7 
 
 0i  ft*  j, 
 
 ~  PRINCETON,   N.  J. 
 
 BX  5087   .L3  1845 
 Lathbury,  Thomas,  1798-1865 
 A  history  of  the  Nonjurors  ' 
 
Digitized  by 
 
 the  Internet  Archive 
 
 in  2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/historyofnonjuroOOIath 
 
A 
 
 Htstor|>  of  tjje  Jtonjurors: 
 
 THEIR  CONTROVERSIES  AND  WRITINGS; 
 WITH  REMARKS  ON  SOME  OF  THE  RUBRICS 
 IN  THE  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER. 
 
 BY 
 
 THOMAS^LATHBURY,  M  A. 
 
 A  l'THOR  OF  "  A  HISTORY  OK  THS  CONVOCATION,"  "  A  HISTORY 
 OP  THE  ENOI.ISH  EPISCOPACY  FROM  16-40 
 TO  1662,"  ETC.  ETC. 
 
 LONDON 
 WILLIAM  PICKERING 
 
 1845 
 
WHITTISGHAM,  TOOKES  COUNT, 
 CHANCERY  LANE. 
 
TO 
 
 THE  HOST  REVEREND  FATHER  IN  GOD, 
 
 William,  &otD  arcfctnsfjop  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. 
 
CYT)  CYS  GYS  oYS  CY?  GYO  <TY3  GYS  (T¥7)  dY5  GYt)  (TYO  GYD  GYS 
 
 w'VV*   ^*o^    ./tv^    ^/fc^    ..v^    ^/Of^    .."iX,    »^0\,    ^u  StAi    *Ar*    «AA*  vV^ 
 
 *^"*  ^   r\A^»    %cy*    *\jy>    'Vflf*   %Qs^    "w*  ^lA^* 
 
 CAT  CAD  <IAI>  CaD  CAD  qXd  CAS  CAD  2AD  QA2  CAD  CAD  CAD  CAD  GAD 
 
 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 
 
viii  preface, 
 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  imag-ine  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 
 
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.  Dodwell's  Letter  to  Tillotson.  Beve- 
 ridge  and  others  refuse  to  accept  the  Vacant  Sees. 
 Kidder's  Scruples.  Still ingfleet's  Letter.  Forgery  by 
 Young  and  Blackhead.  The  Deprived  Bishops  separate 
 from  the  Church.  Sancroft  delegates  his  Powers  to 
 Lloyd.  Hickes  and  Wagstaffe  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 
 
Contents. 
 
 Page 
 
 Chapter  IV. 
 
 Controversies.  Collier.  Controversy  respecting  the 
 Oath.  Sherlock.  Some  Compilers  retract.  Contro- 
 versy respecting  the  Deprivations.  Stillingrleet.  Gras- 
 come.  Williams.  Sharpe.  Hickes.  Hill's  Soloman 
 and  Abiathar.  Answered  by  Grascome.  The  earlier 
 Writings  of  some  of  the  Compilers  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. 
 KettlewelPs  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  Fenwick.  Death  of  Bishop  White. 
 The  Succession  to  the  Throne.  Dodwell  and  Hody. 
 Death  of  Bishop  Turner.  Death  of  King  James.  Oath 
 of  Abjuration.     Death  of  King  William   1.53 
 
 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.  Dodwell,  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 
 
Content**. 
 
 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.  Granie'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  XI. 
 
 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 
 
i^t^torp  of  tl)e  Jl5onjuror0* 
 
 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  he  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. 
 
 B 
 
2  l£t0rorp  of  ttjc  i^onfurocss. 
 
 Whatever  we  may  think  of  their  views,  we  cannot 
 deny,  that  they  suffered  much  for  conscience'  sake, 
 and  that  they  generally  suffered  with  meekness  and 
 in  silence,  not  parading  their  wrongs,  whether  real 
 or  imaginary,  before  the  public,  as  was  the  case  with 
 the  Nonconformists  subsequent  to  the  year  1662. 
 
 Much  misapprehension  exists,  even  at  present,  re- 
 specting the  character  and  conduct  of  the  Nonjurors. 
 By  some  persons  they  are  regarded  as  Romanists : 
 by  others  as  enemies  to  their  country.  It  will  be  my 
 aim  to  give  an  impartial  account  of  their  principles, 
 as  well  as  of  their  proceedings.  At  the  present  time 
 we  may  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  subject 
 with  calmness.  We  may  form  a  dispassionate  judg- 
 ment of  their  case,  and  of  the  difficulties,  in  which 
 they  were  involved.  It  has  been  the  custom  to  speak 
 of  them  as  a  set  of  unreasonable  men  :  and  should  I 
 succeed,  in  any  measure,  in  correcting  these  erro- 
 neous impressions,  I  shall  feel,  that  my  labour  has 
 not  been  in  vain. 
 
 As  churchmen,  indeed,  we  must  regret,  that  the 
 Nonjurors  did  not  co-operate  with  the  great  mass  of 
 the  Clergy  :  yet  still  we  must  reverence  them  as 
 men  acting  conscientiously,  and  suffering  much  in 
 the  cause,  which  they  espoused.  The  first  race  of 
 Nonjurors  quitted  their  preferments,  and  ended  their 
 days  in  obscurity  :  while  those,  who  succeeded  them, 
 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 
 
^isStorp  of  tlje  iJ5onfttroref.  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  ^(tftorp  of  rfje  i(5onjurorjJ. 
 
 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  theClergy  against  theChurch 
 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 
 qusedam  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  Typography  m.d.c.lxxxvi." 
 
$fift»cg  of  tfje  iiJoniucocjs.  5 
 
 read  in  all  the  churches  in  their  respective  dioceses.0 
 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  first 
 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  ^i0tocp  of  ttje  iRonjuroc0. 
 
 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.  Sancroft  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."  Dairy mple  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,  111.  154. 
 
li^sftorp  of  tfje  iponjurora.  7 
 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.d  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."'  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  Sancroft,  i.  257-270.  Macpherson,  i.  448-9. 
 Somerville,  162,  165,  166.  Kennet,  Hi.  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. 
 
 '  Baker's  Life,  pp.  5-6. 
 
8  l^itftoup  of  rtje  jponjurorg. 
 
 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." h  These  Addresses  encouraged  the  King  in 
 his  course  ;  for  he  never  conceived  it  possible,  that 
 he  should  be  defeated  by  the  Church.    The  Dis- 
 
 c  Mackintosh,  252. 
 
 h  Biog.  Brit.  Art.  Alsop.  Kettlewell's  Life  and  Works,  p.  61. 
 In  others,  the  expression  "  our  brethren  the  Roman  Catholics  " 
 occurred.    Swift's  Works,  fecott's  Ed.  viii.  399. 
 
^(sstorp  ot  tlje  i^onjucocsf.  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." 1  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.""1  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  Macplierson,  i.  43'2.  Calamy,  i.  380.  Hallam,  iii.  91. 
 Rapin,  ii.  758. 
 
 1  Hallam,  Const.  Hist.  iii.  101. 
 Swift's  Works,  viii.  401. 
 
io  ^tftorp  of  tlje  ilJonj'urorsi. 
 
 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." p 
 
 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." 
 Bennct's  Memorial,  328. 
 
 0  Swift's  Works,  viii.  259.  P  Ibid.  351. 
 
^tgtorp  of  ttje  jponfucorjs.  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  l$i'0torp  of  tljc  ^onjutortf. 
 
 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."8 
 
 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  Kettleuell's  Life,  59,  60.  1  Ibid.  62,  63. 
 
i£i'0torp  of  tlje  jponjurow.  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." 
 
 u  Salmon's  Examination  of  Burnet,  ii.  1024. 
 ■  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  ^i0tocp  of  t!jc  jponjuron*. 
 
 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. z  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  C  hurch  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." 
 Gibson's  Preservative,  Folio,  3  Volumes. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  jponjurortf.  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 
 
 *  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  :  "  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  \l3icftorp  of  ttjc  iponfurord. 
 
 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. d 
 
 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. 
 
 d  Kettlevvell's  Life,  59. 
 
i£i'53torp  of  tlje  iponjucorsf.  1/ 
 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 
 
 c 
 
18  1£i0torp  of  ttje  iponj'urorg. 
 
 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  U- 
 
 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. 
 
^t'sJtocp  of  tlje  4fronjuroi%  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." g  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."'1  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, 
 
 «  Macpherson,  i.  4.58.  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  Collee.  i.  445. 
 
20  ^isstorp  of  ttje  iponjttrorg. 
 
 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  tJiird,  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  Kino-  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- 
 
^ttftorp  of  tljc  iI5onjuror0.  21 
 
 lieved  that  it  would  8erve  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.' 
 
 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  %'0torp  of  tljc  412  o  mucous*, 
 
 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. 
 
Ikisftorp  of  tljc  &m\uvQt&  23 
 
 and  Scott  himself  mentions  facts  which  are  opposed 
 to  the  previous  statement.  "The  Whigs  were  wil- 
 ling to  seize  liberty  under  a  new  leader ;  and  the 
 Tories  deemed  it  not  incompatible  with  their  prin- 
 ciples of  obedience  to  receive  it  from  the  hands  of  a 
 Prince,  whose  consort  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
 a  right  to  their  future  allegiance.  In  one  thing  only 
 the  Tories  and  Whigs  differed  :  the  Tories  intended 
 no  more  by  asking  the  protection  of  the  Prince  of 
 Orange,  than  to  procure  a  great  parliamentary  settle- 
 ment for  the  security  of  the  national  religion  and 
 laws  :  but  the  Whigs,  concealing  their  intentions  in 
 public,  animated  each  other  thus  in  private.""  Dal- 
 rymple  observes,  that  the  Whigs  were  of  opinion, 
 that  they  could  compel  the  King  to  descend  from  the 
 throne  by  the  voice  of  the  people.  The  duplicity  of 
 the  Whigs  will  be  manifest  from  other  proceedings, 
 which  will  be  detailed  in  the  progress  of  this  work. 
 On  all  occasions  they  appear  to  have  consulted  their 
 own  interests  rather  than  their  country's  welfare. 
 
 To  illustrate  the  motives  by  which  the  various 
 parties  of  that  period  were  influenced,  and  to  show 
 that  a  combination  of  circumstances  contributed  to 
 the  completion  of  the  Revolution,  I  may  refer  to  the 
 state  of  things  on  the  Continent.  It  is  a  fact,  that 
 the  Pope  himself  contributed  money  towards  the 
 expense  of  Williams  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 
 
 n  Dalrymple,  i.  204-5. 
 
24  l£i£Jtory  of  t!je  iftonjurortf. 
 
 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. 
 
 °  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 
 Fiance,  and  the  share  he  had  in  setting  the  Prince  of  Orange  on 
 the  throne  of  England."    Ibid.  ii.  164. 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  iftonjucottf.  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/    From  this  statement,  the  truth  of  which 
 
 q  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  together, 
 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. 
 
 '  Macpherson's  Papers,  i.  299,  300. 
 
26  ^t'gtorp  of  ttjc  ifrortjucottf. 
 
 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."  1 
 
 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. 
 1  Life  of  Bolingbroke,  68,  69. 
 
^isftorp  of  tlje  jponjurotg.  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."  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  Sancroft '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. 
 
 "  Kennet,  iii.  .500.  Echard's  Revolution,  '214.  Salmon's  His- 
 tory, 382-3. 
 
28  %'0torp  of  tlje  ^onjucocg*. 
 
 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. 
 
l£i'0torp  of  tlje  jfroniurorj*.  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." x  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.  *  Life  of  Ormonde,  209. 
 
30  l£t0torp  of  tfje  ifronjucorg. 
 
 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/ 
 
 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."13  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. 
 
 ■  Macpherson,  i.  507.  b  Salmon,  i.  252. 
 
Visitor?  of  ttje  iponi'ucow.  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/  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  feigtocp  of  rtie  jRonjttrors. 
 
 such  an  impression,  in  order  that  he  might  be  induced 
 to  quit  the  country.  It  appears  that  an  intimation 
 was  made  to  the  Kino-,  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.'"' 
 
 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.'1  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. k 
 
 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 
 
 e  Reiesby,  383.  h  James's  Memoirs,  ii,  267. 
 
 '  Salmon  on  Burnet,  ii,  1026. 
 w  Salmon  on  Burnet,  ii,  1068. 
 
l^igtorp  of  tlje  iPonjurorg.  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  fetetorp  of  rtje  jportjurors. 
 
 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  anniversarv 
 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."™ 
 
 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,  232-36.  Macpherson,  i,  .503— 506.  508— 5 1 2.  Ken- 
 net,  507 — 14.  Tindal's  Introduction,  xxiv — vii.  Sherlock's  Let- 
 ter in  State  Tracts.  D'Oyley's  Sancroft,  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. 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  i|5onjurot%  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 
 his  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  ^igtorp  of  tfje  iponjurors. 
 
 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 
 
%0torp  of  tfje  ^onjurottf.  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."  " 
 
 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  l$i0torp  ot  ttjc  ifronjucoug. 
 
 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."0 
 
 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 
 
 8  "  Whether  the  Preserving  the  Protestant  Religion,"  &c.  pp. 
 40,  41.  P  Dalrymple,  i.  214. 
 
^tftocp  of  ttje  jponjucors.  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 
 
 q  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. 
 
 ■  Life  of  Ormonde,  210.  Ralph  was  severe  upon  the  Duchess 
 of  Marlborough  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  ^i0tocp  of  tlje  jl&onj'urow. 
 
 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."'   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. 
 
 1  Ibid.  319. 
 
^igtorp  of  ttje  jponjucottf.  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  following1  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. 
 
 *  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  tfie  Prince  of  Orange,  from  what  motive  soever, 
 
42  teidtorp  of  ttje  jftonjtirorg. 
 
 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." 7  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. 
 
 r  Whether  the  Preserving  the  Protestant  Religion,  &c.  p.  31. 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  ilJonjucorgf.  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." "  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." b  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. 
 
 z  Evelyn,  iii.  268,  269.  »  Ibid.  279. 
 
 b  Reresby,  405. 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 TheOath  of  Allegiance. — Arguments  respecting  it.— Death 
 of  Bishop  Lake. — His  Confession. —  Death  of  Bishop 
 Thomas. — Various  Views  of  the  Oath. — Kettlewell. — 
 Difficulties  of  the  Case  — Latitudinarian  Principles  of 
 the  Time. — Sancroft'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. 
 
 SHE  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- 
 
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  Sancroft,  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  the  first  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  first  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  tfje  Nonjurors. 
 
 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, 
 1 689,  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."1  He  proceeds  to  enumerate 
 the  arguments  which  appeared  to  him  to  be  satisfac- 
 tory :  yet  it  is  clear,  that  he  had  considerable  scruples 
 
 Nicolson's  Epistolary  Correspondence,  i.  7,  8. 
 
im-stor?  of  tfje  Nonjurors*.  47 
 
 on  the  subject.  At  a  later  period,  indeed,  when 
 Bishop  of  Carlisle,  he  expresses  himself  satisfied  on 
 the  following  ground.  "  Whenever  a  Sovereign  Dc 
 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.'' b 
 
 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  ^fttorp  of  ttje  iPonj'urottf. 
 
 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/ 
 
 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. 
 
^tetorp  of  tlje  ilJonj'ucocjs*  49 
 
 management  of  an  affair,  as  honourable,  perhaps,  as 
 any  thing  that  has  been  done  in  any  age.,,d 
 
 This  estimable  man  was  one  of  the  seven  Prelates, 
 who  had  incurred  the  wrath  of  King  James,  by  ven- 
 turing to  refuse  to  read  his  Majesty's  Declaration. 
 The  writer  of  the  account  remarks,  "He  had  after- 
 wards a  very  worthy  part  in  those  applications  the 
 Bishops  made  to  his  Majesty  a  little  before  the  Revo- 
 lution, when  they  interposed  themselves  as  it  were 
 between  the  King  and  his  people."6  The  writer  ex- 
 presses his  wonder  at  the  anger  evinced  by  some  per- 
 sons towards  the  Bishop,  for  not  taking  the  Oath,  as 
 if  his  zeal  for  the  Church  had  become  cold.  "  He 
 considered  that  the  day  of  death  and  of  judgment,  are 
 as  certain  as  the  1st  of  August  and  the  1st  of  February, 
 and  acted  accordingly."'  It  will  be  remembered  that 
 these  days  were  fixed  by  the  Act :  the  former  for  sus- 
 pension, the  latter  for  deprivation  in  all  cases,  in 
 which  the  Oath  should  not  be  taken.  On  the  27th 
 of  August  he  dictated  the  following  profession,  being 
 then  very  ill  : 
 
 "  Being  called  by  a  sick  and  I  think  a  dying  bed, 
 and  the  good  hand  of  God  upon  me  in  it,  to  take  the 
 last  and  best  viaticum,  the  sacrament  of  my  dear 
 Lord's  body  and  blood,  I  take  myself  obliged  to  make 
 this  short  recognition  and  profession. 
 
 "That  whereas  I  was  baptized  into  the  religion  of 
 the  Church  of  England,  and  sucked  it  in  with  my 
 milk,  I  have  constantly  adhered  to  it  through  the 
 
 d  A  Defence  of  the  Profession  which  the  Right  Reverend  Father 
 in  God  John,  late  Lord  Bishop  of  Chichester,  made  upon  his  death- 
 bed :  concerning  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.  '  Ibid.  p.  9. 
 
50  ^istorp  of  tljc  i^onj'urorg. 
 
 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."8 
 
 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- 
 
 s  Defence,  &c.  pp.  10,  11.     Kettlewell's  Life,  87,  88. 
 
l£i'0torp  of  tlje  iponjucovsf,  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 
 t^ather  than  take  this  Oath." 1 
 
 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  l^sstorp  of  tlje  Son  juror*. 
 
 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 
 
 Defence,  &c.  64. 
 
 v  Kettlewell's  Life,  85. 
 
^i'0torp  of  tlje  il5on)ucoc0.  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. 1 
 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  lxxxiii. 
 
54  ^I'sftoi'p  of  ttje  i£onjuroi#. 
 
 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- 
 
 Kettlewell'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. 
 
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  higlicst  sense,  though  they  re- 
 nounced it  (at  present)  in  their  words.'"1 
 
 It  must  be  admitted,  that  latitudinarian  notions  on 
 the  question  of  the  Oath  prevailed  to  a  considerable 
 extent  among  the  complying  clergy,  and  even  among 
 
 Whiston's  Memoirs,  30.  p  Kettlewell,  81,  82. 
 
 'i  Ibid.  84. 
 
56  ^tetorp  of  ttje  i^onjurorsf. 
 
 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  morediffi- 
 
 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. 
 
^isftorj)  of  ttje  i|2onjuror&  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  l^i0torp  of  tlje  iftonjurortf. 
 
 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."8  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. 
 
 I  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. 
 
 II  Marshall's  Defence,  156. 
 
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  Sancroft 
 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  Sancroft :  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  Sancroft  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, 
 
co  l^tgftocp  of  tlje  /12onjuroi% 
 
 "  A  Form  of  Prayer  and  Humiliation  for  Gods 
 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 
 
 r  Tl:e  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. 
 
^tetorj?  of  tlje  ijiomucoc^.  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  Archbishops  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. 
 
 1  Birch,  154,  155.  Stillingfleet's  Misc.  Discourses,  234—42. 
 
62  l&tetoi'g  of  tlje  iponfutorsf. 
 
 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  I  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 
 
^i'0tocp  of  ri)e  ilJoni'urorjJ.  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  Milbourne's  Legacy,  8vo.  Vol.  ii.  341,  342,  345. 
 
64  ^i'0tocp  of  tlje  il2onjutm% 
 
 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. 
 
^tjitocp  of  tlje  i]5oniuuoi%  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 
 
 "  Kennet,  iii.  518. 
 F 
 
66  l£i0torp  of  tlje  iponjurottf. 
 
 removal  of  their  Sovereign.  Sancroft  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. 
 
^igftorp  of  tlje  ^onjurorg.  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." 0  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 
 
 r  Kettlewell's  Life,  1 13. 
 
 Noble,  i.  87. 
 
08  ^igtorp  of  tljc  ij^onjucocef. 
 
 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 
 II.  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- 
 
^igjtorp  of  tfje  4£oniuroi%  69 
 clared  till  the  12th  of  February  following,  as  ever 
 sat  upon  the  throne."6 
 
 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  :  "  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  l£f0torp  of  ttje  i^onjucoi'0. 
 
 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." f 
 
 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 
 
 1  Evelyn,  iii.  281. 
 
^ijstorp  of  tfje  0onjucou0.  71 
 
 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." 11  He  was  a  thorough  partizan,  and  a  scheming 
 politician.1  Appointed  as  he  was  to  the  See  of  Salis- 
 
 s  Somers' Tracts,  xiv.  260,  261 .  Calamy's  Life,  Notes,!.  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  l£i0tocp  of  tfjc  &oniu  con*. 
 
 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. 
 
^itftorp  of  tlje  jponfurortf.  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,  At  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." k 
 
 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,  "  Ki)ig  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  l^(0torp  of  ttje  iJioniuroc^* 
 
 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  Authors  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  Marys  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? " 
 
 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  ttie  $onfttm&  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."  m 
 
 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  glasse8 
 of  the  coach  that  immediately  followed  it."  Gent's  Mag.  1788> 
 Vol.  lviii.  952.  From  a  Letter  containing  an  extract  from  a  news- 
 paper of  the  period. 
 
76  %'0tocp  of  tljc  jRonjurorgf. 
 
 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 
 
%i0torp  of  tfce  ifronj'urortf.  77 
 
 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 
 Cations  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  Sancroft : 
 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." 
 
 Sancroft  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 
 
7^  l^tgtorp  of  ttje  j£onjurors5. 
 
 has  since  been  traduced  by  party  writers,  as  a  Papist 
 and  a  bigot. n 
 
 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."15  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, 
 
 n  See  the  Articles  printed  at  the  time. 
 
 0  Ralph,  ii.  255,  where  the  correspondence  is  printed. 
 
 P  Wood's  Athenee. 
 
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  Sancroft  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. 
 
80  %i0torp  of  tljc  jfronjurorg. 
 
 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  Ashton  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. 
 
feisftorp  of  ttje  jponfuvoitf.  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 
 
82  Iktgtorp  of  tlje  i^onjucocjS. 
 
 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. 
 
'  *AF*  «/cPV*  Jv^»  i/tfK,  ^af^  «/^V*  v^ffV*  t/QTU  wtt«  «/CPV>  JvVj 
 
 i  *^JV*  "ui^  %oy*        r\JV*  r\£f  "vv  *w*        r\^~  *\^* 
 
 CHAPTER  III. 
 
 A.  D.  1690—1694. 
 
 The  Deprivations. — Numbers. — Sancroft'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. 
 
 HE  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  first  of  August  1690  to  the  first  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  the first  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  $H0ton?  of  tlje  &on)uwv&. 
 
 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  the Jirst  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  the  jirst  of  February  1690-91  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 
 hundred  of  the  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 
 Kettlewell.    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- 
 
II?  igtorp  of  tlje  j^onjucoctf. 
 
 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.3 
 
 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.  Sancroft,  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 
 
 "  Kettlewell,  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  Kettlewell.  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  ^igtorp  of  tte  ^onjuror^. 
 
 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. b 
 
 h  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 . 
 
^tgtorp  of  tlje  iponjurortf.  87 
 
 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  169 l.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. 
 
 rt  Birch,  268,  269. 
 
88  of  ttje  jfrortjurottf, 
 
 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.  Jn  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  Sancroft  on  the  subject.  Evelyn  informs 
 us  that  Sancroft  told  him:  "  That  Dr.  Beveridge  came  to  ask  his 
 advice:  that  the  Archbishop  told  him,  though  he  should  give  it, 
 he  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. 
 
^tgftorp  of  tfje  iponjurorsf.  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.6  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. 
 
 *  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  i^iotorp  of  rtje  jSonjurors. 
 
 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- 
 rleet  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 
 
^tgtorp  of  tlje  i^onjucocjj.  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.*1 
 
 Some  time  after  the  deprivation  of  the  Bishops, 
 
 b  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- 
 
92  ^tetorp  of  ttje  iflonjucottf. 
 
 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  Leyden  that  year  :  "  There  is  a  jealousy  of  Dr.  Stillingfleet 
 turning  Papist."    Marchmont  Papers,  iii.  72. 
 1  Bishop  of  Rochester's  Account. 
 
of  tfje  iponiurorgL  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,  thej^  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."1 
 
 k  Kettlewell's  Life,  138. 
 
 m  Kettlewell,  139,  140. 
 
 1  Ibid. 
 
94  feigtorp  of  ttje  jponjttrors. 
 
 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 
 
 ■  D'Oyley,  ii.  39. 
 
%'eitorp  of  ttje  ilionjucoos.  95 
 
 that  grand  theatre  of  business :  to  you  my  well-beloved 
 brother,  who,  out  of  that  fortitude  of  mind,  where- 
 with you  excell,  and  that  pious  zeal  for  the  house  of 
 God  wherewith  you  are  fired,  do  yet  continue,  and 
 remain  fixed  in  the  suburbs  of  London,  while  the  rest 
 of  us  are  every  where  wandering  about :  (so  that  I 
 have  not  any  one  there  who  is  so  much  one  soul  with 
 me,  or  who  hath  such  a  natural  concern  as  yourself 
 for  the  Churches  affairs  and  mine)  :  yea  to  you,  I  say, 
 do  I  commit  in  the  Lord,  as  confiding  in  you,  and  in 
 your  wonted  dexterity  for  business,  all  whatever  be- 
 longeth  to  my  place,  and  to  the  pontifical  (or  archi- 
 episcopal)  office,  for  the  treating,  consulting,  and 
 finally  dispatching  all  those  matters  which  thereunto 
 do  appertain  :  and  by  virtue  of  these  presents,  I  do 
 choose,  make,  and  constitute  you  my  Vicar  for  all 
 that  which  is  aforesaid,  my  agent  of  all  things,  and 
 matters  to  me  relating,  Factor  and  Proxy-General,  or 
 Nuncio." 
 
 Afterwards  he  adds,  "  Whomsoever  you,  my 
 brother,  as  occasion  may  require,  shall  think  fit  to 
 assume  and  adjoin  to  yourself,  whomsoever  you  shall 
 elect  and  approve,  confirm  and  constitute,  I  also  as 
 much  as  in  me,  and  as  I  rightfully  can,  do  in  like 
 manner  assume  and  adjoin,  elect  and  approve,  con- 
 firm and  constitute.  In  a  word,  whatsoever  you  shall 
 of  yourself  do,  or  order  to  be  done,  in  affairs  of  this 
 kind,  all  that  how  great  soever,  or  of  what  sort  soever 
 it  be,  boldly  impute  it  to  me  :  Lo  I,  William,  have 
 written  it  with  mine  own  hand,  and  will  stand  by 
 it."° 
 
 "  Kettlewell,  136,  137.  A  Collection  of  Letters  concerning-  the 
 separation  of  the  Church  of  England  into  two  communions.  174G. 
 p.  49 — 53.  The  close  of  this  document,  dated  February  the  9th 
 1691,  is  really  touching-:    "  Dated  from  my  poor  cottage  (which 
 
96  teigtorp  of  ttje  iftonfurorg. 
 
 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."1' 
 
 Some  time  after  the  delegation  of  Sancroft'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. 
 
^igtotrp  of  the  iJ2onjuroi#.  &7 
 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  (f  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. 
 
 H 
 
98  l&tjstorp  ot  tl)c  j£cmjiiroi% 
 
 that  then  the  deprived  Archbishop  and  Bishops  re- 
 solved to  continue  the  same,  and  to  write  to  the  late 
 Kino-  James  about  it :  that  in  their  discourses  on  this 
 matter,  the  deprived  Bishop  of  Ely  acquainted  the 
 Arc!) bishop  and  his  brethren  with  the  letters  in  St. 
 John's  College  Library  in  Cambridge,  which  had 
 passed  upon  the  like  occasion  between  Chancellor 
 ttyde  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  VII L  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 
 
^i0tocp  of  tfce  jponjucocg.  09 
 
 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.'  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  Macpherson's  Original  Papers,  i.  452 — 455. 
 
 s  Letter  out  of  Suffolk.  Birch's  Tillotson,  155—160.  Kettle- 
 well,  159. 
 
 «  D'Oyley's  Life,  ii.  65. 
 
loo  H?t0torp  of  ttje  iponfurovsf. 
 
 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." u  "His  virtue,"  says 
 Nelson,  "  was  uniform  :  forwhen  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."* 
 
 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."* 
 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 
 
 u  Macpherson's  Papers  i,  278. 
 
 w  Nelson's  Life  of  Bishop  Bull,  356. 
 
 1  Kettlewell,  159. 
 
U?isftorg  of  rtje  0tmiusat9*  101 
 
 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  Sancroft'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. 
 
 z  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, 
 Earberry'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  theirdissatisfaction 
 at  the  alterations  in  the  prayers.  lie  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  i^tetorp  of  t|jc  jflonjurortf. 
 
 well  had  very  strong  feelings  on  this  point ;  and 
 Sancroft  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."  a  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.  Thev  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. 
 
 *  Kettlewell,  117. 
 
$t'0torp  of  ttjc  ^onj'utm%  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  Sancroft  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.b 
 
 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  t^itftorp  of  tijc  jftortjuroitf. 
 
 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  1G88,  the 
 ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  Church  of  England  was 
 with  the  most  reverend  Father  in  God,  Dr.  William 
 Sancroft :  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. 
 
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 
 
 H  Kettloivell,  135. 
 
106  %i0torp  of  tfje  jponjucorsf. 
 
 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 
 
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  four  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  ^itfrorp  of  tfje  |tonfum& 
 
 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."0  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- 
 
 c  Kettlewell,  108. 
 
%'sstocj?  of  rlje  iponjuiw.  109 
 
 sciences  (if  they  have  any)  know  to  be  none  at 
 all.Md 
 
 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  the}'  were  moved  by  their  own  consciences  : 
 and  it  is  not  uncharitable  to  assert,  that  few  of  the 
 complying  Bishops  were  actuated  by  so  strong  a 
 principle  as  the  despised  Nonjurors.  Nor  were  they 
 encouraged  by  King  James.  On  the  contrary  they  met 
 with  great  discouragement. 
 
 James's  infatuation  with  respect  to  Popery  was  so 
 great,  that  he  usually  endeavoured  to  induce  those 
 Nonjuring  divines,  who  visited  him  in  France,  to  join 
 the  Church  of  Rome.  These  attempts  were  known 
 and  could  not  fail  to  cause  any,  who  might  be  wavering 
 in  their  opinions,  to  adhere  to  the  new  government, 
 despairing  of  the  safety  of  the  Church  of  England 
 under  King  James.  Thus,  when  the  Protestant 
 members  of  his  court  at  St.  Germains  requested  per- 
 mission for  a  chapel,  in  which  the  service  of  the 
 
 d  Remarks  on  some  late  Sermons :  and  in  particular  on  Dr. 
 Sherlock's  Sermon  at  the  Temple,  Dec.  30th,  1694.  In  a  Letter 
 to  a  Friend,  p.  1 1. 
 
no  1i?i0torp  of  tlje  iponjurotsf. 
 
 Church  of  England  might  be  conducted,  the  King- 
 again  consulted  the  Jesuits,  and  refused  the  request. 
 Dr.  Granville,  who  had  quitted  the  Deanery  of 
 Durham,  was  even  obliged  to  leave  St.  Germains,  in 
 consequence  of  the  insults  to  which  he  was  sub- 
 jected. e  None  of  his  Protestant  followers  were 
 trusted.  Colonel  Cannan  refusing  to  join  the  Church 
 of  Rome  was  reduced  to  a  very  small  allowance. 
 Being  sick,  he  received  the  Sacrament  of  Dr.  Gran- 
 ville, but  some  priests  actually  thrust  a  wafer  down 
 his  throat  after  he  became  insensible,  and  published 
 that  he  died  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome.f  It 
 seems  that  the  priests,  and  no  doubt  the  King  ap- 
 proved, endeavoured  to  bring  over  every  Protestant 
 to  their  own  Church. g 
 
 The  new  government,  as  it  appears  to  me,  acted 
 in  some  cases  with  unnecessary  severity  against 
 those,  who  were  suspected  of  favouring  King  James. 
 Generally  the  Nonjurors  remained  quiet,  though  of 
 course  their  affections  were  with  the  exiled  monarch. 
 There  were,  however,  exceptions ;  but  the  evidence 
 in  some  cases  would  not  in  our  day  be  sufficient  for 
 conviction  of  a  crime,  to  which  the  forfeiture  of  life 
 is  attached.  Mr.  Ashton's  case  was  alluded  to  in 
 the  previous  chapter  :  and  it  appears  to  me  that  Mr. 
 Anderton,  who  was  arraigned  in  June  1693,  was 
 convicted  on  evidence,  which,  in  the  present  day, 
 would  not  be  deemed  sufficient.  He  was  indicted 
 for  printing  two  Pamphlets,  entitled  "  Remarks  upon 
 the  Present  Confederacy  and  Late  Revolution  in  Eng- 
 land," and  "  A  French  Conquest  neither  desirable 
 
 e  Life  of  King  James,  8vo.  1705.  pp.  390,  391.  Macky's  Me- 
 moirs, xxix. 
 
 1  Macky,  xxxvi.  «  Ibid,  xliii. 
 
H?t'sttoc!?  of  djc  0nn\\xvov0*  1 1 1 
 
 nor  practicable."  Grascome  wrote  an  account  of  the 
 trial  under  the  title,  "  An  Appeal  of  Murder,"  which, 
 as  well  as  that  from  the  Sessions  Paper,  is  printed  in 
 the  State  Trials.  Anderton  avowed  himself  a  mem- 
 ber of  the  Church  of  England  ;  still  he  declined  the 
 services  of  the  Ordinary,  who  appears  to  have  con- 
 ducted himself  with  much  impropriety  towards  the 
 prisoner.  A  Nonjuring  Clergyman,  probably  Gras- 
 come, attended  him  in  his  last  moments,  using  por- 
 tions of  the  Office  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  with 
 such  alterations  as  were  suited  to  the  circumstances 
 of  the  sufferer.1' 
 
 The  narrative  of  facts  has  now  been  continued  to 
 the  year  1694  :  but  other  matters  of  no  small  import- 
 ance occurred  during  this  period  relative  to  the  con- 
 troversies, in  which  the  various  parties  were  engaged. 
 These  will  be  discussed  in  the  ensuing  chapter. 
 
 h  State  Trials,  viii.  71,  72. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 A.  D.  1690—1694. 
 
 Controversies.  —  Collier. — Controversy  respecting  the 
 Oath. — Sherlock. — Some  Compliers  retract. — Contro- 
 versy respecting  the  Deprivations. —  Stillingfleet. — 
 Grascome. — Williams. — Sharpe, — Hickes. — Hill's  Solo- 
 mon and  Abiathar.  —  Answered  by  Grascome. — The 
 earlier  Writings  of  some  of  the  Compliers  contrasted 
 with  their  Productions  subsequent  to  the  Revolution. — > 
 Bisby's  Unity  of  Priesthood.  —  Hody  and  the  Baroccian 
 MS.  —  Dodwell. —  He  engages  in  the  Controversy  with 
 Hody.  —  Kettlewell's  Views  of  the  Separation. — Stil- 
 lingfleet on  the  Oath  of  Allegiance. 
 
 N  the  previous  chapter  the  principal  facts 
 connected  with  the  separation  have  been 
 detailed  ;  but  there  are  other  matters 
 referring  to  the  same  period,  which  re- 
 quire a  distinct  notice.  I  allude  to  the  various  con- 
 troversies which  sprang  out  of  the  separation  :  some 
 of  which  were  carried  on  among  the  Nonjurors  them- 
 selves, while  others  arose  between  the  latter  and  the 
 supporters  of  the  National  Church.  In  the  present 
 chapter  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  disputes  of  the 
 latter  description. 
 
 Discussions  arose  almost  as  soon  as  it  was  foreseen, 
 that  the  debates  in  the  convention  were  likely  to  issue 
 in  the  settlement  of  the  crown  on  William  and  Mary. 
 Collier  was  one  of  the  first  to  enter  the  controversial 
 
%t'0torp  of  tfje  j|ion)ucor&  1 13 
 
 arena,  and  to  support  publicly  the  claims  of  King- 
 James.  This  he  did  in  a  small  tract  under  the  title 
 of  "  The  Desertion  Discussed :"  the  first  direct  attack 
 upon  the  principles  of  the  Revolution.'1  It  appears 
 to  have  been  written  just  after  the  Commons  had 
 declared  the  throne  vacant :  and  doubtless  was  in- 
 tended to  influence  the  decision  of  the  Upper  House. 
 In  addressing  his  correspondent  he  asks,  "  how  (say 
 you)  can  the  seat  of  the  government  be  empty,  while 
 the  King,  whom  all  grant  an  unquestionable  title,  is 
 still  living,  and  his  absence  forced  and  involuntary." 
 Collier  assumes,  that  the  flight  of  James  was  forced, 
 though  it  is  clear  that  he  might  have  remained ; 
 and  had  he  remained,  he  would  have  preserved  his 
 crown.  In  alluding  to  the  plea  of  necessity,  he  says, 
 "  This  pretended  necessity  is  either  of  their  own 
 making,  or  of  their  own  submitting  to,  which  is  the 
 same  thing."  He  labours  to  show  that  the  King  was 
 in  danger  before  he  quitted  the  country,  and  that 
 consequently  his  removal  was  not  an  abdication  :  and 
 that  the  throne  could  not  be  considered  vacant.  The 
 author  was  afterwards  imprisoned  on  account  of  this 
 publication,  but  he  was  discharged  without  being- 
 brought  to  trial.  Collier  arraigns  the  legality  of  the 
 convention  from  its  not  having  been  summoned  by  the 
 Kings  writ,  in  the  usual  and  constitutional  manner. 
 He  contended,  that  as  they  had  neither  the  authority 
 of  law,  nor  the  plea  of  necessity  to  urge,  they  must 
 expect  that  their  proceedings  would  be  subjected  to 
 examination.  Alluding  to  Burnet's  pamphlet,  he 
 remarks,  that  the  Commons  appear  to  have  a  great 
 
 *  The  Desertion  Discussed,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Country  Gentle- 
 man. In  State  Tracts,  vol.  i.  It  was  a  reply  to  a  pamphlet  of 
 Burnet's,  entitled  "An  Inquiry  into  the  Present  State  of  Affairs," 
 in  which  King-  James  is  considered  as  a  deserter  of  the  crown. 
 
 I 
 
1 14  Iktgtorp  of  tfoe  i^onjutorg. 
 
 regard  to  his  judgment,  inasmuch  as  their  chief  votes 
 are  transcribed  from  one  of  his  paragraphs.  "  We 
 are  now,  says  he,  fallen  upon  times  in  which  the 
 most  extravagant  and  almost  impossible  things  are 
 swallowed  without  chewing,  and  the  plainest  truths 
 outfaced." 
 
 This  Tract  was  answered  by  Bohun,  the  author 
 of  "  A  History  of  the  Desertion,"  containing  an 
 account  of  all  the  proceedings  connected  with  the 
 Revolution.  This  gentleman,  in  his  reply  to  Collier, 
 enters  upon  a  review  of  the  King's  Acts,  which  led 
 to  the  attempt  of  the  Prince  of  Orange.  He  shews, 
 that  Whigs  and  Tories  acted  in  unison  in  receiving 
 the  Prince  :  that,  on  the  King's  departure,  it  was 
 necessary  to  do  something  :  and  that  a  convention  of 
 the  Three  Estates  was  the  most  unexceptionable  ex- 
 pedient in  their  difficulty.  He  adds,  that  his  Majesty 
 would  have  been  in  no  danger  by  remaining  in  the 
 country  :  and  that,  so  far  from  being  forced  away, 
 he  was  persuaded  to  go  by  his  counsellors,  rather 
 than  remain  and  redress  the  grievances  of  the  nation. 
 He  contends,  that  had  he  summoned  a  Parliament, 
 he  need  not  have  withdrawn  ;  and  that,  by  quitting 
 the  country,  he  had  voluntarily  abdicated  the  throne. 
 He  thinks,  that  the  judgment  of  the  three  estates  was 
 conclusive,  though  the  public  might  not  be  acquainted 
 with  all  the  reasons,  by  which  they  were  influenced 
 in  the  settlement  of  the  crown.  This  last  argument 
 probably  was  conclusive  with  many  persons,  and  in 
 general  it  must  be  regarded  as  sufficient  to  satisfy 
 the  majority  of  a  nation,  in  any  change  of  govern- 
 ment.b 
 
 b  Collier  was  again  imprisoned  in  1692,  on  a  charge  of  having 
 maintained  a  correspondence  with  King  James.     The  charge  was 
 
^fsftorp  o£  tf)e  il&onjurorsf.  1 15 
 
 We  need  not,  however,  enter  at  length  upon  this 
 point,  since  the  arguments  on  both  sides  are  gene- 
 rally known.  But  there  are  other  questions,  which 
 though  now  nearly  forgotten,  are  of  considerable 
 interest,  and  such  as  cannot  be  passed  over  in  a 
 history  of  the  Nonjurors.  It  has  been  remarked, 
 that  a  history  of  the  controversies  of  any  particular 
 time  is  a  history  of  the  period  :  and  the  remark  ap- 
 plies with  full  force  to  the  Nonjurors. 
 
 Many  pamphlets  and  tracts  were  published  on  the 
 subject  of  the  Oath  to  the  new  Sovereigns  :  and  some 
 very  remarkable  changes  in  practice  occurred  within 
 a  few  years  after  the  Revolution.  Some  persons 
 complied  after  a  resistance  or  a  refusal  of  several 
 months ;  while  others,  who  had  taken  the  Oath,  re- 
 canted, and  were  received  into  communion  with  the 
 Nonjurors.  Among  the  former  the  most  conspicuous, 
 perhaps,  was  Sherlock,  who  had  actually  been  de- 
 prived for  his  refusal.  I  have  given  some  account 
 of  Sherlock's  sudden  change  in  a  former  work,  to 
 which  I  would  refer  the  reader.0  In  that  work,  I 
 have  expressed,  my  opinion,  that  he  was  seeking  for  a 
 
 not  proved.  Bail  was  allowed,  but  this  he  refused  to  find  ;  be- 
 cause, by  doing1  so,  he  considered,  that  he  should  recognize  the 
 authority  of  the  court,  which  he  denied.  At  length  he  was  re- 
 leased at  the  intercession  of  friends.    Chalmers's  Biog.  Diet. 
 
 c  A  History  of  the  Convocation  of  the  Church  of  England.  A 
 bookseller  seeing  him  handing  his  wife  along  St.  Paul's  Church- 
 yard, said,  "  There  goes  Dr.  Sherlock,  with  his  reasons  for  taking 
 the  Oath  at  his  fingers'  ends."  It  has  been  said,  "  The  party  he 
 had  deserted  were  not  convinced  by  his  pamphlet.  Bishop  Over- 
 all's Acts  and  Canons  had  not  converted  them,  or  their  wives  had 
 not  taken  the  same  pains,  or  had  not  been  so  skilful  in  their  persua- 
 sions." He  was  succeeded  by  his  son  in  the  mastership  of  the 
 Temple,  who  subsequently  became  Bishop  of  London.  He  too 
 had  some  scruples  like  his  father.  He  preached  a  sermon  the 
 Sunday  after  the  battle  of  Preston,  strongly  in  favour  of  George  I., 
 
116  U?t'0torp  of  ttjc  j|5onjuror& 
 
 pretence  to  enable  him  to  submit :  and  I  have  not 
 seen  any  reason  to  alter  that  opinion.  Probably  he 
 imagined  at  first  that  King  James  might  be  able  to 
 return :  but  when  he  saw  William  firmly  seated  on 
 the  throne,  after  his  success  in  Ireland,  he  began  to 
 consider  by  what  means  he  could  retrace  his  steps. 
 Overall's  Convocation  Book  was  the  pretence;  for 
 having  assigned  many  reasons  for  refusing  the  Oath, 
 he  was  anxious  to  have  some  plea  for  his  change  of 
 opinion.  Posterity  certainly  will  not  consider  his 
 arguments  of  much  force.  Some  of  the  pamphlets 
 and  sarcastic  attacks  upon  the  Doctor  are  mentioned 
 in  my  former  work.d  Sherlock  published  his  "  Case 
 of  the  Allegiance  due  to  Sovereign  Potvers,  <§r."  in 
 order  to  vindicate  himself  in  takino-  the  Oath.  "  It 
 was  no  small  alarm  to  those  whom  he  had  left,  that 
 a  person  of  his  figure,  who  had  so  strenuously  main- 
 tained the  doctrine  of  nonresistance,  in  one  of  his 
 most  celebrated  pieces,  and  thereby  opposed  the  prin- 
 ciples of  the  Revolution,  and  of  the  establishment 
 thereupon  :  and  who  had  also  held  out  so  long  in  this 
 opposition,  for  the  sake  of  his  old  opinion,  by  re- 
 
 which,  the  Benchers  remarked,  should  have  been  delivered  the 
 Sunday  before.    The  following1  lines  were  written  on  him  : 
 
 As  Sherlock  the  elder,  with  his^'wre  divine, 
 
 Did  not  comply  till  the  battle  of  Boyne ; 
 
 So  Sherlock  the  younger  still  made  it  a  question, 
 
 Which  side  he  would  take  till  the  battle  of  Preston. 
 
 Noble,  i.  91. 
 
 d  The  following  extracts  are  from  a  pamphlet  of  the  period. 
 "  A  Catalogue  of  Books  of  the  Newest  Fashion,  to  be  sold  by 
 auction  at  the  Whigg's  Coffee  House,  &c.  near  the  Deanery  of  St. 
 Pauls."  "  Si  Fortuna  Velit  fies,  De,  &c.  Gravel  Lane  to-day. 
 D — n  of  P — s  to-morrow,  and  Gravel  Lane  again,  as  moody  For- 
 tune or  Spouse  pleases.    By  Smock-Peckt  Sh  k.  —  "  Dux 
 
^itftorp  of  tfje  &on\uvQV&.  117 
 
 fusing  the  qualification  which  was  enjoined  all  the 
 Clergy,  for  the  security  of  the  government  upon  that 
 footing ;  should  now  go  over  to  the  other  side,  by 
 the  help  of  Bishop  Overall's  Demonstration,  which 
 had  lain  dormant  till  then ;  and  turn  an  advocate  for 
 that  very  cause  which  he  had  so  long  withstood  ; 
 and  for  that  government  which  he  had  shewn  himself 
 hitherto  so  little  a  friend  to,  and  whose  very  founda- 
 tions had  been  undermined  by  him  in  his  former 
 works."6  Kettlewell  replied  to  Sherlock,  in  The 
 Duty  of  Allegiance  Settled  upon  its  True  Grounds." f 
 Sherlock's  aim  was  to  shew  that  allegiance  might  be 
 given  to  William  and  Mary,  as  the  possessors  of  the 
 throne,  even  though  they  had  no  legal  right,  or  right 
 by  inheritance,  a  doctrine  which  he  had  denied  in 
 his  previous  writings. 
 
 Sherlock  had  been  one  of  the  most  strenuous  ad- 
 vocates of  the  very  doctrine,  which  the  Revolution 
 seemed  to  assail.  He  had  published  his  "  Case  of 
 Resistance :"  and  it  was  to  be  supposed  that  it  would 
 be  compared  with  his  "  Case  of  Allegiance."  The 
 views  of  the  two  works  were  diametrically  opposite. 
 
 Fcemini  Facti ;  Conquest  the  best  title  to  body  and  conscience, 
 by  Dr.  Sh  k's  wife,  dedicated  to  her  humble  servant  her  hus- 
 band ;  wherein  these  two  points  are  proved  at  large  :  first,  that 
 no  man  is  a  good  husband  who  will  not  sacrifice  his  conscience  to 
 the  importunity  of  a  wife  :  and  secondly,  that  the  Doctor  was 
 visibly  under  her  power,  and  therefore  he  was  forced  to  submit, 
 and  might  do  so  according  to  his  hypothesis  of  force,  which  dis- 
 solves all  obligation,  especially  since  the  female  usurpation  had 
 been  for  a  long  time  and  thoroughly  settled."  A  list  of  "  Cases 
 of  Conscience  and  Queries  "  follows,  from  which  I  take  the  fol- 
 lowing:  "  Whether  Julian  or  Sherlock  deserve  the  whetstone, 
 since  Julian  has  been  always  true  to  a  false  principle,  and  Sher- 
 lock traitor  and  false  to  a  true  one." 
 
 e  Kettlewell's  Life,  122. 
 
 f  Kettlewell's  Works,  vol.  ii.  197,  &c. 
 
118  ^tgtorp  of  ttje  i!5on(urors. 
 
 Still  Sherlock  was  not  the  only  inconsistent  man  of 
 that  period.  Burnet  and  Tillotson,  in  the  time  of 
 Charles  II,  held  the  same  opinions.  They  opposed 
 Popery  :  but  they  maintained  that  opposition  to  the 
 Prince  could  not  be  justified  :  and  that  the  authority 
 was  in  his  person,  not  in  the  law.  Had  Sherlock 
 complied  at  the  Revolution  without  scruple,  he  would 
 have  been  in  the  same  situation  with  Burnet,  Stil- 
 lingfleet,  and  Tillotson,  all  of  whom  had  written  in 
 defence  of  the  doctrine  at  which  he  stumbled.  They 
 complied  at  first ;  while  he  hesitated,  but  yielded 
 afterwards.  His  two  works,  "  Obedience  and  Sub- 
 mission to  the  Present  Government,  &c."  and  the 
 "  Case  of  Allegiance,  &c."  were  attacked  by  several 
 of  the  Nonjurors.  One  of  the  keenest  answers  was 
 written,  I  believe,  by  Wagstaffe.  It  is  attributed  to 
 Ken  ii>the  Biographia  Britannica  ;  but  this  is  clearly 
 a  mistake ;  and  in  a  copy  now  in  my  possession, 
 which  was  once  the  property  of  a  Nonjuror,  a  con- 
 temporary of  Sherlock's,  it  is  assigned  to  Wagstaffe.6 
 
 g  An  Answer  to  a  late  Pamphlet,  entituled  Obedience  and  Sub- 
 mission, &c.  ;  with  a  Postscript  in  answer  to  Dr.  Sherlock's  Case 
 of  Allegiance.  4to.  Previous  to  the  appearance  of  Sherlock's 
 "  Case  of  Allegiance,"  a  work  was  published  by  a  Nonjuror  en- 
 titled "  The  Case  of  Allegiance  to  a  King  in  Possession.  Printed 
 in  the  year  1691."  Neither  the  name  of  the  place  nor  of  the 
 printer  is  given.  This  work  was  noticed  by  Sherlock  :  and  the 
 circumstance  produced  the  following  reply  :  "  An  Answer  to  Dr. 
 Sherlock's  Case  of  Allegiance  to  Sovereign  Powers,  in  Defence 
 of  The  Case  of  Allegiance  to  a  King  in  Possession.  In  a  Letter 
 to  a  Friend.  London.  Printed  in  the  year  1691."  "  The 
 Trimming  Court  Divine,"  a  severe  satire  upon  the  Doctor,  was 
 noticed  in  my  History  of  the  Convocation.  There  wTas  also  a 
 clever  attack  under  this  title  :  "  A  Review  of  Dr.  Sherlock's  Case 
 of  Allegiance,  &c.  with  an  Answer  to  his  Vindication,  &c.  :  and 
 from  the  whole  proved,  that  neither  the  present  Church  of  Eng- 
 land nor  the  present  Government  are  beholden  to  him.  4to.  Lon- 
 
l^isJtotrp  of  tt)c  il5onfurot*0.  119 
 Sherlock  replied  in  "  A  Vindication  of  the  Case  of 
 Allegiance but  nothing-  could  relieve  him  from  the 
 charge  of  fickleness  and  inconsistency.  Sherlock  had 
 told  the  Bishop  of  Killmore,  that  "  he  would  be  sa- 
 crificed before  he  took  the  new  Oath  of  Allegiance." 
 This  is  stated  by  Hickes,  who  very  justly  remarks, 
 "  if  those,  who  took  that  Oath  with  so  much  difficulty 
 would  but  remember  their  own  case,  they  would 
 have  more  compassion  for  those  who  could  not  take 
 it  at  all." h  There  were,  however,  some  who  stepped 
 forward  in  Sherlock's  defence.  One  writer  in  par- 
 ticular asserts,  that  more  would  have  complied  but 
 for  the  schemes  of  some  of  the  leaders  in  the  oppo- 
 sition to  King  William.  He  lauds  the  government 
 for  its  leniency.  "  They  were  very  zealous  to  have 
 got  the  Act  for  taking  the  Oaths  to  their  Majesties 
 
 don,  1691."  The  author  states,  that  on  passing  through  St.  Paul's 
 Church-yard  on  the  3rd  of  November,  he  saw  The  Case  of  Alle- 
 giance :  that  in  three  hours  returning  he  found  a  new  title  printed, 
 and  the  book  announced  as  a  second  edition.  He  says,  that  he 
 began  to  consider  whether  there  were  two  Dr.  Sherlocks.  This 
 writer  shews  that  Overall's  Convocation  Book  was  of  no  authority. 
 "  In  the  beginning  of  the  broil  he  had  been  the  champion  of  the 
 party  against  all  comers :  and  now  he  was  become  as  great  an 
 undertaker  on  the  other  side."  Ralph,  ii.  270.  In  a  very  severe 
 pamphlet  the  author  says,  alluding  to  the  Battle  of  the  Boyne, 
 "  Then  it  was  that  Bishop  Overall's  book  gave  you  greater  free- 
 dom and  liberty.  Egeria  appeared  to  you  on  the  banks  of  the 
 Boyne,  and  inspired  you  with  new  and  freer  notions,  and  shewed 
 you  how  your  former  reasoning  contradicted  the  general  sense  of 
 mankind,  and  revealed  unto  you  a  divine  and  safer  principle,  upon 
 which  you  might  swear  allegiance,  without  the  imputation  of 
 apostacy  or  renouncing  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
 to  Willielmus  Nass.  Aug.  Scot.  Hiber.  a  Deo  Datus  Augustus, 
 and  also  swear  it  back  again  to  King  James,  if  ever  he  should  re- 
 cover the  throne  in  a  recuperative  war."  Ibid. 
 
 h  Some  Discourses  upon  Dr.  Burnet  and  Dr.  Tillotson :  occa- 
 sioned by  the  late  Sermon  of  the  Former  on  the  Latter.  4to. 
 London, 1695,  p.  55. 
 
120  ^tgtorp  of  ttie  iPonjurortf, 
 
 limited  to  a  very  short  time,  that  men,  having  but  a 
 little  time  to  bethink  them,  might  more  generally 
 have  refused  them,  as  they  did  in  Scotland  :  but  the 
 six  months  that  was  allowed  (much  against  their 
 wills)  was  so  well  employed,  that  the  number  of  the 
 non-swearers  was  very  small  in  comparison ;  and  if 
 these  very  men  had  not  made  it  their  business  to  tra- 
 duce all  that  took  the  Oath  as  apostates,  time-servers, 
 and  perjured  men,  perhaps  it  would  have  been  much 
 less  than  it  was."  Alluding  to  those  who  complied, 
 he  says  :  "  Every  man  that  taketh  the  Oath  raiseth 
 a  new  clamour :  so  that  it  is  apparent  to  all  the 
 world,  some  men  fear  nothing  more,  than  that  there 
 should  be  no  non-swearers ' 1  Sherlock  stated,  in  his 
 Preface,  that  he  had  renounced  no  principle,  except 
 one  in  "  The  Case  of  Resistance ;"  but  he  forgot, 
 that  that  one  was  the  hinge  on  which  all  turned.11 
 
 But  while  Sherlock,  with  some  few  individuals, 
 separated  from  the  Nonjurors,  by  taking  the  Oath  to 
 the  new  Sovereigns,  there  were  others,  who,  having 
 complied,  repented  of  the  course  which  they  had 
 taken,  and  who,  therefore,  separated  from  the  Estab- 
 lished Church.  On  admitting  such  into  communion, 
 the  Nonjurors  used  a  Form  of  Recantation,  which  was 
 arranged  by  Kettlewell.  This  was  probably  used  on 
 subsequent  occasions  of  a  similar  description.  It  is 
 very  bitter  against  the  Church  of  England ;  and  in 
 this  respect  is  unlike  the  general  tone  of  Kettlewell 's 
 
 '  A  Letter  to  the  Authors  of  the  Answers  to  the  Case  of  Alle- 
 giance.   4to.  pp.  4,  5. 
 
 k  South  said  of  Sherlock,  that  there  was  hardly  a  subject,  ex- 
 cept Popery,  but  he  had  written  for  and  against  it.  He  might 
 have  excepted  his  "  Practical  Discourse  on  Death,"  which  met 
 with  universal  approbation.  It  is  remarkable  that  this  work  was 
 written  during  his  suspension. 
 
!£is3torp  of  ttje  i|}on)urorg.  121 
 
 writings,  which  are  remarkable  for  their  gentleness 
 and  moderation.  The  occasion  was  as  follows.  A 
 Clergyman  applied  to  Kettlewell  respecting  his  scru- 
 ples :  and,  when  satisfied,  he  applied  further  to  the 
 deprived  Bishop  of  Norwich,  as  the  Vicar-General 
 of  Archbishop  Sancroft  in  spirituals.  This  gentle- 
 man had  never  attended  his  Church  on  the  public 
 fast  days  :  he  had  declared  in  the  Church,  that  he 
 could  not  observe  such  days ;  he  had  omitted  the  names 
 of  the  Sovereigns  in  the  public  services,  with  all  the 
 new  petitions  in  the  forms  for  the  state  holidays  : 
 and  when  the  new  edition  of  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer  was  tendered  to  him  at  the  Visitation,  he  refused 
 to  receive  it,  as  coming  from  the  new  Archbishop. 
 The  forbearance  of  the  Bishop  of  his  diocese,  as  well 
 as  of  the  government,  towards  this  gentleman  was 
 great,  and  proves,  that  lenient  measures  were  adopted 
 in  the  case  of  those,  who,  though  they  took  the  Oath, 
 had  some  scruples  respecting  the  prayers  appointed 
 by  the  Crown.  However  the  gentleman  in  question 
 drew  up  a  penitential  confession,  which  was  ad- 
 dressed, with  a  supplicatory  epistle,  to  Bishop  Lloyd. 
 The  letter  and  confession  were  prepared  under  Ket- 
 tlewell's  direction,  and  they  bear  this  remarkable 
 title:  "  The  Confession,  Retractation,  Repentance, 
 and  Supplicatory  Letter  of  N.  N.  Rector  of  N.  to 
 the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  William,  Lord 
 Bishop  of  Norwich. ," 
 
 The  Form  itself  is  a  very  curious  document.  It 
 also  furnishes  us  with  a  proof,  that  the  government 
 were  not  particular,  provided  the  Oath  was  taken : 
 for  this  gentleman  tells  us,  that  he  took  it  with  a 
 protestation.  His  judgment,  he  says,  was  swayed 
 by  some  eminent  Clergymen,  "  who  were  permitted 
 to  take  it  with  this  declaration  of  their  sense  of  it; 
 
122  l£(0torp  of  tfce  ifronjurorp. 
 
 Mr.  Chancellor,  we  are  come  here  to  swear  obedience 
 to  the  laws,  and  a  peaceable  behaviour  under  this  go- 
 vernment, in  which  sense  we  understand  and  take 
 this  Oath.'''  He  states,  that  he  was  induced  to  take 
 it  in  consequence  of  this  free  allowance;  but  that 
 now  he  sees  that  he  had  consulted  a  carnal  policy. 
 "  When  I  observed  the  new  Thanksgiving  Prayer 
 for  Deliverance  imposed,  the  scarcely  tolerable  use 
 of  the  Liturgy  without  such  omissions  and  alterations 
 as  exposed  me  to  the  virulent  censures  and  reproaches 
 of  all  the  country  :  when  I  observed  the  contradictory 
 petitions  to  what  was  violently  driven  in  the  Liturgic 
 offices  for  the  30th  of  January  and  the  29th  of  May  : 
 the  uncanonical  deprivation  of  my  Metropolitan  with- 
 out a  judicial  hearing  :  the  new  fast  and  thanks- 
 giving days  (and  one  of  the  latter  too  on  a  fast  of 
 the  Church)  :  when  the  Expedition  Prayer  and  the 
 Island  Prayer  (as  I  rate  them)  were  enjoined."  When 
 he  considered  these  things,  he  tells  us,  that  he  was 
 greatly  troubled.  At  last  he  met  with  Kettlewell's 
 Discourse  of  Christian  Prudence,  which  led  to  a 
 correspondence  with  the  author.  He  confesses,  there- 
 fore, that  he  had  violated  the  third  commandment; 
 "for  ichich  I  accuse  and  judge  and  condemn  myself. 
 God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner."  These  words  are 
 repeated  six  times,  at  the  close  of  so  many  para- 
 graphs in  the  Confession,  which  is  much  too  long  for 
 quotation.  He  states  in  this  penitential  confession, 
 that,  on  the  first  of  the  new  fast  days,  he  called  the 
 clerk  behind  the  church,  to  tell  him  that  he  could  not 
 offer  up  the  new  petitions.  On  ceasing  to  officiate 
 himself,  on  such  occasions,  he  procured  the  assistance 
 of  another  clergyman.  This  he  condemns  :  and  con- 
 dermis  himself  for  procuring  another  to  do  what  he 
 was  unwilling  to  do  himself.    In  the  supplicatory 
 
^(sftorp  of  tfje  ifronfurortf.  123 
 
 letter,  which  accompanied  the  confession,  he  states, 
 that  for  a  year  he  had  neither  officiated  himself,  nor 
 permitted  another  to  act  as  his  substitute,  on  what 
 he  terms  "  the  new  discriminating  days :"  and  that 
 he  communicated  his  refusal  of  the  Prayer  Book  to 
 the  Archdeacon,  on  the  ground,  that  it  came  from 
 John  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  :  and  further,  that 
 he  had  not  used  the  new  petitions  or  thanksgivings 
 in  any  of  his  ministrations.  He  then  prays  for  his 
 "  consignation  to  the  peace  and  unity  and  commu- 
 nion of  the  Church."1 
 
 Another  case  also  may  be  mentioned,  though  it 
 occurred  some  time  after  the  preceding.  Mr.  Pinch- 
 beck of  Barton  in  Lincolnshire,  after  reading  Kettle- 
 well's  books  on  the  one  side,  and  those  of  Sherlock 
 and  Burnet  on  the  other,  was  led  to  make  a  public 
 retractation.  He  took  occasion  to  declare,  in  his 
 Church,  that  he  had  grievously  sinned  by  his  com- 
 pliance. He  prayed  publicly  by  name  for  King 
 James,  Queen  Mary,  and  the  Prince  of  Wales  ;  and 
 read  also  King  James's  Declaration  of  1693.  He 
 was  of  course  committed  to  prison,  tried,  and  con- 
 demned to  the  pillory,  with  a  fine  of  two  hundred 
 pounds.  The  violent  conduct  of  this  gentleman,  how- 
 ever, was  not  approved  by  the  Nonjurors.1"  Another 
 instance  is  related  in  the  diocese  of  Winchester,  be- 
 sides others  among  the  laity.  A  singular  recanta- 
 tion from  Mr.  Ralph  Lowndes  of  Middlewich,  in  the 
 county  of  Chester,  is  preserved  in  the  Appendix  to 
 the  Life  of  Kettlewell.  This  gentleman  declares,  that 
 he  was  induced  to  take  the  Oath  by  the  soft  inter- 
 pretation put  upon  it  by  the  magistrates.    He  then 
 
 1  Kettlewell's  Life,  144—49. 
 m  Ibid.  150,  151. 
 
124  l^ijstorp  of  tl)e  /f-lonjurorss. 
 
 expresses  his  conviction,  that  it  was  sinful  to  take  it 
 in  any  sense,  and  contrary  to  his  former  Oath.  This, 
 however,  occurred  earlier,  as  it  bears  date  September 
 1690."  The  form  used  in  KettlewelFs  time,  for  ad- 
 mitting converts  to  their  communion,  is  very  different 
 from  that,  which  was  adopted  at  a  later  period.  Both 
 however  will  be  found  in  the  Appendix  to  this 
 volume. 
 
 We  now  turn  to  the  question  of  the  deprivations, 
 which  was  long,  and  somewhat  fiercely  agitated  by 
 various  writers.  As  soon  as  it  became  apparent,  that 
 the  government  would  insist  upon  the  Oath,  the  two 
 parties  began  to  make  use  of  the  press  in  defence  of 
 their  respective  views.  The  advocates  of  the  govern- 
 ment defended  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  :  while  those, 
 who  could  not  take  it,  laboured  to  show,  that  it  could 
 not  lawfully  be  imposed. 
 
 Stillingfleet  was,  I  believe,  one  of  the  first  to  enter 
 the  lists  of  controversy.  Before  the  deprivations  took 
 place,  as  early  as  the  year  1689,  he  published  his 
 "  Discourse  concerning  the  Unreasonableness  of  a 
 New  Separation."  During  that  year  there  had  been 
 published  "A  History  of  Passive  Obedience,"  in 
 which  was  collected  a  large  mass  of  evidence  to  prove 
 that  the  Church  of  England  disowned  and  discoun- 
 tenanced the  doctrine  of  resistance  to  the  supreme 
 powers.  The  quotations  were  given  from  the  writ- 
 ings of  divines  of  the  Anglican  Church  since  the  re- 
 formation. It  was  intended,  as  far  as  possible,  to 
 prevent  the  Clergy  and  persons  in  authority  from 
 taking  the  Oath  to  William  and  Mary  :  and  to  shew 
 that  their  allegiance  could  not  be  withdrawn  from 
 King  James,  to  whom  it  had  been  given.    It  was  ne- 
 
 "  Kettlewell's  Life,  152 — 53,  anil  Appendix,  xix. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  jponjurowf.  125 
 
 cessary,  therefore,  that  the  effect  likely  to  be  produced 
 by  such  a  work,  should  be  counteracted  :  and  Stil- 
 lingfleet,  who  had  acted  a  conspicuous  part  in  the 
 recent  controversy  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the 
 Dissenters,  entered  upon  the  task.  The  main  point, 
 however,  in  his  book  relates  to  the  Oath  to  the  new 
 Sovereigns,  his  aim  being  to  prove,  that  no  separa- 
 tion could  be  justified  on  that  account ;  but  he  alludes 
 also  to  the  "  History  of  Passive  Obedience,"  so  far  as 
 that  work  relates  to  the  Oaths.  A  few  extracts  from 
 this  performance,  inasmuch  as  it  was  one  of  the  most 
 able  on  the  side  of  the  government,  will  not  be  un- 
 acceptable to  the  reader,  as  they  exhibit  the  prin- 
 ciples and  arguments  of  the  complying  Bishops  and 
 Clergy. 
 
 Alluding  to  the  scruples  entertained  by  many  per- 
 sons respecting  the  Oaths,  after  quoting  some  passages 
 in  which  it  is  declared,  that  those  who  cannot  take 
 them,  will  feel  themselves  bound  to  separate  from 
 those  who  comply,  he  remarks  :  "  I  was  not  a  little 
 surprised  at  the  reading  of  these  passages ;  and  I 
 soon  apprehended  the  mischievous  consequences  of  a 
 new  schism;  but  I  can  hardly  think  it  possible,  that 
 those  who  have  expressed  so  great  a  sense  of  the  mis- 
 chief of  it  in  others,  should  be  so  ready  to  fall  into 
 it  themselves,  and  that  upon  the  mere  account  of 
 scruples."  He  proceeds:  "some  think  the  Oaths 
 lawful,  and  therefore  take  them  :  others  do  not,  and 
 therefore  forbear :  but  is  taking  the  Oaths  made  a 
 condition  of  communion?  Is  it  required  of  all  who 
 join  in  our  worship  at  least  to  declare,  that  they  think 
 the  taking  of  them  to  be  lawful?  If  not  what  colour 
 can  there  be  for  breaking:  communion  on  account 
 of  the  Oaths  ?  Suppose  those  who  take  the  Oaths 
 are  to  blame  :   if  they  act  according  to  their  con- 
 
126  ^t'gtorp  of  tfo*  jfronj'urorg. 
 
 sciences  therein,  what  ground  can  there  be  of  separa- 
 tion from  them  for  so  doing,  unless  it  be  lawful  to 
 separate  from  all  such  who  follow  an  erroneous  con- 
 science ;  and  so  there  can  be  no  end  of  separations, 
 till  all  men's  consciences  judge  alike."0  He  then 
 comes  to  the  question,  whether  there  were  any  cause  for 
 entertaining  scruples  respecting  the  Oaths.  Should 
 there  be  a  reason,  he  remarks,  "  it  must  arise  either 
 from  the  continuing  obligation  of  the  former  oaths, 
 or  from  the  nature  of  the  present  oaths."p 
 
 The  following  passages  appear  to  me  to  meet  the 
 case,  as  it  was  argued  generally  against  the  Nonjurors. 
 He  argues,  that  the  rule  and  measure  of  oaths  are 
 not  to  be  taken  from  the  intention  of  the  framers,  but 
 from  the  general  good.  "  Whatever  the  intention 
 was,  if  the  keeping  of  an  oath  be  really  and  truly  in- 
 consistent with  the  welfare  of  a  people,  in  subverting 
 the  fundamental  laws  which  support  it;  I  do  not  see 
 how  such  an  oath  continues  to  oblige."  He  clearly 
 alludes  here  to  the  proceedings  of  King  James  :  and 
 then  he  shews,  that  if  parents  design  the  ruin  of 
 their  children,  obedience  is  not  to  be  expected.  "  But 
 that  the  public  good  is  the  true  and  just  measure  of 
 the  obligation  in  these  Oaths  doth  further  appear,  in 
 that  the  Oaths  are  reciprocal.  Whereas,  if  only  the 
 good  of  the  persons  to  whom  Oaths  of  Allegiance  are 
 made,  were  to  be  our  rule,  then  there  would  be  no  mu- 
 tual oaths." q  The  single  point,  he  says,  is;  "whether 
 the  law  of  our  nation  doth  not  bind  us  to  allegiance 
 to  a  King  or  Queen  in  actual  possession  of  the  throne, 
 by  consent  of  the  three  estates  of  the  realm  ?  and 
 
 0  Discourse  Concerning  the  Unreasonableness  of  a  New  Sepa- 
 ration, 4to  pp.  1,  2. 
 
 p  Ibid.  p.  3.  i  Ibid.  p.  5—8. 
 
Hffgtorp  of  rfje  ifronfurorg.  127 
 
 whether  such  an  oath  may  not  lawfully  be  taken,  not- 
 withstanding any  former  oath  ?"r  He  also  enters  upon 
 the  question  relative  to  a  king  De  facto,  and  Dejure : 
 "  A  King  De  facto  is  one  who  comes  in  by  consent 
 of  the  nation,  but  not  by  virtue  of  an  immediate  here- 
 ditary right :  but  to  such  a  one,  being  owned  and  re- 
 ceived by  the  estates  of  the  realm,  the  law  of  England, 
 as  far  as  I  can  see,  requires  an  allegiance.  Or  else 
 the  whole  nation  was  perjured  in  most  of  the  reigns 
 from  the  conquest  till  Henry  VIII."8 
 
 These  extracts  contain  a  full  and  explicit  state- 
 ment of  the  views  of  those,  who  regarded  the  Oaths 
 as  lawful,  as  well  as  of  the  principles,  on  which  the 
 Revolution  was  founded.  These  considerations  sa- 
 tisfied most  of  those,  who  took  the  Oaths  at  that  time, 
 and  they  are  quite  sufficient  for  ordinary  circum- 
 stances. There  were  still  many  difficulties :  and 
 though  I  regret  the  course  pursued  by  the  Nonjurors, 
 yet  I  cannot  condemn  them  in  their  refusal,  because 
 it  is  clear,  that  they  acted  according  to  their  con- 
 sciences. 
 
 A  reply  was  very  soon  published  to  Stillingfleet's 
 work  by  Grascome.  Stillingfleet's  positions  are  com- 
 bated with  much  skill.  He  enters  into  the  question  of 
 the  Oaths,  and  the  deprivations  consequent  upon  their 
 enforcement.  The  time  fixed  by  the  Act  had  not 
 yet  arrived,  so  that  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  were  not 
 actually  deprived ;  but  they  refused  to  take  the 
 Oaths.  Grascome  does  not,  as  it  appears  to  me, 
 sufficiently  distinguish  between  an  actual  deprivation 
 from  office  and  the  taking  away  the  jurisdiction  of  a 
 
 r  Discourse  Concerning  the  Unreasonableness  of  a  New  Sepa- 
 ration, 4to.  p.  9. 
 '  Ibid.  p.  30. 
 
128  ^tetorp  of  tlje  ifronfucorg. 
 
 Bishop.  He  is  correct  in  saying,  that  the  former 
 cannot  be  taken  away  by  the  civil  power.  He  meets 
 Stillingfleet's  statements  by  asserting,  that  they  were 
 forced  into  the  schism  :  "  I  cannot,"  says  he,  "  see 
 how  a  schism  in  the  Church  of  England  can  be 
 avoided,  if  these  Oaths  be  imposed  :"  so  that  it  is  evi- 
 dent, that  the  Nonjurors  would  have  remained  at 
 their  posts  in  the  Church,  if  the  government  had  been 
 content  with  their  silent  acquiescence.  In  all  pro- 
 bability their  uncomfortable  feelings  would  soon  have 
 subsided,  if  the  Oaths  had  not  been  imposed.' 
 
 Grascome  was  answered  by  Williams,  subsequently 
 Bishop  of  Chichester,  in  "  A  Vindication  of  a  Dis- 
 course Concerning  the  Unreasonableness  of  a  New 
 Separation.''''  Williams  charges  Grascome  with  a 
 mistake  in  confounding  deprivation  with  degradation. 
 "  All  that  the  civil  power  here  pretends  to  is  to  se- 
 cure itself  against  the  practices  of  dissatisfied  persons  ; 
 and  to  try  who  are  such,  it  requires  an  Oath  of  Alle- 
 giance to  be  taken  by  all  in  office  :  and  in  case  of 
 refusal,  by  deprivation  to  disable  such,  as  far  as  they 
 can,  from  endangering  the  publick  safety.  But  if  the 
 Clergy  so  deprived  think  fit  to  take  the  Oaths,  they 
 are  in  statu  quo,  without  any  new  consecration  or 
 reordination."" 
 
 Grascome  answered  Williams  in  another  work,  in 
 which  are  some  things  relative  to  the  substitution  of 
 King  William's  name  for  that  of  King  James's  in  the' 
 Liturgy.  Williams  had  argued,  that  the  Bishops, 
 though  they  could  not  take  the  Oaths,  might  still 
 join  in  communion  with  the  Church,  and  avoid  a 
 
 4  A  Brief  Answer  to  a  Late  Discourse  Concerning  the  Unrea- 
 sonableness of  a  New  Separation. 
 
 u  State  Tracts,  Will.  III.  vol.  i.  618. 
 
^t'0tocp  Of  tt)C  ^onjucor0.  129 
 
 separation.  It  appears  that  Grascome  had  formerly 
 been  of  the  same  opinion,  since  in  the  passage  quoted 
 from  his  previous  work,  he  makes  the  schism  to  depend 
 upon  the  Oaths.  On  this  point  there  were  differences 
 among  the  Nonjurors  themselves.  Grascome  thus 
 states  the  matter  :  "  If  the  owning  and  praying  for 
 this  be  made  a  part  of  the  daily  office,  it  is  made  a 
 condition  of  our  communion."  So  again,  "  Are  we 
 not  obliged  to  pray  for  the  same  thing  in  more  ample, 
 plain,  and  significant  terms  than  we  are  to  swear  it? 
 The  matter  and  substance  of  these  Oaths  is  put  into 
 the  prayers  of  the  Church,  and  so  far  it  becomes  a 
 condition  of  communion.  What  people  are  enjoined 
 in  the  solemn  worship  to  pray  for,  is  made  a  condition 
 of  communion  :  and  if  it  be  sinful,  will  not  only  jus- 
 tify, but  require  a  separation."*  In  this  work  too 
 he  argues,  that  the  deprivation,  in  the  case  of  the 
 Bishops  and  Clergy,  was  equivalent  to  a  degradation 
 from  office.  He  has  a  very  remarkable  passage  on 
 this  subject :  "  It  is  not  long  since,  that  a  haughty 
 member  of  the  convention  plainly  told  me,  that  it  was 
 in  their  power  to  take  away  our  orders,  and  unpriest 
 and  unbishop  us.  By  this  you  may  see,  that  the 
 saviours  you  adore,  reckon  that  our  being  at  any 
 time  in  statu  quo,  lies  wholly  at  their  mercy,  and 
 that  even  yourselves,  if  you  do  not  absolutely  please 
 your  new  masters  and  go  through  stitch,  right  or 
 wrong,  with  their  commands,  can  pretend  to  little 
 benefit  from  your  character  or  orders." x  Undoubtedly 
 many  of  the  members  of  the  convention  were,  as  Gras- 
 come states,  Erastians,  who  looked  upon  the  Church 
 
 w  A  Reply  to  a  Vindication  of  a  Discourse  Concerning  the  Un- 
 reasonableness of  a  New  Separation,  4to.  1691,  pp.  6,  10. 
 x  Ibid.  p.  11. 
 
 K 
 
130  ^tetorp  of  ttje  ilJonjurotjj. 
 
 merely  as  their  creature,  which  they  could  create  or 
 destroy  at  pleasure.  When,  therefore,  we  reflect  upon 
 the  character  of  that  Parliament,  we  cannot  but  be 
 thankful,  that  the  Church  was  preserved  unimpaired. 
 Not  a  few  in  the  present  day,  even  among  the  Clergy, 
 maintain  the  same  erroneous  notions  respecting  the 
 relations  between  the  civil  power  and  the  Church. 
 They  would  allow  the  state  to  regulate  all  ecclesias- 
 tical matters  :  they  would  even  permit  episcopal  acts 
 to  be  performed  by  others  than  Bishops.  Undoubtedly 
 we  need  to  be  cautioned,  in  the  present  day,  against 
 this  unsound  but  prevalent  opinion. 
 
 Grascome  admits,  that  the  state  can  deprive  the 
 Bishops  and  Clergy  for  crimes.  But  he  denies  the 
 lawfulness  of  the  deprivations  in  question,  alleging 
 that  therefore  the  Nonjurors  deemed  it  necessary  to 
 exercise  their  ministry  in  a  state  of  separation.  He 
 speaks  out  plainly  in  condemnation  of  those  who 
 complied.  Thus  he  says  :  "  From  the  foregoing 
 discourse  these  consequences  may  be  fairly  drawn  : 
 first,  that  whosoever  shall  be  put  into  the  place  of 
 the  deprived  Bishops  are  not  to  be  esteemed  Bishops, 
 nor  ought  either  Clergy  or  people  to  regard  them, 
 but  to  adhere  firmly  to  their  former  true  Bishops. 
 Secondly,  that  whosoever  shall  ordain  such,  or  en- 
 deavour to  place  them  there,  make  themselves  crimi- 
 nals, and  liable  to  ecclesiastical  censure.  Thirdly, 
 that  they  and  all  their  adherents  are  schismatics. ',y 
 
 Sharpe,  as  has  been  noticed,  refused  to  accept  any 
 one  of  the  sees  of  the  deprived  Bishops ;  but  Tillot- 
 
 y  A  Reply  to  a  Vindication  of  a  Discourse  Concerning  the  Un- 
 reasonableness of  a  New  Separation,  4to.  1691,  p.  24.  Besides 
 these  works,  on  the  part  of  the  Nonjurors,  in  reply  to  Stillingfleet, 
 there  is  another  by  Brown,  the  author  of  "  The  Nag's  Head 
 Fable  Confuted  ;"  but  it  was  not  published  until  the  year  1749. 
 
^i0torp  of  ttje  ^onj'urottf.  131 
 
 son  made  an  arrangement  with  the  King  for  him  to 
 take  Lincoln  or  York  on  a  vacancy.  The  Arch- 
 bishopric soon  became  vacant,  and  Sharpe  was  ap- 
 pointed. On  the  28th  of  June  1691,  he  preached  a 
 farewell  sermon  at  St.  Giles's.  This  sermon  was 
 examined  in  a  Letter  addressed  to  the  Archbishop, 
 and  attributed  to  Hickes.  The  writer  charges  His 
 Grace  with  having  altered  his  views  within  the  last 
 two  years,  alluding  to  a  sermon  which  he  had  preached 
 before  the  Convention.  He  remarks,  "  I  find  you  so 
 altered,  like  many  of  your  brethren,  from  yourself, 
 that  though  Dr.  Sharpe  is  still  the  same  person,  yet 
 I  do  not  find  that  the  Dean  of  Norwich  and  the  Arch- 
 bishop are  the  same  man."  z 
 
 Alluding  to  the  complying  Bishops  and  Clergy, 
 the  writer  says,  "  I  hope  to  see  such  Bishops  and 
 Priests  become  base  and  contemptible,  that  expound 
 St.  Paul  as  you  and  Dr.  Sherlock  have  done,  and 
 advance  allegiance  to  the  government  upon  a  prin- 
 ciple that  is  destructive  to  it,  and  the  true  and  last- 
 ing peace  of  the  kingdom,  in  which  our  happiness 
 does  consist."*  He  charges  the  Archbishop  with 
 having  contradicted  his  former  sermon  :  "  Two  years 
 ago  you  were  not  of  opinion,  at  least  you  were  not 
 fully  persuaded,  that  the  text  (Romans  xiii,  1)  al- 
 lowed us  to  pray  in  behalf  of  a  king  de  facto  against 
 the  king  de  jure,  or  in  behalf  of  a  king  in  posses- 
 sion against  the  legal  king,  as  you  and  Dr.  Sherlock 
 still  acknowledge  King  James  to  be,  though  he  is 
 out  of  possession :  or  else  why  did  you,  at  his  house 
 in  the  Temple,  express  so  much  dislike  and  dissatis- 
 
 z  An  Apology  for  the  New  Separation  :  in  a  Letter  to  Dr.  John 
 Sharpe,  Archbishop  of  York  ;  occasioned  by  his  Farewell  Sermon. 
 4to.  1691.    P.  1.  «  [bid.  p.  4. 
 
!32  I£i0totrp  of  tlje  ijionjucor^. 
 
 faction  at  the  prayers  in  the  office  for  the  First  Ge- 
 neral Fast  ?  but  the  world  is  since  well  mended  with 
 you,  and  what  was  matter  of  difficulty  to  you  then 
 is  not  so  now  :  for  since  that  time  you  have  better 
 studied  the  great  Apostle  at  Canterbury  than  you 
 did  at  Norwich,  and  plainly  discovered  that  he  is 
 and  always  was  for  the  uppermost,  and  directs  us  to 
 pay  our  allegiance  and  devotion,  without  enquiring 
 into  titles,  to  the  King  in  the  throne."    He  adds 
 soon  after ;  "  My  Lord,  one  Jacobite,  could  he  turn 
 to  their  Majesties  upon  his  own  principles,  would  be 
 worth  an  hundred  such  subjects  as  you  and  Dr.  Sher- 
 lock :  and  whenever  Providence  shall  remove  the 
 obstacles,  which  lie  in  the  way  of  their  allegiance  to 
 them,  they  will  have  reason  to  value  them  as  so  many 
 jewels  of  their  crown."  b    Of  the  new  appointments 
 he  observes  :  "  But,  my  Lord,  besides  that  which 
 you  call  a  State  point,  there  is  also  a  Church  point, 
 of  which  you  take  no  notice,  though  it  be  another 
 known  cause  of  their  separation,  and  that  is  the  put- 
 ting of  new  Bishops  into  the  thrones  of  the  old  ones, 
 whose  deprivations  they  pretend  to  be  null  and  un- 
 just." In  reply  to  the  Archbishop's  charge  of  "  being 
 distasted  at  the  established  worship,  for  which  they 
 were  zealous  before,"  the  writer  affirms  that  they  are 
 still  as  zealous  "  as  far  as  the  matter  of  the  prayers 
 is  the  same.'' c 
 
 The  question  was  also  discussed  in  another  work, 
 "  Solomo7i  and  Abiathar"  attributed  to  Mr.  Hill. 
 This  author  acknowledges  the  difficulty  of  the  case, 
 and  professes  to  give  the  arguments  fairly  on  both 
 sides,  in  a  Dialogue  between  a  Conformist  and  a 
 
 b  An  Apology  for  the  New  Separation,  pp.  6,  7. 
 c  Ibid.  10.  " 
 
^tgtorp  of  tl)e  il^onjucotiS.  133 
 Recusant.  The  arguments  are  stated  with  much  im- 
 partiality ;  but  the  author's  own  views  are  pretty 
 evident.  The  fact,  too,  that  the  work  was  licensed 
 for  the  press  by  the  Bishop  of  London's  Chaplain, 
 is  decisive  of  the  author's  own  opinions,  though,  in 
 the  preface,  he  expresses  his  doubts  as  to  the  course 
 to  be  pursued. d  This  production  was  answered  by 
 Grascome,  who  combats  all  its  arguments  in  his 
 usual  style.  One  thing,  however,  was  stated,  which 
 gave  rise  to  a  very  curious  passage  in  Grascome's 
 reply.  Hill  had  assigned  as  a  reason  for  joining  in 
 the  prayers,  that  King  James  and  King  William  were 
 not  enemies.  Grascome  intimates,  that  King  James 
 may  attempt  to  recover  his  rights  :  "  and  I  am  apt 
 to  think,  that  your  little  ambitious,  Dutch  saviour 
 would  think  no  man  in  the  world  so  much  his  enemy 
 as  he  that  demands  three  kingdoms  from  him."e 
 
 d  Solomon  and  Abiathar :  or  the  Case  of  the  deprived  Bishops 
 and  Clergy  discussed  between  Eucheres  a  Conformist  and  Dys- 
 cheres  a  Recusant.  4to.  1692.  Calamy  examined  the  work  so 
 superficially,  that  he  considered  it  to  be  altogether  in  favour  of 
 the  Nonjurors,  whereas  the  aim  of  the  author  was  to  discounte- 
 nance their  claims.  Calamy  makes  him  represent  the  state  of 
 things  under  King  William  as  worse  than  a  deluge  of  Popery; 
 while  the  author  had  only  made  one  of  his  speakers  so  represent 
 it,  that  it  might  be  confuted  by  the  other.  "  Calamy's  Abridge- 
 ment, i,  510."  So  careless  was  Calamy  in  writing  the  history  of 
 that  period.    He  could  not  have  read  the  work. 
 
 e  Two  Letters  written  to  the  Author  of  a  Pamphlet  entituled 
 Solomon  and  Abiathar,  or  the  Case,  &c.  4to.  1692,  p.  33.  Gras- 
 come has  a  singular  passage  respecting  the  efforts  to  procure  some 
 indulgence  to  the  Nonjuring  Bishops.  "  On  the  28th  of  January 
 the  Bishop  of  London  and  St.  Asaph,  and  some  others,  presented 
 themselves  before  your  mighty  King  William,  with  a  mournful 
 address,  in  behalf  of  our  reverend  fathers,  then  drawing  near  to  a 
 civil  suspension,  and  since  more  than  uncivilly  deprived.  This  was 
 the  pretence  ;  but  it  is  reasonable  to  think,  that  it  was  a  complotted 
 thing,  and  that  the  real  design  was  to  get  their  authorities  deputed 
 
134  Ifisftorp  of  tlje  iPonjurorjs. 
 
 Like  most  other  controversies,  this  was  conducted 
 with  considerable  bitterness  on  both  sides.  The 
 charge  of  schism  was  retorted  by  both  parties.  But 
 though  the  introduction  of  the  names  of  the  new 
 Sovereigns  was  made  a  strong  point  in  the  contro- 
 versy, yet  I  feel  convinced,  that  the  greater  number 
 of  the  Clergy  would  have  continued  in  their  various 
 posts,  if  the  Oaths  had  not  been  enforced. 
 
 The  Nonjurors  charged  many  of  the  men,  who 
 took  a  leading  part  in  the  controversy  in  favour  of 
 the  government,  with  inconsistency  :  and  to  establish 
 this  charge  passages  were  adduced  from  their  former 
 writings.  In  a  collection  of  the  works  of  the  Non- 
 jurors in  my  possession,  which  was  once  the  property 
 
 in  such  sure  hands,  as  might  effectually  promote  perjury,  and  the 
 thrusting  good  men  out  of  possession  of  their  estates  and  exercise 
 of  their  proper  authorities :  for  the  effect  of  this  address  was  so 
 far  from  being  any  kindness  to  them  for  whom  it  was  pretended, 
 that  others  were  presently  hereupon  deputed  to  exercise  their  res- 
 pective jurisdictions  during  their  suspension,  deprivation,  and  till 
 their  places  should  be  filled  :  so  that  all  they  got  by  this  pretended 
 kindness  to  them,  was  to  be  stripped  stark  naked.  But  the  ad- 
 dressers having  thus  addressed  themselves  into  their  several  juris- 
 dictions, they  then  apply  themselves  to  our  reverend  fathers,  and, 
 with  a  seeming  humility  and  sorrowfulness,  acquaint  them  how 
 matters  were  ordered,  requesting  them,  that  since  it  must  be  so, 
 they  would  not  be  displeased  at  them,  if  they,  who  were  ready  to 
 do  them  all  the  service  they  could,  did  exercise  those  jurisdictions  : 
 to  which  they  received  an  answer  to  this  effect, — that  since  it 
 was  resolved  that  it  should  be  done,  whether  they  would  or  not,  it 
 was  in  a  manner  indifferent  to  them  by  whom  it  was  done,  though 
 they  were  as  willing  it  should  be  done  by  those  who  applied  them- 
 selves to  them  as  any  others."  Pp.  33,  34.  Grascome  alleges  this 
 as  an  answer  to  those  who  contended,  that  the  deprived  Bishops 
 had  delegated  their  authority  to  their  successors.  He  remarks, 
 that  it  did  not  imply  consent,  but  only  necessity.  He  speaks  of 
 the  compilers  as  men  "  who  have  enervated  her  discipline,  made 
 wicked  additions  to  her  prayers,  and  attempted  to  make  such  al- 
 terations as  would  not  leave  her  the  same  Church."    P.  5. 
 
^igtorp  of  ttje  |5onjucoc0»  135 
 
 of  a  Nonjuror  in  the  county  of  Somerset,  there  are 
 many  passages  from  Stillingfleet  and  others  written 
 on  the  margins  of  the  volumes — passages  which  cer- 
 tainly contain  doctrines  at  variance  with  those,  which 
 were  advanced  by  them,  at  the  period  of,  and  subse- 
 quent to,  the  Revolution.  Thus  on  the  margins  of 
 a  copy  of  Stillingfleet's  "  Unreasonableness  of  a  New 
 Separation,"  which  came  into  my  possession  with  a 
 large  number  of  contemporary  works,  on  both  sides, 
 from  the  family  of  the  Nonjuror  alluded  to,  there  are 
 several  quotations,  in  the  hand  of  that  gentleman,  from 
 other  writings  of  Stillingfleet.  A  few  may  be  selected 
 as  a  sample.  "  I  think  it  a  part  of  a  good  Christian 
 to  be  always  a  loyal  subject."  Vindication  of  Answer 
 to  King's  Papers,  p.  101.  "  No  Church  in  the  world 
 can  lay  an  obligation  upon  a  man  to  be  dishonest, 
 i.  e.  to  profess  one  thing  and  to  do  another.  And  no 
 Church  can  oblige  a  man  to  believe  what  is  false,  or 
 do  what  is  unlawful :  and  rather  than  do  either  he 
 must  forsake  the  communion  of  that  Church."  Vin- 
 dication, 106.  "  It  is  sufficient  to  my  purpose  to 
 shew,  that  our  Church  doth  not  only  teach  them 
 (passive  obedience  and  non-resistance)  as  her  own 
 doctrines  :  but  which  is  far  more  effectual,  as  the 
 doctrines  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  and  of  the  primi- 
 tive Church."     Vindication,  389. 
 
 Such  passages  as  these,  and  many  such  may  be 
 found  in  the  writings  of  Stillingfleet,  Sherlock  and 
 others  in  the  time  of  Charles  II,  and  James  II,  cer- 
 tainly countenanced  the  Nonjurors  in  their  course  : 
 and  we  must  admit,  that  the  charge  of  inconsistency 
 is  more  easily  substantiated  against  the  former,  than 
 against  the  latter.  This  point  was  urged  with  much 
 sarcasm  by  Leslie.  Thus  he  says:  "  Neither  the 
 clamour  of  the  Jacobites,  nor  their  own  consciences, 
 
136  ^igtocp  of  tf)e  iI5oniucor0. 
 
 nor  the  satisfaction  of  the  people,  nor  to  clear  their 
 own  reputation  from  so  foul  a  scandal  could  ever  yet 
 persuade  Dr.  Patrick  to  answer  his  paraphrases,  Dr. 
 Stillingfleet,  his  Preface  to  the  Jesuit's  Loyalty,  Dr. 
 Burnet,  his  Dialogues,  Dr.  Sherlock,  his  Case  of 
 Resistance,  his  Sermons,  &c.  They  have  indeed 
 advanced  themselves  to  posts  of  preferment  by  clean 
 contrary  doctrines,  which  they  preach,  and  preach 
 over  and  over,  but  the  other  old  doctrines  stand  still 
 uncancelled,  and  have  not  been  delivered  away  by 
 any  direct  act  and  deed.  They  own  and  preach  up 
 other  doctrines,  but  they  will  neither  formally  re- 
 nounce these,  nor  yet  reconcile  them  to  their  new 
 opinions  and  practices ;  and  there  is  good  reason  for 
 both,  to  reconcile  them  is  impossible,  and  to  renounce 
 them  inconvenient :  for  there  may  a  time  come  when 
 such  doctrines  may  be  in  fashion  again,  even  as 
 heretofore." f  Alluding  to  certain  attacks  on  Sher- 
 lock, which  he  designated  libels,  Leslie  retorts : 
 "  These  gentlemen  had  need  talk  of  libels  when  they 
 have  taken  such  extraordinary  pains  to  libel  them- 
 selves. Dr.  Patrick's  Paraphrases  are  a  notorious 
 libel  against  him  :  and  Dr.  Stil ling-fleet's  Preface  to 
 The  Jesuit's  Loyalty,  is  a  terrible  libel  against  him  ; 
 and  Dr.  Sherlock's  Case  of  Resistance,  and  all  his 
 books  and  sermons  before  the  Oath  are  venomous 
 and  inveterate  libels  against  him,  and  against  all 
 that  he  hath  preached  and  written  since.  These  are 
 libels,  and  perpetual  libels,  and  will  remain  ever- 
 lasting monuments  of  their  infamy,  except  they  can 
 persuade  the  people  to  burn  all  their  books,  and 
 forget  all  their  sermons.     So  that  (to  give  these 
 
 '  Remarks  on  some  late  Sermons :  and  in  particular  on  Dr. 
 Sherlock's  at  the  Temple.    Dec.  30th,  1694.    P.  13. 
 
%'0torp  of  ttje  ilion)ucoc0.  137 
 
 gentlemen  their  due)  they  have  saved  their  adver- 
 saries all  the  trouble  in  this  point,  and  they  have 
 something  else  to  do  than  to  beat  so  common  and 
 trite  an  argument  to  trouble  the  world  with  any  more 
 libels,  when  they  find  so  many  made  to  their  hands 
 by  the  gentlemen  themselves."6 
 
 It  would  be  almost  impossible  to  specify,  much 
 less  to  notice  at  length,  all  the  productions  of  the 
 parties  engaged  in  this  controversy.  I  must  content 
 myself,  therefore,  with  directing  attention  to  some  of 
 the  more  important. 
 
 In  the  year  1692  was  printed  anonymously  and 
 privately  a  work  of  considerable  size,  "  The  Unity 
 of  the  Priesthood,  $c."  By  the  Nonjuror  to  whom 
 I  have  already  alluded,  who  lived  at  the  time,  the 
 work  is  ascribed  to  Dr.  Bisby.  The  writer  com- 
 mences by  stating,  that  the  appointment  of  a  new 
 Archbishop  was  the  occasion  of  his  undertaking: 
 "  Of  the  ill  news  you  have  sent  me,  none  sits  so 
 close  upon  me  as  the  news  of  a  new  Primate  and  new 
 Bishops :  the  old  ones  being  living,  and  neither 
 canonically  heard,  nor  judicially  deprived  :  a  project 
 utterly  dissonant  to  all  primitive  practice,  to  the 
 ancient  constitutions  and  canons  of  the  Church  :  and 
 which  if  not  timely  compromised,  must  necessarily 
 beget  and  perhaps  unavoidably  propagate  a  lasting 
 schism  among  us."h 
 
 An  ancient  MS.  had  been  discovered  in  Oxford, 
 containing  a  set  of  Canons,  which  it  was  thought 
 
 g  Remarks  on  some  late  Sermons,  &c.  28. 
 
 h  Unity  of  Priesthood  necessary  to  Unity  of  Communion  in  a 
 Church.  With  Some  Reflections  on  the  Oxford  MS.  and  the 
 Preface  annexed.  Also  a  Collection  of  Canons,  part  of  the 
 said  MS.,  faithfully  transcribed  into  English  from  the  Original, 
 hut  concealed  by  Mr.  Hody  and  his  Prefacer,  4to.  1692. 
 
138  1^0torp  of  ttje  jfroniumfr 
 
 favoured  the  case  of  the  new  Bishops.  This  MS. 
 was  published  by  Hody,  under  the  following  title  : 
 
 "  The  unreasonableness  of  a  separation  from  the  new 
 Bishops  :  or  a  treatise  out  of  Ecclesiastical  history, 
 shewing  that  although  a  Bishop  was  originally  de- 
 prived, neither  he  nor  the  Church  ever  made  a  sepa- 
 ration if  the  successor  ivas  not  an  heretic.  Trans- 
 lated out  of  an  ancient  MS.  in  the  Public  Library 
 at  Oxford,  4to,  1691."  In  this  work,  therefore,  the 
 aim  is  to  shew  that  a  separation  from  the  Church 
 could  not  lawfully  be  made  by  the  deprived  Bishops, 
 unless  the  new  Bishops  were  guilty  of  heresy.  Hody, 
 however,  omitted  some  of  the  Canons  :  and  the  author 
 of  the  preceding  work  printed  the  omissions.  He 
 contends  that  the  suppressed  Canons  favour  the  old 
 Bishops,  and  not  the  new.  He  charges  Hody  with 
 "  Shamming  the  world  with  part  of  the  MS.  for  the 
 whole."  Hody  had  said  that  there  was  a  "  Singular 
 Providence  in  the  discovery  at  that  juncture :  and  the 
 author  hopes  that  the  Canons,  which  he  publishes, 
 "  may  have  as  good  a  title  to  that  singular  Provi- 
 dence."x  These  Canons  were  written  in  the  same 
 hand  with  the  previous  portion  of  the  MS.,  and  the 
 author  of  "  The  Unity  of  Priesthood  "  states,  that 
 Hody,  as  it  was  alleged,  had  declined  to  print  them, 
 on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  appear  to  have  been 
 written  by  the  same  author.    It  certainly  was  disin- 
 
 1  In  the  preface  Hody  says,  "The  Greek  MS.  from  which  this 
 treatise  is  translated,  is  in  that  part  of  the  Public  Library  at  Ox- 
 ton  that  is  called  the  Baroccian.  It  is  very  likely  that  this  is  the 
 only  copy  of  this  book  now  remaining  in  the  world.  And  that  it 
 should  be  preserved  till  our  times  and  yet  hitherto  be  overlooked  : 
 and  at  this  very  juncture  be  taken  notice  of,  and  so  opportunely 
 brought  to  light,  seems  to  be  more  than  a  fortuitous  hit:  it  appears 
 to  have  something  of  to  Qtiov  and  a  singular  Providence  in  it." 
 
%'0torp  of  ttje  iftonjurottf.  139 
 
 genuous  on  the  part  of  Hody  not  to  publish  the 
 whole  of  the  MS.  The  suppression  led  men  to  sup- 
 pose, that  there  was  a  conviction  in  his  own  mind, 
 that  they  rather  opposed  than  supported  his  prin- 
 ciple.11 
 
 The  Canons  in  question  contain  the  rule,  one 
 God,  one  Christ,  one  Bishop.  This  point,  indeed,  was 
 admitted  by  both  parties,  and  the  question  was, 
 who  were  the  lawful  Bishops.  The  author  of  the 
 "  Unity  of  the  Priesthood  "  argues  for  the  deprived 
 Bishops,  as  being  the  first,  and  not  canonically  de- 
 prived. "The  first  Bishop  (if  canonically  placed  in 
 the  see)  was  ever  accounted  the  true  and  Catholic, 
 and  the  second  the  false  and  schismatical  Bishop : 
 and  the  Church  was  ever  adjudged  to  go  along  with 
 those,  who  by  a  lawful  ordination  were  first  set  up 
 in  it :  and  the  schism  with  those,  who  were  after- 
 wards superinduced  and  clapt  upon  them."1  Ac- 
 cording to  this  writer  the  Ordainers  were  the  more 
 to  be  censured.  "  Those  Bishops  I  mean  that  first 
 dressed  up  the  ape,  set  him  in  the  chair,  and  bad 
 God  speed  unto  him  ;  hence,  though  submission  and 
 penance  might  reconcile  the  other  Clergy,  yet  nothing- 
 less  than  utter  deprivation  and  loss  of  their  sacerdotal 
 honours  could  atone  for  such."m  It  was  argued,  by 
 the  supporters  of  the  government,  that  the  rejection  of 
 the  interference  of  the  state  in  this  case  involved  also 
 the  rejection  of  the  proceedings  with  the  Bishops,  who 
 were  deprived  at  the  Reformation.  This  argument 
 is  met  in  the  present  work  at  considerable  length. 
 The  author  alludes  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
 which  was  duly  and  lawfully  set  forth  by  Parliament 
 
 k  See  these  Canons,  in  Unity  of  Priesthood,  pp.  67 — 70. 
 1  Ibid,  p.  1 1.  m  Ibid,  18. 
 
140  ^tgtorp  of  ttje  ifronj'utw. 
 
 and  by  convocation  :  so  that  on  this  ground  the  Ro- 
 mish Bishops  were  lawfully  deprived  for  noncom- 
 pliance. Other  reasons  are  adduced  to  prove,  that 
 the  cases  of  the  Bishops,  at  the  Reformation  and  at 
 the  Revolution,  were  not  by  any  means  parallel." 
 
 There  is,  I  think,  evidence  even  in  this  volume  in 
 support  of  the  view  which  I  have  frequently  ex- 
 pressed, namely,  that  notwithstanding  some  scruples 
 respecting  the  Prayers  for  the  Sovereigns,  and  the 
 Petitions  on  Fast  and  Thanksgiving  days,  the  Clergy 
 would  have  complied,  if  the  Oath  had  not  been  im- 
 posed. Thus  he  says  :  "  I  have  freely  delivered  my 
 thoughts  concerning  this  subject,  insomuch  that  if 
 you  and  others  will  but  seriously  reflect  and  consider 
 what  hath  been  offered  thereon  from  authentic  and 
 undeniable  testimonies,  you  may  readily  perceive 
 the  reason  why  so  many  of  us  at  present  refuse  the 
 communion  of  the  new  Bishops  and  perform  our 
 devotions  separate  by  ourselves,  under  the  presidency 
 of  our  old  ones.  The  communion  itself  was  difficult 
 (if  at  all  tolerable)  before  the  rent  was  made  :  for 
 how  could  we  make  him  our  enemy,  or  pray  that 
 God  would  confound  his  devices,  whom  we  durst  not 
 lift  up  our  hands  against,  nor  so  much  as  curse,  no 
 not  in  our  thoughts  ?  This  was  the  difficulty  we 
 laboured  under  then,  and  should  we  now  any  longer 
 consent  and  communicate  with  them,  seeing  they 
 have  cut  themselves  off  from  their  lawful  Bishops 
 and  turned  subjects  to  those  that  have  usurped  their 
 thrones,  we  should  unavoidably  involve  ourselves  in 
 their  schism."  0 
 
 n  Unity  of  Priesthood,  40 — 50. 
 
 °  Ibid,  55,  56.  The  author  of  The  Hereditary  Right  alludes 
 to  previous  periods,  when,  on  a  change  of  government,  only  the 
 great  men,  who  held  lands  upon  secular  services,  as  he  thinks, 
 
%i0torp  of  ttje  &tmiw*t$<  hi 
 
 Hody,  as  before  mentioned,  laboured  to  prove,  from 
 his  ancient  MS,  that  no  separation  ever  took  place 
 from  a  new  Bishop,  even  though  uncanonically  in- 
 troduced, unless  he  was  guilty  of  schism.  This 
 position  is  controverted  by  the  author,  who  argues 
 that  a  new  Bishop  must  not  only  be  orthodox  in  the 
 faith,  but  canonically  introduced  into  a  vacant  see> 
 that  is  a  see  vacant,  according  to  the  Canons  of  the 
 Church. p 
 
 It  is  singular,  that  Watt  should  make  so  many 
 mistakes,  in  his  laborious  and  most  valuable  work, 
 "  The  Bibliotheca  Britannica"  respecting  the  writ- 
 ings of  the  Nonjurors.  He  very  properly  attributes 
 the  account  of  the  MS  to  Hody  :  but  he  also  makes 
 him  the  author  of  the  reply,  "  The  Unity  of  the  Priest- 
 hood." This  is  an  absurdity,  the  two  works  being  in 
 opposition  to  each  other.  Watt  makes  another  sin- 
 gular mistake,  in  ascribing  Hickes's  first  volume  of 
 Tracts,  "  The  Bibliotheca  Scriptorum,  <§r."  to  Gandy, 
 though  the  author's  name  appears  on  the  title  page. 
 
 Hody  replied  to  the  author  of  the  "  Unity  of  Priest- 
 hood," in  "  A  Letter  to  a  Friend  Concerning  the  Ox- 
 ford Treatise  against  Schism.  4to.  1692." 
 
 One  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Nonjurors,  and  in- 
 deed one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  that,  or  of  any 
 other  period,  Henry  Dodwell,  now  came  forward  in 
 this  controversy.  Before,  however,  I  notice  his  works, 
 a  brief  account  of  his  history  to  the  period  in  ques- 
 tion is  necessary .q 
 
 took  the  Oaths.  He  says:  "  Had  the  Clergy  of  England  enjoyed 
 this  privilege  at  the  time  of  the  late  Revolution  ;  near  four  hundred 
 of  them  had  quietly  continued  in  the  possession  of  their  livings, 
 of  which  they  were  for  no  other  reason  deprived  but  because  they 
 were  Nonjurors."  Pp.  71,  72. 
 p  Unity  of  Priesthood,  58—61. 
 
 i  We  have  the  most  unexceptionable  testimony  to  Dodwell's 
 
142  ^t'sJtorp  of  ttje  iJ^onfurors$. 
 
 Dodwell  was  resident  at  Oxford,  as  Camdenian 
 Lecturer,  at  the  Revolution.  At  an  early  period,  he 
 endeavoured  to  prevent  persons  from  taking  the  Oath 
 of  Allegiance  to  the  new  Sovereigns.  As  some  in- 
 dividuals imagined,  that  the  Oath  only  required  them 
 to  live  peaceably  under  the  new  government,  without 
 attempting  to  disturb  the  Revolution  settlement,  Dod- 
 wTell  came  forward  in  "  A  Cautionary  Discourse  of 
 Schism  with  a  particular  regard  to  the  case  of  the 
 Bishops  who  are  suspended  for  refusing  to  take  the 
 new  Oath/'  At  that  time  he  hoped  to  prevent  the 
 deprivation  of  the  Bishops.  With  respect  to  the 
 Oath,  he  argued  that  it  pledged  the  parties,  who  took 
 it,  never  to  do  any  thing  to  promote  the  cause  of  the 
 King  de  jure.  This,  he  said,  was  the  view  of  the 
 loyalists  in  the  time  of  Cromwell,  who  could  not  take 
 the  Oaths  which  were  then  adopted.  His  great 
 anxiety,  therefore,  was  that  the  Oath  should  not  be 
 imposed,  foreseeing  that  a  schism  must  inevitably 
 arise,  should  such  be  the  case.  His  main  points  in  the 
 "  Cautionary  Discourse"  were  these  ;  that  neither  the 
 state,  nor  their  fellow  Bishops  could  deprive  them  of 
 their  spiritual  characters,  and  that  they  could  not  be 
 deprived  by  a  Synod,  since  the  Bishops,  who  would  be 
 
 talents  in  Calamy's  Account  of  his  residence  in  Oxford.  "  I  had 
 also,  while  at  Oxford,  frequent  and  familiar  conversation  with  the 
 celebrated  Mr.  Henry  Dodwell,  certainly  as  great  a  master  of  the 
 historical  part  of  learning  as  mostmen."  Calamy  says  that  he  wished 
 to  ingross  the  conversation  to  himself ;  that  this  was  disliked  :  "  but 
 it  suited  my  purpose  well  enough,  who  aimed  at  nothing  by  being 
 in  his  company,  but  the  getting  some  benefit  from  his  great  read- 
 ing. I  soon  discovered  his  usual  time  of  being  at  the  coffee  house, 
 and  would  often  contrive  to  be  there,  that  I  might  have  his  com- 
 pany." He  remarks  that  he  was  pleased  when  difficulties  were 
 proposed:  "  upon  starting  anything  of  this  kind,  he  would  pour 
 out  a  flood  of  learning  with  great  freedom."  Calamy's  Life,  i. 
 281, 282. 
 
^igtorp  of  ttje  jfronfucorg,  143 
 
 judges,  had  become  responsible  to  the  laws  of  the 
 land  and  the  Canons  of  the  Church,  for  deserting  the 
 doctrine  of  passive  obedience.  He  closes  with  an 
 address  to  the  complying  Bishops,  to  prevent  a  schism 
 in  the  Church/  In  his  letter  to  Tillotson  he  had 
 argued,  that  the  appointment  of  new  Bishops  would 
 be  to  erect  altar  against  altar :  and  that  they  would 
 be  cut  off  from  communion  with  the  Church.' 
 
 When  the  time  came  for  taking  the  Oath  he  re- 
 fused :  consequently  he  was  deprived  of  his  post  at 
 Oxford.  He  obtained  the  following  certificate  of  his 
 removal  from  the  Vice-chancellor.  "  Nov.  19,  1691. 
 These  are  to  certify  whom  it  may  concern,  that  Mr. 
 Henry  Dodwell  was  dismissed  from  the  Camdenian 
 Lecture  of  History  in  Oxford,  for  not  taking  the  Oath 
 of  Allegiance  to  their  Majesties  King  William  and 
 Queen  Mary,  as  the  statute  requireth.  Jonathan 
 Edwards,  Vice-chancellor  of  Oxon."*  He  did  not 
 separate  from  the  Parish  Churches  until  the  new 
 Bishops  were  actually  appointed,  though  he  had  a  dif- 
 ficulty in  saying  Amen  to  some  of  the  prayers,  which, 
 however,  he  did  not  consider  a  sufficient  ground  for 
 separation.  But  when  other  Bishops  were  placed  in 
 the  Sees  of  the  deprived  Prelates,  he  quitted  the 
 communion  of  the  Church.  Looking  upon  the  new 
 Bishops  as  secundi,  and  consequently  nulli,  he  could 
 not  hold  communion  with  them.  He  regarded  them 
 as  schismatics,  who  had  intruded  into  sees  not  canoni- 
 
 r  Dodwell's  Life,  pp.  225—234.  "  Mr.  Dodwell  first  published 
 his  Cautionary  Discourse  of  Schism,  upon  the  suspension  of  Arch- 
 bishop Sancroft  and  his  six  suffragans,  with  a  particular  regard  to 
 their  case,  and  with  a  design  to  prevent  if  possible  the  new  conse- 
 crations."   Kettlewell's  Life,  126. 
 
 5  Dodwell's  Life,  220. 
 
 '  Ibid.  221. 
 
144  ^tgtorp  of  ttjc  jponj'urorg. 
 
 cally  vacant :  so  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  Nonjuring 
 Bishops  retained  their  authority,  and  might  challenge 
 their  rights.  He  was  one  of  the  most  powerful  advo- 
 cates of  the  party  :  and  having  been  so  long  prac- 
 tised in  controversy,  he  was  well  qualified  for  the 
 work.  Accordingly  he  made  his  appearance  against 
 Hody  and  the  Baroccian  MS  u 
 
 Dodwell  first  assails  the  MS.  for  the  want  of  an- 
 tiquity, since  it  was  not  written  before  the  thirteenth 
 century,  and  was  consequently  too  late  as  an  evidence 
 of  facts.  He  then  comes  to  Hody's  principle,  that 
 no  separation  was  allowed  even  though  Bishops  were 
 unjustly  deprived.  All  the  cases  are  examined  by 
 Dodwell  with  his  usual  ability.  A  brief  account  of 
 his  arguments  is  also  given  in  his  Life.w  Dodwell 
 built  a  good  deal  on  the  fact,  that  the  deprived 
 Bishops  asserted  their  rights,  and  challenged  the 
 duty  of  the  people.  He  also  contended  that,  on  St. 
 Cyprian's  principles,  Bishops  placed  in  sees  vacant 
 only  by  the  authority  of  the  secular  magistrate,  were 
 not  only  schismatics,  but  nulli.  He  even  charges 
 the  new  Bishops  with  heresy,  on  the  ground  that 
 they  justified  their  schism  by  principles.  "  When 
 it  is  defended  by  principles,  it  turns  into  false  doc- 
 trine."1   In  considering  the  Canons  suppressed  by 
 
 u  A  Vindication  of  the  Deprived  Bishops,  asserting  their  spiritual 
 rights  against  a  lay  deprivation,  against  the  charge  of  Schism  as 
 managed  by  the  editors  of  an  anonymous  Baroccian  MS.  In  Two 
 Parts.  I.  Shewing  that  though  the  instances  collected  in  the  said 
 MS.  had  been  pertinent  to  the  editor's  design,  yet  that  would  not 
 have  been  sufficient  for  obtaining  their  cause.  II.  Shewing  that  the 
 Instances  there  collected  are  indeed  not  pertinent  to  the  editor's 
 design,  for  indicating  the  validity  of  the  deprivation  of  spiritual 
 power  by  a  lay-authority.    London,  4 to.  1692. 
 
 "  Dodwell's  Life,  pp.  235—53. 
 
 x  Vindication  of  the  deprived  Bishops,  &c.  p.  24. 
 
^I'tftorp  of  ttje  iftomurortf.  145 
 
 Hody,  he  remarks,  that  the  lay  deprivations  must  be 
 condemned  if  they  are  admitted. 
 
 Hody  published  "  A  Reply  to  Dodwell,"  in  which 
 the  usual  arguments  are  re-stated,  with  others  which 
 had  been  suggested  by  the  Vindication.7  From  some 
 cause,  Dodwell  did  not  again  come  forward  for  two 
 years  ;  so  that  the  question  between  these  eminent 
 individuals  may  be  reserved  for  further  consideration 
 in  another  chapter. 
 
 Kettlewell  also  took  a  prominent  part  in  this 
 controversy.  In  the  year  1692  he  published  his 
 "  Christian  Communion,"  in  which  the  questions  at 
 issue  between  the  Nonjurors  and  their  opponents  are 
 elaborately  discussed.2  It  appeared  first  as  a  sepa- 
 rate work,  and  was  reprinted  with  his  collected  works 
 in  1719.  Much  was  said  by  the  Nonjurors  of  im- 
 moral prayers  ;  and  Kettlewell  argues  for  the  sepa- 
 ration, on  the  ground,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  faithful 
 Bishops  and  Pastors  to  provide  the  means  of  wor- 
 
 y  The  case  of  the  sees  vacant  by  an  unjust  or  uncanonical  de- 
 privation stated,  in  answer  to  a  piece  entitled  A  Vindication  of  the 
 deprived  Bishops :  together  with  several  pamphlets  published  as 
 answers  to  the  Baroccian  Treatise,  4to,  1693. 
 
 z  Of  Christian  communion  to  be  kept  in  the  unity  of  Christ's 
 Church,  and  among  the  professors  of  truth  and  holiness ;  and  of 
 the  obligations  both  of  faithful  Pastors,  to  administer  orthodox 
 and  holy  offices,  and  of  faithful  people,  to  communicate  in  the 
 same.  Fitted  for  persecuted,  or  divided,  or  corrupt  states  of 
 Churches  :  when  they  are  either  borne  down  by  secular  persecu- 
 tions, or  broken  with  schisms,  or  defiled  with  simple  offices  and 
 ministrations,  4to.  1692.  Also  in  his  works,  vol.  ii.  p.  471.  Ket- 
 tlewell published  two  very  valuable  devotional  forms,  "  A  Com- 
 panion for  the  Persecuted,  or  an  Office  for  those  who  suffer 
 for  Righteousness,  containing  particular  Prayers  and  Devotions 
 for  particular  Graces,  and  for  their  Private  or  Public  Wants  and 
 Occasions."  And  "  A  Companion  for  the  Penitent,  and  for  Per- 
 sons troubled  in  Mind,"  Sec. 
 
 L 
 
146  ^0tocp  of  tfje  i£onfucot% 
 
 ship  for  the  people  free  of  immoral  prayers,  though 
 they  cannot  prevent  immoral  practices.  The  force 
 of  state  deprivations  :  the  royal  supremacy  :  schism, 
 with  other  points,  are  discussed  at  great  length. 
 Respecting  the  ordination  of  Anti-bishops,  his  opi- 
 nions did  not  differ  materially  from  Dodwell  s  :  for 
 on  quoting  St.  Cyprian's  dictum,  that  an  Anti- 
 bishop  was  no  Bishop,  he  says  :  "  But  however  it 
 might  be  in  the  opinion  of  St.  Cyprian  and  the 
 African  Church  of  that  age,  the  Africans  carrying 
 the  effect  of  schism  farther  than  others,  to  the  nulling 
 of  their  baptisms  and  ordinations  :  I  think  this  nulling 
 of  all  ordinations  of  opposite  or  Anti-bishops,  or  making 
 them  null  in  themselves,  is  no  Catholic  doctrine,  nor 
 did  the  Church  tye  itself  thereto,  or  proceed  thereby  in 
 other  ages."  After  alluding  to  the  Novatian  schism,  he 
 remarks  :  "  Excepting  St.  Cyprian,  and  the  Africanes, 
 whom  St.  Basil  notes  to  have  strained  the  effects  of 
 schism  too  far,  and  to  have  outshot  the  mark  in  these 
 points  ;  though  there  were  Anti-bishops,  the  Catholic 
 Church  did  not  look  upon  them,  and  the  Priests  or- 
 dained by  them  as  mere  laymen,  or  null  their  ordi- 
 nations, baptisms,  or  other  Church  ministrations." 
 It  was  on  this  ground  that  Dodwell  acted  subse- 
 quent to  the  death  of  Lloyd.  Kettlewell  admits  that 
 the  people,  though  not  the  Clergy,  may  resort  to  the 
 communion  of  the  Anti-bishops,  when  they  cannot 
 communicate  with  the  rightful  Bishops.  After  pro- 
 posing the  question,  he  replies  :  "  I  hope  they  may, 
 and  that  the  necessity  of  having  public  worship  and 
 ministerial  offices,  will  excuse  the  faultiness  and 
 obliquity  of  having  it  at  the  hands  of  one  communi- 
 cating in  a  schism,  or  out  of  the  unity  of  the  Church."3 
 
 ■  Works,  vol.  ii  621,  622,  635. 
 
I&tfttorp  of  rfje  ^onfurotg.  147 
 God,  he  says,  permits  what  he  calls  abatements  of 
 duties  in  cases  of  necessity  :  "  He  has  not  required 
 that  man  should  stick  so  fast  to  those  duties,  or  parts 
 of  duties,  which  are  inferior,  or  subservient,  or  ap- 
 pendages unto  others  ;  as  that  for  their  sakes  they 
 should  drop  other  duties,  which  are  principal  or 
 superior  to  them.  So  that  to  think  he  will  abate 
 and  relax  something  of  the  duty  of  Church  union, 
 when  that  is  necessary  to  keep  on  the  more  important 
 duty  of  public  ministrations  :  and  that  he  doth  not 
 tye  the  people  up  to  such  strict  state  of  communi- 
 cating in  the  unity  of  the  Church,  as  must  drop  or 
 let  fall  all  communion  in  ministerial  offices,  when 
 they  are  not  to  be  had,  but  at  the  hands  of  those  who 
 minister  in  breach  thereof :  is  only  to  think  that  he 
 is  ready  to  make  the  same  equitable  allowance  on 
 any  competition  in  these,  as  he  doth  on  like  compe- 
 tition, in  other  duties. "b  He  then  cites  certain  in- 
 stances from  the  Old  Testament :  after  which  he 
 remarks  :  "  It  did  the  same  in  our  own  great  rebel- 
 lion, when  our  Bishops  were  all  driven  out  and  de- 
 posed with  the  King.  For  then  the  orthodox  took 
 up  with  the  communion  of  the  Parish  Churches,  and 
 thought,  that  for  the  sake  of  public  worship  and 
 ministerial  offices,  they  might  do  so,  where  they  had 
 no  ministers  of  their  own  to  communicate  with.  So 
 that  in  the  opinion  of  those,  our  ancestors,  it  was  a 
 good  excuse  for  having  divine  offices  in  such  assem- 
 blies, when  they  could  have  better  no  where  else. 
 Lastly,  this  necessity  of  having  some  ministerial 
 offices  is  generally  thought  to  legitimate  communion  in 
 those  Churches  which  have  no  Bishops.  They  must 
 have  some  divine  service  and  religion.    And  if  they 
 
 b  Works,  &c.  639. 
 
148  ^tgtorp  of  ttjc  iI5oniucot0. 
 
 can  have  no  ministration  thereof  in  an  Episcopal 
 communion,  they  must  take  up  with  it  from  such 
 other  as  they  can  have."  This  principle  he  applies 
 only  to  the  people,  but  on  the  same  ground  he  thinks, 
 that  the  Clergy  may  in  cases  of  necessity  minister 
 "  without  episcopal  powers." 
 
 A  distinction  is  drawn  between  Rome  and  the 
 Church  of  England.  He  argues  the  impossibility  of 
 communicating  with  Rome,  because  she  imposes  a 
 compliance  with  her  corruptions  as  a  condition  of 
 partaking  in  the  sound  portions  of  her  offices.  He 
 remarks  that  "  The  necessity  of  having  ministerial 
 offices,  as  it  will  excuse  the  faultiness  of  meeting 
 with  those  who  are  in  a  schism  :  so,  I  conceive,  will 
 excuse  men  too  in  bearing  with  these  corrupt  matters 
 and  immoral  additions,  whilst  they  can  be  allowed 
 sufficiently  to  signifie  and  express  their  dissent  from 
 them."0  With  respect  to  public  fasts  or  thanks- 
 givings he  says  :  "  It  is  insincere  for  those,  who 
 abhor  that  design  which  they  are  appointed  to  carry 
 on,  to  afford  their  presence,  or  meet  at  them.  But 
 I  think  it  is  not  so  with  any  particular  passages  and 
 petitions,  in  the  ordinary  devotions,  at  other  times.'"1 
 
 Another  extract  will  be  acceptable,  inasmuch  as 
 it  proves  that  Kettlewell  acted  with  great  modera- 
 tion, and  that  his  opinions  differed  from  those  of 
 Hickes  and  his  friends  at  a  later  period.  "  And 
 thus,  I  think,  it  may  appear  both  how  careful  we 
 
 ou^ht  to  be  in  shunning  the  communion  of  Anti- 
 cs ~ 
 
 bishops  and  their  scbismatical  adherents,  when  we 
 have  other  opportunities  :  and  how,  for  the  benefit  of 
 some  ministerial  offices,  we  may  be  at  liberty  to  take 
 up  with  them,  when  we  can  have  the  same  from  none 
 
 c  Works,  vol.  ii.  643,  648  650. 
 
 1  Ibid.  652. 
 
^igtorp  of  rtje  iPom'ttrow.  149 
 
 else.  Yea,  for  all  they  happen  at  any  time  to  have 
 made  an  addition  of  immoral  mixtures  to  a  body  of 
 otherwise  good  and  sufficient  prayers,  if  we  openly 
 and  sufficiently  express  our  dislike,  and  standing  off 
 from  them,  whilst  we  as  openly  concur  and  join  in 
 others."  Some  persons  pleaded  a  zeal  against  Popery 
 for  complying  with  the  new  order  of  things.  Kettle- 
 well,  who  was  as  much  opposed  to  Popery  as  any 
 who  complied,  remarks  :  "The  zeal  against  Popery, 
 is  given  out  often  in  these  latter  days  of  the  world, 
 to  go  furthest  in  blinding  many.  But  though  Popery, 
 on  account  of  the  many  dangerous  errors  and  un- 
 lawful practices  thereof,  is  a  most  dangerous  religion  : 
 yet  must  they  be  a  strange  sort  of  religious  persons 
 who  can  think  nothing  but  Popery  will  endanger 
 them.  And  I  beg  all  such  as  are  in  earnest  for  the 
 salvation  of  their  souls,  to  consider  that  it  is  as 
 wretched  a  part,  both  of  folly  and  wickedness,  to 
 throw  away  their  souls  in  any  immoral  or  otherwise 
 unlawful  ways,  to  keep  out  Popery  :  as  it  would  be 
 to  throw  them  away  in  turning  to  it."e  These  ex- 
 tracts show  that  Kettlewell's  views  were  more  mode- 
 rate than  those  of  Collier,  Hickes,  and  other  leaders 
 in  the  schism. 
 
 There  was  scarcely  a  controversy  of  that  period,  in 
 which  Stillingfleet,  the  great  controversialist  of  the 
 age,  did  not  take  a  part.  I  have  already  alluded  to 
 several  of  his  treatises  :  but  his  views  of  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance  and  the  Prayers  are  perhaps  no  where 
 more  fully  and  distinctly  stated,  than  in  the  following- 
 extracts. 
 
 In  a  sermon  intended  for  the  Thanksrnvino-  in  1694 
 he  says  :   "  But  there  are  many  persons  among  us 
 
 e  Works,  6/34,  65.5. 
 
150  l^igtorp  of  tlje  iPonjurorss. 
 
 who  are  still,  as  they  say,  unsatisfied  in  point  of  con- 
 science as  to  this  government,  and  therefore  cannot 
 join  with  us  on  such  days  as  this,  nor  in  the  public 
 offices  of  devotion  in  our  Church."  After  quoting 
 Mezeray  respecting  one  of  the  Revolutions  in  France, 
 "  that  when  God  designs  to  change  the  government 
 of  a  nation,  he  strangely  disposes  the  minds  of  the 
 people  to  it  ;"  he  adds:  "I  do  not  think  this  a 
 sufficient  reason  :  because  the  people  may  change 
 their  opinions  without  reason :  but.  when  this  is 
 joined  with  other  circumstances,  of  an  injured  prince, 
 a  justwar,  unexpected  success,  a  public  design  against 
 religion  and  liberties,  no  means  left  for  any  farther 
 securing  of  them,  but  a  wilful  leaving  the  nation  and 
 government  to  shift  for  themselves,  then  the  free  con- 
 sent of  the  people  in  such  a  way  as  it  can  be  had,  is 
 of  very  great  moment  and  consideration."  He  touches 
 the  two  questions  of  the  Deprivations  and  the  Public 
 Offices.  He  remarks  that  the  Bishops  refused  to  act 
 when  invited  to  do  so,  and  that  the  separation  was 
 groundless.  "  Here,  says  he,  was  no  such  force  as 
 was  used  in  St.  Chrysostom's  case,  when  he  was 
 taken  from  his  see,  and  by  a  guard  of  soldiers  was 
 hurried  from  place  to  place,  till  he  was  wearied  out 
 of  his  life.  Here  were  no  such  violent  proceedings 
 as  in  the  cases  of  Euphemius,  Macedonius,  Elias  and 
 others.  Nothing  required  of  them  contrary  to  Scrip- 
 ture, Fathers,  and  Councils,  or  the  Articles  of  our 
 Church  :  nothing  but  what  the  law  required  as  a 
 security  to  the  present  government :  and  if  their  con- 
 sciences were  not  satisfied  as  to  the  giving  of  that, 
 they  might  have  retired  and  lived  quietly.  But  why 
 a  separation  ?  Where  is  there  any  precedent  of  this 
 kind  in  the  whole  Christian  Church,  viz.  of  a  poli- 
 
^isJtorp  of  ttje  jponi'urottf.  151 
 
 tical  schism,  where  all  the  offices  of  religion  are  the 
 same  :  only  some  are  deprived  for  not  doing  what 
 the  law  of  the  land  requires  :  i.  e.  they  rather  chose 
 to  lose  their  places  than  to  do  their  duties  ;  which  is 
 a  very  new  ground  of  separation,  and  utterly  unknown 
 to  the  Christian  Church."  He  thus  alludes  to  the 
 other  question  :  "  As  to  the  public  Offices  of  the 
 Church,  with  respect  to  their  Majesties,  I  can  find 
 no  one  instance,  in  the  Greek  or  Latin  Church,  where 
 these  were  scrupled  to  be  used  with  respect  to  those 
 who  were  in  actual  possession  of  the  throne  by  the 
 providence  of  God,  and  consent  of  the  people.  And 
 I  have  this  plain  evidence  against  it,  that  nothing 
 more  than  these  is  put  into  the  Offices  themselves." f 
 Elsewhere  he  remarks,  "  It  is  said  by  a  learned 
 Greek  ritualist,  that  their  prayers  for  the  Emperors 
 were  to  be  used,  whether  they  came  to  the  throne  by 
 succession,  election,  or  revolution.  That  in  case  of 
 any  doubt  concerning  different  persons,  the  prayers 
 were  made  for  those  who  were  in  actual  possession 
 by  the  providence  of  God."g 
 
 A  strong  pamphlet  was  published  at  this  period, 
 entitled  "  Querela  lemporum,  or  The  Danger  of  the 
 Church  of  England."  The  writer's  aim  was  to  induce 
 the  belief,  that  the  danger  from  Presbytery,  at  that 
 time,  was  as  great  as  the  danger  of  Popery,  prior  to 
 the  Revolution.  Many  acts  of  the  government,  such 
 as  the  setting  aside  episcopacy  in  Scotland,  and  the 
 promotion  of  men  of  latitudinarian  principles,  are 
 adduced.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  effect  was 
 produced  by   this  work.      Ralph   says :    "  How 
 
 f  Stillingfleet's  Miscellaneous  Discourses,  432 — 436. 
 «  Ibid.  418. 
 
152  ^tetorp  of  tlje  jponjuuortf. 
 
 earnestly  and  sincerely  soever  they  laboured  to 
 render  it  effectual,  it  had  not  the  desired  effect :  the 
 Clergy,  satisfied  that  their  rents  and  revenues  were 
 safe,  had  no  inclination  to  countenance  any  such 
 measure  as  might  perhaps  really  endanger  them."  h 
 The  pamphlet  was  probably  written  by  Hickes. 1 
 
 h  Ralph,  ii.  533. 
 
 '  This  work  contains  some  singular  particulars  respecting  the 
 state  of  Episcopacy  and  Presbytery  in  Scotland.  It  is  evident 
 that  the  majority  of  the  people  in  many  parts,  and  especially  the 
 upper  classes,  were  Episcopalians.  Yet  some  persons  pretend, 
 that  the  country,  with  a  few  exceptions,  was  Presbyterians. 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 A.  D.  1694—1701-2. 
 
 Tillotson 's  Death. — Hickes's  Remarks  on  Burnet  andTil- 
 lotson. — Attacks  on  the  Archbishop.  —  On  Burnet. — 
 Fund  for  the  Relief  of  the  Nonjuring  Clergy. — Pro- 
 ceedings of  the  Government. — Circumstances  of  the 
 deprived  Bishops.  —  The  Absolution  of  Perkins  and 
 Friend  by  Collier,  Cook,  and  Snatt. — Works  on  the 
 Subject. — Sir  John  Fenwick. — Death  of  Bishop  White. 
 — The  Succession  to  the  Throne. — Dodwell  and  Hody. 
 — Death  of  Bishop  Turner. — Death  of  King  James. — 
 Oath  of  Abjuration. — Death  of  King  William. 
 
 RCHBISHOP  Tillotson,  the  successor  of 
 Sancroft,  died  shortly  after  his  excellent 
 predecessor  in  1694.  Tillotson  was  a 
 man  of  no  ordinary  character  :  but,  from 
 his  position  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  at  such  a 
 period  of  excitement,  he  was  exposed  to  severe  anim- 
 adversions from  the  Nonjurors,  who  regarded  him  as 
 the  leader  of  a  schism  in  the  Anglican  Church.  It 
 must,  however,  be  confessed,  that  Tillotson 's  views 
 of  ecclesiastical  matters  were  what  were  termed  lati- 
 tudinarian.  In  this  work,  it  is  no  part  of  my  business 
 to  enter  into  particulars  respecting  those  persons, 
 who  complied  at  the  Revolution,  except  so  far  as  it 
 may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  light 
 on  the  subject,  of  which  I  am  treating.  Consequently 
 I  shall  not  be  expected  to  give  an  account  of  Tillot- 
 son \s  life.    It  will  be  sufficient  to  confine  myself  to 
 
154  i^tetorp  of  tlje  iftonjurorg. 
 
 those  points,  which  are  immediately  connected  with 
 the  Nonjurors. 
 
 Soon  after  the  Archbishop's  decease,  Burnet  pub- 
 lished the  sermon  which  he  had  preached  on  occa- 
 sion of  his  funeral.  This  was  a  signal  for  renewed 
 attacks  upon  the  Bishops  and  Clergy,  for  their  com- 
 pliance with  the  new  order  of  things.  Hickes  was 
 perhaps  the  most  severe  in  his  animadversions,  which 
 must  be  regarded  with  some  suspicion,  since  they 
 proceeded  from  a  man,  to  whom  the  Archbishop, 
 in  consequence  of  the  line  which  he  had  taken,  was 
 most  obnoxious.  I  am,  however,  inclined  to  think, 
 that  the  severe  remarks  were  partly  called  forth  by 
 the  strain  of  panegyric,  in  which  the  preacher  so 
 largely  indulged.  "  Burnet,'1  says  Ralph,  "  preached 
 his  funeral  sermon  ;  and  the  character  he  gave  of 
 the  deceased  {severely  true,  as  he  declares  it  was, 
 and  rather  less  than  larger  than  the  life)  together 
 with  the  overflow  of  rancour,  which  in  the  same 
 breath  he  rashly  discharged  against  the  deprived 
 clergy,  drew  both  on  the  dead  and  the  living  as 
 severe  invectives  :  according  to  the  preacher,  Til- 
 lotson  was  a  man  whose  life  was  free  from  blemishes, 
 was  shining  in  all  the  parts  of  it,  was  an  example  of 
 all  sublime  and  heroical  piety  and  virtue,  and  a  pat- 
 tern both  to  Church  and  State :  according  to  those 
 who  answered  him,  supposing  these  things  to  be 
 true,  they  were  not  to  be  admitted  on  the  authority 
 of  him  who  delivered  them :  according  to  them, 
 Burnet  had  no  authority,  and  Tillotsons  life  abounded 
 more  with  blemishes  than  beauties :  and  the  truth  of 
 the  matter  is,  that  prejudice  was  equally  predominant 
 on  both  sides."3    Undoubtedly  Tillotson  was  a  man 
 
 a  Ralph,  ii.  .535,  536. 
 
^tgtorp  of  ttjc  0onpxvmi*  155 
 
 of  high  character ;  but  on  Church  matters  his  opinions 
 were  extremely  lax.  That  the  invectives  of  Hickes 
 were  unjust  may  be  admitted,  without  involving  an 
 approval  of  all  the  praises  of  Burnet. 
 
 Some  of  Hickes's  statements  are  extremely  curious. 
 For  example,  we  are  told,  that  Burnet  was  once 
 turned  out  of  the  house  by  Dr.  Dove,  for  arguing  too 
 warmly  in  favour  of  the  Oath,  though  the  latter  had 
 complied.  Hickes  remarks  of  Scott  and  Dove,  that 
 they  were  men  of  a  different  stamp  from  Burnet,  who, 
 having  experienced  a  difficulty  themselves  respecting 
 the  Oath,  retained  a  tender  compassion  for  those  who 
 refused.  It  was  alleged,  that  some  of  the  complying 
 Clergy  acted  very  unkindly  towards  the  sufferers, 
 especially  in  preventing  their  private  meetings,  and 
 in  suppressing  their  books.  According  to  Hickes, 
 many  of  their  books  were  actually  destroyed.  "  There 
 must,"  says  he,  "  be  something  formidable  in  their 
 writings,  and  some  reasonings  in  them  which  these 
 men  of  latitude  cannot  well  answer,  that  they  use  so 
 much  diligence  to  suppress  them,  at  a  time  when 
 atheists,  heretics,  and  republicans  print  and  publish 
 what  they  please,  with  little  or  no  molestation."  He 
 prints  a  paper  containing  an  account  of  the  seizAire, 
 by  the  government,  during  the  years  1C92,  1693, 
 and  1G95,  of  five  printing  presses,  with  a  consider- 
 able number  of  pamphlets.  The  titles  of  several  of 
 the  works,  which  were  seized  and  suppressed,  are 
 given  by  Hickes,  together  with  a  list  of  books,  which, 
 as  he  states,  had  not  been  answered.  The  circum- 
 stance shews,  that  the  government  acted  with  consi- 
 derable severity  :  they  would  not  permit  the  Non- 
 jurors to  publish  their  reasons  for  non-compliance. 
 Anderton,  whose  case  has  been  already  mentioned, 
 was  one  of  the  printers. 
 
156  ^(ssrorp  of  ttje  jftonj'urors. 
 
 That  many  of  the  Clergy  of  the  Revolution  were 
 latitudinarian  in  their  opinions,  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
 admitted  by  Mr.  Hallam,  than  whom  a  more  un- 
 exceptionable witness  could  not  be  adduced.  This 
 charge  is  strongly  urged  by  Hickes  against  Burnet. 
 In  his  sermon,  Burnet  had  said,  that  Tillotson  left 
 men  to  use  their  own  discretion  in  small  matters. 
 Hickes,  commenting  on  this  assertion,  states,  that  the 
 Archbishop  was  accustomed  to  administer  the  Lord's 
 Supper  to  some  persons  sitting,  and  that  especially  a 
 certain  lady  of  Dr.  Owen's  congregation  was  so  ac- 
 customed to  receive  it  in  the  chapel  of  Lincoln's  Inn  : 
 that  he  walked  round  the  chapel,  administering  the 
 elements  first  to  those  who  were  seated  in  their  pews, 
 and  then  to  those  who  were  kneeling  at  the  rails,  not, 
 however,  o-oiuo-  within  himself,  but  standing  without. 
 This  was  a  direct  breach  of  the  order  of  the  Church, 
 and  may  be  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  the  extent  of 
 latitudinarian  practices.  It  seems  that  Tillotson  did 
 not  stand  alone  in  this  particular  :  for  Hickes  asserts, 
 that  the  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  adopted  the  same  prac- 
 tice, at  Kidder's  church,  in  administering  the  Lord's 
 Supper  to  Dr.  Bates,  and  other  nonconformists.5  When 
 we  contemplate  such  proceedings  on  the  part  of  men 
 high  in  station  in  the  Church,  we  cannot  close  our 
 eyes  to  the  fact,  that  the  latitudinarian  principles, 
 which  prevailed  to  a  considerable  extent  after  the 
 Revolution,  did  really  place  the  Church  in  some 
 danger.  By  the  good  providence  of  God,  however, 
 the  Clergy  in  general  were  actuated  by  purer  notions: 
 and  within  a  few  years  the  danger  was  averted. 
 
 b  Some  Discourses  upon  Dr.  Burnet  and  Dr.  Tillotson,  occa- 
 sioned by  the  Funeral  Sermon  of  the  Former  upon  the  Latter. 
 4to.  1695.    Preface,  and  pp.  72,  73. 
 
fei'gtorp  of  ttje  iponj'urorjs.  157 
 It  was  not  unnatural  for  the  Nonjurors  to  form 
 harsh  views  of  Tillotson,  viewing  him  as  they  did  as 
 an  intruder  into  the  place  of  Sancroft,  whom  they 
 regarded  as  a  confessor :  but  in  some  of  their  pro- 
 ductions they  over-stepped  the  bounds  of  truth  and 
 justice,  to  such  an  extent,  that  they  injured  their  own 
 cause.  Thus  the  charge  of  Socinianism  was  alleged 
 shortly  after  the  Archbishop's  death — a  charge  of  a 
 most  unfounded  description,  though,  undoubtedly, 
 Tillotson's  latitudinarian  notions  on  many  subjects 
 appeared  to  afford  some  colour  for  the  allegation. 
 One  work  in  particular,  supposed  to  have  been  written 
 by  Leslie,  abounded  in  severe  and  unfounded  remarks 
 on  this  subject.0  At  a  later  period,  after  Birch  had 
 published  his  very  laudatory  Life  of  the  Archbishop, 
 all  the  old  charges  were  revived  by  Smith,  in  his 
 Remarks  on  that  production.  An  account  of  Smith 
 and  his  writings  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  chap- 
 ter; but  this  is  the  proper  place  for  alluding  to  his 
 work  on  the  Archbishop.  It  is  a  most  severe  and 
 unjust  attack  upon  Tillotson's  memory.  While  Birch's 
 work  partakes  of  the  character  of  Burnet's  Sermon, 
 Smith's  volume  resembles  in  its  bitterness  the  ani- 
 madversions of  Hickes.  His  censures  on  the  Arch- 
 bishop, for  entering  upon  the  see  of  Sancroft,  may 
 be  pardoned  in  a  Nonjuring  writer;  but  no  excuse 
 can  be  pleaded  for  the  severity  which  is  displayed, 
 in  almost  every  page,  against  a  kind  and  amiable  man. 
 Some  of  Smith's  works  were  distinguished  for  can- 
 dour and  good  temper  ;  but,  in  speaking  of  Tillotson, 
 he  forgets  himself  so  far  as  to  indulge  in  very  great 
 
 (  The  Charge  of  Socinianism  against  Dr.  Tillotson  considered, 
 &c.  By  a  true  Son  of  the  Church  of  England,  4to.  1695.  Birch's 
 Life  of  Tillotson,  322—324. 
 
158  1^i0tocp  of  tfje  ifronfucottf. 
 
 bitterness.  Birch's  was  a  very  partial  and  a  very 
 prejudiced  production  ;  yet,  neither  the  work  itself, 
 nor  the  Archbishop,  merited  the  treatment  which  they 
 received  from  Smith.  Some  of  Tillotson's  views  and 
 practices  were  justly  liable  to  censure  ;  but  no  justi- 
 fication can  be  pleaded  for  the  acrimony  and  personal 
 abuse,  with  which  the  Remarks  abound.  Probably 
 there  was  some  foundation  for  Smith's  charge,  that 
 Tillotson  recommended  the  abolition  of  episcopacy 
 in  Scotland  :  but  he  further  alleges  that  the  Arch- 
 bishop  would  also  have  sacrificed  it  in  England,  if 
 the  Revolution  could  not  have  been  completed  without 
 its  destruction.  In  some  things  Birch,  who  was  ever 
 ready  to  throw  out  insinuations  and  reflections  against 
 the  Nonjurors,  is  subjected  to  deserved  castigation. 
 One  of  Birch's  charges  is  thus  indignantly,  but  justly 
 repelled  by  the  author  :  "  he  brings  a  charge  against 
 the  non-swearing  Clergy,  which  is  most  injurious  and 
 false  :  that  they  hoped  and  wished  the  alterations  in 
 the  Liturgy  might  have  been  made  by  the  convoca- 
 tion, that  they  might  have  been  furnished  with  more 
 specious  pretences  for  a  separation.  For  the  Arch- 
 bishop and  Bishops  of  that  communion  did  not  sepa- 
 rate at  all  from  the  Church  of  England,  either  in 
 doctrine,  worship,  or  government.  It  is,  therefore, 
 a  calumny  to  assert,  that  they  hoped  and  wished  for 
 the  alterations,  since  they  did  all  they  could  to  put  a 
 stop  to  such  a  dangerous  project :  and  they  used  their 
 strongest  interest  and  the  best  arguments  they  could 
 think  of  with  the  more  orthodox  part  of  the  comply- 
 ing Clergy,  who  never  betrayed  their  order,  and  were 
 against  comprehending  away  the  Church,  and  re- 
 tained a  very  tender  respect  for  their  old  brethren, 
 and  wished  they  might  come  again  to  communion 
 
l£(0torp  of  ttje  ifrorijuroitf.  159 
 
 with  them."d  Smith's  statement  is  strictly  true,  and 
 Birch  must  be  regarded  as  a  calumniator  of  the  de- 
 prived Bishops  and  Clergy,  in  imputing  to  them  such 
 a  wish.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact,  that  they  used  their 
 utmost  exertions  to  prevent  the  contemplated  altera- 
 tions. 
 
 Burnet's  conduct  was,  in  many  respects,  as  will  be 
 gathered  from  a  preceding  chapter,  more  open  to 
 animadversion  than  Tillotson's :  and  his  Funeral 
 Sermon  on  the  Archbishop  was  the  occasion  of  re- 
 newed attacks  upon  him,  for  the  part  he  had  acted  in 
 the  Revolution.  He  had  formerly  preached  strongly 
 against  the  power  of  the  people,  and  in  favour  of 
 non-resistance.  "  Less  disorder,"  said  he  on  one 
 occasion,  "  was  to  be  apprehended  from  the  preten- 
 sions of  the  Roman  Bishops,  than  from  those  maxims 
 of  judging  and  controlling  the  magistrate,  and  which 
 opened  a  door  to  endless  confusion,  and  set  every 
 private  person  in  the  throne."  To  these  passages 
 from  his  own  writings,  "  they  opposed,"  says  Ralph, 
 "  his  own  practice  in  persuading  the  Princess  of 
 Orange  to  the  unnatural  invasion  of  her  father's 
 crown."6  Thus,  we  are  told,  "  he  was  engaged  in  aid 
 of  the  deepest  and  most  heinous  treason,  that  subject 
 ever  was  engaged  in  :  I  mean  in  persuading  the 
 Princess  of  Orange  to  consent  to  the  unnatural  inva- 
 sion of  her  father's  kingdom,  by  the  Prince,  which 
 then  was  resolved  upon,  and  with  him  to  take  his 
 crown,  if  the  invasion  should  succeed.     This  he 
 
 d  Remarks  upon  the  Life  of  the  Most  Reverend  Dr.  John  Til- 
 lotson,  compiled  by  Thomas  Birch,  D.D.  8vo.  London  1754.  pp. 
 45,  79,  80. 
 
 ■  Ralph,  ii.  536. 
 
160  ^t0toc?  of  tf)e  Nonjurors;. 
 
 thought  so  meritorious  and  honourable  a  piece  of 
 service,  that  soon  after  he  came  to  London,  he  could 
 not  deny  himself  the  satisfaction  of  telling  some  friends 
 that  he  was  the  man  pitched  upon  to  break  the  de- 
 sign of  deposing  the  King  her  father,  to  her  Royal 
 Highness,  two  years  before  the  Revolution  :  and  that 
 he  gained  her  consent  upon  condition,  that  the  Prince 
 might  assume  the  royal  power  with  her,  and  be 
 crowned  with  her.  He  told  it  to  this  purpose  in  the 
 Deanery  House  of  St.  Paul's,  and  for  the  truth  of  it 
 I  appeal  to  the  then  Dean  of  that  Church,  I  mean 
 Dr.  Stillingfleet,  and  to  the  worthy  Bishop  of  Peter- 
 borough, I  mean  Dr.  White,  who  was  present,  when 
 he  spoke  to  that  effect." f  Hickes  is  undoubtedly 
 more  severe  on  Burnet,  than  truth  and  justice  re- 
 quired ;  but  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  Bishop  was 
 too  much  of  a  partizan  to  be  an  honest  actor  in  such 
 
 f  Some  Discourses  upon  Dr.  Burnet  and  Dr.  Tillotson,  &c.  &c. 
 pp.  12,  13.  Some  curious  particulars  of  Burnet,  though  of  a  dif- 
 ferent description,  are  given  in  this  work  by  Hickes.  In  the  year 
 1673,  he  published  "  A  Vindication  of  the  Authority,  Constitution, 
 and  Laws  of  the  Church  and  State  of  Scotland,"  with  a  Dedica- 
 tion of  a  highly  laudatory  character  to  the  Duke  of  Lauderdale. 
 A  large  number  of  copies  was  sold  by  the  author  to  Moses  Pitt. 
 Some  time  after,  Burnet  quarrelled  with  the  Duke,  on  which  ac- 
 count he  requested  Pitt  to  cancel  the  Dedication  in  the  unsold 
 copies.  Pitt  replied  that  he  could  not  sell  an  imperfect  as  a  perfect 
 book.  Burnet,  therefore,  received  the  unsold  copies  again,  and 
 they  were  afterward  circulated  in  a  mutilated  form  :  so  that  when 
 Hickes  wrote  in  1695  it  was  difficult  to  meet  with  a  perfect  copy. 
 Ibid.  p.  19.  At  present  the  book  is  met  with  in  both  states,  some 
 copies  having  the  Dedication,  others  being  destitute  of  it.  It  is 
 singular  that  Burnet's  Work  on  the  Articles,  the  work  by  which 
 perhaps  he  is  best  known,  should  have  been  condemned  by  the 
 Lower  House  of  Convocation,  on  the  ground  that  it  encouraged 
 diversities  of  opinions,  which  the  Articles  were  especially  intended 
 to  prevent.  His  "  Own  Times  "  is  a  work  full  of  gossip  :  but  he 
 did  a  service  to  the  Church  in  his  "  History  of  the  Reformation." 
 
T£t£ftorp  of  ttje  iponfurorg.  1 61 
 
 times  as  those,  in  which  he  lived.  He  was  unchari- 
 table towards  the  Nonjurors,  who  on  their  part  re- 
 garded him  as  a  man  of  no  principle.  His  predilec- 
 tions for  the  Prince  of  Orange  were  so  strong,  that 
 on  some  occasions,  in  his  zeal  for  William,  he  ap- 
 pears almost  to  have  lost  the  sense  of  right  and  wrong. 
 Calamy  states,  that  there  were  only  five  Nonjurors  in 
 Burnet's  diocese,  a  circumstance  which  he  conceives 
 redounds  to  the  Bishop's  credit.  Calamy  mentions 
 Martin,  who  was  continued  in  his  living  though  he 
 refused  the  Oath  :  Spinkes,  who  was  permitted  to 
 serve  his  parish  by  a  curate  :  Jones,  who  was  allowed 
 to  nominate  his  successor  :  Dickson,  who  died  shortly 
 after  the  period  fixed  for  the  deprivation  :  and  Beale, 
 who  retained  his  living  two  years  after  the  first  of 
 February  1690.s  It  certainly  happened,  that  there 
 were  fewer  Clergymen,  who  refused  the  Oaths  in  the 
 diocese  of  Salisbury,  than  in  some  others  :  but  this 
 circumstance  cannot  be  attributed  to  the  Bishop  s  in- 
 fluence, or  to  the  affection  of  the  Clergy  for  his  lord- 
 ship :  for  it  is  certain,  that  he  was  very  unpopular 
 with  many.  There  were,  however,  more  than  five 
 Clergymen  in  the  diocese  of  Sarum,  who  refused  the 
 Oath  :  nor  is  Calamy 's  account  of  Burnet's  lenity  in 
 the  cases  already  cited  to  be  depended  on.  The 
 Bishop  was  not  lenient  with  the  Nonjurors.  His  dis- 
 like to  them  was  too  strong  to  permit  him  to  connive 
 at  their  remaining  in  their  livings,  after  the  period 
 fixed  by  the  Act  of  Parliament  for  their  deprivation. 
 In  many  other  dioceses  they  were  kindly  treated  by 
 the  Bishops,  though  in  none  were  they  permitted  to 
 hold  their  livings,  after  they  had  refused  the  Oath. 
 Indeed,  the  Bishops  had  no  such  power  :  for  when  the 
 
 *  Calamy 's  Abridgement. 
 M 
 
162  |3f0torp  of  ttje  iI5onjuror0. 
 
 appointed  day  arrived,  the  patrons  were  at  liberty  to 
 present  other  Clerks  for  institution. 
 
 We  have  seen,  that  the  Nonjurors,  both  Bishops 
 and  Clergy,  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  rather 
 than  act  against  their  consciences.  Worldly  sub- 
 stance, honours,  station — all  were  given  up  by  these 
 truly  devoted  men.  Their  conduct,  throughout  their 
 whole  career,  is  a  triumphant  answer  to  the  flippant 
 charge  of  a  popish  leaning.  Had  such  been  the 
 case  they  would  have  taken  the  Oath,  in  order  that 
 they  might  secretly  promote  their  own  designs.  But 
 they  resorted  to  no  unworthy  arts.  They  were  con- 
 tent to  suffer  in  what  they  deemed  a  righteous  cause. 
 Their  sufferings  and  self  denial  are  little  known  to 
 the  public,  because  no  chronicler  has  yet  been  found 
 to  gather  up  the  scattered  materials  of  this  despised 
 but  interesting  body.  Calamy  and  others  laud  the 
 patience  of  the  ministers  ejected  in  1662  ;  but  their 
 sufferings  were  in  no  case  greater,  while,  in  many 
 instances,  they  were  less,  than  those  of  the  Non- 
 jurors. There  is,  moreover,  this  striking  difference 
 between  the  two  classes  of  sufferers.  The  ejected 
 ministers  did  not  suffer  in  silence  :  they  raised  their 
 cry,  and  it  was  heard  :  they  found  numerous  ad- 
 vocates ;  but  the  Nonjurors  were  left  to  themselves  ; 
 they  endured  their  trials  in  silence  and  with  meek- 
 ness ;  and  few  persons  were  found  to  afford  them  so 
 much  as  their  sympathy. 
 
 Some  even  of  the  Bishops,  men  who  had  lived  in 
 honour  and  affluence,  were  reduced  to  the  greatest 
 extremities  ;  becoming  dependent  on  the  bounty  of 
 others ;  though  previous  to  the  Revolution  they  pos- 
 sessed an  abundance.  In  some  cases  they  were  in  a 
 state  of  actual  poverty  :  while  in  none  did  they  pos- 
 sess more  than  a  mere  pittance.    Ken  lived  chiefly 
 
I£l'$rt0i:p  of  tljc  ift  on  jurors  163 
 with  his  noble  friends  at  Long-leat :  and  Sancroft  had 
 only  a  trifle  to  sustain  him  in  his  last  days.  The 
 Primate  of  the  Anglican  Church,  who  had  been  the 
 occupier  of  more  than  one  Palace,  was  brought  to 
 end  his  days  in  a  cottage.  In  the  time  of  Queen 
 Elizabeth  the  Deprived  Romish  Bishops  were  pro- 
 vided for  ;  but  in  the  case  of  the  Nonjuring  Prelates 
 no  provision  was  made  by  persons  in  authority. 
 
 In  January  1694-5  a  plan  for  the  relief  of  the 
 suffering  Clergy  was  devised  by  Mr.  Kettlewell,  by 
 whom  also  a  model  was  drawn  up  for  the  manage- 
 ment of  a  fund,  which  was  placed  under  the  control 
 of  the  Deprived  Bishops,  with  such  clergymen,  as 
 they  might  think  proper  to  associate  with  them  for 
 its  distribution.  Something  of  the  kind  was  rendered 
 necessary  by  the  indigent  circumstances,  in  which 
 they  were  placed.    An  inquiry  was  to  be  made  re- 
 specting the  incomes  of  the  deprived  Clergy,  as  also 
 their  expenses  ;  but,  to  guard  against  pretenders,  evi- 
 dence was  required,  that  the  deprivations  had  taken 
 place  on  account  of  the  Oaths.    It  was  thought,  that 
 by  granting  them  relief,  they  would  not  be  under  the 
 temptation  of  deserting  the  truth  or  acting  dishonour- 
 ably.   There  is  a  curious  regulation  respecting  the 
 Clergy  in  London.    "The  Clergy  here  who  have  no 
 business,  but  stay  in  Town  as  the  best  place  of  gifts, 
 may  be  sent  into  the  counties,  where  they  will  be 
 much  better  maintained  at  half  the  charge,  and 
 where  they  may  do  service.    And  others  will  have 
 no  excuse  to  spend  most  of  their  time  in  CofFee- 
 Houses  and  hunting  after  gifts  ;  but  when  they  are 
 not  employed  in  their  holy  functions,  may  follow 
 their  studies  to  improve  themselves."  All  was  managed 
 with  prudence  so  as  not  to  give  offence  to  the  govern- 
 ment.   "  In  speaking  of  themselves,  if  they  add  an 
 
164  ^(tftorp  of  dje  JPonfucocis. 
 
 epithet,  noting  only  the  actual  suffering  and  force 
 they  are  under,  but  not  the  justice  of  it  on  one  side 
 or  other,  they  would  neither  assert  their  titles  to 
 offend  others,  nor  any  ways  forego  or  give  them  up 
 to  prejudice  themselves."  h 
 
 Kettle  well  died  April  12,  1695,  before  the  plan 
 could  be  carried  into  effect.  An  account  of  his  last 
 moments  is  given  in  a  letter  to  Nelson  his  Executor, 
 by  an  individual  who  was  present.  He  was  resigned 
 and  cheerful  in  the  prospect  of  entering  the  eternal 
 world.  Ken  performed  the  Funeral  Service  over  the 
 grave  of  his  friend  in  his  episcopal  robes,  having  also 
 read  the  Evening  Service,  by  permission  of  the  minis- 
 ter of  the  Parish.  He  was  buried  in  the  Parish  Church 
 of  All-Hallows,  near  the  Tower,  and  in  the  same  grave, 
 in  which  the  body  of  Archbishop  Laud  had  rested, 
 from  his  death  until  the  Restoration,  when  it  was  re- 
 moved and  deposited  in  the  chapel  of  St.  John's 
 College,  Oxon,  of  which  he  had  been  a  member,  and 
 to  which  he  was  so  liberal  a  benefactor.1 
 
 The  plan,  however,  was  sanctioned  by  the  Deprived 
 Prelates,  who  wrote  the  following  letter  in  its  recom- 
 mendation : 
 
 "  To  all  Christian  people,  to  whom  this  charitable 
 recommendation  shall  be  presented,  Grace  be  to  you, 
 and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  from  our  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ." 
 
 "  Whereas,  We,  the  present  Deprived  Bishops  of 
 this  Church,  have  certain  information  that  many  of 
 our  deprived  brethren  of  the  clergy,  with  their 
 wives,  children,  and  families,  are  reduced  to  extreme 
 want,  and  unable  to  support  themselves,  and  their 
 
 b  Ibid.  App.  These  extracts  are  from  the  model. 
 '  Kettle  well's  Works,  i.  177,  187,  and  Appendix. 
 
^isftocp  of  tljc  ifronjurocg.  165 
 
 several  charges,  without  the  charitable  relief  of  pious 
 and  well-disposed  Christians :  and  being  earnestly 
 moved  by  several  of  them  to  represent  their  distressed 
 condition  to  the  mercy  and  compassion  of  such  ten- 
 der-hearted persons,  as  are  inclined  to  commiserate 
 and  relieve  the  afflicted  servants  of  God. 
 
 "  Now  We,  in  compliance  with  their  intreaty, 
 and  with  all  due  regard  to  their  suffering  circum- 
 stances, have  thought  it  our  duty,  (as  far  as  in  law 
 we  may)  heartily  to  recommend  their  necessitous 
 condition  to  all  pious,  good  people :  hoping  and 
 praying,  that  they  will  take  their  case  into  their 
 serious  consideration,  and  putting  on  the  bowels  of 
 charity,  extend  their  alms  to  them,  and  their  needy 
 families." 
 
 "  And  we  will  not  cease  to  pray  for  a  blessing  upon 
 such  their  benefactors  ;  and  remain  in  all  Christian 
 Offices,  Yours, 
 
 now 
 
 William,  Bp.  of  Norwich 
 Robert,  Bp.  of  Gloucester 
 Francis,  Bp.  of  Ely  r  Deprived' 
 
 Thomas,  Bp.  of  Bath  and  Wells 
 Thomas,  Bp.  of  Peterborough 
 July,  22,  1695." 
 
 It  might  have  been  supposed,  that  no  one  could 
 have  been  offended  by  this  simple  appeal  to  the  sym- 
 pathies of  the  affluent,  in  behalf  of  a  body  of  peace- 
 able sufferers  for  conscience  sake.    Yet  the  jealousy 
 
 k  Kettle  well's  Works,  Life,  163,  169,  and  Appendix,  xxv-vii. 
 It  seems  not  to  have  been  an  unusual  thing  to  enter  the  private 
 meetings  of  the  Nonjurors.  Thus,  it  is  said,  that  Grascome  was 
 interrupted  by  a  Messenger,  while  he  was  ministering  to  his  little 
 congregation  in  Scroop's  Court,  near  St.  Andrew's  Church.  Ralph, 
 
166  piston?  of  rlje  i^onj'urouff. 
 
 of  the  government  was  aroused  by  this  proceeding  on 
 the  part  of  the  Bishops.  The  pious  Ken  was  sum- 
 moned before  the  Privy  Council  to  answer  certain 
 interrogatories.  He  was  asked,  "  Did  you  subscribe 
 this  Paper  F  He  replied,  "  My  Lords,  I  thank  God 
 I  did,  and  it  had  a  very  happy  effect :  for  the  will  of 
 my  blessed  Redeemer  was  fulfilled  ;  and  what  we  were 
 not  able  to  do  ourselves,  was  done  by  others."  It  was 
 said  by  the  council,  "  Xo  one  condemns  charity,  but 
 the  way  you  have  taken  to  procure  it :  your  Paper  is 
 illegal."  This  was  an  extraordinary  charge  ;  and 
 was  thus  met  by  Ken  :  "My  Lords,  I  can  plead  to 
 the  Evangelical  part :  I  am  no  lawyer,  but  shall  want 
 lawyers  to  plead  that."  He  then  states,  that  the  pro- 
 ject originated  with  Kettlewell,  who  was  now  de- 
 ceased :  that  having  signed  it  he  retired  to  the 
 country  in  an  obscure  village,  "  where  I  live  above 
 the  suspicion  of  giving  umbrage  to  the  government." 
 It  was  then  objected  by  the  council,  that  the  money 
 had  been  given  to  immoral  men  :  " particularly  to 
 one,  who  goes  in  a  gown  one  day,  and  in  a  blue  silk 
 wastcoat  another.''  Ken  remarked,  that  to  give  to 
 an  ill  man  might  be  a  mistake,  but  not  a  crime.  He 
 stated  also,  that  a  thousand  persons  were  imprisoned 
 in  his  Diocese,  after  Monmouth's  rebellion  ;  that  he 
 had  relieved  their  wants  ;  and  that  King  James  had 
 never  complained  of  his  conduct.  They  admitted, 
 that  they  did  not  charge  him  individually  with  giving 
 to  improper  persons,  but  that  it  had  been  done  by 
 others.  But  they  add,  "  The  Paper  comes  out  with  a 
 pretence  of  authority,  and  it  is  illegal,  and  in  the  na- 
 ture of  a  brief."'  Ken  replied,  that  he  was  not  pre- 
 pared to  argue  the  legal  point.  It  was  then  pretended 
 that  the  Bishops  by  their  Paper  had  "  usurped  Eccle- 
 siastical Jurisdiction. "    The  Bishop  replies  to  this 
 
l&fctocp  of  tfje  jponjurortf.  167 
 
 strange  charge  :  "  My  Lords,  I  never  heard  that  beg- 
 ging was  a  part  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  :  and  in 
 this  Paper  we  are  only  beggars,  which  privilege  I 
 hope  may  be  allowed  us." 
 
 Ken  left  the  account  behind  him  signed  with  his 
 own  name,  and  dated  April  28  1696.k  The  govern- 
 ment must  have  been  under  some  very  erroneous  im- 
 pression to  pursue  so  singular  a  course.  Nothing 
 could  have  been  more  harmless  than  the  plan  adopted 
 by  the  Bishops  :  and,  therefore,  I  am  convinced,  that 
 some  prejudiced  persons  must  have  persuaded  the 
 authorities  to  take  up  the  matter,  and  summon  Ken 
 to  London  to  answer  the  interrogatories  of  the  council. 
 The  Clergy  were  in  a  starving  condition ;  yet  some 
 persons  were  unwilling  that  the  hand  of  charity 
 should  be  opened  for  their  relief.  The  council  must 
 have  felt  the  reproof  conveyed  by  the  fact,  that  Ken 
 had  relieved  the  persons  who  had  been  implicated 
 in  Monmouth's  rebellion,  and  that  King  James  did 
 not  complain  of  his  conduct. 
 
 All  the  Bishops  were  in  very  narrow  circumstances. 
 This  was  especially  the  case  with  Turner,  who  was 
 chiefly  dependent  on  the  charity  of  others.  The  man, 
 who,  by  adhering  to  the  new  Sovereigns  and  taking 
 the  Oath,  might  have  ended  his  days  amidst  an  abun- 
 dance of  earthly  blessings,  was  actually  sustained,  in 
 his  declining  years,  by  the  bounty  of  those  who  sym- 
 pathized with  him  in  his  distresses.  Yet  this  man 
 was  exposed,  while  living,  to  all  kinds  of  charges  : 
 and  after  his  death,  his  memory  was  traduced  by  a 
 set  of  men,  whose  principles  allowed  them  to  adopt 
 any  line  of  conduct  in  support  of  their  worldly  in- 
 
 k  Hawkins's  Short  Account,  pp.  48 — 56.  Kettlewell.  Appen- 
 dix, pp.  xxviii-ix.    Biog.  Brit.  Art.  Ken. 
 
168  %'0torp  of  ttje  i|Jonjuroi% 
 
 terest.  There  is  something  exceedingly  painful  in 
 the  fact,  that  men,  who  preferred  a  good  conscience 
 to  a  bishopric,  should  not  only  have  been  in  poverty, 
 but  also  maligned  and  traduced  by  many,  whose 
 principles  changed  with  their  circumstances. 
 
 We  now  come  to  a  singular  circumstance,  on  the 
 part  of  Collier,  and  some  of  his  brethren.  In  the  year 
 1696,  a  plot  was  discovered  against  the  life  of  King 
 William  :  and  Sir  John  Friend  and  Sir  William  Per- 
 kins were  brought  to  trial  on  a  charge  for  being  impli- 
 cated in  the  conspiracy.  These  gentlemen  were  found 
 guilty,  and  sentenced  to  death.  At  the  place  of  execu- 
 tion, Collier,  Cook,  and  Snatt  appeared  on  the  platform 
 with  the  criminals :  and  just  previous  to  the  completion 
 of  the  sentence,  Collier  publicly  absolved  the  parties, 
 performing  the  ceremony  with  the  imposition  of 
 hands.  It  struck  many  persons  as  strange,  Jirst,  that 
 absolution  should  have  been  granted  under  such  cir- 
 cumstances, and  secondly,  that  the  ceremony  of  im- 
 position of  hands,  which  was  not  practised  by  the 
 Church  of  England,  should  have  been  used. 
 
 So  great  an  impression  was  made  on  the  public 
 mind  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  two  Archbishops 
 and  ten  Bishops  published  a  declaration  against  the 
 practice,  intitled  :  "  A  Declaration  of  the  Sense  of 
 the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  now  in  and  about  Lon- 
 don upon  the  occasion  of  their  attendance  in  Parlia- 
 ment, concerning  the  irregular  and  scandalous  pro- 
 ceedings of  certain  clergymen,  at  the  execution  of 
 Sir  John  Friend  and  Sir  William  Perkins."  The 
 document  is  somewhat  curious,  as  expressive  of  the 
 opinions  of  the  Bishops  respecting  the  schism,  which 
 had  now  occurred.  A  paper  or  papers  had  been 
 delivered  by  the  criminals  to  the  sheriffs,  which  were 
 afterwards  printed  and  circulated,  and  in  which  Sir 
 
John  Friend  speaks  of  the  Church  of  the  Nonjurors 
 as  the  Church  of  England.  The  Bishops  say,  that 
 they  felt  themselves  obliged  to  express  their  sense  of 
 the  conduct  of  the  three  clergymen.  Alluding  to  Sir 
 John  Friend's  expression,  they  remark  of  the  Church 
 of  England,  "  that  venerable  name  is,  by  the  author 
 of  that  paper,  appropriated  to  that  part  of  our  Church 
 which  hath  separated  itself  from  the  body ;  and  more 
 particularly  to  a  faction  of  them,  who  are  so  furiously 
 bent  upon  the  restoring  of  the  late  King,  that  they 
 seem  not  to  regard  by  what  means  it  is  to  be  ef- 
 fected."   His  words  were  as  follows  : 
 
 "  I  profess  myself,  and  I  thank  God  I  am  so,  a 
 member  of  the  Church  of  England,  though,  God 
 knows,  a  most  unworthy  and  unprofitable  part  of  it, 
 of  that  Church  which  suffers  so  much  at  present,  for 
 a  strict  adherence  to  the  laws  and  Christian  prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 For  this  I  suffer,  and  for  this  I  die." 
 
 The  Bishops  add,  that  they  conceive,  that  Sir  Wil- 
 liam Perkins  used  the  term  in  the  same  sense,  "  be- 
 ing assured  (as  we  are  by  very  good  information) 
 that  both  he  and  Sir  John  Friend  had  withdrawn 
 themselves  from  our  public  assemblies  some  time 
 before  their  death."  They  then  proceed  to  arraign 
 the  conduct  of  the  three  clergymen,  Collier,  Snatt, 
 and  Cook  :  "  For  those  clergymen,  who  took  upon 
 them  to  absolve  these  criminals  at  the  place  of  exe- 
 cution, by  laying,  all  three  together,  their  hands 
 upon  their  heads,  and  publicly  pronouncing  a  form 
 of  absolution ;  as  their  manner  of  doing  this  was 
 extremely  insolent,  and  without  precedent,  either  in 
 our  Church  or  any  other  that  we  know  of,  so  the 
 thing  itself  was  altogether  irregular.  The  rubric  in 
 our  office  of  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  from  whence 
 
170  of  tfje  $onjuroi#. 
 
 they  took  the  words  they  then  used,  and  upon  which, 
 if  upon  any  thing  in  our  Liturgy,  they  must  ground 
 this  their  proceeding,  gave  them  no  authority  nor 
 pretence  for  absolving  these  persons."  They  further 
 state,  that  the  rubric  relates  to  sick  persons  who 
 have  made  a  confession  ;  while  these  clergymen  ab- 
 solved notorious  criminals,  without  even  moving  them 
 to  make  a  special  confession  of  their  sins,  the  parties 
 themselves  not  desiring  absolution.  It  is  alleged, 
 that  the  Clergy,  as  they  knew  nothing  of  the  state 
 of  mind  in  which  the  criminals  were,  could  not  ab- 
 solve them,  without  a  breach  of  the  order  of  the 
 Church.  The  Bishops  also  add,  that  the  Clergy,  if 
 they  were  aware  of  the  sentiments  of  the  criminals 
 declared  in  their  papers,  must  have  viewed  them  as 
 hardened  impenitents,  or  martyrs.  The  Bishops  con- 
 sider the  former  supposition  as  quite  out  of  the  ques- 
 tion :  but  they  remark  on  the  other,  "  If  they  held 
 these  men  to  be  mart}a*s,  then  their  absolving  them 
 in  that  manner  was  a  justification  of  those  grievous 
 crimes  for  which  these  men  suffered,  and  an  open 
 affront  to  the  laws  both  of  Church  and  State."  The 
 Bishops  then  add,  that  they  were  moved  by  a  desire 
 to  prevent  the  Church  from  being  misunderstood  ; 
 and  that,  therefore,  "  we  disown  and  detest  all  such 
 principles  and  practices  ;  looking  upon  them  as  highly 
 schismatical  and  seditious,  dangerous  both  to  the 
 Church  and  State,  and  contrary  to  the  true  doctrine 
 and  spirit  of  the  Christian  religion."1 
 
 It  was  to  be  supposed,  that  the  government  would 
 
 1  State  Tracts,  vol.  iii.  692-3.  Ralph  remarks,  that  among  the 
 Bishops  "  were  Crew  of  Durham,  Mew  of  Winchester,  and  Sprat 
 of  Rochester."  Vol.  ii.  646.  These  three  Prelates  had  acted 
 very  inconsistently  in  the  preceding  reign. 
 
^ijstorp  of  ttje  jptnfumft  17 1 
 
 not  remain  quiet,  especially  after  such  a  document 
 from  the  Bishops.  Some  of  their  advocates  indeed 
 charged  the  act  as  popish — a  very  convenient  charge 
 at  all  times  for  what  is  disliked,  or  cannot  be  dis- 
 proved. The  act  of  the  Bishops  was  made  the  ground 
 of  a  proceeding  against  the  three  Clergymen.  "  In 
 pursuance  of  this,  the  Court  of  King's  Bench  gave 
 orders  for  an  indictment  against  them,  on  the  7th  of 
 April  following  :  and  Mr.  Cook  and  Mr.  Snatt  were 
 committed  to  Newgate  on  suspicion  of  High  Treason, 
 and  treasonable  practices  :  but  such  was  the  lenity  of 
 the  government,  and  his  Grace  of  Canterbury's  mo- 
 deration, in  interceding  for  the  delinquents,  that  no 
 manner  of  punishment  was  inflicted  on  them,  and 
 Mr.  Collier  was  not  so  much  as  called  in  question, 
 on  account  of  his  great  endowments  and  parts,  for 
 justifying  his  practice  in  several  printed  papers."m 
 In  the  present  day  we  may  feel  surprise  at  this 
 statement,  as  if  the  men  had  really  been  guilty  of 
 any  crime,  at  which  the  government  could  justly  take 
 offence. 
 
 Collier  absconded,  but  Cook  and  Snatt  were  ad- 
 mitted to  bail.  Collier  refused  to  give  bail,  because 
 he  imagined  that  by  doing  so,  he  should  acknowledge 
 the  government  of  King  William.  He  was  accord- 
 ingly outlawed  :  and  under  this  sentence  he  conti- 
 nued, because  he  refused  to  submit.  He  printed  his 
 "  Case  of  Giving  Bail,"  of  which  it  was  said,  only 
 five  copies  were  struck  off.  If,  therefore,  he  was 
 not  called  to  account,  it  was  because  he  was  not  dis- 
 covered. 
 
 But  though  outlawed  and  living  in  retirement, 
 
 Life  of  Tennison,  60,  61. 
 
172  ^tgitorp  of  tlje  iJ&onfucorsf. 
 
 Collier  was  not  the  man  to  remain  silent.  Soon  after 
 the  appearance  of  Sir  John  Friend's  paper,  a  Pam- 
 phlet was  published  containing  animadversions  on 
 that  document,  taking  it  in  separate  paragraphs." 
 In  the  outset,  the  writer  charges  the  authorship 
 upon  the  three  Clergymen.  He  grounds  this  charge 
 on  alleged  internal  evidence,  and  on  certain  circum- 
 stances, which  in  his  opinion,  rendered  it  impossible 
 for  Sir  John  Friend  to  write  it.  Sir  John  said,  that 
 the  cause  for  which  he  suffered,  was  the  cause  of 
 God  and  true  religion.  On  his  trial  he  had  denied 
 the  charges  alleged  against  him  :  and  moreover 
 proved  by  witnesses,  that  he  had  attended  the  church 
 in  which  King  William  was  prayed  for.  The  author 
 of  The  Letter,  therefore,  charges  him  with  hypocrisy } 
 if  he  considered  the  cause  of  King  James  as  the  cause 
 of  God.  He  prayed  for  King  James's  restoration  in 
 the  very  paper  given  to  the  Sheriffs. 
 
 Collier  found  means,  in  his  retirement,  to  publish  a 
 defence  of  his  conduct  in  the  absolution  of  the  two 
 criminals  at  the  place  of  execution.0  In  an  adver- 
 tisement he  states  that  Cook  and  Snatt  "  have  been 
 altogether  unacquainted  with,  unconcerned  in,  and 
 unconsenting  to,  the  penning  or  publication  of  these 
 two  Papers."  Whatever  appearances  may  be,  at  first 
 sight,  against  Collier,  no  one  ought  to  come  to  a  con- 
 
 n  A  Letter  to  the  Three  Absolvers,  Mr.  Cook,  Mr.  Collier,  and 
 Mr.  Snatt,  being  reflections  on  the  Papers  delivered  by  Sir  John 
 Friend,  and  Sir  William  Parkyns,  to  the  Sheriffs  of  London.  At 
 Tyburn,  April  3, 1696,  which  said  paragraphs  are  printed  at  length 
 and  answered,  paragraph  by  paragraph.    Fol.  London,  1696. 
 
 0  A  Defence  of  the  Absolution  given  to  Sir  William  Perkins 
 at  the  Place  of  Execution.  With  a  further  Vindication  thereof, 
 occasioned  by  a  Paper,  entitled,  a  Declaration  of  the  Sense  of  the 
 Archbishops  and  Bishops,  &c. 
 
%i'0tocp  of  ttje  jfconjtirorjj.  173 
 
 elusion,  until  his  defence  has  been  considered.  He 
 commences  by  stating,  that  his  being  present  at  the 
 execution  had  been  misunderstood.  It  seems  that 
 strong  censures  appeared  in  some  of  the  newspapers, 
 and  that  Collier,  in  consequence  of  what  he  heard, 
 secreted  himself.  He  adds,  "  not  without  reason ; 
 for  on  Monday  about  twelve  at  night,  six  or  eight 
 persons  rushed  into  my  lodgings,  broke  open  a  trunk, 
 and  seized  some  Papers  of  value,  though  perfectly 
 inoffensive  and  foreign  to  their  purpose.  And  since 
 I  understand  there  is  a  Bill  found  against  me  for 
 high  misdemeanor.  And  now  one  would  think  I  had 
 done  something  very  extraordinary. p  " 
 
 Collier  then  gives  a  narrative  of  his  proceedings. 
 After  his  trial,  Sir  William  Perkins,  whom  he  had 
 not  seen  for  four  or  five  years,  sent  for  Collier,  who 
 visited  him  in  Newgate.  After  two  days  he  was  not 
 permitted  to  see  the  prisoner  alone :  and  at  length 
 he  was  refused  altogether,  so  that  he  did  not  see  him 
 from  Wednesday,  April  1,  until  Friday,  at  the  place 
 of  execution.  Sir  William  had  spoken  freely  to 
 Collier  on  the  state  of  his  mind,  and  desired  that 
 the  absolution  of  the  Church  might  be  pronounced 
 the  last  day.  On  Friday  Collier  was  refused  admit- 
 tance to  the  prison  :  and  therefore  he  went  to  the 
 place  of  execution  and  gave  the  absolution  there, 
 since  he  was  not  allowed  to  give  it  elsewhere,  using 
 the  Form  in  The  Office  for  The  Visitation  of  the 
 Sick.  Collier  states,  that  when  a  man  had  declared 
 his  sorrow  for  his  faults,  the  Absolution  was  not  to 
 be  denied.  He  then  comes  to  the  imposition  of  hands, 
 arguing  for  it  as  an  innocent  and  an  ancient  ceremony. 
 Others,  he  says,  are  shocked  at  the  thing  itself;  and 
 
 P  Defence,  &c.  p.  1. 
 
174  Ikisftocp  of  tlje  j^onjucoitf. 
 
 he  asks,  "  are  all  people  damned  that  are  cast  in  a 
 capital  indictment  ?  If  so,  to  what  purpose  are  they 
 visited  by  divines  ;  why  are  they  exhorted  to  re- 
 pentance, and  have  time  allowed  them  to  fit  them  for 
 death?"  He  asserts  that  he  considered  Sir  William 
 to  have  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  communion  ;  and 
 that,  in  refusing  him  absolution,  he  should  have 
 failed  in  his  duty.  In  reply  to  the  objection  alleged 
 against  the  publicity  of  the  ceremony,  Collier  declares, 
 that  it  would  have  been  performed  in  private,  if  the 
 authorities  had  admitted  him  to  the  prison.  He  also 
 denies,  that  Sir  William  confessed  to  him  that  he  was 
 privy  to  the  Assassination.  The  first  Paper  was 
 dated  April  9th,  1696. 
 
 The  second  paper  was  printed  a  fortnight  later,  in 
 consequence  of  the  Declarations  of  the  Bishops. 
 Collier  regards  their  paper  as  an  unsupported  censure. 
 In  this  paper  he  enters,  at  some  length,  on  the  defence 
 of  the  practice  of  the  imposition  of  hands,  on  the 
 ground  of  its  primitive  use.  To  the  charge,  that  no 
 such  ceremony  is  enjoined  by  the  rubric,  he  replies: 
 "  true;  neither  is  there  any  prohibition.  The  Ru- 
 bric is  perfectly  silent  both  as  to  posture  and  gesture, 
 and  yet  some  circumstances  of  this  nature  must  of 
 necessity  be  used.  Now  since  our  Church  allows 
 the  priest  imposition  of  hands  in  another  case,  and 
 does  not  forbid  it  in  this,  is  it  any  harm  if  our 
 liberty  moves  upward,  and  determines  itself  by  ge- 
 neral usage  and  primitive  practice  ?"q  Some  "  Ani- 
 madversions" on  Collier's  Two  Papers  were  speedily 
 published.  They  were  written  by  Hody,  and  at 
 the  command  of  the  Archbishop,  Tennison.  Col- 
 lier, who  seldom  allowed  an  opponent  to  remain 
 
 "S  Defence,  &c.  p.  9. 
 
liiitftoup  o£  tt)C  ilionjucocjJ.  157 
 
 unanswered,  was  soon  ready  with  a  reply.  The  only 
 point  which  it  is  necessary  to  notice,  relates  to  the 
 same  question  as  the  preceding  extract :  and  as  Col- 
 lier enters  fully  into  the  matter,  which  is  really  one 
 of  great  interest,  another  quotation  will  not  be  unac- 
 ceptable to  the  reader.  The  animadverter  states, 
 that  the  ceremony  is  not  retained  by  the  Church  of 
 England  :  and  that  consequently  ministers  should  not 
 make  use  of  any,  which  are  not  positively  enjoined. 
 Collier  replies  as  follows.  "  His  affirming  that  imposi- 
 tion of  hands  is  not  retained  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land, will  not  hold  generally  speaking.  For  this 
 ceremony  is  retained  both  in  orders  and  confirma- 
 tion: which  is  a  sufficient  argument  of  its  being  ap- 
 proved by  the  Church.  But  the  Church  does  not 
 retain  it  in  her  absolutions.  I  grant  'tis  not  in  the 
 rubric  for  that  purpose.  And  therefore,  had  it  been 
 used  at  the  Daily  Service  or  upon  any  solemn  occa- 
 sion regulated  by  the  Church  there  might  have  been 
 some  pretence  for  exception  :  but  the  rubric  and  act 
 of  uniformity,  mentioned  by  the  animadverter,  provide 
 only  against  innovations,  in  stated  and  public  admi- 
 nistrations. 'Tis  in  Churches  and  Church  appoint- 
 ments that  the  rubric  condemns  adding  or  diminishing. 
 But  this  is  none  of  the  present  case.  For  the  Church 
 has  not  prescribed  us  any  office  for  executions.  Every 
 priest  is  here  left  to  his  liberty,  both  as  to  office  and 
 gesture,  to  substance  and  ceremony.  The  devotion 
 may  be  all  private  composition,  if  the  confessor 
 pleases.  And  when  out  of  respect  to  the  Church,  he 
 selects  any  part  of  her  liturgy,  though  the  form  is 
 public,  the  choice  and  occasion  are  private,  which 
 makes  it  fall  under  another  denomination.  The  se- 
 lected office  in  this  case,  is  like  coin  melted  into 
 bullion.    The  public  impression  is  gone  :  and  with 
 
176  fetetoi-p  of  rtje  ^onfutocg. 
 
 that  the  forfeitures  for  clipping  and  alloy  are  gone 
 too  :  and  the  honest  proprietor  may  add  to  the  quan- 
 tity, or  alter  the  figure  as  he  thinks  fit.  I  confess  had 
 the  Church  excepted  against  the  imposition  of  hands 
 in  absolution  :  had  she  condemned  the  ceremony  thus 
 applied,  and  laid  a  general  prohibition  upon  it :  her 
 members  ought  to  govern  themselves  accordingly, 
 and  not  to  use  it,  so  much  as  in  private  :  but  since 
 the  Church  prescribes  this  rite  in  her  rubric,  and 
 takes  notice  of  it  only  by  way  of  practice  and  appro- 
 bation :  when  matters  stand  thus,  I  say,  her  non-pro- 
 hibition implies  allowance  in  private  ministrations, 
 and  in  cases  no  way  determined  by  herself.  For  pray 
 what  is  liberty,  but  the  absence  of  command,  the 
 silence  of  authority,  and  leaving  things  in  their  na- 
 tural indifferency  ?  Thus  the  point  was  understood 
 and  practised  by  the  famous  Bishop  Sanderson,  upon 
 one  of  the  most  solemn  occasions,  and  in  which  him- 
 self was  most  nearly  concerned.  This  eminent  casuist 
 about  a  day  before  his  death,  desired  his  Chaplain 
 Mr.  Pullin,  to  give  him  absolution :  and  at  his  per- 
 forming that  office  he  pulled  of  his  cap,  that  Mr.  Pul- 
 lin migJit  lay  his  hand  upon  his  bare  head."' 
 
 This  is  a  curious,  and  by  no  means  an  uninterest- 
 ing question  :  and  whatever  we  may  think  of  Col- 
 lier's prudence  in  using  the  ceremony  of  imposition 
 of  hands,  we  certainly  cannot  allege  that  he  was 
 guilty  of  any  crime.  It  was  unwise  on  the  part  of 
 the  government  to  prosecute  him  for  such  an  act,  and 
 on  the  part  of  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  to  publish 
 a  Document  with  so  much  solemnity.  The  thing  was 
 magnified  into  a  matter  of  importance  by  the  proceed- 
 
 r  An  Answer  to  the  Animadversions  on  the  Two  Pamphlets 
 lately  published  by  Mr.  Collier,  &c  4to.  pp.  9,  10. 
 
$i'0torp  or  rtje  jponfucord.  177 
 
 ings  of  the  government  and  the  Bishops.  It  can 
 scarcely  be  supposed,  that  a  clergyman  in  repeating 
 the  Absolution  from  the  order  "  For  the  Visitation  of 
 the  Sick,''''  in  a  sick  room,  is  restrained  from  placing 
 his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  individual,  if  he  be 
 so  disposed.  All  ceremonies  must  necessarily  be  per- 
 formed with  some  attendant  circumstances.  The  Ab- 
 solution is  to  be  repeated  :  but  the  Church  does  not 
 prescribe  the  particular  manner.  As,  however,  it 
 relates  to  an  individual,  and  not  to  a  congregation, 
 it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  placing  the 
 hand,  on  the  head  of  the  sick  person,  is  a  ceremony 
 innocent  in  itself,  though  significant  to  the  individual, 
 and  such  as  the  Church  could  scarcely  mean  to  pro- 
 hibit, if  the  Clergy  should  feel  disposed  to  adopt  it, 
 in  their  private  ministrations.* 
 
 Collier  published  another  pamphlet  on  the  same 
 subject  in  reply  to  a  fresh  attack.  This  was  entitled 
 "  A  Reply  to  the  Absolution  of  a  Penitent,  according 
 to  the  Directions  of  the  Church  of  England,  &c.  &c." 
 The  same  arguments  are  enforced  with  Collier's 
 usual  ability.' 
 
 8  Ralph  remarks,  "  though  it  should  be  acknowledged,  that  a 
 more  seditious  use  could  scarce  be  made  of  the  Priestly  Office, 
 there  was  more  of  passion  than  policy  in  the  methods  taken  to  punish 
 these  men  for  this  misdemeanour :  where  there  is  no  law  there  is 
 no  transgression  :  and  yet  the  Grand  Jury  were  prevailed  upon  by 
 a  remonstrance  from  the  Bench,  exhibited  by  Chief  Justice  Holt, 
 to  present  the  said  clergymen,  for  having  countenanced  the  trea- 
 son by  absolving  the  traitors."    Vol.  ii.  646. 
 
 *  Evelyn  says,  April  19th,  "  Greater  offence  taken  at  the  three 
 ministers,  who  absolved  Sir  William  Perkins  and  Friend  at  Tyburn. 
 One  of  them  (Snatt)  was  a  son  of  my  old  schoolmaster.  This  pro- 
 duced much  altercation  as  to  the  canonicalnesse  of  the  action." 
 Vol.  iii.  350,  351.  The  circumstance  is  also  alluded  to  by  Calamy 
 under  the  same  date.    Calamy's  Life,  vol.  i.  382,  383. 
 
 N 
 
178  i£i'sftorp  of  tt)e  iJJonfurortf. 
 
 Sir  John  Fenwick  also  was  brought  to  trial,  the 
 same  year,  for  conspiring  against  the  government. 
 There  were,  however,  difficulties  in  his  case,  which 
 might  have  led  to  his  acquittal  by  a  jury  :  and 
 therefore  he  was  proceeded  against  in  Parliament  by 
 way  of  attainder,  a  practice  not  uncommon  in  those 
 times.  Nelson  was  induced,  by  Sir  John's  wife,  to 
 apply  to  Tennison  to  procure  his  support  against  the 
 attainder;  but  the  Archbishop  replied,  that,  as  he 
 considered  him  guilty,  he  could  not  declare  him  in- 
 nocent. All  interposition,  therefore,  in  his  favour 
 failed  :  and  he  was  condemned  and  executed.  The 
 majority  for  the  Bill  in  the  Lords  was  only  seven ;  so 
 that  the  government  might  reasonably  have  spared 
 his  life ;  and  it  is  evident,  that  a  jury  would  not  have 
 found  him  guilty,  in  a  case  in  which  the  penalty  was 
 death.  He  avowed  himself  a  member  of  the  Church 
 of  England  :  and  he  was  permitted  to  seek  the  aid  of 
 any  of  the  clergy,  who  had  taken  the  Oaths  :  or  any 
 of  the  Bishops,  who  had  opposed  the  Bill  of  Attain- 
 der against  him.  On  his  refusal,  the  names  of  three 
 or  four  Nonjurors  were  mentioned  to  him ;  but  these 
 individuals  declined  to  attend,  on  the  ground,  that  the 
 Oaths  might  be  tendered  to  them,  and  that,  on  their 
 non-compliance,  they  might  stand  convicted.  This 
 circumstance  shews  the  distressing  state  of  fear  and 
 apprehension,  in  which  the  Nonjuring  Clergy  were 
 placed,  and  how  ready  the  authorities  were  to  lay  hold 
 of  any  thing,  which  might  occur  to  their  disad- 
 vantage." The  Author  of  the  Letter  in  the  State 
 Tracts  says,  they  might  as  well  have  trusted  the 
 
 u  State  Tracts,  vol.  ii.  561. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  ^onjurortf*  179 
 
 honour  of  the  government  as  live  under  its  protection  ; 
 but  surely  the  cases  were  very  dissimilar. w 
 
 White,  the  deprived  Bp.  of  Peterborough,  died  in 
 the  year  1698,  having  lived  in  retirement  since  his 
 deprivation.  The  circumstance  is  thus  mentioned  by 
 Evelyn  :  "  June  5.  Dr.  White,  late  Bishop  of  Peter- 
 borough, who  had  been  deprived  for  not  complying 
 with  government,  was  buried  in  St.  Gregory's  Church- 
 yard or  Vault,  at  St.  Paul's.  His  hearse  was  accom- 
 panied by  two  Nonjuror  Bishops,  Dr.  Turner  of  Ely, 
 and  Dr.  Lloyd,  with  forty  Nonjuror  Clergymen,  who 
 could  not  stay  the  office  of  the  burial,  because  the 
 Dean  of  St.  Paul's  had  appointed  a  conforming  mi- 
 nister to  read  the  office,  at  which  all  much  wondered, 
 there  being  nothing  in  that  office  which  mentioned 
 the  present  King." 1  Certainly,  the  retirement  from 
 the  grave  was  a  singular  circumstance,  and  contrary 
 to  their  practice  in  many  other  cases,  in  which  they 
 attended  at  those  services,  which  did  not  mention  the 
 name  of  the  reigning  sovereign. 
 
 The  succession  to  the  throne  was  a  question  of 
 serious  and  anxious  consideration  during  this  reign. 
 Having  excluded  one  sovereign  on  account  of  his  faith, 
 the  country  decided  that  none  but  a  Protestant  should 
 be  permitted  to  reign.    Anne,  the  second  daughter  of 
 
 w  The  severity  of  the  Government  appears  to  have  caused  a  re- 
 action in  favour  of  the  Nonjurors.  Whiston,  speaking  of  Lloyd, 
 Bishop  of  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  says  :  "I  remember  to  have 
 heard  him  once  say,  that  after  the  Assassination  Plot,  a.d.  1696, 
 the  odium  of  it  was  so  great,  that  not  a  Jacobite  would  have  re- 
 mained in  the  nation,  had  not  the  extreme  rigour  of  the  following 
 Act  of  Parliament  against  those,  who  would  not  sign  an  association, 
 kept  up  the  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  government  ever  afterward." 
 Whiston's  Memoirs,  132. 
 
 x  Evelyn,  iii.  364,  365. 
 
180  i^tetorp  of  ttje  iPonfurorsf. 
 
 King  James,  was  next  in  succession  to  King  William, 
 according  to  the  settlement  made  at  the  Revolution : 
 but  the  death  of  her  son,  the  Duke  of  Gloucester,  in 
 the  year  1 700,  filled  the  nation  with  alarm,  and  pointed 
 out  the  necessity  of  taking  some  further  step,  in  this 
 very  important  matter,  especially  as  there  was  no 
 prospect  of  other  issue  from  the  Princess.  To  cut  off 
 the  hopes,  therefore,  of  the  Jacobites,  a  new  settle- 
 ment was  made.  Besides  James's  son,  respecting 
 whose  legitimacy  there  was  no  reason  whatever  to 
 doubt,  there  were,  first,  the  Duchess  of  Savoy,  the 
 daughter  of  Henrietta,  the  sister  of  Charles  II.,  and 
 secondly,  several  of  the  Palatine  Family.  But  all  these, 
 were  Roman  Catholics  ;  and  though  some  of  them 
 might  have  embraced  Protestantism,  in  the  hope  of 
 ascending  the  English  throne,  yet  the  Parliament 
 were  resolved  not  to  offer  them  such  a  temptation. 
 It  was  determined  that  all  Roman  Catholics  should 
 be  excluded  :  and,  therefore,  the  Princess  Sophia  of 
 Brunswick,  the  grandaughter  of  James  I.  and  the 
 next  Protestant  heir,  was  made  the  source  of  the  new 
 line. 
 
 In  this  settlement,  all  parties  acted  with  much 
 craft  and  dissimulation,  except  the  Nonjurors,  who 
 remained  true  to  their  principles,  even  though  they 
 might  be  erroneous.  The  question  of  the  settlement 
 was  accomplished  chiefly  by  the  Tories,  under  the 
 guidance  of  Harley. y  The  Princess  Anne,  it  was 
 thought,  would  favour  her  brother's  cause  :  so  that 
 the  Jacobites  and  the  Nonjurors  looked  forward,  with 
 satisfaction,  to  her  accession.  "  For  six  years  she  had 
 maintained  a  fair  correspondence  with  her  Father, 
 full  of  assurances  of  duty  and  expressions  of  repent- 
 
 y  Hallam,  iii.  246.    Macpheison,  ii.  187. 
 
tetgtorp  of  tfje  il5on)ucoi*0.  181 
 
 ance."  She  wrote,  however,  to  ask  him  if  he  would 
 allow  her  to  succeed  according  to  the  Act  of  Settle- 
 ment, in  the  event  of  William's  death,  urging  that  she 
 should  thereby  serve  her  Father.  James  was  dis- 
 pleased, and  the  proposal  was  not  entertained.2  Still 
 the  friends  of  the  late  King  continued  to  look  to  the 
 Princess.  Even  William  was  indifferent  respecting 
 the  future,  provided  the  crown  was  secured  to  him 
 during  his  own  life.  Circumstances,  which  were 
 unknown  at  the  time,  have  since  been  brought  to 
 light  by  the  production  of  documentary  Papers. 
 Thus,  in  1697,  in  the  negotiations  for  a  Peace,  Wil- 
 liam secretly  entered  into  an  arrangement  in  favour 
 of  James's  son.  "  Lewis,  unwilling  to  desert  James, 
 proposed,  that  the  Prince  of  Wales  should  succeed 
 to  the  crown  after  the  death  of  William.  The  King 
 with  little  hesitation  agreed  to  this  request.  He  even 
 solemnly  engaged  to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  act  of 
 Settlement,  and  to  declare  by  another,  the  Prince  of 
 Wales  his  successor  in  the  throne.  Those,  who  as- 
 cribe all  the  actions  of  William  to  public  spirit,  will 
 find  some  difficulty  in  reconciling  this  transaction  to 
 their  elevated  opinion  of  his  character.  In  one  con- 
 cession to  France,  he  yielded  all  his  professions  to 
 England  ;  and,  by  an  act  of  indiscretion,  or  through 
 indifference,  deserted  the  principles,  to  which  he  owed 
 the  throne.  The  deliverance  of  the  nation,  however, 
 was  not  the  sole  object  of  this  Prince.  The  projected 
 peace  was  to  secure  the  crown  in  his  possession  for 
 his  life.  The  successors  provided  by  the  Act  of 
 Settlement,  he  either  despised  or  abhorred.  Though 
 James  had  displeased  the  nation,  he  had  not  injured 
 William.    The  son  had  offended  neither.    The  sup- 
 
 2  Macplierson,  ii  121 
 
182  l^t'sitorp  of  ttje  iflonfurorsf. 
 
 posed  spuriousness  of  his  birth,  had  been  only  held 
 forth  to  amuse  the  vulgar."3 
 
 This  project,  however,  was  defeated  by  King  James, 
 who  would  not  allow  his  son  to  be  made  a  party  to 
 such  an  arrangement.  Thus  did  James  sacrifice  the 
 only  prospect  of  the  restoration  of  his  family .b  Still 
 from  the  general  dislike  of  the  nation  to  George  I.  it 
 has  been  supposed,  even  by  Mr.  Hallam,  that  the 
 Pretender  might  have  obtained  the  throne,  if  he  had 
 embraced  Protestantism. 
 
 We  must  now  revert  to  the  controversy  arising 
 from  the  deprivation  of  the  Bishops,  in  which  we 
 left  Dodwell  engaged  in  the  year  1692.  It  was  not 
 until  the  year  1695  that  Dodwell  published  his  De- 
 fence of  the  Vindication,  in  reply  to  Hody. c  In  this 
 work  he  contends  that  the  oath  of  canonical  obedi- 
 ence to  the  deprived  Bishops  was  binding.  This 
 argument  explains  Dod  well's  subsequent  views,  when, 
 after  Lloyd's  death,  Ken  ceased  to  claim  the  submis- 
 sion of  the  Clergy;  and  it  is  quite  consistent  with 
 his  return  to  the  established  Church  at  that  time.  It 
 is  a  mostelaborate  and  able  performance."1 
 
 a  Macpherson.'ii.  123-4.  b  Ibid.  125. 
 
 c  A  Defence  of  the  Vindication  of  the  deprived  Bishops.  Wherein 
 the  case  of  Abiathar  is  particularly  considered,  and  the  invalidity 
 of  lay  deprivations  is  further  proved,  from  the  doctrine  received 
 under  the  Old  Testament,  continued  in  the  first  ages  of  Christi- 
 anity, and  from  our  own  fundamental  laws.  In  a  reply  to  Dr. 
 Hody  and  another  author.  To  which  is  annexed  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Church  of  England,  concerning  the  independency  of  the  Clergy 
 on  the  lay-power,  as  to  those  rights  of  theirs  which  are  purely 
 spiritual,  reconciled  with  our  oath  of  supremacy  and  the  lay  depri- 
 vations of  the  Popish  Bishops  in  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation. 
 By  the  author  of  the  Vindication  of  the  deprived  Bishops.  London. 
 4to.  1695. 
 
 ,l  See  the  Defence,  &c.  See  also  Dodwcll's  Life,  for  an  ab- 
 stract, 254,  267. 
 
^igtorp  of  ttje  ifronjttcorsf.  183 
 
 It  will  be  seen  from  the  title  page  of  the  preceding 
 work,  that  a  treatise  on  The  Independency  of  the 
 Clergy  of  the  Lay-power  was  intended  to  accompany 
 the  volume.  From  some  unknown  cause  this  trea- 
 tise was  suppressed  in  1695.  The  author  of  his  Life 
 states,  that  it  was  suppressed  because  it  could  not  be 
 answered.6  At  all  events,  it  was  published  as  a  sepa- 
 rate work  in  1697.  It  appears  strange,  that  any  in- 
 terference should  have  been  employed,  to  prevent  the 
 free  and  full  discussion  of  a  subject  of  so  much  in- 
 terest. Dodwell  enters  fully  into  the  question,  which 
 had  been  raised  by  Hody,  relative  to  the  deprivations 
 at  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Eliza- 
 beth :  and,  after  pointing  out  the  dissimilarity  be- 
 tween the  two  cases,  he  admits  that,  if  the  recent 
 deprivation  had  been  synodical,  even  though  unjust, 
 they  ought  to  have  submitted.  Kettlewell,  on  the 
 other  hand,  denied  this  position,  contending  that  it 
 would  be  a  sin  to  submit  to  such  deprivations/  The 
 difference  between  these  two  eminent  men  was  very 
 material.  In  Dodwell's  case,  his  principle  led  him 
 only  to  continue  the  separation  during  the  lives  of 
 the  deprived  Bishops :  while  Kettlewell's  went  to 
 perpetuate  it  by  new  consecrations.  This  point,  how- 
 ever, will  necessarily  come  under  our  notice  in  an- 
 other chapter. 
 
 On  Nov.  2nd,  in  the  year  1700,  Turner,  the  de- 
 prived Bishop  of  Ely,  died  in  very  straitened  circum- 
 stances. So  that  now  three  only  of  the  deprived 
 Prelates,  Lloyd,  Ken,  and  Frampton,  survived.  Bp. 
 Nicolson,  writing  to  the  Earl  of  Thanet,  says  :  "  My 
 Lord,  the  deprived  Bishop  of  Ely  is  (to  my  know- 
 ledge) in  very  needy  circumstances :  having  a  large 
 
 *  Dodwell's  Life,  268.  f  Kettlewell's  Life,  126. 
 
184  ^igtorp  of  ttje  j£oniuror0. 
 
 family,  and  no  support  out  of  the  common  bank  of 
 charity  :  but  if  your  Lordship  thinks  fit  to  have  Mr. 
 Carlton's  sum  thrown  together  into  the  public  stock, 
 your  commands  will  be  punctually  observed."8  This 
 letter  is  dated  1706,  consequently  there  must  be  an 
 error  in  the  date  or  the  name,  as  Turner  died  in 
 1700.  But  in  either  case  the  circumstance  shews 
 the  sad  state  in  which  the  deprived  Bishops  were 
 placed,  and  how  much  they  suffered  for  conscience 
 sake.  Probably  none  of  their  detractors  ever  suffered 
 for  conscience.  He  had  lived  in  retirement  since 
 his  deprivation :  and  was  buried  in  the  chancel  of  the 
 church  of  Therfield,  Herts,  of  which  place  he  had 
 formerly  been  rector.  One  word  only  was  inscribed 
 on  the  stone  by  which  his  mortal  remains  were  covered, 
 Expergiscar  !  He  was  a  man  of  considerable  emi- 
 nence and  of  great  sincerity. 
 
 King  James  died  on  the  sixth  of  September  1701, 
 at  St.  Germains,  after  which  the  Kino-  of  France 
 recognized  James's  son  as  King  of  England,  Scot- 
 land, and  Ireland.  This  led  to  certain  Parliamentary 
 enactments  against  him  under  the  designation  of  the 
 Pretender,  the  name  by  which  he  is  usually  known 
 in  English  history.  Thus  an  Act  was  passed  for 
 securing  the  succession,  and  for  extinguishing  the 
 hopes  of  the  pretended  Prince  of  Wales.  All  official 
 persons,  including  ecclesiastics,  were  required  to  take 
 an  Oath  of  Abjuration  before  the  1st  of  August  1702, 
 the  penalty  of  refusal  being  the  forfeiture  of  their 
 posts  or  preferments.11  Thomas  Turner,  brother  of  the 
 deprived  Bishop  of  Ely,  who  complied  at  the  Revolu- 
 tion, stumbled  at  the  Abjuration  Oath.  He  went,  on 
 
 ?  Nicolson's  Epistolary  Correspondence,  i.  305. 
 h  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  i.  64. 
 
l&i'jjtocp  of  ttje  /fro  tij  111*01%  185 
 the  passing  of  the  Abjuration  Act,  from  London  to 
 Oxford,  with  the  intention  of  not  taking  the  Oath. 
 He  did  not,  however,  resign  his  preferments :  nor 
 was  he  called  upon  to  take  the  Oath  :  so  that  he 
 held  all  his  places  until  his  death  in  1714.  But  in 
 most  cases  the  Oath  was  required  to  be  taken,  and 
 especially  in  those  which  were  suspected.  It  was 
 an  impolitic  act,  since  it  grieved  the  consciences  of 
 many  good  men,  and  really  did  nothing  towards 
 strengthening  the  government.  Not  a  few  of  the 
 Nonjurors  would  have  complied,  after  King  James's 
 death,  but  for  this  Oath  of  Abjuration.  They  con- 
 sidered themselves  released  from  their  Oath  to  King- 
 James  by  his  death  :  and  they  would  have  submitted 
 to  the  government.  But  they  looked  upon  the  Oath 
 of  Abjuration  of  the  rights  of  the  Pretender  as  so 
 unnecessary,  that  they  could  not  take  it :  and  even 
 some,  who  had  formerly  complied,  now  became  Non- 
 jurors. Whiston  tells  us  :  "  Mr.  Billers  and  Mr. 
 Baker,  who  loved  their  religion  and  their  country  as 
 well  as  any  jurors  whomsoever,  but  having  once  taken 
 an  oath  to  King  James,  could  not  satisfy  their  con- 
 sciences in  breaking  it,  while  he  lived,  for  any  con- 
 sideration whatsoever.  I  well  remember  that  when 
 King  James  died,  which  was  in  1701,  they  began 
 to  deliberate  about  taking  the  Oath,  and  coming  into 
 the  government,  till  the  unhappy  Abjuration  Oath, 
 which  was  made  the  same  year,  had  such  clauses  as 
 stopped  all  their  farther  deliberations."1 
 
 1  Whiston's  Memoirs,  p.  32.  Mr.  Hallam  very  justly  remarks 
 of  this  new  Oath  :  "  Of  all  sophistry  that  weakens  moral  obliga- 
 tion, that  is  the  most  pardonable  which  men  employ  to  escape  from 
 this  species  of  tyranny.  The  state  may  reasonably  make  an  entire 
 and  heartfelt  attachment  to  its  authority  the  condition  of  civil 
 trust :   but  nothing  more  than  a  promise  of  peaceable  obedience 
 
186  Iki'gtorp  of  t^e  ^on|uroc0» 
 
 Ken  too  was  deeply  distressed  at  this  new  Oath. 
 Writing  to  his  friend  Harbin,  he  says:  "  I  am  troubled 
 to  see  the  nation  likely  to  be  involved  in  new  univer- 
 sal oaths,  but  hope  they  will  be  imposed  on  none  but 
 those  who  were  employed  or  promoted  in  Church 
 and  State. '  k  The  Oath  made  William  rightful  King, 
 at  which  many  were  staggered,  who  were  willing  to 
 render  him  allegiance,  and  who  would  not  endeavour 
 to  disturb  his  government.  It  was  almost  the  last 
 thing  that  William  did.  Indeed  the  Bill  was  signed 
 by  Commission,  as  the  King  was  too  ill  to  attend  in 
 Parliament  for  that  purpose.  King  William  died  on 
 the  8th  of  March  1701-2. 
 
 From  the  various  statements  of  the  preceding  pages, 
 it  will  be  seen  that  King  William  was  not  influenced, 
 as  some  of  his  panegyrists  have  insinuated,  only  by 
 a  desire  to  promote  the  civil  and  religious  liberties 
 of  the  people  of  England.  He  sought  his  own  in- 
 terest, at  all  events,  as  well  as  that  of  the  public. 
 Since  his  death,  many  things  have  transpired,  which 
 prove  that  he  was  determined,  if  possible,  to  ascend 
 the  English  throne,  though  the  Church  and  the  coun- 
 try might  have  been  saved  by  the  establishment  of  a 
 regency  in  the  person  of  the  Prince  of  Orange.1  Un- 
 doubtedly a  signal  deliverance  was  wrought  for  the 
 country  in  1688  :  and  the  present  generation  have 
 
 can  justly  be  exacted  from  those  who  ask  only  to  obey  in  peace." 
 iii.  265.  Baker  wrote  Socius  Ejectus  on  his  books.  See  Life, 
 34. 
 
 k  Bowles's  Ken,  i.  228. 
 
 1  Mr.  Hallam,  speaking  of  the  opinions  of  the  actors  in  the 
 Revolution,  admits  the  risk  which  was  incurred.  "  Notwithstanding 
 the  splendid  success  of  the  opposite  counsels,  it  would  be  judging 
 too  servilely  by  the  event,  not  to  admit  that  they  were  tremen- 
 dously hazardous."  iii.  111. 
 
Wtorp  of  ttje  ^onjucocj?-  187 
 
 reason  to  be  thankful  for  the  interposition  of  King 
 William  :  but  our  gratitude  must  not  make  us  blind 
 to  his  errors,  or  lead  us  to  represent  him  as  free  from 
 selfish  and  sinister  motives.  That  all  his  proceedings 
 were  overruled,  for  the  welfare  of  the  nation,  we  have 
 reason  to  be  abundantly  thankful :  still  the  success 
 must  not  be  attributed  to  William's  intentions,  or  to 
 his  disinterested  conduct ;  for  the  preceding  pages 
 shew,  that  he  did  not,  on  all  occasions,  adhere  to 
 rigid  principles  of  virtue.  A  concurrence  of  circum- 
 stances, as  I  have  shewn,  favoured  his  enterprise  :  but 
 had  he  fairly  and  honestly  told  the  people  of  England, 
 in  his  First  Declaration,  that  he  was  coming  to  seat 
 himself  upon  the  throne  of  his  father-in-law,  much 
 as  they  were  opposed  to  King  James's  measures,  and 
 great  as  were  their  fears  of  the  introduction  of  popery, 
 they  would  not  have  accepted  deliverance  on  such 
 terms.  While,  then,  we  have  reason  to  be  grateful, 
 that  the  events  of  the  Revolution  were  so  graciously 
 overruled,  we  have  also  much  cause  for  gratitude  to 
 Almighty  God,  that  the  various  motives  of  many  of 
 the  actors  were  not  so  marked,  by  the  Divine  dis- 
 pleasure, as  to  involve  the  nation  in  trouble  and  con- 
 fusion."1 
 
 m  King  William's  views  and  motives,  in  coming  into  England, 
 have  been  considered  in  a  former  chapter :  but  I  wish  to  add,  in 
 reference  to  his  Declaration  respecting  the  Prince  of  Wales,  the 
 following  passages  from  Mr.  Hallam.  "  It  is  the  only  part  of  the 
 Declaration  that  is  false."  And  again  :  "  It  cannot  be  said 
 without  absurdity,  that  James  was  guilty  of  any  offence  in  becoming 
 the  father  of  this  child  :  yet  it  was  evidently  that  which  rendered 
 his  other  offences  inexpiable."    Hallam,  iii.  112,  113. 
 
GY3  JYSOYSGYI)  7&G)fZ<tt<r&(tt<ttG& 
 
 JV^  vtfV.  «/<f\*  JV\,  JV*  Jv\j  VyV  JW»  *UVj  ^fl\.  Jty*  JV^i 
 
 'w*  ^o/*  r\d6^'       'vy*  ^fl^  ^wy       *\o/*  *^c^  'vv* 
 
 CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 A.  D.  1701  —  1711. 
 
 Anne's  Accession. — State  of  Parties. — Death  of  Kidder. — 
 Dodwell's  Case  in  View. — Controversy. — Dodwell's 
 Pangenesis. —  His  further  Prospect,  &c. — Its  Arguments. 
 — Death  of  Bishop  Frampton. — Death  of  Bishop  Lloyd. 
 — Applications  to  Ken. — His  Reply. — Wishes  the  Schism 
 closed. — Dodwell,  Nelson,  and  Brooksby,  return  to 
 the  National  Church. — Hickes's  Views. — Letters  of 
 Nelson  and  Brokesby. — Dodwell's  Case  in  Fact. — Ar- 
 guments.— Dodwell's  Death. — Replies  to  Dodwell. 
 
 NNE  succeeded  King  William  according 
 to  the  Act  of  Settlement,  by  which  the 
 crown  was  secured  to  her,  as  the  next 
 Protestant  heir  of  the  family  of  King- 
 James.  When  the  New  Parliament  was  summoned, 
 it  was  found,  that  the  majority  were  Tories  :  conse- 
 quently the  Whigs  were  displaced  from  office,  their 
 opponents  succeeding  in  their  room.3  At  this  period 
 there  were  four  parties  in  the  state,  all  possessing 
 more  or  less  influence  :  the  Tories,  the  Whigs,  the 
 Roman  Catholics,  and  the  Nonjurors.  The  Tories 
 were  the  friends  of  the  Church,  while  the  Whigs 
 were  more  inclined  towards  the  Dissenters.  The 
 Whigs  were  avowed  friends  to  the  Protestant  succes- 
 sion :  but  they  did  not  view  the  Church  of  England  . 
 
 *  Macpherson. 
 
felatorp  of  rfje  iponjucocsL  189 
 
 with  a  favourable  aspect.  Thus  they  endeavoured 
 to  persuade  King  William,  that  his  success  was 
 owing  to  their  support,  and  that  the  Tories  were  his 
 enemies.  It  is  remarked,  by  a  writer  who  understood 
 the  state  of  parties,  that  King  William  found  the 
 Tories  the  better  subjects,  as  the  Whigs  wished  to 
 restrain  the  royal  prerogative  in  various  instances, 
 which  was  by  no  means  agreeable  to  his  Majesty. 
 Burnet  places  this  circumstance  to  the  credit  of  the 
 Whigs,  who,  he  says,  were  jealous  of  the  liberties  of 
 the  country.  "  But,"  says  the  writer  to  whom  I  have 
 alluded,  "  notwithstanding  the  opinion  of  this  Right 
 Reverend  Father  of  the  Church,  I  am  apt  to  think 
 from  the  known  conduct  of  the  Whigs,  that  they 
 were  less  afraid  of  arbitrary  power,  than  of  their 
 being  themselves  out  of  all  power  :  for  we  have  seen 
 them,  as  well  as  the  Tories,  advocates  for,  and  stretch- 
 ing the  prerogative  while  they  had  the  helm  of  go- 
 vernment in  their  hands,  though  when  out  of  power, 
 as  violent  for  restraining  it,  and  extending  the  liberties 
 of  the  people,  at  the  expence  of  the  rights  of  the 
 crown." b  They  consented  to  set  aside  Episcopacy 
 in  Scotland,  though,  as  will  be  shewn  in  another 
 chapter,  it  might  have  been  retained  with  the  appro- 
 val of  the  country.  They  therefore  viewed  the  Church 
 with  suspicion.  Exceptions  there  were :  but  still 
 the  charge,  with  respect  to  the  majority,  is  correct. 
 Those  Whigs,  who  were  attached  to  the  Church, 
 were  Whigs  in  politics  only,  and  not  in  Ecclesiastical 
 matters,  on  which  they  agreed  with  the  Tories.  Of 
 this  class  was  Swift,  during  the  early  portion  of  his 
 political  career — a  Whig  in  Politics,  but  on  all  Ec- 
 clesiastical subjects  standing  forth  as  the  unflinching 
 
 b  Life  of  the  Duke  of  Ormonde,  1747.    p.  118. 
 
190  Iktetorp  of  ttje  ifronfucortf. 
 
 advocate  of  the  Church.  Harley's  views  were  at  one 
 time  of  the  same  character :  as  were  also  those  of 
 many  other  distinguished  men  of  the  period. 
 
 The  Tories  also  were  divided  into  two  sections — 
 one  secretly  devoted  to  the  exiled  family,  and  con- 
 sequently anxious  for  their  restoration,  whenever  it 
 could  be  accomplished,  the  other  strongly  attached 
 to  the  Protestant  succession.  During  this  period  of 
 strong  party  feeling,  it  was  usual  to  charge  the  whole 
 body  of  the  Tories  with  a  secret  attachment  to  the 
 Pretender :  and  the  same  charge  is  still  alleged  by 
 some  modern  writers. 
 
 While,  however,  it  is  certain  that  a  section  of  the 
 Tories  favoured  the  cause  of  the  exiled  line,  it  is 
 equally  certain,  that  many  of  the  leading  Whigs  held 
 a  secret  correspondence  with  the  Pretender.  Had 
 they  been  able  to  have  secured  the  ascendancy  of 
 their  party,  they  would  have  been  ready  to  have 
 placed  the  Pretender  on  the  throne,  though  some 
 may  have  acted  from  no  other  motive  than  a  wish  to 
 embarrass  the  government.  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
 that,  if  some  of  the  Tories  wished  to  restore  the  Pre- 
 tender, many  of  the  Whigs  were  by  no  means  anxious, 
 that  his  family  should  become  extinct.  His  name 
 was  a  very  convenient  pretence  to  the  Whigs,  when- 
 ever they  wished  to  excite  the  popular  feeling  against 
 their  opponents.  If  then  it  were  criminal  in  the 
 Tory  section  to  favour  the  Pretender,  it  was  equally 
 criminal  in  the  Whigs,  no  matter  from  what  motives, 
 to  hold  a  secret  correspondence  with  him,  and  thereby 
 endanger  that  Protestant  succession,  respecting  which 
 they  were  always  declaiming  in  their  speeches  in 
 Parliament,  and  in  their  addresses  to  the  people. 
 Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  not  strange  that 
 Swift,  Harley,  and  other  Whigs,  who  were  the  warm 
 
^(0torp  of  tfje  iJ^onjurorsS.  19 1 
 
 supporters  of  the  Church  of  England,  should  unite, 
 in  the  latter  part  of  this  reign,  with  the  Tories.  The 
 administration  of  the  last  four  years  indeed  was  com- 
 posed of  the  two  parties  united  :  but  whatever  may 
 have  been  the  errors  of  the  Tories  during  the  reign 
 of  Queen  Anne,  nothing  could  have  been  more  incon- 
 sistent and  selfish  than  the  conduct  of  the  Whigs. 
 
 A  very  acute  observer  remarks,  "  What  the  wishes 
 of  many  of  the  Tories  were,  was  little  attempted  to 
 be  concealed  :  and  that  some  of  the  Whigs  were  not 
 acting  on  a  fixed  principle  of  attachment  to  the  Pro- 
 testant succession,  is  now  clear  from  their  correspon- 
 dence with  the  Court  of  St.  Germain's  in  the  reigns 
 of  King  William  and  Queen  Anne,  especially  the 
 latter."0  In  short,  the  Whigs  were  ready  to  sacri- 
 fice any  thing  and  every  thing  to  place :  and  could 
 they  have  seen  it  their  interest  to  restore  the  family 
 of  King  James,  they  would  not  have  hesitated  for  a 
 moment.  They  had  differences  with  King  William 
 at  an  early  period  respecting  the  succession  to  the 
 throne.  Men  appeared  to  have  changed.  The  Tories, 
 who  once  wished  to  preserve  the  rights  of  James's 
 family,  were  now  opposed  to  their  pretensions  :  while 
 the  Whigs  interposed  to  prevent  their  hopes  from 
 being  extinguished.  Thus  it  was  remarked,  "  The 
 Whigs  were  quite  as  troublesome  to  King  William 
 as  the  Tories.  ""1 
 
 Kidder,  the  successor  of  Ken,  was  killed  in  his  bed 
 with  his  wife,  by  the  falling  of  a  stack  of  chimneys, 
 in  the  palace  at  Wells,  on  the  night  of  the  great 
 storm  the  26th  and  27th  November  1703.  On  the 
 Queen's  accession  an  offer  was  made  to  restore  Ken 
 
 r  Rose's  Observations  on  Fox's  History,  Int.  xxx. 
 6  Life  of  Bolingbroke,  p.  70. 
 
192  l&fgtorp  of  tt>e  ijionfucorsr. 
 
 to  his  diocese,  in  which  case  Kidder  would  have  been 
 removed  to  another  see.  He  declined,  however,  on 
 the  ground  of  age  and  health,  and  probably  because 
 he  was  not  satisfied  about  the  Oaths.  This  latter 
 supposition,  indeed,  appears  more  than  probable ;  for 
 it  is  stated  that  Ken  refused  on  taking  a  new  excep- 
 tion to  the  Oath  of  Abjuration.  On  Kidder's  death 
 he  persuaded  Hooper  to  accept  it.  In  an  original 
 letter  published  by  Mr.  Bowles,  Ken  says  :  "  I  hear- 
 ing yt  ye  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph  was  offered  Bath  and 
 Wells,  and  that  on  my  account  he  refused  it,  wrott 
 to  give  my  assent  to  it.  I  did  it  irf  regard  to  ye 
 diocese,  yt  they  might  not  have  a  latitudinarian  tra- 
 ditor  imposed  on  them,  who  would  betray  the  bap- 
 tismal faith."6  On  the  6th  of  December  1703,  he 
 thus  writes  to  Hooper  :  "  I  am  informed  yt  you  have 
 had  an  offer  of  Bath  and  Wells,  and  y'  you  refused 
 it,  which  I  take  very  kindly,  because  I  know  you  did 
 it  on  my  account :  but  since  I  am  well  assured  yl  ye 
 diocese  cannot  be  happy  to  yx  degree  in  any  other 
 hands  than  in  your  owne,  I  desire  you  to  accept  of 
 it.  I  told  you  long  agoe  at  Bath  how  willing  I  was 
 to  surrender  my  canonical  claim  to  a  worthy  person, 
 but  to  none  more  willingly  than  to  yourselfe."  On 
 the  20th  of  December  Ken  writes  to  congratulate 
 Hooper  on  his  acceptance  of  the  see.  Some  of  the 
 Nonjurors  were  displeased  at  Kens  resignation  :  and 
 he  alludes  to  them  in  this  letter.  "  I  could  easily 
 foresee,"  says  he,  "y1  by  my  concerne  for  you  I  shd 
 incurre  ye  displeasure  of  some  of  my  brethren,  but 
 this  is  not  ye  first  instance  in  wch  I  have  dissented 
 from  them,  and  never  had  cause  to  repent  of  it." 
 When  the  Queen  proposed  the  see  to  Hooper,  he 
 
 f  Bowles's  Ken,  ii.  242. 
 
^tgtorp  of  ttje  /ponfucors.  193 
 suggested  Ken's  restoration.  Her  Majesty  was  pleased 
 at  the  idea,  and  ordered  Hooper  to  make  the  offer. 
 Ken  thanked  her  Majesty,  but  was  unwilling  to  re- 
 turn again  to  the  business  of  the  world.d  In  a  letter 
 to  Lloyd  of  April  1st,  1704,  he  says,  "  I  perceive  by 
 youre  two  last  that  your  Lordship  is  very  shy  of  own- 
 ing your  approbation  of  my  action."  He  alludes  to 
 his  resignation,  of  which  Lloyd  did  not  approve.  He 
 says  that  he  foresaw  the  censures  that  were  bestowed 
 upon  him  :  and  he  assures  Lloyd,  "  I  never  did  any 
 thing  in  my  life  more  to  my  satisfaction  than  my 
 seceding."6 
 
 For  a  few  years  after  the  death  of  King  William 
 
 d  Bowles's  Ken,  ii.  249—253,  256. 
 
 e  Ibid.  263.  D'Oyley's  Sancroft,  i.  448.  Ken  thus  pave  utter- 
 ance to  his  feelings  in  verse  : 
 
 But  that  which  most  of  all  my  eye-lids  drain'd, 
 
 My  lambs,  my  sheep,  were  by  their  wanderings  baned : 
 
 They  broke  from  Catholic,  and  hallow'd  bounds, 
 
 And  for  the  wholsome  chose  th'  impoison'd  grounds, 
 
 Contracting  latitudinarian  taint, 
 
 In  faith,  in  morals,  suffering  no  restraint. 
 
 In  allusion  to  the  answer  to  his  prayers,  he  says : 
 
 But  I  adore  benignity  Divine, 
 
 Who  did  to  hear  my  worthless  cares  incline, 
 
 And  while  I  mourn'd  for  the  tremendous  stroke, 
 
 Which  freed  my  flock  from  uncanonic  yoke, 
 
 Heaven,  my  Lord,  supereffluently  kind, 
 
 In  you  sent  a  successor  to  my  mind. 
 
 Elsewhere  he  alludes  to  the  same  subject : 
 
 Forc'd  from  my  flock  I  daily  saw,  with  tears, 
 A  stranger's  ravage  two  sabbatic  years : 
 But  I  forbear  to  tell  the  dreadful  stroke, 
 Which  freed  my  sheep  from  their  Erastian  yoke. 
 
 By  the  two  sabbatic  years,  Ken  alludes  to  the  period,  fourteen 
 years,  of  Kidder's  occupancy  of  the  see.    Biog.  Brit.  Art.  Ken. 
 
 O 
 
194  ^fgtorp  of  ttje  i|5onjucoc0. 
 
 the  Nonjurors  proceeded  very  quietly  in  their  course; 
 but  at  length  circumstances  arose,  which  led  to 
 divisions  in  their  little  body.  Dodwell,  who  did  not 
 wish  to  continue  the  schism  after  the  death  of  the 
 deprived  Bishops,  saw  that  the  time  might  soon  ar- 
 rive, when,  according  to  his  principles,  it  would  be 
 a  duty  to  return  to  the  National  Church,  and  close 
 the  breach.  To  give  time  and  opportunity  to  con- 
 sider the  subject,  he  published  in  1705  his  "  Case  in 
 View  considered."  f  At  this  time  Lloyd,  Ken,  and 
 Frampton  alone  survived  of  the  deprived  Bishops. 
 Neither  Ken  nor  Frampton  were  likely  to  challenge 
 the  obedience  of  the  Nonjurors  :  and,  therefore,  the 
 question  which  Dodwell  wished  to  discuss  must  be 
 settled  at  the  death  of  Lloyd.  The  title  fully  explains 
 the  writer's  object.  His  view  was,  that  in  case  the 
 deprived  Bishops  should  leave  their  sees  vacant  by 
 death  or  resignation,  the  Nonjurors  would  not  be 
 under  any  obligation  to  continue  the  separation.  He 
 very  wisely  suggested,  that  it  would  be  better  to 
 consider  the  case  beforehand,  than  leave  it  to  be  dis- 
 cussed for  the  first  time  when,  in  his  opinion,  it  would 
 be  necessary  to  act.  At  this  time  he  viewed  the 
 complying  Bishops  as  guilty  of  schism  in  setting  up 
 altar  against  altar ;  but,  on  the  death  of  the  deprived 
 prelates,  or  their  resignation,  he  considered  that  the 
 possessors  of  the  sees  would  be  no  longer  schismatics, 
 and  that  the  Clergy  might  yield  them  obedience.  He 
 thus  commences  his  Case  in  View: 
 
 f  A  Case  in  View  considered :  in  a  Discourse  proving  that  (in 
 case  our  present  invalidly  deprived  Fathers  shall  leave  all  their 
 Sees  vacant,  either  by  Death  or  Resignation)  we  shall  not  then  be 
 obliged  to  keep  up  our  Separation  from  those  Bishops  who  are  as 
 yet  involved  in  the  Guilt  of  the  present  unhappy  Schism.  By 
 Henry  Dodwell,  M.A.    London,  8vo.  1705. 
 
^tetorp  of  tfje  iJionjurorsJ.  195 
 
 "  Our  little  flock  (however  sorry  for  the  unhappy 
 occasion)  are  competently  well  agreed  in  our  prac- 
 tice, in  relation  to  our  present  schism.  We  are  agreed 
 in  asserting  the  spiritual  rights  of  our  surviving  fathers, 
 who  are  still  pleased  to  claim  them,  which  no  lay 
 deprivations  can  take  from  them.  We  agreed  in 
 abstaining  from  the  communion,  not  only  of  the  rival 
 Bishops  themselves,  who  are  the  principal  schisma- 
 ticks  ;  but  of  all  others  also,  who  have  made  them- 
 selves accessary  to  the  schism  by  any  sacred  commu- 
 nion with  those  rivals.  Nor  can  we  think  ourselves 
 at  liberty  from  the  duty  of  asserting  those  rights  till 
 they,  to  whom  we  owe  that  duty,  shall  think  fit  to 
 discharge  us  from  it  by  some  explicite  or,  at  least, 
 implicite,  renunciation  of  their  title  to  them.  But 
 there  is  a  case  in  view  wherein  we  may,  perhaps, 
 not  prove  so  unanimous,  unless  we  provide  for  it  be- 
 fore it  come  to  pass.  That  is  on  a  supposition  that 
 all  our  present  survivors'  sees  were  fairly  vacated  by 
 death  or  renunciation.  This  being  supposed,  the  in- 
 quiry will  be,  whether  such  vacancies  of  either  kind 
 will  suffice  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  ?  Or  whether 
 we  shall  still  be  under  any  obligation,  even  in  that 
 case,  to  keep  up  our  opposite  assemblies?  And  now 
 is  the  fittest  season  for  examining  it,  whilst  our 
 brethren  are  most  indifferent  to  follow,  what  upon 
 examination,  is  found  true.  Before  they  shall  have 
 declared  their  opinions,  before  they  are  divided  into 
 parties,  before  any  ferment  has  risen,  which  is  a  na- 
 tural consequence  of  such  subdivision  into  parties, 
 which  may  make  them  less  equal  judges  of  reasons 
 produced  for  a  cause  opposed  by  them."d 
 
 The  above  is  Dodwell  s  first  paragraph  ;  and  it 
 
 d  Dodwell's  Case  in  View,  pp.  1,  2,  3. 
 
196  ^igtorp  of  tlje  $onfurortf. 
 
 contains  a  most  clear  exposition  of  the  state  of  the 
 question.  He  next  presses  this  proposition,  that  sen- 
 tence is  to  be  given  in  favour  of  the  actual  possessors 
 of  sees,  when  there  is  no  dispossessed  rival,  who  can 
 present  a  better  title.6  The  point  is  pursued  at  con- 
 siderable length  :  and  then  the  author  advances  ano- 
 ther position,  that  when  there  is  only  one  Bishop  in  a 
 district,  a  separation  can  no  more  be  justified  than  it 
 could  have  been  before  altar  was  erected  against 
 altar.f  After  discussing  this  position,  he  argues  that 
 the  nullity  of  schismatical  consecrations  and  ordina- 
 tions ceases  when  there  are  no  rivals,  and  that  orders 
 then  become  valid,  though  they  were  not  so  originally 
 while  the  rival  Bishops  survived.  He  supposes,  that 
 some  of  the  Nonjurors  might  consider  new  consecra- 
 tions necessary,  before  the  complying  Bishops,  who 
 were  regarded  as  schismatics,  could  receive  the 
 powers,  which  in  their  opinion  they  had  not  while 
 the  schism  existed.  His  own  opinion  was  different. 
 He  says,  "  I  see  no  reason  why  the  nullity  may  not 
 cease  together  with  the  schism  :  on  the  contrary,  it 
 ought  to  do  so,  if  the  nullity  was  wholly  grounded  on 
 the  schism  :  if  their  being  nulli  be  a  consequence  of 
 their  being  secundi.,'& 
 
 From  this  question,  he  proceeds  to  another,  that  of 
 doctrine.  He  is  of  opinion,  that  their  attachment  to 
 the  doctrines  of  passive  obedience  and  non-resistance 
 will  not  oblige  them  to  keep  up  the  separation.  This 
 is  a  point  of  great  importance  in  the  controversy  :  and 
 most  persons  must  wish  to  see  the  workings  of  such 
 a  mind  as  Dodwell's  on  such  a  subject.  He  thus 
 argues  the  question,  after  alluding  to  the  separations 
 
 e  Case  in  View,  p.  4. 
 «  Ibid.  p.  27,  28. 
 
 f  Ibid.  p.  21. 
 
^tetorp  of  tlje  0oitfutot#*  197 
 
 in  the  early  Church  from  heretical  Bishops,  whose 
 sees  were  never  regarded  as  full  by  the  orthodox. 
 
 "This  some  of  our  beloved  brethren  might  take  to 
 be  the  case  in  relation  to  the  doctrines  disputed  be- 
 tween us  and  the  prevailing  separation.  But  lovers 
 of  peace  will  find  cause  to  bless  God,  that  this  is  not  so 
 really  the  case,  as  less  attentive  persons  may  imagine. 
 Our  truly  catholic  doctrines  of  passive  obedience  and 
 non-resistance  are  still  maintained  by  many  of  our 
 late  fathers  and  brethren,  notwithstanding  their  new 
 erected  altars.  But  by  none  more  openly  and  avowedly 
 than  the  present  excellent  metropolitan  of  York.'"1 
 
 Having  shewn,  that  the  doctrines  were  still  held  by 
 the  Church  of  England,  he  proceeds  to  shew,  that 
 they  were  in  greater  danger  from  the  practice  of  oc- 
 casional communion,  and  that  the  evil  would  be  best 
 avoided  by  their  re-union,  when  the  sees  of  the  de- 
 prived Bishops  were  actually  vacant.  Dodwell  feared 
 that  the  Dissenters,  by  being  admitted  to  occasional 
 communion,  might  vote  on  Church  matters  as  Church- 
 men, and  then  declare,  that  certain  doctrines  were  not 
 those  of  the  Church  of  England  :  and  that  such  a 
 proceeding  might  be  deemed  an  act  of  the  Church 
 herself.' 
 
 He  discusses  also  another  doctrine,  the  indepen- 
 dency of  the  Church  on  the  State.  This  he  says  was 
 so  generally  admitted  by  their  divided  brethren,  that 
 they  need  not  continue  the  separation  on  that  account. 
 The  doctrine  was  involved  in  their  not  acknowledg-ins1 
 the  validity  of  the  lay-deprivations.  But  he  consi- 
 ders, that  the  doctrine  was  received  by  the  English 
 Church,  as  established  by  law  :  and  that  many  of 
 
 h  Case  in  View,  &c.  p.  47. 
 '  Ibid.  p.  53. 
 
198  l^(0torp  of  ttie  jfronj'urorss. 
 
 the  opponents  of  the  Nonjurors  used  other  plausible 
 arguments  against  them,  so  as  to  evade  the  recooni- 
 
 ©  ©  *  © 
 
 tion  of  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  deprive.*1 
 
 On  such  grounds,  which  are  stated  at  great  length 
 and  enforced  with  much  learning  and  argument, 
 Dodwell  urges  the  re-union  with  the  Bishops  in  pos- 
 session, whenever  the  sees  of  the  deprived  Prelates 
 should  be  vacant  by  death  or  resignation.  Such  is 
 the  aim  of  the  "  Case  in  View,"  &c.  the  title  of  which 
 most  distinctly  explains  the  character  of  the  work. 
 
 In  the  previous  year,  1704,  he  published  in  Latin 
 his  "  Paranesis  to  Foreigners,'"  concerning  the  Eng- 
 lish Schism.  This  work  charges  the  schism  on  the 
 complying  Bishops  ;  but  still  there  was  nothing  in- 
 consistent between  his  views  at  this  period,  and  those 
 which  are  put  forth  in  his  "  Case  in  View"  and  his 
 subsequent  publications.  He  always  charged  the 
 schism  on  the  Bishops,  who  complied,  though,  when 
 the  deprived  Prelates  were  removed  by  death,  he 
 thought  that  the  breach  should  be  healed  by  a  sub- 
 
 k  Case  in  View,  pp.  62,  63.  Many  severe  reflections  were  cast 
 upon  the  Nonjurors,  as  if  they  were  determined  to  overturn  the 
 government.  The  great  majority,  however,  had  no  such  desire.  They 
 merely  wished  to  live  quietly  under  the  government.  The  case  is  well 
 put  in  the  following  extract :  "  If  it  be  said  that  this  negative  con- 
 tains something  positive,  and  implies  malice  and  enmity  against  the 
 government,  I  answer,  this  is  their  construction,  not  ours  :  why 
 may  it  not  imply  as  well  tenderness  of  mind  and  conscience  to- 
 wards God  ?  Or  why  may  it  not  imply  a  disability  to  wind  ourselves 
 out  of  our  former  principles  ?  Charity  would  think  one  of  these. 
 'Tis  hard  that  they  will  judge  of  our  thoughts,  but  'tis  harder  yet 
 to  fasten  an  arbitrary  sense  of  them,  and  then  to  punish  that  sense 
 of  their  own  imposing,  which  is  to  punish  not  our  thoughts,  but 
 their  own,  nay  'tis  to  punish  us  for  their  thoughts."  The  Present 
 State  of  Jacobinism  in  England.  A  Second  Part  in  Answer  to 
 the  First,  4to.  London,  1702.  p.  10, 
 
Iktetorp  of  ttje  iptoni'urow.  199 
 
 mission  to  the  Bishops  in  possession.  The  "  Parce- 
 ?iesis  "  contained  a  Summary  of  the  views,  which  he 
 had  advanced  and  defended  in  his  previous  publica- 
 tions. It  was  intended  for  foreigners,  and  on  that 
 account  was  composed  in  Latin.  He  argues  in  this 
 work  that  the  deprived  Bishops  were  not  the  cause  of 
 the  breach  :  and  that  the  civil  power  could  not  de- 
 prive them  of  their  authority  in  the  Church.  He  as- 
 serts, as  he  continues  to  do  in  his  subsequent  works, 
 the  independency  of  the  Church  on  the  civil  magis- 
 trate, recommending  both  Protestants  and  Romanists 
 abroad  to  do  the  same.  One  of  the  positions  in  the 
 "  Parcenesis  "  is  so  generally  applicable  to  all  times 
 and  circumstances,  that  it  can  never  be  too  repeatedly 
 put  forward.  It  is  this :  that  we  have  as  great  a 
 certainty,  if  not  a  greater,  of  the  settlement  of  Bishops 
 to  govern  Churches,  as  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture 
 itself — namely,  the  universal  tradition  of  the  Church, 
 even  in  the  second  century.1  It  would  be  well,  if 
 those  persons  who  pretend,  that  episcopacy  is  not  of 
 primitive  institution,  would  examine  the  evidence  for 
 the  authenticity  of  Scripture,  and  then  judge  whether 
 it  is  in  any  way  superior  to  that,  which  may  be 
 adduced  in  favour  of  Bishops  as  governors  of  the 
 Church. 
 
 No  one  was  more  strenuous  in  defending  the  rights 
 of  the  deprived  Bishops  :  yet  no  one  was  more  anxious 
 to  heal  the  breach  than  Dodwell.  He  was  consistent 
 with  himself  throughout  the  entire  controversy  :  and 
 had  all  the  Nonjurors  been  men  of  a  similar  spirit, 
 the  schism  would  have  been  closed,  when  Dodwell 
 and  Nelson  entered  into  communion  with  the  Bishops 
 
 1  Dodwell's  Life,  277,  300. 
 
200  ^(0torp  of  tlje  ifronfurortf. 
 
 in  possession  of  the  Sees.  In  the  year  1707,  the  Abju- 
 ration Act  was  ordered  by  Parliament  to  be  enforced 
 in  the  case  of  all  suspected  persons  :  and  this  proceed- 
 ing tended  to  keep  back  some  persons,  who  otherwise 
 might  have  returned  to  the  national  communion. 
 
 I  have  before  alluded  to  Kettlewell's  opinions. 
 Though  he  differed  from  Dodwell,  as  has  been  shewn, 
 yet  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  had  he  lived 
 until  the  death  of  Lloyd,  he  would  have  acted  with 
 Nelson  and  Brokesby.  The  writer  of  the  Life  of 
 Kettlewell  thus  speaks  of  Dodwell's  "  Case  in 
 View "  When  he  had  lived  to  see  all  (speaking  of 
 the  deprived  Bishops)  except  one  or  two  of  them  go 
 before  him  into  eternity,  he  began  thereupon  to  re- 
 consider what  had  been  written  by  him  so  early  after 
 the  Revolution  :  and  being  desirous  that  this  rupture 
 might  be  closed,  and  an  end  put  to  this  most  unhappy 
 schism,  that  he  might  dye  in  peace,  he  wrote  and 
 published  his  Case  in  View,  to  shew  that  in  case 
 these  his  invalidly  deprived  Fathers  should,  either  by 
 death  or  resignation,  leave  all  their  sees  vacant,  none 
 would  be  then  longer  obliged  to  keep  up  their  sepa- 
 ration from  those  Bishops,  who,  according  to  him, 
 were  as  yet  involved  in  the  guilt  of  schism."" 
 
 In  the  year  1707,  two  years  after  the  publication 
 of  the  Case  in  View,  Dodwell  put  forth  another  work 
 on  the  same  subject,  entitled  "  A  Further  Prospect  of 
 the  Case  in  View,  in  answer  to  some  new  objections, 
 not  there  considered."  Certain  objections  were  raised 
 against  a  return  to  the  established  communion,  which 
 were  not  considered  in  the  Case  in  View.  These  ob- 
 jections are  stated  and  met  in  The  Further  Prospect. 
 The  chief  of  them  refer  to  the  Prayers  for  the  exist- 
 
 »  Life  of  Kettlewell,  127,  128. 
 
^isJtorp  of  ttje  &(mi\ivM$.  201 
 
 ing  Sovereign,  which  the  Nonjurors  could  not  use  : 
 and  Dodwell  undertakes  to  shew,  that  they  need  not 
 be  a  bar  to  the  healing  of  the  schism.  He  contends, 
 therefore,  that  they  could  not  oblige  the  Bishops 
 in  possession  to  make  reparation  for  what  they  had 
 done,  when  they  should  have  no  Bishops  of  their  own  ; 
 for  in  such  a  case  they  would  be  only  private  commu- 
 nicants, "  who  cannot  pretend  to  any  right  to  give 
 laws  of  communion,  but  must  be  obliged  to  receive 
 them,  from  those  who  have  the  power  of  the  sacra- 
 ments, if  we  will  have  any  communion  at  all."0  From 
 this  passage  it  is  clear,  that  Dodwell  did  not  admit 
 the  validity  of  the  consecrations  of  Hickes  and  Wag- 
 staffe ;  and  probably  he  did  not  know,  that  any  thing  of 
 the  kind  had  taken  place.  We  shall  see  presently  that 
 he  disavowed  all  such  consecrations  :  and,  therefore, 
 after  Lloyd's  death,  be  considered  that,  as  a  party, 
 they  had  no  Bishops. 
 
 He  then  comes  to  the  question  of  the  Prayers,  and 
 argues,  that  all  Prayers  to  which  they  cannot  assent, 
 do  not  oblige  them  to  separate, — not  even  false  or 
 immoral  Prayers,  when  the  Church  is  not  blameable 
 for  them.  The  Further  Prospect  was  published  as  a 
 letter:  and  he  thus  addressed  the  party  to  whom  he 
 writes,  on  the  point  in  question :  "  I  proceed  now  to 
 your  other  objection,  which,  I  confess,  I  never  looked 
 on  as  sufficient  to  justifie  a  separation  of  communion. 
 It  relates  to  the  Prayers  in  the  public  offices  to  which 
 we  cannot  heartily  say  Amen."p  Dodwell  meets  the 
 objection  by  another  case,  that  of  Titus  Oates.  A 
 Plot  was  pretended  to  be  revealed  by  Oates,  and  a 
 
 0  A  Further  Prospect  of  the  Case  in  View,  in  Answer  to  some 
 New  Ohjections  not  there  Considered.  8vo.  London  1707,  p.  10. 
 f  Ibid.  p.  19. 
 
202  l£(0torp  of  ttje  jfronfurorss. 
 
 Form  of  Prayer  was  set  forth  by  the  Crown ;  though 
 many  persons  did  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  the 
 plot.  They  knew  indeed  the  contrary.  He,  there- 
 fore, says  :  "  Yet  the  offices  then  imposed  generally 
 supposed  the  truth  of  it.  .  And  the  Prayers  then 
 offered  were  for  things  not  desirable.  But  upon  that 
 supposition  must  we,  therefore,  even  then  have  been 
 obliged  to  separate  from  those  Prayers,  and  the  whole 
 communion  wherein  they  were  used,  when  we  were 
 satisfied  that  the  witnesses  did  not  deserve  credit, 
 that  their  narratives  were  otherwise  unlikely  and  in- 
 consistent, and  that  the  petitions  desired,  pursuantly 
 to  the  belief  of  them,  were  therefore  needless  and  un- 
 reasonable, as  grounded  on  false  suggestions  ?  Could 
 we  have  been  excuseable  if  we  had  done  so  ?"q  Dod- 
 well  also  remarks  :  "  In  the  reign  of  James  II.  we  used 
 that  petition  in  the  Litany,  that  God  would  keep  and 
 strengthen  him  in  the  true  worship.  And  we  were 
 upbraided  for  it  by  the  Papists,  pretending,  that  we, 
 doing  so,  owned  his  Popery,  then  professed  by  him  to 
 be  the  true  worshipping  of  God  :  and  that  we  prayed 
 God  to  keep  and  strengthen  him  in  it.  And  un- 
 doubtedly this  petition  was  designed  for  a  Prince 
 whose  worship  the  Church  believed  true  :  such  as 
 the  Prince  was  when  the  Litany  was  composed  :  and 
 ought  to  have  been  altered  when  the  case  was  altered. 
 Ought  we,  therefore,  even  then,  to  have  begun  our 
 separation  from  the  public  assemblies  ?  No  !  certainly. 
 We  could  not  have  done  it  without  very  great  in- 
 justice. It  was  very  certain  that  none  of  our  Church's 
 true  communion  could  believe  these  expressions  true 
 in  the  sense  in  which  our  adversaries  are  pleased  to 
 upbraid  us  with  them."1  He  then  argues,  that  private 
 
 i  Further  Prospect,  &c.  pp.  19,  20.         r  Ibid.  pp.  23,  24. 
 
^(0torj?  o£  tfce  ^onfucorsf.  203 
 
 communicants  cannot  make  changes  :  that  they  cannot 
 join  in  prayers  which  suppose  an  approbation  of  an 
 opposite  faith  :  "  much  less  for  petitions  for  keeping 
 and  strengthening;  a  soul  in  a  belief  which  themselves 
 think  destructive  of  his  salvation  :"  but  that  in  the 
 present  case  no  justification  could  be  pleaded.  He 
 concluded,  that  their  presence  at  prayers,  which  they 
 could  not  approve,  would  not  imply  that  they  were 
 of  the  same  mind.8  He  also  thought  that  they  might 
 shew  their  dissent  by  not  answering  Amen  to  the  pe- 
 titions in  question. 
 
 The  whole  argument  in  the  "  Further  Prospect  of 
 the  Case  in  View'''  is  most  elaborately  managed. 
 Three  Bishops  now  survived,  Frampton,  Lloyd,  and 
 Ken.  The  next  year  the  number  was  reduced  to  two, 
 as  Frampton  died  in  1708,  at  the  age  of  eighty-six, 
 and  was  buried  privately  at  Standish  in  Gloucester- 
 shire. Frampton  never  had  a  desire  to  continue  the 
 separation.  He  could  not  take  the  Oath  of  Alle- 
 giance, and  was  prepared  to  suffer  the  consequences  : 
 but  beyond  this  he  did  not  wish  to  proceed.  As  long- 
 as  he  was  able,  he  attended  the  service  of  the  parish 
 church  in  which  he  resided.  He  frequently  cate- 
 chized the  children  in  the  afternoon,  and  expounded 
 the  sermon,  which  had  been  preached  by  the  paro- 
 chial clergyman/ 
 
 On  the  first  of  January  1709,  or  1710  according 
 to  our  present  reckoning,  Lloyd,  the  deprived  Bishop 
 of  Norwich,  also  died  at  Hammersmith  :  so  that  now 
 Ken  only  survived  of  all  those  prelates,  who,  at  the 
 Revolution,  had  refused  to  take  the  Oath  to  William 
 and  Mary.  Dodwell's  Case  in  View  was  now  become 
 
 ■  Further  Prospect,  &c.  111. 
 
 "  Marshall's  Defence,  165,  166.  Calamy's  Own  Times,  ii.  1 19. 
 
204  l^tgtorp  of  ttic  ^onj'urorg- 
 
 the  Case  in  Fact :  for  Ken  actually  resigned  his  pre- 
 tensions and  claims  to  Hooper,  who  succeeded  Kidder 
 in  the  diocese  of  Bath  and  Wells.  Dodwell  and 
 others  applied  to  Ken  to  know  if  he  challenged  their 
 subjection :  who  replied,  that  he  did  not,  and  who 
 further  expressed  his  wish,  that  the  breach  might 
 now  be  closed  by  their  union  with  the  Bishops  in 
 possession  of  the  sees.  The  particulars  connected 
 with  the  return  of  Dodwell,  Nelson,  Brokesby,  and 
 others  to  the  National  Church,  are  so  full  of  in- 
 terest, that  they  demand  our  special  notice.  Dodwell 
 writes  to  a  friend,  under  the  date  of  January  11th, 
 1709-10,  Lloyd  having  died  only  ten  days  before, 
 concerning  the  schism.    The  letter  is  as  follows  : 
 
 "  I  have  received  yours,  and  have  already  written 
 to  my  Lord  of  Bath  and  Wells,  as  the  only  survivor 
 of  the  invalidly  deprived  Bishops,  and  as  thereby 
 having  it  in  his  power  now  to  free  not  only  his  pri- 
 vate diocese,  but  the  whole  National  Church,  from 
 the  schism  introduced  by  filling  the  sees,  which  were 
 no  otherwise  empty  than  by  the  invalid  deprivations. 
 This  I  take  to  be  sufficient  upon  our  principles,  who 
 cannot  justify  our  separate  communion  on  any  other 
 account  than  that  of  the  schism,  provided  there  be 
 no  other,  whom  we  do  not  yet  know  of,  who  does 
 claim,  and  can  prove  a  better  title  to  some  one  epis- 
 copal altar  of  our  National  Church  by  succession  to 
 some  of  our  deceased  fathers,  than  the  present  in- 
 cumbents. 
 
 "  This  I  had  no  mind  to  signify  to  Mr.  K —  before 
 others  in  his  shop,  when  he  would  have  me  declare 
 myself  satisfied,  that  the  schism  would  end  with  the 
 life  of  my  Lord  of  Norwich.  I  had  no  mind  then  to 
 intimate  the  case  of  clandestine  consecrations  by  our 
 
^ijjtorp  of  ttje  |5oni'urocsJ»  205 
 
 deceased  Fathers,  before  persons  who  were  not  con- 
 cerned for  the  satisfaction  of  their  own  consciences : 
 but  might  thence  easily  take  occasion  to  represent 
 my  case  as  the  same  with  theirs  :  that  the  Case  in 
 View  would  immediately  fall  out  upon  the  decease  of 
 my  Lord  of  Norwich. 
 
 "  But  if  my  Lord  of  Bath  and  Wells  declare  that 
 he  will  not  so  far  insist  on  his  right,  as  to  justifie 
 our  separate  communions  upon  his  account :  we  must 
 then  enquire,  whether  any  claim  appear  derived  from 
 his  deceased  brethren,  for  keeping  any  one  see  full, 
 which  had  been  otherwise  vacant  by  their  death  : 
 and  what  evidence  appears  for  supporting  that  claim : 
 and  whether  that  evidence  be  satisfactory  ?  And  the 
 information  concerning  these  facts  must  be  expected 
 from  our  friends  in  London.  But  it  will,  I  believe, 
 be  most  prudent  not  to  enquire  into  secrets,  the  dis- 
 covery of  which  may  be  dangerous  to  the  persons 
 concerned  in  them.  The  persons  concerned  in  a  good 
 right  so  derived,  may,  and  that  commendably,  in 
 prospect  of  the  peace  which  may  follow  from  their 
 concealment  of  what  they  have  to  say  upon  that 
 argument,  wave  their  right,  how  good  soever  other- 
 wise. And  we  have  reason  to  presume  it  is  their 
 design  to  do  so,  if  they  do  not  claim  their  right  at 
 this  proper  time  of  claiming  it,  and  publish  their 
 evidences  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  ecclesiastical  sub- 
 jects. And  we  may  securely  practice  as  if  they  had 
 no  right  at  all,  as  presuming  that  they  have  waved 
 it.  Nor  can  there  be  any  schism  without  a  known 
 altar,  against  which  an  opposite  altar  may  be  erected. 
 It  will  not  therefore  be  sufficient  to  prove  them  va- 
 lidly consecrated  Bishops,  unless  they  were  also  put 
 in  possession  of  some  particular  Church,  by  the  same 
 
20G  ^(gtorp  of  tfce  jponjurorjj. 
 
 provincial  Synod,  by  which  they  were  consecrated. 
 Which  I  am  apt  to  think  was  a  thing  not  foreseen,  if 
 there  were  any  such  clandestine  consecrations. 
 
 "  The  other  arguments,  distinct  from  this  of  the 
 schism,  cannot,  I  think,  be  justifiable  upon  catholick 
 principles.  Nor  can  we  therefore  second  our  brethren 
 who  will  continue  the  separation  upon  them.  The 
 adjusting  these  things  will  require  some  time  before 
 we  can  be  resolved  what  to  do.  And  the  respite  will 
 be  convenient  for  the  unanimity  even  of  those  who 
 act  upon  the  same  principles. 
 
 "  Thus  you  have  my  thoughts,  in  short,  concern- 
 ing this  whole  matter.  It  concerns  us  all  to  join  our 
 prayers,  that  our  own  concord  be  broken  as  little  as 
 is  possible,  by  our  reconciliation  into  one  communion 
 with  our  adversaries."  7 
 
 This  is  a  most  interesting  and  important  document, 
 as  expressive  of  Dodwell's  views  on  the  question  of 
 the  continuance  of  the  separation.  It  is  clear  too 
 that  Dodwell  was  uncertain  about  the  new  consecra- 
 tions. He  had  evidently  heard  a  rumour  of  such  a 
 thing,  but  he  had  no  positive  knowledge  of  the  fact. 
 He  writes  from  Shottesbrooke  ao-ain  nearlv  two  months 
 later,  under  the  date  of  March  2nd,  to  another  friend. 
 At  this  time  he  had  received  Ken's  answer. 
 
 "  Since  the  decease  of  my  Lord  of  Norwich,  I  have 
 written  to  the  excellent  Bishop  Ken,  as  the  last  sur- 
 vivor of  the  invalidly  deprived  Bishops,  and  have 
 received  his  answer :  as  I  have  also  seen  another 
 answer  to  another  person,  who  consulted  him  on  the 
 same  occasion.  Both  are  very  full  in  owning  his 
 not  insisting  on  his  just  right. 
 
 y  .Marshall's  Defence  of  our  Constitution  in  Church  and  State, 
 &c.    Appendix  No.  III. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  jfronwovts.  207 
 
 "  By  these  therefore  and  other  informations,  we  are 
 here  fully  satisfied,  that  there  is  not  now  any  longer 
 any  altar  in  our  National  Church  opposite  to  another 
 altar  of  the  same  Church,  that  can  justifie  the  con- 
 tinuance of  our  separation.  Accordingly  our  two 
 families  here  were  at  church  on  February  the  26th, 
 the  first  Sunday  in  Lent. 
 
 "  But  there  are  several,  who  still  scruple  the 
 prayers.  Endeavours  are  however  using,  that  this 
 difference  of  practice  may  make  as  little  animosities 
 in  our  flock  as  may  be  :  whose  endeavours  will  de- 
 serve the  prayers  of  all  who  desire  the  good  as  well 
 as  the  peace  of  this  afflicted  Church."  z 
 
 The  other  letter  from  Ken,  to  which  Dodwell 
 alludes,  was  undoubtedly  one  which  was  sent  to  Nel- 
 son. Thus,  writing  to  a  friend  on  the  same  subject, 
 under  date  of  February  21st,  1709-10,  Nelson  says  : 
 
 "  In  order  to  satisfie  your  inquiry,  I  can  acquaint 
 you,  that  I  have  received  a  letter  from  Bishop  Ken, 
 who  assures  me,  '  that  he  was  always  against  that 
 practice  which  he  foresaw  would  perpetuate  the 
 schism,  and  declared  against  it,  and  that  he  had 
 acted  accordingly,  and  would  not  have  it  laid  at  his 
 door,  having  made  a  recess  (as  he  says)  for  a  much 
 more  worthy  person  :  and  he  apprehends  it  was 
 always  the  judgment  of  his  brethren,  that  the  death 
 of  the  canonical  Bishops  would  render  the  invaders 
 canonical,  in  regard  the  schism  is  not  to  last  always.' 
 Afterwards  his  Lordship  adds  this  :  '  I  presume  Mr. 
 Dodwell,  and  others  with  him,  go  to  church,  though 
 I  myself  do  not,  being  a  public  person  :  but  to  com- 
 municate with  my  successor  in  that  part  of  the  office 
 which  is  unexceptionable,  I  should  make  no  difficulty.' 
 
 a  Marshall,  App.  No.  IV. 
 
•208  ^fjstorp  of  ttje  -flionjurorjS. 
 
 "  This  letter  I  communicated  to  Mr.  Dodwell  when 
 in  town,  which  he  thought  clear  enough  for  closing 
 the  schism,  and  I  suppose  in  a  short  time  he  may 
 have  one  to  the  same  purpose."  a 
 
 On  the  5th  of  March,  Brokesby  writes  to  a  gentle- 
 man on  the  same  subject  for  Dodwell,  whose  weak 
 sight  at  that  time  prevented  him  from  writing  him- 
 self. He  cites  Ken's  answer  to  Dodwell,  the  same 
 in  substance  as  that  to  Nelson.    It  was  as  follows  : 
 
 "  In  that  you  are  pleased  to  ask  me,  whether  I 
 insist  on  my  episcopal  claim?  my  answer  is,  that  I 
 do  not :  and  that  I  have  no  reason  to  insist  on  it,  in 
 regard  that  I  made  cession  to  my  present  most  wor- 
 thy successor  :  who  came  into  the  fold  with  my  free 
 consent  and  approbation.  As  for  any  clandestine 
 claim,  my  judgment  was  always  against  it:  and  I 
 have  nothing  to  do  with  it,  foreseeing  that  it  would 
 perpetuate  a  schism,  which  I  found  very  afflicting  to 
 good  people  scattered  in  the  country,  where  they 
 could  have  no  divine  offices  performed." 
 
 Brokesby  adds : 
 
 "  We  are  here  satisfied  the  schism  is  at  an  end, 
 when  there  is  no  altar  against  altar,  nor  any  other 
 Bishops  but  Suffragans  to  require  our  subjection. 
 And  therefore  we  go  all  to  church." b 
 
 In  Hickes's  Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church,  a 
 work  not  published  until  the  year  1716,  as  will  be 
 
 a  Marshall,  App.  No.  V. 
 
 b  Ibid.  App.  No.  VI.  It  seems  that  the  Archbishop  of  York 
 was  instrumental  in  bringing  back  Nelson.  On  the  27th  of 
 January  1709,  the  Archbishop  records,  in  his  Diary,  a  notice  to 
 this  effect,  that  Nelson  was  considering  the  subject :  and  on  the 
 15th  of  February  he  records  the  fact  itself.  Nelson  received  the 
 Sacrament  from  the  hands  of  the  Archbishop  on  Easter  Day  fol- 
 lowing.   Life  of  Archbishop  Sharpe,  ii.  31,  32,  33. 
 
I£i0torp  of  tlje  faoniwcQVU.  209 
 noticed  in  the  proper  place,  there  is  a  letter  "  written 
 for  the  use  of  a  gentleman  who  lived  in  the  communion 
 of  the  faithful  remnant  of  the  Church  of  England,  till 
 the  death  of  the  Right  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Dr. 
 William  Lloyd,  Lord  Bishop  of  Norwich  :  but  shortly 
 after  his  death  left  it,  and  joined  himself  to  the  other 
 opposite  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  be- 
 fore this  letter  could  be  finished."  The  gentleman  in 
 question  was  Nelson,  who  applied  to  Hickes  on  the 
 subject.  The  publisher  speaks  as  one  of  the  party, 
 and  therefore  was  probably  Brett.  He  says  that  after 
 the  death  of  Lloyd  "  another  question  was  started 
 among  us."  This  was,  "  whether  the  schism  did  not 
 end,  and  the  schismatical  Bishops  become  catholic, 
 by  the  death  or  cession  of  all  the  deprived  Bishops." 
 Dodwell  held  this  view  :  but  the  publisher  of  Hickes's 
 papers  affirms,  that  the  principle  was  repugnant  to 
 reason  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  Church,  and 
 "  contrary  to  his  former  writings,"  alluding  for  a 
 proof  to  "  The  Conference  between  Gerontius  and 
 Junius."  Hickes,  it  seems,  was  ill  at  the  time,  yet 
 he  desired  Nelson  to  wait  till  he  could  draw  up  a 
 paper.  Nelson  replied,  that  he  would  only  wait  till 
 Easter,  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  dying  on  the  30th  of 
 January.  Hickes  was  unable  to  write,  and  Nelson 
 went  to  his  parish  church.  The  former  proceeded  with 
 his  letter  :  but  before  it  was  completed  the  latter  died. 
 The  publisher  labours  to  weaken  the  force  of  Nelson's 
 example,  remarking,  that  "  Mr.  Nelson's  practice 
 was  founded  upon  Mr.  Dodwell's  reasons,  and  if  they 
 are  not  good,  he  was  certainly  in  the  wrong."  In 
 the  letter  itself,  which  was  circulated  in  MS.  after 
 Nelson's  death,  Hickes  enters  largely  upon  the  ques- 
 tions discussed  by  Dodwell,  and  especially  on  the 
 argument  derived  from  Ken's  resignation.  He  states, 
 
210  ^tetor?  of  tt)c  &mium$. 
 
 that  Ken  had  expressed  his  approval  of  the  conse- 
 cration of  himself  and  Wagstaffe,  though  it  would 
 seem  from  the  Bishop's  letters  that  Hickes  was  mis- 
 taken. He  calls  Ken's  wish  to  resign  a  strange 
 humour,  alleging,  that  the  reason  respecting  the 
 healing  of  the  schism,  "  if  good,  should  have  obliged 
 him  to  have  resigned  at  first,  and  not  to  have  kept 
 his  diocese  twelve  years  or  more  in  schism." *  The 
 letter  was  seen  by  Dodwell,  who  commented  upon  it 
 in  another  letter,  which  is  given  by  Marshall.  Hickes 
 had  thrown  out  a  notion  respecting  the  continuance, 
 in  cases  of  necessity,  of  the  succession  by  Presbyters : 
 and  Dodwell  argues  that  such  a  thing  would  be  im- 
 possible. He  also  repeats  in  this  letter,  that  Ken 
 was  altogether  against  continuing  the  separation,  and 
 that  the  Irish  prelates  were  of  the  same  mind. b 
 
 Dodwell  was  resident  in  the  diocese  of  Sarum,  of 
 which  Burnet  was  Bishop,  than  whom  no  man  could 
 have  been  more  obnoxious  to  the  Nonjurors  :  yet  this 
 did  not  prevent  him  from  carrying  out  his  principles. 
 The  step,  however,  was  a  cause  for  animadversion  : 
 and  he  thus  defends  his  practice : 
 
 "  I  have  seen  a  letter  of  yours  to  a  third  person, 
 the  last  paragraph  whereof  is  spent  in  censure  on  me 
 for  returning  to  the  communion  of  our  old  Fathers 
 and  brethren ;  especially  for  returning  so  soon,  and 
 that  in  the  diocese  of  a  Bishop  so  justly  exception- 
 able as  ours  is,  above  the  rest  of  his  brethren. 
 
 "You  say  you  always  proposed  waiting  to  the  end 
 of  this  session  of  Parliament.  You  did  so.  But  I  did 
 not  think  myself  at  liberty  to  stay  out  of  the  true 
 episcopal  communion,  when  I  could  unite  with  it 
 
 a  Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church.  8vo.  1716.  P.  227. 
 b  Marshall's  Defence,  App.  No.  VII. 
 
Wtorp  of  ttjc  /ponfucorjJ.  21 1 
 
 consistently  on  Catholic  principles.  Nor  was  I 
 satisfied  of  continuing  in  our  late  communion  since 
 the  death  of  my  Lord  of  Norwich,  and  an  assurance 
 from  my  Lord  of  Bath  and  Wells,  under  his  own 
 hand,  that  he  does  not  insist  on  his  own  right,  as  the 
 last  survivor  of  the  deprived  Bishops.  This  satisfied 
 me  that  Dr.  Hooper  is  no  schismatic,  and  that  no 
 other  Bishop  of  England  contracts  any  contagion  of 
 schism  in  communicating  with  Dr.  Hooper  now,  as 
 administering  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Bath  and 
 Wells. 
 
 "But  you  object  the  intemperate  heat  of  our  par- 
 ticular diocesan  against  our  doctrine  of  nonresistance. 
 And  you  add  "  that  the  whole  world  must  think  it 
 a  betraying  our  principles  to  come  over  to  those  who 
 openly  defy  them."  But  whilst  we  live  in  his  diocese, 
 Providence  has  not  left  us  at  liberty  to  deny  him  that 
 duty  which  is  owing  to  him  by  the  rules  of  the 
 spiritual  society,  on  account  of  our  being  inhabitants 
 of  his  particular  district.  Nor  can  we  whilst  we  live 
 here  communicate  with  the  more  orthodox  Bishops 
 of  the  same  communion,  otherwise  than  by  commu- 
 nion with  him  who  is  in  actual  communion  with  his 
 more  orthodox  brethren."6 
 
 There  is  much  more  on  the  same  subject  in  the 
 letter,  from  which  the  extracts  are  taken  :  but  these 
 are  sufficient  to  show  what  Dodwell's  principles  were, 
 and  to  prove  his  consistency  in  carrying  out  those 
 principles,  even  in  Burnet's  diocese. 
 
 Nelson  was  asked  at  the  same  time,  whether  a  man 
 could  join  in  communion  with  a  Church  which  used 
 unlawful  prayers.  He  replied  that  the  unlawful 
 prayers  could  not  be  assented  to  :  but  he  might  law- 
 
 ■  Marshall,  App.  No.  VIII. 
 
212  ^tsftot'g  of  tfje  i^onjurortf. 
 
 fully  hold  communion  with  such  a  Church  :  that  not- 
 withstanding such  mistakes  in  a  Church  Christ  holds 
 communion  with  it :  "  and  where  Christ  holds  com- 
 munion we  are  obliged  to  hold  it :  for  it's  there  as 
 with  the  soul  in  the  body  which  leaves  not  the  body 
 for  the  head-ach,  or  a  wound  that  is  not  mortal." 
 He  adds  :  "  if  that  were  true,  we  should  hold  no  com- 
 munion with  any  Church  in  the  world  :  because  it's 
 more  than  probable,  that  no  Church  in  its  offices  is 
 so  perfect  as  to  be  without  error  or  mistake  in  them." 
 
 Nelson  then  meets  an  objection,  which  he  puts  in 
 the  following  form  :  "  If  it  he  said  why  do  we  then 
 forsake  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  RomeV 
 This  objection  is  met  so  conclusively,  and  is  so  cal- 
 culated to  disprove  the  unreasonable  charge  of  Popery, 
 so  flippantly  alleged  by  some  modern  writers,  that  I 
 shall  quote  his  reply  at  length. 
 
 "1.  I  answer,  that  that  Church  is  not  to  be  held 
 communion  with,  though  its  offices  were  pure,  because 
 of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  it,  which  are  cor- 
 rupted in  the  vitals  of  them. 
 
 "2.  The  very  offices  do  partake  of  the  corruption, 
 are  vitally  corrupted,  as  in  respect  of  the  object  of 
 worship,  saints  and  images,  or  of  the  things  prayed 
 for,  or  the  things  acknowledged  therein. 
 
 "  3.  They  are  so  incorporated,  that  there  is  no 
 communicating  without  them,  the  body  of  their  ser- 
 vice being  made  up  of  them. 
 
 "  4.  These  are  among  them  made  necessary  terms 
 of  communion  :  so  should  any  of  a  contrary  opinion 
 hold  communion  with  that  Church  in  fact,  as  he  is 
 ipso  facto  an  heretick,  and  stands  excommunicated 
 by  their  Maundy  Thursday  Bull,  so,  if  discovered, 
 would  be  prosecuted  as  such."f 
 
 f  Marshall,  App.  No.  IX. 
 
%'0toi:p  of  ttje  ifronj'ucors^  213 
 In  this  way  does  Nelson  prove  that  the  cases  were 
 not  similar.  And  the  extracts,  while  they  support 
 his  argument,  are  also  calculated  to  shield  his  memory 
 from  the  attacks  of  prejudiced  persons  in  our  own 
 times. 
 
 Much  correspondence  took  place  at  this  period 
 between  the  Nonjurors,  since  many  dissented  from 
 Dodwell's  view.  Brokesby,  as  well  as  Dodwell,  enters 
 largely  upon  the  subject.  In  a  letter  of  October  19th 
 1710,  he  thus  writes  : 
 
 "  That  we  could  not  communicate  with  the  present 
 possessors  formerly  because  there  was  altar  against 
 altar ;  which  cannot  now  be  said  :  that  we  could  not 
 communicate  with  them  while  our  excellent  Fathers 
 were  alive  :  that  these  might  if  they  had  pleased  have 
 ordained  Bishops  into  vacant  sees :  that  this  was  not 
 done,  (which  alone  could  have  hindered  it)  and  hence 
 upon  the  death  of  our  deprived  Fathers  a  right  ac- 
 crued to  the  present  possessors,  there  being  none  else 
 who  could  justly  challenge  it :  that  when  our  de- 
 prived Fathers  consecrated  other  Bishops,  they  capa- 
 citated them  to  perform  episcopal  functions,  gave 
 them  a  right  to  ordain  others,  and  hereby  a  power  to 
 prevent  the  failure  of  this  order,  which  might  other- 
 wise be  feared  as  in  Scotland  :  and  they  might  have 
 commissioned  them  to  exercise  their  episcopal  offices: 
 but  they  could  not  commission  them  to  do  it  after 
 their  deaths,  the  commission  determining  with  the 
 life  of  their  commissioner,  nor  could  give  them  right 
 to  act  in  full  sees." g 
 
 Brokesby  alludes  to  a  report,  that  the  deprived 
 Bishops  agreed  that  a  power  was  given  the  new 
 Bishops,  that  is,  Hickes  and  Wagstaffe,  equal  to  that 
 
 k  Marshall,  App.  No.  X.  p.  41. 
 
214  l^tetorp  of  ttje  fooni\xm$. 
 
 of  the  Bishop  of  Norwich,  and  that  it  was  to  be  exer- 
 cised after  the  death  of  the  Bishops.  He  says  in 
 reply  :  "  It  can  hardly  be  imagined  that  those  wise 
 and  good  men  should  grant  such  a  power  :  in  that  if 
 they  had  had  a  mind  in  their  life  time  to  have  closed 
 the  schism,  this  might  have  precluded  them  from 
 doing  it.  But  further,  this  power  could  not  have 
 been  granted  without  an  unanimous  consent  of  all 
 the  deprived  Bishops,  in  that  if  any  one  had  stood 
 out  this  would  have  rendered  the  grant  invalid,  be- 
 cause he  might  have  insisted  on  his  own  right :  now 
 we  have  reason  to  think  that  Bishop  Ken  never  con- 
 curred to  the  grant  of  such  a  power."  h 
 
 Marshall  doubts  whether  any  notification  was  made 
 of  the  appointment  of  suffragans,  Hickes  having 
 stated,  that  it  was  sufficient  to  do  so  as  occasion  offered. 
 He  says  he  knew  a  lady,  who  earnestly  desired  one 
 of  these  suffragans  to  notify  his  consecration  on  the 
 death  of  Lloyd  :  as  she  had  no  other  objection  to  their 
 communion,  than  the  want  of  Bishops,  of  which  she 
 had  no  proof.  Marshall  adds  :  "  The  suffragan  had 
 no  reason  to  mistrust  her  secresy  nor  her  fidelity  to 
 his  interests,  and  a  good  deal  of  personal  obligation 
 to  do  all  in  his  power  for  her  satisfaction  :  and  yet 
 he  suffered  her  to  come  over  to  us,  for  want  of  suffi- 
 cient notification.'"  I  do  not,  however,  see  the  force 
 of  this  reasoning :  because  it  is  clear  that  the  lady 
 wanted  a  public  notification,  which  the  suffragan  was 
 probably  afraid  to  make.  It  will  be  seen,  in  a  sub- 
 sequent chapter,  that  Hickes  did  not  conceal  the 
 matter. 
 
 A  second  letter  was  written  by  Brokesby,  dated 
 Nov.  18,  1710,  to  the  same  party.    It  appears  that 
 
 h  Marshall,  App.  No.  X.  p.  41.         '  Marshall,  176,  177. 
 
^fgtorp  of  tfje  ^onj'urottf.  215 
 
 the  individual  had  insisted  on  the  right  of  the  de- 
 prived Bishops  to  appoint  successors.  Brokesby  takes 
 up  Dod  well's  position,  and  contends  that  such  a  grant, 
 if  made,  must  be  fully  attested  :  and  that  then  the 
 question  whether  the  deprived  Bishops  had  such 
 a  power  must  be  considered.  It  appears  also,  that 
 during-  these  discussions,  the  consecrations  of  Hickes 
 and  Wagstaffe  were  fully  made  known ;  or  at  all 
 events  they  were  pleaded  in  the  letter  to  Brokesby. 
 This  is  certain,  since  Brokesby  thus  argues : 
 
 "  You  make  this  grant  a  subsequent  act  to  those 
 persons  being  ordained  suffragan  Bishops,  and  to  be 
 a  synodical  decree  of  our  deprived  Fathers.  Ad- 
 mitting the  first,  their  being  ordained  :  we  insist  on 
 the  proof  of  the  subsequent  grant,  the  enlargement 
 of  their  power,  and  this  over  the  whole  Church  of 
 England.  If  it  was  a  synodical  determination,  then 
 let  the  Acta  synodalia  be  produced,  and  this  under 
 the  hands  of  the  Bishops,  who  were  members  of  the 
 synod,  according  to  the  forms  used  in  synods." k  He 
 afterwards  adds :  "  Suppose  our  deprived  Fathers 
 had  intended  to  convey  such  a  power  to  those  worthy 
 suffragans,  and  agreed  among  themselves  to  do  it : 
 if  they  did  not  by  some  formal  act  convey  it,  no  such 
 power  accrues  to  them,  neither  can  they,  by  virtue  of 
 such  an  intention,  challenge  any  jurisdiction."1 
 Brokesby  therefore  urges  the  production  of  the  grant 
 before  its  legality  be  discussed.  Another  letter  was 
 written  by  Brokesby  in  1712  ;  but  he  only  re-asserts 
 his  previous  arguments.  It  does  not  appear  that 
 any  grant,  by  which  Hickes  and  Wagstaffe  were 
 authorized  to  act  as  diocesan  Bishops,  was  produced  : 
 though  had  such  been  the  case,  it  would  have  been 
 
 k  Marshall,  p.  45. 
 
 Ibid.  p.  46. 
 
216  ^igtorp  of  ttje  iponfurortf. 
 
 of  no  avail,  as  the  deprived  Bishops  possessed  no  such 
 power.  This  point  was  discussed  by  Dodwell  in 
 another  work,  which  I  shall  presently  notice. 
 
 Granting  that  the  deprived  Bishops  had  the  power 
 to  appoint  suffragans  :  it  must  be  admitted,  that  they 
 could  not  appoint  them  as  their  successors.  A  suf- 
 fragan acted  only  by  commission  :  and  that  com- 
 mission was  always  dissolved  by  the  death  of  the 
 diocesan.  "  I  may  have  leave  to  ask,"  says  Marshall, 
 "  what  authority  a  suffragan  hath,  independent  on  the 
 commission,  whereby  he  acts :  and  when  the  relation 
 is  dissolved  between  him  and  the  person  who  so 
 commissioned  him?"m 
 
 It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing;  extracts,  that 
 Dodwell  and  his  friends  were  not  privy  to  the  conse- 
 crations of  Hickes  and  Wagstaffe  :  and  further,  that 
 they  did  not  admit,  that  the  deprived  Bishops  could 
 do  more  than  appoint  suffragans  to  act  during  their 
 own  lives.  His  views  were  fully  stated  in  his  "  Case 
 in  View"  and  the  "  Further  Prospect:''''  and  therefore, 
 after  Lloyd's  death  and  Ken's  resignation,  he  communi- 
 cated with  the  National  Church.  Being  exceedingly 
 anxious  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism,  he  published 
 "  The  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact'"11 
 
 This  is  a  very  important  work  in  the  controversy. 
 
 m  Marshall's  Defence,  173. 
 
 n  The  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact ;  proving  the  Continuance  of 
 a  Separate  Communion,  without  Substitutes  in  any  of  the  late  in- 
 validly-deprived  Sees,  since  the  Death  of  William,  late  Lord  Bishop 
 of  Norwich,  is  Schismatical.  With  an  Appendix,  proving  that 
 our  late  invalidly-deprived  Fathers  had  no  right  to  substitute  Suc- 
 cessors, who  might  legitimate  the  Separation,  after  that  the  Schism 
 had  been  concluded  by  the  Decease  of  the  last  Survivor  of  those 
 same  Fathers.  By  the  Author  of  The  Case  in  View.  8vo.  Lon- 
 don 1711. 
 
^t^torj?  Of  tt)g  $0njHfOt&  217 
 
 To  this  period  every  Churchman  must  deeply  sym- 
 pathize with  the  Nonjurors.  Our  sympathies,  how- 
 ever, cannot  be  of  the  same  character  with  the  later 
 Nonjurors,  who  continued  the  separation  on  prin- 
 ciples, which  were  repudiated  by  such  men  as  Ken, 
 Frampton,  Dodwell,  Nelson,  and  Brokesby. 
 
 Dodwell  now  charges  the  schism  on  those,  who 
 continued  the  separation  from  the  National  Church. 
 At  the  head  of  this  party  was  Hickes,  who  was  sup- 
 ported by  many  men  of  great  talents.  "  The  Case 
 in  View  now  in  Fact"  was  intended  for  those,  who 
 continued  the  separation.  Dodwell  laments,  that 
 "  they  are  striving  their  excellent  wits  to  find  new 
 pretences  every  day  for  continuing  the  new  schism, 
 as  conscious  that  the  only  justifiable  reason  has  in- 
 deed failed  them,  and  yet  unwilling  to  unite  with 
 their  old  friends  and  fellow  communicants."  He  even 
 fears  that  the  divisions  may  "  end  in  Atheism  or 
 Popery."  °  "  They  cannot,"  he  says,  '*  continue  their 
 separation  without  commencing  a  new  schism,  to  be 
 imputed  to  themselves  against  the  whole  Church  of 
 England,  which  is  now  united  against  them,  and  is 
 indeed  the  Church  which  is  opposed  by  their  sepa- 
 ration. And  the  orders,  which  we  suppose  the  Bishops 
 we  are  speaking  of  to  have  derived  from  our  deceased 
 constant  Fathers,  now  with  God,  can  give  them  no 
 more  authority  than  what  was  lodged  in  our  Fathers, 
 from  whom  they  are  supposed  to  have  received  it. 
 But  those  Fathers  also  had  been  schismaticks,  if  they 
 had  erected  altars  in  full  sees."  p  The  rights  of  the 
 deprived  Bishops  were  extinguished  with  their  lives  : 
 and  they  could  not  appoint  Bishops  to  succeed  them 
 in  their  dioceses. 
 
 0  The  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact,  p.  3. 
 
 P  Ibid,  p.  29. 
 
218  %'0torp  of  ttje  ifcortjurortf. 
 
 He  alludes  further  to  the  prayers  for  the  Sove- 
 reign, and  his  view  is,  that  those  who  join  in  them 
 are  only  guilty  of  what  he  terms  a  sinful  fact,  not  of 
 heresy  in  doctrine.  He  admits  that  they  are  to  re- 
 fuse their  assent  to  those  prayers.q 
 
 In  this  work  Dodwell  argued,  that  the  deprived 
 Bishops  would  have  appointed  successors  in  some  of 
 their  sees,  if  they  had  intended  to  continue  the  schism 
 after  their  decease  :  but  in  the  Appendix  he  contends, 
 that  no  such  right  or  power  belonged  to  them.  Such 
 substitutes,  he  says,  would  fall  short  of  the  title  of 
 their  predecessors,  a  circumstance  which  he  regards  as 
 favourable  to  the  actual  possessors  of  the  sees.  Such 
 substitutes,  he  argued,  would  want  several  things 
 which  the  deprived  Bishops  possessed.  The  Bishop 
 was  consecrated  by  the  Provincial  College  into  a 
 vacant  see,  which  could  not  have  been  the  case  with 
 the  substitute.  He  considered  that  there  were  then 
 no  altars  capable  of  being  injured  by  other  altars, 
 except  those  of  the  possessors,  which  could  not  be 
 invaded  without  schism.  The  Bishops  themselves, 
 he  says,  would  have  been  schismatics,  if  they  had 
 consecrated  into  full  sees :  and  consequently,  they 
 could  not  convey  powers  to  others,  which  could  not 
 have  been  exercised  by  themselves.  He  shews,  that 
 the  separation  arose  in  consequence  of  injury  done 
 to  the  deprived  Bishops ;  that  its  continuance  after 
 the  death  of  the  last  of  them  was  no  assertion  of  their 
 rights ;  and  that  the  injury  being  ended,  another 
 cause  must  be  sought,  if  the  separation  must  be  con- 
 tinued. No  persons  could  be  injured  except  the 
 actual  possessors ;  so  that  the  separatists  would  be 
 the  authors  of  the  injury,  and  therefore  schismatics. 
 
 i  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact,  p.  115. 
 
^iatorp  of  tfje  ^onjucor^.  219 
 
 Another  argument  was  forcibly  put,  namely,  that  the 
 deprived  Bishops  could  not  acquire  new  rights  by 
 their  deprivation  ;  and  that,  without  new  powers, 
 they  could  not  appoint  others  to  succeed  them  after 
 their  own  death.    He  concludes: 
 
 "  The  sum  of  what  has  been  said  is  this :  there 
 can  be  no  schism  by  contagion,  where  there  is  no 
 principal  schismatick  :  the  death  of  the  last  survivor 
 of  our  late  invalidly  deprived  Fathers  made  the  rival 
 of  that  same  survivor  no  longer  a  schismatick,  by 
 making  his  occupyed  possession  a  vacancy,  which 
 was  all  that  he  wanted  before  for  making  his  occu- 
 pyed possession  perfectly  canonical.  That  death 
 therefore  put  an  end  to  the  last  principal  schismatick, 
 as  a  schismatick,  as  well  as  to  the  last  invalidly  de- 
 prived survivor.  All  the  diocesan  districts  of  our 
 National  Church  are  fairly  and  canonically  possessed. 
 Nor  could  such  canonically-possessed  districts  be  in- 
 vaded by  any  of  our  late  invalidly-deprived  Fathers, 
 or  all  of  them,  though  synodically  assembled,  without 
 commencing  a  new  schism  from  the  time  of  that 
 invasion.  What  they  could  not  validly,  nor  without 
 schism,  act  in  their  own  persons,  that  they  could  not 
 authorize  others  to  act  in  their  name.  If  those  Fathers 
 themselves  might  be  allowed  such  a  liberty  of  in- 
 vading occupyed  districts,  they  must  necessarily  have 
 acquired  new  powers  by  their  invalid  deprivations. 
 These  things  therefore  being  so,  no  commissions  for 
 powers  derived  from  our  late  Fathers  can  excuse  the 
 present  continuance  of  the  separation  from  being 
 schismatical."  r 
 
 In  Dodwcll's  opinion  they  were  not  called  upon  to 
 inquire,  whether  there  were  any  commissions  from 
 
 '  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact.    Appendix,  pp.  47,  48. 
 
220  Wtorp  of  tfce  jftonjurorg* 
 
 the  deprived  Bishops,  nor  whether  they  were  au- 
 thentically attested,  nor  whether  they  were  publicly 
 notified.  If  the  facts  are  true,  he  argues,  they  are  of 
 no  avail,  if  the  deprived  Bishops  had  no  right  to 
 convey  such  powers  to  others  as  would  legitimate  a 
 separation.  "  All  would  not  suffice  for  giving  others 
 a  right  to  powers,  that  ceased  to  be  their  own  at  the 
 time,  when  the  persons  were  to  exercise  the  powers 
 so  conveyed  to  them.  Till  our  friends  can  first  an- 
 swer these  reasons  satisfactorily,  it  will  be  in  vain  to 
 produce  or  insist  on  such  evidences  of  facts,  if  they 
 be  pleased  to  consider  how  little  they  could  thereby 
 advance  their  cause,  though  they  should  answer  the 
 expectation  that  even  themselves  might  raise  of  them, 
 as  to  the  proof  of  the  facts  pleaded  by  them." 3 
 
 The  same  year  in  which  "  The  Case  in  View  now 
 in  Fact"  was  published,  the  year  1711,  Dodwell  died. 
 On  the  6th  of  June  he  heard  evening  prayers  in  his 
 room,  and  died  shortly  after  four  o'clock  on  the  morn- 
 ing of  the  seventh}  The  writer  of  his  Life  was  sum- 
 moned to  his  room  at  one  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
 when  it  was  evident  that  he  was  dying.  His  ejacu- 
 lations were  such  as  these,  "  Lord  Jesus,  have  mercy 
 on  me :  Lord,  lift  up  the  light  of  thy  countenance 
 upon  me."  Shortly  before,  he  had  received  the  Holy 
 Eucharist  in  the  parish  church.  He  was  buried  in 
 the  chancel  of  Shottesbrooke  church,  his  grave  being 
 marked  by  an  inscription  on  a  plain  stone.  He  had 
 arrived  at  the  age  of  seventy  years." 
 
 After  the  death  of  this  eminent  man,  Gandy,  who 
 with  Hickes  was  strenuous  for  continuing  the  separa- 
 
 *  Appendix  to  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact,  p.  49. 
 
 *  Dodwell's  Life,  542.  u  Ibid.  549,  550. 
 
^(0tocp  of  ttje  ifrorii'urottf.  221 
 
 tion,  published  a  reply  to  "  The  Case  in  View  now  in 
 Fact."™  We  are  informed  in  the  Preface,  that  it  was 
 finished  at  the  time  of  Dodwell's  death.  This  is 
 stated  by  Gandy,  lest  any  of  Dodwell's  new  friends 
 should  say,  that  no  one  could  answer  him  in  his  life- 
 time. 
 
 Gandy's  book  is  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  :  and  in 
 order  to  lessen  Dodwell's  reputation,  the  speakers 
 commence  with  an  allusion  to  his  work  on  the  soul, 
 in  which  some  singular  views  are  promulgated.  One 
 of  the  speakers  professes  to  follow  Dodwell  in  his 
 arguments  on  this  subject :  the  other  argues,  that  his 
 opinions  were  erroneous,  and  that,  therefore,  such  a 
 man  could  not  be  trusted.  He  is,  in  short,  treated 
 most  disingenuously  by  Gandy,  whose  aim  evidently 
 was  to  induce  the  belief,  that  because  Dodwell  may 
 have  been  in  error  on  some  points  not  fundamental,  he 
 was  not  to  be  trusted  in  any.  Afterwards  he  unsuc- 
 cessfully endeavours  to  prove,  that  Dodwell  had  con- 
 tradicted himself.  For  this  purpose  he  quotes  from 
 the  "  Vindication  of  the  deprived  Bishops  :"  but  there 
 is  not  a  passage  in  that  work,  which  is  not  recon- 
 cileable  with  his  views  at  the  period  of  his  return  to 
 the  National  Church.  Dodwell's  arguments  against 
 the  continuance  of  the  separation  are  considered  by 
 Gandy,  who  conceived,  that  the  reasons  for  its  con- 
 tinuance were  as  strong  as  they  were  for  its  com- 
 mencement. 
 
 Another  work  appeared  also  against  The  Case  in 
 View.    It  is  without  date  :  but  the  internal  evidence 
 
 w  A  Conference  between  Gerontius  and  Junius.  In  which  Mr. 
 Dodwell's  Case  in  View  now  in  Fact  is  Considered.  8vo.  London, 
 1711. 
 
222  l^gtorp  of  tfce  jfionfurottf. 
 
 proves,  that  it  was  published  after  Dodwell's  death." 
 The  author  quotes  Gandy's  work,  a  circumstance 
 which  must  be  regarded  as  conclusive  as  to  the  date 
 of  its  publication.  He  commences  with  the  assertion, 
 that  a  schism  can  never  be  closed  on  Mr.  Dodwell's 
 principles.  He  also  argues,  that  no  powers  could  be 
 given  in  schism,  and  consequently,  that  the  possessors 
 of  the  sees  were  not  true  Bishops.  In  short,  several 
 very  influential  individuals  were  resolved  to  continue 
 the  separation  by  means  of  Hickes  and  WagstafFe, 
 who  had  been  consecrated  to  the  episcopal  office  by 
 some  of  the  deprived  Bishops,  as  has  been  shewn  in 
 a  preceding  Chapter. 
 
 *  Mr.  Dodwell's  Case  in  View  Thoroughly  Considered.  Or  the 
 Case  of  Lay-Deprivations  and  Independency  of  the  Church  (in 
 Spirituals)  set  in  a  True  Light.  By  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of 
 England. 
 
CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 A.  D.  1710-1720. 
 
 Separation  continued.  —  Death  of  Ken.  —  Wagstaffe's 
 Death. — New  Consecrations. — Controversies. —  Higden. 
 — Bedford. — Sacheverel. — Death  of  Queen  Anne  and 
 Accession  of  George  I. — The  Whigs. — Death  of  Nelson 
 and  others. — Death  of  Compton. — Lockhart's  Memoirs. 
 — Death  and  Character  of  Hickes. — Bonwicke. — Brett 
 joins  the  Nonjurors. —  Is  consecrated  a  Bishop. — The 
 Rebellion.  —  Sufferings  of  the  Nonjurors. — Welton's 
 Conduct. — Question  how  far  the  Nonjurors  implicated. 
 — Writings. —  Bennet's  Nonjurors'  Separation. — Hoad- 
 ley's  Preservative. — Hickes's  Catholic  Church. — Mar- 
 shall's Defence. — Earbury. — Internal  Disputes  on  the 
 Usages. — New  Communion  Office. — Collier's  Works  in 
 Defence  of  the  Usages. — Spinkes's  Works  in  Opposition. 
 — Leslie's  Views. — Bhett's  Works. — Collier's  Desertion 
 Discussed. — Separation  of  Nonjurors  into  two  Commu- 
 nions.— Various  Works. — Campbell's  Middle  State. — 
 
 SCLATER  AND  KlNG. 
 
 E  are  now  entering  on  a  most  important 
 period  in  the  history  of  the  Nonjurors. 
 Some  of  the  more  eminent  of  their  number 
 had  returned  to  the  communion  of  the 
 National  Church  :  but  many  others  resolved  on  the 
 continuance  of  the  separation  under  the  Bishops,  who 
 had  been  consecrated  by  the  deprived  Prelates. 
 Among  the  latter  were  Collier,  Wagstaffe,  Gandy, 
 and  other  individuals  of  considerable  eminence.  After 
 the  return  of  Dodwell,  Nelson,  and  Brokesby  to  the 
 
224  ^tetorp  of  tfce  ilion/ucocsf. 
 
 National  Church,  consequent  on  the  death  of  Lloyd 
 and  the  resignation  of  Ken,  the  Nonjurors,  who  per- 
 sisted in  continuing  the  separation,  acted  on  principles 
 different  from  those  by  which  that  section,  who  re- 
 turned to  the  Church,  had  been  guided  from  the 
 period  of  the  Revolution  to  the  year  1710.  Our  sym- 
 pathies, therefore,  cannot  be  so  strong  in  favour  of 
 the  men  who  continued  the  separation.  At  the  Re- 
 volution the  difficulty,  with  the  exception  of  the  Oath 
 of  Allegiance,  consisted  in  recognizing  other  Bishops, 
 while  those  who  had  been  deprived  still  survived. 
 Dodwell  contended,  that  they  could  not  appoint  their 
 own  successors  :  and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  on 
 what  principles  such  a  claim  could  be  supported.  As 
 long  as  they  lived,  we  can  imagine  how  difficult  it 
 must  have  been  to  yield  obedience  to  those  who  suc- 
 ceeded them ;  but  after  their  death  it  seems  reason- 
 able that  the  schism  should  have  been  closed  :  and 
 though  the  Clergy  might  not  have  been  able  to  have 
 taken  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  yet,  for  the  sake  of  the 
 peace  of  the  Church,  they  should  have  been  content 
 to  live  as  private  individuals.  They  might  have  held 
 communion  with  the  Church,  though  they  did  not 
 exercise  their  ministry.  The  only  objection,  as  I 
 conceive,  to  be  urged  against  such  a  course  related  to 
 the  petitions  for  the  Sovereign :  but  this  was  met  by 
 Dodwell,  and  it  can  scarcely  be  contended,  that  it 
 was  sufficient  to  justify  separation.  At  all  events, 
 whatever  might  have  been  the  practice  of  that  gene- 
 ration of  Nonjurors,  it  appears  difficult  to  understand 
 the  grounds,  on  which  they  proceeded  to  appoint 
 Bishops  and  Priests,  and  thus  continue  the  succes- 
 sion and  the  separation. 
 We  have  considered  the  particulars  connected  with 
 
Ikigrocj?  of  ttje  iPonjucocg,  225 
 
 Ken's  resignation,  which  led  to  the  publication  of 
 Dodwell's  Case  In  Fact,  and  to  the  return  of  several 
 of  the  Nonjurors  to  the  National  Church.  In  a  short 
 time  the  pious  Bishop  himself  was  removed  from 
 time  to  eternity,  dying  in  March  1710,  or  1711,  ac- 
 cording to  our  present  reckoning.  Even  Ken  was 
 exposed  to  the  attacks  of  envy  and  malice.  Among 
 other  charges,  it  was  alleged,  that  he  had  united  with 
 the  other  Lords  in  inviting  the  Prince  of  Orange  to 
 come  into  England.  How  such  a  charge  could  have 
 been  advanced,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine,  Compton 
 being  the  only  Bishop  who  signed  that  document. 
 The  summer  and  autumn  of  1710  were  spent  by  the 
 Bishop,  at  the  Hot  Wells,  Bristol :  and  he  expired  at 
 Longleat  on  the  19th  of  March.  For  many  years  he 
 had  travelled  with  his  shroud  in  his  Portmanteau, 
 remarking  that  it  might  be  wanted  as  soon  "  as  any 
 other  of  his  habiliments."  The  shroud  was  actually 
 put  on  by  himself  some  days  before  his  death,  in 
 order  that  his  body  might  not  be  stripped.  "  He 
 was  buried  at  Frome  Selwood,  it  being  the  nearest 
 parish  within  his  own  diocese  to  the  place  where  he 
 died,  as  by  his  own  request,  in  the  churchyard,  under 
 the  east  window  of  the  chancel,  just  at  sun-rising, 
 without  any  manner  of  pomp  or  ceremony,  besides 
 that  of  the  Order  for  burial  in  the  Liturgy  of  the 
 Church  of  England  ;  on  the  21st  day  of  March  1710, 
 anno  aetat.  73." b  The  following  extract  from  his 
 Will  is  very  characteristic  of  the  man.   "  As  for  my 
 
 b  Hawkins,  44,  45.  The  additional  Letters  of  Ken,  which 
 have  been  collected  by  Mr.  Round,  are  of  the  same  character  as 
 those  which  had  been  previously  published,  and  prove,  that  the 
 Bishop  was  averse  to  continuing-  the  separation  after  the  death  of 
 Lloyd. 
 
 Q 
 
226  ^(0torg  o£  tljc  iponjurottf. 
 
 religion,  I  die  in  the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolick 
 Faith,  profess'd  by  the  whole  Church  before  the  dis- 
 union of  East  and  West :  more  particularly  I  die 
 in  the  communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  it 
 stands  distinguished  from  all  Papal  and  Puritan  in- 
 novations, and  as  it  adheres  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
 cross. 
 
 A  work  entitled  The  Royal  Sufferer  has  sometimes 
 been  attributed  to  Ken  :  but  I  can  scarcely  conceive 
 that  he  was  the  author.  At  all  events  the  authorship 
 is  doubtful.  It  is,  however,  a  curious  volume.  The 
 writer  expresses  a  wish  that  King  James  were  a  Pro- 
 testant ;  but  still  he  declares  his  allegiance  to  his  Ma- 
 jesty. He  ventures  to  assert,  that  as  a  member  of  the 
 Church  of  England  he  would  be  in  the  safer  course. 
 "  If  I  am  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  made 
 a  Christian  by  true  baptism,  believing  the  Scriptures: 
 can  it  be  supposed  that  I  shall  suffer  damnation  for 
 not  equally  believing  traditions?  If  I  make  con- 
 science to  serve  and  worship  God,  can  it  be  thought 
 I  shall  perish  for  not  worshipping  images  ?  If  I  pray 
 to  God,  as  our  blessed  Saviour  hath  taught  me,  who 
 can  think  I  should  incur  the  sentence  of  damnation 
 for  not  invocating  saints  and  angels  ?"  After  an  ex- 
 pression of  humility,  in  urging  such  topics,  he  adds: 
 "  if  through  the  divine  blessing  they  should  be  made 
 efficacious  to  cause  your  Majesty  to  return  to  and  em- 
 brace the  religion  professed  by  your  royal  Father,  it 
 would  be  the  joy  and  rejoicing  of  all  your  people : 
 and  would  open  a  door  of  hope  to  'em  even  in  this 
 Valley  of  Achor." 
 
 In  the  Meditation  on  Affliction,  the  writer  freely 
 censures  the  measures  of  the  King,  commencing  witli 
 
 «  Hawkins,  26,  27. 
 
^(0torp  of  tfje  jponjucoi'sf.  227 
 
 the  executions  in  the  west  after  Monmouth's  rebellion. 
 He  says  :  "  had  the  King's  ministers  (to  whom  he  en- 
 tirely left  it)  made  as  much  use  of  mercy  as  they  did 
 of  justice,  I  am  sure  they  would  have  done  the  King 
 more  service."  He  further  says,  in  enumerating  the 
 causes  of  his  Majesty's  troubles,  "  it  was  a  great  piece 
 of  injustice  to  set  up  a  new  court  for  the  management 
 of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  contrary  to  the  express  laws 
 of  the  land  :  whereby  the  Church  and  Clergy  of 
 England  were  subjected  to  the  wills  of  some  men 
 that  were  enemies  to  both.  It  was  likewise  a  great 
 piece  of  injustice  to  suspend  the  Right  Reverend  the 
 Bishop  of  London  from  the  exercise  of  his  pastoral 
 charge,  for  that  which  in  itself  was  no  offence."  The 
 declaration  for  liberty  of  conscience  is  censured  as 
 against  law,  and  as  intended  to  serve  the  Church  of 
 Rome.  With  respect  to  the  order  for  reading  it  in 
 Churches  he  asks :  "  why  should  the  Bishops  be 
 denied  liberty  of  conscience,  when  it  was  granted  to 
 dissenters?  Not  that  the  Bishops  were  against  in- 
 dulgence to  dissenters,  when  it  should  be  proposed  in 
 Parliament,  but  they  then  saw  there  was  latet  unguis 
 in  herba,  which  many  were  not  aware  of."  Referring 
 to  the  imprisonment  of  the  Bishops,  which  he  cen- 
 sures, he  says  :  "  I  have,  however,  this  consolation  in 
 myself,  that  what  I  acted  at  that  time  was  out  of  duty 
 both  to  God  and  the  King :  and  that  I  am  no  way 
 to  be  charged  with  what  afterwards  followed  there- 
 upon.'"1 This  passage  has  been  supposed  to  fix  the 
 authorship  on  Ken,  since  the  writer  was  one  of  the 
 suffering  parties ;  but  it  does  not  warrant  us,  in  the 
 
 d  The  Royal  Sufferer.  A  Manual  of  Meditations  and  Devo- 
 tions. By  T.  K.  D.D.  8vo.  1699,  and  12mo.  1701.  See  the 
 latter  edition,  pp.  64.  66.  70. 
 
228  ^i0tocp  of  tljc  ilionjucorji. 
 
 absence  of  other  evidence,  in  coming  to  the  conclu- 
 sion that  it  was  his  production. 
 
 Instead  of  pursuing  the  course  adopted  by  Dodwell 
 and  his  friends,  Hickes  and  those  who  concurred  with 
 him,  took  steps  to  perpetuate  the  schism.  They  con- 
 ceived that  the  deprived  Bishops  had  authority  to 
 appoint  successors,  without  regard  to  dioceses,  to  act 
 for  the  Church  of  England.  So  that,  in  their  esti- 
 mation, the  national  Church  was  not  a  true  Church. 
 It  will  be  remembered  that  Hickes  and  Wagstaffe 
 were  consecrated  in  1693,  just  after  Sancroft's  death: 
 but  the  deprived  Bishops  never  ordained  any  others. 
 Wagstaffe  died  in  the  year  1712 ;  so  that  Hickes  was 
 left  alone.  He,  therefore,  could  not  continue  the  suc- 
 cession himself,  because  three  Bishops  are  required 
 by  the  canons  at  consecrations.  Under  these  circum- 
 stances, he  had  recourse  to  Scotland,  and  Campbell 
 and  Gadderar  assisted  in  1713  in  consecrating  Jere- 
 miah  Collier,  Samuel  Hawes,  and  Nathaniel  Spinkes. 
 Hickes  must  have  known,  that  the  Bishops  of  Scotland 
 could  not  lawfully  interfere  in  another  province. 
 Rather,  however,  than  lose  the  opportunity  of  con- 
 tinuing the  schism,  he  adopted  this  irregular  pro- 
 ceeding, fearing  probably,  that  some  of  the  Nonjurors 
 would  have  returned  to  the  national  communion, 
 unless  a  provision  were  made  for  the  succession  of 
 Bishops.  For  this  act  it  is  not  easy  to  make  an  ex- 
 cuse: consequently  our  sympathy  for  them  as  a  party 
 must  from  this  period  be  considerably  diminished. 
 
 Wagstaffe  was  a  man  of  great  eminence  among  the 
 first  generation  of  Nonjurors.  After  his  deprivation, 
 he  practised  physic  in  London.  Besides  the  "  Letter 
 out  of  Suffolk"  containing  an  account  of  Sancroft,  he 
 was  the  author  of  "  A  Letter  out  of  the  Country  con- 
 cerning the  Bishops  lately  in  the  Tower,  and  now 
 
l^'tftocp  of  ttje  i|}onfurot%  229 
 
 under  suspension :  an  "  Answer  to  a  late  Pamphlet, 
 Obedience  Demonstrated  by  Overall's  Convocation 
 Book;"  an  "Answer  to  Sherlock's  Vindication  .*" 
 "  Remarks  on  Some  Late  Sermons  :"  "  The  Present 
 State  of  Jacobinism  in  England,  1700,  A  Second  Part 
 in  Answer  to  the  First"  with  several  other  productions 
 of  a  similar  character.  The  last  mentioned  pamphlet 
 was  written  in  reply  to  one  by  Burnet.6  Wagstaffe 's 
 son  resided  for  some  time  at  Rome  in  the  somewhat 
 singular  character  of  Protestant  chaplain  to  the  Che- 
 valier St.  George,  and  afterwards  to  his  son.  It  is 
 remarkable  that  the  Pope  should  have  permitted  any 
 one  to  reside,  in  his  capital,  in  such  a  character  :  but 
 the  fact  proves,  that  Rome  herself  often  acts  from 
 motives  of  policy,  as  well  as  the  secular  and  more 
 political  states.  There  are  extant  several  letters  from 
 a  Thomas  Wagstaffe  to  Hearne,  on  various  matters, 
 but  chiefly  antiquities,  to  the  study  of  which  he  seems 
 to  have  devoted  himself  with  much  enthusiasm/  But 
 if  the  account  by  Nichols  of  the  death  of  the  Pre- 
 tender's chaplain  be  correct,  this  could  scarcely  have 
 been  the  same  person.  It  is  stated,  that  he  died  at 
 Rome  in  1770,  at  the  age  of  78,  and  the  letters  to 
 Hearne  were  written,  some  of  them,  as  early  as  the 
 year  17 1 5.g 
 
 At  this  period  the  controversy  respecting  the  Oaths 
 was  carried  on  with  great  bitterness  on  both  sides. 
 Higden  appears  to  have  been  the  first  to  renew  the 
 warfare  on  this  particular  point.    He  had  himself 
 
 «  Wagstaffe  was  the  able  vindicator  of  King  Charles  the  First's 
 claim  to  the  authorship  of  the  Ikwv  BaanXixri,  the  controversy  res- 
 pecting which  has  frequently  been  revived  but  never  settled.  A 
 list  of  his  publications  is  given  in  the  Biog.  Brit.  Supp.  220  :  and 
 in  Nichols's  Lit.  Anec.  i.  35,  36. 
 
 f  See  Aubrey's  Letters.  s  Nichols,  i.  36. 
 
230  i^tor?  of  ttje  ijiotijtirov^* 
 
 been  a  Nonjuror,  and,  like  Sherlock,  on  his  compli- 
 ance, he  seems  to  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  vindi- 
 cate his  conduct.  Accordingly,  he  published  his 
 View  of  the  English  Constitution*  He  states  in  an 
 Address  to  the  Reader  ;  "  after  I  had  passed  so  many 
 years  of  my  life,  without  being  able  to  reconcile  my- 
 self to  the  Oaths  ;  in  the  course  of  my  studies,  I  met 
 with  some  passages,  which  gave  me  cause  to  suspect 
 that  I  had  in  some  particulars  mistaken  the  English 
 constitution.  They  made  me  pause,  gave  me  occa- 
 sion for  reflection,  and  inclined  me  once  more  to  take 
 a  review  of  the  judgment  I  had  made  so  many  years 
 ago  :  with  an  intention,  that  if  upon  this  inquiry,  I 
 should  find  my  former  judgment  was  well  grounded, 
 to  sit  down  under  it  in  a  quiet  and  inoffensive  way, 
 whatever  inconveniences  might  attend  it :  if  not  then, 
 with  my  judgment,  to  alter  my  practice."  The  prin- 
 ciple, on  which  he  proceeds,  is  directly  the  reverse  of 
 that,  on  which  he  formerly  acted,  namely,  that  the 
 Prince  in  possession  could  claim  the  allegiance  of 
 the  subject.  During  the  same  year  the  Book  was 
 answered,  in  an  anonymous  publication,  and  with 
 much  cleverness. '  In  the  outset  the  writer  says  : 
 "  you  are  come  into  the  government.  But  upon 
 what  terms?  You  once  thought  it  all  a  wickedness 
 and  usurpation.  And  have  you  altered  your  mind  ! 
 No.  You  still  think  it  was  so.  But  you  have 
 found  reasons,  that,  notwithstanding  all  that,  you 
 
 h  "  View  of  The  English  Constitution,  with  respect  to  the  So- 
 vereign Authority  of  the  Prince,  and  the  Allegiance  of  the  Sub- 
 ject. In  vindication  of  the  lawfulness  of  taking  the  Oaths,  to  Her 
 Majesty,  by  Law  required."     8vo.   London  1709. 
 
 '  A  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  William  Higden,  on  account 
 of  his  View  of  the  English  Constitution,  &c.  By  a  Natural  Born 
 Subject.  8vo.  1709. 
 
^i's3tot*p  of  tfje  Jiaonjurow*  231 
 
 ought  to  comply  with  it.  So  that  this  is  no  justifi- 
 cation of  the  government,  but  only  of  your  own  com- 
 pliance. And  you  are  as  free  to  part  with  it  to- 
 morrow, if  it  keep  not  its  ground,  and  comply  again 
 with  whatever  may  rise  up  in  its  place.  Therefore, 
 the  government  is  not  beholding  to  any  convert  who 
 shall  come  in  otherwise  than  upon  revolution  prin- 
 ciples." k  In  allusion  to  Monmouth  he  says,  "  if  he 
 had  succeeded,  he  would  have  been  as  good  a  King 
 for  Mr.  Higden,  as  any  hereditary  monarch  in  Eu- 
 rope." 1  At  the  close  of  the  volume  is  a  singular  ad- 
 vertisement concerning  the  Jacobite  converts.  "  In 
 all  revolutions  there  have  ever  been  dissatisfied  per- 
 sons." Then,  after  stating,  that  changes  afterwards 
 take  place,  he  adds :  "  of  this  sort  we  have  had 
 but  two  since  the  Revolution,  Dr.  Sherlock  and  now 
 Mr.  Higden.  The  first  perplexed  the  cause,  and 
 shook  the  principles  of  the  Revolution,  nor  has  the 
 latter  come  up  to  them.  And  both  have  given 
 greater  occasion  against  the  establishment,  than  we 
 heard  from  the  Jacobites  before.  Mr.  Hoadley  has 
 long  pursued  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  for  assur- 
 ing the  world,  (as  he  says)  that  her  Majesty's  title 
 is  only  that  of  a  successful  usurpation.  Which  he 
 would  draw  as  a  consequence  from  his  Lordship's 
 principle  of  non-resistance.  But  Mr.  Higden,  with- 
 out the  trouble  of  consequences,  openly  maintains 
 the  title  of  a  successful  usurpation,  and  gives  her 
 Majesty  no  other  right  or  title  whatever.  This  is 
 all  she  gets  by  the  Jacobite  converts.  They  expose 
 her  to  excuse  themselves.  The  Jews  compassed  sea 
 and  land  to  make  proselytes,  but  they  had  a  maxim, 
 
 k  A  Letter  to  the  Reverend  Mr.  William  Higden,  &c.  pp.  1,2. 
 1  Ibid.  22. 
 
232  of  tfje  £anfutw& 
 
 not  to  trust  a  convert  to  the  third  generation.  For 
 they  made  him  twofold  more  than  themselves." 
 
 Another  writer  also  published  "  Reynarks  on  Mr. 
 Higdens  Utopian  Constitution  :"  and  to  this  and  the 
 preceding,  the  author  replied  in  A  Defence  of  the 
 View,  in  which  the  same  ground  is  again  gone  over. 
 But  the  most  important  work  on  this  subject  was 
 published  in  1713,  in  a  small  folio. m    The  actual 
 author  of  this  work  was  not  known ;  but  it  was  sup- 
 posed to  have  been  written  by  Harbin,  a  nonjuring 
 clergyman,  and  the  Preface  by  Theophilus  Downes, 
 once  Fellow  of  Balliol  College.    Hilkiah  Bedford, 
 however,  a  Nonjuring  Clergyman,  was  tried  at  the 
 Guildhall,  London,  Feb.  13,  1713,  and  found  guilty, 
 on  the  ground  of  the  work  being  a  seditious  Libel. 
 He  was  charged  with  writing,  printing,  and  publish- 
 ing the  book :  and,  on  the  4th  of  May  following,  was 
 sentenced  to  pay  a  fine  of  1000  marks,  to  be  im- 
 prisoned for  three  years,  and,  at  the  expiration  of 
 that  period,  to  find  sureties  for  his  good  behaviour 
 during  life.    There  was  another  strange  part  of  the 
 sentence,  namely,  that,  on  the  following  Friday,  he 
 should  be  brought  before  the  court,  with  a  paper  on 
 his  hat,  expressing  the  crime  and  the  judgment.  On 
 the  Friday,  however,  a  warrant  was  produced  under 
 her  Majesty's  hand,  remitting  this  part  of  the  sentence, 
 on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  Clergyman.    It  was 
 
 m  The  Hereditary  Right  of  the  Crown  of  England  asserted  : 
 The  History  of  the  Succession  since  the  Conquest  cleared  :  and 
 the  true  English  Constitution  Vindicated  from  the  Misrepresenta- 
 tions of  Dr.  Higden's  View  and  Defence,  &c.  By  a  Gentleman. 
 London,  fol.  1713.  Several  persons  were  supposed  to  have  been 
 concerned  in  this  work  :  but  there  was  no  foundation  whatever  for 
 Kennet's  insinuation,  that  Nelson  was,  in  any  way,  implicated. 
 Nichols,  i.  400. 
 
^igtorp  of  tljc  Jltanfurocff*  233 
 
 supposed,  that  the  author  or  authors,  had,  by  some 
 means,  seen  Lord  Hales's  MSS.  of  The  Pleas  of  the 
 Crown.    When,  therefore,  the  works  of  that  learned 
 individual  were  published,  the  obnoxious  passages, 
 which  had  been  quoted  in  The  Hereditary  Right, 
 were  omitted  ;  a  process,  which  in  the  present  day, 
 would  scarcely  be  deemed  honest.    It  seems  that 
 Bedford  knew  the  author ;  but  he  preferred  impri- 
 sonment and  fines  to  a  breach  of  confidence.  Nor 
 was  he  a  loser  in  the  end  :  for  he  afterwards  estab- 
 lished a  school,  which  was  carried  on  with  so  much 
 success,  that  he  left  a  considerable  fortune  to  his  son 
 Dr.  Bedford,  a  Physician,  who  died  sometime  after 
 the  middle  of  the  last  century."    The  son  took  the 
 Oaths  as  a  qualification  for  office,  on  being  appointed 
 Register  of  the  College  of  Physicians.    Harbin,  the 
 supposed  author  of  The  Hereditary  Right,  resided 
 with  Lord  Weymouth,  who  gave  him  a  hundred 
 pounds  to  take  to  Mr.  Bedford,  his  Lordship  con- 
 cluding, that  he  was  the  writer  of  the  Book.  "Though 
 not  the  Author,  he  submitted  to  be  thought  so  from 
 zeal  to  the  Cause,  and  affection  for  the  real  author." 
 This  is  the  remark  of  Nichols,  who  also  alludes  to  the 
 singular  circumstance,  that  Harbin,  the  real  Author, 
 should  take  the  money  to  Bedford.    The  following 
 account  of  the  author  was  written  by  Mr.  James 
 West,  on  a  copy  of  the  book,  in  which  certain  MS. 
 notes  had  been  written  by  Bishop  Kennett :  "  Upon 
 shewing  the  above  notes  by  Bishop  Kennett,  to  Mr. 
 Harbin,  he  told  me  he  was  the  author  of  the  annexed 
 Book  :  and  immediately  produced  the  original  copy 
 of  the  same,  together  with  three  large  volumes  of 
 original  documents  from  whence  the  same  was  corn- 
 
 State  Trials,  vol.  ix.  ^82. 
 
234  ^tetorp  of  tljc  4i"2ortjur:ov<3. 
 
 piled.  He  was  chaplain  to  Dr.  Ken,  Bishop  of  Bath 
 and  Wells,  and  was  the  head  of  the  Clergy  of  the 
 Nonjuring  persuasion  at  that  time.  A  man  of  in- 
 finite knowledge  and  reading  :  but  of  a  weak,  pre- 
 judiced, and  bigoted  judgment."0  The  Book  was 
 considered  as  setting;  aside  the  succession  of  the 
 House  of  Hanover :  consequently  the  Hanoverian 
 minister  made  a  complaint  to  the  government.  The 
 evidence  against  Bedford  was,  that  he  had  given  the 
 copy  to  the  Printer.  Calamy  says,  that  the  book 
 was  greatly  dispersed,  and  that  many  copies  were 
 presented  to  men  in  power.p  The  mercy  that  was 
 extended  to  Bedford,  says  a  contemporary,  "  served 
 to  improve  the  suspicion,  that  the  man  and  the  Book 
 and  the  Cause  had  some  interest  at  court."  q 
 
 In  an  anonymous  work  of  the  last  century,  it 
 is  stated,  that  the  book  was  actually  presented  to 
 her  Majesty.  "A  book  in  folio,  concerning  the  Here- 
 ditary Right  to  the  Crown,  wrote  by  one  Nonjuring 
 Clergyman  and  fathered  by  another,  was  presented 
 to  the  Queen,  and  well  received  by  her  :  though  it 
 was  so  plain  against  the  Revolution  settlement,  that 
 it  made  a  very  great  noise,  and  the  ministry  could 
 not  prevent  the  law  taking  place  against  Bedford, 
 the  supposed  author,  who  was  fined  and  imprisoned, 
 and  sentenced  to  stand  in  the  pillory.  But  being  a 
 clergyman  great  interest  was  made  with  the  Queen 
 to  have  the  ignominious  part  of  the  sentence  remitted, 
 which  was  procured."1 
 
 °  Nichols's  Lit.  Anec.  i.  167,168.  Harbin's  production  shews 
 that  his  judgment  was  not  weak.  Because  he  differed  from  himself, 
 Mr.  "West  pronounced  him  weak  and  bigoted. 
 
 p  Calamy's  Life,  ii.  268,  269. 
 
 i  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward,  351,  352. 
 
 1  Memoirs  of  Queen  Anne,  &c.    8vo.  London,  1729.  p.  253. 
 
i?i«3torp  of  tljc  Bonjttcoi'jS.  235 
 
 Bedford  was  the  author  of  several  works  of  con- 
 siderable value,  especially  an  Essay  on  the  Thirty- 
 nine  Articles.  In  this  volume,  the  question  relative  to 
 the  disputed  clause  in  the  xx  th  article  is  fully  and 
 ably  discussed.  Collier,  in  his  History,  gives  the 
 whole  of  this  portion  of  Bedford's  work.  He  also 
 was  the  editor  of  the  Life  of  Barwick,  of  which  he 
 published  an  English  translation.  This  is  a  work  of 
 great  merit.  As  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  refer 
 again  to  Bedford,  it  may  be  mentioned,  that  he  lived 
 a  few  years  after  his  trial,  dying  in  the  year  1724. 
 
 It  would  scarcely  fall  within  my  province,  in  this 
 work,  to  notice,  at  length,  the  affair  of  Sacheverell  : 
 but,  as  on  many  points  the  views  of  his  supporters 
 coincided  with  those  of  the  Nonjurors,  some  allusion 
 to  the  matter  may  be  permitted.  The  Whig  ministry 
 acted  most  unwisely  in  the  prosecution,  which  issued 
 in  the  accession  of  the  Tories  to  power.  It  also  led 
 many  of  the  Clergy  to  believe,  that  they  were  not 
 sincere  friends  to  the  Church  of  England.  Sach- 
 everell did  not  directly  impugn  the  Revolution.  The 
 charge  against  him  was,  that  he  had  maintained, 
 that  the  proceedings  of  that  period  were  not  a  case 
 of  resistance  to  the  supreme  power  :  so  that  the  Re- 
 volution could  not  be  adduced  against  the  doctrine 
 of  passive  obedience.  The  managers  of  the  trial 
 laboured  to  shew,  that  the  Revolution  was  an  act  of 
 resistance  ;  and  that  consequently  at  times  resistance 
 
 Boyer  intimates  that  it  was  countenanced  by  Secretary  Bromley  : 
 but  that  the  ministry  thought  it  incumbent  to  notice  the  work  on 
 account  of  some  manuscripts,  which  must  have  been  obtained  from 
 the  Lord  Treasurer's  Library.  Tbis  writer  also  insinuates,  that 
 the  book  was  the  production  of  several  Nonjurors,  instancing-  Les- 
 ley and  Nelson.  The  supposition  with  respect  to  Nelson  is  absurd. 
 Boyer,  657,  658. 
 
236  1£i'0tocp  of  t!)c  ilionjuroc0. 
 
 was  lawful.  He  was  violent  in  his  opposition  to 
 Dissenters  ;  to  occasional  Conformists ;  and  to  all  the 
 Whigs.  The  House  of  Commons  resolved  to  prose- 
 cute him  for  his  two  sermons,  one  at  the  assizes  at 
 Derby  in  August,  the  other  at  St.  Paul's  on  the  5th 
 of  November  1709,  intitled  "  Perils  among  False 
 Brethren."  The  Commons  attended  in  Westminster 
 Hall  as  his  accusers.  He  read  his  own  defence,  after 
 which  the  Lords  entered  into  a  very  warm  debate  on 
 the  subject.  The  proceedings  continued  three  weeks, 
 the  Queen  being  present  in  secret  every  day.  Her 
 sedan,  as  she  proceeded  to  the  Hall,  was  surrounded 
 by  the  mob,  who  cried,  "  God  bless  your  Majesty 
 and  the  Church.  We  hope  your  Majesty  is  for  Dr. 
 Sacheverell."  There  was  a  wide  difference  of  opinion 
 among  the  Lords.  None  of  them  actually  defended 
 non-resistance  ;  but  Hooper,  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
 Wells,  thought,  that  resistance  was  only  allowable  in 
 extraordinary  cases.  He  contended,  however,  that  the 
 maxim  should  not  be  put  forth,  as  the  people  were 
 too  ready  to  resist :  that  the  Revolution  could  not 
 be  boasted  of,  or  made  a  precedent :  that  a  mantle 
 should  be  cast  over  it ;  that  it  should  rather  be  called 
 a  vacancy  :  that  those  who  examined  it  too  nicely 
 were  not  its  best  friends  :  and  that  at  a  period,  when 
 resistance  was  openly  justified,  there  appeared  to  be 
 a  necessity  for  preaching  non-resistance.  The  Duke 
 of  Leeds  said,  that,  prior  to  the  Revolution,  he  never 
 expected  that  the  crown  would  have  been  settled 
 upon  the  Prince  :  that  the  Prince  had  often  told  him 
 he  had  no  such  design  :  that  a  distinction  should  be 
 made  between  resistance  and  a  revolution  :  and  that 
 the  attempt,  had  it  not  succeeded,  would  undoubtedly 
 have  been  a  rebellion.  Trimmel,  Bishop  of  Norwich, 
 spoke  of  Sacheverells  presumption  in  publishing  a 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  fconiumt.  237 
 
 Collection  of  Prayers  in  the  time  of  his  persecu- 
 tion, when  he  was  only  prosecuted  according  to 
 law.' 
 
 Probably  Sacheverell  was  induced  to  publish  the 
 Prayers,  to  which  the  Bishop  alluded,  by  the  success 
 of  his  Sermon  :  or  the  booksellers  may  have  persuaded 
 him  to  publish  something  of  the  kind.  Of  his  Sermon, 
 Perils  Among  False  Brethren,  no  less  than  forty 
 thousand  copies  were  sold  in  a  few  weeks.  The 
 Prayers  were  published  at  the  beginning-  of  his  trial  : 
 "  Prayers  and  Meditations  on  the  Day  of  his  Trial. 
 Price  one  Penny."  Among  the  petitions  were  the 
 following  :  "  O  Thou  God  of  patience  and  consola- 
 tion, grant  me  patience  and  resignation  under  my 
 sufferings.  Give  me  Christian  courage  to  perform 
 the  cause  which  I  have  in  hand."  Prayers  were  also 
 desired,  in  the  Queen's  Chapel,  for  Dr.  Henry  Sache- 
 verell under  persecution,  by  Mr.  Palmer,  for  which  he 
 was  removed  from  his  post.  At  the  close  of  the  trial 
 another  Tract  was  published,  Dr.  Sacheverelfs 
 Prayers  of  Thanksgiving  for  his  great  Deliverance 
 out  of  his  Troubles.  1710;"  so  that  he  evidently 
 viewed  his  conviction  as  a  victory.' 
 
 The  Lords  decided  on  his  suspension  :  his  sermons, 
 together  with  A  Collection  of  Passages  used  at  the 
 trial,  were  ordered  to  be  publicly  burned  :  but  still 
 his  conviction  was  a  triumph.  Bisset  endeavoured 
 to  turn  the  tide  of  popular  feeling  against  Sacheverell, 
 by  publishing  his  Modem  Fanatic.  Three  parts  of 
 this  work  made  their  appearance  ;  but  the  Author 
 
 •  Tindal,  iv.  157.    Macpherson,  ii.  394—398. 
 
 1  The  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward,  to  Judge  the  better  of  one 
 side  and  t'other  by  the  Speeches,  Writings,  Actions,  and  other  mat- 
 ters of  Fact  on  both  sides  for  the  four  years  last  past.  London, 
 1715,  pp.  10,  19.    Tindall,  iv.  157. 
 
238  l&i'jjtocp  of  the  iIionjtu'oi-0. 
 
 was  most  severely  handled  by  some  of  Sacheverell's 
 supporters.  Bissett  completely  failed  in  his  object. 
 Nay,  it  is  questionable,  whether  he  did  not  injure  his 
 cause  :  for  he  adduced  certain  charges  affecting 
 Sacheverell's  private  character,  which  were  mani- 
 festly false.  In  short,  if  Sacheverell  was  the  tool  of 
 the  Tories,  Bisset  was  no  less  the  tool  of  the  Whigs. 
 
 It  was  said  at  the  time,  that  Sacheverell's  friends, 
 foreseeing-  the  result,  pushed  the  matter  forward.  Some 
 of  the  Whigs,  after  the  trial  was  over,  asserted,  that 
 the  preaching  the  Sermons  was  a  Tory  attempt  to 
 supplant  the  Whigs.  But  surely  this  assertion  im- 
 plies, that  the  Whigs  were  less  keen  sighted  than 
 their  adversaries.  The  supposition,  while  it  attri- 
 butes deep  policy  to  the  Tories,  renders  the  Whigs 
 ridiculous,  as  being  duped  by  their  opponents." 
 
 It  is  singular,  that  Compton  defended  Sacheverell's 
 views.  Sharpe,  Archbishop  of  York,  was  also  among 
 his  supporters.  Both  voted,  that  he  was  not  guilty. 
 Among  the  Prints,  published  on  the  occasion,  there 
 was  one,  in  which  Sacheverell  is  surrounded  by  va- 
 rious individuals  who  supported  him,  and  Sharpe 
 and  Compton  are  of  the  number. 
 
 The  suspension  expired  in  1713,  March  23rd,  and 
 the  day  was  celebrated  with  great  rejoicings  in  Lon- 
 don and  several  other  places.  On  the  following 
 Sunday  he  preached  at  his  Church,  in  Southwark  : 
 and  on  the  29th  of  May  he  was  appointed  to  preach 
 before  the  House  of  Commons,  by  whom  he  was 
 thanked  for  his  sermon.  In  a  little  time  the  court 
 bestowed  upon  him  the  valuable  rectory  of  St. 
 Andrew's,  Holborn.  His  conviction  proved  his 
 greatest  triumph  over  his  prosecutors  :  for  the  popu- 
 
 u  Memoirs  of  Queen  Anne,  8vo.  1729,  61. 
 
^igtorp  of  ttje  if^onfucor^.  239 
 
 lace  every  where  viewed  him  as  a  martyr,  and  re- 
 ceived him,  in  his  progress  through  the  country,  with 
 the  most  enthusiastic  demonstrations  of  respect.  The 
 Queen  too  was  probably  inclined  to  favour  his  cause  : 
 for  the  arguments  and  statements  of  the  managers 
 were  such,  as  could  not  be  pleasing  to  royal  ears. 
 This  circumstance  was  not  forgotten  by  some  of 
 those  about  her  Majesty,  who  reminded  her  of  being 
 taken  to  school  by  her  ministers,  to  be  instructed  in 
 revolution  sentiments,  as  it  was  supposed,  that  the 
 royal  attendance  was  in  compliance  with  the  wishes 
 of  her  advisers.  The  result  is  well  known.  The 
 Whigs  were  soon  removed  from  office  :  the  country 
 was  against  them  :  her  Majesty  was  opposed  to  them  : 
 and  this  trial  completed  their  downfall. w 
 
 I  shall  not  enter  into  the  question  respecting  Queen 
 Anne's  views  of  her  brother,  or  whether  she  wished 
 him  to  succeed  after  her  death.  She  died  in  1714  : 
 and  the  Elector  of  Hanover  succeeded  quietly  to  the 
 throne.  Had  the  Queen  lived  some  years  longer, 
 probably  an  attempt  might  have  been  made  to  secure 
 the  throne  to  her  brother's  family.  However,  all 
 such  intentions,  if  indeed  they  were  entertained,  were 
 frustrated  by  the  death  of  the  Queen.  The  Whigs 
 were  overjoyed  at  her  death,  for  they  viewed  the 
 event  as  the  harbinger  of  their  return  to  power  :  and 
 some  of  the  Dissenters,  regardless  of  their  former 
 inconsistency  in  the  reign  of  James  II,  were  guilty 
 even  of  profanity  in  speaking  of  her  Majesty's  de- 
 parture. One  person  writes  :  "  they  were  waiting 
 for  an  opportunity  to  restore  the  Pretender :  which 
 while  they  were  waiting  for,  the  Divine  Providence, 
 that  had  so  often  saved  a  sinking  nation,  stept  in, 
 
 Life  of  Bolingbroke,  183,  184. 
 
240  1^(0torp  of  ttic  jjaonfurow. 
 
 and,  August  1st,  1714,  takes  away  the  unhappy 
 Princess."  * 
 
 The  Whigs  represented  themselves  as  the  only 
 true  friends  of  the  Protestant  succession  :  yet  subse- 
 quent discoveries  have  proved,  that  they  rather  con- 
 sulted their  own  interest,  than  the  welfare  of  the 
 country  or  of  the  Church.  Whenever  they  were  out  of 
 power,  they  used  every  means  of  annoyance  towards 
 their  opponents  :  and  the  Pretender  was  a  very  con- 
 venient pretence  for  their  purpose.  Thus,  some  time 
 after  their  removal  from  office  consequent  on  Sach- 
 everelTs  trial,  they  actually  sanctioned  the  circulation 
 of  false  statements  in  the  newspapers,  with  a  view 
 to  embarrass  the  Queen's  ministry  and  excite  the 
 people  against  them.     This  was  done  by  coining 
 articles  of  foreign  news  and  publishing  them  as  true. 
 The  following  is  a  specimen  :  "  Paris,  July  5,  1712. 
 The  Chevalier  de  St.  George  is  at  Chaillot,  where  he 
 is  to  be  retired  some  days,  and  lay  aside  the  title  of 
 King.  'Tis  not  yet  said  what  other  title  he  will  take; 
 though  it  is  not  doubted,  but  that  it  will  be  that  of 
 Prince  of  Wales,  and  that  all  this  is  done  in  concert, 
 because  it  would  not  be  convenient  for  him  to  go  to 
 England  with  the  title  of  King,  but  with  that  of  the 
 presumptive  heir."7     It  is  asserted,  that  had  the 
 Pretender  renounced  Popery,  Queen  Anne  would 
 have  promoted  his  interests ;  and  that  efforts  were 
 used  to  induce  him  to  comply,  though  without  effect, 
 as  he  protested  against  such  a  course.  He  promised, 
 however,  to  engage  a  Protestant  clergyman,  in  the 
 event  of  his  coming  to  England,  to  officiate  to  his 
 Protestant  servants.2    This  latter  promise,  it  is  said, 
 
 x  Bennet's  Memorial,  399.  y  Life  of  Bolingbroke,  242. 
 z  Maepherson,  ii.  518. 
 
^(0torp  of  tfje  i£  on  jurors*.  241 
 
 was  broken  when  he  actually  came  into  the  country.* 
 Among  the  rumours  of  the  day  one  was,  that  he  had 
 positively  renounced  Popery,  and  that  his  chaplain 
 performed  divine  service  daily  in  his  presence,  accord- 
 ing to  the  order  of  the  Anglican  Church.5  The 
 Queen's  death,  however,  destroyed  the  hopes  of  his 
 friends :  but  had  she  lived  some  years  longer,  and 
 the  Pretender  had  openly  joined  the  Anglican  Church, 
 it  is  not  possible  to  say,  whether  he  would  have  been 
 rejected  by  the  people  of  England. 
 
 Several  men  of  eminence  among  the  Nonjurors 
 were  removed  by  death  during  the  reign  of  Queen 
 Anne.  Nelson,  no  longer,  however,  a  Nonjuror,  died 
 January  16th,  1714,  leaving  £200  by  will  to  Hickes 
 and  Spinkes.  By  a  codicil  also  he  gave  Mr.  Hill 
 £  20  per  annum.  It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  upon  a 
 history  of  his  life.  His  secession  from  the  Nonjurors 
 influenced  many  others,  and  was  one  of  the  first  steps 
 that  weakened  their  body.0 
 
 Thomas  Smith,  another  clergyman  of  celebrity, 
 died  in  the  year  1710.  He  was  deprived  of  his  fel- 
 lowship in  the  University  for  refusing  to  take  the 
 Oath  of  Allegiance  in  1692.  Several  of  his  works 
 display  much  learning  and  great  abilities.    He  was 
 
 a  Life  of  Argyle,  153.        b  Memoirs  of  Queen  Anne,  239. 
 
 c  Like  all  the  Nonjurors,  Nelson  was  exposed  to  the  charge  of 
 Popery,  though  he  did  so  much  to  oppose  it.  His  circumstances 
 were  very  peculiar  and  distressing-:  for  his  wife,  to  whom  he  was 
 tenderly  attached,  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  a  cir- 
 cumstance unknown  to  him  at  the  time  of  the  marriage.  She 
 even  wrote  in  defence  of  Romanism,  while  he  was  engaged  in  the 
 controversy  on  the  opposite  side.  Subsequent  to  the  Revolution, 
 Nelson  lived  on  the  closest  terms  of  intimacy  with  Tillotson,  who 
 actually  expired  in  his  arms.  After  his  return  to  the  communion 
 of  the  National  Church,  he  lived  on  the  same  friendly  terms  with 
 the  Nonjurors.    Biog.  Brit.    Birch's  Life  of  Tillotson. 
 
 R 
 
242  ^tetovp  of  ttjc  il^onjucoc^ 
 
 the  author  of  "  Vital  Quorundam  eruditissimorum  et 
 illustrium  Virorum.  4to.  1707."  This  is  a  useful 
 work,  containing  the  lives  of  several  men  of  great 
 eminence  in  the  Church.d  He  suffered  much  for  his 
 principles,  and  died  in  great  poverty. 
 
 Not  long  before  the  close  of  Queen  Anne's  reign 
 died  Henry  Compton,  Bishop  of  London,  who,  per- 
 haps, next  to  Burnet  and  Tillotson,  was  more  ob- 
 noxious to  the  Nonjurors  than  any  other  prelate. 
 His  solemn  denial,  that  he  had  not  concurred  in  the 
 invitation  to  the  Prince  of  Orange,  is  a  stain  upon 
 his  memory,  a  blot  upon  his  integrity.   But  notwith- 
 standing his  conduct  at  the  Revolution,  he  was  not 
 advanced  in  the  Church,  though  the  see  of  Canter- 
 bury was  twice  vacant  during  his  life.     He  was 
 Bishop  of  London  before  the  Revolution,  and  he  con- 
 tinued Bishop  of  London  till  his  death.    A  glowing 
 character  was  given  of  him  by  his  chaplain  in  a  ser- 
 mon before  the  Lord  Mayor  at  St.  Paul's.  The 
 author  says,  that  at  the  Revolution  "  he  was  called 
 peculiarly  The  Protestant  Bishop"    He  adds,  what 
 will  scarcely  be  admitted  now,  "  and  indeed  he  was 
 the  ornament  and  security  of  the  Protestant  Cause." 
 This  writer  talks  of  jealousies  against  him  and  in- 
 sinuations, which  prevented  his  advancement.6 
 
 d  Biog.  Brit.  Art.  Smith.  Nichols,  i.  15,  16.  In  these  works 
 a  list  of  his  various  publications  is  given.  Hearne,  writing  to 
 Dodwell,  says,  "  this  great  man  died  a  true  confessor  of  this  dis- 
 tressed and  afflicted  Church,  and  the  public  has  received  a  great 
 loss  by  his  fall."    Aubrey's  Letters,  i.  203. 
 
 e  A  Sermon  preached  before  the  Right  Honourable  the  Lord 
 Mayor  and  Aldermen  at  the  Cathedral  Church  of  St.  Paul,  July 
 26th  1713,  on  occasion  of  the  much  lamented  death  of  the  Right 
 Hon.  and  Right  Rev.  Henry  late  Lord  Bishop  of  London.  By 
 Thomas  Gooch,  D.  D.  lately  one  of  his  Lordship's  domestic  chap- 
 lains, 8vo.  London,  1713. 
 
^tetorp  of  tfje  iJ3onjucoc0,  243 
 In  the  year  1714  the  "Memoirs  concern  big  the 
 affairs  of  Scotland"  were  published  without  the  con- 
 sent of  the  writer,  Mr.  Lockhart,  who  had  himself 
 acted  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  Pretender's  service. 
 Lockhart  lent  the  manuscript  to  a  friend,  under  a 
 strict  injunction  not  to  let  it  be  seen.  This  friend, 
 however,  was  so  imprudent  as  to  employ  some  one 
 to  transcribe  it :  and  this  individual  gave  a  copy  to 
 a  second  party,  by  whom  it  was  published,  with  a 
 preface  written  by  Sir  David  Dalrymple.  The  cir- 
 cumstance is  thus  misrepresented  in  one  of  the  pub- 
 lications of  the  period.  "  July  20th,  1714.  The  Jaco- 
 bite party  were  so  sure  of  their  game  that  a  history 
 of  the  Pretender,  and  of  the  faithful  attempts  of  his 
 friends  in  Scotland,  was  drawn  up  at  large :  and 
 several  copies  of  it  delivered  for  secret  service  :  till 
 one  of  the  transcribing  clerks,  for  want  of  suitable 
 reward,  conveyed  a  transcript  to  the  press."'  It  is 
 scarcely  possible  to  conceive,  that  the  writer  of  this 
 extract  did  not  know,  that  the  manuscript  had  been 
 treacherously  given  to  the  public,  though  he  avers 
 that  one  of  the  transcribers  had  done  it  in  consequence 
 of  being  inadequately  rewarded  for  his  labour.  The 
 notion  is  absurd,  as  he  might  have  relinquished  or 
 declined  the  task.  But  the  propagation  of  the  false- 
 hood served  a  party  purpose,  which  was  precisely 
 the  aim  of  the  writer.  A  Key  was  also  published, 
 in  which  the  names  of  the  parties  were  written  at 
 length,  the  initials  and  concluding  letter  only  being 
 given  in  the  work  itself.  Several  editions  were  called 
 for  within  the  year.  The  Key  simply  contained  the 
 names  written  at  length.  But  during  the  same  year 
 another  tract  was  published,  called  "  A  Protestant 
 
 Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward,  369. 
 
244  l§i'0torp  of  ttje  iftonfurottf . 
 
 Index  to  Mr.  Lock  fs  Jlemoirs*  concerning  the 
 
 Affairs  of  Scotland."  In  this  tract  the  pages  are 
 specified,  in  which  the  most  obnoxious  passages  are 
 to  be  found.6  A  descendant  of  Lockhart's  published 
 the  '•'■Memoirs''''  in  1817,  together  with  the  other 
 papers  of  his  ancestor.  In  this  republication,  there 
 is  an  additional  preface  in  answer  to  Dalrymple's  in- 
 troduction, which  was  prepared  by  the  author,  and 
 left  with  the  copy  intended  for  publication  after  his 
 decease.  Various  reasons  prevented  the  publication 
 until  1817,  which  are  stated  in  the  preface  by  the 
 editor.11 
 
 ^Memoirs  concerning  the  Affairs  of  Scotland  from  Queen  Anne's 
 Accession  to  the  commencement  of  the  Union,  &c.  To  which  is 
 prefixed  an  Introduction,  shewing  the  Reason  for  publishing  these 
 Memoirs  at  this  juncture.  To  which  is  added  an  Appendix,  Lon- 
 don, 8vo.  1714.  A  Key  to  the  Memoirs,  &c,  London,  1714.  A 
 Protestant  Index,  &c,  8vo.  1714.  These  are  all  by  different 
 publishers.  The  book  without  the  Key  is  common ;  with  the  key 
 and  the  index,  it  is  scarce. 
 
 h  The  Lockhart  Papers,  2  vols.  4to.,  London,  1817.  The 
 writer  of  "The  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward  "  has  the  following 
 entry:  "March  5th,  1713-14.  The  Jacobites  began  to  prepare 
 their  psalms  of  thanksgiving  against  a  time  expected  ;  and  for  the 
 use  of  their  people  they  published  some  select  psalms  in  English, 
 with  the  Latin  version  of  Buchanan,  entitled  "  The  Loyal  Mans 
 Psalter:  or  some  select  Psalms  in  Latin  and  English  verse,  fit  for 
 the  Times  of  Persecution."    He  gives  the  following  specimens: 
 
 "  Bless'd  is  the  loyal  man  whose  steps 
 
 No  trayterous  counsel  lead  aside, 
 
 Nor  stand  in  rebels  ways,  nor  sit 
 
 Where  God  and  justice  men  deride.    Psalm  1. 
 
 Confounded  be  those  rebels  all 
 That  to  usurpers  bow  ; 
 
 And  make  what  Gods  and  Kings  they  please, 
 And  worship  them  below."    Psalm  97. 
 
 Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward,  337,  338. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  iponfuror*.  245 
 
 Hickes  did  not  long  survive  the  consecration  of 
 Collier,  Spinkes,  and  Hawes.  He  died  in  the  year 
 1715,  at  the  age  of  74,  leaving  behind  him  the  cha- 
 racter of  a  learned  and  pious  man.  Of  course  he 
 had  his  failings  :  but  his  works  will  remain  as  a 
 monument  of  his  learning  and  piety  as  long  as  the 
 English  language  is  used.  He  was  born  in  the  year 
 1642.  He  was  on  intimate  terms  with  Kennet  and 
 several  other  clergymen  who  complied,  and  who  were 
 anxious  to  direct  his  attention  to  the  study  of  the 
 northern  antiquities.  His  protest  against  Mr.  Talbot 
 was  considered  as  an  act  of  rebellion  against  the 
 government :  and  proceedings  being  commenced,  he 
 withdrew  into  a  place  of  concealment  until  1699, 
 when  Lord  Somers,  the  Chancellor,  ordered  the 
 Attorney-General  to  enter  a  noli  prosequi  to  all  pro- 
 ceedings against  him.  During  a  portion  of  this 
 period  he  resided  with  White  Kennet,  wearing  a 
 lay-habit,  and  affecting  to  be  unknown.  Disagreeing 
 as  they  did,  they  could  not  converse  on  ecclesiastical 
 matters :  consequently  they  met  on  the  common  ground 
 of  literature.  At  Kennet's  suggestion  he  undertook 
 his  most  laborious  work,  the  "  Thesaurus."  At  last,  a 
 fellow  of  a  college  in  Oxford,  coming  to  Kennet's 
 house,  knew  him,  and  called  him  by  his  name.  This 
 alarmed  him  :  so  that  he  immediately  repaired  to 
 London,  where  he  remained  until  the  Lord  Chancellor 
 interposed.  It  is  stated  that  he  once  contemplated 
 taking  the  Oaths  :  but  the  authority  on  which  the 
 report  rests  appears  doubtful.'  The  inscription  on 
 his  tomb,  written  by  his  own  direction  in  his  will, 
 is  adduced  as  evidence,  simply  because  it  does  not 
 notice  the  fact  of  his  appointment  as  a  suffragan 
 
 Kennet's  Life,  p.  14,  47,  48. 
 
24G  l|t'0tocg  ot"  tije  i^onjurottf. 
 
 Bishop.  The  inscription  was  as  follows:  "  Depositum 
 Georgii  Hickes,  S.  T.  P.  non  ita  pridem  Coll.  Line. 
 Oxon.  Socii,  et  Ecclesia3*Cathedralis  Wigornensis 
 Decani,  qui  Obiit  15  Die  Decembris  1715."  It  is  very 
 properly  remarked,  that  no  mention  of  the  title  of 
 suffragan  would  at  that  time  have  been  permitted  : 
 consequently  nothing  can  be  inferred  in  favour  of 
 the  notion  that  he  disclaimed  the  title. k 
 
 Some  notice  of  Leslie  will  be  given  in  a  subse- 
 quent page ;  but  it  may  be  mentioned  here  that  he 
 was  supposed  to  be  the  author  of  "  The  Mitre  and 
 the  Crown:  or  a  real  Distinction  between  them  "  in 
 1711,  and  "  A  Continuation  of  the  Mitre  and  the 
 Crown"  in  1712.  In  the  year  1713  he  published 
 "  The  Case  Stated  between  the  Church  of  England 
 and  the  Church  of  Rome."  It  was  answered  by  a 
 Romanist  in  "  The  Case  Re- stated.'1''  Even  this  book 
 was  cavilled  at  by  the  opponents  of  the  Nonjurors. 
 The  object  was  to  bring  odium  upon  them  as  favourers 
 of  Popery :  and  when  this  could  not  be  done,  the 
 next  thing  was  misrepresentation.  A  more  effective 
 work  against  Rome  could  scarcely  be  named  than 
 Leslie's  "  Case  Stated,  "  and  "  Case  Truly  Stated; " 
 yet  the  following  notice  appeared  at  the  time.  "  Feb. 
 27th,  1713-14  :  The  hopes  of  bringing  over  the  Pre- 
 tender to  profess  the  Protestant  religion  began  to 
 diminish  every  day  :  especially  when  men  saw  that 
 the  book  writ  for  that  purpose  by  Mr.  Leslie,  and 
 called  the  '  Case  Stated, '  was  heinously  taken  by 
 the  Papists,  and  boldly  answered  by  one  of  them  in 
 a  tract,  '  The  Case  Re-stated:'  to  which  Mr.  Leslie 
 thought  proper  to  reply  in  a  Defence  of  what  he  had 
 before  said,  but  with  no  manner  of  suggestion  that 
 
 k  Biog\  Brit.    A  list  of  his  writings  is  given  in  the  article. 
 
Ikttftocp  of  ttie  j^onfurow.  247 
 
 he  was  likely  to  succeed  in  his  first  design  of 
 writing. " 1  Somewhat  earlier,  the  same  writer  says 
 the  "  Jacobites  now  drank  to  the  Protestant  suc- 
 cession, upon  hopes  the  Pretender  was  to  be  con- 
 verted by  Mr.  Leslie." m  So  that  at  one  time  all  the 
 Nonjurors  were  Papists  ;  at  another,  they  were  labour- 
 ing to  convert  the  Pretender  to  Protestantism. 
 
 The  case  of  a  youth,  Ambrose  Bonwicke,  son  of  a 
 Nonjuror  of  the  same  name,  may  be  adduced  as  an 
 illustration  of  the  force  of  those  feelings,  by  which 
 the  Nonjurors  were  actuated.  This  youth  was  born 
 in  1691  :  in  1702  he  was  sent  to  Merchant  Taylor's 
 School.  In  1709,  though  captain  of  the  school,  he 
 lost  his  election  to  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  in 
 consequence  of  his  Nonjuring  scruples.  The  head 
 scholars  were  accustomed  to  read  the  prayers,  which 
 were  daily  used  in  the  school,  and  which  were  taken 
 from  the  Liturgy.  The  first  Collect  for  the  King  in 
 the  Communion  Service  was  one  of  the  Prayers  se- 
 lected for  daily  use.  This  Collect  young  Bonwicke 
 scrupled  to  read.  Efforts  were  used  in  vain  to  terrify 
 him  out  of  his  scruples  :  for  he  was  resolved  to  make 
 any  sacrifice  rather  than  violate  his  conscience.  At 
 the  election,  therefore,  in  1710,  he  was  told  that  his 
 qualifications  marked  him  out  for  election ;  but  he 
 was  asked  why  he  did  not  read  the  usual  prayers. 
 
 1  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward,  333,  334. 
 
 m  Ibid.  225.  It  must  strike  persons  as  strange,  yet  such  was 
 the  fact,  that  Leslie's  "  Method  with  the  Deists"  was  actually 
 charged  as  Popish.  It  was  attacked  in  a  work  with  the  following 
 title  :  "  A  Detection  of  the  true  Meaning  and  wicked  Design  of 
 a  book  entitled  '  A  plain  and  easy  Method  with  the  Deists.1 
 Wherein  is  proved  that  the  Author's  four  marks  are  the  marks 
 of  the  Beast,  and  are  calculated  only  for  the  cause  and  service 
 of  Popery"  8vo.  London,  1710. 
 
248  ^tetorp  of  ttie  ifronfuror*. 
 
 His  reply  was,  "  Sir,  I  could  not  do  it."  The  master 
 applauded  the  youth  for  his  honesty,  but  expressed 
 his  sorrow  at  the  loss  of  his  election.  The  disap- 
 pointment was  cheerfully  borne.  He  subsequently 
 entered  at  Cambridge,  but  was  cut  off  by  an  early 
 death  in  the  year  1714-15. n 
 
 After  Hickes's  death,  Collier  was,  undoubtedly, 
 the  most  able  man  of  the  party,  and  continued  to  be 
 their  leader,  until  the  body  separated  into  two  sec- 
 tions, in  consequence  of  the  controversy  respecting 
 the  ZTsages.  Collier  was  prepared  to  uphold  the 
 separation  at  all  hazards :  consequently  in  the  year 
 1716,  Henry  Gandy  and  Thomas  Brett  were  conse- 
 crated to  the  episcopal  office  by  Collier,  Spinkes, 
 and  Hawes. 
 
 Gandy  was  the  author  of  several  works  in  this  con- 
 troversy, and  appears  to  have  been  as  strenuous  in 
 his  views  as  any  one  of  the  party.  But  the  circum- 
 stances connected  with  Brett  are  very  remarkable. 
 He  was  ordained  in  the  year  1690,  at  which  time  he 
 entertained  some  scruples  respecting  the  Oaths.  He 
 saw  that  the  Tories,  who  had  sworn  allegiance  to 
 King  James,  took  the  Oath  to  William  and  Mary. 
 He  had  never  taken  an  Oath  to  James,  and  therefore 
 he  was  not  hampered  by  any  preceding  engagements. 
 On  becoming  acquainted  soon  after  with  Gery,  he 
 imbibed  that  gentleman's  views.  The  pupil,  how- 
 ever, proceeded  much  farther  than  the  instructor  :  for 
 the  latter  died  Vicar  of  Islington  in  1707,  while  the 
 former  became  a  Nonjuror.0    After  taking  the  Oath 
 
 n  Nichols,  v.  120,  121,  156. 
 
 *  I  have  a  copy  of  Tertullian's  work,  De  Pallio,  with  the  fol- 
 lowing words  written  on  the  fly-leaf,  in  the  handwriting-  of  Brett : 
 "  Tho.  Brett  Liber  ex  Bono  Reverendi  Georyii  Gery,  Vicarii 
 De  Islington.    A.  D.  1694." 
 
I5(0torp  of  ttje  jfronfurottf.  249 
 
 of  Allegiance  several  times,  his  scruples  became  so 
 strong,  and  especially  after  the  trial  of  Sacheverell, 
 that  he  quitted  the  National  Church.  In  considering 
 the  proceedings  connected  with  that  memorable  trial, 
 he  came  to  the  conclusion,  that  he  had  committed  an 
 error  in  taking  the  Oaths  :  and  he  soon  resolved  not 
 to  take  them  again.  Still  he  did  not  scruple  for  some 
 time  to  pray  for  the  Queen,  nor  to  remain  in  the 
 Church.  But  on  the  accession  of  George  I,  when  all 
 persons  holding  offices  were  compelled  to  take  the 
 Oaths  afresh,  he  found,  that  he  could  not  comply, 
 and  wrote  to  the  Archbishop  to  that  effect. p  His 
 Grace  very  kindly  requested  him  to  pause.  He, 
 therefore,  remained  in  the  Church,  until  his  non-com- 
 pliance with  the  order  for  taking  the  Oath  vacated 
 his  post.  For  a  time  he  continued  to  attend  his  parish 
 church  as  a  private  person  ;  and  it  is  probable,  that 
 he  might  have  continued  to  do  so,  but  for  the  inter- 
 ference of  Hickes,  who,  hearing  of  his  scruples,  per- 
 suaded him  to  cease  to  communicate  with,  or  attend 
 the  worship  of,  the  National  Church.  He  was  ad- 
 mitted into  the  Nonjuring  communion  July  1,  1715, 
 according  to  a  Penitential  Form  prepared  especially 
 for  such  occasions.  The  year  after,  he  was  conse- 
 crated a  Bishop.  He  was  accustomed,  like  many 
 other  Nonjurors,  to  officiate  privately  in  his  own 
 house.  His  literary  labours  were  very  numerous,  and 
 
 v  It  appears  to  have  been  the  Oath  of  Abjuration,  rather  than 
 that  of  Allegiance,  which  led  to  his  scruples.  The  Lord  Chief 
 Baron  Gilbert  had  many  conversations  with  him  on  the  subject, 
 with  a  view  to  bringing  him  over  to  Whig  principles  :  but  a  con- 
 trary effect  was  produced,  for  he  became  6till  more  fixed  in  those 
 which  he  had  imbibed.  It  is  said,  that  he  read  Dodwell's  tracts 
 in  favour  of  communion  witli  the  National  Church,  but  that  be 
 was  not  convinced  by  the  arguments. 
 
250  ^itftocp  of  ttjc  il^onjuuoc^. 
 
 all  of  them  were  distinguished  for  great  ability  and 
 extensive  learning.  Brett  was  once  presented  at  the 
 assizes  for  holding  a  conventicle  in  his  house :  but 
 an  Act  of  Indemnity  rescued  him  from  the  penalties. 
 He  afterwards  spent  his  time  between  Faversham  and 
 Canterbury,  in  which  places  he  had  congregations.q 
 Unquestionably  the  Nonjurors  made  a  wise  and  judi- 
 cious choice  in  selecting  Brett  as  a  Bishop.  The 
 choice  was  made  probably  at  the  desire  of  Hickes, 
 though  he  died  before  the  consecration. 
 
 Before  we  enter  upon  the  controversies  of  this 
 period,  a  few  remarks  may  be  offered  on  the  Rebel- 
 lion of  1715.  The  Nonjurors,  properly  so  called, 
 those,  who  sacrificed  all  their  prospects,  rather  than 
 take  the  Oaths,  were  generally  quiet  and  peaceable 
 men  :  and  though  attached  to  King  James,  they  did 
 not  make  any  attempt  towards  the  restoration  of  his 
 family.  Of  those  who  were  implicated  in  the  Re- 
 bellion, many  had  taken  the  Oaths,  while  others, 
 from  not  occupying  any  public  station,  had  not  been 
 called  upon  to  make  their  decision.  The  fact,  that 
 some  of  the  individuals,  who  were  implicated,  pro- 
 fessed Nonjuring  principles  at  the  time  of  execution, 
 is  no  proof  that  the  body  were  involved  in  that  at- 
 tempt. Very  few,  if  any,  of  the  actual  Nonjurors 
 were  concerned.  Thus  Mr.  Paul  asked  forgiveness 
 of  God,  on  the  scaffold,  for  having  taken  Oaths  in 
 favour  of  what  he  termed  a  usurpation.  He  avowed 
 himself  a  member  of  the  Nonjuring  Church,  as  a 
 party  separate  from  the  National  Church.  "  You 
 see  by  my  habit,  that  I  die  a  son,  though  a  very  un- 
 worthy one,  of  the  Church  of  England  :  but  I  would 
 not  have  you  think,  that  I  am  a  member  of  the  schis- 
 
 i  Nichols,  i.  408,  409. 
 
l&fctorj?  of  rije  jliom'ucot%  251 
 
 matical  Church,  whose  Bishops  set  themselves  up  in 
 opposition  to  those  orthodox  fathers,  who  were  un- 
 lawfully and  invalidly  deprived  by  the  Prince  of 
 Orange :  I  declare  that  I  renounce  that  communion, 
 and  that  I  die  a  dutiful  and  faithful  member  of  the 
 Nonjuring  Church,  which  has  kept  itself  free  from 
 rebellion  and  schism  :  and  I  desire  the  Clergy,  and 
 all  members  of  the  Revolution  Church,  to  consider 
 what  bottom  they  stand  upon,  when  their  succession 
 is  grounded  upon  an  unlawful  and  invalid  deprivation 
 of  Catholic  Bishops :  the  only  foundation  of  which 
 deprivation  is  a  pretended  Act  of  Parliament."  He 
 added  :  "  the  Revolution,  instead  of  keeping  out 
 Popery,  has  let  in  Atheism."  Mr.  Hall,  another  suf- 
 ferer, though  not  a  clergyman,  made  a  similar  decla- 
 ration. "  I  declare  that  I  die  a  true  and  sincere 
 member  of  the  Church  of  England  :  but  not  of  the 
 Revolution  schismatical  Church,  whose  Bishops  have 
 so  shamefully  given  up  the  rights  of  the  Church,  by 
 submitting  to  the  unlawful,  invalid,  lay-deprivations 
 of  the  Prince  of  Orange.  The  community  I  die  in, 
 is  that  of  the  true  Catholic  Nonjuring  Church  of 
 England."1 
 
 The  case  of  Shephard,  a  youth  only  eighteen  years 
 of  age,  excited  much  attention,  and  led  many  persons 
 to  think,  that  unnecessary  severity  was  exercised  by 
 the  government.    At  almost  any  other  period,  the 
 
 r  See  A  Collection  of  Dying  Speeches  of  those  People  called 
 Traytors,  executed  in  this  reign.  From  Colonel  Henry  Oxburgh 
 to  the  late  Mr.  James  Shepheard.  To  which  is  added,  some  of 
 the  Speeches  left  by  the  like  sort  of  People  executed  in  Former 
 Times.  By  comparing  which,  it  will  appear  that  it  has  been  the 
 practice  of  most  times  for  men  to  justify  their  own  conduct  on  all 
 occasions,  even  to  the  last.  8vo.  1718.  Calamy's  Life,  vol.  ii. 
 357,  358. 
 
252  ^fttorp  of  rt)c  ^on(ucoi% 
 
 youth  would  have  been  confined,  on  the  ground  of 
 insanity  :  but  the  government  permitted  his  execution 
 to  take  place.  Mr.  Orme,  a  Nonjuring  clergyman, 
 attended  him  on  the  scaffold. 
 
 At  this  period  the  Nonjuring  Clergy  were  sub- 
 jected to  much  hardship  in  consequence  of  the  Re- 
 bellion :  for  the  Oaths  were  tendered  afresh  to  all 
 suspected  persons.  Those  who  refused  were  com- 
 mitted to  prison  :  while  several  magistrates  were  re- 
 moved from  the  commission  for  what  was  deemed 
 undue  leniency  in  imposing  the  Oaths."  In  many 
 cases,  uncalled  for  severity  was  exercised  Individuals 
 were  even  punished  for  wearing  white  roses,  which 
 were  considered  as  badges  of  the  Pretender's.  With 
 what  strange  feelings  must  such  a  passage  as  the 
 following  be  read  !  "  Two  soldiers  whipped  almost 
 to  death  in  Hyde  Park,  and  turned  out  of  the  ser- 
 vice, for  wearing  oak  boughs  in  their  hats  the  29th 
 of  May."1  Dr.  Welton,  who  had  been  deprived  of 
 the  Rectory  of  Whitechapel,  and  who  had  assembled 
 together  about  250  Nonjurors  in  a  private  house  for 
 divine  service,  was  surprised  by  the  magistrates.  Mr. 
 Hawkes,  another  clergyman,  officiated  for  some  time 
 in  his  own  house  opposite  to  St.  James's  Palace ;  but 
 because  he  omitted  the  name  of  the  King,  in  reading 
 the  Common  Prayer,  he  was  fined  under  the  Con- 
 venticle Act." 
 
 The  Nonjurors  were  at  this  time  deterred,  by 
 these  severities,  from  defending  their  principles  by 
 means  of  the  press.  Some  few,  however,  ventured 
 to  stand  forward,  though  they  were  generally  sub- 
 jected to  punishment.    Laurence  Howell,  so  well 
 
 5  Salmon's  Chron.  His.  ii.  56. 
 11  Ibid.  69,  78,  83. 
 
 '  Ibid. 
 
i&lsftorg  of  ttjc  0on\wem*  253 
 
 known  in  the  learned  world,  appeared  as  a  contro- 
 versialist on  behalf  of  his  party.    Some  crown  mes- 
 sengers, searching  for  a  paper  called  "  The  Shift 
 Shifted,"  discovered  in  the  printing  office  a  book 
 intitled,  "  The  Case  of  Schism  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land truli)  Stated,"  by  Howell,  who  was  committed 
 to  Newgate  for  the  offence.    He  naturally  argued, 
 that  the  complying  Clergy  were  schismatics."  Red- 
 mayne,  the  printer,  was  indicted  for  printing  the 
 book,  which  was  denominated  a  libel :  and  Dalton 
 was  fined,  imprisoned,  and  sentenced  to  the  pillory, 
 for  printing  the  Shift  Shifted*  Howell  was  tried  and 
 convicted  at  the  Old  Bailey,  being  sentenced  to  a 
 fine  of  £500,  three  years  imprisonment,  to  be  whipped, 
 and  to  be  degraded  and  stripped  of  his  gown  by  the 
 hands  of  the  public  executioner.    He  asked,  "  Who 
 will  whip  a  clergyman  ?"  but  the  Court  replied  : 
 "  We  pay  no  deference  to  your  cloth,  because  you 
 are  a  disgrace  to  it,  and  have  no  right  to  wear  it : 
 besides,  we  do  not  look  upon  you  as  a  clergyman,  in 
 that,  you  have  produced  no  proof  of  your  ordination, 
 but  from  Dr.  Hickes,  under  the  denomination  of  the 
 Bishop  of  Thetford  :  which  is  illegal  and  not  accord- 
 ing to  the  constitution  of  this  kingdom,  which  has 
 no  such  Bishop."    The  executioner  was  ordered  to 
 pull  off  his  gown  at  the  bar,  which  was  accordingly 
 done.     The  pamphlet  was  probably  intended  only 
 for  private  sale  or  gratuitous  distribution.    All  his 
 papers  were  seized  by  order  of  the  government,  among 
 which  were  his  Letters  of  Orders  from  Dr.  Hickes, 
 dated  1712,  and  also  The  Form  of  Absolution  and 
 Reception  of  Converts.    The  Letters  of  Orders  were 
 thus  expressed :  "  Tenore  Praesentium,  Nos  Georgius 
 
 "  Calamy's  Life,  ii.  358.  *  Salmon,  ii.  68. 
 
264  iktetorp  of  ttje  iponfurorg. 
 
 Hickes,  permissione  divina  Episcopus  SuftYaganeus 
 Thetfordiensis,  notum  facimus  universis,  quod  nos 
 prsefectus  Episcopus,  in  Oratorio  Nostro,  in  Parochia. 
 Sancti  Andreae  Holbourn  in  comitatu  Middlesex, 
 sacros  ordines,  praesidio  divino  celebrantes,  Dilectum 
 Nobis,  in  Christo  Laurentium  Howell,  A.M.,  de  vitae 
 suae  probitate  morumque  integritate  nobis  sufficienti 
 Testimonio  Commendatum,  et  sacrarum  literarum 
 cognitione  et  scientia  laudabiliter  institutum,  et  per 
 nostrum  examinatorem  nobis  approbatum,  ad  sacrum 
 Presbyteratus  ordinem,  juxta  morem  et  consuetudi- 
 nemEcclesiae  Anglicanae  in  hac  parte  salubritereditam 
 et  provisam,  admismus  et  promovimus :  ipsumque 
 instituimus  et  ordinavimus  tunc  et  ibidem.  In  cujus 
 rei  testimonium  Sigillum  Nostrum  Episcopale  prae- 
 sentibus  apponi  fecimus,  secundo  die  Mensis  Octo- 
 bris,  Annoque  Domini  Millesimo  Septingentesimo 
 Duodecimo,  Nostraeque  Consecrationis  18°  Georgius 
 Hickes."  y 
 
 In  the  year  1716,  a  most  sarcastic  attack  on  the 
 defenders  of  the  Revolution  was  published,  profess- 
 ing to  give  extracts  from  Burnet  and  Kennet.  "  Since 
 the  lawfulness  of  the  Revolution,"  says  the  writer, 
 "  on  which  his  Majesty's  title  is  founded,  is  ques- 
 tioned by  some,  and  condemned  by  others,  it  is 
 thought  convenient  at  this  juncture  to  lay  in  one 
 view  an  account  of  the  principles  on  which  it  is  es- 
 tablished." Burnet  had  said,  that  James's  ambas- 
 sador "  pressed  the  Pope  to  admit  the  King  to 
 mediate  between  the  courts  of  Rome  and  Versailles, 
 and  said  that  when  that  was  brought  about,  the  two 
 Kings  would  effectually  serve  the  Church,  and  begin 
 with  the  destruction  of  Holland.  This  the  Pope  told 
 
 y  Nichols,  i.  31,  32;  105,  106.    Noble.    Salmon,  ii.  70. 
 
^ijstorp  of  ttje  ifronfttrorsf.  255 
 
 to  the  head  of  the  imperial  faction  at  Rome,  who  wrote 
 it  to  the  Emperor,  and  the  Emperor  wrote  to  the  Prince 
 of  Orange."    The  writer  remarks  upon  this,  "  what 
 can  justify  the  Prince,  if  King  James's  and  the  French 
 King's  design  to  ruin  them  and  their  religion  can- 
 not ?  Or  what  better  authorities  could  they  have  for 
 the  truth  of  it,  than  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  to 
 prevent  it,  by  informing  the  Prince  of  Orange  what 
 danger  the  Protestant  religion  was  in  ?    Which  will 
 undoubtedly  be  secure  for  the  future,  since  the  Pope 
 is  against  the  growth  of  Popery,  and  the  Emperor 
 become  guardian  of  the  Protestant  religion."  He 
 adds  :  "  in  short,  some  body  told  some  body,  that 
 the  King  of  France  and  King  James  were  for  intro- 
 ducing Popery  :   to  prevent  which,  the  Pope,  the 
 Emperor,  the  Prince  of  Orange,  the  Dutch  and  Eng- 
 lish, abdicate  King  James,  and  enter  into  an  alliance 
 to  make  the  King  of  France  submit  to  the  Pope's 
 authority."    In  the  same  strain,  after  quoting  some 
 passages  from  Burnet's  early  writings,  in  which  the 
 resolving  of  all  power  into  the  people  is  attributed 
 to  the  assertors  of  the  Pope's  deposing  power,  he 
 remarks  :  "  and  now  with  what  face  can  any  Papist 
 be  for  the  Pretender?    Or  how  can  the  Pretender 
 claim  the  crown,  if  a  Papist  ?    We  see  it  was  by  a 
 Popish  principle  and  a  Pope's  advice  that  King  James 
 was  deposed  ;  and  therefore  the  Pretender  must  either 
 protest  against  his  infallibility  and  supremacy,  which 
 is  in  effect  to  turn  Protestant;  or  allow  the  justice 
 of  the  Revolution,  which  is  to  destroy  his  own  pre- 
 tensions to  the  crown." 
 
 The  writer  then  specifies  some  of  the  advantages, 
 which  the  Pope  gained  by  the  Revolution.  One 
 was  the  abrogation  of  the  Oath  of  Supremacy :  se- 
 condly, an  alliance  formed  against  France.  Pro- 
 
256  ^tjttorj?  of  tt)e  ilion(ucot40. 
 
 ceeding  in  a  sarcastic  strain,  he  quotes  from  Kennet, 
 relative  to  the  alliance,  that  the  Emperor  and  King- 
 William  would  make  no  peace  "  with  Louis  XIV  till 
 he  has  made  reparation  to  the  Holy  See,  and  till  he 
 annul  all  those  infamous  proceedings  against  the 
 Holy  Father  Innocent  XI."  He  closes  thus  :  "  the 
 Dutch  were  well  paid  for  sending  us  a  King :  the 
 Prince  of  Orange  got  a  crown  :  and  we  above  twenty 
 years  ruinous  war  :  the  establishment  of  Presbytery 
 on  the  ruins  of  Episcopacy  in  Scotland  :  and  in  the 
 Church  of  England  a  woful  schism  and  a  succession 
 of  prudent,  pious  Protestant  Princes :  together  with 
 a  free  parliament :  an  impartial  distribution  of  jus- 
 tice, and  a  glorious  prospect  for  us  and  our  posterity : 
 every  way  answering  the  merits  of  an  English  Re- 
 volution, a  Scotch  Reformation,  and  an  Hanover  suc- 
 cession." z 
 
 Welton's  feelings,  while  Rector  of  Whitechapel, 
 in  favour  of  the  exiled  family  were  not  concealed. 
 He  became  obnoxious  to  censure  in  consequence  of 
 an  Altar  Piece,  a  representation  of  the  last  Supper, 
 which  was  placed  in  his  church.  White  Kennet 
 had  written  an  answer  to  Sacheverell's  Sermon,  Perils 
 among  False  Brethren,  which,  with  several  other 
 publications,  had  rendered  him  very  obnoxious  to 
 the  Nonjurors.  In  the  picture  in  Welton's  Church, 
 Kennet's  portrait  was  inserted  for  Judas  Iscariot. 
 It  is  said,  that  the  sketch  was  intended  for  Burnet, 
 but  that  an  action  at  law  being  apprehended,  the 
 
 z  A  Short  History  and  Vindication  of  the  Revolution,  collected 
 out  of  the  Writings  of  the  Learned  Bishop  Burnet  and  Dr.  Ken- 
 net. 12mo.  London.  Printed  in  the  year  1716.  This  is  a  short 
 tract  of  only  eight  pages,  the  authorship  of  which  I  am  unable  to 
 determine. 
 
l?(0torp  of  ttje  /ponfucottf.  267 
 
 likeness  of  Kennet  was  substituted  for  that  of  the 
 Bishop.  Crowds  flocked  daily  to  the  Church  to 
 examine  the  picture  :  so  that  the  Bishop  of  London 
 interposed,  and  the  Altar  Piece  was  removed.  In 
 1710  Welton  preached  a  sermon,  which  induced  the 
 government  to  interfere,  and  he  was  removed  from 
 his  living.*  From  a  contemporary  publication,  we 
 learn,  that  some  persons  imagined,  that  the  picture 
 of  St.  John  was  intended  to  represent  the  Chevalier 
 St.  George.  Welton  published  a  sermon  in  defence 
 of  his  conduct,  giving  in  the  preface  an  account  of 
 the  proceedings  connected  with  the  removal  of  the 
 Altar  Piece.b  After  his  deprivation  Welton  preached 
 to  a  Nonjuring  congregation. 
 
 It  is  evident,  that  the  rash  conduct  of  some  few  of 
 the  Nonjurors  involved  the  whole  body  in  difficulties. 
 They  were  regarded  by  the  government  as  enemies. 
 Some  persons  even  have  alleged,  that  they  were  more 
 active  at  the  period  of  the  Rebellion,  in  disseminating 
 their  principles,  than  they  had  been  for  several  years. 
 Thus  we  are  told,  "  the  controversy  of  the  new 
 schism  made  a  much  greater  noise  upon  the  late 
 tumults  and  rebellion,  than  it  had  ever  done  since 
 the  filling  of  the  deprived  sees  by  King  William  : 
 and  the  Jacobite  conventicles  were  more  frequented 
 in  the  cities  of  London  and  Westminster  :  and  Priests 
 of  that  way  were  sent  down  to  gather  the  like  con- 
 gregations in  country  towns  :  and  many  of  the  high 
 folk,  especially  the  women,  seemed  to  come  to  the 
 
 *  Noble.  Soloman  against  Welton,  or  that  Prince's  Authority 
 brought  against  the  Insolence  of  the  White  Chapel  Priest.  Being 
 a  Defence  of  the  Resistance  made  to  the  late  King  James,  &c.  by 
 way  of  Remark  on  the  Dr's.  Sermon.  8vo.  London,  1710.  Ni- 
 chols's Lit.  Anec.  i.  397. 
 
 b  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backwards,  347,  360-63. 
 
 S 
 
258  l£t'0tocp  of  tte  /ponfucortf. 
 
 parochial  churches  in  and  about  London,  for  the 
 sake  of  their  pews  and  their  cloaths,  rather  than  for 
 conformity  to  the  public  worship.  For  they  would 
 not  join  in  any  part  of  the  Prayers  for  King  George, 
 and  his  royal  family,  but  at  the  mention  of  those 
 names,  they  would  rise  up  or  sit  down,  or,  at  least, 
 express  their  dissent  in  some  visible  manner."  This 
 statement  must  be  taken  with  certain  deductions,  for 
 the  writer  usually  traduces  the  Nonjurors.  The 
 following  extract  exhibits  the  character  of  the  writer's 
 own  principles.  "  In  the  mean  time  too  many  of  the 
 Church  clergy,  though  offended  with  Dr.  Hickes  for 
 urging  a  separation  from  Parochial  Churches,  yet 
 they  gave  in  very  much  to  the  principles,  upon  which 
 that  practice  was  founded,  viz.  The  Independency  of 
 the  Church  from  the  State,  the  more  than  spiritual 
 power  of  the  Church."0  Such  a  man  could  scarcely 
 form  an  impartial  judgment  of  the  Nonjurors,  when 
 he  had  conceived  such  views  of  the  complying 
 Clergy. 
 
 Still,  few  of  the  actual  Nonjurors  were  implicated 
 in  the  Rebellion.  This  statement  is  fully  supported 
 by  contemporary  writings.  The  following  passage 
 is  so  pertinent,  that  no  apology  is  needed  for  its  in- 
 sertion. "  The  principles,  on  which  the  legality  of 
 the  present  establishment  is  maintained,  are,  I  think, 
 but  improperly  made  a  part  of  the  present  quarrel, 
 which  divides  the  nation.  There  are  but  few,  who 
 have  not  precluded  themselves  on  this  point :  those 
 I  mean,  who  have  had  courage  and  plainness  enough 
 to  own  their  sense  and  to  forego  the  advantages, 
 either  of  birth  or  education,  rather  than  give  a  false 
 security  to  the  government,  which  under  their  pre- 
 
 r  Life  of  Kcnnet,  161,  162. 
 
of  tfje  jponjurortf.  259 
 
 sent  persuasion  they  could  not  make  good.  To  these 
 I  have  nothing  more  to  say,  than  to  wish  them  what 
 I  think  they  well  deserve,  a  better  cause  :  but  to  us> 
 who  had  bound  ourselves  by  previous  oaths  and  ob- 
 ligations in  the  most  solemn  manner  in  the  world, 
 the  accession  of  his  Majesty  could  administer  no 
 occasion  of  reconsidering  this  question :  there  was 
 nothing  new  required  of  us  :  we  had  no  faith  to  give 
 which  was  not  already  plighted,  and  bound  upon  our 
 souls  by  the  most  sacred  engagements. " d  This  is 
 honourable  testimony  from  a  candid  man  :  and  may 
 be  regarded  as  conclusive  evidence,  that  the  actual 
 Nonjurors,  with  few  exceptions,  were  not  implicated 
 in  this  Rebellion. 
 
 After  the  suppression  of  the  Rebellion,  several  im- 
 portant works,  of  a  controversial  character,  were 
 published,  both  by  the  Nonjurors  and  by  their  op- 
 ponents. These  productions  require  a  particular  no- 
 tice ;  for  the  very  history  of  the  Nonjurors  is  bound 
 up  as  it  were  with  their  controversies.  It  appears, 
 that  the  advocates  of  the  government  entered  afresh 
 on  the  controversy,  after  the  suppression  of  the  Re- 
 bellion. Two  works  in  particular  made  a  great  noise 
 at  the  time,  namely,  one  by  Bennet,  and  the  other 
 by  Hoadley. 
 
 It  would  appear  that  at  this  time  the  Nonjurors 
 were  in  some  danger,  probably  from  being  suspected 
 of  consenting  to  the  recent  Rebellion,  in  favour  of  the 
 son  of  King  James.  Most  of  them  were  quiet  and 
 peaceable  men  :  and  it  was  harsh  on  the  part  of  the 
 government  to  subject  them  to  such  treatment.  It 
 
 d  Sherlock's  Sermon  before  the  Commons  on  the  clay  of  Thanks- 
 giving for  Suppressing  the  Rebellion.  8vo.  London,  1716,  pp. 
 19,  20. 
 
260  Iktetorp  of  tlje  jJJonfurore. 
 
 certainly  was  not  the  way  to  bring  them  over  to  take 
 the  Oaths.  We  find  that  many  of  their  works  of 
 this  period  were  published  without  the  name  of  the 
 printer,  a  method  resorted  to  undoubtedly  for  the 
 purpose  of  concealment.  The  feelings  of  the  govern- 
 ment must  have  been  very  sore  against  the  Nonjurors, 
 for  Bennet  closes  his  preface  with  the  following  noti- 
 fication : 
 
 "  If  any  person  shall  think  it  unsafe  for  him  to 
 publish  an  answer  to  this  tract,  I  entreat  him  to  send 
 his  papers  to  me,  by  such  a  way  as  he  shall  choose, 
 (with  this  single  hint,  that  the  parcel  comes  from  an 
 unknown  hand)  and  I  do  solemnly  promise,  that  if 
 they  are  written  as  becomes  a  Christian  and  a  scholar, 
 (of  which  such  Nonjurors  shall  be  judges  as  their 
 brethren  will  readily  confide  in)  I  will  make  no  in- 
 quiry after  the  author  :  but  in  a  reasonable  space  of 
 time,  will  either  return  him  thanks  for  confuting  me, 
 or  else  reply  in  such  a  manner  that  he  shall  have  no 
 reason  to  complain  of  my  misrepresenting  his  sense, 
 or  injuring  his  arguments."6 
 
 It  is  clear  from  this  notice  that  great  severity  was 
 practised  towards  the  Nonjurors  ;  and  that  they  could 
 not  openly  appear  in  defence  of  their  principles. 
 
 Bennet's  work  may  be  regarded,  as  expressive  of 
 the  views  of  a  large  body  of  the  members  of  the 
 Church  of  England  on  the  subjects  at  issue  between 
 them  and  the  Nonjurors.  His  aim  was  to  prove 
 them  guilty  of  schism  on  their  own  principles.  At 
 this  time,  the  chief  differences  between  the  Church 
 
 e  The  Nonjurors'  Separation  from  the  Public  Assemblies  of  the 
 Church  of  England  examined,  and  proved  to  be  Schismatical  on 
 their  own  Principles  :   by  Tho.  Bennet,  D.  D.  8vo.  London,  1716, 
 
 p.  2. 
 
^t'0tocp  of  tfje  i|5onfurocsf.  261 
 
 and  the  Nonjurors  related  to  the  Oaths.  Thus  Ben- 
 net,  speaking-  of  the  Nonjurors'  assemblies,  states  that 
 "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  used  (excepting 
 some  passages  relating  to  our  present  temporal  gover- 
 nors)." We  learn  also  from  this  work,  that  many  re- 
 mained in  the  communion  of  the  national  Church,  who 
 did  not  take  the  Oaths  to  the  ruling  sovereign. 
 
 To  bring  the  dispute  within  a  narrow  compass,  the 
 author  fixes  upon  the  diocese  of  London.  His  first 
 position  is,  that  Compton,  who  was  Bishop  of  the 
 diocese  at  the  Revolution,  continued  rightful  Bishop 
 as  long  as  he  lived  :  that  he  neither  ceased  to  be  its 
 Bishop  by  resignation  nor  deprivation.  He  allows 
 it  to  be  granted  that  the  Revolution  was  unjustifiable  : 
 and  that  the  successors  to  the  deprived  Bishops  were 
 schismatical  intruders  :  but  even  then  he  argues,  that 
 Compton  remained  the  rightful  Bishop  of  the  diocese 
 of  London.  In  his  third  chapter  he  meets  the  ob- 
 jection, that  Compton  contracted  the  contagion  of 
 schism  by  recognizing  the  successors  of  the  deprived 
 Bishops,  and  that  all  who  communicated  with  the 
 Bishop  of  London  were  involved  in  the  same  guilt. 
 The  fifth  chapter  is  occupied  with  the  consideration 
 of  an  objection  derived  from  the  second  canon  of 
 1603,  in  which  it  is  enacted  that  a  denial  of  the 
 King's  supremacy  exposes  the  party  to  an  ipso  facto 
 excommunication.  Bennet  shews  that  no  such  ex- 
 communication is  of  any  effect,  until  a  sentence  decla- 
 ratory is  given.  He  then  argues,  that  they  separated 
 from  Compton,  setting  up  an  altar  against  that  which 
 already  existed,  and  that  consequently  they  are  guilty 
 of  schism.  He  meets  the  objection,  derived  from 
 the  alleged  immoral  prayers,  much  in  the  same  way 
 as  Dodvvell  and  Nelson  did,  on  their  return  to  the 
 communion  of  the  National  Church.  He  reminds  the 
 
262  ^(tftorp  of  rtje  ilion(ucor0. 
 
 Nonjurors,  however,  that  they  had  attended  the  public 
 Churches  from  the  Revolution  until  1691,  a  space  of 
 two  years  and  six  months,  when  the  Bishops  were 
 deprived  for  refusing  to  take  the  Oaths.  He  infers, 
 that  they  did  not  join  in  the  prayers  for  William 
 and  Mary,  and  that,  therefore,  they  did  not  consider, 
 that  those  petitions  were  imposed  as  terms  of  com- 
 munion. He  also  mentions  that  many  Nonjurors 
 were  at  that  time  worshipping  in  the  National  Church : 
 so  that  they  could  not  regard  the  prayers  in  question 
 as  terms  of  communion. 
 
 In  the  last  chapter  he  applies  the  principle,  which 
 he  had  previously  confined  to  London,  to  the  rest  of 
 England. 
 
 "  As  for  those  dioceses  whose  Bishops  wTere  de- 
 prived, whatever  might  have  been  pleaded,  whilst 
 the  deprived  Bishops  themselves  were  alive  ;  yet  since 
 that  personal  contest  is  at  an  end,  and  the  schism  of 
 co-ordination  is  thereby  perfectly  ceased,  (because  the 
 deprived  Bishops  themselves  are  dead;  and  those  who 
 were  consecrated  by  the  deprived  ones,  or  derive  their 
 succession  from  them,  do  not  pretend  to  be  other  than 
 suffragans)  therefore  those  Bishops  that  have  been 
 elected  and  consecrated,  and  publicly  and  unani- 
 mously received  and  owned  by  their  comprovincials, 
 as  Bishops  of  those  once  controverted  sees,  are  now, 
 by  all  the  rules  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  the  only 
 lawful  Bishops  of  them :  nor  indeed  is  there  any 
 other  claimant  in  opposition  to  them.  And  therefore 
 separation  from  their  communion  is  undoubtedly 
 schismatical,  there  being  no  just  cause  for  it. 
 
 "  Whether  those  suffragans  who  were  consecrated 
 by  the  Nonjuring  Bishops,  or  derive  their  succession 
 from  them,  have  now  any  power  in  those  dioceses, 
 for  which  ('tis  presumed)  they  were  consecrated,  their 
 
tyfetorp  of  tfjc  ilionfurorss.  2G3 
 
 principals  may  inquire  and  determine,  if  they  judge 
 it  proper  so  to  do.  But  if  those  suffragans  have  any 
 power  at  all,  I  am  sure  it  must  be  exercised  in  due 
 subordination  to  their  principals.  Otherwise  'tis 
 notoriously  schismatical,  even  within  the  bounds  of 
 the  several  dioceses  they  were  intended  to  officiate 
 in."f 
 
 Bennet  had  written  with  much  force  against  the 
 Dissenters,  proving  them  to  be  guilty  of  schism  in 
 separating  from  a  pure  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
 and  upon  the  appearance  of  the  preceding  publica- 
 tion, Peirce,  who  had  been  long  employed  in  con- 
 troversy, wrote  some  strictures  on  the  work.  He 
 attempts  to  show,  that  such  principles,  as  were  ad- 
 mitted by  Bennet,  were  sufficient  to  justify  any  sepa- 
 ration. However  it  is  clear  that  Peirce  only  rejoiced 
 in  the  divisions  among  Churchmen.  One  fact  is 
 incidentally  mentioned  by  him,  which  is  somewhat 
 curious  and  not  without  interest,  namely,  that  Hickes's 
 consecration  was  not  generally  known  till  seventeen 
 years  after  it  had  taken  place.8 
 
 Hoadley  also  appeared  against  the  Nonjurors  in  a 
 work  of  a  different  description  from  that  of  Bennet.1' 
 He  was  one  of  those  latitudinarian  Churchmen,  by 
 
 f  Bennet,  pp.  61.  62. 
 
 P  A  Letter  to  Dr.  Bennet,  occasioned  by  his  late  Treatise  con- 
 cerning the  Nonjurors'  Separation,  &c. :  by  James  Peirce,  8vo. 
 1717,  p.  52.  The  first  public  intimation  of  Hickes's  consecra- 
 tion appears  to  have  been  given  in  the  collection  of  papers  pub- 
 lished in  1716.  Kennet's  Life,  p.  160.  The  fact,  however,  was 
 known  to  many. 
 
 h  A  Preservative  against  the  Principles  and  Practices  of  the 
 Nonjurors  both  in  Church  and  State.  Or  an  Appeal  to  the  Con- 
 sciences and  Common  Sense  of  the  Christian  Laity  :  by  the  Right 
 Reverend  Father  in  God,  Benjamin,  Lord  Bishop  of  Bangor,  8vo. 
 1716. 
 
264  ^(dtorp  of  rfje  /Nonjuror?, 
 
 whom  the  Church  has  been  occasionally  afflicted. 
 So  far  from  supporting,  Hoadley  broached  principles, 
 in  many  of  his  publications,  which  tended  to  weaken 
 and  destroy  the  Church.  One  work,  that  on  Confor- 
 mity, must  be  excepted  from  this  condemnation  :  but 
 most  of  his  other  productions  are  obnoxious  to  the 
 very  serious  charge  above  mentioned.  His  "  Pre- 
 servative" was  one  of  the  most  obnoxious  ;  but  his 
 works  served  to  recommend  him  to  the  Whig  Minis- 
 try, and  to  pave  his  way  to  the  episcopal  bench.  In 
 the  "  Preservative,  "  he  defends  the  exercise  of  the 
 power  of  the  State  in  depriving  the  Xonjuring  Bishops 
 and  Clergy  of  their  preferments.  It  is  intimated  at 
 the  commencement,  that,  at  this  time,  the  Nonjurors 
 were  particularly  active  in  putting  forth  their  claims. 
 Hoadley  thinks,  moreover,  that  too  much  forbearance 
 had  been  exercised  towards  them  :  yet  they  had  less 
 liberty  than  Dissenters,  who  were  permitted  to  assail 
 the  Church  of  England,  and  to  traduce  the  Nonjurors. 
 It  must  be  evident,  when  the  Nonjurors  were  scarcely 
 allowed  to  defend  themselves  through  the  press,  that 
 any  thing  but  forbearance  was  manifested  by  the 
 government.  Hoadley's  work  contained  so  much  of 
 what  was  unsound,  that  several  of  its  positions  were 
 censured  by  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation.1 
 
 Some  very  important  works  were  also  published 
 about  this  time  by  the  Nonjurors.  A  posthumous 
 work  of  Hickes's  among  others  made  its  appearance, 
 a  work  frequently  alluded  to  by  their  opponents. 
 This  volume  was  sent  forth  to  the  public  by  some 
 of  Hickes's  friends.  It  contains  answers  to  all  the 
 arguments,  which  were  urged  against  them  by  those 
 who  attacked  their  principles.    Prefixed  to  the  work 
 
 '  See  the  Author's  History  of  the  Convocation,  pp.  375,  376. 
 
^t0tocp  ot*  ttje  ifaonjusroctf.  265 
 is  an  account  of  the  various  papers,  of  which  it  con- 
 sists, by  the  publisher  :  from  which  it  appears,  that 
 soon  after  the  deprivations,  Hickes  entered  upon  cer- 
 tain conferences  with  a  Serjeant  at  Law  respecting 
 the  recent  events,  especially  with  reference  to  Church 
 communion.  The  Serjeant  puts  a  question,  whether 
 it  is  lawful  to  communicate  with  a  Church,  that 
 prays  for  an  usurper,  which  is  answered  in  the  nega- 
 tive. Hickes  even  condemns  being  present  in  such 
 congregations  :  alleging,  that,  if  it  were  lawful  to  be 
 present,  it  would  be  necessary  to  protest  publicly, 
 against  what  he  calls  the  rebellious  prayers.  He 
 further  declares,  that  if  any  Bishops  are  deprived  by 
 such  powers,  the  people  are  bound  in  conscience  to 
 adhere  to  the  sufferers.  The  Serjeant  asks  whether 
 a  public  refusal  to  own  the  usurper  be  not  sufficient: 
 but  Hickes  decides  as  before  against  being  present 
 at  such  assemblies,  and  condemns  remaining  on  the 
 knees,  though  the  individuals  join  not  in  the  peti- 
 tions. 
 
 In  another  Letter,  the  Author  submits  to  the  Ser- 
 jeant forty  propositions  concerning  the  Constitution 
 of  the  Catholic  Church,  observing  that  they  are  laid 
 down  in  a  mathematical  method,  "  wherein  what 
 follows  is  the  consequent  of  what  goes  before." 
 Church  power  of  the  most  exalted  kind  is  asserted 
 in  these  propositions :  that  kings  cease  to  be  mem- 
 bers of  the  spiritual  corporation  by  excommunication, 
 heresy,  or  apostacy  :  that  in  divisions  the  lawful 
 society  is  in  the  lawful  head,  and  the  members  who 
 adhere  to  him,  though  the  smaller  number,  and  in 
 every  diocese  in  the  rightful  Bishops  as  the  principle 
 of  unity  :  that  kings  obtain  nothing  by  baptism,  but 
 a  stronger  obligation  to  defend  the  Church,  and  that 
 they  arc  equally  subjects  of  the  Church  :  that  the 
 
266  %'£torp  of  tfje  iftonfucottf. 
 
 union  of  Church  and  State  is  broken  when  the  latter 
 persecutes  the  former,  which  takes  place  whenever 
 the  temporal  powers  persecute  the  spiritual :  that  it 
 is  the  duty  of  the  people  to  adhere  to  deprived 
 Bishops.  He  asserts,  therefore,  that  such  depriva- 
 tions as  those  of  the  Nonjuring  Bishops  were  unlaw- 
 ful :  and  that  their  successors  had  no  power.  He 
 adds :  "  The  true  Church  regent,  or  College  of 
 Bishops  in  England  depending  upon  it,  are  both  in 
 the  little  and  faithful  suffering  number,  and  will  be 
 in  those  who  regularly  succeed  them  in  the  royal 
 priesthood  to  the  end  of  the  world." 
 
 The  Serjeant  remarked  on  the  severity  of  the  pro- 
 positions as  involving  all  the  nation,  except  a  very 
 few,  in  Schism.  Hickes  replies,  that  he  is  not  more 
 severe  than  the  Ancient  Fathers,  and  refers  to  the 
 notes  on  the  Propositions.  Other  testimonies  are 
 also  added.  He  says,  principles  are  rigid  things  : 
 "  They  are  like  glass  drops,  you  may  easily  break 
 them,  but  you  cannot  bend  them."  Farther,  the 
 Serjeant  objected  the  small  number  of  the  deprived 
 Bishops  :  to  which  Hickes  replies,  that  the  contro- 
 versy is  one  of  right  and  wrong,  not  of  faith.  He 
 reminds  the  Serjeant  of  his  own  wish,  that  all  had 
 been  deprived,  though  the  case  would  have  been  the 
 same  had  one  only  been  subjected  to  deprivation. 
 
 On  the  title  page  of  the  volume  the  letter  R  was 
 affixed  to  the  word  Reverend ;  so  that  the  style  of  a 
 Bishop  was  thus  awarded  to  Hickes  :  and  though  his 
 consecration  was,  as  I  have  previously  remarked, 
 known  to  many,  if  not  to  all  the  Nonjurors;  yet  this 
 seems  to  have  been  the  first  public  intimation  of  the 
 fact.  The  Publisher  mentions  the  particulars  of  the 
 consecration  by  Turner,  White,  and  Lloyd  :  and  ar- 
 gues, that  no  man  was  more  qualified  to  answer  the 
 
^i0tot*p  of  tfje  il5onjurat*0.  267 
 objections  against  the  appointment  of  successors  to  the 
 deprived  Bishops.  The  Publisher  further  mentions, 
 that  the  forty  propositions  had  been  printed  at  the 
 end  of  "The  Character  of  a  Primitive  Bishop"  though 
 in  an  imperfect  state,  and  that  many  copies  had  been 
 circulated  in  the  life-time  of  the  Author.k  His  argu- 
 ments need  not  be  largely  entered  into,  since  they  are 
 similar  with  those,  to  which  we  have  previously  re- 
 ferred in  the  works  consequent  on  Dodwell's  and 
 Nelson's  return  to  the  National  Church.  One  pas- 
 sage, however,  respecting  Anti-Bishops  is  remark- 
 able. He  makes  several  kinds  of  Anti-Bishops,  some 
 being  so  by  usurpation,  others  by  professing  false 
 doctrines,  others  in  both  these  respects.  Alluding 
 to  the  second  sort  he  says,  "  such  Anti-Bishops  are 
 also  the  Popish  Bishops,  now  in  all  parts  of  the 
 world,  to  the  reformed  Bishops,  more  particularly  in 
 Ireland."  1    This  is  a  strong  assertion,  and  confutes 
 
 k  In  one  Letter  to  the  Serjeant,  Hickes  had  submitted  twenty- 
 three  propositions  concerning  the  Constitution  of  the  Catholic 
 Church.  These  he  enlarged  to  forty  in  a  subsequent  Letter.  In 
 the  year  1710  a  Tract  appeared  under  the  following  title  :  "  The 
 High  Church  Catechism,  with  Hickes's  Thirty-Nine  Articles." 
 The  number  of  propositions  was  forty ;  but  the  Author  of  this  Tract 
 omits  the  seventeenth  altogether,  making  the  eighteenth  take  its 
 place,  thus  reducing  the  number  to  thirty-nine,  merely  for  the 
 purpose,  as  is  evident,  of  insinuating,  that  Hickes  wished  to  substi- 
 tute them  instead  of  the  Articles  of  the  Anglican  Church.  The 
 preface  to  the  Tract  shews,  that  the  writer  was  an  enemy,  not  only 
 to  the  Nonjurors,  but  also  to  the  Church  of  England.  His  omission 
 of  one  of  the  propositions,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  number 
 correspond  with  the  Articles  of  the  Anglican  Church,  was  a  dis- 
 honest attempt  to  blacken  the  character  of  a  pious  and  learned 
 man. 
 
 1  The  Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  Nature  and 
 Consequences  of  Schism,  set  forth  in  a  collection  of  Papers  writ- 
 ten by  the  late  R.  Reverend  George  Hickes,  D.  D.  8vo.  Printed 
 in  the  year  1716. 
 
268  %f0torp  of  ttie  jponfucorj*. 
 
 the  notion  that  Hickes  had  a  leaning  towards  Rome. 
 He  classes  the  revolution  Bishops  under  the  third 
 head,  making  them  usurpers  and  maintainers  of  false 
 doctrines.  The  false  doctrines  are  the  doctrine  of 
 resistance  and  the  validity  of  lay-deprivations.  He 
 says,  "  before  I  proceed  to  insist  upon  the  Prayers,  I 
 must  apply  what  I  have  said  of  doctrines  :  and  take 
 the  freedom  to  tell  you,  that  the  Bishops  to  whose 
 altar  you  are  going,  are  still  Anti-Bishops  (viz.  in  the 
 second  sense,  upon  the  score  of  damnable  and  dan- 
 gerous doctrines)  to  those,  whom  it  is  said  our  de- 
 prived fathers  left  behind  them  to  succeed  them,  not 
 as  diocesan  but  Catholic  successors,  or  as  Catholic 
 Bishops  in  a  nation  overrun  with  schism  as  well  as 
 rebellion  :  in  which  capacity,  as  Catholic  Bishops, 
 they  acted  out  of  their  dioceses  all  their  time  in  con- 
 firming, ordaining," m  &c.  He  then  enters  on  the 
 question  of  the  Prayers  ;  but  as  this  point  has  been  so 
 fully  discussed  already,  it  need  not  be  enlarged  upon 
 further.  The  Bishops,  who  complied  at  the  Revolution 
 and  had  been  continued  in  their  sees,  are  set  aside  on 
 the  ground  of  being  partakers  of  the  guilt  of  the 
 intruders,  by  making  themselves  one  body  with  them. 
 
 It  is,  however,  important  to  see  how  Hickes  justi- 
 fies the  Nonjurors  against  the  arguments  of  Dod- 
 well  and  Nelson,  relative  to  the  new  consecrations. 
 It  was  argued,  that  the  new  consecrations  were  void, 
 because  there  was  no  notification,  or  that  their  claims 
 were  waived.  Hickes  pleads  in  answer  the  state  of 
 the  times,  and  asks  whether  the  want  of  notification 
 is  a  waiving  of  claims,  when  such  an  act  would  in- 
 volve the  ruin  of  the  party  ;  and  whether  the  notifi- 
 cation to  their  Presbyters  and  laity,  as  there  is  occa- 
 
 ,n  Constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church,  &c.  pp.  173,  205. 
 
^I'jstor?  of  tf)c  i|5onfurocss.  2e9 
 
 sion,  is  not  sufficient.  He  argues,  too,  that  consecra- 
 tions performed  by  one  Bishop,  when  more  cannot 
 be  obtained,  are  valid.  The  want  of  public  registers 
 had  also  been  alleged ;  but  this  objection  is  met,  by 
 a  reference  to  the  state  of  things  from  1640  to  1660, 
 during  which  period  many  were  ordained  by  the  de- 
 posed Bishops,  and  also  to  the  Church  of  Scotland 
 at  that  time.  Bp.  Ken's  non-concurrence  in  the  new 
 consecrations  was  also  pleaded  against  their  validity  : 
 but  Hickes  answers,  that  a  synod  is  composed  of  the 
 majority  of  the  Bishops  of  the  province,  and  that 
 the  minority,  however  large,  are  concluded  by  their 
 decision.  His  assertion  that  Ken  had  consented  by 
 letter  to  Turner  has  been  previously  noticed.  He  con- 
 tends, that  the  rights  of  the  deprived  Bishops  could 
 not  devolve  on  those,  who  were  in  possession  of  the 
 sees,  and  whom  he  calls  intruders.  He  strongly 
 urges,  that  the  allowing  of  lay-deprivations  and  re- 
 sistance is  a  heresy,  which  he  charges  upon  what  he 
 terms  the  revolution  Church.  The  publisher,  how- 
 ever, in  the  preface,  says,  "  wherever  in  this  book 
 he  shall  find  schismatical  ordinations  called  null  and 
 invalid,  he  is  not  to  suppose  that  the  author  meant 
 null  and  invalid  in  themselves,  so  as  to  require  a  new 
 ordination,  but  null  and  invalid  as  to  any  spiritual 
 purposes,  so  that  the  person  thus  schismatically  or- 
 dained cannot  by  virtue  of  those  orders  do  any  sacer- 
 dotal act,  till  he  returns  to  the  Church,  and  has  his 
 orders  confirmed :  and  whatever  ministrations  he 
 performs  during  his  schism  are  of  no  use  or  profit  to 
 the  persons  who  receive  them,  till  they  also  come 
 over  to  the  Church."  The  publisher  states :  "  When- 
 ever he  performed  that  part  of  his  episcopal  office  of 
 receiving  a  penitent  schismatical  Clergyman  into  our 
 communion,  he  never  required  that  he  should  be 
 
270  l?fjJtorp  of  ttje  ilionjucorsf. 
 
 reordained,  but  only  that  his  orders  should  be  con- 
 firmed. And  this  continues  to  be  the  practice  of  our 
 Church  since  it  pleased  God  to  take  him  out  of  this 
 troublesome  world,  and  remove  him  into  a  better." 
 The  publisher,  therefore,  was  a  Nonjuror. 
 
 Another  considerable  work  appeared  about  the 
 same  time,  in  opposition  to  the  Nonjurors,  from  the 
 pen  of  Nathaniel  Marshall ;  so  that,  if  they,  asHoadley 
 intimates,  were  particularly  active,  their  opponents 
 were  no  less  vigilant  in  labouring;  to  counteract  their 
 efforts. n 
 
 Both  Hoadley  and  Marshall  refer  to  what  they 
 term  an  attack  on  the  Church  of  England,  on  the 
 part  of  the  Nonjurors.  They  evidently  allude  to  the 
 charge  of  heresy  and  schism,  which  was  alleged  against 
 the  Anglican  Church  in  Hickes's  "  Cojistitution  of 
 the  Catholic  Church  :"  and  Hoadley  and  Marshall, 
 though  in  different  ways,  undertook  to  repel  the 
 charge.  Hickes's  papers,  however,  contain  no  charge 
 that  had  not  been  adduced  before ;  yet  some  of  the 
 Clergy  acted,  as  though  it  were  then  brought  forward 
 for  the  first  time.  To  Hickes's  work,  therefore,  are 
 to  be  attributed  Hoadley 's  Preservative  and  Mar- 
 shall's Defence,  two  of  the  most  celebrated  produc- 
 tions of  this  period  against  the  Nonjurors.0 
 
 n  A  Defence  of  our  Constitution  in  Church  and  State  :  or  an 
 Answer  to  the  late  Charge  of  the  Nonjurors,  accusing  us  of  heresy 
 and  schism,  popery  and  treason  :  with  an  Appendix  of  several 
 Papers  never  before  published:  by  Nath.  Marshall,  LL. B.  8vo. 
 London,  1717.  The  Appendix  contains  Sancroft's  commission  to 
 Lloyd  :  Hickes's  opinion  respecting  joining  in  worship,  supposed 
 to  be  immoral  in  some  of  its  offices :  and  several  letters  of  Dodwell, 
 Nelson,  and  Brokesby,  written  after  the  death  of  Lloyd. 
 
 0  Many  who  wrote  against  the  Nonjurors  objected  to  Hoadley's 
 principles.     The  following  may  serve  as  an  instance :   "  What 
 
^tetorp  of  tfje  jftonj'urot^  27 1 
 
 Marshall  enters  into  a  defence  of  the  deprivations 
 subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  as  Hoadley  had  done 
 just  before,  though  his  method  of  handling  the  sub- 
 ject is  different  from  the  Bishop's.  In  many  respects 
 Marshall's  is  a  valuable  work  :  and  may  be  regarded 
 as  the  best  defence  against  the  charges  alleged  by 
 the  Nonjurors.  The  author  was  a  man  of  erudition 
 and  piety :  and  he  will  be  ever  held  in  estimation  in 
 the  Church  for  two  most  able  and  learned  works, 
 the  Translation  of  Cyprian  s  Works,  and  The  Peni- 
 tential Discipline  of  the  Primitive  Church.  His 
 Defence  is  written  with  much  moderation.  It  ap- 
 pears too,  that  he  had  lived  on  terms  of  intimacy  with 
 Hickes  down  to  the  period  of  his  death.  He  alludes 
 to  the  fact,  that  when  the  Depriving  Act  passed, 
 none  of  the  Bishops,  who  were  subsequently  sub- 
 jected to  its  operation,  were  present  in  Parliament 
 to  enter  their  protest  against  the  proceedings :  and 
 because  none  of  the  complying  Prelates  opposed  the 
 Bill,  he  infers  their  consent  to  the  deprivations  of 
 
 shall  I  say  to  those  of  my  brethren  who  have  formed  a  new  sepa- 
 ration. I  cannot  with  the  Bishop  of  Bangor  admire  the  long-  and 
 extraordinary  lenity  of  the  government  to  them  :  much  less  can  I 
 think  that  he  (though  he  has  plundered  Hobbes,  and  Locke,  and 
 Sydney,  and  the  authors  of  the  rights  of  the  Christian  Church)  has 
 said  any  thing  that  may  convince  men  of  the  Christian  nature  of 
 revolution  principles.  I  am  satisfied  that  they  refused  to  take  the 
 Oaths  proposed  to  them  out  of  a  true  principle  of  conscience :  and 
 because  they  knew  of  no  Prince,  Prelate,  or  Presbyter  who  could 
 absolve  them  from  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  and  supremacy,  which 
 they  had  taken  to  their  lawful  Sovereign.  It  was  not  a  factious, 
 hypocritical,  treasonable  covenant,  which  they  held  up  as  a  shield 
 against  the  new  Oaths  :  but  it  was  the  obligation  of  a  lawful  Oath, 
 and  imposed  by  law :  and  none  can  pretend  there  was  any  thing 
 in  it  contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  or  the  practice  of  the  first  and 
 purest  Christians."    Milbournc's  Legacy,  ii.  333,  334. 
 
272  l£t'0torp  of  ttje  iJ3oni'urorsS. 
 
 their  brethren. p  This  mode  of  reasoning,  however, 
 is  disingenuous.  At  that  time  the  Bishops,  who 
 scrupled  the  Oath,  considered  it  to  be  their  duty  to 
 suffer  in  silence  :  nor  can  they  be  charged  with  in- 
 consistency in  so  doing :  while  the  Prelates,  who 
 were  present,  could  not,  by  any  act  of  theirs,  give 
 an  ecclesiastical  sanction  to  a  proceeding  against 
 their  brethren.  Hickes  had  stated,  in  his  Constitutio?i 
 of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  deprived  Bishops 
 had  left  behind  them  certain  persons  to  succeed  them, 
 not  as  diocesan,  but  as  Catholic  successors:  and  Mar- 
 shall contends  that  such  a  procedure  was  unsanc- 
 tioned by  the  practice  of  the  early  Church. q  Al- 
 luding to  the  charge  of  Immoral  Prayers,  the  author 
 remarks,  that  the  deprived  Bishops  did  not,  by  any 
 authentic  act,  claim  the  obedience  of  their  ecclesi- 
 astical subjects  for  several  years  after  their  depriva- 
 tion :  and  that  the  Nonjurors  communicated,  long 
 after  the  filling  up  of  the  vacant  sees,  with  those 
 whom  they  now  deemed  schismatics.  He  admits, 
 however,  that  they  did  not  use  the  prayers,  against 
 which  the  charge  was  preferred.  Hickes  himself, 
 he  states,  had  communicated  with  members  of  the 
 National  Church,  who  were  now  charged  with  schism/ 
 He  mentions  also  that  one  of  the  consecrators  of 
 Hickes, as  late  as  1697, administered theLord's  Supper 
 to  a  lady,  supposed  to  be  upon  her  deathbed,  a  mem- 
 ber of  the  Church  of  England,  who  asked  the  Bishop 
 
 P  Marshall's  Defence,  p.  12.  <  Ibid.  pp.  32,  33. 
 
 r  He  assures  us  also  that  ten  years  before  Hickes  agreed,  that 
 the  immorality  of  the  prayers  was  not  a  sufficient  reason  for  avoiding 
 the  communion  of  the  National  Church.  He  is,  however,  mis- 
 taken in  some  of  his  statements.  Sancroft,  for  example,  never 
 held  communion  with  the  National  Church  after  his  deprivation. 
 The  statements  are  denied  by  Earbury.    Marshall,  181. 
 
fllfetoq?  of  tfje  ^onfurot?0.  273 
 
 respecting  her  safety  in  that  Church.  His  reply 
 was  "  For  that,  child,  my  soul  be  with  yours."  Mar- 
 shall's object  is  to  prove  an  inconsistency  between 
 their  former  practice,  and  the  charge  of  schism,  which 
 was  now  generally  alleged  by  the  Nonjurors  against 
 the  National  Church.9 
 
 Marshall  seems  to  intimate,  that  Sancroft  acted 
 inconsistently  in  appointing  a  commission  to  act  in 
 his  name  before  his  suspension;  but  a  most  ample 
 defence  may  be  set  up  for  the  Archbishop.  This 
 was  indeed  well  done  by  Earbery,  who  thus  meets 
 the  case  :  "  I  cannot  see  that  the  Archbishop  acted 
 inconsistently  in  this  commission,  his  seeming  to 
 acquiesce  in  the  Prince  of  Orange's  making  use  of  the 
 regale  was  justifiable,  provided  he  looked  upon  him 
 as  an  usurper :  because  it  did  not  imply  an  acknow- 
 ledgment of  the  Prince  of  Orange's  title,  but  only 
 a  tacit  concordate  made  to  let  him  enjoy  the  privi- 
 lege of  nominating  to  sees,  provided  he  offered  no 
 injury  to  the  rights  of  the  Church  :  'tis  no  necessary 
 consequence  that  the  Church  should  be  overturned 
 with  the  state.  Archbishop  Sancroft,  if  prayers  had 
 not  been  forced  into  Churches,  which  he  could  not 
 comply  with,  and  if  no  state  deprivations  had  fol- 
 lowed, in  all  probability  would  have  acquiesced  with 
 having  even  Dr.  Burnet  imposed  upon  the  Church, 
 if  it  would  have  prevented  the  schism."1  It  is  clear, 
 as  has  been  remarked  repeatedly  in  the  course  of  our 
 narrative,  that  if  the  Oath  had  not  been  enforced,  no 
 
 »  Marshall's  Defence,  162,  163. 
 
 '  A  serious  Admonition  to  Dr.  Kennet  in  order  to  persuade  him 
 to  forbear  the  Character  of  an  impartial  Historian,  &c.  To  which 
 is  added,  A  short  but  compleat  Answer  to  Mr.  Marshall's  late  Trea- 
 tise called  "  A  Defence,"  &c.  By  Matthias  Earbery,  Presbyter 
 of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  122. 
 
 T 
 
274  ^tetorp  of  rfje  iPonfucortf. 
 
 separation  would  have  taken  place.  Earbery  also 
 meets  the  remark,  that  the  Bishops  never  entered  any 
 claim  of  right.  He  asks  whether,  if  they  had  done 
 so,  Marshall  would  have  conceded  any  thing  in  their 
 favour  :  and  then  he  urges  their  conduct  as  sufficient 
 evidence  of  their  claims. 
 
 One  point  is  stated  by  Marshall  with  much  effect, 
 namely,  that  the  deprived  Bishops  could  not  act  in 
 other  dioceses,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case  in 
 their  own.  Had  they  not  been  deprived,  they  could 
 not  have  exercised  jurisdiction  in  other  dioceses : 
 much  less  could  they  do  so  after  deprivation.  "  At 
 least,"  he  says,  "  their  first  trial  should  have  been 
 with  their  own  Clergy  and  people,  before  they  had 
 made  any  efforts  elsewhere.  They  should  have 
 begun  at  home,  before  they  had  attempted  anything 
 abroad.  And  because  antiquity  is  so  much  and  so 
 often  appealed  to  in  this  debate;  I  do  likewise  lodge 
 my  appeal  with  antiquity  upon  this  head  of  argu- 
 ment; and  do  challenge  any  man  to  produce  an  in- 
 stance thence,  which  shall  be  favourable  to  the  prac- 
 tice of  our  Nonjurors.  There  is  not,  I  will  be  bold 
 to  affirm,  any  one  example  of  an  ancient  Bishop,  in- 
 validly,  or  incompetently  deprived,  and  insisting 
 upon  his  personal  rights  ;  who  ever  pretended  to 
 translate  those  rights  from  his  local  district,  and  to 
 claim  the  exercise  of  them  in  any  other.  No  !  The 
 course  was  then,  for  such  a  Bishop,  to  retain  as  many 
 of  his  own  flock  as  he  could  in  his  interest,  and  to 
 secure  the  continuance  of  his  colleagues  in  it :  but 
 never  to  stroll  about  and  gather  a  church  out  of 
 another  diocese,  in  opposition  to  its  proper  Bishop." 
 Marshall  then  remarks,  that  the  chief  efforts  of  the 
 Nonjurors  were  confined  to  London,  a  diocese  which 
 
^itftotp  of  tfje  iPonjurorg.  275 
 
 had  not  become  vacant  by  deprivation."  It  appears, 
 however,  that  the  Nonjurors  acted  on  the  grant  of 
 Sancroft  to  Lloyd,  to  exercise  Archiepiscopal  powers. 
 On  this  ground  alone  could  they  pretend  to  a  juris- 
 diction in  other  dioceses,  except  those  which  became 
 vacant  by  deprivation. 
 
 Earbery,  alluding  to  Marshall's  statement  respect- 
 ing Sancroft,  says  :  "  The  Archbishop  was  so  far 
 from  being  an  admirer  of  the  Church,  that  he  never 
 came  into  it  alive  or  dead,  but  lies  now  exposed  to 
 storms  and  tempests,  as  he  was  in  his  life."  He 
 mentions  the  remark  of  Sancroft  respecting  Absolu- 
 tion, as  a  proof  that  Marshall  is  not  correct,  in  stating 
 that  no  public  separation  occurred  until  1694.  Ear- 
 bery has  the  following  severe  observations  on  Kennet 
 and  Marshall,  at  the  close  of  his  work.  "  Dr. 
 Kennet  set  out  young  in  the  world  with  full  resolu- 
 tions to  make  his  fortune  in  King  James's  reign  :  and 
 he  accordingly  courted  popery,  and  was  just  upon  the 
 point  of  complimenting  his  religion  away  to  please 
 that  monarch,  till  he  received  advice  of  the  Prince  of 
 Orange's  preparations.  Dr.  Kennet  at  that  time  was 
 convinced  in  his  conscience,  that  King  James's  cause 
 grew  more  wicked  every  day,  and  was  arrived  to  an 
 enormous  height  of  impiety  after  the  battle  of  La 
 Hogne.  Mr.  Marshall  has  entertained  the  same 
 sentiments  of  Jacobitism  since  the  surrender  of  Pres- 
 ton ;  he  could  find  no  damnable  schism,  nor  horrid 
 separation  before." 
 
 All  these  works  were  called  forth  by  Hickes's 
 Constitution  of  the  CatJiolic  Church.  Lawrence 
 Howell  had  also  published  a  work  in  1715,  in  which 
 
 n  Marshall's  Defence,  168,  169,  170. 
 
276  l?i«3torp  of  tljc  jponjurorg. 
 
 the  same  charge  of  heresy,  schism  and  treason, 
 was  alleged.  It  was,  therefore,  to  be  expected, 
 that  those  who  considered  the  Revolution  lawful 
 would  defend  themselves.  Besides  the  works  already 
 mentioned,  there  was  one,  in  which  the  case  of  the 
 compilers  appears  to  be  very  moderately  stated, 
 intitled  "  The  Sin  of  Schism  most  unjustly  charged 
 by  the  Nonjurors  upon  the  present  established  Church 
 of  England,  and  the  Charge  made  good  against  them- 
 selves. In  a  Letter  to  a  Nonjuring  Clergyman.'" 
 The  writer  admits  "  the  ministerial  function  of  the 
 Bishops  and  Clergy  is  of  Divine  institution  :  but  the 
 limitation  of  the  exercise  of  this  function,  within  this 
 or  that  diocese,  parish,  or  district,  is  altogether  of 
 human  appointment.  When  the  Nonjuring  Bishops 
 and  Clergy  were,  by  act  of  Parliament,  deprived  of 
 their  respective  preferments,  nothing  was  pretended 
 to  be  taken  away  that  was  of  divine  institution." 
 
 We  must  now  proceed  to  those  internal  disputes, 
 by  which  the  body  was  agitated,  and  which  issued 
 in  a  separation  among  themselves,  a  separation  into 
 two  distinct  communions.  Loudly  as  they  had  pro- 
 tested against  alterations  in  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer,  some  of  them  were  now  ready  to  introduce 
 them.  The  controversy  did  not  spring  up  till  after 
 the  death  of  Hickes :  but  similar  views,  with  those 
 entertained  by  the  advocates  for  alterations,  had  been 
 advanced  in  his  Christian  Priesthood,  which  may 
 have  had  some  influence  in  the  disputes.  It  is  re- 
 markable, that  the  men,  who  deprecated  any  changes 
 in  1689,  should  have  been  the  first  to  alter  the  Com- 
 munion Service.  They  actually  split  upon  the  very 
 rock,  that  of  alterations,  which  by  the  good  Provi- 
 dence of  God,  the  Church  had  avoided — and  avoided 
 too  by  the  opposition  of  the  very  men,  who  now  ad- 
 
imstoup  of  tf)c  ifJonjurorgf.  277 
 vocated  the  change.  Any  material  alterations  at  the 
 Revolution  might  have  endangered  the  Church  :  and 
 the  changes  made  by  some  of  the  Nonjurors  weak- 
 ened them  so  much,  as  a  party,  that  they  never  as- 
 sumed so  compact  a  form  after  this  period.  The 
 divisions,  indeed,  which  now  sprang  up,  may  be  as- 
 signed as  the  remote  cause  of  their  extinction. 
 
 The  Communion  Office,  in  the  First  Book  of  King 
 Edward,  A.D.  1549,  differed,  as  is  well  known,  from 
 that  of  The  Second,  and  of  all  our  succeeding  Books, 
 in  several  particulars.  Certain  practices  and  several 
 petitions  were  laid  aside,  when  the  book  was  revised 
 in  1552.  In  the  year  1717,  when  this  dispute  com- 
 menced, a  reprint  of  the  First  Communion  Book  was 
 published  by  the  Nonjurors,  who  wished  to  adopt  the 
 usages,  which  were  rejected  when  the  book  was  re- 
 viewed. 
 
 Collier  took  the  lead  in  this  controversy.  Hickes 
 had  expressed  his  preference  of  the  First  Communion 
 Book,  but  during  his  life  no  formal  proposal  was 
 made  by  Collier  to  publish  a  New  Book.  In  the 
 year  1717,  appeared  the  "Reasons  for  Restoring 
 Some  Prayers,  t^r.'"*  The  work  was  published  by 
 Morphew,  who  was  the  printer  of  The  Communion 
 Office:  from  which  circumstance,  we  may  infer  the 
 probability,  that  Collier,  or  one  of  the  Nonjurors,  was 
 the  originator  of  the  latter. 
 
 This  Tract  was  written  in  a  candid  and  moderate 
 tone.  The  Author  enters  very  abruptly  upon  his 
 work  :  for  the  very  first  sentence  in  the  Tract  is  the 
 
 *  Reasons  for  Restoring  some  Prayers  and  Directions  as  they 
 stand  in  the  Communion  Service  of  the  First  English  Reformed 
 Liturgy,  compiled  by  the  Bishops  in  the  2nd  and  3rd  years  of  the 
 reign  of  King  Edward  VI.  London,  1717. 
 
278  i£i0torp  of  ttje  jRonnuw. 
 
 following:  "  The  Rubric  orders  the  putting  a  little 
 pure  water  to  the  wine  in  the  Chalice."  He  then 
 proceeds  to  adduce  evidence  in  proof  of  the  antiquity 
 of  the  practice.  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clemens 
 Alexandrinus,  St.  Cyprian,  are  quoted  as  authorities 
 for  the  practice  in  early  times,  besides  the  Apostolical 
 constitutions.  The  Council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  397, 
 the  Council  in  Trullo,  and  the  Liturgies  of  St.  Basil 
 and  St.  Chrysostom  are  also  cited/ 
 
 The  next  point  is  the  introduction  of  the  words 
 "  Militant  here  on  Earth"  after  the  words  "  Let  us 
 Pray  for  the  Whole  State  of  Christ's  Church."  The 
 previous  words,  he  says,  "  seem  inserted  to  exclude 
 Prayer  for  the  Dead."  In  the  first  book  there  was 
 a  petition  for  the  dead  :  and  he  contends,  that  such  a 
 recommendation  of  the  departed  to  the  mercy  of  God, 
 "  is  nothing  of  the  remains  of  Popery,  but  a  constant 
 usage  of  the  Primitive  Church."  Tertullian,  Cyprian, 
 Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Epiphanius,  St. 
 
 -  It  appears  from  the  following  extract  that  Hickes  always  used 
 the  Office  in  the  First  Book  of  King-  Edward  :  and  undoubtedly 
 Collier  and  those  who  agreed  with  him  did  the  same,  while  Spinkes 
 and  his  friends  adhered  to  our  present  Office.  Alluding  to  Grabe, 
 Campbell  says  :  "  This  very  learned  and  pious  doctor  had  not 
 the  least  tendency  to  the  corruptions  of  Popery,  as  his  excellent 
 elaborate  works  do  abundantly  testify  ;  and  at  his  death  he  made 
 choice  of  the  Right  Reverend  and  very  learned  Bishop  George 
 Hickes,  for  his  confessor,  from  whose  hands  he  received  the  Holy 
 Eucharist,  the  last  time  of  his  life,  as  he  had  clone  several  times 
 before,  according  to  the  First  Liturgy  of  King  Edward  VI. ;  for 
 he  did  not  care  to  communicate  by  the  present  Liturgy,  as  be- 
 lieving it  defective  in  several  parts  of  that  Office,  and  looking  upon 
 the  other  as  approaching  nearer  to  the  Primitive  Forms,  by  reason 
 of  the  Mixture,  the  Invocation  of  the  Father  for  the  Descent  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  Elements,  the  Oblation  rightly  placed, 
 and  Prayers  for  the  Dead.  And  Bp.  Hickes  never  gave  him  the 
 Holy  Eucharist  by  any  other  Form."  Campbell's  Middle  Sate,  79. 
 
%'0toq>  of  tfje  ^onjucociS.  279 
 
 Chrysostom,  St.  Augustin,  and  the  Apostolical  Con- 
 stitutions, with  certain  Ancient  Liturgies,  are  quoted 
 in  support  of  this  statement,  besides  certain  indivi- 
 duals, who  actually  prayed  for  deceased  friends. 
 Collier  argues,  that  the  Church  of  England,  though 
 she  condemns  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Purgatory, 
 has  not  condemned  Prayers  for  the  Dead :  and  he 
 says :  "  Where  the  Church  of  England  has  left  her 
 meaning;  doubtful,  the  greatest  honour  we  can  do 
 her,  is  to  interpret  her  to  a  conformity  to  primitive 
 practice."2  Respecting  the  custom  itself,  he  says: 
 "  This  custom,  which  began  in  the  Apostolical  age, 
 and  was  continued  through  the  whole  Church  till  the 
 Sixteenth  Century  :  this  custom,  we  conceive,  is  very 
 serviceable  to  the  ends  of  religion  :  it  supposes  our 
 friends  but  removed  to  a  distant  country,  and  existing 
 in  a  different  condition  :  and  that  they  only  die  in 
 one  place  to  live  in  another.  It  refreshes  the  belief 
 of  the  Soul's  immortality,  draws  back  the  curtain  of 
 the  grave,  and  opens  a  communication  between  this 
 world  and  the  other."3 
 
 The  third  passage,  which  he  wished  to  be  restored, 
 was  the  prayer  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
 the  sacramental  elements.  In  the  First  Liturgy  was 
 this  petition  :  "  Hear  us  (0  Merciful  Father)  we 
 beseech  Thee,  and  with  Thy  Holy  Spirit  and  Word 
 vouchsafe  to  bless  and  sanctify  these  thy  gifts  and 
 creatures  of  bread  and  wine,  that  they  may  be  unto 
 us  the  body  and  blood  of  Thy  most  dearly  beloved 
 Son,  Jesus  Christ."5  He  then  adduces  testimonies 
 from  antiquity  in  favour  of  the  petition.  He  admits 
 that  the  force  of  the  invocation  may  be  contained 
 
 z  Reasons,  &c.  p.  20.  a  Ib;d.  21.  b  Ibid.  22. 
 
280  $(0torp  of  tfce  jponfttcocsf. 
 
 in  our  present  office  :  but  he  thinks  that  express  terms 
 
 are  desirable. 
 
 A  fourth  thing  is  specified,  namely,  the  Resto- 
 ration of  the  Oblatory  Prayer,  which  in  the  First 
 Liturgy  came  after  the  Consecration  Prayer.  In  that 
 prayer  are  the  following  words:  "  We  thy  humble 
 servants  do  celebrate  and  make  here  before  thy 
 Divine  Majesty,  with  these  thy  holy  gifts,  the  me- 
 morial which  thy  Son  hath  willed  us  to  make." 
 Collier's  view  of  this  prayer  is  thus  stated  :  "  The 
 Oblatory  Prayer  goes  upon  this  ground,  that  the 
 Holy  Eucharist  is  a  proper  sacrifice :  and  that  Our 
 Blessed  Saviour,  at  His  last  supper,  offered  the  bread 
 and  wine  to  God  the  Father,  as  the  symbols  of  his 
 body  and  blood,  and  commanded  His  apostles  to  do 
 the  same."  c  As  before,  several  testimonies  from  an- 
 tiquity are  produced,  besides  the  authority  of  Hickes 
 in  his  Christian  Priesthood,  and  Johnson  in  his  Un- 
 bloody Sacrifice.  He  closes  with  an  allusion  to  Bucer 
 Calvin,  and  Peter  Martyr,  to  whom  our  reformers 
 are  supposed  to  have  yielded,  in  rejecting  these  four 
 practices.  "  From  hence  we  infer,"  says  he,  "  that 
 the  explanations,  as  they  are  called,  in  the  Second 
 Book,  were  not  made  without  compliance  with  the 
 weakness  of  some  people ;  not  without  condescen- 
 sion to  those  who  had  more  scruples  than  understand- 
 ing, more  heat  than  light  in  them."d 
 
 In  a  very  short  time,  an  Answer  was  published  by 
 a  Nonjuror*  Collier  had  written  with  moderation, 
 and  the  reply  evinces  a  similar  spirit.    The  writer  is 
 
 c  Reasons,  &c.  26.  d  Reasons,  &c.  34. 
 
 fc  No  Reason  for  Restoring  the  Prayers  and  Directions  of 
 Edward  VI. 's  First  Liturgy.  By  a  Nonjuror.  London,  1717. 
 Spinkes  was,  I  believe,  the  Author.  It  is  assigned  to  him  by 
 Watt. 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  j£on  jurors*.  281 
 
 anxious  to  prevent  divisions  among  themselves  :  and 
 he  is  apprehensive  of  danger  from  the  proposed 
 changes.  He  takes  up  the  four  points,  in  the  order, 
 in  which  they  are  ranged  by  Collier. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  mixture,  he  contends  that  it 
 cannot  be  shewn  to  be  necessary  from  Scripture,  and 
 that  the  first  mention  of  it  occurs  not,  until  one  hun- 
 dred and  fifty  years  after  our  Lord,  by  Justin  Mar- 
 tyr. As  Justin  Martyr  mentions  the  salutation  by  a 
 kiss,  which  was  known  to  be  an  Apostolic  custom, 
 he  argues,  that  it  might  be  revived  with  more  reason 
 than  the  mixture,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
 known  to  the  Apostles.  The  author  intimates,  that 
 Cyprian  and  others  might  have  been  mistaken  in  the 
 Tradition,  alleging  the  well  known  case  respecting 
 Easter,  in  which  both  parties  pleaded  Apostolical 
 Tradition/  All  the  authorities  cited  by  Collier  are 
 examined  :  and  the  writer  infers  from  the  whole,  that 
 the  custom  cannot  be  proved  to  be  of  perpetual  obli- 
 gation. 
 
 In  the  next  place,  the  authorities  quoted  in  favour 
 of  Prayer  for  the  Dead  are  examined  with  great 
 minuteness  ;  but  he  thinks,  that  they  do  not  prove  the 
 necessity  of  a  change.  Alluding  to  the  quotation  from 
 Tertullian,  he  remarks,  "that  this  Father  expressly 
 declares,  that  there  is  no  Scripture  authority  for  the 
 practice."  "  So  that,"  says  he,  "  all  is  resolved  into 
 bare  tradition,  without  which  there  was  nothing  to 
 be  said  in  their  behalf.  And  yet  I  could  never  find 
 that  our  Saviour  has  any  where  referred  to  tradition, 
 as  a  sure  ground  to  go  upon  in  imposing  necessary 
 duties,  that  he  has  said  nothing  of.  I  own  it  is  of 
 great  use,  when  it  is  truly  primitive,  for  establishing 
 
 No  Reason,  dire.  7. 
 
282  $M$ttorp  of  tbe  /ponjurorsf. 
 
 and  explaining  such  duties  as  are  not  so  fully  taught 
 in  Scripture,  but  that  disputes  may  arise  about  them. 
 But  that  tradition  alone,  when  not  evidently  Aposto- 
 lical, will  make  that  necessary,  which  is  not  otherwise 
 so,  is  what  I  am  yet  to  learn."8  In  replying  to  Col- 
 lier's remark  respecting  the  advantage  of  the  practice, 
 he  says  :  "  Had  our  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  thought 
 so,  it  is  not  conceivable,  that  they  would  have  given 
 no  manner  of  direction  about  these  sort  of  prayers. 
 We  are  taught  to  pray  for  one  another,  and  to  desire 
 each  other's  prayers  here :  and  what  reason  can  be 
 conceived,  why  we  should  not  have  been  likewise  some 
 way  directed  to  pray  for  the  saints  departed  in  general, 
 or  so  much  as  for  our  deceased  friends  and  relations,  if 
 our  prayers  might  be  truly  profitable  to  them?"h 
 
 The  Prayer  for  the  Descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon 
 the  Sacramental  Elements  is  considered  as  unneces- 
 sary, on  the  ground,  that  it  is  not  enjoined  in  Scrip- 
 ture, nor  can  be  proved  to  be  of  Apostolic  origin, 
 Collier  not  having  traced  it  higher  than  the  middle 
 of  the  third  century.  Both  the  author,  and  Collier, 
 however,  concur  in  opinion,  that  the  force  of  the  invo- 
 cation is  retained  by  implication  in  our  present  ser- 
 vice. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  Oblatory  Prayer,  the  author 
 concurs  in  opinion  with  Hickes,  Johnson,  and  Mede, 
 that  the  Eucharist  is  the  Christian  Sacrifice  :  but  he 
 does  not  consider,  that,  on  this  account,  there  was  any 
 necessity  for  restoring  the  prayer.  "  Alterations  in 
 matters  of  a  public  nature,  are  not  to  be  made  upon 
 every  appearance  of  making  them  to  advantage,  lest 
 such  unforeseen  ill  consequences  follow  upon  them, 
 as  are  more  than  are  equivalent  to  any  benefit  that 
 
 g  No  Reason,  &c.  53. 
 
 h  Ibid.  69,  70. 
 
^iGftorg  of  tt>e  ilion)'uroi40.  283 
 can  arise  from  them."'  He  thinks  too,  with  Johnson, 
 that  the  prayer  is  virtually  contained  in  the  Prayer 
 of  Consecration,  and  the  words  of  institution.  "  The 
 sum  of  all  this  is,  that  changes  are  not  to  be  easily 
 made  in  a  Church  already  settled,  and  especially  in 
 matters  that  have  been  of  a  long  continuance  :  that 
 there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  the  changes  here  de- 
 sired, the  two  former  having  no  foundation  in  Scrip- 
 ture, or  even  truly  Apostolical  tradition,  and  the  others 
 being  virtually  in  our  service  as  it  stands  without 
 them."" 
 
 Leslie  also  appeared,  in  the  controversy,  against 
 Collier,  in  a  short  tract  of  seven  pages.1  His  object 
 was  to  prevent  a  division.  "  I  see  no  ground,"  he 
 says,  "  for  a  breach  upon  that  account,  the  utmost  they 
 can  amount  to  is  probable  opinions."  Referring 
 Collier  to  Usher,  Leslie  remarks,  "  That  nothing  is 
 to  be  received  as  faith  or  Christian  doctrine,  but  what 
 is  written  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  so  perfect 
 a  rule,  that  nothing  is  to  be  added  to  them,  which  if 
 any  do,  let  him  fear  that  woe  denounced  against  such." 
 He  adds,  afterwards  :  "  In  short,  we  must  first  find  our 
 rule  of  faith,  before  we  apply  any  thing  to  it  or  it  to 
 any  thing  ;  if  it  be  Scripture,  we  know  where  we  are, 
 but  if  it  be  tradition,  we  launch  into  an  ocean  which 
 has  neither  shore  nor  bottom,  nor  we  any  compass 
 to  steer  by,  where  we  must  be  driven  about  with 
 every  wind  of  doctrine.""1 
 
 From  this  pamphlet  it  appears,  that  some  of  the 
 Nonjurors  went  over  at  this  time  to  the  Church  of 
 
 ''  No  Reason,  &c.  83.  k  Ibid.  90. 
 
 1  A  Letter  from  Mr.  Leslie  to  his  Friend,  against  Alterations  or 
 Additions  to  the  Lituig-y  of  the  Church  of  England. 
 m  Leslie's  Letter,  p.  4,  .5, 
 
284  %ttftorp  of  rljc  iponjttcocss. 
 
 Rome,  though  this  was  not  the  case  with  any  of  the 
 leaders.  "  I  am  grieved  that  so  many  of  the  handful 
 shew  inclinations  to  popery  :  I  am  told  that  about  a 
 dozen  are  gone  off  lately,  and  others  send  their  chil- 
 dren to  be  educated  in  popish,  and  even  in  Jesuit  se- 
 minaries. Let  me  know,  if  this  of  the  reasons  for  re- 
 storing some  Prayers  is  all  the  dispute,  which  now 
 makes  new  divisions  amongst  us,  even  as  I  am  told, 
 to  the  abstaining  from  each  other's  communion."" 
 
 Collier,  Brett,  and  Campbell  the  Scottish  Bishop, 
 were  the  chief  of  that  section,  by  whom  the  restoration 
 of  the  prayers  and  directions  was  advocated  :  while 
 Spinkes,  Gandy,  Taylor,  and  Bedford  strenuously 
 contended  for  a  strict  adherence  to  the  Liturgy,  as  now 
 used  in  the  Church  of  England. 
 
 At  the  commencement  of  the  year  1718,  Collier 
 published  an  answer  to  the  Reply  to  his  former  Pam- 
 phlet, in  which  he  meets  the  objections  alleged  by  his 
 opponent  against  the  restoration  of  the  prayers." 
 Collier  asks,  whether  Justin  Martyr  is  not  early 
 enough,  the  author  of  "  No  Reason,  <$'c."  having  ob- 
 jected on  the  ground,  that  he  was  too  late  as  an  evi- 
 dence in  such  a  matter.  It  would  occupy  too  much 
 space  to  go  over  Collier's  reasoning.  It  may,  there- 
 fore, be  sufficient  to  observe,  that  he  enters  at  great 
 length  into  all  the  arguments  advanced  by  his  op- 
 ponent, with  a  view  to  the  establishment  of  his  former 
 positions.  He  closes  in  these  words  :  "  The  best  ser- 
 vice we  can  do  the  Church  of  England,  is  to  recover 
 the  main  of  her  first  Reformation  :  to  retrieve  what 
 
 n  Leslie's  Letter,  p.  5. 
 
 °  A  Defence  of  the  Reasons  for  Restoring  some  Prayers  and 
 Directions  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth's  First  Liturgy :  being  a 
 Reply  to  a  Book  entituled  No  Reason  for  Restoring  them.  Lon- 
 don, 1718.    Two  Parts. 
 
i^tftorp  of  ttje  /ponj'urortf.  285 
 she  has  suffered  by  interested  views,  by  foreign  direc- 
 tion, and  Calvinistical  alloy.  Thus  I  humbly  con- 
 ceive she  will  be  remarkably  Decus  et  tutamen,  and 
 have  new  strength  and  lustre  upon  her.  Thus  she 
 will  better  endure  the  test  of  antiquity,  be  more 
 covered  from  assault,  and  stand  impregnable." p 
 
 The  author  of  "  No  Reason  for  restoring"  <§c. 
 very  soon  published  another  Pamphlet  in  reply  to 
 Collier,  intitled  "  JVo  Sufficient  Reason  for  Restoring 
 some  Prayers  and  Directions  of  King  Edward  VI.'s 
 First  Liturgy."  Collier  immediately  replied,  for 
 his  answer  was  published  in  the  same  year.q  This 
 is  a  work  of  considerable  size ;  and  every  page  af- 
 fords evidence  of  the  learning  and  talents  of  the 
 author.  "  The  Vindication  "  was  replied  to  by  the 
 author  of  "  No  Reason,"  §c.  and  "  No  Sufficient 
 Reason  :"  <§c.  After  which  Collier  published  in  the 
 year  1720,  "  A  Farther  Defence  §c.  being  an 
 Answer  to  a  Reply  to  the  Vindication  of  the  Reasons 
 and  Defence  for  Restoring"  8$c. 
 
 Collier  preferred  the  First  Communion  Book, 
 while  his  opponent  was  strenuous  for  adhering  to 
 our  present  Form.  The  latter  considered  the  prac- 
 tices as  immaterial :  and  consequently,  that  no  suf- 
 ficient reason  could  be  pleaded  for  their  restoration. 
 It  will  be  seen,  that  the  controversy  continued  several 
 years  :  and  that  the  parties  became  embittered  to- 
 wards each  other  as  it  proceeded/ 
 
 P  A  Defence  of  the  Reasons,  &c.  p.  122. 
 
 i  A  Vindication  of  the  Reasons  and  Defence,  &c.  Part  I. 
 Being  a  Reply  to  the  First  Part  of  No  Sufficient  Reason,  &c. 
 1718.  Part  II.  Being  a  Reply  to  the  Second  Part  of  No 
 Sufficient  Reason,  &c.  1719. 
 
 r  After  Collier's  death  these  Tracts  were  collected  together  and 
 issued  with  a  new  Title  Page  of  the  date  of  1736,  with  a  Por- 
 trait of  the  Author. 
 
286  %'£torp  of  ttjc  jfconfurors*. 
 
 During-  the  progress  of  this  controversy,  between 
 the  two  sections  of  the  Nonjurors,  the  New  Com- 
 munion Office  was  actually  published.3 
 
 In  the  Prayer  for  the  King  no  name  is  used,  but 
 only  a  petition  for  the  Sovereign  :  and  of  course  the 
 four  points  contended  for  by  Collier  and  Brett  are 
 incorporated  into  the  Office. 
 
 Brett  took  an  important  part,  with  Collier,  in  the 
 controversy.  In  the  year  1718  he  published  his 
 work  on  Tradition,  in  which  he  assails  the  positions 
 advanced  by  the  Author  of  "  JYo  Sufficient  Reason 
 for  Restoring  the  Prai/ers  and  Directions  of  King 
 Edward  the  Vltlis.  First  Liturgy Unquestion- 
 ably this  is  a  most  valuable  work  :  and  though  I  do 
 not  assent  to  all  the  Author's  positions,  yet  I  must 
 confess,  that  the  use  of  tradition  is  most  clearly 
 pointed  out.  The  Postscript  is  occupied  with  the 
 statements  advanced  in  "  No  Sufficient  Reason,  " §c. 
 
 Two  other  important  works  were  published  by 
 Brett,  about  the  same  time,  on  subjects,  which  were 
 matter  of  controversy  between  the  Nonjurors,  and 
 some  of  the  clergy  of  the  National  Church.  Into 
 the  arguments  I  cannot,  however,  enter  in  this  work  : 
 but  must  content  myself  with  subjoining  the  titles." 
 
 9  A  Communion  Office  taken  partly  from  Primitive  Liturgies 
 and  partly  from  the  first  English  Reformed  Common  Prayer 
 Book  :  together  with  Offices  for  Confirmation  and  the  Visitation 
 of  the  Sick.  8vo.  London,  1718. 
 
 4  Tradition  necessary  to  Explain  and  Interpret  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures. With  a  Postscript  in  answer  to  that  part  of  a  Book  lately 
 published  (called  No  Sufficient  Reason,  &c.)  which  seems  to  de- 
 preciate Tradition.  And  a  Preface  containing  some  remarks  on 
 Mr.  Toland's  Nazarenus.    By  Thomas  Brett,  LL.D.  1718. 
 
 u  The  Independency  of  the  Church  upon  the  State,  as  to  its 
 pure  spiritual  Powers:  proved  from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the 
 Writings  of  the  Primitive  Fathers.  With  Answers  to  the  most 
 material  Objections.    London  1717. 
 
^tetorp  of  tlje  i]5on)'ucoc0.  287 
 
 A  short  time  before,  Brett  was  compelled  to  come 
 forward  publicly  to  defend  himself  from  the  charge 
 of  Popery,  which  was  alleged  against  him  by  some 
 persons,  who  could  not  confute  his  arguments.  I 
 have  previously  noticed  the  constant  charge  of  Popery 
 against  the  Nonjurors — a  charge  of  the  most  un- 
 founded description.  It  was  then  the  custom  with 
 certain  persons,  as  is  the  case  in  our  day,  to  cry  out 
 Popery  against  principles  and  arguments,  which  they 
 could  not  refute.  In  this  respect,  there  is  a  great 
 similarity  between  those  times  and  the  present.  Even 
 now,  whenever  a  man  stands  up  for  the  principles  of 
 the  Church,  in  matters  of  discipline  and  government, 
 the  cry  of  Popery  is  immediately  raised  by  Dissenters, 
 who  never  refuse  to  act  with  Papists,  and  by  loose 
 Churchmen,  who  never  refuse  to  unite  with  Dis- 
 senters the  allies  of  Popery,  and  who  see  no  evil  in 
 Dissent.  Brett  considered  it  necessary  to  publish  a 
 Defence  of  himself."  Newspapers  were  then,  as  at 
 present,  the  ordinary  vehicles  for  the  publication  of 
 calumny.  In  the  work  in  question,  Brett  enumerates 
 the  peculiarities  of  Popery,  and  then  enters  into  a 
 
 The  Divine  Right  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  necessity  of  an  Epis- 
 copal Commission  for  preaching  God's  Word,  and  for  the  valid 
 Administration  of  the  Christian  Sacraments,  proved  from  the  Holy 
 Scriptures,  and  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  Primitive  Church, 
 together  with  an  impartial  Account  of  the  false  Principles  of  Papists, 
 Lutherans,  and  Calvinists,  concerning-  the  Identity  of  Bishops  and 
 Presbyters.  Also  the  valid  Succession  of  our  English  Bishops 
 vindicated,  against  the  Objections  of  Presbyterians  and  Romanists. 
 And  the  Popish  Fable  of  the  Nag's  Head  Consecration  of  Arch- 
 bishop Parker  fully  refuted.  By  Thomas  Brett,  LL.D.  London, 
 1718. 
 
 w  Dr.  Brett's  Vindication  of  Himself  from  the  calumnies  thrown 
 upon  Him  in  some  late  Newspapers,  wherein  he  is  falsely  charged 
 with  turning  Papist,  in  a  Letter  to  the  Honourable  Archibald 
 Campbell.     London,  1715. 
 
288  ^isstorp  of  tlje  i^onjuror^. 
 
 most  masterly  confutation  of  them.  He  then  specifies 
 the  particulars  alleged  against  him  as  Popish,  which 
 were  these  :  "  The  Independency  of  the  Church,  of 
 the  State,  as  to  pure  spiritual  powers.  The  Divine 
 Right  of  Episcopacy.  The  Oblation  in  the  Eucharist. 
 The  Necessity  of  Sacerdotal  Absolution.  The  Unc- 
 tion of  the  Sick.  And  the  Middle  State  of  separate 
 Souls."  These  various  opinions  are  explained  and 
 defended  from  the  charge  of  Popery.  Now,  whatever 
 we  may  think  of  the  views  of  Brett,  on  these  subjects, 
 we  have  no  right  to  call  them  Popish,  because  we  do 
 not  receive  them.  Whether  erroneous  or  not,  they  are 
 not  Popish. 
 
 Several  works  appeared  on  both  sides,  besides  those 
 already  enumerated.  Among  others  I  wish  to  specify 
 one  in  particular,  because  it  contains  an  account  of 
 the  discussions,  which  led  to  the  separation  into  two 
 distinct  communions.  This  work  was  intitled  briefly 
 "  Mr.  Collier's  Desertion  Discussed,"  and  Collier  is 
 charged,  as  the  title  implies,  with  having  deserted  the 
 Church  of  England."  The  author  commences  by 
 lamenting  the  divisions  in  their  little  flock,  and  asks 
 what  is  to  be  thought  of  the  Bishops,  Clergy,  and 
 convocations  of  the  Church,  who  served  God  by  the 
 Established  Liturgy ;  and  in  the  constant  reception 
 of  the  Holy  Sacrament  according  to  her  Communion 
 Office,  even  to  their  last  breath,  and  dying-  devotions: 
 never  imagining,  that  not  praying  for  the  dead,  and 
 not  mixing  water  with  the  eucharistical  wine  were 
 
 x  Mr.  Collier's  Desertion  Discussed :  or  the  Offices  of  Worship 
 in  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  Defended  :  against  the 
 hold  attacks  of  that  gentleman,  late  of  her  communion,  now  of  his 
 own.  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  To  which  is  added  a  second  Letter 
 byway  of  Appendix,  containing  some  desiderata.  Second  Edition, 
 London,  1720.    The  first  Edition  was  published  in  1718. 
 
^itftocp  of  Hjc  &Q\\ium&.  289 
 
 just  causes  for  breaking  the  unity  of  the  Church? 
 Collier  undoubtedly  acted  injudiciously  in  pressing 
 the  points  :  since,  whether  primitive  or  otherwise,  they 
 had  been  rejected  by  the  Church,  and  could  not  be 
 revived  without  a  reflection  on  her  Bishops  and 
 Clergy  since  the  Reformation  :  but  it  is  evident,  that 
 all  the  violence  was  not  on  his  side.  He  was  in- 
 discreet, but  he  did  not  favour  the  Church  of  Rome. 
 The  author  of  Mr.  Colliers  Desertion  Discussed, 
 himself  a  Nonjuror,  positively  charges  Collier  with 
 popery — with  setting  up  as  the  head  of  a  new  schism, 
 "  and  so  by  unsuspected  ways  "  leading  "  his  se- 
 quacious disciples,  by  degrees,  at  last  into  the  com- 
 munion of  the  Church  of  Rome.  At  least  it  seems 
 to  me,  that  he  has  his  conscience  so  disposed,  as  per- 
 haps his  Library  may  be  :  at  that  end  Papists,  and  at 
 that  end  Protestants,  and  he  comes  in  the  middle,  as 
 near  one  as  the  other." 7  Such  a  passage  as  this  was 
 unwarranted  by  the  circumstances. 
 
 Apart,  however,  from  these  blemishes,  the  work  is 
 one  of  great  interest,  as  containing  the  particulars  of 
 the  disputes  and  the  subsequent  separation.  Brett 
 also  has  given  his  account :  so  that,  in  these  two 
 works,  we  have  the  particulars  stated  by  two  leading 
 persons  of  the  two  divisions  or  sections  of  the  party. 
 The  author  of  Collier  s  Desertion  Discussed  enters 
 largely  into  the  questions  of  the  mixture  and  Prayers 
 for  the  Dead:  and,  after  enlarging  on  these  topics, 
 he  remarks,  that  Collier  and  his  friends  had  separated 
 from  a  Church  "  reformed  by  full  and  sufficient  au- 
 thority, upon  most  mature  and  serious  deliberation, 
 with  a  perfect  submission  to  the  rule  of  the  Holy 
 Scripture,  and  with  a  proper  deference  and  regard  to 
 
 y  Collier's  Desertion  Discussed,  p.  3. 
 U 
 
290  ^I'sftocp  of  tljc  jponjuroirg. 
 
 the  first  and  purest  ages."  Then  he  adds :  "and 
 now  ye  gentlemen  of  the  concision,  consider,  1  pray, 
 what  ground  there  can  be  to  justify  your  separation 
 from  such  a  Church."2 
 
 In  the  Appendix  the  Author  gives  an  historical 
 Sketch  of  the  division.  On  the  23rd  of  July  1717, 
 some  mention  was  made  in  conversation  of  King  Ed- 
 ward the  Vlth's  First  Liturgy,  with  certain  proposals 
 for  its  revival.  After  several  conversations,  the  ad- 
 vocates for  its  revival  wished  a  time  and  place  to  be 
 fixed,  for  the  consideration  of  the  subject.  At  the 
 first  interview  few  persons  were  present ;  but  a 
 chairman  was  appointed,  who  was  to  summon  the 
 parties  to  future  meetings.  Nothing,  the  author 
 says,  was  settled  at  this  meeting,  except  the  appoint- 
 ment of  another,  though  some  individuals  stated, 
 that  the  points  were  determined.  The  second  meeting- 
 took  place  on  the  27th  of  July.  A  Petition  in  favour 
 of  the  alterations  was  produced  and  read  :  but  the  op- 
 ponents of  change  did  not  expect,  that  any  such  step 
 would  have  been  adopted,  or  many  more  signatures 
 would  have  been  procured  to  an  opposite  Paper.  A 
 large  majority,  however,  decided  against  any  altera- 
 tions :  after  which  it  was  moved,  that  each  one 
 should  be  left  at  his  own  option.  For  some  time  all 
 things  proceeded  as  usual  :  but  at  length,  it  was 
 whispered  abroad,  that  every  one  was  left  to  his  own 
 liberty  in  the  matter  :  "  whereas,"  says  the  author, 
 "  in  fact  every  one  knew,  the  only  vote  which  passed 
 was,  JVo  alterations.  This  candid  report  thickened 
 about  midsummer  1717."  At  length  the  Advocates 
 for  the  changes  sent  two  proposals  to  the  other  party  ; 
 and  on  their  refusal  to  depart  from  the  decision  of  the 
 
 *  Collier's  Desertion  Discussed,  p.  105. 
 
history  of  rlje  il5cmjttroi%  291 
 
 last  meeting,  the  parties,  who  wished  for  the  restora- 
 tion of  the  Prayers  and  Directions,  met  and  agreed, 
 in  a  declaration  on  the  19th  of  December  1717,  that 
 it  was  necessary  to  restore  them  as  primitive  usages. 
 On  the  20th  of  December,  two  of  them  gave  orders 
 for  an  alteration  in  the  service.  A  new  office  was 
 then  composed  :  communion  with  those  who  adhered 
 to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  prohibited  :  and 
 the  New  Service  was  actually  used  at  Easter  in  the 
 year  1718. 
 
 The  same  divisions  existed  also  in  Scotland,  as  will 
 be  shewn  in  a  distinct  chapter ;  but  it  may  be  men- 
 tioned in  this  place,  that  the  dispute  was  referred  to 
 the  Scottish  Bishops  for  their  opinion  on  the  matter. 
 Skinner,  however,  says  that  the  source  even  of  the 
 Scottish  divisions  "was  in  England,  whence  it  reached 
 Scotland."  Mr.  Peck  went  to  Scotland  in  1718,  on 
 behalf  of  Collier  and  his  friends,  or  the  Usagers,  as 
 they  were  designated,  requesting  Bishops  Rose  and 
 Falconer  to  procure  a  synodical  determination.  This 
 was  prudently  declined  by  the  Scotch  Bishops,  who 
 recommended  peace.  Spinkes  too,  on  his  part,  wrote 
 to  the  same  Bishops,  who  replied  in  the  same  way  to 
 his  application.  They  however  employed  Dr.  Rattray 
 to  draw  up  proposals  for  an  accommodation,  which 
 did  not  give  satisfaction.  Campbell  and  Gadderer, 
 the  two  Scottish  Bishops  resident  in  London,  espoused 
 the  views  of  Collier  in  this  question.  Of  the  Bishops 
 in  Scotland  some  were  opposed  and  some  were  neu- 
 tral." 
 
 It  appears,  that  the  new  office  was  at  first  sanc- 
 tioned only  by  eight  English  and  six  Scotch  clergy- 
 
 *  Skinner's  Ecclesiastical  History,  ii.  623 — 626. 
 
292  ^Isstorp  of  tlje  iJ5onjucor0. 
 
 men.  Of  these,  says  the  writer,  "one  made  no  long 
 delay  to  declare  for  the  Church  of  England  :  another, 
 like  the  scape  goat,  was  sent  packing  into  the  wilder- 
 ness of  Popery  :  and  a  third,  if  of  any  communion,  has 
 wandered  into  the  same  broad  way.  These  were  some 
 of  their  first  fruits  and  early  triumphs." b 
 
 Brett,  who  went  with  Collier,  admits  that  the  ma- 
 jority were  against  any  alterations,  alleging  that  they 
 had  no  authority  to  recede  from  the  public  Liturgy. 
 He  does  not  vary  from  the  preceding  account :  but  he 
 adds,  "  Finding  that  their  brethren  would  by  no 
 means  join  with  them  to  make  these  alterations,  they 
 saw  a  separation  was  unavoidable  :"  Brett  argues, 
 that  the  communion  could  not  be  received  unmaimed 
 according  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  : 
 and  Collier  proposed,  in  his  Vindication  of  The  Rea- 
 sons, the  restoration  of  the  four  points,  with  a  view  to 
 prevent  a  separation.  "  However,"  says  Brett,  "  our 
 brethren  thought  it  not  proper  to  comply  with  these 
 proposals,  whereby  the  schism  became  unavoidable." 
 Brett  admits  that  The  Nonjurors  were  now  reduced 
 to  a  very  inconsiderable  number,  but  he  hopes  that 
 the  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England  will  feel  them- 
 selves concerned  in  the  matter.0 
 
 Having  concluded  that  separation  was  unavoidable, 
 Brett  tells  us,  that  they  composed  the  new  Commu- 
 
 b  Mr.  Collier's  Desertion  Discussed,  pp.  184 — 190. 
 
 c  A  Collection  of  the  Principal  Liturgies,  Used  by  the  Christian 
 Church  in  the  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist :  particularly  the 
 Ancient,  viz.  the  Clementine,  as  it  stands  in  the  book  called  the 
 Apostolical  Constitutions  :  The  Liturgies  of  St.  James,  St.  Mark, 
 St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Basil,  &c.  Translated  into  English  by  several 
 hands.  With  a  Dissertation  upon  them,  shewing-  their  usefulness 
 and  authority,  and  pointing-  out  their  several  corruptions  and  inter- 
 polations.   By  Thomas  Brett,  LL.D.  8vo.  1720.   pp.  359— 62. 
 
$i'0toi*p  of  rt)e  iftonfucorg.  293 
 
 nion  Office  after  the  First  Liturgy  of  King  Edward. 
 He  also  enters  into  particulars,  stating  the  reasons 
 for  departing  in  some  things  from  Edward's  First 
 Book,  and  for  preferring  the  older  Liturgies/  The 
 arguments,  in  favour  of  all  the  disputed  points,  are 
 most  elaborately  stated  :  and  the  work  itself  was  ori- 
 ginally intended  as  a  defence  of  the  points  at  issue 
 between  the  two  parties.  All  the  Liturgies,  which 
 are  reprinted  in  the  volume,  contain  the  Prayers  and 
 Directions  ;  so  that,  it  was  thought,  that  no  more 
 effectual  method  could  be  adopted,  than  the  repub- 
 lication of  these  ancient  offices.  Accordingly  Brett 
 states,  that  they  sometimes  depart  even  from  King 
 
 d  Brett,  380,  381.  Sir  John  Hawkins  says  :  "  Johnson  once 
 told  me,  he  had  heard  his  father  say,  that  when  he  was  young  in 
 trade  King  Edward  VTs.  Liturgy  was  much  inquired  for,  and 
 fetched  a  great  price  ;  but  that  the  publication  of  this  book  which 
 contained  the  whole  Communion  Office,  as  it  stands  in  the  former, 
 reduced  the  price  of  it  to  that  of  a  common  book."  Hawkins's 
 Life  of  Johnson,  44ft.  How  different  a  result  has  been  produced 
 in  our  day  by  the  reprints  of  King  Edward's  Books.  Attention 
 being  directed  to  the  originals,  their  price  is  greatly  enhanced.  I 
 need  only  refer  to  the  sale  of  the  library  of  the  late  Duke  of 
 Sussex.  The  Books  of  1549,  1552,  1559,  and  1604,  are  of  ex- 
 cessive rarity.  The  last,  that  of  1604,  being  the  first  of  the  reign 
 of  James  I,  is  perhaps  rarer  even  than  the  earlier  editions.  Of 
 this  I  had  evidence  when  preparing  my  History  of  the  Convoca- 
 tion, for  the  press,  being  unable  to  procure  a  copy  by  any  means. 
 Since  its  publication,  however,  I  have  met  with  a  fine  copy  of  this 
 very  scarce  book.  I  am  unable  to  account  for  the  excessive 
 rarity  of  the  Book  of  1604.  While  on  this  subject,  I  may  be 
 permitted  to  mention,  that  I  possess  the  book  of  1625 — the  iden- 
 tical copy  used  by  Secretary  Nicholas,  during  the  civil  wars,  in 
 his  own  family.  In  the  margin,  opposite  the  Prayer  for  the  King 
 in  the  Communion  Service,  the  following  clause  is  written  in 
 Nicholas's  own  hand  :  "  may  turn  and  submit  unto  him  and 
 faithfully." 
 
294  l&i'sftorg  of  tfje  ijJonjucortf. 
 
 Edward's  First  Book,  to  follow  the  more  ancient 
 Liturgies. 
 
 Several  Clergymen  of  the  Anglican  Church  would 
 have  preferred  the  restoration  of  the  usages,  as  they 
 were  termed  ;  but  they  did  not  consider  them  essen- 
 tial, as  was  the  case  with  Collier  and  Brett.  Thus 
 Johnson,  in  his  valuable  work  "  The  Unbloody  Sacri- 
 fice" decidedly  expresses  his  preference  for  these 
 practices  ;  but  as  he  did  not  consider  them  essential, 
 he  was  ready  to  comply  with  the  authorized  office. 
 
 It  is  very  remarkable  also,  that  Whiston,  who  on 
 many  important  points  entertained  dangerous  opi- 
 nions, should  in  this  matter  have  altogether  agreed 
 with  Collier  and  Brett.  He  is  quite  as  much  in 
 favour  of  the  usages  as  themselves  :  and  defends 
 them  as  strongly.  Accordingly,  in  his  Revised 
 Liturgy,  they  are  all  introduced.  All  the  peculiarities 
 of  the  New  Communion  Service  were  retained  by 
 Whiston,  who  argued,  as  the  Nonjurors  did,  that 
 they  were  primitive  practices,  and  that  the  Church 
 could  not  dispense  with  them.6 
 
 Deacon,  who  will  be  more  specifically  mentioned 
 in  a  subsequent  chapter,  also  appeared  in  this  con- 
 troversy/ His  chief  object  was  to  prove,  that  there 
 was  no  necessary  connexion  between  the  Romish 
 Doctrine  of  Purgatory,  and  Praying  for  the  Dead. 
 The  work  may  be  regarded  as  another  evidence,  that 
 
 e  The  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England  reduced  nearer  to  the 
 Primitive  Standard.  Humbly  proposed  to  Public  Consideration. 
 8vo.  London,  1750. 
 
 f  The  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  concerning  Purgatory, 
 proved  to  be  contrary  to  Catholic  Tradition,  and  inconsistent  with 
 the  necessary  Duty  of  Praying  for  the  Dead,  as  practised  in  the 
 Ancient  Church.  By  Thomas  Deacon,  Priczt.  London,  12mo. 
 1718. 
 
Igitftorp  of  tt)e  il^onjucoi'0.  295 
 
 the  Nonjurors  had  no  leaning  towards  Rome,  though 
 the  charge  was  so  ignorantly  adduced.  Thus  he 
 says,  that  the  design  of  his  work  was  "  to  demon- 
 strate the  unlawfulness  of  being  a  member  of  the 
 Church  of  Rome,  and  to  overthrow  her  pretended 
 infallibility,  by  proving  her  erroneous  in  no  less  a 
 point  than  an  article  of  faith."  This  is  from  the 
 Dedication  to  Brett.  He  proceeds  :  "  As  you  are  a 
 true  Catholick  yourself,  so  I  cannot  in  the  least  doubt 
 your  approbation  of  my  endeavours  to  establish  the 
 Ancient  Christian  Doctrine,  concerning  the  state  of 
 the  dead,  to  shew  the  falsity  of  the  Roman  Purgatory, 
 and  thereby  to  strip  the  Papal  sect  of  the  glorious  title 
 of  Catholick,  which  without  any  right  she  assumes  to 
 herself."  Deacon  also  enters  upon  the  other  points, 
 which  were  comprehended  under  the  general  desig- 
 nation Usages.  The  work  is  managed  with  consi- 
 derable ability :  and  whoever  reads  it  will  see  that 
 Deacon  was  not  a  Papist,  as  his  enemies  asserted. 
 It  is  indeed  distinguished  by  so  much  good  sense, 
 that  I  venture  to  quote  a  few  passages.  The  follow- 
 ing remarks,  from  the  preface,  appear  to  me  to  be 
 deserving  of  attention  in  the  present  day.  "  I  have 
 often  observed  with  concern  the  usage,  which  Pro- 
 testants and  Romanists  have  given  each  other  in  con- 
 troversies ;  sometimes  they  accuse  each  other  of  prac- 
 tices, which  cannot  be  charged  upon  the  body  :  or  if 
 they  could,  yet  would  signify  nothing  to  the  matter 
 of  communion.  Sometimes  they  argue  against  the 
 opinion  of  private  men,  as  if  they  were  the  tenets  of 
 the  sect  they  were  opposing :  and  sometimes  they 
 deny  the  doctrine  of  their  own  church,  and  misrepre- 
 sent that  of  their  adversaries.  This  management  has 
 been  practised  on  both  sides." 
 
 Deacon's  book  was  a  reply  to  a  Romish  paper  on 
 
296  %i£torp  ottlje  iPoniucocu. 
 
 the  subject  of  Purgatory.  He  contends  for  Prayer 
 for  the  Dead,  but  argues  against  Purgatory.  The 
 following  extract,  perhaps,  shews  the  views  of  the 
 Nonjurors  on  this  subject.  "  You  see  then  that  we 
 agree  in  practising  Prayer  for  the  Dead  :  but  you 
 must  not  think  that  therefore  I  own  the  lawfulness  of 
 your  way  of  praying  for  the  dead  :  for  I  utterly  con- 
 demn it,  because  it  is  founded  upon  the  doctrine  of 
 Purgatory.  So  that  though  we  both  practise  the 
 same  thing,  yet  we  differ  entirely  in  the  end  and 
 design  for  which  we  practise  it.  You  pray  for  those 
 souls  whom  you  believe  to  be  in  torment,  that  their 
 sufferings  may  diminish,  and  at  length  cease.  I  pray 
 for  those,  whom  I  believe  to  be  in  a  state  of  bliss, 
 that  their  condition  may  be  improved,  that  they  may 
 have  a  happy  resurrection,  and  a  good  and  merciful 
 trial  at  the  day  of  judgment.  Let  the  Primitive 
 Church  judge  in  this  difference  between  us."  g 
 
 He  closes  his  book  with  a  definition  of  a  Catholic. 
 "My  definition  is  this  :  ' a  particular  Catholic  Church 
 is  a  rightful  Bishop,  with  his  Clergy  and  the  laity 
 united  to  them,  professing  the  true  Christian  faith, 
 without  the  addition  of  false  doctrine  :  and  practi- 
 sing the  necessary  Christian  worship  without  corrup- 
 tion.' This  is  a  definition  which  I  suppose  you  your- 
 self cannot  deny  is  adequate  and  just:  and  by  that 
 do  I  offer  to  try  the  cause  betwixt  your  Church  and 
 that  of  which  I  am  a  member.  Do  you  shew  that 
 any  part  of  your  Church  answers  to  this  definition,  or 
 that  ours  does  not,  and  I  will  be  your  convert.  But, 
 Sir,  I  know  this  is  impossible  for  you  to  do  :  for  your 
 Church  has  added  many  false  doctrines  to  the  true 
 
 •  Deacon's  Doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  &c.  p.  7. 
 
^feftorp  ot*  tlje  ilionj'ucocsf.  297 
 
 Christian  worship.  She  has  departed  from  the  Pri- 
 mitive Church,  and  deviated  from  Catholic  Tradition, 
 and  therefore  it  is  dangerous  for  any  one  to  be  in  her 
 communion." h  The  reader  will  perceive,  that  what- 
 ever opinions  the  Nonjurors  may  have  held,  they 
 were  not  Romanists.1 
 
 Some  of  the  opinions,  respecting  which  the  Non- 
 jurors divided  into  two  communions,  had  been  put 
 forth  by  Hickes  and  others,  without  causing  any 
 division,  at  an  earlier  period.  But  as  long  as  Hickes 
 survived,  no  attempt  was  made  to  make  any  of  these 
 opinions  terms  of  communion.  There  is  another  im- 
 portant work,  to  which  I  must  direct  the  reader's 
 attention,  the  first  edition  of  which  was  published 
 before  the  discussions,  which  issued  in  the  separation 
 of  Collier  and  his  adherents,  from  Spinkes  and  those, 
 who  concurred  with  him  on  this  particular  question. 
 This  work  was  published  in  1 7 1 3.k    The  preface 
 
 h  Ibid.  p.  142. 
 
 1  It  is  known  that  Johnson  was  accustomed  to  mention  his  de- 
 ceased wife  in  his  Prayers.  Sir  John  Hawkins  deems  it  neces- 
 sary to  defend  him  from  the  suspicion  of  Popery,  as  if  he  had 
 believed  in  Purgatory.  He  informs  us  that  Johnson  adopted  the 
 views  of  Brett  on  this  subject,  in  consequence  of  the  controversy 
 which  was  then  carried  on.  Johnson  had  also  associated,  in  his 
 early  years,  with  some  of  the  Nonjurors,  and  had  imbibed  certain 
 of  their  views.    Hawkins,  448 — 451. 
 
 k  Some  Primitive  Doctrines  revived :  or  the  Intermediate  or 
 Middle  State  of  departed  Souls  (as  to  happiness  or  misery)  before 
 the  Day  of  Judgment,  plainly  proved  from  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
 and  concurrent  testimony  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  To  which 
 is  prefixed,  the  Judgment  of  the  Reverend  Dr.  George  Hickes 
 concerning  this  Book  and  the  Subject  thereof.  London,  8vo. 
 1713. 
 
 I  subjoin  the  titles  of  two  works  from  the  opposite  section,  or 
 those  who  rejected  the  New  Communion  Office. 
 
 Reflections  upon  Modern  Fanaticism.  In  Two  Letters  to  Dr. 
 Brett,  and  the  Author  of  a  late  Pamphlet  ironically  intitled  Mr. 
 
298  ^ijstorp  oc  tlje  /Uonjurortf. 
 
 contains  a  summary  of  Hickes's  views  on  the  subject: 
 and  in  the  work,  the  whole  matter  is  elaborately  dis- 
 cussed. Though  anonymous,  the  book  was  known 
 to  be  the  production  of  the  Honourable  Archibald 
 Campbell,  one  of  the  Scottish  Bishops.  After  the 
 subject  had  been  long  discussed  and  the  Nonjurors 
 were  divided  into  two  communions,  Campbell  pub- 
 lished another  edition,  greatly  enlarged,  from  an  octavo 
 to  a  folio,  with  his  name  on  the  title  page.  This  was 
 published  in  1721  :  and  certain  other  treatises  were 
 appended,  on  the  same  and  kindred  subjects.  The 
 title  itself  is  exceedingly  curious.  "  The  Doctrine 
 of  a  Middle  State  between  Death  and  the  Resurrec- 
 tion :  of  Prayers  for  the  Dead  :  and  the  Necessity  of 
 Purification  :  plainly  proved  from  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures :  and  the  Writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Primi- 
 tive Church  :  and  acknowledged  by  several  learned 
 Fathers  and  great  Divines  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land, and  others,  since  the  Reformation.  To  which 
 is  added,  an  Appendix  concerning  the  Descent  of 
 the  Soul  of  Christ  into  Hell,  while  his  Body  lay  in 
 the  Grave.  Together  with  the  judgment  of  the  Re- 
 verend Dr.  Hickes  concerning  this  Book,  so  far  as 
 relates  to  a  Middle  State,  Particular  Judgment,  and 
 Prayers  for  the  Dead,  as  it  appeared  in  the  First 
 
 Leslie's  Defence  from  some  dangerous  and  erroneous  Principles. 
 By  Mathias  Earbery,  Presbyter  of  tbe  Church  of  England.  Lon- 
 don, 1720. 
 
 The  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  stated :  and  the  Harmony  be- 
 tween the  Primitive  Church  and  the  Reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
 land manifested.  By  which  the  Conduct  of  our  new  Essentialists 
 is  censured.  By  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England.  London, 
 1720,  This  author  gives  the  initials  S.  W.  at  the  end  of  his 
 Letter. 
 
^igtorp  ot"  t\)t  ilion)'ucoL%  299 
 Edition.  And  a  Manuscript  of  the  Right  Reverend 
 Bishop  Overal,  upon  the  subject  of  a  Middle  State, 
 &c.  never  before  printed.  Also  a  Preservative  against 
 several  of  the  Errors  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  six 
 small  Treatises.  By  the  Honourable  Archibald  Camp- 
 bell.   London,  fol.  1721." 
 
 The  author  argues  in  defence  of  the  following 
 propositions,  which  were  generally  received  by  this 
 section  of  the  Nonjurors. 
 
 "  That  there  is  an  intermediate  or  middle  state  for 
 departed  souls  to  abide  in,  between  death  and  the 
 resurrection,  far  different  from  what  they  are  after- 
 ward to  be  in,  when  our  blessed  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
 shall  appear  at  his  second  coming. 
 
 "  That  there  is  no  immediate  judgment  after  death. 
 
 "  That  to  pray  and  offer  for,  and  to  commemorate, 
 our  deceased  brethren,  is  not  only  lawful  and  useful, 
 but  also  our  bounden  duty. 
 
 "  That  the  intermediate  state  between  death  and 
 the  resurrection  is  a  state  of  purification  in  its  lower, 
 as  well  as  of  fixed  joy  and  enjoyment,  in  its  higher 
 mansions. 
 
 "  And  that  the  full  perfection  of  purity  and  holiness 
 is  not  so  to  be  attained  in  any  mansion  of  Hades,  higher 
 or  lower,  as  that  any  soul  of  mere  man  can  be  ad- 
 mitted to  enter  into  the  beatific  vision,  in  the  highest 
 heavens,  before  the  resurrection,  and  the  trial  by 
 fire,  which  it  must  then  go  through." 
 
 After  quoting  largely  from  the  Fathers,  Campbell 
 cites  many  passages  from  English  divines  since  the 
 Reformation.  He  remarks  of  Smallridge  :  "  These 
 are  the  sentiments  of  a  Bishop  of  England,  who  was 
 a  thorough  Revolutioner,  a  juror,  and  who  did  swear 
 to  all  who  have  possessed  the  throne  of  England, 
 
300  l&fsftorp  ot  rfje  jftonjuror^ 
 
 ever  since  the  Revolution  in  1688.  And  therefore 
 it  appears  that  nonjurors  are  not  singular  in  main- 
 taining these  notions."1 
 
 It  is  a  most  singular  circumstance,  that  in  a  Form 
 of  Prayer  for  the  30th  of  January,  published  by 
 royal  authority  in  1661,  there  is  a  prayer  for  the 
 dead.  The  Form  had  only  the  authority  of  the  crown, 
 and  the  particular  prayer  was  omitted  in  the  autho- 
 rized Service  in  1662  ;  but  still  it  is  remarkable,  that 
 it  should  have  been  introduced.  The  prayer  is  as 
 follows,  as  quoted  by  Campbell : 
 
 "  And  we  beseech  thee  to  give  us  all  grace  to  re- 
 member and  provide  for  our  latter  end,  by  a  careful, 
 studious  imitation  of  this  thy  blessed  saint  and  martyr, 
 and  all  other  thy  saints  and  martyrs  that  have  gone 
 before  us,  that  we  may  be  made  worthy  to  receive 
 benefit  by  their  prayers,  which  they  in  communion 
 with  thy  Church  Catholic  offer  up  unto  thee  for  that 
 part  of  it  here  militant,  and  yet  in  fight  with  and  danger 
 from  the  flesh  :  that  following  the  blessed  steps  of 
 their  holy  lives  and  deaths,  we  may  also  shew  forth 
 the  light  of  a  good  example:  for  the  glory  of  thy 
 name,  the  conversion  of  our  enemies,  and  the  im- 
 provement of  those  generations  we  shall  shortly  leave 
 behind  us,  and  with  all  those  that  have  borne  the 
 
 1  Campbell,  p.  175.  To  specify  all  the  works  in  this  contro- 
 versy would  be  perhaps  impossible.  Collier,  Brett,  and  their  sup- 
 porters deemed  the  Usages  essential ;  and  in  consequence  the 
 term  Esse?Uialists  was  applied  to  them,  to  distinguish  them  from 
 those  who  adhered  to  the  Liturgy  in  its  unaltered  state.  In  1719, 
 a  pamphlet  was  published,  in  which  the  term  Essentialist  was 
 adopted  :  "  A  Dialogue  in  Vindication  of  our  present  Liturgy  and 
 Service;  between  Timothy  a  Churchman  and  Thomas  an  Essen- 
 tialist." This  was  directed  against  Thomas  Deacon,  at  that  time 
 a  young  man,  who  had  just  published  his  work  on  Purgatory,  in 
 which  the  Usages  are  defended. 
 
^tgtorp  of  tfje  jftonj'ucorg*  301 
 
 heat  and  burden  of  the  day,  (thy  servant  particularly 
 whose  sufferings  and  labours  we  this  day  commemo- 
 rate) receive  the  reward  of  our  labours,  the  harvest 
 of  our  hopes,  even  the  salvation  of  our  souls  :  and 
 that  for  the  merits,  and  through  the  mediation  of 
 thy  Son,  our  blessed  Saviour  Jesus  Christ." 
 
 Campbell  quotes  a  letter  from  Grabe  to  Wag- 
 staffe,  in  which  is  the  following  request :  "  I  pray 
 you  likewise  to  pray,  whenever  you  please,  and  offer 
 the  most  holy  sacrifice  to  God,  for  the  soul  of  one 
 young  man  of  my  relation,  in  Prussia,  lately  departed 
 this  life  :  whose  name  was  Frederick  :  and  was  pious 
 and  solicitous  to  save  himself  in  this  confused  state 
 of  the  Church.  He  was  once  much  inclined  to  go  to 
 the  Roman  Church,  but  could  not  satisfy  his  con- 
 science about  some  of  their  abuses  and  errors,  and 
 therefore  stayed  back.  God  have  mercy  on  him,  and 
 bless  his  soul  in  peace.'"1" 
 
 m  I  find  a  prayer  composed  by  Grabe  himself  for  the  soul  of  a 
 departed  person.  It  is  set  forth  as  "  A  Prayer  of  the  Reverend  Dr. 
 Grabe,  which  he  composed  for  the  Soul  of  a  Woman  departed." 
 After  thanking-  God  for  delivering-  his  sister  from  the  present  sin- 
 ful world,  we  have  the  following  petitions:  "  We  beseech  thy 
 Divine  Majesty,  that  thou  wouldest  likewise  give  to  her  immortal 
 spirit  thy  peace  and  everlasting  rest,  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham 
 
 the  father  of  the  faithful.     Absolve  the  soul  of  thy  servant  
 
 from  all  the  bonds  of  sin  and  errors  of  her  life  past,  which  she 
 either  by  the  weakness  or  perverseness  of  her  understanding  and 
 will,  hath  committed :  and  grant  unto  her  a  full  release  and  per- 
 fect remission  of  all  whatsoever  hath  been  in  her  amiss.  Remem- 
 ber, O  everlasting  God,  in  the  highest  heavens,  our  dear  sister 
 
  for  the  best.    Comfort  the  soul  of  thy  servant  as  long  as 
 
 6he  is  walking  thro'  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of  death,  and  grant 
 now  unto  her,  and  to  us  all,  a  safe,  easy,  and  quick  passage 
 through  it,  and  in  the  end  let  us  meet  with  a  merciful  Judge." 
 Grabe,  therefore,  fully  concurred  with  Collier,  Brett,  and  their 
 friends  on  this  subject.    See  The  Unify  of  the  Church  and  Ex- 
 
302  tki'sirorg  of  rtjc  ifronj'ucoitf. 
 
 He  also  mentions,  that  Hiekes  gave  him  a  prayer, 
 not  long  before  his  death,  which  he  wished  to  be 
 offered  for  him  after  his  departure.  It  contains  the 
 following  petitions : 
 
 "  Do  thou,  O  Lord,  now  look  upon  this  thy  ser- 
 vant, whom  thou  hast  chosen,  and  taken  from  this 
 into  the  other  state. 
 
 "  O  thou  lover  of  men,  forgive  him  all  his  offences, 
 which  he  hath  committed  willingly  or  unwillingly 
 against  thee,  and  send  thy  benevolent  holy  angels  to 
 him,  to  conduct  him  into  the  bosom  of  the  patriarchs, 
 prophets,  and  apostles,  &c."n 
 
 Among  the  works  of  this  period,  from  the  pens  of 
 Nonjurors,  to  whom  the  theology  and  the  literature 
 of  the  eighteenth  century  were  so  deeply  indebted, 
 may  be  noticed  Sclater's  Answer  to  King.  As  early 
 as  1691,  King,  who  subsequently  became  Lord  Chan- 
 cellor, published  the  first  part  of  "  An  Inquiry  into 
 
 pediency  of  Forms  of  Prayer,  &c.  London,  8vo.  1719.  These 
 are  two  pieces  translated  from  St.  Cyprian.  Dr.  Grabe's  prayer 
 is  prefixed.  There  is  also  a  Preface  of  considerable  length,  in 
 which  the  Usages  are  discussed  and  recommended.  The  author 
 also  alludes  to  the  breach  in  communion  among  the  Nonjurors, 
 which  he  laments.  Preface,  p.  8.  The  following  extract  will 
 shew  how  ready  the  opponents  of  the  Nonjurors  were  to  load  them 
 with  the  charge  of  Popery  :  "  June  5,  1713.  About  this  time,  to 
 carry  on  the  design  of  representing  Popery  on  the  smoother  and 
 softer  side,  there  came  out  a  tract,  entituled  Some  Primitive  Doc- 
 trines Revived.  Both  the  author  and  the  recommender  are  not 
 only  for  a  middle  state  of  souls  in  some  intermediate  places,  dis- 
 tinct from  heaven  and  hell,  but  as  a  consequence  of  this  doctrine, 
 they  do  affirm,  that  prayer  for  the  dead  is  lawful  and  useful,  and 
 would  have  it  restored  to  our  public  service.  It  is  very  hard  to 
 distinguish  this  doctrine  from  gross  Popery :  for  if  there  be  a 
 middle  state,  why  may  it  not  be  called  a  Purgatory  ?"  Wisdom 
 of  Looking  Backward,  28G,  287. 
 »  Campbell,  pp.  178,  179. 
 
^i'0tocp  of  tfje  Nonjurors.  303 
 the  Constitution,  Discipline,  8$c.  of  the  Primitive 
 Church."  In  this  work,  the  author  labours  to  prove, 
 that  no  settled  form  of  Church  government  could 
 be  gathered  from  Holy  Scripture  and  primitive  prac- 
 tice— a  sentiment  quite  compatible  with  the  latitu- 
 dinarian  notions  of  the  day.  A  second  part  was 
 subsequently  published  :  and  editions  of  the  complete 
 work  were  extensively  circulated.  As  no  answer  ap- 
 peared after  several  years,  the  enemies  of  the  Church 
 pretended,  that  King's  Inquiry  was  unanswerable. 
 Undoubtedly  many  of  the  Clergy,  influenced  by  the 
 Erastian  notions  of  the  day,  were  indifferent  on  the 
 subject.  Sclater  at  length  stepped  forward,  and  it 
 is  said  that  King  was  not  only  convinced  by  his  ar- 
 guments, but  that  he  made  him  the  offer  of  a  living 
 in  the  Church  of  England.  Sclater  was  a  Nonjuring 
 Clergyman  :  consequently  he  could  not  accept  of 
 preferment  in  the  Anglican  Church,  which  involved 
 the  taking  the  Oath  of  Allegiance.  All  the  argu- 
 ments in  Kings  book  were  considered  by  Sclater 
 with  the  greatest  candour  and  ability.  The  author 
 was  a  man  of  singular  modesty,  of  unaffected  piety, 
 and  of  uncommon  learning,  of  which  this  work  affords 
 the  most  abundant  evidence.0 
 
 0  An  Original  Draught  of  the  Primitive  Church  :  in  Answer 
 to  a  Discourse  intituled,  "  An  Inquiry,  &c."  By  a  Preshyter  of 
 the  Church  of  England.    London,  8vo.  1717 
 
CHAPTER  VIII. 
 
 A.  D.  1720—1724. 
 
 Case  of  Mr.  Hendley. — His  Trial. — Conduct  of  the  Judge. 
 — The  Sufferings  of  the  Clergy. — The  Nonjurors'  Cor- 
 respondence with  the  Greek  Church  in  the  East. — The 
 contemplated  Union. —  Its  Failure.  —  Arsenius  Arch- 
 bishop of  Thebais. — Charge  of  Popery  refuted  by  this 
 Correspondence. 
 
 EFOREwe  proceed  with  the  narrative  of 
 the  Nonjurors,  it  may  be  well  to  gather 
 up  some  particulars  respecting  the  state 
 of  the  members  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
 who  were  oftentimes  subjected,  in  those  days  of  pro- 
 fessed liberty,  to  much  annoyance  and  even  suffering. 
 It  must  strike  reflecting  persons,  as  a  mark  of  the 
 Divine  goodness  towards  the  Church,  that  she  was 
 preserved  in  her  integrity,  when  so  many  persons  in 
 authority  were  unwilling  to  afford  their  countenance 
 and  support.  That  the  Church  was  maintained  in 
 connexion  with  the  state  must  be  attributed,  not  to 
 the  affection  of  the  Whig  ministers,  but  to  the  noble 
 and  consistent  course  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
 Clergy,  who  interposed,  and  prevented  the  evils, 
 which,  but  for  their  exertions,  would  have  overtaken 
 the  land.  With  the  Clergy  and  the  people  in  favour 
 of  the  Church,  it  was  not  possible  for  any  political 
 party  to  effect  very  serious  innovations.  Still  indi- 
 viduals were  frequently  exposed  to  much  trouble 
 and  inconvenience,  simply  because  they  evidenced 
 
of  ttje  jfronj'ttcoug.  305 
 their  strong  attachment  to  the  Church.  The  case 
 of  Mr.  Hendley,  to  which  I  shall  now  refer,  affords 
 a  striking  illustration  of  the  persecutions,  to  which 
 even  men,  who  took  the  Oaths,  were  subjected.  Dis- 
 senters and  others  were  ready  to  fasten  the  brand  of 
 disloyalty  and  Jacobinism  on  men,  who  refused  to 
 yield  to  the  latitudinarian  feelings  of  the  age. 
 
 Mr.  Hendley,  a  clergyman,  who  resided  at  Isling- 
 ton, obtained  permission  from  the  Rector  of  Chisel- 
 hurst,  and  also  from  the  Diocesan,  the  Bishop  of 
 Rochester,  to  preach  sermons  in  the  parish  Church, 
 in  aid  of  St.  Ann's  Charity  Schools,  Aldersgate 
 Street.  In  order  to  render  the  appeal  more  effectual, 
 the  master  and  some  of  the  children  were  sent  down 
 to  Chiselhurst  on  Saturday,  August  23rd,  1718.  On 
 Sunday,  August  24th,  he  preached  in  the  Church. 
 After  sermon  Mr.  Wilson,  the  Rector  of  the  parish, 
 commenced  reading  the  Offertory,  the  collectors  pro- 
 ceeding to  receive  the  alms  of  the  parishioners.  A 
 gentleman  present  seized  one  of  the  collectors,  alleging, 
 that  the  act  was  illegal.  After  much  confusion,  some 
 persons  declaring  that  they  cared  neither  for  the 
 Bishop  nor  the  Archbishop,  the  collection  was  relin- 
 quished. In  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  the  rector, 
 the  preacher,  and  the  persons  who  took  the  children 
 to  Chiselhurst,  were  actually  taken  into  custody,  as 
 though  an  offence  against  the  laws  had  been  com- 
 mitted. Bail  was  taken  by  the  magistrates  for  their 
 appearance  at  the  Sessions  :  and  afterwards,  on  a 
 charge  of  being  rioters  and  vagrants,  Mr.  Hendley 
 and  the  other  parties  were  bound  over  to  make  their 
 appearance  at  the  assizes  for  trial. a 
 
 a  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  any  magistrates  could  be 
 found  to  act  in  such  a  case.  Two  of  the  body  were  at  the  Church, 
 
3U6  ^tetorp  of  rtje  ifronjurottf. 
 
 At  the  assizes  a  true  bill  was  found  against  the 
 parties  for  sedition.  It  was  proved  at  the  trial, 
 that  the  preacher  had  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  and 
 the  incumbent :  and  it  was  alleged  in  their  defence, 
 that  the  Archbishops  had  preached  in  various  churches 
 for  charities  connected  with  other  parishes  :  and  that 
 the  House  of  Lords  had  attended  on  some  such  occa- 
 sions. The  counsel  for  the  prosecution  contended 
 that  the  practice  was  illegal ;  but  the  most  extraordi- 
 nary part  of  the  business  was  the  summing  up  of  the 
 judge,  who  descended  so  far  to  degrade  the  seat  of 
 justice  as  to  tell  thejury,  that  Mr.  Hendley  probably 
 had  permission  from  Cardinal  Alberoni,  as  well  as 
 from  the  Bishop  of  Rochester.  In  our  day  no  judge 
 could  so  forget  himself.  The  circumstance  affords  a 
 sad  specimen  of  the  state  of  courts  of  justice  at  that 
 time.  From  the  bench  of  justice,  Sir  Littleton  Powys 
 actually  insinuated  the  most  unfounded  charges 
 against  a  respectable  clergyman,  who  was  standing 
 before  him  on  a  groundless  charge  of  sedition.  The 
 jury,  after  such  a  charge,  found  Mr.  Hendley  and  his 
 companions  guilty,  when  the  judge  inflicted  a  fine 
 of  six  shillings  and  eightpence  on  each  person,  telling 
 them  that  if  they  were  dissatisfied,  they  might  bring 
 a  writ  of  error. b 
 
 Sir  Littleton  Powys,  the  judge,  before  whom  the 
 case  was  tried,  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
 
 and  actually  headed  the  opposition.  They  certainly  were  the  cri- 
 minals, not  Mr.  Hendley  and  Mr.  Wilson.  One  of  these  notable 
 justices  ordered  a  constable  to  cause  the  congregation  to  disperse. 
 The  pretence  was,  that  the  parties  were  collecting  money  for  the 
 Pretender. 
 
 b  Charity  still  a  Christian  Virtue  :  or  an  impartial  Account  of  the 
 Trial  and  Conviction  of  the  Reverend  Mr.  Hendley,  for  Preaching  a 
 Charity  Sermon  at  Chiselhmrst.     And  of  Mr.  Chapman,  Mr. 
 
^fgtocp  of  rfje  ifronfurottf.  307 
 
 dated  August  4th,  1719,  giving  an  account  of  this 
 singular  trial.  It  affords  striking  evidence  of  the 
 hard  condition,  to  which  the  Clergy  of  that  day  were, 
 or  at  least  might  be,  subjected,  simply  from  their 
 faithful  attachment  to  the  Church.  In  this  letter  he 
 tells  the  Chancellor  what  he  had  said  to  the  jury : 
 and  among  other  extraordinary  assertions  he  remarks, 
 "  No  collection  even  for  charity  (unless  for  the  poor 
 of  the  same  parish)  is  by  law  to  be  made,  but  by  the 
 leave  and  permission  of  the  King.  I  told  the  jury 
 that  this  was  a  case  of  dangerous  consequence,  and 
 was  an  invasion,  not  only  on  the  King's  prerogative, 
 but  also  upon  the  legislature,  and  that  I  thought  the 
 defendants  guilty."  He  also  tells  the  Chancellor  that 
 he  had  not  inflicted  a  heavy  fine,  lest  compassion 
 should  have  been  excited,  and  a  collection  made  for 
 the  parties.  In  the  same  letter  he  alludes  to  the 
 Bishop  of  London  :  "  I  gave  Mr.  Woodford  a  news- 
 paper, wherein  was  an  advertisement,  which  I  thought 
 very  fit  to  be  shewed  to  superiors  :  that  the  Bishop 
 of  London  had  issued  a  circular  letter  to  all  his 
 Clergy,  to  collect  charities  in  their  parishes  for  the 
 poor  vicarages  in  England,  which  I  thought  much 
 akin  to  the  late  collection  in  Kent,  or  rather  more 
 dangerous,  not  only  by  raising  a  vast  sum  of  money, 
 (if  the  like  in  all  dioceses)  but  also  by  marking  out 
 people  how  far  affected  to  the  Church  throughout 
 
 Pratt,  and  Mr.  Harding,  for  collecting  at  the  same  time  the  Alms 
 of  the  Congregation.  At  the  Assizes  held  at  Rochester,  on  Wed- 
 nesday July  15th,  1719.  Offered  to  the  consideration  of  the  Clergy 
 of  the  Church  of  England,  8vo.  London,  1719.  There  is  a  fron- 
 tispiece to  this  extraordinary  account,  in  which  the  Clergy  are 
 represented  at  the  rails,  and  the  people  are  pressing  forward  to 
 offer  their  alms.  The  account  in  the  State  Trials  is  taken  from 
 this  volume.    State  Trials,  Vol.  X.  Appendix  89-91. 
 
308  l?(0torp  of  ttjc  ifronfurottf. 
 
 England."6  The  judge,  and  probably  many  other 
 persons,  were  fearful  lest  it  should  appear,  that  the 
 great  mass  of  the  people  of  England  were  well  affected 
 towards  the  Church.  But  what  a  picture  of  oppres- 
 sion is  presented  to  our  view  in  this  letter.  The 
 Bishop  of  London  is  even  complained  of  for  an  act  of 
 charity  towards  the  Church. 
 
 It  should  be  mentioned,  that  Mr.  Wilson,  the  In- 
 cumbent of  Chiselhurst,  died  within  forty-eight  hours 
 after  his  return  from  the  Sessions,  at  which  the  parties 
 were  bound  over  to  appear  at  the  Assizes  :  and  his 
 death  was  caused  by  the  fatigue  of  that  journey. 
 This  year,  1718,  was,  it  has  been  said,  "  remarkable 
 for  the  severity  of  the  ministry,  and  the  Parlia- 
 ment through  them,  in  punishing  the  authors  of 
 obnoxious  publications."  d  Mr.  Hendleydid  not  very 
 long  survive  :  so  that  no  further  proceedings  were 
 adopted  in  this  extraordinary  case. 
 
 The  harsh  proceedings  of  the  government  have 
 been  alluded  to  in  the  previous  pages  :  but  perhaps 
 the  period  of  Hendley's  trial  was  the  time  of  the 
 greatest  severity.  Nothing  could  have  been  more 
 severe   than  their   conduct  towards  Matthews,  a 
 
 «  State  Trials,  Vol.  x.  A  pp.  91. 
 
 d  Noble,  iii.  142.  Mr.  Hendley  published  the  Sermon,  which 
 he  had  preached  at  Chiselhurst,  on  occasion  of  the  collection,  with 
 the  following  title  :  "The  Rich  Man's  Proper  Barns,  a  Sermon 
 preached  at  the  Parish  Church  of  Chiselhurst  in  the  county  of 
 Kent;  on  Sunday,  August  24,  1718.  For  the  benefit  of  the 
 Charity  Children  belonging  to  St.  Ann's,  within  Aldersgate, 
 London.  By  W.  Hendley,  Curate  and  Lecturer  of  St.  Mary  at 
 Islington,  and  Chaplain  to  the  Right  Honourable  Charles,  Lord 
 Fitzwalter.  8vo.  London,  1720."  He  states,  that  he  published  it 
 because  the  people  generally  "  imagined  it  to  be  upon  the  account 
 of  what  was  contained  in  my  Sermon,  that  the  prosecution  was  at 
 first  begun,  and  afterwards  carried  on  against  me." 
 
^fgtorp  of  ttje  iPonjucorsJ.  309 
 
 Printer's  Apprentice,  who  had  printed  a  Pamphlet, 
 intitled,  "  Ex  Ore  Tuo  Te  Judico,  Vox  Populi  Vox 
 Dei"  He  was  brought  to  trial  at  the  Old  Bailey, 
 Oct.  4th,  1719,  on  a  charge  of  maintaining  the  rights 
 of  the  Pretender  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain.  He 
 was  found  guilty,  and  actually  executed  at  Tyburn, 
 being  only  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  his  age. 
 
 I  now  proceed  to  some  circumstances  of  especial 
 interest,  in  connexion  with  the  Anglican  and  Scot- 
 tish Nonjurors.  They  relate  to  a  project,  which 
 some  of  the  Nonjurors  entertained,  respecting  a  union 
 with  the  Greek  Church  in  the  east.  The  scheme 
 was  first  thought  of  in  1716,  when  Arsenius,  an 
 Archbishop  of  the  Eastern  Church,  was  in  London 
 soliciting  assistance  for  his  afflicted  brethren  in 
 Alexandria.  Campbell,  one  of  the  Scottish  Bishops, 
 became  acquainted  with  the  Archbishop  :  "  and,"  as 
 Skinner  says,  "  having  a  scheming  turn  for  every 
 thing  which  he  thought  of  general  usefulness  to  the 
 Church,  took  occasion  in  conversation  to  hint  some- 
 thing of  this  kind."  Campbell  mentioned  the  matter 
 to  his  friends  at  a  meeting.  At  first  all  were  united  : 
 but  the  disputes  respecting  the  usages  having  arisen, 
 Spinkes,  though  he  had  previously  translated  their 
 proposals  into  Greek,  together  with  Hawes  and 
 Gandy,  declined  to  proceed  any  further  in  the  busi- 
 ness, which  was  subsequently  carried  on  by  Collier, 
 Brett,  and  Griffin,  with  the  Scottish  Bishops  Camp- 
 bell and  Gadderer.  Skinner  says,  that  there  never 
 was  much  probability  of  success,  and  that,  in  the 
 event  of  success,  no  good  end  would  have  been 
 answered. 
 
 An  account  of  the  correspondence,  between  the 
 Nonjurors  and  the  Patriarchs  of  the  oriental  Church, 
 was  drawn  up  by  Brett,  some  few  years  after  the 
 
310  %f0torp  of  ttje  iftonfurorg. 
 
 scheme  had  failed.  It  is  preserved  among  Bishop 
 Jolly's  MSS.  Having  been  furnished  with  a  copy, 
 I  now  submit  to  the  Public  all  the  letters  and  Papers, 
 which  were  written  by  the  Nonjurors,  contenting 
 myself  with  giving  certain  extracts  only,  though  suf- 
 ficient to  exhibit  a  summary  of  their  arguments,  from 
 the  replies  of  the  Patriarchs. 
 
 "In  the  month  of  July  1716,  the  Bishops  called 
 Nonjurors  meeting  about  some  affairs  relating  to  their 
 little  Church,  Mr.  Campbell  took  occasion  to  speak 
 of  the  Archbishop  of  Thebais  then  in  London  ;  and 
 proposed  that  we  should  endeavour  a  union  with 
 the  Greek  Church,  and  draw  up  some  propositions  in 
 order  thereto,  and  deliver  them  to  that  Archbishop, 
 with  whom  he  intimated,  as  if  he  had  already  had 
 some  discourse  upon  that  subject.  I  was  then  a 
 perfect  stranger  to  the  doctrines  and  forms  of  worship 
 of  that  Church,  but  as  I  wished  most  heartily  for  a 
 general  union  of  all  Christians  in  one  communion,  I 
 was  ready  to  have  joined  with  Mr.  Campbell  on  this 
 occasion.  But  Mr.  Lawrence  being  in  the  room, 
 drew  me  aside,  and  told  me,  that  the  Greeks  were 
 more  corrupt  and  more  bigoted  than  the  Romanists, 
 and  therefore  vehemently  pressed  me  not  to  be  con- 
 cerned in  the  affair  :  but  Mr.  Collier,  Mr.  Campbell, 
 Mr.  Spinkes  joined  in  it,  and  drew  up  proposals, 
 which  Mr.  Spinkes  (as  Mr.  Campbell  informed  me) 
 put  into  Greek,  and  they  went  together  and  delivered 
 them  to  the  Archbishop  of  Thebais,  who  carried  them 
 to  Moscovy,  and  engaged  the  Czar  in  the  affair,  and 
 they  were  encouraged  to  write  to  his  majesty  on  that 
 occasion,  who  heartily  espoused  the  matter,  and  sent 
 the  proposals  by  James,  Proto-Cyncellus  to  the  Pa- 
 triarch of  Alexandria,  to  be  communicated  to  the 
 
^tetorp  of  tlje  jponjurorsf.  31  i 
 
 four  Eastern  Patriarchs.  Before  the  return  of  the 
 Patriarch's  answer  to  the  proposals,  a  breach  of 
 communion  happened  among  the  Nonjurors  here, 
 Mr.  Hawes,  Mr.  Spinkes,  and  Mr.  Gandy  on  the 
 one  side,  and  Mr.  Collier,  Mr.  Campbell,  Mr.  Gad- 
 derer,  and  myself  on  the  other.  So  that  when  the 
 Patriarch's  answer  came  to  London,  in  1722,  Mr. 
 Spinkes  refused  to  be  any  further  concerned  in  the 
 affair,  and  Mr.  Gadderer  and  I  joined  in  it.  After 
 Mr.  Gadderer  went  to  Scotland,  Mr.  Griffin,  being 
 consulted,  joined  with  us.  The  rest  of  the  story 
 relating  to  this  matter  may  be  gathered  from  the 
 letters  and  the  subscriptions  to  them.  Mr.  Collier 
 subscribes  Jeremias,  Mr.  Campbell  Archibaldus,  Mr. 
 Gadderer  Jacobus,  and  I,  Thomas, 
 
 Sic.  Sub.    Thomas  Brett." 
 
 March  30th,  1728. 
 
 "  A  Proposal  for  a  concordate  betwixt  the  othodox 
 and  catholic  remnant  of  the  British  Churches,  and 
 the  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Oriental  Church. 
 
 "  1.  That  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  be  acknowledged 
 as  the  true  mother  Church  and  principal  of  eccle- 
 siastical unity,  whence  all  the  other  Churches  have 
 been  derived,  and  to  which,  therefore,  they  owe  a 
 peculiar  regard. 
 
 "  2.  That  a  principality  of  Order  be  in  consequence 
 hereof  allowed  to  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  above  all 
 other  Christian  Bishops. 
 
 "3.  That  the  Churches  of  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and 
 Constantinople,  with  the  Bishops  thereof,  his  col- 
 leagues, be  recognized  as  to  all  their  ancient  canoni- 
 cal rites,  privileges,  and  pre-eminences. 
 
 "  4.  That  to  the  Bishop  and  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
 nople in  particular  an  equality  of  honour  with  that 
 
312  fetjjfocp  of  tf)e  iponfurorg. 
 
 of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  be  given,  and  that  the  very 
 same  powers  and  privileges  be  acknowleged  to  reside 
 in  them  both  alike. 
 
 "  5.  That  the  Catholic  remnant  of  the  British 
 Churches,  acknowledging  that  they  first  received 
 their  Christianity  from  such  as  came  forth  from  the 
 Church  of  Jerusalem,  before  they  were  subject  to 
 the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  that  Church,  and  professing 
 the  same  holy  Catholic  faith,  delivered  by  the  Apostles, 
 and  explained  in  the  councils  of  Nice,  and  Constanti- 
 nople, be  reciprocally  acknowledged  as  part  of  the 
 Catholic  Church  in  communion  with  the  Apostles, 
 with  the  holy  fathers  of  these  councils,  and  with  their 
 successors. 
 
 "  C.  That  the  said  Catholic  remnant  shall  thereupon 
 oblige  themselves  to  revive  what  they  long  professed 
 to  wish  for,  the  ancient  godly  discipline  of  the  Church, 
 and  which  they  have  already  actually  began  to  restore. 
 
 "  7.  That  in  order  still  to  a  nearer  union,  there  be 
 as  near  a  conformity  in  worship  established  as  is 
 consistent  with  the  different  circumstances  and  cus- 
 toms of  nations,  and  with  the  rites  of  particular 
 Churches,  in  that  case  allowed  of. 
 
 "  8.  That  the  most  ancient  English  Liturgy,  as  more 
 near  approaching  the  manner  of  the  Oriental  Church, 
 be  in  the  first  place  restored,  with  such  proper  addi- 
 tions and  alterations,  as  may  be  agreed  on  to  render 
 it  still  more  conformable  both  to  that  and  the  primi- 
 tive standard. 
 
 "9.  That  several  of  the  Homilies  of  St.  Chrysostom, 
 and  other  approved  Fathers  of  the  said  Oriental 
 Church  be  forthwith  translated  into  English  and  read 
 in  our  holy  assemblies. 
 
 "  10.  That  in  the  public  worship,  when  prayer  is 
 made  for  the  Catholic  Church,  there  be  an_express 
 
l&fjjrorp  of  tfje  ^onfucor0.  313 
 
 commemoration  made  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
 and  that,  especially  in  the  Communion  Service, 
 Prayer  be  offered  up  for  him  and  the  other  Patriarchs, 
 with  all  the  Bishops  of  the  same  communion,  and  for 
 the  deliverance  and  restoration  of  the  whole  Oriental 
 Church. 
 
 "11.  That  the  faithful  and  orthodox  remnant  of  the 
 Britannic  Church  is  to  be  also,  by  the  said  Oriental 
 Church,  on  proper  occasions,  or  on  certain  days  pub- 
 licly commemorated  and  prayed  for. 
 
 "  12.  That  there  be  letters  communicatory  settled 
 betwixt  one  and  the  other,  and  the  acts  and  deeds  on 
 both  sides  be  mutually  confirmed. 
 
 "Wherefore  in  order  to  establish  such  a  concordate, 
 until  that  a  firm  and  perfect  union  can  be  fixed,  the 
 suffering  Catholic  Bishops  of  the  old  constitution  of 
 Great  Britain  have  thought  fit  hereby  to  declare, 
 wherein  they  agree  and  wherein  they  cannot  come  to 
 a  perfect  agreement. 
 
 "  1.  They  agree  in  the  twelve  Articles  of  the  Creed 
 as  delivered  in  the  first  and  second  General  Councils, 
 which  they  take  to  be  sufficient  for  faith,  and  there- 
 upon cannot  agree  with  the  Latin  Church,  which  hath 
 superadded  thereto  twelve  other  articles  of  faith. 
 
 "  2.  They  agree  in  believing  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be 
 consubstantial  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  accord- 
 ing to  the  orthodox  confession  of  the  Oriental  Church  ; 
 and  moreover,  that  the  Father  is  properly  the  foun- 
 tain and  original  whence  the  Holy  Ghost  proceedeth  ; 
 and  that  it  is  altogether  sufficient  for  salvation  to  be- 
 lieve herein  what  Christ  himself  hath  taught. 
 
 "  3.  They  agree  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  sent  forth 
 by  the  Son  from  the  Father,  and  when  they  say  in  any 
 of  their  confessions,  that  He  is  sent  forth  or  proceedeth 
 
3 14  ^tetot-p  of  tfje  iponjuro 
 
 from  the  Son,  they  mean  no  more  than  what  is,  and 
 always  has  been  confessed  by  the  Oriental  Church, 
 i.  e.  from  the  Father  by  the  Son. 
 
 "  4.  They  agree,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  truly 
 speak  by  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  is  the  genuine 
 author  of  all  the  Scriptures. 
 
 "5.  They  agree,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  assisteth  the 
 Church  in  judging  rightly  concerning  matters  of  faith, 
 and  that  both  general  and  particular  orthodox  coun- 
 cils, convened  after  the  example  of  the  first  council  of 
 Jerusalem,  may  reasonably  expect  that  assistance  in 
 their  resolutions. 
 
 "  6.  They  agree,  in  the  number  and  nature  of  the 
 charismata  of  the  Spirit. 
 
 "  7.  They  agree,  that  there  is  no  other  foundation 
 of  the  Church  but  Christ  alone,  and  that  the  prophets 
 and  apostles  are  no  otherwise  to  be  called  so,  but  in 
 a  less  proper  and  secondary  sense  respectively  only. 
 
 "  8.  They  agree  that  Christ  alone  is  the  head  of  the 
 Church,  which  title  ought  not  therefore  to  be  assumed 
 by  any  one,  much  less  by  any  secular  power,  how 
 great  soever,  and  that  Bishops  under  him  have  a 
 vicarious  headship,  as  his  proper  representatives  and 
 vicegerents,  being  thence  subject  in  spirituals  to  no 
 temporal  power  on  earth  :  and  in  consequence  hereof 
 they  hope  the  patriarchs  of  the  Oriental  Church  will 
 be  pleased,  by  an  express  article,  to  signify,  that  they 
 own  the  independency  of  the  Church  in  spirituals 
 upon  all  lay  powers,  and  consequently  declare  against 
 all  lay  deprivations. 
 
 "  9.  They  agree,  that  every  Christian  ought  to  be 
 subject  to  the  Church,  and  that  the  Church  is  by 
 Christ  sufficiently  instructed  and  authorized  to  exa- 
 mine the  writings  and  censure  the  persons  of  her  sub- 
 jects or  ministers,  though  never  so  great. 
 
%t0torp  of  ttje  ^onfuroi%  315 
 
 "  10.  They  agree,  that  the  Sacrament  of  the  body 
 and  blood  of  Christ  ought  to  be  administered  to  the 
 faithful  in  both  kinds,  and  that  the  Latin  Church 
 have  transgressed  the  Institution  of  Christ  by  restrain- 
 ing from  the  laity  one  kind. 
 
 "11;  They  agree,  that  Baptism  and  this  are  of 
 general  necessity  to  salvation,  for  all  the  faithful,  and 
 that  the  other  holy  mysteries  instituted  by  Christ,  or 
 appointed  by  his  Apostles,  which  are  not  so  generally 
 necessary  unto  all,  ought  nevertheless  to  be  received 
 and  celebrated  with  due  reverence,  according  to  Ca- 
 tholic and  immemorial  practice. 
 
 "  12.  They  agree,  that  there  is  no  proper  purgatorial 
 fire  in  the  future  state,  for  the  purgation  of  souls,  nor 
 consequently  any  redemption  of  souls  out  of  the  fire 
 of  purgatory  by  the  suffrages  of  the  living  :  but  that 
 notwithstanding  none  do  immediately  ascend  into  the 
 heaven  of  heavens,  but  do  remain  until  the  resurrec- 
 tion in  certain  inferior  mansions,  appropriated  to  them, 
 waiting  in  hope  for  the  revelation  of  that  day,  and 
 joining  in  the  prayers  and  praises  of  the  militant 
 church  upon  earth,  offered  up  in  faith." 
 
 "As  to  the  points  wherein  they  cannot,  at  present, 
 perfectly  agree,  they  declare. 
 
 "  L  They  have  a  great  reverence  for  the  canons  of 
 ancient  general  councils,  yet  they  allow  them  not  the 
 same  authority  as  is  due  to  the  sacred  text,  and  think, 
 they  may  be  dispensed  with  by  the  governors  of  the 
 Church,  where  charity  or  necessity  require. 
 
 "  2.  Though  they  call  the  mother  of  our  Lord 
 blessed,  and  magnify  the  grace  of  God,  which  so  highly 
 exalted  her,  yet  are  they  afraid  of  giving  the  glory  of 
 God  to  a  creature,  or  to  run  into  any  extreme  by 
 blessing  and  magnifying  her,  and  do  hence  rather 
 
310  of  tfje  /ponjucorsj. 
 
 choose  to  bless  and  magnify  God,  for  the  high  grace 
 and  honour  conferred  upon  her,  and  for  the  benefits 
 which  we  receive  by  that  means. 
 
 "  3.  Though  they  believe  that  both  saints  and 
 angels  have  joy  in  the  conversion  of  one  sinner,  and  in 
 the  progress  of  a  Christian,  and  do  unite  with  us  in 
 our  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  when  rightly  offered  to 
 God  in  the  communion  of  the  Church  :  yet  are  they 
 jealous  of  detracting  from  the  mediation  of  Jesus 
 Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  use  a  direct  invocation 
 to  any  of  them,  the  ever  blessed  Virgin  herself  not 
 excepted,  while  we  desire  nevertheless  to  join  with 
 them  in  spirit,  and  to  communicate  with  them  in  per- 
 fect charity. 
 
 "  4.  Though  they  believe  a  perfect  mystery  in  the 
 Holy  Eucharist,  through  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  upon  the  elements,  where  by  the  faithful  do  verily 
 and  indeed  receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
 they  believe  it  yet  to  be  after  a  manner,  which  flesh 
 and  blood  cannot  conceive ;  and  seeing  no  sufficient 
 ground  from  Scripture  or  tradition  to  determine  the 
 manner  of  it,  are  for  leaving  it  indefinite  and  unde- 
 termined :  so  that  every  one  may  freely,  according  to 
 Christ's  own  institution  and  meaning,  receive  the  same 
 in  faith,  and  also  worship  Christ  in  spirit,  as  verily 
 and  indeed  present,  without  being  obliged  to  worship 
 the  Sacred  symbols  of  his  presence. 
 
 "  5.  Though  they  honour  the  memory  of  all  the 
 faithful  witnesses  of  Christ,  and  count  it  not  unlawful 
 in  itself  to  assist  the  imagination  by  pictures  and  re- 
 presentations of  them  and  their  glorious  acts  and  suf- 
 ferings, yet  they  are  afraid  of  giving  thereby,  on  one 
 hand,  scandal  to  the  Jews  and  Mahometans,  or  on 
 the  other,  to  many  well  meaning  Christians  :  and  they 
 are  moreover  apprehensive  that,  though  the  wise  may 
 
 1 
 
^isttocp  of  ttje  iHonfucortf.  317 
 
 be  safe  from  receiving  any  damage,  by  a  wrong  ap- 
 plication, yet  the  vulgar  may  come  thereby  to  be  en- 
 snared, and  be  carried  to  symbolize  too  much  with  the 
 custom  of  idolaters,  without  designing  it :  to  prevent 
 which  they  therefore  propose,  that  the  9th  Article  of 
 the  second  Council  of  Nice,  concerning  the  worship 
 of  Images,  be  so  explained  by  the  wisdom  of  the 
 Bishops  and  Patriarchs  of  the  Oriental  Church,  as  to 
 make  it  inoffensive,  and  to  remove  the  scandal,  which 
 may  be  occasioned  by  a  direct  application  to  them. 
 
 "  If  a  concordate  can  be  agreed  on  with  some  limi- 
 tations and  indulgences  on  both  sides,  then  it  is  pro- 
 posed that  a  Church,  to  be  called  the  Concordia,  be 
 built  in  or  about  London,  which  may  be  under  the 
 jurisdiction  of  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  in 
 which,  at  certain  times  to  be  agreed  on,  there  shall 
 be  the  English  service  of  the  united  British  Catholics 
 performed  according  as  the  same  shall  be  approved 
 or  licensed  by  that  Patriarch,  or  by  the  representa- 
 tives of  the  Oriental  Church.  And  that  on  the  other 
 side,  if  it  should  please  God  to  restore  the  suffering 
 Church  of  this  island  and  her  Bishops  to  her  and 
 their  just  rights,  they  promise  to  use  their  endeavours, 
 that  leave  be  granted  to  a  Greek  Bishop  here  for  the 
 time  residing,  or  to  such  as  shall  be  deputed  by  him, 
 to  celebrate,  upon  certain  days,  divine  service  in  the 
 cathedral  church  of  St.  Paul  according  to  the  Greek 
 rites.  But  if  one  common  Liturgy  could  be  on  both 
 sides  agreed  on,  which  should  be  unexceptionable, 
 being  compiled  out  of  the  ancient  Greek  Liturgies, 
 some  passages  and  rites  only  omitted,  which  are  not 
 of  the  substance,  and  which  may  give  offence  to  one 
 side,  it  is  thought  that  nothing  can  more  conduce  to 
 the  establishing  a  union  and  communion  betwixt  both 
 parties  on  catholic  terms,  would  but  the  Patriarchs 
 
318  Wgtorp  of  tlje  jlionfurowf. 
 
 of  the  Oriental  Church  graciously  condescend,  that 
 the  same  common  Liturgy  should  be  used  in  Great 
 Britain,  both  by  the  Greeks  themselves  here  residing, 
 and  by  the  united  British  Catholics. 
 
 "  None  to  be  excluded  from  entering  into  this  con- 
 cordate  who  are  willing,  and  all  endeavours  to  be 
 used  on  both  sides  to  heal  the  breaches  of  Christen- 
 dom, and  to  promote  and  propagate  Christian  unani- 
 mity and  peace. 
 
 London. 
 August  18th,  1716." 
 
 "  A  Letter  to  the  Czar  of  Moscovy  relating  to  the 
 preceding  proposal. 
 
 "  Sir, — The  Archimandrite,  who  attended  the  Arch- 
 bishop of  Thebais  at  London,  acquaints  us,  that  your 
 Majesty  is  pleased  to  encourage  the  proposal  of  union 
 between  the  Greek  and  Britannic  Churches,  and  that 
 your  Majesty  has  graciously  offered  to  send  the  Ar- 
 ticles to  the  four  Eastern  Patriarchs.  This  welcome 
 information  has  made  it  our  duty,  to  return  your  Ma- 
 jesty our  most  humble  thanks  for  the  honour  of  your 
 countenance.  And  since  God  hath  put  it  into  the 
 heart  of  so  great  a  Prince,  to  assist  in  closing  the 
 breach  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  restoring  the 
 harmony  designed  by  the  Christian  institution,  we 
 hope  the  undertaking  will  prosper  in  your  Majesty's 
 hand. 
 
 "  Some  late  practices  with  respect  to  Church  and 
 State  have  reduced  our  Communion  to  a  few  ;  but 
 your  Majesty  knows  truth  and  right  do  not  depend 
 on  numbers.  That  God  may  reward  your  Majesty's 
 pious  endeavours,  and  long  continue  you  glorious 
 and  happy  to  yourself  and  subjects,  is  the  unfeigned 
 
^ijstocg  of  tlje  ilionjut*oi%  319 
 prayer  of  us,  who  are  with  the  most  profound  regard, 
 Your  Majesty's  most  Obedient  Servants." 
 Oct.  8th,  1717. 
 
 "  Copy  of  a  Letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Thebais  in 
 Egypt,  by  whom  the  first  proposals  from  Britain  were 
 transmitted  to  the  Eastern  Patriarchs." 
 
 "  To  the  Most  Venerable  and  Wise  Bishops,  Mr. 
 Campbell,  and  the  rest,  and  to  the  Reverend 
 Priests  and  beloved  Laicks  and  all  worthy  Chris- 
 tians, Arsenius,  Metropolitan  of  Thebais,  wisheth 
 prosperity." 
 
 This  Letter  is  dated  from  St.  Petersburgh,  August 
 16,  1721.  It  was  brought  by  James,  the  Patriarchal 
 Proto-Cyncellus,  who  had  carried  the  questions  to 
 the  Patriarchs.  He  also  brought  with  him  a  very 
 long  answer  from  the  Eastern  Patriarchs,  intitled 
 "  The  Answer  from  the  Orthodox  of  the  East  to  the 
 proposals  sent  from  Britain  for  an  union  and  agree- 
 ment with  the  Oriental  Church." 
 
 In  this  document  the  Patriarchs  refuse  to  make  the 
 desired  concessions,  giving  their  reasons  at  great 
 length.  To  the  first  five  proposals  they  state,  that 
 they  shall  give  one  answer,  since  they  all  relate  to 
 one  point,  namely,  the  order  of  the  five  Patriarchal 
 thrones.  "They  who  call  themselves  the  remnant  of 
 primitive  orthodoxy  in  Britain,  would  (if  this  be  their 
 meaning,  which  will  be  shewn  to  be  otherwise  here- 
 after) have  them  dispossessed  of  their  situation  given 
 them  by  orthodox  princes,  and  confirmed  by  divine 
 and  holy  synods,  and  be  settled  in  a  new  and  different 
 order  :  so  that  neither  the  Roman  nor  Constantinopo- 
 litan  throne  should  any  longer  have  the  preference,  but 
 
320  £(0torp  of  rtjc  0»tituc$t#. 
 
 that  of  Jerusalem.  But  somebody  may  thus  bespeak 
 them,  if  gentlemen,  the  subject  of  your  union  with  the 
 orthodox  Oriental  Church  be  matter  of  doctrine  and 
 holy  faith,  to  what  purpose  should  the  order  of  the 
 Patriarchal  thrones  be  changed,  which  can  neither 
 the  one  way  nor  the  other,  be  any  advantage  or  detri- 
 ment to  religion  ?  It  would  rather  create  divisions 
 than  conciliate  an  union,  for  it  has  the  face  of  an  in- 
 novation ;  whereas  our  Oriental  Church,  the  immacu- 
 late Bride  of  the  Lord,  has  never  at  any  time  admitted 
 any  novelty,  nor  will  at  all  allow  of  any.  And  why 
 should  they  have  the  preference  given  to  the  throne 
 of  Jerusalem  ?  Because,  say  the}7,  from  thence  came 
 out  the  evangelical  law  of  grace  and  truth,  according 
 to  that  prophesj7,  '  but  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the 
 law,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem."  Now 
 they  would  by  these  words  seem  wiser  and  more  pro- 
 vident, than  those  who  place  the  thrones  in  this  order, 
 as  if  they  had  acted  rashly  and  unadvisedly  in  mak- 
 ing such  an  appointment,  which  God  forbid.  For  the 
 authors  and  legislators  of  this  order  were  divine  men, 
 of  extensive  knowledge  and  judgment,  and  had  the 
 Spirit  of  the  Lord :  nor  can  we  pretend  to  be  better 
 and  more  sagacious  than  they,  or  to  overturn,  or  in 
 the  least  disorder  their  wise  settlements,  lest  we  be 
 found  to  fisrht  against  the  saints  and  against  God." — 
 
 DO  O 
 
 They  afterwards  say  : 
 
 "  Some  time  since,  the  Pope  of  Rome,  being  de- 
 ceived by  the  malice  of  the  devil,  and  falling  into 
 strange  novel  doctrines,  revolted  from  the  unity  of 
 the  holy  Church,  and  was  cut  off:  and  it  is  now  like 
 a  shattered  rag  of  a  sail  of  the  spiritual  vessel  of  the 
 Church,  which  formerly  consisted  and  was  made  up 
 of  five  parts,  four  of  which  continue  in  the  same  state 
 of  unity  and  agreement :  and  by  these  we  easily  and 
 
%Wtoq?  of  tfje  jfronfuroitf.  321 
 
 calmly  sail  through  the  ocean  of  this  life,  and  without 
 difficulty  pass  over  the  waves  of  heresy,  till  we  arrive 
 within  the  haven  of  salvation.  But  he  who  is  the 
 fifth  part,  being  separated  from  the  entire  sail,  and 
 remaining  by  himself  in  a  small  piece  of  the  torn 
 sheet,  is  unable  to  perform  his  voyage,  and  therefore 
 we  behold  him  at  a  distance  tossed  with  constant 
 waves  and  tempest  till  he  return  to  our  Catholic, 
 Apostolic,  Oriental,  immaculate  faith,  and  be  rein- 
 stated in  the  sail  from  whence  he  was  broken  off:  for 
 this  will  make  him  secure,  and  able  to  weather  the 
 spiritual  storms  and  tempests  that  beset  him.  Thus 
 therefore  the  holy  Church  of  Christ  with  us  subsists 
 on  four  pillars,  namely,  the  four  Patriarchs,  and  con- 
 tinues firm  and  immoveable.  The  first  in  order  is 
 the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  second  the 
 Pope  of  Alexandria.  The  third  of  Antioch.  The 
 fourth  of  Jerusalem." 
 They  grant  however : 
 
 "  If  those  who  are  called  the  remains  of  the  primi- 
 tive orthodoxy,  out  of  any  particular  affection  of  piety 
 to  the  holy  and  Apostolical  throne  of  Jerusalem,  would 
 prefer  and  esteem  it  above  the  rest,  we  have  no  ob- 
 jection to  it:  for  we  ourselves,  though  for  order's  sake 
 we  number  it  in  the  4th  place,  yet  pay  it  the  utmost 
 reverence  and  respect,  and  honour  it  as  the  place 
 where  the  light  of  religion  and  salvation  arose,  where 
 the  redemption  of  man  and  the  preaching  of  the 
 Gospel  shone  out  into  all  the  world,  and  because 
 there  our  Lord  suffered  for  us,  and  there  shed  his 
 precious  blood.  And  if  this  be  the  desire  of  the 
 pious  remnant  in  Britain,  we  grant  and  allow  it, 
 only  let  them  not  despise  the  ancient  order,  nor  accuse 
 it  of  error,  nor  reject  it." 
 
 They  add  further  on  this  point: 
 
322  ^i0tocg  of  ttjc  j£oniuroi#. 
 
 "  But  it  is  necessary  also  that  he  should,  either 
 immediately  or  by  deputation,  consecrate  the  British 
 Bishops  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  no  other 
 Patriarch  but  that  of  Jerusalem  daring  to  ordain  in 
 Britain,  or  to  enter  upon  his  jurisdiction." 
 
 To  the  6th  proposal  respecting  the  ancient  disci- 
 pline they  remark,  "  that  they  are  ignorant  of  what  is 
 intended.  If  it  be  to  make  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem 
 supreme  over  all,  they  cannot  consent,  as  it  would 
 subvert  the  ancient  order  :  but  if  they  only  wish  him 
 to  be  primus  in  Britain,  they  consent.  If  the  things 
 to  be  revived  were  such  as  needed  a  synodical  exami- 
 nation, they  promise  to  submit  them  '  to  a  council  of 
 the  universal  Church.'" 
 
 To  the  7  th  proposal  they  observe,  that  it  is  obscure, 
 but  they  promise,  that  all  such  things  shall  be  settled, 
 if  the  union  should  be  accomplished. 
 
 To  the  8th  proposal  respecting  King  Edward's 
 First  Liturgy,  they  say :  "  The  Oriental  orthodox 
 Church  acknowledges  but  one  Liturgy,  the  same 
 which  was  delivered  down  by  the  Apostles,  but 
 written  by  the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  James  the 
 brother  of  God,  and  afterwards  abbreviated  upon  ac- 
 count of  its  length  by  the  great  Father,  Basil,  and 
 afterwards  again  epitomized  by  John,  the  golden- 
 tongued  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  which  from  the 
 times  of  Basil  and  Chrysostom,  until  now,  the  Ori- 
 ental orthodox  Church  receives  and  uses  every  where, 
 and  by  them  administers  the  unbloody  sacrifice  in  every 
 Church  of  the  orthodox.  It  is  proper,  therefore,  that 
 those,  who  are  called  the  remnant  of  primitive  piety, 
 should,  when  they  are  united  to  us,  make  use  of  those, 
 that  in  this  point  also  there  be  no  discord  between 
 us,  but  that  they  as  well  as  we  should  on  proper 
 days  officiate  by  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil,  and  daily 
 
l&tttorp  of  ft)«  $onfurow.  323 
 
 by  that  of  St.  Chrysostom.  As  for  the  English 
 Liturgy  we  are  unacquainted  with  it,  having  never 
 cither  seen  or  read  it,  but  we  have  suspicion  of  it, 
 because  many  and  various  heresies  and  schisms  and 
 sects  have  arisen  up  in  those  parts,  lest  the  heretics 
 should  have  introduced  into  it  any  corruption  or  de- 
 viation from  the  right  path.  Upon  this  account  it  is 
 necessary  that  we  should  both  see  and  read  it,  and 
 then  either  approve  it  as  right,  or  reject  it  as  dis. 
 agreeable  to  our  unspotted  faith.  When,  therefore, 
 we  have  considered  it,  if  it  needs  correction,  we  will 
 correct  it,  and  if  possible  will  give  it  the  sanction  of 
 a  genuine  form.  But  what  occasion  have  those  for 
 any  other  Liturgy,  who  have  the  true  and  sincere 
 one  of  the  divine  Father  Chrysostom,  which  is  made 
 use  of  in  all  the  Oriental  Churches  of  the  Orthodox 
 Greeks,  Russians,  Iberians,  and  Arabians,  and  many 
 other  orthodox  nations  ?  For  if  they  who  are  called 
 the  remnant  will  receive  this,  they  will  thereby  be 
 more  intimately  united,  and  more  nearly  related  to 
 us  :  for  the  people  do  not  so  much  look  upon  the 
 heart  as  the  appearance." 
 
 To  the  9th  Proposal,  respecting  the  Homilies  of 
 Chrysostom,  they  assent,  and  commend  it.  To  the 
 10th  Proposal  also  they  assent,  as  well  as  to  the  1 1th, 
 which  they  regard  as  of  the  same  character.  With 
 respect  to  the  12th  Proposal,  they  promise  to  trans- 
 mit the  decrees  of  their  canons,  and  to  receive  the 
 public  and  synodical  determinations  from  Britain,  and 
 to  take  them  into  their  consideration. 
 
 The  Patriarchs  then  proceed  to  the  points,  in  which 
 the  Nonjurors  express  their  agreement  with  the 
 Eastern  Church.  To  the  first  four,  a  general  agree- 
 ment is  expressed,  only,  with  regard  to  the  fourth, 
 they  wish  them  to  add,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  also  "spake 
 
324  tsi'ssftorp  of  tfjc  iftonjurottf. 
 
 by  the  Holy  Synods  and  Divine  Fathers,  and  then 
 they  will  be  in  the  right,  and  not  far  from  the  truth." 
 To  the  rest  of  the  propositions  also  a  general  agree- 
 ment is  expressed  ;  only  they  state  their  belief  in 
 Seven  Sacraments,  though  two  only  "  exceed  in  neces- 
 sity, and  are  such  as  no  one  can  be  saved  without 
 them,"  On  the  question  of  Purgatorial  fire,  they 
 remark  :  "  As  for  Purgatorial  fire,  invented  by  the 
 Papists  to  command  the  purse  of  the  ignorant,  we 
 will  by  no  means  hear  of  it.  For  it  is  a  fiction  and  a 
 doting  fable  invented  for  lucre,  and  to  deceive  the 
 simple,  and,  in  a  word,  has  no  existence  but  in  the 
 imagination.  There  is  no  appearance  or  mention  of 
 it  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  or  Fathers,  whatsoever  the 
 authors  or  abettors  of  it  may  clamour  to  the  contrary." 
 They  contend,  however,  for  Prayers  for  Saints  de- 
 parted. 
 
 In  the  next  place,  the  Patriarchs  and  Bishops  pro- 
 ceed to  the  points  of  disagreement,  as  expressed  by 
 the  Nonjurors,  remarking  that  they  constitute  the 
 greatest  difficulty.  "  But,  say  they,  this  is  not  to  be 
 wondered  at,  for  being  born  and  educated  in  the 
 principles  of  the  Lutheran  Calvinists,  and  possessed 
 with  their  prejudices,  they  tenaciously  adhere  to 
 them,  like  ivy  to  a  tree,  and  are  hardly  drawn  off." 
 They  answer  the  points  in  the  order,  in  which  they 
 were  placed  by  the  Nonjurors. 
 
 To  the  First  they  say,  that  the  proposition  cannot 
 be  received,  for  they  cannot  allow  the  decrees  of 
 Synods  to  be  despised.  To  the  Second  respecting  the 
 Virgin  Mary,  they  say,  "  Here  we  may  fairly  cry 
 out  with  David,  '  They  were  in  great  fear  where  no 
 fear  was  :'  "  and  then  they  proceed  to  shew,  that 
 they  do  not  give  her  divine  honours.  In  replying  to 
 the  Third  point,  they  contend  that  the  saints  may  be 
 
I5i'0torp  of  tfje  iftonj'urortf.  325 
 
 invocated  and  addressed  as  helpers.  The  Fourth 
 proposition  relative  to  the  Eucharist  is  termed  blas- 
 phemous, and  the  Patriarchs  express  their  belief  in 
 Transubstantiation.  To  the  Fifth  point,  respecting 
 Images,  they  state,  that  to  honour  the  saints  by  pic- 
 tures is  an  ancient  piece  of  devotion,  which  they 
 daily  practice.  They  argue  at  some  length  that  the 
 honour  paid  to  them  is  only  relative.  The  proposal, 
 at  the  end  of  the  points  of  disagreement,  respecting 
 a  church  in  or  near  London,  is  approved  of  and  ac- 
 cepted :  and  also  that  the  Eastern  Bishops,  or  those 
 appointed  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  should,  in 
 the  event  of  a  change  in  the  government,  perform 
 divine  service  in  St.  Paul's  in  Greek  and  English. 
 They  then  recommend  the  translation  of  the  Greek 
 Liturgy  for  general  use. 
 
 At  the  close  of  the  answers,  it  is  added  : 
 "  The  answers  here  transcribed  to  the  proposals 
 sent  from  Britain,  were  drawn  up  by  a  synodical 
 judgment  and  determination  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
 after  the  most  mature  deliberation,  of  the  Lord  Jere- 
 mias,  the  most  holy  oecumenical  Patriarch  of  Con- 
 stantinople, the  new  Rome,  and  the  blessed  and 
 most  holy  Patriarchs,  the  Lord  Samuel  of  Alexandria, 
 and  the  Lord  Chrysanthus  of  Jerusalem,  with  the 
 holy  metropolitans,  and  the  holy  Clergy  of  the  great 
 Church  of  Christ  in  Constantinople,  in  council  assem- 
 bled, in  the  year  1718,  in  the  month  of  April,  day 
 the  12th." 
 
 Then  follows  a  synodical  answer  to  a  question, 
 respecting  the  sentiments  of  the  Greek  Church,  sent 
 into  Britain  in  the  year  1672.  The  same  decisions 
 are  expressed  as  in  the  preceding  answers.  It  was 
 signed  by  thirty-seven  Patriarchs,  Archbishops  and 
 Bishops.    Another  Synodical  Decree  is  also  given, 
 
326  ^i'0toup  of  rtje  ifj-lonfurortf. 
 
 on  the  same  points,  bearing  the  date  1691,  and  sub- 
 scribed by  several  Patriarchs  and  Bishops. 
 
 The  following  is  the  reply  of  the  Nonjurors  to  the 
 communication  from  the  Patriarchs. 
 
 "  Copy  of  a  Reply  to  the  Aimoers  of  the  Orthodox 
 of  the  East. 
 
 "  Before  the  Catholic  remainder  of  the  British 
 Church  proceed  to  reply  to  the  answers  of  the  four 
 most  Reverend  Patriarchs  of  the  Catholic  Oriental 
 Church,  they  think  themselves  obliged  to  return  their 
 most  hearty  thanks  to  their  Patriarchal  Lordships  for 
 the  trouble  they  have  given  themselves,  in  drawing 
 up  an  answer  to  our  proposals,  and  transmitting  it  to . 
 so  distant  a  country  as  Great  Britain  :  hoping  that 
 this  charitable  disposition  and  generous  ardour  their 
 Patriarchal  Lordships  express  for  preserving  an  har- 
 mony between  us,  and  enlarging  the  union  of  Chris- 
 tendom, may  be  carried  on  to  a  happy  conclusion  ; 
 and  as  the  Catholic  remnant  of  Britain  will  omit 
 nothing,  in  order  to  so  desirable  an  issue,  but  wil- 
 lingly stretch  to  the  utmost  of  their  power  :  so  having 
 the  satisfaction  to  understand,  that  their  Patriarchal 
 Lordships  refer  the  difference  of  sentiments  between 
 us  to  the  decision  of  the  Scriptures  and  primitive 
 Church,  they  have  no  uncomfortable  prospect  of  a 
 coalition.  For  since  the  determining  rule  is  equally 
 received  by  the  Oriental  Churches  and  the  Catholic 
 remainder  in  Britain  ;  since  the  inspired  writings  of 
 the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  interpreted  by  the 
 primitive  Fathers,  are  the  common  standard  of  faith 
 and  worship  to  both,  we  do  not  despair,  but  by  the 
 blessing  of  God,  when  the  case  shall  be  further  ex- 
 amined by  the  Catholic  Oriental  Church,  such  allow- 
 
^(tftucp  of  rl)j  iponj'urocsf.  32? 
 ances  and  concessions  may  be  made,  as  may  dispose 
 both  parties  to  unite  in  communion  with  each  other. 
 And  now,  after  this  short  mention  of  our  wishes  and 
 regard,  we  shall  proceed  to  speak  of  the  answer  their 
 Patriarchal  Lordships  have  done  us  the  honour  to 
 send  us. 
 
 As  to  the  Articles  agreed  on  between  us,  they 
 shall  be  passed  over  unmentioned  except  as  they 
 stand  in  number. 
 
 1,  2,  3,  4,  5.  To  the  answers  to  the  first  five  pro- 
 positions we  have  nothing  to  except,  only  we  con- 
 ceive, that  the  British  Bishops  may  remain  indepen- 
 dent of  all  the  Patriarchs. 
 
 6.  Under  this  Article  we  never  intended  to  pre- 
 scribe to  the  wisdom,  or  question  the  learning  of  the 
 Catholic  Oriental  Church,  our  meaning  by  the  word 
 TrcuSeia  relating  only  to  points  of  discipline. 
 
 7.  The  answer  of  their  Patriarchal  Lordships  is 
 here  agreed  to. 
 
 8.  It  is  likewise  agreed,  that  the  Liturgy  by  which 
 we  now  officiate  shall  be  translated  into  Greek,  and 
 transmitted  to  their  Patriarchal  Lordships  to  be  in- 
 spected by  them. 
 
 9.  10,  11,  12.  The  answer  is  agreed  to.  With 
 respect  to  the  12th,  we  believe  the  prayers  of  the 
 living,  together  with  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  are 
 serviceable  to  the  dead,  for  the  improvement  of  their 
 happiness  during  the  interval  between  death  and  the 
 resurrection,  but  then  we  declare  no  further  upon 
 this  Article. 
 
 As  to  the  last  five  Articles,  in  which  there  still 
 continue  some  differences  to  be  adjusted,  we  desire 
 to  observe  in  general,  that  what  conjectures  soever 
 the  Catholic  Oriental  Church  might  have  to  suspect 
 us  of  Luthero-Calvinism,  we  openly  declare,  that 
 
328  Ikttftorp  of  ttje  ^onfuroctf. 
 
 none  of  the  distinguishing  principles  of  either  of  those 
 sects  can  fairly  be  charged  upon  us,  and  we  further 
 believe,  that  upon  perusal  of  our  reply  they  will  most 
 readily  acquit  us  of  any  such  imputation. 
 To  come  now  to  particulars. 
 
 I.  Our  reply  to  the  answer  to  the  1st  Proposition, 
 relating  to  the  reception  of  the  seven  general  Councils 
 as  of  equal  authority  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  must 
 be  made  with  somewhat  an  abatement  of  regard.  We 
 willingly  declare,  we  receive  the  faith  decreed  in  the 
 first  six  general  Councils,  as  being  agreeable  to  the 
 Holy  Scriptures,  though  our  sentiments  cannot  ad- 
 vance so  far  as  to  believe  the  Fathers  of  those  Coun- 
 cils assisted  with  an  equal  degree  of  inspiration  with 
 the  Prophets,  Evangelists,  and  Apostles ;  but  here 
 we  desire  not  to  lie  under  any  restraint  imposed  by 
 the  disciplinary  of  those  Councils.  To  this  we  must 
 subjoin,  that  as  to  the  seventh  General  Council  as- 
 sembled at  Nice,  we  think  ourselves  obliged  to  de- 
 clare, that  we  cannot  assent  to  the  giving  even  the 
 worship  Dalia  to  angels  or  departed  saints.  Some 
 of  our  reasons  are  these. 
 
 1.  There  is  no  clear  instance  in  the  Old  Testament 
 that  the  Jews  worshipped  angels,  but  rather  the  con- 
 trary. Had  that  nation  believed  the  worship  of  these 
 superior  beings  lawful,  they  had  particular  motives  for 
 such  an  application :  for  angels  had  appeared  to  the 
 Patriarchs,  delivered  the  Mosaic  laws,  conducted  them 
 through  the  wilderness,  and  Michael  is  said  to  be 
 their  prince,  and  to  have  the  guardianship  of  their 
 country.  Dan.  x.  'Tis  true  Abraham  is  said  to 
 bow  down  before  the  angels  :  but  it  is  plain  by  this 
 entertainment  he  took  them  to  be  men.  'Tis  granted 
 Moses  and  Joshua  are  commanded  [to  put  off  their 
 shoes,  and  told  the  place  was  holy  ground  by  the 
 
Hi'srtorp  of  tljc  i^onfucortf.  329 
 
 angel  that  appeared.  But  the  Fathers  generally 
 believed  it  was  our  Saviour  under  this  quality  and 
 denomination.  Particularly  St.  Justin  Martyr,  St. 
 Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and  St.  Athanasius  declare  for 
 this  opinion.  Justin  Martyr,  Cum  Try.  Iren  :  lib.  4. 
 cap.  22.  Tertul.  lib.  acta  Judeos.  Athan.  lib.  4. 
 Cont.  Arian.  Thus  the  Fathers  observe,  that  when 
 the  angels  appeared,  they  refused  adoration,  as  the 
 angel  that  appeared  to  Manoa  and  St.  John.  Judges 
 and  Revelation.  Besides  it  is  not  the  same  thing  to 
 worship  visible  and  invisible  angels.  When  they 
 are  visible  there  is  a  regard  due  to  the  superiority  of 
 their  nature,  to  their  character  and  message ;  which 
 reasons  for  regard  don't  hold,  when  they  are  unseen 
 and  possibly  out  of  reach.  Further  Origen  tells 
 Celsus  he  slandered  the  Jews  (Origin  Cont.  Cels. 
 lib.  i.)  in  saying  they  worshipped  angels.  "  That 
 nothing  is  to  be  worshipped  but  God  Almighty  : 
 neither  are  prayers  addressed  to  any  but  the  sovereign 
 being.  That  the  right  way  of  worshipping  God  is 
 by  directing  our  devotions  to  him,  without  any  appli- 
 cation to  angels.  That  if  we  are  so  happy  as  to 
 have  Gods  favour,  all  the  angels  and  blessed  spirits 
 will  be  our  friends,  and  pray  for  us  without  applica- 
 tion." Ibid.  There  are  several  texts  in  the  Old  and 
 New  Testament  from  whence  we  may  conclude  the 
 worshipping  of  angels  unlawful.  Deut.  iv.  13,  with 
 reference  to  verse  4.  1  Sam.  vii.  3,  where  the  word  in 
 LXXII.  is  ($£§£u<7aTE,  which  overthrows  the  distinction 
 between  Latria  and  Dulia.  To  these  we  may  add 
 Luke  iv.  8,  Col.  ii.  18,  19,  with  Theodoret's  com- 
 ment. To  mention  some  more  of  the  Fathers,  Irenaeus 
 (lib.  2.  cap.  1.)  declares  expressly,  "  The  Church 
 did  not  work  any  miracles  by  invocation  of  angels, 
 or  by  an  unlawful  curiosity."     Theophilus  Antio- 
 
330  ^tsitorp  of  ttje  jftonjuroitf. 
 
 chenus  gives  the  reason  why  the  Christians  could  not 
 adore  the  Emperor,  "  Thus  because  his  Majesty  was 
 not  God."  Ad.  Autoly.  The  council  of  Laodicea, 
 Canon  25,  denounced  an  anathema  against  those  that 
 worshipped  angels.  But  here  it  is  pretended,  this 
 Canon  is  only  levelled  against  those  heretics  who 
 held  the  angels  brought  salvation  by  delivering  the 
 law,  and  worshipped  them  exclusively  of  our  Saviour. 
 But  that  this  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  Council  may 
 be  made  good.  1st.  Because  the  Council  condemns 
 angel  worship  on  general  and  comprehensive  terms, 
 without  any  restraining  clause  or  limitation.  Whereas 
 had  they  thought  it  lawful  in  any  respect,  such  a 
 prudent  assembly  as  we  may  reasonably  collect  would 
 have  distinguished  the  case,  remarked  the  fault,  and 
 pointed  their  anathema  only  upon  the  irregularities  and 
 excesses  of  such  a  worship.  2nd.  Though  those  that 
 are  censured  are  said  to  forsake  the  Church,  yet  this 
 implies  no  more  than  that  they  held  private  conven- 
 ticles, as  the  Canon  intimates.  For  had  they  main- 
 tained the  angels  brought  salvation  by  publishing  the 
 law,  had  they  looked  upon  them  as  their  proper  and 
 primary  mediators,  had  they  neither  prayed  to  our 
 Saviour,  nor  worshipped  him,  they  had  been  no 
 Christians.  And  if  so,  they  were  out  of  the  juris- 
 diction of  the  Council.  For  as  St.  Paul  says,  what 
 have  we  to  do  with  them  that  are  without?  Tis  not 
 the  custom  of  the  Church  to  excommunicate  Jews, 
 pagans,  or  apostates :  for  that  would  be  to  exclude 
 those  from  her  society  that  had  gone  off  already. 
 And  besides,  her  power  does  not  extend  beyond  the 
 state  of  Christendom.  'Tis  plain  therefore  the  ana- 
 thema of  the  Council  is  levelled  against  those  who 
 had  not  wholly  abandoned  the  worship  of  our  Saviour ; 
 what  therefore  could  they  be  condemned  for  but  for 
 
^itftorp  of  rtjc  iponfurortf.  331 
 
 worshipping  the  angels  together  with  him,  and  making- 
 more  mediators  in  religious  worship  than  one  ?  St. 
 Athanasius  in  his  discourse  against  the  Arians  (lib.  iv.) 
 having  proved,  that  the  angels  waited  on  our  Saviour 
 and  worshipped  him,  adds,  "  They  adored  him  not 
 because  he  was  an  higher  order  than  themselves,  but 
 because  he  was  a  distinct,  an  uncreated  nature."  For 
 if  dignity  and  height  of  station  were  sufficient  ground 
 for  adoration,  all  inferior  angels  should  worship  their 
 Superiors.     But  it  IS  not  SO,  Kriafia  yap  KTiapan  npoa- 
 kvvu,  for  one  creature  is  not  to  worship  another. 
 And  after  he  has  produced  the  instances  of  St.  Peter 
 forbidding  Cornelius  to  worship  him,  Acts  x,  and 
 the  angels  forbidding  St.  John,  Rev.  xix,  he  concludes 
 "That  God  alone  is  to  be  worshipped."  Athan. 
 Cont.  Arian,  pp.  286,  394,  ed.  Paris.  Epiphanius, 
 reporting  the  heresy  of  those  that  worshipped  the 
 B.  Virgin,  argues  thus,  "  Neither  Elias,  who  was 
 carried  in  a  fiery  chariot  to  heaven,  and  is  now  living, 
 nor  St.  John,  who  was  particularly  favoured  by  our 
 Saviour,  nor  any  of  the  saints  is  worshipped.  If 
 God  does  not  allow  angels  to  be  worshipped,  much 
 less  the  daughter  of  Joachim."    Epiph.  Haeres.  79. 
 And  elsewhere  he  declares  "  that  no  created  being- 
 ought  to  be  worshipped."    To  those  we  shall  only 
 subjoin  one  testimony  from  St.  Augustine,  who  though 
 a  Latin  Father,  was  a  person  of  great  character  for 
 piety  and  learning,  and  wrote  in  some  part  of  the 
 fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  This  Father  remarks,  "  that 
 the  angel  in  the  Revelation  forbid  the  paying  him 
 any  worship,  that  he  was  the  Apostle's  fellow,  and 
 that  God  was  only  to  be  worshipped."     Aug.  De 
 Dioct.  Christiana,  lib.  i.  cap.  33.    To  draw  towards 
 a  conclusion.  As  some  of  these  testimonies  expressly 
 discountenance  religious  applications  to  saints,  so 
 
332  ^igtorp  of  rt)s  0onfurorjJ. 
 
 those  other  authorities,  which  point  particularly  upon 
 the  angels,  seem  by  more  than  parity  of  reason,  to 
 comprehend  the  faithful  departed  under  the  same 
 direction.  For  if  the  angels,  whom  the  Scriptures 
 declare  guardians  and  ministering  spirits,  to  the  heirs 
 of  salvation  (Ps.  xxxiv,  Heb.  i.)  are  not  to  receive 
 application  and  worship,  the  consequence  of  this 
 prohibition  will  come  stronger  upon  the  saints  de- 
 parted, because  they  have  no  such  commission  for 
 protecting  mankind,  no  such  liberty  for  revisiting 
 this  world,  at  least  that  we  know  of,  and  therefore 
 our  reasons  for  address  and  acknowledgment  must 
 proportionably  abate.  As  to  the  texts  of  Scripture 
 produced  for  maintaining  application  to  the  saints 
 departed,  we  conceive  that  the  proof  alleged  falls 
 short  of  conviction.  For  instance,  King  Hezekiah,  as 
 being  delivered  from  Senacherib's  army  by  David, 
 though  deceased,  this  passage  seems  plainly  foreign 
 to  the  argument.  For  the  text  only  says  that  God 
 promised  to  defend  Jerusalem  for  his  servant  Davids 
 sake  and  for  his  own  sake  ;  but  here  is  not  the  least 
 mention,  that  the  Jews  made  any  application  to  David 
 for  his  intercession,  without  which  their  Lordships' 
 arguments  can't  bear.  Their  next  citation  from  Acts 
 xii,  5,  where  it  is  said  that  prayer  was  made  without 
 ceasing  of  the  Church  unto  God  for  St.  Peter  ;  this 
 proves  no  farther,  than  that  one  part  of  the  Church 
 militant  prayed  for  another  ;  neither  does  St.  Paul's 
 desiring  the  Romans  to  join  with  him  in  prayer  to 
 God,  for  his  deliverance  from  the  unbelieving,  reach 
 any  further.  Neither  do  we  deny  any  such  media- 
 tion. Farther,  we  are  willing  to  grant  that  the 
 saints  departed  intercede  for  the  faithful  upon  earth  : 
 but  this  does  by  no  means  prove,  that  we  are  to 
 address  them  for  this  purpose,  both  because  we  may 
 
l^tetorp  ot*  ttjc  /ponfucoctf.  333 
 
 reasonably  conclude  the  benevolence  of  their  nature 
 will  prompt  them  to  assist  us  without  religious  sub- 
 missions :  and  besides,  we  are  not  assured  they  are 
 within  the  reach  of  our  petitions.  'Tis  too  well 
 known  indeed  that  the  ill  nature  of  men  is  often  such, 
 that  they  will  do  nothing  without  worship  and  servile 
 application  :  they  spoil  the  grace  of  obligation  by 
 delays  and  distance,  and  morose  behaviour,  and 
 sometimes  there  is  more  trouble  with  them  than  the 
 thing  is  worth.  They  believe  their  greatness  consists 
 in  the  littleness  of  others,  and  therefore  they  will  not 
 part  with  their  favours  without  submission :  they 
 think  they  are  slighted  when  they  are  not  flattered  ; 
 and  endeavour  to  make  up  their  defects  in  solid  ad- 
 vantages, by  haughtiness  and  pretending.  But  all 
 this  proceeds  from  scandalous  principles,  from  igno- 
 rance and  weakness,  and  malice.  This  climate  of 
 this  miserable  world  does  not  differ  more  from  the 
 regions  of  happiness,  than  such  a  temper  from  those 
 that  dwell  there.  The  blessed  spirits  understand 
 their  own  height  too  well  to  fancy  our  obeisance  can 
 make  any  addition,  are  too  good  to  have  any  thing 
 of  state  or  exceptionness  in  them.  There  has  been 
 no  pride  in  the  mansions  of  bliss  since  Lucifer  was 
 thrown  out,  and  therefore  we  need  not  fear  that  those 
 who  are  there  will  be  disobliged  with  the  omission  of 
 a  little  ceremony,  especially  when  they  know  we 
 do  not  forbear  it  out  of  disrespect  but  for  fear  of 
 offending  God.  Their  goodness  is  too  absolute  to 
 clog  their  assistance  with  any  encumbrance.  Their 
 greatness  is  without  vanity,  their  kindness  is  without 
 design,  and  therefore  all  their  favours  will  arise  un- 
 bespoken  of  themselves.  Their  generous  charity  is 
 sufficient  to  oblige  them  to  do  their  utmost :  so  that 
 it  is  needless  for  us  to  go  about  to  waken  their  bene- 
 
334  ^isJtocp  of  rtje  j&onfuror& 
 
 ficence  by  importunity  and  homage.  And  whereas 
 they  assert  that  our  Saviour's  mediation  relates  only 
 to  original  sin,  and  that  we  are  to  address  the  saints 
 to  intercede  with  the  God  of  the  Universe  for  the  re- 
 mission of  post-baptismal  sins,  this  assertion,  with  all 
 due  regard  to  their  Patriarchal  Lordships,  we  con- 
 ceive repugnant  to  plain  Scripture,  and  derogatory 
 to  the  mediatorial  office  of  our  Saviour  as  God  and 
 man.  For  our  blessed  Saviour  plainly  commands  the 
 Apostles,  and  by  consequence  all  the  faithful,  to 
 apply  immediately  to  God,  John  xiv.  13,  14,  and 
 chap.  xvi.  Our  Saviour  assures  his  disciples,  that 
 whatsoever  they  shall  ask  the  Father  in  his  name  he 
 will  give  it  them.  From  whence  our  Lord  continues, 
 "  Hitherto  ye  have  asked  nothing ;  ask  and  ye  shall 
 receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  full."  Thus  we  see 
 there  is  an  express  command  for  addressing  God 
 directly  for  all  the  blessings  relating  to  this  life  and 
 the  other.  And  that  the  same  holds  for  immediate 
 application  to  God  for  the  remission  of  post-baptismal 
 sins,  we  may  learn  from  the  same  Apostle,  1  Epist.  ii. 
 1,  where  we  are  told  "if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an 
 advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous, 
 and  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins."  By  the 
 Apostle  declaring,  that  if  any  man  sin  we  have  an 
 advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  evident 
 only  actual  sins  are  meant,  for  original  sin  was  con- 
 tracted long  before  any  persons  were  in  being  in  St. 
 John's  time.  Besides,  the  Apostle's  affirming  our 
 Saviour  to  be  then  an  advocate  and  propitiation  for 
 our  sins  manifestly  implies  his  intercession  with  God 
 the  Father,  for  post -baptismal  sins  ever  since  his 
 ascension. 
 
 4.  As  for  their  Patriarchal  Lordships'  sentiment, 
 maintaining  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
 
^igtori?  of  tfje  ^onjuiW.  335 
 
 being1  changed,  after  consecration,  into  the  actual 
 body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour,  nothing  of  the  ele- 
 ments remaining  excepting  the  bare  accidents  void  of 
 substance,  we  can  by  no  means  agree  with  their 
 Lordships'  doctrine  :  such  a  corporal  presence  which 
 they  call  Transubstantiation  having  no  foundation  in 
 Scripture,  and  being  by  implication,  and  sometimes 
 plainly  denied  by  the  most  celebrated  Fathers  of  the 
 Primitive  Church.  As  to  the  Scripture,  'tis  true  our 
 Saviour  calls  the  Eucharistic  bread  and  wine  his  body 
 and  blood,  but  that  these  words  are  not  to  be  restrained 
 in  a  literal  sense  we  may  collect  from  other  places  of 
 Scripture,  where  our  Saviour  calls  him  a  vine,  an 
 olive,  and  in  other  places  of  Holy  Writ  he  is  called 
 the  lamb  of  God,  and  the  lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
 All  which  texts  we  doubt  not,  but  the  Oriental  Church 
 will  allow  must  be  construed  to  a  metaphorical  sense, 
 and  if  these  texts  are  to  be  figuratively  interpreted, 
 why  not  the  other  at  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Eu- 
 charist, which  if  restrained  to  the  letter  is  no  less 
 shocking  than  the  rest?  Farther,  St.  Paul  calls  the 
 Eucharistic  element  bread,  even  after  the  consecra- 
 tion, when  it  was  to  be  received,  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  And 
 to  allege  some  testimonies  from  the  primitive  Fathers. 
 St.  Justin  Martyr  declares  that  our  bodies  are  nou- 
 rished by  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine.  Apo.  2. 
 From  whence  the  inference  is  plain,  this  Father  be- 
 lieved the  substance  of  the  Eucharistic  elements  to 
 remain  after  consecration.  For  if  the  doctrine  of 
 accidents  had  been  established,  which  'tis  plain  the 
 primitive  Fathers  knew  nothing  of,  supposing  this 
 doctrine  current,  which  way  would  St.  Justin  Martyr 
 conceive  our  bodies  could  be  nourished  by  bare  ac- 
 cidents ?  For  accidents  are  out  of  all  substance,  and 
 then  which  way  can  it  be  supposed  a  body  can  receive 
 
336  IMdtorp  of  x\\t  i^onfurot0. 
 
 nourishment  and  addition  of  parts  from  that  which  is 
 no  body  I  St.  Irenasus,  who  lived  in  some  part  of 
 the  same  second  century  with  St.  Justin,  informs  us 
 the  Holy  Eucharist  consists  of  two  parts,  an  earthly 
 and  a  heavenly  :  the  first  is  the  bread  and  wine,  the 
 other  consists  in  the  mystic  force  and  efficacy  con- 
 veyed by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  St.  Cyril 
 of  Jerusalem,  it  is  granted,  has  a  passage  that  sounds 
 strongly  towards  transubstantiation.  Catech.  Mystic. 
 4.  He  observes,  "  that  as  our  Saviour  turned  water 
 into  wine  at  Cana  in  Galilee,  so  we  have  no  reason 
 to  question  but  that  he  gave  his  body  and  blood  at 
 the  Institution.  Therefore  that  we  may  be  certainly 
 assured,  that  we  receive  his  body  under  the  species 
 of  bread,  and  his  blood  under  the  species  of  wine." 
 But  that  these  expressions,  how  strong  soever,  are  not 
 to  be  mounted  to  Transubstantiation,  seems  pretty 
 plain  from  his  discourse  upon  the  Holy  Chrism,  Nat. 
 Mvst.  2.  The  words  are  these,  "as  the  Eucharistic 
 bread,  after  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  no 
 longer  mere  or  common  bread,  but  the  body  of  Christ, 
 so  the  holy  ointment  remains  no  longer  mere  or  com- 
 mon ointment  after  the  invocation,  but  becomes  -^apia^a 
 or  grace  of  Christ,  and  the  very  presence  and  divinity 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit.'"  From  this  reasoning  we  may 
 conclude,  that  as  the  Holy  Chrism  cannot  be  sup- 
 posed to  be  raised  to  essence  and  sublimity  of  the 
 deity,  so  neither,  by  the  force  of  the  comparison,  can 
 we  infer,  that  this  Father  meant  any  more,  than  that 
 the  Eucharistic  elements  had  a  supernatural  force 
 and  beneficial  energy  transfused  by  consecration  upon 
 them.  The  next  testimony  shall  be  the  famous  St. 
 Chrysostom  in  the  Epistle  to  Casarias.  Here  this 
 Father,  disputing  against  the  heresy  of  Appolonaris, 
 brings  an  instance,  by  way  of  illustration,  from  the 
 
^fgtorp  oft&e/f&onjurortf.  337 
 Holy  Eucharist.  "The  bread,"  says  he,  "before 
 consecration  is  called  bread,  but  after  it  has  passed 
 through  the  force  of  the  solemnity  and  been  con- 
 secrated by  the  Priest,  it  is  then  discharged  from  the 
 name  of  bread,  and  dignified  by  the  name  of  the 
 Lord's  body,  though  the  nature  of  the  bread  still 
 remains  in  it."  And  thus  by  the  form  of  the  ex- 
 pression and  the  application  of  the  instance,  he  shews 
 clearly  that  he  believed  the  nature  or  substance  of 
 bread  remained,  after  the  consecration.  Theodoret, 
 who  is  the  last  Greek  father  we  shall  mention,  has  a 
 passage  full  to  the  same  purpose.  It  is  in  his  second 
 dialogue  between  Orthodoxus  and  Eranistes :  the 
 latter  of  these  two  persons  represents  an  Eutychian. 
 Now  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Eutychian  heresy  our 
 Saviour's  human  nature  was  absorbed  in  the  Divine. 
 To  make  good  this  point  Eranistes  argues  from  the 
 change  of  the  elements  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  As 
 the  symbols  of  our  Saviour's  body,"  says  he,  "  are 
 one  thing  before  the  invocation  of  the  Priest,  but 
 after  the  Prayer  of  consecration  has  passed  upon 
 them,  they  are  changed  and  become  another,  so  our 
 Lord's  body  after  his  ascension  is  changed  into  the 
 divine  substance."  "  You  are  catched  in  your  own 
 net,"  replies  Orthodoxus,  who  stands  for  Theodoret. 
 
 OvSe  yap  fiera  tov  ayiaq  fxov  ra  fxvaTiKa  avpfioXa  rrjg  oi"^iaq 
 s^iaraTai  tyvotaq  fxtvti  yaq  ewi  rr\q  Trporepaq  ovaiac,  &c. 
 That  is,  "  the  mysterious  symbols  dont  lose  their 
 nature  upon  consecration,  but  continue  in  their  former 
 substance."  And  to  apply  this  matter  farther,  it  is 
 well  known  St.  Chrysostom  and  Theodoret  were 
 never  charged  with  any  unorthodoxy  or  singularity 
 of  opinion  with  regard  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  We 
 may  therefore  safely  conclude,  that  their  opinions  in 
 the  matter  were  no  other  than  the  Catholic  doctrine 
 
338  ^t0totH  o£  ttje  Nonjuror?*, 
 
 of  the  Primitive  Church.  These  authorities  of  the 
 Eastern  Fathers  shall  be  fortified,  by  three  of  the 
 Western  Churches  of  famous  memory.  The  first  is 
 Tertullian,  who  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  ; 
 the  others  are  St.  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo,  and 
 Gelasius  the  First,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
 centuries.  Tertullian  reports,  contra  Marcion,  "  that 
 our  Saviour  by  what  he  calls  his  body  in  the  Holy 
 Eucharist  meant  the  symbol  representation  of  his 
 body.  Corpus  meum,  hoc  est  figura  corporis  mei." 
 St.  Augustine  lays  down  the  following  rule  as  a 
 maxim  for  interpreting  Scripture.  "  If  the  text,"  says 
 he,  "  forbids  something  that  is  wicked  and  flagitious, 
 and  commands  what  is  serviceable  and  beneficial, 
 then  the  precept  is  to  be  literally  understood  ;  but  if 
 it  seems  to  command  a  wicked  action,  and  forbid  a 
 good  one,  then  it  is  a  figurative  expression."  And 
 to  apply  and  illustrate  this  maxim,  he  instances  the 
 text  in  St.  John's  Gospel,  chap.  vi.  urged  some- 
 times in  proof  of  the  corporal  presence,  "  Unless 
 ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
 blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  "Here  something 
 very  ill  and  inhuman  seems  commanded,  therefore 
 the  place  has  a  figurative  meaning.  The  sense  is, 
 that  we  ought  gratefully  to  recollect  our  Saviour  s 
 passion  and  entertain  our  memory  with  the  con- 
 templation, that  his  flesh  has  been  crucified  and 
 wounded  for  us."  His  words  are  "  figura  est  ergo 
 praecipica  passioni  ejus  esse  communicandum  et 
 suaviter  et  utiliter  in  memoria  recollendum,  quod  pro 
 nobis  caro  ejus  crucifixa  et  vulnerata  sit."  Augus.  De 
 Doct.  Christiana.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  15.  And  in  the 
 same  book  he  expressly  pronounces,  "  That  it  is  not 
 really  and  strictly  speaking  our  Saviour's  body, 
 which  will  not  continue  with  him  to  all  eternity." 
 
^isftorp  of  tfje  iI5onjuror0.  339 
 Ibid.  cap.  33.  From  hence  nothing  can  be  more 
 evident,  than  that  this  celebrated  Father  did  not 
 believe  the  Eucharistic  elements  were  Transub- 
 stantiated into  our  Saviour's  natural  body.  For  it  is 
 granted  on  all  hands,  that  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice 
 will  for  ever  cease  at  the  day  of  Judgment.  For 
 when  the  final  decision  is  past,  and  every  one's  fate 
 is  fixed,  where  will  be  no  more  remission  of  sins,  or 
 need  of  grace  against  temptations,  the  reason  for  sa- 
 crificing of  course  must  drop.  And  when  the  Eu- 
 charistic elements  are  no  longer  consecrated,  the 
 natural  body  of  our  Saviour  supposed  to  emerge 
 from  them,  can  no  longer  be  produced,  and  by  con- 
 sequence cannot  continue  with  him  to  all  eternity. 
 
 Pope  Gelasius  is  no  less  strongly  determining 
 against  Transubstantiation.  This  Pope,  who  wrote 
 in  the  latter  end  of  the  5th  century,  plainly  declares, 
 "  the  substance  and  nature  of  the  bread  and  wine 
 remains  after  consecration."  'Tis  in  Test.  Contra 
 Nestorium  et  Eutych.  'Tis  true  he  there  tells  us, 
 "the  elements  are  changed  into  a  divine  thing,"  are 
 raised  to  a  divine  offering  by  the  operation  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost ;  which  change  we  most  willingly  con- 
 fess, viz.  that  there  is  a  mystic  virtue  and  super- 
 natural force  transfused  upon  the  elements,  by  the 
 Priest's  pronouncing  the  words  of  consecration,  and 
 his  Prayer  for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 As  to  what  has  been  urged  from  these  Latin 
 Fathers,  their  testimony  can't  be  justly  excepted  to, 
 for  since  they  are  early  in  time  and  considerable  in 
 character,  their  being  members  of  the  Western 
 Church  can  be  no  disadvantage  to  their  authority. 
 For  they  lived  several  centuries  before  a  rupture 
 between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  And  as 
 for  their  not  writing  in  Greek,  we  conceive  their 
 
340  Iktgtorp  of  rlje  iftonjurorg. 
 
 Patriarchal  Lordships  will  not  consider  them  with 
 abatement  on  that  score. 
 
 Our  reply  to  the  answer  to  the  5th  Article,  is,  that 
 since  we  cannot  be  convinced  of  any  liberty  for  invo- 
 cating  the  saints  and  paying  religious  worship  to  them, 
 we  conceive  the  argument  lies  strongly  against  giving 
 relative  worship  or  religious  respect  to  their  images. 
 For  since  the  prototype  cannot  be  thus  addressed, 
 'tis  still  more  difficult  to  imagine  the  bare  representa- 
 tion of  such  a  being  can  claim  any  such  honour. 
 To  proceed — That  neither  the  worship,  nor  so  much 
 as  the  use  of  them,  was  very  early  in  the  Christian 
 Church,  is  pretty  plain  from  St.  Epiphanius,  Bishop 
 of  Constantia,  in  Cyprus,  in  his  letter  to  John  of  Je- 
 rusalem, where  he  declares  strongly  against  this  prac- 
 tice. "  When  I  came  into  a  country  church  of  Pales- 
 tine, called  Anablatha,  I  found  a  certain  hanging 
 over  the  door,  upon  which  there  was  a  picture  painted 
 like  that  of  our  Saviour  or  some  saint,  for  I  cannot 
 certainly  remember  whose  picture  it  was.  However, 
 seeing  the  figure  of  a  man  in  the  Church  of  Christ, 
 contrary  to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  SS,  I  tore  it, 
 and  gave  orders  to  the  church-wardens  to  wrap  it 
 about  some  corpse  and  bury  it,  &c."  And  though 
 this  Father  went  too  far  in  asserting  the  unlawfulness 
 of  having  images  in  Churches,  yet  we  may  fairly  in- 
 fer, that  this  practice  was  not  customary  in  Cyprus  or 
 Palestine  in  Epiphanius's  time.  See  Council  of  Nice 
 2nd  :  Epiph.  Heeres  :  27,  which  last  agrees  with  the 
 testimony  cited. 
 
 To  this  we  may  observe,  that  the  Council  of  Con- 
 stantinople held  under  Constantine  Copronymus, 
 agajnst  images,  asserts,  that  there  was  no  prayer  in 
 the  Church  Service  for  consecrating  images,  which 
 suggestion  the  2nd  Council  of  Nice  does  not  deny. 
 
^ttftorp  of  rfje  iJ&onjucorg*  341 
 Baron  A.  D.  754.  Concil.  Labb.  Tom.  7.  And  St. 
 Augustine  mentioning  some  superstitious  Christians, 
 (for  so  he  calls  them)  says,  he  knew  a  great  many 
 who  worshipped  pictures."  August.  De  Moribus 
 Eccl.  Cath.  cap.  34.  And  for  a  farther  declaration 
 of  our  sentiments  upon  this  article,  we  willingly  ac- 
 knowledge, that  the  use  of  images  in  Churches  is  not 
 only  lawful,  but  may  be  serviceable  for  represent- 
 ing the  history  of  the  saints,  for  refreshing  the  me- 
 mory and  warming  the  devotion  of  the  people.  And 
 thus  one  reason  for  alleging  the  foregoing  testimonies 
 is  not  against  the  use,  but  only  against  the  worship 
 of  images.  For  if  the  bare  usage  was  sometimes  con- 
 demned, and  nowhere  generally  practised  in  the  pri- 
 mitive Church,  it  follows  a  fortiori,  that  the  worship 
 of  them  in  those  early  ages  cannot  be  supposed. 
 
 And  thus  having  represented  the  difference  between 
 us,  we  are  now  to  suggest  a  temper,  and  offer  a  com- 
 promise. If  our  liberty  is  left  us  therefore  in  the  in- 
 stances above  mentioned ;  if  the  oriental  Patriarchs, 
 Bishops,  &c.  will  authentically  declare  us  not  obliged 
 to  the  invocation  of  saints  and  angels,  the  worship  of 
 images,  nor  the  adoration  of  the  host.  If  they  please 
 publicly  and  authoritatively,  by  an  instrument  signed 
 by  them,  to  pronounce  us  perfectly  disengaged  in  these 
 particulars  :  disengaged  we  say,  at  home  and  abroad, 
 in  their  Churches  and  in  our  own.  These  relaxing 
 concessions  allowed,  we  hope  may  answer  the  over- 
 tures on  both  sides  and  conciliate  an  union.  And 
 we  further  desire  their  Patriarchal  Lordships,  &c. 
 would  please  to  remember,  that  Christianity  is  no 
 gradual  religion,  but  was  entire  and  perfect  when  the 
 Evangelists  and  Apostles  were  deceased  :  and  there- 
 fore the  earliest  traditions  are  undoubtedly  preferable, 
 and  the  first  guides  the  best.    For  the  stream  runs 
 
342  l£t'0totp  of  ttje  ilionjucorss. 
 
 clearest  towards  the  fountain  head.    Thus  whatever 
 variations  there  are  from  the  original  state,  whatever 
 crosses  in  belief  or  practice  upon  the  earliest  ages 
 ought  to  come  under  suspicion.    Therefore  as  they 
 charitably  put  us  in  mind  to  shake  off  all  prejudices, 
 so  we  entreat  them  not  to  take  it  amiss  if  we  humbly 
 suggest  the  same  advice.    We  hope  therefore  your 
 Lordships'  impartial  consideration  will  not  determine 
 by  prepossessions,  or  by  the  precedents  of  latter  times, 
 but  rather  be  governed  by  the  general  usages  and 
 doctrines  of  the  first  four  centuries,  not  excluding  the 
 5th  :  that  they  will  not  think  themselves  unalterably 
 bound  by  any  solemn  decisions  of  the  East  in  the  8th 
 century,  which  was  even  then  opposed  by  an  equal 
 authority  in  the  West.    And  thus  presuming  both 
 parties  will  hold  the  balance  and  wish  for  truth  to 
 prove  it,  we  are  not  without  expectation  of  advancing 
 so  far  towards  uniformity,  as  may  make  up  the  un- 
 happy breach,  and  close  the  distance  between  us. 
 And  to  release  their  Patriarchal  Lordships,  we  take 
 leave  with  our  most  earnest  prayers,  "That  the  All- 
 wise  and  Merciful  God,  who  makes  men  to  be  of  one 
 mind  in  an  house,  who  is  the  Author  of  peace  and 
 Lover  of  concord,"  may  graciously  please  to  continue 
 their  benevolent  wishes,  animate  their  zeal,  and  direct 
 their  measures,  for  finishing  so  glorious  a  work.  That 
 the  orthodox  oriental  Church  and  the  Catholic  rem- 
 nant in  Britain,  may  at  last  join  in  the  solemnities  of 
 religion,  and  be  made  more  intimately  one  fold  under 
 our  Shepherd  Jesus  Christ,  our  blessed  Lord  and 
 Saviour,  to  whom  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
 Ghost  be  all  honour  and  glory,  world  without  end. 
 Amen." 
 
 "  This  reply  was  concluded  and  delivered  to  some 
 
Ifcitftorp  of  tfje  ^onjuwcjS*  343 
 Greeks  in  London,  to  be  by  them  transmitted  to  the 
 Four  Eastern  Patriarchs.    May  29th,  1722." 
 
 "  To  the  Most  Venerable  and  Wise  Bishop  Arsenius, 
 the  Metropolitan  of  Thebais,  the  remnant  of  the 
 Catholic  Bishops  and  Clergy  of  Britain  wish 
 prosperity. 
 
 "We  were  much  refreshed  by  your  letter,  which  you 
 sent  us  by  the  Rev.  James,  the  Patriarchal  Proto-Cyn- 
 cellus,  as  being  an  evident  testimony  of  the  great 
 desire  you  have  of  bringing  a  coalition  between  the 
 catholic  eastern  Churches,  and  the  catholic  remnant 
 of  the  British  Churches  to  bear  upon  such  terms  as 
 may  give  us  both  the  comfortable  hope  of  its  being- 
 permanent.  We  have  now  together  with  this  sent 
 our  answers  to  the  four  Patriarchs  founded  upon  Holy 
 Writ,  as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Primitive 
 Church,  and  in  such  terms,  as  we  hope,  will  make  our 
 sincere  desires  and  endeavours  to  promote  and  finish 
 a  blessed  concordate  very  apparent  to  them  and  to 
 you.  And  we  return  you  our  hearty  thanks,  for  the 
 great  pains  you  have  been  at,  in  bringing  it  this  length, 
 and  doubt  not  of  your  doing  your  utmost  to  finish  what 
 you  have  so  charitably  carried  on  hitherto,  under  such 
 discouragements  from  the  situation  of  public  affairs, 
 and  the  great  distance  we  are  at  from  one  another. 
 Nor  need  we  inform  you  of  the  many  difficulties  and 
 discouragements  that  we  have  to  struggle  with  on  this 
 occasion.  For  while  we  had  the  happiness  of  your 
 residing  amongst  us,  you  were  pretty  fully  apprised 
 of  a  good  share  of  them,  and  they  are  not  fewer  now 
 than  they  were  then.  Yet  no  difficulty  or  discourage- 
 ment of  this  nature  shall  hinder  us,  by  God's  help, 
 from  doing  our  utmost  endeavours  to  promote  so  good 
 
344  $M0torg  of  tt»e  0on/urorsf. 
 
 a  design.  It  is  no  small  grief  to  us,  that  under  our 
 present  pressures  we  have  not  been  able  to  offer  such 
 civilities  to  the  diligent  and  faithful  Proto-Cyncellus, 
 as  we  willingly  would,  but  he  is  most  acceptable  to 
 us,  and  we  have  a  deep  sense  of  the  great  pains  he 
 has  taken  in  this  affair. 
 
 Our  hopes  of  a  happy  conclusion  in  this  affair  are 
 increased,  by  the  generous  encouragement,  which  we 
 are  glad  to  understand,  his  Imperial  Majesty  is  gra- 
 ciously pleased  to  give  it,  and  which  will  redound  to 
 the  immortalizing  of  his  name.  And  we  are  very 
 sensible,  that  we  owe  his  Majesty's  being  rightly  ap- 
 prized of  this  affair  to  your  faithful  representations 
 of  it  to  him,  as  we  do  his  countenancing  and  encou- 
 raging of  it  to  his  own  greatness  of  soul  and  catholic 
 charity. 
 
 Archibaldus,  Scoto-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 Jacobus,  Scoto-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 Jeremias,  Primus  Anglo-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 Thomas,  Anglo-Britannia?  Episcopus. 
 
 Dated,  A.  D.  1722, 
 Maii  Die  Tricesimo." 
 
 "  To  the  Right  Honourable  Council  for  Ecclesias- 
 tical Affairs,  at  His  Imperial  Majesty's  Palace 
 in  Petersburgh. 
 
 "  We  the  underwritten  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  re- 
 mainder in  Britain,  have  thought  ourselves  obliged, 
 in  point  of  regard  to  this  right  Honourable  Board, 
 to  acquaint  your  Lordships,  that  by  the  hands  of  the 
 Rev.  Gennadius  Archimandrita,  and  the  Rev. 
 Jacobus  Proto-Cyncellus,  we  have  lately  received  an 
 answer  from  the  four  Patriarchs  to  some  proposals  of 
 
^ifjtorp  of  ttje  i^onfurottf .  345 
 
 ours  in  order  to  a  coalition,  to  which  answers  we  have 
 now  returned  a  reply,  with  a  transcript  of  it  to  your 
 Lordships :  humbly  desiring  your  Lordships  would 
 give  the  Greek  copy  the  conveyance  to  the  most 
 reverend  Patriarchs.  And  the  design  of  this  projected 
 union,  being  apparently  undertaken  upon  true 
 Christian  motives,  without  any  interested  views  on 
 either  side,  we  hope  your  Lordships' countenance  and 
 recommendation  will  second  our  endeavours.  And 
 being  sensible  that  some  difficulties  with  respect  to 
 authority  and  expense  may  probably  arise,  which 
 neither  party  are  in  a  condition  to  remove,  we  most 
 humbly  beg  His  Imperial  Majesty  will  please  to 
 condescend  so  far  as  to  lend  his  favour  and  assistance. 
 And  thus  having  the  honour  of  encouragement  and 
 protection  from  so  glorious  a  monarch,  the  affair,  by 
 the  blessing  of  God,  may  be  conducted  to  a  happy 
 conclusion.  And  we  entreat,  this  Right  Honourable 
 Board  would  please  to  believe  we  have  nothing  more 
 at  heart,  than  that  the  issue  may  prove  successful, 
 and  answer  the  overtures  made  by  us,  who  are  with 
 the  greatest  regard.  Your  Lordships'  most  obedient 
 Servants." 
 
 Signatures  as  before. 
 
 The  next  Letter  is  addressed  to  Le  Compte  De 
 Galowskin,  the  Grand  Chancellor,  and  is  as  follows  : 
 
 "  Most  noble  Lord. — These  are  to  return  your 
 Lordship  our  humble  thanks  for  the  trouble  you  have 
 been  pleased  to  give  yourself,  in  promoting  the  union 
 between  the  Orthodox  Oriental  Church,  and  the 
 Catholic  Remainder  in  Great  Britain.  And  as  an 
 affair  of  this  nature  stands  in  need  of  inclination  and 
 encouragement  from  those,  at  the  head  both  of  Church 
 
346  of  tfje  ifronfurottf. 
 
 and  State  :  so  we  hope  your  Lordship's  countenance 
 and  assistance  will  prove  considerably  instrumental, 
 for  the  success  of  so  great  an  undertaking.  We 
 therefore  humbly  intreat  your  Lordship  would  please 
 to  continue  your  favour  and  protection,  without  which 
 we  are  afraid  the  business  must  languish  and  mis- 
 carry. My  Lord,  as  to  the  Archimandrite,  we  are 
 entirely  satisfied  with  his  conduct  and  good  inten- 
 tions, and  hope  he  will  still  reside  with  us,  for  the 
 carrying  on  of  what  he  has  hitherto  so  worthily  en- 
 gaged in." 
 
 Signed  as  the  first,  only  Brett's 
 May  31,  1722.  signature  is  omitted. 
 
 Next  follows  a  Letter  from  Arsenius,  dated  June 
 11th  1722,  expressive  of  his  sorrow  at  not  having 
 received  the  answers  to  the  Papers  of  the  Patriarchs. 
 He  presses  for  a  speedy  reply.  The  Letter  is  ad- 
 dressed "  To  the  Most  Venerable  Bishop,  and  Wise 
 Brother  Mr.  Campbell,  and  all  the  Brethren."  A 
 Letter  then  follows,  from  the  Proto-Cyncellus,  who 
 conveyed  the  reply  to  the  Patriarchs.  This  was 
 written  from  Petersburgh,  and  commences  thus : 
 "  Most  Reverend  Fathers."  They  are  also  in  this 
 Letter  styled  "  Your  Lordships."  He  states  that  the 
 court  was  at  Moscow,  to  which  place  he  was  about 
 to  proceed. 
 
 The  next  Document  consists  of  another  Letter  from 
 Arsenius,  dated  December  9th  1722,  from  Moscow. 
 It  is  addressed  "To  the  Most  Reverend  Brethren  and 
 Bishops  beloved  of  God,  the  Lord  Jeremias,  the 
 Lord  Archibald,  the  Lord  Thomas,  the  Lord  James, 
 and  to  all  the  rest  my  most  beloved  Sons  in  Christ." 
 Arsenius  states,  that  he  had  received  their  Letter, 
 with  the  Reply  to  the  Patriarchs  in  November.  He 
 mentions  the  absence  of  the  Emperor  from  Moscow, 
 
I^fsftorp  of  t\)t  illonjucorjS*  347 
 
 and  promises  after  his  return  to  forward  their  reply  to 
 the  Patriarchs.  In  a  postscript  he  requests,  that 
 future  letters  to  him  may  be  written  in  Latin. 
 
 The  British  Bishops  reply  to  the  Letter  of  Arse- 
 nius  as  follows  : 
 
 "  To  the  Most  Rev.  and  Holy  Lord,  The  Lord  Ar- 
 senius,  &c.  The  Bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church 
 of  Britain  wish  all  prosperity  and  happiness  in 
 Christ. 
 
 "  Your  letter,  most  eminent  Prelate,  full  of  all  love 
 and  affection,  dated  at  Moscow,  we  have  received 
 with  all  joy  and  thankfulness,  chiefly  delighted,  that 
 so  earnest  a  desire  of  peace  and  concord  fills  your 
 heart,  as  that  we  may  assuredly  expect  everything 
 in  your  power  to  procure  it.  You  have  done  us  the 
 greatest  kindness  in  delivering  our  Letters  to  the 
 most  eminent  Lord,  the  Lord  Great  Chancellor,  to 
 whom  we  are  also  exceedingly  obliged,  that  of  his 
 goodness,  he  has  promised  us  his  favour.  Nor  are 
 we  less  obliged  to  you,  for  your  purpose  to  recom- 
 mend our  letter  and  our  cause  to  the  protection  of 
 His  Imperial  Majesty,  and  to  incline  the  heart  of 
 that  great  Emperor  to  be  favourable  to  us.  We  as- 
 sure you,  that  we  are  not  discouraged  by  the  distance 
 of  place,  or  any  other  obstacle  that  may  occur  to 
 obstruct  an  union  between  us,  but  with  most  earnest 
 and  sincere  desires  hope  for  an  agreement,  to  obtain 
 which  we  shall  leave  nothing  undone,  that  may  be 
 clone  with  a  good  conscience. 
 
 The  Archimandrite  Gennadius,  a  man  worthy  of 
 all  commendation,  is  most  dear  to  us :  and  we  are 
 very  sorry  that  the  strait  circumstances,  under  which 
 we  labour  have  hindered  us  from  giving  him  greater 
 testimonies  of  our  friendship.    To  your  labours  the 
 
348  ^(sftorp  of  ttje  4]5ortfurortf. 
 
 most  holy  Patriarchs  have  added  gifts,  and  of  their 
 great  good  will  have  presented  us  with  excellent 
 books,  which  kindness  of  theirs  we  shall  always  grate- 
 fully acknowledge. 
 
 We  earnestly  desire  you  to  salute  the  Rev.  Proto- 
 Cyncellus  in  our  names :  his  works  and  labours  of 
 love  are,  and  always  shall  be,  written  in  our  hearts. 
 But  you,  most  Reverend,  go  on  to  perfect  these  your 
 offices  of  love.  Send  our  answers  to  the  most  holy 
 Patriarchs,  and  believe  us  to  be  exceedingly  indebted 
 to  you  for  this.  May  you  live  prosperously  and  en- 
 joy your  health,  may  the  most  gracious  God  prosper 
 your  undertaking  and  grant  you  a  long  continuance 
 here,  for  His  Church's  sake. 
 
 These  things,  most  dear  Brother,  have  we  written 
 to  you  at  present.  The  rest  of  our  colleagues  have 
 not  subscribed  their  names  with  us,  being  at  a  great 
 distance  in  the  country.  Yet  in  this,  as  in  all  other 
 matters,  they  agree  with  us,  that  they  have  a  most 
 high  esteem  for  you. 
 
 Jeremias,  Angliae  Episcopus. 
 
 Dated,  London,  Archibaldus,  Scotiae  Episcopus." 
 Jan.  28,  1722-3. 
 
 Arsenius  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Bishops  in  reply, 
 styling  them  "  the  Lord  Jeremias,  Lord  Archibaldus, 
 Lord  Thomas,  and  Lord  James."  He  states  that  the 
 answers  were  forwarded  to  the  Patriarchs,  and  that 
 the  Emperor  entered  most  warmly  into  the  subject. 
 He  further  requests,  at  the  wish  of  the  Emperor,  that 
 two  of  their  party  might  be  sent  to  Russia  for  the 
 purpose  of  mutual  and  friendly  conferences  :  but  to 
 prevent  the  appearance  of  submission,  he  requests, 
 that  they  have  only  power  to  debate  the  two  points,  on 
 which  the  English  Nonjuring  Bishops  were  in  doubt. 
 
^fsitorp  of  tfje  j]5onfuroi%  349 
 In  this  same  letter,  Arsenius  mentions,  that  the  Pa- 
 triarch of  Constantinople  had  signified  to  the  Russian 
 Governing  Council  his  reception  of  their  answers, 
 and  that  they  should  be  examined  as  soon  as  a  Synod 
 could  be  convened  for  the  purpose.  This  letter  is 
 dated  from  Moscow  August  25th,  1723. 
 
 The  Governing  Council  also  addressed  a  letter 
 "  to  the  Very  Reverend  the  Bishops  of  the  Catholic 
 Church  in  Great  Britain,"  in  which  they  mention 
 the  forwarding  of  the  answers  to  the  Patriarchs  writ- 
 ten in  Greek,  and  promise  to  promote  the  cause  to 
 the  utmost  of  their  power.  They  also  state  the  Em- 
 peror's wish,  that  two  persons  should  be  sent  to  hold 
 conferences  on  the  points  at  issue.  This  is  dated 
 February  1723.  Next  year,  in  the  month  of  Feb- 
 ruary, they  addressed  another  letter  to  the  Nonjuring 
 Bishops.  It  seems  that  the  former  had  not  been  for- 
 warded, as  the  Archimandrite  had  not  been  able  to 
 prosecute  his  journey.  They  express  the  same  wish 
 for  a  conference  as  in  the  previous  letter.  At  this 
 time  the  answers  of  the  Patriarchs  had  been  received 
 at  St.  Petersburg?],  and  were  forwarded  to  England 
 by  the  same  channel.  The  document  is  addressed 
 "To  the  Most  Reverend  the  Bishops  of  the  Catholic 
 Church  in  Great  Britain,  our  dearest  brothers."  It 
 is  called  "  The  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Aposto- 
 lical, Catholic,  and  Oriental  Church  of  Christ."  A 
 Synod  had  been  assembled  to  consider  the  previous 
 answer  of  the  Nonjuring  Bishops ;  and  the  decision 
 was  now  transmitted  to  England.  They  acknowledge 
 the  reception  of  the  Nonjurors'  reply  ;  but  they  add, 
 that  they  have  nothing  further  to  remark,  in  addition 
 to  their  previous  answer.  They  state,  however,  that 
 the  doctrines  have  been  decided  upon,  and  "  that  it 
 is  neither  lawful  to  add  any  thing  to  them  nor  take 
 
350  Ikigtorp  of  ttje  jponjurorg. 
 
 any  thing  from  them :  and  that  those,  who  are  dis- 
 posed to  agree  with  us  in  the  divine  doctrines  of  the 
 orthodox  faith,  must  necessarily  follow  and  submit 
 to  what  has  been  defined  and  determined,  by  ancient 
 Fathers  and  the  holy  (Ecumenical  Synods,  from  the 
 time  of  the  Apostles  and  their  holy  successors,  the  Fa- 
 thers of  our  Church  to  this  time.  We  say  they  must 
 submit  to  them,  with  sincerity  and  obedience,  and  with- 
 out any  scruple  or  dispute.  And  this  is  a  sufficient 
 answer  to  what  you  have  written."  With  this  letter 
 they  forward  "  An  Exposition  of  the  Orthodox  Faith" 
 of  the  Eastern  Church,  agreed  upon  in  a  Synod 
 called  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  1672,  and  printed  in 
 1675.  With  respect  to  "  custom  and  ecclesiastical 
 order,  and  for  the  form  and  discipline  of  administer- 
 ing the  Sacraments,  they  will  be  easily  settled,"  say 
 they,  "  when  once  an  union  is  effected.  For  it  is 
 evident  from  ecclesiastical  history,  that  there  have 
 been  and  now  are  different  customs  and  regulations 
 in  different  places  and  churches,  and  that  the  unity 
 of  faith  and  doctrine  is  preserved  the  same."  This 
 letter  is  signed  by  the  Patriarchs  and  several  Arch- 
 bishops and  Bishops,  and  dated  September  1723, 
 from  Constantinople.  An  edition  of  The  Synodus 
 Bethlehemetica,  to  which  the  letter  refers,  was  printed 
 at  Paris  in  1676  :  and  a  translation  of  portions  is 
 given  in  the  MS.  translated  by  the  Nonjurors.  In 
 this  document  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  is 
 strongly  stated ;  and  the  statement  respecting  images 
 is  similar  to  that  contained  in  the  previous  answer  of 
 the  Patriarchs.  After  the  translation  of  the  decision 
 of  the  Synod,  follows  a  letter  from  Bartholomew 
 Cassano,  alluding  to  his  services,  and  requesting  the 
 Bishops  to  give  him  a  commission  to  act  in  their 
 behalf.    The  next  document  is  a  letter  to  the  Archi- 
 
^tgtotp  of  tfje  jfronjuroitf.  351 
 
 mandrite,  the  uncle  of  Cassano,  requesting  him  to 
 allow  his  nephew  to  accompany  their  brethren  to 
 Russia.    It  is  as  follows. 
 
 "  Rev.  Sir, — We  earnestly  desire  you  to  send  your 
 kinsman,  Bartholomew  Cassano,  to  accompany  our 
 two  brethren  to  Russia  to  be  their  interpreter  in  our 
 common  affairs,  which  will  be  pleasing  to  us,  and 
 necessary  for  them. 
 
 "  Your  brothers  in  Christ,  and  most  humble  ser- 
 vants, 
 
 Archibaldus,  Episcopus  Scoto-Britannicse. 
 Jeremias,  Primus  Anglo-Britannico  Epis- 
 copus." 
 
 The  next  document  is  a  letter  to  Arsenius  at  Pe- 
 tersburgh. 
 
 "  We  cannot  but  acknowledge  the  great  obliga- 
 tions we  lie  under  to  your  Lordship,  for  so  long  con- 
 tinuance in  Muscovy,  in  order  to  promote  an  happy 
 union  betwixt  our  Church  and  your  own.  For  by 
 that  means  we  have  been  enabled  to  treat  with  the 
 most  holy  Patriarchs  of  the  East,  in  a  much  better 
 manner,  than  we  could  have  hoped  for  by  any  other 
 means.  It  is  your  merit  and  interest,  next  to  your 
 own  innate  goodness,  that  has  obtained  for  us  the 
 favour  of  the  great  Emperor  of  Russia,  and  has  en- 
 gaged him  to  condescend  to  take  notice  of  us,  and 
 not  only  to  order  the  transmission  of  our  letters  to 
 the  most  holy  Patriarchs,  and  the  return  of  their  an- 
 swers, but  also  to  encourage  the  sending  two  persons 
 to  confer  with  such  as  may  be  appointed  to  discourse 
 the  matters,  wherein  any  difference  remains.  Accord- 
 ingly we  acquainted  the  Rev.  Archimandrite  and 
 Proto-Cyncellus,  that  we  would  send  them.   But  one 
 
352  I3i0torp  of  ttje  /fronjurot% 
 
 of  those,  whom  we  had  chosen  for  that  purpose  being 
 at  a  great  distance,  it  was  so  long  before  he  was 
 arrived  and  could  settle  his  private  affairs,  as  made 
 their  coming  this  summer  impracticable.  But  if  it 
 please  God,  they  will  not  fail  to  wait  on  you  as  early 
 as  conveniently  may  be  the  next  summer.  In  the 
 mean  time,  we  must  desire  you  to  make  an  apology 
 for  us  to  the  Emperor,  the  Chancellor,  and  the  great 
 Synod,  that  they  may  not  think  us  negligent  in  an 
 affair  of  such  moment,  which  indeed  we  have  much 
 at  heart.  May  Almighty  God  pour  forth  his  bless- 
 ing upon  our  endeavours,  upon  you,  and  upon  all 
 who  have  a  helping  hand  to  the  advancement  of  this 
 great  work.  We  commit  your  Lordship  to  his  pro- 
 tection, and  subscribe  ourselves, 
 
 Jeremias,  Primus-Anglo-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 Thomas,  Anglo-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 Johannes,  Anglo-Britanniae  Episcopus. 
 
 July  13,  1724." 
 
 They  also  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Ecclesiastical 
 Synod  of  Russia. 
 
 "  My  Lords, — 'Tvvas  with  no  small  satisfaction  we 
 received  your  Lordships'  letters.  The  honour  of  your 
 correspondence,  and  the  indication  of  your  zeal  for  a 
 coalition,  are  strong  motives  for  an  acknowledgment, 
 and  make  the  prospect  look  not  unpromising.  And 
 since  an  union  is  thus  earnestly  desired  on  both 
 sides,  we  hope  the  means  of  effecting  it  may  not 
 prove  impracticable.  To  close  the  breaches  made  in 
 the  Catholic  Church  is  a  glorious  undertaking,  and 
 which  nothing  but  the  parting  with  essential  truths 
 ought  to  prevent.  And  though  there  may  be  a 
 distance  remaining  in  some  few  branches  of  belief,  a 
 
charitable  latitude  may  be  left  open  for  the  repose  of 
 conscience  and  reviving  an  harmony  in  worship. 
 And  thus  we  may  join  in  all  the  offices  of  com- 
 munion and  walk  in  the  house  of  God  as  friends. 
 
 As  to  his  Imperial  Majesty,  none  can  be  more  sen- 
 sible of  his  condescending  goodness  and  princely 
 generosity  than  ourselves,  and  for  which  we  entreat 
 our  most  humble  thanks  may  be  returned. 
 
 Tis  not  without  regret,  that  we  cannot  send  two 
 of  our  clergy  to  wait  on  your  Lordships  this  summer, 
 pursuant  to  what  we  promised  the  Rev.  Archiman- 
 drite and  Proto-Cyncellus,  but  accidents  unforeseen 
 will  sometimes  happen,  and  which  we  hope  you  will 
 please  to  excuse.  The  case  is  this  :  one  of  the 
 gentlemen  came  but  lately  to  town,  and  could  not  pos- 
 sibly put  his  private  concerns  in  any  tolerable  order 
 till  the  season  for  his  voyage  would  be  past.  But  as 
 soon  as  the  next  spring  presents  fair,  they  will  cer- 
 tainly, God  willing,  attend  your  Lordships,  with  our 
 worthy  friend  Mr.  Cassano.  We  own  ourselves 
 much  obliged  to  the  Proto-Cyncellus  for  the  great 
 fatigue  and  hazard  he  has  undergone  in  this  affair  : 
 and  are  sorry  our  circumstances  would  not  give  us 
 leave  to  shew  the  marks  of  our  regard  with  better 
 significancy.  And  the  same  we  likewise  add  with 
 reference  to  the  Archimandrite  and  his  nephew. 
 This  latter  at  his  coming  will  more  particularly  ac- 
 quaint you  with  some  disadvantages  we  lie  under,  and 
 give  further  assurance  how  much  we  are,  my  Lords, 
 your  Lordships'  most  humble  and  obedient  servants, 
 Archibaldus  Scoto  Britanniae  Epis- 
 copus. 
 
 Jeremias,  Primus  Angliae  Episcopus. 
 Thomas,  Anglice  Episcopus. 
 July  13,  1724.      Johannes,  Anglisc  Episcopus." 
 
354 
 
 ^fttorp  of  tlje  il5onjuror0. 
 
 A  Letter  was  also  addressed  to  the  Chancellor. 
 
 "  My  Lord.  The  lustre  and  interest  of  your  station 
 in  the  Emperor  of  Great  Russia's  Court,  makes  us 
 repeat  our  address,  and  humbly  solicit  your  Lord- 
 ship's recommendation  of  the  endeavours  for  a  coali- 
 tion between  the  Great  Muscovitic  and  Britannic 
 Churches.  To  this  we  are  the  more  encouraged  by 
 your  Lordship's  disposition  to  promote  that  Christian 
 design.  We  are  likewise  deeply  sensible  of  his  Im- 
 perial Majesty's  condescension  and  bounty,  and  for 
 the  liberty  his  Majesty  is  pleased  to  give  us  for 
 debating  matters  with  some  of  the  Russian  clergy, 
 and  concerting  measures  for  settling  the  union.  This 
 indulging  a  personal  conference  is  a  fresh  instance 
 of  his  Imperial  Majesty's  goodness,  and  will  prevent 
 the  delay  of  corresponding  by  letters." 
 
 They  specify,  as  in  the  preceding  letters,  the  cause 
 of  the  delay  :  and  subscribe  themselves  as  before. 
 They  then  add  a  receipt  for  Books. 
 
 "  The  names  underwritten  testify  that  we  Bishops  of 
 the  Britannic  Churches  have  received  from  the  hands 
 of  James,  the  Rev.  Proto-Cyncellus  of  Alexandria, 
 four  very  learned  Books,  which  were  sent  hither  as  a 
 present  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Catholic 
 remainder  of  our  Church,  by  the  most  Blessed  Lord, 
 the  Lord  Chrysanthus,  Patriarch  of  the  Church  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  with  the  greatest  care  and  faithful- 
 ness delivered  to  us  by  the  Rev.  Proto-Cyncellus, 
 for  which  we  acknowledge  many  thanks  to  be  due, 
 and  freely  give  them.  Dated  the  13th  of  the  month  of 
 July  in  the  year  of  Christ  1724." 
 
i^'0torp  of  ttje  ifrortfurorsj.  355 
 
 This  document  was  signed  by  the  four  Bishops  as 
 before :  then  the  following  minute  occurs,  dated 
 March  8th,  1724-5  : 
 
 "  Mr.  Cassano  is  desired  to  write  that  we  were 
 ready  till  the  melancholy  news  arrived  of  the  Em- 
 peror's death,  which  has  put  a  stop  to  the  affairs 
 till  we  receive  fresh  directions  from  court." 
 
 They  also  wrote  to  the  Synod  on  the  same  sub- 
 ject. 
 
 "We  are  sensibly  affected  with  the  melancholy 
 account  of  the  great  Emperor  of  Russia's  death,  and 
 heartily  condole  with  your  Lordships  upon  this  un- 
 happy occasion,  though  we  hope  the  loss  may  be 
 made  up  by  the  accession  of  her  Imperial  Majesty 
 to  his  throne.  This  misfortune  has  put  a  stop  to 
 the  affair  between  us  till  we  receive  fresh  directions, 
 and  know  your  Lordships'  pleasure.  For  which 
 purpose  we  have  desired  our  worthy  friend  Mr. 
 Cassano  to  wait  upon  your  Lordships,  upon  whose 
 fidelity  and  care  we  entirely  rely.  We  commend 
 your  Lordships  to  the  Divine  protection,  and  remain, 
 &c.  April  11th,  1725." 
 
 This  letter  was  subscribed  by  the  four  Bishops, 
 like  the  preceding,  and  in  the  same  form.  A  letter 
 of  similar  import  was  also  addressed  by  the  same 
 parties  to  the  Chancellor  :  and  another  to  Arsenius 
 as  follows : 
 
 "  'Tis  with  great  concern  that  wc  received  the 
 news  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia's  death,  which  has 
 put  a  stop  to  our  affair  till  we  have  fresh  directions 
 from  that  court.  We  have  now  by  our  friend  Mr. 
 Cassano  sent  a  letter  to  the  Holy  Synod  and  another 
 
356  Wtorp  of  rlje  jPonfurorg. 
 
 to  the  Great  Chancellor,  of  which  lie  can  give  your 
 Lordship  a  full  account.  We  desire  that  your  Lord- 
 ship would  be  pleased  to  inform  us  of  the  situation 
 of  affairs,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  religious  negocia- 
 tion  between  us,  and  shall  always  think  ourselves 
 happy  in  the  continuance  of  your  friendship  and 
 favour.  We  commit  your  Lordship  to  the  divine 
 protection,  and  shall  always  remain,  &c." 
 
 This  Letter  was  dated  April  11,  1725,  and  signed 
 by  three  of  the  four  Bishops.  The  Chancellor 
 acknowledges  the  receipt  of  the  Letter  to  him  under 
 the  date  of  September  16,  1725,  in  which,  after  ex- 
 pressing his  thanks  to  the  Bishops,  whom  he  styles 
 Lords,  for  their  sympathy  respecting  the  Emperor, 
 he  assures  them  that  the  affair  of  the  union  will  be 
 promoted  by  her  Imperial  Majesty  in  the  same  way 
 as  by  her  predecessor. 
 
 No  further  steps,  however,  were  taken,  and  the 
 matter  was  dropped.  At  the  end  of  the  correspon- 
 dence between  the  Nonjurors  and  the  Eastern  Church 
 there  is  an  index  of  the  various  papers.  It  is  stated, 
 too,  that  the  papers  were  written  some  in  Greek, 
 some  in  Latin,  and  some  in  English,  though  in  the 
 collection  prefixed  all  were  in  English.  After  the 
 index  is  an  account  of  Arsenius. 
 
 "  Arsenius,  Archbishop  of  Thebais,  was  sent  in 
 1712,  by  Samuel,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  from  Grand 
 Cairo  in  Egypt,  to  represent  to  the  Protestant  Princes 
 and  States  in  Europe  the  truly  deplorable  circum- 
 stances of  the  Greek  Church  under  the  severe  tyranny 
 and  oppression  of  the  Turks,  and  to  solicit  a  sum  of 
 money,  particularly  for  the  Patriarchal  See  of  Alex- 
 andria brought  under  a  load  of  debt  of  30,000  dol- 
 lars, by  one  Cosmo,  formerly  Archbishop  of  Mount 
 
^idtorp  of  ttc  jftonj'urotu  357 
 
 Sinai,  his  pretending  to  deprive  said  Samuel  of  his 
 right  to  the  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria  and  to  take 
 possession  for  himself,  having  by  the  force  of  money 
 procured  himself  to  be  invested  by  the  Grand  Vizier 
 in  said  Patriarchal  throne,  whose  Clergy  made  a 
 noble  stand  for  their  Patriarch,  Samuel,  and  would  not 
 suffer  him  to  be  deprived  by  his  adversary.  For 
 which  cause,  to  raise  money,  Samuel  was  forced  to 
 sell  and  lay  in  pawn  many  of  the  sacred  vessels, 
 patriarchal  habits,  and  other  utensils  of  the  Church. 
 Cosmo  at  length  renounced  all  title  to  Alexandria,  and 
 was  then  duly  elected  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
 upon  which  a  firm  peace  and  friendship  commenced 
 between  Samuel  and  him.  At  what  particular  time 
 Arsenius  arrived  in  England  I  have  not  yet  discovered, 
 but  that  he  was  in  London  in  1714,  and  1716  is  very 
 certain.  He  received  from  Anne,  £300  Sterling,  and 
 from  George  I.  £100,  for  the  Church  of  Alexandria. 
 But  Arsenius  by  his  long  stay  in  London,  being  nine 
 in  family,  had  contracted  debts  for  necessary  subsist- 
 ence on  the  most  ordinary  food  :  for  the  payment  of 
 which  he  was  obliged  to  apply  in  the  way  of  humble 
 petition  to  all  charitable  and  tender-hearted  Chris- 
 tians. He  was  attended  by  Father  Gennadius  (whom 
 I  take  to  be  the  one  called  the  Archimandrite  in  the 
 foregoing  correspondence)  Abbot  of  the  monks  of 
 the  See  of  Alexandria,  and  by  Deacons  and  other 
 domestics.  All  this  is  set  forth  at  large  in  a  4to. 
 Pamphlet  of  twenty  pages  including  title  page  and 
 preface,  intitled  '  Lachrymse  et  Suspiria  Ecclesiae 
 Graecae  ;  or  the  distressed  State  of  the  Greek  Church 
 humbly  represented  in  a  Letter  to  her  late  Majesty 
 Queen  Anne.'    Printed  at  London,  1715." 
 
 "  Not  only  the  death  of  the  Czar,  put  a  stop  to  the 
 much  desired  union  between  the  Greek  Church  and 
 
358  l^i'gtorp  of  ti)e  ifronj'ttrorg!. 
 
 British  Nonjurors  :  but  likewise  the  indiscretion  of  the 
 Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  in  writing  to  Wake  then  Arch- 
 bishop of  Canterbury,  and  sending  copies  of  proposals 
 to  him,  &c.  quite  knocked  that  scheme  in  the  head. 
 Wake  behaved  with  great  prudence  and  discretion 
 in  the  case,  not  exposing  the  papers  nor  suffering 
 them  to  be  ridiculed. 
 
 "  I  have  frequently  heard  that  the  late  Right  Re- 
 verend Dr.  Thomas  Rattray,  of  Craighall,  having 
 been  in  London  in  1716,  assisted  Mr.  Spinkes  in  trans- 
 lating into  Greek  the  proposals  from  the  Nonjurors 
 to  the  Oriental  Church." 
 
 Thus  the  MS.  account  of  the  correspondence  closes. 
 My  object  was  to  exhibit  the  views,  and  feelings  of 
 the  Nonjurors,  which  is  fully  attained  by  the  plan, 
 which  I  have  adopted.  The  answers  sent  by  the 
 Patriarchs  do  not  bear  on  the  History  of  the  Non- 
 jurors: but  merely  contain  the  opinions  of  the  Oriental 
 Church,  the  nature  of  which  will  be  gathered  from 
 the  replies  of  the  English  Nonjuring  Bishops.  While, 
 therefore,  I  have  omitted  the  greater  part  of  the  docu- 
 ments from  the  East,  alluding  to  them  only  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  elucidation,  I  have  submitted  the  whole  of  the 
 correspondence  on  the  part  of  the  Nonjurors,  because  I 
 feel  convinced,  that  anything  from  them,  not  generally 
 known,  must  be  received  with  favour  by  the  public. 
 
 The  pamphlet  to  which  Brett  alludes  is  a  curious 
 document.  The  writer  of  the  preface  zealously  es- 
 poused the  cause  of  Arsenius,  as  a  few  extracts  will 
 testify.  "  The  following  papers  set  forth  the  deplor- 
 able circumstances  of  the  Greek  Church  of  Alexan- 
 dria, venerable  for  a  most  ancient  and  uninterrupted 
 succession  of  Bishops  from  the  Apostles,  who  have 
 handed  down  the  Christian  faith,  doctrine  and  dis- 
 cipline as  pure  as  any  other  part  of  the  Christian 
 
^t'tftorp  of  ttje  ^onjucottf.  359 
 
 world."  The  late  Queen  had  given  £300,  of  which 
 £200  were  still  in  the  hands  of  the  Bishop  of  London. 
 George  I.  had  also  given  £100  for  the  same  object, 
 namely,  for  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  so  that  these 
 sums  could  not  be  appropriated  to  the  payment  of  the 
 Archbishop's  debts.  The  writer  then  mentions,  as  a 
 motive  to  charity,  the  benefits  received  from  that 
 Church.  "  If  we  have  profited  by  the  labours  of  the 
 learned  and  pious  Fathers  of  that  Church  ;  if  we  have 
 been  obliged  to  Clemens,  Origen,  Dionysius,  Athana- 
 sius,  Cyril,  Chrysostom  and  others,  for  handing  down 
 the  faith  of  the  Church  in  opposition  to  heretics  and 
 infidels  ;  we  are  obliged  to  them  for  Spiritual  things, 
 and  ought  now  to  minister  unto  them  in  carnal  things." 
 The  Petition  is  addressed,  "  To  the  Most  Noble,  Most 
 Reverend,  Honourable  and  Worthy,  the  Nobility, 
 Clergy,  Gentry,  and  Commons,  Citizens  or  Strangers, 
 in  the  kingdom  of  England  whose  hearts  God  hath 
 touched  with  divine  love  and  charity,  to  commiserate 
 the  distresses  of  their  afflicted  brethren."  The  Peti- 
 tion then  gives  a  summary  of  the  facts  of  the  case  : 
 that  the  Archbishop  was  sent  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
 andria in  1712,  to  represent  the  sad  state  of  the  Greek 
 Church  under  the  tyranny  of  the  Turks  :  that  the  ex- 
 pences  of  so  long  a  journey  had  involved  him  in  debts 
 which  had  been  contracted  on  the  credit  of  what  he 
 and  his  family,  being  nine  in  number,  had  expected 
 to  receive  :  and  that  the  state  of  public  affairs  had  been 
 a  hindrance  to  obtaining  the  relief,  which  they  had 
 anticipated.  The  document  is  dated  August  18, 
 1715.  In  the  petition  the  Church  of  England  is  de- 
 scribed as  "  for  orthodoxy  and  piety,  famed  over  the 
 earth."  With  the  Petition  of  Arsenius  is  coupled 
 the  Letter  from  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  to  Queen 
 Anne,  in  which  a  most  deplorable  account  is  given  of 
 
360  ^tetorg  of  tfje  &mium& 
 
 the  sufferings  of  the  Greek  Church  in  Alexandria. 
 Further  the  Patriarch's  statement  is  attested  by  the 
 British  Consuls  at  Cairo,  and  Tripoli,  as  well  as  the 
 Consul  for  the  Netherlands  at  Tunis.  The  results  of 
 this  application  to  the  British  public  I  cannot  state.6 
 The  preceding  correspondence  concerning  the  pro- 
 jected union  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the  malignant 
 charge  of  Popery,  so  frequently  alleged  against  the 
 Nonjurors.  Some  of  them  held  peculiar  opinions,  on 
 what  were  termed  the  Usages ;  but  even  this  section 
 was  no  more  inclined  towards  Rome,  than  the  par- 
 ties, by  whom  the  charge  has  been  alleged.  If  in- 
 deed actions  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  criterion  of 
 principles,  then  the  Dissenters  of  the  period  of  the 
 Revolution  for  supporting  King  James,  and  those  of 
 the  present  day  for  uniting  with  Romanists,  are  much 
 more  obnoxious  to  the  charge  than  the  Nonjurors, 
 who  ever  acted  consistently  with  their  principles,  in 
 opposition  both  to  Popery  and  Dissent.  The  parties, 
 who  make  this  charge,  who  are  generally  Dissenters, 
 or  Churchmen  of  lax  principles,  to  whom  the  Church 
 and  Dissent  are  equally  agreeable,  should  remember 
 the  period  of  the  Revolution,  when,  but  for  the  exer- 
 tions of  many,  who  became  Nonjurors,  Popery  must 
 have  prevailed  in  England.  Undoubtedly  some  of 
 the  Nonjurors  were  uncharitable  in  speaking  of  the 
 Church  of  England  :  but  they  are  not,  on  that  ac- 
 count, by  way  of  retaliation,  to  be  charged  with 
 errors,  of  which  they  were  innocent.    While  we  la- 
 
 e  The  full  Title  of  the  Pamphlet  is  as  follows.  "  Lachrymae  et 
 Suspiria  Ecclesise  Grsecae  :  or  the  Distressed  State  of  the  Greek 
 Church.  Humbly  represented  in  a  Letter  to  Her  late  Majesty, 
 Queen  Anne,  from  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  :  by  the  hands  of 
 Arsenius,  Archbishop  of  Thebais,  now  residing  in  London."  Lon- 
 don.   Printed  in  the  year,  1715. 
 
^tgtorp  of  ttje  &on\w;m&.  361 
 
 ment  the  bitterness,  into  which  the}^  were  sometimes 
 betrayed,  we  need  not  copy  their  example.  On  the 
 contrary,  it  behoves  us  to  remember  the  sufferings, 
 which  they  so  patiently  endured,  and  the  many  pro- 
 vocations to  which  they  were  subjected. 
 
 The  correspondence  also  furnishes  evidence  of  the 
 straitened  circumstances  of  the  Nonjurors,  as  well  as 
 of  the  suspicion  and  severity  of  the  government.  They 
 had  not  the  means  even  of  shewing  ordinary  hospi- 
 tality to  the  foreigners,  with  whom  they  were  in  com- 
 munication respecting  the  union  with  the  Oriental 
 Church.  This  is  mentioned  incidentally  in  their 
 letters  :  and  they  distinctly  state,  that  their  circum- 
 stances, with  respect  to  liberty  of  conscience,  were  in 
 no  way  improved.  If,  therefore,  these  conscientious 
 men  were  sometimes  betrayed  into  a  tone  of  speaking, 
 which  cannot  be  justified,  their  circumstances  should 
 be  remembered,  not  in  the  way  of  justification,  but 
 by  way  of  palliation.  But  after  all,  their  conduct 
 presented  a  striking  contrast  to  that  of  many  of  their 
 opponents,  for  whose  rancour,  and  malice,  and  bitter- 
 ness, no  excuse  can  be  pleaded. 
 
CHAPTER  IX. 
 
 A.  D.  1720—1800. 
 
 The  Nonjurors  divided  into  two  Communions. — Both  or- 
 dain Bishops. — Death  of  Collier  ;  of  Spinkes;  of  Leslie; 
 of  Laurence  Howell. — The  Succession  continued. — The 
 Divisions  on  Usages  cease. — Communion  Office  generally 
 adopted. — Blackburn  and  Law. — Orme. — Jenkin. — Death 
 ofGandy;  of  Samuel  Parker. — Account  of  Hearne. — 
 Harte. — Controversies. — Waterland  and  Smith. —  Non- 
 jurors AGAIN  DIVIDED.  LAWRENCE  A  BlSHOP  OF  THE  SEPA- 
 RATISTS.— His  Works  on  Lay-Baptism. — Death  of  Brett; 
 of  Baker. — The  Rebellion,  1745. — Sufferings  of  the 
 Nonjurors. — Deacon. — His  Works. — Blackburn's  Death. 
 George  Smith's  Death. — Lindsay. — His  Works. — Con- 
 troversies.— William  Law. — Carte  the  Historian. — The 
 Pretender. — Question  respecting  his  Religious  Views. 
 — His  Death. — -Gordon,  the  last  Bishop  of  the  regular 
 Body. — The  Line  ceases. — Bishops  of  the  Separatists' 
 Line. — Extinction  of  this  Line,  and  of  the  Party  in 
 England. — Services  rendered  by  the  Nonjurors. 
 
 [HE  Nonjuring  communion  was  now  broken 
 into  two  sections,  under  their  respective 
 leaders.  Both  parties  were  hostile  to  the 
 National  Church  :  but  Spinkes,  with  his 
 supporters,  dissented  only  on  the  questions  of  the 
 Oaths  and  the  Prayers  for  the  reigning  Sovereign ; 
 while  Collier  and  Brett,  and  those  who  concurred 
 with  them,  introduced,  as  we  have  seen,  a  New  Com- 
 munion Office,  involving  several  important  practices, 
 which  had  been  deliberately  rejected  by  the  Church 
 
l&isftorg  of  tljc  &  on  j  ttroc^  363 
 
 of  England.  After  this  separation,  much  bitterness 
 was  manifested  in  the  controversy,  which  was  carried 
 on  between  the  two  sections :  and  some  from  both 
 parties  sought  refuge  in  the  bosom  of  the  National 
 Church.  The  Usages  may  be  regarded  as  matters  of 
 indifference  :  still  I  cannot  but  think,  that  Collier 
 and  Brett,  who  had  subscribed  to  the  Book  of  Com- 
 mon Prayer,  should  have  yielded  their  own  private 
 views  and  feelings  for  the  sake  of  union  and  peace. 
 They  contended,  that  the  alterations  from  the  first 
 Liturgy  of  King  Edward  were  made  to  suit  the  pre- 
 judices of  Calvin  :  but  they  should  have  remembered, 
 that  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  subjected  to 
 revision  in  1G61,  when  no  such  influence  was  in 
 operation.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  influence 
 of  the  foreign  Reformers  in  1551,  when  Edward's 
 Book  was  revised,  it  cannot  be  alleged,  that  the  Con- 
 vocation in  1661  was  in  any  way  swayed  by  the 
 opinions  of  Calvin. 
 
 After  the  separation,  therefore,  the  two  sections 
 proceeded,  in  their  respective  courses,  as  two  distinct 
 parties,  differing  as  widely  from  each  other,  as  both 
 differed  from  the  National  Church.  The  one  party 
 adopted  the  New  Communion  Book,  the  other  ad- 
 hered to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
 
 As  a  matter  of  course,  each  party  took  steps  to  con- 
 tinue the  succession  of  Bishops.  In  the  year  1720 
 Hilkiah  Bedford  and  Ralph  Taylor  were  consecrated 
 among  those  who  rejected  the  usages,  by  Spinkes, 
 Hawes,  and  Gandy.  Hawes  died  in  1722,  and  Bed- 
 ford in  1724. 
 
 In  the  year  1722,  the  other  section  also  proceeded 
 to  increase  the  number  of  their  Bishops,  and  John 
 Griffin  was  consecrated  by  Collier,  Brett,  and  the 
 Scottish  Bishop  Campbell. 
 
364  l&tetorp  oftfje  ilionjucoc^. 
 
 Being  once  divided,  other  minor  separations  or  sub- 
 divisions soon  followed.  Thus  in  1723-4  Robert  W el- 
 ton  was  consecrated  a  Bishop  by  Ralph  Taylor,  who, 
 contrary  to  the  canons  of  the  Church,  took  upon  himself 
 to  act  in  his  individual  capacity.  No  precedent  could 
 be  pleaded  for  such  a  proceeding,  which  must,  there- 
 fore, be  regarded  as  an  innovation  on  the  practice  of 
 the  universal  Church,  from  the  Apostolic  age.  Tal- 
 bot also  was  consecrated  by  Taylor  and  Welton. 
 These  consecrations,  therefore,  were  viewed  as  irre- 
 gular, and  uncanonical.  It  appears,  that  Taylor 
 and  Welton  were  never  recognized  as  Bishops,  by 
 the  rest  of  the  body  :  yet  both  exercised  the  Episcopal 
 functions  in  the  American  Colonies.  The  govern- 
 ment, at  the  desire  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  at  length 
 interposed,  when  Welton  retired  to  Portugal,  where 
 he  died  in  172G,  and  Taylor  returned  to  the  com- 
 munion of  the  National  Church.3  The  particulars 
 of  Welton's  removal  from  the  Rectory  of  St.  Mary's 
 Whitechapel  have  already  been  detailed.  Taylor  was 
 for  some  time  chaplain  to  the  Protestants  at  the  Court 
 of  St.  Germains.b 
 
 Collier  died  in  the  year  1726.  Many  particulars 
 respecting  him  and  his  writings  are  recorded  in  the 
 preceding  chapters.  His  Church  History  is  still  one 
 of  our  most,  if  not  the  most  valuable,  of  our  ecclesias- 
 tical histories  :  and  all  his  works  display  talents  of  no 
 ordinary  kind.  He  was  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
 actors  in  the  controversies,  which  had  been  carried  on 
 since  the  Revolution.  As  he  refused  to  surrender 
 himself  to  the  government,  he  lived  in  a  state  of  out- 
 lawry for  several  years,  though  perhaps  the  authorities 
 were  not  anxious  to  secure  his  person.    He  was  as 
 
 1  Perceval's  Apostolical  Succession,  224.       b  Noble,  150. 
 
%'0torp  of  ttc  jportjurorgf.  365 
 
 long  as  he  survived,  the  leader  of  that  section  of  the 
 Nonjurors,  by  whom  the  Usages  were  introduced. 
 
 Thenextyear,  1727,  witnessed  the  death  of  Spinkes, 
 who  had  been  Collier's  chief  antagonist  on  the  subject 
 of  the  Usages.  Thus  the  labours  and  the  controversies 
 of  these  two  eminent  men  were  terminated,  by  the 
 last  messenger,  at  nearly  the  same  period.  Spinkes 
 was  in  no  way  inferior  to  Collier  in  learning  and 
 ability.  In  the  controversy  respecting  the  Usages, 
 he  advocated  a  strict  adherence  to  the  Book  of  Com- 
 mon Prayer.  He  was  often  in  great  pecuniary  dis- 
 tress :  but  he  never  swerved  from  his  principles.  The 
 fund  for  the  relief  of  the  Nonjuring  Clergy,  of  which 
 some  account  has  been  given,  was  managed  by  Spinkes. 
 It  has  been  remarked,  in  reference  to  his  consecra- 
 tion as  a  Bishop,  "  happy  would  it  have  been  for  any 
 Diocese  had  he  been  legally  appointed  to  it."  The 
 following  description  of  his  person  and  acquirements 
 is  full  of  interest :  "  he  was  low  of  stature,  venerable 
 of  aspect,  and  exalted  in  character.  He  had  no 
 wealth,  few  enemies,  many  friends.  He  was  ortho- 
 dox in  his  faith  :  his  enemies  being  judges.  He  had 
 uncommon  learning  and  superior  judgment :  and  his 
 exemplary  life  was  concluded  by  a  happy  death. 
 His  patience  was  great :  his  self  denial  greater :  his 
 charity  still  greater :  though  his  temper  seemed  his 
 cardinal  virtue  (a  happy  conjunction  of  constitution 
 and  grace),  having  never  been  observed  to  fail  him  in 
 a  stage  of  nine  and  thirty  years."  He  was  buried  on 
 the  North  side  of  the  cemetery  of  St.  Pauls  Church, 
 London. c 
 
 Charles  Leslie's  death  occurred  somewhat  earlier  ; 
 
 c  Noble,  iii,  148,  149.  Some  of  his  works  are  still  among  the 
 most  popular  writings  in  our  language. 
 
366  ^tgtorp  of  tfje  il^onturoc0. 
 
 but  this  appears  to  be  the  place  for  the  remaining 
 particulars  of  this  eminent  man.  His  abilities  were 
 of  no  common  order,  and  the  greatest  industry  marked 
 his  whole  life  ;  for  a  very  large  number  of  Tracts  and 
 pamphlets,  relative  to  the  various  points  at  issue  be- 
 tween the  Nonjurors  and  their  opponents,  proceeded 
 from  his  pen,  all  of  them  displaying  talents  of  no 
 ordinary  kind.  His  various  practical  works,  as  well 
 as  those  controversial  pieces,  which  relate  to  the 
 Church  of  Rome  and  the  Dissenters,  are  too  well 
 known  to  require  a  particular  notice.  His  Theological 
 works  were  collected  and  published  in  two  volumes, 
 Folio,  in  the  year  1721.  Leslie  was  the  son  of  the 
 Bishop  of  Clogher.  Previous  to  the  Revolution  he 
 acted  with  great  zeal  against  Popery  :  and  it  would 
 be  well,  if  those,  who  charge  the  Nonjurors  with  lean- 
 ing towards  Rome,  were  as  free  from  the  imputation 
 themselves.  On  one  occasion,  when  a  Roman  Ca- 
 tholic had  been  nominated  by  King  James  to  the 
 office  of  sheriff,  he  was  actually  carried  to  the  Ses- 
 sions, though  labouring  under  disease  at  the  time, 
 and  took  his  place  as  a  Magistrate  upon  the  Bench. 
 When  the  proposed  Sheriff  was  questioned  respecting 
 his  qualification,  he  replied,  "  That  he  was  of  the 
 King's  own  religion,  and  that  it  was  his  Majesty's 
 will  that  he  should  be  Sheriff."  Leslie  answered, "  that 
 they  were  not  inquiring  into  his  Majesty's  religion,  but 
 whether  he  had  qualified  himself  according  to  law."d 
 After  his  deprivation,  he  occasionally  visited  King 
 James,  and  also  his  son  the  Pretender  :  on  which  ac- 
 count, and  in  consequence  of  some  of  his  writings,  he 
 became  obnoxious  to  the  government ;  so  that,  in  the 
 
 d  Biog\  Brit.  Art.  Leslie.  A  list  of  his  works  is  given  in  that 
 article.    Nichols,  i.  195,  6.    Salmon,  ii.  122. 
 
l^0totp  of  ttjc  jfronfurora.  367 
 
 year  1713,  lie  deemed  it  necessary,  for  his  own  safety, 
 to  quit  the  country.  Proceeding  to  the  Continent,  he 
 resided  in  the  Pretender's  court,  and  was  permitted, 
 for  a  time,  to  perform  divine  service  in  a  private  chapel, 
 according  to  the  rites  of  the  Anglican  Church.  In 
 the  year  1721  or  1722  he  returned  to  Ireland,  his  native 
 country.  The  Rehearsal,  a  periodical  paper,  was  his 
 production.    He  died  on  the  13th  of  April,  1722. 
 
 Laurence  Howell's  death  occurred  also  during  the 
 reign  of  George  I.  His  heavy  sentence  has  already 
 been  mentioned.  The  degrading  part  of  it,  however, 
 was  remitted  by  his  Majesty  :  but  the  prisoner  died 
 in  Newgate  in  the  year  1720.  Whatever  may  have 
 been  his  conduct  with  respect  to  the  government,  it 
 appears,  that  his  punishment  was  far  heavier  than  the 
 offence  merited.  His  various  works  testify  that  he 
 was  a  man  of  most  extensive  acquirements.  His  Sy- 
 nopsis  Canomim  is  a  most  valuable  production.  Two 
 volumes  were  published,  the  one  in  1709,  the  other 
 in  1710  :  and  a  third  was  actually  in  the  press,  when 
 it  was  accidentally  destroyed  by  fire.  In  1715,  how- 
 ever, the  third  volume  was  announced  in  the  follow- 
 ing manner :  "  The  MS.  copy  of  the  third  and  last 
 volume  of  Mr.  Howell's  Synopsis  Can.  Concil.  Ecclcs. 
 Grac.  Lat.  being  burnt  in  White  Fryars  Jan.  1712, 
 this  is  to  give  notice,  that  Mr.  Howell  hath  once  more 
 finished  the  third  volume."6  The  author  was  not 
 discouraged  by  the  loss  of  one  copy  of  his  manuscript, 
 but  immediately  commenced  the  laborious  task  of  re- 
 writing the  volume.  One  of  his  works,  The  History 
 of  the  Pontificate,  is  directed  against  the  pretensions 
 of  Rome,  and  may  be  appealed  to  in  refutation  of  the 
 silly  charge  of  Popery  against  the  Nonjurors.    In  the 
 
 e  Nichols,  i.  105,  106. 
 
368  ^(0torp  of  rtje  0onfuror0* 
 
 Preface  he  says,  "  Among  the  many  remarkable  im- 
 presses of  truth  our  Church  bears,  it  is  one,  that  she 
 does  not  blindfold  her  proselytes,  but  leaves  them  the 
 use  of  their  faculties  ;  and  does  not,  by  intruding  on 
 them  an  implicit  belief,  force  them  to  lay  down  their 
 reason,  when  they  take  up  their  faith." f 
 
 After  Collier's  death,  it  became  necessary  to  con- 
 secrate other  Bishops  in  that  section,  of  which  he  had 
 been  the  leader.  Accordingly,  in  1727,  Thomas  Brett, 
 jimior,  was  consecrated  by  Brett,  senior,  Griffin,  and 
 Campbell:  and,  in  1731,  Timothy  Mawman  was  set 
 apart  to  the  Episcopal  Office,  by  the  two  Bretts  and 
 George  Smith. 
 
 The  other  section,  both  being  anxious  to  continue 
 the  succession,  applied  to  the  Bishops  in  Scotland, 
 and,  in  the  year  1726,  Henry  Doughty  was  conse- 
 crated by  four  Scottish  Prelates  to  assist  their  friends 
 in  England.  During  the  same  year,  John  Blackburn 
 and  Henry  Hall  were  consecrated  by  Spinkes,  Gandy, 
 and  Doughty.  After  the  death  of  Spinkes,  the  leader 
 of  this  section,  Richard  Rawlinson,  was  consecrated 
 in  1728,  by  Gandy,  Doughty,  and  Blackburn;  and 
 George  Smith,  by  Gandy,  Blackburn,  and  Rawlin- 
 son. 
 
 It  appears,  that  Smith  assisted  the  Bishops  of  the 
 other  line  in  consecrating  Mawman  in  1731  :  so  that 
 the  disputes  respecting  the  usages  must  have  sub- 
 sided.   This  is  evident  also  from  a  letter  of  Carte's, 
 
 '  The  History  of  the  Pontificate  :  from  its  supposed  beginning, 
 to  the  end  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Anno  Domini  1563,  in  which 
 the  corruptions  of  the  Scriptures  and  sacred  antiquity,  forgeries  in 
 the  councils,  and  incroachments  of  the  Court  of  Rome  on  the 
 Church  and  State,  to  support  their  infallibility,  supremacy,  and 
 other  modern  doctrines,  are  set  in  a  true  light.  By  Laurence 
 Howell,  A.  M.  8vo.  London,  1716. 
 
^tetorp  of  ttje  ^ortfurottf.  369 
 
 written  in  the  same  year,  and  addressed  to  Corbet 
 Kynaston.  "  I  sent  you  word  just  as  I  left  this  place 
 in  July,  of  the  opposition  made  by  some  Presbyters 
 to  the  re-union  among  the  Nonjurors,  all  whose  Bi- 
 shops agreed  in  it  except  I.  B.  a  copy  of  whose  letter 
 I  send  you  in  this.  I  must  now  acquaint  you  with 
 what  passed  after  I  left  the  Town.  Those  of  their 
 Presbyters  that  opposed  it,  drew  up  a  representation 
 against  it,  a  very  pompous  empty  declamation  (the 
 penman  supposed  to  be  Mr.  William  Law)  and  got 
 in  several  to  sign  it,  who  had  appeared  friends  to  the 
 union  before  :  but  Mr.  J.  Creyk  has  a  great  influence, 
 having  the  disposal  of  a  great  deal  of  money,  left  by 
 Mrs.  Pincham  and  others  to  be  distributed  to  the 
 Nonjurors. 
 
 "  After  this  representation  was  sent,  answer  was 
 made  to  it  both  by  Dr.  Brett  and  Mr.  Smith  of  Dur- 
 ham, in  which  it  was  proved  that  what  was  de- 
 sired was  no  alteration,  for  a  declaration  of  their  sense 
 in  interpreting  any  passage  of  the  Liturgy  was  no 
 alteration  in  it :  nor  in  reality  was  the  mixture  any  : 
 for  in  King  Edward's  Liturgy,  after  water  had  been 
 mixed  with  the  wine,  in  the  sight  of  all  the  people, 
 the  rubrick  went  on  to  say,  "  Then  shall  the  Priest 
 put  the  bread  and  wine  on  the  Table."  Here  the 
 word  wine  was  certainly  used  for  the  mixed  cup.  In 
 the  second  Liturgy  of  King  Edward,  all  this  rubrick 
 was  left  out,  and  no  directions  at  all  given  about  the 
 cup  :  and  so  it  stood,  till  after  the  Restoration.  Then 
 the  word  "  oblations"  was  added  to  the  Prayer  for  the 
 Church  Militant,  and  to  prevent  the  Clerk  or  Sexton's 
 placing  the  elements  on  the  Altar,  which  they  consi- 
 dered as  an  oblation,  a  rubrick  was  made  directing 
 the  Priest  to  place  the  bread  and  wine  on  the  Altar. 
 So  it  stands  now  ;  and  yet  I  cannot  see  that  the  term 
 
 B  B 
 
370  ^I'-storp  of  ttje  ^onjucorjs. 
 
 wine  can  now  be  interpreted  to  exclude  the  mixture, 
 when  in  King  Edward's  first  Liturgy  it  undeniably 
 expressed  it.  And  yet  this  mixture  is  the  only  thing 
 that  looks  like  an  alteration :  so  that  the  great,  stir 
 made  in  the  representation  about  giving  up  the  Church 
 of  England,  has  something  in  it  ridiculous  as  well  as 
 intemperate. 
 
 "  The  country  Layman  reflected  on  in  the  repre- 
 sentation, is  Mr.  Smith  of  Durham,  an  excellent  man, 
 and  what  his  learning  is,  his  notes  upon  Bede's  Ec- 
 clesiastical History  sufficiently  shew.  Endeavours 
 were  made  to  get  the  Presbyters  to  recede  from  this 
 representation,  and  there  were  hopes  of  succeeding, 
 when  Mr.  B.  sent  the  inclosed  letter  to  Mr.  Gandy, 
 and  therein  quoted  a  passage,  which  he  says  was  writ- 
 ten by  our  master's  direction.  This  knocked  all  on 
 the  head  again.  Now  I  can  hardly  think  that  our 
 master  ever  gave  such  directions ;  or  if  he  did,  the 
 affair  must  have  been  strangely  misrepresented  to  him. 
 I  could  wish,  therefore,  it  was  stated  to  him  in  its  true 
 light,  for  then  I  am  persuaded  he  would  give  his  ap- 
 probation of  it,  and  if  he  did,  and  that  was  once  sig- 
 nified here,  the  union  would  be  brought  about,  and 
 executed  here  without  any  difficulty.  This  is  therefore 
 a  very  material  point,  and  I  should  be  very  glad  to  have 
 the  matter  cleared  up,  this  pretence  of  his  being 
 averse  to  it  being  the  main  obstacle  to  so  desirable 
 an  union.  I  sent  you  the  terms  before,  so  that  I  need 
 not  repeat  them,  only  I  shall  mention  one  alteration 
 I  proposed,  to  get  over  Mr.  Blackburn's  objection  :  it 
 was  to  be  declared  that  the  words  in  the  Prayers  for 
 the  Church  Militant,  "  that  we  with  them  may  be 
 partakers"  should  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as 
 those  in  the  Burial  Office.  Mr.  B.  saying  he  did  not 
 
Ikisrorp  of  rtjc  iPonjurorsf.  37 1 
 
 understand  them  in  the  same  sense,  I  proposed  it  to 
 be  expressed  thus,  in  a  sense  agreeable  to  that  pas- 
 sage in  the  Burial  Office :  he  could  not  oppose  this 
 without  makingthe  Church  inconsistent,  so  my  amend- 
 ment was  agreed  to.  I  wish  you  could  communicate 
 this  to  our  friend,  to  whom  I  desire  my  humble  duty 
 may  be  acceptable :  and  if  something  could  still  be 
 done  in  this  affair,  it  would  be  infinitely  to  the  satisfac- 
 tion of,  Dear  Sir,  yours  entirely,  Thomas  Carte." K 
 
 This  is  an  interesting  letter.  Law  was  among  the 
 opponents  of  the  Union,  because  the  Usagers  proposed 
 it  on  their  own  terms.  It  does  not  appear  that  there 
 was  to  be  any  thing  like  mutual  concession.  Un- 
 doubtedly the  majority  of  the  Nonjurors  were  Usagers, 
 but  as  Law  and  Blackburn  never  yielded,  we  may 
 infer  that  the  two  Communions  yet  continued  distinct : 
 Carte  was  among  those  who  adopted  the  usages.  Pro- 
 bably, Mr.  Kynaston,  to  whom  the  letter  was  written, 
 had  access  to  the  Pretender,  who  is  called,  by  Carte, 
 their  master.  In  the  Lockhart  Papers,  there  is  evi- 
 dence, that  the  Pretender  was  displeased  at  these  in- 
 ternal disputes  :  but  Carte  imagines,  that  the  question 
 had  not  been  fairly  represented.  It  is  clear,  there- 
 fore, that  the  New  Communion  Office  was  now  adopted 
 by  some  of  those  who  had  previously  rejected  it :  and 
 "  it  is  mentioned,"  says  Mr.  Perceval,  "  that  in  1733, 
 all  the  Nonjuring  Bishops  of  this  time  were  in  com- 
 munion, except  Blackburn,  who  stood  alone,  but  on 
 what  account  is  not  stated."11  It  is,  I  think,  clear 
 from  Carte's  letter,  that  Blackburn  stood  apart  on  the 
 ground  of  the  usages,  which  were  made  terms  of  com- 
 
 6  Nichols's  Illustrations,  v.  155 — 157. 
 h  Perceval's  Apostolical  Succession,  225. 
 
372  Iftetorp  of  tljc  iPonjucorss, 
 
 munion,  and  to  which  he  could  not  consent.  Having 
 acted  and  agreed  with  Spinkes,  lie  could  not  relin- 
 quish the  use  of  the  Office  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
 
 George  I.  died  in  1727  ;  but  the  state  of  the  Non- 
 jurors continued  the  same  under  his  successor  George 
 II.  at  least  for  several  years  after  his  accession.  The 
 case  of  Atterbury  scarcely  falls  within  my  province  ; 
 for  though  he  secretly  favoured  the  Pretender,  he  was 
 not  a  Nonjuror.  It  may,  however,  be  adduced  as  a 
 proof,  that  it  was  possible  to  regard  the  Pretender's 
 claims  with  favour,  without  going  over  to  the  Church 
 of  Rome.  In  his  exile,  though  every  temptation  was 
 presented  to  him,  he  remained  firm  in  his  attachment 
 to  the  Anglican  Church,  dying  in  the  year  1731. 
 
 About  the  time  that  the  two  sections  of  the  Non- 
 jurors became  united,  several  of  the  body  were  re- 
 moved by  death.  Mr.  Orme  died  in  the  year  1733. 
 He  had  been  deprived  under  King  William  for  de- 
 clining the  Oath  of  Allegiance.  The  following  extract 
 from  a  letter  to  Bowyer  the  Printer,  on  occasion  of 
 his  great  loss  from  the  destruction  of  his  Printing 
 Office,  furnishes  a  striking  picture  of  the  man.  "  Jan. 
 31,  1712.  I  mourn  for  your  misfortune  :  I  hope  our 
 loving  God  will  sanctify  it  to  you,  and  that  your  great 
 loss  will  in  the  end  be  your  great  gain.  I  doubt  not 
 but  you  are  more  a  Christian  than  not  to  bear  this  or 
 any  other  worldly  loss,  with  such  patience  as  becomes 
 our  holy  profession,  and  the  disciples  of  our  blessed 
 Lord  and  Redeemer."  He  was  a  man  of  great  meek- 
 ness, gentleness,  and  piety.1 
 
 Of  the  same  character  was  Robert  Jenkin,  D.D. 
 He  became  Chaplain  to  Bishop  Lake ;  but  lost  his 
 preferment,  subsequent  to  the  Revolution,  in  conse- 
 
 i  Nichols,  i.  52,  53. 
 
^totocp  of  ttje  i^onfurorsk  373 
 
 quence  of  his  refusal  to  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance. 
 He  was  one  of  the  subscribers  to  the  Bishop's  dying 
 declaration.  On  quitting  his  living  he  retired  to  his 
 fellowship  in  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  the 
 Oath  not  being  required,  unless  the  Bishop  of  Ely, 
 the  visitor  of  his  College,  should  deem  it  necessary 
 to  exact  a  compliance.  By  a  statute  of  the  College 
 moreover  the  Bishop  was  not  at  liberty  to  visit,  unless 
 called  upon  to  do  so  by  a  majority  of  the  fellows  :  so 
 that  many  individuals  retained  their  fellowships  after 
 they  had  been  removed  from  parishes.  At  length  he 
 complied,  and  took  the  Oath  to  Queen  Anne.  About 
 the  same  time  he  was  chosen  Master  of  his  College. 
 On  the  accession  of  George  I.  an  act  was  passed,  en- 
 joining all  persons,  who  held  a  post  of  the  value  of 
 five  pounds  per  annum,  to  take  the  Oaths  of  Allegi- 
 ance and  Abjuration  :  so  that  Dr.  Jenkin  was  under 
 the  painful  necessity  of  ejecting  some  of  the  fellows. 
 This  was  to  him  a  most  distressing  step  :  for  having 
 experienced  the  same  scruples  himself,  he  keenly  felt 
 for  those  who  could  not  take  the  Oaths.  Baker  pro- 
 bably and  others  would  have  complied,  if  the  Oath  of 
 Abjuration  had  not  been  imposed.  Besides  the  "  De- 
 fence of  the  Profession'  of  Bishop  Lake,  he  wrote 
 several  other  works.  The  Reasonableness  of  tlie  Chris- 
 tian Religion  is  well  known  to  those,  who  are  conver- 
 sant in  such  studies.    He  died  in  the  year  1727.k 
 
 Henry  Gandy,  who,  after  Spinkes,  was  perhaps 
 one  of  the  ablest  of  the  opponents  of  the  Usages,  died 
 in  the  year  1733.  It  is  singular,  that  Granger  and 
 Noble  should  have  represented  him  as  a  Roman  Ca- 
 tholic. The  preceding  pages  prove  him  to  have  been 
 one  of  the  best  divines  of  the  period.1 
 
 k  Nichols,  iv.  241—248. 
 
 1  Noble,  iii.  173. 
 
374  tei'gtoup  of  ttje  i!5onjuroi*ss. 
 
 In  the  same  year  also  died  Samuel  Parker  at 
 Oxford.  He  was  the  son  of  the  Bishop  of  Oxford, 
 whose  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Magdalen  College, 
 in  the  reign  of  King  James,  rendered  him  somewhat 
 notorious.  His  particular  friends  were  Hickes,  Col- 
 lier, Dodwell,  Leslie,  Nelson,  and  Grabe  :  with  whom 
 he  was  accustomed  to  associate,  being  engaged,  as 
 they  also  were,  in  learned  and  laborious  pursuits. 
 His  works  were  various  and  valuable,  but  perhaps  the 
 most  important  is  his  Bibliotheca  Biblica.m  It  is 
 thought  that  his  death  was  hastened  by  his  great  ex- 
 ertions in  writing  this  learned  work.  To  the  last 
 volume  of  his  Bibliotheca  Biblica,  published  after  his 
 decease,  a  sketch  of  his  life  is  prefixed,  in  which  the 
 writer  says :  "  he  had  from  the  beginning  embraced 
 the  principles  of  the  Nonjurors,  and  as  he  constantly 
 observed  a  strict  uniformity  in  his  principles  and 
 practice,  he  thought  himself  obliged  to  refuse  those 
 advantages  of  preferment,  which  not  only  his  parts 
 and  education  seemed  to  entitle  him  to,  but  which 
 were  actually  offered  to  him."  The  same  writer,  al- 
 luding to  the  Bibliotheca,  says,  "  In  short  it  was  the 
 unhappy  occasion  of  his  death.'1  The  following  MS. 
 memorandum  is  written  on  the  flyleaf  of  a  copy  of  the 
 Bibliotheca  now  before  me  :  "  On  Tuesday,  Oct. — 
 1733.  Died  at  Oxon,  of  the  Dropsie,  the  great 
 and  learned  Mr.  Samuel  Parker,  son  of  the  Bishop 
 of  Oxford  of  that  name,  and  author  of  various  learned 
 
 "'  Bibliotheca  Biblica.  Being  a  Commentary  upon  all  the 
 Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Gathered  out  of  the  genuine 
 Writings  of  the  Fathers,  and  Ecclesiastical  Historians,  and  Acts  of 
 Councils,  down  to  the  year  of  our  Lord  451,  being  that  of  the 
 fourth  General  Council :  and  Lower,  as  occasion  may  require,  &c. 
 4to.  Oxford,  1720.  Six  Volumes  only,  including  the  Pentateuch, 
 were  published. 
 
^t'0tocp  ot*  tfje  ilionjuror^.  375 
 
 works,  particularly  this  Bibliotheca  Biblica,  of  which 
 he  published  several  parts,  a  proof  of  his  excellent 
 learning  and  skill  in  the  eastern  languages  and  cus- 
 toms :  he  refused  the  Oaths  at  the  Revolution,  and 
 lived  retired  ever  since  at  Oxford,  well  esteemed  for 
 several  valuable  qualifications,  particularly  his  art  of 
 pleasing  in  conversation.  I  had  the  honour  and  hap- 
 piness to  be  intimately  acquainted  with  him.  Hen. 
 Fisher." 
 
 Many  of  the  Nonjurors  resided  in  the  Universities, 
 in  order  that  they  might  enjoy  the  advantages  of  the 
 Public  Libraries.  Being  engaged  in  learned  pursuits, 
 and  having  no  means  of  purchasing  books,  they  ne- 
 cessarily took  up  their  abode  in  such  places  as  Ox- 
 ford and  Cambridge.  John  Wesley  said  in  the  early 
 period  of  his  life,  that  "  Oxford  was  paved  with  the 
 skulls  of  Jacobites ."  He  evidently  alluded  to  the 
 number  of  Nonjurors  residing  in  that  city.  Unques- 
 tionably there  was  a  bright  constellation  of  talent 
 among  the  Nonjurors  in  Oxford  in  those  days — men 
 who  preferred  poverty  to  perjury,  and  living  in  ob- 
 scurity, with  a  good  conscience,  to  station  and  worldly 
 honour. 
 
 Hearne  died  in  the  year  1735,  in  his  rooms  in  St. 
 Edmund's  Hall.  His  case  may  be  cited  as  an  instance 
 of  the  difficulties,  in  which  many  good  men  were 
 placed  by  the  Oaths.  Though  he  would  not  have 
 assisted  in  restoring  the  Pretender,  yet  he  could  not 
 swear  allegiance  to  the  reigning  Sovereign.  On  this 
 account  he  declined  the  chaplaincy  of  Corpus  Christi 
 College,  with  some  other  important  posts.  At  one 
 time,  however,  he  had  entertained  different  views  : 
 and  these  had  been  expressed  in  a  manuscript,  which 
 had  been  sent  to  Cherry,  at  whose  death  it  came  into 
 the  possession  of  parties,  who  were  anxious  to  damage 
 
376  ^tgtorp  of  tt)c  il^onjucor?. 
 
 the  author's  reputation.  Cherry's  papers  were  left  by 
 will  to  the  Bodleian  Library  :  and  Hearne  asserted 
 his  claim  to  this  paper  on  the  ground,  that  it  had  not 
 been  given  to  his  friend.  The  Curators  pleaded  the 
 will,  though,  on  examination,  it  was  found  that  the 
 MS.  was  not  specified.  The  truth  is,  his  enemies 
 were  resolved  on  publishing  the  paper,  though  Hearne 
 had  expressed  his  disavowal  of  the  views  of  his  earlier 
 years.  In  the  year  1731  it  was  actually  published 
 with  a  preface,  in  which  sneering  allusions  were  made 
 to  the  author's  change  of  views."  "  His  reasons  for 
 compliance  (how  weak  soever  in  the  eyes  of  a  dif- 
 ferent persuasion)  were  doubtless  good  in  his  own  : 
 and  if  he  has  discovered  better  now  for  refusing  the 
 Oath,  than  he  before  gave  for  the  taking  it,  'tis  an 
 argument,  1  think,  of  his  constant  inquiry  after  truth, 
 and  of  his  discharging  his  conscience  as  he  improves 
 in  knowledge."  The  publication  did  him  no  harm  ; 
 but  only  exhibited  the  bitterness  of  his  enemies.  The 
 publisher  of  the  work  expressly  declares  that  it  was 
 left  to  the  Bodleian  by  will,  though  it  was  not  men- 
 tioned, and  it  is  questionable  whether  Mr.  Cherry 
 had  any  such  power  to  dispose  of  it,  and  certainly  he 
 would  not  have  exposed  his  friend,  by  placing  such 
 a  document  within  the  reach  ef  his  detractors.  "  Why 
 Mr.  Cherry,"  says  the  writer,  "should  suffer  this  letter 
 to  be  placed  in  a  public  library  (where  he  knew  every 
 thing  was  to  be  seen)  had  he  not  apprehended  it  to 
 be  for  Mr.  Hearne's  credit,  I  cannot  conceive."  The 
 writer  knew  that  Mr.  Cherry  did  not  intend  to  leave 
 
 n  A  Vindication  of  those  who  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  to 
 his  present  Majestie  from  Perjurie,  Injustice  and  Disloyalty, 
 charged  upon  them  by  such  as  are  against  it.  In  a  Letter  to  a 
 Nonjuror,  8vo.    Printed  in  the  year  1731. 
 
^(jjtorp  at  tlje  ^onj'uiw.  377 
 
 that  particular  paper  to  the  public  library :  and,  there- 
 fore, alluding-  to  this  fact,  which  he  speaks  of  as  a 
 rumour,  he  expresses  himself  satisfied  with  the  Re- 
 gister of  Benefactors,  in  which  the  bequest  is  recorded. 
 Not  content  with  attempting  to  injure  him  while  living, 
 his  enemies  traduced  his  memory  after  his  death, 
 giving-  out  that  he  had  died  a  Roman  Catholic. 
 Hearne  was  singular  in  his  habits,  and  in  his  religious 
 opinions ;  but  the  rumour  of  his  being  reconciled  to 
 the  Church  of  Rome,  in  his  dying  moments,  was  des- 
 titute of  any  foundation  whatever.0 
 
 Walter  Harte  was  another  Nonjuring  Clergyman 
 of  this  period,  of  whom  some  notice  may  be  given. 
 He  was  Fellow  of  Pembroke  College,  Oxford,  Pre- 
 bendary of  Wells,  and  Vicar  of  St.  Mary  Magdalen, 
 Taunton,  all  of  which  he  lost  for  refusing  the  Oath 
 of  Allegiance  at  the  Revolution.  Kidder,  Hooper, 
 and  Wynn,  the  successors  of  Ken,  in  the  See  of  Bath 
 and  Wells,  contrived  to  secure  to  him  the  profits  of 
 his  Stall  at  Wells  ;  so  that  he  was  not  left  quite  des- 
 titute in  his  declining  years.  He  retired  to  Kent- 
 bury,  Berks,  at  which  place  he  died  in  the  year  173G, 
 at  the  advanced  age  of  95.  His  son,  Walter  Harte, 
 Canon  of  Windsor,  was  the  well  known  author  of 
 the  Life  of  Gustavus  Adolphus,  King  of  Sweden. p 
 
 It  may  be  mentioned  that  several  laymen,  though 
 they  were  not  called  upon  to  take  the  Oaths,  which, 
 however,  they  would  have  refused,  were  Nonjurors 
 in  principle,  and  considered  themselves  as  members 
 of  the  body.  Bowyer  and  Bettenham,  two  eminent 
 printers,  were  Nonjurors  :  and  by  them  many  of  the 
 works  of  the  party  were  published.     In  the  year 
 
 °  Life  of  Hearne,  23,  26,  27,  28,  121—124. 
 p  Noble,  iii.  147,  148. 
 
378  ^tetoi-p  of  Hjg  ilionj'ttrord. 
 
 1724,  Negus  published  a  list  of  the  printing  offices 
 in  London,  distinguishing  the  printers  into  classes, 
 according  to  their  acknowledged  or  supposed  opi- 
 nions. Under  the  head  of  JVonjurors  are  reckoned 
 Bowyer,  Bettenham,  and  Dalton.q 
 
 The  views  entertained  by  the  Nonjurors,  and  ex- 
 pressed in  their  new  Communion  Office,  respecting  the 
 Eucharist,  were  opposed  by  many  of  the  Clergy, 
 though  some  few  concurred  in  opinion  with  the  com- 
 pilers of  the  New  Service.  Johnson  of  Cranbrook  had 
 expressed  similar  views,  though  he  remained  in  the 
 Church  of  England.  But  at  length  the  doctrine  of 
 the  Nonjurors  on  this  subject  was  assailed,  and  by 
 no  less  a  person  than  Waterland.  In  the  year  1738, 
 Waterland,  then  Archdeacon  of  Middlesex,  published 
 a  Charge  to  the  Clergy,  in  which  the  notion  of  a 
 sacrifice  in  the  Eucharist  was  condemned.1  This 
 led  to*  a  controversy,  in  which  Brett  and  George  Smith 
 took  a  prominent  part.  Waterland's  works  are  gene- 
 rally known ;  but  those  of  the  Nonjurors  have  been 
 examined  only  by  comparatively  a  small  number  of 
 persons.  Some  account,  therefore,  of  the  writings  of 
 the  Nonjurors  on  this  subject  will  not  be  unaccep- 
 table. 
 
 Waterland  was  a  man  of  genius  and  of  great 
 learning :  and  the  Nonjurors  were  always  ready  to 
 acknowledge  his  merits.  He  was  moreover  a  man  of 
 candour;  so  that  none  of  his  opponents  were  in  danger 
 of  being  misrepresented.  He  opposed  some  of  their 
 views,  but  he  did  not,  as  was  too  frequently  the  case, 
 
 i  Nichols,  i.  302,  303. 
 
 r  He  also  published  a  volume  of  considerable  size,  in  which  the 
 same  view  w  as  maintained  :  "  A  Review  of  the  Doctrine  of  the 
 Eucharist  as  laid  down  in  Scripture  and  Antiquity.  By  Daniel 
 Waterland,  D.D."  8vo.  London,  1737. 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  jponjucottf.  379 
 
 impute  to  them  opinions  which  they  repudiated.  Thus 
 the  charge  of  Popery,  which  was  founded  on  the  Non- 
 jurors' Views  of  the  Christian  Sacrifice,  was  shewn 
 by  this  eminent  and  candid  man  to  be  most  unjust. 
 Smith,  in  his  "  Epistolary  Dissertation"  thus  alludes 
 to  Waterland's  conduct  in  this  particular.  "  Our 
 doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  was,  in  the  dispute  between 
 the  late  Dr.  Hickes  and  his  opponents,  formerly  cried 
 down  as  Popish.  Of  this  imputation  Dr.  Waterland 
 has  been  so  just  as  to  clear  it,  for  which  we  cannot 
 but  return  him  our  thanks ;  because  it  is  evident  it 
 is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  Popish,  and  quite  over- 
 throws it :  there  being  as  much  difference  between  it 
 and  the  Romish,  as  between  the  substance  of  bread 
 and  wine,  and  the  substance  of  our  blessed  Saviour's 
 body  and  blood.  And  this  the  Papists  are  so  sensible 
 of,  that  they  endeavour  all  they  can  to  render  our 
 notion  of  a  sacrifice  contemptible."  Smith,  however, 
 remarks  that  Waterland,  though  he  had  cleared  their 
 view  from  being  Popish,  charged  it  with  being  Jewish  : 
 and  this  point  is  discussed  at  considerable  length.5 
 The  question  which  had  been  so  learnedly  handled 
 by  Hickes,  Johnson  and  Brett,  was  most  ably  main- 
 tained in  this  work  :  but  the  controversy  is  conducted 
 in  a  meek  and  charitable  spirit,  altogether  different 
 from  that  of  The  Remarks  on  The  Life  of  Tillotson, 
 which  have  been  noticed  in  a  previous  chapter. 
 In  1740,  Smith  published  An  Account  of  the 
 
 9  An  Epistolary  Dissertation  addressed  to  the  Clergy  of  Mid- 
 dlesex. Wherein  the  Doctrine  of  St.  Austin  concerning-  the 
 Christian  Sacrifice  is  set  in  a  true  light :  by  way  of  reply  to  Dr. 
 Waterland's  late  charge  to  them.  By  a  Divine  of  the  University 
 of  Cambridge.  London,  8vo.  1739,  pp.  3,4.  The  work  is  anony- 
 mous :  but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  it  was  written  by  Mr. 
 George  Smith. 
 
380  Hafotor?  of  rtjc  /ftontucoiu 
 
 Primitive  Invocation,  which  he  called  a  supplement 
 to  Waterland's  Review  of  the  Eucharist.  He  does 
 not  exactly  controvert  Waterland's  positions,  but 
 seems  rather  to  view  them  as  falling  below  the  reality. 
 This  is  implied  in  the  title  of  his  work.  The  au- 
 thor gives  a  most  interesting  historical  sketch  of  the 
 whole  subject.1  Brett  also  took  a  part  in  the  contro- 
 versy, publishing  "  Remarks  on  Waterland's  Charge,'" 
 and  "  A  Supplement  to  the  Remarks.''''  In  the  former, 
 he  contends,  that  the  differences  between  Hickes  and 
 Johnson  on  the  one  side,  and  Waterland  on  the  other, 
 were  rather  verbal  than  real :  in  the  latter,  he  de- 
 fends Johnson's  view  of  a  material  sacrifice  in  the 
 Eucharist,  which  was  opposed  by  Waterland." 
 
 It  has  been  already  mentioned,  that  the  disputes 
 among  the  Nonjurors,  respecting  the  Usages,  were 
 terminated,  the  whole  body,  with  very  few  excep- 
 tions, concurring  in  their  adoption.  The  few,  who 
 refused  to  receive  them,  did  not  offer  any  active 
 opposition,  but  contented  themselves  with  adhering 
 to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Probably  some, 
 who  dissented  from  the  majority,  united  with  the 
 
 1  A  Brief  Historical  Account  of  the  Primitive  Invocation,  or 
 Prayer  for  a  Blessing-  upon  the  Elements,  in  Confirmation  of  some 
 things  mentioned  in  the  learned  Dr.  Waterland's  Review,  &c, 
 and  by  way  of  Supplement  to  it.  In  a  Letter  to  his  Grace  the 
 Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  To  which  is  added,  a  full  Confutation 
 of  Beza's  Arguments  against  the  Primitive  Doctrine  of  the  Eu- 
 charist, &c.    8vo.  1740. 
 
 u  Some  Remarks  on  Dr.  Waterland's  Review  of  the  Doctrine 
 of  the  Eucharist,  with  regard  to  the  seeming  Difference  between 
 his  and  Mr.  Johnson's  concerning  the  Sacrifice  and  some  other 
 Points.  In  defence  of  myself  and  some  others,  who  maintained 
 Mr.  Johnson's  Opinions  in  our  late  Answers  to  the  Plain  Account. 
 Svo.  London,  1738. 
 
^ftftorp  ot'  ttje  $onjurot#.  381 
 
 National  Church,  as  the  best  security  against  inno- 
 vations. 
 
 In  the  year  1741,  Robert  Gordon  was  consecrated 
 to  the  Episcopal  office  by  Brett,  George  Smith,  and 
 Mawman.  He  was  the  last  Bishop  of  the  regular 
 Nonjurors. 
 
 About  the  time,  when  the  disputes  respecting  the 
 Usages  terminated,  another  breach  sprang  up  among 
 the  Nonjurors.  Mr.  Perceval  is  of  opinion,  that  it 
 commenced,  in  the  year  1733,  in  the  consecration  of 
 Roger  Lawrence,  the  learned  author  of  Lay-Baptism 
 Invalid?  This  line,  however,  was  not  recognized  by 
 the  regular  body,  on  the  ground,  that  the  first  conse- 
 crations were  uncanonical.  Lawrence  himself  was 
 consecrated  by  Campbell,  the  Scottish  Bishop,  who 
 acted  by  his  own  authority  :  so  that  the  act,  being  con- 
 trary to  the  Canons,  was  deemed  invalid.  Campbell 
 and  Lawrence,  therefore,  were  now  the  leaders  of  a 
 new  section  in  the  already  diminished  numbers  of  the 
 Nonjurors.  Subsequently,  Campbell  and  Lawrence 
 consecrated  Thomas  Deacon,  who,  on  his  part,  and 
 by  himself,  appointed  to  the  Episcopal  office  J.  P. 
 Brown,  whose  real  name  is  supposed  to  have  been 
 Johnstone,  a  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Annandale. 
 
 The  name  of  Lawrence  is  well  known  from  his 
 learned  works  on  the  Invalidity  of  Lay  Baptism :  but 
 probably  it  is  not  so  generally  known,  that  he  was  a 
 Nonjuror.  His  parents  being  Dissenters,  Lawrence 
 was  baptized  in  the  body  to  which  they  belonged. 
 Entertaining  doubts  respecting  the  validity  of  the  Act, 
 he  was  led  to  an  extended  examination  of  the  whole 
 subject,  which  issued  in  the  publication  of  his  valu- 
 
 w  Perceval,  226. 
 
382  ^igftorp  of  rtjc  iUonjucocd. 
 
 able  and  learned  work  :  Lay  Baptism  Invalid*  The 
 book  was  assailed  by  Dissenters,  because  the  author 
 had  reduced  their  ministers  to  mere  laymen,  which 
 was  most  distasteful  to  the  body  :  it  was  also  attacked 
 by  some  members  of  the  Church  of  England.  He 
 fully,  as  I  conceive,  establishes  the  position,  that  Lay 
 Baptism  is  not  recognized  by  the  Anglican  Church, 
 whatever  may  be  the  decisions  of  the  ecclesiastical 
 courts  respecting  the  right,  which  Dissenters  have  to 
 the  performance  of  the  Burial  Service,  in  the  case  of 
 those  who  are  baptized  by  their  own  ministers.  Two 
 Sermons  were  preached  at  Salisbury,  by  Burnet,  in 
 1710,  in  which  Lawrence's  positions  were  assailed. 
 This  circumstance  led  him  to  publish,  in  reply,  his  work 
 on  the  Sacerdotal  Powers.1  A  few  years  later  there 
 appeared  another  volume  on  Dissenters'  Baptisms.2, 
 
 *  Lay  Baptism  Invalid.  An  Essay  to  prove  that  such  Baptism 
 is  null  and  void,  when  administered  in  opposition  to  the  divine 
 right  of  the  Apostolic  succession.  Third  Ed.  With  an  Appen- 
 dix: wherein  the  boasted  unanswerable  objection  of  the  B.  of  S. 
 and  other  new  objections  are  answered.  By  a  Lay-hand.  8vo.  Lon- 
 don, 1712. 
 
 The  Second  Part  of  Lay-Baptism  Invalid  :  Shewing,  that  the 
 Ancient  Catholick  Church  never  had  any  Ecclesiastical  Law,  Tra- 
 dition or  Custom,  for  the  Validity  of  Baptism  performed  by  persons, 
 who  never  were  commissioned  by  Bishops  to  baptize.  London, 
 1713. 
 
 y  Sacerdotal  Powers  :  or  the  Necessity  of  Confession,  Penance 
 and  Absolution,  together  with  the  Nullity  of  Unauthorized  Lay- 
 Baptism  asserted  in  an  Essay  occasioned  by  the  publication  of  Two 
 Sermons,  Preached  at  Salisbury  the  5th,  and  7th  of  November, 
 1710.  By  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptism  Invalid.  8vo.  London, 
 1711. 
 
 z  Dissenters  and  other  unauthorized  Baptisms  null  and  void,  by 
 the  Articles,  Canons  and  Rubrics  of  the  Church  of  England,  in 
 Answer  to  a  Pamphlet,  called  the  Judgment  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
 land, in  the  case  of  Lay- Baptism,  and  of  Dissenters'  Baptism. 
 By  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptism  Invalid.  8vo.  London,  1713. 
 
^isJtorp  of  tljc  $onjucoi#.  3*3 
 
 The  Bishop  of  Oxford  also  having  alluded  to  the  sub- 
 ject, in  his  Charge,  Lawrence  sent  forth  a  reply  to  his 
 Lordship.3  These  are,  I  believe,  all  the  works  of  this 
 learned  writer,  respecting  whose  talents  there  can  be 
 no  difference  of  opinion,  whatever  may  be  the  case 
 concerning  his  views.  On  the  question  of  Lay  Bap- 
 tism, most  churchmen  will  agree  with  him  in  senti- 
 ment. It  will  be  seen,  that  the  above  works  were  all 
 written  many  years  before  his  consecration  as  a  Non- 
 juring  Bishop.  Brett  wrote  a  short  Tract  on  the  sub- 
 ject, defending  Lawrence's  views  against  the  objections 
 of  Burnet. b  Little  is  known  of  Lawrence  beyond 
 what  is  to  be  gleaned  from  his  works,  and  the  replies 
 which  they  called  forth .c 
 
 a  The  Bishop  of  Oxford's  Charge  Considered,  in  reference  to 
 the  Independency  of  the  Church  upon  the  State.  A  Proper  Sa- 
 crifice in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  nature  and  ne- 
 cessity of  Sacerdotal  Absolution.  And  the  Invalidity  of  Baptism 
 administered  by  persons  not  Episcopally  ordained.  In  an  humble 
 address  to  his  Lordship.  By  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptism  Invalid. 
 8vo.  1712. 
 
 b  A  Letter  to  the  Author  of  Lay-Baptism  Invalid  :  wherein  the 
 Popish  Doctrine  of  Lay-Baptism,  taught  in  a  Sermon,  said  to  have 
 been  preached  by  the  B —  of  S —  is  censured  and  condemned  by  the 
 Greek  Church:  the  Church  of  England:  The  Reformed  abroad:  and 
 even  by  our  English  Presbyterian  Sectaries.  Which  may  be  added 
 as  an  Appendix  to  a  book  entitled  Sacerdotal  Powers.  8vo.  1711. 
 
 c  The  Author  of  the  Wisdom  of  Looking  Backward  affects  to 
 treat  Lawrence  with  contempt,  though  the  name  of  the  latter  will 
 be  handed  down  to  latest  posterity,  while  that  of  the  former  is  un- 
 known. Thus,  in  alluding  to  his  work  on  Lay-Baptism,  he  says  : 
 "  by  one  Lawrence  a  Book-keeper  in  London,  who  being  ashamed 
 of  his  baptism  among  the  Dissenters,  was  re-baptized  by  the  Reader 
 of  Christchurch  without  knowledge  of  the  Bishop  or  Vicar :  and 
 then  would  impose  his  own  hasty  practice  for  a  standing  rule  and 
 principle  to  others  ;  wherein  he  was  much  encouraged  and  assisted 
 by  Dr.  Hickes."  p.  88.  The  same  thing  is  repeated,  p.  245, 
 246.    So  again,  mentioning  Lawrence's  Remarks  on  the  Bishop 
 
384  lliigftorp  ot*  ttje  ^onfurorsf. 
 
 Thus  the  Nonjurors  were  again  divided  into  two 
 sections,  notwithstanding  the  closing  of  the  breach 
 which  had  been  occasioned  by  the  Usages.  Brett 
 was  at  the  head  of  the  regular  body,  Campbell  and 
 Lawrence  being  the  leaders  of  the  Separatists.  These 
 particulars  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  considering  the 
 proceedings  connected  with  the  Rebellion  in  1745. 
 
 Brett,  of  whom  many  things  are  recorded  in  the 
 preceding  chapters,  was  one  of  the  most  learned  as 
 well  as  most  active,  of  the  body :  but  his  labours 
 were  terminated  by  death  in  the  year  1743.  On  a 
 flat  stone  over  his  grave  at  Wye  there  are  inscriptions 
 to  the  memory  of  several  of  his  ancestors,  commenc- 
 ing with  Gregory  Brett,  in  1541.  Thomas  Brett  is 
 thus  mentioned.  "  Thomas  Brett  of  Spring  Grove, 
 son  of  Thomas,  born  September  3rd,  1667  :  Doctor 
 of  Laws,  1697  :  became  rector  of  Betshanger  1703  : 
 and  of  Ruckinge,  1705:  resigned  both  in  1714,  be- 
 cause he  could  not  comply  with  the  terms  then  im- 
 
 of  Oxford's  Charge,  he  adds,  "  By  Mr.  Lawrence  bred  to  accounts 
 in  Spain,"  265.  Under  the  year  1713,  the  Author  says:  "the 
 University  of  Oxford  had  lately  given  the  Degree  of  M.  A.  to  a 
 man  bred  only  to  books  of  accounts,  and  living  properly  in  the 
 service  of  a  London  merchant,  and  a  professed  enemy  to  the 
 Revolution,  and  the  Hanover  succession."  He  then  gives  the 
 particulars ;  "  One  Mr.  Wheatley  (or  some  such  name)  a  young 
 preacher,  about  town  falling  into  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Lawrence, 
 a  disciple  of  Dr.  Hickes,  at  Child's  Coffee  House,  took  a  great 
 affection  for  him,  and  having  before  heard  him  called  in  the  Uni- 
 versity, the  Learned  Layman,  he  invited  him  down  to  Oxford 
 with  him,  being  himself  fellow  of  St.  John's,  and  prevailed  with  the 
 Proctor  in  that  House  to  propose  the  getting  him  an  honorary  de- 
 gree of  M.  A.  without  education  or  exercise  ;  which  was  effected 
 by  a  surprise  upon  some  and  a  cowardice  in  others."  p.  284,  285. 
 This  one  Mr.  Wheatley  was  no  less  a  person  than  the  well  known 
 and  learned  author  of  the  Illustrations  of  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer. 
 
\$t0torp  of  tf)c  ifroniurorg.  385 
 
 posed  with  a  safe  conscience :  Died,  March  5th,  1743." 
 His  refutation  of  the  charge  of  Popery  was  noticed  in 
 a  previous  chapter  ;  but  it  may  be  added,  that,  in 
 Ballard's  Collection  of  Letters,  it  was  actually  stated, 
 that  he  had  become  a  Papist,  and  had  formed  a  se- 
 parate congregation.  The  latter  assertion  was  true : 
 and  it  is  contradictory  of  the  former,  since,  had  he 
 become  a  Papist,  he  would  not  have  formed  a  sepa- 
 rate congregation,  but  would  have  united  himself 
 with  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  circumstance  shews 
 how  ready  many  persons  were  in  those  days  as  well 
 as  in  our  own,  to  allege  the  charge  of  Popery  against 
 men  of  sound  and  orthodox  principles.*1 
 
 Thomas  Baker,  the  learned  antiquary,  died  in  the 
 year  1740,  in  the  80th  year  of  his  age.  Some  notices 
 of  his  labours  have  been  given  in  a  preceding  chapter  : 
 but  a  few  particulars  may  be  added.  He  lost  his 
 living  in  1690,  for  declining  the  Oath  of  Allegiance, 
 on  which  occasion  he  retired  to  his  fellowship  in  St. 
 John's  College  Cambridge,  which  he  held  until  the 
 year  17 16.  Those  who  had  taken  the  degree  of  B.  D. 
 were  undisturbed  in  their  fellowships,  until  the  reign 
 of  George  I.,  when  the  Oath  of  Abjuration  was  im- 
 posed. Jenkin,  the  Master  of  the  College,  was  anxious 
 to  leave  things  as  they  were  :  but  he  was  informed  by 
 those  in  authority,  that  the  Oaths  must  be  pressed. 
 Baker's  correspondence  was  very  extensive  :  and  even 
 Burnet  held  him  in  much  estimation.  There  is  a 
 Letter  from  Burnet,  which  really  exhibits  the  Bishop 
 in  a  more  amiable  light,  than  that  in  which  he 
 usually  appeared,  when  discussing  the  Nonjuring 
 questions.  Alluding  to  "  The  Hereditary  Right  of 
 the  Crown  Asserted"  the  Bishop,  after  stating  that  he 
 
 A  Nichols,  i.  409-412. 
 
 c  c 
 
386  ^tetorp  of  rfjc  ifionjuroc0. 
 
 bad  suspected  that  it  was  written  by  a  member  of  St. 
 John's  College,  since  it  was  composed  "  with  a  great 
 deal  of  gravity  and  decency,"  observes  :  "I  never 
 think  the  worse  of  men  for  their  different  sentiments 
 in  such  matters  :  I  am  sure  I  am  bound  to  think  much 
 the  better  of  them  :  for  adhering:  firmly  to  the  dictates 
 of  their  conscience,  when  it  is  so  much  to  their  loss, 
 and  when  so  sacred  a  thing;  as  an  Oath  is  in  the  case." 
 He  also  expresses  his  regret  that  the  Church  should 
 lose  the  services  of  such  men  as  Baker.  Burnet  was 
 indebted  to  Baker,  for  correcting  some  mistakes  in  his 
 First  and  Second  Volumes  of  The  History  of  the  Re- 
 formation. 
 
 Masters,  the  writer  of  his  life,  remarks,  that  Baker 
 was  much  distressed  at  being-  removed  from  his  fel- 
 lowship,  because  some  of  his  friends  so  readily  con- 
 curred in  the  measure.  Twenty-two  Fellows  were 
 ejected  at  the  same  time.  It  was  from  this  period, 
 that  the  words  Socius  Eject  ks  were  written  on  his 
 books.  He  was,  however,  permitted  to  retain  his 
 rooms  in  the  College  until  his  death  in  the  year  1740. 
 His  Biographer  has  given  a  catalogue  of  his  Manu- 
 script Remains,  which  are  preserved  in  fortif-two 
 volumes  of  considerable  size.e 
 
 Before  the  Rebellion  in  1745,  the  Nonjurors,  though 
 consisting  of  two  parties,  were  greatly  diminished  in 
 number ;  but  all,  who  were  implicated  in  that  affair, 
 were  considered  to  belong  to  their  body.  Some  Non- 
 jurors were  undoubtedly  concerned  in  the  transactions 
 of  1745  ;  but  they  were  members  of  the  Separatists' 
 Section,  and  not  of  the  regular  party,  while  the  great 
 majority  of  the  actors  were  connected  with  neither. 
 
 e  Memoirs  by  Masters,  32,  33,  34,  83,  93,  139.  Nichols,  iv. 
 249;  v.  107-17.    Gents.  Mag.  vol.  liv.  194,  329. 
 
Iktgtorp  of  ttje  jponjunjitf*  387 
 It  is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  particulars  respect- 
 ing the  Rebellion  :  but  it  may  be  observed,  that  se- 
 verity was  exercised  towards  all  who  were  found 
 guilty.  Mr.  Hallam  says,  "  that  it  was  disgraceful 
 to  the  British  Government."' f  Mr.  Ratcliffe,  who  had 
 escaped  from  prison  in  1716,  after  his  condemnation, 
 was  now  executed  on  the  former  conviction.  After 
 the  lapse  of  thirty  years,  the  sentence  passed  in  1716 
 was  read  over  to  him,  and  he  was  put  to  death  in 
 1746. 
 
 Some  undergraduates  in  Oxford  were  guilty,  dur- 
 ing the  progress  of  the  Rebellion,  of  certain  acts  of 
 indiscretion,  such  as  shouting  King  James  and  Prince 
 Charles  for  ever ;  but  this  circumstance  afforded  no 
 just  indication  of  the  state  of  feeling  in  the  university. 
 It  was  merely  an  ebullition  of  youthful  ardour/ 
 
 None  of  the  regular  body  of  the  Nonjurors,  however, 
 were  involved  in  the  Rebellion.  Whatever  charges 
 may  be  alleged  against  them  on  other  grounds,  it  can- 
 not be  said,  that  they  did  not  practise  what  they  had 
 taught  on  the  subject  of  passive  obedience.  This  fact, 
 which  could  not  be  disputed  even  at  the  time,  ought 
 to  have  procured  for  them  better  treatment,  than  they 
 sometimes  experienced.  Like  the  deprived  Bishops, 
 the  Nonjurors  of  this  period  could  not  recognize  the 
 new  order  of  things,  by  taking  the  Oaths  ;  but  at  the 
 same  time  they  would  not  disturb  the  government  by 
 any  attempt  to  restore  the  exiled  line.  They  were 
 prepared  to  submit  to  the  privations,  which  such  a 
 course  involved ;  and  they  with  safety  might  have 
 been  permitted  to  enjoy  their  liberty,  without  annoy- 
 ance on  the  part  of  the  authorities. 
 
 f  Hallam,  Hi.  312,  454. 
 
 s  Blacow's  Letter  to  King,  8vo.  London,  1755. 
 
388  1M0torp  of  ttjc  /ftonfuron*. 
 
 These  remarks,  indeed,  are  not  applicable  to  all 
 the  Nonjurors  of  the  other  section  :  for  some  of  the 
 members  of  that  party,  of  which  Campbell  atone  time, 
 and  then  Deacon  were  the  leaders,  were  implicated 
 in  the  Rebellion,  and  suffered  as  traitors.  Among  the 
 criminals  was  Thomas  Deacon,  a  young  man,  the  son 
 of  the  Bishop,  residing  in  Manchester.  The  Bishops 
 and  Clergy  among  the  Nonjurors  often  followed  some 
 other  occupation  as  a  means  of  support.  Deacon, 
 the  father  of  the  young  man,  practised  physic  in  the 
 town  of  Manchester,  where  he  was  highly  respected 
 by  a  large  circle  of  friends,  who  did  not  entertain  the 
 same  principles.  When  the  Pretender's  army  came 
 to  this  place,  young  Deacon  joined  it  immediately. 
 It  was  proved,  on  his  trial,  moreover,  that  he  had  been 
 very  active  in  getting  the  Pretender's  manifesto  printed 
 and  circulated  :  so  that,  though  a  brother  was  spared, 
 mercy  could  not  be  extended  to  this  unfortunate 
 youth,  who  was  only  twenty-two  years  of  age.  Dr. 
 Deacon  was  singular  in  giving  two  or  more  names  to 
 his  children,  commencing  with  the  same  letter.  Thus 
 this  young  man  was  baptized  by  the  names  of  Thomas 
 Theodorus.  At  the  place  of  execution,  he  said,  "  I 
 profess  I  die  a  member,  not  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
 nor  yet  of  that  of  England,  but  of  a  pure  episcopal 
 church,  which  has  reformed  all  the  errors,  corruptions, 
 and  defects,  that  have  been  introduced  into  the  modern 
 churches  of  Christendom :  a  church  which  is  in  perfect 
 communion  with  the  ancient  and  universal  Church 
 of  Christ,  by  adhering  uniformly  to  antiquity,  uni- 
 versality, and  consent :  that  glorious  principle,  which 
 if  once  strictly  and  impartially  pursued,  would,  and 
 which  alone  can,  remove  all  the  distractions  and  unite 
 all  the  divided  branches  of  the  Christian  Church. 
 This  holy  Catholic  principle  is  agreed  to  by  all 
 
^ijjtorp  of  ttje  $onfuroc0.  389 
 
 churches,  Eastern  and  Western,  Popish  and  Protest- 
 ant ;  and  yet  unhappily  is  practised  by  none,  but  the 
 Church  in  whose  holy  communion  I  have  the  happi- 
 ness to  die.  May  God  of  his  great  mercy  daily  in- 
 crease the  members  thereof :  and  if  any  would  inquire 
 into  its  primitive  institution,  I  refer  them  to  our  Com- 
 mon Prayer  Book." 
 
 Sydall,  another  of  the  sufferers,  made  an  exactly 
 similar  declaration  with  Deacon.11 
 
 It  was  rumoured  that  the  speeches  were  written  by 
 Mr.  Creake,  a  clergyman  of  that  section  of  the  Non- 
 jurors. The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  to  which  they 
 referred,  was  compiled  by  Deacon,  the  father  of  one 
 of  the  sufferers.  It  is  a  singular  volume,  with  a  some- 
 what remarkable  title.'  After  the  separation  of  Dea- 
 con and  Campbell  from  the  regular  body,  this  Book 
 
 h  State  Trials,  ix.  565,  566. 
 
 '  A  compleat  Collection  of  Devotions,  both  public  and  private  : 
 taken  from  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  the  Ancient  Liturgies, 
 and  the  Common  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England.  In 
 Two  Parts.  Part  I.  comprehending  the  Public  Offices  of  the 
 Church ;  humbly  offered  to  the  consideration  of  the  present  Churches 
 of  Christendom,  Greek,  Roman,  English,  and  all  others.  Part  II. 
 Being  a  Primitive  Method  of  Daily  Private  Prayer,  containing 
 Devotions  for  the  Morning  and  Evening,  and  for  the  ancient  hours 
 of  Prayer,  Nine,  Twelve,  and  Three  ;  together  with  Hymns  and 
 Thanksgivings  for  the  Lord's  Day  and  Sabbath,  and  Prayers  for 
 Fasting  Days  :  as  also  Devotions  for  the  Altar,  and  Graces  before 
 and  after  Meat,  all  taken  from  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  and 
 the  ancient  Liturgies,  with  some  Additions  :  and  recommended  to 
 the  Practice  of  all  Private  Christians  of  every  Communion.  To 
 which  is  added,  an  Appendix  in  justification  of  this  undertaking, 
 consisting  of  Extracts  and  Observations,  taken  from  the  Writings 
 of  very  eminent  and  learned  Divines  of  different  Communions. 
 And  to  all  is  subjoined,  in  a  Supplement,  an  Essay  to  procure  Ca- 
 tholic Communion  upon  Catholic  principles.  London,  printed  for 
 the  Author,  and  sold  by  the  Booksellers  of  London  and  Westmin- 
 ster, 1734.    Price  bound  in  calf,  six  shillings. 
 
390  !§tetorp  of  ttje  jponfurorff. 
 
 of  Devotions  was  used  by  this  party  in  their  assem- 
 blies for  public  worship,  while  the  rest  retained  the 
 new  Communion  Office,  which  was  compiled  by 
 the  Usagers  in  1718.  Deacon's  book,  therefore, 
 must  not  be  regarded  as  having  been  sanctioned  by 
 the  Nonjurors  as  a  body,  since  it  was  adopted  only 
 by  that  small  section,  of  which  the  author  was  the 
 leader. 
 
 Besides  the  works  published  by  Deacon,  at  an 
 early  period  of  his  life,  which  have  been  already  no- 
 ticed, he  put  forth  another  very  singular  volume  in  the 
 year  1747.  This,  like  the  preceding,  has  a  most  extra- 
 ordinary title.  In  this  volume  all  the  peculiar  prac- 
 tices comprehended  under  the  general  term  Usages, 
 as  it  was  used  by  the  Nonjurors,  are  defended  and 
 enjoined,  besides  others,  such  as  Infant  Communion, 
 which  were  never  received  by  the  regular  body.k 
 Deacon,  as  we  have  seen,  was  consecrated  by  a  single 
 Bishop ;  and  he  himself,  by  his  sole  authority,  conse- 
 crated others.  In  the  work  just  mentioned  he  has  a 
 chapter,  "  Of  the  Election,  Ordination,  and  Consecra- 
 
 k  A  full,  true,  and  comprehensive  View  of  Christianity :  con- 
 taining a  short  Historical  Account  of  Religion  from  the  Creation  of 
 the  World  to  the  fourth  Century  after  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  as 
 also  the  complete  Duty  of  a  Christian  in  relation  to  Faith,  Practice, 
 Worship,  and  Ritualls,  set  forth  sincerely,  without  regard  to  any 
 modern  Church,  Sect,  or  Party,  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
 tures, was  delivered  by  the  Apostles,  and  received  by  the  universal 
 Church  of  Christ  during  the  first  four  Centuries.  The  whole  suc- 
 cinctly laid  down  in  Two  Catechisms,  a  shorter  and  a  longer,  each 
 divided  into  two  Parts  ;  whereof  the  one  comprehends  the  Sacred 
 History,  the  other  the  Christian  Doctrine.  The  shorter  Catechism 
 being  suited  to  the  meanest  capacity,  and  calculated  for  the  use  of 
 Children  ;  and  the  longer  for  that  of  the  more  knowing  Christian. 
 To  it  is  prefixed  a  Discourse  upon  the  Design  of  these  Catechisms, 
 and  upon  the  best  Method  of  instructing  Youth  in  them.  8vo. 
 London,  1747. 
 
iJirftorp  of  tlje  iiaonfurow*  391 
 tion  of  the  Clergy,"  in  which  we  find  a  reason  for 
 acting,  in  the  ordering  of  Bishops,  by  his  own  autho- 
 rity. "  Bishops  are  consecrated  by  the  Metropolitan 
 and  as  many  of  the  Bishops  of  the  province  as  can  con- 
 veniently come  together ;  but  they  must  not  proceed 
 to  a  consecration,  unless  the  majority  of  them  either 
 are  present,  or  have  signified  their  consent :  nor  unless 
 three  Bishops  are  actually  present,  except  in  the  case 
 of  persecution  or  some  such  other  very  necessary  oc- 
 casion, when  one  Bishop  is  sufficient  to  make  the 
 consecration  valid."1  He  evidently  considered,  that 
 the  plea  of  necessity  might  be  urged,  or  that  they 
 were  under  persecution.  That  he  was  justified,  in  so 
 acting,  even  on  his  own  principle,  cannot  be  admit- 
 ted, since  the  regular  Nonjurors  had  a  sufficient  num- 
 ber of  Bishops.  The  work  displays  much  learning, 
 though  some  of  the  author's  opinions  are  very  sin- 
 gular. 
 
 The  charge  of  Popery  was  brought,  by  Owen  a 
 Dissenter,  against  Deacon,  of  whom  he  speaks  in  no 
 measured  terms.  Some  of  the  Nonjurors  at  Man- 
 chester were  accused  of  paying  religious  adoration  to 
 the  heads  of  the  rebels,  which  had  been  suspended, 
 in  that  town,  according  to  the  sentence.  The  charge 
 was  advanced  first  in  The  Whitehall  Evening  Post, 
 in  an  anonymous  letter,  which  was  afterwards  ac- 
 knowledged to  be  Owen's.  "  The  two  rebel  heads 
 are  revered  and  almost  adored,  as  trophies  of  martyr- 
 dom. The  father  of  one  of  them  (who  is  a  Nonjuring 
 Bishop)  as  he  passes  by  'em,  frequently  pulls  off  his 
 hat,  and  looks  at  them  above  a  minute  with  a  solemn 
 complacential  smile.  Some  suppose  he  offers  up  a 
 prayer  for  them,  others  to  them.    His  church  daily 
 
 A  full,  true,  and  comprehensive  View,  &c.  i.  430. 
 
392  ^(0torp  of  rfje  /l^onfucorg. 
 
 increases,  and  he  is  in  the  highest  credit  and  intimacy 
 with  most  of  our  clergy."  The  letter,  accompanied 
 with  remarks  by  a  person  at  Manchester,  was  also 
 published  in  The  Gentleman 's  Magazine.  In  the 
 remarks  the  charges  are  denied,  except  that  Dr.  Dea- 
 con had  once  only  passed  by  his  son's  head,  on  which 
 occasion  he  had  taken  off  his  hat.  The  same  writer 
 very  naturally  asks  what  connexion  there  is  between 
 the  Doctor's  peculiar  views  and  politics,  specifying 
 Infant  Communion,  and  the  restoration  of  the  Usages : 
 and,  in  allusion  to  the  assertion  of  his  intimacy  with 
 the  Clergy,  he  admits,  that  the  Doctor  was  esteemed 
 and  valued  by  that  body.  He  closes  his  remarks  with 
 an  expression  of  opinion,  that  it  was  less  dangerous 
 to  associate  with  a  Nonjuring  Bishop,  than  with  a 
 Dissenter.m 
 
 Owen  commented  on  the  remarks  in  a  letter  ad- 
 dressed to  the  Gentleman's  Magazine,  affirming  or 
 rather  insinuating  his  previous  charges,  and  adding 
 another,  that  Deacon  had  absolved  Paul  and  Hall 
 after  the  Rebellion  in  1716.°  This  produced  a  second 
 letter  from  the  remarker,  from  which  I  give  the  fol- 
 lowing extract,  containing  a  severe  but  just  censure 
 of  the  Dissenters  of  that  day  for  the  avidity  with 
 which  they  raised  the  cry  of  Popery.  The  remarker 
 had  charged  a  certain  set  of  people  with  making  use 
 of  a  canting  evasion :  and  Owen  calls  upon  him  to 
 name  them.  He  replies  as  follows  :  "I  mean  that 
 tribe  of  sectaries  who  have  for  more  than  a  century 
 past  shewn  the  utmost  enmity  and  hatred  to  the 
 Church  of  England,  exemplified  their  hatred  once  by 
 a  total  subversion  of  episcopal  government,  and  again 
 
 m  Gents.  Mag.  vol.  xvi.  p.  579,  580. 
 n  Ibid.  vol.  xvi.  pp.  688,  G91. 
 
^isttorp  of  rtje  ifronfucoitf.  303 
 
 by  an  interested,  servile  compliance  with  a  Popish 
 Prince  in  his  Popish  designs,  merely  to  raise  them- 
 selves to  some  degree  of  power,  which  had  been 
 wisely  denied  them  before.  These  are  the  men,  who 
 have  always  used  the  cry  of  Popishlij  affected  to  run 
 down  the  steadiest  friends  of  our  ecclesiastical  estab- 
 lishment." ° 
 
 Owen  now  published  a  second  edition  of  a  work, 
 in  which  he  examines  some  of  the  positions  of  Deacon's 
 "View  of  Christianity. "  p  In  the  Preface  he  ac- 
 knowledges himself  the  author  of  the  letter  in  The 
 Gentleman  s  Magazine.  As  Owen,  therefore,  had 
 confessed  himself  the  author  of  the  calumnies,  Deacon 
 deemed  it  necessary  to  reply  to  them  in  a  letter  to 
 the  same  Magazine.  In  reference  to  Paul  and  Hall, 
 Deacon  states,  that  they  were  attended,  not  by  himself 
 but  by  the  Rev.  Francis  Peck,  and  that  neither  he 
 nor  any  other  person  absolved  the  prisoners.  To  the 
 charge  of  having  a  dispensation  Deacon  says  :  "  This 
 is  a  charge  of  such  a  kind  that  I  can  only  answer  it 
 by  sincerely  affirming  that  I  neither  had  any  such 
 dispensation,  nor  made  any  such  declaration."  In 
 short,  all  the  assertions  were  proved  to  be  groundless, 
 the  fruits  of  Owen's  malice  and  hatred. q 
 
 Having  given  a  detail  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
 Separatists  among  the  Nonjurors,  until  the  suppression 
 of  the  Rebellion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  look  back  a 
 little,  to  gather  up  the  materials  respecting  the  main 
 
 0  Gents.  Mag.  vol.  xvii.  p.  76. 
 
 P  Jacobite  and  Nonjuring  Principles  freely  examined :  In  a 
 Letter  to  the  Master  Tool  of  the  Faction  at  Manchester,  with  Re- 
 marks on  some  part  of  a  book  lately  published,  entitled  A  Full, 
 Free,  and  Comprehensive  View,  &c.  wrote  by  Dr.  Deacon.  By 
 J.  Owen,  Manchester,  1748. 
 
 1  Gents.  Mag.  vol.  xviii.  p.  20G. 
 
394  ^tsftorp  ot  ttjc  i]ionj'uco!:0. 
 
 body,  none  of  whom,  as  I  have  stated,  were  implicated 
 in  that  transaction. 
 
 Of  Blackburn  an  account  has  already  been  given : 
 but  the  following  particulars  from  the  MSS.  of  the 
 Rev.  Richard  Bowes,  D.D.  respecting  his  death  are 
 too  important  to  be  passed  over.  "  Nov.  17th,  1741, 
 departed  this  life  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Blackbourne, 
 M.A.  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  Soon  after 
 the  Revolution  he  became  one  of  those  few  truly  con- 
 scientious who  refused  the  new  Oaths.  From  that 
 time  he  lived  a  very  exemplary  good  life,  and  studied 
 hard  :  endeavouring  to  be  useful  to  mankind  both  as 
 a  scholar  and  divine.  To  keep  himself  independent 
 he  became  corrector  of  the  press  to  Mr.  Bowyer, 
 printer :  and  was,  indeed,  one  of  the  most  accurate 
 of  any  who  ever  took  upon  him  that  laborious  employ. 
 He  has  given  us  a  curious  edition  of  Lord  Bacon's 
 Works,  1740.  As  I  had  the  happiness  of  being  long- 
 known  to  my  most  valuable  friend,  he  was  so  kind 
 to  communicate  the  following  particulars.  That  Op- 
 probrium Historian,  Burnet's  Memoirs,  were  first  put 
 into  his  hands  to  be  corrected  for  Bowyer 's  press. 
 But  the  honest  sons  of  the  Bishop  made  shamefully 
 free  with  their  father's  manuscript.  Mr.  Blackburn 
 shewed  some  pages  left  out,  relating  to  the  Prince  of 
 Orange,  where  his  character  was  more  at  large  and 
 better  drawn,  more  to  truth  and  life.  Several  sheets 
 concerning  the  Scots  especially  left  out.  As  he  was 
 too  honest  to  deal  with  such  as  have  no  honesty,  he 
 advised  Mr.  Bowyer  to  be  concerned  no  further  in 
 the  impression  :  so  it  was  taken  out  of  his  hands. 
 This  good  man  for  several  years  past  has  been  a  Non- 
 juring  Bishop  equal  to  most  of  our  bench.  I  waited 
 on  him  often  in  Little  Britain,  where  he  lived  almost 
 lost  to  the  world,  and  hid  amongst  old  books.  One 
 
$5f0torg  of  dje  0on.juror£.  395 
 day,  before  dinner,  he  went  to  his  bureau  and  took 
 out  a  paper.  It  was  a  copy  of  the  testimonial  sent 
 to  King  James  (as  he  called  him),  signed  by  his  Lord- 
 ship (Winchelsea)  and  two  others  (I  think)  in  his 
 behalf.  He  afterwards  shewed  me  the  commission 
 for  his  consecration.  Upon  this  I  begged  his  blessing, 
 which  he  gave  me  with  the  fervent  zeal  and  devotion 
 of  a  primitive  Bishop.  I  asked  him  if  I  was  so 
 happy  as  to  belong  to  his  diocese?  His  answer  was 
 (I  thought)  very  remarkable  :  Dear  friend,  (said  he) 
 we  leave  the  sees  open,  that  the  gentlemen  who  now 
 unjustly  possess  them,  upon  the  restoration,  may, 
 if  they  please,  return  to  their  duty,  and  be  continued. 
 We  content  ourselves  with  full  episcopal  power  as 
 suffragan  s."r 
 
 Blackburn,  as  has  been  seen,  stood  out  from  the 
 
 r  Nichols,  i.  252,  2.53.  Blackbourne  was  buried  in  Islington 
 Churchyard,  and  Nichols  mentions,  "  when  a  schoolboy,  I  have 
 often  gazed  with  astonishment  at  the  following-  epitaph,  the  meaning' 
 of  which  I  was  then  unable  to  comprehend  : 
 
 Hie  situm  est  cpjod  mortale  fuit 
 
 Viri  vere  reverendi 
 Johannis  Blackbourne  A.  M. 
 Ecclesise  Anglicanae  Presbyteri, 
 Fontificorum  aeque  ac  Novatorum  Mallei, 
 Docti,  clari,  strenui,  prompti: 
 Qui  (uti  verbo  Dicam)  caetera  enim  quis  nescit  ? 
 Cum  eo  non  dignus  erat, 
 Usque  adeo  degener,  mundus, 
 Ad  Beatorum  Sedes 
 Translatus  est,  17°  die  Novembris 
 a.d.  mdccxli.  setat.  suae  lviii. 
 
 On  the  foot  stone  : 
 
 Christo  qui  vivit,  morte  perire  nequit. 
 Resurgam.    J.  B. 
 Nunc,  amice  Lector,  quisquis  sis, 
 Ex  hinc  disco,  qui  cs,  ct  quid  oris." 
 
396  Iktetorp  of  tt)c  ilionj'urocjJ. 
 
 rest  of  the  body  in  1733  on  the  ground  of  the  usages: 
 nor  is  there  any  reason  for  believing  that  he  adopted 
 them  previous  to  his  death.  He  was,  therefore,  the 
 lasto  f  the  Nonjurors,  who  adhered  to  the  Church  of 
 England  as  she  stood  at  the  period  of  the  separation. 
 By  all  the  rest,  subsequent  to  1733,  the  usages  were 
 adopted,  however  they  might  differ  on  other  subjects. 
 Thus  Deacon  and  his  friends,  who  formed  a  new 
 separation,  adhered  to  the  usages,  making  also  some 
 additions  themselves. 
 
 After  the  death  of  Brett,  Lindsay  acted  a  very  pro- 
 minent part  amongst  the  regular  body.  He  was  the 
 author  of  several  publications  of  considerable  power. 
 Patrick  Cockburn,  who  had  once  been  Curate  of  St. 
 Dunstan's,  and  then  aNonjuror,  after  having  officiated 
 for  a  season  at  Aberdeen,  returned  to  the  National 
 Church,  on  which  occasion  he  deemed  it  necessary 
 to  publish  a  defence  of  his  conduct.  Lindsay  pub- 
 lished a  reply  to  this  gentleman,  in  which  he  enters 
 on  the  question  of  the  prayers  for  the  reigning  Sove- 
 reign, contending^  that  they  could  not  be  lawfully 
 used. 9 
 
 Just  after  the  Rebellion,  a  volume  of  Letters  was 
 published  by  the  Nonjurors,  from  which  we  may 
 infer,  that,  though  they  were  diminished  in  numbers, 
 their  opposition  to  the  Established  Church  was  be- 
 come, if  possible,  stronger,  than  at  any  previous  pe- 
 riod. The  charges  of  heresy,  schism,  and  immoral 
 worship  are  alleged  against  the  complying  Clergy, 
 and  alleged  with  considerable  acrimony.  Whether 
 Lindsay  were  the  author,  I  cannot  determine.  Per- 
 haps several  of  the  party  were  concerned  in  the  pro- 
 
 s  An  Expostulatory  Letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Patrick  Cockburn. 
 8vo.  London,  1740. 
 
Iktetocp  of  ttjc  iJ5onfuror0*  397 
 
 duction.  The  writer  says,  addressing  his  friend,  "  I 
 hope,  in  a  clear  and  concise  manner,  to  convince  you 
 of  the  justice  of  the  charge  exhibited  against  you, 
 and  consequently  to  prevail  on  you  to  separate  your- 
 self from  those  followers  of  Corah,  lest  partaking  of 
 their  guilt,  you  become  also  partaker  in  their  punish- 
 ment."1  A  sketch  of  the  characters  of  Sancroft  and 
 Tillotson,  as  the  heads  of  the  two  bodies  into  which 
 the  Church  was  divided  at  the  Revolution,  is  given 
 in  the  Preface.  Sancroft's  picture  is  justly  and  accu- 
 rately drawn  :  but  Tillotson's  is  much  distorted.  The 
 jirst  letter  is  dated  1741,  and  contains  a  charge  of 
 schism  against  the  complying  Clergy.  In  the  second, 
 written  in  1742,  the  question  raised  by  Dodwell, 
 respecting  the  healing  of  the  breach  on  the  death  of 
 Lloyd,  is  discussed  :  and  the  party,  to  whom  it  is  ad- 
 dressed, is  referred  to  Gandy's  Dialogue  between  Ge- 
 rontius  and  Junius,  and  to  Hickes's  Constitution  of 
 the  Catholic  Church.  Prayers  for  governors,  without 
 reference  to  the  question  of  right,  are  condemned  as 
 sinful.  In  a  third  letter,  dated  Ash  Wednesday  1743-4, 
 it  is  asserted,  that  no  schismatic  can  enter  heaven  : 
 that,  therefore,  it  behoves  all  persons  to  consider  their 
 position  :  and  that  the  schism  was  with  those,  who 
 removed  Sancroft  and  his  brethren.  "  I  shall  not 
 think  it  necessary,"  says  the  writer,  "  to  dispute  the 
 authority  of  that  Convention,  who  metamorphosed  a 
 Dutch  P —  into  an  English  K — ,  and  placed  him  in 
 the  throne  of  their  natural  sovereign  liege  Lord,  still 
 living  and  claiming  his  right  to  the  same ;  nor  the 
 authority  of  this  Convention-made  K — ,  who  (as  one 
 good  turn  deserves  another)  moulded  them  into  a 
 
 '  A  Collection  of  Letters  concerning-  the  Separation  of  the 
 Church  of  England  into  two  Communions.     1746.    P.  4. 
 
398  ^fgtorp  of  tfjc  jponj'urorg. 
 
 P — ."  The  fourth  letter  continues  the  subject,  and 
 is  dated,  Feast  of  St.  Michael  1745. 
 
 George  Smith,  of  whom  many  particulars  have 
 been  given,  ended  his  labours  in  the  year  1756,  and 
 was  buried  in  the  church-yard  of  St.  Oswald,  in  the 
 city  of  Durham.  Besides  the  edition  of  Bede,  which 
 had  been  left  unfinished  by  his  father,  he  published 
 many  other  works,  some  of  which,  especially  such  as 
 bear  on  the  history  of  the  Nonjurors,  have  been  spe- 
 cified in  this  volume.  His  talents  were  of  a  high 
 order,  as  his  various  productions,  and  particularly 
 his  controversy  with  Waterland,  testify." 
 
 A  considerable  number  of  works,  on  the  contro- 
 versy between  the  Nonjurors  and  members  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  was  published  by  Lindsay .w  In 
 a  work  on  Parochial  Communion,  the  fact  of  two 
 communions,  a  public  and  a  private,  in  the  Church 
 of  England,  is  stated,  in  Bennet's  words,  from  his 
 Nonjurors'  Separation :  and  the  question  is  put, 
 "  which  of  these  two  is  the  true  Church  of  England?" 
 The  old  arguments  are  then  repeated/  Three  years 
 later,  the  subject  is  continued  in  another  work,  in 
 which  a  Vicar  of  a  parish  is  introduced  as  one  of  the 
 interlocutors.  In  consequence  of  certain  allusions, 
 on  the  part  of  the  Neighbour,  the  Vicar  brings  for- 
 ward the  question  of  the  prayers  for  the  existing 
 Sovereign.    At  this  time  the  feeling  of  the  body 
 
 11  Nichols,  i.  170,  705. 
 
 w  They  were  generally  put  forth  anonymously  :  but  the  pieces 
 to  which  I  refer  are  ascribed  to  him  by  the  Nonjuror,  some  of 
 whose  books  are  in  my  possession. 
 
 x  The  Grand  and  Important  Question  about  the  Church  and 
 Parochial  Communion  fairly  and  friendly  Debated  in  a  Dialogue 
 between  a  worthy  Country  Gentleman  and  his  Neighbour  newly 
 returned  from  London.    London,  8vo.  1756. 
 
Ikisttorg  of  tfjc  jPonjurorsS.  399 
 
 towards  the  family  of  Hanover  had,  in  no  degree, 
 abated.  "  All  other  parts  of  the  Liturgy,"  says  the 
 Vicar,  "  remain  nevertheless  pure  and  unexception- 
 able, as  they  were  before,  without  any  alteration." 
 The  Neighbour  replies,  "  so  they  are  supposed  to 
 be,  but  that  is  another  consideration : "  to  which 
 the  Vicar  answers,  upon  that  supposition,  however, 
 many  pious  and  devout  people  do  still  think  them- 
 selves bound  to  keep  to  their  Church,  and  frequent 
 her  prayers :  though  possibly  some  of  them  may 
 have  been  unhappily  possessed,  as  you  are,  with 
 scruples  and  objections  to  some  of  the  petitions." 
 The  Neighbour  asks,  whether  any  dissent  is  expressed 
 against  the  objectionable  portions  1  The  Vicar  re- 
 plies in  the  negative  :  and  the  other  speaker  con- 
 cludes, that  "  they  must  be  presumed  to  join  in  the 
 whole  office ;  and  so  to  render  it  their  Common 
 Prayer."  He  adds,  that,  as  he  cannot  join  in  the 
 whole  service,  he  abstains  from  Church  altogether. 
 Dodwell's  example  is  urged  by  one  party  :  but  by 
 the  other,  his  later  works  are  regarded  as  inconsistent 
 with  his  former;  while  the  principles  on  which  he 
 acted,  in  returning  to  the  Church  of  England,  are 
 condemned  as  unsound.5, 
 
 Lindsay  was  a  man  of  very  considerable  powers. 
 Whatever  subject  he  touched  was  handled  in  a  mas- 
 terly manner.  Some  of  his  productions  are  on  sub- 
 jects of  general  interest :  and  one  intitled  "  The 
 Hajipy  Interview  "  is  rather  of  an  amusing  descrip- 
 tion, the  object  being  to  ridicule  the  alteration  of  the 
 
 y  The  Grand  and  Important  Question  about  the  Church  and 
 Parochial  Communion  further  Debated,  in  a  fair  and  friendly  Con- 
 ference between  a  Country  Gentleman  and  his  Neighbour,  tog-e- 
 ther with  the  Reverend  Vicar  of  the  Parish  also.  8vo.  London, 
 1759. 
 
400  ^ftftorp  of  rfjc  ^onjurottf. 
 
 Style  in  1753.  Truth  and  Common  Sense  meet  in 
 St.  Paul's  on  the  2nd  of  September,  the  day  set  apart 
 as  a  fast  to  call  to  remembrance  the  Fire  of  London 
 in  1666.*  "  Tis  strange,"  says  Truth,  "  that  Com- 
 mon Sense  should  not  reflect  upon  the  notorious  ab- 
 surdity of  addressing  our  prayers  in  solemn  comme- 
 moration of  an  event,  as  happening  on  this  day  : 
 whereas  the  proper  anniversary  appointed  by  autho- 
 rity is  yet  to  come  eleven  days  hence,  and  will  then 
 be  passed  over  here  without  any  notice."  Truth 
 further  argues,  "  how  absurd  it  is,  to  celebrate  this 
 and  the  other  three  anniversaries  of  the  Martyrdom, 
 the  Restoration,  and  the  Gunpowder  Treason  (which 
 are  all  four  solemnities  peculiar  to  this  nation)  on  the 
 nominal  days  instead  of  the  real  ones."  Common 
 Sense  is  at  last  convinced,  that  the  people  are  de- 
 ceived by  Almanacks  and  Calenders* 
 
 *  A  special  service  was  appointed  for  the  2nd  of  September, 
 which  was  for  some  time,  after  the  fire  in  1666,  used  generally 
 in  the  churches.  At  the  present  time,  however,  it  is  only  read 
 in  two  churches — St.  Paul's  Cathedral  and  the  Church  of  Alder- 
 Mary.  In  some  of  the  Books  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  reigns 
 of  Charles  II  and  James  II,  the  Form  of  Prayer  was  printed  with 
 the  other  annual  Services  of  the  same  character :  but  as  it  is  not 
 found  in  all  the  copies,  it  is  not  very  generally  known  in  the  pre- 
 sent day.  During  the  last  century,  the  Form  was  printed  in  a 
 separate  state,  on  the  ground,  as  it  was  even  then  alleged,  that 
 copies  of  the  Prayer  Book  containing  this  particular  Service  were 
 uncommon. 
 
 a  The  Happy  Interview:  or  Long-looked-for  found  out  at  last. 
 A  plain  Narrative  ;  giving  an  Account  how  Common  Sense, 
 having  withdrawn  himself,  in  disgust,  from  the  Public  View,  was, 
 after  the  indefatigable  search  and  enquiries  of  his  Friend,  Plain 
 Honesty,  found  out,  in  his  Retirement,  under  the  Directions  of 
 Truth.  London,  1756.  The  following  passage  is  curious.  "  It 
 was  but  a  week  ago  last  Tuesday,  that  I  was  here,  to  join  with  the 
 congregation  in  the  service  of  the  Church  appointed  for  the  Fes- 
 
^tetoirp  ot  ttje  ilionjucoitf.  40 1 
 
 The  author  was  also  an  able  antagonist  of  Roman- 
 ism. Like  his  brethren,  though  exposed  to  the  charge 
 of  Popery,  he  was  a  more  effective  opponent  of  the 
 errors  of  Rome,  than  the  persons  by  whom  his  cha- 
 racter was  assailed.  His  Seasonable  Antidote  was 
 published,  in  consequence  of  the  apostacy  of  one  of 
 his  congregation  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  fol- 
 lowing extract  may  be  taken  as  a  specimen  of  the 
 manner  of  his  handling  the  controversy,  and  also 
 as  an  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  his  own  prin- 
 ciples. "  The  decision  of  the  Church  (I  mean  the 
 Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  properly  so  called)  is 
 expressly  contrary  to  that  of  modern  Rome,  in  all  the 
 points  in  controversy  with  the  Church  of  England : 
 as  I  am  able  and  ready  to  prove  to  the  conviction 
 of  all,  whose  eyes  are  not  blinded  with  prejudices 
 against  the  truth.  Let  me  ask  you,  in  the  name  of 
 God,  can  you  so  firmly  believe,  as  to  admit  of  no 
 longer  doubt,  that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
 
 tival  of  St.  Bartholomew,  being  the  24th  of  August :  and  that 
 indeed  might,  according  to  the  variation  of  the  Style,  be  the  pro- 
 per day,  for  aught  I  know :  considering  how  many  ages  have 
 passed  since  those  Saints'  Days  were  at  first  instituted.  But  sure 
 I  am,  this,  though  it  may  be  now  reckoned  the  second  of  Septem- 
 ber by  the  New  Style,  cannot  possibly  be  the  proper  anniversary 
 of  the  Fire  of  London :  for  since  that  dreadful  calamity  there 
 are  still  remaining  eleven  days  to  complete  the  ninetieth  year  :  so 
 that  our  solemn  addresses  to  God,  for  pardon,  cannot,  with  any 
 due  regard  to  religion  or  propriety,  be  offered  up  as  an  annual 
 commemoration  before  the  13th.  But  what  makes  the  absurdity 
 still  more  glaring  and  ridiculous  is,  that  to-morrow  we  are  to  see 
 the  magistrates  of  this  great  city,  who  have  been  here  this  day, 
 marching  to  Smithfield  in  the  like  formality ,  there  to  proclaim 
 the  Fair !  Thus  it  is  wisely  contrived,  by  the  reformers  and  cor- 
 rectors of  our  Style,  that  the  2nd  of  September  comes  now  as  of 
 course,  the  day  before  the  23rd  of  August,  and  the  Feast  of  St. 
 Bartholomew  ten  days  before  the  eve  of  it."    Pp.  8,  9,  10,  11. 
 
 D  D 
 
402  i^tetorp  of  ttic  ifronjutoujS. 
 
 there  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially  contained 
 whole  Christ,  God  man,  body  and  blood,  bones, 
 nerves,  soul  and  divinity,  under  the  species  and  ap- 
 pearance (only)  of  bread  and  wine  ?  That  the  same 
 body  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  and  is  now  in 
 heaven  ?  That  upon  consecration,  there  is  a  conver- 
 sion of  the  whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the  sub- 
 stance of  Christ's  body  ?  Can  you  believe,  and  no 
 longer  doubt,  that  divine  worship  is  due,  or  can  be 
 paid,  without  danger  of  idolatry  to  the  consecrated 
 Host  ?" 
 
 The  man  who  penned  this  passage  was  quite  as 
 far  from  Rome  as  his  accusers :  and  the  remark  will 
 apply  to  the  Nonjurors  generally .b  Lindsay,  it  ap- 
 pears, officiated  to  the  Nonjuring  congregation,  at 
 Trinity  Chapel,  Aldersgate  Street,  being  probably 
 their  last  minister.  For  some  years  he  acted  as  cor- 
 rector of  the  Press  to  Bowyer,  a  task  for  which  he 
 was  eminently  qualified.  He  died  at  the  advanced 
 age  of  82,  and  was  buried  in  Islington  church- 
 yard, in  the  year  1768.  The  inscription  upon  his 
 grave  existed  in  1808  :  and  probably  it  exists  still. 
 In  one  of  the  extracts  from  his  letters  preserved  by 
 Nichols,  he  settles  the  authorship  of  some  of  the 
 works,  which  were  written  at  an  early  period  of  the 
 separation.  "  The  Case  of  Allegiance  to  a  King  in 
 Possession"  says  he  to  Zachary  Gray,  ("  as  well  as 
 a  Defence  of  it")  were  Mr.  T.  Browne's,  formerly 
 
 b  A  Seasonable  Antidote  against  Apostacy.  Containing,  I. 
 Some  plain  Propositions,  recommended  to  the  serious  consideration 
 of  all  those  who  may  be  under  any  Temptation  to  forsake  the 
 Church  of  England,  and  revolt  to  that  of  Rome.  II.  A  Paper, 
 pretended  to  be  an  Answer  to  the  foregoing  Propositions.  And, 
 III.  Remarks,  at  large,  upon  the  said  pretended  Answer,  by  the 
 Author  of  the  Propositions.  With  a  Preface  shewing  the  special 
 reasons  and  occasion  of  making  the  same  public.    London  1758. 
 
^tsftorp  of  tf)e  $Mmfuvnv&.  403 
 of  your  College,  St.  John's,  B.D.  The  Answer  to 
 Obedience  and  Submission  (as  well  as  to  Sherlock's 
 Vindication  on  the  same  subject)  were  written  by 
 Mr.  Wagstaffe.  The  Examination  of  the  Arguments 
 from  Scripture  and  Reason,  by  Mr.  Theophilus 
 Downes.  Dr.  Sherlock's  Case  of  Allegiance  con- 
 sidered, by  Mr.  Jeremiah  Collier."  In  the  year  1747 
 he  writes,  "  as  I  gladly  embrace  all  opportunities  of 
 paying  my  respects  to  you,  the  inclosed  letter  from 
 my  brother,  (sent  by  one  of  his  sons  lately  come  to 
 London)  presents  me  this  occasion  to  acquaint  you, 
 that  I  removed  last  Christmas,  from  the  Temple, 
 and  took  a  lodging  in  Pear-Tree  Street,  near  St. 
 Luke's,  Old  Street,  where  I  spend  my  time  chiefly 
 among  books,  or  in  my  garden.  That  I  am  still  a 
 dealer  in  the  former  you  may  perceive  by  these  pro- 
 posals. You  know  I  published  the  greater  part  of 
 Mason's  works  several  years  ago  ;  but  had  not  then 
 the  whole.  Now  having  luckily  procured  the  last 
 sermons,  which  I  had  been  so  long  in  quest  of,  I 
 have  printed  them  in  the  same  paper  and  letter  with 
 the  rest,  which  makes  the  collection  complete.  There 
 are  a  good  many  copies  of  the  former  still  on  my 
 hands,  which  I  hope  may  go  off  now.  Those  who 
 have  the  rest  already  may  have  these  sermons  by 
 themselves.  I  presume,  Sir,  upon  the  favour  of  your 
 interest  to  promote  this  method  of  distributing  them." 
 On  publishing  Mason's  "  Vindication"  he  resided  at 
 Islington,  the  preface  being  dated  from  that  place : 
 but  it  appears  that  he  moved  frequently  from  place 
 to  place.0 
 
 c  Nichols,  i.  374,  376.  Lindsay  was  the  author  of  a  work  in 
 defence  of  Charles  I.  against  the  Monthly  Reviewers,  who  had 
 assailed  the  memory  of  that  unfortunate  monarch.  Charles's 
 character  was  ably  and  successfully  defended  by  our  Author. 
 
404  ^tstorp  of  tfje  ilionfucorg. 
 
 William  Law  was  contemporary  with  Lindsay. 
 He  was  born  in  1686,  at  Kingscliffe,  in  Northamp- 
 tonshire. So  that  when  the  schism  originated,  he 
 was  only  an  infant.  His  father  was  a  grocer  in  that 
 village  :  but  whether  he  had  adopted  the  principles 
 of  the  Nonjurors,  I  am  unable  to  determine.  William 
 was  sent  to  Cambridge,  where  he  took  the  degree  of 
 B.A.in  1708,  and  that  of  M.A.  in  1712.  At  this  time, 
 therefore,  he  could  not  have  been  a  Nonjuror  :  but 
 after  the  accession  of  George  I.  when  the  Abjuration 
 Oath  was  rigorously  enforced,  he  refused  to  submit, 
 and  consequently  lost  his  fellowship.  Still,  as  a  man 
 of  peace,  he  remained  in  the  communion  of  the 
 Church,  attending  divine  service  in  his  own  parish. 
 His  writings  are  rather  voluminous  :  and  some  of 
 his  practical  works,  especially  his  Serious  Call,  and 
 his  Christian  Perfection,  are  still  most  extensively 
 circulated.  He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  Ban- 
 gorian  Controversy,  defending  the  Church  and  the 
 Priesthood  against  Hoadley,  with  much  ability  and 
 force  of  argument.    He  died  in  the  year  176 l.d 
 
 Lindsay  and  Law  were  among  the  last  generation 
 of  the  Nonjurors:  and  Carte  may  be  reckoned  in 
 the  same  class.  During  his  life  the  labours  of  Carte 
 were  not  duly  appreciated,  though  they  are  now 
 ranked  among  the  most  valuable  of  our  historical 
 writings.  The  author  graduated  at  Oxford,  taking 
 his  B.A.  in  1702,  and  M.A.  at  Cambridge  in  1706. 
 On  these  occasions  he  must  have  taken  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance :  but  on  the  accession  of  George  I.  he 
 refused  to  take  the  Oath  of  Abjuration.  At  this  time 
 Collier  was  accustomed  to  preach  to  a  Nonjuring 
 congregation  in  an  upper  room  of  a  house  in  Broad 
 
 d  Gents.  Mag.  vol  Ixx.  pp.  720,  1038—40. 
 
#n'<Storp  of  tf)e  jponjuroitf*  405 
 Street :  and  Carte  appears  on  some  occasions  to  have 
 assisted  him  in  his  labours.  On  the  Sunday  he  also 
 performed  divine  service  in  his  own  family.  In  1715, 
 he  was  obliged  to  conceal  himself,  from  an  active 
 search  of  the  king's  troops,  in  the  house  of  Mr. 
 Badger,  the  Curate  of  Coleshill.  In  the  year  1722, 
 a  charge  of  Treason  was  alleged  against  him,  a  re- 
 ward of  £1000  being  offered  for  his  apprehension. 
 To  avoid  a  prosecution  he  escaped  to  France,  where 
 he  resided  under  the  assumed  name  of  Philips,  spend- 
 ing his  time  in  laborious  study,  various  public  and 
 private  libraries  being  opened  to  his  researches.  His 
 great  works,  The  Life  of  the  Duke  of  Ormond,  and 
 the  History  of  England,  are  now  much  better  known 
 and  much  more  valued  than  they  were  at  the  time 
 of,  and  many  years  subsequent  to,  their  publication. 
 Queen  Caroline  obtained  permission  for  him  to  return 
 to  England,  sometime  between  the  year  1728  and 
 1730.  Falling  under  suspicion  in  1744,  he  was 
 taken  into  custody  :  but  his  liberation  was  soon  ac- 
 complished. The  Duke  of  Newcastle  asked  him, 
 during  the  examination  to  which  he  was  subjected, 
 whether  he  were  not  a  Bishop  ?  "  No,  My  Lord,"  he 
 replied,  "  there  are  no  Bishops  in  England  but  what 
 are  made  by  your  Grace;  and  I  am  sure  I  have  no 
 reason  to  expect  that  honour."  The  first  volume  of 
 his  History  of  England  was  finished  in  1747:  and 
 its  credit  was  very  materially  damaged  by  a  note  re- 
 specting The  King's  Evil.  An  account  is  given  of 
 an  individual,  who  went  over  to  the  Pretender  in 
 1716,  to  be  touched  for  the  disease,  according  to  the 
 custom  in  such  cases,  and  who,  as  was  alleged,  was 
 cured  of  the  malady  under  which  he  laboured.  The 
 author  was  sharply  attacked  on  account  of  this  note. 
 In  his  reply  he  states,  that  having  occasion  to  speak 
 
406  ^isstorp  of  ttje  jl&onj'ucorg. 
 
 of  the  royal  unction,  he  was  led  to  notice  the  extraor- 
 dinary effects  ascribed  to  it  by  certain  writers :  and 
 that  the  obnoxious  note  was  inserted  in  order  to  shew, 
 that  the  supposed  sanative  virtue  in  the  royal  touch, 
 was  erroneously  ascribed  to  the  anointing.  In  con- 
 sequence of  this  note,  the  History  did  not  then  meet 
 with  that  approval  which  it  so  well  merited.  The 
 Author  died  in  the  year  1754,  at  Caldecot  House, 
 near  Abingdon,  Berks.6 
 
 Among  the  last  race  of  the  Nonjurors  there  were 
 many  quiet  and  peaceable  men,  whose  names  are  now 
 forgotten.  Of  this  character  was  the  Rev.  William 
 Andrews,  a  native  of  Croscombe,  in  the  county  of 
 Somerset.  He  was  one  of  those  conscientious  men, 
 who,  though  he  had  taken  the  Oath  of  Allegiance, 
 could  not  take  the  Oath  of  Abjuration.  When,  there- 
 fore, the  latter  Oath  was  imposed,  after  the  accession 
 of  the  House  of  Hanover,  being  then  in  Deacon's 
 orders,  he  on  principle  declined  to  proceed  to  the 
 order  of  Priesthood,  as  well  as  to  the  degree  of  M.A. 
 and  subsequently,  when  preferment  was  offered  him, 
 he  refused  to  accept  it  on  the  same  ground.  In  the 
 year  1744,  having  devoted  himself,  like  so  many  of 
 the  Nonjurors,  to  the  pursuit  of  literature,  he  pub- 
 lished in  two  volumes  a  translation  of  PascaWs 
 Provincial  Letters;  but  so  great  was  his  modesty, 
 that  his  initials  only,  W.  A.  are  appended  to  the 
 Preface.  He  resided,  during  many  years,  at  Wed- 
 more,  in  the  county  of  Somerset,  where  he  fitted  up 
 a  study  over  the  Church  Porch,  in  which  his  books 
 
 e  Nichols,  ii.  471 — 506.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  the  govern- 
 ment deemed  it  necessary  to  press  the  Abjuration  Oath,  since  in 
 all  probability  Law  and  Carte  and  others  would  not  have  been 
 Nonjurors,  but  for  that  measure :  while  many  who  had  stood  out 
 would  probably  have  complied. 
 
i£u3tocp  of  tljc  jJ5onjuro«f.  407 
 were  deposited.  He  died  in  the  year  1759  at  Bath, 
 and  was  buried  in  the  Abbey  Church  in  that  city/ 
 
 James  II.  lost  his  crown  from  his  attachment  to 
 Rome  :  and  it  is  said,  that  his  grandson  in  1745  was 
 ready  to  renounce  Romanism,  in  order  to  regain  what 
 had  been  lost  by  his  grandfather.  Lord  Kilmarnock 
 denied  that  the  object  contemplated  by  the  restora- 
 tion of  the  exiled  family  was  the  restoration  of  Popery. 
 He  added  that  Charles  Edward  had  no  concern  about 
 any  outward  profession  of  religion. 
 
 King  believed,  that  he  would  have  conformed  to  the 
 Church  of  England,  on  the  ground  of  indifference  to 
 either  Creed.  "  As  to  his  religion,  he  is  certainly  free 
 from  all  bigotry  and  superstition,  and  would  readily 
 conform  to  the  religion  of  the  country.  With  the 
 Catholics,  he  is  a  Catholic  :  with  the  Protestants,  he 
 is  a  Protestant :  and  to  convince  the  latter  of  his  sin- 
 cerity, he  often  carried  an  English  Common  Prayer 
 Book  in  his  pocket,  and  sent  to  Gordon,  a  Nonjuring 
 
 f  A  Tablet,  containing  an  inscription,  still  remains  on  the  Wall 
 of  the  room  over  the  Porch  of  Wedmore  Church.  It  was  erected, 
 on  his  leaving  that  village  for  the  last  time,  previous  to  his  taking 
 up  his  residence  in  Bath.  The  copy  of  the  Inscription  has  been 
 sent  to  me  by  one  of  his  collateral  descendants,  and  is  as  follows : 
 
 In  Memoriam 
 Johannis  et  Gulielmi 
 Andrews, 
 Quorum  Prior, 
 Obiit  et  sepultus  est  Bristol : 
 
 MDCC,XLVIII. 
 
 Alter  adhuc  est  superstes, 
 Minime  Pendens, 
 Ubicunque  moriturus, 
 Ubicunque  sepeliendus. 
 Soli  Deo 
 Gloria  ! 
 
408  ^ijstorp  of  rlje  laonjucow. 
 
 clergyman,  to  christen  the  first  child  he  had  by  Mrs. 
 W. 'R  This  is  remarkable,  inasmuch  as  he  would  not 
 have  been  in  exile,  if  King  James  had  adhered  to  the 
 Anglican  Church.  The  Nonjurors  also,  from  the 
 commencement  of  the  Revolution,  were  convinced, 
 that  Popery  was  the  cause  of  the  King's  troubles. 
 Accordingly  we  find  them  using  means  to  procure  at 
 least  a  promise  of  support  for  the  Church  of  England, 
 in  the  event  of  his  Restoration  :  and  King  James 
 assures  us,  that  it  was  proposed  to  four  Roman  Ca- 
 tholic English  divines,  in  1693,  whether  he  might 
 lawfully  promise  to  support  the  Church  of  England. 
 They  replied  that  he  could  not  promise  to  defend  a 
 religion,  which  he  deemed  to  be  erroneous  ;  but  that 
 he  might  promise  to  protect  the  members  of  the  Church 
 of  England,  as  by  law  established,  in  the  free  and  full 
 exercise  of  their  religion. h  Mr.  Hallam  admits,  that 
 Popery  alone  kept  the  Pretender  from  the  throne. 
 "  It  is  almost  certain,  that,  if  either  the  claimant  or 
 his  son  had  embraced  the  Protestant  religion,  and  had 
 also  manifested  any  superior  strength  of  mind,  the 
 German  prejudices  of  the  reigning  family  would  have 
 cost  them  the  throne,  as  they  did  the  people's  affec- 
 tions."' 
 
 The  First  Pretender,  the  son  of  James  II.  who  was 
 born  in  1688,  died  in  1765,  after  which  Charles  Ed- 
 ward, the  Second  Pretender,  assumed  the  style  and 
 title  of  King  of  England.  Charles  Edward  was  born 
 in  1720,  so  that  he  was  twenty-five  years  of  age 
 when  he  entered  Scotland  in  1745.    It  is  said  that 
 
 g  King's  Political  and  Literary  Anecdotes  of  his  own  Time,  pp. 
 191,  192, 193. 
 
 h  Life  of  James  II.  from  the  Stuart  MSS.  ii,  508,  9. 
 j  Hallam,  iii.  342. 
 
1£i'0torp  of  ttje  j|2<mjticoi#.  409 
 
 he  visited  England  on  two  subsequent  occasions. 
 Thus  David  Hume  asserts,  in  a  letter  written  in  1773, 
 that  he  was  certainly  in  London  in  1753.  Hume  had 
 the  information  from  Lord  Marechal,  who  had  re- 
 ceived the  particulars  from  the  lady,  at  whose  house 
 the  Pretender  took  up  his  abode.  According  to  this 
 account,  he  arrived  when  the  lady  had  a  large  party. 
 He  walked  once  through  St.  James's  Park,  and  also 
 in  the  Mall.  Hume  told  the  story  to  Lord  Holder- 
 ness,  many  years  after,  who  was  Secretary  of  State  at 
 the  time,  and  who  acknowledged  that  such  was  the 
 case,  and  that  he  had  first  obtained  his  information 
 from  the  King  himself.  It  is  further  stated,  on  the 
 authority  of  Lord  Marechal,  that  he  was  actually  pre- 
 sent at  the  coronation  of  George  III.  Hume  adds, 
 that  some  of  the  Jacobites  assured  him,  that  Charles 
 Edward  formally  renounced  Romanism  in  1753,  at 
 the  New  Church  in  the  Strand,  and  that  on  this  ac- 
 count he  was  ill  treated  by  the  Court  of  Rome.k 
 
 A  writer  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine  corrected 
 some  portions  of  Hume's  statement.  He  says,  that 
 the  Pretender  renounced  Popery,  at  the  Chapel  in 
 Gray's  Inn  Lane,  and  not  at  the  Chapel  in  the  Strand ; 
 and  that  he  was  accustomed  to  read  the  Service  of 
 the  Church  of  England  to  his  household,  when  no 
 Clergyman  was  present.1 
 
 Various  opinions  have  been  expressed  respecting 
 Charles  Edward's  religious  views.  By  some  persons 
 he  has  been  represented  as  a  bigot  to  the  Church  of 
 Rome  :  by  others,  as  a  Protestant :  but  probably 
 King's  statement,  that  he  was  indifferent  to  all  creeds, 
 
 k  Gents.  Mag.  vol.  lviii.  pp.  393,  359,  642.    Chambers's  Re- 
 bellion, i.  284. 
 '  Ibid.  509. 
 
410  ^tgtorp  o£  tljc  jjaonjucow. 
 
 is  nearest  the  truth.  It  is  said  that,  on  one  occasion, 
 while  witnessing  a  procession  at  Rome,  he  exclaimed 
 to  a  Roman  Catholic  Peer,  "  Oh  that  our  family 
 should  deprive  themselves  of  three  kingdoms  for  such 
 nonsense." m  He  died  at  Rome  in  1788,  and  was 
 buried,  with  great  pomp  and  splendour,  in  the  Church 
 of  Frescati,  of  which  his  brother  Henry,  the  Cardinal 
 of  York,  was  Bishop." 
 
 At  the  period  of  Charles  Edward's  death,  few 
 Nonjurors  survived.  For  several  years,  notwith- 
 standing the  efforts  of  some  active  individuals,  they 
 had  been  gradually  diminishing  in  numbers.  Gordon, 
 the  last  Bishop  of  the  regular  body,  died  in  1779  : 
 so  that  the  Nonjurors  became  extinct,  as  a  regularly 
 constituted  Church,  with  its  Bishops,  Priests  and 
 Deacons,  at  that  time  :  but  the  Separatists  continued 
 some  years  longer,  and  individual  Clergymen  of  the 
 other  body  survived,  until  a  comparatively  recent 
 period.  Of  Gordon  an  unfavourable,  and  probably 
 not  a  true  picture,  is  drawn  by  King.  "  It  never 
 entered  my  thoughts,"  says  he,  "  that  a  Nonjuring 
 Clergyman,  who  values  himself  much  upon  the  sanc- 
 tity of  his  manners,  and  with  whom  I  had  once  lived 
 in  some  degree  of  friendship,  should  conspire  with 
 two  or  three  villanous  attorneys  to  traduce  me  by  a 
 public  advertisement.  I  don't  know  whether  he 
 would  be  a  martyr,  but  no  man  is  a  greater  enthu- 
 siast in  religion  than  he  is  in  the  Jacobite  cause. 
 Hereditary  right  and  passive  obedience  are  the  chief 
 articles  of  his  creed.   And  this  is  the  doctrine  which 
 
 ra  Gents.  Mag.  vol.  lix.  5. 
 
 ■  Ibid.  vol.  lviii.  179,  180.  Some  curious  particulars  are 
 recorded  in  this  volume  respecting  the  Pretender's  family,  and 
 ulso  respecting  his  funeral. 
 
^(sttorp  of  tlje  jponjurorg.  41 1 
 
 he  teaches  in  his  little  congregation,  over  which  he 
 presides  as  a  pastor :  where,  while,  he  boasts  of  the 
 purity  of  his  religion,  and  a  steady  adherence  to  his 
 political  system,  he  departs  from  every  principle  of 
 humanity,  and  devotes  his  country  to  ruin."  It  is 
 added  in  a  note,  "  There  is  indeed  a  latent  cause  of 
 this  man's  enmity  to  me,  besides  the  reason  which 
 he  hath  given  the  public  for  his  resentment.  I  have 
 lately  been  unfortunately  engaged  in  a  lawsuit  with 
 one  James  Bettenham,  a  printer,  a  sanctified  member 
 of  Gordon's  congregation,  but  one  of  the  greatest 
 knaves  I  have  ever  known.  This  man,  who  had  great 
 obligations  to  me,  and  taken  a  great  deal  of  my 
 money,  endeavoured,  in  settling  a  final  account,  to 
 cheat  me  of  £100.  In  this  attempt  he  was  assisted 
 and  justified  by  his  father  confessor."0  There  is, 
 however,  no  reason  for  supposing  that  King's  impres- 
 sions were  correct,  respecting  either  Gordon  or  Bet- 
 tenham. Differences  had  arisen,  and  he  gives  vent 
 to  his  anger  in  this  severe  attack. 
 
 The  Nonjurors  of  the  Separation,  which  commenced 
 in  1733  or  1734,  continued  their  succession  of  Bishops 
 several  years  after  Gordon's  death.  The  breach, 
 which  had  been  occasioned  by  the  Usages,  was,  as 
 has  been  shewn,  closed  in  1733,  with  the  exception 
 of  Bishop  Blackburn  and  a  few  of  his  Presbyters, 
 who  made  no  attempt  to  continue  the  succession  apart 
 from  the  general  body.  But  no  sooner  had  they 
 become  a  united  party,  by  the  healing  of  this  breach, 
 than  another  separation  occurred,  on  totally  different 
 grounds.  The  Separatists  proceeded  to  consecrate 
 Bishops  of  their  own,  apart  from  the  regular  body. 
 But  as  the  schism  was  headed  only  by  one  Bishop, 
 
 "  King's  Anecdotes,  201. 
 
412  Igfarorp  of  tlje  jponjurora. 
 
 he  actually  consecrated  others,  by  his  own  authority, 
 contrary  to  the  canons  of  the  Church  :  consequently 
 these  consecrations  were  not  recognized  bv  the  leg-i- 
 timate  Nonjurors  ;  nor  could  they  have  been  allowed 
 by  the  deprived  Bishops,  supposing  the  schism  to 
 have  occurred  at  an  earlier  period.  The  particulars 
 of  this  separation  were  given  in  a  previous  chapter. 
 In  the  year  1780,  Price  and  Cartwright  were  conse- 
 crated by  Deacon  alone,  Garnet  was  consecrated  by 
 Cartwright  in  1795,  and  Boothe  at  a  later  period  by 
 Garnet.  Boothe's  was  the  last  consecration.  As 
 they  refused  to  take  the  Oaths,  they  were  Nonjurors ; 
 but  in  many  important  particulars,  as  will  be  shewn 
 in  the  concluding  chapter,  they  were  as  much  at  issue 
 with  the  regular  body  as  with  the  National  Church. 
 
 Cartwright  resided  at  Shrewsbury,  practising  as  a 
 surgeon,  and  died  in  the  year  1799.  Before  his 
 death,  he  had  become,  says  Mr.  Hallam,  "  A  very 
 loyal  subject  to  King  George  :  a  singular  proof  of 
 that  tenacity  of  life  by  which  religious  sects,  after 
 dwindling  down  through  neglect,  excel  frogs  and  tor- 
 toises :  and  that  even  when  they  have  become  almost 
 equally  cold-blooded."  On  his  deathbed,  he  declared 
 his  conformity  to  the  National  Church,  in  the  pre- 
 sence of  the  Curate  of  the  Parish.  Mr.  Hallam  adds, 
 "  I  have  heard  of  similar  congregations  in  the  West 
 of  England  still  later." p  I  have  been  informed  by 
 a  gentleman  residing  in  the  West  of  England,  that  a 
 Nonjuring  Clergyman  was  living  so  late  as  the  year 
 1815.  Boothe,  the  last  of  the  irregular  Nonjuring 
 Bishops,  died  in  Ireland  in  the  year  1805. 
 
 Before  the  death  of  Gordon  and  Cartwright,  the 
 last  Bishops  of  their  respective  lines  in  England,  the 
 
 p  Hallam,  iii.  341. 
 
Ikigtorp  of  tlje  jponj'ucors*.  413 
 
 Nonjurors  were  divided  in  practice  as  well  as  in 
 opinion.  Some  objected  altogether  to  the  worship 
 of  the  National  Church,  on  the  ground  of  what  were 
 termed  immoral  prayers  :  others,  like  William  Law, 
 though  they  could  not  take  the  Oaths,  were  content 
 to  communicate  with  the  Church  of  England  as  pri- 
 vate individuals.  There  were  others,  who,  though 
 they  attended  their  parish  Churches,  probably  because 
 they  were  not  sufficiently  numerous  to  form  a  sepa- 
 rate congregation  with  a  Clergyman  of  their  own, 
 took  with  them  a  prayer-book  printed  before  the 
 Revolution,  in  order  that  they  might  not  join  in  the 
 prayer  for  the  reigning  Sovereign.  This  probably 
 was  not  an  uncommon  practice.  A  gentleman  in  the 
 West  of  England,  a  district  in  which  many  Nonjurors 
 resided,  and  in  which  they  lingered  longer  than  in 
 any  other  part  of  the  country,  informs  me  that  this 
 practice  was  adopted  by  several  of  his  ancestors. 
 
^y^*  ^lr*  •/D^*   ^CPU  «/CK*  Jfr*  «^3T* 
 
 ^tt^  ^(k^  ^fc*  *vy  %Cf*  "WV"  %c^,  *VV*  *JV*  »A* 
 
 CHAPTER  X. 
 
 A.  D.  1688—1792. 
 
 Scottish  Bishopsin1688. — Bishop  Rose  and  King  William. 
 — Causes  or  the  Abolition  of  Episcopacy. — The  Conven- 
 tion.— Oath  of  Allegiance. — Sufferings  of  the  Clebgy 
 from  the  Rabble  I  from  the  Presbyterians. — The  Assur- 
 ance.— State  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  who  complied. — 
 Conduct  of  the  Presbyterians. — Queen  Anne's  Acces- 
 sion.— Condition  of  the  Clergy  bettered. — Attempt 
 at  a  Toleration. — G-rame's  Case. — Union. — Green- 
 shield's  Case. — Hostility  to  the  Liturgy. — A  Tolera- 
 tion.— Introduction  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  Bi- 
 shop 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. 
 
 AVING  followed  the  history  of  the  Eng- 
 lish Nonjurors,  from  the  year  1688,  to 
 the  time  of  their  extinction  as  an  orga- 
 nized body,  it  is  necessary,  in  order 
 to  complete  the  subject,  to  submit  a  sketch  of  the 
 proceedings  in  Scotland,  with  respect  to  the  Episco- 
 palians, during  the  period  comprehended  in  the 
 preceding  chapters.  While  some  only,  in  England, 
 who  adhered  to  Episcopacy,  refused  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance,  in  Scotland  the  greater  number  of  the 
 
IktsJtocp  of  tlje  i^onjucocg.  415 
 number  of  the  Episcopalians  became  Nonjurors.  Nor 
 were  their  sufferings,  under  the  domination  of  Pres- 
 bytery, less  than  those  of  their  brethren  in  England. 
 They  would  have  been  satisfied,  like  their  brethren  in 
 this  country,  with  the  establishment  of  a  Regency,  in 
 the  person  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  :  but  they  could 
 not  consent  to  set  aside  King  James,  and  swear  alle- 
 giance to  a  new  Sovereign. 
 
 The  Scottish  Bishops  were  informed  of  the  Princes 
 intended  invasion  in  October,  1688  :  and,  in  conse- 
 quence, they  prepared  an  address  to  King  James. 
 As  soon  as  they  heard  that  the  Prince  had  actually 
 arrived  in  England,  they  deputed  two  of  their  body 
 to  proceed  to  London,  with  a  renewed  tender  of  their 
 duty  to  King  James,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
 sulting the  English  Bishops.  For  this  mission  the 
 Bishops  of  Edinburgh  and  Orkney,  Dr.  Rose  and  Dr. 
 Bruce,  were  selected  by  their  brethren  :  but  the  latter 
 Prelate  falling  ill,  the  former  proceeded  to  London 
 alone. 
 
 An  interesting  detail  of  his  proceedings  was  given 
 by  Bishop  Rose  in  a  letter  to  Campbell,  in  the  year 
 1713.  Campbell,  who  had  associated  himself  with 
 Hickes,  was  anxious  to  obtain  an  account  of  the  pro- 
 ceedings in  1688,  and  as  Bishop  Rose  was  then  living, 
 he  applied  to  that  Prelate  by  letter. 
 
 At  the  time  of  Rose's  arrival  in  London,  the  per- 
 secution of  the  Clergy  by  the  rabble  had  commenced. 
 The  Bishop,  therefore,  requested  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
 don to  beseech  the  Prince  of  Orange  to  interpose ; 
 but  nothing  was  attempted  :  and  when  an  application 
 was  made  to  Burnet,  he  replied,  that  he  did  not 
 meddle  with  Scotch  affairs.  How  Burnet,  who 
 meddled  with  all  matters  that  suited  his  purpose, 
 could  make  such  an  assertion,  it  is  not  easy  to  con- 
 
416  ^i0torp  of  tfjc  ifionjucorsf. 
 
 ceive.  The  Bishop  was  requested  by  Compton  and 
 the  Viscount  Tarbat  to  address  the  Prince  on  the 
 subject:  but  it  was  admitted,  that  it  would  be  neces- 
 sary to  compliment  him  on  his  coming  to  deliver  the 
 country  from  Popery  and  slavery.  This  he  could 
 not  do,  as  he  had  received  no  such  instructions.  The 
 Bishop  continued  in  London  until  the  vote  of  Abdi- 
 cation had  passed,  when  he  began  to  think  of  returning 
 to  Scotland.  The  Bishop  of  London,  even  at  that 
 time,  before  William  was  seated  on  the  throne,  desig- 
 nated him  as  the  King,  and  was  anxious  to  induce 
 Rose  to  wait  upon  him,  on  behalf  of  the  suffering- 
 Episcopal  Clergy  in  Scotland  :  but  he  replied,  that, 
 as  the  Prince  had  been  already  addressed  by  several 
 of  the  nobility,  as  well  as  by  the  sufferers  themselves, 
 it  would  be  useless  for  him  to  make  the  attempt.  He, 
 however,  consented  to  go  to  the  Prince,  if  the  Bishop 
 of  London  considered  it  desirable.  Accordingly  the 
 Bishop  of  Edinburgh  and  Sir  George  Makenzie  at- 
 tended, at  Whitehall,  where  they  were  met  by  Comp- 
 ton. The  Prince  declined  to  see  more  than  two  at 
 one  time,  lest  the  Presbyterians  should  be  offended. 
 From  the  Bishop  of  London's  remark,  we  may  infer 
 the  state  of  feeling  at  the  time.  "  My  Lord,  you 
 see  that  the  King,  having  thrown  himself  upon  the 
 water,  must  keep  himself  a  swimming  with  one  hand. 
 The  Presbyterians  have  joined  him  closely,  and  offer 
 to  support  him,  and  therefore  he  cannot  cast  them  off, 
 unless  he  could  see  how  otherwise  he  could  be  served. 
 And  now  the  King  bids  me  tell  you  that  he  now 
 knows  the  state  of  Scotland  much  better  than  he  did 
 when  he  was  in  Holland  :  for  while  there  he  was  made 
 believe  that  Scotland  generally,  all  over,  was  Presby- 
 terian, but  now  he  sees  that  the  great  body  of  the 
 nobility  and  gentry  are  for  Episcopacy,  and  it  is  the 
 
^tstorp  of  tlje  i£onjuroi#.  417 
 
 trading  and  inferior  sort  are  for  Presbytery ;  where- 
 fore he  bids  me  tell  you,  that  if  you  will  undertake  to 
 serve  him  to  the  purpose,  that  he  is  served  here  in 
 England,  he  will  take  you  by  the  hand,  support  the 
 Church  and  order,  and  throw  off  the  Presbyterians." 
 
 The  Bishop  expressed  his  thanks  for  the  offer ; 
 but  he  added,  that  such  a  Revolution  was  not  ex- 
 pected, and  that  consequently,  having  no  instructions, 
 he  could  only  give  his  private  opinion,  which  was, 
 that  the  Bishops  of  Scotland  would  not  consent  to 
 make  the  Prince  their  Sovereign.  Compton  replied, 
 that  the  King  must  be  excused  11  for  standing  by  the 
 Presbyterians.'"  The  Bishop  did  not  speak  to  the 
 Prince  that  day  :  but  on  the  following  morning  he 
 was  admitted  into  his  presence.  "  He  came,"  says 
 the  Bishop,  "  three  or  four  steps  forward  from  his 
 company,  and  prevented  me  by  saying,  my  Lord,  are 
 you  going  for  Scotland  ?  My  reply  was,  yes,  Sir,  if 
 you  have  any  commands  for  me  :  then  he  said,  I  hope 
 you  will  be  kind  to  me  and  follow  the  example  of 
 England :  wherefore,  being  somewhat  difficulted  how 
 to  make  a  mannerly  and  discreet  answer,  without  en- 
 tangling myself,  I  readily  replied,  Sir,  I  will  serve 
 you  so  far  as  law,  reason,  or  conscience  will  allow 
 me.  How  this  answer  pleased  I  cannot  well  tell, 
 but  it  seems  the  limitations  and  conditions  of  it  were 
 not  acceptable,  for  instantly  the  Prince,  without  saying 
 any  more,  turned  away  from  me  and  went  back  to 
 his  company."  The  Bishop  believes  that  the  Prince 
 would  have  cast  off  the  Presbyterians,  since  they  had 
 committed  themselves  too  far  to  return  to  King  James. 
 Duke  Hamilton  "  told  us,  a  day  or  two  before  the 
 sitting  down  of  the  Convention,  that  he  had  it  in 
 special  charge  from  King  William  that  nothing  should 
 be  done  to  the  prejudice  of  Episcopacy  in  Scotland, 
 
418  I9i0torp  of  tlje  4£ onj uirousf. 
 
 in  case  the  Bishops  could  by  any  means  be  brought 
 to  befriend  his  interest,  and  prayed  us  most  patheti- 
 cally for  our  own  sake  to  follow  the  example  of  the 
 Church  of  England."3 
 
 There  can  be  no  doubt  that  William  would  have 
 patronized  Episcopacy  in  Scotland,  as  well  as  in 
 England,  if  he  could  have  succeeded  with  the  Bishops. 
 It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  of 
 Scotland  acted  conscientiously,  like  their  brethren  in 
 England.  They  had  everything  to  gain  by  com- 
 pliance with  William  :  and  nothing  whatever  to  lose; 
 but  they  had  courage  to  hold  to  their  principles,  re- 
 gardless of  consequences.b  We  cannot  indeed  sup- 
 pose that  William  had  any  preference  for  Episcopacy. 
 He  only  considered  his  own  interests  in  the  matter  : 
 and  knowing,  that  the  Presbyterians  were  committed, 
 he  would  have  been  ready  to  have  made  a  compromise 
 in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  Church. 
 
 The  Presbyterians  began  to  act  with  the  Prince,  as 
 soon  as  he  came  to  London  :  and  in  consequence  of 
 
 a  This  letter  was,  I  believe,  first  printed  in  1746  in  "  A  Col- 
 lection of  Letters  concerning  the  Separation  of  the  Church  of 
 England  into  two  Communions."  It  was  also  printed  by  Bishop 
 Keith  in  1755.  Keith's  Historical  Catalogue  of  the  Scottish 
 Bishops,  by  Russell,  p.  65 — 72. 
 
 b  Keith's  Historical  Catalogue.  App.  494,  5.  This  is  admitted 
 by  Laing,  who  quotes  Keith  and  Burnet  as  his  authorities.  His 
 words  are  remarkable:  "  William,  indifferent  to  forms  of  worship 
 if  toleration  were  established,  would  have  concurred  in  preserving 
 Episcopacy,  if  the  Episcopal  party  had  contributed  to  his  support." 
 vol.  iv.  214.  Tindal  also  makes  the  same  admission.  "  The 
 Prince  answered,  he  would  do  all  he  could  to  preserve  them,  grant- 
 ing a  full  toleration  to  the  Presbyterians.  But  this  was,  in  case 
 they  concurred  in  the  new  settlement  of  the  Kingdom."  He  adds, 
 that  the  Bishops  and  others  "  declaring  in  a  body  with  so  much 
 zeal,  in  opposition  to  the  new  settlement,  it  was  not  possible  for 
 King  William  to  preserve  Episcopacy  there."  Vol.  i.  72,  73. 
 
%0torp  ol  t\)t  i^onj'tirorjs.  419 
 
 the  refusal  of  the  Bishops  to  give  him  their  support, 
 Presbytery  was  received  into  favour.  From  Bishop 
 Rose's  Letter,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  persecutions 
 commenced  as  soon  as,  if  not  before,  William  landed. 
 The  rabble  began  an  attack  upon  the  Clergy,  which 
 they  were  permitted  to  continue  without  interruption 
 by  any  of  the  authorities.  "  On  Christmas  Day," 
 says  an  able  writer,  by  no  means  favourable  to  Epis- 
 copacy, "  the  Episcopal  Clergy  were  dragged  from 
 their  pulpits  or  altars ;  they  were  conducted  through 
 their  parishes  in  mock  procession ;  stript  of  their 
 gowns,  and  expelled  by  force,  or  were  permitted 
 peaceably  to  depart,  on  a  solemn  assurance  never  to 
 return.  Two  hundred  Clergymen  of  the  Episcopal 
 persuasion  were  thus  ejected;  and  as  the  same 
 violence  prevailed  for  some  weeks  through  the  rest  of 
 Scotland,  the  Revolution  was  almost  equally  complete 
 in  the  Church  and  in  the  state."  This  is  the  ad- 
 mission of  a  writer,  who  even  applauds  the  Camero- 
 nians  for  abstaining  "  from  a  massacre  of  the  esta- 
 blished Clergy."0  Such  admissions,  therefore,  may 
 be  regarded  as  confirmatory  of  the  statements  of  the 
 friends  of  the  Clergy.  These  however  were  only  the 
 beginning  of  sorrows.  After  the  abolition  of  the 
 Church  of  Scotland,  as  an  established  Church,  the 
 Clergy  were  doomed  to  suffer  from  two  quarters,  from 
 the  rabble,  and  from  the  Presbyterians. 
 
 As  William  supported  Presbytery  in  Scotland, 
 because  the  Episcopalians  refused  to  recognize  him 
 as  their  Sovereign,  the  Presbyterians  have  no  room 
 
 c  Laing's  History  of  Scotland,  iv.  194.  It  seems,  that  a  rumour 
 was  designedly  circulated  that  some  Irish  Papists  had  landed,  as 
 a  signal  to  the  rabble  to  attack  the  Clergy,  who  were  treated  with 
 the  greatest  violence.    Somers  Tracts,  xv.  133 — 136. 
 
420  ^igtorp  of  ttje  i!5onitiL*or$j. 
 
 for  boasting  that  their  system  was  adopted  in  prefe- 
 rence to  Episcopacy.  It  certainly  was  not  chosen  on 
 account  of  its  purity,  as  they  choose  to  imagine  or  to 
 assert,  but  because  King  William  found  them  more 
 ready  to  render  him  their  support,  than  the  Bishops 
 and  Clergy.  Whether  the  refusal  of  the  latter  was 
 a  blot  upon  their  memory,  posterity  will  decide.  At 
 all  events,  they  were  honest  in  their  course,  for  it  led 
 to  the  loss  of  all  their  worldly  goods.  The  Bishop 
 of  Edinburgh's  reply  was  frank  and  open.  He  had 
 not  expected  any  such  Revolution,  and  he  had  the 
 courage  to  say  so.  Perceiving  that  the  Bishops  and 
 Clergy  would  not  support  him,  the  King  threw  him- 
 self into  the  arms  of  the  Presbyterians. 
 
 Not  a  few  Presbyterian  writers  pretend,  that  the 
 bulk  of  the  nation  were  Presbyterians.  This  asser- 
 tion, however,  is  contrary  to  the  fact.  Candid  persons 
 even  on  the  Presbyterian  side  of  the  question  admit, 
 that  Scotland  was  almost  equally  divided  between 
 the  friends  of  Prelacy  and  Presbytery ;  the  lower 
 and  middle  classes  adhering  to  the  latter,  the  nobles 
 and  gentry  to  the  former.d  Carstairs  used  his  in- 
 fluence with  the  King,  alleging  two  special  reasons 
 in  favour  of  Presbytery — First,  that  the  Presbyte- 
 rians were  generally  W  higs  :  Secondly,  that  the  set- 
 tlement of  Presbytery  in  Scotland  would  shew  the 
 Dissenters  in  England  what  they  might  expect,  when 
 the  King  should  be  able.'    Carstairs  introduced  the 
 
 d  Dalrymple's  Memoirs,  i.  418.  It  was  truly  remarked  by  the 
 author  of  the  Life  of  Kettlewell :  "  Episcopacy  was  abolished,  and 
 Presbytery  established  upon  the  inclinations  of  the  people,  though 
 not  a  third  part  at  that  time  were  Presbyterian,  and  some  say  not 
 a  fourth."    Life,  124. 
 
 •  Dnlrymple,  i.  551. 
 
^isttorp  of  tlje  iponj'tiroris.  421 
 
 Presbyterian  ministers  to  the  Prince  in  London, 
 assuring  him  that  they  were  devoted  to  his  service. 
 They  had  gone  to  London  at  the  suggestion  of  that 
 gentleman,  who  cunningly  arranged  most  of  the 
 Scottish  affairs  of  this  period.  But  though  anxious 
 for  Presbytery  himself,  he  admits,  that  the  King 
 would  have  given  his  sanction  to  Episcopacy  :  and 
 that  he  consented  to  abolish  it  with  difficulty/ 
 
 It  is  unnecessary  to  detail  in  this  work  the  proceed- 
 ings of  the  Scottish  Convention,  which  issued  in  a 
 tender  of  the  crown  to  William  and  Mary,  since  my 
 object  is  to  give  an  account  of  the  sufferers  for  con- 
 science sake,  who  were  deprived,  as  in  England,  of 
 their  preferments,  for  not  taking  the  Oath  to  the  new 
 Sovereigns.  It  will,  therefore,  be  sufficient  to  state, 
 that  the  Presbyterian  Church  government  was  set  up 
 by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1690  :  and  the  ancient  plat- 
 form was  cast  down.  Justice,  however,  must  be  done 
 to  William's  character.  He  was  anxious  to  tolerate 
 such  Episcopal  Clergymen  as  were  prepared  to  re- 
 tain their  stations,  under  the  new  order  of  things, 
 provided  they  did  not  disturb  his  government :  and  in 
 this  respect,  his  conduct  presents  a  bright  contrast 
 to  that  of  the  Presbyterians,  who  acted  with  all 
 their  former  intolerance.  Even  Carstairs  appears  to 
 have  been  afraid  of  the  very  men  whom  he  had 
 assisted  to  bring  into  power  in  the  Church. g 
 
 When  the  Convention  met,  the  Bishops  as  usual 
 
 f  Carstairs's  Life,  &c.  pp.  36 — 44.  Birch  admits,  that  "  the 
 true  reason  of  the  destruction  of  Episcopacy  there,  after  the  Revo- 
 lution^ to  be  attributed  to  the  conduct  of  the  Bishops  themselves, 
 both  previous  and  subsequent  to  it."  He  adds,  that  it  was  not 
 possible  for  King  William  to  preserve  Episcopacy.  Birch's  Life 
 of  Tillotson,  308,  309. 
 
 *  Carstairs,  44—50.    Hallam,  iii.  442,  443. 
 
422  Iktgtorp  of  rtic  ilionjucorjj. 
 
 took  their  seats.  The  proceedings  were  opened  with 
 Prayer  by  one  of  the  Prelates ;  and,  as  the  Book  of 
 Common  Prayer  was  not  used  in  Scotland,  the  offi- 
 ciating Bishop  was  left  to  his  own  discretion.1'  The 
 house,  therefore,  made  a  particular  order,  that  "  the 
 Bishops  in  their  Prayers  should  not  mention  or  in- 
 sinuate anything  against  their  acts  or  proceedings." 
 On  the  day  on  which  the  throne  was  declared  vacant, 
 "  when  all  the  business  of  the  day  was  over,  one  of 
 the  Bishops  offered  to  say  Prayers  according  to  cus- 
 tom. Upon  which  it  was  moved,  that  King  James, 
 being  then  no  longer  King  of  Scotland,  that  the 
 Bishop  should  be  admonished  to  pray  for  him  at  his 
 peril.  Which  the  Bishop  observing,  to  avoid  the 
 incurring  a  penalty,  very  discreetly  said  only  the 
 Lord's  Prayer  :  and  so  the  house  adjourned.1" 
 
 h  Tindal  says  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  and  that  "  he  prayed 
 for  the  safety  and  restoration  of  King  James."  vol.  i.  64. 
 
 1  History  of  the  Late  Revolution  in  Scotland,  London,  1690. 
 pp.  92 — 100.  There  was  much  management  required  to  mould 
 the  Convention  into  a  proper  state.  It  is  remarkable,  that  in 
 1687,  when  King  James  published  his  Declaration  of  Indulgence, 
 very  few  of  the  gentiy  took  advantage  of  it  to  forsake  their 
 parish  Churches.  For  several  years,  in  the  North  of  Scotland, 
 after  the  Revolution,  the  people  refused  to  admit  the  Presbyterian 
 Ministers,  and  set  the  General  Assembly  at  defiance.  Yet  the 
 Convention  voted  that  Episcopacy  was  contrary  to  the  inclinations 
 of  the  people.  The  truth  is,  the  Episcopalians  refused  to  sit  in 
 the  Convention,  or,  after  attending  once,  declined  to  attend  fur- 
 ther :  while  some  were  driven  away  by  the  mob,  which  was  with 
 the  Presbyterians.  When  the  vote,  therefore,  was  carried,  not 
 more  than  a  third  of  the  members  were  present :  consequently, 
 the  Presbyterians  were  able  to  carry  any  vote  they  pleased.  Even 
 Tindal,  partial  as  he  generally  is,  gives  an  honest  account  of  this 
 matter.  "  But  the  Bishops,  and  those  who  adhered  to  them 
 having  left  the  Convention,  the  Presbyterians  had  a  majority  of 
 voices  to  carry  every  thing  as  they  pleased,  how  unreasonable 
 soever,  and  upon  this  the  abolishing  of  Episcopacy  was  made  a 
 necessary  article  of  the  New  Settlement."  vol.  i.  72. 
 
^tstorp  of  rljc  iponjucora.  423 
 
 All  the  Clergy,  who  refused  to  take  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance  to  the  new  Sovereigns,  were  removed  from 
 their  Parishes ;  and  "  from  their  refusal,  they  soon 
 acquired  the  appellation  of  Nonjurors." k  Mr.  Laing 
 even  makes  Presbytery  the  condition,  on  which  Wil- 
 liam was  admitted  to  the  throne,  thereby  insinuating, 
 that  the  people  of  Scotland  would  not  have  received 
 him  on  any  other  terms.  Yet,  had  the  Bishops  yielded 
 to  the  King's  wishes,  the  government  would  have  been 
 settled  on  such  conditions  as  would  have  prevented 
 Presbytery  from  being  established.  "  As  Presbytery 
 was  the  condition  on  which  he  was  admitted  to  the 
 throne,  an  Act  was  passed  to  abolish  prelacy  and 
 pre-eminence  in  Ecclesiastical  Office."1  Undoubtedly 
 William  was  placed  in  circumstances  of  difficulty.1" 
 By  favouring  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  he  immediately 
 gave  offence  to  the  Presbyterians.  The  mistake, 
 however,  in  Scotland,  as  well  as  in  England,  was  the 
 imposition  of  the  Oath  upon  the  Clergy,  who  were 
 in  possession  of  benefices.  It  would  have  been  suffi- 
 cient for  the  safety  of  the  government  to  have  enjoined 
 the  Oath  in  all  new  appointments  ;  but  this  wise  and 
 moderate  course  did  not  suit  the  views  of  either  the 
 Scottish,  or  the  English  advisers  of  King  William  : 
 and  hence  the  sad  and  lamentable  schisms  and  divi- 
 sions in  both  countries. 
 
 Such  Episcopal  Clergymen  as  took  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance,  and  acknowledged  Presbytery  as  the  only 
 legal  establishment,  were  allowed  by  the  State  to  re- 
 tain their  churches,  and  also  to  be  admitted,  with  the 
 Presbyterian  Clergy,  to  a  share  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
 government.    To  assent  to  Presbytery,  as  established 
 
 Laing's  History,  iv.  211. 
 Ibid.  iv.  233. 
 
 1  Ibid.  iv.  214. 
 
424  l£t0toi*p  of  tlje  ilionj'uuoi'S!. 
 
 by  law,  did  not  involve  any  opinion  respecting  its 
 Scriptural  or  primitive  character,  which  no  Episco- 
 palian could  possibly  admit.  Besides,  as  no  form  of 
 Prayer  was  imposed  by  the  Presbyterians,  the  Clergy 
 could  proceed  in  the  management  of  public  worship, 
 nearly  in  the  same  manner  as  previous  to  the  Revo- 
 lution. Accordingly  a  considerable  number  of  the 
 Episcopal  Clergy  complied,  and  continued  in  their 
 respective  Parishes. 
 
 But  though  King  William  was  anxious  to  compre- 
 hend, within  the  establishment,  as  many  of  the  Clergy 
 as  possible,  the  Presbyterians  were  by  no  means 
 pleased  with  their  compliance  :  consequently  all  kinds 
 of  expedients  were  adopted,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  such 
 Clergymen  as  were  known  to  favour  Episcopacy. 
 Nor  was  the  King  much  in  favour  with  the  more  rigid 
 of  the  Presbyterian  party,  in  consequence  of  his 
 notions  of  a  comprehension,  and  a  toleration.  The 
 means  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  removing  the 
 Clergy  may  now  be  specified. 
 
 It  has  been  mentioned  already,  that  the  rabble 
 commenced  the  work  of  persecution,  as  soon  as  the 
 news  of  the  arrival  of  the  Prince  of  Orange  reached 
 Scotland.  Some  notices  of  the  harsh  treatment,  which 
 the  Clergy  received,  may  be  submitted  to  the  reader 
 as  evidences  of  the  persecuting  character  of  Presby- 
 tery :  and  it  will  be  seen,  that  hostility  to  Episcopacy 
 was  so  wrought  into  the  very  nature  of  the  Presby- 
 terians, that  they  could  not  tolerate  a  man,  who  con- 
 sidered Bishops  as  the  only  lawful  governors  of  the 
 Church  of  Christ. 
 
 In  a  contemporary  publication  the  sufferers  are  di- 
 vided into  four  classes,  as  follows  : 
 
 "  First  those  persecuted  by  the  mobility  before  the 
 13th  day  of  April  ]  689,  and  not  noticed  by  the  estates, 
 
%'0tor|?  of  rlje  jponjucousl.  425 
 but  totally  neglected,  as  deserts,  and  left  without  the 
 Protection  of  the  Government.  2.  Those  who  com- 
 plied, and  were  persecuted  by  the  rabble  :  or  those, 
 who  after  they  complied,  were  deprived  by  the  coun- 
 cil, because  they  did  it  not  on  the  individual  day 
 appointed,  when  the  proclamation  came  not  to  their 
 hands  against  the  time  required,  nor  could  they  have 
 the  opportunity  of  observing  it  sooner,  than  when 
 they  obeyed  it.  3.  Those  who  were  deprived  by  the 
 council  for  non-compliance,  there  being  not  so  much 
 as  twenty-four  hours  given  some  of  them  to  advise  in 
 so  weighty  an  affair.  4.  Those  who  are  now  deposed 
 by  the  Holy  Inquisition  of  the  Presbyterian  As- 
 sembly."0 
 
 More  than  three  hundred  Clergymen  were  thrust 
 out  of  their  houses  and  their  parishes  by  the  rabble, 
 and  then  deprived  of  their  possessions  for  no  crime 
 whatever,  but  solely  on  account  of  their  views  of 
 Church  government,  and  because  they  were  obnoxious 
 
 11  A  Late  Letter  concerning  the  Sufferings  of  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  in  Scotland.  4to.  London  1691,  p.  20.  Tindal's  admissions 
 are  fully  confirmatory  of  this  account.  He  admits  that  Lord  Mel- 
 vill  deemed  it  his  interest  to  secure  the  Presbyterians,  "  which  he 
 found  no  method  so  effectual  to  do  as  by  abandoning  the  ministers 
 of  the  Episcopal  persuasion  to  their  fury."  To  accomplish  his 
 object  Melvill  set  up  the  Earl  of  Crawford  to  act  as  the  head  of  his 
 party,  who  "  received  and  encouraged  all  the  complaints  that  were 
 made  against  the  Episcopal  ministers."  The  Convention  had  or- 
 dered a  proclamation  to  be  read  in  the  churches,  which  did  not 
 reach  the  Clergy  till  the  Sunday  morning,  and  in  some  cases  not 
 till  the  next  day:  yet,  "complaints  were  brought  to  the  Council 
 of  all  those,  who  had  not  read  nor  obeyed  the  proclamation ;  and 
 they  were  in  a  summary  way  deprived.  Those  who  did  not  read 
 the  proclamation  on  the  day  appointed  had  no  favour,  though  they 
 did  it  afterwards  :  and  upon  any  word  that  fell  from  them,  either 
 in  their  extemporary  prayers  or  sermons,  that  shewed  disaffection 
 to  the  Government,  they  were  also  deprived."    Vol.i.  105. 
 
426  %i0torp  of  tlje  iI5on)uroc0. 
 
 to  the  Presbyterians,  to  whom  the  mob  was  subject. 
 The  Presbyterians  did  not  interpose  to  check  the 
 rabble,  or  to  restrain  their  excesses :  and  Gilbert  Rule, 
 the  great  defender  of  the  Kirk  in  that  day,  actually 
 admits  the  charge.  "  If  few  did  it,"  says  this  author, 
 that  is,  preach  against  such  unchristian  conduct,  "  it 
 was  because  they,  who  were  the  actors  in  that  scene, 
 little  regarded  the  preaching  of  the  sober  Presby- 
 terians." Sage  sarcastically  remarks  :  "  it  might  be 
 of  use  to  inquire  what  kind  of  scene  he  took  it  to  be  ? 
 Whether  tragical  or  comical  ?  or  both  ?  Tragical  to 
 the  Prelatists,  and  comical  to  the  Presbyterians  ?  It 
 was  worth  inquiring  likewise,  whom  he  meant  by 
 sober  Presbyterian  preachers  ?  If  there  are  any  such 
 in  the  nation?  How  many?"  Rule  had  said,  that  the 
 ministers  had  publicly  spoken  against  the  practices  of 
 the  rabble,  "  both  before  they  were  acted  for  prevent- 
 ing them,  and  after,  for  reproving  them  and  prevent- 
 ing the  like;"  from  which  Sage  infers,  that  the  rab- 
 bling of  the  Clergy  was  not  by  accident,  but  a  devised 
 scheme ;  that  the  Presbyterians  were  aware  of  the 
 plan,  though  they  did  not  concur  with  the  mob.  He 
 assures  us  also,  that  some,  to  his  own  knowledge,  ad- 
 mitted, that  "  it  was  the  surest  way  to  have  the  curates 
 once  dispossessed."0 
 
 °  The  Fundamental  Charter  of  Presbytery,  as  it  hath  been  lately 
 established  in  the  Kingdom  of  Scotland,  Examined  and  Disproved, 
 by  the  History,  Records,  and  Public  Transactions  of  our  Nation. 
 Together  with  a  Preface :  wherein  the  Vindicator  of  the  Kirk  is 
 freely  put  in  mind  of  his  habitual  infirmities.  8vo.  London,  1695. 
 Preface.  Two  works  by  this  Author  cannot  be  too  highly  praised. 
 The  Principles  of  the  Cyprianic  Age,  with  regard  to  Episcopal 
 Power  and  Jurisdiction  :  asserted  and  recommended  from  the  ge- 
 nuine Writings  of  St.  Cyprian  himself,  and  his  Contemporaries. 
 By  which  it  is  made  evident  that  the  Vindicator  of  the  Kirk  of 
 Scotland  is  obliged,  by  his  own  concessions,  to  acknowledge  that 
 
^fjstorp  of  tljc  jlionfucovtf.  427 
 
 The  very  attempts  of  the  Defenders  of  the  Pres- 
 byterians prove  the  truth  of  the  Charges :  and  the 
 anxiety  of  some  of  their  writers  to  palliate  or  explain 
 away  the  conduct  of  the  rabble,  with  the  tacit  ad- 
 missions of  others,  may  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  the 
 substantial  accuracy  of  the  statements  of  the  suffer- 
 ings of  the  Episcopal  Clergy.  "  A  great  part  of  the 
 ministers  of  the  nation,  legally  and  ecclesiastically 
 settled  in  their  churches,  were,  without  being  accused, 
 convicted  or  judged  for  any  fault,  turned  out  with  their 
 wives  and  infants  in  the  winter  season,  from  their 
 houses,  offices,  and  livings,  in  a  most  unworthy  and 
 reproachful  manner  by  insolent  rabbles,  against 
 which  the  Presbyterian  ministers  did  never  remon- 
 strate, nor  has  there  been  to  this  day  any  kind  of 
 redress  of  a  barbarity  so  unbecoming  a  Christian 
 nation."  p 
 
 But  in  addition  to  this  treatment  from  the  mob, 
 they  were  subjected  to  oppressions  from  the  Presby- 
 terians, who  were  anxious  to  remove  all  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy.  In  the  first  General  Assembly  after  the  Re- 
 volution, it  was  attempted  to  exclude  all  persons  from 
 being  present,  except  the  friends  of  Presbytery.  "  If 
 any  of  the  Episcopal  party  were  discovered,  there 
 was  a  cry  presently,  Conformists  are  here :  and  the 
 officers  were  sent  to  thrust  them  out.'"q    Some  few 
 
 he  and  his  associates  are  Schismaticks.  In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend. 
 By  J.  S.  4to.  London,  1695.  A  Vindication  of  a  Discourse,  en- 
 titled the  Principles,  &c.  Being  a  Reply  to  Gilbert  Rule's  Cy- 
 prianic  Bishop  Examined  and  found  not  to  be  a  Diocesan,  8fc. 
 4to.  London,  1701. 
 
 p  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  p.  11. 
 
 i  An  Historical  Relation  of  the  late  Presbyterian  General  As- 
 sembly held  at  Edinburgh  from  Oct.  16  to  Nov.  13,  in  the  year 
 1690,  in  a  Letter  from  a  Person  in  Edinburgh  to  his  Friend  in 
 London.    London,  1691.    P.  i. 
 
428  l&ijston>  of  tlje  Nonjurors, 
 
 of  the  friends  to  the  ancient  order  of  Churcli  govern- 
 ment,  however,  obtained  admission  to  all  their  meet- 
 ings, and  from  them  the  particulars  respecting  the 
 proceedings  of  this  assembly  have  been  derived. 
 When  it  was  demanded,  why  there  should  be  so 
 much  anxiety  to  remove  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  it  was 
 answered  ;  "  that  there  was  less  prejudice  both  to 
 Church  and  people,  by  the  want  of  preaching,  than 
 by  the  preaching  of  men  of  Episcopal  principles  and 
 persuasions."  One  of  their  preachers  boldly  declared 
 in  a  sermon  before  the  Parliament,  "  that  it  was 
 better  that  the  temple  of  the  Lord  did  lie  sometimes 
 unbuilt  and  unrepaired,  than  be  reared  up  by  Gibeon- 
 ites  and  Samaritans."  In  short,  the  chief  business 
 consisted  of  hearing  libels  and  citations  against  Epis- 
 copal Ministers/  The  process  was  not  very  dissimilar 
 to  that,  which  had  been  adopted  under  the  reign  of 
 Presbytery  in  England.  In  both  cases  the  Clergy 
 were  not  only  removed  from  their  parishes,  but  the 
 most  iniquitous  means  were  resorted  to,  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  injuring  their  reputation. 
 
 Though  Episcopacy  was  abolished,  "  it  was  not 
 so  easy  to  settle  Presbytery."  This  is  the  admission 
 of  Tindal,  who  says,  "  if  they  had  followed  the  pattern 
 set  them  in  the  year  1638,  all  the  Clergy  in  a  parity 
 were  to  assume  the  government  of  the  Churcli :  but 
 those  being  Episcopal,  they  did  not  think  it  safe  to  put 
 the  power  of  the  Church  in  such  hands.  It  was  there- 
 fore pretended,  that  such  of  the  Presbyterian  minis- 
 ters as  had  been  turned  out  in  the  year  1662,  ought 
 to  be  considered  as  the  only  sound  part  of  the  Church. 
 And  of  these  there  happened  to  be  then  threescore 
 alive.    The  government  of  the  Church  was  therefore 
 
 r  An  Historical  Relation.  &c  p.  9. 
 
I?ig(tcit:p  of  tfjc  iponjttroi%  429 
 lodged  with  them  :  and  they  were  impowered  to  take 
 to  their  assistance,  and  to  a  share  in  the  Church 
 government,  such  as  they  should  think  fit.'1  He  then 
 alludes  to  some  furious  men  who  had  been  secretly 
 ordained  by  the  Presbyterians,  and  who  "  were  pre- 
 sently taken  in.  This  was  like  to  prove  a  fatal  error 
 at  their  first  setting  out.  The  old  men,  who  by  reason 
 of  their  age  or  their  experience  of  former  mistakes, 
 were  disposed  to  more  moderate  counsels ;  but  the 
 taking  in  of  such  a  number  of  violent  men,  put  it 
 out  of  their  power  to  pursue  them."  These  men,  he 
 remarks,  were  full  of  rage  against  such  of  the  Epis- 
 copal Clergy  "  as  had  escaped  the  rage  of  the  former 
 year.  Accusations  were  raised  ;  but  these  were  only 
 thrown  out  to  defame  them  :  and  when  they  looked 
 for  proof,  it  was  in  a  way  more  becoming  Inquisitors 
 than  Judges  :  so  apt  are  all  parties  in  their  hours  of 
 power,  to  fall  into  these  very  excesses  of  which  they 
 did  formerly  make  such  tragical  complaints.,,s  These 
 are  the  admissions  of  a  man  who  was  favourable  to 
 their  claims. 
 
 No  Liturgy  was  used  in  Scotland  between  the  Res- 
 toration and  the  Revolution,  though  Episcopacy  was 
 the  government  established  bylaw;  but  each  Clergy- 
 man conducted  public  worship  according  to  his  own 
 method.  One  gentleman  was,  therefore,  charged  in 
 this  Assembly  with  having  said,  on  an  occasion 
 when  some  person  had  expressed  his  fears  of  the 
 English  Liturgy,  "  God  send  us  no  worse.'"  He  told 
 the  Assembly  that  he  was  indeed  sorry,  if  any  such 
 expression  had  dropped  from  him,  "  because  he  was 
 sensible  it  was  too  mean  for  so  great  and  so  glorious 
 
 5  Tindal,  i.  124. 
 
430  ^i'0torp  oC  tlje  i^onjurors. 
 
 a  Church  as  that  of  England."'  Another  Clergyman 
 was  charged  with  having  circulated  superstitious  and 
 erroneous  books,  among  which  were  The  Whole 
 Duty  of  Man  and  Scougall's  Catechism.  At  the 
 opening  of  the  Assembly,  the  Preacher  drew  a 
 parallel  between  Presbytery  and  the  cleansing  of  the 
 Temple  of  the  Buyers  and  Sellers :  and  at  one  of 
 their  sessions  the  presiding  minister,  after  recognizing 
 Christ  as  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church,  added  in  his 
 Prayer ;  "  Thou  knowest,  O  Lord,  that  when  we 
 own  any  other  it  is  only  for  decency's  sake.*'  On 
 another  occasion,  the  minister  who  officiated,  after 
 praying  for  moderation,  added,  "  O  Lord,  to  be  free 
 it  would  be  better  to  make  a  clean  house."  At  some 
 of  their  special  meetings  for  Prayer,  eight  or  ten  in- 
 dividuals prayed  in  succession,  which,  coupled  with 
 their  actions  in  removing  so  many  exemplary  Clergy- 
 men, led  some  persons  to  observe  that  they  were  prac- 
 tising what  our  Lord  condemns  in  the  Sixth  Chapter 
 of  St.  Matthew,  and  others,  that  they  were  imitating 
 the  Popish  Masses. 
 
 This  account  of  the  Assembly  is  confirmed  by  the 
 admissions  of  writers,  who  usually  speak  favourably 
 of  the  Presbyterians.  "  The  truth  was,  that  the  Pres- 
 byterians, by  their  violence,  and  other  absurd  prac- 
 tices, were  rendering  both  odious  and  contemptible. 
 They  had  formed  a  General  Assembly  at  the  end  of 
 the  former  year,  in  which  they  very  much  exposed 
 themselves  by  the  violence  of  their  conduct.  Little 
 learning  or  prudence  appeared  among  them  :  poor 
 preaching,  and  wretched  haranguing  :  partialities  to 
 one  another,  and  violence  and  injustice  to  those  who 
 differed  from  them,  appeared  in  all  their  meetings. 
 And  these  so  much  sunk  their  reputation,  that  they 
 
liltgtoi'p  of  tlje  iPonjucocjS.  431 
 were  weaning  the  nation  most  effectually  from  all 
 fondness  to  their  government.1" 
 
 It  is  singular  that  in  Scotland  at  this  time,  as  was 
 the  case  in  England  after  the  year  1640,  the  most 
 iniquitous  courses  were  pursued,  by  the  Presby- 
 terians, against  the  Clergy,  under  the  garb  of  sanctity 
 and  purity." 
 
 Besides  citations  and  libels,  the  Assembly  had  also 
 to  consider  the  appeals  of  some  of  the  Clergy,  whom 
 they  wished  to  remove.  At  these  they  were  exceed- 
 ingly puzzled.  "  The  Assembly  was  just  so  puzzled 
 with  the  appeals  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  as  their 
 ancestors  the  Pharisees  were  with  the  question  about 
 John's  baptism  :  for  on  the  one  side,  they  feared  the 
 court,  who  desired  and  required  them  to  be  moderate : 
 but  on  the  other  hand  it  was  against  their  interest  to 
 condemn  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbyteries."1  One 
 Clergyman  was  asked,  whether  he  acknowledged  the 
 civil  government,  and  whether  he  would  submit  to 
 that  of  the  Church  ?  and  on  answering  in  the  affirm- 
 ative, he  was  asked  "  if  he  repented  of  his  com- 
 pliance with  Episcopacy  ?"  To  this  question,  he 
 replied,  "  if  it  was  a  sin,  he  would  repent  of  it." 
 The  moderator  observed,  that  he  doubted  on  the 
 subject :  and  the  poor  man  was  prohibited  from 
 preaching.7 
 
 In  the  year  1693,  it  was  ordered,  that,  beside  the 
 1  Tindal,  i.  182. 
 
 u  Historical  Relation,  &c.  pp.  11,  12,  18,  23,  35,  36.  "  To 
 annoyances  incessant,  and  almost  inconceivable,  was  added  the 
 moral  martyrdom  of  calumnies  the  most  gross,  that  the  people 
 might  believe  the  Clergy  to  be  as  their  enemies  designed  them, 
 Scandalous  Ministers."  Bishop  Walker's  Charge,  &c.  8vo.  Edin- 
 burgh, 1833,  p.  35. 
 
 *  Ibid.  39. 
 
 >  Ibid.  42,  43. 
 
432  ^isftorp  or  tlje  ilionjucoc^. 
 
 Oath  of  Allegiance,  the  Clergy  and  all  official  per- 
 sons, should  sign  an  assurance,  in  which  William 
 and  Mary  were  recognized  as  lawful  and  rightful 
 Sovereigns,  or  King  and  Queen  De  Jure,  as  well  as 
 De  Facto.  To  this  assurance  many  of  the  Presby- 
 terians had  a  most  decided  objection,  viewing  it  as 
 involving  a  question  which  they  could  not  decide. 
 Endeavours  were  not  wanting,  though  at  first  without 
 success,  to  procure  a  dispensation  in  favour  of  the 
 Presbyterians.  A  despatch  was  made  up  for  Scotland, 
 ordering  that  the  Assurance  should  be  imposed  in 
 all  cases  ;  but  Carstairs,  who  resided  in  the  court, 
 and  was  high  in  favour  with  the  king,  ventured  to 
 keep  back  this  particular  document.  When  Carstairs 
 acquainted  his  Majesty  with  what  he  had  done,  the 
 King  manifested  some  degree  of  anger ;  but  in  a 
 short  time  he  yielded  to  the  representations  of  the 
 Scotchman,  and  the  Assurance  was  dispensed  with 
 in  favour  of  the  Presbyterians.  It  appears  that  some 
 even  of  the  Presbyterians  could  not  take  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance  to  William,  on  the  ground  that  the  terms 
 of  the  Oath  to  King  James  were  so  strong,  that  they 
 could  not  transfer  their  allegiance  to  another  family  : 
 consequently  the  Oath  of  Assurance  was  much  more 
 unpalatable.  It  has  indeed  been  supposed,  that  the 
 Presbyterians  would  have  excited  a  rebellion,  if  Car- 
 stairs had  not  interposed.2    Thus  the  Presbyterians 
 
 z  Carstairs,  52 — 63.  Russell's  Keith,  497,  504.  Russell's 
 History  of  the  Church  in  Scotland,  ii.  376,  377.  There  was  ap- 
 parently some  truth  in  the  following-  sarcastic  remark :  "  Carstairs, 
 a  Super-Presbyterian,  that  is,  a  Cameronian  Preacher,  attends 
 King  Williams  person,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  like  a  jewel  in 
 his  ear:  we  make  a  shew  in  the  Chapel,  but  he  exercises  the 
 office  of  Confessor  in  the  Closet.  His  advice  is  taken  in  all  the 
 Spiritual  promotions  of  our  Church  :  and  we  feel  the  effects  of  it 
 very  sensibly."    Querela  Temporum,  p.  16. 
 
were  indulged  in  their  scruples,  while  the  Assurance 
 was  pressed  upon  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  some  of 
 whom,  however,  complied,  submitting  to  Presbytery 
 as  a  legal  establishment,  and  hoping  to  be  permitted 
 to  exercise  their  ministry  quietly. 
 
 But  the  compliance  of  any  of  the  Episcopalians 
 was  exceedingly  distasteful  to  the  Presbyterians,  who 
 contended  that  the  Clergy  who  submitted  would  only 
 acknowledge  the  De  Facto  title,  until  they  were  in  a 
 capacity  to  raise  a  rebellion.  Though  some  Presby- 
 terians pleaded  for  the  De  Jure  title,  while  others 
 opposed  it,  yet  the  Episcopal  Clergy  were  persecuted 
 by  both  parties.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  many 
 Presbyterians  were  so  averse  to  the  Assurance,  a 
 writer  of  that,  party  infers  the  disaffection  of  the  Epis- 
 copal Clergy  from  "  their  behaviour  now,  seeing  they 
 universally  refuse  the  Assurance,  though  many  of 
 them  formerly  had  sworn  allegiance,  which  is  in  plain 
 English  no  other  than  a  granting  of  the  premises,  and  a 
 denying  the  conclusion  :  or  according  to  the  example 
 of  a  certain  gentleman  in  England,  granting  the  ab- 
 dication, and  denying  the  vacancy." a  Hence,  what 
 was  a  crime  in  an  Episcopalian,  was  deemed  a  virtue 
 in  a  Presbyterian. 
 
 The  Presbyterians  were  greatly  annoyed  with  the 
 submission  of  some  of  the  Clergy  to  Presbytery,  as 
 
 *  The  Scots  Episcopal  Innocence  :  or  the  Juggling  of  that 
 Party  with  the  late  King,  his  present  Majesty,  the  Church  of 
 England,  and  the  Church  of  Scotland  demonstrated.  Together 
 with  a  Catalogue  of  the  Scots  Episcopal  Clergy,  turned  out  for 
 their  Disloyalty,  and  other  Enormities  since  the  Revolution.  And 
 a  Postscript,  with  Reflections  on  a  late  malicious  Pamphlet,  en- 
 titled The  Spirit  of  Malice  and  Slander.  Particularly  addressed 
 to  Dr.  Monroe,  and  his  journeymen  Mr.  Simon  Wild,  Mr.  An- 
 drew Johnston,  &c,  near  Thieving  Lane,  Westminster,  by  Will. 
 Laik,  London,  4to.  1694,  p.  7. 
 
 F  F 
 
434  Iktetocp  of  t\)t  JlJoniucoc^. 
 
 the  legal  establishment,  charging  them  with  sub- 
 scribing "  The  Confession  of  Faith  as  that  of  the 
 nation,  but  not  their  own."  The  charge  was  perfectly 
 true ;  and  the  Clergy  were  quite  consistent  in  their 
 course,  which  was  also  in  accordance  with  the  views 
 of  the  Government,  who  only  called  upon  them  to 
 submit  to  Presbytery,  as  the  legal  establishment. 
 King  William  was  therefore  compelled  to  interpose 
 to  check  the  Presbyterians. b  Had  a  disclaimer  of 
 Episcopacy  been  required,  not  one  Episcopal  Clergy- 
 man would  have  remained  within  the  establishment. 
 William  wished  to  embrace  all,  while  the  Presbyte- 
 rians were  anxious  to  exclude  all.  "  He  disobliged 
 the  Presbyterians  (the  only  party  on  whom  he  could 
 rely  in  Scotland)  to  gratify,"  says  the  writer  just 
 quoted,  "  the  Prelatists,  in  forbearing  to  punish  those 
 who  had  forfeited  their  lives  by  overturning  the  con- 
 stitution of  government  in  the  late  reigns  :  nay,  and 
 that  which  was  more,  advanced  some  of  them  to  the 
 highest  places  of  power  and  trust,  while  he  turned 
 out  Presbyterians  who  ventured  all  for  him,  and  were 
 steadfast  to  him.  He  disobliged  the  Presbyterians 
 by  ordering  the  General  Assembly  to  admit  the  Epis- 
 copal Clergy  on  such  terms  as  the  Parliament  have 
 thought  fit  to  refuse,  and  then  by  dissolving  them  for 
 their  declining  it."c  Thus  is  it  avowed,  that  the 
 Presbyterians  would  have  had  execution  done  upon 
 
 b  Birch's  Life  of  Tillotson  ,310,311,312.  "  This  was  a  strain 
 of  moderation  that  the  Presbyterians  were  not  easily  brought  to. 
 A  subscription  that  owned  Presbytery  to  be  the  only  legal  govern- 
 ment of  that  Church,  without  owning  any  divine  right  in  it,  was 
 far  below  their  usual  pretensions.  And  this  act  vested  the  King 
 witli  an  authority  very  like  that  which  they  used  to  condemn  as 
 Erastianism."    Tindal,  p.  246. 
 
 e  Scots  Episcopal  Innocence,  pp.  9,  10. 
 
^t'gtocp  of  tfjc  ifcortfurcntf.  435 
 
 persons,  who  merely  administered  the  law  in  the  two 
 previous  reigns :  and  King  William  is  reproached 
 for  not  executing  their  cruel  demands.  What  then 
 could  the  poor  Clergy  expect  from  such  men  !  Had 
 they  been  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  their  enemies, 
 their  case  would  have  been  sad  indeed. 
 
 This  author  gives  a  list  of  the  Clergy,  who  had 
 been  deprived  up  to  the  period  of  his  writing.  First, 
 we  have  a  considerable  number  deprived  by  the  Com- 
 mittee of  Estates,  in  the  month  of  May,  1689,  for 
 not  reading  the  Proclamation  enjoined  by  the  State : 
 and  this  the  author  considers  a  crime  of  sufficient 
 magnitude  to  justify  deprivation.  Seco?idly,  he  gives 
 another  list  of  Clergymen  "  turned  out  afterwards 
 by  the  Council."  These  are  numbered,  and  their 
 alleged  offences  are  specified.  The  perusal  of  it 
 revives  the  recollection  of  Whites  Infamous  Centurie 
 in  1643,  when  the  same  custom  of  blackening  the 
 characters  of  the  Clergy,  in  order  to  ejection,  was 
 adopted.  The  crimes  alleged  were  not  praying  for 
 the  King  and  Queen  by  name :  not  reading  the  various 
 Proclamations  :d  encouraging  the  disaffected:  not 
 obeying  the  Thanksgiving :  having  been  appointed  by 
 the  Bishops  :  leaving  the  Church  when  the  papers 
 were  read  by  others.  Such  were  the  charges.  If  the 
 Clergy  did  not  appear,  they  were  deprived  on  the 
 ground  of  their  own  confession,  their  absence  being 
 regarded  as  an  acknowledgment  of  guilt.  Thus  this 
 unscrupulous  writer,  who  gives  an  account  of  each 
 
 d  It  has  been  already  proved  that  some  of  the  Clergy  never 
 heard  of  the  Proclamations,  until  the  period  fixed  for  reading  them 
 had  elapsed.  See  "  A  Representation  of  the  Church  in  North 
 Britain,  as  to  Episcopacy  and  Liturgy,  and  of  the  Sufferings  of 
 the  orthodox  and  regular  Clergy,  from  the  enemies  to  both,  8vo. 
 London,  1718."    P.  16. 
 
436  ^(0torp  of  tlje  iponjtuw. 
 
 individual,  writes  against  the  names  of  some  who  did 
 not  appear,  "  Absent,  and  holden  as  confest.  De- 
 prived."* This  second  list  contains  the  names  of 
 one  hundred  and  eighty-four  Clergymen,  besides  the 
 twenty  names  in  the  preceding  list :  and  all  of  them 
 were  deprived  in  the  summer  of  1689.  These  acts 
 were  perpetrated  at  the  commencement  of  the  Revo- 
 lution :  and,  as  considerable  numbers  actually  sub- 
 mitted to  the  Government,  the  Presbyterians  them- 
 selves prove  most  incontestably,  as  I  have  already 
 shewn,  that  their  Church  was  set  up,  not  because  it 
 was  the  best  and  purest  system,  or  because  the  majo- 
 rity wished  it ;  but  because,  on  political  grounds,  it 
 suited  King  William's  interests.  They  cannot  boast, 
 therefore,  that  Presbytery  was  established  for  its  own 
 sake ;  but  they  must  admit  that  William  would  have 
 sanctioned  Episcopacy  in  the  Church,  if  the  Bishops 
 and  Clergy  could  have  sanctioned  the  change  in  the 
 government  of  the  State.  Such  was  the  origin  of 
 the  Presbyterian  establishment  in  1689,  though  its 
 advocates  affect  to  believe,  that  it  was  owing  to  the 
 express  voice  and  wish  of  the  nation.    It  originated 
 
 8  It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  Churches,  from  which  the 
 Clergy  had  been  expelled  by  the  rabble,  were  declared  vacant, 
 "  from  the  date  of  the  rabbling."  Representation,  &c.  p.  16. 
 Somers'  Tracts,  xv.  133,  136.  The  causes  to  which  the  aboli- 
 tion of  Episcopacy  must  be  attributed,  have  been  already  stated : 
 but  it  remains  to  be  mentioned  that  many  difficulties  were  expe- 
 rienced in  planting  Presbyterian  ministers  in  many  parishes,  the 
 people  being  Episcopalians.  The  Convention  abolished  patronage, 
 or  the  difficulties  would  have  been  still  greater,  since  almost  all 
 the  gentry,  to  whom  the  advowsons  belonged,  would  have  refused 
 to  present  Presbyterians.  But  the  dominant  parties  were  exceed- 
 ingly inconsistent  with  their  own  principles  :  for  finding  that  the 
 people  were  opposed  to  them,  they  placed  the  calling  of  ministers 
 in  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  and  not  in  the  parishes,  though 
 they  had  pretended  a  jure  Divino  for  popular  suffrage. 
 
%'0torp  of  tfje  jjaoni'urorjJ.  437 
 only  in  what  may  be  termed  the  accidental  circum- 
 stance of  the  refusal,  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  and 
 Clergy,  to  take  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  King  Wil- 
 liam and  Queen  Mary. 
 
 De  Foe  laboured,  in  his  day,  to  defend  the  Pres- 
 byterians in  their  crusades  against  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  :  but  his  very  admissions  prove  all  the  charges 
 which  he  attempts  to  refute.  "  The  first,  respects 
 the  conduct  of  the  people,  when  they  took  up  arms 
 in  a  tumultuous  manner  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 Revolution.  The  next  respects  the  judicial  proceed- 
 ings against  the  Episcopal  party  since."  The  people, 
 he  says,  first  attacked  the  Church,  because  the  Church 
 had  been  the  aggressor  previously  :  and  he  thinks 
 that  less  violence  was  committed  than  could  have 
 been  expected.  But,  says  he,  the  utmost  violence 
 was  no  more  than  "  an  over  hasty  turning  the  said 
 Episcopal  ministers  out  of  the  Parsonage  houses, 
 which  it  was  their  opinion  were  unlawfully  possessed. " 
 He  cannot  ascertain  that  any  were  killed  !  now  surely 
 on  such  principles  any  outrages  or  crimes  may  be 
 justified.  He  even  adduces  the  conduct  of  the  rabble 
 as  "  a  great  testimony  of  the  moderation  of  the  Pres- 
 byterians in  Scotland." f  The  deprivations  by  the 
 State  he  justifies  as  a  matter  of  course  :  but  he  for- 
 gets that  Presbytery  was  set  up,  merely  because  the 
 Bishops  and  Clergy  could  not  renounce  their  allegi- 
 ance to  King  James.8 
 
 f  Memoirs  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  8vo.  London,  p.  312, 
 313,  314.  An  Account  of  the  Parliament  of  Scotland  in  1703. 
 8vo.  p.  77. 
 
 R  No  Scottish  publisher  could  be  induced  to  undertake  the  pub- 
 lication of  Sages  Fundamental  Charter  of  Presbytery,  in  con- 
 sequence of  the  apprehension  of  persecution  :  and  the  work  was 
 actually  printed  in  London  in  the  year  1695.    This  circumstance 
 
438  &t0torp  of  ttje  i^onfucorjj. 
 
 The  Act  of  Comprehension,  which  must  be  re- 
 garded as  the  act  of  his  Majesty  and  his  advisers, 
 and  not  that  of  the  Presbyterians,  except  so  far  as  it 
 was  sanctioned  unwillingly  by  as  many  of  that  body 
 as  had  seats  in  Parliament,  is  actually  adduced  as 
 a  specimen  of  Presbyterian  moderation.  By  this 
 Act,  which  was  passed  in  July  1695,  all  Episcopal 
 clergymen,  who  had  not  been  deprived,  neither  had 
 yet  qualified  themselves,  were  allowed  until  Septem- 
 ber in  that  year  to  come  in  and  take  the  Oath  of 
 Allegiance,  and  to  subscribe  the  Assurance. h 
 
 By  the  Comprehension,  they  were  permitted  to 
 retain  their  benefices,  though  not  to  have  any  share 
 in  the  government  of  the  Church  :  but  as  the  Oath 
 and  the  Assurance  were  imposed  as  conditions,  few 
 only  accepted  of  the  terms.  It  is  said  by  Presby- 
 terians that  they  were  dissuaded  from  compliance  by 
 certain  noblemen.'    Some,  however,  complied  after- 
 
 proves  that  the  Presbyterian  authorities  ruled  with  an  iron  hand 
 in  Scotland.  They  would  have  no  discussions,  even  imitating  on 
 this,  as  on  many  other  occasions,  the  conduct  of  the  Church  of 
 Rome.    Keith,  520. 
 
 h  They  were  to  continue  in  their  benefices  "  under  the  King's 
 protection  without  being  subject  to  the  power  of  Presbytery.  This 
 was  carried  with  some  address  before  the  Presbyterians  were  aware 
 of  the  consequences  of  it :  for  it  was  plainly  that  which  they 
 called  Erastianism.  By  a  zealous  and  dexterous  management 
 about  seventy  of  the  best  of  them  were  brought  to  take  the  Oaths." 
 Tindal,  i.  286.  "  It  appears  by  this  Act,"  says  a  Presbyterian, 
 "  that  some  of  them  had  been  about  six  years  in  possession  of  their 
 benefices,  without  taking  the  Oaths  to  the  King  and  Queen, 
 though  there  were  express  laws  for  dispossessing  such  as  refused 
 the  said  Oaths  :  and  about  three  hundred  and  fifteen  were  turned 
 out  in  1689  and  1690  by  the  Committee  of  Estates  and  the  Privy 
 Council,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  Journals."  Account  of  Parliament, 
 82.  The  outed  Clergy,  as  they  were  termed,  or  the  Nonjurors, 
 were  not  permitted  to  baptize,  or  to  solemnize  marriages. 
 
 1  [bid.  p.  88. 
 
lfi'0tocp  of  tlje  i|ioitjuroc0.  439 
 
 wards.  Thus  Sir  James  Ogilvie  mentions  one  hundred 
 and  sixteen  in  1695,  in  his  letter  to  Carstairs.  In  the 
 same  year,  Mr.  David  Blair  proposes  to  have  an 
 assembly  to  check  the  intemperance  of  the  young 
 ministers,  Carstairs  being  afraid  of  calling  one."  The 
 clergy  thus  comprehended  were  called  Protected  mi- 
 nisters: and  as  they  had  no  share  in  the  government  of 
 the  Church,  it  was  also  understood,  that  they  should 
 not  be  subjected  to  the  Church  judicatories.  Yet 
 the  Presbyterians  attempted  to  bring  them  under  their 
 Church  courts.  Thus  the  Lord  Advocate,  writing 
 to  Carstairs  in  1699,  mentions  two  cases  in  which 
 clergymen  had  been  charged  with  crimes,  and  cited 
 before  the  Presbytery.  He  condemns  the  Presby- 
 terians :  and  it  appears,  that  their  purpose  was 
 defeated.  The  Lord  Advocate  observes,  "  I  wrote 
 to  the  Presbytery,  that,  though  it  were  not  provided 
 in  the  Act  of  Parliament,  that  the  Protected  should 
 be  exempted  ;  yet  the  Parliament,  on  the  other  hand, 
 did  expressly  wave  the  making  them  subject  to  Pres- 
 byteries, and  other  Church  judicatories;  but  pro- 
 vided, that  upon  their  application,  the  Church  might 
 assume  them  or  not ;  and  therefore  it  was  by  my 
 advice,  that  the  Presbytery  should  look  upon  them 
 as  persons  without,  and  pass  from  the  judgment  and 
 censure  they  had  pronounced  by  letting  it  fall  to  the 
 ground."  1    So  that  the  Presbytery  actually  censured 
 
 k  Castairs,  263,  264.    Laing,  iv.  259. 
 
 1  Carstairs,  495,  496.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  until  this  Act 
 of  Comprehension  passed,  the  Clergy  were  constantly  harassed  by 
 the  Presbyterian  Church  courts.  By  the  Act  of  1695,  therefore, 
 their  condition  was  bettered,  inasmuch  as  they  were  protected  from 
 the  Church  courts,  provided  they  took  the  Oaths.  Some  "  embraced 
 their  peace  on  these  conditions,  and  qualified  themselves  on  terms 
 of  law."    See  Representation  of  Church,  &c.  p.  17. 
 
440  Iktetorp  of  tlje  iPonjurocjs. 
 
 them  ;  but  the  Government  interposed  to  prevent  the 
 execution  of  the  sentence.  Such  was  the  state  of  the 
 Episcopal  Clergy  in  Scotland  during  the  reign  of 
 King  William. 
 
 On  the  accession  of  Queen  Anne,  the  Clergy  ex- 
 pected some  relief :  but  for  some  time  they  were 
 subjected  to  disappointment,  in  consequence  of  the 
 active  opposition  of  the  Presbyterians,  who  never 
 failed  to  represent  them,  if  they  scrupled  the  Oaths, 
 as  ready  to  enter  into  a  rebellion,  or,  if  they  took  the 
 Oaths,  as  still  disaffected  to  the  Government.  The 
 Queen,  however,  in  1702,  addressed  a  Letter  to  the 
 Privy  Council,  in  which  she  expressed  her  wish,  that 
 the  Episcopal  Clergy  should  be  permitted  the  free 
 exercise  of  public  worship:  for  she  knew  well,  that 
 hostility  to  Episcopacy  was  the  cause  of  the  hatred 
 entertained  by  the  Presbyterians.  The  Episcopal 
 Clergy,  therefore,  presented  an  address  to  her  Majesty, 
 in  which,  after  expressing  their  satisfaction  at  having 
 a  Queen  of  their  ancient  race  of  Kings,  they  be- 
 seech her  to  give  liberty  to  those  parishes,  whose 
 inhabitants  were  chiefly  Episcopalians,  to  select 
 ministers  of  their  own  principles.  The  next  year 
 another  address  was  presented,  in  which  they  mention 
 the  sufferings  of  the  Clergy  in  1688  and  1689,  and 
 subsequent  years.  The  Queen  returned  them  a  very 
 kind  and  gracious  answer."1 
 
 m  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  vol.  i.  153,  181.  Tindal,  with  his  usual 
 partiality  asserts,  that  the  address  to  the  Queen  was  procured  by 
 indirect  means  ;  yet  he  does  not  give  one  particle  of  evidence  in 
 proof  of  his  assertion.  In  fact,  it  was  altogether  false.  Tindal, 
 iv.  595.  Many  of  the  Clergy  never  complied  so  far  as  to  take  the 
 Oaths,  though  they  were  not  more  attached  to  the  exiled  Prince, 
 than  some  of  those  who  took  them.  The  latter  complied  with  the 
 existing  Government,  and  intended  to  live  quietly  :  but  their  in- 
 clinations were  in  favour  of  King  James  and  his  Son .    A  the 
 
^i0torp  ot*  tljc  iponjurotsJ.  441 
 
 The  Convention  Parliament,  which  had  been  con- 
 vened at  the  commencement  of  the  Revolution,  and 
 by  whom  the  crown  had  been  conferred  on  William 
 and  Mary,  had  continued  ever  since  :  for  the  Presby- 
 terians were  afraid  to  hazard  their  establishment  by 
 a  new  election.  As  that  Parliament  had  set  up 
 Presbytery,  the  party  were  anxious  to  continue  it, 
 lest  a  new  one  should  favour  Episcopacy.  This 
 circumstance  affords  a  singular  proof,  that  the  country 
 in  general  did  not,  as  the  act  of  1690  declared,  view 
 Episcopacy  as  a  grievance.  A  new  Parliament  was 
 now,  therefore,  summoned  ;  and  an  Act  of  Toleration 
 was  proposed,  at  which  the  Presbyterians  became 
 greatly  alarmed.  In  an  address  to  the  Lord  High 
 Commissioner,  the  General  Assembly  say,  "  they 
 are  bold  in  the  Lord,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Church 
 of  God  to  attest  his  Grace,  and  the  most  honourable 
 estates,  that  no  such  motion  of  any  legal  Toleration, 
 to  those  of  the  prelatical  principles  might  be  enter- 
 tained by  the  Parliament."  To  tolerate  "  those  of 
 that  way  "  said  these  meek  and  humble  ministers  of 
 the  Gospel,  "would  be  to  establish  iniquity  by  a 
 law  :"  and  so  artfully  did  the  Kirk  manage  matters, 
 that  the  act  for  a  Toleration  was  dropped  for  this 
 
 Presbyterians  found  it  very  difficult  to  supply  the  churches,  a  con- 
 siderable number  of  Episcopal  clergymen  were  permitted  to  retain 
 their  benefices  without  taking  the  Oaths.  Keith,  by  Russell,  p. 
 502.  See  also  Boyer's  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  54.  I  have  a  copy 
 of  this  Address,  printed  on  a  single  page,  the  reverse  being  blank. 
 It  is  one  of  the  original  copies,  which  were  printed  for  circulation 
 among  the  friends  of  the  Clergy.  On  this  copy  is  the  following 
 memorandum  in,  I  believe,  the  handwriting  of  Brett.  "  This 
 address  was  presented  by  Dr.  Skeen  and  Dr.  Scott,  who  were  in- 
 troduced by  ye  D.  of  Queensbury  and  ye  Viscount  of  Tarbat, 
 March  1703." 
 
442  l&ftftocjj  of  tlje  jftonjucotg. 
 
 Session."  The  time  was  not  fully  arrived,  and  the 
 friends  of  the  Clergy  permitted  the  Bill  to  be  laid 
 aside.  The  bare  proposal  filled  the  Presbyterians 
 with  alarm.  "They  published  several  books  against 
 it,  and  were  the  aggressors  in  the  paper  war  that  then 
 commenced  upon  that  subject.  Mr.  George  Mel- 
 drum,  a  chief  man  amongst  them,  and  moderator  of 
 their  General  Assembly,  preached  his  sermon  against 
 Toleration  before  her  Majesty's  High  Commis- 
 sioner." ° 
 
 Meldrum  had  been  an  Episcopalian ;  but  in  con- 
 sequence of  some  offence  he  joined  the  Presbyterians 
 in  1687,  and  now  wished  to  persecute  his  old  friends. 
 Sage's  Work,  consisting  of  several  Letters,  originated 
 in  Meldrum's  Sermon.  In  the  close  of  his  Preface 
 he  says  :  "  I  cannot  think  but  that  all  good  men,  and 
 true  sons  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  sensibly 
 affected  with  the  calamities  of  their  sister  Church  of 
 Scotland ;  and  it  must  move  their  pity  to  see  her  in 
 the  dust,  for  no  other  reason,  but  because  she  is 
 Episcopal,  and  consequently  Apostolical." 
 
 The  intolerable  tyranny  exercised  at  this  time,  by 
 the  Presbyterians  in  Scotland,  may  be  illustrated  by 
 the  case  of  Mr.  James  Grame.  This  gentleman  was 
 a  complying  Episcopal  clergyman  at  Dumfermline. 
 Not  only  did  he  comply,  but  he  was  even  a  defender 
 
 n  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  vol.  i.  183,  185,  186.  Account  of  the 
 Parliament  of  1703,  pp.  38—42.    Tindal,  iv.  599. 
 
 °  Sage's  Reasonableness  of  a  Toleration  enquired  into,  purely 
 on  Church  Principles.  London,  8vo.  1705.  Preface.  This  is 
 a  very  learned  and  able  work,  as  indeed  are  all  the  productions  of 
 Sage.  See  the  Petition  to  the  Parliament  against  the  proposed 
 Toleration  in  Boyer's  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  p.  65.  See  also 
 the  Somers'  Tracts  for  specimens  of  Presbyterian  hostility  to  a 
 Toleration,  vol.  xii.  490-1. 
 
^t'0tocp  of  rtje  $onjuroc&  443 
 
 of  the  Revolution  :  yet  because  he  believed  Episco- 
 pacy to  be  of  Apostolic  institution,  he  was  persecuted 
 by  the  Presbyterians. 
 
 Mr.  Grame  was  summoned  to  appear  before  the 
 Provincial  Synod  of  Fyfe,  in  the  year  1701  :  when 
 it  was  alleged  that  he  had  reflected  on  the  covenant, 
 and  that  he  had  asserted  that  Christ  died  for  all  men. 
 For  these  alleged  crimes,  he  was  actually  deposed 
 from  the  ministry  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  court. 
 This  is  only  one,  among  many,  of  the  tyrannical  acts 
 of  the  party  at  the  period  now  under  review.15 
 
 Though  the  proposed  toleration  was  not  carried, 
 and  the  state  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  was  not  much 
 improved,  yet  they  had  the  satisfaction  of  knowing-, 
 that  the  Queen  wished  to  relieve  them  from  the 
 tyranny  of  the  Presbyterians.  The  Union  of  England 
 and  Scotland  took  place,  according  to  the  Act,  on 
 the  1st  of  May,  1707  :  but  the  Episcopal  Clergy 
 were  not  affected  by  that  important  measure,  which 
 was  carried  as  a  matter  of  policy,  though  some  of  the 
 Presbyterians  represented  it  as  an  apostacy.  The 
 
 p  The  Famous  Tryal  of  the  late  Reverend  and  Learned  Mr. 
 James  Grame,  Episcopal  Minister  of  Dumfermline  :  formerly 
 Professor  of  Humanity  at  St.  Andrew's,  before  the  several  Courts 
 of  Church  Judicature  in  Scotland  ;  who  was,  amongst  other  things, 
 arraigned  by  the  Commissioners  for  the  Kirk  Session  at  Dumferm- 
 line, condemned,  and  at  last  deposed  by  the  Provincial  Synod  of 
 Fyfe,  on  the  20th  of  June,  1701,  for  having  advanced  and  main- 
 tained two  of  the  great  and  capital  truths  of  the  Christian  religion, 
 viz.  1.  That  Christ  died  for  all  those  that  profess  the  Gospel;  2. 
 That  he  hath  purchased  pardon  and  salvation  for  them,  upon  con- 
 dition that  they  believe  in  him  and  repent  of  their  sins.  Being  a 
 true  and  impartial  narrative  of  the  Presbyterian  proceedings  against 
 Mr.  Grame :  together  with  his  Defences  at  large.  The  whole 
 writ  by  the  defendant  soon  after  he  was  deposed,  and  now  first 
 published  for  the  information  of  such  as  are  strangers  to  the  doc- 
 trines and  tenets  of  Presbyterians.    London,  8vo.  1719. 
 
444  l^tgtorj?  of  flje  /portjutortf. 
 
 opponents  to  that  measure  considered,  that  they  were 
 pledged,  by  the  covenant,  to  urge  perpetual  war 
 against  Prelacy  :  whereas,  the  union  would  connect 
 them  with  a  country,  whose  Church  was  Episcopal, 
 and  which  they  feared  might  swallow  up  their  own 
 beloved  Presbytery.  Those  Presbyterians  who  con- 
 sented were  regarded,  by  their  more  zealous  brethren, 
 as  Apostates  from  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  as  Eras- 
 tians,  or  as  persons  indifferent  alike  to  all  forms  and 
 all  systems.  Many  preached  against  it,  and  others 
 prayed  against  it :  still  the  measure  was  carried."1 
 The  first  Parliament  of  Great  Britain  was  opened  on 
 the  23rd  of  October,  1707. 
 
 At  this  period  the  Episcopalians  were  in  no  way 
 diminished  in  numbers,  though  official  posts  could 
 only  be  filled  by  Presbyterians  ;  and  they  had 
 nothing  to  hold  out  to  proselytes,  except  a  prospect 
 of  persecution  by  the  Kirk.  Previous  to  the  Union, 
 and  during  the  progress  of  the  proceedings  which 
 led  to  it,  some  of  the  adherents  of  the  Pretender 
 were  engaged  in  a  scheme  for  an  invasion.  Ker,  a 
 Presbyterian,  who  was  acquainted  with  many  of  the 
 Jacobites,  was  employed  by  the  Government  as  a 
 spy.  This  gentleman  has  left  us  various  notices  of 
 the  Episcopalians  in  The  Memoirs  of  His  Life, 
 which  were  published  in  1726.  His  evidence  on 
 the  subject  may  be  depended  upon,  because,  as  a 
 Presbyterian,  he  was  necessarily  opposed  to  Episco- 
 
 i  Somerville,  213.  The  rigid  Presbyterians  objected  to  receive 
 laws  from  a  Parliament  where  Bishops  sat  as  members.  They 
 looked  upon  such  a  thing  as  contrary  to  the  covenant.  Ker's 
 Memoirs,  p.  29.  One  of  the  Preachers  of  the  Cameronians  stated 
 publicly,  that  the  Queen  had  forfeited  her  right  to  the  crown,  by 
 imposing  the  union  on  the  country.    Ibid.  p.  53. 
 
i£i0torp  of  ttjc  iponjuror^.  44J 
 pacy.  He  states  the  Episcopal  party  to  have  been 
 then  "  near  one  half  of  the  nation."1  So  little  were 
 the  Presbyterians  indebted,  either  to  their  numbers, 
 or  their  principles,  for  the  ascendancy  of  their 
 system. 
 
 But  many  of  the  Presbyterians,  like  some  of  the 
 English  Whigs  at  the  same  period,  were  secret 
 favourers  of  the  Pretender's  claims,  though,  only  a 
 few  years  before,  they  had  denounced  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  because  they  could  not  take  the  Oaths. 
 Especially  was  this  the  case  subsequent  to  the  Union  : 
 so  that,  in  consequence  of  their  dislike  to  that  mea- 
 sure, they  were  even  ready  to  restore  the  son  of 
 James  II.  This  is  a  singular  circumstance :  but 
 abundant  evidence  of  the  fact  is  furnished  by  Ker, 
 by  Hooke,  and  by  Lockhart.  They  agreed  to  sup- 
 port the  Pretender  on  condition,  that  he  never  con- 
 sented to  the  Union,  and  that  he  supported  the  Pro- 
 testant religion.  Could  they  have  set  the  Pretender 
 on  the  throne,  on  these  conditions,  they  would  have 
 done  so,  in  consequence  of  their  hostility  to  the 
 Union. 8 
 
 The  Union  occupied  the  Presbyterians  so  com- 
 pletely at  this  period,  that  their  attention  was  for  a 
 time  drawn  off  from  the  Episcopal  Clergy  :  but  when 
 the  feeling,  which  that  measure  created,  had  sub- 
 sided, they  did  not  overlook  a  body  of  men,  whose 
 
 r  Ker's  Memoirs,  p.  16.  At  this  time  none  of  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  were  legally  tolerated  except  those  who  held  Parish  Churches 
 under  the  Comprehension  Act  :  but  in  consequence  of  the  Queen's 
 countenance  and  support,  the  worship  of  others  in  private  houses 
 was  connived  at.    Keith,  by  Russell,  506. 
 
 s  Ker's  Memoirs,  pp.  28-9.  Hooke's  Secret  History  of  Nego- 
 tiations in  Scotland  in  1707,  pp.  11,  31,  43—47.  Lockhart 
 Papers,  i.  302—308. 
 
44(3  l^gtorp  of  tlje  i]ioniucoc0, 
 
 principles  they  so  much  disliked.'  A  case  occurred 
 in  the  year  1709,  which  excited  all  their  ancient 
 hatred,  and  which  may  be  regarded  as  one  of  the 
 grossest  instances  of  intolerance  recorded  in  the 
 annals  of  bigotry.  Mr.  Greenshields,  whose  father 
 had  been  rabbled  out  of  his  Church  at  the  Revolution, 
 was  ordained  by  one  of  the  Scottish  Prelates  :  and 
 after  serving  a  curacy  in  Ireland,  he  ventured  to 
 return  to  Scotland.  Having  opened  a  meeting  house 
 in  Edinburgh,  he  commenced  the  use  of  the  English 
 Liturgy,  which  had  not  yet  been  adopted  in  the 
 Episcopal  congregations. 
 
 By  the  Act  of  Comprehension,  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  were  protected  and  exempt  from  the  Church 
 courts,  provided  they  took  the  Oaths  and  the  Assur- 
 ance. Greenshields  had  complied  according  to  law, 
 and  also  prayed  for  her  Majesty  :  consequently,  the 
 Presbyterian  Church  courts  had  no  authority  in  such 
 a  case,  since  he  was  specially  exempted  from  their 
 jurisdiction.  u 
 
 '  The  writer  of  the  Life  of  Carstairs  says  of  the  Union,  "  The 
 Union  of  the  kingdoms,  though  attended  with  other  happy  conse- 
 quences, gave  a  fatal  blow  to  the  importance  of  the  Church  of 
 Scotland  in  the  eye  of  Government :  and  the  General  Assembly 
 was  no  longer  formidable  to  administration,  as  it  had  been  from 
 the  Revolution  down  to  this  period."  Surely  this  was  a  happy 
 result.    Carstairs,  78. 
 
 u  Lockhart  Papers,  i.  345—348,  520—528.  In  1703,  a  riot 
 took  place  at  Glasgow  in  consequence  of  the  English  Service. 
 Mr.  Burges,  who  had  taken  the  Oaths,  attempted  to  conduct  the 
 Service  according  to  the  Liturgy,  upon  which  the  mob  broke  into 
 the  meeting,  and,  but  for  the  interference  of  the  magistrates,  would 
 have  proceeded  to  acts  of  violence  against  the  congregation.  Somer- 
 ville,  468.  In  two  years,  twenty  thousand  copies  of  the  Book  of 
 Common  Prayer  were  circulated  in  Scotland,  notwithstanding  the 
 attempts  of  the  Presbyterians  to  suppress  it,  as  the  English  Mass. 
 Somers'  Tracts,  xii.  490,491. 
 
^i'0toc?  of  tfje  ifronjtum%  447 
 
 De  Foe  published  his  History  of  the  Union,  while 
 Greenshields's  case  was  before  the  public.    Had  he 
 waited  until  the  decision  of  the  House  of  Lords  had 
 been  awarded,  it  is  not  unlikely,  that  he  would  have 
 expressed  himself  in  terms  somewhat  different.  His 
 conduct,  however,  in  this  matter,  proves  him  to  have 
 been  dishonest  and  unprincipled  as  a  writer  of  history, 
 whatever  may  have  been  the  case  with  him  in  other 
 matters.    While  the  cause  was  pending,  this  un- 
 scrupulous writer  insinuated,  that  the  matter  was 
 devised  by  the  Nonjurors,  to  bring  "  the  people  to 
 prosecute  and  attack  them."     He  says,  that  the 
 Government  and  magistrates  were  so  lenient,  that 
 they  would  not  persecute  the  Nonjurors,  though  they 
 even  prayed  for  the  Pretender,  and  that,  therefore, 
 another  expedient  was  devised,  "  which  they  are  as- 
 sured the  Scots  will  not  bear :  and  this  was  erecting 
 the  Common  Prayer  or  English  Liturgy  in  Scotland." 
 He  proceeds :  "  the  people  that  made  this  attempt, 
 behoved  to  get  somebody  to  do  it :  that,  however 
 Jacobite  he  might  be  in  principle,  was  yet  Latitudi- 
 narian  enough  in  conscience,  that  he  could  swallow 
 all  the  Oaths.    The  design  being  concerted,  they 
 found  a  tool  :  a  poor  curate  of  15  lib.  a  year  in  Ire- 
 land, but  born  in  Scotland,  comes  over  to  Edinburgh 
 to  mend  his  commons  :  and  having  taken  the  Oaths, 
 he  falls  in  with  this  party,  who  finding  him  a  person 
 of  prostituted  morals,  a  large  stock  in  the  face,  and 
 ready,  if  well  paid,  to  do  their  work,  they  promise 
 him  fourscore  pounds  a  year,  and  accordingly  begin  a 
 subscription  for  it."   He  asserts,  that  the  plea  that  it 
 was  used  to  accommodate  the  English  strangers  was 
 not  true.    "  The  people,"  says  he,  "  as  every  body 
 knew  they  would,  immediately  took  fire  at  the  thing, 
 but  not  doing  him  the  honour  to  rabble  him,  which 
 
448  %'0torp  of  tfje  iI5onjut:oc0. 
 
 seemed  to  be  what  his  party  expected,  they  complained 
 to  the  magistrates."" 
 
 The  case  was  taken  up  by  some  of  Greenshields's 
 friends,  or  rather  the  friends  of  the  Church  in  Lon- 
 don, who,  in  the  Preface  to  the  published  account, 
 express  a  hope,  that  it  may  issue  in  putting  the 
 Scottish  Episcopalians  in  possession  of  those  bless- 
 ings, which  were  enjoyed  by  all  the  rest  of  the 
 nation.  In  that  account  it  was  stated  that  they  only 
 wished  for  liberty  to  worship  God  in  that  way 
 which  their  consciences  dictated.7 
 
 From  this  account,  and  also  from  De  Foe,  we 
 learn,  that  the  General  Assembly  interposed.  Some 
 of  the  people  of  Edinburgh  petitioned  the  Com- 
 mission of  the  Assembly  on  the  subject,  in  which 
 they  stated,  that  the  English  service  "  was  very 
 grievous  and  offensive  "  to  them,  and  would  prove 
 "  of  dangerous  consequence  to  the  Church  if  not 
 speedily  remedied."  Like  the  Presbyterians  of  a 
 former  age,  the  Petitioners  pretend,  that  the  Clergy, 
 who  preached  in  the  Meeting  Houses,  were  not  only 
 "  unsound  in  their  judgments ;  but  scandalous  and  im- 
 moral in  their  lives  and  practices"  The  Commission 
 of  Assembly  soon  passed  an  Act,  in  which  it  was 
 alleged,  that  the  Union  was  infringed  by  the  use  of 
 "  set  forms,  rites,  and  ceremonies  :"  and  that  such 
 
 x  De  Foe's  History  of  the  Union  of  Great  Britain.  Fol.  Edin- 
 burgh, 1709.    Preface,  pp.  xix.  xx. 
 
 y  The  True  State  of  the  Case  of  the  Reverend  Mr.  Greenshields, 
 now  Prisoner  in  the  Tolbooth  in  Edinburgh,  for  reading  the  Com- 
 mon Prayer  in  an  Episcopal  congregation  there  :  though  qualified 
 by  taking  the  Oaths,  and  praying  for  the  Queen  and  the  Princess 
 Sophia,  with  copies  of  several  Original  Papers  relating  to  his  ac- 
 cusation, defence,  imprisonment  and  appeal  to  the  Lords  of  the 
 Session,  and  since  to  the  House  of  Lords.    London,  8vo.  1710. 
 
tI?!£torp  of  tljc  jponjurorjs.  449 
 
 innovations  were  dangerous  to  their  Church,  and 
 contrary  to  their  confession,  which  declares,  "  that 
 nothing  is  to  be  admitted  in  the  worship  of  God,  but 
 what  is  prescribed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures."  Yet 
 how  many  things  are  practised  in  Presbyterian  wor- 
 ship, which  are  not  prescribed  in  the  Sacred  Volume. 
 They  then  prohibited  all  such  innovations  !  They  were 
 of  course  at  liberty  to  prescribe  anything  in  their 
 own  Churches ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
 they  could  exercise  jurisdiction  over  those,  who  did 
 not  belong  to  their  Communion.  The  case  was, 
 therefore,  referred  to  the  Kirk  judicatories.  Thus  a 
 law  was  made,  and  then  Greenshields  was  brought 
 under  its  operation. 
 
 In  consequence  of  this  Act  of  Assembly,  the  Kirk 
 Session  presented  Greenshields  to  the  Presbytery, 
 by  whom  he  was  examined  respecting  his  orders ; 
 for  it  seems  that,  having  the  case  of  England  before 
 their  eyes,  they  were  anxious  to  avoid  the  question 
 of  the  Liturgy :  or  rather  wished  to  punish  him  on 
 other  grounds.  They  therefore  deposed  him  from 
 the  exercise  of  the  ministry  :  and  on  his  refusal  to 
 recognize  their  authority,  they  requested  the  magis- 
 trates to  execute  their  sentence.  At  the  call  of  the 
 Presbytery,  the  magistrates,  as  he  did  not  cease  to 
 officiate,  committed  him  to  the  Tolbooth,  in  which 
 prison  he  was  lying  when  the  case  was  published  in 
 London.  Some  few  years  before,  the  Presbyterians 
 wrote  and  preached  in  favour  of  liberty  of  conscience, 
 but  now  it  was  denied  to  a  man  who  used  the  Eng- 
 lish  Liturgy.  He  had  taken  the  Oaths  to  her  Majesty  : 
 and  yet  he  was  punished. 
 
 During  the  same  year  a  Reply  to  the  case  of  Green- 
 shields was  published  in  London,  in  which  it  was  at- 
 tempted to  justify  the  Presbytery  in  their  proceed- 
 
 G  G 
 
450  l^isstocp  of  ttje  il5onj'uror0. 
 
 ings.  Like  De  Foe,  the  writer  pretends  that  the  in- 
 dividual was  not  imprisoned  for  reading  the  Liturgy  : 
 but  for  exercising  his  ministry  without  authority.  He 
 would  not  however  have  been  disturbed  but  for  the 
 Liturgy.  The  author  deprecates  the  depriving  of 
 the  Church  of  Scotland  of  the  power  to  call  any 
 preachers  to  account,  whether  Episcopalians  or  Pres- 
 byterians :  adding,  that  this  power  was  once  pos- 
 sessed and  ought  to  be  continued.  To  prove  the 
 moderation  of  Presbytery,  he  subjoins  a  list  of  Epis- 
 copal Clergymen,  who,  at  that  time,  occupied 
 Churches  and  Manses.  This  privilege,  however, 
 was  granted  by  the  Parliament,  not  by  the  Scottish 
 Church,  which  used  all  its  exertions  to  prevent  any 
 such  indulgence.  "  To  show  how  little  cause  the 
 Episcopal  party  in  Scotland  have  to  complain  of  the 
 Presbyterians  there  for  want  of  moderation,  'tis  thought 
 fit  to  add  the  following  list,  wherein  those  marked 
 N.J.  are  Nonjurors,  who  don't  pray  for  the  Queen." 
 There  are  one  hundred  and  twelve  names  in  the  list, 
 of  which  ten  only  are  marked  as  Nonjurors.  Then 
 it  is  added,  "  besides  a  great  many  others,  that  preach 
 in  meeting  houses,  where  some  pray  for  the  Pretender : 
 others,  who  do  not  refuse  to  pray  for  the  Queen :  and 
 some  pray  only  for  their  Sovereign,  without  naming 
 any  body,  but  mean  the  Pretender."2 
 
 No  one  doubts  that  many  Episcopal  Clergymen 
 retained  their  benefices  :  but  no  merit  can  be  pleaded 
 
 *  Remarks  on  a  Pamphlet  entitled  A  True  State  of  the  Case 
 of  the  Revd.  Mr.  Greenshields,  &c.  The  notorious  Falsehoods 
 contained  in  it  laid  open ;  and  the  Proceedings  against  him  in 
 Scotland  vindicated.  With  the  Answers  of  the  Magistrates  of 
 Edinburgh  to  his  Bill  of  Suspension,  &c.  And  a  List  of  the  Epis- 
 copal Ministers,  who  enjoy  Churches  and  benefices  in  Scotland, 
 without  being  obliged  to  conformity.    4to.  London.  1710. 
 
i&fctorp  of  tlje  iJJoni'urorsf,  451 
 for  the  Scottish  Church  on  this  ground,  since  the 
 permission  was  granted  by  the  State,  against  her 
 wishes.  This  writer,  therefore,  unwittingly  adds  his 
 testimony  to  the  fact,  that  Presbytery  was  not  set  up 
 because  the  majority  wished  it,  but  as  an  act  of  poli- 
 tical expediency.* 
 
 So  inveterate  was  the  hatred  of  the  Presbyterians 
 to  the  English  Liturgy,  that  they  would  not  allow  its 
 use,  in  the  case  of  English  regiments  stationed  in 
 Scotland.  Mr.  Chamberlayne,  writing  to  Carstairs, 
 himself  an  advocate  for  the  use  of  the  Liturgy,  where- 
 ever  it  was  wished,  remarks  :  "  The  inclosed  account 
 of  the  great  severity  of  your  Church  against  chap- 
 lains of  English  regiments,  for  reading  the  Liturgy 
 to  their  own  people  only,  is  so  like  the  Inquisition, 
 that  it  must  needs  raise  an  indignation  in  the  minds 
 of  all  good  Christians.1'  An  English  officer,  writing 
 from  Edinburgh,  says  :  "  Though  our  chaplain  was 
 here,  yet  he  was  not  suffered  to  preach  :  which  is 
 what  we  were  never  denied  in  the  most  rigid  Roman 
 Catholic  countries. '"'  Carstairs  was  a  man  of  too 
 much  sense  and  moderation  to  fall  in  with  the  rigid 
 Presbyterians.  These  cases  disprove  the  assertion, 
 in  the  pamphlet  against  Greenshields,  that  he  was 
 
 a  In  some  parts  of  Scotland  the  majority  of  the  people  avowed 
 themselves  Episcopalians,  when  the  penal  laws  were  removed,  a 
 circumstance  quite  in  the  teeth  of  the  assertions  so  commonly 
 made,  that  the  population  was  altogether  Presbyterian. 
 
 b  The  hostility  to  the  Liturgy  was  quite  as  strong'  as  in  the  days 
 of  Charles  the  First,  when  Janet  Geddes  threw  the  stool  at  the 
 Dean  of  Edinburgh.  There  was  still  the  same  desire  to  dictate 
 to,  or  to  interfere  with,  England.  "  They  pray  publickly  for  the 
 conversion  of  England  from  their  superstition  and  idolatry, 
 meaning  our  Episcopacy  and  Liturgy  :  and  hope  once  more  to 
 send  their  covenant  for  a  text  to  us.  Would  we  had  their  zeal, 
 or  they  our  truth."    Sage's  Vindication.  Preface. 
 
452  ^I'gtorp  of  tlje  jponfurorjs. 
 
 not  imprisoned  for  reading  the  Liturgy.  Alluding 
 to  the  violence  of  some  of  the  Presbyterians,  the 
 writer  of  the  Life  of  Carstairs  says, "  he  felt  this  in  a 
 variety  of  instances,  during  the  course  of  those  prose- 
 cutions which  were  carried  on  by  his  more  rigid 
 brethren,  in  different  corners  of  Scotland,  against 
 some  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  who,  by  virtue  of  the 
 powers  entrusted  with  Presbyteries,  were,  upon  the 
 most  frivolous  pretexts,  turned  out  of  their  livings. 
 But  he  felt  it  most  of  all  in  the  case  of  Greenshields. 
 Having  in  vain  attempted  to  dissuade  his  brethren 
 and  the  civil  magistrate  from  so  impolitic  a  step  as 
 that  of  stating  themselves  in  downright  opposition  to 
 the  Church  of  England,  at  the  bar  of  the  House  of 
 Peers,  he  ventured  to  prognosticate  that  their  severity 
 in  that  instance  would  only  open  a  door  for  other  en- 
 croachments." He  adds  :  "  Accordingly  it  is  well 
 known  that  it  was  the  proceedings  in  the  affair  of 
 Greenshields  which  laid  the  foundation,  as  it  afforded 
 the  fairest  pretext  for  the  Act  of  Toleration,  and  the 
 Act  restoring  patronages,  which  in  the  circumstances 
 of  the  country  at  that  time  were  considered  as  pre- 
 ludes to  the  restoration  of  prelacy  and  the  Pre- 
 tender."0 
 
 Yet  De  Foe  laboured  to  prove  that  the  refusal  to 
 permit  the  English  Liturgy  to  be  used  was  not  an 
 act  of  persecution.  The  House  of  Lords  had  not 
 given  their  decision,  at  the  period  of  his  writing  : 
 or  perhaps,  as  a  professed  advocate  of  liberty  of  con- 
 science, he  might  not  have  adopted  such  an  unreason- 
 able course.  He  asserted  that  the  attempt  to  intro- 
 duce the  Liturgy  was  "  a  political  design  to  carry  on 
 a  party  interest  among  us  in  England,  and  embroil, 
 
 r  Carstairs,  79,  776,  782,  783. 
 
^igtocp  of  ttje  ifconfurorss.  453 
 
 if  possible,  the  people  of  Scotland  with  the  Govern- 
 ment." Then  he  says  :  "  After  all,  the  Church  of 
 England  have  no  reason  to  take  it  ill  that  the  Scots 
 do  not  make  use  of  the  Common  Prayer,  any  more 
 than  the  Scots  have  to  take  it  ill,  that  the  Church  of 
 England  do  not  make  use  of  the  Presbyterian  disci- 
 pline." And  again  :  "  if  any  have  reason,  therefore, 
 to  take  ill  any  thing  from  the  other,  the  Church  of 
 Scotland  has  the  first  offence  given  her,  by  this  at- 
 tempt of  invading  her  uniformity."  d 
 
 It  appears  difficult  to  comprehend  the  author's 
 views  of  Toleration :  for  while  he  pleaded  for  the  most 
 perfect  liberty  of  worship  in  England,  he  opposed  the 
 use  of  the  Liturgy  in  Scotland.  His  disingenuous- 
 ness,  not  to  say  dishonesty,  is  obvious  in  the  pre- 
 ceding extracts.  It  was  never  attempted  to  force  the 
 Liturgy  upon  the  Church  of  Scotland.  All  that  was 
 required  was  the  liberty  to  use  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer  in  Episcopal  congregations.  His  parallel 
 between  the  Liturgy  and  the  Presbyterian  discipline 
 is  unsustained  :  for  any  congregations,  in  England, 
 separating  from  the  Church,  were  at  liberty  to  adopt 
 the  Presbyterian  discipline,  or  any  form  which  might 
 suit  their  inclinations.  The  Episcopalians  only  re- 
 quired the  same  liberty  in  Scotland,  without  wishing 
 to  interfere  with  the  national  establishment :  but  this 
 reasonable  request  was  denied  by  the  Presbyterians. 
 
 The  matter  was  viewed  very  differently  in  the 
 House  of  Lords.  Writing  to  Wake,  then  Bishop  of 
 Lincoln,  Bishop  Nicolson  says  :  "  We  believe  that 
 the  Presbyterian  Discipline,  and  Confession  of  Faith, 
 are  there  established  by  law :  and  that  the  treaty  of 
 Union  hath  confirmed  both  those  :  but  we  know  of  no 
 
 l)c  Foe's  History  of  the  Union.     Preface  xxviii.  xxix.  xxx. 
 
454  it^ijjtorp  of  ttje  j^onjucocjS, 
 
 Act  of  Uniformity  which  ratifies  their  peculiar  way  of 
 worship.  If  the  extemporary  prayers  of  the  Presby- 
 terians are  current  on  this  side  of  the  Tweed,  why 
 should  not  the  Episcopal  set  forms  be  likewise  received 
 on  the  other."  He  then  alludes  to  the  objection, 
 that  it  would  inflame  the  Scots,  and  asks  :  "  And  what 
 if  it  should  ?  We,  who  live  nearest  them,  have  no 
 astonishing  apprehensions  of  the  consequences  of  any 
 heats  that  can  happen  on  such  an  occasion.  It  would 
 look  somewhat  oddly,  that  a  moderator  of  a  Northern 
 Presbytery  should  have  the  liberty  of  worshipping  God 
 in  his  own  way  at  Lincoln  or  Carlisle,  and  that  you 
 and  I  should  be  debarred  the  like  indulgence  at  Edin- 
 burgh or  Glasgow." h  The  subject  was  noticed  by 
 Swift  in  the  Examiner.  "  It  is  somewhat  extraordi- 
 nary," says  he,  "  to  see  our  Whigs  and  Fanatics  keep 
 such  a  stir  about  the  sacred  Act  of  Toleration,  while 
 their  brethren  will  not  allow  a  connivance  in  so  near 
 a  neighbourhood  :  especially  if  what  the  gentleman 
 insists  on  in  his  letter  be  true,  that  nine  parts  in  ten 
 of  the  nobility  and  gentry,  and  two  in  three  of  the 
 commons  are  Episcopal :  of  which  one  argument  he 
 offereth  is  the  present  choice  of  their  representatives 
 in  both  Houses,  though  opposed  to  the  utmost  by  the 
 preachings,  threatenings,  and  anathemas  of  the  Kirk. 
 
 e  Nicolson's  Epistolary  Correspondence,  ii.  398,  399.  Green- 
 sliields  remained  in  prison  until  liberated  by  the  decision  of  the 
 House  of  Lords.  Soraerville,  469.  Somerville  remarks,  "  Though 
 this  sentence  was  agreeable  to  every  principle  of  liberality  and 
 justice,  yet  it  gave  great  offence  to  the  Clergy  and  members  of  the 
 establishment."  Ibid.  That  the  English  Dissenters  agreed  with 
 the  Presbyterians  is  clear  from  their  writers.  They  demanded  a 
 toleration  for  themselves  :  but  denied  it  to  others.  Thus  says  one  : 
 "  Three  famous  Incendiaries,  Sacheverell  in  England,  Higgins  in 
 Ireland,  and  Greenshields  in  Scotland,  are  punished  only  with  pre- 
 ferments."   Bennet's  Memorial,  398. 
 
of  ttjc  iI3onjut*oc0.  455 
 If  these  be  the  principles  of  the  High-Kirk,  God 
 preserve  at  least  the  southern  parts  from  their  tyranny." 
 Greenshields  was  liberated  by  the  decision  of  the 
 House. 
 
 Greenshields's  persecution  was  the  fore-runner  of 
 that  toleration,  which  at  last  became  established  in 
 Scotland  as  in  England.  It  led  the  friends  of  the 
 Clergy  to  see  that  they  were  not  safe  under  the  Act 
 of  Comprehension.  Though  they  were  protected  and 
 exempted  from  the  Church  Courts,  yet  the  Presby- 
 teries were  constantly  claiming  authority,  and  anxious 
 to  execute  it.  The  case  of  Greenshields,  there- 
 fore, brought  the  matter  to  an  issue  :  for  the  English 
 Parliament  perceived,  that  the  Clergy  in  Scotland 
 were  still  at  the  mercy  of  the  Presbyterians.  Two 
 measures  were  accordingly  proposed  in  Parliament, 
 the  one  an  Act  of  Toleration  :  the  other  an  Act  for 
 restoring  Patronage  to  those  who  had  formerly  en- 
 joyed it.  Both  measures  were  triumphantly  carried 
 through  Parliament :  though  both  were  vehemently 
 opposed  by  the  Presbyterians.  They  could  not  tole- 
 rate the  Liturgy.  The  Kirk  therefore  presented  a 
 petition  against  the  measure,  in  which  they  deprecated 
 the  evils  that  would  ensue.  By  the  Toleration  Act 
 the  Episcopal  Clergy,  who  took  the  Oaths  were  per- 
 mitted to  use  the  English  Liturgy  without  molestation. 
 In  the  House  of  Commons  the  minority  against  the 
 Bill  only  amounted  to  seventeen.'  It  was  specially 
 enacted  that  no  pain  or  forfeiture  should  be  in- 
 curred "  by  reason  of  any  excommunication  by  the 
 Church  Judicatory  in  Scotland."  Thus  were  the  Pres- 
 byterians deprived  of  that  tyrannical  power,  which, 
 notwithstanding  Acts  of  Parliament,  they  had  fre- 
 
 f  Somcrvillo,  4G9,  470.    Tindal,  ii.  '243. 
 
456  l^tsftocp  of  ttjc  iRonjurortf. 
 
 quently  exercised.8  The  Bill,  though  in  favour  of  the 
 Book  of  Common  Prayer,  was  opposed  by  Burnet. 
 It  was  carried  in  1712. 
 
 From  this  period  until  the  year  1716,  the  Episco- 
 palians enjoyed  the  liberty  of  public  worship.  The 
 toleration  also  removed  the  odium,  under  which  the 
 Scottish  Kirk  had  been  placed  :  and  the  Act  for  re- 
 storing patronage  to  the  men  of  property,  gave  them 
 an  interest  in  the  established  Church,  which  they  did 
 not  previously  feel.  Though,  therefore,  both  mea- 
 sures were  opposed  by  the  Presbyterians,  yet  both 
 tended  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  Kirk.h  Still 
 many  mourned  over  the  loss  of  that  spiritual  tyranny 
 which  they  had  formerly  exercised.  Another  Act 
 was  passed,  which  provided  for  the  discontinuance  of 
 the  sittings  of  the  Courts  of  Law  at  Christmas,  as  in 
 England  :  and  this  also  gave  great  offence  to  the 
 Presbyterians.  The  benefits  of  the  changes  have  been 
 abundantly  reaped  by  the  Church  of  Scotland  :  but 
 the  rigid  Presbyterians  conceived  that  their  Church 
 was  shorn  of  its  chief  glory — the  power  to  persecute 
 others.  Accordingly  one  of  her  Advocates,  alluding  to 
 the  three  Acts,  thus  closes  his  very  partial  and  one- 
 sided history.  Speaking  of  what  he  calls  the 
 "  Church's  Grievances"  he  says  :  "  The  Acts  are 
 particularly, 
 
 1.  The  Act  for  restoring  Patronages. 
 
 2.  The  Act  for  Tolerating  Episcopal  Ministers. 
 
 e  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  ii.  508 — 512.  Swift's  Four  Last  Years, 
 &c.  226—230.  Boyer's  Life  of  Queen  Anne,  543.  There  is 
 great  truth  in  the  remark  ;  "  the  severest  penalties  ever  inflicted 
 in  a  Protestant  country  met  with  most  submission,"  from  the  Epis- 
 copal Clergy  of  Scotland.    Keith,  by  Russell.     Life,  p.  xxiii. 
 
 h  Swift's  Works,  Scott's  Ed.  vol.  v.  141. 
 
!l3i'jjtocp  of  tfje  &onium#.  457 
 3.  The  Act  for  the  Yule  Vacancy  :  that  is,  for 
 keeping  Christmas. 
 
 "  If  these  three  are  obtained,  the  Church  will  then 
 be  restored  to  her  full  lustre  and  authority,  and  it's 
 hoped  will  never  more  have  any  occasion  to  complain 
 of  being  oppressed."'  So  tlrese  Acts,  reasonable  as 
 they  were,  and  beneficial  as  they  have  proved  to  be, 
 were  viewed  as  acts  of  oppression  towards  the  Church 
 of  Scotland.  Even  De  Foe,  acute  as  he  was  in  most 
 matters,  was  in  this  totally  blinded  by  his  strong 
 prejudices. 
 
 The  author  of  the  Life  of  Carstairs,  writing  in 
 the  year  1774,  was  fully  sensible  of  the  advantages 
 which  had  accrued  from  the  proceedings  of  this  period. 
 "The  experience  of  sixty  years  has  at  last  evinced, 
 what  it  was  impossible  for  human  sagacity  then  to 
 discover,  that  the  Act  of  Toleration  and  the  Act 
 restoring  Patronages,  which  were  considered  by  the 
 friends  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  as  fatal  to  her  in- 
 terests, and  which  were  probably  intended  as  the  pre- 
 ludes to  greater  changes,  have  proved  the  source  of 
 her  greatest  security.  Upon  the  one  hand,  the  Act 
 of  Toleration,  by  taking  the  weapon  of  offence  out  of 
 the  hands  of  the  Presbyterians,  removed  the  chief 
 ground  of  those  resentments  which  the  friends  of  Pre- 
 lacy entertained  against  them,  and,  in  a  few  years, 
 almost  annihilated  Episcopacy  in  Scotland.  Upon 
 the  other  hand,  the  Act  restoring  Patronages,  by  re- 
 storing the  nobility  and  gentlemen  of  property  to  their 
 wonted  influence  in  the  settlement  of  the  Clergy,  re- 
 conciled numbers  of  them  to  the  established  Church, 
 who  had  conceived   the  most  violent  prejudices 
 
 1  Dc  Foe's  Memoirs  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  Appendix. 
 
458  l£i0ron>  of  tfjc  iRonjurons. 
 
 against  that  mode  of  election,  and  against  the  Pres- 
 byterian Clergy,  who  were  settled  upon  it.  It  is  like- 
 wise an  incontestable  fact,  that  from  the  date  of  these 
 two  Acts,  the  Church  of  Scotland  has  enjoyed  a  state 
 of  tranquillity  to  which  she  was  an  utter  stranger  be- 
 fore. "k 
 
 An  unfavourable  picture  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy 
 is  given  to  Archbishop  Wake,  in  1710,  by  Nicolson, 
 Bishop  of  Carlisle,  who  states,  that  the  greatest 
 number  of  the  Episcopalians  were  under  the  Bishop 
 of  Edinburgh,  "  who  is  entirely  in  the  interest  of  the 
 Pretender;"  that  he  would  not  permit  his  Clergy  to 
 pray  for  the  Queen,  so  that  the  prayers,  when  they 
 were  used,  "  were  mangled  and  curtailed."  He  af- 
 firms that  these  men  were  as  great  enemies  to  Green- 
 shields,  as  the  Assembly  itself,  adding,  a  they  dread 
 the  ruin  of  their  own  party  upon  the  prevalency  of 
 our  Common  Prayer. "  According  to  Nicolson,  there 
 were  one  hundred  and  thirteen  Episcopal  Clergymen 
 in  possession  of  parishes,  whereof  eleven  only  were 
 Nonjurors.  He  mentions  also  the  singular  circum- 
 stance, that  the  number  of  the  old  covenanted  Pres- 
 byterians was  four  times  as  great,  "  who,  (though  they 
 never  pray  for  the  Queen,  nor  have  ever  taken  the 
 Oath  of  Allegiance  to  her)  are  overlooked,  and  winked 
 at,  by  the  General  Assemblj'."1  Bishop  Nicolson, 
 residing  on  the  borders  of  Scotland,  appears  to  have 
 taken  considerable  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  Epis- 
 copalians in  that  country,  though  it  must  be  admitted 
 that  his  judgment  of  their  proceedings  was  unjust. 
 It  can  scarcely  be  conceived,  that  any  of  the  Clergy 
 
 k  Carstairs,  85. 
 
 1  Ellis's  Letters,  First  Series,  i.  359. 
 
were  enemies  to  Greensliields,  on  account  of  the 
 English  Liturgy .m 
 
 After  the  Toleration  Act  in  1712,  the  English 
 Liturgy  was  extensively  used  by  the  Episcopalians 
 in  Scotland.  The  Church,  says  a  writer,  who  well 
 knew  the  circumstances,  "  was  put  in  a  much  better 
 condition  than  at  any  time  since  the  Revolution : 
 Meeting  Houses  were  set  up  in  several  towns  and 
 villages,  where  both  pastors  and  people  manifested 
 the  greatest  forwardness  for  embracing  the  English 
 Liturgy,  and  it  was  brought  into  several  parish 
 Churches.  Prayer  Books  were  sent  from  England 
 to  supply  the  wants  of  the  people.  All  this  was  in 
 a  great  measure  owing  to  the  generous  charity  of 
 many  pious  and  well  disposed  persons  of  all  ranks, 
 of  the  Church  of  England,  particularly  of  the  famous 
 University  of  Oxford,  at  whose  charges  and  charitable 
 contributions,  without  any  brief  to  further  it,  above 
 nineteen  thousand  Common  Prayer  Books,  and  other 
 devotional  edifying  books  relating  to  it,  were  remitted 
 from  London  in  the  space  of  two  years.'  "  The  Pres- 
 byterians were  annoyed  and  perplexed  :  they  called 
 
 m  Archbishop  Sharp  formed  a  much  more  correct  opinion  on  the 
 sufferings  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy.  When  tlie  Bishop  of  Edinburgh 
 wrote  to  him  on  the  subject,  the  Archbishop  sent  a  letter  directly 
 to  the  Queen.  He  also  "  spoke  earnestly  to  her  Majesty  about  the 
 Episcopal  Clergy.  He  told  her  Majesty  of  the  Judge  Advocate's 
 circular  letter  for  shutting  up  all  the  Episcopal  Meeting  Houses  ; 
 in  which  letter  he  said  he  had  orders  from  the  Queen,  under  her 
 hand  and  seal,  to  do  this.  The  Queen  said  it  was  not  so."  This 
 was  before  Greenshields's  case  occurred  :  and  for  some  time,  the 
 Clergy  were  permitted  to  enjoy  a  little  peace.  The  Archbishop 
 also  induced  the  Queen  to  make  a  grant  of  money  to  several  of  the 
 Scottish  Bishops.    Life  of  Archbishop  Sharp,  i.  393 — 398. 
 
 "  Representation  of  the  State  of  the  Church  in  North  Britain, 
 p.  19. 
 
460  ^tsstorp  of  tlje  /fconfucottf. 
 
 the  Prayer  Book  the  English  mass  :  they  designated 
 it  idolatrous  and  superstitious,  alleging  even  that  the 
 Scottish  Episcopacy  was  tolerable  in  comparison, 
 because  there  was  no  Liturgy  :  but  still  they  could 
 not  prevent  its  introduction. 
 
 The  Clergy  were  quiet  and  peaceable.  "  They 
 have  it  for  a  principle  not  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
 kingdom  they  belong  to:"  and  "  though  some  of  them 
 could  not  comply  with  all  the  tests  required  by  the 
 Government,  yet  there  cannot  one  instance  be  given 
 of  any  Clergyman's  being  prosecuted  for  tumultuous, 
 seditious,  and  treasonable  speeches  and  practices."0 
 However  the  Presbyterians  were  anxious  to  commence 
 a  persecution  against  the  Episcopal  Clergy  under 
 the  plea  of  sedition  and  treason  :  though  Episcopacy 
 and  the  Liturgy  were  the  causes.  Those  who  refused 
 to  take  the  Oaths  were  subjected  to  certain  penalties  ; 
 but  still,  by  the  Act  of  Toleration,  no  person  was 
 permitted  to  interrupt  their  worship ;  nor  were  the 
 Presbyteries  permitted  to  interfere.  The  Queen  and 
 her  Government  well  knew  that  the  Nonjurors  were 
 peaceable  men  :  and  therefore  the  Oaths  were  not 
 exacted  from  them,  though  they  were  required  by  the 
 Act.  This  was  a  wise  policy,  and  well  would  it  have 
 been  if  the  same  course  had  been  pursued  from  the 
 beginning.  But  this  state  of  things  was  soon  changed. 
 The  Queen  died  in  1714  :  the  Whigs  were  restored 
 to  office :  the  laws  against  Papists  and  Nonjurors 
 were  ordered  to  be  enforced  :  and  the  most  lament- 
 able consequences  ensued.  Had  Queen  Anne's  pacific 
 course  been  followed,  the  Rebellion  of  1715  might 
 not  have  taken  place. 
 
 °  Representation,  &c.  21.  Russell's  Keith,  507.  Russell's 
 History  of  Church  in  Scotland,  ii.  390,  391. 
 
Ikifjtorp  of  rf)c  jponfurarsf*  461 
 
 The  Rebellion,  however,  was  made  the  pretence 
 for  putting  the  laws  in  force  against  those  who, 
 though  they  had  not  taken  the  Oaths  required  by 
 the  Toleration  Act,  were  yet  living  quietly  and  peace- 
 ably, without  any  wish  to  disturb  the  Government. 
 The  Liturgy,  as  we  have  seen,  was  generally  used  : 
 and  against  this  form  of  sound  words  the  ire  of  the 
 Presbyterians  was  now  stirred  up.  Wherever  the 
 Government  troops  came,  the  Episcopal  congregations 
 were  broken  up  and  dispersed.  At  Aberdeen,  the 
 Liturgy  had  been  used  more  than  four  years  :  but 
 the  congregations  were  scattered.  An  English  gen- 
 tleman, well  affected  to  the  Government,  assembled 
 some  of  the  people ;  but  he  was  not  permitted  to 
 read  the  Liturgy,  though  protected  by  the  Act  of 
 Toleration.  All  the  Chapels  and  houses  where  the 
 Liturgy  had  been  used  were  immediately  closed  : 
 the  Clergy  were  shamefully  used  :  and  the  people 
 were  prevented  from  assembling  for  public  worship. 
 Nor  did  the  Presbyterians  rest  content  with  closing 
 the  Chapels  ;  but  even  the  Clergy,  who  had  retained 
 their  Churches  according  to  law,  were  imprisoned 
 only  because  they  were  Episcopalians.  For  several 
 years,  therefore,  the  Clergy  were  subjected  to  perse- 
 cutions of  various  kinds.  v 
 
 The  Episcopal  Clergy  of  Aberdeen  indeed  ren- 
 dered themselves  obnoxious  by  addressing  the  Pre- 
 tender :  but  no  other  address  was  presented  from 
 any  of  the  Clergy.  They  commence  :  "  We,  your 
 Majesty's  most  faithful  and  dutiful  subjects,  &c." 
 The  citizens  of  Aberdeen  also  copied  the  example  of 
 the  Clergy.q  After  the  Rebellion  was  crushed,  many 
 
 p  Representation  of  the  State  of  the  Church  in  North  Britain, 
 25,  30.  i  Life  of  Argyle,  237,  240. 
 
462  ]£i0torp  of  tijc  /ftonjuroitf. 
 
 of  the  prisoners  were  confined  at  Carlisle.  The 
 Bishop  was,  as  he  states,  frequently  importuned  by 
 the  friends  of  some  of  the  unhappy  men.  Writing 
 to  Wake,  he  says :  "  Among  the  rest  the  Bishop  of 
 Edinburgh  warmly  recommends  to  my  counsel,  direc- 
 tion, and  favour  a  son  of  his,  who  is  one  of  our  guests. 
 He  gives  broad  hints  that  his  child  suffers  for  right- 
 eousness sake."  Nicolson  remarks,  that  he  had  told 
 the  Bishop,  whom  he  calls  "  A  mischievous  Prelate," 
 that  he  would  no  more  interfere  in  behalf  of  his  son, 
 than  he  would  for  his  own  in  similar  circumstances. 
 The  son  of  another  Bishop  was  also  implicated.  Arch- 
 bishop Wake  procured  a  memorial  in  his  favour : 
 and  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle  was  anxious  for  his  safety, 
 as  well  as  for  that  of  the  son  of  the  Bishop  of  Edin- 
 burgh, remarking  that  both  "  were  as  duly  trained 
 up  to  revolt  against  King  George  by  their  respective 
 parents,  as  ever  Moss-trooper's  children  were  bred  to 
 stealing."  He  wished  to  save  them  on  the  ground 
 of  their  education,  throwing  the  blame  upon  their 
 parents.  The  judges,  he  says,  were  directed  to  be 
 indulgent  to  sons,  who  were  led  by  their  fathers  : 
 "  which  I  think  brings  them  as  fairly  within  this  rule 
 as  if  the  two  prelates  had  galloped  before  them  into 
 the  battle.'" 
 
 The  crimes  alleged  against  the  Clergy  were  "  Praying 
 for  the  Pretender,  keeping  fasts  and  thanksgivings, 
 and  not  praying  for  King  George  in  express  terms."8 
 
 r  Ellis's  Letters,  First  Series,  iii.  367 — 8,  395—6. 
 
 3  The  Appeal  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  in  Scotland  to  the  Lords 
 in  Parliament.  Wherein  the  proceedings  of  the  Presbyterian 
 judicatures  against  Episcopal  Ministers  are  proved  to  be  contrary 
 to  the  laws  of  the  land,  to  express  Acts  of  Parliament,  to  common 
 Equity,  and  to  former  Precedents  in  the  like  Cases.  8vo.  1718. 
 p.  29. 
 
iiifStovy  of  ttje  iponj'tiroctf.  403 
 These  charges  were  never  proved  ;  hut  in  any  case 
 the  Presbyteries  had  no  jurisdiction  in  such  matters. 
 The  fact,  that  they  were  permitted  to  tyrannize,  shews 
 the  miserable  state  of  things  at  this  time  in  Scotland. 
 The  Clergy  pleaded  "  that  they  are  not  at  all  subject 
 to  the  jurisdiction  of  any  of  the  Presbyterian  judica- 
 tures: not  being  of  their  communion."  In  proof  of 
 this  they  refer  to  the  Toleration  Act.'  The  charge 
 of  keeping  fasts  and  thanksgivings  rested  on  nothing 
 more  than  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  Clergy  observed 
 the  particular  days  appointed  by  the  Church,  on 
 which  occasions  they  preached  against  the  errors  of 
 Rome,  without  any  allusion  to  the  Pretender."  On 
 such  grounds  did  the  Presbyterians  interfere :  though 
 they  had  no  jurisdiction.  It  is  argued  in  the  Appeal, 
 "  Tis  against  all  reason  that  they  should  be  subject 
 to  their  jurisdiction,  either  as  to  their  practice  or 
 opinion,  doctrine  or  discipline,  worship  or  sacraments. 
 For  their  being  permitted,  tolerated,  and  protected, 
 would  be  of  no  manner  of  use  to  them  in  that  case. 
 It  is  easy  to  imagine,  if  the  Presbyterians  were  judges, 
 what  doctrine  they  would  deem  erroneous,  what  devo- 
 tion they  would  look  upon  as  superstitious,  what 
 worship  they  would  censure  as  idolatrous,  and  what 
 ordination  they  would  esteem  unlawful.  For  the  ap- 
 pellants stand  already  condemned  in  all  these  matters 
 by  the  acts  of  general  assemblies.  And  are  those  to 
 be  the  appellants' judges."  They  proceed  :  "They 
 need  not  seek  a  repeal  of  the  Toleration  Act  in  Scot- 
 land, which  is  so  grievous  to  them  :  if  they  may  put 
 what  glosses  they  please  upon  it :  if  they  can  censure, 
 depose,  and  incapacitate  those  who  are  entitled  to 
 the  benefit  thereof." w    The  appellants  argued  that 
 
 •  The  Appeal,  &c.  38. 
 
 u  Ibid.  104. 
 
 Ibid.  4.r>. 
 
464  Iktetorp  of  tfje  jponjucortf. 
 
 offences  against  the  State  were  only  cognizable  by  the 
 State.  This  point  was  settled  by  the  law  :  yet,  in 
 persecuting  the  Episcopal  Clergy,  the  Presbyterians 
 were  permitted  to  violate  the  principles  of  law  and 
 of  equity.  Thus  it  is  clear,  not  only  that  the  Act 
 securing  Episcopal  Clergymen  in  their  benefices  was 
 violated,  under  the  pretence  of  treason,  after  the  Rebel- 
 lion ;  but  also  that  the  benefit  of  the  Toleration  Act 
 was  not  for  a  long  period  extended  to  Episcopalians 
 in  Scotland,  who  were  not  permitted  to  use  the  Liturgy 
 in  private. 
 
 In  1719  an  Act  was  passed  "  For  making  more 
 effectual  thelaws appointing  the  Oaths:"  butas  several 
 years  had  elapsed  since  the  Rebellion,  there  was  some 
 relaxation  in  the  persecutions,  to  which  theClergy  had 
 been  subjected.  By  this  Act  an  Episcopal  Minister, 
 performing  divine  service  without  taking  the  Oaths, 
 was  subjected  to  imprisonment ;  but  the  Government 
 had  grown  wiser,  and  it  was  not  rigorously  enforced  : 
 so  that  from  a  few  years  after  this  period  until  1746 
 the  Episcopal  Church  enjoyed  much  prosperity.1 
 
 But  we  must  now  turn  to  the  divisions,  which  began 
 to  exist  soon  after  this  period  among  the  Clergy 
 
 x  Keith,  by  Russell,  509.  In  1718  a  collection  was  made  in 
 England  for  the  suffering  Clergy  after  an  application  attested  by 
 Campbell  and  Gadderer.  In  a  note  to  the  Case  of  the  Church  of 
 Scotland,  we  have  the  following  melancholy  proof  of  Presbyterian 
 violence.  "  There  are  at  present  about  an  hundred  and  twenty 
 Priests  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  whose  melancholy  circum- 
 stances cry  loudly,  and  plead  more  powerfully  than  can  be  ex- 
 pressed by  words:  and  since  the  suppression  of  the  chapels  and 
 meeting  houses  for  the  Service  of  the  Liturgy,  and  some  other 
 desolating  emergencies,  the  number  of  individual  sufferers  is  grow- 
 ing daily  greater,  and  God  only  seeth  the  end  thereof :  whose 
 blessed  will  be  done."    Somers'  Tracts,  xii.  492. 
 
^fctorp  of  tt)t  jponfuroitf.  465 
 themselves  respecting  the  usages.  We  have  seen, 
 that  the  Scottish  Bishops  were  divided  in  opinion, 
 when  Collier  and  Spinkes  consulted  them  on  the 
 subject ;  but  no  decision  was  given  on  the  question 
 which  had  so  agitated  the  Anglican  Nonjurors.  And 
 though  the  section,  adhering  to  Collier  and  Brett, 
 adopted  the  New  Communion  Office  ;  yet  no  such 
 measure  seems  to  have  been  contemplated  for  some 
 years  in  Scotland.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  a  well 
 established  fact,  that  the  English  Liturgy,  in  all  its 
 parts,  was  generally  used  in  Scotland,  without  any 
 hesitation,  for  several  years  subsequent  to  the  dis- 
 putes in  England.  For  some  time  the  Clergy  had 
 to  contend  with  the  Presbyterians,  in  favour  of  the 
 English  Liturgy. 7  The  old  slander  was  revived,  that 
 the  Prayer  Book  was  the  Mass  Book  in  English  :  and 
 one  fanatical  Preacher  ventured  to  assert  that  the 
 devils,  who  had  previously  been  chained  up,  had 
 broke  loose  since  the  introduction  of  the  English  Ser- 
 vice Book.2  The  Citizen  of  Aberdeen,  however,  after 
 a  general  defence  of  the  Liturgy  against  the  cavils  of 
 the  Presbyterians,  admits  his  preference  for  the  First 
 Communion  Office:  from  which  we  may  infer,  that 
 he  and  others,  who  used  the  English  Book,  were  in- 
 clined to  the  Usages,  though  they  did  not  deem  them 
 matters  of  so  much  importance,  as  to  break  the  unity 
 of  the  Church  in  consequence.  Skinner  says,  that 
 the  Scottish  Office  was  not  introduced  at  first  on 
 account  of  the  scarcity  of  the  Book  of  1637,  and  the 
 
 y  See  as  a  specimen:  "  An  Apology  for  the  Use  of  the  English 
 Liturgy  and  Worship  against  the  Cavils  and  Exceptions  of  the 
 Presbyterians  in  North  Britain,  &c.  &c.  By  a  Citizen  of  Aber- 
 deen. 8vo.  London  1718." 
 
 7-  [bid.  p.  1,2. 
 
 II  H 
 
■i66  l^movv  of  rt)c  /aonjurorsf. 
 
 impossibility  of  procuring  a  reprint.  He  argues, 
 therefore,  that  necessity  led  to  the  use  of  the  English 
 Form  :  but  that,  though  introduced,  yet  the  Clergy 
 were  not  pledged  to  its  adoption  in  all  particulars, 
 being  at  liberty  to  adopt  any  authorized  form,  or  any 
 one  sanctioned  by  the  Bishops.*  For  some  time  the 
 matter  was  allowed  to  sleep  :  but,  after  the  death  of 
 the  older  Bishops,  the  question  was  revived.  In  the 
 year  1712,  the  Earl  ofWinton  reprinted  the  Scottish 
 Liturgy  of  1637  :  yet  it  was  used  only  in  his  own 
 chapel  at  Tranent,  and  even  then  against  the  remon- 
 strances of  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh.b  As  long  as 
 Bishop  Rose  survived,  the  use  of  the  English  Service 
 alone  was  encouraged.  He  died  in  1720  :  and  then 
 the  disputes  were  revived.  In  1723  a  sort  of  defence 
 of  the  Scottish  Communion  Office  was  published. 
 This  service  was  nearly  similar,  in  the  points  res- 
 pecting the  Usages,  to  the  First  Communion  Office 
 of  King  Edward.  The  author  euters  into  some  par- 
 ticulars respecting  its  history :  from  which  it  appears, 
 that,  after  the  reprint  by  the  Earl  of  ^  inton,  the 
 Bishop,  at  length,  consented  to  its  use  in  his  Lord- 
 ship's Chapel.  The  various  points  of  difference 
 between  it  and  the  English  Office  are  pointed  out  : 
 and  the  writer  claims  for  it  a  nearer  affinity  to  the 
 Ancient  Liturgies  and  the  primitive  practice.0 
 
 a  Skinner's  Ecclesiastical  History,  ii.  6"27. 
 
 b  A  Defence  of  the  Communion  Office  of  the  Church  of  England, 
 proving'  that  there  is  neither  reason  nor  authority  for  laying  it 
 aside.  In  a  Letter,  to  a  Friend.  Preface  xix.  This  letter  was 
 written  by  George  Smith,  one  of  the  Xonjuring  Bishops  in  England 
 who  agreed  with  Spinkes  :  but  it  was  published  in  Edinburgh  in 
 1744,  with  a  Preface  by  another  hand.  The  Preface  contains  an 
 account  of  the  Scottish  and  English  Liturgies. 
 
 c  An  Enquiry  in  the  Decent  and  Beautiful  Order  of  the  Admi- 
 nistration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  for  the  Use  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
 
l5i'0torp  of  tfje  jponjurow.  467 
 
 The  differences  of  opinion  among  the  Bishops  were 
 considerable.  Lockhart,  writing  to  the  Pretender  in 
 1722,  alludes  to  the  divisions  among  the  English 
 Nonjurors,  and  calls  the  breach  a  "  prejudice  and 
 discredit  to  the  whole  party."  "  Of  those,"  says  he, 
 "  who  sett  up  for  alterations,  two  of  our  Scots  Bishops, 
 Campbell  and  Gatherer,  made  a  considerable  figure 
 at  London,  where  they  have  resided  many  years ;  and 
 Falconer  favoured  them  in  Scotland.  There  have 
 been  several  meetings  of  the  Bishops,  and  all  but 
 Falconer  and  Gatherer  are  against  all  alterations  or 
 innovations.  They  think  what  is  desired  not  so 
 essential,  as  to  be  laid  in  the  balance  with  the  mis- 
 constructions their  enemies  will  put  upon  them."  He 
 states,  that  the  Bishops  opposed  to  the  Usages  wished 
 to  know  the  opinion  of  the  Pretender's  trustees,  who 
 advised  him  on  Scottish  and  English  affairs.  He  also 
 mentions  that  he  attended  a  meeting,  at  which 
 both  parties  endeavoured  to  justify  themselves  by 
 the  practice  of  the  Fathers  and  the  primitive  ages. 
 Lockhart  recommended  an  agreement  among  them- 
 selves :  stating,  that  he  was  instructed  by  the  Pre- 
 tender to  give  them  that  advice,  and  that  they 
 should  not  move  until  his  pleasure  were  known. 
 Falconer,  it  seems,  yielded  to  the  other  Bishops  ;  but, 
 says  Lockhart,  Gadderer  advanced  his  "  usages,  as 
 he  termed  them,  in  the  Northern  Countries,"  against 
 the  advice  of  the  Bishops  and  the  Prince's  trustees. 
 It  seems,  from  Lockhart's  Letter  of  May  21,  1723, 
 that  the  Bishops  even  thought  of  suspending  Gad- 
 derer.   He  adds,  that  their  enemies  alleged,  that  the 
 
 land,  and  that  conform  to  the  Text  of  Sacred  Scripture,  and  of 
 Ancient  and  Modern  Authors,  in  opposition  to  all  Popish  Super- 
 stitions.   By  a  Gentleman  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  8vo.  1723. 
 
468  ^igtorp  of  rtje  ifronj'urors. 
 
 Episcopal  Clergy  were  advancing  towards  Rome,  and 
 that  the  Pretender's  cause  was  thereby  prejudiced. 
 Other  divisions  also  are  mentioned  by  Lockhart. 
 Archibald  Campbell  being  elected  Bishop  of  Aber- 
 deen, the  Bishops  would  not  confirm  him  in  his  post, 
 unless  he  pledged  himself  not  to  introduce  the  Usages. 
 He,  however,  chose  to  consider  himself  as  duly  ap- 
 pointed, and  sent  Gadderer  with  a  commission  to  act 
 in  his  name.d  At  length  Gadderer  submitted,  per- 
 ceiving that  the  Bishops  were  determined  to  act. 
 He  defended  the  practices  :  but  the  Bishops  viewed 
 them  as  matters  of  indifference,  which  were  not  to  be 
 introduced,  especially  as  they  supplied  their  enemies 
 with  arguments  to  their  prejudice.6 
 
 Thus  the  Scottish  Clergy  were  as  much  divided- 
 in  opinion  respecting  the  Usages  as  the  English.  In 
 the  year  1728  a  sensible  Tract  was  published  against 
 their  introduction.  The  author  contends,  that  they 
 are  not  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  the  warmth 
 of  their  advocates.  He  alludes  to  the  unanimity 
 which  prevailed  before  the  agitation  of  this  question  : 
 and  then  enters  upon  an  examination  of  the  various 
 points,  which,  though  brief,  is  very  comprehensive. 
 He  goes  over  the  same  ground  as  Campbell ;  but  he 
 concludes,  that  the  Reformers  acted  wisely  in  reject- 
 ing the  Usages.1 
 
 d  Lockhart,  ii.  98—104. 
 e  Lockhart,  ii.  123—130. 
 
 f  The  Antiquated  Usages,  which  have  made  so  great  a  noise 
 amongst  us,  briefly  examined,  and  found  insufficient  to  justify  the 
 zealous  endeavours  of  some  persons  to  introduce  them.  Together 
 with  a  humble  and  affectionate  Address  to  all  the  Episcopal  Com- 
 munion in  Scotland,  to  demean  themselves  agreeably  to  the  me- 
 lancholy condition  of  this  afflicted  Church.  By  One  who  hath  her 
 peace  and  welfare  much  at  heart.  Edinburgh,  printed  in  the  year 
 1728. 
 
H^atocp  ot*  tf)c  jfron  jurors.  469 
 
 In  consequence  of  the  disputes,  the  Bishops  as- 
 sembled and  agreed,  that  the  use  of  the  Scottish 
 Office  should  be  permitted  to  those  who  wished  it : 
 and  they  expressed  their  hope,  that  as  the  two  offices 
 were  substantially  the  same,  all  disturbance  might  be 
 prevented.8  The  calm,  however,  did  not  long  con- 
 tinue; for  the  communion  became  broken  into  parties 
 respecting  the  Usages  and  the  appointment  of 
 Bishops.  In  1731  a  concordate  was  arranged,  by 
 which  they  agreed,  "  That  we  shall  only  make  use 
 of  the  Scottish  or  English  Liturgies  in  the  public 
 divine  service,  nor  shall  we  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
 Church,  by  introducing  into  the  public  worship  any 
 of  the  ancient  usages,  concerning  which  there  has 
 been  lately  a  difference  amongst  us,  and  that  we  shall 
 censure  any  of  our  Clergy  that  shall  act  otherwise." 
 They  agreed  also,  that  no  one  should  be  appointed  a 
 Bishop  but  with  the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the 
 other  Bishops  :  that  on  the  demise  of  a  Bishop,  the 
 Presbyters  should  not  elect  another  without  a  man- 
 date from  the  Primus,  acting  with  the  consent  of  his 
 brethren  :  and  that  the  Primus,  whose  duty  it  should 
 be  to  assemble  and  preside  over  the  meetings  of  the 
 Clergy,  should  be  chosen  by  a  majority.  By  the 
 ;mcient  Usages,  they  meant  Immersion  in  Baptism, 
 Chrism  in  Confirmation,  and  Anointing  the  Sick,  with 
 some  other  practices,  which  were  not  retained  in  the 
 Scottish  Book.  In  general  by  the  Usages  were  un- 
 derstood the  four  practices,  which  have  been  so  fre- 
 quently noticed  :  but  these  were  retained  in  the  Scot- 
 tish Office,  which  by  this  concordate  was  allowed. 
 In  this  agreement,  therefore,  the  additional  cere- 
 
 B  Skinner,  ii.  633,  634.  A  Defence  of  the  Communion  Office, 
 &:r,.  Preface  xx. 
 
470  i£i0torp  of  Hje  jj&onjucortf. 
 
 monies  are  comprehended  in  the  term  usages.  Thus 
 by  the  Concordate  both  offices  were  placed  upon  the 
 same  footing.1'  Both  were  to  be  used  at  the  option  of 
 the  Clergy  :  but  neither  party  was  to  introduce  usages 
 not  contained  in  and  enjoined  by  these  offices.  It 
 seems,  however,  that  some  of  the  Clergy  violated  the 
 compact,  wh  ich  led  to  the  publication  of  Bishop  Smith's 
 Letter  in  1744,  in  defence  of  the  English  Office. 
 
 It  appears,  that  the  Pretender  was  usually  con- 
 sulted in  the  appointment  of  the  Scottish  Bishops, 
 of  which  various  instances  are  related  by  Lockhart. 
 Some  contended,  that  the  election  by  the  Clergy  was 
 sufficient  :  while  others  argued,  that  the  consent  of 
 the  King,  meaning  the  Son  of  James  II.  and  the 
 college  of  Bishops  was  necessary.  This  dispute  con- 
 tinued several  years :  and  Lockhart  designates  those 
 who  opposed  the  college,  as  factious  Bishops,  because 
 they  paid  no  respect  to  the  King  and  their  brethren.1 
 We  find,  that  on  some  occasions,  the  Pretender  named 
 the  persons ;  but  of  course  they  had  been  previously 
 suggested  to  him  by  his  friends  in  Scotland.  They 
 looked  forward  to  his  restoration  :  and  though  they 
 took  no  steps  to  effect  it,  they  still  wished  to  keep 
 up  the  succession,  in  what  was  deemed  the  regular 
 way.k  In  1726  the  Pretender  addressed  a  letter  to 
 the  College  of  Bishops,  in  which,  alluding  to  the  in- 
 firmities of  the  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  he  says,  "  I 
 have  found  it  necessary,  by  this  letter,  to  desire  and 
 direct,  that  Bishop  Cant,  and  failing  of  him  by 
 decease,  or  his  being  rendered  incapable  by  infirm- 
 ities, that  Bishop  Duncan  should  reside  at  Edinburgh 
 
 h  Skinner,  ii.  647.   Defence  of  the  Communion  Office.  Preface. 
 1  Lockhart,  ii.  3.5—42,  237,  238,  323—330,  333—336. 
 k  Lockhart,  ii.  77—81,  271,  272. 
 
^ifStovp  of  ttjc  ifcortjurortf.  471 
 
 and  preside  amongst  you,  and  take  care  of  the  affairs 
 of  the  Church  in  my  capital  of  Scotland,  and  diocese 
 thereof,  until  I  be  able  to  determine  myself  in  the 
 choice  of  a  person  duly  qualified  and  agreeable  to 
 my  people,  to  be  settled  in  a  post  of  such  conse- 
 quence.1 "  In  another  letter  the  Prince  recommends 
 Gil lan  for  consecration  :  and  in  another  he  says  : 
 "  When  there  shall  be  any  vacancies  in  the  College 
 of  Bishops,  or  when  you  shall  think  proper  that  others 
 be  added  to  your  number,  you  give  into  my  Trustees 
 a  list  of  such  persons  as  you  may  think  every  way 
 qualified  for  discharging  the  office  of  a  Bishop  in  the 
 Church,  which  my  Trustees  are  to  send  to  me,  with 
 their  opinion  upon  it,  that  thereby  I  may  be  the 
 better  enabled  to  give  the  proper  and  necessary 
 directions  in  that  respect.  And  further,  it  is  my 
 will  and  pleasure,  that  no  Bishop  amongst  you  shall 
 be  appointed  to  have  the  care  and  inspection  of  any 
 particular  district,  without  my  previous  authority, 
 and  that  when  you  think  an  appointment  necessary, 
 that  you  give  me  your  opinion  in  writing  to  my 
 Trustees,  to  be  transmitted  to  me  as  above.1"  " 
 
 Apart  from  the  divisions  amongst  the  Bishops  and 
 Clergy,  the  Nonjuring  Church  of  Scotland  was  in  a 
 flourishing  condition  for  several  years  previous  to  the 
 
 1  Lockhart,  ii.  289. 
 
 "'  Lockhart,  ii.  310,  311.  In  a  little  time  the  Bishops  were  ap- 
 pointed by  the  Clergy  and  Bishops  without  consulting  the  Pre- 
 tender. Thus  in  1790,  Skinner  remarks  that  the  charge  of  being 
 recommended  by  the  Pretender  applied  only  to  the  Bishops  of  a 
 distant  period,  and  not  to  the  present,  who  had  no  connexion  with 
 him  relative  to  the  obtaining  orexercising  their  Episcopal  functions. 
 The  practice  of  applying  to  the  exiled  family  prevailed  only  during 
 n  few  years.  Skinner's  Annals  of  Scottish  Episcopacy,  pp.  191, 
 192. 
 
47-2  ^tgtocp  of  tlje  ilionjucorsi. 
 
 troubles  of  1745,  and  1746. D  It  is  remarked  by- 
 Bishop  Russell,  that  "  the  Scottish  Bishops  for  twenty 
 years  after  being  umpires  became  parties,"  in  the  dis- 
 putes concerning  the  usages.0  Campbell  resigned  his 
 post  in  Scotland  in  consequence  of  these  practices, 
 and  resided  in  London.  His  work  on  "  The  Middle 
 State,"  is  written  on  principles  involved  in  the  usages S 
 We  have  seen,  too,  that  other  divisions  existed  re- 
 specting the  appointment  of  Bishops.  Still  the  Church 
 was  in  a  flourishing  state  when  the  Rebellion  broke 
 out.  The  Nonjurors,  however,  were  not  the  only  party 
 from  whose  ranks  the  supporters  of  the  Rebellion  were 
 drawn.  Many  who  had  taken  the  Oaths  were  also 
 implicated  :  and  many  Presbyterians,  as  well  as  Non- 
 jurors, enrolled  themselves  under  the  Pretender's  stan- 
 dard.'' Skinner  observes,  that  whether  their  Church 
 "  was  blameable  or  not,  she  was  soon  involved  in  the 
 dismal  consequences  of  it."  Meeting-houses  were 
 burnt  down  by  the  soldiers  in  the  villages ;  and  in  the 
 towns  they  were  shut  up  or  demolished.  The  Clergy 
 were  obliged  to  live  in  concealment,  being  suspected. 
 The  laws  were  suspended  for  three  months,  and  a 
 military  government  established.    An  Act  also  was 
 
 n  Keith,  509—512. 
 
 °  Keith,  Preface,  xxviii. 
 
 f"  Keith,  530,  531,  532. 
 
 'i  Skinner,  ii.  662.  I  have  already  refuted  the  assertion  that 
 the  people  in  1688  were  generally  Presbyterians:  but  it  may  be 
 added,  that  there  were,  in  1740,  after  all  the  suffering's  to  which 
 they  had  been  exposed,  three  hundred  Episcopal  Clergymen,  in 
 Scotland,  with  large  and  respectable  congregations.  This  fact  is 
 cited  by  Bishop  Walker,  as  a  proof  that  the  Episcopal  Church 
 could  not  have  been  so  contrary  to  the  inclinations  of  the  people, 
 as  was  represented.  The  Bishop  remarks,  that  if  Episcopal  prin- 
 ciples had  not  obtained  a  firm  hold  on  the  affections  of  the  people, 
 ♦  hey  could  not  have  survived  the  restrictions  imposed  in  1716. 
 Bishop  Walker's  Charge,  pp.  36,  37. 
 
i£i0toi'p  of  ttje  ilJoni'ucoctf.  473 
 
 passed,  by  which  every  Episcopal  Clergyman,  exer- 
 cising his  functions  without  taking  the  Oaths,  was 
 subjected  to  imprisonment  for  the  first  offence,  and  for 
 the  second,  to  transportation.  Every  assemblage  of  five 
 persons  was  deemed  by  the  Act  an  Episcopal  Meet- 
 ing/ Hitherto  the  laity  had  escaped  :  but  in  1 746  all 
 persons  frequenting  such  illegal  meetings  were  com- 
 manded to  give  information,  under  a  penalty  of  fine 
 and  imprisonment.  In  1748,  the  Act  was  revised, 
 when  it  was  enacted,  that  none  but  English  or  Irish 
 Letters  of  Orders  should  be  deemed  sufficient  to 
 qualify  any  minister  for  the  exercise  of  his  Office  in 
 Scotland.  The  injustice  of  this  clause  was  so  obvious, 
 that  it  was  opposed  by  all  the  English  Bishops.  Still 
 it  was  carried.  The  Clergy  could  not  perform  divine 
 service  in  any  place  except  their  own  houses.  For  a 
 time,  therefore,  the  Clergy  could  only  act  in  the  most 
 private  manner  ;  but  at  length  the  Government  began 
 to  relax  in  their  vigilance,  knowing  that  the  Episco- 
 palians were  quiet  and  peaceable,  though  they  did  not 
 take  the  Oaths.  The  Bishops,  however,  took  care  to 
 continue  the  succession,  appointing  others  as  vacancies 
 occurred.3 
 
 1  Skinner,  ii.  663 — 665.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that,  notwith- 
 standing the  hostility  of  the  Presbyterians  to  the  English  Liturgy, 
 several  editions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  were  printed  at 
 Edinburgh  by  the  King's  Printer.  They  must  have  been  used  by 
 the  Episcopal  congregations  :  but  it  is  remarkable  that  the  Pres- 
 byterian authorities  did  not  interpose.  The  books  are  scarce,  yet 
 I  have  no  less  than  four  copies,  all  different  editions,  printed  be- 
 tween the  years  1719  and  1761, — one  by  Watson,  1719,  another 
 by  the  same,  1720,  one  by  Basket,  1727,  and  another  by  Watkins, 
 1761.    They  are  small  editions,  and  beautifully  printed. 
 
 s  Skinner,  ii.  670,  67 1 .  The  trials  to  which  the  Clergy  were 
 exposed  are  detailed  with  much  minuteness  in  the  Life  of  Skinner, 
 the  author  of  the  Ecclesiastical  History.  "The  writer  of  this 
 memoir,"  says  his  biographer,  "  has  often  heard  him  tell,  that  on 
 
474  ^i0tocp  of  tfje  Jfconjucortf. 
 
 Such  was  the  state  of  things  until  the  accession  of 
 George  III.  in  1760.  From  this  time  the  Church 
 of  Scotland  began  to  revive,  a  prospect  of  better 
 days  appearing.  Ever  since  1746  the  members  had 
 only  met  privately  :  but  now  they  ventured  to  make 
 an  attempt  for  an  extension  of  privileges.'     In  1765 
 
 coming  home  one  evening,  from  performing  an  occasional  office  in 
 the  way  of  his  duty,  he  found  his  house  in  the  possession  of  a  mi- 
 litary party:  some  of  them  guarding  the  door  with  fixed  bayonets, 
 and  others  searching  the  several  apartments,  even  the  bedchamber 
 where  Mrs.  Skinner  was  lying  in  of  her  fifth  child.  No  lenity 
 was  to  be  looked  for  from  such  unfeeling  visitors,  who  pillaged  the 
 house  of  every  thing  they  could  carry  with  them,  hardly  leaving  a 
 change  of  linen  to  father,  mother,  or  child  in  the  family.  The 
 chapel  with  all  the  furniture  was  destroyed,  and  for  several  years 
 the  congregation  could  find  no  place  to  meet  in  for  public  worship 
 but  the  Clergyman's  house."  Life  of  Skinner,  p.  ix.  Prefixed  to 
 /tis  Theological  Works.  He  was  subsequently  imprisoned  for  of- 
 ficiating as  a  clergyman  to  more  than  four  persons  besides  his  own 
 family.  Life,  xi.  xii.  Bishop  Russell  states,  that  many  clergy- 
 men officiated  sixteen  times  on  the  same  Sunday,  in  order  to  keep 
 within  the  terms  of  the  law.  Russell's  History  of  the  Church  in 
 Scotland,  ii.  405.  It  seems  that  the  Clergy  went  from  house  to 
 house  to  visit  their  people  and  perform  the  service  of  the  Church. 
 Chambers's  History  of  the  Rebellion,  295,  298.  Chambers  also 
 mentions  instances  of  suffering.  On  one  occasion  a  clergyman  was 
 obliged  to  baptize  a  child  under  a  tree  to  avoid  discovery,  vol.  ii. 
 339,  40.  The  circumstance  is  recorded  in  the  Register  of  the 
 Episcopal  Chapel  of  Muthill  in  Perthshire.  It  is  under  the  date  of 
 the  20th  of  March  1750.  N.  B.  "  With  such  excessive  severity  were 
 the  penal  laws  executed  at  this  time,  that  Andrew  Moir,  having 
 neglected  to  keep  his  appointment  with  me  at  my  own  house  this 
 morning,  and  following  me  to  Lord  Rollo's  house  of  Duncrub, 
 we  could  not  take  the  child  into  a  house,  but  I  was  obliged  to  go 
 under  the  cover  of  the  trees  in  one  of  Lord  Rollo's  parks  to  prevent 
 our  being  discovered,  and  baptize  the  child  there."  Bishop  Wal- 
 ker's Charge,  &c.  p.  38. 
 
 '  Had  the  Oath  of  Abjuration  been  repealed  on  the  accession  of 
 George  III.  no  Jacobite  would  have  existed.  Keith,  by  Russell, 
 513. 
 
Wtoi'p  of  tlje  jponj'urocg.  475 
 the  Communion  Office  was  revised,  the  differences  on 
 the  usages  having;  lono;  since  ceased.  The  work  was 
 undertaken  by  the  Bishops,  and  brought  into  its  pre- 
 sent state.  From  this  period,  it  has  been  the  practice  to 
 use  the  English  Liturgy,  with  the  exception  of  the 
 Communion  Office.  As  the  Scottish  Episcopalians 
 generally  preferred  the  Office  of  King  Edward's  First 
 Book,  or  that  of  the  Book  of  1637,  they  framed  their 
 service  after  the  model  contained  in  these  two  Books, 
 rather  than  after  that  which  is  adopted  by  the  Church 
 of  England.  In  all  other  respects  the  uniformity  be- 
 tween the  two  Churches  is  complete.  Some  persons 
 have  charged  the  Scottish  Office  with  Popery  :  but 
 better  judges  than  any  of  those,  who  have,  within  the 
 last  few  years,  deserted  the  Communion  of  the  Church 
 of  Scotland,  have  pronounced  it  a  truly  sound  and 
 primitive  Form.  Bishop  Horsley  in  1 806,  a  man  whom 
 no  one  can  charge  with  Popery,  writes  thus  respecting 
 the  Scottish  Office  :  "  with  respect  to  the  comparative 
 merits  of  the  two  offices  for  England  and  Scotland,  I 
 have  no  scruple  in  declaring  to  you,  that  I  think  the 
 Scotch  Office  more  conformable  to  the  primitive 
 models,  and  in  my  private  judgment  more  edifying 
 than  that  which  we  now  use  :  insomuch,  that  were  I  at 
 liberty  to  follow  my  own  private  judgment,  I  would 
 myself  use  the  Scotch  Office  in  preference.  The  altera- 
 tions which  were  made  in  the  communion  service,  as  it 
 stood  in  the  first  Book  of  Edward  VI.  to  humour  the 
 Calvinists,  were,  in  my  opinion,  much  for  the  worse  : 
 nevertheless,  I  think  our  present  office  is  very  good."" 
 This  testimony  is  more  than  sufficient  to  counterba- 
 
 u  Skinner's  Office  for  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or 
 Holy  Communion,  according  to  the  Use  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
 in  Scotland.  8vo.  Aberdeen.     1807,  p.  157. 
 
476  $#0torp  ot'rljc  iiaonj'urorsJ. 
 
 lance  the  assertions  of  certain  persons  in  the  present 
 day,  who  have  scarcely  examined  the  subject,  or,  if 
 they  do  examine  it,  are  incompetent,  from  the  strong- 
 influence  of  prejudice,  to  form  a  correct  opinion.* 
 
 But  though,  after  the  accession  of  George  III.  their 
 condition  was  improved,  no  legislative  interference 
 was  yet  brought  to  bear  upon  their  case.  The  laws 
 still  remained  in  force.  But  in  1784  the  Episcopal 
 Clergy  in  America  applied  to  the  Scottish  Prelates 
 to  consecrate  one  of  their  number  a  Bishop.  Dr. 
 Seabury,  the  Clergyman  selected  by  the  American 
 Church,  had  applied  to  the  Anglican  Bishops ;  but, 
 in  consequence  of  a  difficulty  respecting  the  Oaths, 
 he  was  advised  to  seek  consecration  in  Scotland.  The 
 Scottish  Bishops,  anxious  to  proceed  in  such  a  manner 
 as  not  to  offend  the  Government,  consulted  Archbishop 
 Moore,  who  assured  them,  that  the  act  would  really 
 be  appreciated  in  England.  Accordingly  the  conse- 
 cration took  place  :  and  the  Scottish  Bishops  were 
 the  instruments  of  preserving  Episcopacy  in  the  United 
 States/ 
 
 Four  years  later,  in  1788,  Charles  Edward  Stuart, 
 
 w  The  gracious  intentions  of  his  Majesty  were  not  agreeable  to 
 some  fanatical  Clergymen  of  the  English  Church.  Accordingly, 
 in  1767,  Norman  Sieveright,  an  English  clergyman,  published  a 
 sort  of  Caution  against  the  Scottish  Church.  This  gentleman  was 
 located  in  Scotland,  and  appears  to  have  acted  on  principles  simi- 
 lar to  those  by  which  Sir  William  Dunbar  and  Mr.  Drummond 
 are  at  present  influenced.  He  called  himself  the  minister  of  an 
 Episcopal  congregation  at  Brechin:  but  Skinner  asks,  "  What  is 
 an  Episcopal  congregation  ?  The  old  notion,  (whether  right  or 
 wrong)  was  a  congregation  under  a  Bishop.  If  so,  tell  us,  what 
 Bishop  your  Brechin  congregation  is  under :  and  who  authorized 
 this  Episcopal  congregation."  Sieveright's  attempt  exposed  him 
 to  the  contempt  of  sensible  men.     Skinner's  Life,  xxi. — xxvii. 
 
 x  Skinner's  Ecc.  Hist.  ii.  683—687.     Keith,  513—16. 
 
the  Pretender,  the  grandson  of  James  II.  died  with- 
 out issue.  This,  as  it  related  to  the  Scottish  Church, 
 was  an  important  event,  since  it  removed  the  only 
 obstacle  to  the  full  recognition  of  the  English  Sove- 
 reign. On  the  24th  of  April,  the  Bishops  met  at 
 Aberdeen,  and,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Clergy, 
 resolved  to  submit  to  the  Government  as  vested  in 
 the  person  of  George  III.  On  the  18th  day  of  May, 
 the  Clergy,  in  all  their  congregations,  gave  public 
 notice,  that  on  the  following  Sunday,  the  name  of 
 King  George  would  be  introduced  in  the  Public 
 Liturgy/ 
 
 The  following  notice  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Scot- 
 tish Bishops,  and  published  in  the  Chapels. 
 
 Intimation  to  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Episcopal 
 Church  in  Scotland. 
 
 "The  Protestant  Bishops  in  Scotland,  having  met 
 at  Aberdeen,  on  the  24th  of  April,  1788,  to  take  into 
 their  serious  consideration  the  state  of  the  Church 
 under  their  inspection,  did,  upon  mature  deliberation 
 with  their  Clergy,  unanimously  agree  to  comply  with 
 and  submit  to  the  present  Government  of  this  kingdom 
 as  vested  in  the  person  of  his  Majesty  King  George 
 III.  They  also  resolve  to  testify  this  compliance, 
 by  uniformly  praying  for  him  by  name  in  their  public 
 worship,  in  hopes  of  removing  all  suspicion  of  disaf- 
 fection, and  of  obtaining  relief  from  those  penal  laws, 
 under  which  this  Church  has  so  long  suffered.  At 
 the  same  time,  they  think  it  their  duty  to  declare, 
 that  this  resolution  proceeds  from  principles  purely 
 Ecclesiastical :  and  that  they  are  moved  to  it  by  the 
 
 y  Skinner's  History,  ii.  688,  689.  Every  Clergyman  complied 
 except  the  Rev.  James  Brown,  of  Montrose.  Skinner's  Annals,  78. 
 
478  l£i0torp  of  t$e  £onjtttm& 
 
 justest  and  most  satisfying  reasons,  in  discharge  of 
 that  high  trust  devolved  upon  them  in  their  Episcopal 
 character  :  and  to  promote,  as  far  as  they  can,  the 
 peace  and  prosperity  of  that  portion  of  the  Christian 
 Church  committed  to  their  charge. 
 
 "  For  obtaining  of  this  desirable  end,  they  there- 
 fore appoint  their  Clergy  to  make  public  notification 
 to  their  congregations  upon  the  18th  day  of  May  next, 
 that  upon  the  following  Lord's  day,  nominal  Prayers 
 for  the  King  are  to  be  authoritatively  introduced,  and 
 afterwards  to  continue  in  the  religious  assemblies  of 
 this  Episcopal  Church  :  and  they  beg  leave  to  recom- 
 mend, as  to  their  Clergy,  whose  obedience  they  ex- 
 pect, so  likewise  to  all  good  Christian  people,  under 
 their  Episcopal  care,  and  do  earnestly  intreat  and 
 exhort  them,  in  the  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  they 
 will  all  cordially  receive  this  determination  of  their 
 Spiritual  Fathers." 
 
 This  Document  was  subscribed  by 
 
 Robert  Kilgour,  Bishop  and  Primus. 
 John  Skinner,  Bishop  of  Aberdeen. 
 Andrew  Macfarlane,  Bishop  of  Ross  and 
 Moray. 
 
 William  Abernethy  Drummond,  Bishop  of 
 
 Edinburgh. 
 John  Strachan,  Bishop  of  Brechin.1 
 
 At  this  time,  therefore,  the  Church  of  Scotland 
 ceased  to  be  a  Nonjuring  Church.  It  is  a  remark- 
 able circumstance,  that  the  Pretender  should  have 
 died  just  one  hundred  years  after  the  Revolution  ;  and 
 that  the  Nonjuring  schism  should  have  lasted  just  a 
 century.3 
 
 7  Gents.  Mag.  lviii.  401 . 
 
 a  It  seems  that  Brown  afterwards  formed  a  party,  who  com- 
 
iMtftory  ofrtjc  iponjurorg.  479 
 My  narrative  might  here  be  closed,  since  the  Scot- 
 tish Bishops  and  Clergy  were  no  longer  Nonjurors  : 
 but  as  several  years  elapsed  before  they  were  put  in 
 possession  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  all  other 
 British  subjects,  I  shall  subjoin  a  few  notices  of  this 
 primitive  Church,  until  the  penal  enactments  were 
 removed  by  legislative  interposition.  At  this  time 
 they  were  not  molested  in  their  worship,  because  the 
 Government  would  not  permit  any  such  violation  of 
 the  principles  of  justice  :  but  still  the  penal  laws  of 
 1746  and  1748  remained  unrepealed. 
 
 The  determination  of  the  Bishops  was  approved 
 and  commended  by  his  Majesty,  King  George  III.  : 
 and  a  communication  to  that  effect  was  made  by  one 
 of  the  Secretaries  of  State.  The  King  expressed 
 his  satisfaction  at  the  proof  of  their  attachment, 
 which  they  had  given.  The  Bishops  were  also 
 assured,  that  the  penal  statutes  would  be  repealed. 
 In  1789,  three  of  the  Bishops  proceeded  to  London, 
 just  at  the  time  of  the  King's  recovery  from  a  severe 
 illness.  A  Bill  for  their  relief  was  brought  into  the 
 Commons,  and  passed  without  any  opposition.  Mr. 
 Dundas,  afterwards  Lord  Mellville,  though  a  Presby- 
 terian, bore  his  most  unqualified  testimony  in  favour 
 of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians:  stating,  that  as  they 
 had  submitted  to  poverty  and  distress  for  one  hun- 
 dred years,  from  a  conscientious,  though  mistaken, 
 
 plained  of  what  the  Bishops  had  done.  Brown,  moreover,  made 
 an  attempt  to  continue  the  succession  through  himself.  He  went 
 to  Bishop  Rose,  then  in  a  state  of  imbecility,  and,  it  is  said,  caused 
 him  to  perform  the  office  of  consecration.  When  the  aged  Prelate 
 was  questioned  on  the  subject,  he  replied  in  the  simplicity  of  child- 
 hood, "  My  sister  may  have  done  it,  but  not  I."  The  disaffected 
 were  removed  in  a  few  years  by  death  ;  and  the  disaffection  ceased. 
 Skinner's  Annals,  83. 
 
480  litetorp  of  tije  ifronjurorg. 
 
 adherence  to  what  they  conceived  to  be  their  duty, 
 tliey  would  now,  since  they  could  transfer  their  alle- 
 giance to  the  Sovereign,  become  some  of  the  most 
 faithful  subjects  of  his  Majesty.  In  the  Lords,  how- 
 ever, the  Bill  was  opposed  by  Thurlow,  the  Lord 
 Chancellor. 
 
 As  the  chief  men  among  the  Presbyterians  were 
 friendly  to  the  measure,  it  seemed  strange,  that  it 
 should  meet  with  opposition  from  English  Church- 
 men.1' An  account  of  the  whole  proceedings  was 
 left  in  MS.  by  Bishop  Skinner,  which  was  afterwards 
 published  by  his  son  in  the  Annals  of  Scottish  Epis- 
 copacy. The  Bishops,  in  an  address  to  the  Archbishop 
 of  Canterbury,  stated,  that  the  penal  laws  were  only 
 intended  to  repress  the  political  disaffection  ascribed 
 to  the  Clergy  and  lay-members  of  the  Episcopal 
 Church,  and  they  only  asked  to  be  placed  on  the 
 same  footing,  as  to  toleration,  with  English  Dis- 
 senters. They  expressed  their  approval  of  the  En- 
 glish Liturgy  :  and  added,  that,  though  they  used 
 generally  the  Scottish  Office,  the  Clergy  had  a  dis- 
 cretionary power  to  adopt  either,  and  that  some 
 actually  did  use  the  English  Form.  The  Archbishop, 
 Horsley,  Bishop  of  St.  David  s,  and  indeed  most  of 
 the  Anglican  Prelates,  maintained  a  friendly  inter- 
 course with  their  Scottish  brethren,  during  their  stay 
 in  London.  A  case  was  drawn  up,  in  which  the 
 penal  laws  were  enumerated,  and  the  compliance  with 
 the  acts  in  praying  for  the  King  and  Royal  Family 
 was  specified.0  The  Bishops  also  addressed  Thur- 
 low, having  been  apprised  of  his  dislike  of  the  mea- 
 sure before  Parliament.  In  a  second  letter  to  his 
 Lordship,  they  confess  the  political  scruples,  which 
 
 b  Skinner's  Annals,  pp.  94,  176.        c  Ibid.  pp.  95,  99,  109. 
 
teisstorp  of  ttje  jponj'uroctf.  481 
 
 had  so  long  prevented  them  from  testifying  their  alle- 
 giance to  the  Government;  but  they  add,  that  as 
 soon  as  the  cause  of  their  disaffection  was  removed, 
 they  recognized  his  Majesty's  authority.  Thurlow 
 had  alluded  to  the  Oath  of  Abjuration,  which,  as 
 being  retrospective,  they  admitted  they  could  not 
 take,  without  involving  themselves  in  perjury,  since 
 no  person  could  take  it,  who  had  ever  recognized  the 
 rights  which  it  disclaimed.  In  July,  the  Bishops 
 returned  to  Scotland  ;  Thurlow's  opposition  was  suc- 
 cessful :  and  the  bill  was  lost.d 
 
 The  next  year,  Lord  Gardenston,  one  of  the  Scotch 
 judges,  and  a  Presbyterian,  addressed  Lord  Thurlow 
 on  the  subject.  "  Though  bred  a  Presbyterian,"  he 
 says,  "  I  have  ever  revered  the  order  and  decency  of 
 the  Episcopal  Church.  In  doctrine  they  are  soundly 
 protestant.  Their  principles  in  regard  to  Govern- 
 ment are  now  reformed,  and  not  less  loyal  than  ours/' 
 This  was  unsolicited  and  unsuspected  testimony ; 
 still  it  was  deemed  desirable  to  delay  the  prosecution 
 of  the  measure  for  the  present.  In  the  mean  time  the 
 Case  of  the  Episcopal  Clergy  was  reprinted  and  cir- 
 culated. The  subject  was  again  submitted  to  Parlia- 
 ment in  1791,  when  Thurlow  said,  that  he  should 
 not  oppose  the  principle,  but  that  he  wished  to  make 
 some  observations  on  the  Bill.  He  unhesitatingly, 
 however,  condemned  the  Statutes  of  Queen  Anne  and 
 George  II.  as  unnecessarily  severe,  though  he  was 
 still  anxious  for  some  restrictions.  The  Bishop  of 
 St.  David's  spoke  strongly  in  favour  of  the  measure  : 
 and  in  reply  to  Thurlow's  notion,  that  Clergy  of 
 English  Ordination  might  meet  the  case,  he  expressed 
 himself  in  language,  which  some  persons  in  the 
 
 d  Skinner's  Annals,  pp.  114,  122. 
 I  I 
 
482  i^isrorp  of  ttjt  /Sonjurorsf. 
 
 present  day  would  do  well  to  consider.  "  The  credit 
 of  Episcopacy  will  never  be  advanced  by  the  scheme 
 of  supplying-  the  Episcopalian  congregations  in  Scot- 
 land with  Pastors  of  our  ordination  :  and  for  this 
 reason,  that  it  would  be  an  imperfect  crippled  Epis- 
 copacy that  would  be  thus  upheld  in  Scotland. 
 When  a  Clergyman  ordained  by  one  of  us  settles  as 
 a  pastor  of  a  congregation  in  Scotland,  he  is  out 
 of  the  reach  of  our  authority.  We  have  no  autho- 
 rity there  :  we  can  have  no  authority  there  :  the 
 legislature  can  give  us  no  authority  there.  The 
 attempt  to  introduce  any  thing  of  an  authorized 
 Political  Episcopacy  in  Scotland  would  be  a  direct 
 infringement  of  the  Union.  As  to  the  notion,  that 
 Clergymen  should  be  originally  ordained  by  us  to 
 the  ministry  in  Scotland,  the  thing  would  be  contrary 
 to  all  rule  and  order.  No  Bishop,  who  knows  what 
 he  does,  ordains  without  a  title,  and  a  title  must  be 
 a  nomination  to  something  in  the  diocese  of  the 
 Bishop  that  ordains.  An  appointment  to  an  Epis- 
 copal congregation  in  Scotland  is  no  more  a  title  to 
 me,  or  any  Bishop  of  the  Irish  Bench,  than  an  ap- 
 pointment to  a  Church  in  Mesopotamia."6 
 
 Lord  Thurlow  was  content,  with  subscription  to 
 the  xxxix  Articles,  on  the  part  of  the  Scottish 
 Clergy,  as  a  test  of  their  principles.  This  was 
 agreed  to  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  :  and  a  Bill  for 
 the  relief  of  the  Scottish  Episcopalians  received  the 
 Royal  assent  on  the  loth  of  June,  1792.  This  Bill 
 repealed  the  clauses  of  the  Acts  of  Queen  Anne, 
 George  L  and  George  II.  by  which  any  penalties 
 were  imposed.  It  then  provides,  that  the  Clergy 
 should  take  the  usual  Oaths,  subscribe  a  declara- 
 
 "  Skinner's  Annals,  pp.  210,  211. 
 
^t'gitocp  of  tfje  j£onj'uroi%  183 
 tion  of  assent  to  the  xxxix  Articles,  and  pray  for 
 the  King  and  Royal  Family,  as  directed  in  the 
 Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.    By  the  same 
 Bill,  however,  it  was  enacted,  that  no  clergyman 
 should  be  permitted  to  officiate  in  England,  except 
 he  had  been  ordained  by  some  Bishop  of  the  Church 
 of  England  or  Ireland/     This  restriction  is  now 
 removed,  and  any  Scottish  Clergyman  is  permitted 
 to  officiate  in  England,  under  a  License  from  the 
 Archbishops  or  Bishops  in  their  respective  dioceses. 
 In  1804  it  was  agreed  that  the   xxxix  Articles 
 should  be  adopted  as  the  standard  of  the  religious 
 principles  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  :    so  that, 
 from  this  time  all  candidates  for  Holy  Orders  were 
 required  to  make  the  same  subscription  as  in  Eng- 
 land/   All  the  right-minded  clergymen  of  English 
 ordination,  who  had  been   officiating  in  Scotland, 
 gave  in  their  adhesion  to  the  Scottish  Bishops.  The 
 plea  of  necessity  no  longer  existed :  and  they  were 
 glad  to  give  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  their 
 principles  as  Churchmen.    Some  clergymen  there 
 were,  who,  like  the  present  schismatics  in  Scotland, 
 continued  in  a  state  of  separation  :  but  their  refusal 
 arose,  not  from  the  love,  but  from  the  dislike  of  Epis- 
 copacy, since  they  could  scarcely  be  deemed  Episco- 
 palians, when  they  were  under  no  subjection  to 
 Bishops.    The  use  of  a  portion  of  the  Liturgy  does 
 not  constitute  a  man  or  congregation  Episcopalian  : 
 otherwise  the  Wesleyan  methodisls  and  Lady  Hunt- 
 ingdon's party  are  such.     Horsley  expressed  his 
 opinion  pointedly  and  strongly  to  a  gentleman,  who 
 published  a  pamphlet  in  favour  of  the  separation, 
 which  he  sent  to  the  Bishop  :  and  his  remarks  are 
 
 f  Skinner's  Annals,  pp.  220,  229.    «  Ibid.  pp.  349,  358,361. 
 
484  ^(satorp  of  tl)e  ^onjutociS. 
 
 applicable  to  the  state  of  things  in  some  parts  of 
 Scotland  at  present.  The  Bishop  says,  "  It  has  long 
 been  my  opinion,  and  very  well  known,  I  believe, 
 to  be  my  opinion,  that  the  laity  in  Scotland  of  the 
 Episcopal  persuasion,  if  they  understand  the  genuine 
 principles  of  Episcopacy  which  they  profess,  ought, 
 in  the  present  state  of  things,  to  resort  to  the  ministry 
 of  their  indigenous  pastors.  And  the  clergymen,  of 
 English  or  of  Irish  Ordination,  exercising  their  func- 
 tions in  Scotland  without  uniting  with  the  Scottish 
 Bishops,  are,  in  my  judgment,  doing  nothing  better 
 than  keeping  alive  a  schism." h 
 
 Little  more  remains  for  me  to  add  on  the  subject 
 of  the  Scottish  Church.  During-  a  long;  time  the 
 Church  of  Scotland  had  no  Liturgy,  for  that  of  1637 
 was  never  generally  adopted.  Nor  was  the  English 
 service  introduced,  until  the  reign  of  Queen  Anne  : 
 and  even  then  its  use  was  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
 Clergy.  The  disputes  respecting  the  usages  have 
 been  detailed,  as  well  as  the  particulars  relative  to 
 the  English  and  Scottish  Offices  for  the  Holy  Com- 
 munion. For  many  years,  the  Office  framed  after  the 
 model  of  King;  Edward's  First  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer,  and  the  Book  of  1637,  was  used  indifferently 
 with  the  Anglican  Form  :  but  occasionally  objections 
 were  raised  against  the  former,  by  persons  in  Eng- 
 land. This  was  especially  the  case  during  the  de- 
 bates in  Parliament,  respecting  the  removal  of  the 
 penal  laws.  The  objection,  however,  was  most  un- 
 reasonable. "  The  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland 
 having  adopted  the  same  articles  of  religion  with  the 
 united  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  one  would 
 have  thought,  that  even  the  suspicion  of  a  difference, 
 
 h  Skinner's  Annals,  p.  391. 
 
Ikt'tftorp  of  tfje  il^onjttrorsf.  485 
 
 in  the  principles  of  the  two  Churches,  would  have 
 been  for  ever  laid  to  sleep.  But,  no !  the  Scottish 
 Communion  Office  is  adduced  as  an  instance  of  a 
 difference  even  now  subsisting."  1  The  writer  chal- 
 lenges any  one  to  produce  a  passage  which  does  not 
 accord  with  the  standard  of  faith  in  the  purest  ages. 
 "  Here  is  nothing  introduced  without  unexceptionable 
 warrant :  nothing  of  late  beginning  :  here  is  no  appli- 
 cation to  saints  or  angels  :  no  worshipping  of  images : 
 no  praying  of  the  dead  out  of  purgatory  :  here  is  no 
 adoration  of  the  consecrated  elements,  nothing  that 
 supposed  a  corporal  presence,  either  by  way  of  Tran- 
 substantiation,  Consubstantiation,  or  of  Infusion  !  In 
 short,  here  is  nothing  set  down  as  contended  for,  or  as 
 practised,  but  what  is  strictly  scriptural  and  strictly 
 Primitive." k  The  Church  of  Scotland,  though 
 agreeing  in  principles  and  doctrines  with  the  Angli- 
 can Church,  was  at  perfect  liberty,  according  to  our 
 xxxiv th  Article,  to  deviate  from  us  in  rites  and  cere- 
 monies, without  being  exposed  to  the  charge  of  dis- 
 senting from  us  in  principle. 
 
 In  other  respects,  the  Scottish  Clergy  adhered  for 
 a  long  time  to  the  English  Liturgy,  except  in  some 
 slight  rubrical  injunctions  ;  but  even  this  variation 
 was  found  to  be  inconvenient,  since  different  Clergy- 
 men adopted  a  different  practice.  The  evil  was  forcibly 
 pointed  out  by  Bishop  Gleig  in  a  letter  to  Bishop 
 Skinner  in  1816.  "  As  every  man  in  my  diocese," 
 says  he,  "  varied  the  form  according  to  his  own  judg- 
 ment and  caprice,  I  found  that  I  could  not  officiate 
 
 '  The  Office  for  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  Holy 
 Communion,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  &c. 
 By  the  Rev.  John  Skinner,  A.M.  8vo.  Aberdeen  1807. 
 
 k  Skinner's  Preface,  p.  7. 
 
486  %'0tocp  of  tfje  jfiorvjurottf. 
 
 for  some  of  my  own  Clergy,  without  either  shewing 
 the  people  that  he"  and  I  think  differently  of  our 
 forms  of  prayer,  or  taking  a  lesson  from  him  how  to 
 read  before  going  in  the  morning  into  the  chapel."  k 
 The  year  after  this  letter  was  written,  the  Scottish 
 Bishops  and  Clergy  met  in  Synod,  when  they  drew 
 up  a  body  of  Canons  for  the  regulation  of  their  Church. 
 In  one  of  them  the  Scottish  Communion  Office  is 
 considered  as  the  authorized  service  :  but  permission 
 is  granted  to  use  the  Anglican  Form  in  all  congre- 
 gations where  it  had  previously  been  adopted.  By 
 another  Canon  it  was  decided,  that  no  alterations  or 
 insertions  should  be  permitted  in  the  Daily  Service, 
 and  that  a  strict  adherence  to  the  English  Liturgy 
 should  be  enforced  upon  all  the  Clergy.  This  de- 
 cision was  made  known  to  the  Archbishops  and 
 Bishops  of  the  united  Church  of  England  and  Ire- 
 land.1 At  the  present  time,  therefore,  the  Articles, 
 and  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  with  the 
 exception  of  the  Communion  Office,  are  adopted  in 
 Scotland :  so  that  no  difference  exists  between  the 
 two  Churches. 
 
 It  must  then  be  a  source  of  deep  regret  to  all,  who 
 are  anxious  to  promote  the  unity  of  the  Church  of 
 Christ,  that  some  persons  in  Scotland  and  England 
 should  endeavour  to  introduce  discord,  in  conse- 
 quence of  the  simple  fact,  that  the  Scottish  Com- 
 munion Office  agrees  rather  with  the  First  Book  of 
 King  Edward,  than  with  the  Form  now  used  in  the 
 Anglican  Church.  That  these  individuals  can  de- 
 sire the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  Church  we  can- 
 not by  any  means  believe  :  since  their  conduct  con- 
 tradicts any  professions  which  they  may  make.  Dis- 
 
 k  Skinner's  Annals,  p.  491.  1  Ibid.  p.  516,  517. 
 
^I'tftorp  of  tfje  $on  jurors  487 
 turbers  of  the  peace  of  the  Church  will  always  be 
 found  within  her  communion  :  and  it  would  be 
 strange  if  the  Church  of  Scotland  should  escape. 
 These  gentlemen  certainly  do  not  agree  with  the  ex- 
 cellent Bishop  Home,  who  thought  so  well  of  the 
 Church  of  Scotland  and  her  primitive  Episcopacy, 
 that  he  expressed  it  as  his  opinion,  that  were  the 
 great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  on  Earth,  he  would 
 probably  unite  himself  to  the  Scottish  Episcopalians, 
 in  preference  to  any  other  body,  and  "  as  most  like  to 
 the  people  he  had  been  used  to."m  To  me  it  appears 
 very  evident,  that  the  persons,  whether  in  Scotland  or 
 in  England,  who  are  against  a  union  with  the  Scot- 
 tish Church,  are  either  profoundly  ignorant  of  the 
 principles  of  Episcopacy,  or  in  reality  hostile  to  Epis- 
 copal government  in  the  Church.  Supposing  the 
 latter  alternative  to  be  correct,  it  would  be  far  more 
 consistent  to  unite  with  the  Presbyterian  Establish- 
 ment in  Scotland. 
 
 It  is  utterly  impossible  for  a  man,  who  really 
 maintains  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
 of  England,  to  act  as  those  gentlemen  have  done  who 
 have  withdrawn  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Scottish 
 Bishops.  They  are  quite  as  much  seceders  from  the 
 Church  of  England,  as  if  they  had  set  up  separate 
 congregations  in  this  country.  The  pretence  of  being 
 subject  to  English  Bishops  is  paltry  and  evasive, 
 because  no  English  Prelate  can  exercise  any  jurisdic- 
 tion in  Scotland,  while  no  man  can  be  an  Episco- 
 palian, whatever  may  be  his  profession,  who  is  not 
 subject  in  his  ministrations  to  some  Bishop.  "  No 
 maxim,"  says  Bishop  Sandford,  "  is  more  undisputed 
 among  Episcopalians,  than  this,  that  without  connex- 
 
 Joncs's  Life  of  Bishop  Home,  p.  151. 
 
488  %'3torp  of  rtje  jponjuiw. 
 
 ion  with  a  Bishop  there  is  no  Church."  He  adds, 
 also,  "  to  this  Communion,  it  appears  to  me,  that  all 
 Protestant  Episcopalians  residing  in  Scotland,  are 
 bound,  by  their  profession  as  Episcopalians,  to  belong : 
 for  otherwise,  neither  they,  nor  the  Clergy,  who  of- 
 ficiate in  their  Chapels,  will  find  it  easy  to  say  of 
 what  Church  they  are  really  members.  While  they 
 reside  in  Scotland,  they  neither  are,  nor  can  be, 
 strictly  speaking,  members  of  the  Church  of  England. 
 The  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  have  no 
 authority  in  Scotland,  and  never  lay  claim  to  such 
 authority.""  The  Bishop  naturally  and  justly  adds, 
 "  Those  who  profess  Episcopalian  principles  in  this 
 country,  Clergy  as  well  as  laity,  must  be  content, 
 while  they  reside  here,  to  consider  and  conduct  them- 
 selves as  members  of  the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church, 
 or  they  can  scarcely  lay  claim  to  the  title  of  Episco- 
 palians." 0  Let  the  Clergy,  who  act  in  defiance  of 
 the  Scottish  Bishops,  proceed,  if  they  please,  to 
 preach  in  their  Chapels  :  but  let  them  be  honest  and 
 not  adopt  the  miserable  subterfuge  or  evasion,  that 
 they  are  still  Episcopalians,  since  every  officiating 
 minister  in  an  Episcopal  Church  must  of  necessity 
 be  subject  to  some  one  Bishop.  There  was,  it  seems, 
 a  pretence,  that  such  Clergymen  were  subject  to  the 
 
 n  Remains  of  the  late  Right  Reverend  Daniel  Sandford,  D.  D. 
 Oxon.  Bishop  of  Edinburgh,  in  the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church,  &c. 
 In  two  volumes,  8vo.  Edinburgh,  1830.  vol.  ii.  pp.  332,  333. 
 Bishop  Sandford  further  remarks,  "  Let  them  say  to  which  of  the 
 dioceses  of  England  they  belong,  and  to  which  of  the  English 
 Prelates  they  owe  Ecclesiastical  submission."  He  asks,  "  how 
 can  those  be  esteemed  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  who  do 
 not  dwell  within  the  bounds  of  that  Church  :  who  do  not  and  can 
 not  acknowledge  the  authority  of  her  Prelates:  and  who  attend  the 
 ministration  of  Clergy  who  neither  have,  nor  can  have,  the  license 
 of  any  of  those  Prelates  to  discharge  their  clerical  office  ?" 
 
 •  Ibid. 
 
I£i0torp  of  tlje  iponjuuocsf.  489 
 
 Bishop  of  Loudon  ;  but  this  evasion  is  wrested  from 
 their  hands  by  his  Lordship's  disclaimer  of  all  juris- 
 diction in  Scotland.  Surely  they  cannot  pretend  to 
 be  under  his  Lordship's  control,  when  he  disclaims 
 any  authority  in  that  country.  If  then  they  choose 
 to  call  themselves  Episcopalians,  they  must  be  schis- 
 matics, inasmuch  as  they  are  separated  from  the 
 Bishop,  who  is  necessarily  the  centre  of  unity  in  an 
 Episcopal  Church,  and  without  whom  there  can  be 
 no  such  thing  as  an  Episcopalian.  Whatever,  there- 
 fore, may  be  said  of  such  men  in  England  or  in  Scot- 
 land ;  though  their  piety  may  be  spoken  of  as  ex- 
 emplary, and  their  conduct  may  be  regarded  as  praise- 
 worthy, by  Dissenters  and  Churchmen  whose  prin- 
 ciples differ  not  from  those  of  Dissenters ;  though 
 they  may  be  men  of  irreproachable  morals,  and 
 amiable  in  all  the  relations  of  life  :  there  is  still  a 
 blot  upon  their  character — a  blot  which  is  an  evi- 
 dence of  weakness  or  dishonesty,  namely,  that  they 
 profess  to  be  Episcopalians,  while  they  reject  all 
 Episcopal  authority,  and  mark  out  a  line  for  them- 
 selves, which,  by  the  principles  of  Episcopacy,  de- 
 volves upon  the  diocesan,  under  whose  jurisdiction 
 their  lot,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  may  be  cast.  To 
 withdraw  from  allegiance  to  the  Scottish  Bishops, 
 under  the  pretence  of  being  in  some  way  under  the 
 jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England, 
 is  only  adding  duplicity  to  dishonesty. p   It  would  be 
 
 p  "  The  officiating  Clergy  in  Scotland"  says  Archdeacon  Dau- 
 beny,  "  who  make  their  supposed  connexion  with  the  Church  of 
 England  a  plea  for  their  separation  from  the  Church  of  Scotland, 
 act  in  direct  defiance  of  that  principle,  by  which  the  constitution 
 of  the  Church  is  maintained  :  for  they  are  living  in  a  state  of  ex- 
 emption from  all  Ecclesiastical  government  whatever.  The  con- 
 duct of  the  Clergy,  who  set  up  this  pretended  connexion  with  the 
 
490  ^igtorp  of  tlje  i^onjurorsf* 
 
 far  more  consistent  to  acknowledge  themselves  to  be 
 separatists,  or  even  to  become  Presbyterians,  since 
 their  principle  of  acting  for  themselves,  without  re- 
 gard to  a  Bishop,  is  Presbyterian  rather  than  Epis- 
 copal. 
 
 It  should  be  mentioned,  that  the  introduction  of 
 English  Clergymen  into  Scotland,  to  act  indepen- 
 dently of  the  Scottish  Bishops,  arose  from  a  state  of 
 things,  which  does  not  now  exist.  There  were  neces- 
 sarily some  English  Episcopalians  in  that  country  : 
 some  also  Avho  held  official  posts :  and  the}'  thought, 
 that  they  could  not  safely  or  consistently  attend  the 
 ministrations  of  the  Nonjuring  Clergy.  To  meet 
 their  case,  certain  Clergymen  were  sent  from  England. 
 But  as  the  cause  no  longer  exists  for  such  an  irre- 
 gularity, the  practice  ought  to  cease.  Such  Clergy- 
 men in  Scotland,  as  refuse  to  submit  to  the  Bishops, 
 are  in  reality  the  same  as  the  Preachers  among  the 
 Independents  in  England,  some  of  whom  adopt  the 
 English  Liturgy. 
 
 The  reader  will  perceive,  that  a  great  many  events 
 are  crowded  together  in  this  chapter.  It  could  not 
 be  otherwise,  as  a  sketch  of  the  Scottish  Church  was 
 necessary  to  complete  my  plan ;  and  a  larger  space 
 could  not  be  devoted  to  the  subject.  I  hope,  how- 
 ever, that  the  sketch,  brief  as  it  is,  will  be  found  to 
 embrace  all  the  particulars  connected  with  the  Scot- 
 tish Episcopalians  as  Nonjurors  :  and  I  trust,  that  the 
 perusal  of  it  may  not  be  without  instruction.  Unless 
 
 Church  of  England,  as  the  plea  for  their  non-union  with  the 
 Church  of  Scotland,  not  only,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  anni- 
 hilates Ecclesiastical  government,  but  directly  militates  at  the  same 
 time  against  the  essence  of  Ecclesiastical  unity."  A  Layman's 
 account  of  his  Faith  and  Practice,  as  a  member  of  the  Episcopal 
 Church  in  Scotland,  published  with  the  approbation  of  the  Bishops 
 of  that  Church.    12mo.  Edinburgh,  p.  177. 
 
%'0tocp  ot"  tfje  i£onjttroi#.  491 
 
 1  am  greatly  mistaken,  I  have  proved,  that  many 
 circumstances  combined  together  to  favour  the  setting- 
 up  of  Presbytery  at  the  Revolution,  and  that  the  vote 
 of  the  Convention,  that  Episcopacy  was  contrary  to 
 the  inclinations  of  the  people,  was  directly  the  reverse 
 of  the  truth.  It  has  been  seen,  that  the  Conven- 
 tion, which  consisted  of  a  small  number  of  Presby- 
 terians, the  Episcopal  party  having  either  refused  to 
 act,  or  been  driven  away  by  the  mob,  was  continued 
 many  years,  the  ruling  party  being  fearful  of  trusting 
 to  another  election.  Even  as  late  as  the  year  1701, 
 a  Challenge  was  put  forth  by  Bishop  Sage  in  the 
 following  words.  "  If  the  objection  be  the  inclina- 
 tions of  the  people,  and  that  they  will  not  have  it 
 otherwise,  the  Episcopal  party,  there,  desire  that 
 this  may  be  put  to  the  test,  by  letting  the  immediate 
 sense  of  the  nation  be  known  in  a  free  election  of 
 their  representatives  in  Parliament,  which  they  have 
 not  had  since  this  revolution.  And  though  many 
 and  pressing  instances  have  been  made  for  a  free 
 election  in  that  country,  as  has  been  granted  to 
 England,  yet  can  it  not  be  obtained.  The  Presby- 
 terian, party  have  interest  to  render  all  these  attempts 
 ineffectual.  Well  knowing,  at  least  fearing,  that  a 
 free  Parliament  there  would  shew  the  inclinations  of 
 the  people  to  be  far  otherwise  than  they  have  repre- 
 sented them."q  Whatever  was  the  cause,  the  fact 
 is  indisputable,  that  the  Convention  Parliament  was 
 continued  for  many  years  :  nor  can  there  be  much 
 room  to  doubt,  that  their  fears  of  the  people  pre- 
 vented the  Presbyterian  rulers  from  resorting  to  a 
 new  election. 
 
 'i  Sage's  Vindication  of  a  Discourse  entitled  tlie  Principles  of 
 the  Cyprianic  Age,  &c.    4to.  London,  1701,  preface. 
 
CHAPTER  XL 
 
 Offices  of  Nonjurors. — Communion  Office. — Deacon's  Col- 
 lection.—  Its  Departures  from  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer. — Differences  between  the  Separatists  and  the 
 Regular  Body. — Reflections. — Neglect  of  Certain  Ru- 
 brics traced  to  the  Latitudinarian  Spirit  at  the  Revolu- 
 tion, and  to  the  Practices  of  the  Nonjurors.  —  The 
 Rubrics  Considered. — Obedience  in  General. — Lessons. 
 —  Mutilations.  —  Omissions.  —  Neglected  Rubrics. — 
 Surplice. — Prayer  for  Church  Militant.  —  Offertory. 
 — Conductof  the  Objectors  to  the  Rubrics. — Conclusion. 
 
 F  the  principles  on  which  the  Nonjurors 
 separated  from  the  National  Church, 
 as  well  as  of  their  internal  divisions, 
 an  account  has  been  given  in  the  pre- 
 vious chapters  :  but  some  further  par- 
 ticulars, relative  to  the  Offices  used  by  the  two  sec- 
 tions, after  the  second  separation  in  1733,  or  1734, 
 are  necessary  to  complete  the  history  of  the  body. 
 From  a  preceding  page,  it  will  be  seen,  that  Hickes 
 usually  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  according  to 
 the  Form  in  King  Edward's  first  Liturgy  :  but  this 
 practice  was  by  no  means  common  until  the  discus- 
 sions arose  respecting  the  Usages,  the  Nonjurors 
 previously  adhering  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
 in  all  its  Offices,  rejecting  only  the  name  of  the 
 reigning  Sovereign.  This  is  particularly  mentioned 
 by  Bennet  in  1716;  so  that  the  majority  did  not 
 follow  the  example  of  Hickes.  After  the  new  Com- 
 munion Office  had  been  adopted  by  one  section  in 
 
^(0torp  of  ttje  iftonj'urorg.  493 
 
 1718,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was  still  used  by 
 the  other  :  and  even  those,  who  received  the  new 
 Office,  still  adhered  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  National 
 Church  in  all  other  particulars.  Subsequent  to  1733, 
 however,  a  considerable  change  took  place.  All  the 
 Nonjurors,  with  the  very  few  exceptions  previously 
 specified,  had  then  adopted  the  new  Communion  Of- 
 fice, or  at  all  events  the  Usages:  but  in  1734  the 
 parties,  who  separated  from  their  brethren,  and  whom, 
 for  the  sake  of  precision,  I  have  denominated  Separa- 
 tists, departed  altogether  from  the  Liturgy  of  the 
 Church  of  England,  and  adopted  a  new  Book  of 
 Common  Prayer.  In  Scotland,  the  English  Book, 
 with  the  exception  of  the  Office  for  the  Communion, 
 was  received  by  the  Nonjurors  :  and,  when  they  ceased 
 to  be  a  Nonjuring  Church,  the  Prayer  Book  was  re- 
 tained as  a  matter  of  course,  and  is  continued  at  the 
 present  time.  I  proceed,  therefore,  to  give  some  ac- 
 count of  the  Communion  Office,  adopted  by  the  re- 
 gular body,  and  also  of  the  Book  which  was  intro- 
 duced into  public  worship  among  the  Separatists. 
 
 The  new  Communion  Office  is  founded  on  that  of 
 King  Edward's  First  Book,  A.  D.  1549,  in  which 
 the  particular  practices,  comprehended  under  the  ge- 
 neral term  Usages,  were  retained.  Not  a  few  of  our 
 most  eminent  theologians,  at  various  periods,  have 
 expressed  their  preference  of  the  Communion  Office 
 in  the  First  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  though  they 
 considered  our  present  form  as  sufficient.  This  cir- 
 cumstance, therefore,  should  certainly  make  us  cau- 
 tious, in  condemning  the  Nonjurors,  or  our  Scottish 
 brethren,  for  adopting  that  form,  which,  though  re- 
 jected by  our  own  reformers  at  the  revision  of  the 
 Prayer  Book  in  1551,  was  rejected  in  consequence  of 
 the  scruples  of  some  of  the  foreign  reformers,  for  the 
 sake  of  preserving  peace  and  union.    The  four  par- 
 
494  !£totoi'p  of  tlje  ilionjurouff. 
 
 ticulars,  which  have  been  specified  in  a  previous 
 chapter,  and  which  are  known  as  the  Usages,  were  as 
 a  matter  of  course  retained  in  the  New  Book.  In 
 the  structure  of  the  Office,  the  form  of  1549  is  fol- 
 lowed, rather  than  that  in  our  present  Liturgy,  though 
 even  the  former  is  not  regarded  in  every  particular. 
 The  Usages  were  four,  namely,  mixing  water  with  the 
 wine*  Prayer  for  the  Dead,b  the  Prayer  for  the  De- 
 scent of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Elements,0  and  the 
 Oblatory  Prayer.6,  They  were  not  however  placed 
 in  precisely  the  same  order  in  which  they  stood  in 
 King  Edward's  First  Book.  By  this  new  form,  there- 
 fore, the  Holy  Communion  was  celebrated  by  Collier's 
 party,  after  the  year  1718,  and  by  all  the  regular 
 body,  subsequent  to  the  union  in  1733,  until  they 
 became  extinct. 
 
 Appended  to  the  Office  for  the  Communion  were 
 
 a  The  Rubric  in  the  New  Office  orders  :  "  And  putting  into 
 the  Chalice,  or  else  into  some  fair  and  convenient  cup,  &c,  putting 
 thereto  in  the  view  of  the  people  a  little  pure  and  clean  water." 
 
 b  The  Prayer  is  restored  as  follows  :  "  We  commend  unto  thy 
 mercy,  O  Lord,  all  thy  servants,  who  are  departed  with  the  sign 
 of  faith,  and  now  do  rest  in  the  sleep  of  peace  :  Grant  unto  them, 
 we  beseech  thee,  thy  mercy  and  everlasting  peace  :  and  that  at 
 the  day  of  the  general  resurrection,  we  and  all  they,  who  are  of 
 the  mystical  body  of  thy  Son,  may  all  together  be  set  on  his  right 
 hand." 
 
 c  The  restored  Prayer  stands  thus:  "And  send  down  thine 
 Holy  Spirit,  the  witness  of  the  passion  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  upon 
 this  Sacrifice,  that  he  may  make  this  bread  the  body  of  thy  Son, 
 and  this  cup  the  blood  of  thy  Son." 
 
 d  In  the  New  Office  there  are  two  passages,  which  though  not 
 precisely  similar  to  the  clauses  which  Collier  and  his  supporters 
 wished  to  be  restored  from  King  Edward's  First  Book,  are  the 
 same  in  effect.  One  in  the  name  of  the  Ministers  is  as  follows  : 
 "That  we  may  be  worthy  to  offer  unto  thee  this  reasonable  and 
 unbloody  sacrifice  for  our  sins  and  the  sins  of  the  people.  Receive 
 it,  O  God,  as  a  sweet  smelling  savour,  &c.  And  as  thou  didst  ac- 
 cept this  worship  and  service  from  thy  Holy  Apostles  :  so  of  thy 
 
%'0tot*p  of  tije  iponjurottf.  495 
 two  others,  for  Confirmation  and  the  Visitation  of  the 
 Sick.  Both  these  vary  in  some  respects  from  our 
 present  Offices.  The  Chrism  or  Ointment  is  retained 
 in  the  Of/ice  for  Confirmation,  together  with  the  sign 
 of  the  Cross.  There  is  also  a  Form  for  Consecrating 
 the  Chrism*  It  is  stated  in  one  of  the  Rubrics,  that 
 the  matter  of  the  Chrism  is  sweet  oil  of  olives  and 
 precious  Balsam,  commonly  called  Balm  of  Gilead. 
 In  the  Office  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  the  Priest 
 is  directed  to  place  his  hand  on  the  head  of  the  sick 
 person,  while  he  pronounces  the  absolution.  The 
 anointing-  with  oil  is  also  enjoined ;  and  a  form  for 
 administering  the  Holy  Communion  to  the  sick  per- 
 son is  appended/ 
 
 These  are  the  chief  peculiarities  of  the  new  Com- 
 munion Office.  But  it  is  necessary  to  remark,  that 
 whenever  I  have  spoken  of  this  Office,  the  forms  for 
 Conjirmation  and  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick  are  to  be 
 understood  as  comprehended  in  the  Designation,  the 
 name  by  which  the  Book  is  usually  known. 
 
 goodness,  O  Lord,  vouchsafe  to  receive  these  offerings  from  the 
 hands  of  us  sinners,  &c."  The  prayer  from  which  this  is  taken  is 
 called  A  Prayer  of  Acceptance,  and  is  abridged  from  the  Liturgy 
 of  St.  Basil.  The  other  stands  thus  :  "  We  offer  to  thee,  accord- 
 ing to  his  Holy  institution,  this  bread  and  this  cup,  &c.  and  we 
 beseech  thee  to  look  favourably  on  these  thy  gifts,  which  are  here 
 set  before  thee,  O  thou  self-sufficient  God  :  and  do  thou  accept 
 them  to  the  honour  of  thy  Christ." 
 
 e  "  He  shall  anoint  every  one,  &c.  with  the  Chrism  or  ointment, 
 making  the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  their  forehead,  and  saying: 
 
 N.  I  sign  thee  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  I  anoint  thee  with 
 Holy  Ointment." 
 
 In  the  Rubric  for  the  consecration  of  the  Chrism,  the  Bishop  is 
 directed  to  "  take  some  Chrism  or  Ointment:  and  putting  it  into 
 a  decent  vessel,  he  shall  stand  and  consecrate  it  in  manner  and 
 form  following." 
 
 f  "Then  shall  the  Priest  anoint  the  sick  person  upon  the  fore- 
 head, making  the  sign  of  the  cross  and  saying." 
 
496  ^igtorp  of  tfje  ii2onjucoc0. 
 
 Deacon's  book  was  adopted  by  the  Separatists  : 
 and  an  examination  of  its  various  Offices  will  shew 
 how  widely  this  party  differed  from  their  Nonjuring 
 brethren,  as  well  as  from  the  Anglican  Church.  Dea- 
 con, though  a  man  of  considerable  learning,  was  evi- 
 dently fond  of  novelties.  As  the  leader  of  the  party 
 he  published  in  1734,  a  collection  of  Devotions,  to 
 be  used  in  their  religious  services.  From  this  Book, 
 the  singular  title  of  which  was  given  in  a  previous 
 chapter,  the  prayers  used  at  the  execution  of  the 
 author's  son,  after  the  Rebellion  in  1745,  were  taken. 
 It  was  called  their  Book  of  Common  Prayer.6 
 
 Besides  this  book,  he  published  another  very  sin- 
 gular work,  of  which  I  have  already  given  some  ac- 
 count, A  Full,  True,  and  Comprehensive  View  of 
 Christianity :  and  to  these  two  works  we  must  refer 
 for  an  illustration  of  the  differences  between  his  party 
 and  the  rest  of  the  Nonjurors.  Certain  practices  are 
 enjoined  in  The  Devotions,  which  are  explained  and 
 defended  in  the  other  work  :  and  the  two  tog-ether 
 furnish  a  distinct  view  of  the  points  at  issue  between 
 these  two  parties.  The  one  work  bears  upon  the 
 other  in  a  singular  manner,  since  the  practices  pre- 
 scribed in  the  Prayer  Book  are  explained  in  The 
 Comprehensive  View.h  It  is  true,  that  on  the  question 
 of  the  Oaths,  both  parties  were  agreed  :  but  the  prin- 
 ciples of  the  Separatists,  in  many  important  particu- 
 lars, were  different  from  those  of  the  other  body. 
 
 g  Campbell  was  doubtless  the  nominal  leader  of  this  section, 
 until  his  death,  which  took  place  in  1744  :  but  as  Deacon  was 
 the  most  active  of  the  party,  I  am  justified  in  speaking-  of  him  as 
 the  real  leader  even  before  Campbell's  death. 
 
 h  This  work  indeed  is  a  regular  commentary  on  the  Book  of 
 Devotions,  just  as  Wheatley's  or  Nichols's  volumes  are  comments 
 on  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  A  reason  is  assigned  for  the 
 various  ceremonies  contained  in  the  Collection  of  Devotions. 
 
$?t£to?p  of  rlje  jPoni'urortf.  497 
 Deacon's  new  Service  Book  contained  an  Order  for 
 Morning  Prayer,  and  an  Order  for  Evening  Prayer, 
 altogether  different  in  structure  from  the  Book  of 
 Common  Prayer,  to  which  the  regular  Nonjurors 
 adhered.    These  Offices  are  so  unlike  the  Services 
 in  the  Anglican  Book,  that  the  original  leaders  of  the 
 Nonjuring  separation  could  not  possibly  have  sanc- 
 tioned them.    They  were  consequently  rejected  by 
 all,  except  by  Deacon's  own  party.  After  the  Order 
 for  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer  there  are  Prayers 
 for  the  Catechumens,  the  Energumens,  the  candidates 
 for  Baptism,  and  the  Penitents.    The  Energumens 
 were  persons  supposed  to  be  possessed  by  evil  spirits  : 
 and  certain  Prayers  are  appointed  to  be  used  by  the 
 Priest  with  special  reference  to  such  an  opinion. 
 
 The  next  form  is  called  the  Penitential  Office,  and 
 was  appointed  to  be  used  on  Wednesdays  and  Fridays, 
 and  on  other  specified  occasions  :  and  it  is  ordered, 
 that  none  should  be  present,  except  the  Faithful  and 
 the  Penitents.  Next  in  order  stands  The  Communion 
 Office,  which  not  only  differs  from  our  own,  but  also 
 from  the  Book  of  1718.'  The  designation  even  of 
 the  Office  is  peculiar,  differing  from  that  of  the 
 Nonjurors,  as  well  as  from  our  own  :  and  by  a  special 
 Rubric  none  but  the  Faithful  were  permitted  to  be 
 present  at  the  administration.  In  addition  to  the 
 mixture  of  water  with  the  wine,  the  Priest  is  directed 
 to  sign  his  forehead  with  the  sign  of  the  cross — to 
 administer  the  elements  to  the  Deaconesses,  and  also 
 to  Infants,  saying  simply  "  The  Body  of  Christ,  and 
 "  The  Blood  of  Christ,  the  cup  of  Life."    Deacon,  it 
 
 1  The  title  is  as  follows :  "  The  Holy  Liturgy  :  or,  the  Form  of 
 Offering  the  Sacrifice,  and  of  Administering  the  Sacrifice  of  the 
 Eucharist." 
 
 K  K 
 
498  ^!0tOtp  Of  tl)C  &Qn\UWVfS. 
 
 seems,  was  as  much  dissatisfied  with  the  Book,  which 
 had  been  arranged  by  Collier  and  Brett,  as  with  the 
 Office  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ;  and  there- 
 fore, he  put  forth  a  new  Form,  to  be  used  by  those 
 congregations  in  which  his  authority  was  recog- 
 nized.1" 
 
 In  "  The  Order  of  Confirmation  "  and  "  The  Order 
 for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,"  Deacon  differs  from 
 the  Church  of  England,  and  also  from  the  other 
 Nonjurors.  The  Chrism  is  adopted,  as  in  the  Book 
 of  1718,  and  the  rite  is  ordered  to  be  administered  to 
 infants.1 
 
 The  remaining  Public  Offices  in  this  collection 
 
 k  A  most  laboured  defence  of  the  practice  of  infant  communion 
 may  be  seen  in  The  Comprehensive  View.  He  contends,  that 
 among  the  heathen,  infants  partook  of  the  idolatrous  feasts  after 
 the  sacrifices.  He  proceeds:  "  The  Eucharist  is  a  feast  upon  a 
 sacrifice,  and  it  is  designed  to  distinguish  those  who  belonged  to 
 Christ,  as  the  others  were  to  distinguish  those  who  belonged  to  the 
 false  gods  of  the  heathen."  He  asks  :  "  Had  the  Devil  his  meat 
 and  his  cup  to  betoken  those,  who  had  communion  with  him,  and 
 has  Christ  his  meat  and  his  cup  to  betoken  those,  who  are  in  com- 
 munion with  him  ?  and  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  he  in- 
 tended these  should  be  as  generally  received  by  his  family,  as  the 
 others  were  by  that  of  the  Devil  ?"  He  further  argues  at  con- 
 siderable length  in  favour  of  the  practice,  from  the  fact,  that  the 
 Old  Testament  Sacraments,  as  he  terms  them,  were  allowed  to  in- 
 fants. He  contends,  that  the  Jewish  children  partook  of  the  Feasts, 
 and  of  the  Passover  :  that  the  arguments  for  infant  communion  are 
 as  strong  as  those  for  infant  baptism  :  and  that  it  was  practised  in 
 the  early  Church,  pp.  366,  393. 
 
 1  At  the  commencement  of  the  Service  is  the  following  Rubric  : 
 "  At  the  time  appointed,  all  that  are  to  be  then  confirmed,  being 
 placed,  the  adults  and  the  sponsors  with  the  children  in  their  arms 
 standing  in  order  before  the  Bishop,  he  shall  begin  the  office."  In 
 his  Comprehensive  View,  Deacon  contends,  that  infants  are  ca- 
 pable of  receiving  spiritual  benefits,  and  that  therefore  Confirmation 
 is  to  be  administered  to  them,  p.  238. 
 
i^tetorp  of  tlje  ^on/ucottf.  499 
 are  "The  Ministration  of  Public  Baptism;"  "  The 
 Ministration  of  Private  Baptism  ;"  "  The  Churching 
 of  Women ."  "  The  Order  for  the  Burial  of  the 
 Dead,"  "  The  Communion  at  the  Burial  of  the 
 Dead;"  and  "  Form  of  Consecrations ;"  all  of 
 which  differ  very  widely  from  our  own. 
 
 Public  Baptism  is  only  allowed  between  Easter  and 
 Pentecost.  The  sign  of  the  Cross,  a  Form  of  Exorcism, 
 the  anointing  with  oil,  and  the  Trine  Immersion  are 
 enjoined.  A  portion  of  consecrated  milk  and  honey, 
 and  white  garments,  as  an  emblem  of  innocency, 
 were  given  to  each  child.1"  In  the  case  of  adults,  the 
 Priest  was  to  retire,  while  the  candidates  were  placed 
 in  the  water,  the  males  by  the  Deacons,  the  females 
 by  the  Deaconesses.  A  Form  for  consecrating  the 
 milk  and  honey  is  appended  to  the  office."  In 
 
 m  "  This  dipping  does  very  significantly  express  the  three  great 
 effects  of  Baptism :  for  as  immersion  necessarily  implies  three 
 several  states  or  conditions  ;  the  descent  into  the  water,  the  being 
 totally  covered  with  it,  and  the  rising  out  of  it  again  :  so  by  these 
 are  represented  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection:  and  in 
 conformity  thereto  our  dying  unto  sin,  the  destruction  of  its 
 power,  and  our  resurrection  to  a  new  course  of  life.  By  the  per- 
 son's descending  into  the  water,  is  livelily  represented  his  going 
 down  to  the  grave,  and  dying  to  sin  :  by  his  being  totally  covered 
 with  it,  which  is  a  kind  of  burial  in  the  water,  is  denoted  his  being 
 absolutely  in  the  power  of  death,  &c.  and  then  by  his  emersion  or 
 rising  up  out  of  the  water,  is  signified  his  entering  upon  a  new 
 course  of  life."  He  explains  the  trine  immersion  to  represent  the 
 Trinity,  and  the  three  days  burial  of  Christ,  and  his  resurrection 
 on  the  third  day.  Deacon's  Comprehensive  View,  p.  231.  He 
 explains  the  white  garments  to  signify  "  his  having  put  off  the  lusts 
 of  the  flesh."    Ibid.  232. 
 
 "  Deacon  thus  explains  the  milk  and  honey.  "  After  the  kiss 
 of  peace  he  receives  a  taste  of  consecrated  milk  and  honey,  in 
 token  of  his  spiritual  infancy,  that,  now  he  is  a  child  adopted  into 
 God's  family,  for  sweet  milk  is  the  nourishment  of  new  born 
 babes."    Ibid.  232. 
 
500  of  rlje  4tonfurot& 
 
 Private  Baptism,  which  was  to  be  administered  only 
 in  cases  of  necessity,  the  water  was  to  be  poured  on 
 the  infant.  As  Deacon  maintained  the  doctrine  of 
 Infant  Communion,  the  Eucharist  was  ordered  to  be 
 administered  to  the  sick  child. 
 
 In  the  Office  for  Churching  of  Women,  there  is 
 not  any  material  variation  from  our  own  Form  :  while 
 in  the  Burial  Service,  the  alterations  consist  chiefly 
 of  additions  of  prayers  for  the  departed.  The  Form 
 for  "  the  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  at  the 
 Rurial  of  the  Dead  "  differs  in  several  particulars 
 from  that  in  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  King  Edward. 
 
 The  last  of  the  Public  Offices,  the  Service  for 
 Ordinations  and  Consecrations,  is  peculiar,  especially 
 as  one  part  relates  to  Deaconesses.  The  sign  of  the 
 cross  is  retained  ;  the  kiss  of  peace  is  also  enjoined 
 to  be  given  by  Bishops  to  the  new  Bishop,  by  the 
 Bishop  and  Presbyters  to  a  Priest,  and  by  the  Deacons 
 to  a  Deacon.  The  service  for  Deaconesses  is  nearly 
 similar  to  that  for  Deacons.0 
 
 The  second  part  of  the  collection  consists  of  Private 
 Devotions.  There  are  Devotions  for  the  Morning  : 
 the  Evening  :  for  the  ancient  Hours  of  Prayer  :  to 
 
 n  Alluding  to  the  Deaconesses,  Deacon  says  that  their  office 
 "  is  to  assist  at  the  baptism  of  women,  that  the  ceremony  may  be 
 performed  with  all  possible  decency :  to  instruct  (in  private)  chil- 
 dren and  women  who  are  preparing  for  baptism  :  to  visit  and  attend 
 women  that  are  sick  and  in  distress :  to  overlook  the  women  in 
 the  Church  :  and  to  introduce  any  woman  who  wants  to  make  ap- 
 plication to  a  Deacon,  Presbyter,  or  Bishop."  He  states  that  the 
 order  was  always  received  in  the  Ancient  Church.  Comprehensive 
 View,  p.  429.  Elsewhere  he  says  "  that  all  occasion  of  scandal 
 and  immodesty  may  be  prevented  in  so  sacred  a  mystery  as  baptism, 
 men  and  women  are  baptized  apart :  and  the  latter  have  Dea- 
 conesses to  attend  them,  to  undress,  and  dress  them,  &c."  Ibid. 
 231. 
 
^tgtoi'p  of  tljc  il5oujucot%  501 
 
 be  used  in  the  Church  and  at  the  Altar.  There  are 
 also  Offices  for  daily  Private  Communion,  and  for 
 the  Commemoration  of  the  Dead.  The  Office  for 
 Private  Communion  contains  a  Form  for  a  sick  person 
 to  administer  the  sacrament  to  himself,  the  elements 
 being  reserved  from  the  public  administration.11 
 
 By  the  adoption  of  this  book  of  Offices,  Deacon's 
 party,  even  apart  from  their  irregular  consecrations, 
 was  altogether  at  variance  with  the  other,  in  the  mode 
 of  celebrating  Divine  Service.  But  Deacon  was  not 
 satisfied  even  with  this  new  collection  :  for  in  the 
 year  1746,  he  published,  though  without  his  name, 
 another  small  volume,  consisting  of  several  special 
 Forms,  in  which  he  departed  still  further  from  the 
 other  Nonjurors.q 
 
 The  Form  for  admitting  converts  is  much  stronger 
 in  its  expressions  and  requirements,  than  that  which 
 had  been  drawn  up  by  Kettlewell,  and  which  had 
 been  always  used  by  the  other  party.  The  Chrism 
 and  the  sign  of  the  cross  were  enjoined  in  such  cases. 
 The  Litany  was  to  be  used  on  certain  specified  oc- 
 casions. 
 
 This  account  of  the  Offices  adopted  by  the  Separatists 
 is  sufficient  to  mark  the  striking  differences  between 
 
 p  It  may  be  remarked  that  the  Chrism,  the  Milk  and  Honey, 
 the  Balsam,  the  Kiss  of  Peace,  with  the  other  ceremonies  in  the 
 Collection  of  Devotions,  are  all  explained  in  the  Comprehensive 
 View. 
 
 1  The  Form  of  admitting  a  Convert  into  the  Communion  of  the 
 Church.  London,  Printed  in  the  year  1746.  The  volume  con- 
 tains also  A  Litany  for  the  Use  of  those  who  mourn  for  the  Ini- 
 quities of  the  Present  Times.  Prayers  to  be  used  upon  the 
 Death  of  Members  of  the  Church  :  and,  An  Office  for  the  Use 
 of  those  who  by  unavoidable  necessity  are  deprived  of  the  ad- 
 vantage of  joining  in  offering  the  Sacrifice,  and  of  receiving  the 
 Sacrament  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  ! 
 
502  ^tgtorp  ot*  tfjc  ilionjttrottf. 
 
 them  and  the  Nonjurors  of  the  regular  body,  who 
 adhered  strictly,  with  the  exception  of  the  Book  of 
 1718,  to  the  worship  of  the  Anglican  Church.  It 
 must  strike  the  reader  very  forcibly,  that  all  these 
 differences  would  have  been  avoided,  if  the  Nonjurors 
 had  followed  the  advice  of  Ken,  or  the  example  of 
 Dodwell  and  Nelson.  But  the  bitterness  of  feeling, 
 under  which  many  of  them  laboured,  had  greatly 
 increased  as  early  as  the  period  of  Ken's  resignation 
 to  Hooper.  Even  before  his  resignation,  he  seems 
 to  have  been  anxious,  that  the  schism  should  be 
 closed.  Writing  to  Hickes,  he  says,  "  I  wrote  to 
 you  not  long  ago,  to  recommend  to  your  serious  con- 
 sideration, the  schism  which  has  so  long  continued 
 in  our  Church,  and  which  I  have  often  lamented  to 
 my  brother  of  Ely,  now  with  God,  and  concerning 
 which,  I  have  many  years  had  ill  abodings."  At 
 this  time  the  Clergy  had  made  a  noble  stand  in 
 defence  of  the  Church,  and  Ken  imagined,  that,  in 
 consequence,  the  breach  might  be  healed.  He, 
 therefore,  recommends  Hickes  to  consult  Bishop 
 Lloyd,  Dr.  Smith,  Wagstaffe,  and  Dodwell.  Framp- 
 ton  he  excepts,  partly  on  account  "  of  his  remote- 
 ness "  and  "  partly  because  he  never  interrupted 
 communion  with  the  Jurors,  which  has  been  the 
 practice  also  of  our  friends  at  Cambridge."  He  sug- 
 gested a  meeting  with  Hooper,  then  the  prolocutor 
 of  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation  ;  but  it  is  clear 
 that  no  such  interview  ever  occurred.  In  this  Letter 
 even,  dated  in  the  year  1700,  Ken  suggests  his  own 
 and  Lloyd's  resignation  ;  and  further,  that  they 
 should  print  a  circular  letter,  declaring  that  their 
 views  remained  the  same,  but  that,  to  restore  the 
 peace  of  the  Church,  they  were  willing  to  resign. 
 He  thought,  that  such  a  Letter  would  enable  them 
 
^tgtorp  of  tt)e  iPom'urortf.  503 
 
 to  attend  the  public  prayers  without  being-  mis- 
 understood/ It  is  singular,  that  this  Letter  should 
 have  been  written  to  Hickes,  the  man  who  laboured 
 more  than  any  other  to  prevent  the  closing  of  the 
 breach,  after  Lloyd's  death. 
 
 It  appears,  that  even  Lloyd  himself  had  some  such 
 thoughts,  on  the  death  of  King  William  ;  for  he 
 wrote,  begging  Ken  to  repair  to  London  "  in  this 
 nice  conjunction  of  affairs,"  to  assist  them  with  his 
 counsel.'  Subsequently,  when  Ken  actually  resigned 
 to  Hooper,  he  was  much  censured  by  some  of  the 
 party.  "  The  Jacobites  at  Bristol,"  says  he,  "  fomented 
 by  those  at  London,  are  thoroughly  enraged  against 
 me  for  my  cession  to  one,  whom  all  mankind  besides 
 themselves  have  a  high  esteem  of."  It  seems  that 
 some  one  had  previously  solicited  Ken  to  adopt 
 clandestine  consecrations.  "  If  I  should  produce  the 
 frequent  letters,  a  certaine  person  wrote  to  me,  for 
 near  two  yeares  together,  to  importune  me  to  consent 
 to  clandestine  consecrations,  they  would  discover  the 
 temper  of  the  man,  and  the  zeal  he  shewed  to  make 
 the  schism  incurable,  which  I  was  always  for  mode- 
 rating, forseeing  how  fatall  it  would  prove." 1  This 
 was  written  to  Lloyd,  who  then  approved  of  the  step 
 taken  by  Ken,  though  he  afterwards  endeavoured 
 to  retract  his  approval.  In  a  subsequent  Letter, 
 Ken,  alluding  to  the  conduct  of  the  Bristol  people, 
 says,  "  Though  you  are  pleased  to  tell  me,  that  others 
 kindled  this  fire,  and  not  yourself,  I  must  take  the 
 freedom  to  tell  you,  that  it  is  you  yourself  have 
 most  contributed  to  it.    For  it  is  still  vehemently 
 
 r  Ken's  Prose  Works,  by  Round,  8vo.  1838,  where  this  Letter 
 is  published  for  the  first  time,  pp.  49-50. 
 
 •  Ibid.  p.  55.  1  Ibid.  p.  69. 
 
504  l^igtorp  of  ttjc  il^onjurorcj. 
 
 urged  against  me,  that  I  acted  quite  contrary  to 
 your  earnest  remonstrances,  which  you  know  to  be 
 false :  If  I  did,  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  put 
 myself  into  your  keeping,  and  was  to  do  nothing 
 but  by  your  direction :  but  you  yourself  can  acquit 
 me  in  that  particular,  by  only  relating  matter  of 
 fact."  Ken  then  quotes  Lloyd's  own  words,  in 
 which  he  had  expressed  his  approval  of  his  resigna- 
 tion, and  adds  :  "  No,  good  Brother,  your  native 
 thoughts  were  the  same  with  mine,  but  when  you 
 heard  a  cry  against  me,  you  flew  to  the  distinction  of 
 person  and  cession."" 
 
 From  these  letters,  it  is  clear,  that  Lloyd,  had  he 
 been  left  to  his  own  judgment  and  feelings,  would 
 have  acted  with  Ken,  and  thus  the  schism  would 
 have  ceased  :  but  he  was  prevailed  upon  by  others, 
 among  whom  no  doubt  Hickes  acted  a  prominent 
 part,  to  retrace  his  steps,  and  to  discountenance  Ken 
 in  the  matter  of  the  resignation.  But  though  it  is  to 
 be  regretted,  that  such  a  course  was  not  pursued,  yet 
 it  must  not  be  supposed,  that  the  Nonjurors,  after 
 Lloyd's  death,  were  unable  to  plead  any  thing  in 
 justification  of  their  conduct.  The  previous  pages 
 will  prove  the  contrary.  As  an  individual,  I  regret 
 that  all  did  not  concur  with  Dodwell  :  and  I  have 
 less  sympathy  with  the  second  than  with  the  Jirst 
 generation  of  Nonjurors  :  but  I  cannot  join  in  an 
 indiscriminate  sentence  of  condemnation.  On  the 
 contrary,  I  have  done  justice  to  their  memory  in  this 
 volume,  having  endeavoured  to  rescue  it  from  those 
 groundless  charges,  with  which  it  has  on  many 
 occasions  been  loaded  by  persons,  who  cannot  be 
 
 Ken's  Prose  Works,  by  Round,  8vo.  1838. 
 
^ijjtocg  o£  tlje  jl&onjttroitf.  505 
 
 compared  with  the  Nonjurors,  either  in  learning  or 
 piety. 
 
 In  reviewing  the  period  embraced  in  this  volume, 
 the  unbiassed  reader  must  be  struck  with  the  im- 
 portant services  rendered,  by  the  Nonjurors,  to  the 
 religion  and  the  literature  of  our  country.    He  who 
 imagines  that,  when  the  danger  from  popery  was 
 averted  by  the  elevation  of  King  William  to  the 
 throne,  the  Anglican  Church  was  exposed  to  no 
 further  perils,  is  greatly  mistaken  in  the  opinion 
 which  he  has  formed.    It  has  been  shewn,  that  a 
 Latitudinarian  spirit  came  in  with  the  Revolution, 
 obtaining  a  strong  hold  of  some  of  the  principal 
 actors  of  that  period,  both  in  Church  and  State. 
 Tillotson,  and  Stillingfleet,  and  Kidder,  as  well  as 
 Burnet,  together  with  many  other  estimable  men, 
 were  strongly  influenced  by  this  dangerous  leaven. 
 Against  this  system  the  Nonjurors  made  a  noble 
 stand  :  and  providentially  the  majority  of  the  com- 
 plying clergy  united  with  them,  in  resisting  the  in- 
 novations, which  otherwise  would  have  been  intro- 
 duced. By  their  united  efforts,  the  Anglican  Church 
 was  rescued  from  the  danger,  by  which  she  was 
 threatened,  and  which,  had  it  not  been  averted,  would 
 speedily  have  reduced  her  to  a  mere  state  establish- 
 ment.   She  nobly  withstood  the  shock  of  Romanism 
 in  the  reign  of  King  James  :  and,  by  the  conduct  of 
 her  Clergy,  she  was  delivered  from  the  danger,  not 
 less  imminent  than  the  former,  arising  from  Latitudi- 
 narian indifference.    When  we  remember,  that  she 
 was  assailed  by  professed  friends,  as  well  as  by  open 
 enemies — by  Latitudinarian  Churchmen  and  Dissen- 
 ters united  in  one  common  league  against  her  sacred 
 institutions — we  cannot  but  feel  grateful  to  Almighty 
 
506  SHgtorg  of  ttjc  iPonfurorjs. 
 
 God,  for  preserving  the  Church  in  her  integrity 
 amidst  the  shocks  consequent  upon  the  Revolution. 
 It  cannot  be  denied,  that  King  William  was  indif- 
 ferent, whether  Episcopacy  or  Presbytery  prevailed 
 in  England :  many  of  his  supporters  entertained 
 similar  views  :  and  even  some  of  the  Bishops  did  not 
 regard  their  own  sacred  order  as  necessary  to  the 
 constitution  of  the  Church.  Happily  the  great  body 
 of  the  Clergy  were  attached  to  the  Church,  though 
 they  had  renounced  their  allegiance  to  King  James. 
 Accordingly  they  rallied  round  the  Church,  when 
 the  dangers  appeared  :  and  the  Prelates,  who  con- 
 templated many  serious  changes,  were  thwarted  in 
 their  designs,  by  their  own  Clergy.  Between  the 
 regular  Nonjurors  and  the  great  mass  of  the  Clergy, 
 there  were  no  differences  of  opinion  on  any  other  sub- 
 jects than  those  of  the  Oaths  and  the  Usages.  On  all 
 Church  questions  they  were  united.  Alive  to  the 
 danger  by  which  the  Church  was  menaced,  by  that 
 latitudinarian  spirit  which  regarded  discipline  and 
 government  as  matters  to  be  set  aside  at  pleasure, 
 the  Clergy  united  in  opposing  all  innovations  in 
 either,  as  well  as  any  alterations  in  the  Book  of 
 Common  Prayer.  Had  all  the  Bishops  entertained 
 the  same  views  as  Burnet,  and  had  the  Clergy 
 generally  concurred  in  opinion  with  the  minorities 
 in  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation,  in  the  reign  of 
 King  William,  we  should  not  now  have  been  per- 
 mitted to  worship  God,  in  our  parish  Churches,  with 
 an  unmutilated  Prayer  Book.  A  spirit  was  brought 
 in  with  the  Revolution,  which,  had  it  not  been  re- 
 strained, would  have  introduced  most  material  changes 
 in  our  Liturgy,  our  Articles,  and  our  Ecclesiastical 
 government :  and  it  becomes  all  the  friends  of  the 
 
^igtorp  of  tlje  i^om'uroc0.  507 
 
 Anglican  Church  to  be  thankful,  that  the  evils  to 
 which  I  have  alluded  were  mercifully  averted.  * 
 
 But  though  the  danger  was  averted  by  the  sound 
 and  orthodox  portion  of  the  Clergy,  yet  the  latitudi- 
 narian  leaven  was  not  completely  cast  out.  It  was 
 restrained  from  effecting  any  organic  changes,  but  it 
 remained  in  the  Church,  working  its  way  among 
 some  of  the  Clergy.  A  new  school  of  Theology 
 arose,  which  exercised  considerable  influence,  and 
 the  more  so  from  the  support  which  it  received  often- 
 times from  the  Government.  The  leaders  of  this 
 school  were  men  of  learning,  of  moderation,  and  of 
 piety,  but  being  Erastian  in  theory,  they  were  ready 
 to  remodel  every  thing  connected  with  the  Church — 
 her  ceremonies,  her  discipline,  and  the  Book  of  Com- 
 mon Prayer.  They  would  have  proposed  many 
 changes,  if  they  had  not  been  restrained  by  the  great 
 body  of  the  Clergy,  who  were  resolved  to  maintain 
 the  Church  in  her  integrity. 
 
 For  a  series  of  years,  some  of  the  Rubrics  in  the 
 Book  of  Common  Prayer  have  been,  not  univer- 
 sally, but  to  a  considerable  extent,  neglected.  The 
 Clergy,  in  many  cases,  have  not  observed  them, 
 as  they  have  not  been  enforced  by  the  Bishops.  It 
 may,  therefore,  be  asked,  to  what  causes  is  this 
 neglect  to  be  attributed  ?  My  own  opinion  is,  that 
 two  causes,  especially  connected  with  the  period  to 
 which  this  volume  refers,  may  be  assigned.  These 
 'dre,Jirst,  the  Latitudinarian  spirit  of  which  I  have 
 spoken,  and  secondly,  the  practices  of  the  Nonjurors. 
 
 "  Some  persons  at  the  period  of,  and  subsequent  to,  the  Revo- 
 lution, had  no  better  reason  to  assign  for  their  partial  conformity 
 to  the  Anglican  Church,  than  the  fact,  that  it  was  established  by 
 Act  of  Parliament;  nor  is  the  race  extinct  in  the  present  day. 
 
508  fei'tftorp  of  rl)c  ^onjurocss. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  first,  it  may  be  observed,  that 
 the  individuals,  who  adopted  the  Latitudinarian 
 principles,  which  allowed  of  so  much  laxity  in  all 
 matters  of  discipline  and  ceremonies,  would  by  no 
 means  be  anxious  to  conform  to  the  Rubrics.  Yet  it 
 was  from  this  class,  that  the  bishoprics  and  dignities 
 of  the  Church  were  generally  supplied  for  some 
 years  after  the  Revolution.  Those,  who  held  such 
 principles,  were  not  ready  as  Clergymen  to  practise, 
 nor  as  Bishops  to  enforce  conformity.  Hence  arose 
 a  variety  in  practice.  The  Clergy,  who  wished  to 
 preserve  the  Church  in  her  integrity,  complied  with 
 all  her  regulations  :  while  the  men,  who  in  1G89  had 
 sanctioned  the  alterations  adopted  by  the  Eccle- 
 siastical commission,  were  not  likely  to  adhere  very 
 strictly  to  ceremonies,  which  they  had  sought  to 
 abolish.  Laxity  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  Bishops, 
 and  indifference  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  Clergy, 
 were  the  consequences  :  and  the  parties,  who  ad- 
 vocated changes,  soon  ceased  to  comply  with  certain 
 Rubrics,  when  their  diocesans  considered  their  breach 
 as  meritorious  as  their  observance.  The  men,  who 
 were  disappointed  in  not  getting  their  proposed 
 changes  introduced,  when  promoted  to  high  stations, 
 were  not  very  ready  to  enforce  a  compliance  with 
 Rubrics  which  they  did  not  observe  themselves.7 
 
 >  Ken's  fears  relative  to  the  Latitudinarian  tendences  of  the 
 age  caused  him  to  rejoice  at  the  appointment  to  the  See  of  Bath 
 and  Wells  of  Hooper,  to  whom  he  readily  resigned  his  own  claims, 
 as  a  man,  who  he  believed  would  check  the  evil.  There  are  several 
 instances  of  Ken's  fears  on  this  subject,  in  the  Letters  not  long 
 since  published.  Writing  to  Lloyd,  he  says  :  "  You  cannot  imagine 
 the  universal  satisfaction  expressed  for  Dr.  Hooper's  coming  to  my 
 Sue  :  and  I  make  no  doubt,  but  that  lie  will  rescue  the  Diocese 
 
^(jstotg  of  tljc  iPom'urarjj.  509 
 
 The  second  cause  was  not  less  operative  in  pro- 
 ducing a  neglect  of  some  of  the  Rubrics,  namely,  the 
 practices  of  the  Nonjurors.  That  the  Nonjurors 
 were  conscientious  and  scrupulous  men  is  evident 
 from  the  fact,  that  a  regard  to  an  oath  led  them  to 
 sacrifice  station,  influence,  and  worldly  substance. 
 The  same  feeling  respecting  oaths  and  pledges  in- 
 fluenced them  in  all  their  actions.  They  had  taken 
 an  oath  to  King  James,  and  they  could  not  violate  it. 
 They  had  also  pledged  themselves  to  strict  con- 
 formity, and  they  could  not  break  their  pledge. 
 Consequently,  all  the  injunctions  of  the  Church 
 were  strictly  observed  by  these  conscientious  and 
 upright  men.  Such  conduct,  therefore,  on  the  part 
 of  the  Nonjurors,  was  calculated  to  make  the  Lati- 
 tudinarian  section  of  the  Clergy  still  more  averse  to 
 strict  conformity.  Many  of  the  Bishops,  during 
 several  years,  were  indifferent  about  conformity  :  and 
 as  the  Nonjurors  were  exceedingly  particular  in  such 
 matters,  some  of  the  Prelates  did  not  scruple  to  let 
 certain  practices  enjoined  by  the  Church  fall  into 
 comparative  neglect.    At  a  later  period,  when  the 
 
 from  the  Apostacy  from  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  Saints," 
 which  at  present  threatens  us,  and  from  the  spirit  of  Latitudi- 
 narianism,  which  is  a  common  sewer  of  all  heresies  imaginable." 
 Ken's  Prose  Works,  p.  81.  He  was  also  encouraged  by  the  course 
 adopted  by  the  Lower  House  of  Convocation,  thinking,  as  has  been 
 mentioned,  that  the  schism  might  in  consequence  be  healed.  Thus 
 in  one  of  his  recently  published  Letters,  he  says:  "  As  for  the 
 schism,  I  believe  I  can  propose  a  way  to  end  it,  but  it  is  not  practi- 
 cable till  the  Convocation  meets,  and  then  if  the  face  of  affairs 
 alter  not,  I  make  no  question  but  Erastianism  will  be  condemned, 
 which  by  some  of  us  has  been  proposed  as  a  means  of  re- union." 
 Ibid.  57.  The  plan  to  which  he  alludes  was  the  resignation  of 
 himself  and  Lloyd,  as  was  previously  noticed. 
 
510  l$i3ton>  of  tfce  iJ2ortjucor<j. 
 
 Nonjurors  adopted  the  Usages,  and  still  later,  when 
 Deacon  introduced  ceremonies,  which  had  never  been 
 recognized  in  the  Anglican  Church,  the  cry  of  Popery 
 was  raised  even  against  some  of  the  most  excellent 
 of  the  Clergy,  while  the  laudable  customs  of  the 
 Church  were  neglected,  lest,  as  it  was  ignorantly 
 pretended,  it  should  be  supposed,  that  there  was 
 some  foundation  for  such  an  unreasonable  charge. 
 To  avoid  the  imputation  of  popery,  some  of  the  weak 
 among  the  Clergy  went  into  the  other  extreme,  just 
 as  some  in  the  present  day,  in  their  horror  of  Rome, 
 rush  into  a  state  of  schism  and  error  not  less  dangerous 
 than  Popery.  And  it  is  well  known  how  difficult  it 
 is  to  revive  a  practice  after  it  has  been  discontinued. 
 When,  therefore,  other  Prelates,  who  were  anxious  to 
 enforce  conformity,  came  into  dioceses  in  which  in- 
 conformity  had  been  permitted,  they  found  it  difficult 
 to  depart  from  the  practice  of  their  predecessors. 
 Thus  the  irregularities  became  perpetuated ;  and 
 though  there  ever  were  many  Clergymen,  who  ad- 
 hered to  the  Rubrics,  yet  compliance  was  by  no  means 
 general. 
 
 These  causes  combined  produced,  by  slow  degrees, 
 that  state  of  things  which  at  present  exists.  While 
 some  complied  with  the  Rubrics,  they  were  neglected 
 by  others.  And  as  the  Bishops,  for  some  years  after 
 the  Revolution,  were  selected  from  the  school  of  Til  - 
 lotson  and  Burnet,  the  Clergy  who  were  irregular 
 were  as  much  countenanced  as  those  who  conformed 
 in  obedience  to  their  vows.  The  result  was  a  very 
 extensive  disuse  of  some  of  the  Rubrics  in  the  Book 
 of  Common  Prayer. 
 
 At  the  last  Review  of  the  Liturgy  in  1661  all  the 
 important  directions  of  the  previous  Book  were  care- 
 fully considered.    After  all  the  objections  alleged  by 
 
l£i'0torp  of  tljc  i^onfurorsf.  511 
 
 the  Presbyterian  party  had  been  weighed,  our  present 
 Rubrics  were  duly  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the 
 Church.  Nor  was  there  any  material  deviation  from 
 the  letter,  until  after  the  Revolution.  The  attempt  to 
 introduce  alterations  in  1689  failed,  so  that  the  Go- 
 vernment did  not  even  venture  to  submit  the  proceed- 
 ings of  the  Ecclesiastical  Commission  to  Convoca- 
 tion :  but  the  spirit,  which  prompted  that  attempt, 
 produced,  in  subsequent  years,  indifference  in  prin- 
 ciple and  laxity  in  practice. 
 
 About  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  the  fruits  of 
 the  Latitudinarian  leaven  were  evidenced  in  an  attempt 
 by  certain  Clergymen,  to  procure  such  a  revision  of 
 the  Liturgy  as  would  have  opened  the  door  to  persons 
 of  almost  all  creeds.  Happily  the  effort  was  unsuc- 
 cessful, and  the  Liturgy  and  the  Articles  were  pre- 
 served unimpaired.  Yet  these  parties  remained  in 
 the  Church,  though  only  a  partial  compliance  with 
 the  Rubrics  was  observed. 
 
 For  several  years  matters  have  been  greatly  im- 
 proving. A  large  majority  of  the  Clergy  are  anxious 
 to  comply  with  their  solemn  pledges.  Some  indeed 
 there  are  who  violate  their  promises  without  scruple: 
 but  happily  the  number  is  daily  decreasing. 
 
 In  considering  the  question  therefore  of  the  Rubrics, 
 I  shall  first  allude  to  those  obvious  irregularities 
 which  no  honest  man  can  justify  ;  and  secondly,  to 
 those  Rubrical  observances,  which  have  been  for  a 
 long  time,  not  universally,  as  some  would  insinuate, 
 but  extensively  neglected. 
 
 It  cannot  be  concealed,  that  many  of  the  objectors  to 
 the  practices,  which  I  shall  consider  under  the  second 
 division,  are  notoriously  irregular  in  other  matters, 
 which  cannot  be  classed  among  disused  or  neglected 
 Rubrics,  matters  which  are  observed  by  all  consistent 
 
512  l^idtovp  of  tlje  iPonjucocsf. 
 
 churchmen,  and  which  cannot  honestly  be  disre- 
 garded.   Some  of  these  may  now  be  specified. 
 
 There  are  Clergymen  who  pretend,  that  they  can- 
 not read  an  Apocryphal  lesson — who  allege  that  their 
 consciences  will  not  permit  them  to  do  so.  But  it 
 may  be  asked,  how  came  such  men  in  the  Church  ? 
 or  why  do  they  remain  in  a  Church  which  enjoins 
 the  reading  of  such  lessons?  But  whether  the}' 
 read  or  omit  these  chapters,  they  have  by  their  sub- 
 scription assented  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  practice. 
 They  have  solemnly  promised  to  read  the  Apocryphal 
 Lessons  at  such  times  as  they  are  appointed  by  the 
 Church  :  and  where  is  the  difference,  on  the  ground 
 of  conscience,  between  reading  the  chapters  and  de- 
 claring an  assent  to  the  Books  ?  Then,  surely,  the 
 violation  of  a  solemn  promise  is  a  more  heinous  sin 
 than  reading  an  Apocryphal  chapter.  The  men,  who 
 cannot  read  these  Books,  should  not  make  the  pro- 
 mise: they  should  avoid  the  Church  altogether.  No 
 right-minded  person  can  allow  the  plea  of  conscience 
 to  be  set  up  in  such  a  case.  As  long  therefore  as 
 individuals  remain  within  her  pale,  the  plea  must  be 
 regarded  as  a  mere  pretence  to  cover  their  dishonesty, 
 in  making  a  promise  which  they  never  intended  to 
 keep.  Their  sincerity  can  only  be  proved  by  their 
 secession. 
 
 It  is  usually  alleged,  by  those  who  object  to  the 
 use  of  the  Apocryphal  Books,  that  they  do  not  read 
 them,  because  they  are  not  canonical  Scripture.  This 
 objection  should  be  thought  of  before  ordination  :  it 
 would  also  justify  any  one,  who  entertained  it,  in 
 quitting  the  Church  :  but  it  cannot  be  used,  for  not 
 reading  an  Apocryphal  chapter,  by  a  man,  who  has 
 solemnly  promised  that  he  will  comply  with  all  the 
 regulations  ef  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  to  which 
 
^ttftorp  of  ttjc  ifrorijurcirg.  513 
 
 he  has  given  his  unfeigned  assent  and  consent. 
 Besides,  how  can  a  man  declare  his  assent  and  con- 
 sent to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  the  Thirty- 
 nine  Articles,  if  he  cannot  read  these  Books  ?  The 
 man,  who  subscribes  the  Articles  and  the  Prayer 
 Book,  without  intending  to  read  only  such  lessons  as 
 the  Church  appoints,  is  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of 
 dishonesty. 
 
 But  the  parties,  who  object  to  these  Books  on  the 
 ground  of  their  want  of  Canonicity,  though  they  have 
 promised  to  read  them,  might,  with  quite  as  much 
 reason,  object  to  a  sermon  of  their  own,  which  is  quite 
 as  destitute  of  Canonicity.  Yet  the  objectors  are 
 usually  persons  who  make  their  own  Sermons  a 
 matter  of  great  importance,  though  in  every  one  of 
 their  productions  there  are  necessarily  sentiments 
 and  expressions,  which  could  not.  be  justified,  and 
 which,  in  many  cases,  are  much  further  from  the 
 truth  than  any  thing  in  the  Apocrypha." 
 
 It  is  remarkable,  too,  that  such  objectors  are  gene- 
 rally the  persons  who  are  guilty  of  other  irregularities, 
 
 x  The  Answer  of  the  Bishops  to  the  exceptions  of  the  Presby- 
 terians, previous  to  the  last  review  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
 is  so  admirably  suited  to  the  present  times,  that  it  ought  to  be 
 quoted.  The  Presbyterians  objected,  the  Bishops  replied  as 
 follows.  "  As  they  would  have  no  saints'  days  observed,  so  no 
 Apocryphal  chapter  read  in  the  Church,  but  upon  such  a  reason 
 as  would  exclude  all  sermons  as  well  as  Apocrypha :  viz.  because 
 the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  in  them  all  things  necessary  either  in 
 doctrine  to  be  believed,  or  in  duty  to  be  practised.  If  so,  why  so 
 many  unnecessary  sermons?  Why  any  more  but  reading  of  scrip- 
 tures ?  If  their  fear  be,  that  by  this  means  those  Books  may  come 
 to  be  of  equal  esteem  with  the  canon,  they  may  be  secured  against 
 that  by  the  title  which  the  Church  hath  put  upon  them,  calling 
 them  Apocryphal."  History  of  Nonconformity,  8vo.  1704.  pp. 
 235,  236. 
 
 L  L 
 
514  i£i'0torp  of  rtie  ifcon  jurors 
 
 such  as  omitting  or  mutilating  some  of  the  Prayers, 
 shortening  the  occasional  services,  and  even  changing 
 the  Sunday  Lessons,  which  are  always  canonical 
 Scripture.  Such  dishonest  evasions  and  practices, 
 however,  are  confined  to  comparatively  few  :  and  the 
 number  must  soon  be  diminished  by  the  operation  of 
 the  Church  Discipline  Bill,  by  which  the  Diocesan  is 
 enabled  in  a  summary  way  to  correct  these  irregula- 
 rities. It  is  indeed  in  the  power  of  the  parishioners 
 to  see  that  the  Clergy  are  consistent,  in  such  clear 
 cases  as  those  to  which  I  have  referred  :  for  when- 
 ever a  Clergyman  is  reported  to  the  Bishop  for  vio- 
 lating express  and  obvious  Rubrics,  a  commission  of 
 inquiry  must  be  issued.  Nor  should  the  parishioners 
 be  deterred  from  doing  their  duty,  by  any  pretence 
 of  unkindness  to  the  Clergyman  :  for  surely  it  is  an 
 act  of  greater  kindness  to  prevent  a  man  from  vio- 
 lating solemn  vows  and  promises,  than,  by  silence,  to 
 encourage  him  in  a  dishonest  practice/  The  Rubrics 
 and  the  Calendar  are  as  much  a  part  of  the  Book  to 
 which  the  Clergy  subscribe,  as  the  various  services 
 which  it  contains  :  and  the  man,  who  urges  the  plea 
 of  Conscience  for  non-compliance,  is  guilty  of  dis- 
 honesty in  subscribing  to  regulations  which  he  never 
 intended  to  follow.2 
 
 *  I  can  see  no  difference  between  the  man  who  subscribes  to 
 the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  when  at  the  same  time  he  rejects  some  of 
 their  doctrines,  and  the  man  who  subscribes  to  all  things  con- 
 tained in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  then  refuses  to  comply 
 with  his  solemn  pledges — both  are  equally  dishonest. 
 
 z  Those  persons  who  systematically  violate  the  Rubrics,  would 
 do  well  to  ponder  the  following  passage.  "  And  that  whosoever 
 among  the  Clergy  either  adds  to  it,  or  diminishes  from  it,  or  useth 
 any  other  rule  instead  of  it,  as  he  is  in  the  eye  of  the  law  a  non- 
 conformist, so  it  behoves  him  to  consider  with  himself  whether  in 
 point  of  conscience  he  be  not  a  breaker  of  his  word  and  trust,  and 
 
%'0torp  of  tlje  il5onjuroi:0.  515 
 But,  Secondly,  there  are  other  Rubrics,  which,  from 
 the  causes  already  stated,  are  more  generally  disre- 
 garded. When  a  Clergyman  is  in  doubt  respecting  the 
 meaning  of  a  Rubric,  the  Church  refers  him  to  the 
 Ordinary,  whose  decision  is  the  law  in  that  particular 
 case.  The  Bishop  may  refer  the  matter  to  the  Arch- 
 bishop :  but  the  decision  of  either,  possessing  the 
 force  of  a  Rubric,  is  binding.  It  is  not  in  the  power 
 of  a  Bishop  to  dispense  with  any  Rubric  :  he  may 
 recommend  a  Clergyman  not  to  revive  a  practice, 
 which,  though  enjoined,  has  been  long  discontinued, 
 and  the  Diocesan's  wish  would  not  be  likely  to  be 
 disregarded :  but  still  he  cannot  interfere  so  as  to 
 prevent  compliance  with  anything  positively  enjoined, 
 though  it  may  have  fallen  into  disuse.  There  is  no 
 power  to  dispense  with  disused  Rubrics,  should  a 
 Clergyman  revive  them,  though  a  Bishop  may  not 
 himself  see  it  necessary  to  enforce  them.3  It  seems 
 necessary  to  notice  this  distinction  in  the  present  day  : 
 
 an  eluder  of  his  engagements  to  the  Church."  Sharp,  pp.  8.  9. 
 Such  persons  are  very  expert  in  charging  others  with  a  want  of  spi- 
 ritual knowledge  :  hut  I  cannot  admit,  that  men,  who  make  no 
 conscience  of  vows  and  pledges,  can  either  be  considered  as  being 
 spiritually  minded  themselves,  or  as  judges  of  their  brethren.  The 
 more  spiritually  minded  a  man  is,  the  more  anxious  will  he  be 
 to  keep  his  pledges. 
 
 a  "  I  must  observe  to  you  in  general,"  says  Archdeacon  Sbarp, 
 "  that  no  custom,  however  confirmed,  can  take  place  against  them  : 
 (the  Rubrics)  that  we  cannot  transfer  our  breaches  of  them  into 
 the  list  of  approved  practices,  nor  justify  our  neglect  of  them,  by 
 pleading  the  connivance,  or,  if  you  will,  the  approbation  of  our 
 superiors.  It  is  true,  the  Ordinary  may  forbear  to  blame,  and  he 
 may  neglect  to  reform,  any  customable  deviations  from,  or  any 
 open  defiances  of,  express  and  positive  Rubrics.  But  as  he  hath  no 
 power  to  alter  them,  or  to  dispense  with  alterations  made  in  them, 
 so  he  cannot  excuse  or  discharge  us  from  our  obligations  to  con- 
 form ourselves  to  them."    Sharp  on  the  Rubric,  97. 
 
516  3£t0torp  of  ttje  ifronj'urorg, 
 
 since  many  persons,  who  deny  the  Bishop's  authority 
 to  revive,  imagine  that  he  is  able,  by  merely  issuing 
 his  command,  to  prevent  the  Clergy  from  reviving  a 
 neglected  practice  :  and  from  not  attending  to  this 
 distinction,  no  small  degree  of  confusion  has  arisen. 
 
 The  questions,  however,  respecting  which  a  divi- 
 sion of  opinion  now  especially  exists,  relate  to  the 
 Use  of  the  Surplice  in  the  Pulpit,  the  Prayer  for 
 the  Church  Militant,  and  the  Offertory  when  there 
 is  no  Communion.  In  discussing  these  points,  I  shall 
 confine  myself  strictly  to  the  intentions  of  the  Church, 
 and  to  the  meaning  of  the  Rubrics,  without  reference 
 to  the  question  of  the  expediency  of  their  revival. 
 In  my  opinion  the  law  of  the  Church  is  clear  and 
 express  in  each  particular. 
 
 Undoubtedly  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  in  itself 
 whether  the  surplice  or  the  gown  be  worn  in  the 
 pulpit ;  and  it  is  clear,  that  if  the  surplice  is  Popish 
 in  one  part  of  our  public  services,  it  must  be  equally 
 so  in  all :  and  in  that  case  the  Church  of  England  is 
 so  committed,  that  nothing  but  the  rejection  of  the 
 vestment  by  Convocation  can  rescue  her  from  the 
 charge  of  favouring  Popery.  This  consequence  is 
 inevitable,  on  the  principle  of  those  who  pretend  that 
 the  use  of  a  particular  vestment  in  a  particular  place 
 — a  vestment  too  used  on  all  other  occasions — indi- 
 cates a  tendency  towards  Rome.  Yet  this  unreason- 
 able sentiment  has  been  very  gravely  put  forth,  though 
 by  persons  little  competent  to  give  an  opinion  on  such 
 a  subject.  By  the  Puritans  the  surplice  was  branded 
 as  Popish,  in  the  desk  as  well  as  in  the  pulpit:  and 
 there  was  a  consistency,  at  all  events,  in  their  course, 
 for  they  wished  to  abolish  its  use  altogether.  In  the 
 present  day,  however,  there  is  no  controversy  res- 
 pecting its  use,  except  in  the  pulpit :  but  there  is  a 
 
^(tftorp  of  tfje  i£onjuim%  517 
 sufficient  reason  for  not  alluding  to  its  adoption  in 
 the  public  services,  namely,  that  to  do  so  would  de- 
 prive the  objectors  of  the  character  of  Churchmen. 
 Yet,  from  the  tone  adopted  by  many  persons,  it  is 
 evident  that  they  rather  sympathize  with  the  Puri- 
 tans, than  with  the  Church,  in  this  matter.  To  argue 
 that  the  surplice,  the  vestment  appointed  by  the 
 Church  for  her  most  solemn  ministrations,  is  the  badge 
 of  a  party,  indicates  the  most  lamentable  ignorance, 
 or  the  greatest  obstinacy  :  for  the  allegation  is  nothing 
 less  than  a  charge  against  the  Church  herself.  The 
 question,  therefore,  is  not  whether  the  surplice  be  the 
 badge  of  a  party,  but  whether  a  Clergyman,  who 
 uses  it  in  the  pulpit,  as  well  as  in  the  desk,  violates 
 the  laws  and  injunctions  of  the  Church. b 
 
 That  the  Public  Services  cannot  be  celebrated 
 except  in  the  surplice,  is  admitted  :  but  the  Church 
 neither  prescribes  nor  sanctions  the  use  of  the  gown 
 in  any  part  of  her  ministrations  :  and  the  only  au- 
 thority that  can  be  pleaded  in  its  favour  is  that  of 
 custom.  If  then  the  use  of  the  gown  be  not  enjoined 
 by  the  Church  in  any  way  whatever,  it  would  follow, 
 if  the  surplice  must  not  be  used,  that  any  vestment 
 might  be  adopted.  As  the  gown  is  nowhere  pres- 
 cribed, while  the  surplice  is  enjoined  in  all  public 
 ministrations,  the  objectors  to  the  use  of  the  latter 
 in  the  pulpit  must  either  resort  to  the  plea  of  custom, 
 or  admit  that  the  Church  intended  to  leave  the  dress 
 of  the  preacher  indifferent,  though  in  all  her  services 
 a  particular  vestment  is  expressly  enjoined.  But  if 
 the  matter  be  left  to  the  preacher's  choice,  he  is 
 
 b  In  the  diocese  of  Durham  the  surplice  was  constantly  used 
 by  every  preacher  in  the  pulpit  in  1753,  when  Archdeacon  Sharp 
 published  his  Charges.    Sharp  on  the  Rubric,  p.  246. 
 
518  i?t'0torp  of  tlje  jponjurorsf. 
 
 certainly  as  much  at  liberty  to  use  the  one  as  the 
 other. 
 
 As  a  question  of  law,  however,  the  matter  is,  I 
 think,  settled  by  the  Rubrics,  though  the  surplice  is 
 not  actually  specified.  The  Morning  Service  is  to 
 be  read  in  the  surplice,  to  the  end  of  the  Nicene 
 Creed.  Then  follows  the  sermon.  Singing  is  not 
 prescribed  :  consequently  singing  was  not  intended 
 at  that  part  of  the  service,  and  it  has  only  been  in- 
 troduced in  order  to  allow  the  officiatino;  minister  to 
 repair  to  the  vestry.  After  sermon,  the  minister  is 
 to  return  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  read  the  Prayer 
 for  the  Church  Militant.  This  also  must  be  read  in 
 the  surplice.  Now,  as  the  Church  does  not  pres- 
 cribe singing,  either  before  or  after  sermon,  so  as  to 
 allow  of  any  pause  for  a  change  of  dress,  it  appears 
 scarcely  possible  to  conceive,  whatever  the  practice 
 may  be,  that  the  surplice  was  not  intended  to  be  used 
 in  the  pulpit,  as  well  as  at  the  communion  table. 
 As  time  is  not  allowed  for  a  change  of  robes,  it  seems 
 difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  one  and  the 
 same  dress  was  intended  to  be  used  throughout. 
 
 And  why  should  a  priest  officiate  in  two  dresses 
 rather  than  a  Bishop,  who  performs  all  the  offices  of 
 the  Church  in  the  same  habit.  Whether  he  read 
 prayers  or  preach,  his  dress  is  the  same :  and  as  the 
 Church  has  not  prescribed  a  second  in  the  case  of 
 the  Clergy,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  she  only 
 contemplated  one.c 
 
 c  In  College  chapels,  at  least  such  is  the  case  in  Oxford,  when- 
 ever a  sermon  is  preached,  the  surplice  is  invariably  used.  If 
 then  the  argument,  that  the  Clergy  are  to  preach  in  their  acade- 
 mical dress,  be  sound,  we  might  expect  to  see  the  adoption  of  the 
 practice  in  the  University.  Yet  it  is  only  in  the  University  Church, 
 where  the  sermon  is  preached  without  the  usual  service,  the  audience 
 
of  ti\z  iI5onjuroc0.  519 
 
 But  whatever  may  be  said  against  the  use  of  the 
 surplice  in  the  pulpit,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
 Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant  is  to  be  read  immedi- 
 ately after  sermon,  and  in  the  same  dress  as  was  used 
 in  the  former  part  of  the  service.  To  escape,  there- 
 fore, from  the  difficulty,  this  prayer  has  been  alto- 
 gether omitted  :  and  thus  one  irregularity  is  followed 
 by  another.  Undoubtedly  the  prayer  has  been 
 omitted,  because  it  was  inconvenient  to  change  the 
 gown  for  the  surplice.  Yet  this  very  inconvenience 
 supplies  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the  use  of 
 the  surplice  :  for  we  may  rest  assured  that  when  the 
 regulation  was  made,  no  difficulty  was  experienced. 
 It  is  incumbent  on  those,  who  contend  that  the  Church 
 never  intended  the  surplice  to  be  used  for  preaching, 
 to  explain  this  difficulty,  and  not  to  cut  the  knot  by 
 omitting  the  prayer.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  introduce 
 a  psalm  or  hymn  :  for  though  the  unseemliness  of 
 keeping  a  congregation  in  silence,  while  the  Clergy- 
 man is  changing  his  robes,  is  thereby  avoided,  yet  the 
 difficulty  is  not  removed,  since  no  singing  is  pres- 
 cribed at  that  particular  time.  If,  however,  it  were 
 intended,  as  I  think  is  clear,  that  the  whole  should 
 be  performed  in  the  same  habit,  that  habit  must  be 
 the  surplice,  since  the  gown  was  never  enjoined  by 
 the  Church. d 
 
 having  previously  attended  Morning  Prayers  in  their  respective 
 chapels,  that  the  gown  is  used. 
 
 d  I  do  not  say  that  it  would  be  desirable,  as  some  persons  are 
 so  strongly  opposed,  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  Rubrics, 
 which  are  so  generally  neglected  :  but  I  cannot  refrain  from  giving 
 expression  to  my  opinion,  that,  all  things  considered,  the  course 
 adopted  by  the  Bishop  of  London,  in  his  Charge  in  1842,  was  the 
 wisest  and  the  most  consistent.  Had  his  Lordship's  recommenda- 
 tions been  received,  uniformity  would  have  been  secured  in  the 
 
520  l^i^rarg  o£  ttje  j^onjurorsf. 
 
 It  is  probable  that  some  of  the  laity,  who  mani- 
 fest so  much  sensitiveness  on  this  subject,  would, 
 were  they  able,  exclude  the  surplice  from  the  desk, 
 as  well  as  from  the  pulpit.  Their  objections  relate 
 more  to  the  thing  itself,  than  to  the  place  in  which 
 it  is  used.  They  can  quietly  witness  obvious  irregu- 
 larities, such  as  changing  the  lessons,  and  mutilations 
 in  the  Services  ;  they  can  tolerate  deviations  from 
 clear  and  express  Rubrics ;  while  all  their  virtuous 
 feelings  are  aroused  if  a  Clergyman,  in  obedience  to 
 his  solemn  vows,  is  particular  in  complying  with  the 
 directions  of  the  Church.  How  comes  it  to  pass 
 that  they  are  so  much  more  sensitive  in  the  one  case 
 than  in  the  other  ?  Surely  they  would  be  equally  sen- 
 sitive in  both  cases,  if  they  were  influenced  only  by 
 affection  for  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  evident 
 that  some  of  the  complainants  could  readily  dispense 
 with  the  observance  of  many  other  Rubrics,  as  well 
 as  of  those  which  are  now  the  subject  of  dispute. 
 Even  the  reading  of  the  prayer  for  the  Church  Mili- 
 
 diocese,  and  a  check  would  have  been  interposed  to  all  innovations, 
 whether  in  the  way  of  addition  or  diminution.  Nor  can  I  avoid 
 the  conclusion,  that  those  recommendations  would  have  been  quietly 
 put  in  practice,  if  all  the  Clergy  had  been  influenced  by  a  regard 
 for  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and  a  desire  to  fulfil  those  pledges 
 which  are  involved  in  their  solemn  engagements  at  ordination  and 
 institution.  The  laity  would  not  trouble  themselves  about  such 
 matters,  were  they  not  secretly  encouraged  by  some  of  the  Clergy. 
 It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  recommendations  were  agreeable  to 
 the  injunctions  of  the  Church  :  and  as  the  Bishop  of  London  was 
 compelled,  by  the  circumstances  of  the  diocese,  to  pronounce  an 
 opinion,  he  could  not  have  decided  in  opposition  to  Rubrics  and 
 Canons.  It  was  not  possible  to  maintain  silence,  because  the  Clergy 
 on  all  sides  were  anxious  for  their  diocesan  to  speak.  He  was 
 obliged  to  speak  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Church :  and  that 
 he  was  right  in  his  decisions  is  pretty  clear  from  the  fact  that 
 both  the  extreme  parties  were  displeased. 
 
^tsstocg  of  ttje  i^onjucorg.  521 
 
 tant  is  by  some  persons  considered  as  an  innovation, 
 though  no  Rubric  can  be  more  clear  or  express  than 
 that  by  which  it  is  enjoined ;  and  the  Clergy  who 
 use  it  are  censured  as  verging  towards  Rome  by 
 men,  who,  though  calling  themselves  Churchmen,  are 
 verging;  fast  towards  dissent.6 
 
 The  question  of  the  Offertory  may,  as  it  appears 
 to  me,  be  settled  as  to  the  law  (the  expediency  I 
 have  no  wish  to  discuss,)  by  a  simple  reference  to  the 
 Rubrics,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  history  of  the 
 Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  those  occasional  forms 
 which,  from  time  to  time,  have  been  issued.  It  is 
 asserted  that  the  sentences  are  not  to  be  read,  nor  the 
 collection  made,  except  when  the  Holy  Communion 
 is  administered.  Why  the  collection  should  be  more 
 appropriate  at  that  time  than  on  ordinary  occasions, 
 I  cannot  imagine.  The  Rubrics  in  the  present  book, 
 taken  in  connexion  with  those  in  former  books,  appear 
 to  decide  the  question.  That  the  Reformers  intended 
 a  weekly  collection,  whether  there  were  or  were  not  a 
 Communion,  is  certain  :  for  in  the  Liturgy  of  1549, 
 the  first  of  King  Edward,  the  Offertory  was  expressly 
 appointed  to  be  read  before  the  congregation  dis- 
 persed/   At  the  close  of  the  service  there  is  also  a 
 
 e  Such  objectors  probably  never  attend  divine  service  except  on 
 Sundays,  or  they  would  know  that  the  Prayer  for  the  Church  Mi- 
 litant is  always  read  on  holy-days  in  all  Churches  and  Chapels  in 
 which  the  festivals  of  the  Church  are  observed.  Every  town,  there- 
 fore, in  the  kingdom  testifies  of  the  practice  on  festivals,  and 
 why  should  the  Sunday  be  excepted,  when  the  Church  places  both 
 on  the  same  footing  ! 
 
 f  "  While  the  clerks  do  sing  the  Offertory,  so  many  as  are  dis- 
 posed shall  offer  to  the  poor  man's  box.  Then  so  many  as  shall 
 be  partakers  of  the  Holy  Communion  shall  tarry  still  in  the  Quire, 
 or  in  some  convenient  place  nigh  the  Quire.  All  other  (that  mind 
 not  to  receive  the  said  Holy  Communion)  shall  depart  out  of  the 
 Quire,  except  the  ministers  and  clerks."    Rubric,  1549. 
 
522  of  tlje  jponfittinff. 
 
 Rubric,  which  removes  all  manner  of  doubt  respecting 
 the  use  of  the  Offertory,  when  there  was  no  Com- 
 munion.2 
 
 It  becomes  a  question,  therefore,  seeing  that  the 
 old  Rubrics  are  decisive  of  the  practices  and  inten- 
 tions of  the  Reformers,  whether  any  change  in  this 
 respect  has  since  been  introduced.  The  present 
 Rubric  at  the  end  of  the  Offertory  enjoins  :  "  While 
 these  sentences  are  in  reading,  the  deacons,  church- 
 wardens, &c.  shall  receive  the  alms  for  the  poor,  and 
 other  devotions  of  the  people."  This  is  to  be  done, 
 whether  there  be  a  Communion  or  not,  since,  by  the 
 very  next  Rubric,  it  is  supposed  at  this  point  in  the 
 service  to  be  uncertain,  whether  the  administration 
 will  take  place ;  for  it  stands  thus  :  "  When  there  is 
 a  Communion,  &c."  Up  to  this  part  of  the  Service, 
 the  Priest  is  not  supposed  to  be  certain,  whether  a 
 sufficient  number  of  persons  will  remain  to  admit  of 
 the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Yet  the  alms 
 are  already  collected:  and  thus  it  is  clear  that  the  col- 
 lection is  to  be  made  without  reference  to  the  Com- 
 munion. Then  the  Rubric  at  the  close  of  the  Office 
 orders,  that  when  there  is  no  Communion,  all  the 
 Service  is  to  be  used  to  the  end  of  the  Prayer  for  the 
 Church  Militant,  including  necessarily  the  Offertory. 
 
 But  it  has  been  argued  that  the  Offertory  is  abo- 
 lished by  the  introduction  of  the  Poor  Laws.  The 
 objections,  however,  which  lie  against  this  argument 
 are  fatal.  When  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  was 
 reviewed  in  1661,  the  Poor  Laws  were  in  existence  : 
 
 s  "  And  though  there  be  none  to  communicate  with  the  priest, 
 yet  these  days  the  priest  shall  put,  &c.  and  say  all  things  at  the 
 altar,  (appointed  to  be  said  at  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper) 
 until  after  the  Offertory."    Rubric,  1549. 
 
I^tsrtorp  of  tf)e  iJ5onjuuot:0.  523 
 
 yet  the  Rubrics  respecting  the  Offertory  were  re- 
 tained, though  every  part  of  the  Service  was  carefully 
 considered.  Had  the  Convocation  intended  to  abolish 
 the  Offertory,  they  would  have  rescinded  the  Rubrics 
 by  which  it  is  enjoined.  Besides,  the  argument  de- 
 rived from  the  Poor  Laws  would  make  against  all 
 Offertory  collections,  against  those  on  Communion 
 days,  as  well  as  those  on  other  occasions.  If  the 
 argument  is  of  any  force,  it  must  go  to  prevent  all 
 such  collections:  so  that,  according  to  these  objectors, 
 the  alms  of  the  people  could  never  be  collected.  This 
 argument,  therefore,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  the 
 slightest  examination,  though  it  is  most  confidently 
 put  forth  by  its  supporters. 
 
 The  disposal  of  the  offerings  has  also  given  rise  to 
 disputes,  though  the  question  appears  to  be  clearly 
 settled  by  the  Rubrics.  "The  money  given  at  the 
 Offertory  shall  be  disposed  of  to  such  pious  and 
 charitable  uses  as  the  minister  and  churchwardens 
 shall  think  fit,  wherein  if  they  disagree,  it  shall  be 
 disposed  of  as  the  Ordinary  shall  appoint."  It  is 
 clear  that  the  money  need  not  be  all  given  to  the 
 poor :  it  is  also  clear  that  the  minister  and  church- 
 wardens are  the  judges:  and  provided  the  use  to 
 which  it  may  be  applied  be  a  pious  or  charitable  one, 
 it  is  within  the  meaning  of  the  law,  and  no  one  can 
 interfere.  Should  the  parties  disagree,  the  sole  dis- 
 posal is  in  the  Ordinary.  It  has  been  argued,  that 
 the  pious  and  charitable  uses  are  confined  to  the 
 parish  in  which  the  alms  are  collected  :  but  this  is  a 
 mistake,  for  there  is  neither  restriction  nor  limitation, 
 and  provided  the  minister  and  churchwardens  agree 
 in  the  disposal,  or  in  case  of  their  disagreement,  the 
 Ordinary  is  applied  to,  the  decision  is  perfectly  legal, 
 whether  the  money  be  appropriated  in  the  parish  or 
 
524  !£t'0torp  of  ttje  ijionjurorsf. 
 
 otherwise.  As  the  Rubric  is  the  law  on  the  subject, 
 and  it  contains  no  restrictive  clause,  the  only  question 
 to  decide,  a  question  of  very  easy  solution,  is,  what 
 is  intended  by  a  pious  and  charitable  use.h 
 
 Considerable  light  is  reflected  on  the  whole  subject 
 of  the  Offertory,  by  the  forms  of  prayer  for  special 
 days  of  fasting  and  thanksgiving,  which,  from  the 
 period  of  the  Reformation,  were  set  forth  at  intervals. 
 
 It  was  the  custom  in  these  Forms  to  print  the  entire 
 Service,  at  least  to  the  period  of  the  Revolution,  even 
 the  Lessons,  in  order  that  the  Clergy  might  use  only 
 one  Book  on  such  occasions.  They  prove,  that  the 
 practice  of  reading  the  Daily  Morning  Service,  the 
 Litany,  and  the  Communion  Service,  never  varied  from 
 the  days  of  Queen  Elizabeth  :  for  all  of  them  are  pre- 
 cisely similar  in  this  respect,  closing  with  the  Prayer 
 for  the  Church  Militant.  If  then  such  a  practice 
 prevailed  on  these  occasional  days,  there  can  be  no 
 doubt,  that  it  was  just  the  same  on  Sundays  and 
 other  holy-days :   for  the  directions  in  these  special 
 
 h  When  Archbishop  Wake  was  appointed  to  the  See  of  Lin- 
 coln, in  the  year  1707,  he  published  the  Farewell  Sermon,  which 
 he  had  preached  at  James's,  Westminster :  and  with  the  sermon 
 is  a  curious  folding-  sheet  with  an  account  of  the  expenditure  of 
 the  Offertory  money.  "  An  account  of  the  Offertory  money  in 
 the  parish  of  St  James's,  Westminster,  as  it  stands  upon  our  books 
 for  every  year  since  I  came  to  the  parish."  It  comprehends  the 
 various  years  from  1694  to  1706  inclusive.  The  money  was  ap- 
 propriated under  the  following  items:  "Apprentices  bound  out 
 yearly  :  Clothing  the  poor :  Coals  for  the  poor  :  For  the  poor 
 at  the  Hospitals,  chirurgeons  and  apothecaries  :  Disposed  of  in 
 visiting  the  sick:  The  master  for  teaching  the  Offertory  boys; 
 The  minister  for  reading  the  six  o'clock  prayers  morning  and 
 evening."  In  this  case  the  money  was  not  all  given  to  the  poor. 
 It  is  stated  in  the  paper  that  certain  sums  were  given  to  the  poor 
 at  each  public  Sacrament,  from  which  I  infer,  that  the  collection 
 was  made  at  other  times,  or  on  Sundays  and  other  holy-days. 
 
^igtorp  of  tljc  /ponjurorg.  525 
 
 forms  are  precisely  those  of  the  Book  of  Common 
 Prayer.  These  Services  are,  therefore,  a  most  satis- 
 factory comment  on  the  Rubrics.  By  examining  their 
 structure,  we  ascertain  the  views  of  the  Church  from 
 the  period  of  the  Reformation  :  and  we  find,  that  the 
 Service  was  always  performed  in  strict  accordance 
 with  the  Rubrics,  as  they  stand  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
 mon Prayer.  In  all  these  Forms,  the  Minister  is 
 directed  to  read  the  Morning  Service  to  the  end  of 
 the  Litany :  then  follows  the  Communion  Service : 
 and  after  that  the  Sermon.  The  Minister  is  then 
 directed  to  return  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  after  the 
 Nicene  Creed  certain  Offertory  sentences  are  printed, 
 the  congregation  being  dismissed  at  the  close  of  the 
 Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant.  Thus  the  manner  of 
 conductingDivineService  since  the  accession  ofQueen 
 Elizabeth  has  ever  been  the  same,  as  these  Special 
 Forms  testify.  The  Communion  was  not  administered 
 on  these  occasions,  yet  some  of  the  Offertory  sentences 
 were  always  read,  for  they  are  actually  printed,  and 
 the  Minister  is  directed  to  read  them.  Even  as  late 
 as  the  last  century,  the  Special  Forms  speak  in  a 
 language  not  to  be  mistaken.  In  one  of  the  date  of 
 1714,  just  after  the  accession  of  George  I.  certain  of 
 the  Offertory  passages  are  printed  with  this  Rubrical 
 direction,  "  Sentences  at  the  Offertory :"  and  in  another 
 in  1720,  they  are  accompanied  with  the  following- 
 Rubric  :  "  After  which  for  the  Offertory  shall  these 
 sentences  be  used." 
 
 It  is  not  probable  that  the  Minister  changed  his 
 dress  on  these  occasions.  He  is  directed  to  proceed 
 from  the  Lord's  Table  to  the  Pulpit,  and  to  return 
 and  commence  with  the  Prayer  for  the  Church  Mili- 
 tant, without  any  lengthened  pause.  He  must  on 
 such  occasions  have  preached  in  the  surplice:  and  if 
 
526  ^fgrorp  of  ttje  il5onjuror^ 
 
 on  such  occasions,  undoubtedly  he  did  the  same  on 
 Sundays  and  other  holy  days. 
 
 The  actual  printing  and  enjoining  of  the  Offertory 
 sentences,  in  all  these  forms,  may,  at  all  events,  be 
 regarded  as  a  recognition  of  the  principle  of  the 
 Offertory.  Whether  the  alms  were  collected  on 
 these  occasions  or  not,  the  intention  of  the  Church, 
 and  also  the  right  of  the  Clergy  to  make  the  collec- 
 tion, were  recognized  in  the  use  of  the  Offertory 
 sentences.  Consequently,  the  introduction  of  the 
 Offertory,  when  there  is  no  Communion,  is  not  an 
 innovation,  as  is  pretended  by  the  opponents  of  the 
 practice,  but  only  a  compliance  with  the  Rubrics.  It 
 is  now  generally  discontinued,  except  on  Commu- 
 nion days ;  but  it  is  as  incumbent  at  one  time  as  at 
 another,  if  the  intentions  of  the  Church  are  to  be 
 regarded. 
 
 Whatever,  therefore,  may  be  the  present  practice 
 respecting  the  Offertory  :  even  though  to  disturb  the 
 prevailing  custom  were  inexpedient :  yet  it  must  be 
 granted,  by  those  who  understand  the  subject,  or  will 
 take  the  trouble  to  examine  it,  that  the  Church  en- 
 joins the  use  of  some  of  the  Offertory  sentences,  with 
 the  collection  of  the  alms,  and  other  devotions  of 
 the  people. 
 
 That  the  Communion  Service,  as  far  as  to  the  end 
 of  the  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant,  is  to  be  read, 
 on  ordinary  occasions,  when  there  is  no  Communion, 
 at  the  Lord's  Table,  has  seldom  been  questioned  : 
 and  it  is  with  some  degree  of  surprise,  that  I  find  a 
 doubt  on  the  subject  entertained  in  a  recent  work.1 
 
 1  How  shall  we  Conform  to  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of 
 England.  By  J.  C.  Robertson,  M.  A.  8vo.  London.  The  Pres- 
 byterians objected  to  reading-  the  Service  at  the  Communion  Table, 
 
I^gtcirp  of  ttje  $onjuroi%  527 
 
 To  me  the  question  appears  to  be  so  settled  as  to 
 leave  no  room  for  doubt.  After  the  sermon,  the 
 Priest  is  ordered  to  return  to  the  Lord's  Table  to 
 commence  the  Offertory  :  consequently  he  is  supposed 
 to  have  read  the  previous  portions  of  the  Service  there, 
 before  he  entered  the  Pulpit.  No  distinction  in  this 
 respect  is  made  between  Communion  and  Non-Com- 
 munion days.  In  the  Occasional  Forms  to  which  I 
 have  referred,  for  seasons  when  no  Communion  was 
 intended,  the  Minister  was  specially  directed  to  stand 
 at  the  north  side  of  the  Table,  at  the  commencement 
 of  the  second  service  :  from  which  it  must  be  evident, 
 that  such  was  the  custom  on  Sundays  and  other  holy 
 days.  Speaking  of  the  Rubric,  which  orders  the 
 Minister  to  stand  at  the  north  side  of  the  Table, 
 Archdeacon  Sharp  observes,  "  which  is  to  be  under- 
 stood even  of  that  part  of  it  which  by  another  Rubric 
 is  appointed  to  be  said,  when  there  is  no  Communion."' 
 He  also  meets  the  case  of  large  Churches,  in  which, 
 when  the  Table  stands  at  the  east  end  of  the  Chancel, 
 it  may  not  be  possible  for  the  Minister  to  be  heard  by 
 the  people,  remarking :  "  but  then,  pray  let  us  observe 
 that  where  this  necessity  for  breaking  through  the 
 Rubric  cannot  be  pleaded  by  us  :  that  is,  where  this 
 service  may  be  conveniently  enough  performed  at  the 
 Table  itself  situated  in  the  Chancel ;  there  will  be 
 no  excuse  for  us  for  reading  it  in  the  desk.  Where 
 
 and  the  Bishops  urged  the  practice  as  primitive.  The  reply  of  the 
 Presbyterians  proves  that  both  parties  referred  to  non-communion 
 days.  "  That  all  the  Primitive  Church  used,  when  there  was  no 
 Communion,  to  say  service  at  the  Communion-table,  is  a  crude 
 assertion,  that  must  have  better  proof  before  we  take  it  as  con- 
 vincing. To  prove  that  they  used  it  when  there  was  a  Communion, 
 is  no  proof  that  they  used  it  when  there  was  none."  History  of 
 Conformity,  p.  237. 
 
528  of  tfje  Nonjuror?. 
 
 this  Rubric  cannot  be  observed,  an  absolute  necessity 
 must  overrule  the  order  :  but  no  prescription  of  non- 
 observance  or  customary  neglect  can  avail  to  the 
 setting  it  aside.  It  is  true  the  Ordinary  may  connive 
 at  this  customary  neglect,  but  he  cannot  warrant,  nor 
 even  excuse  the  minister  in  it,  because  he  is  bound 
 by  prior  obligations  of  conformity,  to  obey  the 
 Church  in  what  she  commands  in  her  Rubrics.  And 
 in  all  points  where  the  Rubrics  are  plain  and  express, 
 the  Ordinary  has  no  authority  to  release  us  from  that 
 obedience,  as  appears  from  the  Preface  concerning 
 the  Service  of  the  Church,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 Prayer  Book.  In  which,  though  the  Ordinary  is 
 allowed  to  interpret  and  determine  the  sense  of  the 
 Rubric  for  us  in  all  doubtful  cases  ;  yet  it  is  with  this 
 proviso,  that  he  shall  not  order  nor  determine  any 
 thing  that  is  contrary  to  what  is  contained  in  the 
 Service  Book.  That  is,  in  points  that  are  clearly 
 expressed,  the  Ordinary  is  as  much  prohibited  from 
 making  innovations,  as  the  meanest  parochial  Minis- 
 ter amongst  us."  k 
 
 I  am  not  contending  for  the  revival  of  practices, 
 which  may  have  long  been  neglected  :  but,  when 
 Laymen,  who  usually  are  not  much  acquainted  with 
 such  matters,  presume  to  dictate  to  Bishops,  and  to 
 designate  a  compliance  with  the  Rubrics  an  innova- 
 tion, it  becomes  necessary  to  expose  such  attempts. 
 With  respect  to  the  matters,  which  I  have  discussed, 
 it  may  be  remarked,  that  if  a  Clergyman  feels  it  to  be 
 his  duty  to  practise  them,  the  Bishop  cannot  pre- 
 vent him  :  yet  the  Laity,  who  interpose,  appear  to 
 imagine,  that  our  Prelates  can  issue  orders  against 
 the  letter  of  the  Rubrics,  merely  because  they  have 
 
 k  Sharp,  on  the  Rubric,  pp.  65,  66,  68,  69. 
 
%<3torp  of  tljc  &on\utMft.  529 
 been  neglected.  This  is  a  mistake  which  ought  not 
 to  be  committed,  yet  they  argue  upon  it,  as  though 
 their  position  were  indisputable.  No  Bishop  can 
 prevent  a  Clergyman  from  reading  the  Prayer  for 
 the  Church  Militant,  from  preaching  in  the  Sur- 
 plice, and  from  making  a  collection  at  the  Offertory 
 weekly.  He  may  not  enjoin  these  things,  which  he 
 has  the  power  to  do  :  but  he  has  no  power  to  pro- 
 hibit them.  If  therefore,  a  Bishop,  who  is  as  much 
 confined  by  the  law  as  the  Clergy,  makes  any  order? 
 it  must  be  an  order  for  strict  compliance  with  the 
 letter  of  the  Rubrics.  He  must  do  this,  or  he  can 
 do  nothing.  Were  a  Bishop  to  remain  silent  in 
 such  a  diocese  as  London,  for  example,  he  would  be 
 reproached  for  pusillanimity  :  yet  when  he  speaks, 
 in  obedience  to  the  call  of  the  Clergy,  and  delivers  his 
 judgment,  as  he  necessarily  must,  in  favour  of  strict 
 compliance  with  the  Rubrics,  immediately  his  power  is 
 questioned,  and  an  outcry  is  raised,  from  the  mere 
 circumstance  of  recommending  obedience  to  the  laws 
 of  the  Church,  as  though  some  tremendous  evil  were 
 impending.  When,  moreover,  it  is  borne  in  mind,  that 
 the  majority  of  those  who  raise  the  outcry,  both  Clergy 
 and  Laity,  are  not  overscrupulous  in  complying  with 
 such  Rubrics  as  have  not  fallen  into  disuse,  an  indiffer- 
 ent spectator  can  scarcely  avoid  the  conclusion,  that 
 they  cannot  entertain  any  strong  degree  of  attachment 
 to  other  practices,  which  rest  on  precisely  the  same 
 grounds,  namely,  the  Rubrics,  as  those  against  which 
 their  hostility  is  directed.  The  objectors  might  be 
 regarded  as  consistent,  if  they  were  scrupulous  in 
 other  particulars  ;  but  it  is  notorious,  that  many  of 
 the  Clergy,  who  object,  are  lax  in  conforming  to 
 Rubrics,  which  a  Bishop  must  enforce,  should  the 
 cases  be  brought  before  him  :  while  some  of  the 
 
 M  M 
 
o30  ^i0torp  of  ttjc  Jl&onj'ucocfS. 
 
 protesting  laity  can  witness  a  change  of  Lessons, 
 when  no  power  is  given  to  the  Minister  in  such  a 
 matter,  or  even  mutilations  and  omissions  in  some 
 of  the  services,  without  a  murmur  or  complaint ;  or 
 even  without  manifesting  any  concern  for  the  man, 
 who  can  be  so  forgetful  of  his  solemn  vows  and 
 pledges. 
 
 Having  detailed  such  particulars  respecting  the 
 Nonjurors  as  I  have  been  able  to  collect :  and  having 
 also  traced  the  neglect,  into  which  some  of  the 
 Rubrics  have  fallen,  to  the  latitudinarian  tendencies 
 originating  in  the  Revolution,  and  to  the  excesses  of 
 some  of  the  Nonjurors,  the  subject  must  now  be  left 
 to  the  reader's  consideration.  It  has  been  my  aim  to 
 present  a  just  picture  of  the  Nonjurors,  together  with 
 a  candid  view  of  the  times  to  which  this  volume  refers. 
 My  opinions  on  certain  matters,  which  necessarily 
 fell  under  my  notice,  have  been  formed  after  much 
 reflection  and  careful  examination :  and  though  I 
 cannot  expect  every  reader  to  concur  with  me,  in  the 
 conclusions  at  which  I  have  arrived,  yet  I  am  pre- 
 pared to  maintain,  that  they  are  justified  by  the  facts 
 on  which  they  are  grounded. 
 
 i  UK  LXI). 
 
BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 
 
 A  HISTORY  OF  THE  CONVOCATION  OF  THE  CHURCH 
 OF  ENGLAND.    Post  8vo.  7s.  6d. 
 
 MEMORIALS  OF  EARNEST  THE  PIOUS,  First  Duke  of 
 Saxe  Gotlia,  he.  6s. 
 
 THE  GUNPOWDER  TREASON.    3s.  6d. 
 THE  SPANISH  ARMADA.  3s. 
 
 A  LETTER  TO  THE  RIGHT  HONOURABLE  SIR  RO- 
 BERT PEEL,  BART.  ON  SUFFRAGE  BISHOPS.  Is. 
 
 THE   NATIONAL  CHURCH,  THE  MEDIUM   OF  NA 
 TIONAL  EDUCATION.  6d. 
 
 THE  OLD  RELIGION.    Seventh  Thousand,  3d. 
 
 Preparing  for  Publication, 
 
 NEW  EDITION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  EPISCOPACY 
 From  1640  to  1662.  With  Notices  of  the  Religious  Partius  of  iho 
 Tim  rs. 
 
Date  Due 
 
 i 
 
 & 
 
 r 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN  U.  S.  A. 
 
\