Elliot, the Corn-Law Rhymer (of Sheffield). 
Edited by his Son-in-Law, JOHN WATKINS. 
Poft 8vo. cloth, (an mterefting volume), 33. 
(original price ys. 60.) 1850 

Wefley. Narrative of a Remarkable 
T*ranfa6tion in the Early Life of John Wefley. 
Now firft Printed, from a MS. in the Britim 
Mufeum. %vo.fe<wed, 25. 1848 

A very curious love affair between J. W. and his houfekeeper ; it 
gives a curious infight into the early economy of the Methodifts. 
It is entirely unknown to all Wefley's biographers. 

Counter's (Col., of Rafton, Suffex) Ac- 
count of the Miraculons Efcape of King 
Charles II. out of England. Now firft 
printed. Poft Svo. is. 1846 

This little traft takes up the narrative where the Royal memoir 
breaks off. It was unknown to Mr. Hughes, the editor of the 
" Boicobel Trafts." 

The Connexion of Wales with the 
Early Science of England, illuftrated in the 
Memoirs of Dr. Robert Recorde, the firft 
Writer on Arithmetic, Geometry, Aftro- 
nomy, &c,, in the Englim Language. By 
J. O. HALLIWELL. 8vo./<?w^, is. 1840 



A Rot Amongft the Bifhops ; or, a 

Terrible Temfeft in the Sea of Canterbury, 
fet forth in lively emblems, to pleafe the judi- 
cious Reader. By THOMAS STIRRY, 1641. 
i8mo. (A Satire on Abp. Laud), four 'very 
curious nvoodcut emblems, cloth, js. 
A facfimile of the very rare original edition, which fold at Bindley's 



Cartwright. Memoirs of the Lifp 
Writings, and Mechanical Inventions of Ed- 
mund Cartw. v ight, D.D.,F.R.S., inventor of 
the Power Loom, &c. Edited by E. H. 
STRICKLAND. Poft Svo. engravings, boards, 
as. 6d. (original price IDS. 6d.) 1843 

It contains fome interefting literary hiftory, Dr. Cartwright num- 
bering among his correfpondents, Sir W. Jones, Crabbe, Sir H. 
Davy, Fulton, Sir S. Raffles, Langhorne, and others ; he was no 
mean Poet, as his Legendary tale of " Armine and Elvira" (given 
in the Appendix) teftifies; Sir W. Scott lays it contains fome 
excellent poetry, exprefied with unufual felicity. 

Collection of Letters on Scientific Sub- 
jects, illuftrative of the Progrefs of Science in 
England. Temp. Elizabeth to Charles II. 
Edited by J. O. HALHWELL. Svo. cloth, 35. 

1841 

Comprising letters of Digges, Dee, Tycho Brahe, Lower, Hariott, 
Lydyatt, Sir W. Petty, Sir C. Cavendifh, Brancker, Pell, &c.; 
alfo the autobiography of Sir Samuel Morland, from a MS. in 
Lambeth Palace, Nat. Tarpoley's Corrector Analyticus, &c. Coft 
the Subfcribers of the Hiftorical Society of Science i. 

Morland. Account of the Life, Writ- 
ings, and Inventions of Sir Samuel Morland, 
Mafter of Mechanics to Charles II. By J. 0. 
HALLIWELL. Zvo.fewed, is. 1838 

Autographical Mifcellany; a Collection 
of Autograph Letters, Interefting Documents, 
&c., executed in facfimile by FREDK. NE- 
THERCLIFT, each facfimile accompanied with 
a page of letter-prefs by R. SIMS, of the 
Britifh Mufeum. Royal 4to. A HANDSOME 
VOL., extra cloth, i. is. (original price 
i.i6s.) 1855 

Containing fixty examples of hitherto unpublished Letters and Docu 
ments of Blake, Boileau, Buonaparte, Burns, Calvin, Camden, 
Carrier, Catherine deMedicis, Charles I., Chatterton, Congreve 
Cranmer, Cromwell, Danton, D'Aubigne, Dryden, Edward VI.. 
Elizabeth, Elizabeth (fister of Louis XVI.), Franklin, Galilei 
Glover, Goethe, Goldfmith, Henry VIII., Hyde (Anne), jame 
II., Jonion, Kepler, Kotzebue, Latimer, Loyola, Louis XIV. 
Louis XVI., Luther, Maintenon, Maria Antoinette, Marlborough 
Marmontel, Mary Queen of Scotts, Melancthon, Newton, Penn 
Pompadour, Pole (Cardinal), Raleigh, Ridley, Robefpiem j 
Rouffeau, Rubens, Sand, Schiller, Spenfer, Sterne, Taffo, Voltaire j 
Walpole (Horace), Wafhington, Wolfe, Wolfey, Wren, an 
Young. 

For the intcrefting nature of the documents, this colleflion far exce 
all the previous ones. With two exceptions (formerly bad] 
executed), they have never been puWifhed before. 



John Ruffell Smith, 36 

A Life of Shakefpeare, including many 
particulars refpe&ing the Poet and his Family, 
never before publifhed, by J. O. HALLIWELL, 
F.R.S., &c. In one handfome volume, 8vo. 
illujlrated with 76 engravings on wood, of 
objects, moft of which are new, from drawings 
by Fair holt, cloth, 155. 1848 

This work contains upwards of forty documents refpedling Shake- 
fpeare and his family, never before fublijbed, befides numerous 
others, indirectly illuftrating the Poet's biography. All the 
anecdotes and traditions concerning Shakefpeare are here, for the 
firft time, collected, and much new light is thrown on his per- 
fonal hiftory, by papers exhibiting him as felling Malt, Stone, 
&c. Of the feventy-fix engravings which illuftrate the volume, 
more than ffty have never before been engraved, 

It is the only life of Shakefpeare to be bought feparately from his 
works. 

New Illustrations of the Life, Studies, 
and Writings of Shakefpeare, by the Rev. 
JOSEPH HUNTER. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth, 75. 6d. 
(original price, i. is.) 1845 

Supplementary to all editions of the works of the Poet. 

%* Parts, price 35., and Parts 3, 4, and 5, together price 33., 

may be had to complete copies. 

A Critical Examination of the Text of 

Shakefpeare 5 together with Notes on his 
Plays and Poems, by the late W. Sidney 
Walker. Edited by W. Nanfon Lettfom. 
3 vols. foolfcap 8vo. cloth, i8s. 1860 

"Very often we find ourfelves differing from Mr. Walker on 
readings and interpretations, but we feldom differ from him 
without refpect for his fcholarfliip and care. His are not the 
wild gueffes at truth which neither gods nor men have ftomach 
to endure, but the fuggeftions of a trained intelligence and a 
chaftened tafte. Future editors and commentators will be bound 
to confult thefe volumes, and confider their fuggefuons." 
Athen&um, 

"A valuable addition to our Philological Literature, the moft 
valuable part being the remarks on contemporary literature, and 
the mafs of learning by which the exadt meaning and condition 
of a word is fought to be eftablifhed." Literary Gaxette. 

By the fame Author, 

Shakefpeare' s Verification, and its Ap- 
parent Irregularities explained by Examples 
from early and late Englifh Writers. Foolfcap 
8vo. doth, 6s. 1854. 

'* The reader of Shakefpeare would do well to make himfelf ac- 
quainted with this excellent little book previous to entering upon 
the ftudy of the poet." Mr. Singer, in the Preface to his New 
Edition of Shakeffeare. 

A Few Notes on Shakefpeare, with Oc- 
cafional Remarks on the Emendations of the 
Manufcript-Correclor in Mr. Collier's copy 
of the folio, 1632, by the Rev. ALEXANDER 
DYCE. 8vo. cloth, 55. 1853 

'" Mr. Dyce's Notes are peculiarly delightful, from the ftores of 
illuftration with which his extenfive reading not only among our 
writers, but among thofe of other countries, efpecially of the 
Italian poets, has enabled him to enrich them. All that he has 
recorded is valuable. We read his little volume with pleaiure, 
and clofe it with regret." Literary GaKette. 

9 ' 



, Soho Square^ London. 

Curfory Notes on Various PafTages in 
the text of Beaumont and Fletcher, as edited 
by the Rev. Alexander Dyce, and on his 
" Few Notes on Shakefpeare," by the Rev. 
JOHN MITFORD. Zvo.fewed, as. 6d. 1856 

A Few Words in reply to the Rev. A. 
Dyce's " Few Notes on Shakefpeare," by the 
Rev. JOSEPH HUNTER. 8vo. is. 1853 

Strictures on Mr. Collier's New Edition 
of Shakefpeare, publiihed in 1858, by the 
Rev. ALEXANDER DYCE. 8vo. cloth, 75. 6d. 

1859 

The Grimaldi Shakefpeare. Notes and 
Emendations on the Plays of Shakefpeare, 
from a recently difcovered annotated copy by 
the late Joe. Grimaldi, Efq. Comedian. 8vo . 
woodcuts, is. 185 

A humorous fquib ra Collier's Shakefpeare Emendations. 

A Few Remarks on the Emendation, 

" Who Smothers her with Painting," in the 
Play of Cymberline, difcovered by Mr. Collier, 
in a Corrected Copy of the Second Edition of 
Shakefpeare, by J. O. HALLIWELL, F.R.S., 
&c. 8vo. is. 



The Shakefpeare Fabrications ; or, the 
MS. Notes of the Perkins folio, mown to be 
of recent origin 5 with Appendix on the Au- 
thorfhip of the Ireland Forgeries, by C. 
MANSFIELD INGLEBY, LL.D. Foolfcap 
8vo. with a facjimile, shewing the pfeudo old 
writing and the pencilled words, cloth, 35. 

'859 

EfTay on the Genius of Shakefpeare, 
with Critical Remarks on the Charafters of 
Romeo, Hamlet, Juliet, and Ophelia, by 
H. M. GRAVES. Poft 8vo. cloth, as. 6d. 
(original price 55. 6d.) 1826 

Hamlet. An Attempt to afcertain 
whether the Queen were an Acceflbry, before 
the Faft, in the Murder of her Firft Hufband. 
Zvo.fewed, 2S. 1856 

"This pamphlet well deferves the perufal of every ftudent of Ham- 
let." Notes and Queries. 

Remarks on the Moral Influence of 
Shakefpeare's Plays, with illuftrations from 
Hamlet, by the Rev. THOMAS GRINFIELD* 
8vo. cloth, 35. 1850 

The Sonnets of Shakefpeare, rearranged 

and divided into Four Parts, with an Intro- 

du&ion and Explanatory Notes. Poft 8vo. 

doth, 35. 6d. 1859 

10- 



John Rujfill Smltb^ 36, Sobo Square, London. 



On the Sonnets of Shakefpeare, identi- 
fying the perfons to whom they are addreffed, 
and elucidating feveral points in the Poet's 
Hiftory, by JAMES BOADEN. 8vo. is. 6d. 

1837 

Shakefpeare's Autobiograpical Poems, 
being his Sonnets clearly developed, with his 
Character, drawn chiefly from his Works, by 
C. A. BROWN. Poft 8vo. cloth, 45. 6d. 1838 

Pericles, Prince of Tyre, a Novel, by 
Geo. Wilkins, printed in 1608, and founded 
upon Shakefpeare's Play, edited by PRO- 
FESSOR MOMMSENJ with Preface and Ac- 
count of fome original Shakefpeare editions 
extant in Germany and Switzerland, and In- 
trodu&ion by J. P. COLLIER. 8vo. fcwed, 
55. 1857 

Account of the only known Manufcript 

of Shakefpeare's Plays, comprifing fome im- 
portant variations and corrections in the 
" Merry Wives of Windfor," obtained from 
a Playhoufe Copy of that Play recently dif- 
corered, byj. O.HALLIWKLL. 8vo. is. 1843 

" Who was < Jack Wilfon,' the Singer 
of Shakefpeare's Stage?" An Attempt to 
prove the identity of this perfon with John 
Wilfon, Doftor of Mufic in the Univerfity of 



Oxford, A.D. 1644, 
LL.D. 8vo. is. 



by E. F. RIMBAULT, 
1846 



Shakefpeare's Will, copied from the 
Original in the Prerogative Court, preferving 
the Interlineations and Facilmiles of the three 
Autographs of the Poet, with a few Preli- 
minary Obfervations, by J. O. HALLIWELL. 
410. is. 1838 

Traditionary Anecdotes of Shakefpeare, 
collected in Warwickshire in 1693. 8vo. 



fe<ujed, is. 



1838 



Obfervations on an Autograph of Shake- 
fpeare, and the Orthography of his Name, by 
Sir FRED. MADDEN. Zvo.fewed, is. 1838 

Shakefpeare Story-Teller ; Introductory 
Leaves, or Outline Sketches, with choice Ex- 
tracls in the Words of the Poet himfelf, with 
an Analyfis of the Characters, by George 
Stephens, Profejfor of the Engli/Ji Language 
and Literature in the Un'werjity of Copenhagen. 
8vo. Nos. i to 6, 6d. each. 1856 

Reafons for a New Edition of Shake- 
fpeure's Works, by J. PAYNE COLLIER. 8ro. 
is. 1842 

ii 



Was Lord Bacon the Author of Shake- 
fpeare's Plays ? A Letter to Lord Ellefmere, 
by W. H. SMITH. 8vo. 6d. 1856 

Bacon and Shakefpeare, an Inquiry 
touching Players, Play houfes, and Play-writers 
in the Reign of Q. Elizabeth : to which is 
appended an Abftraft of a Manufcript Auto- 
biography of Tobie Matthews, by W. H. 
SMITH. Foolfcap 8vo. cloth, as. 6d. 1857 

A Pilgrimage to Stratford-upon-Avon, 
the Birthplace of Shakefpeare, by C. V. 
GRIN FIELD, i zmo. portrait and plates, cloth, 
as. 6d. 1850 

with R. B. Wheler's Guide to 

Stratford-upon-Avon. 4 plates, in j vol. 
izmo. cloth, 35. 6d. 1850 

Hiftorical Account of the Monumental 
Buft of Shakefpeare, in the Chancel of Strat- 
ford-upon-Avon Church, by ABR. WIVELL. 
8vo. a plates, is. 6d. 18*7 

Wivell's Supplement to his Work on 
the Hiftory and Authenticity of the Shake- 
fpeare Portraits. 8vo. iz portraits, boards, 
6s. (original price a is.) 1827 

Criticifm applied to Shakefpeare, by C. 



BADHAM. Poft 8vo. is. 



1846 



Vortigern, an Hiftorical Play, repre- 
fented at Drury Lane, April 2, 1796, as a 
fuppofed newly difcovered Drama of Shake- 
fpeare, by WILLIAM HENRY IRELAND.: 
N#O9 Edition, with an original Preface, 
8vo. facfimile, is. 6d. (original price 35. 6d.) 

1833 

The preface is both interefting and curious, from the additional in- 
formation it gires refpeding the Shakefpeare Forgeries, contain- 
ing alfo the fubftance of the author'* " Confeffions." 

Comparative Review of the Opinions of 
Jas. Boaden, in 1795 and in 1796, relative to 
the Shakefpeare MSS. 8vo. as. J 79^ 

A Letter to Dr. Farmer (in Reply to 
Ritfon), relative to his Edition of Shakefpeare, 
publifhed in 1790, by EDMOND MALONE. 
Svo.yHv^/, is. 1792 

A Lyttle Boke, gevinge a True and 
Brief Accounte of fome Reliques and Curi- 
ofities added of late to Mr. HalliwelPs Shake- 
fpeare Collection. 410. tuith facfimile of the 
unique " Booke of Riddles," mentioned by Slender 
in the Merry Wives of Windfor, tnfy 25 copies 
cloth, 95, 1856 

la 



Rujfell Smith, 36, Soho 



London. 



Brief Hand-Lift of Books, MSS., &c., 

illuftrativeof the Life and Writings of Shake- 
fpeare, collefted between 1842 and 1859, by 
J. O, HALLIWELL. Poft 8vo. only 30 copies 
pri'-vately printed, cloth, 1 2 s . 1859 

Compendious Anglo-Saxon and Englifh 
Diftionary, by the Rev. J. BOSWORTH, D.D., 
F.R.S., c., Anglo-Saxon PrqfeJJbr in the Uni- 
<verfity of Oxford. 8vo. closely printed in treble 
columns, 128. 1860 

"This is not a mere abridgment of the large Dictionary, but almoft 
an entirely new work. In this compendious one will be found, 
at a very moderate price, all that is moft pradical and valuable in 
the former expenfive edition, with a great acceffion of new 
words and matter." Author's Preface. 

Anglo-Saxon Dele&us; ferving as a 
firft Claff-Book to the Language, by the Rev. 
W. BARNES, B.D., of St. John's College, 
Cambridge, izmo. clot A, as. 6d. 1849 

To thofe who wifh to poffcfs a critical knowledge of their own 
Native Englifh, fome acquaintance with Anglo-Saxon is indif- 
penfable ; and we have never feen an introduction better cal- 
culated than the prelent to fupply the wants of a beginner in a 
fhort fpace of time. The declenfions and conjugations are well 
ftated, and illuftrated by references to Greek, the Latin, French, 
and other languages. A philofophical fpirit pervades every part. 
The Deleftus confifts of fhort pieces on various fubjecls, with 
extracts from Anglo-Saxon Hiftory and the Saxon Chronicle. 
There is a good Gloflary at the end." Athentzum, Oft. 20, 1849. 

ntroduHon to Anglo-Saxon Reading; 
comprifing ./Elfric's Homily on the Birthday 
of St. Gregory, with a copious Gloflary, &c., 
by L. LANGLEY, F.L.S. ismo. cloth, as. 6d. 

1839 

Elfric's Homily is remarkable for beauty of compofition, and in- 
terefting, as fetting forth Auguftine's miffion to the " Land of 
the Angles." 

\nglo-Saxon Verfion of the Life of St. 
Guthlac, Hermit of Croyland. Printed, for 
the firft time, from a MS. in the Cottonian 
Library, with a Tranflation and Notes by 
CHARLES WYCLIFFE GOODWIN, M.A., 
Fellow of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, izmo. 
cloth, 55. 1848 

Vnglo-Saxon Verfion of the Hexameron 

of St. Bafil, and the Anglo-Saxon Remains 
of St. Bafil's Admonitio ad Filium Spiritu- 
alem. Now firft printed from MSS. in the 
Bodleian Library, with a Tranflation and 
Notes by the Rev. H. W. NORMAN. 8vo. 
jSp.cond Edition, enlarged, fenced, 45. 1849 

['he Holy Gofpels in Anglo-Saxon, 
edited from the original MS., by BENJAMIN 



THORPE, 



o. cloth, 8s. (original price 
1842 



Guide to the Anglo-Saxon Tongue ; on 

the Bafis of ProfelTor Rafk's Grammar ; to 
which are added Reading Leflbns, in Verfe 
and Profe, with Notes, for the ufe of Learners, 
by E. J. VERNON, B.A., Oxon. i2mo. 
cloth, 55. 1 ^5S 

"Mr. Vernon has, we think, afted wifely in taking Ralk for his 
model ; but let no one fuppose from the title that the book is 
merely a compilation from the work of that philologift. The 
accidence is abridged from Rafk, with conftant revifion, correc- 
tion, and modification ; but the fyntax, a moft important portion 
of the book, is original, and is compiled with great care and 
flcill; and the latter half of the volume confifts of a well-chofen 
feleflion of extrafts from Anglo-Saxon writers, in profe and 
verfe, for the praclice of the ftudent, who will find great affiftance 
in reading them from the grammatical notes with which they are 
accompanied, and from the gloflary which follows them. This 
volume, well ftudied, will enable any one to read with eafe the 
generality of Anglo-Saxon writers ; and its cheapnefs places it 
within the reach of every clafs. It has our hearty recommenda- 
tion." Literary Gaxette. 

Anglo-Saxon Verfion of the Story of 
Apollonius of Tyre, upon which is founded 
the Play of Pericles, attributed to Shakefpeare, 
from a MS., with a Tranflation and Gloflary 
by BENJAMIN THORPE, xzmo. cloth, 43. 6d. 
(original price 6s.) 1834 

Anale&a Anglo-Saxonica* A Selection, 
in Profe and Verfe, from Anglo-Saxon Au- 
thors, of various ages, with a Gloflary by 
BENJAMIN THORPE, F.S.A. A Neva Edition, 
'with corrections and improvements. Poft 8vo. 
cloth, 8s. (original price MS.) 184*" 

A Philological Grammar, grounded upon 
Englifh', and formed from a eomparifon of 
more than Sixty Languages. Being an Intro- 
duftion to the Science of Grammars of ail 
Languages, efpecially Englifh, Latin, and 
Greek. By the Rev. W. BARNES, B.D., of 
St. John's College, Cambridge; Author of 
"Poems in the Dorfet Dialecl," "Anglo- 
Saxon Deleclus," &c., 8vo. (pp. 322), clotk, 
95. 1854 

" Mr. Barnes' work is an excellent fpecimen of the manner ia 
which the advancing ftudy of Philology may be brought to ilhrf- 
trate and enrich a fcientific expofition of Englifh Grammar*" 
Edinburgh Guardian. 

" Of the fcience of Grammar, by induction from the philological 
feds of many languages, Mr. Barnes has, in this volume, fupplied 
a concife and comprehenfive manual. Grammarians may differ 
as to the regularity of the principles on which nations kave con- 
ftrufted their forms and ufages of fpeech, but it is generally allowed 

v - that fome conformity or fimilarity of praclice may be traced, awd 
that an attempt may be made to expound a true fcience of Gram- 
mar. Mr. Barnes has fo far grounded his Grammar upon Eng- 
lifh as to make it an Englifh Grammar, but he has continually 
referred to comparative philology, and fought to render his work 
illuftrative of general forms, in conformity with principles com- 
mon, more or lefs, to the language of all mankind. More than 
fixty languages have been compared in the cour!e of preparing 
the volume ; and the general principles laid down will be found 
ufcful in the (Uuly of various tongues. Jt it a Iz^med and pW/4-. 
fophical tre'itife." Literary Ga-xettt, 



John Ruffell Smith, 36, Sobo Square^ London. 



A. Fragment of ^Ifric's Anglo-Saxon 

Grammar, ^Elfric's Gloffary, and a Poem on 
the Soul and Body of the Xllth Century, 
difcovered among the Archives of Worcefter 
Cathedral, by Sir THOMAS PHILLIPPS, Bart. 

Folio, PRIVATELY PRINTED,/^W^, IS. 6d. 

1838 

Two Leaves of King Waldere, and 
King Gudhere, a hitherto unknown Old Eng- 
lifh Epic of the 8th Century belonging to the 
Saga Cycle of King Theodoric and his Men. 
Now firft publifhed with a modern Englifh 
reading, Notes and Gloffary, by GEORGE 
STEPHENS, EngliJJi Profe/or in the Univerjity 
of Copenhagen. Royal 8vo. with four Photo- 
graphic Facfimiles of the MS. of the yth Cen- 
tury, recently dif covered at Copenhagen, 155. 
without Facsimiles, ys. 6d. 1860 

Popular Treatifes on Science, written 

during the Middle Ages, in Anglo-Saxon, 

Anglo-Norman, and Englifh, edited by 

THOMAS WRIGHT, M.A. 8vo. cloth, 35. 

^ 1841 

Contents An Anglo-Saxon Treatife on Aftronomy of the Tenth 
Century, now firft publifhed from a MS. in the Britifb. Mufeum, 
with a translation 5 Livre des Creatures, by Phillippe de Thaun, 
now firft printed, with a tranflation (extremely valuable to Phi- 
lologifts, as being the earlieft fpecimens of Anglo-Norman re- 
maining, and explanatory of all the fymbolical figns in early 
fculptureand painting) ; the Beftiary of Phillippe de Thaun, with 
a tranflation; Fragments on Popular Science from the Early 
Englifh Metrical Lives of the Saints (the earlieft piece of the 
' kind in the Englifh Language.) 

Skelton (John, Poet Laureate to Henry 
VIII.) Poetical Works: the Bowge of Court, 
Colin Clout, Why come ye not to Court ? 
(his celebrated Satire on Wolfey), Phillip 
Sparrow, Elinour Humming, Sec. $ with Notes 
and Life by the Rev. A. DYCE. z vols. 
8vo. cloth, 1 6s. (original price 1. izs.) 1843 

" The power, the ftrangenefs, the volubility [of his language, the 
audacity of his fatire, and the perfect originality of his manner, 
made Skelton one of the moft extraordinary writers of any age or 
country." Southey. 

Early Hiftory of Freemafonry in Eng- 
land. Illuftrated by an Englifh Poem of the 
XlVth Century, with Notes by J. O. HAL- 
LI WELL. Poft 8vo. fecond edition, 'with 
a facjimile of the original MS. in the Briti/h 



Mufeum, cloth, as. 6d. 



1844 



The intereft which the curious poem, of which this publication is 
chiefly compofed, has excited, is proved by the fact of its having 
been tranflated into German, and of its having reached a fecond 
edition, which is not common with fuch publications. Mr. 
Halliwell has carefully revifed the new edition, and increafed its 
utility by the addition of a complete and correct GlofTary." 
Literary Gaxette. 



Torrent of Portugal ; an Englifh Me 

trical Romance. Now firft publifhed, fror 
an unique MS. of the XVth Century, pre 
ferved in the Chetham Library at Mancheftei 
edited by J. O. HALLIWELL, Sec. Poft 8vc 
cloth, uniform with Ritfon, Weber, and Ellis 
publications, cloth, 55. 184 

" This is a valuable and interefting addition to our lift of ear! 
Englifh metrical remances, and an indispenfable companion ' 
the collections of Ritfon, Weber, and Ellis." Literary Gaxette. 

The Vifion and Creed of Piers Plough 
man, edited by THOMAS WRIGHT 5 a nei 
edition, revifed, with additions to the Not< 
and Gloffary. 2 vols. foolscap 8vo. cloU 
IDS. 385 

"The ' Vifion offers Ploughman ' is one of the moft precious ar 
interefting monuments of the Englifh Language and Literatur 
and alfo of the focial and political condition of the country durir 
the fourteenth century. ... Its author is not certain 
known, but its time of compofition can, by internal evidenc 
be fixed at about the year 1362. On this and on all matte 
bearing upon the origin and object of the poem, Mr. Wrighl 

hiftorical introduction gives ample information 1 

the thirteen years that have pafTed fince the firft edition of tl 
prefent text was publifhed by the late Mr.. Pickering, our o 
literature and hiftory has been more ftudied, and we truft that 
large circle of readers will be prepared to welcome this cheap 
and carefully revifed reprint." -Literary Gazette. 

Sir Amadace; a Middle-North-Englif] 
Metrical Romance of the XHIth Centurj 
reprinted from two texts, with an Introdu6lio; 
by GEORGE STEPHENS, Profe/or ofOldEng 
lijli in the Uni<verjity of Copenhagen. 8vc 
fewed, is. 6d. 186 

Kara Mathematica ; or, a Collection o 
Treatifes on the Mathematics and Subjefl 
conne&ed with them, from ancient inedite 
MSS., by J. O. HALLIWELL. 8vo. fecon, 
edition, cloth, 35. 184 

Contents : Johannis de Sacro-BofcoTradtatus de Arte Numerandi 
Method ufed in England in the Fifteenth Century for taking th 
Altitude of a Steeple ; Treatife on the Numeration of Algorifm 
Treatife on Glaffes for Optical Purpofes, by W. Bourne 
Johannis Robyns de Cometis Commentaria ; Two Tables fhow 
ing the time of High Water at London .bridge, and the Duratio 
of Moonlight, from a MS. of the Thirteenth Century; on tl: 
Menfuration of Heights and Diftances; Alcxandri de Villa D< 
Carmen de Algorifmo; Preface to a Calendar or Almanack fc 
1430; Johannis Norfolk in Artcm progreffionis fummula ; Not'. 
on Early Almanacks, by the Editor, &c. &c. 

Philological Proofs of the Original Unit 
and Recent Origin of the Human Race, dt 
rived from a Comparifon of the Languages c 
Europe, Afia, Africa, and America, by & 
J. JOHNES. 8vo, cloth, 6s. (original pric 
izs. 6d.) 184 

Printed at the fuggefiion of Dr. Prichard, to whofe works it will I 
found a ufeful fupplement. 

id 



John Rujfell Smith, 36, Soho Square, London. 



Nugae Poetica; Select Pieces of Old 
Englifh Popular Poetry, illuftrating the Man- 
ners and Arts of the XV th Century. Edited 
by J. O. HALLIWELL. Poft 8vo. only ibo 
copies printed, cloth, 55. 1844 

Anecdota Literaria; a Colle&ion of 
Short Poems in Englifh, Latin, and French, 
illuftrative of the Literature and Hiftory of 
England in the Xlllth Century ; and more 
efpecially of the Condition and Manners of 
the different Claffes of Society. By T. 
WRIGHT, M.A., F.S.A., &c. 8vo. cloth, 
only 250 copies printed, 5. X 844 

Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial 
Words, Obfolete Phrafes, Proverbs, and An- 
cient Cuftoms, from the Reign of Edward I. 
By JAMES ORCHARD HALLIWELL, F.R.S., 
F.S.A., &c. 2 vols. 8vo. containing upwards 
of 1000 pages, dofely printed in double columns, 
cloth , a new and cheaper edition, 155. 1 86 1 

It contains above 50,000 words (embodying all the known fcattercd 
gloffaries of the Englifli language), forming a complete key for 
the reader of our old Poets, Dramatifts, Theologians, and other 
authors, whofe works abound with allufions, of which explana- 
tions are not to be found in ordinary Dictionaries and books of 
reference. Moft of the principal Archaifms are illuftrated by ex- 
amples feleaed from early Snedited MSS. and rare books, and by 
far the greater portion will be found to be original authorities. 

A GlofTary; or, Collection of -Words, 
Phrafes, Cuftoms, Proverbs, &c., illuftrating 
the Works of Englifh Authors, particularly 
Shakefpeare and his Contemporaries. By 
ROBERT NARES, Archdeacon of Stafford, &c. 
A New Edition, with confiderable Additions, 
both of Words and Examples. By JAMES 
O. HALLIWELL, F. R. S., and THOMAS 
WRIGHT, M.A., F.S.A. 2 thick vols, 8vo. 
cloth, i. 8s. 1859 

The Glofiary of Archdeacon Wares is by far the beft and moft ufe- 
ful work we poflefs for explaining and illuftrating the obfolete 
language and the cuftoms and manners of the fixteenth and feven- 
tcenth centuries, and it is quite indifpenfeble for the readers of 
the literature of the Elizabethan period. The additional words 
and examples are diftinguifhed from thofe in the original text by 
a f prefixed to each. The work contains between fve and fix 
thoufand additional examples, the refult of original refearch, not 
merely fupplementary to Nares, but to all other compilations of 
the kind. 

Thompfon (E.) on the Archaic Mode 
of exprefTmg Numbers in Englifh, Anglo- 
Saxon, Friefic, &c. 8vo. (an ingenious and 
learned pamphlet, inter eft ing to the Philologift), 
is. 1853 

Danifh. Englim-Danifh Dialogues and 
Progreffive Exercifes. By E. F. ANCKER. 
izmo, cloth, 55. 1851 Key to Ditto, 55. 

17 



Gloffary of Provincial and Local Words 
Ufed in England. By F. GROSE, F.S.A. ; 
with which is now incorporated the Supple- 
ment. By SAMUEL PEGGE, F.S.A. Poft 
8vo. cloth, 45. 6d. 1839 

Specimens of Cornifh Provincial Diajeft, 
collected and arranged by Uncle Jan Tree- 
noodle, with fome Introductory Remarks and 
a Gloffary by an Antiquarian Friend ; alfo a 
Selection of Songs and other Pieces connefted 
with Cornwall. Poft 8vo. with a curious por- 
trait of Dolly Pentreath, cloth, 45. 1846 

The Cornifh Thalia, being original Comic 
Poems, illuftrative of the Cornifh Dialed. 
By J. H. DAWIEL. Poft 8vo. 6d. 1860 

A GlofTary of the Words and Phrafes 
of Cumberland. By WILLIAM DICKINSON, 
F.L.S. izmo. cloth, 25. 1859 

Nathan Hogg's Letters and Poems in 
the Devonfhire Dialecl. The fourth edition, 
with additions, poft %\o. feiued, is. 1860 

" Thefe letters, which have achieved confiderable popularity, evince 
an extenfive acquaintance with the vernacular of the County and 
its idioms and phrafes, while the continuous flow of wit and 
humour throughout, cannot fail to operate forcibly upon the 
rifible faculties of the reader. In the Witch ftory Nathan has 
excelled himfelf, and it is to be hoped we have not feen his laft 
effort in this branch of local Englifli literature. The fuperftitions 
of Jan Vaggis and Jan Plant are moft graphically and amufmgly 
pourtrayed, and the various incidents whereby the influence of the 
* Evil Eye,' is fought to be counteracted, are at once ludicrous and 
irrefiftible." Plymouth Mail. 

Poems of Rural Life, in the Dorfet Dia- 
led!, with a DifTertation and GlofTary. By the 
Rev. Wm. BARNES, B.D. Second edition, 
enlarged and corrected, royal i2ino. cloth, IDS. 

1847 

Hwomely Rhymes ; a Second Collection 
of Poems in the Dorfet Dialecl. By the Rev. 
W. BARNES. Royal i2mo. cloth, 55. 1859 

"The author is a genuine poet, and it is delightful to catch the pure 
breath of fong in verfes which aflert themfelves only as the modeft 
vehicle of rare words and Saxon inflections. We have no inten- 
tion of letting up the Dorfet pathos against the more extended 
provincialifm of Scotland, ftill lefs of comparing the Dorfetfhire 
poet with the Scotch} yet we feel lure that thefe poems would 
have delighted the heart of Burns, that many of them are not 
unworthy of him, and that (at any rate) his beft productions 
cannot exprefs a more cordial fympathy with external nature, or a 
more loving intereft in human joys and forrows." Literary 
Gaxette. 

John Noakes and Mary Styles : a Poem, 
exhibiting fome of the moft ftriking lingual 
localifms peculiar to Effex j with a Gloffary. 
By CHARLES CLARK, ESQ., of Great Totham 
Hall, Effex. Poft 8vo. clotk, as. 1839 

18 



Join Rujfill Smith, 36, So'ho Square? London. 



A Glofl