,
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 themr 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?t0toi4p 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."0 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.
0 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.0
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."0 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/'0 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.
0 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, 415—30. 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
0 " Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion," &c. pp. 40, 41. i1 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 : concerning1 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."0
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
0 Whiston's Memoirs, 30. P Kettlewell, 81, 82.
i Ibid. 84.
56 ^tetorg of tlje
the bishops. Low views of church discipline, church authority, and of the Episcopal office, were enter- tained by many persons in high stations. With some it was sufficient to leave all ecclesiastical matters to the wisdom of Parliament. Erastian in theory, they necessarily became loose in practice : and had not the Clergy in general maintained their ground, many radical changes would have been introduced. Not a few of the Clergy suspected the King, in consequence of his presbyterian education, of secretly favouring the Dissenters : yet his Majesty after all proved a better Churchman than some, who had been nur- tured in the bosom of the Church. A very large body of the Clergy differed from the Nonjurors only on the subject of the Oath : and it is to the exertions of that body, that the preservation of the Church in her integrity must be ascribed. For a time the shock of the Revolution was felt by the Church, in the introduction, among some of her highest ministers, of latitudinarianism ; but providentially in the course of a few years the evil, from which so many sad con- sequences were apprehended, was greatly mitigated. While there was danger of Popery prior to the Revo- lution, there was no less danger of latitudinarianism subsequent to that event : so that, while we are thankful to King William for delivering us from the former, we must also be thankful to the Clergy, by whose consistent and determined course the Church was rescued from the latter/
The more the question, which the clergy had to settle at the Revolution, is considered, the more diffi-
r Hallam admits that tampering with the Liturgy would have nourished the Schism. Yet the Liturgy was at one time in jeopardy. Hallam, iii. 238.
of tlje ^onjucor^ 57
cult will it appear. I am sure that no Churchman can fully enter into the subject, without being con- vinced, that the Bishops and Clergy were placed in a most perplexing situation. Instead of reflecting on the memory of the Nonjurors, we ought to be thankful, that we are not exposed to a similar trial.
There is too another subject for gratitude, namely, the preservation of Episcopacy. That the Episcopal succession was in some danger will be admitted by all persons, who are acquainted with the circum- stances of the period. Suppose, for instance, that all the Bishops had refused the Oaths. In that case none could have been consecrated to act under the new government : and a Presbyterian establishment might have been set up in England, as well as in Scotland. No doubt there are persons in this country who would prefer Presbytery : but the sound members of the Anglican Church regard Episcopacy as an ordinance of God, and they are thankful that it was not placed in jeopardy at the Revolution.
Just at this time the commission was sitting for the purpose of making, or rather suggesting altera- tions to be made, by convocation, in the Liturgy. The commissioners agreed upon so many, that had they been adopted, the Liturgy would have been quite a different thing from what it was previously. Happily, in consequence of the strong church feeling which prevailed in the convocation, the proposed changes were never submitted to that assembly. Had the design succeeded, the consequences would have been most fatal to the Church, since the greater part of the Clergy would have refused the Oaths, casting in their lot with the Nonjurors : and thus a precedent would have been set for Church Reformers in every age.
58 ^igftorp of tljc
Before his suspension, Archbishop Sancroft granted a commission to three of his suffragans to act in his name : and by them Burnet was consecrated to the Bishopric of Salisbury the 31st of May, 1689. The commission did not in any way recognize the new Sovereigns : but it is argued by Birch, " This was as much Archbishop Sancroft's own act, as if he himself had consecrated the new Bishop, and he authorized others to do what he seemed himself to think unlawful." The following defence appears to me to meet the charge : " There was yet neither deprivation nor suspension ; so that the Ecclesiastical unity was not hitherto dissolved betwixt those who were divided about the political state : and thence if a schism could have been prevented by means of this accommodation, with all the fatal consequences which thereupon have since followed, the good Arch- bishop (howsoever he might be blamed for it by some) thought it not unlawful for him thus far to acquiesce, it being providentially out of his power to act, as otherwise he would. "! It has been argued that the Archbishop by this act admitted the authority of the government, by which the subsequent depri- vations took place : and that consequently, if the authority was competent to nominate to a see, it was also competent to deprive." But it appears to me that the extract from the Life of Kettlewell furnishes a sufficient reply to this objection. The cases were
s Birch's Life of Tillotson, 330.
* Kettlewell's Life, 135, 136. D'Oyley, i. 439. Le Neve, i. 213. Birch says that some of the Nonjurors complained after- wards of this commission, and that the Document was withdrawn by the Archbishop's order. It was, however, subsequently restored to the Archives at Lambeth. Birch's Tillotson, 330, 332.
u Marshall's Defence, 156.
p of tty ^onjuvorg* 59
dissimilar: and the fact may be taken as another evidence, that it would have been wise on the part of the government, not to have insisted upon the Oaths, except in new appointments. In that case Bancroft would probably have acted where he could personally, and on occasions on which he entertained scruples, he would have granted a commission, as in the con- secration of Burnet.
Into the particulars of King William's proceedings in Ireland it is unnecessary to enter. A day of Fasting and Humiliation was appointed : and as usual a Form of Prayer was issued for the occasion, to be used in all Churches and Chapels for the suc- cess of his Majesty. But the opportunity was seized for circulating another Form, in which King James was prayed for in the usual manner. It was pub- lished by some of James's followers; but the author- ship is not known. Large numbers, however, were distributed. It was called The Jacobite Liturgy, or The New Liturgy. The suspended Bishops were suspected ; and some persons of more than ordinary pretensions to wisdom imagined, that they could dis- cover traces of the same hand that had drawn up the Form, which had been publicly used prior to the landing of King William. This latter Form had been prepared by Bancroft : consequently it was in- tended to insinuate, that the Archbishop was con- cerned in this New Liturgy. For some time the Bishops were silent, conscious of the utter ground- lessness of the charge ; but at length, for the satis- faction of others, they deemed it necessary to publish a Vindication. It was signed by Bancroft and four of the Bishops, the Bishop of Gloucester being absent. They however pledged themselves for their absent brother. The New Liturgy bore this title,
60 %'0torp of tlje
" A Form of Prayer and Humiliation for God's Blessing upon his Majesty and his Dominions, and for the removing and averting God's judgments from this Church and State." v The Bishops were charged with setting it forth by their authority, in opposition to that appointed by the government, and against the Revolution. The Archbishop and Bishops, in their Vindication, solemnly declare that they knew nothing of the Liturgy or the author : that they never held any correspondence with France : that they were concerned in no plots : and that they should make it their practice to study to be quiet, to bear their cross patiently, and to seek the good of their native country. They were charged in certain Pamphlets, consequent upon the publication of this New Liturgy, with Popery, and a wish to introduce arbitrary power. The authors of the Pamphlets, however, must have been most unprincipled men, since those Bishops had been the great instruments in preserving both the religion and liberties of the people. They there- fore declare, " We have all of us not long since, either actually or in full preparation of mind, hazarded all we had in the world in opposing Popery and arbitrary power in England : and we shall, by God's grace, with greater zeal again sacrifice all we have and our very lives too, if God shall be pleased to call us thereto, to prevent Popery, and the arbitrary power
v The following is one of the petitions : " Restore us again the public worship of thy name, the reverend administration of the Sacraments, raise up the former government both in Church and State, that we may be no longer without King, without priest, and without God in the world." It was stated that more than ten thousand copies were circulated, and that it was used in private assemblies instead of the usual service. Bennet's Memorial of the Reformation, 339, 340. Ralph, ii. 230.
of tije ^onjurottf. 61
of France, from coming upon us, and prevailing over us : the persecution of our Protestant brethren there being fresh in our memories. "w
The Bishops were now freed from the charge of being concerned in the New Liturgy, for no one was rash enough to impute it to them after their solemn denial.
After the Archbishop's suspension, Tillotson, in conjunction with the Chapter of Canterbury, was appointed to exercise Archiepiscopal jurisdiction. So strange was this proceeding considered, that even the Bishop of London had his doubts respecting its legality. On the other hand, Stillingfleet, who gene- rally entertained latitudinarian notions on such sub- jects, contended that it was perfectly legal. His arguments were submitted at length in a letter to the Bishop of London, who probably was not unwilling to be convinced.1
w Kettlewell, 105—08. D'Oyley, i. 452—56. Ralph, ii. 231. So great was the enmity of some persons towards the suspended Bishops, that they resorted to the grossest abuse. In a Pamphlet entitled " A Midnight Touch at an unlicensed Pamphlet, called &c." we met with the following passages : " We do justly term and esteem him who abdicated the throne, no other than the late king : yet we find in the paper this day published, five Clergymen, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, calling themselves, W. Cant, W. Norwich, F. Ely, T. Bath and Wells, T. Peterborough:' The writer says they ought to have subscribed their names only with the addition " Late Bishops, if they pleased." Then we read : " It is certain that there is a third plot, as that there is a new Liturgy : and that there is a Lambeth Club, the paper now published confesses : but whether holy or not, I know not ; and for ought I know the inserting that epithet, holy, both to theirs and the Jacobite or Devil Tavern Club, may be a good reason for saying it is abusive." The scurrilous writer ventures to charge the Bishops with having persecuted English Protestants, and with wishing for the power to do so again.
x Birch, 154, 155. Stillingfleet's Misc. Discourses, 234—42.
62 %'0torp of tljc
As the day fixed for the deprivation of the Bishops and Clergy, who could not take the Oath, drew near, many persons were anxious to devise means to pre- vent the schism, which, it was foreseen, would be produced : but nothing appears to have been seri- ously contemplated by the government. The com- plying Clergy in general were anxious that the Oath should not be pressed. Efforts were accordingly made to prevent a deprivation. In the Diocese of Norwich a proposal was made, which is thus des- cribed by its originator : " At a numerous meeting of the Clergy, I proposed that we should join in a petition to the government, that the rigour of the depriving Act might be mitigated, and our Bishop might be permitted to live and exercise his Episcopal function among us. To this all subscribed very freely, and among the rest, his Grace Dr. Sharp, the late excellent Archbishop of York, though then only Dean of Norwich : but because, if the Oaths were passed by, I supposed the government might justly demand some security for that Bishop's peaceable management in his diocese ; therefore T proposed that the whole body of the Clergy there met should offer themselves to become sureties for their Bishop, which, though the rest were most of them afraid to do, that Bishop took my proposal so kindly, that he remembered it to the last, and has often assured me, that had we taken that course, it would have given such satisfaction as would have encouraged those of the other dioceses to have followed the example, and so every one of those holy fathers might have lived and dyed peaceably in their own dioceses : but the sins of an ungrateful nation were too great and too many for us to hope for such a blessing." The
of tfi* ;fp0ttjur0r0. 63
originator of this proposal condemned the separation, though he would have prevented it by not imposing the Oath. The blame he places, where it must be placed, upon the State : " Whatever fault was com- mitted here by their being dismissed from Episcopal jurisdictions in their several dioceses, that lay all at the door of the civil government. The Clergy in general mourned for it : several, purely out of con- science, out of true and real conscience, refused to accept of those dignities, which they knew those excellent men were unjustly deprived of, and yet continued quietly in the exercise of their own func- tions, and in their less envied stations." This is strong testimony from a complying clergyman : and it will appear the stronger from the fact that he con- demned the separation in no doubtful terms. He adds on this point : " Supposing those put in their places to have been schismatical usurpers : why should all those reverend Prelates, who submitted to the then government upon such reasons as were satis- factory to themselves, be branded as schismaticks ? Must I commence a schismatick only because I differ from some of my brethren in points purely political : though I conform entirely to all the orders of the same Church, worship God by the same liturgy, and acknowledge and assert the same Church government, and that only to be of divine right ?" 7
A petition was also presented from the diocese of Bath and Wells. The petitioners stated, that they should have been happy if the objectors could have taken the Oaths ; that, however, they had formerly exposed themselves for the common safety ; and that
y Melbourne's Legacy, 8vo. Vol. ii. 341, 342, 345.
64 ^igtorp of tlje
they were ready to stand engaged for their peaceable
conduct.2
Many persons were anxious for an Act of Parlia- ment to relieve the Bishops from the Oath, provided they would undertake to perform the duties of their office : but the Prelates would make no other promise, than that they would live quietly. Whether the King and the Ministers ever seriously contemplated such a thing, it is not possible to determine : but it is a matter of deep regret, that such a course was not pursued. There might have been some difficulty respecting the public services, as the Bishops, who could not take the Oath, might not have joined in prayer for King William : but a little forbearance on the part of the government would probably have led to a favourable issue. The pledge of the Bishops to live quietly would have been scrupulously observed : and had the Oath been dispensed with, I am inclined to be- lieve, that the question respecting the prayers would have been so managed, that the schism would have been prevented. At all events, the experiment merited a trial. It would have been a gratification to all sound Churchmen to have seen Sancroft, and Ken, and their companions, remaining in possession of their Sees, and exercising their jurisdiction in the Church.
But there were other parties, who hurried on the government to strong and decided measures against the Nonjurors. The Presbyterians in Scotland, and the Dissenters in England, insinuated that William's throne would have been endangered by their plots : though these excellent men never plotted against the government even after deprivation. Assuredly they
z Bowles's Life of Ken, ii. 194—96.
of tlje ^lonjurorg. 65
would not have done so, if lenity and forbearance had been manifested towards them in the difficult position in which they stood with respect to the Oath. It might not have been easy for William to refuse to listen to those who urged him forward ; since hesi- tation on his part would have exposed him to the charge of deserting his most active supporters ; but the exercise of forbearance towards men, whose only crime, even in the estimation of their enemies, was their regard for a solemn oath, would have produced the happiest results. It must be a source of thank- fulness, that the schism was not more fatal in its consequences. Had there been no dissensions among the Nonjurors themselves in subsequent reigns, the separation would not only have continued longer, but it would have been of a more serious character.
The reflections of some of our historians, on the non-complying Bishops, are very uncharitable. Thus Kennet remarks, " Though they had earnestly de- sired the Prince's coming, and had the chief of them addressed themselves to him after he was come, to take the administration of affairs : yet, as if they would have him their redeemer without being their pro- tector, they did not care to pay any allegiance to him, nor to renounce their obligations to King James. This example of the Prelates and Clergy had a great in- fluence on many other members of the Church of England ; and it was their disaffection that made the King more inclinable to favour the Dissenters, whom he generally looked upon as better affected to his person and title."3 There was no inconsistency, as Kennet insinuates : for though they wished the Prince to act as a mediator, they did not contemplate the
a Kennet, iii. 518. F
66 ^tgtorp of tt)e
removal of their Sovereign. Bancroft and the Bishops were determined to preserve the Church at all hazards : and in pursuing the course, which their consciences dictated, they hesitated not to go to the Tower. They suffered more in defence of Protestant principles, than those who have so severely reflected on their memory.
After King James had retired from Ireland, leaving King William in quiet possession of the crown, some of the Clergy, who hitherto had hesitated respecting their course, began to consider, whether they might not now submit and take the Oath. " Some there were who could not be brought to transfer their allegiance from him to another, by invocation of God's name : but who now, upon second thoughts, considering the des- perate state of his affairs, were willing to be convinced, that both their interest and duty might be made to go together, and that a right of providential possession ought no longer to be disputed by them."b This was during the six months of suspension appointed by the Act. It is said, that offers were made to some, to induce compliance, though few only accepted them. " However," says the writer of Kettlewell's Life, " the forces of the Ecclesiastical Nonjurants were sensibly diminished : proportionable strength being added thereby to the Jurant Clergy, if strength consist in number." He adds, " Moreover it was expected by many, that some favour would have been shewn this Session to the ecclesiastics under suspension for de- clining the Oath, or at least to the more considerable of them : and some assurances are said to have been given to this effect by persons of no mean figure and
b Kettlewell's Life, 112.
of tfje ;(ponjuror0. 67
interest. Mr. Kettlewell was none of those that were too apt to flatter themselves with success of one sort or the other, or to fix much upon any earthly depen- dencies, or human promises and engagements: but was prepared for the worst, which he expected." It was urged in Parliament, " That the statute had already had its effect in good part, that penal laws touching religion have sometimes been made by our Parliaments more in terror em than otherwise, and that if in any case there was, there never could be a better plea than this.'" Still no serious attempt was made by those in authority to prevent the Act from taking effect on the appointed day, the first of February. " If moderation had swayed, the tender consciences of the Bishops, who would not take the Oaths, would never have been an inconvenience to the state. Can- dour will not blame them. No interest would have been injured, and a disagreeable division would have been prevented. "d
It was now forgotten, that these very Bishops had been the saviours of the country only a short time before. They had risked every thing in the cause of the Church under King James : and now they must lose all for conscientiously adhering to an oath. It is evident, that they were the uncompromising oppo- nents of Popery, for they had given the fullest evi- dence on this head : while many who now opposed them had contributed towards its support. Such men, therefore, though they could not take the Oath to the new Sovereigns, would not have disturbed the go- vernment. They would have lived quietly and peace- ably according to their promise. Their sincerity
c Kettlewell's Life, 113. d Noble, i. 87.
68 Il?i0to^ of tlje
respecting the Oaths was evinced by their sacrifices : and their zeal for the Church was never disputed, except by men, who cared neither for the Church nor for religion.
The supporters of the government were greatly divided in opinion respecting the principles, on which the title of King William to the crown was founded. Many were content with the Parliamentary vote, con- sidering it all-sufficient ; but others endeavoured to seek out more specious reasons for their conduct. They agreed with the Nonjurors in principle, and laboured to shew, that they acted consistently in ad- hering to King William. Perhaps the following ex- tract gives the best view of the notions entertained by a very large class of William's supporters : — " My principles are the same as they were ; my allegiance has descended in the same manner to King William and Queen Mary as it did to Charles II. and James IL not altered in the least degree or reason of it. They were in their times the ministers of God, and the lawful and undoubted Sovereigns of the English nation, and so are these : the same God that set up Charles II. and James II. when so great a part of the nation did what they could to have the first of them abjured, and the second excluded: the same God, I say, has by his providence set King William and Queen Mary on the throne : and by His grace I will bear the same faith and allegiance to them as I did to the former : and for the same cause. For my part I believe our now most gracious Sovereigns, King Wil- liam and Queen Mary, are both de jure and de facto as lawful King and Queen of England, by hereditary right, which commenced from the time that the late King James left the throne, though it was not de-
of tlje ^onjuvor0, 69
clared till the 12th of February following, as ever sat upon the throne." '
It has been supposed, that Burnet had no inconsi- derable influence in preventing the adoption of mode- rate measures with the non-complying Clergy. He wished the Oath to be enforced, regardless of conse- quences. It would have been more consistent as a minister of peace, to have recommended gentle and healing measures. It is certain, however, that he would have proceeded to still more violent steps, if his own course had been unchecked ; but happily, all the complying Clergy were not like Burnet : so that William soon discovered, that the feeling in fa- vour of the Church of England was stronger than he had at first anticipated. The Clergy as a body were true to their principles. They did not intend to renounce their creed, because circumstances had com- pelled them to renounce King James : but it must be confessed, that if all the Bishops and Clergy had been of the same stamp with Burnet and some others, whose principles had been derived from foreign sources, the Anglican Church would have been de- stroyed, as a State Establishment, while the true fol- lowers of the English Reformation must have cast in their lot with the Nonjurors. Evelyn lamented the course which was pursued respecting the Oath : but he distinctly attributes it to Presbyterian counsels, with
e A Letter to the Authors of the Answers to the Case of Alle- giance, pp. 4, 5. It has been well remarked : u The blessings which have been derived to us from this great event make every Englishman anxious to justify the principles on which it was car- ried on : but, after all, it seems much more clear, that the Revo- lution was necessary, than easy to justify it on any permanent principles." Short's History of the Church of England, ii. 375.
70 %'0t0rp of tlje
which Burnet could easily comply. " The penalty is to be the losse of their dignitie and spiritual pre- ferment. This is thought to have ben driven on by the Presbyterians, our new governors. God in mercy send us help, and direct the counsels to his glory and good of his Church."1
William did not find the Whigs so pliable as per- haps was expected. They thwarted him in some of his schemes : but in any step, calculated to weaken the Church or to degrade the Clergy, their support was readily and cordially yielded. Burnet, however, was an actor in all the events of the period : and some notices respecting his influence may serve to reflect light on the transactions, in which King William acted so conspicuous a part. It appears to me, that Burnet's conduct from the beginning admits of no justification. In his history, he gives a very partial account of his own proceedings ; but the facts, which remain on record, point him out as one of the chief advisers of those strong measures, which were adopted with respect to the Nonjurors. The part he acted at Exeter, soon after the Prince's arrival, ap- pears unworthy of a Christian minister. " On the 9th, the Prince commanded Dr. Burnet to order the Priest Vicars not to pray for the Prince of Wales, and to make use of no other prayer for the King, but what is in the Second service, which they refused to observe till they were forced, and very severely threatened : the Bishop and the Dean being then gone from the city. About twelve, this day, notice was given to the Canons, and all the Vicars choral and singing lads, to attend in the Cathedral, for that the Prince would be there : and Dr. Burnet ordered
f Evelyn, iii. 281.
of t&e ^onjurorg. 7 1
them, as soon as the Prince entered into the choir, they should sing Te Deum, which was observed. The Prince sat in the Bishop's chair. After Te Deum, Dr. Burnet, in a seat under the pulpit, read aloud the Prince's Declaration. '"g In his own History Bur- net merely says, that the Clergy were fearful, and that the Bishop and Dean ran away. Yet he himself was the most prominent actor in the city of Exeter : and it seems difficult to reconcile his conduct with his avowed principles, as a Clergyman of the Anglican Church.
It appears almost impossible to respect such a cha- racter. Very soon after William had obtained pos- session of the throne, he appointed Burnet to the See of Salisbury : but it is evident, that he cared little for the Church, in which he was made a Bishop. "In profession a Prelate, a Dissenter in sentiment. To protect Protestantism against Popery there was no character, however infamous, he would not de- fend." u He was a thorough partizan, and a scheming politician.1 Appointed as he was to the See of Salis-
K Somers' Tracts, xiv. 260, 261. Calamy's Life, Notes, i. 193, 194. There was an odd assortment of persons with the Prince on his coming" to England. Thus while Burnet was preaching in the cathedral at Exeter : " Ferguson preached in the Presbyterian Meeting House, but was fain to force his way with his sword up to the Pulpit, for even the old Presbyter himself could not away with the breath of his brother Ferguson in his Diocese." Somers' Tracts, xiv. 261. Ralph, i. 1038. Burnet also preached at Exeter in the Cathedral, asserting that God was on the Prince's side, " and had now chose to begin the deliverance of England, on the same day that it had formerly been devoted to ruin and destruc- tion. This is a circumstance in his history he has thought fit to pass over." Ibid.
h Noble, i. 83.
1 It is said that he gave early intimation to the court of Han- over, of the project of the Revolution, intimating that the success
72 H?tetorp of tlje
bury, he could not expect that his opinions would have much weight with the Clergy : yet he ventured to address them, in a Pastoral Letter, before he quitted London. This was written under the plea, that he was detained in London ; but really, that he might put forth his views respecting the Oath of Allegiance, which was the subject of the Letter. The opinions which he advanced were such as no right- minded Englishman could maintain. " Since I can- not," says he, " yet come to do the duties of my function among you, I think myself obliged to sup- ply my absence by watching over you as effectually as I can at this distance." He proceeds at once to the Oath of Allegiance ; and after many arguments, which probably most men would admit, he comes to the reasons, which induced the Prince of Orange to act. " Even at Common Law an heir in remainder has just cause to sue him that is in possession, if he makes waste on the inheritance, which is his in reversion. It is much more reasonable, since the thing is much more important, that the heir of a crown should interpose, when he sees him that is in possession hurried on blindfold to subject an in- dependent kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction, and thereby to rob it both of its glory, and its security. And when a pretended heir was set up in such a manner, that the whole kingdom believed him spu- rious. In such a case it cannot be denied, even ac-
of the enterprize might lead to the entail of the crown on that illustrious house. Biog. Brit. Art. Burnet. Ralph calls him, " The Champion in Ordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter the lists against all comers." Ralph, ii. 3. Alluding- to his ele- vation to the Episcopal bench, the same historian remarks : " and thus our Historian, in acknowledgement of his many services, became a Lord of Parliament." Ibid. 59.
of ttie ^onjucorg. 73
cording to the highest principles of passive obedi- ence, that another sovereign Prince might make war on a king so abusing his power : and that this was the case in fact, will not be called in question by any Protestant. So then here was a war begun upon just and lawful grounds, and a war being so begun, it is the uncontroverted opinion of all lawyers, that the success of a just war gives a lawful title to that which is acquired in the progress of it. Therefore King James, having so far sunk in the war that he both abandoned his people and deserted the government, all his right and title did accrue to the King, in the right of a conquest over him : so that if he had then assumed the crown, the opinion of all lawyers must have been on his side : but he chose rather to leave the matter to the determination of the Peers and people of England, chosen and assembled together with all possible freedom, who did upon that declare him their king : so that with relation to King James's rights, he was vested with them by the successes of a just war, and yet he was willing with relation to the people to receive the crown by their declaration, rather than to hold it in the right of his sword."1
I cannot but consider this a most improper course to be pursued by a Bishop of the Anglican Church : and within the space of two years after, the same view was taken by the House of Commons. The notion of a right in King William by Conquest was asserted in a pamphlet, intitled, " King William and Queen Mary Conquerors :" and when this obnoxious
k A Pastoral Writ by the Right Reverend Father in God, Gil- bert, Lord Bishop of Sarum, to the Clergy of his Diocese, con- cerning the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. 4to. London, pp. 20, 21.
74 %'0torp of tl>
production was brought under the cognizance of Parliament in 1692, Burnet's Pastoral Letter was joined with it in the same vote. Both the pamphlet and the Letter were ordered to be publicly burnt. Kennet intimates his opinion, that the latter was sacrificed " to a poor jest upon the Author's name." He adds : " The majority in the warmth of debating, and some of 'em for the sake of allusion to the Author's name, passed the same censure on that excellent letter, and ordered it publicly to be burnt by the common executioner. On January the 24th the Lords came to a like resolution : that the asser- tion of King William and Queen Mary's being King and Queen by Conquest) was highly injurious to their Majesties, and inconsistent with the principles on which the government is founded, and tending to the subver- sion of the rights of the people. Which Vote being communicated to the Commons, that house on the next day unanimously concurred with their Lordships, with the remarkable addition of some words : viz. injurious to their Majesties' rightful title to the crown of this realm."1
It seems very difficult to acquit Burnet of dupli- city in constantly treating the son of James II. as a supposititious child. It was a political trick, and served to amuse the common people : but Burnet could not have believed his own assertions. In this light was the thing regarded by William, who never fulfilled his promise of examining the matter : but
1 Kennet, iii. 549, 657. Salmon, i. 267. The Pamphlet " King William and Queen Mary Conquerors " was written by Mr. Blount. Ralph remarks that it contains no sentiment which had not been broached in Lloyd's (Bishop of Worcester) Sermon on the 5th of November, 1690, preached before their Majesties. Ralph, ii. 399.
of ttje ^onjurorg. 75
Burnet gravely asserts the spuriousness of the child, when it must be evident, that he knew the contrary. This circumstance seems to justify the severity of Lord Dartmouth's remark. In one of his notes on his History, his Lordship expresses an opinion, that Burnet would not designedly publish any thing which he believed to be false : but in another note on the second volume he writes : " I wrote in the first volume of this book, that I did not believe the Bishop designedly published anything he believed to be false : therefore think myself obliged to write in this, that I am fully satisfied that he published many things that he knew to be so." The following testimony is from a friendly pen : " Several other works shew him to be a man neither of prudence nor temper : his sometimes opposing and sometimes favoring the Dissenters, hath much exposed him to the generality of the people of England."01
Before we proceed further, a circumstance must be mentioned relative to Archbishop Sancroft, which may shield his memory from the imputation of a popish leaning. Besides his refusal to sanction the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, he printed
m Macky's Memoirs, p. 139. It appears from a disgraceful circumstance at his funeral, that Burnet was in no favour with the populace. The following extract, though disgraceful to the people, is sufficient evidence of unpopularity. " Last Tuesday night (March 22, 1714-15) the body of that great and good man, the late Dr. Burnet, Bishop of Sarum, was interred near the Com- munion Table, in Clerkenwell Church. As the corpse was con- veying to the Church, the rabble (that shews no distinction to men of great parts and learning, when once they conceive an ill opinion of them) flung dirt and stones at the hearse, and broke the glasses of the coach that immediately followed it." Gent's Mag. 1788* Vol. Iviii. 952. From a Letter containing an extract from a news- paper of the period.
76 %'0torp of tt)e
and circulated a series of Articles, which were sent to all the Bishops of his Province in July 1688. They shew, that the Archbishop was no enemy to liberty of conscience ; but only to the exercise of a dispensing power in the crown. These Articles were also accompanied with a Letter dated July 27, in which it is stated : " Yesterday the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered the Articles, which I send you enclosed, to those Bishops who are at present in this place : and ordered copies of them to be likewise sent in his name to the absent Bishops : by the con- tents of them, you will see that the storm in which he is, does not frighten him from doing his duty : and indeed, the zeal, that he expresses in these Articles both against the corruptions of the Church of Rome on the one hand, and the unhappy differ- ences that are among Protestants on the other, are such Apostolical things, that all good men rejoice to see so great a prelate at the head of our Church, who at this critical time has had the courage to do his duty in so signal a manner." In these Articles the Archbishop recommends Catechizing, and expound- ing the grounds of the Christian Religion. One is important, as shewing the Archbishop's consistency in opposing Popery, and yet adhering strictly to the order of the Church of England : " That they perform the daily office publicly in all market and other great towns, and even in villages and less populous places bring people to public prayers as frequently as may be : especially on such days and at such times as the Rubrics and Canons appoint, on Holy Days, and their Eves, on Ember and Rogation Days, on Wednesdays and Fridays in each week, and especially in Advent and Lent" I quote this Article, because in the present day, when it cannot be pleaded, that
of tfje ^onjucor^
the danger of the introduction of Popery is so great as at the period of the Revolution, there are persons, who look upon a compliance with the Rubrics and Canons as a symptom of Popery, and who cannot oppose Romanism without opposing their own Church at the same time. These individuals have never done so much against Popery, or suffered so much for the sake of the truth, as Archbishop Bancroft : and it is evident, that the most consistent Churchmen are the most effective opponents of Rome.
In the seventh Article, the Archbishop recommends, that the Clergy should explain to the people, at least four times a year, that the Papal Supremacy was an usurpation. Alluding in the tenth to the means adopted by the Romish Priests, especially with people in dying circumstances, he recommends the utmost diligence on the part of the clergy : " Thus with their utmost diligence, watching over every sheep within their fold (especially in that critical moment) lest those evening wolves devour them."
Bancroft moreover recommended " more especially that they have a very tender regard to our brethren, the Protestant Dissenters : that upon occasion offered they visit them at their houses, and receive them kindly at their own, and treat them fairly wherever they meet with them, discoursing calmly and civilly with them : persuading them (if it may be) to a full compliance with our Church, or at least that whereto we have already attained, we may all walk by the same rule and mind the same thing. And in order hereunto, that they take all opportunities of assuring and convincing them that the Bishops of this Church are really and sincerely irreconcilable enemies to the errors, superstitions, idolatries, and tyrannies of the Church of Rome." In this way did he write, who
of tlje
lias since been traduced by party writers, as a Papist and a bigot."
Not long before the day fixed by the Act for the deprivation of the Bishops a plot against the govern- ment was discovered, in which Lord Preston, Mr. Ashton and some others were implicated. Lord Preston and Mr. Ashton were tried and executed ; but the evidence on which the conviction was founded was of a very slender description. A quantity of letters was discovered in the possession of Lord Preston, among which were two, said to be written by Turner, Bishop of Ely. In one, the writer says, "I speak in the plural, because I write my elder brother's sentiments as well as my own, and the rest of the family, though lessened in number ; yet if we are not mightily out in our accounts, we are growing in our interest, that is in yours." In the second letter, the writer, after ex- pressing his determination not to swerve from his course, adds, "I say this in behalf of my elder brother, and the rest of my nearest relations, as well as for my- self."0 That these letters were written by the Bishop of Ely was never proved ; but Burnet and others chose to assert, that the proof was conclusive. It is indeed doubtful whether the other parties were en- gaged in any plot. " In December 1690, says Wood, there was a pretended discovery of a pretended plot of the Jacobites or Nonjurors, whereupon some of them were imprisoned ; and Dr. Turner being sus- pected to be in the same pretended plot, he withdrew and absconded. "p A proclamation was issued for the apprehension of the Bishop of Ely, but not for some time after, not indeed until the 5th of February,
" See the Articles printed at the time.
0 Ralph, ii. 2,55, where the correspondence is printed.
P Wood's Athense.
of tlje ^onfutorg. 79
when the sees of the Bishops were become vacant by the operation of the Act of Parliament. This circum- stance seems to support the idea, that the charge against Turner was made for the purpose of reflecting odium on the Nonjuring Prelates, that so the govern- ment might have a better colour for filling up the vacancies. Tindal, who assumes the guilt of Turner, says that the discovery of the Bishop of Ely's corres- pondence gave the King a fair opportunity to fill up the vacant sees.q As Turner was permitted to live quietly afterward, we may assume that the govern- ment did not consider him guilty. Burnet says : " The discovery of the Bishop of Ely's correspondence in the name of the rest, gave the King a great advan- tage in filling these vacant sees, which he resolved to do on his return from the Congress." Burnet pro- duces no evidence against Turner : and I cannot but conclude, that the charge was not only unfounded, but that it was fabricated for the purpose of rendering the suspended Bishops obnoxious to the people at the period, when the strong step of removing them from their sees was about to be put in execution. The circumstances are peculiar. The plot was dis- covered in December : the trials occurred in January : Lord Preston and Mr. Ashton were executed during that month : and the First of February was the day fixed by Act of Parliament for the deprivation of the Bishops. A charge, therefore, against Turner, and such a charge as implicated Bancroft and the rest of the Bishops, was the very thing to excite the public mind, and to deprive them of that sympathy, which their sufferings in the cause of the Church in the previous reign, and their present misfortunes, were
i Tindal, i. 166.
of tt)
likely to produce. Calamy rather improves upon Burnet : he says, the sees were not filled " till letters were discovered that shewed what correspondencies and engagements there were among them."q This is from a man who professed a great regard for truth and holiness : yet he joins in traducing men, without any evidence whatever.
Some particulars respecting Mr. Ashton's trial and conviction may be acceptable to those, who may not have access to the works, in which the accounts are preserved. The charge was, that he had written letters and papers for the use of the King of France. A rumour was circulated that he was a Romanist : consequently several witnesses were produced to prove that he was a Protestant. Dr. Fitzwilliam alleged, that Asliton had received the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper only six months before in Ely Chapel. This was of course under Turner, the Bishop of Ely. A juryman, therefore, asked whether the Prayers were read for King William and Queen Mary ? the Doctor replied, that he could not say that they were altered : but, in reply to another question, he ad- mitted that the names, as inserted in the altered Prayers, were not mentioned. He added, that he had been a hundred times at Prayers in their altered state. The witness was then asked if he had taken the Oaths to the King and Queen. He replied : " No, I have not, Sir, that's my unhappiness : but I know how to submit and live peaceably under them." He also added, " If any one can say I have done or acted any thing against the government, I will readily submit to be punished for it." This was the case with the great mass of the Nonjurors : yet such men
i Calamy, i. 485.
f tlje lion/urorsf. Hi
were branded as Papists, and by persons too who had gone all lengths with King James.
Though there was much reason to doubt the actual guilt of Ashton, and it was probable that he knew not the contents of the papers which were found on his person, having picked up the parcel which had been dropped by Lord Preston, whom in honour he would not betray, yet he was convicted, and received sentence of death. He was executed on the 28th of January. At the place of execution he was attended by two clergymen, one of whom, as we find from his own statement in connexion with his absolution of Sir William Perkins and Sir John Friend, was Collier. He says, indeed, that he absolved Mr. Ashton by the imposition of hands, as in the latter case. In the paper delivered to the Sheriff, he declares himself a member of the Church of England. With respect to King James, he says : " When I add these conside- rations : that we had solemnly professed our allegi- ance, and often confirmed it with oaths ; that his Majesty's usage after the Prince of Orange's arrival was very hard, severe, and unjust: and that all the new methods of settling this nation have hitherto made it more miserable, poor, and more exposed to foreign enemies : and that the religion we pretend to be proud of preserving, is now, much more than ever, likely to be destroyed : there seemed to be no way to prevent the impending evils but the calling home an injured Sovereign." He then admits, that appearances were against him ; but he declares him- self innocent of the particular charge, namely, any knowledge of the contents of the papers. By the Nonjurors he was naturally regarded as a martyr to loyal principles. Kennet says that there was a plan for restoring James through the aid of France, and
G
82 %'0torj? of tlje
that the royal clemency was so manifest, that Ashton only suffered. r
In 1691 a small volume of Prayers was privately printed by a Nonjuror. With the volume there is a portrait of John Ashton : but whether this was the gentleman who was executed, or whether he was the author of the Prayers, I am unable to determine. It is not improbable that Grascome, or some other Nonjuring Clergyman was the author, and that the portrait of Ashton, who had recently been executed, and who was regarded as a martyr to Nonjuring principles, was inserted, both as a memorial of the sufferer in a manual of devotion, and as a recommen- dation to the volume. The book is a remarkable one, as exhibiting the views of the Nonjurors respecting King James, for whom there are several petitions, though he is not mentioned by name. The Prayers are generally couched in Scriptural language, and consist of confessions of sin, with supplications for divine mercy.8
r State Trials, iv. 485, 487. viii. App. 483, 484. Kennet, iii. 575, 576.
s An Office for Penitents. Or a Form of Prayer fit to be used in sinful and distracted times. 12mo. London. Printed in the year 1691.
CHAPTER III.
A. D. 1690—1694.
THE DEPRIVATIONS. — NUMBERS. — BANCROFT'S RETIREMENT. — HICKES'S PROTEST. — DODWELL'S LETTER TO TILLOTSON. — BE-
VERIDGE AND OTHERS REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE VACANT SEES.
KIDDER'S SCRUPLES. — STILLINGFLEET'S LETTER. — FORGERY BY YOUNG AND BLACKHEAD. — THE DEPRIVED BISHOPS SEPA- RATE FROM THE CHURCH. — SANCROFT DELEGATES HIS POWERS TO LLOYD. — HICKES AND WAGSTAFFE CONSECRATED.— DEATH OF SANCROFT. — His CHARACTER AND SUFFERINGS. — THE NONJURORS' DEFENCE OF THEIR PROCEEDINGS.— SOME OBJECT TO A SEPARATION. — THE DIFFICULTIES OF THEIR CASE. — SE- VERITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
JHE Bishops and Clergy remained in pos- session of their respective preferments, until the day fixed by the act of Par- liament for their deprivation ; but from the Jirst of August 1690 to the Jirst of February 1690-91, they were suspended from the performance of their ecclesiastical functions. This was a lay, not a canonical deprivation ; consequently no process was adopted against the Bishops and Clergy, as is the case, when parties are charged with any ecclesiastical irregularity. By the Act of Parliament, it was de- clared, that all Clergymen, who did not take the Oath of Allegiance before thej^r^ day of February 1690-91 , should be deprived of their benefices. When, there- fore, the day arrived, the patrons were at liberty to present other individuals : and the government con-
84 ^tetorp of tlje
sidered themselves in a situation to appoint to the sees of the deprived prelates.
That the approach of the day was contemplated with much anxiety, by all parties, is evident. Some of those, who had hitherto scrupled to take the Oath, complied at the last moment, and thus avoided depri- vation : but the majority had counted the cost, and remained firm in their adherence to the principle, on which they had acted ever since the new Oath had been proposed. On ihejirst day of February, there- fore, Sancroft, Turner, Frampton, White, and Ken, were deprived by Act of Parliament of their sees. They were restrained from the exercise of their office in their dioceses, as well as deprived of the incomes of their respective bishoprics : but their spiritual character could not be touched by an Act of Parlia- ment. After thejirst of February 1690-9 1 they were bishops of the Catholic Church, though they were precluded from the public exercise of their sacred functions, by authority of the civil power. The ex- ample of the Bishops was followed by about four hiMidredofihe Clergy, most, if not all of whom, would have lived quietly and peaceably, discharging the duties of their office with diligence, if the government could have dispensed with the Oath of Allegiance. This was a considerable number; and when we con- sider, that all of them were so conscientious, as to prefer principle to expediency or interest, we cannot but regret, that some means were not adopted to pre- vent such a sad separation. The names of many of these peaceable sufferers are preserved in the Life of Kettle well. Some, however, were omitted, and it is not now possible to recover them. In this list are the names of some of the chief men in the kingdom, both with respect to learning and influence. Not un-
of tfje |&on)ur0r&. $5
frequently the Nonjurors are spoken of contemp- tuously, as men of narrow minds and perverted prin- ciples : but no one, who fully examines the subject, will indulge in such a tone of remark respecting men, who suffered so much from adherence to their prin- ciples.21
Most of the Clergy quietly quitted their livings on the first of February : but some of the Bishops and Dignitaries felt themselves bound to offer such resistance as they were able. Bancroft, therefore, did not immediately remove from his palace. He was permitted to remain for a season ; but only in the hope, that he would retire quietly, in obedience to the Act. During his continuance at Lambeth, his Chaplains, Wharton and Needham, were in constant attendance, even after they had taken the Oath to William and Mary. The Archbishop was also anxious
a Kettle well, Appen. No. vi. for the List of Names. Mr. Bowles also has published a list differing only in some few names from that in the Life of Kettle well. He observes, that he was not aware of any published list. See also " The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England," pp. 71, 72. Mr. Hallam's testimony is too important not to be noticed. *' Eight Bishops, including the Primate and several of those who had been foremost in the defence of the Church during the late reign, with about four hun- dred of the Clergy, some of them highly distinguished, chose the more honourable course of refusing the new Oaths : and thus began the Schism of the Nonjurors, more mischievous in its commence- ment than its continuance, and not so dangerous to the govern- ment of William III. and George I. as the false submission of less sincere men." He adds in a note, after assigning reasons in favour of the imposition of the Oath, " Yet the effect of this expulsion was highly unfavourable to the new government : and it required all the influence of a Latitudinarian School of Divinity, led by Locke, which was very strong among the laity, under William, to counteract it." Const. Hist. iii. 148. Thus we have the unbiassed opinion of Mr. Hallam, that the Theology of the Revolution was of a Latitudinarian tendency.
86 ^i0torp of tje
to prevent a schism in the Church, which he per- ceived to be inevitable, if the Oath were enforced. The fact, that the Bishops were willing to remain in their sees, may be regarded as an evidence of their desire to comply with the existing government, as far as they could do so, without offering violence to their conscience : and had some relaxation in the matter of the Oath been permitted, the happiest con- sequences would have ensued.
It was intended, that Tillotson should succeed the Archbishop ; yet his nomination did not take place until the 23rd of April 1691. He was confirmed in the see on the 1st of May. It is clear from this delay, that the government were reluctant to inter- fere : yet it is equally certain, that their reluctance arose only from the apprehension, that the public feeling would be against the measure. It was also hoped, that Sancroft would retire, and thus make way for Tillotson : but as the Archbishop did not recognize the authority by which he had been de- prived, he refused to quit the palace. A process of ejectment, therefore, was commenced. Judgment was given on the 23rd of June : and on the same day, as force would otherwise have been applied, the good Archbishop quitted the palace. He proceeded by water to the Temple, where he remained six weeks : after which he retired to Fresingfield, his native place, which he never quitted.5
b D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 462—470. Birch's Life of Tillotson, 246 — 248. " It must be acknowledged," says Comber, " by Dr. Sancroft's greatest enemies, that he acted on this occasion from principle, and on a thorough conviction, that it was not lawful to acknowledge any person as king during the life of James II. It was so manifestly against his interest, that a firm persuasion of its being his duty could alone have induced him to make so great a sacrifice." Comber's Life, 291.
of ttje ^onjurorg*
Hickes drew up a Protest against his ejectment and affixed it to the Cathedral Church of Worcester, of which he was dean. It was addressed to the Sub- Dean and Prebendaries. Mr. Talbot had been ap- pointed by the government : and against this appoint- ment Hickes protested as illegal. He, therefore, after asserting his own claims, called upon the Sub-Dean to support him in the maintenance of his rights. The Instrument, which is preserved in the Life of Kettle- well, was dated the 2nd of May 1691.c
Before Tillotson's consecration, Dodwell endea- voured to dissuade him from accepting the Arch- bishopric. For this purpose, he addressed him in a letter, in which he beseeches him not to be the ag- gressor in the new schism, " in erecting another altar against the hitherto acknowledged altar of your de- prived Fathers and brethren. If their places be not vacant, the new consecrations must, by the nature of the spiritual monarchy, be null, and invalid, and schismatical." d It appears, that some reluctance to succeed Sancroft was manifested by Tillotson, which Dodwell endeavoured to strengthen. It is, however, probable, that his Erastian notions of ecclesiastical matters led him to think, that he was serving the Church by accepting the dignity, and that Sancroft was justly deprived for refusing the Oath.
Beveridge was nominated to the see of Bath and Wells : but this eminent man, though he had taken
c Kettlewell. Appendix. A pamphlet was published on the subject, under the following- title : " Passive Obedience in Actual Resistance : or Remarks upon a Paper fixed up in the Cathedral Church of Worcester, by Dr. Hickes, with Reflections on the present behaviour of the rest of the family." It is scurrilous and abusive; and, therefore, entitled to no consideration.
(! Birch, 268, 269.
iH0torp of tlje
the Oath to the new government, positively refused to become the successor of Ken, during that Prelate's life.6 At last, Kidder was commanded by the Queen to accept it : yet he complied with considerable re- luctance. Mr. Bowles gives, from a MS. preserved in the palace at Wells, a very curious account of Kidder 's acceptance of the see. This account was drawn up by Kidder himself. He states, that in the spring the bishopric of Peterborough was proposed to him for his acceptance, and that he had absolutely refused it. In his account of the manner, in which he had given his refusal, he says, " I added also, that I cared not to accept any other bishopric. And this I did, that I might avoid any further solicitation that way/' In this document he alludes to Beve- ridge's refusal, stating that the see remained vacant for some time after. He then wrote to Dr. Williams, that he would not refuse another bishopric, though he must decline Bath and Wells. Williams commu- nicated to Tillotson, that Kidder would accept a bishopric ; but he concealed the exception respecting Ken's Diocese. He says, " Though I cannot say I thought it unlawful, yet I did not think it convenient for me to do it. I knew very well that I should be able to do less good, if I came into a bishopric void by deprivation." Soon after, the Queen sent her commands : and Kidder replied that he would accept
e Beveridge consulted Bancroft on the subject. Evelyn informs us that Sancroft told him : " That Dr. Beveridge came to ask his advice: that the Archhishop told him, though he should give it, lie believed he would not take it : the Doctor said he would : why then, says the Archbishop, when they came to aske, say Nolo, and say it from the heart : there is nothing easier than to resolve yourselfe what is to be done in the case : the Doctor seemed to deliberate," Vol. iii. 304.
of tf) e $10 tt jurors* 89
the see, unless her Majesty would excuse him, or select some other person. He adds, " And this per- haps I did, not as wisely as I should. I cannot say I did it against my conscience ; but of this I am sure, that, since I have considered things better, I should not have done it, were it to do again. I did not con- sult my ease. I have often repented of my accepting it, and looked on it as a great infelicity.'" f Such were Kidder's views, after he was in possession of the see. Burnet and many others would have entertained no such scruples.
Great disappointment was experienced by persons in authority, on Beveridge's refusal to succeed Ken. Stillingfleet, therefore, published a Letter on the sub- ject, containing some severe animadversions. g A few extracts will shew the state of feeling at the time among both parties in the Church — those who were reluctant to succeed to the vacant sees, and those who, like Stillingfleet and others, had no scruples on the subject. He is somewhat severe on Beveridge, who acted from the purest motives. In short, he shews himself too much of a partizan. In meeting the supposed case of another revolution, and the con- sequent dispossession of the new Bishops, he actually calls the restoration a revolution. " The experience of the Revolution in 1660 hath taught them how dangerous it may be in case such a revolution should happen, to change their old preferments for new ones, which may be challenged again by their old proprie- tors. But in our case there is the least to be said for
f Bowles's Life of Ken, ii, 210—214.
g A Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees of the deprived Bishops : in a Letter out of the Country. Occasioned by Dr. B — 's refusal of the Bishopric of Bath and Wells. 4to, 1691.
90 ^igtorp of tfje
this caution, that can possibly be in any revolution ; for it is as vain a thing to hope to secure ourselves in such a revolution by prudence and caution, as it is for a man to fortify his house against the breaking in of the sea. If there ever be such a revolution as can unsettle what this hath done, God be merciful to this miserable nation." It is strange, that Stilling- fleet should use such language, as if the common- wealth could in any way be compared to the lawful government which existed previous to 1688. " What- ever," he proceeds, " may be pretended, the world will not believe that Doctor B — refused a Bishopric, but either out of fear or conscience : the first calls in question the stability or continuance of the present government : the second the authority of it. Now this confirms the enemies of the government in their opinion of the unlawfulness to submit to it, and en- courages them to attempt its overthrow." Beveridge had been in a commission for administering the affairs of the Archbishopric, after the Archbishop's depriva- tion : and the charge of inconsistency is accordingly adduced. " He submitted to the government and took the Oath of Allegiance as early as any man : and never had the least scruple : and yet this was the time to have been scrupulous, if he would have been so : for it seems a little of the latest, when he is become a sworn subject to King William and Queen Mary, to question their authority to make a Bishop. And if the former Bishops were deprived, and new Bishops made, by such an authority as he can swear allegiance to, I cannot understand that it can be un- lawful to accept a bishopric from the hands of those whom he owns. Besides this Dr. B — was one of those who, by commission from the Dean and Chapter, hath exercised archiepiscopal authority during the
of tlje ^onjuror0. 91
vacancy of the see by the deprivation of the A. B." It is assumed that Beveridge deemed it unlawful to accept Bath and Wells, which was not the case. However Stillingfleet urges the point : " If it be un- lawful to succeed a deprived Bishop, then he is the Bishop of the Diocese still : and then the law that deprives him is no law, and consequently the King and Parliament that made that law, no King nor Parliament : and how can this be reconciled with the Oath of Allegiance, unless the Dr. can swear allegiance to him who is no King, and hath no au- thority to govern." He argues that on such a sup- position the Church of England was schismatical, and Beveridge himself a schismatic. The tone of the Letter proves that Beveridge's refusal was a keen dis- appointment to the government. Stillingfleet, as one of the ablest controversialists of the period, was em- ployed to counteract the evils, which were appre- hended from the refusal of such a man as Beveridge.
Beveridge was not the only clergyman, who refused to succeed to a see vacant by deprivation. Sharp, who had acted a conspicuous part previous to the Revolution, and who afterwards became Archbishop of York, entertained the same scruples. He was mentioned by the King as a proper person to succeed to one of the vacancies. Norwich was pressed upon him ; but he refused to accept of any ; not from scruples of conscience respecting the Oath, but from affection to the deprived Bishops.11
Some time after the deprivation of the Bishops,
h Sharp's Life, i. 108 — 110. Birch's Tillotson, 276, 277. Scott, the author of the Christian Life, refused the bishopric of Chester with other posts because they were vacant by deprivation. Hickes's Discourses on some Late Sermons. Preface — " A curious re-
a most impudent forgery was perpetrated by two persons, Blackhead and Young, in order to implicate Archbishop Sancroft, Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, and others, in a correspondence with some persons in France. A document was dropped, by one of the parties, in the palace at Bromley : and when the information was laid against the Bishop of Rochester, this Paper was discovered in the spot where it had been placed by one of the conspirators, who had ap- plied to his Lordship with a forged letter, pretended to have been written by a clergyman. To the Paper were appended the names of the Archbishop, the Bishop, and others : and the imitations were so good that it was difficult to distinguish between them and the genuine autographs of the individuals. In this document, the French were invited to invade the country : and it is evident, that it was the intention of the framers to implicate the nonjuring Bishops. However, the whole was soon unravelled by the ex- amination and confession of one of the criminals. The Bishop of Rochester published a full account of the whole matter.1
The Bishops and Clergy being deprived, the ques- tion necessarily arose, what was to be done ? Were they to continue in communion with the Church of England as private persons : or were they to exercise their office, as they might be able, and separate al- together from the Church? They were by no means agreed on these very important points. " As the swearers so also the non-swearers were divided among
port was circulated in 1687 respecting Stillingfleet. In a Letter from Leyclen that year : " There is a jealousy of Dr. Stillingfleet turning Papist." Marchmont Papers, iii. 72. 1 Bishop of Rochester's Account.
of tfje ^onjuror^. 93
themselves in their opinions. Of them who dis- sented from the public on the political point, there were some who were not for puzzling themselves with the religious point." It is further said " there were no inconsiderable numbers, which were against making any separation at all in the Church, upon that ac- count. These went to the public assemblies, but at the same time declared, that to communicate in some of the Prayers, they thought contrary to truth and justice. And when others taxed them for this, they answered, that they neither did, nor ought to be supposed to join in those Prayers." k Some expressed their disapprobation publicly in the Churches, at the Prayers for the new Sovereigns. Others thought such a practice unlawful ; but even Tillotson con- curred with the Nonjurors in thinking that they could not join in the Prayers.1 It was urged against them, that they could not join in the Prayer of St. Chrysostom in giving thanks to God, that " with one accord " they had made " their common suppli- cations to him." Others attended the Parish Churches on the ground of necessity, urging that they must otherwise be cut off from public worship : while some remained at the public assemblies, because the Clergy, under whose superintendence they had been placed, continued in their posts. On these several grounds many persons, especially among the laity, continued to worship in the parish churches, though they did not approve of the changes that had been made. The same feelings continued to influence considerable numbers during this and the succeeding
reign .m
k Kettlewell's Life, 138. * Ibid.
m Kettlewell, 139, 140.
94 ^i0totp of tje
But the more strenuous Nonjurors were opposed to any such compromise. They argued for a separa- tion from the Church established. It has been said, that Sancroft was at first against a separation, and that his reluctance to encourage it continued for some time. This feeling, however, if it ever existed, ap- pears to have been relinquished after his retirement to Fresingfield : for he was accustomed to speak of the Nonjurors as the true Church of England, and of the National Establishment as an apostate and re- bellious Church." Thus in February 1691-2, San- croft delegated the exercise of his archiepiscopal powers, by a formal instrument, to Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich : — a step which shews that he did not labour to prevent the schism, though perhaps he came reluctantly into the scheme. The following is an extract from this document.
" William, by Divine Providence, an humble mi- nister of the Metropolitan Church of Canterbury, to the Right Reverend Father in Christ, and most dearly beloved brother in our Lord, William, by the same providence, still Bishop of Norwich, Greeting: Health and brotherly love in the Lord. Whereas, I very lately by a lay force being driven out of the house of Lambeth, and not able to find in the neigh- bouring city any place where I could safely or con- veniently abide, have therefore retired afar off, seek- ing where in my old age I could rest my weary head : and whereas there were even then remaining many affairs, and there do also daily arise many more, and those too of the greatest moment, as being the affairs of God and the Church, the which can no where so commodiously and expeditiously be transacted as in
11 D'Oyley, ii. 39.
of tlje jponjutot:0» 95
that grand theatre of business : to you my well-beloved brother, who, out of that fortitude of mind, where- with you excell, and that pious zeal for the house of God wherewith you are fired, do yet continue, and remain fixed in the suburbs of London, while the rest of us are every where wandering about : (so that I have not any one there who is so much one soul with me, or who hath such a natural concern as yourself for the Churches affairs and mine) : yea to you, I say, do I commit in the Lord, as confiding in you, and in your wonted dexterity for business, all whatever be- longeth to my place, and to the pontifical (or archi- episcopal) office, for the treating, consulting, and finally dispatching all those matters which thereunto do appertain : and by virtue of these presents, I do choose, make, and constitute you my Vicar for all that which is aforesaid, my agent of all things, and matters to me relating, Factor and Proxy-General, or Nuncio."
Afterwards he adds, " Whomsoever you, my brother, as occasion may require, shall think fit to assume and adjoin to yourself, whomsoever you shall elect and approve, confirm and constitute, I also as much as in me, and as I rightfully can, do in like manner assume and adjoin, elect and approve, con- firm and constitute. In a word, whatsoever you shall of yourself do, or order to be done, in affairs of this kind, all that how great soever, or of what sort soever it be, boldly impute it to me : Lo I, William, have written it with mine own hand, and will stand by it."0
0 Kettlewell, 136, 137. A Collection of Letters concerning the separation of the Church of England into two communions. 1746. p. 49 — 53. The close of this document, dated February the 9th 1691, is really touching: " Dated from my poor cottage (which
96 ^fgtorp of tlje
The instrument was dated from his own poor hired house within the district of the said (deprived) Bishop of Norwich. It was signed before a Notary Public the 9th of February, 1691-2, seven months after his removal from Lambeth. Still their affairs were by no means in a settled state. " So far was the pro- vision from settling the affairs of their little commu- nion, that there were new difficulties which succes- sively started up hereupon, not easily to be stated and resolved, or at least without extreme danger ; and though a separate communion was hereby kept up as a witnessing Church, according to the late Bishop of Worcester's hypothesis, who magnified the Providence of God in this case, though he himself held to the opposite side ; yet was not this so com- pacted as, from the principles upon which they proceeded, might reasonably enough have been ex- pected."p
Some time after the delegation of Bancroft's powers to Lloyd, another step was taken for perpetuating the schism. As long as they abstained from conse- crating Bishops and ordaining Priests, the deprived Prelates could scarcely be regarded as setting up a separate communion. Measures, however, were soon taken for continuing the succession of Bishops. King James was applied to, who ordered a list of the Nonjuring Clergy to be sent to him in France. Accordingly Hickes went over to the Continent with a list of those, who were known to have declined to take the Oath. The list was not perfect, since many,
is not yet made a sufficient covering- for me in this sharp winter) here in Friesingjield, at this time indeed very hard frozen, situate within the bounds of your diocese." P Kettlewell, 137, 138.
of tlje jponjurorg. 97
who refused the Oath, did not wish to have their names mentioned. Lists were made by private persons ; but, lest they should fall into the hands of the government, they were preserved with great care and secrecy. Hickes procured as perfect a catalogue of names as possible ; and from the number the King appointed two, one to be nominated by the Arch- bishop, the other by the Bishop of Norwich. The former nominated Hickes, the latter, Wagstaffe. Hickes and WagstafFe were accordingly consecrated, the former by the title of Suffragan of Thetford, the latter as Suffragan of Ipswich. The Archbishop dying before the consecration, the solemnity was performed by Lloyd and the deprived Bishops of Peterborough and Ely on the 24th of February 1693. The consecration took place in the lodging of the Bishop of Peterborough, in Mr. Gillard's house. Henry Earl of Clarendon was present at the cere- mony. q
An account of this matter was drawn up and left in MS. by Hickes ; and it is thus alluded to by Lindsay, a Nonjuror of eminence in the last century. "I have seen an account of this affair in MS. drawn up (I suppose) by Dr. Hickes himself; out of which I shall oblige my reader with the following par- ticulars : viz. that after the deprivation of the Arch- bishop and his brethren, they immediately began to think of continuing their succession by new conse- crations, and often discoursed of it, without taking any particular resolutions, till after the consecration of the intruders (as they called them) into their sees,
i D'Oyley's Life, ii. 33, 34. Tillotson's Life, 269. Kettle- well, 134. Biog. Brit. Art. Hickes. Supp. Nichols' Lit. Anecdotes, i. 35, 36.
II
98 ^tetorp of tfje
that then the deprived Archbishop and Bishops re- solved to continue the same, and to write to the late King James about it : that in their discourses on this matter, the deprived Bishop of Ely acquainted the Archbishop and his brethren with the letters in St. John's College Library in Cambridge, which had passed upon the like occasion between Chancellor Hyde and Dr. Barwick ; that thereupon they had recourse to those letters, and resolved to impart the secret to the then Earl of Clarendon, who had been his father's secretary in that correspondence ; that from those letters, and the additional light which they received from that noble Lord, it appeared that, in that case, in regard of the difficulties of making elections, it was resolved to consecrate the new Bishops with Suffragan titles, according to the statute of King Henry VIII. That therefore the deprived Arch- bishop and Bishops resolved upon the same method in this case also, and to write to the late King James for his consent to it in the way directed by that statute ; though (it seems) they judged it a matter of so great importance as to resolve to do it even without his consent rather than not at all : that upon their application, the late King James returned his answer, that he would readily concur with it, and required them to send some person over to him, with whom he might further confer about the matter, and along with him a list of the deprived Clergy : that Dr. George Hickes being made choice of for that purpose, set forward from London May 19th, 1693, and, after many difficulties, arrived at St. Germains in about six weeks time : that there the late King James acquainted him that, for the further satisfaction of his own conscience, he had consulted the Arch- bishop of Paris, and the Bishop of Meaux, and the
of tlje $lonjuim% 99
Pope himself, who severally determined that the Church of England being established by the laws of the kingdom, he (though a Papist) was under no obligation of conscience to act against it, but obliged to maintain and defend it, as long as those laws are in force : that the late King James put their said de- terminations into the Doctor's hands : which he read and found to be to the effect aforesaid ; that the said late King James also assured him, that he had on all occasions justified the Church of England since the Revolution. That the Doctor returned to London 4th of February, 1 693, and was consecrated on the 24th." r Such is Lindsay's account of this remarkable circum stance.
The Archbishop died before these consecrations took place. On his retirement to Fresingfield he per- mitted Nonjurors only to perform divine service in his presence : and of course he did not attend the Parish Church.5 He died the 24th of November, 1693.' When he perceived his end approaching, he expressed his satisfaction at the course which he had adopted, adding, that he should pursue the same were he called again to make his decision. On the 27th of November his body was deposited in the churchyard of Fresingfield, in a spot which had been selected by himself.
In his last moments, he prayed for King James, being unable to renounce his allegiance. "I pray God Almighty for the poor and suffering Church, which is almost destroyed by this new Revolution,
r Mason's Defence by Lindsay. Preface, Ixxxiii. iv. 1728. See also Macpberson's Original Papers, i. 452 — 455.
R Letter out of Suffolk. Birch's Tillotson, 155—160. Kettle- well, 159.
* D'Oyley's Life, ii. 65.
roo Uigtorp of tlj*
and I beseech God to bless the King, Queen, and Prince, and in his due time to restore them to their just and undoubted rights."" "His virtue," says Nelson, " was uniform : for when he was in his greatest elevation he declined the commands of his lawful and rightful Prince, rather than obey him, to the preju- dice of the true religion and the established laws : yet he would not resist his Sovereign to save both, because he apprehended the laws of the land, as well as the precepts of the Gospel expressly forbid it : and chose rather the expulsion from all his honours and eccle- siastical revenues, than violate his conscience or stain the purity of those principles, which he had always maintained and defended. "w
Though he had since his retirement communicated only with Nonjurors, who did not frequent the Parish Church, yet he was resorted to by many who had taken the Oath. Some, who visited him, asked his blessing, which was always bestowed without any hesitation. He remarked, sometimes, in allusion to those who complied, that "notwithstanding he and they might go different ways, with respect to the public affairs, he trusted yet that heaven-gates would be wide enough to receive both him and them."1 Though he did not attend the Parish Church, yet the Clergyman of the Parish frequently visited the Archbishop. His opinions respecting the Parochial Assemblies, in consequence of the prayers for the new Sovereigns, were very strong. Thus it is said, that on one occasion, when his sentiments were asked, he replied, " That there ought to be an absolution at
Macpherson's Papers i, 278. Nelson's Life of Bishop Bull, 356. Kettlexvell, 159.
of tfjc ^onjucotff* 11
the end as well as at the beginning of the Prayers to absolve them from the guilt they had contracted in joining, or seeming to join in immoral and unrighte- ous petitions."7 Of Archbishop Bancroft's sincerity, integrity, and piety, no one can doubt, however we may question the prudence of some of his last acts, especially his consent to the steps, which were taken for the continuance of the succession. Though the consecration of Hickes and Wagstaffe did not take place till after his death, yet we must view the act as having received his sanction, because he had de- legated his powers to Lloyd. With his views of the Oath to the new Sovereigns, and of the deprivation of himself and his brethren, we cannot perhaps be greatly surprised at his consenting to a continuance of the succession. Still it would have been more consistent, had he followed in the steps of Ken, who took no part in the proceedings connected with the new consecrations, being content to suffer the penalties of non-compliance without any attempt to perpetuate a schism.2
We have seen, that Sancroft prayed for King James and the Prince of Wales. The Nonjurors could not join in prayers for the new Sovereigns. Kettle-
y Kettlewell, 159.
* It was said after the Archbishop's death, that he had com- municated with his Chaplains after their compliance. This how- ever, was not the fact, as is clear from The Letter out of Suffolk, Barberry's Admonition to Kennet and Marshall, and Bedford's Vindication of Sancroft. The Charge was also refuted in 1746 by the publication of the Testimony of Thomas Martyn. Martyn states that he, with other gentlemen, repaired to the Archbishop September 19, 1690 : that they told his Grace of their dissatisfaction at the alterations in the prayers. He asked each if he wanted satis- faction, and on all declaring that they did, the Archbishop said that they " ought not to go to the publick, but get what opportunity
102 ^igtorg of tlje
well had very strong feelings on this point; and Bancroft and the Bishops entertained the same. Of Kettle well it is said, he " could not by any motives be persuaded to cease praying for those persons, whom at the commencement of the Revolution he had prayed for ; and whom he firmly believed to have the same right to his prayers now as then."8 All the Non- jurors recognized James as their lawful Sovereign : and consequently they prayed for him in their as- semblies. They did not however mention his name ; but prayed for the King, the Queen, and the Prince. At all events, this was the general practice, though probably some might even introduce the King's name.
Though my sympathies are with the deprived Bishops on many points, yet I cannot refrain from ex- pressing my opinion in this place, that they were not justified in attempting to perpetuate the schism by continuing the succession. They might have re- mained quiescent, having delivered their own con- sciences by not taking the Oath. Every one must revere them for their scruples, and for their adherence to principles, which enabled them to endure suffer- ing and privation ; but I cannot think, that they were
they could otherwise." Mr. Snat promised to find out some means of affording- them the privilege of Divine worship, the Archbishop expressing his approval. It seems, that Snat began thus early to officiate privately to some of those, who scrupled to attend the Parish Churches. Previous to the Archbishop's removal from Lambeth, Martyn again resumed the question respecting the pub- lic prayers, on which occasion it was that his Grace replied, that they would need the Absolution at the end as well as at the beginning. See " A Collection of Letters concerning- the Sepa- ration of the Church of England into two Communions," pp. 45—48.
51 Kettlewell, 117.
of tfje $lcinjucor0* 103
called upon, even by their own views, to take so strong a step as that of new consecrations. They could not proceed regularly. Of this they were conscious, and therefore they resorted to the expedient of Suffragan Bishops. Besides, it is clear, that Bancroft could not delegate his powers to be exercised after his own death. Whatever may have been the effect of the Instrument, by which Lloyd was empowered to act, it certainly ceased with the life of the Archbishop. This subject, however, will necessarily come under consideration in the details of the controversy be- tween the Nonjurors and their opponents : and I introduce it here, merely for the purpose of pointing out, what I conceive to have been an error on the part of the deprived Bishops.5
From the period of the new consecrations, there- fore, the schism must be regarded as having been completed. " Thus not only a separation in the Church of England was actually formed, Dr. San- croft being at the head of one communion, and Dr. Tillotson at the head of another : but a provision was made for perpetuating the former, in case the public affairs should stand in the same posture. However, for the more easy healing of this unhappy breach, and for avoiding disputes which might other- wise arise about the temporalities annexed to the
b The leanings of the ruling powers are evident from the fol- lowing circumstance, relative to the 29th of May. " Though this day was set apart expressly for celebrating the memorable birth, returne, and restoration of the late King Charles II., there was no notice taken of it, nor any part of the office annext to the Common Prayer Book, made use of, which I think was ill don, in regard his restoration not only redemed us from anarchy and confusion, but restored the Church of England, as it were miraculously." Evelyn, vol. iii, 316. This was in 1692.
104 l^igtorp of ttje
spirituality of a Bishop, it was in favour of the Church in possession, provided, first, that none should be consecrated into any see : and secondly, that they who were consecrated should forbear to act till, upon failure of the Bishops now deprived, there would, for keeping up the succession, be a necessity for them to execute the powers committed to them, and to afford those who should adhere unto them orthodox and holy ministrations, as Mr. Kettlewell expresses it."c This writer states, that he shall not meddle with their reasons for so acting.
Their statement of their case was couched in the following terms :
" 1st. That in the year of our Lord 1688, the ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England was with the most reverend Father in God, Dr. William Bancroft : as Primate and Metropolitan of all Eng- land, and with the right reverend the Bishops (now deprived) in their dioceses, and that the acknowledged altars were with them, is agreed on both sides.
2. That since that time, several Bishops and Priests subordinate to him and them, and to whom they were bound by oaths of canonical obedience, having rejected that authority, withdrew their obedience, and set up and owned another Primate and other Bishops against those acknowledged Bishops, is matter of fact.
3. Whence a separation being made by them, and there being two parties divided, with the old metropolitan at the head of one, and the late Dean Dr. Tillotson at the head of the other : the question is with which of these the faithful are obliged to hold communion. Now if the Archbishop and the rest of the Bishops deserted any doctrines of the Church, or
<• Kettlewell, 134.
of t|)e jponfutm% 105
otherwise made themselves irregular and so deserved deprivation : or if the civil power hath authority to deprive Bishops without a Synod : and if a legal civil power hath deprived these : Then they have no longer any ecclesiastical authority over the faithful. But if on the other hand, they are deprived for main- taining the Doctrine of the Church and for adhering to their duty : if the civil power cannot but in a Synodical way deprive Bishops, or if the power which pretendeth to do it is not legal : Then the sentence of deprivation is not only unjust, but null in itself, and the authority of the Bishops is in full force as before, and the obligation to adhere to their com-
munion as strict as ever."d
This is the way in which the case was stated by the early Nonjurors. It will be seen that it is ex- pressed with great moderation : with much greater indeed than was adopted at a later period, when the controversy became warm. It does not pronounce the Bishops and Priests, who complied, heretics. Though, therefore, I consider that the Nonjurors were in error in continuing the Schism, by providing for the succession, yet I must allow, that there was a strong colour for their proceedings, and that the great fault was with King William's government, in proceeding to deprive the Bishops and Clergy, who were so con- scientious as to scruple the Oath. The mischief would have been avoided, if the Bishops and Clergy had been permitted to remain in possession of their preferments. It would have been wise in the rulers to have acted, as in an ordinary case of the ac- cession of a new Sovereign. Ecclesiastical persons are not required in such a case to take the Oath
d Kcttlowell, 135.
106 %'0torp of tlje
afresh, unless on a new appointment. Had King Wil- liam's government acted on this principle, no schism would have taken place in the Anglican Church : and surely such an indulgence was due to a body of conscientious men. The difficulties, with which they had to cope respecting the Oaths, were of no ordi- nary character. No person, who understands the question, will load their memory with reproach on that head. No doubt the Bishops and Clergy, who complied, were conscientious men, and acted on prin- ciple : but it would be uncharitable to condemn those who refused. The difficulties were of such a charac- ter, as to make us very cautious in pronouncing an opinion against such a body as the Bishops and Clergy, who submitted to deprivation rather than go against their conscience. These remarks apply espe- cially to the first race of Nonjurors, who were not responsible for the proceedings of those who suc- ceeded them, and whose case will be considered in the course of our narrative.
The perpetuation of the schism by the new conse- crations, however, was not approved of by all the Non- jurors : so that even at this early period the house was divided against itself. The deprived Bishops had no sphere in which to exercise their functions. A lay power, even an unlawful power, may deprive a Bishop of his jurisdiction. I mean that when a Bishop is forcibly removed from his sphere, by the civil power, he cannot continue to exercise his authority. We need not discuss the question respecting the legality of the government of King William. All persons are satisfied with our present constitution : and though there were many acts, of which we may disapprove, yet no one will call the legality of the government of that
of tlje ^onjucoi% 10?
day in question. But it is quite sufficient for my pur- pose to assume, that when a Bishop is removed, even forcibly and illegally, it becomes a question how far he can act ; or whether he must not submit to the trial until the Providence of God sees fit to make his way clear. Bishops from another Church are true Bishops in England ; but they cannot exercise their functions in this country without permission. And this, I conceive, was precisely the position of the deprived Bishops. This view, moreover, was adopted by many Nonjurors, as will be seen in another chapter. The principle on which they acted, in continuing the succession, does not admit of the same justification as their refusal to take the Oaths.
I have already alluded to the number of the Clergy who submitted to deprivation. Remarks were made at the time on the comparative smallness of the num- ber ; but I confess that my surprise is, that there were so many. When we remember how easy it is to go with the stream : when we recollect, that many com- plied with the existing authorities without inquiry, and that many more entertained scruples, though they did not separate from the Church, we cannot but be surprised that so large a number as/owr hun- dred should have refused the Oath. Thankful too should we be, that the consequences of the schism were not more disastrous : especially as we know, that if the government had forborne to press the Oath, all would have continued in their posts as quiet and peaceable subjects of the new Sovereigns, though they could not recognize their authority by an Oath.
The Bishops and other dignitaries, who refused to comply, were very cautious in giving their opinion respecting the Oath before the period fixed by the
108 Djigtorp of tfje
Act for their deprivation : and therefore many who took it, did so, because they conceived, that their ecclesiastical superiors, by their silence, sanctioned them in such a course. " Hence it came to pass, that some who took the Oath were willing to lay the occasion thereof upon the very Bishops whom they departed from in so doing.'" The Bishops did not influence the Clergy: they did not express their opinions publicly on the proceedings of the government : and consequently some, who complied, were disposed to attribute their compliance to the Bishops themselves. But on the other hand it may be remarked, that the views of the Bishops were generally known. They had several meetings at Lambeth : and some of the Clergy did actually apply to them for their advice and assistance, which were never refused.
Alluding to the argument derived from the com- paratively small number of the Nonjurors, Leslie somewhat coarsely remarks : " This is the common topic, and runs through them all, and yet there is not one of them but knows full well that this means nothing at all, that truth was never tried by rolling and telling of noses : that numbers were never any evidence of a good cause. At this rate the Alcoran will vie with the Gospel, and Turcism will be not only better than Popery, but even than Christianity itself. This therefore is nothing else but cheating and deluding the people, instead of informing and instructing them. And they are hard put to it sure, when to save their own credit, and to blast others, they are forced so frequently to inculcate such an argument, which they themselves in their own con-
e Kettle well, 108.
of tlje ^onjuror^. 1C9
sciences (if they have any) know to be none at all."d
At all events, no one can deny, that their sincerity was put to a very severe test. By complying, the Archbishop, Bishops and Clergy might have retained their posts : the Bishops would have ended their days in affluence and surrounded with worldly honours : and the Clergy would have lived in comfort and in most cases in plenty. But by adopting the opposite course, they spent the remainder of their days in poverty and seclusion. There was no worldly in- ducement to such a course. It is not in human nature to choose poverty for its own sake. Some strong principle must have influenced them in their decision, and supported them in their subsequent course. In short they were moved by their own consciences : and it is not uncharitable to assert, that few of the complying Bishops were actuated by so strong a principle as the despised Nonjurors. Nor were they encouraged by King James. On the contrary they met with great discouragement.
James's infatuation with respect to Popery was so great, that he usually endeavoured to induce those