,
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 ou
