,
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, 
