YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY A HISTORY OP THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. LONDON : Printed by G. Babolay, Castle St. Leicester Sq. A HISTORY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND THE ACCESSION OF JAMES II. THE RISE OF THE BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY IN 1717. BY THE REV. THOMAS DEBAEY, M.A. LONDON: BELL AND DALDY, 186 FLEET STREET, E.C. 1860. TO THE CLERGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, RECORDING THE TRIALS AND CONDUCT OF THAT CHURCH AT A MOST EVENTFUL PERIOD, IS HUMBLY INSCRIBED BY THE AUTHOR. PREFACE. In submitting the following work to the notice of the public, I am induced to offer a few remarks upon it by way of preface. It may seem at first sight to the reader, that the views which I have advocated in relation to the period of history of which it treats are contrary to those which are now considered, on the best and highest authority, as the only ones which are really tenable. It might ap pear, on a hasty perusal of the work, that I both lament and deprecate the Revolution of 1688. But such is certainly not the case. Under the unfor tunate circumstances of those times, the Revolution was an event in which we may even rejoice, without altogether commending the policy or conduct of the principal actors in it. The toleration which was, at that time, conceded to Nonconformists, was the natural consequence of viii Preface. the course of events, and such as no Englishman, be his religious opinions what they may, can ever lament. But, notwithstanding this, it may be rea sonably questioned whether the Church of England, although at the era of the Revolution preserved from wreck and destruction, did not come out of the struggle with much weakened and diminished powers. It may also be questioned whether Dissent would have increased in the same proportion in which it has done but for the course of Church policy, independent of the toleration, which was then adopted and persevered in for so many years. Nor is such a speculation wholly useless, for it may serve, if not to guide us to a remedy for existing evils in the Church, at least to show us the source of them, and prepare us for the dangers ahead. In reviewing this period, one fact we shall be certainly led to admit, which is, that the theory of Church and State, although weakened, was much more of a reality in the days previous to the death of Queen Anne than it has ever been since, and that the present course of ecclesiastical events threatens the ultimate dissolution of this once-cherished feature of the British Constitution. To some readers I may appear to commend too highly by-gone times in comparison with these in which we live. I do not believe this is really the Preface. ix case ; but, even were it so, I am disposed to think that this is less unreasonable than it is to bestow exaggerated laudation upon the times present at the expense of those which must be in some degree our example. The progress of this country in wealth and intelligence since the times of James II. has indeed been very great ; yet it never would have arrived at its present condition if former ages had been barren in the spirit of enterprise and men eminent in all classes. In commending the present times, we must ever bear in mind that States have their growth like individuals, and that preceding ages are the parents of the present. A Wellington was preceded by a Marlborough, and modern science, with all its remarkable achievements, can show no greater name than that of Newton ; and, notwithstanding the learning and accomplishments of our modern divines, we cannot point to many who, for learning, piety, and genius combined, have surpassed Jeremy Taylor or Isaac Barrow. The biographical notices in the Introduction are purposely brief. They were not written for the edification of the learned theologian, but were rather intended to afford those who are less fa miliar with Church history a means of under standing that which has been aptly called the pro cession of English divines. If the authorities upon which the following nar- x Preface. rative is founded are not very rare or recondite, they are the best we have, and I hope that I have made use of them with prudence. I have seldom followed Burnet in matters of which he was not an eye-witness or possessed of especial means of in formation. And when I have consulted the brilliant pages of the lamented Lord Macaulay, it has been chiefly on matters of a semi-secular nature, the recording of which was essential to the completion of my design. I cannot close these remarks without expressing my obligations to Mr. Yeowell, the author of Chro nicles ofthe Ancient British Church, for the many useful and valuable suggestions with which he has favoured me whilst the work has been passing through the press. CONTENTS. CAOE Introduction 1 CHAPTER I. The loyalty of the nation upon the accession of James II. to the Throne — The Ministry — Character of Sun derland — James avows his attachment to the Church of Rome, and encourages Conversions — His policy with respect to the Church and the Nonconformists — Baxter — Argyle's attempt in Scotland — Monmouth's rash attempt in, the West of England — Defeat and Execution of Mon mouth — James's cruel treatment of the Insurgents — Jeffreys — Parliament reassembles — Debate upon the King's suspension of the Test Act — Progress of Roman ism at home and abroad — The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and its consequences . . . . .37 CHAPTER II. y The King claims a power of dispensing with the Laws—- The Trial of Sir Edward Hales for accepting a command without taking the Test — The King establishes a Council of Roman Catholics — Dr. John Sharp, rector of St. Giles — Court of Ecclesiastical Commissioners set up — The Bishop of London suspended — Disposal of vacant Sees xii Contents. • PAGE — Dr. Cartwright and Dr. Samuel Parker — Samuel Johnson — The unsettled state ofthe Country — State of Scotland— State of Ireland; Clarendon and Tyrconnel — The King attempts to convert the Lord Treasurer — Rochester's fall and Clarendon's recall— The Declaration for Liberty of Conscience published in Scotland . . 59 CHAPTER III. James endeavours to gain the Dissenters — The first pub lication of the Declaration of Liberty of Conscience ; its general reception t — Addresses presented to the King by different religious bodies — Meeting of Noncon formist Ministers— James desires the concurrence of the Prince and the Princess of Orange in the Indul gence — Dykvelt sent to England — The Pensionary Fagel's Letter to Steward — James's behaviour to the Universities — Cambridge ; Alban Francis and Dr. Peachel — Oxford; the Contest with Magdalen College — Attempts made upon the Charterhouse and upon the Municipal Corporations . . . . .84 CHAPTER IV. The King orders the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience to be published in the Churches — Meetings ofthe Lon don Clergy —Meetings of the Bishops at Lambeth Palace — The Bishops determine to petition James against read ing the Declaration — Their interview with the King They are summoned into the Council Chamber and sent to the Tower — The public sympathy manifested for » them — Birth of the Prince of Wales — The Bishops brought up to Westminster Hall, and dismissed on their own recognizances — Their Trial and Acquittal — State of public feeling — Prudent conduct of Sancroft — Effect ^ ofthe Trial at the Hague — The Prince of Orange pre pares for his Expedition to this Country . . .113 Contents. xiii CHAPTER V. PAGE The French Minister at the Hague informs his master of the real object of William's preparations — Louis offers his services to James, who declines them — Sunderland turns Roman Catholic — The King is at last assured of the Prince of Orange's intention — He issues a Proclamation and summons the Bishops — The Fellows of Magdalen College are restored — The Orange Expedition sails for the coast of England — James again resorts to the Bishops — Landing and progress of the Prince of Orange — The flight and return of King James — His final with drawal from the Kingdom — The effects of the Revolution upon the state of Religion in this Country . . .144 CHAPTER VI. Perplexity of the Nation — The Convention — The Throne declared' vacant — Sancroft — The Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary — Refused by the Archbishop and others — The Toleration Act — A scheme of Com prehension — A Commission appointed to consider it — Proposed Alterations in the Prayer-book — Convoca tion — Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Jane — Convocation ad journed — Re-assembles — Discussions upon the Ad dress — Address, and the King's Answer — The Convo cation is prorogued — Ireland — Siege of Londonderry — Battle of the Boyne CHAPTER VII. The Non-jurors— Death of Lake of Chichester— Death of Thomas of Worcester — Overtures of the Court— Slan derous attack upon the non-juring Bishops, and their vindication— Ashton and Lord Preston's Conspiracy— 186 xiv Contents. PAOE Tillotson consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury — San croft ejected from Lambeth — Frampton — Turner — White — Lloyd — Ken — Sancroft retires to Fressingfield — His death and character — Fresh Consecrations — Leslie's views ........ 219 CHAPTER VIII. Tillotson — Circumstances which led to his being selected for Archbishop — His Character — Conduct at the Trial of Lord William Russell — Is persuaded, with difficulty, to accept the Archbishopric — His Consecration — Dr. Sherlock — His disingenuous conduct and controversy with South — The numerous Conspiracies of this reign — Burnet's Pastoral Letter burnt — Death of Tillotson — Death of Queen Mary, and her character — William goes abroad — The Assassination Plot — Trial and Execution of Sir John Fen wick — Peace of Ryswick . . . 247 CHAPTER IX. Moral and religious state of the nation — Parliament memo rialises the King upon the growth of impiety and im morality — Societies for the reformation of manners revived — Origin of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge — The Controversy about the rights of Convocation — It assembles — Its proceedings — Death of the Duke of Gloucester — Death of King James — Proceedings of Convocation — Death of King William ........ 277 CHAPTER X. Accession of Anne — Her character, and friendly dispo sition towards the Church — The Convocation and Contents. xv PAOE its proceedings — The proceedings of Parliament — The Bill against Occasional Conformity — The great Storm — The Death of Bishop Kidder — Queen Anne wishes to restore Ken to the See of Bath and Wells — Bishop Hooper — The Parliament re-assembles — Discussions on Occasional Conformity renewed — Queen Anne's Bounty — Some account of the Annates and Tenths — Proceedings in Parliament and Convocation — The status of the Clergy in Queen Anne's reign — Convocation . 310 CHAPTER XI. Success ofthe English arms abroad, and the General Thanks giving — Proceedings of Parliament — Bill against Occa sional Conformity again introduced — The Bishop of S. David's, Dr. Watson, deprived for Simony — Dr. Bull appointed his successor — His great learning, his corre spondence and controversy with Bossuet — Proceedings in Convocation — A Pamphlet, entitled "A Memorial of the Church of England," publicly burnt — Queen Anne at Cambridge — Dr. Bentley — A New Parliament — De bate about the Church being in danger . . . 338 CHAPTER XII. The Proceedings of the new Convocation — A difference of opinion amongst members of the Lower House — The Convocation prorogued — The Preliminaries of the Union between England and Scotland — The religious bearings of the question — Convocation meets and is prorogued — Death of Patrick — The Non-jurors — Dodwell and Nelson return to the Communion of the Church of England 366 PAGE xvi , Contents. CHAPTER XIII. Sacheverell — His early history — Chaplain of S. Saviour's — He is appointed to preach before Sir Samuel Garrard, the Lord Mayor, at S. Paul's— The Sermon— Great Sensa tion produced by it in the metropolis — Sacheverell im peached by the House of Commons — The Trial — Riots in London — Popular Demonstration in favour of the Church — Queen Anne attends the Trial— The Sentence — Sacheverell presented to a Living in Wales — His pro gress thither — Overthrow of Lord Godolphin's Ministry — A new Parliament — Convocation — Whiston . . 383 CHAPTER XIV. Favourable disposition of the new Parliament towards the Church— Tactics of the Whigs— The Earl of Notting ham procures the passing of a Bill against Occasional Conformity — The Scotch Episcopalians obtain some relief — The Convocatior and the Baptismal Controversy — The Death of Bishop Ken — The attempt to introduce Episcopacy into Prussia renewed — The Peace of Utrecht — Bishop Fleetwood's Preface burnt — Thanksgiving for the Peace — Deaths of Archbishop Sharp, Sprat, and Compton — Death of Queen Anne, and her character . 420 CHAPTER XV. Accession of George I. — Public addresses upon that occasion — Character of the King — State of parties in the Church — The activity of the Non -jurors — The Trinitarian Controversy, and Dr. Samuel Clarke's Retractation — The Government interposes in the Controversy — Death of Burnet — Death of Archbishop Tenison — Hoadly is made Bishop of Bangor — Death of Hickes, the Non juror— The Rebellion of 1715: the Clergy implicated — Howell, the Non-juror, is punished — Rise of the Bangorian Controversy — Conclusion . . . 447 ERRATA. Page 16, Une 6, for " took its rise," read "first appeared." — 196, note, for " Sacheverel's," read " SachevereU's." — 199, note, for " Mew," read " Mews." — 236, note,/or "agundis," read "agendis." — 331, note,/or " Sharpe's," read " Sharp's." — 342, Une 24, for "Sharpe," read "Sharp." — 392, Une 3, for " General Stanhope," read " Colonel Stanhope." INTRODUCTION. ALTHOUGH the history of the early British - Church and that of the Reformation have been very often and ably written, it may not be deemed out of place, before entering upon the later period, to which the following work is devoted, to take a rapid glance at preceding ecclesiastical events. In a pre liminary essay of this kind, the reader must not expect to meet with any detailed account of such events, or any original researches in this interesting field of study. All that I propose to offer to his notice is such an outline "of Church matters previous to the accession of James II. in this country, as may better enable him to appreciate the struggles of the Church during that sovereign's reign, and to understand in what manner and to what extent the Revolution affected the influence and status of the National Church, and the character of its theology. In the person of King Lucius, the sovereign, possibly, of a small territory in the south or west of England, Britain, as we are told by Bede,* may claim * Beda, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. iv. B 2 Introduction. to have had a Christian king before the conversion of Constantine, from which event is commonly dated the origin of that form of government which we call Church and State. But the history of British Christianity is too vague and uncertain to afford any grounds for conjecturing what the relations could have been between this petty sovereign and the people over whom he ruled, as respected their religion. On the other hand it is certain, when Constantine embraced the Christian faith, a great change took place in the outward circumstances of the Church throughout the Roman Empire. Many of the laws injurious to Christianity were repealed ; and, notwithstanding subsequent reactions, the Church steadily advanced in power and prosperity, and an episcopal hierarchy gradually spread itself through out the known world. In Britain the cause of Christianity, once very promising, again declined. This was owing to the repeated invasions to which the country was exposed from the unconverted inhabitants of the northern regions. With the final conquests of the Saxons and the establishment ofthe heptarchy, it almost dis appeared from the southern parts ofthe island. The espousals of Ethelbert, king of Kent, with the daugh ter of the king of Paris, invited the attention of the Continental Church to the religious condition of the Saxons. Bertha, or Britha, came hither, attended by her chaplains. Added to this, a Pope at the same time occupied the Papal chair who had ever felt a lively interest in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons • and under his auspices S. Austin (or S. Augustine) was despatched to these shores, a.d. 596. From the period of the arrival of S. Augustine, Introduction. 3 the revival of Christianity, and the formal establish ment of the Church, were rapid ; and we should be disposed to regard Augustine's memory with greater veneration than we do, but for his behaviour to that remnant of the British Church which he found still existing amongst the mountains of Wales. Within a century from this time Britain was pretty well broken up into dioceses, and many of the existing sees founded. Even in the time of Bede, a.d. 731, the number of episcopal sees in England amounted to seventeen. Many of these ancient bishoprics have been superseded : as those of Dun- wich, Sherborne in Dorsetshire, Sidnacester, Selsey (translated to Chichester), Dorchester, Lindisfarne, and Hexham. Whilst the Welsh sees, and that of Man, which are of still higher antiquity, remain in their original localities : namely, S. David's (formerly a metropolitan see), Llandaff, Bangor, and S. Asaph. Some few sees, during the ninth and tenth centuries, were erected, which were almost immediately abo lished again : as Beverley in Yorkshire, Taunton in Somersetshire, Crediton in Devonshire, and S. Pe- trock, or Padstow, in Cornwall. In the time of William the Conqueror there were few, if any, episcopal sees which are not still in ex istence, although since that period several new ones have been founded. The destruction of monasteries and the boundless spoliation of Church property afforded Henry VIII. ample opportunities for extend ing the episcopate and increasing the efficacy of the parochial system ; and he contemplated the erection of no less than twenty new sees, besides the esta blishment of suffragan bishops. Of these proposed bishoprics, six only were founded : namely, Chester, 4 Introduction. Peterborough, Oxford, Bristol, Gloucester, and West minster; but this last was altered to its present con stitution by Queen Elizabeth. Within the notion of a diocese are included all subordinate Church dignitaries, with their jurisdic tions : as the dean, canons, archdeacons, and rural deans — offices which, in Church organisation, have been developed by time; besides the parochial clergy, and, indeed, in one sense, the whole body of the faithful. Such is the outward framework of that Church, which we are still accustomed to regard as established in this kingdom ; as that in whose keeping is deposited the word of God, and which is, in theory, responsible for the spiritual welfare of the community. The internal struggles and changes which have taken place in this body ; the lives of eminent members of it, whether lay or clerical ; the action and counter-action of the Church upon the State, and its relation towards those bodies which have separated from it, furnish us with the subject of Church History. The great epochs of the Church of England, and I shall do little more than allude to these, are, the arrival of S. Augustine in Kent, followed as it was by the conversion of Ethelbert and the effectual esta blishment of the Church ; the Norman Conquest, when, notwithstanding the arbitrary character of William the Conqueror, the Papal power was strength ened ; the Reformation, or the recovery of the inde pendence of the National Church ; the Great Re bellion, during which the Puritan faction entirely triumphed, and Episcopacy was abolished ; the re storation of the Monarchy, which entailed that of the Episcopal Church ; and the Revolution, which, so far Introduction. 5 as religion is concerned, may be called the era of Toleration. But although I have denominated these critical periods epochs, it must not be supposed that the in tervals were times altogether void of interest on mat ters connected with the Church, and undeserving of our consideration. The long period which has elapsed since the last of these epochs has not been barren in events, which will exercise a lasting influence on the Church of England, and which, therefore, must merit the attention of the student of Church history. In deed, in some respects, this is a period especially worthy of our examination, because so few ma terial changes, during this time, have taken place in the constitution of the Church. The active de liberations of the Convocation have been suspended ; the tithes have been commuted ; cathedral establish ments have been reduced, although the clergy have increased in number ; and, happily, the Colonial Epi scopate has been developed. The interest which it excites is, therefore, of a more subtle kind, confined, as it chiefly is, to the fluctuations of religious opi nion, and the effects of the principles of the Revolu tion both on the Church and the development of Dissent. In the idea of the Revolution, as an epoch, we include the reign of James IL, as from this ori ginated those changes in the English Constitution which form the basis of modern politics, and have greatly affected the relations of the Church with re spect to the people. I know no better way of show ing the effect it has had upon our theology, and the character of our leading divines, than by presenting to the reader a short biographical record of those Caroline divines who flourished at this period or 6 Introduction. immediately before, and so furnishing him with the means for comparison. During the Great Rebellion, although Episcopacy was overthrown and the Presbyterians and Independ ents alternately triumphed, the episcopal clergy did not abandon themselves to despair or indolence, but were, in many instances, laying the foundation of a reputation, which has made their names familiar to every English Churchman. Nine bishops, who sur vived that season of anarchy, were restored to their sees by the Restoration. Juxon, bishop of London, who was at once promoted to Canterbury ; Pierce, bishop of Bath and Wells ; Skinner, bishop of Ox ford ; Warner, bishop of Rochester ; Roberts, bishop of Bangor ; Wren, bishop of Ely ; Duppa, bishop of Salisbury ; Frewen, bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; and King, bishop of Chichester. But there were still more eminent men than these in the ranks of the clerical body, seven thousand of whom had been ejected from their livings, besides those who were driven from the Universities, rather than take the solemn League and Covenant. Amongst these were Cosin, dean of Peterborough in 1640, now raised to the see of Durham. He died in Janu ary, 1671-2; Sanderson, canon of Christ Church and rector of Boothby Pagnell when ejected from his pre ferments, now made Bishop of Lincoln — an honour which, however, he enjoyed but a short time, dying in January, 1662-3; Nicholson, the author of a well- known work on the Church Catechism, who was turned out of his canonry of S. David's for rejecting the Engagement, now made Bishop of Gloucester — a post which he held for ten years, dying in February 1671-2 ; lastly may be mentioned Dr. Introduction. 7 Walton, the laborious editor of the London Poly glot, a work of singular merit for the age in which he lived, now elevated to the see of Chester. If we turn to consider how the Church fared in the sister kingdom of Ireland, two very eminent men immediately occur to us, whom the Restoration found in poverty, and restored to opulence and distinction. These are Bramhall and Jeremy Taylor. Bramhall, who was formerly Bishop of Derry, was now made Archbishop of Armagh ; and Jeremy Taylor was consecrated Bishop of Down and Connor in January 1660-1. Bramhall was not only eminent for his learning, but also for a shrewd practical sense, not thought generally to be a part of the scholar's char acter. He died in 1663, and Taylor, who preached his funeral sermon, concluded with this panegyric : — " Melancthon was used to say that himself was a logician, Pomeranus a grammarian, Justus Jonas an orator ; but that Luther was all of these. It was greatly true of him that the single perfections, which make many men eminent, were united in this primate, and made him illustrious." But Taylor himself was more eminent than Bramhall; indeed, the most illustrious of those divines who rejoiced in the return of Charles and the restoration of the Church and Monarchy; and some have thought that it was a reproach upon the advisers of the king, that the most dis tinguished writer which the Church of England had produced since the Reformation, after all his labours and sorrows, should have been rewarded with an Irish Bishopric. But there are two reasons which may be assigned why Jeremy Taylor should have been thus provided for. It was in Ireland 8 Introduction. that he spent, perhaps, the happiest period of his life, when, under the patronage of Lord Conway, he took refuge at Portmore, near Lisburne, where he held a lectureship; and he had married, for a second wife, Mrs. Joanna Bridges, who was reputed to have been a natural daughter of Charles I. when Prince of Wales and under the tuition of Bucking ham. If this story were true, it was, perhaps, a reason for keeping Taylor at some distance from the Court. There was evidently no intention on the part of the king to cast a slur upon this pious man, since the diocese of Dromore was entrusted to his care, in addition to that of Down and Connor, as a special mark pf royal favour: he was also made a Privy Councillor, and appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dublin. He died in 1667. These different divines constitute the elder section of that old school of theologians who were brought into notice by the return of Charles II. Amongst the later appointments from this school, of this reign, to the episcopal bench, were Dr. An thony Sparrow and the very learned Dr. John Pear son. Sparrow was educated at Queen's College, Oxford, of which he became a fellow; was ejected for refusing the Covenant in 1643 ; made Bishop of Exeter in 1667, and translated to Norwich in 1676. The little book which he published, called A Rationale upon the Common Prayer, and which has been often reprinted, and much consulted in later times, is con sidered the very essence of a High-Churchman's Manual; and yet he professes to found it upon the opinions of that eminently Protestant divine, Bishop Jewel, and to show first, " that the Prayer-book is agreeable to primitive usage, and so not novel ;" and Introduction. 9 secondly, " that it is a reasonable service, and so not superstitious." He died in 1685. Of all the divines who were in places of authority on the accession of James IL, none were more eminent than Dr. John Pearson, who was raised to the see of Chester in February, 1672-3. Although he does not appear to have been amongst the sufferers of Charles the First's reign, we find him at the Restoration unequivocally on the side of the Episcopalians. He was one of those appointed at the Savoy Conference as a supernumerary Commissioner on the Episcopal side. His well-known Exposition of the Creed was originally delivered in lectures at St. Clement's, East-cheap, when he was preacher there. Dr. Burnet, in recording his death in 1686, calls him, in all re spects, the greatest divine of -the age, and certainly the undiminished authority and popularity of his writings go far to justify this high encomium. Ac cording to the same authority, he was more instruc tive than moving in the pulpit. As a bishop he erred on the side of leniency, and unhappily, towards the close of his career, he was almost incapable of discharging his duties through loss of memory. Amongst other works he published Vindicice Igna- tiance, and he was the author of the tract Annates Cyprianici, prefixed to Fell's famous edition of that father's works. Fell himself must not be forgotten in this list. He was the son of most loyal parents. His father, Dr. Samuel Fell, who was Dean of Christ Church, and expelled by the Parliamentary Commissioners, is said to have died on hearing of the decapitation of Charles I. ; whilst his mother, Mrs. Fell, manifested her sense of the illegality of the proceedings which 10 Introduction. deprived her husband ofhis post, so strongly that she could only be ejected from the Deanery by being carried out in her chair and placed bodily in the quad rangle. Fell, upon the Restoration, received a stall at Chichester, and became Dean of Christ Church, and in February, 1675-6, was made Bishop of Oxford. He was a man of exemplary life. His love of eccle siastical learning is shown in his edition of S. Cyprian above alluded to. His diligence in the discharge of his duties as Dean of Christ Church properly enough checked his ardour as a student, but he continued a great encourager of learning in others, and it was under his auspices that Dr. John Mill commenced his labours in Biblical criticism. Though a man of liberal mind, the sufferings which his family had experienced during the reign of Charles I. served to strengthen his feeling against the Nonconformists, and make him jealous of what he accounted spurious liberality. Whilst he was dean, Locke, on the re presentation of Charles II. , was deprived of his stu dentship at Christ Church. Fell, however, is com mended by Burnet as having been one of the first to apprehend the danger the country was in from Popery. To mark a gradation in the line of our theology, and the character of our divines, I must here mention the name of Isaac Barrow. He is one of those distin guished men whose careers had scarcely commenced before the troubles of Charles the First's reign. He died comparatively a young man, and therefore did not live to the accession of James II. , but his writings exhibit a combination of the characteristics which distinguish the theologians of the older and later schools. Popular judgments of men find their way Introduction. 11 even into the mouths of kings, and perhaps the anecdote related of Charles II. illustrates, as well as anything, the style ofhis writings. He called Barrow an unfair writer or preacher, because when he handled a subject, he left nothing for others who might come after him to say upon that subject. He certainly possessed a solid judgment, and the arguments by which he supported the conclusions of that judgment were generally unanswerable. His love of amplifi cation renders his style somewhat tedious, but it is otherwise eloquent and forcible. Notwithstanding little promise of ability in his youth, Barrow was a universal scholar. He was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, of which he became Master on the elevation of Pearson to the see of Chester, having previously resigned the Lucasian Mathematical Pro fessorship at Cambridge in favour of Mr. Isaac Newton. He died in 1677. The reader's attention is now called to the names of some of those who played a conspicuous part in ecclesiastical affairs during the greater part of the time over which the following narrative extends. The names of Sancroft, Compton, Ken, and Turner, will often occur in those pages. Events, we shall see, sufficiently developed their characters, and in con sidering those events they will be exhibited to us such as they appeared to their contemporaries ; but still a short notice of their careers previous to their elevation to those posts in which we find them on the accession of James II. may not be out of place. The patron who brought forward Sancroft was Dr. Cosin, who, when following the fortunes of Charles II. on the Continent, received at the hands of the former some very timely pecuniary assistance, and 12 Introduction. on being made Bishop of Durham appointed the future archbishop his chaplain. Sancroft was born in January, 1616-7, and therefore was of a sufficiently ripe age at the Restoration. He was educated at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and became Fellow of that Society; was ejected for refusing the Engage ment; but in 1662 his constancy was rewarded by his being elected Master of the College. In January, 1663-4, he was appointed Dean of York, and on the 11th November, 1664, Dean of S. Paul's. He entered upon this sphere with a very high cha racter for integrity and zeal, which indeed he re tained throughout his life. It was greatly by means of his unwearied diligence that the Coal Act was obtained, by which those funds were procured which mainly contributed to the erection of the present church of S. Paul's, in place of the old cathedral which was entirely destroyed by the great fire, together with fifty of the city churches. Sancroft's high character, his zeal on that memorable occasion, and his reputation for asceticism, led, as it is said, upon the advice of the Duke of York, to his being nominated Archbishop of Canterbury in January, 1677-8. But the Duke of York had very much mis taken his man, if he supposed that Sancroft was to be made an instrument of for the advancement of Popery. Compton's elevation to the Bishopric of London was due to many circumstances which were in his favour, rather than to profound learning or shining abilities. He was the sixth and youngest son of Spencer, earl of Northampton, who fell, with three of his sons, fighting for the Royal cause at Hopton Heath. He was educated at Queen's College, Ox- Introduction. 13 ford ; he then travelled abroad, and after having spent three years in foreign parts, he returned and became a cornet in the army ; but when past thirty years of age he changed his calling, and took orders. In 1667 he was Master of the Hospital of S. Cross; in 1669, Canon of Christ Church; in 1674, Bishop of Oxford ; and in 1675, upon the death of Dr. Henchman, he was translated to the see of London. Two of Evelyn's early notices of Compton, in his Diary, serve to illustrate his dis position, which aided his rapid rise.* In an ac count which Evelyn gives us of the Encamia of the new Theatre at Oxford, after mentioning some other of the public exercises upon that occasion, he says, " Then disputed inceptors of law, &c. Lastly, inceptors of theology, Dr. Compton, brother to the Earl of Northampton, began with great modesty and applause." A year or two after this we again find Evelyn writing as follows : — " Dr. Compton, brother of the Earl of Northampton, preached on 1 Cor. v. 11-16, showing the Church's power in ordaining things indifferent. This worthy person's talent is not preaching, but he is likely to make a grave and serious good man."f This Compton undoubtedly did ; he was both zealous in his calling and exces sively popular with his clergy. The whole career of Ken stamps him as quite the pattern of the Anglican divine. There is something so English, so genuine and historically interesting in such a character, that it strikes a reflecting person as almost remarkable that it is not more generally popular with the English public than it is — that with many the character of the English divine of this * Evelyn's Diary, July 9, 1669. f md- APril 17, 1673. 14 Introduction. school should be an object of extreme jealousy, if not repugnance. Ken was educated at Winchester School and New College, Oxford. He proceeded to his master's degree in 1664. The precise date of his ordination seems doubtful; but we find him Rector of Little Easton, Essex, on the presentation of Lord Maynard, in 1663. The famous Izaak Walton married Ken's sister, and as he was an inti mate friend of Morley, bishop of Winchester, the latter promoted Ken his chaplain, and gave him the living of East Woodhay, collating him afterwards to that of Brightstone, in the Isle of Wight. He was next promoted to a stall at Winchester, which brought him under the notice of Charles II. , who often held his court in that city. It may serve to illustrate his character to mention, that in 1675 he travelled with his nephew in Italy, and was at Rome during the period when innumerable pilgrims flock to the Holy City ; but, although a passionate lover of antiquity, he does not appear by this visit to have lost any of his affection for the Church to which he belonged. On his return he was sent to the Hague, to attend as chaplain on the Princess Mary, recently married to the Prince of Orange. Whilst in this capacity he discharged his duty with much fidelity, and even incurred the displeasure of the Prince of Orange by persuading Count Zulestein, one of his courtiers, to repair, as far as possible, the injury he had done an English lady at the court of the Princess, whom he had seduced, by offering her honourable marriage. Some time after his return to England, we find him acting in the same spirit in a matter in which Charles II. was concerned. It seems, that in one of the royal visits to Winchester, Ken's prebendal house Introduction. 15 had been marked out by some of the court officials for the accommodation of Nell Gwyn, the king's mistress ; but Ken peremptorily forbade a woman of her character crossing his threshold. He was next appointed chaplain to the fleet in the expedition to Tangiers, commanded by Lord Dartmouth, and on the death of his patron Morley, in 1684, Dr. Mews being translated to the see of Winchester from Bath and Wells, Ken became his successor, in January, 1684-5. The real character of this holy man will be further exemplified in the history of his times.Turner, the school companion of Ken, was made chaplain to the Duke of York; in 1683, Bishop of Rochester; and in 1684, Bishop of Ely. He appears to have been an honest, strong-feeling, straightfor ward man. He was warmly attached to the person of James, and zealously opposed to the Duke's exclusion from the throne; but he was not less warmly attached to the Church of England.* We find him, at one time, opposed to James's arbitrary proceedings, and suffering for his opinion ; and sub sequently opposed to William, and, in consequence, in exile. He was one of those whose firmness or obstinacy, whichever it may be called, rendered him too scrupulous to be a good casuist. The above were the most eminent of those divines who were in high positions in the Church of England at the time that James the Second was called to the throne. Many others were to be found, in the great body of the clergy, whose names with us are almost household words, whom we all feel to belong to a different school of theologians from that of Sander- * Burnet. 16 Introduction. son, Sparrow, Jeremy Taylor, or Ken. It may be well to look back a little to the origin of this school, before enumerating any of its representatives. A very learned Church historian,* has recorded, to the shame and discredit of this country, that modern scepticism and infidelity took its rise in England. The excesses of the Puritans were not conducive to the growth of religion, or a respect for revelation in independent minds, which had been shaken in their attachment to the established church of the country. The age produced two of the first and principal leaders of modern scepticism and infi delity. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who died in 1648, is generally regarded as the earliest propounder of a deliberate scheme of Deism; whilst Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, with whom he was personally acquainted but who long survived him, promulgated opinions which have a decided bias to Materialism. Herbert was more professedly a metaphysical writer than Hobbes, who should rather be judged of as a writer on politics than polemics. Herbert be lieved in the existence of innate ideas, and when it is considered that both the infant and savage mind are susceptible of treatment, there appear some grounds for his opinions, although they were opposed by Hobbes and afterwards by Locke. Conscience was to him in place of a revelation, for he did not point out the necessity of revelation to instruct the conscience. His scheme he called a universal re ligion, and reduced it to the five following heads :f — 1. There is a Supreme Being ; 2. Man should wor ship this Being ; 3. Virtue is the principal part of * Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 30. f See Leland's Deistical Writers, vol. i. p. 3. Introduction. 17 this worship ; 4. Repentance expiates faults ; 5. There must be a future state, in which virtue is re warded and vice punished. Lord Herbert confessed that he had drawn these cardinal points of his system from what he called the best of religions, which is Christianity ; but, unfortunately, denying the neces sity of a revelation, he, of course, threw discredit upon the truth of Christianity. The works in which he advanced and defended his peculiar views were en titled, De Veritate, prout distinguitur a Revelatione, and De Religione Gentilium. He was the elder brother of the saintly George Herbert. Hobbes, who was born much about the same time as Lord Herbert, but who lived to a very great age, put forth theories directly opposed to those of Her bert, and of a far more dangerous nature. To ex hibit these in anything like an adequate form to the reader, would require much more space than I can devote to the subject. He was a man of great and original abilities, but of extreme assurance. The only work to which I shall here allude is that to which he gave the whimsical title of the Leviathan, because it is a systematic exposition of his sentiments upon all subjects. In the Introduction* to this, he tells us that, under this name, he proposes to de scribe the commonwealth, or body politic, which he compares to an artificial man ; and his work is ac cordingly a dissection of every estate of civilized man. All that can interest the human species in go vernment, law, commerce, religion, and like matters, are handled by him with much vigour and origi nality in this celebrated treatise. Hence the great influence it had throughout the seventeenth century, * Introduction to the Leviathan. C 18 Introduction. and the great and reasonable opposition which it provoked. Hobbes appears to have been somewhat misled by his figure of the artificial man, to which he com pared the Commonwealth; for, as. in the natural body, the head is certainly the absolute governing member, being the seat of volition, Hobbes taught that the sovereign power in a state should be abso lute, whether under a monarchy or any other form of government. He would have the head as supreme in the body politic, as it is in the human frame. He maintained that such an absolute power in the State was agreeable to the laws of nature, which are the laws of God.* But his opinions were thus far agree able to the age in which he lived, that, although he was in favour of a monarchy, and that an absolute one, he taught that the subject's obligation to the sovereign lasted only whilst the sovereign power itself lasted. According to him, the will of the sove reign power is the only measure of right, wrong, good, evil ; and no man can go wrong in the eyes of God who obeys the sovereign will, whatever it may be. This sentiment is what is commonly understood by Hobbism ; to which allusion is often made in the history of the latter half of this century. A great part of the Leviathan is devoted to what its author calls the Christian Commonwealth. In this he professes a certain respect for the Holy Scrip tures, but interprets them in a manner quite different from that which is received. He allowed of their authority only as far as they state nothing which contradicts the laws of nature ! f Moses and our Lord are placed by him very much in the same cate- * Hobbes' Leviathan, fol. ed. of Works, p. 270. f Ibid. Introduction. 19 gory. Added to which, he throws discredit upon the existence of a spiritual world altogether ; for one of his tenets is, that whatever is not body, is nothing at all.* The learning, shrewdness, and pretension, which were displayed in the Leviathan, caused it to be much read ; which made it proportionably danger ous to morals and religion. Bishop Bramhall was one ofthe earliest opponents of Hobbes. In reply to the Leviathan, he published a work entitled The Catch ing of Leviathan, or the Great Whale. But the philosopher of Malmesbury met with many other disputants, for the writings of Herbert and Hobbes may be said almost to have originated a new school of theology. At the time the Leviathan appeared (a.d. 1651), there existed, chiefly at Cambridge, a body of men, who could neither devote themselves to the reading of patristic divinity in the spirit of our earlier divines, nor fall in with the heats and fancies ofthe Puritans. They gave much of their time to classical writers, more especially to the works of Plato ; and to natural philosophy, as well as to divinity and the Holy Scrip tures. Indeed, they were of too contemplative a dis position, or too academical in their tastes, to embark with enthusiasm into either extreme, but held their judgment, on many disputes of the day, in suspense, and were therefore called Latitudinarians. These men now came forward as the champions of the truth of Christianity, and the opponents of Herbert, Hobbes, and others who advocated their views. Cudworth's name figures conspicuously amongst them as the author of the Intellectual System ofthe Universe. Cumberland, afterwards Bishop of Peter- * Leland, vol. i. p. 35. 20 Introduction. borough, published a philosophical treatise in the same controversy. The amiable Dr. Henry More, as he is commonly called, wrote an elaborate refuta tion of Atheism. Wilkins, who died Bishop of Chester, was another who wrote on the principles of natural rehgion, against Atheism, with Whichcote and others. This school of Theology, if it may with propriety be so denominated, originated in the times of the Great Rebellion, and more or less under the divines enumerated above were trained Tillotson, Stilling- fleet, Patrick, Tenison, and men of their stamp and habits of thought. They were, therefore, not ill pre pared for some of the difficulties with which the Church had at this time to contend. For certainly the state of public morals in the reign of Charles II. , as well as the popularity of the infidel sentiments of Hobbes, with the courtiers of that licentious monarch, called for all their eloquence and reasoning powers to preserve the national faith from decay. The history of this country, during a great part of the seventeenth century, is at once remarkable for the list of luminaries who devoted their talents to the de fence of Christianity and the Church of England, and for the deadly hostility which was manifested against both one and the other. Tillotson was one of those, whose via media character and great abilities as a preacher made him a favourite in the City, and he proved very instrumental in confirming the religious opinions of the citizens. There was nothing in his origin to recommend him for rapid promotion. He was born at Sowerby, in Yorkshire, in 1630 ; his father Mr. Robert Tillotson, being a clothier of that place, and in his religious persuasions an Anabaptist of extreme views. Tillotson was educated at Clare College ; Introduction. 21 and if his somewhat Rationalistic views and his Pu ritan origin prevented his sympathising with those who entertained high opinions upon Church autho rity, they also saved him from committing himself to the fanatics who swarmed about Cromwell in the decline of his days. He appears to have been par ticularly shocked at a scene he witnessed at the time ofthe Protector's death, in the presence-chamber at Whitehall, where Richard and the rest of Cromwell's family sat on one side of a table, and six preachers on another side, who reproached God with Crom well's services, and declared aloud that, in removing the Protector, the Almighty had deceived them ; and applied to Richard Cromwell Scripture phrases ap plicable only to the Son of God.* Tillotson, however puritanically disposed, was unprepared for such an exhibition as this, and in consequence held aloof from the faction. At the Restoration he was ordained by Dr. Syd- serf, Bishop of Galloway. In 1663 we find him Rector of Kedington, in Suffolk, and Preacher at Lincoln's Inn ; in 1672, Prebend and Dean of Canter bury. His character is one which rather invites re spect than admiration. He was cautious to timidity and painfully sensitive about his reputation. Although brought into contact with all the leading men of his time, until he became Archbishop, he appears to have so steered his course as to have drawn upon himself little hostility from any party. He, with Burnet, attended upon Lord William Russell before his execution, and his reasoning to bring that noble man to a confession of his error, in his zeal for the authority of the powers which be, brought him under * Birch's Life of Tillotson, edit. 1753, p. 17. 22 Introduction. the imputation of Hobbism, and proved a source of much future vexation to him when the course of events brought him himself in opposition to the hereditary sovereign of the country. Dr. Edward Stillingfleet was another of the Lon don clergy at the time of Charles the Second's death, having succeeded Sancroft as Dean of S. Paul's, and previously having held the living of S. Andrew, Hol born, together with the preachership at the Rolls. He was very eminent as a writer, and a far better Churchman than Tillotson, although his Irenicum, which he published as a young man with great ap plause, being a compromise, subjected him to some controversial attacks. His theory was, that although the Apostolical constitution of the Church was Epis copalian, there was no divine intimation that none but this form of church discipline was consonant with sound doctrine. As he grew older he dropped much of these latitudinarian sentiments, and held more with what are commonly called the orthodox views of church government. Undoubtedly the London clergy of those days were many of them distinguished for their literary abilities, which was the reason of their pro motion, and not the simple fact of their being London clergy. The very learned Dr. William Beveridge was at this time Rector of S. Peter's, Cornhill. Tenison, who had signalised himself in contro versy with Mr. Hobbes, was Rector of S. Martin's- in-the-Fields. Dr. Anthony Horneck, a devotional writer of considerable eminence, was the Preacher at the Savoy. Dr. John Scott, the author of the Christian Life, was the Rector of S. Peter-le-Poor. Dr. Clagett was the Preacher at Gray's Inn. And, more prominent than any of the above, for the parts Introduction. 23 they played in subsequent events, must be men tioned the names of Dr. William Sherlock, the Master of the Temple, and Sharp, the Rector of S. Giles. These were all men zealous in their respective spheres. In one part of London, Horneck and Beveridge were forming societies of young men for mutual improve ment, and the exercise of a more earnest and pri mitive kind of devotion than that which satisfied the masses ; whilst, in another part of the metropolis, Sharp and Clagett were elaborating the parochial system to the best of their abilities. Such was the diligent character of the London clergy at this time. Still it must not be supposed that they were the only ones in their profession eminent for their zeal and their abilities. There were many rising men at the Universities. Bull, too, was at this very time pursuing his learned and laborious studies, buried in a country village, and Humphrey Prideaux was similarly em ployed in the Close at Norwich. But although the Church of England was so ably represented by her clergy, she had many very adverse circumstances to contend with. She had an open, and a secret and subtle opposition to meet and resist. The animosity of the Nonconformists was not, at this time, of that chronic and subdued nature which it has since become. They still occupied the place rather of a defeated power, which aspired to share the advantages enjoyed by the Established Church, than that of one which has quite ceased from any such aspirations, and is contented to hold a subordinate place in worldly estimation, cherishing in lieu of this the idea that it enjoys a higher spiri tuality. Many in their ranks had smarted, in their own persons, under the penalties of the Act of Uni- 24 Introduction. formity, the circumstances attending the enforcement of the provisions of that measure having been need lessly severe ; and the ill feeling provoked in con sequence had been much inflamed in recent years by the harsh spirit in which the penal laws had been put in force againt them, through the instrumentality, as was believed, of the Duke of York. Besides the hostility thus engendered against her, the Church had to struggle with the evil effects which followed from the apathy of Charles II. and the licentiousness of his court, the open profession of Romanism on the part of the Duke of York, and the popular persuasion that the king himself was by no means unfriendly to the Church to which his brother adhered. Yet, notwithstanding circum stances so little favourable to her progress and in fluence, one fact outweighed all these in sustaining her in the contest, to which, together with the State, she was about to be exposed. Her numerical strength was much in the ascendancy of the united forces of Nonconformity and Romanism,* The "ele ments of national unity were, therefore, not dissolved. Had it been otherwise, there is no saying what might have been the result of the conflict with James. The relative proportion between the numbers of Church- * The freeholders of England and Wales were reckoned as follows, in respect to their religion at the time of the Revolution : Conformists 2,477,254 Nonconformists 108,676 Papists 13,856 See Census of Religious Worship, p. 100. Hume reckons the Roman Catholics as not the hundredth part of the people, and the Nonconformists as little more than a twentieth. — Vol. viii. p. 255. Introduction. 25 men and Dissenters has since then undergone con siderable change. And now, having given a sketch of the antece dents of the Church, I will proceed to offer some remarks upon the rise of Nonconformity, and its aspect at the accession of James II. to the throne. Upon the death of Charles II. (Feb. 6, 1684-5), not to reckon some insignificant sectaries, there were ostensibly four denominations of Nonconformists — the Presbyterians, the Independents, the Baptists, and the Quakers. The two first were by far the most important and influential. The first of these are associated with the very germs of the Reformation. The splendour and luxury in which the mediaeval bishops lived, induced in the earliest reformers a tendency to quarrel with the very institution of pre lacy ; and, contrary to the indisputable testimony of antiquity, a belief that there was no scriptural rounds for the threefold order of the ministry was entertained by many, amongst others by Wiclif and his followers. Indeed, as the disciples of a master generally exceed their master in some of his most extreme opinions, we read of some priests, followers of Wiclif, who, in the reign of Richard II. , claimed an equal jurisdiction with the bishops, and pretended to ordain. The opinion of Wiclif on these and kin dred subjects took root in Bohemia, and, partly from necessity and partly from choice, the Presbyterian form of church government was adopted in many parts of the Continent, when the breach with Rome was inevitable. But nowhere was the Presbyterian system more dogmatically established than in Swit zerland, where Zwinglius, Calvin, and Bullinger laboured in the cause of extreme Protestantism. 26 Introduction. The sentiments of these divines greatly influenced religious opinion in England, and it was from this source that English Presbyterianism was derived. In the reign of Henry VIII., the cause of the Reformation in England ebbed and flowed. The only point in Romanism that this spoilt and over bearing sovereign was heartily opposed to, was the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy. Many were put to death in this reign for not believing as the king believed. Others fled across the seas, and imbibed the sentiments of foreign Protestants. During the reign of Edward VI. the Reformation steadily advanced, and by the prudence of Cranmer and those in power, the truly apostolical form of church government by bishops was resumed, although intercourse was still kept up with foreign Protestants. Some of the more learned of them were invited to England, and provided for in the Church of England : as Tremellius, Bucer, Cavalarius, and Peter Martyr. Then followed the Marian persecution, when those reformers who, from their position, could not fly, suffered at the stake, whilst many others betook themselves to Switzerland and awaited the passing of the storm. Here they associated much with the Calvinistic divines, enjoyed their hospitality and joined with them in their public devotions, and doubtless learned to regard, if not with secret appro bation, with no great hostility, both the doctrines and discipline of the Swiss Churches. Upon the death of Queen Mary and the accession of Eliza beth, the exiled Churchmen who had been driven from their native country returned, and a refer ence to the names of some of the most remarkable of those who figure in the letters and documents Introduction. 27 known as the Zurich Correspondence, will throw additional light upon the history of Puritanism. Not that these exiles were all impugners of the Book of Common Prayer or ofthe discipline ofthe Church of England, but a habit of mind was induced in them not favourable to decision in religious controversy. Amongst the exiles we find Sampson, Home, Ben tham, Cox, Becon, Sandys, and Grindal.* Besides these, there must have been a host of nameless exiles, who returned to England with minds too well disposed to sympathise with many of those Puritan sentiments which gained such unhappy ascendancy in subse quent years. Grindal, when afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, could not, from conscientious motives, suppress some of the early developments of Puritan ism. The two divines who, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, made themselves most remarkable for the advocacy of Presbyterian sentiments, Cartwright and Travers, were encouraged by this description of in fluence.! They had been themselves voluntary sojourners at Geneva, where they had imbibed the sentiments of Calvin, and a great passion for the Presbyterian form of church government.! Cartwright's name is deserving of particular notice, since he is claimed by the Dissenters as a sort of founder of English Presbyterianism. Cartwright was a man of some repute as a scholar. He was a Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and subse- * Zurich Letters, vol. ii. p. 752. f Bogue and Bennett's History of Dissenters, vol. i. p. 47, ed. 1833. % Fuller thus quaintly notices these two divines : " Mr. Walter Travers, whom I may term the neck (allowing Mr. Cartwright for the head) of the Presbyterian party."— Church History, book ix. sect. iv. 28 Introduction. quently Lady Margaret's Reader in Divinity and Fellow of Trinity College, at a time when Whitgift was Master there. In his public lectures he took upon himself to attack the Liturgy ofthe Church of England and the Episcopal form of church govern ment ; and, indeed, enunciated all the leading prin ciples of Puritanism. A controversy ensued be tween Whitgift and Cartwright, and the latter was at last silenced by the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners. In after years Cartwright became more reconciled to his position as a clergyman of the Church of England, and when Whitgift was raised to the metropolitan see he promoted his old antag onist to the Mastership of the Earl of Leicester's Hospital at Warwick, where he appears to have lived quietly, and lamented his former violent courses. But men of less name and stake in the country than Cartwright promoted, in a more secret way, the Presbyterian cause. The first Presbyterian Church in England was established at Wandsworth, in 1572, under the guidance of a Mr. Field.* Eleven elders being selected, their names and duties were inscribed in a register, called " The Orders of Wands worth." Other presbyteries were soon after estab lished in various parts of the kingdom. The Presby terian system is a dangerous antagonist to Episcopacy, because, like Episcopacy, there is a unity in its polity which brings many congregations into conjunction and uniformity of action. Grindal, when Archbishop of York, had opposed the views of Cartwright ; but when he came to Canterbury, he showed an indul gence to the predilections of the Puritans which was incompatible with church discipline. Puritanism * Bogue and Bennett, i. 163. Introduction. 29 was then the fashion. Whitgift, who succeeded him, stemmed the tide somewhat, but not without provok ing much opposition ; and so the struggle continued between the two parties, both within and without the Church, until the temporary ascendancy of Puritan ism in the Civil Wars, when, in 1643, Episcopacy was formally abolished, and the Presbyterian form of church government set up in its place by direction of the "Westminster Assembly," and many thou sands ofthe Episcopal clergy were ejected. As Puritanism sprang from the undue exercise ofthe individual will, it was the prolific parent of sectarianism; but, fortunately, the disease, in great measure, carried with it its palliation. If it had not been for the rise ofthe Independents and the Baptists, the Episcopal Church might never have again re covered her ascendancy. The time, however, came when the Independents proved a sharper thorn in the side of the Presbyterians than even Episcopacy. The Congregational system is without any warranty, either from scripture or antiquity, and in proportion as sects depart from these authorities are they cal culated to become violent and fanatical. Congre gationalism, as it is now called, or Independency, by the force of its principles, evolves the doctrine of toleration to every religious community but that of an Established Church. For as, according to this system, every individual congregation is a church entire in itself, claiming no extra authority, and ac knowledging no extra jurisdiction, it would belie its entire principles if it proceeded to persecute. Time has brought about amongst the Independents a sort of connexion between the congregations, and there have been established Independent institutions, which 30 Introduction. imply aggregation; but the advocates of the system declare that none of these institutions are essential, or exercise the least power over the decisions of individual congregations. Apart from discipline, their tenets are very similar to those contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, although they acknowledge no formula of doctrine. The Nonconformists tell us that the principles of Independency had been unconsciously entertained by many before any one appeared to give them a practical embodiment. The individual to whom this honour is commonly assigned was one Robert Brown, sprung from a good family in the county of Rutland, and educated at Benet, or Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. He began his career as a disciple of Cartwright, by inveighing against the Church of England in more bitter language than his master. He ridiculed her discipline, and called her Liturgy a mixture between Popery and Pa ganism. He followed Cartwright to the Continent, but soon determined to improve upon his master's opinions ; and having printed a book in 1582 at Middleborough, called A Treatise of Reformation, in which his views about church government were freely exhibited, he caused several copies of it to be distributed in England, and soon after returned him self, to promote in his own person these opinions. The Dutch, at this time, had a large congregation at Norwich, many members of which were infected with the heretical sentiments of the Anabaptists, who entertained many things in common with Brown's views. To these, therefore, he first addressed himself. He then proceeded to form mixed congregations of English and foreigners, and his disciples increased Introduction. 31 sufficiently to obtain a designation, and were called " Brownists." Their doctrines were considered so dan gerous, that, unhappily, the spirit of persecution was aroused against them, and several in Queen Elizabeth's reign suffered death for " stirring up sedition and defaming the Common Prayer."* Brown himself was more fortunate, being saved by Lord Burleigh, whose kinsman he was. After conforming and re lapsing, he appears to have been finally brought to his senses by the solemnities of an excommunication pronounced against him by Lindsell, bishop of Peter borough. He conformed, and held a benefice in Northamptonshire, yet died in gaol, where he had so often been before ; not, however, this time, on account of his religious sentiments, but for a breach of the peace. Men of more character than Brown afterwards imbibed his views, and suffered in various degrees for their opinions. They first formed themselves into a church in London in 1592, but were soon dispersed. Some of their leaders, as Barrow and Greenwood, were executed at Tyburn ; whilst others fled to the Continent, and formed a church or congregation at Leyden, whence many afterwards migrated to New England. Here they watched the events, which were ripening to a revolution in their native country. Those who remained in England kept themselves very quiet down to the period of the Long Parliament, when they at last ventured to worship with open doors; so that in 1640 some of them being summoned before the House of Lords, and being dismissed only with a gentle rebuke, they of course took courage. Their exiled brethren re- * Collier's Eccles. Hist, vol. ii. p. 581, fol. 32 Introduction. turned. They gathered strength; and whilst Epi scopacy was being superseded by Presbyterianism the Independents put in a claim to be heard, and indeed to be preferred : but the Presbyterians were as yet too strong for them. They were kept down for a time ; at length, however, came the humiliation of their antagonists, and when Cromwell selected all his chaplains from the Independents, and the greater part ofthe army espoused their cause, Independency or Congregationalism was considered to have tri umphed. Thus arose in the ranks of Dissent an antagonism which acted favourably for the interests of the afflicted Church. The Baptists appear to have sprung up under the shadow of the Independents. Little as they may like any allusion to their distinctive origin, it is diffi cult to separate this from the anarchists of Munster, who so scandalised Christendom by their excesses in 1533. As their prime doctrine was the invalidity of infant-baptism, they insisted upon the necessity of re- baptizing their followers, and hence were called Ana baptists. The necessity of total immersion was an other of their tenets. It is obvious that the name of " Anabaptist" would fall into desuetude, as the sect increased, and parents kept their children from bap tism until they became adults. Hence this sect is now called by the more respectable name of " Bap tists." Their distinctive doctrines are, the necessity of " Adult Baptism" and " Total Immersion." There are, however, amongst Baptists, many shades of opi nion upon other doctrines, and even some are Uni tarians. The English Government viewed this sect in its early stages with peculiar suspicion and jea lousy, and deemed it for some time a foreign import- Introduction. 33 ation, too bad to prove a snare for its own subjects. In the reign of Henry VIII. fourteen Dutch Bap tists were put to death without mercy. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth many others of the same creed and country suffered, about 1575. Still, these fo reign sectaries flourished, as has been shown in the short account given above of Independency ; and it was through Brown's means, most likely, that the English became infected with this heresy. The indivi dual who has the honour of being called the Father of the General or Arminian Baptists was a Mr. John Smith, hke Brown originally a clergyman of the Church of England. Smith, who had become dissa tisfied with the Church, first joined the foreign Inde pendents, and went to Amsterdam, where Ainsworth, a man much distinguished amongst the Independents, presided over a congregation. Here Mr. Smith began to advance his objections to infant-baptism. In these he was opposed, both by Ainsworth and the Inde pendent minister at Leyden, Mr. Robinson. But the extravagancies of Sectarianism are beyond calcula tion. Mr. Smith, finding no one duly qualified, as he considered, to baptize him, baptized himself, and thus became what they called a "Se-baptist." Others in England, holding Baptist opinions, sent some of their sect to Holland to receive baptism, who re turned and administered the rite at home. From these beginnings, the sect originated and spread, and was known in this country as a distinct sect in 1608. They made some way in the reign of James I., and soon after formed a recognised member of the great Puritan faction which was arrayed against the Throne and Church. The last sect which I have to allude to in this D 34 Introduction. Introduction is that of the Quakers. This body of religionists cannot be compared to any of the others. It does not even deserve the distinction of being reckoned among the Puritan sects. It was the child of the most profound ignorance and the wildest fanaticism. It arose when the anarchy occasioned by the Great Rebellion was at its height, in 1646 ; and it had for its author an ignorant youth named George Fox, the son of a Leicestershire weaver. There is about its principles something which sa vours strongly ofthe Republican times in which it appeared. They defy law, custom, and tradition. Fox pretended to be governed solely by the inward prompting of the Holy Spirit ; and this, he taught, ought to be the only and proximate cause of every religious action. Hence, by his system, all forms and ceremonies were sinful. Even the two sacra ments were rejected, and regarded simply as ancient types of the operations of the Spirit. Both he and his followers began by entering churches abruptly, disturbing the congregations, and speaking or pray ing aloud, as they supposed the Spirit to give them utterance. They refused to pay tithes or church- rates ; and, of course, suffered in consequence repeated incarcerations. They obstinately declined to acknow ledge any titles which distinguish some men above others; and to guard against the least appeal to human vanity, they made use of the singular pro nouns "thee" and "thy," rather than "you" and " your." They prohibited the members of their own society from going to law, and obliged them to settle their differences amongst themselves. They have no appointed order of ministers ; and women as well as men are permitted to speak in the congregation, if Introduction. 35 they are moved thereto by the Holy Spirit. Their more honourable designation is that of the " Society of Friends.'' The name of " Quakers'' took its rise from an incident at the beginning of Fox's career, who bade a magistrate to tremble at the word of the Lord; and from the fact that they themselves were often visibly agitated by the violence of their own mental emotions. The Quakers have proved a much more inoffensive body of Christians than could have been expected from their extraordinary principles and fanatical origin. The sect gained great importance from the con version ofthe celebrated William Penn and his union with the Society in 1666. He was the son of Ad miral Penn, a courtier and intimate associate of Charles II. and his brother, the Duke of York, who were said to be under pecuniary obligations to him. It is certain that, notwithstanding William Penn was thrown into the Tower for his opinions, Charles afterwards granted him a province in America, where he founded the Quaker settlement of Pennsylvania ; whilst James II. took him into his especial favour when he was endeavouring to subvert the liberties of the country. The Quakers even found a Latin apologist in Robert Barclay. Such is a short account of the four great bodies of Dissenters, which were in existence and had ob tained prominent notice at the Restoration. Others, doubtless, there were, but of an insignificant and ephe meral nature. At the present day the recognised religious sects in this country exceed thirty in num ber. The relative proportion between Churchmen and Dissenters has thus, as was before remarked, undergone a great, and, as far as the Church is con- 36 Introduction. cerned, a prejudicial change, which has been occa sioned rather by politics than the intrinsic convictions of individuals. Until of late years little had been done to promote church extension, whilst the popu lation was multiplying in every part of the king dom. Those, therefore, whom the Church had neg lected, were naturally open to the offers of spiritual instruction and guidance which came to them from the Nonconformists, whose freer action enabled them to accommodate the manner of their teaching to the wants of the times. 37 CHAPTER I. (1684-5.) The loyalty of the nation upon the accession of James II. to the throne — the Ministry — Character of Sunderland — James avows his attachment to the Church of Rome, and encourages Conversions — His policy with respect to the Church and the Nonconformists — Baxter — Argyle's attempt in Scotland — Monmouth's rash attempt in the West of England — Defeat and Execution of Monmouth — James's cruel treatment of the Insurgen ts — Jeffreys — Parli ament reassembles — Debate upon the King's suspension of the Test Act — Progress of Romanism at home and abroad — the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and its consequences. The profligate Hfe in which Charles II. had indulged was not sufficient to prevent the nation from ex periencing much regret at his death. Men are more lenient to those vices in their rulers, which were so conspicuous in the late king, than they are to qua lities, although less criminal, of which they do not see the full tendency. James never possessed the popular manners of his brother, and when it was remembered that he was no concealed Papist, and had been his brother's chief adviser in many of his most arbitrary proceedings, his accession to the throne was regarded with general apprehension. It was plainly enough foreseen that he would look with little favour upon those who had endeavoured to 38 The King's Declaration. exclude him from the succession. It was believed that his pertinacity would lead him to make attempts, which his brother's shrewdness would have rejected as most rash and impracticable. But, notwithstanding these fears, so little vindictiveness was there in the country that a few words from the lips of James him self were sufficient to dispel them. When he assembled the Privy Council, after some expressions of regret and affection for his brother, he proceeded to disabuse their minds of the false opinions, as he considered them, which they might have formed respecting himself; and as this decla ration was afterwards published to the nation at large, it certainly deserves a special record in any attempt to describe this king's reign. " I have been reported," said he, " to be a man of arbitrary power ; but that is not the only story that has been made of me, and I shall make it my endeavour to preserve this government, both in Church and State, as it is now by law established. I know the principles of the Church of England are for monarchy, and the members of it have showed themselves good and loyal subjects ; therefore I shall always take care to defend and support it. I know, too, that the laws of England are sufficient to make the king as great a monarch as I can wish ; and as I shall never depart from the just rights and prerogative of the Crown, so I shall never invade any man's property. I have often heretofore ventured my life in defence of this nation, and I shall still go as far as any man in pre serving it in all its just rights and liberties." If the King were thus bold in disguising his real sentiments, and the policy which he must already have contemplated adopting, the nation was not Loyalty ofthe Nation. 39 backward in showing how much they attached to the word of a king, and so warning or deceiving James, according as his judgment might interpret the ex pressions of their loyalty. Both the council and the nation received the King's declaration with great satisfaction. Not only were addresses poured in upon James, congratulating him upon his accession, but even many ofthe London pulpits took up the theme of his declaration in a very laudatory but indiscreet manner. The common phrase was, says Burnet, " We have now the word of a king, and a word never yet broken." Dr. Sharp, the rector of S. Giles', who, by a strange fatality, was the first clergyman to feel how mistaken their confidence in James's words really was, is said even to have im proved upon this. Undoubtedly the address of the grand jury of the city of London, upon the accession, which was his composition, breathes a spirit of enthusiastic loyalty. The London clergy, it must be added, in their address had the caution to throw in the expression, " our religion established by law is dearer to us than our lives," — a sentiment not regarded with much favour by James.* The nation at large, however, seemed only anxious to efface from his recollection, by more than common displays of loyalty and generosity, the endeavours formerly made to exclude him from the throne. The King retained most of his late brother's servants in the stations they had held before his death. The Earl of Roches ter was made Lord Treasurer; Clarendon, Lord Privy - * Burnet's History of his Own Time, ed. 1823, vol. iii. p. 7. Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. p. 63. It appears that James had been instrumental in getting for Sharp the deanery of Nor wich. 40 Sunderland. seal; Godolphin, Lord Chamberlain to the Queen; Sunderland and Middleton were continued Secretaries of State. Of all these the character of Sunderland calls for the closest investigation, as he has been accused by James himself of exhibiting an uncommon amount of duplicity, and, under a mask of pretended friendship, to have hastened the catastrophe of his reign. Sunderland had quite sufficient abilities to make an able statesman. He had the power of constraining others to think with him — so essential in a leader of any kind. He had an amount of secrecy and caution, very necessary for one who desires to conceal his plans before they are ripe for execution. He had considerable resource and foresight ; but he was cer tainly dishonest, ambitious, and covetous. When the exclusion of James from the throne was first de bated in Parliament, Sunderland joined with Halifax and Essex in proposing, instead of his exclusion, limitations to his prerogative.* Some time after wards Sunderland entered into a particular con fidence with the Prince of Orange; and after this he sided with the exclusionists, doubtless believing that the Prince, through right of his wife, would, in default of James's title, succeed to the power of England. The part he then took threw him into disgrace with the King and the Duke; but such was the confidence Charles reposed in his abilities, and so much were his merits and interests kept before the King by the Duchess of Portsmouth, that it was not long before he was again in favour and made Secretary of State, and in which post he con tinued until Charles's death. It was thought that * Burnet's Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. ii. p. 202. Sunderland. 41 James would have dismissed Sunderland, but that nobleman had the address, before the King's inten tions to make Rochester Lord Treasurer were an nounced, to persuade that earl that it was by his instrumentality that his promotion was intended. Rochester was therefore induced, in return, to use all his influence to maintain Sunderland in the govern ment. It was a fatal mistake of James that he was persuaded to keep him, for he was in the schemes of the Prince of Orange, who could not have been ignorant that such was the case, and has been accused of supporting James in a course of policy which he knew must, sooner or later, effect his ruin.* But it may be well questioned whether in this nobleman all other passions were not sub servient to the love of gain. We find him greatly in James's favour before the Revolution; and yet, after that event, more than ever caressed by William, f Notwithstanding the King's declaration to the Privy Council, he did not pretend for a day to dis guise his hearty attachment to the Church of Rome. On the second Sunday after his accession, he went in public with the Queen to mass. He proclaimed to the world that his brother had died a Roman Catholic, and showed some theological papers to Sancroft, which he pretended were the composition of Charles. To this the Archbishop only remarked, that he did not think that the late King had been so great a controversialist. Not satisfied with this, James proceeded to publish them, with others * Burnet's History ofthe Reign of James IL, with notes by Dartmouth, Speaker Onslow, &c, p. 298. f Burnet's Hist, ofhis Own Time, p. 588. 42 Dryden and Stillingfleet. written by Anne Hyde, his first wife. They were answered immediately by Stillingfleet, who even questioned their genuineness whilst he exposed their fallaciousness ; and Dryden, a recent convert to the Church of Rome, was put forward to reply to that learned divine.* The poet fell upon the whole body of the English clergy, with all the acerbity and bitterness which recent converts are so prone to exhibit towards those with whom they formerly consorted and agreed. Stillingfleet, provoked by the attack, in a rejoinder could not forbear to insinuate that Dryden had changed his religion, from mercenary motives, which seems to have wounded Dryden's feelings, and driven him from the common method of controversy back to poetry, for he now composed the celebrated poem called The Hind and Panther.^ Dryden's motives for professing himself a Roman Catholic may have resulted from honest conviction, but it is certain that James encouraged others to follow his example, and was ready and eager both to make and patronise converts to his own persuasion. He next proceeded to the illegal measure of sending Caryl a sort of envoy to the Court of Rome. He wished at first to persuade his subjects that these undisguised transac tions were only indications of the straightforwardness and honesty of his character. As a set-off to this unwelcome conduct, the King showed himself attentive to business, and disposed to exercise an economy very different from that which his brother had practised during his reign. Indeed this economy, as exhibited at his own corona- * See Scott's Life of Dryden, vol. i. p. 323, ed. 1821. f Licensed on the 11th April, 1687, and published a few days after. Meeting of Parliament. 43 tion and his brother's funeral, rather gave offence than satisfaction ; a liberal people being not less scandalised by a mean than an over-lavish expenditure on the part of their sovereigns on any national occasion. Still this, if an error at all, was one in the right direction, and by no means lessened the general impression that the new king was a man really qualified to govern a great country. The sinister motive for which James desired to husband his resources and increase his revenue, was not then perceived by his credulous subjects. Before their loyalty had grown cold he resolved to summon a parliament, and demand at their hands a settled revenue. Accordingly, after an election, disgraced by much court interference, the Parliament assembled on the 19th of May, 1685, in a temper highly favourable to the wishes of James.* In the speech from the throne, in which the King opened the Parliament, he requested that they would grant to him the same revenue which his brother had enjoyed, and that for life. He urged them to do this by the somewhat ungracious assurance, "that the best way to engage him to meet them often was always to use him well." Nor did this method of persuasion fill the Commons with any resentment, for, without a dissentient voice, they acceded to his request, and settled this income upon him for life. The Commons were thus induced to act, partly from subservience to the will of James, and, in some measure, from belief that the tranquillity of the kingdom depended upon their giving the King every * Burnet's History of the Reign of Xing James, with Notes by the Earl of Dartmouth, Speaker Onslow, and Dean Swift, p. 18, Onslow's Note, ed. 1852. 44 The Nonconformists. legitimate token of confidence. They next proceeded to pass a vote upon the subject of religion. Whether or not the intention was to warn James against any attempts to meddle with the national faith, the prac tical effect was merely to request him to put in execution the laws which had been enacted against Dissenters of all denominations. James complied with this petition ; and hence began a course of persecution against the Nonconformists, aggravated by the insolent conduct of Chief Justice Jeffreys, which was well calculated to dispose that body to listen to James's schemes about liberty of conscience. It was at this time that the venerable Richard Baxter was exposed to the effrontery of the Chief Justice, whose conduct, at this and other trials, reads more like a burlesque upon history than the narration of actual facts. The notorious Oates, in addition to the imprison ment to which he had been sentenced in the former reign, had, since the accession of James, been tried for perjury, and condemned to stand five times every year in the pillory. He was undergoing the execu tion of his sentence at the very time Baxter was brought before Jeffreys. Baxter was committed' to the King's Bench Prison for his Paraphrase on the New Testament, which was called a scandalous and seditious book against the Government; and when he moved, by his counsel, that time might be given him to prepare for his trial, it was denied him by the Chief Justice, who, falling into a passion, cried out, — " I will not give him a minute's time more to save his life. We have had to do with other sorts of people, but now we have a saint to deal with ; and I know how to deal with saints as well as sinners. Yonder Baxter. 45 stands Oates in the pillory ; and he says he suffers for the truth, and so says Baxter : but if Baxter did but stand on the other side ofthe pillory with him, I would say two of the greatest rogues and rascals in the kingdom stood there."* Throughout the trial Jeffreys continued to interrupt the counsel, with more ribald addresses than even this, overriding alike argument and evidence. Baxter was accordingly found guilty ofthe offence with which he was charged. He was fined 500 marks, and condemned to lie in prison until it was paid, and bound to his good behaviour for seven years. But besides Baxter, many other Nonconformists were heavily fined for fre quenting conventicles, or otherwise disparaging the authority of the Established Church. There was one, to whom the reader's attention is now called, who, although not residing in England, by his conduct at this time greatly hastened the course of events. This was the Prince of Orange. He was an anxious and interested spectator of everything which transpired in England. When the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession was first debated in Parliament, there were two as pirants, who saw in this measure a probable opening for their own advancement to the throne. These were the Duke of Monmouth, Charles the Second's favourite son by Lucy Walter, and the Prince of Orange. Monmouth, although handsome in person and engaging in manners, was a weak and dissipated man, hardly qualified to govern a nation with pru dence, had his title been indisputable, much less to conduct a great and hazardous enterprise. The Prince of Orange, on the other hand, was subtle, * Calamy's Life of Baxter, vol. i. p. 368. 46 The Prince of Orange. patient, and persevering, not likely to hazard any course of conduct which he had not well considered in all its bearings. When Monmouth visited Holland in the reign of Charles II. under disgrace, but still dear to the King, he met with the utmost attention from the Prince and Princess of Orange ; but as soon as James was seated upon the throne, the Prince's manner towards Monmouth jUnderwent a visible change. His great object seemed to be to inspire his father-in-law with a belief in his own loyalty to his person. He complied with the demands of James respecting Monmouth, and dismissed him from his court ; which treatment accelerated the Duke's rash and fatal descent upon the shores of England. Al though it does not appear that the Prince of Orange was at first actuated in so doing by any motive further than that of complying with the King's wishes, still, amidst all these professions of attachment to the per son of James on the part of the Prince of Orangey Holland, whither fled all the disaffected English and Scotch, was the hotbed of plots and schemes against James's throne.* Simultaneously with Monmouth's ambitious plan of invading England, Lord Argyle was organising at Amsterdam an expedition, to be directed to the court of Scotland, and was in close correspondence with the Duke. Argyle's plans wrere both more reasonable and better laid than those of Monmouth ; but they were destined to be equally unfortunate. He is said to have been supplied with 10,000^., by the liberality of a rich widow, with which he purchased three vessels, and laded them with arms and ammunition. In the meantime, Skel- * Burnet's Hist, of the Reign of King James IL, with Notes, &c, p. 29. Argyle. 47 ton, James's envoy at the Hague, applied to the States and the Prince to detain Argyle's ships ; but the dilatory conduct of William afforded Argyle suffi cient time to take alarm and put to sea. Before he sailed, he obtained a promise from Monmouth to hasten with all speed his intended descent upon England.* The Prince of Orange would have done Argyle a service had he detained him. Little as these facts may seem to have to do with the ecclesiastical history of England, it is necessary to bear them in mind in reviewing a course of events where the civil and religious history of the country are almost inextricably interwoven. Argyle's at tempt proved a signal failure. He had a favourable voyage, but it may be truly said that he reckoned without his host. James had early notice of his designs upon Scotland, and the Privy Council of that kingdom having been instructed to be in readiness against an insurrection, Argyle found to his morti fication, that those of the gentry who might have risen in his favour were detained at Edinburgh by the precaution of the Government. Between two and three thousand Highlanders flocked to his standard, but what with the foresight of the Government, the quarrels of the leaders, and the immaturity of their plans, everything was lost ; and Argyle, whose mag nanimity has often inspired admiration, paid the forfeit of his life at Edinburgh for this ill-concocted attempt. It may be added here, that upon intelli gence of this insurrection Burnet hastened out of England, and, after a time, was invited by the Prince of Orange to the Hague. * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 439. Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 24, ed. 1823. 48 Monmouth. On the 24th of May, 1685, the Duke of Mon mouth started upon his expedition, also from Amster dam. He joined his insignificant fleet at the mouth of the Texel, and after a protracted voyage reached Lyme in Dorsetshire, on the 11th of June. His whole scheme was based upon the idea that he had but to show himself in the West, and the country would immediately rise in his favour. Nor was he altogether mistaken in his anticipations. The train of his immediate followers consisted of about eighty persons, and yet he was almost immediately at the head of a very formidable insurrection. He raised his standard in the market-place at Lyme, and issued an extravagant and inflammatory declaration, calcu lated perhaps to attract the ignorant and unreflect ing, but to make the more sober part of the com munity resolve to adhere more steadily to the side of order and the King. It was entitled " the Declara tion of James, duke of Monmouth, and the noblemen, gentlemen, and others, now in arms for the defence and vindication of the Protestant religion, and the laws, rights, and privileges of England."* In this Declaration he imputed to James all the evils of the last reign — the burning of London, the alliance with France, the two wars with Holland, the Popish plot, the mysterious murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, and the making away with the Earl of Essex, and concluded with enumerating some of the arbitrary acts with which James had already begun his reign. The popularity of Monmouth with the Mendip miners was great. He was speedily at the head of a * This Declaration was ordered to be burned by the hangman, the Duke proclaimed a traitor, and a reward of 5000Z. to any who should kill him. — Evelyn's Diary. 17th June, 1685. Monmouth. 49 rude but resolute army. The King had armed the militia of the neighbouring counties against the Duke ; but in the first encounter the rebels were successful. Bridport was stormed ; but at this juncture the Duke lost the services of two of his ablest leaders, Lord Grey and Fletcher of Saltoun. Lord Grey appears to have abandoned the expedition in a panic, and Fletcher was driven from his com mand by the rebels themselves, for having shot a countryman in an intemperate quarrel. Nevertheless Monmouth's army continued to increase, and when he reached Axminster it amounted to 5000 men. But it is not necessary to give a detailed account of this insurrection. It will be sufficient to remind the reader of the decisive battle of Sedgemoor, on the 6th July, 1685, where the King's general, the Earl of Feversham, at the head of a small army, entirely routed Monmouth's rebel forces, killing upwards of 1500 of his men. This defeat, following upon the melancholy intelligence of Argyle's failure, left Mon mouth without hope. The unhappy leader, who had disappeared after the battle, was at last discovered lurking in a ditch, covered with ferns and briers. He was immediately seized and carried to London, where his pusillanimity before James only served to put the stamp upon his general character. He wrote a letter to the King, soliciting an interview with him, and confessing in the most abject terms the iniquity of the undertaking in which he had been engaged. Like most men who have little force of character, he threw the blame of his own ambition and folly upon others, and declared that he would rather die a thousand deaths than excuse anything he had done. The Queen Dowager E 50 Monmouth and the Clergy. and. many others urged James to grant Monmouth this interview ; and although he consented to see the unfortunate son of his brother, it was evident he had from the very first steeled his heart against every appeal to his compassion. Neither Sunderland, nor Bentinck, the envoy of the Prince of Orange, both of whom, from circum stances, should have aided the unhappy Monmouth, made any efforts to alter the determination of the King, and Monmouth was accordingly condemned to be executed. The behaviour of the bishops and other clergymen of the Church of England, who were appointed to prepare the Duke for his last awful change, has been made a subject of some con troversy. These were Bishops Ken and Turner, Tenison, whom Monmouth himself requested to attend him, and Dr. Hooper.* Monmouth was about to die. The two crimes of which these pious men endeavoured to convince his conscience were rebellion and adultery. The sense of the nation, as to James's conduct and ability to reign, was at this time quite opposed to Monmouth's pretensions — and if usurpation is ever justifiable, it can only be when a whole people are desiring deliver ance from some tyrannical sovereign — and up to the time of the Revolution, the doctrine of non-resistance was eminently one favoured by the Church of Eng land. As to the heinous moral offence of adultery, of which Monmouth was notoriously guilty, nothing but a hearty repentance could wash this out. Yet Monmouth could not be brought to admit his crimi nality in this respect. The lady for whom he had * See Macpherson's Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 450 ; A Layman's Life of Thomas Ken, p. 192. Ken and Tenison. 51 entertained a guilty love was Lady Maria Went- worth. Although he had had children by his Duchess, still he had the self-deception to maintain that they were married too young to give a true consent, and that he had never lived so virtuous a life as since he had lived with Lady Wentworth — which he had done for the last two years. This he declared upon the scaffold. Undoubtedly, these divines had ill-discharged their duties had they not used every exertion to bring Monmouth to a confes sion of his errors. It may be the obstinacy of the Duke provoked some importunity, and it may be also true, as Burnet relates, * that the divine to whom he was naturally most attached, Dr. Tenison, by a gentler and less importunate address, made himself more acceptable to Monmouth. It has been recorded by two of his biographers,f that Ken confined him self to the devotional part of his duties, without en deavouring to draw from Monmouth any acknow ledgment of the doctrine of passive obedience. But however they may have acted, the Duke died without making any confession. The circumstances of his execution were unusually painful, and his early popu larity, his engaging person, and his last sufferings, awakened a general sympathy. And now we have to consider the course which James adopted to tranquillise the country, which had so lately been in a state of insurrection. He knew the character of Jeffreys perfectly well. The cha racter which Major-general Kirke had acquired at Tangier was notorious for brutality ; yet these two were sent down to the West, as he himself has * Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 51, ed. 1823. f A Layman's Life of Ken, p. 203. 52 Jeffreys and Kirke. alleged, " to inflict such punishments as the example of former reigns and the security of the present seemed to require."* It may be truly said their con duct answered neither of these ends. Ken had pleaded with the King for the Somersetshire peasants, who had been led away by Monmouth, but in vain. He now repaired to his diocese tb witness the sad effects of the " Bloody Assize," and to comfort the condemned in prison, and prepare them against their execution. At Bridgewater, Taunton, and Wells, the jails were crowded with the victims of James's resentment, or, as he himself would have said, of the indiscreet zeal ofthe Chief Justice. The fate of Mrs. Alice Lisle, whose husband was one of Cromwell's lords, is too notorious to be passed over in silence. Two of Monmouth's followers fled to her house for shelter. She ordered one of her chief servants to send information respecting them to the nearest jus tice of the peace, and in the meantime to suffer them to escape. Before her orders could be obeyed the King's messengers had arrived at her house, and found the men apparently under her protection. Jeffreys was resolved to sacrifice this aged gentle woman. He so tutored the jury before which she was tried for harbouring rebels, that, innocent as she was, she was condemned to death. James in his own Memoirs has blamed the conduct of the Chief Justice in this transaction ; and yet there is too much reason to believe, that when the Earl of Feversham endeavoured to procure her pardon the King excused himself by declaring he had pledged himself to Jeffreys not to grant it. The civil executions of Jeffreys were well supported by the military violence * James II.' s Life ; Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 144. Jeffreys and Kirke. 53 of General Kirke, for many of the Somersetshire peasants were hung without any trial at all. It is in vain that James endeavours to throw the entire blame of these executions upon the Chief Justice, since he endorsed his violent conduct when he rewarded his zeal by making him Lord Chancellor.* James was fond of maintaining that the evils of his brother's reign resulted from a want of decision on Charles's part, and no doubt he thought he was acting wisely in dealing with the rebels as he did. He afterwards confessed that the conduct of Jeffreys had done a very great deal of harm. Instead, how ever, of being warned by all these evidences of dis affection, the repeated endeavours which had been made in his brother's reign to exclude him from the throne, and the lesson of the Great Rebellion, his suppression of those two insurrections in Scotland and England only confirmed him in his resolution of attempting the conversion of his country to the Church of Rome. He was intoxicated with the power and sense of security his late successes had afforded him. After two adjournments the Parliament reas sembled on the 9th of November, 1685. The speech from the throne was very unsatisfactory. The King declared the militia insufficient to maintain the tranquillity of the country, and announced his in tention of doubling the standing army. He told them that there were some officers in the army not qualified by the tests, but as they were both faithful and necessary to him, he should retain them in his service notwithstanding. As may * See Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 145 ; Burnet, Hist, of his Own Time, vol. iii. p. 84. 54 Parliament : Conduct qf Compton. well be imagined this speech produced a most un favourable impression, even upon that obsequious Parliament. They were more irritated and displeased with the conduct of the King in dispensing with the tests than they were, unwelcome as that was, with his proposition to maintain a standing army. Yet their great desire of conciliating James, and of bringing him by gentle, rather than by violent measures, to abstain from the course he was pursuing, led them to adopt a very negative kind of manner of marking their disapprobation of the language which he had used respecting the tests. They brought in a bill to indemnify such officers for the penalty they had incurred for acting contrary to law ; and, in an address to the King, they represented the impossi bility of dispensing with the tests without an Act of Parliament ; and therefore, from loyalty to his person, and to mark, as far as they were able, their wish to comply with his desires, they had prepared a bill to relieve those officers of the penalties they had in curred by refusing the tests. This address was backed with a vote of 700,000^., and yet James returned an answer full of dissatisfaction and haughti ness. In the House of Lords, although a vote of gene ral thanks had been given to the King for the vigour with which he had suppressed the insurrections of Monmouth and Argyle, Compton, bishop of Lon don, to his honour, moved that a day should be ap pointed to consider the King's speech, particularly in as far as it referred to what had been said in it re specting the test. When the discussion of this ques tion came on, the King himself was present; and although Jeffreys strove his utmost to support the Conduct of Compton. 55 measures of the court, and to prevent any debate upon the King's speech, his efforts were defeated. The motion of the Bishop of London was carried. But before the day appointed for its consideration arrived, James suddenly prorogued the Parliament. However he may have concealed them, at times, from policy, no sovereign ever showed more resentments than James H. ; and therefore we cannot wonder that an early opportunity was taken of showing that the Bishop of London's conduct was not forgotten by the King. He was, first of all, struck off the list of Privy Councillors, but greater trials than this were in store for him. The public events of the first year of James's reign were such, that, had he but consi dered the most obvious conclusions which might have been drawn from them, he might have foreseen that it was not less within his power to reign happily within the limits of his prerogative, than it was impos sible for him to govern in defiance of the laws and national prejudices of his subjects. The struggle between Romanism and Protestantism was so strong this year throughout Europe, that Burnet has made the following remarks in reference to the prospects ofthe Protestants : — " In February, a King of England declared him self a Papist. In June, Charles, the Elector Palatine, dying without issue, the Electoral dignity went to the House of Newburgh, a most bigoted popish family. In October, the King of France recalled and vacated the Edict of Nantes. And in December, the Duke of Savoy, being brought to it, not only by the per suasions, but even by the threatenings, of the Court of France, recalled the edict that his father had granted to the Vaudois." He adds characteristic- 56 Revocation ofthe Edict of Nantes i. ally, — "I have ever reckoned this the fifth great crisis of the Protestant religion." * Of all these unpropitious events, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes was the most fatal in its con sequences. That celebrated edict in favour of the Protestants was signed by Henry IV. in the year 1598, and was deemed almost as sacred as our own Magna Charta. Not only was Henry moved to sign that edict from sympathy with a creed in which he was bred, but policy dictated a measure framed to conciliate the important section of his subjects, who adhered to the Protestant religion.f At that time, the Protestants of France retained possession of more than seven hundred churches. Many of the nobility were of this persuasion, and the Protestants alone could have contributed an army to the defence ofthe kingdom. There was a time when the Protestants of France were continually breaking out into insur rection ; but that period was long past before Louis began this infatuated persecution of those of his sub jects who were now only remarkable for their suc cessful pursuit of the Arts of Peace. The Protest ants were industrious and loyal, though zealous in the profession of their faith, when, in 1684, the dra- gonnades began. These were attempts at conversion by intimidation, and were carried on principally in the southern provinces of France. Hundreds were put to death under circumstances of brutal cruelty, and equal numbers were persuaded to make a hollow profession of attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. After the greater part of France had felt the * Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 69. t See Ranke's History of the Popes, vol. ii. p. 439. and the Consequences. 57 scourge of these dragonnades, and Louis was told that heresy had been nearly exterminated from his kingdom, he proceeded to revoke the Edict of Nantes, under pretence of there being no longer any occasion for its provisions. This fatal step was taken on the 22d of October, 1685, and all Protestant Europe was made alive to the folly of the King by the influx of refugees of all classes, who brought with them those arts which have since enriched the countries of their adoption. Nevertheless, the French king was sup ported in what he had done by the applause of all about him ; whilst such men as Bossuet and Mas- sillon exerted their eloquence in celebrating this sanguinary persecution of the Protestants. Even foreigners professing the Protestant religion, sojourn ing in France, were compelled to leave the country ; and it was not before many English residents in France had been severely dealt with, that James's representatives at the French court remonstrated. James himself, who at this time was a great advocate for liberty of conscience, affected to condemn the policy of Louis ; protected the refugees, who came in great numbers to England ; and was induced to issue a brief for collections to be made throughout the country in their behalf. As, however, he began to discover that his subjects were not to be deceived by those artifices, with which he attempted to cover his desires of advancing Popery and establishing a despotism, he betrayed that it was only with half sin cerity that he pitied the deplorable circumstances of the Huguenots. The first declaration which he had issued upon the subject, and which had displeased the French king, was now recalled. Although he was obliged to abide by his letter for the public collection 58 Revocation ofthe Edict of Nantes, fyc. in their behalf, the Archbishop of Canterbury was told to forbid his clergy from doing more than read the brief in their churches.* Still the subscription raised in behalf of these sufferers through the coun try amounted to more than 40,000Z. Amongst the larger subscriptions on record in their behalf was one of 4000?., the proceeds of some fine falling in to him, which Bishop Ken contributed. It is related, although the fact seems almost incredible, that James was so mortified at the large amount contributed for the succour of the French Protestants, that, in order to defeat the liberality of his subjects, he ordered that none of the refugees but those who would take the Sacrament after the use of the Church of England should participate in this bounty. But in connexion with this subject, another re markable fact showed how incapable James really was of acting with liberality towards Protestants. At the dictation of Barillon, the French minister in England, James commanded the translation of a book, written by M. Claude, f the eminent French Protest ant preacher, giving some account of the barbarous massacres and sufferings of the poor Huguenots, to be burnt in the old Exchange. This was accord ingly done ; but to the scandal of some even of his most subservient counsellors.! * Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 79 ; A Layman's Life of Ken, p. 220. f An Account of the Persecutions and Oppressions of the Protestants in France. Printed in the year 1686. No printer's name. It was written originally in French by Mons. Claude, and translated by Dr. Tenison. % Evelyn's Diary, 5th May, 1686 ; Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 78. 59 CHAPTER II. (1686.) The King claims a power of dispensing with the Laws — The Trial of Sir Edward Hales, for accepting a command without taking the Test — The King establishes a Council of Roman Catholics — Dr. John Sharp, rector of St. Giles — Court of Ecclesiastical Commissioners set up — The Bishop of London suspended — Disposal of vacant Sees — Dr. Cartwright and Dr. Samuel Parker — Samuel Johnson — The unsettled state of the Country — State of Scotland — State of Ireland ; Cla rendon and Tyrconnel — The King attempts to convert the Lord Treasurer — Rochester's fall and Clarendon's recall — The Declaration for Liberty of Conscience published in Scotland. The King, unwarned by the signs of dissatisfac tion which his conduct had provoked in his subjects, proceeded to procure a legal recognition of his pre tended right to suspend the laws. The Test and Corporation Acts were passed in the reign of Charles II. , when the Church of En gland was in her strength. They were designed to protect the national religion from the dangers to which it might be exposed from Romanists, and, indeed, Nonconformists of every denomination. By the Test Act all officers, military and civil, were obliged to take the oaths, and make the declaration against transubstantiation to the proper authorities, 60 Sir Edward Hales. within six months after their appointment. The Corporation Act obliged members of corporations to take the same oaths, only they were not compelled to take them under twelve months. Such was the law as regards the tests. A tradition of the con stitution allows to the Crown a dispensing power, by virtue of which prerogative it is sovereigns are able to remit capital punishments. The case of an arbi trary suspension of the laws does not seem to have been contemplated in that prerogative, but out of it, at any rate, James was resolved to establish a legal recognition of his pretensions. The Bench was tampered with. Four judges were displaced, and others more accommodating, of whom one was a Roman Catholic, were put in their places. The legal officers ofthe crown supported the claims of James, and what might well be described as a mock- trial was enacted, to draw out the official judgment of the Bench in the King's favour. Sir Edward Hales, a Kentish gentleman, once a concealed, but now a forward Roman Catholic, having accepted an appointment from the Crown, proceeded to the ex ercise of its duties without taking the test, and therefore incurred the penalty of 500/., which was the fine due to the informer in such cases. His own coachman was put forward to inform against him, and the case was tried at the assizes at Rochester. Hales was duly convicted, and then produced the King's dispensation, exempting him from every penalty which he might have incurred.* The coachman then carried the case before the King's Bench, as a matter of debt, and sought to recover the fine, which by the statute law was undoubtedly due to him. The Chief * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 468. Sir Edward Hales. 61 Justice disposed of the case in a very summary manner, for he declared "that there was nothing whatever with which the King, as supreme lawgiver, could not dispense." And shortly afterwards he announced in Westminster Hall that eleven out of the twelve judges concurred in this opinion. Although it might be possible for partial advo cates to extract such a judgment from the letter of the law, nothing could be more alarming than this to the generality of James's subjects. They saw in it the dissolution of all their institutions, and the abrogation of their laws, which are a nation's safe guard. Between the prerogative which James sought to estabhsh, and the right of a sovereign to remit capital and other punishments in particular cases, there is this vast difference — the one is prospective, the other only retrospective. It may be very judicious to permit the sovereign's right to remit punishment, but this is very different from assigning him a power whereby he sanctions the premeditated violation of the law; and this was the kind of power which James, in fact, endeavoured to assume. The inherent vi- ciousness of such a prerogative, even if there were any foundation in law for it, was too apparent to escape the public disapprobation. Notwithstanding the decision of the judges, men in general doubted whether in their constitution anything so defective could exist. But every temporary advantage which James gained was more to his real hurt than profit, for it immediately set him upon improving the oc casion after his own fashion ; and no sooner was this decision obtained than he proceeded, with less dis guise than ever, to encourage the Romanists. The Chapel Royal at S. James's was converted into a 62 A Council of Roman Catholics formed. mass-house ; the King considering it an act of grace to leave Whitehall in the hands of the Protestants. The religious orders began to multiply and appear openly in their habits. Fourteen Benedictine monks were settled at S. James's. The Jesuits were en couraged to build a chapel in the Savoy, and found a college, in which two hundred Roman Catholics were established.* Some Carmelites settled in Lin coln's Inn Fields, and in various parts of the country that once languishing body of the Roman Catholics revived. Their chapels multiplied, and with them their expectations of final dominancy. By the advice of the disingenuous Sunderland, James had established a secret council of Roman Catholics. It consisted of the Lords Arundel, Powis, Bellasis, Dover, Castlemain, and Father Petre. He despatched Castlemain to Rome, who does not, how ever, seem to have been very successful in furthering those ends for which he was sent. Father Leyburn, by his mediation, was made a bishop in partibus for England ; but he could neither get a cardinal's cap for D'Este, the Queen's uncle, or Father Petre, whom Sunderland was particularly anxious should enjoy this honour, f Before many months the machinations of this Roman Catholic body were manifested in the various changes which took place in the ministry. Throughout the three kingdoms, Protestants of the highest character and most eminent families were driven from all the posts of authority, and superseded by Papists ; nor was the Church itself secure, in her chief dignities, from the intrusion of those who de rided alike her doctrines and discipline. * Macpherson's Papers, vol. i. p. 149 ; Life of James, by Him self, vol. i. p. 149. -j- Macpherson's Papers, vol. i. p. 148. The Clergy ofthe Church qf England. 63 We have now arrived at that period in the history of this reign, in which the Church of England played so conspicuous a part. And it must be admitted by every impartial historian that, in her memorable struggle with James, her conduct was wise and mag nanimous. In assigning her this credit, it may be remarked how great a safeguard to any nation is an institution fortified with ancient rights and historical associations, and which inspires its especial servants with a fixity of purpose and principle superior to the dictates of the individual conscience. The most dignified passage in the history of the Revolution is that relating to the steady but respectful opposition which the Church offered to the arbitrary encroach ments of the King. The conduct of James's courtiers and immediate personal attendants was, in many in stances, highly reprehensible. Whether in reality or not, instead of being actuated by principle, they seem to have been governed alone by their hopes and fears. When the break took place, there was something almost ludicrous in the manner in which they showed their unwillingness to be the last to abandon the falling monarch. The worst blame which can be heaped upon the Church by her most worldly adver saries is, that although she had courage to suffer when the crisis came, her leaders had not courage to bear the imputation of deserting their principles, even in a righteous cause. In the beginning of this year James caused the Directions for Preachers, which had been issued by the late king in 1662, to be reprinted, and authorised them by letters mandatory to the two Archbishops. The design of Charles's directions was to soften the general animosity of religious factions ; the object of 64 Dr. John Sharp. James in issuing them was to restrain the liberty of the pulpit, and put a stop to all preaching against Popery. The numerous conversions to the Church of Rome which had taken place, and the general en croachments of Popery, animated the clergy of the Church of England with great zeal in vindicating the Protestant principles of their own Church, and pro tecting their flocks against the emissaries of Rome. Amongst others, Dr. John Sharp, dean of Norwich and rector of St. Giles', to whom allusion has already been made, was conspicuous for his able preaching and the fidelity with which he endeavoured to con firm his parishioners in the principles of their Church. Amongst many general sermons against the errors of the Church of Rome, accident, more than design, led Sharp to preach one of a more than usually pointed nature, which was reported at Court, and, although provoked by a Roman Catholic, was very violently resented by James. On the 2d of May Sharp preached a sermon on the nature of the Catholic Church.* He concluded his discourse with six queries. The first of these he promised to speak of on the following Sunday, which was, as to the utility of inquiring in what country the Church Catholic was to be found. On descending from the pulpit a paper was put into his hands by an unknown member of the congregation, containing an argument in favour of the Church of Rome's ex clusive claim to be the one true Church. Dr. Sharp, in his sermon on the following Sunday, took occasion to refute the arguments ofhis anonymous assailant; and it was this discourse which was reported to the King. The sermon neither contained any personal * Life of Sharp, vol. i. p. 70. Dr. John Sharp. 65 attacks upon the Roman Catholics, nor did it violate the late injunctions, for it did not touch on State affairs or intricate points in theology, being mainly designed to vindicate the right of the Church of England to be called a Church, and, consequently, to question the exclusive pretensions of Rome. James, however, determined to seize the occasion of making an example, or, as the sequel rather showed, of mor tifying the Bishop of London.* It was pretended, that the paper which Dr. Sharp had undertaken to answer was a copy of that which had been found in the late King's strong box ; and that the preacher had designed to cast ridicule upon what had proved weighty enough to convert the volatile Charles II. A fortnight after the sermon was preached the Lord Chancellor sent for Dr. Sharp, and told him of the accusation which had been made against him. On the following day Sharp, probably by the request of Jeffreys, read over the offensive sermon to the Chancellor,! who took upon himself to object to some passages, whilst he expressed himself satisfied with the remainder, and so dismissed Sharp, having thus qualified himself to inform the King that he had censured him. But it was not to drop here. On the 17th of June James despatched a letter to the Bishop of London, commanding him immediately to suspend Dr. Sharp from further preaching in any parish church or chapel in his diocese. Now a bishop cannot suspend a clergyman for an imputa tion of the most heinous offences, without having first admitted him to make a defence ; and accord ingly Compton addressed a letter to Lord Sunderland, * Life of Sharp, vol. i. p. 73. f Ibid. pp. 74, 76. E 66 Dr. John Sharp. the President of the Council, to this effect, and as , it is not long, and is a key to what follows, it is here inserted : — " My Lord, I always have and shall count it my duty," wrote the Bishop, " to obey the King in whatever commands he lays upon me that I can perform with a safe conscience. But in this, I hum bly conceive, I am obliged to proceed according to law, and therefore it is impossible for me to com ply; because, though his Majesty commands me only to execute his pleasure, yet, in the capacity I am, to do it I must act as a judge, and your Lordship knows no judge condemns any man before he has knowledge of the cause and has cited the party. However, I sent to Mr. Dean and acquainted him with his Majesty's displeasure, whom I find so ready to give all reasonable satisfaction, that I have thought fit to make him the bearer of this answer — from him that will never be unfaithful to the King," &c. With this letter, and a petition drawn up by himself, Sharp repaired to Hampton Court, where James was then staying, and presented himself to the Lord President. Sunderland took the Bishop's letter, but merely inquired whether the Bishop of London had obeyed the King's order. The Doctor's petition he declined to receive. Sharp thus repulsed was, nevertheless, advised to make another attempt to get his petition laid before the King, and he went accordingly the following week to Windsor, whither the Court had removed, and entrusted it to Lord Middleton, who mentioned it in council, but James at once refused to look at it. We cannot suppose that James's anger was seriously kindled against Sharp; for had it been so, the Chancellor would Ecclesiastical Commissioners. 67 scarcely have given him the friendly advice which he is reported to have done, on the Dean's return to London. He simply recommended him "to get out of the way for a short time ;" advice which he immediately followed by retiring to Norwich, and waiting the course of events. Jeffreys well knew that it was Compton whom the King was anxious to mortify and punish. He also knew that a plan had been devised for accomplishing this, and for punishing any other Churchmen who might be deemed contu macious or refractory,* for it was now that the illegal tribunal, the Ecclesiastical Commission, was set on foot upon the Chancellor's suggestion ; and it was to that questionable authority that the further con sideration of the case was referred. As the law stood, the illegality of erecting a Court of Ecclesiastical Commissioners was plain to every one. The statute of Charles n., abolishing the Ecclesiastical Commission of former times, ex pressly enacts that no new court shall be constituted which may have the power, jurisdiction, or authority, which the old High Commission Court had, or pre tended to have. The reason assigned in the statute for abolishing the High Commission Court was, that the Commissioners fined and imprisoned his Majesty's subjects, and assumed other authority exceeding ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to the wrong and injury of many. It was contended by James's advisers, that it was not contrary to the statute law for the King to appoint a commission, if the members of it were not allowed to fine and imprison ; the present Court, therefore, was only empowered to exercise ecclesi astical censures, although, as events showed, these * Life of Sharp, vol. i. p. 85. 68 The Commissioners. in the end proceeded to the most arbitrary depriva tions.* The constitution of this Commission was sealed on the 14th of July, 1686.f The spiritual peers nominated in it were, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Crewe, the bishop of Durham, and Sprat, the bishop of Rochester. The temporal peers were the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Chancellor, Chief Justice Herbert, and Sunderland. But of these, not even a quorum could be formed without the presence of the unscrupulous Chancellor. Sancroft, in a petition which he addressed to the King, excused himself from all attendance in the court, on account of his age and infirmities. Crewe was unhappily formed by nature to be the creature of an arbitrary sovereign. He could not live out of the smiles of royalty. He was, therefore, not only ready to take his place in the Commission, but flattered by the preference of James. Crewe and Compton were the only clergy men of noble birth who had been promoted to the bench since the Restoration ; and if we see the virtue of independence and conscientiousness displayed in the one, in the other, notwithstanding his munificence, we are reminded that magnanimity is not necessarily allied to nobility of birth. Sprat was talented, but too easy in his conduct to allow of his being designated, in any acceptation of the words, a man of principle. He had in his youth celebrated the praises of Cromwell in verse, and he procured his elevation to the bench by a partial history of the Rye-House Plot. He now disapproved of the Com mission, of which he had been made a member, but, * See Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 50. f Evelyn's Diary, under that date. Bishop of London. 69 nevertheless, he acted in it, on the specious pretence, when he felt called upon to make one, of doing good by preventing evil.* Of the characters of the lay-members of the Com mission Httle need here be said. Those of Jeffreys and Sunderland have already been described. Chief Justice Herbert was an honourable man, but a Ro manist ; Rochester, the lord treasurer, was the most independent of them all, although scarcely superior to that fascination which attaches to the atmosphere of a court. He valued power ; but no arts of James could seduce him from his allegiance to the Church of England. The first person, accordingly, summoned before this Commission, thus constituted, was the Bishop of London, on the charge of declining to suspend Dr. Sharp upon the command of his Majesty. When examined by Jeffreys as to why he had not obeyed the King, he claimed as a Bishop, according to the practice of all Christendom, if he had done wrong, to be brought before his metropolitan with his suffragans. Jeffreys not allowing there was any force in this request, the Bishop next pleaded that, according to their commission, they had no jurisdiction in this matter, for the alleged offence was committed before the date of their constitution. This was also over ruled by the Chancellor. He then declared that, in refusing to submit to the Court, he had acted by the advice of counsel ; and therefore, by the spirit of all law, his behaviour in the whole matter was not to be * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 471 ; Car- within, vol. ii. p. 486. 70 Bishop of London suspended. imputed to him for a crime* In his further defence, Compton delivered a written document containing the King's letter to him, and his own addressed to the Lord President, in which, as we have seen, with much civility he had informed Lord Sunderland that he could not suspend a clergyman without citation, but that he had recommended Dr. Sharp to desist from preaching for a time. He also handed in Dr. Sharp's petition again, which Jeffreys declined to entertain. The remainder of the defence was left to counsel, whose arguments, however conclusive, car ried little weight with the King. Jeffreys and the Bishop of Durham pronounced against the Bishop of London, and the former then proposed that he should be suspended during his Majesty's pleasure. The other Commissioners acquitted him ; but so set upon Compton's disgrace was James, and so angry with Rochester for the part which he had taken in his ex amination, that the Earl, perceiving he must either resign his post or act as James desired, concurred in the sentence of Jeffreys, and Compton was accordingly suspended from the exercise of his functions, and the Bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Peterborough, were appointed to administer the diocese during the term of his sentence. As to Dr. Sharp, he wrote another shorter petition, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he declared his sorrow at having provoked the King's anger, and begged to be restored to the exercise of his clerical function. This was handed to Lord Sunderland, * See the Process against Henry Compton, the Bishop of London, in the Council Chamber at Whitehall, August 31, 1686. The Clergy. 71 and Sharp soon after received a letter from that nobleman, stating that his Majesty was pleased to accept of the Doctor's submission, and therefore allowed him to resume his ministerial duties.* Although the general conduct of the clergy in every stage of this great struggle was, as has been remarked, highly creditable to their order, we are compelled to admit that there were some unhappy exceptions to this rule. Even many may be dis posed to think that Sharp would have consulted his own dignity and that of the Church in a higher degree, had he been less impatient under the dis pleasure of the King — less anxious to resume those clerical functions from which he had been unright eously prohibited. His congregation was as little likely to lose their attachment to his teaching during his disgrace, as the clergy of London were to cease from secretly acknowledging the authority of their diocesan during his suspension ; and it was notorious, that never were the Bishop's wishes more quickly anticipated or his intimations more cheerfully obeyed, than throughout that time. But still the fault of Sharp, if fault there was, bore no sort of comparison with the conduct of such men as Crewe and Sprat, and more particularly with that of Parker and Cart wright, whose accommodating characters recom mended them to the favour of James. The sees of York, Chester, and Oxford, were about this time rendered vacant by the deaths of Dolben, Pearson, and Fell. Dolben had proved a staunch and very popular prelate. The claims of Pearson and Fell upon the respect of Churchmen have already been stated. The see of York was left * See the Life of Dr. Sharp, vol. i. p. 88. 72 Cartwright. vacant by James, with a view, as it was generally believed, of promoting Father Petre to that post, when a convenient time should have amved, and a Papal dispensation should have been granted for the elevation of a Jesuit to the Episcopate. Cartwright, the dean of Ripon, was made Bishop of Chester, and Dr. Samuel Parker was raised to the see of Oxford. Both of them were men of parts and ability ; but of the two Parker was the more subtle and pro found, although the most characterised by dupli city. Cartwright affected no principles but that of conformity to the dominant party in the state. He had been a preacher amongst the Independents and an advocate for the Commonwealth, but at the Restoration he became as strong an advocate of Royalty and Episcopacy. The immediate occasion of his elevation to the bench seems to have arisen from his having made a miserable comment upon the King's promises to Parliament. He told his hearers " That the King's promises were free donatives, and ought not to be too strictly examined or urged, and that they must leave his Majesty to explain his own meaning in them;'' a sentiment so entirely in accord ance with James's own notions, that we cannot wonder at the result. So much had Cartwright's habitual time-serving unsettled his whole character, that his biographers have hesitated to pronounce him Papist or Protestant.* Samuel Parker, also bred amongst the Puritans, was a man of greater eminence as a writer and a divine than Cartwright. He was a member of Wad- ham College, and was early remarked to have ren dered an uneasy obedience to the burdensome re- * Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 136. Samuel Parker. 73 quirements of the sectarians. Although a leading Independent at the time ofthe Restoration, upon that event he did not hesitate to throw off the mask and proclaim himself, not only an Episcopalian, but an advocate and champion for the highest claims of Church authority and the kingly prerogative. He was the author of several works, written in a lively and popular style. His Discourse of Ecclesiastical Polity, wherein he endeavoured to prove the autho rity of the civil magistrate over the conscience of the subject, provoked the caustic wit of Andrew Marvell, in the Rehearsal Transprosed; but Parker rejoined with sufficient ability to show that he was well enough qualified to maintain his own. Perhaps Marvell may also have aimed at Parker in his Mr. Smirke, or the Divine in Mode, which certainly is too true a de scription of this unhappy man. During the early part of his career he enjoyed the esteem of most Churchmen ; and his learning and diligence recom mended him to Sheldon. He became the Arch bishop's chaplain, and was promoted to a stall at Canterbury. He even essayed the conversion of James from Popery, when Duke of York, which may have induced James at this time to try and discover whether he had not better arguments by which to bring round his former opponent to his own way of thinking. James would have placed a professed Papist in the see of Oxford, but he considered that the time for such a step was hardly arrived, and he was persuaded that Parker was favourably disposed to his religion, and would by degrees bring his clergy over with him to the Church of Rome ; for it was commonly thought that Parker's wife was the only obstacle to his declaring himself a Papist. Such was 74 Riots. the man who was preferred to South and Aldrich for the academical diocese of Oxford. While relating the more prominent events of this reign, we must not omit minor circumstances, which characterise the times. The common people did not remain quiet under the public displays ofthe Church of Rome, which were now paraded everywhere. The erection of Roman Catholic chapels, the habits of Popish orders, which appeared in the streets in times when these things were strictly prohibited by law, provoked not only ridicule, but the serious anger of the beholders. The opening of a Roman Ca tholic chapel in the City immediately led to a riot. The building was rifled and the priests insulted. Similar outbreaks occurred in many of the large pro vincial towns ; and in Scotland, where the disturb ances took a more alarming turn than those in Eng land. But no symptoms of disaffection, no interrup tion to the course of national prosperity, and not even the ridicule of a privileged mistress, could induce James to pause in his headstrong course. As soon as ever he was baffled in one direction, his restless endeavours to attain his ends put him upon some other scheme, more pregnant with disappointment than the last. He now formed a camp on Houns- low Heath, consisting of 15,000 men, with which there is little doubt he hoped to overawe the me tropolis. But he forgot that in every army there may be the seeds of mutiny ; and he soon found that the popular dissatisfaction was shared in by many of the troops. One circumstance, connected with the encampment, calls for notice here ; for it led to the most cruel treatment of a talented, zealous, but eccentric clergyman ofthe Church of England. This Samuel Johnson. 75 was Samuel Johnson, the honest but pertinacious chaplain of Lord William Russell.* Having received his education at S. Paul's School, and Trinity College, Cambridge, he took orders, and was early presented to a small living in Essex. But the climate of that place not agreeing with him, he repaired to London, where his talents and religious and republican sentiments introduced him to Lord Russell, who made him his chaplain. In 1682 he pubhshed a work, called Julian the Apostate, against the popular doctrine of the Churchmen of that day, which was "Passive Obedience." f In this produc tion he pretended to find a parallel between James the duke of York and the Roman Emperor, who has been handed down to posterity under the reproachful name of " The Apostate." The court was highly incensed, and Johnson was prosecuted and found guilty of writing " a very scandalous and seditious libel." He was sentenced to pay a fine of 500 marks to the King, and to find sureties for his good behaviour for a year. As Johnson was quite unable to pay this large amount he was thrown into prison, where he lay at the time James was forming his camp at Houns- low. Prompted by his own antipathy to all the King was doing, or had done, and, as it would seem, en couraged by a fellow-prisoner, one Speke, he wrote a paper, entitled An Humble and Hearty Address to all the English Protestants in the present Army, with the * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 472 ; Macaulay, ii. p. 104 ; Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 217. f In 1683 Dr. Hickes replied to Samuel Johnson in his work, Jovian, in Answer to Julian the Apostate, in which he vindicated the duty of allegiance and of passive obedience, before the actual exigencies of the times brought the doctrine more strongly into practice. 76 Samuel Johnson. manifest design of stirring them up to mutiny. Speke, who was a young man of means, procured the publi cation of this address, and its distribution. The pub lication was in its nature seditious ; and the exaspe rated James was not likely to be tender towards any foe, much less the particular author, when he disco vered who he was. Speke contrived that the needy chaplain should bear the brunt of the royal anger ; and Johnson was accordingly sentenced to be degraded from the character of a clergyman, to pay a fine of 500 marks, and to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. The ceremony of degrading him took place in the Chapter-house of S. Paul's, at which the three bishops, who had been appointed to administer the diocese during the suspension of the Bishop of London, assisted. Stillingfleet the dean was too manly, and had naturally too much sympathy with poor scholars, to have anything to do with it. He refused to appear. Johnson bore his punishment with great magnanimity, supporting himself in his painful passage to Tyburn, under the recollection of the lowly Jesus led from the judgment-hall to Calvary.* James had already turned his thoughts towards Scotland and Ireland, with a view to bringing the politics of those countries to bear upon his schemes in England. But Scotland was as impatient under the encouragement given to Popery as was England. There existed greater hostility in the north, between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians, than in the south of the island ; but as this arose from a fanatical belief that Prelacy was inseparable from Popery, * See Savile Correspondence, p. 290. State of Scotland. 77 much as the Covenanters hated Prelacy, they hated actual Popery more. Scotland, at this time, was presided over by the Duke of Queensbury ; he had been made Lord High Treasurer of Scotland and created a duke by Charles II. His politics were identical with those of Rochester. He was a great advocate for the royal prerogative, but a man of too much principle and character to change his religion at the bidding of James, or even to promote with readiness the unconstitutional proceedings of the King. Not so the Earl of Perth, who was Chancellor, or his brother, Lord Melfort, who was a Secretary of State: they openly apostatised, and sought the disgrace of the Lord Treasurer by calumniating him to the King. In this attempt, however, they failed, although in the end the intemperance of Lord and Lady Perth in parading their newly adopted religion led to a serious outbreak in Edinburgh, for which the impartial James punished the Duke of Queens- bury. The Treasury was put into commission, and although Queensbury was nominated the chief in that commission, it was but the first of a series of slights and affronts shown towards him, which ended in that nobleman's final dismissal from the govern ment. When the Scottish Estates met to discuss the merits of a letter from the King, recommending them to grant relief to his Roman Catholic subjects, the post of Lord High Commissioner was taken from Queensbury and given to the Earl of Murray (the descendant of the celebrated regent Murray), who like the Chancellor had also embraced the Roman Catholic religion. This nobleman henceforth be came the King's principal agent in furthering his designs in the north ; but although he used his most 78 State of Ireland. artful endeavours to bring the Parliament into the •views of his master, he was quite unable to succeed. The Estates would not consent to repeal the penal laws, and therefore Murray thought proper to pro rogue the Parliament, which was soon after dissolved, and James now proceeded to exercise the dispensing power in Scotland as he had already done in England, in defiance of every legal enactment. In Ireland matters proceeded more after the mind of James, as may be readily imagined from the cir cumstances of that island. When he succeeded to the throne the Duke of Ormond was recalled, and Lord Clarendon, the elder brother of the Lord Treasurer, was sent as Lord Lieutenant into Ireland. Richard Talbot, earl of Tyrconnel, was put in com mand of the forces. Tyrconnel was a Roman Ca tholic, a man of violent temper and mean abilities. Clarendon was a more scrupulous Churchman than even his brother Rochester, and it was not long before the contest for power between these two raged with great fierceness ; nor was it difficult to see what would be the final result. With James, out ward conformity to the Roman Catholic religion was a greater recommendation to his favour than the ties of relationship, integrity of character, or statesman like abilities, and the peculiar constitution of the Irish population invited his unremitting designs in that country against the Protestant religion. The component parts ofthe population in Ireland differed materially from those of the inhabitants of England and Scotland. The proportion between the Celtic and Saxon races was much to the prejudice of the latter, or dominant race. The native Irish, who were so much in the majority, were ignorant, State of Ireland. 79 fanatical, and opposed to the English colonists, both in race and religion. The existence of a highly- paid and highly-dignified hierarchy, unquestionably out of all proportion to the numerical strength of the Protestants, served to justify their habitual mur- murings against the conquering race. The Pro testants, who were mostly of English extraction, if not of English birth, were superior to those amongst whom they were living, as colonists in a foreign country, in manners, intelligence, and everything which is accounted the mark of civilized man. They were not, it is true, without their religious differences, any more than their brethren in England and Scotland. In Ireland, as in those countries, there were Protestant Nonconformists, although cir cumstances allayed that ill feehng in Ireland, which in the mother country burnt with such heat between Churchmen and Dissenters. There the Noncon formists united with members of the Established Church in regarding that institution as a standing evidence of the power and superiority of the Pro testant race over the subjected Celt, who clung to the Roman Catholic creed. They, moreover, felt that, expensive and splendid as that institution was, it served as a bulwark to protect them from those lawless persecutions to which the Romanists might have otherwise subjected them, and which are even worse than penal statutes. But such being the con stitution ofthe population, we can scarcely wonder at the triumphant insolence of Tyrconnel ? Whatever his character may have been, to him the Irish Romanists naturally looked for the fulfilment of their wishes, whilst the hopes of the Protestants centered in Cla rendon. The struggle was fierce between the two- 80 Rochester. In Ireland, Tyrconnel defied and slighted the autho rity of the Lord Lieutenant ; and in England, whither he repaired for the purpose, by importunity with the King, by bribes to some ofhis courtiers, and promises to others, he laboured to supplant Clarendon in the Viceroyalty, in which, before many months, he suc ceeded.* The immediate fall of Clarendon was de ferred for a time ; indeed until his brother, Laurence Hyde, was obliged to surrender the white staff, which was the penalty he was called upon to pay for adhering to the religion in which he was bred, and to which, courtier as he was, he was too much at tached to abjure for temporary power. Rochester's ruin was hastened by the treachery of Sunderland, who put James, only too ready for such a task, upon the fruitless endeavour to convert him, and believing that, great as was the Lord Treasurer's subserviency to the King, it would not be proof against this trial> and that, therefore, the ultimate result would be the Treasurer's disgrace. In this Sunderland had cal culated with his usual craftiness as well as fore sight, f Rochester, who clung to office with a pertinacity incomprehensible to those who have never been about a court, at the urgent request of the King con sented to submit to the endeavours of two or three Roman Catholic priests to turn him from his religion. It was agreed that a conference should take place between some Protestant divines of the Church of England and some Roman Catholics, in the presence of the King and his minister. Rochester was told * Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 150. t Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 152 ; Burnet, Hist, of his Own Time, vol. iii. p. 116. His Conversion attempted. 81 to name any clergymen of the Church of England whom he chose on his side, excepting Stillingfleet and Tillotson. As these were proscribed, he deter mined to take the chaplains in waiting, who chanced to be Dr. Symon Patrick, the dean of Peterborough, the well-known commentator; and Dr. Jane, the dean of Gloucester, famous for his advocacy of the highest principles of Church authority and the regal prerogative. The King could therefore have no reason to complain of those Protestant divines who were selected to bear a part in this controversy. Patrick was not a little disturbed when the Lord Treasurer announced to him that this conference had been agreed upon, although assuring him, at the same time, of his firm attachment to his own Church. The two chaplains, however, proceeded as directed without delay to Mr. Chiffinch's lodgings, through which there was an entrance to the royal apartments. After they had waited there for some time the King made his appearance, and informed them that it was only out of kindness to the Lord Treasurer, whose salvation he could not but desire, that he had ar ranged this conference. When he had withdrawn, they were soon after ushered into the royal chamber, where Rochester joined them, who was followed in a few minutes by James, accompanied by two Roman Catholic priests, Father Giffard and Father Godden, The first of these was sprung from an old Staffordshire family, and was destined to figure in one of James's most scandalous proceedings; the latter was the most considerable ofthe Roman controversialists who had attacked Stillingfleet. The King appears to have opened the conference by repeating his anxiety for the conversion of the Lord Treasurer, and inquiring G 82 Patrick and Jane. of Jane and Patrick what the doctrine of the Church of England was upon the subject of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Father Giffard then interposed, and began to enlarge upon the authority of the Church, this being the least hazardous point for discussion. After some debate upon this head, they returned to the subject of the real presence. The Protestant divines gave the history of it from the time of Pas- chasius to the Council of Trent, and so forcibly re presented the novelty of this doctrine, as compared with primitive teaching, that the King grew im patient, and breaking in upon the discussion, re marked that " he saw the truth of what his brother had said in his papers, that it was best not to enter into the vast ocean of particular disputes, but to in quire only after the Church,"* and the conference was then abruptly terminated. The King even complimented Patrick and Jane on their learning, and in going away was overheard to say, he never heard a bad cause so well or a good one so ill managed. The Lord Treasurer expressed himself as highly pleased at the manner in which the two chaplains had defended the cause of their own Church. He requested to have their reasoning on paper, that he might himself be furnished with arguments on the propositions which were forced upon him. For some days afterwards these different divines occasionally met and consulted books, and Rochester spoke to the King as if the matter was still in abeyance. He bitterly complained that the fact ofthe conference had been suffered to get abroad ; but at last, when pressed to declare himself a Rom anist, he summoned resolution to tell the eager James * See Patrick's Autobiography, Works, vol. ix. pp. 494, 496. Liberty of Conscience. 83 that he could not change his religion, cost what his obstinacy might. The King was much incensed with what he must have expected, and shortly after wards the Treasury was put into commission, and Rochester dismissed. This occurred on the 7 th of January, 1686-7, and at the same time Clarendon was recalled from Ireland, and his rival, after many intrigues, appointed to succeed him.* If James had hitherto advanced with foolish rashness in the prosecution of his endeavours upon the liberties and religion of his subjects, he now pro ceeded with precipitation. Both in Scotland and Ireland Roman Catholics were now in chief authority. In Ireland, throughout the army, Protestants were cashiered, and Roman Catholics appointed in their places. The charters were called in and Roman Catholics made free of the corporations ; and James, to use his own words, " resolved upon liberty of conscience." By way of preparing the English people for what was coming, his intention was first put in practice in Scotland, where " A Declaration for Liberty of Conscience " was published, on February 18, 1686-7. From the benefits of this liberty — ex tended to moderate Presbyterians and Quakers, but more emphatically to Romanists, who were not only to enjoy the exercise of their religion, but no longer to be precluded from offices under government — the Conventiclers were excluded. A similar Declaration was published in England on the 4th of April, 1687.f * See Patrick's Autobiography, p. 496 ; Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 157. f Rapin, iii. p. 259 ; Macpherson's State Papers, vol. i. p. 150. 84 CHAPTER III. (1686.) James endeavours to gain the Dissenters — The first publication of the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience ; its general reception — Addresses presented to the King by different religious bodies — Meeting of Nonconformist Ministers — James desires the concurrence of the Prince and the Princess of Orange in the Indulgence — Dykvelt sent to England — The Pensionary Fagel's Letter to Steward — James's behaviour to the Universities — Cambridge ; Alban Francis and Dr. Peachel — Oxford ; the Contest with Magdalen College — > Attempts made upon the Charterhouse and upon the Muni cipal Corporations. It is often remarked, that the quarrels of those who have been united the most closely are generally the most bitter; and there was no body of his subjects which James regarded with greater animosity than that of the clergy, yet the traditional loyalty of the Church had in no degree been compromised by the conduct of her clergy towards James. When, in the late reign, the question of his exclusion was repeat edly debated, the bishops were invariably for pre serving the course of the succession unbroken. When he came to the throne they did everything to testify their attachment to his person, and their readiness to uphold his legitimate authority ; but at the same time they showed, as a body, that as they were in principle attached to the Church of England, Nonconformists. 85 so they were able, as well as determined, to defend her against the aggressions of the Church of Rome. The King, confounding personal attachment with constitutional loyalty, affected to be indignant and surprised at the steady but respectful opposition offered by the clergy to his attempts to corrupt their fidelity, and undermine the national faith. As he had determined to publish in England the same liberty of conscience which he had declared in Scotland, he began to caress the Dissenters, and invite them to vituperate the Church, and enlarge upon the cruelties to which they had been subjected by the penal laws which Churchmen had been instru mental in enacting. In his sudden zeal for liberty of conscience he even reasoned with a liberality in advance of his age, although every act of his life shows that he would not have borne for an hour the exercise of those principles when in opposition to his own arbitrary desires. However, he announced to his subservient Privy Council that it was his intention to suspend the penal statutes respecting Papists and Nonconformists, and to declare that liberty of conscience which he had long believed was compatible with justice and prudence. He re marked, that "although an uniformity in religious worship had endeavoured to be established within this kingdom, in the successive reigns of four of his predecessors, assisted by their respective parliaments, yet it had been ineffectual ; that the restraint upon the consciences of Dissenters in order thereunto had been very prejudicial to this nation, as was sadly experienced in the horrid rebellion in the time of his royal father; that the many penal laws made against Dissenters in all the foregoing reigns, and especially 86 Nonconformists. in the time of the late king, had rather increased than lessened the number of them ; and that nothing could more conduce to the peace and quietness of the kingdom, and an increase of the number as well as the trade of his subjects, than an entire liberty of conscience."* The Declaration was published on the 4th day of April, 1687, and the legal advisers of the Crown were enjoined to issue no more processes against Dissenters. It is no easy task to judge with impartiality of the conduct of the Nonconformists under these over tures of friendship from James, who certainly detested their principles in his heart, much more than he did those of the Church of England. The diffi culty of portraying the spirit which they exhibited upon this occasion, no doubt arises from the real ambiguity of their conduct. They certainly, one and all, desired the indulgence, and would cheerfully have accepted it, and returned James thanks for his liberality, notwithstanding the illegality of the pro ceeding, had they entertained no fear of the King's introducing a worse enemy under cover of it than the Established Church. The history of the former reign confirms this view of the question. Charles attempted many measures, which his brother James afterwards not only attempted, but, in a manner, car ried into effect. Amongst others, he also endeavoured to dispense with the penal statutes relating to Non conformists, and, by right ofhis being supreme in the Church, to grant a general indulgence, or liberty of conscience. The Papists, however, were to have no chapels, excepting in private houses. Upon this oc casion, although the King's motives were suspected, * Calamy's Life of Baxter, p. 376. Nonconformists. 87 and the fear of Popery was entertained by some, the Nonconformists universally availed themselves ofthe indulgence. Baxter became lecturer at Pinners' Hall ; and the truly eminent and pious Mr. John Howe, who had retired to Ireland, returned to London and publicly officiated, until the interference of Parlia ment. That body at last represented to Charles that the legislature resided in his majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and pronounced the Indul gence illegal. Charles, more pliable and sensible than his brother, acquiesced in this decision, and pro mised that his Declaration should never be drawn into a precedent. The penal laws came accordingly again into operation, and were never more cruelly enforced against the Nonconformists than in the present reign, until James, changing his tactics, began to persecute the Church and court the Dissenters. Such had been the course of events, in respect to this subject, when the Declaration came out. We are inclined to look upon magnanimity as a royal virtue ; and there is something, therefore, very lamentable in seeing the sovereign of a great people endeavouring to engage his subjects in his unlawful schemes, by appeals to motives of the most private and personal nature.* James looked about for agents amongst the Dissenters themselves, who were to manage the respective bodies to which they belonged. For reasons of a most ungenerous nature, he pitched upon Mr. Thomas Rosewell and Mr. Vincent Alsop to manage the Presbyterians. Mr. Rosewell had been convicted of high" treason in the reign of Charles IL, for preaching a sermon at Rotherhithe, in which he had disparaged the royal practice of * The Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. ii. p. 756. 88 Nonconformists. touching for the evil, and this upon the information of three old women. The judgment was so mani festly unjust and absurd, that Charles granted him a free pardon. For this distant favour (as it was es teemed) James now expected Rosewell to use his influence with the body to which he belonged, to elicit a demonstration in favour of the Indulgence. Vincent Alsop was similarly circumstanced.* His son had incurred the penalty of the law, and had received a pardon from James, for which the father was now expected to exert himself in promoting James's views. He was a man of some learning and skill in writing, and had been engaged in controversy with Sherlock. The Dissenters, who were ranked under the common name of Independents, were left to be practised on by Stephen Lobb, an Independent minister, and William Penn the Quaker, both of whom had a ready and almost familiar access to the King. The first and most pubhc demonstrations of the Dissenters were little to their credit. These were exhibited in those addresses of thanks for the Indul gence which were poured in upon the King. Hap pily they did not express the sentiments of the most respectable and influential members of the bodies from which they emanated. In some of these docu ments the King was compared to Cyrus, and Moses, and other great deliverers of the people of God, in times of persecution. The Presbyterians, as they were amongst the most important of these bodies, as far as they were represented by these addresses, fell short of none in their laudations of James's act of grace. With other things, they wished him length of days, uninterrupted health, felicity in his royal * The Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. ii. p. 487. Nonconformists. 89 relations, success in his great councils, and, finally, the most glorious liberty of the sons of God.* Eve lyn mentions having been present at Hampton Court when an address was presented to the King, in which, amongst other extravagances, the spokesman ofthe party assured his Majesty, " That now he had given to God his empire, God would establish his." One party presented themselves, as deputed by " the Fa mily of Love," to present an address of thanks to the throne; and when James inquired some particulars respecting their tenets and numbers, he was told, they most of them lived in the Isle of Ely, and con sisted of about seventy souls. This might have opened James's eyes to the real value of some of these addresses. The more sober representatives of the dissenting interests, httle as they loved persecution, were not insensible to the arguments contained in a certain pamphlet, entitled A Letter of Advice to a Dissenter, and which is since known to have been from the pen of Lord Halifax. In that letter the Dissenters were reminded, that it was neither according to the spirit of Christianity nor for the public weal, that for the sake of revenge they should accept James's boon with too much alacrity. The writer told them that their new friends were to be suspected ; that the former haughtiness of the Church towards them had subsided ; that thinking men no longer desired to cut themselves off from the foreign Protestants, but rather to enlarge the foundations upon which we are to build our defences against the common enemy.f * See Life of Kettlewell, p. 146 ; Evelyn's Diary, June 16, 1687 ; Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 482 ; Cal amy's Life of Baxter. t Calamy's Life of Baxter, p. 376. 90 The Prince of Orange The Dissenters accordingly, with whom these argu ments had any weight, abstained from publicly thanking James for his Indulgence, and at a general meeting of the dissenting teachers there were not wanting those who stood up and protested against the dispensing power, and against any indulgence which should tend to subvert the Protestant religion : nay one, certainly in advance of the great majority of the Nonconformists, announced his determination, that rather than surrender the Constitution by yield ing to the specious arguments of James he would prefer the former bondage in which Dissenters lived.* James having thus courted the Dissenters with only partial success, next bethought himself of con straining the Prince and Princess of Orange to further his views. The principles of liberty of conscience were better known in Holland than in England at this time. The Prince of Orange was no friend to persecuting even the Roman Catholics in the peaceful and unaggressive exercise of their religion. He was himself a Calvinist, and in his intercourse with those clergymen of the Church of England who served the Princess as chaplains, he had shown no great love of the body to which they belonged. James therefore imagined that the views of his son-in-law might be made to coincide with his own, respecting the Decla ration for Liberty of Conscience, but in this he was much mistaken. f He commissioned the Marquis D' Albeville, an Irishman by birth named White, with a Spanish title, to sound the Prince of Orange upon these kindred subjects, almost at the very time, as it turned out, that William was despatching an agent to * See Carwithin's History, vol. ii. p. 500. f Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 165. appealed to. 91 England, to guide the spirit of increasing opposition to the royal councils, and dissatisfaction which had followed the fall of Rochester and his brother. The person selected for this delicate mission was Dykvelt, a practised diplomatist, who had often been in Eng land before upon matters requiring skill and ma nagement ; and upon this occasion he was instructed by the Prince of Orange, aided by Burnet, then residing at the Hague (although excluded from the court by James's interference), how he was to deal with the different sections of those politicians who were united in hostility to the King. He was to assure the Churchmen that the Prince and Princess would ever uphold the Church of England, and he. was to dissuade the Dissenters from giving in to the views of the Court, by promising them that if the Princess ever came to the throne they should enjoy an ample and legal toleration. Dykvelt discharged his mission with his usual address. He held meet ings with many ofthe Protestant leaders of all parties^ and organized the first general plans of that rising which ended in the Revolution. James was no stranger to the sinister conduct of William's minister, still he continued to express his hope to the Dutch envoy that the Prince would yet agree with him in his views about toleration, at the same time that the Marquis D'Albeville at the Hague was instructed to make it appear as if the Prince, by complying with the King's wishes, would secure the co-operation of England against France. But by the very mail which brought the King's formal request for the concurrence of the Prince and Princess of Orange in his Indul gence,* William also received from Dykvelt an * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. 484. 92 Refuse to concur in James's views. account of the success attending his intrigues. A twofold motive, therefore, induced the Prince to with hold the smallest countenance to the plans of his deluded father-in-law. To repeated representations made by D' Albeville, and to private letters written by the King himself, the Prince and Princess returned an answer, assuring the King of all respect for his person but of their inability to comply with his desires. They informed him that they could ' not change their own religion, or advise, in the present state of the country, the abolition of the tests or penal statutes providing for the safety of the Church of England. They told him that they feared his violent proceedings would overthrow the monarchy and bring back a common wealth, and they exhorted him to rule his people according to the law. And when Dykvelt was taking leave of the King, James still expressing his hopes of the Prince, that minister told him plainly that he would take upon himself to say his master never would concur in his recent measures. Such was the result of the respective missions of the Marquis D' Albeville at the Hague and of Dykvelt at London. But James's perseverance, which in a wise course would have merited the credit of firmness^ would not permit him to suffer the matter to drop here; and although we are somewhat anticipating events, an account of his further attempts to win over his daughter and her husband is here introduced, for the sake of obtaining a consecutive view of this subject: It was characteristic of James to employ any means, however questionable, which readily presented themselves for the furtherance of his immediate ends ; and he now made use of a Scotch lawyer of Steward and the Pensionary Fagel. 93 the name of Steward,* who offered his services, and who enjoyed some amount of intimacy with the Pensionary Fagel. Steward had been compelled to reside abroad on account of his religious opinions, having, when in Scotland, refused to renounce the Covenant. But this, in James's estimation, the better qualified him for furthering his views at the Hague. Steward therefore, under the King's direction, opened a voluminous correspondence with the Pensionary. He represented to Fagel how very inconsiderable the number of the Papists was, how heavily the penal laws lay upon the Dissenters, and yet that the King was quite resolved not to remove them, unless the Roman Catholics were also relieved by a repeal of the Test Acts. Fagel, as a matter of course, laid this correspondence before the Prince of Orange, who was of opinion that the Pensionary should return such answer to all these representations as might be published in England, and serve as a de claration of the final sentiments of the Court at the Hague upon the proceedings of James in the matter of the Indulgence. f Fagel, in accordance with the Prince's opinion, addressed a long explanatory letter to Steward, which Burnet rendered into English, and which was ultimately published in this country.^ In this letter, which bore date the 4th of No vember, 1687, the Pensionary informed his corre spondent that, understanding him to have written * Burnet's History ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 203, ed. 1823. f Ibid. p. 204. % Entitled, A Letter writ by Mijn Heer Fagel, Pensioner of Holland, to Mr. James Stewart, Advocate, giving an Account of the Prince and Princess of Orange's Thoughts concerning the Repeal of the Test and the Penal Laws. 4to. 94 The Pensionary's Letter. with the King's concurrence, he should deal very plainly and unreservedly with him. He told him that it was the opinion of the Prince and Princess of Orange that no Christian should be persecuted for conscience sake, nor ill-used for differing from the form of religion established in the country in which he lived. That their Highnesses were willing to grant to Roman Catholics and Dissenters alike, as in Holland, a full liberty for the exercise of their reli gion in quietness ; and if the King desired it, they would consent to the repeal of the penal laws, pro vided only the statutes remained in force by which Roman Catholics were excluded from both Houses of Parliament, and from all public employments, ec clesiastical, civil, and military ; that their Highnesses could not consent to the repeal of the test, or what ever other laws tended to the security of the Pro testant religion ; and, finally, the Pensionary stated, that it was the belief of the Prince and Princess that they should have much to answer for to God, if the consideration of any present advantage should induce them to consent to measures prejudicial to the secu rity of Protestantism in England. The Pensionary's letter had a powerful effect in the country. It filled James with indignation, and much disconcerted the party ofthe Court; whilst the Dissenters were not less gratified by it, because it opened to them the ultimate prospect of relief and toleration, without really conceding anything to the Papists. Churchmen accepted it as a guarantee of the resolution of the Prince and Princess of Orange to protect the Church of England, from what, at that time, was its most dangerous opponent. In James's home policy this year, that which at- Attack upon the Universities. 95 tracted the most attention was his attack upon the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. But the same circumstance, which led the King to figure to himself the advantage to be derived from indoctrin ating those seminaries with his own religious views, made the public more jealous of the attempt. They knew that to put those ancient schools of learning and theology into the hands of the Papists, was to poison the very fountains of religious instruction. Happily, the behaviour for the most part ofthe mem bers of those universities was excellent. No doubt, some of their carriage, manly and undaunted as it was, was due to that spirit which combination in spires. But this only proves more forcibly the value of such institutions. The King began with Cam bridge. There could be no mistake about the gene ral principles of the two Universities. They had ever shown themselves most attached to the House of Stuart. They were loyal to the Sovereign, and at the same time loyal to the Reformed Church of England. Cambridge, which had made Monmouth her Chancellor in the zenith of his popularity, had deprived him of that honour when he was plotting against the crown. No reasonable complaints could be made of the manner in which those duties were discharged which pertain to a university. The greatest of physical philosophers, Isaac Newton, was at this very time a resident Fellow of Trinity Col lege, whilst that critic, who has been emphatically called " The modern Aristarchus," Richard Bentley, was maintaining the classieal reputation of the Uni versity. The tone of the University was good ; and at this time the King chose to despatch a missive to 96 Cambridge. the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. John Peachel, the Master of Magdalene College, commanding him to admit Alban Francis, a Benedictine monk, to the degree of a Master of Arts, without requiring from him the oaths enjoined by the statutes. The Vice-Chancellor, although the last man in the world to court a quarrel with the King, was equally unwilling to betray the rights of the University. He advisedly delayed to summon the Caput ; and in the meantime the Uni versity obtained the best legal advice they were able to procure upon the difficulty in which they were placed. It had been customary for the University to confer mere honorary degrees, with little regard to the religious opinions of those upon whom they conferred them ; and even a secretary to the ambas sador of the Emperor of Morocco, although a Mus sulman, had but lately received this distinction. But still the University had upon occasions declined to confer even these honorary degrees upon nominees of the Crown, and the Court had always thought proper to acquiesce in their decision. James's de mand was for something more than an honorary de gree. The University was well aware that the ad mission of Francis to this honour, entitling him to a voice in the government of their body, would open the door to any number of the King's nominees ; and they foresaw howr easily, under such circumstances, their own influence might be swamped. When the Senate, therefore, met, they approved of what the Vice-Chancellor had done, and they requested him further to delay the admission of Francis to the de gree, until the King had been petitioned to recall his mandate. The Vice-Chancellor upon this commu- Cambridge. 97 nicated with the Duke of Albemarle, the then Chan cellor of the University, desiring him to endeavour to dissuade the King from prosecuting his demands. Almost at the same time that he received the answer to his communication, came another letter from Sun derland. The Duke of Albemarle expressed his sym pathy with the University authorities in their troubles, and lamented that all his intercessions had failed. The royal communication was full of that threatening language, which James was acquiring such an unfor tunate habit of employing towards those who in any manner thwarted him. The University, disturbed at these tokens of the King's resentment, drew up a fuller representation than had been at first contem plated, and deputed certain delegates to carry it to the King; but on applying to Sunderland for per mission so to do, they were refused an audience. The next thing in this affair was, the arrival in Cam bridge of a citation from the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners, summoning the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. John Peachel, and the Senate, by representation, to appear before them at Westminster, on the 24th April, 1687. This they readily obeyed ; the Vice-Chancellor being accompanied on that occasion by eight deputies, of whom one was Newton.* Dr. Peachel was one of those inoffensive gownsmen who was not made to encounter such a crisis as the present one, in which he could never have anticipated being placed. He asked for delay, and this was granted ; but he was still not prepared for the brow beating of Jeffreys. He answered his questions with * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 484 ; Burnet, vol. iii. p. 142 ; Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 280 ; Rapin, vol. iii. 260 ; Carwithin, vol. ii. p. 502. H 98 Oxford. confusion, which whetted the effrontery of the Chan cellor ; and if any ofthe delegates ventured anything by way of explanation, they were silenced, by being told " they were not the Vice-Chancellor." The result of the examination was, that Dr. Peachel was suspended from his office, and from the headship of his college, whilst the eight deputies were dismissed with a rebuke. The real effect ofthe severity to wards Peachel was to induce the University to elect in his place Dr. Balderson, the Master of Emmanuel College, a man of greater courage and presence than his predecessor. He declared that, as far as in him lay, he would protect alike the interests ofthe Church and the University. The King behaved with excep tional prudence in this affair, for he desisted from a renewal of the contest. We must now turn to the sister University, where the progress of Popery was more threatening than at Cambridge, but where the rights of the Church of England were not less manfully contested. At the Restoration the bestowal of preferment was not regulated always by customary usage, and the great merits of Dr. Fell, as well as the claims of his family upon the Stuarts, led to his being appointed at once Dean of Christ Church and Bishop of Oxford. But it must be remembered that the Deanery of Christ Church is entirely an academical office. Upon Fell's death, Parker, as has been related, succeeded to the bishopric; and Dr. John Massey having recently apostatized, was appointed by James dean of Christ Church, and after pleading the King's dispensation entered upon his preferment, and soon fitted up a Roman Catholic Chapel in the College. But the triumph of Popery was more genuine at University Magdalen College. 99 College, where the Master, Dr. Obadiah Walker, and several of the fellows, embraced the tenets of the Church of Rome. Walker was a learned man, and as he was suspected of Romish tendencies in the reign of Charles IL, with contemporary events to guide us it seems but fair to conjecture that his con version was an honest one. Nor does it seem neces sary to brand him and his companions with great dis honesty, to account for their having availed them selves of the King's dispensing power, and having acknowledged their conversions whilst they retained their preferments. Converts to Romanism even now affect to believe that all Church preferment, which originated prior to the Reformation, is wrongfully in the hands of members of the Church of England, forgetting that the whole Church has thrown off the usurped authority of the see of Rome, and that the legitimate heirs, so to speak, of the National Church were absorbed in the present constituted Church at the Reformation. The Roman Catholics in this country were, at one time, so few in number, that, had the most powerful sovereign in the world been reigning and desirous of restoring the Papal supremacy in the Church of England, he could not have found clergy to fill the benefices, unless the Church, in its corporate capacity, had adopted his views. The Cburch of England was reformed in its corporate capacity ; and modern Romanists have no more right to its temporalities than they have to those of the Russian Church. But to return to the proceedings of the King. The progress of the Romanists, and the ceaseless endeavours of James to convert the merest shadow of prerogative into an instrument for the advance- 100 Magdalen College. ment of his own religion, was not destined to con tinue without any check. Concurrently with his contest at Cambridge, the King involved himself in one at Oxford with Magdalen College, the mag nificent foundation of William Waynflete. It may be admitted that circumstances afforded him a pre text for interference. This college had shared with the rest of the University of Oxford, during the great Rebellion, in its zeal for the royal cause. When occasion required, the King's soldiers had found a shelter in its venerable cloisters ; and during the temporary ascendancy of Puritanism, no less than six-sevenths of the fellows had been ejected rather than take the Covenant. Agreeably to the same spirit of loyalty, they had accepted Dr. Clerke as their President, upon the recommendation of Charles II. ; and it was his death that now oc casioned one of those vacancies, which the King in variably endeavoured, with or without right, to fill up with a Romanist. It is true that the fellows, by their statutes, were to elect their own president ; but from time to time, as in the case of Dr. Clerke, they had accepted the nominee of the Crown, if in other respects he was elegible : that is, if he were upon the foundation of Magdalen College, or New College, and of sound faith and blameless life. Dr. Clerke died in March, and a day was ap pointed by the Vice-President on which the College was to proceed to the election of a President. In the meantime, it would appear that Dr. Smith, one of the fellows, a man of some distinction as a traveller and a writer, apphed to Parker tb intercede for him with the King for a royal recommendation to the vacant honour. The Bishop gave him little encouragement Magdalen College. 101 unless he could declare himself a Romanist— a step which Smith, notwithstanding his over-loyalty, could not be brought to entertain. A few days before that appointed for the election, the fellows of this College heard to their dismay that Mr. Anthony Farmer, who had never been on the foundation of the College, and was in every respect one of the most worthless of all the recent converts to Popery, had obtained the royal recommendation to be President. The fellows, upon this intelligence, immediately drew up a petition to James, dated April 9, pointing out the utter inelegibility of Farmer, and praying his Majesty to suffer them to proceed to the election without any interference on his part, or to recom mend such a person as would be serviceable alike to the King and the College. The bearers of this peti tion were Smith and Captain Bagshaw.* When they arrived in London they addressed themselves to Lord Sunderland, who behaved towards them with that ambiguity and haughtiness which he had dis played on similar occasions. They give him the petition to present to the King, and a day was ap pointed on which they were again to wait upon his Lordship and receive their answer. When that day arrived, and they presented them selves to Sunderland, he led them to suppose that he had handed their petition to James ; and he told them that he had nothing further to say, excepting that the King had sent his letter to the College and ex pected to be obeyed. Upon this Smith and Bag shaw hastened to return to Oxford, as they had * See Dr. Thomas Smith's account of the proceedings of Magdalen College ; Macpherson's Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 485. 102 Magdalen College. heard that the College had resolved to proceed to an election on the 15th. Upon the intelligence which they brought back respecting their reception, the fellows were divided how they should act. It was proposed by Smith that they should renew their petition to the King. The Vice-President Fairfax, and Pudsey, were of the same opinion; but the majority were for entering at once upon the election^ whilst Charnock and Thompson declared at once for Farmer. The interval allowed by the statutes be tween the death of the President and the election of his successor had elapsed, and the election had already been once postponed ; the College, therefore, acted upon the judgment of the majority, and, after an attendance at chapel and the celebration of the Lord's Supper, they proceeded to the election, when their choice fell upon Mr. Hough, a man of singu larly calm temper, moral courage, and integrity. Hough, after his election, waited upon the Bishop of Winchester, in company with Maynard, the next on the poll to himself, and was regularly sworn before the Visitor, President of the College.* Owing to the conduct of Sunderland, it seems doubtful when, if ever, the King had seen the petition of the fellows. He therefore deemed the election an act of contempt and defiance, and was accordingly filled with very great displeasure upon learning that it had taken place. The College at once applied to the venerable Duke of Ormond, the Chancellor of the University, to interpose between them and James ; but he appears to have made but feeble efforts on * See Dr. Thomas Smith's Account : Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 274; Burnet's Hist, ofthe Reign of James IL, with notes, p. 171. Magdalen College. 103 their behalf. They also addressed themselves to their Visitor, the Bishop of Winchester, to use his influ ence to procure the royal assent to the election. The Bishop complied with their request, and repre sented to Sunderland the grounds upon which they objected to Farmer. He related his statutable in eligibility and his immoral character ; but the King was not to be thus appeased, and Dr. Aldworth, the Vice-President, and the other fellows of the College, were summoned to give an account of their beha viour before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. A deputation, consisting of five of the fellows, accord ingly appeared before the Commissioners on the 6 th of June, 1687, when they were regularly examined. Jeffreys presided, and behaved with his accus tomed buffoonery and insolence. When Dr. Fairfax interposed in the course of the examination, intend ing to suggest some doubts as to the legality of the Court, the Chancellor mistook at first the drift of his observation, and was beginning to commend him as a sensible man ; but no sooner did he rightly un derstand his remarks than he burst out into a torrent of abuse, implying that Fairfax was only fit to be brought before a commission of lunacy. When the fellows were examined why they did not obey the royal mandate, they produced the statutes of the College and their allegations against Farmer; and on the 22d of June they again appeared before the Commissioners, when they adduced such a weight of evidence proving the moral ineligibility of Farmer, that the Court was constrained to abandon its nomi nee. James, however, was not thus to be foiled in his attempt, nor in the gratification of his resent ment, and the Commissioners pronounced the elec- 104 The King visits Oxford. tion of Hough void, and suspended Dr. Aldworth, the Vice-President, and Dr. Fairfax. Supported by the Protestant sympathy of the country, the fellows were little concerned at this decision, until they received another royal letter, recommending the Bishop of Oxford, Parker, for their President. As they deemed the election of Hough perfectly lawful and irreversible, they declined to comply with the re quisition of the King. The royal displeasure was now inflamed to anger, and the haughty sovereign could ill brook the sturdy opposition of a handful of collegians. He determined to appear himself at Oxford, and see whether his personal presence would not overawe these contumacious fellows. James had resolved upon making a progress through the country this year, mainly with the hope of promoting a bias at the next election in favour of such candidates as were favourable to his policy. He fulfilled this intention in the autumn. He visited, in the course of this tour, Portsmouth, Southamp ton, Bath, Gloucester, Worcester, and Chester. At this last place he had much intercourse with Penn the Quaker. He next turned his steps southwards, and arrived at Oxford on the 3d of September; on the following day the fellows of Magdalen College were summoned before him. Upon their appear ance, his behaviour was such that one might be led to infer that Jeffreys was, after all, indebted to a royal example for his talent of scolding. The King told them that they had been " unmannerly as well undutiful." He tauntingly asked them, " Is this your Church-of-England loyalty ?" He refused to look at a petition which they would have presented to him, and drove them from his presence with a Summons the Fellows of Magdalen College. 105 threat, that if they did not immediately admit Dr. Parker for their President they should feel the weight of his hand. Although the carriage of the fellows was thoroughly loyal and respectful, they were un moved by James's ungracious conduct. They re tired to their college and held a meeting, when it was put to the vote whether or not they should submit to the King. One voice alone answered in the affirmative, which was that of Charnock, the Roman Catholic, who had been so busy throughout this contest, in opposition to the general sense of the College. James, again baffled and incensed at the obstinacy of the fellows, left Oxford and joined the Queen at Bath ; and soon after William Penn, the Quaker, appeared on the stage, doubtless commis sioned by the King to try what he could effect.* This, as might be expected, amounted to nothing, for it was not probable that the sophistry of one whose worldly-mindedness prevailed over his fanaticism, and who yet adhered to the tenets of George Fox, would succeed where the King and Jeffreys had failed. The Ecclesiastical Commission was again re sorted to. A sub-commission was formed and de spatched to Oxford, to bring this long dispute to a final settlement. The Commissioners were Cart wright, bishop of Chester, Sir Thomas Wright, the Chief Justice, and Sir Thomas Jenner, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer. They entered the acade mical city under an escort of three troops of horse. On the day after their arrival they proceeded to the College to open the inquiry. The Bishop of Chester, as President, began with an address, expressive of those sentiments, for proclaiming * Life of Anthony Wood, p. 282, ed. 1848. 106 The Ecclesiastical Commission which he had himself been elevated to the Bench, some of which were only in accordance with opinions which had been popular in the University at the Restoration; but when he came to tell the President and Fellows of Magdalen, " that their corporation, as well as others, were creatures of the Crown," and that the Church of England taught an unlimited and unconditional obedience to the royal will, he was straining the doctrine of passive obedience to an evident absurdity. At the conclusion of this pre liminary address the names of all the fellows were called over, when Dr. Hough, demanding a copy of the Commission, he was asked whether he would obey it ; to which he replied, " My Lords, I do declare here, in the name of myself and the greater part of the fellows, that we submit to the visitation as far as it is consistent with the laws of the land and the statutes of the College, and no farther." Upon this the Chief Justice remarked, " that the King had dispensed with the statutes;" when Hough, laying his hand upon the statutes, answered, " We have an oath not only to observe these statutes, but to admit of no new ones, and this must be my behaviour here. I must admit of no alteration from it, and by the grace of God never will." There now ensued an altercation between the Commissioners and the President, in which the former strove to show that the fellows daily violated these very statutes; for they never said mass — a practice, amongst other things, enjoined by the statutes — but Hough parried this attack with considerable skill, for he reminded them, that the statute was taken away by the laws of the land. And Dr. Stafford, one of the fellows, added,. " By that law which obliges them to say the Common again resorted to by James. 107 Prayer." The royal decree which declared Hough's election null and void was next read out, and the President was asked why he resisted it ? He alleged in excuse, " that he was never cited before their lordships, and was neither heard by them in person nor by proxy ; and I think," said he, " I am the only instance that is extant of any man that was ever deprived of a freehold, wherein he was legally in vested, and of which he was quietly possessed, with out being summoned or heard." In the course of this inquiry the duplicity of Sunderland, with regard to the presentation of the fellows' first petition, was clearly manifested. But to continue the narrative : — At the Com missioners' next session Hough was summoned alone, and asked whether he would or would not sub mit to the decree which declared his election void ? In answering this question he evidently sought to suppress every temptation to pertness, whilst he declined to do so. He was then required to sur render the key of his lodging, the Bishop of Chester telling him that they looked upon him in the light of an intruder, to which the distressed but uncom promising President rejoined, "If I am an intruder, the Bishop of Winchester made me one." He after wards entreated the Commissioners not to represent him, whilst defending his rights, as disloyal or un dutiful to his sovereign. He was again asked, in the presence of all the fellows, whether he would deliver up the key of his lodging ; and declining to do so, was proclaimed by the King's Proctor, who was present, as contumacious, whilst the Bishop of Chester admonished him to depart peaceably out of the College, and no longer presume to act as the 108 The President and Fellows of president or pretended president of the society. His name was struck off the buttery-books, and the fellows were required no longer to obey him as their head. But when they were severally asked whether they would assist at the admission of his substitute, the Bishop of Oxford, as their president, they resolutely declined to do so, excepting Dr. Pudsey, Dr. Smith, and Charnock. The two first of these answered with irresolution, whilst, as a matter of course, Charnock professed his readiness to com ply. Hough then coming forward, solicited per mission to speak a few words : to which the Com missioners having assented, the Doctor said : " My Lords, you were pleased this morning, in pursuance of a decree of the Lords Commissioners at London, to deprive me of my place of President of this Col lege, and to strike my name out of the buttery-book. I do hereby protest against all your proceedings, and against all that you have done,"or hereafter shall do, in prejudice of me and my right, as illegal, un just, and null, and therefore I appeal to my Sovereign Lord the King in his Courts of Justice." This spirited protest created a stir in the court, and murmurs amongst some of the young men present. But these demonstrations were quickly suppressed, and the Lord Chief Justice in consequence, with marks of anger, bound over Hough in 1000£. to appear at the King's Bench for a misdemeanour, whilst the milder wrath of Baron Jenner expressed itself in a pun on the President's name. " Sir," said he, " you must not think to huff us."* Even the servants of the College entered into the contest, and refused to obey the directions of the Commissioners. * See Howell's State Trials, xii. 36 ; Rapin, vol. i. p. 260. Magdalen College are expelled. 109 As the fellows and their president thus held out, the Commissioners, under the protection of the mili tary, proceeded to forcible measures. The lodgings of the President were broken into, and the Bishop of Oxford, who was too ill to appear in person, was installed President by proxy ; and now there appeared the possibility of a compromise. The majority of the fellows, in the hopes of terminating this painful struggle with their sovereign, were fain to accept of a president de facto, deferring for better times their allegiance to their rightful president. But the King seemed fated to be his own enemy, whatever tem porary advantages he gained. He was not satisfied with such a submission as this. He required " that they should acknowledge their contempt to his sacred majesty in person, and to his letters; that they should promise to behave themselves loyally for the future ; that they should own the proceedings and legality of the Court, implore his majesty's pardon, and lay themselves at his feet; and that they should declare their entire submission to the Bishop of Oxford as their president." After all they had suffered, it did seem too much that they should be required to kiss the rod which had smote them. All but Charnock and Smith refused to sign this abject submission. The King now put the finishing act to his tyrannical proceedings. Excepting Smith and Charnock, the fellows were all expelled from the College ; their places were filled with Romanists, and Charnock was made Vice President. Not only were their names struck off the college books, but they were pronounced incapable of holding any prefer ment in the Church of England. The sympathy of the country for the expelled fellows was manifested 110 The Charter-house. in the large amount of the collections which were raised everywhere for them, and to which the Prince of Orange contributed by sending 200/. in the name of the Princess. We cannot com mend the Prince for thus seeking popularity at the expense of his father-in-law, or forget that Sun derland had played a tortuous part in this as in so many other transactions.* Whilst this affair of Magdalen College was going on at Oxford, an attempt was made to place a Roman Catholic upon the foundation of the Charter house. The governors of this hospital, which was founded subsequent to the Reformation, as is well known, are generally selected from the chief nobility in the land, and the calm opposition of such men as the Duke of Ormond, Lords Hahfax, Nottingham, and Danby, proved sufficient to silence the inso lence of Jeffreys and to defeat the designs of James. It was in contemplation to have brought the dispute before the King's Bench or the Ecclesiastical Com missioners, but wiser counsels prevailed and the matter was suffered to drop. Although these attacks upon the Church and the Universities betrayed, more glaringly than anything, what was to be expected from James should he ever succeed in stifling the liberties of his subjects, he was not less pertinacious in his efforts to overawe and subdue the secular corporations of the country. He was resolved upon summoning a Parliament which should sanction all his illegal proceedings, and repeal at once the Test and Corporation Acts. He knew how impossible it was to obtain such a * Macpherson's Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 491. The Corporations. Ill result without another modification ofthe corpora tions ; Charles IL, by the Act of Parliament quo warranto, had recalled the ancient charter of the city of London, and shortly afterwards the corpo rations throughout the country surrendered their old charters and received new ones in their places,* by which the power of the Crown was greatly increased; for by these the nominations of mayors and of all principal officers of the corporations were vested in the Crown. Here was James's oppor tunity, but still it required a considerable strain of prerogative to make use of it upon the spur of the moment ; but, nothing daunted, he proceeded to convert the municipal patronage of the Crown into a means for securing the description of Parliament he required. A Board, consisting of seven Privy Councillors, was established in London, of which the greater part, including Father Petre, were forward Romanists. The members of this board were called "Regulators," and were deputed to take cognizance of all the cor porations in the country. They were empowered to act in as arbitrary a manner towards the municipal corporations, as the Ecclesiastical Commission had acted in church matters. From this Board, it ap pears, a set of men of mean fortunes and abilities, Dissenters gained by the Court,f were sent through out the country to examine into men's opinions, and those whom they found agreeable to the plans of the King were to be made mayors and aldermen, that they might have an eye to the return to Parliament of such as would comply with James's wishes. The * Blackstone's Com. vol. iii. p. 294. f Calamy's Life of Baxter, p. 363 ; Macaulay, vol. ii. p. 334. 112 The Corporations. King relied upon the Lord Lieutenants of the counties for the execution of this scheme, but a great proportion of those eminent personages positively refused to have any hand in the matter, and were immediately dismissed. In many counties the at tempt wholly failed. When the Lord Lieutenants put the required questions to the freeholders their answers were commonly adverse to the views of the Court. The city of London behaved with much spirit, and the mayor and aldermen, notwithstanding their diminished power and independence, refused to answer any questions compromising their inde pendence as electors. This is the more remarkable, since the Lord Mayor was one of James's approving, an Anabaptist by persuasion, and had recently entertained the King and Queen, Count D'Ada, the Popish Nuncio, and other Papists, with much splendour, at Guildhall.* * Evelyn's Diary, 29th October, 1687. 113 CHAPTER IV. (1688.) The King orders the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience to be published in the Churches — Meetings of the London Clergy — Meetings of the Bishops at Lambeth Palace — The Bishops determine to petition James against reading the Declaration — Their interview with the King — They are summoned into the Council Chamber and sent to the Tower — The public sympathy manifested for them — Birth of the Prince of Wales — The Bishops brought up to Westminster Hall, and dismissed on their own recognizances — Their Trial and Acquittal — State of Public Feeling — Prudent conduct of Sancroft — Effect of the Trial at the Hague — The Prince of Orange prepares for his Expedition to this Country. The climax to James's attack upon the Church and the Clergy was now to follow. The opposition with which his efforts to set aside their unquestionable rights had been met, had inflamed his anger against the whole body to that degree, that he was regard less of what they suffered, or of what indignity, under the advice of his Popish counsellors, he put upon them. On the 4th of May, 1688, an order ofthe King in council was passed, to the effect that the former Declaration of Liberty of Conscience, bearing date the 27th of April, was to be read at the usual time of Divine Service (that is, after the Nicene Creed), on the 20th and 27th ofthe month, in all the London 114 Meetings ofthe Clergy. churches, and in the other churches of the kingdom on the 3d and 10th of June. The Bishops, at the same time, were enjoined to distribute the order throughout their several dioceses, and see it obeyed. This was a heavy blow to the clergy. There was not an independent member of that body who did not believe this step of James both illegal and sub versive of the best interests of the Church of Eng land. As soon as they had somewhat recovered from the pain and dismay which the order occasioned them, meetings and consultations were held by the Bishops and the leading members of the metropolitan clergy. At an assembly of these latter, at which Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Patrick, and many others, attended, much vacillation was displayed, until Dr. Edward Fowler, the vicar of S. Giles', Cripplegate, turned the sense ofthe meeting in favour of disregarding the order, by a spirited announcement that, whatever others might do, his resolution was taken not to read the Declaration in his church. But the consultations of the Bishops at this time tended to more important results.* On the 12th of May a dinner took place at Lambeth Palace, when Lord Clarendon was amongst the guests ofthe Archbishop, and at which were pre sent also the Bishops of London, Ely, Peterborough, Chester, and S. David's, and Dr. Tenison, the active Rector of S. Martin's-in-the-Fields.f The King's order in council was the theme of general conversa tion ; but the presence of Cartwright, and Watson the bishop of S. David's, imposed for a time reserve upon the rest of the company. As soon, however, as * See Howell's State Trials. \ See Lord Clarendon's Diary under the date. The Bishops resolve on Petitioning the King. 115 these had withdrawn, a serious deliberation ensued, upon what was best to be done in the present emerg ency. It was at once determined to call the Bishops to town. Missives to this effect were despatched to all those who were at all accessible ; and on the 16th,* Lloyd, the bishop of S. Asaph, arrived at Lord Clar endon's house, where he lodged, and by the 18th there were added to the number of those already in London, Ken of Bath and Wells, Lake of Chichester, and Sir Jonathan Trelawney, the bishop of Bristol. The time was too pressing for the Archbishop to await the arrival of other members of the Bench. It was now Friday ; and on Sunday the obnoxious Declara tion was to be read. A meeting was accordingly held upon this day, at Lambeth Palace, at which all the above-mentioned members of the Bench (except ing Cartwright and Watson), with Tenison and others, were present. The meeting was duly opened with prayer ; and after some deliberation, the Bishops agreed to affix their names to a petition, and present it to James without delay, praying that he would reconsider his order, and not insist upon their dis tributing his Declaration in their dioceses. The peti tion was the composition of Sancroft ; and the copy designed for the King was in his own handwriting.f * See Lord Clarendon's Diary under the date. f " To the King's Most Excellent Majestt : " The humble Petition of William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and of divers of the suffragan Bishops of that Province, now pre sent with him, in behalf of .themselves and others of their absent brethren, and of the Clergy of their respective dioceses: " Humbly sheweth : " That the great averseness they find in themselves to the dis tributing and publishing in all their churches your Majesty's late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, proceedeth neither from 116 Their Interview with James. That very evening, the six suffragan Bishops, whose names, with that of the Archbishop, were at tached to it, crossed the river to Whitehall, and sought an interview with the King. As James had been led to imagine that the clergy were ready to acquiesce in his wishes, this was immediately conceded, and he admitted them to the chamber within the royal bed room. The Bishops, on their knees, then offered the any want of duty and obedience to your Majesty, our holy mother the Church of England being, both in her principles and constant practice, unquestionably loyal, and having (to her great honour) been more than once publicly acknowledged to be so by your Majesty : nor yet from any want of due tenderness to Dissenters, in relation to whom they are willing to come to such a temper as shall be thought fit, when that matter shall be considered and settled in Parliament and Convocation : but, among many other considerations, from this especially, because that Declaration is founded upon such a dispensing power as hath often been declared illegal in Parliament, and particularly in the years 1662 and 1672, and in the beginning of your Majesty's reign ; and it is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole nation, both in Church and State, that your petitioners cannot in prudence, honour, or conscience, so far make themselves parties to it as the distribution of it all over the nation, and the solemn publication of it once and again, even in God's house, and in the time of His divine service, must amount to in common and reasonable con struction. " Your petitioners therefore most humbly and earnestly beseech your Majesty, that you will be graciously pleased not to insist upon their distributing and reading your Majesty's said Declara tion. " And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. W. Cant. Sancroft. W. Asafh. William Lloyd. Fkan. Ely. Fkancis Turner. Jo. Cicestk. John Lake. THorBATH and Wells. Thomas Ken. Tho. Petriburgens. Thomas White. Jon. Bristol. Sir John Trelawney." Their Interview with James. 117 petition to the King. James's first remark, on receiving it from the hands of Lloyd, was, — " This is my Lord of Canterbury's hand'' — as it certainly was, — and as the Bishops readily admitted. As he perused it, his displeasure became visible ; and he said, — " This is a great surprise to me ; I did not expect this from your Church : this is a standard of rebellion." The distressed prelates protested against such an imputa tion, and appealed to their former efforts to suppress rebellion. The Bishop of Bath and Wells courage ously interposed : " I hope you will give that liberty [of conscience] to us, which you allow to all man kind." The Bishop of Peterborough added, — " Sir, you allow liberty of conscience to all mankind. The reading this declaration is against our conscience." The King continued to talk on, as if disregarding these expostulations : " I will keep this paper. It is the strangest address which I ever saw. It tends to rebellion. Do you question my dispensing power ? Some of you have printed and preached for it, where it was to your purpose." The Bishop of Peter borough rejoined, — " Sir, what we say of the dis pensing power refers only to what was declared in Parliament." But James continued, — " The dispen sing power was never questioned by the men of the Church of England." Lloyd answered, — " It was declared against in the first Parliament called by his late Majesty, and by that which was called by your Majesty." The King still insisted upon the state ment, that the petition tended to rebellion. After some remarks from the Bishops in reply, he went on in the same incoherent strain :— " Is this what I have deserved of you, who have supported the Church of England, and will support it ? I will remember you 118 Their Interview with James. that have signed this paper. I will keep this paper. I will not part with it. I did not expect this from you, especially from some of you. I will be obeyed in publishing my Declaration." To which Ken re marked,— " God's will be done ! " " What is that ? " exclaimed James. The Bishops of Peterborough and Bath and Wells repeated the words, — " God's will be done ! " The King then said,— " If I think fit to alter my mind, I will send to you. God hath given me this dispensing power, and I will maintain it. I tell you there are 7000 men, and ofthe Church of England too, that have not bowed their knees to Baal."* And with this singularly inappropriate speech, considering from whose lips it proceeded, the interview was closed. The King was exceedingly irate against the Bishops, at the same time that he was greatly perplexed as to the wisest course for him to adopt at such a crisis. He knew that his Roman Catholic subjects were but a small minority in the king dom, and he could not any longer be deceived as to the wide-spread disaffection of the rest of the nation. But it was James's misfortune to have made for himself a rule of action, from which he entertained a sort of superstitious fear of deviating. He was resolved not to draw back. Vacillation had been his father's ruin ; so the Bishops were to be punished. When it became manifest that the great body of the clergy would not read the Declaration in their churches, even his Roman Catholic advisers counselled moderation, but to no avail. In the mean- * Archbishop Sancroft's MSS. quoted in Collectanea Curiosa, vol. i. pp. 338-340. The Bishops' petition got abroad that very evening, but nobody knew how. The Declaration read in few Churches. 119 while, Sunday, the 20th May, came round; and it was now to be seen how far the King's order would be obeyed, notwithstanding the opposition ofthe Bench.* The Declaration was read in seven churches only in London. It was read in Whitehall Chapel by one of the choir accustomed to read the lessons. It was also read in Westminster Abbey by the Bishop of Rochester, as Dean ; but the murmuring and dis turbance which arose in consequence, in the body of the church, was so great, that it could not be heard ; and Sprat himself was so agitated, and trembled so much, that he could scarcely hold the paper in his hand.f In the other churches in which it was read similar marks of disapprobation were manifested. People rose from their seats and left the churches, rather than hear it. Stillingfleet and the cautious Tillotson contrived that Sunday to be in the country. J One Timothy Hall, the incumbent of a city church, and believed to be a Presbyterian at heart, read it, as it was thought, in hopes of thereby obtain ing preferment, and was, in consequence, made Bishop of Oxford ; that see having just been ren dered vacant by the fatal termination of Parker's illness. It seems probable that a similar bait was offered to Wesley's father, who was thought a talented preacher, when at this time a curate in London ; but he indignantly spurned the attempt to shake his principles. Such was the result of James's endeavour to have the Declaration published in the * See Burnet, vol. iii. p. 218 ; Rapin, vol. iii. 266. f Evelyn's Diary under the date ; Burnet, vol. iii. p. 218 and note ; Lord Dartmouth's account as a boy at Westminster School; Southey's Life of Wesley, vol. i. p. 11 ; and Macaulay's History, vol. ii. p. 351. % See Clarendon's Diary under the date. 120 Reception ofthe Declaration. London churches, and it served only to increase the popularity of the Bishops. Their cpnduct was gene rally applauded, and everybody was now anxiously awaiting the next move of the King. The truth of history compels us to remark that, at this critical period, it certainly required as much moral courage to promote James's views, as it did to resist them. The sufferers for conscience sake at this time were not altogether without the most powerful support men can have in such circumstances — the approba tion of their country, and the secret persuasion that the tension to which James had stretched the alle giance of his subjects could not hold much longer. The next Sunday, being that upon which the Declaration was ordered to be read for the second time in the London churches, was suffered to arrive before the King put into execution any of his threats against the Bishops. On that day the churches were crowded with excited and zealous congregations, and the clergy were not less resolved than on the pre vious Sunday to abstain from reading the Declara tion — none read it who had refused to do so before; and the King, having now seen in what manner his intemperate zeal had been received in the metropolis, caused a citation to be served upon the Archbishop and his suffragans who had signed the petition, summoning them to appear before the council on the 8th of June. But before that interview is recorded, it may be well to consider the reception which the Decla ration met with in the country at large. The Bishops of Durham and Rochester being members of the Ecclesiastical Commission, of course ordered their clergy to read it; as also did Barlow, the bishop of Reception ofthe Declaration. 121 Lincoln ; Crofts, the bishop of Hereford ; Cartwright, bishop of Chester ; and Watson, bishop of S. David's. The rest of the Bench expressed their approbation of the Bishops' petition, and adhered to the policy of the Archbishop. Burnet states that the Declaration was not read in above two hundred churches through out the country. One clergyman, " more pleasantly than gravely," told his congregation, that although he was bound to read it they were not bound to hear it. It is not impossible that, apart from the occasion, some may have cordially acquiesced in the senti ments of the Declaration, and it may have been a struggle in their minds, whether an abstract good was to be lost because of the infelicitous occasion upon which it was offered. Barlow, the bishop of Lincoln, with a reputation for profound learning, seems to have experienced some such mental per plexity. Although he desired his clergy to read the Declaration on the appointed days in their several churches, if any scrupled the doing so he readily allowed their excuse. On the other hand, Cart wright not only required his clergy to obey the order in council, but even promoted an address of thanks to the King amongst them, for what James had said in the Declaration of his intention to protect the Protestant bishops and the clergy. We may now revert to the troubles of Sancroft and his com panions. On the recommendation of Lord Clarendon,* the Bishops had consulted with Sir Robert Sawyer, on the previous morning, how they were to conduct themselves in the council chamber. They attended, therefore, on the 8th, not unfortified with legal * See Clarendon's Diary under the date. 122 The Bishops before the Privy Council. advice. The Archbishop and his suffragans were graciously received by James in the council cham ber, but were immediately subjected to the inter rogations of the Chancellor. " Is this the petition," said Jeffreys, taking it from the council table, and showing it to Sancroft, " that was written and signed by your Grace, and which these Bishops presented to his Majesty?" Sancroft then addressed himself to the King :— " Sir," he said, " I am called hither as a criminal, which I never was before in my life, and little thought I ever should be, especially before your Majesty; but since it is my unhappiness to be so at this time, I hope your Majesty will not be offended that I am cautious of answering questions. No man is obliged to answer questions which may tend to the accusing of himself." James called this chicanery, and expressed a hope that the Archbishop would not deny his own writing. Some altercation ensued, when the Bishop of S. Asaph remarked, in the spirit he thought most accordant with James's views, " All divines of all Christian churches agree in this, that no man in our circumstances is obliged to answer any such questions." The King impa tiently pressing his demands for an answer to the question, Sancroft, after declaring that no obligation rested upon them to do so, said, " If your Majesty lays your command upon us we shall answer it, in trust upon your Majesty's justice and generosity that We shall not suffer for our obedience; as we must, if our answer should be brought in evidence against us.'' The King seemed as much afraid of commit ting himself as the Bishops, for he immediately re joined, " No ; I will not command you, if you will deny your own hand : I know not what to say to The Bishops before the Privy Council. 123 you;" and Jeffreys came to his relief, and ordered them to withdraw to the ante-room. A quarter of an hour elapsed, when they were recalled, and the Chancellor addressed them, saying, " His Majesty has commanded me to require you to answer this question : Whether these be your hands that are set to this petition?" The King signified the same; and Sancroft, having taken the petition into his hand and read it over, answered — "I own that I wrote this petition, and that this is my hand." The rest of the Bishops also acknowledged their hands. Upon which they were all told again to withdraw. On their return to the Council-chamber, Jeffreys signified that it was his Majesty's pleasure that they should, for having presented that petition, be proceeded against in Westminster Hall. There now ensued a long and obstinate discussion on the subject of the recognizances, which the King and the Chancellor required the Bishops to enter into, but which they, under legal instruction, positively re fused to do. Twice were they again made to with draw, and twice again were they recalled. When the Archbishop said that he had been warned by the best counsel in town not to enter into recognizances, James replied (what was certainly most true, but what was justified by his own conduct), "You will believe others before you will beheve me." In the course of the discussion they were also interrogated about the publication of the petition, and the distribution in the country of a certain letter, since supposed to have been written by Lord Halifax, dissuading the clergy from reading the Declaration. But, as far as they were able, they avoided answering any ques tions, and contented themselves with demanding a 124 They are sent to the Tower. copy of the charge which was to be preferred against them. On their being at last sent out of the Council- chamber, the Earl of Berkeley followed them, to en deavour once more to persuade them to enter into recognizances. The Archbishop, however, and the others, remained firm in their resolution not to do so, and soon after came Mr. Riley, the serjeant-at- arms, with a warrant, signed by seventeen privy councillors, requiring him to transport the Bishops to the Tower ; and another, addressed to Sir Edward Hales, the lieutenant of the Tower, authorizing him to retain them in his custody, to await their trial for " contriving, making, and publishing a seditious libel in writing, against his Majesty and his govern ment."* It was thought expedient to convey these vene rable champions of the Church from Whitehall to the Tower by the river. The aspect of the Thames, at that time of day, was widely different from what it now presents to the beholder. Its waters were neither spanned by the numerous bridges which are so famihar to the present generation, nor traversed by the crowded smoky steamboats by which they are now almost monopolized. Its banks were then more accessible to those who desired to visit them, and at intervals the green trees overhung them, where now the spectator beholds nothing but an array of shapeless buildings devoted to every variety of manufacture. It was, of course, well known in London, that this was the day on which the Bishops were cited to appear before James's papistic council, and numbers anxiously waited to hear the result of the interview above recorded. The knowledge * See Singer's Clarendon Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 483. They are sent to the Tower. 125 that the Bishops were being conveyed by barge to the Tower seems to have spread with great rapidity. People of all classes hastened to the river. Under any circumstances the spectacle would have been a moving one, and the crowds were not unnaturally excited to the highest pitch. Some pushed off in wherries; others hailed them from the shore, be seeching their blessings. When they arrived at the Tower Wharf they found a vast concourse of people, who, kneeling down on either side of the way by which they were to pass from the water to the Tower, amidst many expressions of love and affection im plored their blessings. The Bishops, who probably felt as much for James as themselves, were rather humbled than exalted by these demonstrations in their favour, and commanded the people to be loyal ; and as soon as they had got within the precincts of their prison they hastened to the chapel, to be present at the Evening Service. Nothing could have been more appropriate than the Second Lesson which is appointed to be read upon that day, wherein the Apostle exhorts the servants of God to approve themselves as his ministers in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, &c. The very soldiers of the garrison shared in the popular sympathy and excitement. In the evening they toasted the prisoners whom they were set to guard. When Sir Edward Hales sent a message, commanding them to desist from so doing, he was told that it was of no avail, for they would drink no other toast. Every one of note in London, but such as were committed to James's policy, called at the Tower to signify their respect and sympathy. Two days after their commitment the Queen was delivered 126 Birth of a Prince of Wales. of a young prince ; and Clarendon relates in his Diary, that upon that day he kissed hands and con gratulated James on the birth of an heir, and then went to the Tower to visit the Bishops.* And it certainly had been well for James had he seized this opportunity of proclaiming an amnesty, and so have escaped from the dilemma in which his folly had involved him. Amongst other visitors to the Bishops were ten Nonconformist Ministers — a circumstance particularly mortifying to James — who had done his utmost of late to inflame the chronic suspicion and animosity prevailing between Churchmen and Dis senters. In a work of this kind it would be out of place to bring forward all the arguments which have been adduced pro and con on the subject of the birth of this Prince of Wales. It is certain, if James was disposed to countenance so base an act as the im position of a supposititious child upon the nation, numbers of his subjects were in a frame of mind which disposed them to believe anything, and to con vert the merest trifles into justifications of their suspicion. The belief that a child would be imposed upon the country was very prevalent before the Queen was put to bed. And, singularly enough, James, in the history of his own life, speaks of cir cumstances as happening unfortunately for him on that occasion, which Burnet and others believe he designedly brought about, that he might the better accomplish this fraud. Thus it is often said that the Bishops were sent to the Tower on the eve of the * See Clarendon's Diary June 10, 1688 ; Burnet, Hist, of his Own Time, vol. iii. p. 221 ; a Layman's Life of Bishov Ken, p. 258 ; Evelyn's Diary under the date. Birth of a Prince of Wales. 127 birth, or pretended birth, that the Archbishop, whose place it would have been to have attended on that occasion in the Queen's chamber, might be out of the way. Now James complains that the Bishops drove him to send them to the Tower by their obsti nate refusal to enter into recognizances. He says he would have been contented with the Bishops' word alone. So James's enemies state that he hur ried the Princess Anne to Bath, whither she was going for her health, that she might not be present at the Queen's accouchement ; but James relates that " he earnestly pressed the Princess to stay until the Queen should be dehvered : but the doctor's opinion pleaded all delays dangerous."* At any rate, itis certain that the Queen's chamber was filled with privy councillors at the time of the reputed birth ; but, after all, that event never exercised the influence upon pubhc affairs it was expected to do. The Romanists hailed it as a most propitious circum stance, for they beheved that the triumph of their cause no longer rested upon the precarious life of one individual, whilst the Protestants could no longer hope that with that life, at any rate, would terminate the struggle in which they were involved for their rehgion. Both were deceived. The only effect the birth of a prince really had upon the course of pubhc events, was to hasten on that revolution which was so soon to happen. The chief opponents of the King, perceiving that nothing was to be gained by patience, proceeded to action. The Bishops remained in the Tower until the 15th of June, when (it being the first day of * James's Life in Macpherson's State Papers, vol. i. p. 151 ; Rapin, vol. iii. p. 266. 128 The Bishops are released. Term), on the motion ofthe Attorney-General, they were brought up to Westminster Hall. The same interest and excitement which had been shown on their committal appeared upon this occasion. The crowds assembled to meet them on their disembark ation were immense,* and, as had happened on the Tower Wharf, they passed through a lane of enthu siastic sympathisers as they hastened from the water to the court. Before the information was read much time was consumed in the discussion of legal techni calities.! The counsel for the Bishops maintained that the prisoners were not properly in custody,! because the whole wording of the commitment was informal and illegal. The Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Wright, Mr. Justice Holloway, and Mr. Justice Allybone, could find no fault in the commit ment, and gave it as their opinion that the informa tion should be read, which was done accordingly. Justice Powell did not deliver an opinion upon this subject. The counsel for the Bishops then wished to put in a plea of abatement, on the score ofthe Bishops' privileges as peers ; but this being overruled by a majority ofthe Bench, the Chief Justice declared the Bishops must at once plead guilty or not guilty. As the indictment charged them with nothing less than conspiring the diminution of the royal authority, by seditiously fabricating a libel, it was for more than mere form's sake that they pleaded not guilty. Wright then gave directions for the Court to take the re cognizance of the Archbishop in 2001., and that of the others in 1001. a-piece, and then dismissed them, * Clarendon's Diary, June 15, 1688. t Howell's State Trials, vol. xii. p. 275, 276. X Lord Campbell's Lives ofthe Chief Justices, vol. ii. p. 104. Character ofthe Legal Profession. 129 after an intimation that they must appear that day fortnight to take their trial. As soon as it got abroad that the Bishops were once again at liberty the enthusiasm of the populace redoubled. Those pastors, who are so often regarded with bitter jealousy, and thought incapable of the exercise of courageous public conduct, because no occasion may offer for the display of it, were now regarded everywhere as confessors. On emerging from the Hall they were so beset by the mob en treating their blessings, that they could with diffi culty escape to their homes. Lord Clarendon tells us that he rescued the Bishop of S. Asaph from a crowd of these admirers, whilst the Archbishop and the others were compelled to drive by circuitous routes to their respective places of abode. Before we proceed to the actual trial, it may not be unacceptable to the reader to have some account of those legal functionaries who were engaged in it. In speaking of the legal profession in the days of Charles and James, we have little scope for com mendation. The extravagant notions which both these sovereigns had imbibed under the tuition of Louis XIV., upon the subject ofthe royal prerogative, induced them to advance to high positions such lawyers as would promote, without scruple, their views. Indeed they required not lawyers so much as courtiers, who, clothed with the outward symbols of authority, would set the actual law at defiance. Hence the elevation of the profligate Jeffreys, and the train of sycophants whom he was instrumental in bringing into notice. Amongst these, Chief Jus tice Wright enjoyed (as we are told by Lord Camp bell) an unenviable pre-eminence. When at the bar K 130 Character ofthe Legal Profession. his glaring ignorance of his profession at last for feited him all practice. After this he was convicted of perjury, but being a cup-companion of. Jeffreys' whilst he was himself chief justice, that individual told him, that although he could not be a lawyer he might and should be a judge ; and he was accordingly advanced to the Bench, for the express purpose of furthering the wishes of the King and the Duke regarding the prerogative. Such was the character of the presiding judge at the memorable trial of the Seven Bishops.* Allybone was a determined Roman Catholic, and therefore, according to the laws of the land, could not strictly be a judge at all. James had issued some ably-drawn-up injunctions to the judges, to endeavour in their circuits to reconcile the people to his Declaration for Liberty of Con science, which Allybone of course obeyed. Holloway and Powell were less exceptionable, particularly the latter, who had the reputation of being a profound lawyer. The Solicitor-General, Sir William Williams, who conducted the prosecution against the Bishops, had once been a popular Speaker of the House of Commons, and heavily fined for attacking the King; but he had since made his peace with royalty, and now, with the utmost effrontery, advocated the pre tensions of James with all his force against the Bishops. The counsel for the defendants were not all of them free from the imputation of questionable conduct, for Sawyer and Finch had once been de voted royalists when attorney and solicitor-generals, but they now appeared as the champions of civil liberty. But Pollexfen (a leading counsel for the defence) was a great lawyer, and he had insisted * See Campbell's Lives ofthe Chief Justices : Wright. Trial ofthe Bishops. 131 upon retaining Somers, who was deemed by some too young a man to be engaged in so important a case. On Friday, the 29th of June, S. Peter's day, the Bishops appeared in Westminster Hall, to take their trial. Great, as may be imagined, was the concourse of people which assembled both in the Hall and its vicinity. The Bishops were attended by many peers, and the court altogether is described as having presented so impressive an appearance that the Chief Justice was overawed, and with difficulty sustained his usual character of an overbearing and browbeating magistrate. The first point to be es tablished was the publication of the so-called libel in the county of Middlesex ; and this the counsel for the Crown were so nearly failing in doing that the Chief Justice was on the point of directing the jury immediately to return a verdict of " not guilty," when some interruption in the court ensued, and in the meantime the arrival of the Lord President Sun derland was announced, whose evidence, it was thought, would estabhsh the pubhcation. All that this went to show was, that he introduced the Bishops into the presence-chamber, and that they presented a petition to James, but whether that was the docu ment upon which the information was founded he could not swear. This imperfect testimony was admitted by Wright as conclusive for the publica tion, and the trial was suffered to proceed. The counsel for the defendants certainly had both the popular side and the easiest cause to plead. They inveighed, with much warmth, against the King's dispensing power. When Sir Robert Sawyer was speaking upon this head, the Chief Justice pre- 132 Trial of the Bishops. tended that he ought not to allow the power of the King to suspend the laws to be so much as questioned in the Court, but Powell remonstrated with him upon this, and so he consented to hear the counsel upon a point, upon which indeed the whole merits of the case depended.* As Mr. Somers is considered to have distinguished himself very highly upon this occasion, and although already much accounted of as a rising lawyer, to have here established his fame, I shall give some account of his short but unanswerable speech. He began by alluding to a case, in which certain parties had pleaded a royal dispensation in their favour of a statute of Edward VI. , where it was definitively ruled that there could be no abrogation or suspen sion (which is a temporary abrogation) of a statute without an act of the Legislature. He affirmed that it was not only lawful, but the duty of a subject, rescribere principi, if he believed his prince was obliging him to commit an unlawful action, and such was the manner in which the Bishops had acted. They did not pretend to intrude upon the secret counsels of their sovereign. They stirred not in the matter until it was brought home to themselves, and then they only protested against being instrumental in publishing the Declaration. He reminded the Court that the matter of the petition had been proved to be true from the journals of the Houses of Parlia ment, for it had been over and over again affirmed in Parliament, that the King had no such prerogative as he pretended to in the Declaration. " Seditious, my Lord," said this able advocate, " it could not be ; * See Howell's State Trials; Price's Letter to the Duke of Beaufort; Lord Campbell's Chief Justices, vol. ii. p. 107. Trial ofthe Bishops. 133 nor could it possibly stir up sedition in the minds of the people, because it was presented to the King in private and alone. False it could not be, because the matter of it is true. There could be nothing of malice, because the occasion was not sought — the thing was pressed upon them. And a libel it could not be, because the intent was innocent, and they kept within the bounds set by the Act of Parliament, that gives the subject leave to apply to his prince by petition when he is aggrieved."* The reply of the Attorney-General to these argu ments was very rambling and weak. He challenged the counsel for the defence to show whether any similar petition had ever been presented to a king. As to the severe words of the indictment, he excused them on the score of legal technicalities; for, he reasoned, if it were a hbel, it must of necessity be seditious. The reply of the Solicitor-General was longer, and, as far as a contempt for the first prin ciples of law was concerned, infinitely bolder. He maintained that the Bishops had no right of petition ing the Crown out of Parliament — a doctrine against which Powell strongly protested, and to which even the Chief Justice demurred. He, nevertheless, in sisted so much and so often upon his opinion, that the Bishops should have acquiesced in the commands of the King, whatever their sentiments might have been, until the meeting of Parliament, that he at last provoked the audible expression of disapprobation from the crowd in the court. The only precedents of any note referred to in support of the prosecu- * See Howell's State Trials, vol. xii. 396, 397, edit. 1812. 134 Trial ofthe Bishops. tion had, in fact, been created by James himself since his accession.* In summing up, the Chief Justice avoided alto gether the question of the King's dispensing power. He merely insisted that the publication of the peti tion had been proved by the evidence of the Lord President, that it was calculated to embarrass the government, and, therefore, that it was, in his opinion, a libel; at the same time, he invited the other judges to deliver their opinions. Mr. Justice Hollo way then said, " That he could not think it a libel, if no seditious intention was manifested, which did not appear." Powell spoke out with much plain ness : " Truly," said he, " I cannot see anything of sedition or any other crime fixed upon these reverend fathers, my lords the Bishops." " He could see," he said, "no difference between the King's dispensing with ecclesiastical laws or any other laws; and if this were to be allowed, all the legislature would be in the King; which," he continued, "is a thing worth considering, and I leave the issue to God and your consciences." Allybone, the Roman Catholic Judge, gave his voice against the Bishops without any sort of hesitation. " I will not," said he, in concluding some exceedingly weak remarks, " further debate the prerogatives of the Crown, or the privi leges of the subject; but I am clearly of opinion that these venerable Bishops did meddle with that which did not belong to them : they took upon themselves to contradict the actual exercise of the government, which, I think, no particular persons may do." f The * See Howell's State Trials, vol. xii. 415, 416, edit. 1812. t Ibid. pp. 427-429. Their Acquittal. 135 jury now asked for the Statute-book, and having drank some wine on the invitation of the Chief Justice, retired to consider their verdict. They were shut up all the night, during which much altercation was overheard, which was afterwards attributed to Mr. Arnold, the King's brewer, who persisted until six o'clock in the morning in maintaining that they ought to be convicted. On the following day Sancroft and his com panions again appeared in Court, and it having been ascertained that the jury were agreed upon their verdict, they were called in; and Sir Samuel Astry put the question, Whether they found the de fendants, or any of them, guilty of the misdemeanour whereof they were impeached? when the foreman, Sir Robert Langley, replied, " Not guilty." On the verdict being repeated, several loud shouts were raised — so loud, indeed, that the very timbers of the old hall seemed to tremble. Wright strove to en force order, and a gentleman of Gray's Inn, who had been conspicuous for his sympathy for the Bishops, was laid hold of; but after a severe reprimand from Wright he was suffered to go. Such was the termination of this trial, so memo rable in the annals of the Church of England. No thing could restrain the demonstrations of joy ex hibited by the people, or moderate the praises which they bestowed upon the prelates, who had thus faith fully and boldly discharged their duties to the Church. Bonfires and illuminations took place in all parts of the kingdom in commemoration of their acquittal. The Bishops were compared to the seven stars in the right hand of Christ, described in the Apocalypse. Even the army could not be kept from testify- 136 Conduct of James thereon. ing its sympathy with the popular rejoicing. As James, who had gone thither the previous day, was leaving the camp at Hounslow, with the Earl of Fe- versham, he was surprised by hearing a loud shout, and bade his companion inquire the cause. The Earl, when he returned, told the King " it was no thing but the soldiers shouting upon the news of the Bishops being acquitted." " Do you call that nothing ? " replied James ; "but so much the worse for them."* It was thus he continued to meet the crisis into which he had brought his affairs. Undeterred by all he saw and heard, and urged on by the fatal persuasion that in his case concession was ruin, he became, in fact, the victim of his own tyranny. Baffled and an noyed by the verdict which had been given in favour of the Bishops, he disgraced the judges — Hollo way and Powell being dismissed from their posts ; and he determined to bring the conduct of Sancroft and his companions before the illegal tribunal of the Ec clesiastical Commissioners. Some members, how ever, of the Commission were beginning to falter in their devotion to the wishes of the King. They were reluctant to entertain the question, although they issued citations, on the 12th of July, to the Arch deacons of the several dioceses, to appear before them, and show cause why they had not obeyed the King's orders with respect to the Declaration, f Of this order, by general consent, the Archdeacons took no notice ; so the Commissioners issued a second, requiring them to make the matter ofthe Declaration a subject of inquiry in their visitations, and to hold these before the 15th of the following November. * Kennett, quoted by Howell, xii. 431 ; Kettlewell's Life. f Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. p. 93-96. Prudent Measures of Sancroft. 137 T3ut the work of the Commissioners was, in fact, at an end. Sprat at this time thought proper to excuse himself from further attendance at the meetings of the Commissioners. The remaining members, dis concerted and dismayed at the current of affairs, adjourned all further proceedings until December. The Archbishop seized the present opportunity, when men's feelings were favourably disposed to wards the heads ofthe Church, to issue — no doubt, with their approbation and consent — a paper to his suffragans, containing various recommendations to the clergy, on the way in which it behoved them to conduct themselves at this critical period. They were advised to make a practice of perusing and con sidering their ordination vows, and to be careful to regulate their hves in conformity with those engage ments. They were recommended to observe resi dence, and show a reasonable hospitahty ; to be dili gent in catechising the young people of their respec tive parishes ; to read pubhcly the daily prayers ; and where possible, observe the Ember days, and conform their practice to the directions contained in the ru brics ; to have monthly celebrations of the Commu nion ; to preach against the usurpations of foreign power, according to the spirit of the first canon, but at the same time to insist upon the utmost loyalty towards the reigning sovereign. The clergy were also recommended to maintain a fair correspondence with the gentry and nobility, and to warn their flocks against Popish emissaries, and to attend diligently to the sick and dying, who were, more than others, subject to the insidious snares of these deceivers. Lastly, they were advised to cultivate amicable re lations with the Dissenters. To walk in wisdom 138 The Prince of Orange prepares towards those who were not of the communion of the Church of England, and to take every oppor tunity of persuading them that the Bishops of the Church of England are irreconcilable enemies to the errors and impositions of the Church of Rome.* Wise men are seldom transported with a sudden rush of popularity. Congratulations poured in upon the Archbishop, from Holland, from the Dissenters, and the Scotch Presbyterians ; but he bore all with meekness, and maintained his loyalty to his King. The reader's attention must now be invited to the conduct of the Prince of Orange. There cannot be a doubt that, from the accession of James to the time then present, the possibility ofthe Prince undertaking in person to vindicate the liberties of England had been often canvassed, both in this country and at the Hague. Even at Rome, as early as 1687, it was known that the more forward malcontents in Eng land were hoping for the dethronement of James, and the accession of his daughter and her consort to the sovereignty of this country. It is, indeed, im possible to believe that the Prince of Orange was merely under the influence of a temporary impulse in making the descent which he did upon the shores of England. He had long contemplated this im portant step. In 1686, Lord Mordaunt had visited the Hague, to endeavour to persuade the Prince at that time " to undertake the business of England;" but William was too shrewd a statesman to embark in so perilous an undertaking, without safer grounds to go upon than the suggestions of this romantic nobleman^ Nevertheless he promised to hold himself ready for * See the original articles given in Howell, vol. xii. pp. 480-482. for his Expedition to these shores. 139 action, should circumstances warrant his making any attempt to oblige James, by force, to respect the laws and liberties of the nation.* The two events which induced him to adopt the decisive course which he did, and at the time which he did, were the birth of the Prince of Wales and the trial and acquittal of the Bishops. Upon the first intelligence of the birth of the Prince, Wilham preserved the show of loyalty and allegiance which he had ever pretended for his father-in-law, and sent over Zuylestein to congratulate James upon the birth of an heir, whilst prayers were offered up for his pre servation in the Princess's Chapel at the Hague. But in a short time, when he became more accurately informed of the state of public feeling in England, he found it expedient to alter his entire views upon this subject. The crisis had arrived, which Wilham had ever determined with himself should be the signal for his personal interference in the affairs of Eng land. The discontent and indignation of the Eng hsh nation at last embodied themselves in that form for which he had been patiently waiting. On the very night of the day upon which the Bishops were acquitted, Admiral Herbert was secretly despatched to the Hague, with such an invitation to William to come over and vindicate the violated rights and liber ties of the country as he had first demanded, before embarking upon such an expedition. This paper had been signed in cipher by the Earls of Shrews bury, Devonshire, and Danby, Lord Lumley, the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Bristol, Sidney, * See Ranke's History ofthe Popes, vol. iii. p. 180; Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 262. 140 The Prince of Orange prepares and Russell, on the 13th of June. The Prince immediately decided to obey the call. The first step which he appears to have taken on the advice of Admiral Herbert was, to profess an entire disbelief in the birth of the Prince of Wales. In this it must be remarked, that he only followed what he was assured was the general opinion in England. The prayer for the young Prince, which had been read in the Princess's Chapel, was now discontinued. But when James, shortly afterwards, remonstrated with his daughter upon this circum stance, she pretended the omission had only been occasional and accidental. Yet, besides this demon stration of the view now taken at the Hague regard ing this birth, when the envoy of James gave an entertainment to celebrate the event, the States declined to attend, — influenced, as was said, by the Prince.* The Prince and Princess too, who had sent money to the relief of the expelled Fellows of Magdalen College, thought proper to offer the Archbishop and his brethren their hearty congratu lations upon their acquittal. Thus did William and his consort profess a constant loyalty towards James, whilst they entered into correspondence with all whom James had now aggrieved in England. The time, however, was arrived for William to declare himself. Secure of the co-operation of the leading politicians in England, he had now to enlist the sympathy of the States in his enterprise, and to cover his designs from the eyes of his continental * D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft, pp. 167 and 188; the Princess Mary's letter to James, in Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 156. for his Expedition to these shores. 141 neighbours, as well as from James. There was not much difficulty attending the first of these transac tions. It was fully believed in Holland, that if James should succeed in reducing the government of England to a despotism, and in establishing the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be defenceless against the machinations of Louis XIV., and sooner or later fall a prey to France. It was agreed, therefore, that the English lords at the Hague should solicit from the States assistance against the proceedings of James. This was accordingly done, and met with the answer which was generally anticipated. In the meantime, Wilham pushed on his preparations with the utmost secrecy and dispatch. A fortunate concurrence of circumstances enabled him to accomplish the other point, and for some time to conceal the real object of those preparations, which were too extensive to escape the notice of adverse pohticians. The ambition and arrogance of Louis XIV. had provoked the hostility and jealousy of nearly every European power, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. Even in the metropolis of Christendom the Prince of Orange was more popular than the French King. The leading idea of those European pohticians who were not in the pay of Louis, was that of putting an effectual check to his schemes of aggression. The mild and enlightened Innocent XI. was at this time the occupant of the Papal chair.; and he undoubtedly sympathised with the rest of Europe in this view of what was considered the general good. The fate of James was a matter of secondary importance. Nay, it was beheved by many at Rome, that more was to be hoped for the 142 The state ofthe Continent members of the Church of Rome in England, from William's views of toleration, than from James's precipitate and intemperate advocacy. Whether the Pope was really privy to the design of William against his father-in-law seems doubtful : at any rate, everything was subordinate in his mind to his opposition to Louis. The French King had bearded the Pope in his own capital, as well as curtailed his jurisdiction in the Gallican Church. He had insisted upon a barbarous and obsolete privilege, which had formerly been conceded to the representatives of foreign powers residing in Rome, called the right of asylum, by which the precincts of their palaces were converted into places of refuge for all manner of abandoned characters. The Pope was, in conse quence, much irritated with Louis, and was little disposed to abet any cause of which he was the patron. It happened at this time that the old Elector of Cologne, the brother of Maximilian, died, and a great contest ensued for the election of his successor. The Elector- Archbishop of Cologne had taken into his confidence Cardinal de Furstemburg, with a view of having him as his successor in the archbishopric. Furstemburg had obtained his cardi nal's hat through the instrumentality of France, and Louis now espoused his election against the nominee of the Emperor of Austria,. Prince Clement, the brother of the Elector of Bavaria. Both the candi dates, by the canons of the Church, were ineligible, and therefore were obliged to appeal to the Pope, who confirmed the election of Prince Clement.* The authority of the Elector of Cologne extended almost to the confines of Brabant, by which a way * See Ranke'a History ofthe Popes, vol. iii. p. 178. favours the Expedition. 143 lays open to Holland ; and Louis, mortified by the result of the election, threatened to resort to force. Under pretence of meeting this emergency, of guarding his own frontier, and, if necessary, of supporting the decision of the Pope, Wilham formed a camp between Grave and Nimeguen,* whither he moved those forces, whose real destination was the shores of this country. For some time these tactics of the Prince of Orange served to defer the dis covery of his great project, or at least to inspire those with irresolution whose suspicions were aroused, but not confirmed. * Burnet, Hist, ofhis Own Time, vol. iii. p. 291. 144 CHAPTER V. (1688.) The French Minister at the Hague informs his master of the real object of William's preparations — Louis offers his services to James, who declines them — Sunderland turns Roman Catholic — The King is at last assured of the Prince of Orange's inten tion — He issues a Proclamation, and summons the Bishops — The Fellows of Magdalen College are restored — The Orange Expedition sails for the coast of England — James again resorts to the Bishops — Landing and progress of the Prince of Orange — The flight and return of King James — His final withdrawal from the Kingdom — The effects ofthe Revolution upon the state of Religion in the Country. It was not probable that the Hague could be filled with discontented English noblemen, and all these vast preparations be carried on, without any sus picions of the real designs of William being aroused in the minds of those whose interest it was to scruti nise everything he did. The Count D'Avaux, Louis the Fourteenth's envoy at the Hague, was one who entertained suspicions of the ulterior project of Wil liam for some time before he could assure himself of the fact. He communicated these impressions to his master the King, and they were soon confirmed from another source. A servant, who had been dismissed from the employ of the Princess Mary, opened a correspondence with Sir Bevill Skelton, The object ofthe Prince of Orange is suspected. 145 James's representative at the Court of Versailles, and assured him that he had matters of the greatest importance from the Hague, with which he earnestly desired to acquaint the King of England. Skelton transmitted this intelligence to James, but that Prince had allowed his bigotry to lull him into such fatal security that he was blind to every danger that threatened, and therefore could believe in no warning which he received. Louis XIV., at length con vinced of the real object of William's preparations, not only apprised James of his son-in-law's plans, but offered him any assistance ; but this James declined, as is said, upon the advice of the Earl of Sunderland.* It was natural that James should be slow in accepting the overtures of the French King, for he well knew that nothing could be more un popular in England than a new French alliance. He, moreover, felt his own dignity reflected upon by the patronising offers of Louis, and regarded, or professed so to do, the whole story of William's hostile inten tions towards himself as fabulous. The character of the English monarch, as well as his true interests, seem to have been better understood by Louis than they were by himself. Louis took advice of Sir Bevill Skelton, who, on his own responsibility, re commended that D'Avaux should be instructed to acquaint the States, " That the King his master be lieved the arming in Holland was against England, and that, considering the close alliance subsisting between him and the King of England, he should deem the first hostile movement which was made against that country as a declaration of war against France." The States returned an evasive answer to * Rapin, vol. iii. p. 277. Ii 146 Sunderland turns Roman Catholic. this message. They inquired of the Marquis of Albeville what was the meaning of this new alliance between his master and the French King. They instructed Van Citters to make the same inquiry in London, and assumed the attitude ofthe party ag grieved. James immediately resented what he deemed the officiousness of Louis. By the advice of Sunder land he altogether disavowed the ¦ proceedings of the French envoy at the Hague, he recalled Sir Bevill Skelton from France, and in return for his fidelity and zeal committed him to the Tower. What with the blinding effects of James's bigotry, the contradictory statements which reached him from D' Albeville, and the false and deceitful conduct of his chief minister Sunderland, the poor King would not allow himself to believe what he could scarcely have failed to suspect. Some have pro nounced Sunderland a traitor from first to last, whilst others, for the credit of the Prince of Orange, have denied this, although they have not spared one whose conduct, however interpreted, was full of ra pacity and deceit. In July, Sunderland thought proper to confess that he had been reconciled to the King's religion. It has been remarked that he chose to take this step when he did, as a mark of sincerity, or at least of sincerity in his attachment to James and his fortunes. It is argued that he became a rene gade to his own Church at a time when to do so was to expose himself to the rancour of popular derision, inasmuch as it was just after the acquittal of the Bishops, when the whole nation was arrayed in op position to the King and the Roman Catholic religion. But, under any circumstances, it is absurd to suppose that so astute a politician as Sunderland was ignorant Reasons for the step. 147 of the storm that was brewing in Holland. It is well known that his wife was in correspondence with one of the leading abettors of the Orange expedition. We therefore conclude, that in proportion as Sunder land advanced in the hazardous game which he was playing, he found it expedient to resort to fresh artifices to conceal his real motives from his royal master. He well knew the utter weakness of James, and that the open avowal of being converted to the Roman Catholic religion by his persuasions was an irresistible appeal to his confidence. Escape was impossible, and to be unmasked at such a critical period might have cost him his life. He had but one course to pursue ; which was, to insure the favour of the Prince of Orange without a rupture with the King. He therefore pubhcly declared him self a Roman Catholic, even at a time when he was about to play more unequivocally than ever into the hands of William. This act was not improbably the means of saving his life, for James's suspicions of the fidelity of his minister began at last to be awa kened, when he could no longer doubt the truth ofthe French King's warnings respecting the Dutch invasion. This occurred in the middle of September. The absorbing effects of a ruling passion are proverbial, and certainly never was there a stronger evidence of this than in the history of James's efforts for the Church of Rome. Although his subjects had been so well apprised of the Orange expedition, that Tenison had actually mentioned it to Evelyn in August, the King and his Court, as if it were the most improbable thing in the world, were now filled with sudden consternation. At last he began to adopt measures of precau- 148 The King begins tion and conciliation. He recruited both the army and the navy. He called over additional troops from Ireland, and with an army of 40,000 men he con sidered himself quite a match for the Prince of Orange, supposing only that his soldiers could be relied upon ; and the fleet, under the command of the Earl of Dartmouth, was increased to the number of thirty men-of-war. He issued a proclamation, con taining many promises in favour of the Church of England, in which he also acquainted his subjects that he had received undoubted intelligence that the Prince of Orange was preparing an expedition against this country. He declared it his intention that Roman Catholics should continue ineligible for Par liament. In the same document he announced that he had thought it prudent to recall the writs, which he had already issued for summoning a Parliament. This proclamation was pubhshed on the 28th of September, 1688. The King now sought repeated interviews with those prelates whose loyalty he had so unreasonably called in question. They were summoned to the royal presence on the same day as that on which the proclamation was issued, and, in consequence of what passed on that occasion, the Bishop of London was immediately reinstated in his place and authority, and the Bishops were again appointed to wait upon the King on the 2d of October. At the same time, the King also, after granting audience to some of the City functionaries, sent back the ancient charter of the city of London by the hands of the Chancellor.* James could not consult with the Bishops at the * Rapin, vol. iii. p. 279; Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, ¦vol. i. p. 515. to make concessions. 149 appointed time ; but on the following day he admitted them to his presence, and allowed them to tender to him their advice on the perilous state of the nation, as Sancroft had earnestly requested him to do. The Archbishop was, upon this occasion, accom panied by eight ofhis brethren, and by the permission of James he read a paper, in which the recommenda tions of the bench were digested into ten articles. This was no season for courtly phrases. The only advice which could profit James, unpalatable as it may have been, was such as was now offered, and which was as follows : — They recommended him, "1. To put the administration of government into the hands of such of the nobihty and gentry as were legally qualified for it; 2. To annul the Ecclesiastical Commission; 3. To withdraw, and in future withhold, all dispensa tions, under which any person not lawfully qualified had been, or might be, put into offices of trust and preferment in Church or State, or in the Universities, especially such as have cure of souls annexed to them, and particularly to restore the President and Fellows of Magdalen College ; 4th. To withdraw all licenses for Roman Cathohcs to teach in public schools; 5. To desist from the dispensing power, until that point had been freely and calmly debated and settled in Parliament; 6. To prohibit the foreign Bishops, who styled themselves Vicars Apostolical, from further invading the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which is by law vested in the Bishops of the Enghsh Church ; 7. To fill the vacant bishoprics and other ecclesiastical promotions in England and Ireland, and, in particular, the archiepiscopal chair of York, which had been so long vacant, and on which a whole pro vince depended; 8. To restore the ancient charters 150 The Bishops, consulted. of the corporations, which had been forfeited; 9. To issue writs with all convenient speed for calling a free and regular Parliament, for securing the uni formity of the Church of England, due liberty of conscience, and the liberties and properties of the subject, and for establishing between himself and all his people a mutual confidence and good understand ing; 10. To permit the Bishops to offer to his Majesty such motives and arguments as might, by God's grace, be effectual to persuade him to return to the communion of the Church of England, into whose most holy Catholic faith he had been baptized and educated, and to which it was their earnest prayer to God that he might be reunited." When we consider the state ofthe country at that time, we must admit that these recommendations were unexceptionable. As to the last, however im probable it was that James would listen to any arguments for his return to the Church of England, or, if he did, that he would be the least influenced by them, it certainly became the Bishops to make the overture. Had a conference taken place, and had James professed himself satisfied with the reasoning of the Bishops, and agreed thereupon to conform to the Church of England, would the world have given him any credit for sincerity ? It is doubtful whether such a step on his part would even have prevented the Revolution, although the Crown might have been secured to the Prince of Wales. Some of the recommendations the King immediately complied with; but, in truth, concession was now in vain. Two days after he had received the Bishops he an nulled the Ecclesiastical Commission. He would not xecall the indulgence which he had issued for liberty The Fellows of Magdalen College restored. 151 of conscience, although urged to do so by Sunderland ; because, whilst such a step would have been most repugnant to his own feelings, he believed it would further alienate the Dissenters. After a considerable struggle with himself, and upon the advice of Ley- burn, the Vicar Apostolic, he gave instructions to the Bishop of Winchester to restore the ejected Fellows of Magdalen College. There were several circumstances attending this transaction which merit a detailed account.* James, it appears, sent for the Bishop of Win chester on the 12th of October, and commanded him, as he expresses it, to settle the society regularly. The Bishop was eager to put the King's commands into execution without delay; but, owing to some legal technicalities, he could not do so. In conse quence of this, before going to Oxford, Dr. Mews went down to Farnham, and caused a citation to be published at Oxford, intimating that it was his intention to reinstate the expelled Fellows on the 2d of November, and desiring their attendance at the College for that purpose. In the meantime, the Archbishop of Canterbury, anxious for the immediate settlement of this affair, expostulated with him on this delay, so that he was induced again to change his plans, and travel to Oxford on the 20th of October, intending to restore the Fellows on the following day. The city of Oxford was in a state of great excitement and full of rejoicing in consequence of James's concession, and the ejected Fellows had assembled and were waiting once more to take posses sion of their academical home. But an untoward cir cumstance still prevented their immediate restoration. * James's own Life, in Macph. Papers, vol. i. p. 159. 152 The Fellows of Magdalen College The Bishop had retired to rest, when he received a circular note from Sunderland, which had followed him from Farnham, summoning him with the other Bishops to attend the ..King in council on the 22d. The Bishop, -notwithstanding the reasonable remon strances of the Fellows, immediately started for London, without discharging the important duty which had brought him to Oxford. The vexation of the Fellows was great, and, from force of circum stances, the King himself shared in it. When the Bishop of Winchester appeared in the council-cham ber, James immediately asked him "if he had re stored the Fellows of Magdalen to their fellowships?" Being told that he had not, James displayed much displeasure, and desired him to return immediately to Oxford and do so. The President and the Fellows were accordingly reinstated in all their rights and privileges on the 25th of that month,* and Father Giffard and his companions, who had been intruded in their places, were with as little ceremony com pelled to withdraw. The want of despatch on the part of the Bishop of Winchester, as Visitor of the College, was inter preted, with great injustice, unfavourably towards James. Whilst all these delays were taking place, news reached London that tbe Prince of Orange had put to sea, but the fleet had, with much damage, been driven back by a violent storm. The King's enemies now gave out that, no sooner had this intelli gence arrived at Whitehall, than he repented of his concessions, and had sent for the Bishop of Win chester to countermand his order for the re-settlement * See original papers upon this subject in Macpherson's Papers, vol. i. p. 271. are restored. 153 of Magdalen College. A storm had really dispersed the fleet of William ; but this disaster did not hap pen until the day after that upon which the Bishops had been summoned to attend the King, so entirely without foundation was this fresh imputation upon James's sincerity.* The real object for which the Bishop of Win chester had been so hastily summoned to London, was to attend a meeting of Privy Councillors and others, called together to examine certain depositions, which were made respecting the birth of the Prince of Wales. It was time, indeed, for James to adopt some decisive measures in this matter. The advices which he now received from D' Albeville, acquainting him with the particulars of the threatened invasion, at the same time informed him how much stress the Prince of Orange and his English supporters placed upon what they pleased to call the "pretended birth of the Prince of Wales." The meeting was attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and, indeed, by all the leading official people who could be conveni ently summoned. The evidence which was adduced was conclusive, and scarcely one of those present any longer questioned the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales.f Sunderland, as President ofthe Council, conducted the inquiry ; but it was the last time that he acted as James's minister, who had now got thoroughly to suspect his fidelity, and on the 13th of October, the seals were taken abruptly from him, and were given to Lord Preston.J There were, * Burnet's Hist, ofthe Reign of King James IL, with notes, p. 361. See note. -j- D'Albeville's original letters. % Evelyn's Diary, 29th Oct. 1688. See Weiss, French Pro testant Refugees. 154 The Prince of Orange favoured by events. indeed, enough reasons for the King's suspicions. Sunderland was not only intimately acquainted with all "that transpired at the Hague, but it has been said, which is scarcely credible, that the Prince of Orange himself attributed no little importance to the assistance of this crooked and deceitful- minded nobleman. Yet one would have thought Wilham could well have afforded to dispense with these. The Prince was surrounded with Enghsh noblemen and gentlemen of the first consequence, the Earls of Macclesfield and Wiltshire, Lord Dum- blain (Lord Danby's heir), Lord Mordaunt, Campbell, Fletcher of Saltoun, who had been engaged with the Duke of Monmouth in his descent upon the shores of England, Sir Patrick Hume, and many others. He was supported also by a devoted band of French re fugees, at the head of whom was one of the bravest generals of France, Marshal Schomberg, who pre ferred to his king and country his religious con victions. These refugees aided William both with their swords and their money ; one of whom, the celebrated Rapin, has written the history of our coun try. Above all, William was favoured to the last by the state ofthe Continent; for the infatuation and improvidence of James had so alienated Louis, that he moved those forces which might still have kept the Prince in. check down to the Rhine, and so left all clear and open for Wilham to prosecute Ms designs. Before starting, the Prince deemed it expedient to prepare a " Declaration," or Manifesto, for imme diate distribution in England. Many draughts for such a document were sent from England, which William consigned to the Pensionary Fagel, who, by His Declaration. 155 his desire, embodied the principal heads contained in them in the official Declaration, and Burnet, who was invited by William to accompany the expedition as his chaplain, was commissioned to render this document into English; but by whose advice it was first of all considerably curtailed. It began with a summary of the grievances under which the English nation was labouring. It complained of James having arrogated to himself a dispensing power ; of his having established an Ecclesiastical Commis sion ; and also of his violating that principle of the Magna Charta, " That no man shall lose his hfe or goods but by the law of the land." It expatiated upon the injuries committed against the Church and the municipalities. It imputed these to his Majesty's evil counsellors, and threw the blame of the misgo- vernment upon them, who had, it affirmed, even made his Majesty's subjects apprehend, as in the case of the Bishops sent to the Tower, that a simple petition for the preservation of their rights would subject them to be treated as culprits. It stated that a plain remedy for all these evils was the calling of a Par liament, but that, under existing circumstances, it was impossible that a lawful Parliament could be summoned ; for many, to whose office it appertained to return members, being Papists, were illegally in truded into the posts which they at present occupied. It farther stated that the Prince had reason to be lieve that James's evil counsellors, for sinister ends, had published that the Queen had brought forth a son, when she had not. That since it was notorious that both he and his consort had a reversionary right in the kingdom, he could not excuse himself from espousing the cause of those who were suffering from 156 The States- General. James's arbitrary treatment, and to which he had been invited " by a great many lords, both spiritual and temporal, and by many gentlemen and other subjects of all ranks." It then went on to state, that for this reason the Prince had determined to come to England, with a sufficient force to defend him from the violence of James's evil counsellors, but with no other object than to see that a free and lawful Parliament was called, in the decisions of which, both as respected the birth of the Prince of Wales, and in all other matters, he pledged himself to acquiesce. Such was the substance of the Decla ration, the Prince proposed to distribute in England. In the meantime, intelligence of James's conces sions having reached the Hague, he thought proper, by way of postscript, to repudiate in the strongest language the notion that he had any design to conquer and enslave the nation, of which he had been accused. In reviewing the future conduct of the Archbishop and clergy, the spirit of this Decla ration should ever be borne in mind.* The States-General, at the same time, pubhshed their reasons for assisting the Prince, which have already been given above ; namely, their having been invited so to do by the English Lords, and their persuasion that, were James to succeed in his designs, and preserve an alliance with the King of France, it would be the ruin of their own country. As in every undertaking which bears any affinity to a conspiracy, not only varieties of opinion, but even great heats arise, it so happened that amongst Wilham's followers a certain Major Wildman, a republican, who was an exile from England, and had * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. pp. 286-296 ; Rapin, vol. iii. 283. The Prince embarks. 157 come to the Hague, succeeded in persuading Lord Mordaunt and the Earl of Macclesfield that too much was made of the Church and the Clergy in the De claration. These opinions, however, were finally overruled, and the Prince, after taking an affec tionate leave of the States-General, prepared to em bark. Those who were to accompany the expedition had already assembled at Helvoet-Sluys, when, on the 19th, the Prince went on board, and the whole fleet weighed anchor and stood out to sea that night. The van was led by Admiral Herbert ; the rear by Admiral Evertzen. The Prince of Orange himself commanded the main body, carrying a flag from his vessel with English colours, inscribed with the words, "The Protestant Religion and the Liberty of England," underneath which was the motto of the house of Nassau, " Je maintiendrai.'' But they had not been at sea four-and-twenty hours before a vio lent storm arose and scattered the whole fleet. Five hundred horses perished for want of air, but no vessel was lost, notwithstanding many were seriously damaged : the Prince immediately put back to refit. The supposed effects of this disaster in England have already been alluded to. At the Hague there were not wanting those who began to augur ill to the expe dition; but Wilham behaved with calmness and reso lution, and the States cheerfully furnished the fresh supplies which were necessary. On the 1st of No vember they again set sail with the evening tide. On the 3d the whole fleet lay in the Straits between Calais and Dover, whilst the stragglers were assem bling, and the imposing sight of so large an armament as six hundred vessels in that narrow channel drew to the shores, both of France and England, numerous 158 Lands at Torbay. spectators. The next day, which was Sunday, was the Prince of Orange's birthday, when he completed his thirty-eighth year ; and he spent the greater part of it in devotion. He had wished to land on this day, but the English who accompanied him considered the following day the more auspicious. The fleet accordingly continued its course westward, and on the 5th of November, after a most prosperous voyage, sailed into Torbay ; thus affording another reason why that day will ever continue memorable in the annals of a country in which is engendered a kind of in eradicable hostility to the Popish religion. The Prince of Orange, on landing, was in unusual good spirits, and on meeting Burnet he shook him heartily by the hand, and asked him, " if he would not now believe in predestination,"* to which Burnet rephed, " that he would never forget that providence of God which had appeared so signally upon this occasion." From Torbay the Prince immediately proceeded to Exeter. Whilst William was on his passage to these shores, his Declaration, which had preceded him, fell into the hands of the King. James judged correctly, when he believed there was no section of the com munity in which loyalty was more inherent than that of the clergy. But, like others who impose upon a virtue which they know is strongly entertained, the worse he treated them the more devotion did he expect at their hands. Nothing struck him so forcibly, in the Prince of Orange's Declaration, as the statement that the Spiritual as well as Temporal Lords had con curred to invite the Prince over. Some of the tem- * Rapin and Burnet, from whom the above account is taken, were both on board in the fleet. The King and the Bishops. 159 poral peers, who chanced to be in London, he imme diately called to his presence, and asked them on their words, as gentlemen, whether they had invited the Prince to invade the country. They positively denied having so done. He next commanded the attendance of the Bishop of London, very likely judging that the Prelate toward whom he had be haved with the greatest harshness and severity was the one most likely to have conspired agamst him. When Compton appeared, he told him that he had now received the Declaration of the Prince of Orange, and he read over to the Bishop the paragraph, which stated that the Prince had been invited over by the Peers Spiritual and Temporal, and asked him if he believed there was any truth in the statement as regarded the Spiritual Peers. The Bishop's equivocal answer to this was, " I am confident that the rest of the Bishops would as readily answer in the negative as myself." * James exonerated the Bishops, but told him that it was expedient that they should make some pubhc "declaration of their innocence. Compton then begged permission to see the Declaration, but the King refused to show it, saying, " all the Bishops must answer for themselves, and he should send for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who should call them together.'' On Friday, Nov. 2, accordingly, the Archbishop, being summoned, waited upon the King, on whom he found those of his brethren who were in town already in attendance. These were the Bishops of London, Durham, Chester, and S. David's. Lord Preston was now in Sunderland's place, and by the * A letter of Compton's, giving an account of the interview. Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 277. 160 The King and the Bishops. King's request he read the offensive paragraph out to the Bishops. James then paid the Bishops the compliment of declaring that he did not believe that there was a word of truth in their having invited over the Prince, but that he thought proper, at any rate, to acquaint them with what they were charged. Sancroft, with all becoming expressions, thanked the King for doing him and his brethren justice in this matter. " I owe your Majesty," said he, " a natural allegiance and supremacy, and can have at once but one King. Never have I worshipped the rising sun, or made court to any but my King ; to him I offered homage as often as he pleased to re ceive it. As to this particular charge, and my personal concern in it, I aver it to be utterly false, having been so far from inviting the Prince that I never made any application to him."* The other Bishops were then severally asked whether they had lent their names to this invitation, and, as might have been presumed from their antecedents, Crew, Cartwright, and Watson, answered distinctly that they had not. When the awkward question was again put to the Bishop of London he saved his conscience, and perhaps his life also, by replying that he had given his answer on the day previous. James de clared himself persuaded of their innocence, but he demanded that they should publicly declare they had never invited the Prince. And whilst they stood silent and meditating he fixed a day upon which they were again to wait on him, not only with a declaration of their innocence, but with a paper expressive of their abhorrence of the Prince of * Sancroft MSS. in Collectanea Curiosa, vol. i. p. 427. The Bishops refuse to comply with James' demands. 161 Orange's invasion, which he intended should be appended to the proclamation he now issued against his son-in-law. In answer to all this the Arch bishop only promised to consult those ofhis brethren who were in London, as James would not give him time to summon the bench.* For his own private satisfaction, it would seem, Sancroft signed at Lam beth, the day after this interview, a paper in which he averred that he had not invited the Prince, and his belief in the innocence ofhis brethren. f The landing of Wilham at Torbay, the intelli gence of which threw London into the utmost ex citement, did not lessen the King's desire that the Bishops should declare their abhorrence of the Prince's invasion. Providentially, after a conference amongst themselves, this they had resolved not to do. It has been well remarked, that had the Bishops at this time, as the Scotch Bishops did, determined to throw the weight of their names and authority on the side of arbitrary power, the Episcopal form of church government might have been seriously en dangered in this country. They preserved their loyalty without compromising their principles or committing the Church, as represented by them, to a course which would have been highly unpopular. On the 6th the Archbishop was again called into the presence of the King. He was accompanied by the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Peterborough. Watson of S. David's they found in attendance on James ; but so little sympathy existed between this * Rapin, vol. iii. p. 284 ; Compton's Letter ; Carwithin's History, vol. ii. 551. ¦j- See the paper in Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 279. M 162 The Bishops refuse to proclaim prelate and his brethren that they required him to withdraw. Sancroft, then addressing James, said that he and his brethren had done all that could be expected of them in assuring him of their innocence, and that since the King had declared that he was satisfied of it they were indifferent as to what others might say and think of them. James received all these protestations graciously enough : " My Lords," said he, " I am abundantly satisfied with you all as to that matter, but where is the paper I desired you to draw up and bring to me ?" Sancroft then told him plainly that they had brought no paper. " Since your Majesty is pleased," he continued, "to say that you think us guiltless, we despise what all the world besides shall say. Let others distrust as they will, we regard it not ; we rely on the testimony of our own conscience and on your Majesty's favourable opinion." The King was not thus easily to be di verted from his purpose. He did not dispute their words, but it was for his service, he told them, that they should declare publicly their nonconcurrence in the invitation sent to the Prince of Orange, and their abhorrence of his invasion of this country. Sancroft, compelled at last by the urgency of the King, could no longer refrain from alluding to the violent treatment which he and his brethren had experienced at James's hands once before for med dling in state affairs, and the ridicule which had been cast upon him by the servile judges, recently appointed by the crown. " For presenting a petition," said he, " in the most respectful manner, they had been cast into prison, and brought to trial, and even after their acquittal by a jury of their countrymen they had been described by the judges on their their abhorrence ofthe Prince's enterprise. 163 circuits as libellers, their church reviled, and their compositions turned into sport." James avoided the complaints of the Archbishop by saying that he believed they had been with the temporal Lords, who had made them change their minds. This they declared was not the case, although, had it been true, there would have been no cause in this for self- reproach. A paper attributed to Compton, and probably drawn up by him in the interim between the former audience and this, gives many of the reasons the Bishops now advanced for not complying with the King's wishes ; although, considering the fact that Compton had signed the invitation to the Prince, the document is not characterised by that ingenuousness one would have wished to have found. The Bishops demanded, as the temporal Lords were as much concerned in the accusation as themselves, that they should be summoned to consult with them on the nature of that public disavowal which was required of them. But James was not satisfied with this reasoning. He still, with increasing warmth, urged them to comply with his commands. They re mained inflexible. They reminded him it pertained to their office to maintain peace, and not to declare war against a prince nearly allied to the crown. They told him that Parhament was the proper place in which to consider such matters as those which he laid before them, and where they would be found ready at all times to assist both him and the nation by their counsels, if he would summon them. They promised also to pray for him, that he might have the guidance of God. But what value was James likely to put upon the prayers of Protestant Bishops, 164 The Prince of Orange at Exeter. when the court was still filled with Jesuits, and when, in touching for the evil and other ceremonies which required the presence of clergy, the Jesuits were the only ones in attendance?* James upon this last answer of the Bishops lost all patience, and with angry and contemptuous expressions he dis? missed them from his presence, f As that event, which is emphatically called " the Revolution," was occasioned by the rash endeavours of a King to change the form of his people's religion, circumstances of the most secular character call for notice, even in an ecclesiastical history of these times. It is necessary, therefore, to string together here those incidents which immediately preceded that crisis. These occurred, as in all similar occasions they do, one after another, with great rapidity. The Prince of Orange's journey to Exeter had been very far from encouraging. Instead of the whole country rising in his favour, as had been anticipated, not a single person of any real importance joined him by the way ; and when he arrived at that city, he found the gates closed against his admission. As defence was impossible had the Prince resorted to force, this was rather to be regarded as an intimation of the spirit which awaited him in the city, than anything else. When he entered it, he learnt that the Bishop and Dean had fled ; and even the remainder of the clergy, although summoned before the Prince and even treated with consideration, steadily held back. Their houses and persons, however, were carefully protected, * See Evelyn's Diary, 5th Nov. 1688. f See an account of the Conference between James and the Bishops in Collectanea Curiosa, vol. i. pp. 422—443. The Prince of Orange at Exeter. 165 Burnet was commissioned to see that they suffered no violence nor indignity ;* and to do that busy Divine justice, notwithstanding his invincible repugnance to Popery, and his general abhorrence of High Church men, he always manifested an interest in the tem poral welfare of the great body of the priesthood. We may therefore presume, that he was not wanting upon this occasion. He was also deputed to make arrangements with the reluctant Chapter for the cele bration of a special service in honour of the Prince's successful voyage to these shores, and on the first Sunday after their arrival he himself occupied the pulpit ; upon which occasion he delivered a long and diffuse discourse, dwelling upon the mercy of God towards the English nation in vouchsafing, for a second time, on the same day in the year, to deliver them from the dangers of Popery. Whilst William's exulting chaplain was endea vouring to enlist the sympathies of Churchmen at the Cathedral in favour of the expedition with indif ferent success, Mr. Robert Ferguson was pursuing the same object amongst the Dissenters in a most indecent manner. He entered a Presbyterian meet ing-house, resolved to preach agamst the consent of the ministers and elders of the church. He drew his sword, and so made his way to the pulpit, where he poured out a violent harangue against James. The truth was, that neither was Burnet acceptable to Churchmen nor Ferguson to the Nonconformists. This man had made himself of importance by no thing so much as by his restless, plotting spirit. In the reign of Charles II. he was compelled to fly to Holland, under the protection of Lord Shaftesbury, * Burnet, Own Time, vol. iii. p. 314. 166 The Prince of Orange at Exeter. He returned to England with Monmouth ; and upon the failure of the Duke's precipitate expedition he again took refuge in Holland, where his restless spirit was never so well pleased as when busied in plotting and sowing division. William had doubtless found him of service, and therefore suffered him to accom pany the expedition, although he had been publicly censured by the Presbyterians themselves. The Nonconformists* were not less willing to accept of Ferguson as the representative of their principles and expectations, than were Churchmen to submit to Burnet's dictation on the subject of their duties to their Church and Sovereign.f The Prince remained more than a week at Exeter before any gentlemen of consideration in the neigh bourhood joined him. Many of the lower orders had, indeed, began to flock to his standard, but not with that rapidity which was expected of them. Yet we must not be misled by these facts. The disposi tion in favour of William was much greater than at first appeared. In some isolated instances it broke out with great enthusiasm ; but the bloody asske, which had been conducted in that county with such unexampled cruelty, was not yet forgotten. Nor could the clergy, who had ever preached up loyalty, even to the doctrine of passive obedience, much as they abhorred the policy of James, all at once turn round and acknowledge the pretensions of an in vader, who had not yet proved his ability to fulfil his promises. Amongst the body of the people, even in the Western counties, there was, doubtless, sym pathy for the Prince ; but 'there was a lack at first * Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. ii. p. 383. t Rapin, vol. iii. p. 286. Dr. Lamplugh, Bishop of Exeter. 167 of that courage which induces men to embrace a cause at any hazard. At length the tide began to move in William's favour, and ever after continued so to do, in a manner which must have surpassed the expectations of the most sanguine. The neighbour ing gentry drew towards him, of whom by far the most important was Sir Edward Seymour, an eminent courtier, who had once been in great favour with James, and who had influence enough imme diately on joining the Prince to form what was called an " Association." A document was drawn up, by which those who signed it pledged themselves to adhere to the Prince through every danger, as the vindicator of their rights and liberties ; and even if he should fall, not to lay down their arms until they had secured those ends for which they had been taken up. This was cheerfully and unanimously signed by those about the person of the Prince, and was sent into all parts of England for the signatures, as well as for the encouragement, of those who sym pathised in the objects of the expedition. As to the Bishop of Exeter, he had made his way to London on the first intelligence of the landing of the Prince of Orange. This prelate's name was Dr. Thomas Lamplugh. He had been promoted to the bench from the Deanery of Rochester in 1676, when he appears to have been one ofthe more conspicuous divines of the day. The King was so pleased with the loyalty displayed by Lamplugh, that, although that Bishop had never been one to excuse or sympa thise with his policy, he immediately bestowed upon him the Archbishopric of York, so long kept open, as was commonly thought, for Father Petre. But the prompt loyalty of Lamplugh was no harbinger 168 The Prince of Wales sent to Portsmouth. of similar acts which were to follow. London was in a state ofthe greatest excitement. James him self, whose excessive indiscretion had entailed upon him all these troubles, was agitated and perplexed by conflicting feelings of alarm and indignation. He had ordered the army to rendezvous on Salisbury Plain ; and on the 18th he set out to join his forces, having previously sent away the Prince of Wales to Portsmouth, with orders to Lord Dartmouth to see the royal infant immediately transported to one of the nearest harbours on the French coast.* It may be well to remark in passing, that, notwithstanding the fervent attachment of Dartmouth to the House of Stuart, he hesitated to obey the requisitions of the King. He told Dover (to whose care the royal infant had been entrusted) that it- was treason to transport the person of the Prince of Wales out of the kingdom on such a mandate as was sent to him ; and the young Prince was therefore brought back again to London. The troubles of the King continued to fall upon him in rapid succession. Every hour showed him how entirely he had alienated the affections of the people, and destroyed that sense of loyalty amongst the nobles, which is commonly accounted the great security of the throne. The army upon which he depended, like every arbitrary sovereign, was disaffected. The first proof he had of this was in the desertion of Lord Cornbury,f the eldest son of the Earl of Clarendon, who, pretending orders from James, advanced with his troops towards Axminster, where William had now arrived, until he could conveniently join his standard, * James's Life, in Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. P- 165. f Ibid. p. 160. The King's Officers desert him. 169 and induce others to follow his example. This de sertion had preceded the King's arrival at Sahsbury, and filled him with consternation and distress. It had certainly been politic in James, at any cost, to have hazarded an engagement, as it was the wisdom of William to avoid one. It is a sort of thing ex pected, and therefore excused, that a lawful sovereign should be ready to shed his own blood and that of his subjects in defence of his crown ; but very different are the feehngs which are aroused at the sight of blood shed by one in the position of an usurper. The King at first contemplated proceeding to his advanced quarters at Warminster. But no sooner had he arrived at Salisbury than he fell ill, with a violent bleeding of the nose, which lasted two or three days ; and this circumstance, with mis givings about the fidelity of the army, induced him to retrace his steps to London. He has recorded, in the Memoirs ascribed to him, that Feversham, De Roy, and Dumbarton, certainly amongst the most loyal men in the camp, recommended a retreat : whereas Church- hill and his party were for remaining at Salisbury. All that can be said is, that the breaking up the camp at Salisbury was followed by the immediate desertion of his highest officers. That very night Lord Churchill, Charles the Second's son the Duke of Grafton, and Colonel Berkeley, accompanied by several officers, went off and joined the Prince at Axminster. The reception which Churchill met with from Schomberg was not very complimentary, for he told him " that he was the first Lieutenant- General he had ever heard of deserting his colours."* * James's Life, in Macpherson's Original Papers, vol. i. p. 162; Rapin, vol. iii. p. 286. 170 Conduct of Lord Churchill. The conduct of Churchill can, indeed, admit of no excuse. He left behind him a plausible letter ad dressed to James, containing sentiments to which no impartial historian can give credit, excepting so far as they related to the preservation of the King's life. Amidst a profusion of declarations of grati tude for the favours James had heaped upon him, he averred that his conscience and his religion com pelled him to pursue the course he had done. He endeavoured to persuade the King that he could only be actuated by disinterested motives, since he could never look for such favours from the Prince of Orange as he had received from him. But what was the real state of the case? Churchill had, indeed, received the greatest tokens of regard from James. He had been attached to his person, as a page, when he was only twelve years old. The Duke gave him his first commission in the army; and when, after the war in Flanders, James, in returning to England,, was nearly shipwrecked, young Churchill being on board, there was no one whose life he was so anxious about as that of his protege, and ever since which time he had steadily promoted his advance ment. But the tide of royal favour was no longer likely to flow towards any but such as concurred with James in his pohcy or embraced his religion. On the other hand, Churchill had much to expect from the accession of either of James's daughters to the throne. The Princess Anne, who was married to Prince George of Denmark, lived on terms of the utmost familiarity with Churchill's wife, who was her lady of the bed-chamber, and in constant attendance upon her ; and the presumption is, whatever the future Duchess may have said to the The Princess Anne. 171 contrary, that Churchill's defection was only the commencement of a preconcerted scheme, involving the speedy desertion of the Princess herself. James, after leaving Salisbury, stopped the first night at Andover, and here Prince George, after supping with the King, went off with Lord Drumlanrig, the Duke of Ormond, and others. But James, who cer tainly entertained little respect for the Prince's in tellect, pretended to make very light of this loss, although it proved to be the precursor of one by which he was deeply affected.* When he arrived in London he found his daughter had disappeared. At her leaving she wrote a letter to the Queen, f declaring that, since she had heard of her husband's desertion, she felt that she could not bear to en counter the anger which that act was sure to kindle in the breast of the King, both against her husband and herself. She stated that she was persuaded that her husband's object in joining the Prince of Orange was, that he might make provision for her father's safety, and that under all these distressing circumstances she had withdrawn until a recon cilement was effected, which she earnestly prayed might be soon. J When James learnt the truth respecting his daughter's flight, his feelings, at last, overcame him. The tears started to his eyes, and he exclaimed, " God help me ! my own children have forsaken me." One circumstance attending the Princess's deser- * James's Life, written by himself, p. 163. ¦J- Rapin gives the letter, vol. iii. p. 289. } James, in his Life written by himself, p. 163, declares that this letter was not found in the Princess's room, or sent to the Queen, but was first cried about the streets. 172 The Princess Anne' s flight. tion was little creditable to one of whom we have generally had to speak with respect, and only shows us how, in the excitement of a revolution, the gravest characters may be transported from their propriety, and all conventionalities despised.* Lady Churchill went to the Bishop of London's house, and concerted with him how Anne was to effect her escape. The Bishop had formerly been tutor to the Princess, and, although recently restored to his Episcopal functions, readily agreed to lend his assistance in facilitating Anne's withdrawal. On the night of the 25th, the Princess, in company with Lady Churchill and Lady Fitzhardinge, stole out of the palace into the street, where the Bishop of London and Lord Dorset met them with a coach, and conveyed them to the Bishop's residence in the city. The following day they went to Dorset's house, Copt Hall, and thence to the Marquis of Northampton's ; the Bishop all this time accompanying the carriage on horseback, ar rayed in a sort of yeomanry costume, with jack boots, and a sword and pistols at his side. From the Earl of Northampton's house they continued their journey into Nottinghamshire, where a volunteer troop was formed for the protection of the Princess, of which the Bishop of London, with unbecoming readiness, accepted the command. In times of such unusual excitement, much allowance is to be made for hasty and indiscreet conduct. The undignified behaviour of Compton, however, laid him open to much future ridicule. The news of Anne's disap pearance created a great disturbance in the metro- * Burnet, Own Time, vol. iii. p. 317 ; James's Life, p. 163; Account of the Duchess of Marlborough ; Clarendon's Corre spondence, *vol. ii. p. 208. The general Disaffection. 173 polis, as it was at first thought that the Papists had made away with her. The populace were ready to demolish the Roman Catholic chapels, and fall upon every Roman Catholic they could find, until their indignation was appeased on the true state of the case transpiring. The defection was now universal. Lords Dela- mere, Danby, Devonshire, and others, in their re spective localities, declared for the Prince of Orange. The Deputy-governor of Hull seized upon the go vernor, Lord Langdale, who was a Roman Catholic, and threw him into prison. Even the loyal Earl of Bath, the governor of Plymouth, held that town no longer for James, but for the Prince. In short, James had so entirely undermined his own authority in every part of the kingdom, that he was left with out a spot to rest his foot upon that was not ready to give way beneath him. In the extremity of his distress he now threw himself upon the advice of such peers, whether spiritual or temporal, as were in London ; a meeting of whom took place on the 27th of November, which was attended by several prelates, as well as thirty Protestant peers. They had already petitioned James to summon a free parliament. In opening the meeting he alluded to this petition, and declared that he now desired their counsel upon this subject, and was prepared to be guided by it. The peers expressed themselves with a freedom, in reviewing the misgovernment and rashness of James, not usually addressed to princes by their subjects. Lord Clarendon especially lost all control of his temper and his tongue.* He re- * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. p. 322. 174 A Conference of some Lords. capitulated some of the most glaring indiscretions of the King, and even upbraided him with something like cowardice, for retracing his steps to London without hazarding an engagement. This behaviour on the part of Clarendon was severely censured at the time, and has been a subject for the strictures of recent writers. But, however unbecoming, it seems properly to belong to that uncontrollable vexation which a man not unnaturally feels at beholding one, whose prosperity he desires, rushing madly upon ruin. Rochester, Jeffreys, Godolphin, Hahfax, and Nottingham, were the chief speakers at this conference, the result of which was, that the King was advised to call a Parliament ; to send Commissioners, who might treat with the Prince of Orange ; to proclaim a general pardon for all his subjects who should lay down their arms and return to their allegiance ; and to remove from all public situations such Papists as had been illegally intruded into them. The first three of these recom mendations were immediately complied with by the King. On the following day Jeffreys issued the writs for a Parliament to assemble on the 15th of January, and Halifax, Nottingham, and Godolphin, were appointed Commissioners to confer with the Prince of Orange. Still further to add to James's distress, and the utter confusion of the Roman Catholics, some unknown person penned what he called The Third Declaration of the Prince of Orange, and affixing to it the Prince's signature, dispersed it through the kingdom. William disavowed the document, and it was soon known to have been a forgery, but not A pretended Declaration ofthe Prince of Orange. 175 before it had answered the intent of the writer.* This pretended Declaration made the Prince to say, that although the life of every Papist should be respected who kept himself within the provisions of the law, yet those who persisted in holding employments contrary to the law should be treated as robbers and banditti. It stated that he knew that many Roman Catholics had repaired to London, not for protection, but for sinister and violent purposes, and commanded all mayors and magistrates to seize upon them and disarm them : in other words, it hounded on the enemies of James to acts of any violence, and produced a corresponding sensation. The Roman Catholic chapels were soon in the hands of the rabble. The house of the Spanish ambas sador was pillaged, and his library burnt, f The private residences of those who professed the Romish faith, when known, were attacked and rifled. The Romish priests and Jesuits, alarmed at this aspect of affairs, began to seek safety by flight. A hue- and-cry was raised in the streets after Father Petre. But what seems still more wonderful to us of the present age, when the principles of religious liberty are tolerably understood, the grand jury of Middle sex found a true bill against the Marquis of Salisbury for turning Romanist. No wonder the King should grow alarmed for his personal safety, or that Barillon, the French minister, should counsel him to secure his own life, and those of the Queen and the young Prince, while it was doubtful whether William would * Hugh Speke owned himself the writer of it. See the Secret History ofthe Revolution in 1688, pp. 33-41, Lond. 1715. f Evelyn's Diary, 9th Dec. 1688 ; Rapin, vol. iii. p. 289. 176 Demands ofthe Prince of Orange. come to any terms, by a timely withdrawal from the kingdom. William appointed the King's Commissioners to meet him at Hungerford. He then required the peers and men of chief importance who were about his per son to consider what overtures they would recom mend him to offer to the King. They took a day for their deliberations, and on the following day the Prince sent Lords Oxford, Shrewsbury, ahd Claren don — the latter of whom had recently joined his quarters — to confer with the King's Commissioners, and to state what, by their advice, he had to pro pose.* The Prince of Orange demanded, " That all Papists, and others unqualified by law, should be removed from all employments, civil and military ; that any proclamations denunciatory of the Prince should be annulled ; that the Tower of London and Tilbury Fort should be put into the custody of the city of London ; and that, until a Parliament could legislate upon the matter, a portion of revenue should be devoted to the maintenance of his forces. That the Prince should be permitted to visit London, attended by the same number of troops, for a guard, as the King retained ; that the armies of neither the King nor the Prince should be suffered to approach within thirty miles of the metropolis ; and. that Portsmouth should be put into such hands as would secure it against any attempts from France." It is here to be remarked, that, as it so often happens in state affairs, another and secret question was quietly canvassed by some about the Prince, unknown to the general body of the politicians who had been * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iii. p. 323. James sends away the young Prince. Ill debating these propositions. Halifax contrived to ask Burnet, what "if the King had a mind to go away?" The latter, no doubt familiar with the Prince's views, replied, " Nothing was so much to be wished for :" for William had been known to say, in reference to a Parliament, " We may drive away the King, but it is not so easy to come by a Parlia ment."* An express conveyed these proposals to James, with which he affected to be more than satisfied. But there can be little reason for doubt that he had only sanctioned the commission with a view to gain time for accomplishing his escape, and that he was confirmed in his determination to effect this when he heard who the Prince's commissioners were. This was on the 9th of December. That very night he resolved to send off the Prince with his mother, the Queen. They were committed to the care of Count de Lauzun, a French nobleman, who had fallen into disgrace with Louis XIV., and was now residing at the Enghsh Court. Lauzun conveyed them with safety in a coach to Gravesend, where a yacht awaited them, in which they were transported to Calais. James had removed Sir Edward Hales from tho command of the Tower, and had appointed Sir Bevil Skelton in his place. He had a double object in so doing. The removal of Sir Edward Hales was a measure acceptable to the public, and the King required him near his own person; for, having re solved to follow his Queen to the Continent, he chose to have Sir Edward as the companion of his flight. * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 534. N 178 James endeavours to effect his escape, On the night of the 10th of December, having got the great seal into his custody, he appointed Jeffreys and others to wait on him in the morning, and then secretly left the Palace at Whitehall. He crossed the river to Vauxhall, and in his pas sage overthrew the great seal into the Thames, as if he could thereby disconcert all the schemes of his son-in-law.* It was an action which, as much as any other of the infatuated monarch, argues the unconquerable notions he entertained of the high and inalienable prerogatives of the crown. From Vauxhall, in company with Sir Edward Hales and Sir E. Quartermaster, he proceeded on horseback to the Medway, and thence to Embyferry, near to Feversham, where a Custom-house hoy, which Sir Edward Hales had secured, was waiting for them. It happened when they left the shore that the wind was blowing very fresh, and as the vessel was without ballast the King was persuaded by the master to suffer him to run the hoy ashore at Sheerness. Before she could again be floated they were overtaken by some fishing-boats from Fever- sham, several men from which proceeded to board the hoy and seize upon the King and Sir Edward Hales. They said they had orders to secure their persons^as they were suspected of being Papists in disguise making their escape. Sir Edward Hales was no doubt known by person to these Kentish fishermen, but James was not, and in ignorance of his quality they treated him with much indignity. He and his companions were with great rudeness carried back to Feversham. Here the King was recognised by a seaman, who * Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, vol. i. p. 538. but is brought back. 179 had formerly served under him, and who, to the credit of human nature, exhibited a deep sympathy for his unhappy sovereign, and whose example in duced others of the same class to form themselves into a special guard for the King's protection.* The Earl of Winchelsea, with several gentlemen of the county, assembled at Canterbury, and now immediately repaired to Feversham, to secure for James, at any rate, respectful treatment. As soon as intelligence of his capture and return reached London the Lords of the Council despatched the Earl of Aylesbury, Lord Feversham, Sir Stephen Fox, and Mr. Graham, to wait upon him. As James had commanded Lord Feversham to disband the forces under his command, nothing could exceed the state of confusion into which the metropolis was thrown when it was known that he had fled. The rabble fell upon every place devoted to the education or worship of the Roman Catholics. The houses of foreign ambassadors even were not respected, and those Papists who had the unhappiness to be recognised in the streets were hooted and pur sued. Amongst others, the terrified Chancellor was found at Wapping, disguised as a common sailor, and was exposed to the fury of the mob for several hours. At his earnest request he was sent by the Lord Mayor to the Tower, for personal safety. What with his disguise, and the rough handling which he had experienced from the mob, Jeffreys presented so shocking an example of fallen greatness that the Mayor was overcome at the spectacle, and fell into fits, which finally occasioned his death. In this alarming state of anarchy and confusion a meeting * Evelyn's Correspondence, letter to his son. 180 Momentary Popularity ofthe King. of Privy Councillors and others was convened at Guildhall, to devise what would now be called a provisional government. The King had withdrawn, and the crisis loudly called for a measure of 'this kind. The Archbishop, though reluctantly, at tended and sanctioned the proceedings ; but it was the last time he took any part in public affairs. After constituting themselves a supreme council, and assuming the entire direction of affairs, they sent a formal deputation, composed of several peers, one of whom was the Bishop of Ely, to the Prince of Orange, begging him to take upon himself the government of the country until a Parliament could be assembled ; but scarcely could they have left London before the news of the capture of James must have reached the metropolis. The history of James's secret withdrawal from his palace, and all the circumstances attending his attempted escape and return, excited, for a moment, a generous pity in the breasts ofhis subjects. The fall of a sovereign to a condition more lamentable than that of many of his poorest subjects has in it always something tragic and affecting. James now experienced the satisfaction of a popularity, which he must have been a stranger to for years. As he re-entered London the acclamations of the populace rent the air. The ante-chambers and courts of Whitehall were thronged with people of all opinions, and this, too, in spite of his speedy attendance at mass, which was celebrated by three priests.* In deed, the momentary eclipse of the court seemed to have given place to a brighter day. But this revul sion of popular feeling was but for a time. It appears * Evelyn's letter to his son. Perplexity ofthe Prince of Orange. 181 only to have happened that James might be made to feel more keenly that it was really a loyal people whose allegiance he had forfeited. He had despatched Lord Feversham from Rochester to the Prince of Orange, who had now arrived at Windsor, inviting the Prince to meet him in London, that he might confer with him upon the state of the country, and the measures which should be adopted for restoring general tranquillity. The Prince was perplexed and mortified at the unexpected turn in James's fortunes. He put Lord Feversham under arrest for coming without a passport, and resolved to make one effort more to drive James out of the country without violence and bloodshed. The Dutch minister, Zuylestein, was sent, on the plea of offering pro tection to the person of the fallen King, and was to have induced him to remain at Rochester had he not found him already returned to London. Meanwhile the Dutch troops had orders to oc cupy Whitehall, on pretence of guarding James from the violence of the populace. The King was thus reduced to the condition of a prisoner in his own palace. But his reign was, in reality, at an end ; and the remaining events preceding his final with drawal from the kingdom may be related in few words. After a long discussion at Windsor amongst the adherents of the Prince, upon how James was to be disposed of, it was resolved that he should be re commended to retire from London. For some time no one was willing to be the bearer of this mes sage to the fallen sovereign, until William signed an order for Lords Halifax, Shrewsbury, and Dela- mere, to communicate to him this decision. They 182 The Prince of Orange comes to London. arrived at Whitehall after the King had retired to rest ; but they insisted on communicating their mes sage without delay. They informed him that the Prince of Orange and his adherents considered that his highness could not, with safety to himself and the public, remain at St. James's, where he was called to attend the following day, before the King and his Irish guards had withdrawn from the metro polis ; and he was therefore recommended to go for the present to Ham, a deserted mansion belong ing to the Duchess of Lauderdale. The King mani fested no unwillingness to leave London; but he objected to the destination assigned him by the Prince, and expressed a desire to return to Ro chester. William was now at Syon House, in the neighbourhood of Kew ; and on learning the wishes of James, immediately and readily acceded to them. Indeed, nothing could better have accorded with his own plans. James, as soon as he had received the reply of the Prince, entered his barge at Whitehall, attended by Lord Aylesbury, and followed by other barges, containing the Dutch guard appointed to wait upon him. He slept one night at Gravesend ; and on the following morning, being the 19th of December, arrived at Rochester. Almost simulta neously on his withdrawal from his palace the Prince of Orange entered it, and was soon surrounded with the splendour and ceremonial of a royal court. His personal carriage was marked by an air of reserve, stateliness, and gravity. The Archbishop of Canterbury refused to take any part in the consultations now held by the Lords, and some of the Bishops endeavoured to persuade the King at least to remain in the country. But James accomplishes his escape into France. 183 James was impatient to join his Queen. He feigned a belief that William desired his life ; and so on this excuse, and for a second time, and now successfully, he attempted his escape. He embarked in a smack off Sheerness ; and after much delay in the river, and a dangerous and tempestuous voyage, he and his companions arrived at Ambleteuse, near Boulogne, wrhere they disembarked on the Christmas-day,* Thus in reality terminated the reign of James II. , by a revolution the most complete, and yet, at the same time, the freest from violence and bloodshed, of any in history. In all human probability, but for the Great Rebellion, it would have been very dif ferent. The troubles of that time had well-nigh cured the people of their Puritan fanaticism ; but they still retained that objection to, nay, abhorrence of, Popery, which nothing seems able to eradicate. The Anglo-Saxon mind combines, with a love of liberty, a veneration for national institutions and traditions. The Church of Rome is associated in the minds of Englishmen with foreign aggression and domestic tyranny, and therefore can never be other wise than distasteful to them. And on the whole, we must applaud the great forbearance with which James was treated by his subjects. Some ungenerous and unpardonable treachery was committed by those who should have done nothing rather than have done as they did ; but against this we may set off the studied effort which seems to have been made by all to preserve the person of the King from violence or indignity. As .the cause of the Revolution was a religious one, the exciting events of this reign did not act * Evelyn's Correspondence ; Macph. State Papers, vol. i. p. 170. 184 State of Religion in England injuriously upon the public devotion. The very trials to which the National Church was exposed stirred her up to make great exertions. Notwith standing James employed his influence and patron age as a sovereign in making proselytes, it has been computed that, for every one who was enticed from the Church of England, ten at least were added from the Nonconformists to her communion.* The writings of the clergy in defence of their own Church and the Protestant cause were numerous and able. So much so, that many who had been taught to believe that they savoured much of Popery in their teaching, were convinced how groundless their fears had been, and abandoned the ranks of Dissent for the Church. The leading divines of the day were not satisfied with simply declaiming against Popery ; but they entered upon a careful and systematic refutation of the errors of the Church of Rome, both as to her doctrine and practice. The writings of Bellarmine were dissected by Sherlock, Patrick, Tullie, Williams, Fowler, Clagett, Tenison, Kidder, and Grove ; and Cave and Hickes, both of them, from their deep learning and confident behef in the Cathohcity of the Church of England, well fitted for the task, wrote a vindication of the Church of England. In the early part of James's reign, Wake, then a young divine of much promise, wrote an exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England, in reply to Bossuet's animadversions ; whilst the distinctive doc trines ofthe Church of Rome were sifted and exa mined by Stillingfleet.f * The Life of Kettlewell, p. 142; Atterbury's Sermons, vol. i. 7. t Gibson's Preservative against Popery; being a collection of treatises written during the reign of James II. at the time of the Revolution. 185 But the zeal of the Church was conspicuous in other respects. Never were the churches filled with such overflowing congregations. Large numbers of devout communicants crowded to the altars. Modern times, with all our revivals, can show nothing hke it. An ordinary communion at S. Martin's-in-the-Fields was frequented by a thou sand communicants. And the attendance at other churches was in the same proportion. The minor differences amongst the clergy disappeared, and were succeeded by a spirit of zeal and union, which cer tainly acted most beneficially, for the time, upon the general influence of the Church of England. 186 Perplexity ofthe Nation. CHAPTER VI. (1688-1690.) Perplexity of the Nation — The Convention— The Throne de clared vacant — Sancroft — The Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary — Refused by the Archbishop and others — The Toleration Act — A scheme of Comprehension — A Commission appointed to consider it — Proposed Alterations in the Prayer- book — Convocation — Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Jane — Convo cation adjourned — Re-assembles — Discussions upon the Address — Address, and the King's Answer — The Convo cation is prorogued — Ireland — Siege of Londonderry — Battle of the Boyne. Though James II. was gone, no one could see a satisfactory solution of the difficulties into which the nation was thrown. All classes, excepting such as were Roman Catholics, had felt the evils of James's arbitrary temper, and were united in hos tility to his proceedings : but the cause of offence removed, the different sections of the community reverted to old habits of thought and hereditary prejudices, and every one began to reflect how he might reconcile these with his present or future conduct in public affairs. The advocates of the indefeasible right of kings and passive obedience, found themselves in company with those whose opinions they had been accustomed to denounce " as The Convention. 187 destructive of the sacred persons of princes;" and whilst some prepared to shape their conduct accord ing to the change in public affairs, others, no doubt from the beginning, resolved to maintain their con sistency at the expense of their fortunes. The first thing to be done was to establish some kind of government. There was no Parliament sitting : the Lords, therefore, being the only existing portion of the legislature, requested the Prince of Orange to take upon himself the administration of public affairs, and to summon a Parliament. The Prince summoned to his councils such members of Charles the Second's parliaments as might be forthcoming, and by the suffrages of these, united with those of the peers, what is called a Convention was called and assembled, which, indeed, was the only legal proceeding open to a country deserted by its sove reign. For when we consider that James II. first broke the compact existing between king and people, by exercising a dispensing power which did not reside in the Crown, and then absolutely fled the nation, we must describe his flight to the Continent as a desertion. The Convention assembled the 22d of January. A letter was read in both Houses from the Prince, recommending despatch in their consultations, and telling them large succours were required both for Holland and Ireland. Much difference of opinion existed between the Lords and Commons, as to whether James could be said to have deserted or abdicated the Government; but although the opinion of the Lords, that James had deserted the Govern ment, was truer, in fact, than that of the Commons, that he had abdicated, the arguments of the Com- 188 Archbishop Sancroft. mons prevailed, and it was declared that James had abdicated the Government, and, in consequence, vacated the throne. As to the next proceeding of the Convention, the decision followed, in great measure, in consequence of the above resolution. There was a party, to which the clergy generally adhered, for having only a Prince Regent, and ap pointing the Prince of Orange to this office : another was for setting the King entirely aside, and placing William on the throne. Both Houses finally deter mined that, the throne being vacant, the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen ; and at the same time an Act, called a Declaration of Rights, was sanctioned by the Con vention, which was the basis of the famous Bill of Rights passed shortly afterwards, when the Con vention had become a Parliament. It had been customary for sovereigns of England, in their letters patent, to insert the words, " any law to the contrary notwithstanding;'' and it appears that James, by virtue of this custom, in some measure claimed the dispensing power. The Bill of Rights makes the sovereign, as well as the subject, amenable to law, without any such salvo as the one above. The conduct of Archbishop Sancroft throughout this crisis is certainly remarkable. Although he was opposed to making William King, or even to seating Mary, as the next heir, upon the throne ; although he was only for regarding James in capable of the government, on account of his invin cible prejudices, and for appointing the Prince as Custos Regni in his place ; and although James had desired those Bishops who were supposed to be in his interest to carry themselves in a friendly manner Accession of William and Mary. 189 towards the Prince, as they might assist him in the Convention, the Archbishop neither attended the meetings of the House of Lords nor the Convention. An historian who remembers the courageous conduct of Sancroft with regard to the publication of James's Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, cannot pos sibly acquiesce in Burnet's uncharitable judgment of the Archbishop, "that he was a poor-spirited and fearful man ;" yet his greatest admirers cannot approve of his determination to adopt no other course than that of passive obstructiveness. If he were confident of the wisdom of his own views, it was his imperative duty to have advocated them in the House of Lords. It fell to the Earls of Notting ham, Clarendon, and Rochester to do this — to recom mend the appointment of a Regent; as the vote declaring the throne vacant, and that the throne should be offered to the Prince and Princess of Orange, was only carried by a small majority, there is no saying what effect might have been produced by more active conduct on the part of Sancroft, although William had signified that he would not accept that position if it were offered him. The circumstances attending the accession of William and Mary were not calculated to increase the otherwise favourable opinion entertained of the Princess. Whether by constraint or not, the Princess displayed a gaiety in occupying the palace Of her father, which would be more faithfully described as wanton levity. She even manifested a childish curiosity and interest in the furniture of the palace, and played basset as if nothing had happened to her misguided father. The new King and Queen, how ever, were proclaimed amidst the general acclama- 190 Success ofthe Revolution. tions and rejoicings of the people, the day after the Princess arrived in England, having, at the request and by the advice of the Lords and Commons, ac cepted the crown, with everything pertaining to it, on the 1st day of February. Thus, within rather better than a quarter of a year from the landing of Wilham in Devonshire, England witnessed a revolu tion which resulted in a more entire overthrow of the Stuart family than the long-protracted struggle at the Great Rebellion. The unquestionable success of the Revolution is attributable to many coinciding circumstances — the dread of a repetition ofthe horrors ofthe civil war, the unanimity of all classes in disapproving the conduct of King James, and the facility with which a head to the Government might be secured with only a partial deviation from the laws of hereditary suc cession. Perhaps it is owing to this last fact more than any other, that England has been preserved from any other violent convulsion of her constitu tion, until the reign of a sovereign who is both seated on the throne of her ancestors, and whose plain hereditary right to the throne there is no human being who pretends to dispute. The Government was now engaged in consoli dating the new order of things.* On Feb. 23, 1688-9, the Convention was, by a special Act, con verted into a Parliament, and the members of both Houses required to swear allegiance to King William and Queen Mary from and after the 1st day of March. This Act brought to the test the sentiments of those who still regarded James king de jure, if not de facto. On a call of the House of Lords eight * See Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 58. Several Bishops absent from House of Lords. 191 Bishops absented themselves — the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Worcester, Chiches ter, Ely, Norwich, Bath and Wells, Gloucester, and Peterborough; some afterwards moved for a bill of toleration, and then withdrew from the House : whilst the Archbishop and the Bishops of Worcester and Chichester do not appear to have attended at all. For thus holding themselves aloof from the Legis lature they were attacked with all manner of invec tives and lampoons. The House of Commons pro ceeded to pass a bill of forfeitures and penalties, requiring all persons holding any office, civil, mili tary, or ecclesiastical, to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary,* and abjure the Papal supre macy by the 1st of August, on pain of immediate deprivation in the case of civil and military offi cers; and in the case of ecclesiastical persons, on pain of suspension : and for neglecting to do so for six months longer, they were to be ipso facto de prived. This six months' grace was the only con sideration allowed to the clergy, notwithstanding the far greater difficulty of their position to that of others; and it must ever remain a subject of regret that no plan was devised for insuring the stability of Government without sacrificing those men, whose very constancy was proof of their worth. But the unwillingness of many bishops and other clergymen to take the oaths required by the new law, only threw the King upon plans for reconciling the Pres byterians to the Church of England, and placing them in positions of trust. Dr. Burnet, a con spicuous character in the Revolution, was now * See Burnet, Own Time, vol. i. p. 12 ; Evelyn's Diary, 29th March, 1689 ; Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 61. 192 The Act of Toleration. consecrated to the see of Salisbury, the Archbishop having expressly commissioned the Bishop of Lon don and three other Bishops of his province to exercise archiepiscopal functions for this purpose — a proceeding which, however apparently incon sistent on his part, was probably done with the hopes of preventing that rupture which had not yet been consummated. Burnet entered at once into the debates of the day, and laudably endeavoured to obtain some concessions for the non-juring clergy, although, on the other hand, he threw all his weight into the cause of the Dissenters, and was eager for extending to them ample toleration.* A bill for promoting this was passed in February,f entitled " An Act for exempting their Majesties' Pro testant Subjects, dissenting from the Church of Eng* land, from the Penalties of certain LawsV' Until the passing of this act the law did not recognise the independent position of Dissenters at all, requiring a general conformity under heavy penalties. On taking the oaths to the Government, the Noncon formists were now permitted the free exercise of their opinions, and those already convicted under the acts now repealed were set at liberty. No meeting was to be held with closed doors.J Anabaptists and Quakers were provided for by this enactment ; but neither Papists, nor any denying the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, were to have the benefit of the toleration. The laws relating to attendance at divine service on a Sunday were to remain in force * Own Time, p. 550. f Received the royal assent, 24th May, 1689. Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 171 ; Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 518. X It was not to be construed to exempt any from the payment of tithes or parochial dues. Effects of Toleration on the State of Religion. 193 against all, excepting the frequenters of conventicles. The places of meeting were to be registered at the Bishop's or Archdeacon's Court, or to be recorded at the quarter-sessions, and certificates granted by the authority of one of those dignitaries for the opening such places for worship.* In this act the title of that of Charles II. , disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament, was rehearsed and confirmed. Thus did the Dissenters obtain by law all that they could possibly have derived from the hberty of conscience which James II. so artfully proposed to allow them. As far as their con scientious scruples were concerned, they could now have no reason for complaint or murmuring. If they were still precluded from some of the civil privileges enjoyed by Churchmen, it was because our ancestors deemed a greater hberty incompatible with the preservation of the National Church. But this act, as well as many other circumstances attend ing the Revolution, proved far from conducive to the general piety of the nation, for liberty and license were, as usual, confounded. The zeal and public devotion of the nation, which had been so conspicuous a year ago, visibly declined, and the humbler classes, left to the dictates of their own consciences, grew sadly indifferent to all their religious duties. The clergy were discouraged, both by the unsettled state of affairs and these symptoms of apathy, but they used all their endea vours to warn their flocks, and remind them that the act was not intended, under a show of toleration, to encourage a neglect of all religion.f Yet it is certain * See Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 518. f See Life of Prideaux, p. 93; and Life of Kettlewell, p. 213. 0 194 The Scheme of Comprehension. it conduced to this effect. The passing of this mea sure somewhat changed the position ofthe Church of England with regard to the nation, although not so much so as some have represented. It did not touch her temporalities, her parochial claims, or her status, in any degree. By preserving these, and obliging the promoters of conventicles to register the places of separate meetings in the Bishop's Court, or record them at the quarter-sessions, it was plainly intended to keep up the idea ofthe National Church in its integrity, but no longer to persecute people for opi nions which were deemed neither injurious to society, not the settlement ofthe Crown. The clergy, there fore, have some show, as far as this act is concerned, for still regarding the Nonconformists as not entirely beyond their spiritual care. The passing of this bill was not the only step taken at this time to conciliate the Dissenters. It was not to be expected that William III., reared a Presbyterian, should entertain any hostile feelings to the Nonconformists. Policy made him a member of the Church of England ; and feeling, no doubt, as well as policy, made him desire nothing more than a union amongst his Protestant subjects. A scheme of comprehension was the great talk of these times. Various plans were suggested for accomplishing this object, and though all of them in the end failed, the subject demands consideration in this place. Few men would venture to confess that they re joiced in division and disunion ; and therefore Church men and Dissenters have both been willing at times to entertain the idea of a comprehension. But matters, however trifling, if made a subject of con science, become immediately of importance ; hence The Scheme of Comprehension. 195 the great difficulty of effecting a union amongst religious factions. The Church, as the prevailing body, in common equity, cannot be expected to sacrifice more than Nonconformity for the express purpose of conciliation ; but it does not appear that the Nonconformists have ever been satisfied with this view of the matter. Hence it has been wisely ar gued, that the best policy for those to adopt who are interested for the welfare of the Church is to lend all their abilities to making her system, liturgy, and discipline, as perfect as possible, that such as have been opposed to her may see the more reason for altering their opinions and joining her commu nion ; and that it is not expedient to make conces sions with a view to comprehension, lest you should fail to benefit the Church or satisfy those for whom the concessions are made. The result of the most famous rehgious conferences in England confirm this position, and show how difficult a matter it is to devise a scheme of comprehension. At the Restoration, Charles II. promoted the Savoy Conference, either hoping thereby to reconcile the Presbyterians to the Church of England, or to leave them less excuse for complaint when the Act of Uniformity should come into operation. The result of that conference was most unsatisfactory. As usual, one side thought the demands of the other unreason able ; whilst the other complained of the obstinacy of their opponents. The reign of James II. increasing so much the fear of Popery in all classes, for a time led the Episcopal clergy and the Dissenters, but more particularly the former, to desire again some plan of reconciliation and comprehension. Archbishop Sancroft, with the concurrence of many ofthe Bishops 196 The Scheme of Comprehension. and leading divines ofhis day, actually set to work to frame a scheme of comprehension, so as to coun teract James's attempts to gain the Dissenters, many of whom were certainly at that time attracted to the Church by the able theological treatises which pro ceeded from the pens of our divines. We find this de sire of meeting the wishes of the Nonconformists ex pressed in that memorable petition for which James sent the Bishops to the Tower, wherein is stated a wish that their differences shall be considered in Parliament and Convocation ; and afterwards we find Sancroft, in his injunctions to his suffragans after the acquittal, desiring them to exhort their clergy to endeavour to win the Dissenters, to converse with them at their own houses, and assure them that the Bishops were heartily opposed to Popery, and anxious for the union of all reformed churches.* The declaration of the Prince of Orange, written previous to his coming over to England, which was based on the sentiments of those who invited him, amongst other things set forth his determination to do all in his power for uniting to the Church those who heretofore were separated from it. It was therefore only consistent on his part, when in possession ofthe , English crown, to desire a union amongst his Pro testant subjects, and to endeavour to effect one. The King, in one of his earliest addresses to Parliament, insisted upon the same topic, and intimated a wish that Protestant Dissenters should be put on a footing with members of the Church of England, as regarded their eligibility for civil employments ; in consequence of which express desire of the King, an attempt was * Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 167 ; See Wake's Speech on Sacheverel's Trial. A Bill to promote it. 197 made in the House of Lords to abrogate the necessity of any one receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to qualify him for a public office. But this attempt failed. Another in the same direction, but attended with little better success, was the introduc tion of a bill into Parliament, " for uniting their Majesties' Protestant subjects." It passed the House of Lords, after some debating, and with some pro tests ; for the Lords rejected the clause which would have made the posture at receiving the Sacrament a matter of indifference ; and in that relating to the composition of a Commission, to be given out to some Bishops and other clergy, they rejected the recom mendation that some laymen should be added in the Commission, under protest from the Marquis of Winchester, Lord Mordaunt, Lord Lovelace, and the Earl of Stamford ; who alleged many reasons against the " dangerous supposition" that the laity were not a part ofthe Church — a position which does not ap pear to have been really involved in the question. The Commons, instead of proceeding with the bill when it was sent down to their House, presented an address to his Majesty, in which they were joined by the Lords, praying him to issue writs for calling a Convocation, according to the ancient usage of the kingdom, during the sitting of Parliament, for the purpose of consulting in ecclesiastical matters. The King, in answer to this address, reiterated his former declarations of attachment and friendship to the Church of England, adding that the case they pro posed for the Dissenters would, he doubted not, con tribute to the benefit ofthe Church, and promising, at an early opportunity, to summon a Convocation. Some, of whom was Dr. Burnet, were not pleased 198 A Commission appointed with the address of the Parliament, believing that a Convocation would prove the entire ruin of the " comprehension scheme." Whilst the Bill of Union or Comprehension was under discussion, the King, it appears, was taking counsel of Tillotson, who was much better qualified to give sound advice at this crisis than Burnet. His views were essentially of the via media character. He was perfectly well acquainted with the constitu tion of the Church of England ; and although op posed to the high sentiments cherished by men of the school of Jane, he knew the wisdom, if not the absolute necessity, of the Government's recognising the constitutional features of the Church. He therefore reminded William how prone the Roman Catholics were to deride the Church of England as a parliamentary church, and recommended him to issue writs for the summoning a Convocation. But he qualified this recommendation by advising the King, first of all, to authorise a number ofthe leading divines in the kingdom to meet and prepare pro positions for the consideration of Convocation, and to suggest such alterations in the Prayer-book as might facilitate the return of moderate Nonconform ists to the Church. William immediately embraced this plan, proceeding from the person it did, and therefore, although ill satisfied with the address of the Parliament, he returned a gracious answer to it, promising to comply with their petition. Soon after a Commission under the great seal, dated the 17th of September, 1689^ was addressed to the Archbishop of York and nine Bishops, together with twenty other divines, for the purposes above alluded to, whilst writs were at the same time issued for summoning a to prepare Matters for Convocation. 199 Convocation.* The most eminent men f in the com mission were Compton, Burnet, Patrick, Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Sharp, and Beveridge ; nor must the name of John Williams, prebendary of S. Paul's, afterward Bishop of Chichester, be omitted, since he has left us an interesting record of the proceedings of the Com missioners from day to day. The Commission, after stating that the rites and ceremonies of the Church are legitimately alterable, according to the changes of times and seasons, goes on to dwell upon the abuses in the existing Eccle siastical Courts ; the want of a prescribed method of examining persons for holy orders ; the desire the King has of reconciling differences amongst his sub- * See Tindal, p. 278 ; the Diary of the Proceedings of the Commissioners, taken by Dr. Williams, ordered to be printed by the House of Commons, June 2, 1854, p. 92. f The following is a list of the divines named in the Com- mission : — Thomas Lamplugh, Archbishop of York. Richard Kidder, d.d. Henry Compton, Lord Bp. of London. Henry Aldrich, d.d. Peter Mew , , Winchester. William Jane, d.d. William Lloyd , , S. Asaph. John Hall, d.d. Thomas Sprat , , Rochester. Joseph Beaumont, d.d. Thomas Smith , , Carlisle. John Montagu, d.d. Jonathan Trelawney , , Exeter. John Goodman, d.d. Gilbert Burnet , , Salisbury. William Beveridge, d.d Humphry Humphrys , , Bangor. John Battel, d.d. Nicholas Stratford , , Chester. Charles Alston, d.d. E. Stillingfleet, d.d. Thomas Tenison, d.d. Simon Patrick, d.d. John Scott, d.d. John Tillotson, d.d. Edward Fowler, d.d. Richard Meggot, d.d. Robert Grove, d.d. John Sharp, d.d. John Williams, d.d. N.B. — Before the second session of the Commission, Stilling fleet was made Bishop of Worcester, and Patrick Bishop of Chichester. 200 Review ofthe Book of Common Prayer. jects, and hence the reason for the appointment of the Commission to prepare alterations and amend ments in the Book of Common Prayer and canons of the Church, with a view to these ends, for the consi deration of Convocation, when it should assemble. The Commission was opened by the Bishop of London on the 3d of October, in the Jerusalem Chamber, when the first discussion which arose was upon the pro priety of ceasing to read in any of the churches the Apocrypha. The learned Dr. William Beveridge, with great reason, remarked, that such a sudden depar ture from established custom would much shock the people, and after some debate the subject was allowed to drop, and a conversation ensued upon the translation ofthe Psalms in the Book of Common Prayer, when Dr. Kidder, who was deemed an autho rity upon this subject, gave it as his opinion, that the latter half ofthe translation was much better than the first, but that none of it agreed either with the Hebrew or the Septuagint — surely a somewhat hasty assertion.* Nothing more of moment occurred at this session, but upon the next occasion of their as sembling the spirit of suspicion and dissatisfaction, which prevailed to a great extent in the Church, about the scheme of comprehension and the conse quent appointment of the Commission, displayed itself in the conduct ofthe Bishop of Rochester and Dr. Jane. The Bishop of Rochester, declaring that a burnt child dreads the fire, pretended to question the legality of the Commission, more particularly since the titles and stations of some of its members had undergone a change since their proceedings had been * Williams's Diary, p. 95. Review ofthe Book of Common Prayer. 201 opened. He also expressed his opinion that they could not justly enter upon the discussion of altera tions in that, to which they had given their consent and assent — sentiments in which Dr. Jane, Dean of Gloucester, immediately expressed his concur rence.* Patrick, the newly appointed Bishop of Chi chester, replied to these objections, that there surely could be no comparison between the late Ecclesi astical Commission and this, by which they were merely called together for purposes of consultation. The Bishop of London adding, that if the Commission should prove fruitless the work they were now invited to engage in would be taken out of their hands, and that the design of the Commission was but to smooth the labours ofthe Convocation. These arguments, however, were not satisfactory to the opponents of the scheme. Sprat did not again attend the meetings of the Commissioners, and Drs. Aldrich, Jane, and Meggot, the Dean of Winchester, came but once more. The Commissioners now entered upon the business for which they were appointed in real earnest. They went through the whole of the Book of Com mon Prayer, making such amendments as they thought desirable, and drawing up a series of pro positions, which they intended to submit to the consideration of the Convocation. But it must not be supposed that they were unanimous in their judgments upon these changes. Frequent alterca tions took place, Beveridge being the most con spicuous of those who strove to moderate the puri- tanising tendencies exhibited by some. When such were for abolishing the cross in baptism, he remarked * Williams's Diary, p. 96. 202 Review ofthe Book of Common Prayer. they might as well object to the rubric directing the clergyman to take the infant in his arms; and the matter was compromised by a rubric being proposed, which should state that if the friends of the child to be baptized objected to the use ofthe cross, it should not be insisted upon ; or if a clergyman objected to make use of it, where the friends of the child to be baptized desired it, it should be lawful for the bishop to appoint another clergyman to officiate for him on such occasions.* A survey of these proposed alter ations in the Prayer-book will satisfy every reader that the catholic and primitive character of our Book of Common Prayer would have been much endangered had they been adopted. Some of the most beautiful expressions in the national manual of devotion would have been swept away, because they rise to the level of poetic diction. The whole tone of the book would have been lowered. The service for Holy Baptism was subjected to much criticism ; and although none of the Com missioners seem openly to have denied the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, several manifested a timid spirit of compromise that would have explained it away. A still longer discussion arose upon the ordination of ministers, or rather upon the reordination of those who, having ministered in other communions, should be desirous of holding cures in the Church of England. The Bishop of Salisbury, who had his own views upon this subject, entered with much warmth into this matter. He divided it under three heads : the reordination severally of Roman Catholics, foreign Protestants, and Dissenters. Some doubt was attempted to be thrown upon the orders * See Copy of Alterations in Williams's Diary, pp. 58, 98. Review ofthe Book of Common Prayer. 203 of the Church of Rome, but the inexpediency of doing this was pointed out, and it was abandoned. Burnet defended the orders of the foreign Protest ants, and instanced the case of Du Moulin, who held preferment in our Church in the reign of James I. without reordination ; but Beveridge re plied that his ordination was not ofthe same con sequence as it would have been had he held a cure of souls.* On the ordination of Dissenters a com promise was adopted. The high party would have regarded dissenting ministers simply in the light of laymen, and if they desired to minister in the Church of England would have insisted on their regular ordination; but the prevailing section of the Com missioners were for hypothetical ordinations, although Beveridge called such ordinations an equivocation, both on the part of the ordainer and the ordained. These were the chief subjects which led to much discussion. The other proceedings of the Com mission went on more in matter of course. Patrick, who on a former occasion, when some joint efforts were made by London clergy to assist the devotions of the laity, had distinguished himself by the com position of prayers, was selected to draw up fresh Collects, more in conformity with the Epistles and Gospels appointed to be read throughout the year, whilst Burnet, Stillingfleet, and Tillotson, lent their hands to give a polish to these productions. Kidder was set to work upon a new translation ofthe Psalms. Tenison upon marking such words in the Prayer- book as had become obsolete, and suggesting others in their places. The labours of the Commissioners resulted in the following propositions, and in con- * Williams's Diary, p. 102. 204 Alterations proposed. sidering some of them we can be only too thankful that they never met with the favour and acceptance of the general body of the clergy. I shall state them as briefly as possible. It was proposed that the chanting in cathedral churches should be discontinued. That the Apocry phal lessons, and such from the Old Testament as were deemed too natural, should be laid aside for others. That a rubric should be introduced, explaining the usefulness of the cross in baptism ; and still, if con scientiously scrupled, stating that it might be omitted. If people objected to receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at the altar rails, it might be admi nistered to them in their pews. It was suggested that a rubric should be made, declaring that the in tention of the Lent fasts was only to encourage de votion, not to mark a distinction in meats, and also explaining the nature of Rogation days, &c. The rubric obliging the clergy to say the daily prayers was to be changed to one exhorting the people to attend them. A deacon was to be allowed to read the Absolution, the word " priest" in the rubric being altered to that of " minister." The " Gloria Patri" to be repeated only once at the end ofthe daily Psalms. In the Te Deum, " thine only-begotten Son," was to be substituted for thine " honourable, true, and only Son." The 128th Psalm was to be substituted for the Benedicite. The word Sovereign was alone to be used in the prayers, without such appellations as " most illustrious," " mighty," or " religious." Not to countenance unjust wars, in the prayer for the King's Majesty it was proposed to lay aside the words, " Grant that he may vanquish and overcome all his enemies," and to substitute in Alterations proposed. 205 their place some such expression as, " Prosper all his righteous undertakings against thy enemies." The words in the prayer for the Clergy, " who alone workest great marvels," and also " the healthful spirit of thy grace," they recommended should be altered ; and the prayer beginning, " whose nature and pro perty," &c, to be expunged. The new Collects of the Bishop of Chichester were also recommended for adoption. They proposed that if the incumbent of a parish objected to officiate in the surplice, the Bishop should be allowed to name a substitute for him, who had no scruple in the matter. It was pro posed to allow parents at baptism to stand sponsors to their own children. Upon the subject of the Athanasian Creed, it was determined that, lest the entire disuse of it in the public service should seem to encourage Socinianism, a rubric should be framed, stating that the curses therein contained are only intended to denounce such as deny the substance of the Christian rehgion. Dr. Kidder's (the Dean of Peterborough) new translation of the Psalms was to be wholly left to the consideration ofthe Convocation. We have already seen at what decision the Commis sioners arrived on the subject of reordinations.* I have thus endeavoured to give a concise view of the labours of this Commission, the meetings of which extended over a period of six weeks. They held eighteen sessions ; and, in addition to these, sub committees were appointed to meet, for the purpose of considering particular matters. Besides those who withdrew, six of the Commissioners never sat at all ; namely, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of Exeter and Carlisle, and Drs. Beaumont, Montagu, * See Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. pp. 454, 455. 206 The Convocation. and Battely.* With the experience of the present times before us, on looking over these contem plated alterations in the Liturgy and ceremonies of the Church, we are able to see how injurious to her national influence would have been their entire adoption. Some few ofthe propositions might, with very great advantage, be adopted at the present time; but the majority of them would have served only to lower the dignity of Divine worship, without adding anything which was calculated to increase the fervency of public devotion. How great a loss would have been the choirs in our cathedrals! and what infinite confusion and altercation would have ensued upon its being left to a clergyman's discretion whe ther he should wear the surplice or make use of the cross at baptism ! or to that of a parishioner, whether he should call in the aid of a strange clergyman to officiate in the place of his parish clergyman ! The length of time the Commissions were en gaged in their review of the Liturgy, afforded the Nonjuring and also the High-Church clergy an oppo- tunity for publicly expressing their hostility to the entire scheme of comprehension. It was declared that the King at heart was no true friend to the Church of England ; and that, under the pretence of removing small obstacles which stood in the way of the reconciliation of the Nonconformists, it was in tended surreptitiously to introduce Presbyterianism. The danger the Church was in was everywhere loudly proclaimed ; and an active canvassing was set on foot for the election of those proctors who were to represent the clergy of the several dioceses in the ensuing Convocation.! * Williams's Diary, p. 108. f Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 692. The Convocation. 207 The deliberations of that assembly were opened on the 6th of November, when Beveridge, who had jealously watched the proceedings of the Commission ers, preached a Latin sermon before them, deprecating hasty and unnecessary changes. In consequence of the Archbishop of Canterbury being under suspen sion, the Bishop of London was declared President in his place. At their next session, on the 20th of November, the clergy being assembled in Henry the Seventh's Chapel, S. Peter's, Westminster, they pro ceeded to the election of a Prolocutor. Dr. Sharp proposed his friend, Dr. Tillotson, now Dean of S. Paul's ; but that large and important party who were opposed to the Church Commission, and suspicious of the policy of Wilham, brought forward Jane. Al though it was said that this learned man had imbibed a rooted hostility to William, in consequence of his having refused him the Bishopric of Exeter, we must not forget that he was always a High Churchman, and that it was Jane who rescued from obhvion the immortal work of Bull in defence of the Nicene faith. He gained the election over Tillotson by a large ma jority.* When he was, according to custom, intro duced to the Upper House, he delivered a Latin address, in which he expatiated upon the excellency ofthe Church of England, as it existed, and the little need the Liturgy had of amendment ; concluding with the words the Bishop of London had adopted as a motto, on the colours of the troop which he headed at the time of the Revolution,! " Nolumus leges An- * See Life of Prideaux, p. 56, 57 ; Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 692 ; Nelson's Life of Bull, p. 242. | Macaulay, vol. iii. p. 490. 208 The Convocation. glias mutari." To this address of the Prolocutor the Bishop replied, also in a Latin speech. He spoke in a conciliatory tone, reminding the clergy of their former professions, in the reign of King James, in favour of the Nonconformists, and insisted that they ought so to endeavour to view the nonessentials in religion, that they might promote the salvation of many straying Christians. These sentiments found little favour with the majority ofthe members ofthe Lower House of Convocation ; and at the next meet ing, notwithstanding many efforts were made to bring them over to the views of the Comprehensionists, the President, despairing of success, determined on pro roguing them, and announced " that, having com municated the royal commission, by which they were empowered to act, to an eminent civilian, he had found it defective in not having the great seal, and therefore he should prorogue them till that was pro cured." * In the interim, the endeavours of those who favoured the comprehension and the desires ofthe King were renewed, to induce the Lower House to comply ; but, notwithstanding every offer of prefer ment to such as would come into these, the same results ensued, and the majority ofthe Lower House remained adverse to the scheme. At the next meeting of Convocation, which oc curred on the 4th of December, the Earl of Not tingham, one of the principal secretaries of state, made his appearance with the commission, sealed with the great seal of England, and also a message from the King to the Convocation. The Bishop of London, as president, ordered the commission to be * Tindal, Continuation of Rapin, vol. i. p. 286. The Convocation. 209 formally read before the Convocation, the purport of which has already been given ; after which the Earl delivered the following royal message: — " His Majesty has summoned this Convocation, not only because it is usual upon holding a Par liament, but out of a pious zeal to do everything that may tend to the best establishment of the Church of England, which is so eminent a part of the Reforma tion, and is certainly best suited to the constitution of this government, and therefore does most signally deserve, and shall always have, both his favour and protection; and he doubts not but that you will assist him in promoting the welfare of it, so that no prejudices, with which some men may have laboured to possess you, shall disappoint his good intentions, or deprive the Church of any benefit from your con sultations. His Majesty therefore expects, that the things that shall be proposed shall be calmly and impartially considered by you, and assures you that he will offer nothing to you but what shall be for the honour, peace, and advantage, both of the Pro testant religion in general, and particularly of the Church of England." * This latter clause evidently referred as much to the Nonconformists as the Church, and occasioned much subsequent debate. The Bishops were not long in framing an address to the King, in answer to his Majesty's message; but as it echoed the sentiments and words of that document in reference to the Protestant religion, the Lower House refused to concur in it, and ex pressed a wish to present a separate address of their own. They said, they desired to confine their ad dress to his Majesty's most gracious message, and * Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 695. P 210 The Convocation. especially to such part of the address as concerned the Church of England alone ; whereas their lord ships, in their address, recurred to the policy of the Revolution. The opposition thus existing be tween the two Houses resulted in a conference, chiefly managed on the Bishops' part by the Bishop of Salisbury, and on the side of the clergy by their Prolocutor.* Burnet stated, that the reasons why their lordships insisted, in their address, upon the mention of the Protestant religion were : — 1st, Be cause it is the known denomination of that part of Western Christendom which is opposed to the Church of Rome ; 2ndly, because omitting it might lead to great misconstructions as to their conduct; and lastly, because it occurs in the King's address, and therefore is just the matter which the Lower House indicated as that which should be noticed in the address. These arguments of the Bishop were, never theless, unavailing, the Lower House being quite re solved not to give any countenance to the proposed alterations and amendments in the Liturgy. They therefore replied, " We, being the representatives of a formed established Church, do not think fit to mention the word religion any farther than it is the religion of some formed established Church." After much difference of opinion and discussion between the two Houses, the following joint address was agreed upon, and presented to William on the 12th of December : — " We, your Majesty's most loyal and most dutiful subjects, the Bishops and Clergy of the province of Canterbury, in Convocation assembled, having re ceived a most gracious message from your Majesty * Tindal, vol. i. p. 289. The Convocation. 211 by the Earl of Nottingham, hold ourselves bound in duty and gratitude to return our most humble ac knowledgments for the same, and for the pious zeal and care your Majesty is pleased to express therein for the honour, peace, advantage, and estabhshment of the Church of England, whereby we doubt not the interest of the Protestant religion in all other Pro testant churches, which is dear to us, will be the better secured under the influence of your Majesty's go vernment and protection. And we crave leave to assure your Majesty, that in pursuance of that trust and confidence you repose in us, we will consider whatsoever shall be offered to us from your Majesty without prejudice, and in all calmness and impar tiality ; and that we will constantly pay the fidelity and allegiance which we have all sworn to your Majesty and the Queen, whom we pray God to continue long and happily to reign over us." * Whatever William's opinions may have been re specting the discussion in Convocation, he returned the following gracious answer : — " I 'take this address very kindly from the Con vocation. You may depend upon it, that all I have promised, and all I can do for the service of the Church of England, I will do ; and I give you this new assurance, that I will improve all occasions and opportunities for its service." The Lower House of Convocation exhibited no haste, to enter upon the consideration of those sub jects and upon that business for which they had been more especially summoned. One cause of this back wardness was indicated by a zealous speech made by one of that body in favour ofthe non-juring Bishops. * Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 696. 212 The Convocation, He said, " he wished that something might be done to qualify them to sit in Convocation, but so that the Convocation might not incur danger thereby." If the deprivals, however, were still to take place, such a proceeding would have been impossible, and the whole question was deemed too difficult to be further discussed at that time. But as they were bent on avoiding the subject of concession to the prejudices of Dissenters, they chose to consider how far Convocation had the power of censuring books of an irreligious and scandalous tendency, two works of which description they named — a work entitled Notes on Athanasius' Creed,* and Two Letters re lating to the present Convocation; and they desired the advice of the Bishops as to how far they were qualified to deal with questions of this description with out incurring the penalty of statute 25 Henry VIII. The President assured them that he and his brethren were fully conscious of the evil tendency of the writings they complained of, but that it was not in their power, at that time, to give a satisfactory answer to that question ; and finding that they could not be drawn to a consideration of the proposals of the Commissioners, he prorogued the Assembly, which was afterwards dissolved without any further pro ceedings, on the 13th of February. Some other matters would probably have been offered for the consideration ofthe Lower House, besides the scheme of comprehension, had their deliberations borne more practical results. Tenison had prepared a Book of Family Prayers, which would have been submitted for their approval, and also proposed forms of prayer * Reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany, vol. v. p. 380, edit. 1810. It is Prorogued. 213 " for the consecration of churches," " for the receiving of penitents," and " the preparing the condemned for their deaths," &c* The Convocation, during a space of ten years, although summoned according to cus tom, was kept from deliberation by a series of pro rogations, King William being distrustful of the general spirit of the clergy. It is not treating a dehberative assembly with much generosity to prorogue it immediately that its dehberations do not harmonise with the views of the power by virtue of which it is assembled. Although at the time the clergy were blamed for their obstruc- tiveness, subsequently some of the foremost advocates of the comprehension scheme regarded the failure of it as providential. Even Burnet has deliberately recorded this as his opinion ; he wisely remarks that "the Jacobite clergy, who were then under suspension, were designing to make a schism in the Church ; and had any very sensible alterations been made in the discipline and services of the Established Church, the Jacobite clergy would have maintained that their community was the true Church of England." The reader may be inclined to agree in this judg ment, when he remembers how many Episcopal sees were as good as vacant at the time the Convocation was sitting, and accordingly, how necessarily limited must have been the number of Bishops in attendance in the Upper House. At the same time, the Presby terians and other Dissenters generally showed as httle disposition to be reconciled to the Church as the High Churchmen did to court them by hazard ous concessions. At this very period they were * Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 700 ; Life of Prideaux, p. 61. 214 The Bill of Rights becomes Law. ordaining after their manner unusually large num bers of ministers, whilst they kept the press ahve with publications unfriendly to the Church.* It is not contrary to the spirit of history to beheve that the clergy were actuated in their opposition by sound principles, and that the failure of the comprehension scheme at this particular season was indeed pro vidential. In the session of Parliament with which this Convocation was concurrently held, one important measure passed into law, which must for ever ex ercise a great influence upon the religion of the country. The Bill of Rights received the sanction of the Legislature, in which the liberties of England are declared, and the succession of the crown settled upon a Protestant basis. By this bill it was enacted, " that every English sovereign should at his or her coronation repeat and subscribe the declaration against transubstantiation ; that no English sove reign should marry a Papist, and if this principle was violated the subject was absolved from his allegiance." This famous enactment is such a bul wark to the religion and liberties of Englishmen, that military force alone, which, under the direction of despotic power, may trample law under its foot, could enable a sovereign in England to become in a very open manner arbitrary. Before closing this chapter the affairs of Ireland call for some brief notice. In that island public opinion was much more divided than in England. Never was there a time when such an opportunity was afforded for the display of that animosity which reigned between the Anglo-Saxon colonist and the * Kennett's Complete Hist. p. 595. The Affairs of Ireland. 215 Celtic boor — the English Protestant and the Irish Ro manist ; and James, in the person of the Earl of Tyrconnel, had a violent and unscrupulous agent, who would spare no violence or cruelty in pushing forward his master's cause. Hence, whilst England was rising in favour of the Prince of Orange and the Protestant cause, Tyrconnel was doing his utmost to ensure the supremacy of Romanism in Ireland; and James himself considered that it was by means of Ireland that his crown was to be recovered and his rehgious opinions vindicated. The Protestants of Ireland, the English residents, and all who adhered to the principles of the Revo lution, were driven from the southern and midland parts of the kingdom to Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, where they made themselves masters of many important towns, and awaited the conflict, which was deemed inevitable. Amongst the most important of these places was Londonderry, and it also became the most memorable for the siege it sustained against the forces of King James and his French allies. James landed in Ireland from Brest on the 12th of March, 1688-9, with 5000 French soldiers, and pro ceeded immediately to Cork, and thence to Dublin, where he removed the Protestants whom he found in authority, and installed in their places Roman Catho lics and Frenchmen. From Dublin he hastened to Londonderry, expecting, from private intelligence which he had received, that that place would speedily surrender to his arms ; but in this expectation he was greatly deceived, and the defence maintained by the inhabitants of this city forms one of the most interesting episodes in the history of these times. 216 The Rev. George Walker. It deserves mention in these pages, since the final success of their resistance was mainly due to the intrepidity of the Rev. George Walker, a clergyman of the Church of England. By military genius, by dauntless courage, and by his pulpit exhortations in the cathedral, he supported the ardour of his fellow Protestants during a siege of one hundred and five days, when, at a time that the garrison was at its last extremity, relief providentially arrived. Upon the termination of the blockade, Walker and the other gallant defenders of the place visited England, where they received the thanks of the House of Commons. Oxford made Walker a Doctor in Divinity, the King presented him with 5000/., and designed him for the Bishopric of Londonderry.* William had hitherto intrusted the conduct of his army in Ireland to Marshal Armand de Schom- berg, upon whom he had previously bestowed a Dukedom. He was the most distinguished of those French refugees who accompanied William, when Prince of Orange, to this country. He had gained, as has been already remarked, the highest reputation in the French army ; but the dictates of conscience triumphed over the love of military glory, and he would not renounce the Protestant religion to please Louis XIV. Hence his connexion with William. His military tactics in Ireland were judicious, but some what dilatory ; and William therefore resolved to take the field in person against his father-in-law ; and, as is well known, the result of this determination was the decisive battle ofthe Boyne.f The slaughter in this * See Kennett, vol. iii. p. 582, and Lord Maeaulay's interest ing account, vol. iii. p. 188„ t See Life of Tillotson, p. 221. The consequences ofthe Battle of the Boyne. 217 engagement was comparatively trifling. Amongst the most eminent who fell was Schomberg himself, and Walker, who had rashly (as has been already remarked) persisted in engaging in the battle, apparently not satisfied with the military renown which he had already acquired. The result ofthe battle ofthe Boyne acted greatly in William's favour, even with respect to the Church ; for many, who had hitherto scrupled the oaths, con fessed themselves vanquished by circumstances, and now took them. The Dissenters had all along ex pressed an unreserved approbation of the proceed ings of Wilham. Perhaps none of Wilham's sub jects were so genuinely and universally attached to his cause.* Everywhere they took the oaths pre scribed by the law, and prayed for the success of William and Mary against their enemies. As they indicated a disposition to exceed the strict hmits of their new indulgence, more particularly by the esta blishment of seminaries for the education of the young, many of the clergy, and Stillingfleet amongst the number, exhibited some jealousy in consequence of their proceedings. They looked upon the tolera tion granted them but as the instalment of a more complete one to follow, which, in their case, should ipso facto abrogate the Test Act. It was much about this time that Locke came to their assistance, by the publication of his letters on Toleration,* the principles maintained in which may be excellent in the abstract, and the arguments on his own premises unanswerable, but which are certainly untenable when viewed in relation to an ancient Christian * Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 488. | Ibid. p. 499. 218 Queen Mary's prudent conduct. kingdom, the institutions of which were nearly all framed in relation to the Church and the Christian religion. He condemns any interference of the civil power in matters spiritual or ecclesiastical, or any interference on the part of religious bodies with the action of the civil power — a doctrine which it might be well to insist upon in framing laws for a new and republican form of government, but surely not desirable, even if possible, in a country which cherishes with veneration the traditions of its Con stitution, and ostentatiously calls itself a Christian country. Let the subject enjoy all the civil and religious liberty that is compatible with the pre servation of an institution more ancient than the monarchy itself. It may be stated here that Mary, who was left in possession of the government during William's ab sence in Ireland, contributed not a little to the gene ral stability of the new state of affairs by her firm and judicious conduct. She entirely suppressed a formidable conspiracy, originating amongst the Papists and Jacobites of Lancashire, by the prompt manner in which she caused the apprehension- of suspected persons. When William, therefore, returned to Eng land, in the congratulatory addresses presented to him by the Parliament, upon his recent successes, her merits were deservedly coupled with those of her husband. 219 CHAPTER VII. (1690-93.) The Non-jurors — Death of Lake of Chichester — Death of Thomas of Worcester — Overtures of the Court — Slanderous attack upon the non-juring Bishops, and their vindication — Ashton and Lord Preston's Conspiracy — Tillotson consecrated Arch bishop of Canterbury — Sancroft ejected from Lambeth — Frampton — Turner — White — Lloyd — Ken — Sancroft re tires to Fressingfield — His death and character — Fresh consecrations — Leslie's views. When we recollect the part taken by the leading divines of the Episcopal clergy during the Great Rebellion, and recall the Oxford decree of 1683,* wherein twenty-seven propositions, for the most part selected from republican and infidel writers, were denounced as destructive of the sacred persons of princes, it would have been greatly to the reproach of the Church of England if some of the clergy had not been found prepared to lose everything, rather than belie the opinions by which they professed to have been governed all their lives. It is true there was this great difference between themselves and the clergy of Charles the First's time : those of Charles's time beheld a sovereign warmly attached to the Church of England, driven from his throne, in some measure, because of that attachment, and cruelly led * See Clarendon, vol. v. p. 74 ; Kennett, vol. iii. p. 411. 220 The Non-jurors. from his own palace to execution. The clergy of the reign of James II. had to witness a daily increas ing violation of their rights and a contempt of their religion on the part of their sovereign; whilst the means of escape from such treatment were the least objectionable which could, under the circumstances, be imagined. Still, those passages in scripture which are usually quoted in support of passive obe dience are certainly not without application to the non-jurors; for whilst the primitive Christians were directed to suffer all things rather than deny their faith, they were yet bidden to submit to every ordi nance of man for the Lord's sake, and especially to the king as supreme. But, putting aside the doc trine of passive obedience, there was the greater difficulty of transferring allegiance from one king to another, which, on rigid principles of the indefeasible right of kings, was only to be defended on the pre sumption that the King had absolutely, of his own free will, abdicated his throne. This James cer tainly had not done. It is easy to cut the knot, by saying that the state of affairs, consequent upon the intemperate policy of the King, was such as of itself released all his subjects from their allegiance, aud that he had broken that compact which unites a sovereign to his subjects. But there were those who believed that it was as impossible for these ties really to be dissolved, without the consent of both parties, as it is for those which unite children to their parents ever to be irrevocably dissolved. Even Sancroft was for constraining James, and would, no doubt, have adhered to the Prince of Orange, had William been satisfied with the title of regent ; but to depose his sovereign was an act too much resem- The Non-jurors. 221 bling the treatment shown to Charles I. by the Puritans to satisfy one who, in his youth, had, in some measure, suffered for the royal cause. The results of the Revolution are no doubt beneficial to the subject, but, like the Reformation, the means by which it was brought about are open to much objection. We have seen that immediately after the settle ment of the Crown, upon a call of the House of Lords,* several Peers, spiritual and temporal, with Sancroft at their head, declined to appear and take the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary. We have also seen how the conduct of these Peers hastened the passing an Act for the settlement of the oaths, by which the clergy were obliged to take the oaths by the 1st of August, on pain of suspen sion from their office ; and if they persevered in their refusal to take them for six months longer, they were to be deprived of all ecclesiastical prefer ments. The clergy who were thus unwilling to transfer their allegiance from James to William were called non-jurors, and their proceedings form an important episode in the Church history of those times. They formed a kind of Church of them selves, which only ceased to exist in 1805, with the death of the Rev. Charles Boothe, the last of the non-juring Bishops. The Bishops who refused the oaths were of course at the head of this body. They were the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sancroft, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough (these were five of those seven whose lawful opposition to the arbitrary proceedings of James had sent them to the Tower) ; * Feb. 13, 1688-9. 222 The Nonjurors. and besides these were Lloyd of Norwich, Thomas of Worcester, and Frampton of Gloucester, and the notorious Dr. Cartwright, bishop of Chester, who did not long survive the adverse turn of his affairs. Two other venerable members of this body were speedily called away : these were Dr. Lake, bishop of Chichester, and Dr. Thomas, bishop of Worcester. They died much about the time of the appointment of the Commission for considering the scheme of comprehension. Before Lake died he signed a pro fession of his faith, in the presence of Dr. Green the parish minister, Dr. Hickes the dean of Worcester, Mr. Jenkin his chaplain, and two others, who as sisted at his last communion, wherein, after a pious declaration of his attachment to the Church of England, he adds this avowal : " And whereas that religion of the Church of England taught me the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedience, which I have accordingly inculcated upon others, and which I took to be the distinguishing character of the Church of England, I adhere no less firmly and steadfastly to that, and in consequence of it have incurred 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."* He was succeeded in the see of Chichester by Patrick, whose views were such that he could, without the least scruple of conscience, acknowledge William and Mary. The Bishop of Worcester was equally satisfied with the course which he had adopted, saying on his death-bed, " I think I could burn at a stake before I took this new * Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 50. Their Principles. 223 oath." These were the expressions of men who, of necessity, must have been dead to the world ; and it was, doubtless, this fact which gave their opinions so much weight with their fellow-sufferers. Dr. Thomas's successor was the eminent Stillingfleet. Sancroft continued to reside at Lambeth, de termined not to quit his post until ejected by the civil power. Besides the Bishops, about four hun dred of the parochial clergy followed their example, amongst whom were many men of considerable eminence. Dr. Hickes, the dean of Worcester, a man of profound learning, not only attended the death-bed of his diocesan, but shared with him the loss of his own dignity and church emolument. The truly pious and excellent Mr. Kettlewell was of the number, as also Jeremy Collier and Charles Leslie, who became one of the most eminent of their writers; and although not a clergyman, we cannot omit to name Robert Nelson, the well-known author of A Companion to the Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England, as another who joined himself to this body of sufferers, notwithstanding his inti mate acquaintance with Tillotson. The reasons which the non-jurors alleged for the step which they thus adopted were as follow : — " That in the year 1688 the ecclesiastical authority of the Church of England was with the Most Reverend Father in God, Dr. William Sancroft, as Primate of all England, and with the Bishops of his province, now under deprivation ; that this authority could not be annulled, excepting on the grounds of notorious heresy on their parts, or by the civil power having authority to deprive Bishops without a synod ; that 224 Their Principles. in contempt of these views, and although the de prived Bishops and Clergy had ever, and still con tinued, to maintain the doctrine of the Church of England, and no ecclesiastical synod had pronounced in their case, several Bishops and Priests, subordinate to Archbishop Sancroft and his deprived suffragans, had rejected that authority, being prepared to trans fer it to another, whilst in reality the obligation to adhere to the same altar as that of these Bishops remained in full force." Such is the substance of the views which guided the non-juring clergy in their course of separation from their brethren of the Established Church, and these views, in the abstract, are doubtless correct. They felt that the Bishops had done nothing that of itself could justify their being deprived of their episcopal rank and revenues. They, therefore, could not feel themselves released from that canonical obedience which they had sworn to show them. The truth is, the non-jurors were struggling to maintain a principle, when the rest of the world had agreed to abandon every effort to maintain it as impracticable and impossible in the existing state of public affairs : but what can we say to the consistency of those writers who lash the courtiers of James for receiving his favours and deserting his cause, and are equally severe upon those honest men who, in the adoption of the course they pursued, were certainly guided by the most honourable motives? It may be questioned, in their case, whether the impartiality of history has gained by time, for there were, in their day, many inde pendent thinkers, and amongst them the discerning Swift, who admired the constancy of the Arch- Overtures ofthe Court to the Nonjurors. 225 bishop, in refusing to take the oaths, and although not a member of the non-juring body ever regarded their conduct with sincere respect. Whilst dwelling on the severity with which these sufferers for conscience sake have been handled, it must not be forgotten that some of those in power, but especially Queen Mary, were sincerely anxious for the concihation ofthe Archbishop and those who had followed his example. It is said that, on the day of the Proclamation, the Queen sent two of her chap lains to ask the blessing of the Archbishop, and to attend his chapel at Lambeth, and see whether their Majesties were prayed for : which happened to be the case ; for his chaplain, Wharton, who had resolved to acknowledge the new sovereigns, read the service, and prayed for William and Mary ; but was after wards reprimanded by the Archbishop for having done so. As much forbearance on the part of William, also, was shown to the non-jurors, as was consistent with the laws which had been passed relative to taking the oath. The Bishops were suffered to remain in possession of their sees long after the 1st of February, 1690-1, the day appointed in the act for their deprivation; and several overtures were made by the Court, with a view to retaining them in their positions. Even in the original debate upon the passing the act for imposing the oaths upon the clergy, some effort was made to exempt them from this obligation, or to subject them to it only as a test of loyalty, when suspected of clan destine proceedings against the Government, the King having the option of calling upon any to take it. All, however, that was obtained at that time in favour of the clergy, was the liberty granted to Q 226 Overtures ofthe Court to the Non-jurors. the King to reserve a third part of the profits of any twelve benefices he should name, to the incum bents who should be deprived by virtue of that act.* The truth is, the public men who were leaders in the Revolution, and the Dissenters, were most bitter against the non-jurors, and thought anything was too good for those who, they believed, materially impeded the settlement of things agreeably to their own views. After the battle of the Boyne, Burnet, by the direction ofthe Queen, had moved the Earl of Ro chester and Sir John Trevor, friends of the Bishops under suspension, to ascertain whether, supposing an act were obtained, excusing them from taking the oaths, they would discharge their episcopal functions as they had done heretofore ; but the non-jurors, whose views had now assumed a more settled cha racter, declined to enter into any compromise at all. They converted the theory of passive obedience into passive resistance or endurance, as people may regard it.f Of the extent to which the animosity entertained against them was carried by the factious advocates of the Revolution, we may form some opinion from the following circumstances, which, however, in the end, occasioned a momentary re action in their favour, and, indeed, led to the overtures just mentioned being made. When King William went into Ireland, a day of public humiliation and special prayers was appointed by the Church for his safety and success. About the same time a form of prayer was printed, as if intended for the Jacobites and non-jurors, entitled, A Form of Prayer and Humiliation for God's Bless- * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 16, ed. 1823. f Ibid- P- *23- A scandalous Pamphlet against them. 227 ings upon his Majesty and his Dominions, and for removing and averting God's Judgments from this Church and State. In it occur these words, — " We humbly beseech thee to look compassionately on this persecuted part of thy Church, now driven from thy pubhc altars into corners and secret places." And in praying for King James, not by name, but as their Prince, the Liturgy makes the worshippers to say, — " Raise him friends abroad ; convert or con found his enemies at home." Any impartial judge of the conduct and sentiments of the Bishops under suspension, must have known upon the face of it that this could not have emanated from them ; at least, that it could never have had the sanction of such men as the Archbishop and the Bishop of Bath and Wells : yet sectarian zeal and political animosity will spare no opportunity that presents itself. And soon after the nation had recovered its alarm, occa sioned by the successes ofthe French fleet off the coast of Sussex, there appeared a scandalous pam phlet, entitled, A Modest Inquiry into the Causes of the present Disasters in England, and who they are that brought the French Fleet into the Channel de scribed. 4to. 1690. In this pamphlet, the non-jurants are described as the Holy Lambeth Club, and are charged with bringing the French fleet into the Channel. They are censured for starting the distinction of a king de facto, and not de jure; for praying, whilst in the Church, for the King and Queen : which might mean either King William and his Queen, or King James and his Queen. Dr. Sherlock (who at this time re fused the oaths) is charged with evading the law, and still preaching — setting an example to inferior 228 Their Vindication. men to get up into their pulpits and preach disaffec tion to the Government. It is added, that a sort of oecumenical council of the whole party composed the Jacobite Liturgy, and printed ten thousand copies of it ; that when William was in Ireland, and when a considerable part of our fleet was in the Mediterra nean under Admiral Killigrew, and another part on the coast of Ireland under Sir Cloudesley Shovel, the French King was memorialised to send a fleet into the Channel ; upon the appearing of which they pro mised a pretty general insurrection, by means of which the landing of the French might be secured, and James's authority reasserted. At the same time a word was devised, descriptive of the punishment due to those enemies of King William, whom the author charitably suggested should be De-Witted, alluding to the cruel fate ofthe Grand Pensionary of Holland, John de Witt, and his brother Cornelius, who were massacred by the populace at the Hague, because regarded as enemies to the Prince of Orange. It was impossible that such a document as this could be suffered to pass without notice from those most personally maligned ; and although every im pediment was thrown in the way of its pubhcation, the Bishops contrived to get printed a Vindication, in which, after recapitulating some of the charges against them contained in the pamphlet, they declare the accusations cast upon them to be malicious calumnies, and defy the libeller to produce his proofs of their guilt. They disclaim any knowledge of the author ofthe new Liturgy, or any correspondence, directly or indirectly, with any agent or minister of France. They aver that the object of their meetings at Lambeth had only been to consult how they might Their Vindication. 229 best keep their consciences void of offence toward God and towards man. As to being the abettors of Eng land's misery, whatever calumny may invent, they do and will continue to their dying hour to pray for her peace, prosperity, and glory. Who the author of the pamphlet is they know not, but, notwithstanding "he barbarously endeavours to raise in the whole English nation such a fury as may end in De- Witting" them, they recommend him to the Divine mercy. In conclusion, they refer to their former sufferings in withstanding Popery and arbitrary power, their present hostihty to that religion and the arbitrary power of France, and beseech their countrymen not to hate them without a cause, but to believe their solemn protestation of their innocency. This Vin dication was signed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of Norwich, Ely, Bath and Wells, and Peterborough. It was a well-timed address, and had a very beneficial effect upon the public -mind, not only restoring the confidence of the nation in Sancroft's integrity, but enlisting the sympathy of many in the trials and sufferings of these men ; and there was a wish, by no means confined to few, that these fathers of the Church might be retained in their bishoprics and contribute to the stability of public affairs. After the battle of the Boyne the numbers of the non-jurants sensibly diminished. Many admitted a right of providential possession, and there was a hope that, by concessions being made to the conscientious scruples of others, the threatened breach might be averted. But the Bishops refused to purchase immunity by any compromise, and public events soon after produced another unfavour able reaction against them. 230 The Preston Plot. Such, amongst others, was the discovery of what is commonly called Lord Preston's plot, the investi gation into which occupied William's ministers whilst he was attending the congress at the Hague. Some account of that plot is here inserted, as the issue of it nearly affected the non-jurors. It appears in some manner to have grown out ofthe Lancashire plot already alluded to. The object of both was the same — to restore James II. to his throne by means of a French fleet. The chief movers in this conspiracy were the Earl of Clarendon, Turner, Bishop of Ely, Mr. Graham, Mr. Ashton, and the Quaker Penn. To insure the success of their undertaking, they agreed that some of their party should cross the Channel and visit the dethroned monarch in person ; and Lord Preston, Mr. Ashton, and Mr. Elliot, were selected for this purpose. They had scarcely started before they were betrayed by the husband of Mrs. Pratt, the person of whom they had hired the vessel at Barking, in which they set sail. He informed the Government of his suspicions, and Captain Billoss was directed to watch the vessel in which Pratt was conveying his passengers down the river. When they had got as far as Gravesend, Billoss came on board, on pretence of pressing sailors. The real object of his visit, however, was not long concealed; for finding Preston, Ashton, and Elliot were in the boat, he drew them from the hold, and declared them his prisoners ; Ashton with the treasonable papers on his person. Amongst the letters were found some from Turner, in one of which, supposed to be addressed to the King, he says, "Sir, I speak in the plural, because I write my elder brother's sentiments as well as my own, The Preston Plot. 231 and the rest ofthe family;" meaning, as it was inter preted, Sancroft and the other non-juring Bishops. There can be little doubt that he thus spoke for Sancroft and the others upon his own authority alone, if he intended, which does not appear in his letter, to imply that they were abettors in the con spiracy ; for how can we suppose that either San croft or Ken, after so recently declaring their ab horrence of such undertakings, could be dehberately taking part in one ? The only one implicated in the conspiracy who suffered was Ashton. He was attended to the scaffold by Collier the non-juror.* He confessed that he had been fairly tried, and behaved as became a man who thought his cause a just one, but his fate unfortunate. In Lord Preston, the love of life was too strong for the credit of his reputation. He made a general confession, implicating others, and his life was spared, but his character suffered an indelible blot. Lord Clarendon remained a few weeks in confinement, and was then set at liberty. Dartmouth died in the Tower of apoplexy. Penn and Turner absconded. Turner was so remarkable for his nose or beak — the Kaguariijjov ofthe vessel, as Sancroft called it — that, had the pursuit been keen, there can be little doubt his detection would have soon followed the proclama tion against him and the others, who had absconded. He concealed himself for a time in London, and then made his escape into France. t The effect of this affair on William was to de termine him to spare the non-jurors no longer, but * Lathbury's Nonjurors, p. 81. f Kennett, vol. iii. 614 ; Tindal, vol. i. 436. 232 Sancroft retires from Lambeth. to proceed at once in filling up the vacant sees. The King had arrived from Brussels, at Whitehall, on the 13th of April, 1691, and on the 23d Tillotson was nominated in council to the Archbishopric of Can terbury. The deprived Bishops had continued, up to the present time, to occupy the mansions attached to their respective sees. They were now obliged to leave them.* William returned to the Continent in the beginning of May to prosecute the campaign in Flanders, and the Queen, upon whom the Govern ment of the country devolved, soon after despatched an order to the deprived Archbishop, commanding him to quit Lambeth Palace within the space of ten days. Sancroft was much, but unreasonably, hurt at the peremptory order of Queen Mary. It may, perhaps, be a very hard trial to bear, when we experience severity from those who have been accustomed to make much of us; but Sancroft, unfortunately, al lowed his temper to be ruffled, and his mortification to appear in his actions. He not only refused to leave the palace until ejected by law, but altered his mind regarding the disposition of his library. He resolved not to leave it to the See of Canterbury, as he had at first intended. He had not to wait long for the decision ofthe Courts of Law; he was cited before the Court of Exchequer on the 12th of June, and on the 23rd judgment was pronounced against him.f Late on the same evening, without a word of his intentions to his chaplains, he took boat at Lambeth Ferry, attended by his nephew, Mr. Sancroft, who * Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 262; D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft, p. 276 ; Kennett, vol. iii. 683. f See Wharton's Diary. Sancroft retires from Lambeth. 233 was also the steward of his household, and with two or three other immediate followers bade adieu for ever to that venerable building, which has seen so many brief tenures, but few more eventful than that of Sancroft. It would be superfluous to dwell upon those acts of charity and consideration exercised by the deprived Archbishop to those who had served him in his elevation, as we scarcely need history to assure us that he discharged his duty, in those respects, as became him. That he left with out a spot upon his integrity, who can question ? and no brilliant talents or affable manners, in the clergy especially, can compensate for this quality, for which Sancroft was so eminent. The interval between his quitting Lambeth and his retirement to Fressingfield, was passed in Palgrave Court, in the Temple. His chaplains, Mr. Needham and Mr. Wharton, as soon as they had found out his lodging, visited their venerable patron, and continued for some time to read the daily prayers to him. Besides these, some of his more distinguished friends waited upon him ; and the Earl of Aylesbury is said to have burst into tears on beholding his altered circumstances; but Sancroft only replied to this token of sympathy — "O my good Lord, rather rer joice with me, for now I live again." * It is time now to turn to the other suffering Bishops. Dr. Edward Fowler was appointed to Gloucester in the room of Dr. Frampton. This latter was a man in every way differing from Turner, wholly averse from political strife of any kind, yet having a decided opinion upon the question of trans ferring his ahegiance from James to William ; but * D'Oyley's Life of Sancroft, vol. i. p. 279. 234 Frampton, deprived Bishop of Gloucester. otherwise, a meek, inoffensive, pious man, who, after having once determined upon refusing the oath in all matters of a minor nature connected with that question, chose to be guided by the decision of his friends in town. He was very popular in his diocese, both as a preacher and a chief pastor ; but although not deficient in learning or ability, he could never be persuaded upon to publish any of his writings. He rather welcomed than opposed his successor to the see, who was also an old acquaintance : the only protesting act he performed, was to leave a servant in the palace at Gloucester, with directions to him not to leave until driven out.* After his deprival his conduct differed materially from that of the other deprived Bishops, for he regularly attended the ser vices of the parish church of the village to which he had retired, and assisted in the services — some times preaching, and sometimes catechising the children. He lived to a great age, dying in the year 1708, and lies buried at Standish, in Glouces tershire. His successor was best known for his strenuous opposition to the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and was commonly ranked amongst the latitudinarians of the age. The deprived Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Lloyd, was also a man popular and beloved in his diocese, as some circumstances relating to his deprivation might testify. The Government was very anxious that the Dean of Norwich, Dr. Sharp, of whom so much has already been related, should succeed him ; but Sharp expressed the utmost reluctance to succeed any of the deprived Bishops, and more especially his own diocesan, with whom he affirmed that he had lived * Life of Kettlewell, p. 405 ; Life of Ken, p. 476. Lloyd, deprived Bishop of Norwich. 235 on terms ofthe greatest friendship and confidence ;* nay, he gave his consent to a scheme, propounded by some of the parochial clergy, that their Bishop might still reside amongst them, without taking the oaths, and that the whole body of the clergy should become security for him to the Government. But this was not to be. Lloyd accordingly quitted Nor wich, and resided principally in London. Dr. John Moore was appointed to the see thus vacated — a man of considerable celebrity in his day, but now better remembered for his connexion with the for tunes of Dr. Samuel Clarke and Bentley, than for his once famous discourses from the pulpit. After Sancroft had removed to Fressingfield, and it was determined to perpetuate the schism ofthe non-jurors by new consecrations, Sancroft pitched on Lloyd, to whom to delegate his archiepiscopal func tions, principally because of his residence in the me tropolis ; which he did in an episcopal commission addressed to the deprived Bishop of Norwich, in language so quaint, and yet so characteristic of his mind, that I have subjoined the instrument in a note.f Lloyd, therefore, became mainly instru- * Life, vol. i. p. 115; Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 63; Burnet, p. 569 ; Tindal, p. 453. X " Wilhelmus, Providentia divina Ecclesise Metrop. Cant. humilis minister, Reverendo admodum in Christo Patri, et fratri in Domino charissimo, Gulielmo, eadem Providentia etiamnum* Nordovicensi Episcopo, salutem et fraternam in Domino chari- tatem. Cum ego, nuper ex sedibus Lambhithanis vi laica pulsus, et non inveniens in urbe vicina ubi tuto possem, aut commode eommorari, procul secesserim, quserens ubi fessus senio requies- cerem ; multa autem jam tum remanserint, et emergant quotidie * Modo liceat per Pontium Aquilam : Hei mihi quod breve de removendel nondum currit. 236 Sancroft delegates his Authority. mental in continuing the succession of the non-juring Bishops; and the chief business ofthe non-jurors, as plura, eaque momenti maximi, Dei scilicet et ecclesise negotia, nullibi ita commode atque expedite, ac in magno illo rerum gerun- darum theatro transigenda: Tibi igitur, frater dilectissime (qui pro ea, qua polles, animi fortitudine, et pio, quo flagras, zelo domus Dei, adhuc in suburbiis Londoniensibus, palantibus undique ce teris, moraris et permanes;* adeo ut neminem illic habeam ita (Vo'-vf-u^ov, quique ita yvj)o-/«$ rerum mearum et ecclesise satagat), Tibi inquam, ad haec omnia tractanda, pensitanda, et finaliter expe- dienda, hoc quicquid est muneris mei et pontificii, fretus pru- dentia tua, et solita in rebus agundis solertia, committo in Domino; Teque vicarium meum ad prsemissa, rerumque mearum et nego- tiorum actorem, factorem, et nuntium generalem, vigore harum literarum eligo, facio, et constituo. Apage autem ante notarii artes et Marculphi formulas ! Inter bonos bene agier oportet. Dicam summarie et de piano : Quoscunque tu, frater, (prout res et occasio tulerit) assumpseris et adjunxeris tibi, elegeris et appro- baveris, confirmaveris et constitueris, ego quoque f (quantum in me est,- et de jure possum) assumo pariter et adjungo, eligo et ap- probo, confirmo et constituo ; uno verbo quicquid in istiusmodi negotiis feceris Ipse, aut faciundum duxeris, id omne quantum et quale illud cunque fuerit, mihi audenter imputa. Ecce ! Ego Wilhelmus manu mea scripsi ; Ego praestabo ; non solum ratum, sed et gratum insuper habiturus. Splendor autem Domini Dei nostri sit super te, frater, et opera manuum tuarum dirigat et con firmet ; Quin et eripiat te (fratresque nostros omnes) ex ore leonis, et de manu canis, et a cornibus unicornium : exaudiat vos, mactet- que denique et cumulet omni benedictione spirituali in coelestibus in Christo Jesu. Datum e proprio conducto (quod enim mihi molior tugurium, superveniente acri hyeme, nondum exsedificatum est) hic in Campo gelido (nunc etiam profunde gelato) sito intra tuse diceceseos pomceria, nono die Februarii, ano Dni, 1691. " W. Cant. " Actum in prassentia mei, Wm. Sancroft, jun., notarii publici." [Underneath a fac-simile of the archiepiscopal seal.] See Notes and Queries, Jan. 12, 1856, where this document is given. * Mittens manum tuam super foramine aspidis et caverna reguli, animamque etiam exponens super agri altitudines. t Licet abseus corpore, mente tamen et affectu semper tecum prsesens. Ken, the deprived Bishop of Bath and Wells. 237 a religious body, passed through his hands. Turner's place at Ely was filled by Patrick, who was trans lated to the wealthier see from Chichester. Turner's implication in the Preston and Ashton plot would probably have led to the immediate fill ing up of his see, had the others even been spared for a longer time. He was now in concealment ; and therefore incapable, however inclined, of making any formal protest against the inheritors of his office. Dr. White, the bishop of Peterborough, seems to have retired quietly to London, and was succeeded by Cumberland — a man, advanced in life, but of ex emplary piety and learning ; one of those Cam bridge scholars aUuded to in the Introduction to this work, who originated the school of what were called " Latitude-men," and sought to stem the tide of Atheism by the introduction of the study of natural theology, and the scientific investigation into the phenomena of nature, as they evidence the wisdom of a Creator.* The actual deprival of Ken was delayed some months after that ofthe Archbishop, owing to the difficulty attending the appointment of his successor. The pious and learned Dr. Beveridge was first offered the see ; but entertaining scruples about the validity of a lay deprival, after three weeks' deliberation he declined the invidious distinction of superseding a man so generally respected as Bishop Ken. His re fusal to accept this see not only provoked the jea lousy and anger of the court, but even the resent ment of his friends ; and Stillingfleet attacked his conduct in a published letter. He continued to labour with undiminished zeal for thirteen years * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 131. 238 Ken, the deprived Bishop of Bath and Wells. longer in the more private walk of a parish priest, when, in 1704, in the reign of Queen Anne, he was raised to the see of S. Asaph, which he held for the last three years of his life.* The bishopric was, after a time, then offered to the Dean of Peterborough, Dr. Kidder; and was, somewhat reluctantly, accepted by him. Kidder was not the man to entertain the same scruples as Beve ridge upon the subject ofthe lay deprivals, having, in 1662, declined obedience to the Act of Uniformity ; but he also felt a disinclination to occupy the see of a deprived Bishop, and appears to have entered upon his preferment with no very sanguine hopes for the future. He was one of the late Commission ap pointed to consider by what means the more mode rate of the Nonconformists might be reconciled to the Church of England. He was not unknown as an author and a scholar, and enjoyed a reputation for moderation and piety. Ken who, notwithstanding his suspension, had continued to preach and confirm openly in the Church, when he received intelligence of the appointment of a successor, first in the cathedral at Wells and then in the public market-place, asserted his canonical right, and his willingness on all occasions to per form his pastoral duties. Without being one of the greatest divines the Church of England has produced, there is a sort of simplicity and uniform propriety in the conduct of Ken, which has made him a general favourite with historians ; and there can be no question ofhis having been such in his own diocese. We may well believe * See Life prefixed to his Works ; Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 89. The Non-jurors amongst the Parochial Clergy. 239 that it was no less painful to the good people of his diocese to witness his departure, than it was for him personally to take leave of the Church over which he had presided with so much devotion, and to bid a last farewell to the moated palace at Wells, and those cloistered associations, which that spot is so particularly calculated to inspire, and which are so fascinating to a mind of his stamp. Solomon has told us that " the just man faileth seven times and riseth up again;" and certainly, if Ken's deprival was regarded in the light of a fall, he has risen again : for, under all the circumstances of it, it has rather enhanced than taken from the veneration in which his character is universally held by posterity. His successor was consecrated 30th August, 1691, and in the following month he was duly installed in the cathedral. Most of the parochial clergy who felt themselves called upon to follow the example of their venerable Bishops, quitted the spheres of their former labours, as others had done before them, without any violent exhibitions of feeling. Hickes addressed a protest to the subdean and the prebendaries of Worcester cathedral against his ejectment, and affixed it to the building, in which he called upon them to support him in his rights against the intrusion of his suc cessor in the deanery — a proceeding which was ani madverted upon in a scurrilous pamphlet, called Passive Obedience in Actual Resistance,* and Henry Dodwell, so well known in his day for his devotion to patristic learning, and for his somewhat eccentric opinions, addressed a letter to Tillotson, earnestly dissuading him from accepting the honour the King * Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 87. 240 Sancroft retreats to Fressingfield. was so anxious to thrust upon him. Amongst this body of clergy who followed the example of the ejected Archbishop and his companions were several dignitaries besides Hickes, of whom may be enumerated Dr. Simon Lowth, nominated dean of Rochester, Dr. Samuel Crowbrough, archdeacon of Nottingham and prebendary of York, Dr. Fitz- Williams, one of the canons of Windsor, and Wag- staffe, chancellor of Lichfield.* Archbishop Sancroft having, as we have seen, acted a conscientious part towards the sovereign who had been mainly instrumental in his elevation, and having quitted Lambeth, and finally London, arrived at Fressingfield, his native village, August 5, 1691. A too great readiness to resign an elevated position is certainly no indication of a great mind ; but Sancroft does not appear to have been actuated by any desire to escape from responsibility, or by the love of ease and quiet. A scruple of conscience drove him from his archiepiscopal throne. He was therefore well entitled to all the consolations he might derive from an approving conscience, and a retirement endeared to him by the happy associ ations of childhood, and the opportunity which it afforded him of preparing himself for that transla tion to a better world, which certainly filled a prominent place in his thoughts. The old house which stood upon his patrimony, and which he occupied on first residing at Fressing field, not being suited to his wants, he proceeded to build another, and the superintending this work formed his chief amusement during the first part of his residence in the country. Sancroft's deprival * See the list affixed to the Life of Kettlewell. A pretended Conspiracy. 241 was not his disgrace ; he received therefore more visits from the gentry, even from those most opposed to his way of thinking, than suited the studious and devotional life he had designed to lead at Fressing field, as we learn from complaints in his familiar correspondence.* His house was a church of itself, and there all the religious services in which he engaged were conducted by himself, after the manner in use at Lambeth before his deprival. The Arch bishop complained with somewhat needless severity of the slanderous reports which were in constant circulation respecting him, and his sympathy with all those who were disaffected towards the Govern ment. A little reflection might have satisfied him, that any one circumstanced as he himself was must, of moral necessity, be subject to some real suspicion and much intentional malice, and one instance of this kind is recorded by his biographer, which must be alluded to. Two worthless individuals, named Young and Blackhead, the former already known to the Arch bishop as an impostor, forged a paper to which they affixed the counterfeited signatures of Sancroft, Sprat, and others, purporting to invite over King James, and promising every assistance to him in their power for the recovery of his kingdom, and then concealed the paper in the Bishop of Rochester's house at Bromley, where, upon their information, it was discovered. Sprat was in consequence sum moned before the Privy Council, but the indications of the forgery were so palpable that Sancroft could hardly have heard of his own accusation before he must have learned that the whole charge had been * D'Oy ley's Life of Sancroft, vol. ii. p. 12. E 242 Last Days of Sancroft. dismissed.* It seems probable, that had William not been on the Continent at the time, the Govern ment would never have entertained for a moment an accusation promoted by such a character as Young, who was in fact a well-remembered inmate of many gaols. As time advanced, the habits of the Archbishop became more and more those of a recluse. He is described as wearing a long and venerable beard; thus in his appearance, as well as in his manner of life, resembling a hermit. Although he was now past the age when men return with vigour to literary pur suits long abandoned, he appears to have been busy, even to the day of his death, in preparing for the press the Diary and Papers of Archbishop Laud ; but his energies decayed apace, and his spirit waned even whilst the pen was in his hand, as we know from his former chaplain, Mr. Wharton's, account of his last visit to his venerable patron. His end was decent and becoming. He spoke with religious earnestness and devotion to all who approached his bed, ex horting them with humility as a Christian pastor, and expressing his hopes of happiness and forgive ness in the world to come. The day before he died he received the Sacrament of our Lord's Passion at the hands of Dr. Turnbull, a non-juror, who had for merly been his chaplain. His last prayers were for the suffering Church, as he described it, over which he had presided in such stormy times, and, it must be added, also for the " restoration of the Stuart family to the throne of England in God's appointed time." * For a lengthened account of this conspiracy, see Lord Macaulay's History, vol. iv. pp. 247-9. Young was finally executed for perjury at Tyburn, 1700. His Character. 243 He expired on Friday, November the 24th, 1693. He lies buried in Fressingfield churchyard. The Latin inscription upon his tomb, written by himself, is a pleasing evidence of the sincerity and piety which certainly actuated Archbishop Sancroft in all he did.* Sancroft was of a delicate constitution and spare habit of body. The portraits left of him vary a good deal in character. The most striking which I have seen represents him with a nose slightly aquiline, cheeks and forehead deeply furrowed, and a mouth much compressed — a countenance by no means bespeaking that timidity and feebleness attri buted to him by Burnet. His abilities were con siderable ; but he was more remarkable for literary industry than for original talent. His sermons which remain to us are not even a pleasing speci men of that over-pedantic style which was in vogue in the days of his youth. Whilst his successor, Tillotson, may be esteemed almost the founder of the modern style of sermon writing, (a style by no means faultless), and one whose compositions were pronounced by the best judges to possess much literary ability, Sancroft was nearly the last to adhere to a style engaging and impressive only in the hands of a master like Bishop Andrewes, whose genius compensates for his want of taste. Sancroft did not live to see the consecration of fresh Bishops, with the design of perpetuating the schism from the Established Church of the country, although he was aware that it was in contemplation to consecrate such. During his life Dr. Hickes had been despatched to St. Germains, with a list of such * Life, vol. ii. p. 66. 244 Fresh Consecrations amongst the Nonjurors. clergy as had refused the oaths, that the deposed sovereign might select from the number those whom he wished to be consecrated Bishops.* Upon the Doctor presenting himself to King James, the latter informed him that he had consulted the Archbishop of Paris, the Bishop of Meaux, and the Pope himself, upon how it became him to behave towards the English Church, and that they had all agreed that he was not bound in conscience to act in any way in hostility to it. Accordingly, he appointed two — one to be nominated by Sancroft and the other by the Bishop of Norwich ; and Hickes and Wagstaffe were chosen and consecrated, soon after the Arch bishop's death, by Lloyd, White, and Turner ; Hickes by the title of Suffragan of Thetford, and Wagstaffe as Suffragan of Ipswich, on the feast of S. Matthias, 1693. Thus was provision made for the continuance of this unfortunate schism; and although we may la ment the fact, and wish it had been suffered to die out with the lives of those who were originally de prived, we can have read history to little purpose if we have not discovered that the effects of political measures are always in some proportion to the magnitude of those measures. It was hardly pos sible that so many eminent and holy men, who had merited the gratitude of their country, should be ejected from the principal stations in the Church, and no lasting consequences ensue. The wonder is that they were not greater than they were. As it was, it is certain that the withdrawal of the non jurors had a paralyzing effect upon the established Church. The clergy became more ambitious and * Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 97. Leslie's Case ofthe Regale, fyc. 245 more political ; and it is not too much to say that, had it been possible to reconcile the non-jurors to the Church, or to have left them in possession of their preferments, the Rebellion of 1715 might have been prevented, and the long reign of future deadness and apathy which afflicted the Church in the reigns of the first Georges have been averted ; for the highest Church views would not then, perhaps, have been thought incompatible with fidelity to the reigning house. Before concluding this chapter, as farther ex emplifying the views and reasonings of the non jurors, I may here allude to a very learned and able work, which appeared in 1692 from the pen of Leslie, entitled, The Case ofthe Regale and ofthe Pontificate, vindicating the natural right of the Church to self- government, and pointing out the gradual encroach ments, first of the Popedom, and then of the Crown, upon the liberties of every separate branch of the Church. The writer's intention was, no doubt, by an abstract argument, to place in a striking light the injustice of the late deprivations. He shows that, if the State had the undoubted right to vacate or render void the apostolical commission by which Bishops exercise their spiritual functions, then the Church would long ago have perished ; for, during the first 300 years after the Christian era, the exe cution of the apostolical commission was forbidden in all states. That when the alliance of Church and State first took place, sovereigns did not presume to usurp the Church's right to appoint her own chief pastors. That the Pope paved the way for this in terference of the civil power in the internal govern ment of the Church, by sending the pall to foreign 246 Leslie's Case ofthe Regale, Sfc. Bishops, and in many cases assuming the right of nomination to episcopal sees, and then sharing her spoils with the temporal sovereign, in order to secure and make good a right which had no foundation in fact or justice. After drawing out these principles at length, and elaborating a treatise upon them, the writer remarks, how great a glory it would be to any sovereign to restore to the Church her rights and hberties, and cherish that alliance between Church and State only which is consonant with the spirit of the Scripture and the practice of primitive times. He instances the Church in Sweden, as affording a happy example of this description of alliance. It follows, as a matter of course, that if Leslie's views and recommendations had been adopted by William, he must have left Sancroft and his companions alone ; for no ecclesiastical sentence had been pronounced, depriving them of their bishoprics ; or, in their case, in any way divorcing that spiritual marriage which takes place between every Bishop and his diocese. As far as the Church was concerned, they were still Bishops separated by the civil arm from their legi timate flocks.* * See The Case of the Regale and of the Pontificate stated, in a Conference concerning the Independency of the Church upon any power on earth, in the exercise of her purely spiritual power and authority. By the Rev. Charles Leslie. Ed. 1838. 247 CHAPTER VIII. (1691-97.) Tillotson — Circumstances which led to his being selected for Archbishop — His character — Conduct at the Trial of Lord William Russell — Is persuaded, with difficulty, to accept the Archbishopric — His Consecration — Dr. Sherlock — His dis ingenuous conduct and controversy with South — The nume rous conspiracies of this reign — Burnet's Pastoral Letter burnt — Death of Tillotson — Death of Queen Mary, and her character — William goes abroad — The Assassination Plot— Trial and Execution of Sir John Fenwick — Peace of Rys- wick. Allusion has been made in the preceding chapter to the consecration of Archbishop Tillotson. This event had been deferred for a much longer time than was pleasing to William, out of respect to the importunities of Tillotson himself, who was either most unwilling to be elevated to the see of Canterbury, or distrustful of his own powers to bear up against the odium which he knew he should incur from many, for occupying the place of the deprived Archbishop Sancroft. Personal merit was doubtless the basis of Tillot- son's fortunes, but they were assisted by many for tunate coincidences. The great partiality with which William regarded him originated in one of those 248 Tillotson. accidental conjunctures. At the time of William and Mary's union, Tillotson was dean of Canterbury, and an unforeseen accident brought the Prince and Princess to that city, on their way to the Continent ; for they were to have returned by the river instead of taking the road through Kent. They spent a Sunday at Canterbury, and attended divine service at the Cathedral, and it was during this visit that the Dean, on account of some particular service he rendered the new-married couple, appears to have first impressed the Prince so favourably. Some doubt, but without sufficient reason, has been thrown upon this anecdote. Tillotson was constitutionally deferential to his supe riors and the powers that be, and his gentle and sub servient address probably assisted to ingratiate him in the favour of William, who had experienced too much of the opposite spirit, after his acceptance of the Crown, not to esteem very highly a disposition such as Tillotson's. That this account of the Dean's character is not fanciful, we may gather from more than one incident which occurred in the reign of Charles II. Upon one occasion, being unexpectedly called upon to preach before the King at Whitehall, in one part of his sermon he indulged in a strain which, however flattering to princes, was justly con sidered to savour greatly of Hobbism, and created at the time no httle sensation ; for it is stated that Charles, with a humour not devoid of malice, insisted upon the immediate publication of the discourse, so that Tillotson was exposed to no slight censure and criticism, and had to excuse his mistake as best he could. The passage of the sermon, which created so much conversation at the time, began with the following sentence, and went on to amplify the Tillotson. 249 sentiment contained in it : "I cannot think (till I be better informed, which I am always ready to be) that any pretence of conscience warrants any man that is not extraordinarily commissioned as the apostles and first publishers of the Gospel were, and cannot justify that commission by miracles, as they did, to affront the established religion of a nation, though it be false, and openly to draw men off from the profession of it, in contempt of the magistrate and the law."* The character of Tillotson's mind had appeared very strikingly also in his conduct at the time of Lord Wilham RusseU's trial and execution, as was related in the Introduction, and was not forgotten after the Revolution by the non-jurors when he was raised to the see of Canterbury. His great popu larity in the city, his somewhat puritanical origin, and connexion with the immediate followers of Crom well, and his general moderation, strongly recom mended him to Lord William Russell. Burnet and Tillotson were in constant attendance upon that unfortunate nobleman during the last week of his life, and Tillotson administered the holy communion to him on the day before his execution, and attended him to the scaffold, yet he by no means gave his assent to the opinions of Russell. That popular nobleman esteemed the monarchy of England to be a limited monarchy. He maintained, that if a king overstepped the limits of his prerogative, his subjects were justified in resisting him. Now these were precisely the grounds upon which, in after years, the Revolution was justified; yet Tillotson laboured hard to persuade RusseU of the criminality of such * See Birch's Life of Tillotson. 250 Tillotson. and similar views, and even when praying with him on the scaffold he made use of this explicit phrase : "Grant that all we who survive, by this and other instances of Thy providence, may learn our duty to God and the King."* That the Dean was very anxious to save the life of Russell there can be no doubt, and that this was a very strong motive with him for writing and speaking to that nobleman as he did we must beheve ; but unless at the time he had persuaded himself of the unlawfulness of all re sistance to the Prince, or had been over-anxious about removing from Charles's mind any unfavourable im pressions which the King might harbour respecting his own loyalty, he hardly would have made use of such a prayer as the one above, f Tillotson's communications with Russell proved of double service to himself. At the time they were approved of by Charles II. , and quoted by the court to justify its proceedings against Russell. At the Revolution, they were admitted as tokens of Tillot son's anxiety to save the hfe of that too precipitate patriot. In the reign of Charles II. his deference for those in authority saved him from disgrace, al though known to inchne in his opinions to the more moderate Nonconformists ; when the wheel turned, and William came into power, the same deference for authority, combined with general sentiments in accordance with those of William, procured him the utmost confidence and regard that sovereign was capable of feeling for one in his position. During the actual crisis ofthe Revolution, Tillot son kept much in the background, although he is thought to have had a hand in the composition of * See Birch's Life of Tillotson. f Ibid. Tillotson and Lady William Russell. 251 the letter which Prince George of Denmark sent to James in excuse for his desertion of him at Andover, when William first appeared in the West. The spirit of that letter is singularly at variance with the sen timents of Tillotson, above alluded to. Without a consideration of these facts it is impossible to judge fairly of the religious factions of those days, or to weigh the respective merits and failings of the two Archbishops, Sancroft and Tillotson. Both, at times, were hard put to it, to square their conduct with their principles. The manner in which each acted was characteristic, and yet we may venture to say that each of them was pious and zealous in his way. Sancroft had more inflexibility than Tillotson ; the latter, perhaps, a more intelligible charity than the former. It does not appear that Tillotson felt any ill-will toward his predecessor at Lambeth. It can not be denied that personal animosity tinctured San croft's judgment of his successor. Tillotson carried on a regular correspondence with the widow of Lord William Russell ; and we learn from the letters which passed between them how much persuasion he required to overcome his reluctance to follow Sancroft. He also beheved that Compton, bishop of London, aspired to the primacy. That prelate, having incurred a suspension under King James, and having, from the first, displayed much zeal and activity in the cause of the Prince of Orange and the Revolution, undoubtedly thought his claims for that post were superior to those of any other divine ; and so far the Dean's conjectures were true. With his sensitive disposition, he was equally uneasy at being the immediate cause of Compton's disappointment and of Sancroft's ejectment. The 252 Tillotson is consecrated Archbishop. urgency, however, of William, and the arguments of Lady Russell, finally prevailed ; and after having prepared himself the day before, by fasting and prayer, he was consecrated, with much splendour, on Whitsunday, May 31, 1691, in the Church of Mary-le-bow. The officiating Bishops were, Mews of Winchester, Lloyd of S. Asaph, Burnet of Salis bury, Stillingfleet of Worcester, Ironside of Bristol, and Hough, now Bishop of Oxford. The circum stances of the Archbishop's consecration were such as would naturally call forth a demonstration of some kind. Accordingly we find that the Duke of Norfolk, the President of the Council, the Earls of Devonshire, Dorset, Macclesfield, and other noble men and people of distinction, formed part of the congregation assembled at that ceremony, whilst Compton excused himself from attending.* The new Archbishop was sworn of the Privy Council, June 4th. He continued to live at the Deanery of S. Paul's until he had added an apart ment to the Palace at Lambeth for the accommoda tion of his wife, and did not remove thither until the 26th of November, 1691. He entered on his new avocations with reluctance, and with a conscientious desire, if he should feel himself unequal to discharge the duties of his high position, to be permitted to retire from so elevated but invidious a post. His elevation led to the promotion of another, which occasioned, and with reason, far more scandal to the Church than his own. He, of course, vacated the Deanery of S. Paul's, which was immediately given to Dr. William Sherlock. As this eminent writer had for some time positively declined the oaths * Birch's Life of Tillotson ; Macaulay, vol. iv. p. 35. Dr. Sherlock made Dean of S. Paul's. 253 of allegiance to William and Mary, and had been as ready as the others to defend the course which he had adopted, the indecent precipitancy with which he accepted the deanery raised a perfect storm of derision and indignation against him.* The non jurors were not the only ones who were indignant with their quondam fellow-sufferer. Sherlock's ter giversations were deemed a fair occasion for the wit of all who thought the mask of hypocrisy should retain some of its deceptive qualities, and who con sidered there was something due to pubhc prejudice in such a matter. Perhaps the truest, as well as the most witty account which was given for his sudden change of opinion, was contained in the sally of a bookseUer, who, on seeing Sherlock handing his wife across S. Paul's Churchyard, exclaimed, — " There goes Dr. Sherlock, with his reason for taking the oaths at his fingers' ends."f Her character, as the stately wife of a Church dignitary, was well known ; and she is said to have given her husband no rest until she had persuaded him to make his peace with the prevailing Government. Sherlock himself de fended the step he had taken by the publication of a pamphlet, with the title, The Case qf Allegiance to Sovereign Princes stated; and by an appeal to Bishop Overall's ,Convocation-Book — a use to which that venerable prelate would not have felt flattered by seeing his labours turned. The Convocation- Book was printed in 1690, from the MS. of Overall, with the imprimatur of Sancroft, dated 24 June, 1689. The object of it was to assert the Divine origin of all governments ; and it was submitted to * See Scott's Life of Swift, p. 68 ; Life of Kettlewell, p. 304. f See Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 379, and note. 254 Sherlock's Defence. both Houses of Convocation in 1606, and met with their approbation, although it never received the royal sanction.* In the xxviith chapter of that work, Overall con siders the nature of that obedience, which is due to governments established on usurpations. He repre sents these usurpations as nearly always resulting from the sins of the people. By the example of Attila, who called himself the Scourge of God, he shows how God may employ even ambitious and wicked men as the instruments of his wrath ; and, as such, call them his servants. And he maintains that governments, thoroughly established as such, are to be obeyed, as being of God. It was upon this Sherlock rested the defence ofhis conduct in seceding from the non-jurors, yet, undoubtedly, if this chapter gave Sherlock a license for acting as he did, it placed * See Overall's Convocation-Book, c. xxviii. The canon at the end of the chapter is as follows : — " If any man therefore shall affirm either that the subjects, when they shake off the yoke of their obedience to their sovereigns, and set up a form of government amongst themselves, after their own humours, do not therein very wickedly : or, that it is lawful for any bordering kings, through ambition and malice, to invade their neighbours : or, that the providence and goodness of God, in using of rebellions and oppressions to execute His justice against any king or country, doth mitigate or qualify the offences of any such rebels or oppressing kings : or that, when any such new forms of government, begun by rebellion, are after throughly settled, the authority in them is not of God : or, that any who live within the territories of such new governments are not bound to be subject to God's authority which is there executed, but may rebel against the same : or, that the Jews, either in Egypt or Babylon, might lawfully, for any cause, have taken arms against any of those kings, or have offered any violence to their persons, he doth greatly err." The reader is desired to compare this canon with that given in Lord Macaulay's History, vol. iv. p. 46. His Work on the Trinity. 255 William in the same category with Nimrod, Abi melech, or Attila, and those who invited William over in the same category with the Shechemites, or the children of Israel when God delivered them into captivity. If Sherlock could find no better apology for accepting a Deanery at the hands of William's government, he had better have enjoyed his prefer ment, and left alone his defence. As the book was published with the sanction of Sancroft, and even embelhshed with portraits of himself and Overall, the chapter in question might fairly have been em ployed to condemn Turner for the part he had taken in the Ashton and Preston plot : but the last use to which it could be fairly turned was to that of justify ing a non-juror in deserting his party for the honours and preferments of the Government. At this very time Sherlock published his Vindication ofthe Doc trine ofthe Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God. In this he was deemed unsound ; and his recent conduct had provoked so many, that his critics fell upon him with great severity ; but his chief op ponent was Dr. South, who appears to have had the advantage in the controversy, and to have sustained his high character for wit and learning. South ac cused his adversary of Tritheism, whilst Sherlock rejoined by charging South with Sabellianism. The attacks on Sherlock cannot be attributed to the malice ofthe non-jurors alone, since his chief oppo nent had himself taken the oaths ; but we can scarcely wonder at the Jacobites availing themselves of so tempting an opportunity, and remarking that it was no wonder Sherlock was so ready at an oath, since he had two gods to swear by more than other men.* * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 381 ; Scott's Life of Swift, p. 68. 256 Sherlock's eminence as a Writer. The author of Tillotson's Life mentions an anec dote in connexion with this subject, so descriptive ofthe characters of those concerned that it is worthy of record. There had been some little sparring, on more occasions than one, between Tillotson and South : upon the latter's publication of his Vindica tion of the Trinity, Tillotson was solicited for his opinion of that work. The Archbishop replied, that the Doctor wrote like a man but bit like a dog; which being reported to South, he rejoined he would rather bite like a dog than fawn like one. Upon which Tillotson rejoined, that for his part he should choose to be a spaniel rather than a cur. The reader may think such sallies not very becoming to either of the eminent men concerned, but both of them are well depicted by this anecdote — South, sharp, quaint, and self-assured ; the Archbishop, sensitive and subservient, almost to fawning, to such as were in power: and no doubt Tillotson felt in duty bound to screen his successor in the Deanery of S. Paul's as much as lay in his power. It is unfortunate that so able and useful a writer as Sherlock should have acted in any manner to impair his high reputation. We should read his practical treatises, which are deservedly celebrated, with far greater relish, if the history of his conduct at the Revolution did not interfere with our respect for his character. He was accounted one of the ablest writers of his day. Addison, in the Spectator, after attributing the astonishing popularity of Sher lock's treatise on Death partly to the subject, adds, " Though at the same time I must own, that he who has not perused this excellent piece has not perhaps read one of the strongest persuasions to a religious The numerous Conspiracies of this Reign. 257 life that was ever written in any language."* That treatise undoubtedly contains many excellent pas sages, and is quite the production of a divine. It contains the elucidation of many theological diffi culties, and the doctrines which obtain any promi nence in it are those which the Church of England retains after the teaching of primitive times. His other practical treatises, on Providence and Future Judgment, also have a high reputation. Dr. Sherlock died in 1707. On his resignation of the Mastership of the Temple he was succeeded by his son, Dr. Thomas Sherlock, afterwards Bishop of London, who, with much of his father's talents, inherited also some of his moral infirmities. The multitude of conspiracies, real and pretended, which transpired in the reign of William and Mary, and afterwards when William was left in sole pos session of the throne, is a pretty fair index to the state of the public mind. We know there were many conscientious sufferers amongst James's adhe rents. There were also, doubtless, many discon tented spirits, who, by a law of their being, would gravitate to the party of James; and some there were, probably, who, for the mere object of mischief and notoriety, contributed to the jealousy of the Government, by spreading false reports, or whisper ing that which was true : but, at any rate, the reign of William is no exception to what is ever the case in a government founded, whether for good or ill, upon usurpation. With many, nothing can compen sate for the want of a clear and undisputed hereditary title, and hence conspiracies and double-dealing. Thus, after the Ashton and Preston plot, we have * Spectator, 289. S 258 Burnet's Pastoral Letter, tyc. burnt. Marlborough suspected of a design to betray the forces of William into the hands of James and the French, and his consequent dismissal by the Queen from all court favours, in the absence of her husband on the Continent. Then we have the false plot which William Fuller devised, with a degree of coolness and villany that has stamped his name with infamy. After the battle of La Hogue in 1692, so glorious for the credit of the English fleet, we have the malicious conspiracy of Young and Blackhead, already spoken of, to embroil Sprat and Sancroft with the Government: but as nothing of importance resulted from any of these, I mention them only to keep before the reader some recol lection of the state of pubhc feeling beyond the immediate sphere of Church affairs. Another index to this may be found in the summary fate which attended a certain pamphlet published about this time, entitled King William and Queen Mary Conquerors, by Charles Blount, and Burnet's Pastoral Letter to the Clergy, exhorting them to take the oaths. This pamphlet was scarcely out of the hands of the licenser, Mr. Edward Bohun, when it was mentioned in the House of Commons, and Bohun himself summoned to appear before the House. The writer involved not only Bohun, but the Bishop of Salisbury in disgrace. The pamphlet was condemned to be burnt by the common hang man, and the King was requested to remove Bohun from his office of licenser ; and as it was affirmed that Burnet was the first to broach the obnoxious senti ment regarding the right to the throne, in the Pastoral Letter which he addressed to his clergy in 1689, that most specious production was also Last Days of Tillotson. 259 condemned to the flames. The Lords, whilst concur ring in the decision of the House of Commons, added, " that such assertion was injurious to their majesties rightful title to the crown of this realm." * The year 1694 is memorable for the deaths of Tillotson and Queen Mary. Tillotson had judged truly enough when he anticipated the violence and acrimony to which his elevation to the primacy would give occasion. Burnet speaks with much feeling and point when he says, " he was a faithful and zealous friend, but a gentle and soon-conquered enemy." That Tillotson loved to be at peace with all mankind there is no question, but anybody in the invidious position in which he was placed would have been attacked ; and the nature of the assaults made upon him, as a matter of course, took their tone from his character. Religion suffered by the time-serving conduct of men like Sherlock, and it was not without reason, bad as the taste may have been which was displayed in the performance, that a challenge was early addressed to Tillotson, after his elevation, pressing him to explain and reconcile, if he could, his present conduct with the spirit of his letter to Lord Wilham Russell. A clever and active body of men had been thrown out of their ordinary occupations, and with abundance of leisure, and strong feeling, they kept the press alive with their productions. Extreme and violent men in every party, although they sometimes intimidate, nearly always, in the end, bring discredit upon their party : and such was the case with these unrelenting Jaco bites who attacked Tillotson. Upon one occasion a mask, without any comment, was sent him; and * Rapin, vol. iii. p. 429; Macaulay, vol. iv. p. 356. 260 Death of Tillotson. upon a gentleman, who happened to be present at the time of its arrival, expressing his indignation, the Archbishop only smiled, and said that " this was a gentle rebuke, if compared with some others that lay there in black and white," pointing to the papers on the table. There can be little doubt the spirit of Tillotson was unequal to cope with all the reproaches his promotion drew upon him. His health began to suffer, and on Sunday, November 18, 1694, he was seized with an attack of dead palsy, whilst at the Chapel in Whitehall, from which he never recovered. He felt the attack coming on, but was unwilling to disturb the congregation until his case was desperate He expired in the arms of his friend, Mr. Nelson, five days after his seizure, in the sixty-fifth year of his age.The sorrow for Tillotson's death amongst the friends of the Revolution was universal : a vast number of carriages, filled with people of the highest rank, followed his remains from Lambeth to the Church of St. Lawrence, Jewry, where his body was interred, and where a monument was soon after erected to his memory, recording his rank, and the fact of his having preached in that church for thirty years with much repute. His friend, Dr. Burnet, preached his funeral sermon, in the course of which he was not unnaturally moved to tears, and carried the sympathies of his congregation along with him. Tillotson and Burnet were most intimate friends : the latter having commenced some of his literary undertakings upon the suggestion of Tillotson, and constantly submitted them to the criticism of the Archbishop. As far as a knowledge of his subject was concerned, he was therefore well qualified to The King's regard for him. 261 speak to the virtues of Tillotson. Few appear to have felt the loss more than the King and Queen. Mary could not suppress her tears when she spoke of him, and William is reported to have said to Mr. Chadwick, the archbishop's son-in- law, "he was the best man whom he ever knew, and the best friend whom he ever had."* Before accepting the archbishopric, Tillotson had repre sented to the King, in the event of his death, how poorly provided for would be his widow. William then promised to remember this, and he now granted to the Archbishop's widow an annuity of 400/., which he afterwards increased to 600/., and took the great est care that she should receive it quarterly to the day of her death. The only fortune Tillotson appears to have left behind him was the copyright of his post humous sermons, which sold for the large sum of 2500 guineas. His widow was the daughter of Dr. Peter French, canon of Christchurch, who was mar ried to Oliver Cromwell's sister, Robina, and who, upon her first husband's death, married Dr. Wilkins, then warden of Wadham. Tillotson, who married this lady in 1663-4, had by her two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth. The former married Mr. Chadwick, and died before her father, leaving two sons and a daughter. The Archbishop survived his other daughter also, who appears to have died single. f Upon the death of Tillotson, the first person who was generally thought of for his successor was Stillingfleet, the bishop of Worcester. Although entertaining more definite views in Church matters than Tillotson, he had been classed in the same * Birch's Life of Tillotson, p. 365, edit. 1752. f Ibid. p. 38, 369. 262 Tenison made Archbishop. school with him and Patrick. His great merit as an author had raised him to the episcopal bench, and he was in all other respects well adapted to such a post as that now to be filled. Queen Mary greatly desired his elevation, but, however moderate he may have been, he was too high for the Whigs, and his delicate health was made the excuse for looking in another direction for the new Archbishop. Tenison, bishop of Lincoln, was finally selected to succeed to this important position. His contemporaries gene rally appear to have regarded him as a heavy and dull man : but the delicacy of Tillotson made those who determined the choice magnify the importance of physical strength, which Tenison appears to have enjoyed, and this was assigned as the prominent reason for selecting him for the primacy. When Vicar of S. Martin's-in-the-Fields, he had discharged the duties of a London parish priest very success fully ; and the active part he took against Popery at the time of the Revolution had occasioned his promotion to the see of Lincoln, which, like his London parish, he had administered with zeal and judgment. It was thought that such a man was better fitted to heal the wounds of a distracted Church than one of more brilliant talents and more com manding temper; but experience constantly shows us, that a leader to insure success must also enjoy the veneration and respect of those over whom he is called to govern.* Tenison was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1694 to 1715 : a period remarkable for much unprofitable controversy, and for little that a Churchman can look back upon with satis faction, whilst he died comparatively unregretted. * See Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 238. Death of Queen Mary. 263 The death of Tillotson was followed by another more distressing national bereavement. Thousands died of smallpox that winter in London. Anxiety was felt for all who had not had this disorder when young. This anxiety reached the palace, for Mary had never yet sickened with this alarming disease, and soon after she was reported to be indisposed. A day intervened, during which she was so much herself again that she went abroad; but the next day her indisposition returned, and from that time there was nothing heard of but increasing illness, until the fatal malady of smallpox appeared with aggravated symptoms. The physicians were un willing to believe the truth, and would have deceived themselves and others as to the nature of her malady; but Dr. Radcliffe at once pronounced the disease to be that of smallpox, although he was afterwards blamed for his unskilful treatment of his patient. In the meantime, the King, when he became alive to the danger in which Mary was, gave way to unaffected expressions of sorrow at the melancholy prospect which was before him. He declared, from being one of the happiest, he was now the most unhappy of men ; and it is scarcely possible to suppose that he would have acted the part which he did had his regard for Mary not been deep and genuine. The new Archbishop was in constant attendance upon the Queen, and by the King's leave he was permitted at last to communicate to her the danger in which she was. She anticipated the melancholy intelligence which he was about to communicate, by declaring that she had lived in a constant sense of the duty of not deferring our preparation for another 264 The Public Mourning. world to the last. She was entirely resigned to the will of God, and occupied every moment which re mained to her in earnest prayer. At length she expired, on the 28th of December, in the thirty -third year of her age. We may well believe her amiable character and comparative youth, and her close re lationship with James, combined to produce a deep sympathy and sorrow in the public mind for her death. The public mourning and lamentation was sin cere and general. The King suffered greatly in his general health. He was unequal to business or company, and those who had attributed no little of the success of the Revolution to Mary's influence in public affairs, apprehended the most serious con sequences to the state from her untimely death. Mary was pious, amiable, affectionate : hke her sister the Princess Anne, too devoted a wife, perhaps, to leave her character as a daughter without reproach, or even, it may be added, that of a sister ;* since the breach which took place between the Queen and the Princess, when the latter would not dismiss Lady Marlborough from her service, on the Earl's disgrace, was never healed. The Princess Anne, although she desired to visit the dying Queen and be reconciled to her on this side of eternity, was dissuaded from doing so by William until it was too late ; and it was not until Mary's remains had been consigned to the grave that the Princess could effect a reconciliation with her brother-in-law, and induce him to show her those marks of respect which were due to one in her position. Burnet has much commended Mary for her affec- * Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 243. Disposal of Church Preferment. 265 tion for the Church of England, which, he says, was " neither blind nor partial," and which according to his account in many particulars resembled his own. She had a great desire to see a closer union sub sisting between the Church of England and the foreign Protestants, as well as the success of the famous Comprehension Scheme. It is certain Mary took a lively interest in air Church matters, and her death was considered of no httle consequence to the clergy, particularly as regarded the disposal ofthe highest Church preferment. King William, partly from indifference to the matter, partly to avoid the applications of his ministers in favour of individuals who might or might not be fit for preferment, partly in consequence of his being obliged to go abroad so often, had left the disposal of Church preferment almost entirely in the hands of the Queen. Mary, like the Princess Anne, was a good Churchwoman, and scrupulously endeavoured to fill the vacant bishoprics and other high positions in the Church with proper men. She seldom made an appointment without consulting Tillotson, who con scientiously desired to bring forward zealous and learned men, within the limits of his own school in theology, or, it must be added, whom he considered had deserved well of King William. Sherlock, Sharp, and Comber, were amongst the most emi nent of those divines thus recommended by the late Archbishop. After the death of his Queen, William was obliged to pursue another course, and he adopted one which, in theory, was doubtless excellent. He granted a commission to the two Archbishops and four other bishops, viz. Burnet, Lloyd, Stillingfleet, 266 Disposal qf Church Preferment. and Patrick, empowering them to select and name fit persons for the higher Church preferment. This commission bore date April 6th, 1695. The only objection which Churchmen could reasonably make to this plan was, that when the Archbishop had been selected for political ends, and was a known adherent to a particular school of theologians, the character of his appointments would at once be settled, and the field for selection limited. Indeed, the history of this matter exemplifies this ; for, after the execution of Sir John Fenwick, William was so well pleased with Tenison's behaviour in that matter that he cancelled the first commission and granted another of a similar kind, although much more in favour ofthe Archbishop, dated May 9, 1700. The Archbishop by this commission was always to have a voice in the disposal of any piece of preferment, the Archbishop of York only necessarily to be consulted when the preferment to be filled up was situated in his own province. It was also expressly stipulated in this document that neither of the King's two principal Secretaries of State should move him, whether he were in England or abroad, to bestow any church preferment which he had thus left to the recommendation of the Archbishop and his brother commissioners, otherwise than they advised. Thus the death of the Queen led to the adoption of a step on the part of William which, in theory, would accord almost with the sentiments of the non-jurors.* The two Houses of Parliament, the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, the city Clergy, * This Commission is given at length in the British Magazine for Dec. 1st, 1839. Disposal of Church Preferment. 267 and the Nonconformists, attended the King, and pre sented to him addresses of condolence upon his sad loss ; and Calamy states he well remembers, whilst that of the Dissenters was being read, noticing the tears falling down the cheeks of the disconsolate King.* The funeral of the Queen, which took place in Westminster Abbey, was one of unusual splendour, as both Houses of Parliament attended instate; upon which occasion the Archbishop preached the sermon. His discourse, however, was subjected to much ani madversion : the Jacobites maintaining that it was his duty to have brought Mary to some contrition, on account of her unnatural behaviour to her father. Indeed, the sermons generally preached on the death of the Queen led to no little controversy, and in the fohowing year a formal defence of those delivered by the Archbishop, the Bishops of Lichfield and Coventry, and the Bishop of Salisbury and the Bishop of Ely, Dr. Sherlock and Mr. Fleetwood, was put forth.* WiUiam's thoughts were now directed to the Continent. He was detained in England, whilst a somewhat lengthy examination into what was desig nated " the Lancashire plot " was being carried on ; but as soon as that was over, and he was enabled to prorogue the Parliament, he crossed the Channel, and resumed his command in the tedious war that the Confederacy continued to wage with the French King. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord ChanceUor were at the head of the list of the Chief * Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 541. ¦f Ibid. pp. 544. 268 Growth of Impiety. Justices appointed by the King to take charge of public affairs in his absence. The remaining years of William's reign were not very prolific in matters of Church interest, parti cularly those which intervened between the death of the Queen and the peace of Ryswick. The course of pubhc events had not proved favourable to the growth of piety in the nation, or to the development of theological learning and Church principles. The controversies which were carried on were of too personal and political a character to have an im proving effect upon the religion of the country. Nor was it merely a warfare between those who had taken the oaths to William and Mary and those who had not. Party feeling ran high, even amongst the clergy who had taken the oaths. Something worse than apathy or lukewarmness had succeeded to that zeal which was so conspicuous at the time of the Revolution. Some attributed this deterioration to one cause, some to another. Some blamed the non jurors, some the clergy generally, for not presenting a greater spectacle of unity amongst themselves. The non-jurors, of course, threw the reproach upon their antagonists, and declared that no little of the prevailing apathy was to be attributed to the time serving spirit of an age in which so many had acted a doubtful part by their consciences. The nume rous conspiracies, too, which characterised the times had a demoralising effect, and nearly always brought to the bar of public criticism the conduct of some of the clergy ; two instances of which we shall shortly have to relate. During the King's absence this spring, public The Assassination Plot. 269 attention was much drawn to Scotland, where an inquiry was made by the Parliament of that country into an event which has obtained such great noto riety under the description of " the Glencoe Massa cre;" in which we have a lamentable example of what atrocious acts the executive may be guilty, when under the direction of political bias and family grudge. The conduct of William, too, shows us how difficult it is for a sovereign to punish the most abominable cruelty, when it is perpetrated under pretence of zeal for his person. Some relief was also given in the same session of Parliament to the episcopal clergy who took the oaths to Wilham, so that several having done so came under the benefit of the Act, and retained their livings in spite of the power of the Presbytery, at that time so much in the ascendant in Scotland.* At the beginning of the year 1695-6 transpired what is called the "Assassination Plot." It was the boldest and most atrocious conspiracy of any to which allusion has been made in these pages, and drew forth from the House of Commons, and the nation generally, a very warm demonstration in favour of King William and the Protestant succes sion. It is noticed here, chiefly on account of the remarkable behaviour of some of the non-jurant clergy at the execution of two of the conspirators. The chief feature in the conspiracy was, that the King was to be waylaid and assassinated as he was on his road from Kensington to Richmond, where he commonly went hunting. The plot was divulged by a Captain Fisher and a Roman Catholic gentle man named Pendergrass, who could not admit that * See Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. p. 275. 270 The Assassination Plot. anything justified so base an attempt upon the life of the King. Pendergrass was admitted to the presence of the King, and discovered so much of the plot as was sufficient for saving William from the snare which was laid for him, but solemnly declined to betray the names of the conspirators. However, he was so strongly urged that he afterwards divulged some of these, on the understanding that he was not to be confronted in evidence against them ; and although many of them escaped into France, several were secured, and suffered death for their offence. Amongst the first of these was Charnock, one of those two fellows of Magdalen College who, in James the Second's reign, embraced Romanism, and sided with the King against Hough and the other members of the house. He was executed at Tyburn, and with him Lieutenant King, and one Keyes, formerly a trumpeter.* The next to pay the forfeiture of their lives for this conspiracy were Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins. f The guilt of the first seems rather to have consisted in his abetting the contem plated invasion of James, than in consenting to the assassination of William. On the other hand, Sir William Perkins, who had been one of the six clerks in Chancery, was deeply involved in both offences, and was one of the most determined of those who were bent upon the assassination of William. Both of these made special confessions at the time of their execution, solemnly declaring their adhesion to the cause of King James, and their belief in the justice of that cause which they had embraced, declaring * Tindal, vol. ii. p. 292. t See Burnet's Own Time, vol. iv. pp. 304-306. Conduct of Non-jurors. 'ill at the same time, that they died in the faith of the Church of England. The latter confessed his know ledge of, and therefore consent to, the design upon the life of the Prince of Orange, as he called him, but he expressed no contrition for the part which he had taken in the conspiracy. It was at the execution of these criminals that the circumstance above alluded to occurred, which caused great scandal to some religious people. Three of the non-juring clergymen, Mr. Snatt, Mr. Cooke, and Mr. Collier, appeared on the scaffold at Tyburn, and without Friend or Perkins making any public confession of sorrow for the offence for which they had been condemned, or even any confession of private sin, pronounced over them the most solemn abso lution which is contained in any form in our Prayer- book, viz. that in the Visitation for the Sick, at the same time laying their hands upon their heads. The non-jurors might have thought an excess of loyalty towards the dethroned monarch hardly demanded a confession of sin, but surely their private sins and the deliberate determination of assassinating King William did call for an expression of contrition before they could be entitled to so plenary an absolution. This behaviour gave such general offence that the two Archbishops, Tenison and Sharp, together with twelve bishops then in London, thought it necessary to put forth a declaration upon the trans action, in which, whilst upholding and approving the rubric in the office for the Visitation of the Sick, they said, " If those ministers knew not the state of these men's souls how could they, without manifest trans gression of the Church's order, as well as profane abuse of the power Christ has left with his ministers, 272 The King goes abroad. absolve them from all their sins ? " It was argued that Mr. Collier, Mr. Snatt, and Mr. Cooke, must have approved ofthe treasonable practices of Sir John Friend and Sir William Perkins before they could have done as they did, and accordingly the law officers were instructed to proceed against them. A bill was found in their case of high misdemeanour, Cooke and Snatt were committed to Newgate, but Jeremy Collier contrived to conceal himself, and not only to evade committal, but also to issue from his concealment several papers in vindication of his conduct ; in one of which he declared that Sir William Perkins had given him the state of his conscience, privately, some time before his execution. Besides Friend and Perkins, three others were subsequently executed for this conspiracy.* William at times displayed considerable magna nimity towards those who were opposed to him ; but it was certainly his misfortune to spend his life very much between war abroad and the suppression of conspiracies at home. The King returned to Holland the 2d of May fohowing these executions, which were deemed necessary by his most zealous adherents for the preservation of his throne. The campaign was carried on without any great display of vigour, either on the side of the States or France ; and when William returned again to England, and re assembled his Parliament, the most engrossing sub ject of debate amongst them was the conduct and trial of Sir John Fenwick. The Parliament met in November ; and after some debates on financial * See Lathbury's History ofthe Nonjurors, p. 171 ; Evelyn's Diary, April 19, 1696 ; Tindal's Continuation of Rapin, vol. iv. p. 311. Sir John Fenwick' s Case. 273 matters a bill was introduced, relating to Sir John Fenwick, who had ever been one of the most factious opponents of the Revolution. The historical interest of his case consists in the fact that he was condemned and executed under a bill of attainder, a form of procedure against a guilty person of a most ques tionable nature, and which, happily, has never been resorted to since the death of Fenwick. Sir John, who was more or less implicated in all the proceedings of the Jacobites, had kept out of the way from the time of the discovery of the assassina tion plot. His person, however, was too well known to escape detection for any length of time, and in an attempt to cross to France he was seized, and brought to justice. Whilst in custody he wrote a letter to his wife, who was a sister of Lord Carlisle, but to whom he had not been very faithful, in which he informed her of the misfortune of his capture, and declared that nothing could save him, he was well aware, but the intercession with the King of her brother and the rest of the Howard family ; or, he suggests, that at his trial a packed jury should be procured, in which two or three might be persuaded to outstarve the rest. This letter was intercepted by the Govern ment, and when at his first examination he denied the charge brought against him, it was produced, to his utter confusion. The Earl of Peterborough, although a great friend of the Revolution, now came to his assistance, and from private pique or charac teristic eccentricity persuaded Fenwick to raise a counter-plot, in which he implicated many of the King's present adherents, and found time to practise upon the witnesses, who had his life in their hands. 274 Sir John Fenwick' s Case. The King refused the least credence to Fenwick's accusations ; and as a last effort to save her husband, Lady Fenwick contrived the flight and consequent disappearance of Mr. Cardell Goodman, one of the two witnesses, upon whose evidence the case of the prosecution depended. Sir John Fenwick's behaviour during the time this affair was pending had not increased the number of his friends. Some, who imagined their secret dis affection had hitherto escaped detection, became alarmed at Fenwick's revelations, and were conse quently as zealous as the purest Whigs for the con demnation of the zealous Jacobite. The disappear ance of Goodman had rendered the conviction of Sir John by common law impossible ; a motion was therefore made in the House of Commons to bring in a bill to attaint him of high treason, which was carried, after much discussion, by a majority of seventy-nine to sixty-one. The debates on the bill itself were very long, and very stormy, but were cha racterised by a display of much vigour and ability. It was, however, ultimately carried by a majority of 189 to 156. In the House of Lords the opposition to the bill was stronger than in the Commons, and only passed by the slender majority of seven.* Sir John Fenwick now sought to obtain a reprieve from the King. He even alleged that he had been the means of saving William's life, by discountenancing amongst some ofhis enemies the idea of assassination. But as he could bring no proof of this William was inexorable, and Fenwick prepared to suffer. With some difficulty he obtained leave for Bishop White, the non-juring Bishop of Peterborough, to attend * Tindal, vol. ii. p. 361 ; Rapin, vol. iii. p. 487. Sir John Fenwick's Case. 27 '5 him to the scaffold. He was beheaded on Tower Hill, the 28th of January, 1696-7. At his execu tion he delivered a paper* to the Sheriff, which Bishop White had the credit of drawing up, wherein he declared his innocence, his attachment to the Church of England, his abhorrence ofthe idea of assassinating the Prince of Orange, and even that he had once diverted the Jacobites from such an act : he thanks those who spoke against the bill of attainder, prays for King James, and commends his soul to God. The non-jurors were not pleased with the strong expression of abhorrence, in which the idea of as sassinating William was spoken of in this paper, and Bishop White came in for some expressions of their disapprobation. Burnet, in the History of his Own Time, has spent much labour in endeavouring to justify the part which he took in Fenwick's condemnation ; but an impartial reader of history will still question the justifiableness of the whole proceeding. The Su preme Legislature, by a bill of attainder, set aside the requirements of ordinary law, considering the mag nitude of the offence as sufficient excuse for this; and it may well be questioned whether the case of of Sir John Fenwick was of that importance and criminality to call for such a measure. It was thus, at any rate, that the peers opposed to the bill reasoned in the solemn protest they entered upon their books against the decision of the majority, and it is greatly to be regretted that Archbishop Tenison and some of his suffragans voted with this majority. * This paper is printed in the Harleian Miscellany, edit. 1808, vol. i. p. 557; and in Howell's State Trials, edit. 1812, vol. xiii. p. 757. 276 Peace of Ryswick. The peace of Ryswick, which was signed this year, displeased the adherents of James on the one hand, and the French refugees on the other. The covetous eye which Louis began to turn towards Spain, and, perhaps, the financial affairs of France, induced him to conclude a peace before he was in a position to fulfil his vaunted boast of restoring James to his throne; and William was silenced by Louis, when he spoke about the French refugees, by being reminded, that as Louis did not interfere with his subjects, neither had Wilham any title to meddle with his. The refugees had, indeed, ren dered Wilham the greatest service in all his wars; but the reasoning of Louis was just, and the descendants of those sufferers for conscience sake have, perhaps, had no reason to regret the banish ment of their ancestors from a country which since has been torn to pieces by so many revolutions. The peace of Ryswick, at least, afforded Wilham leisure to look into the internal state of his own kingdom, which called for some closer attention from the sovereign than his frequent visits to the Continent had of late enabled him to bestow upon it. 277 CHAPTER IX. (1697-1702.) Moral and religious state of the nation — Parliament memorialises the King upon the growth of impiety and immorality — Societies for the reformation of manners revived — Origin of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and the Society for the Promotion of Christian Know ledge — The Controversy about the rights of Convocation — It assembles — Its proceedings — Death of the Duke of Gloucester — Death of King James — Proceedings of Convo cation — Death of King William. Much as has been said and written upon the evil effects of theological controversy, experience does not justify us in beheving that every description of it is fatal to the growth of general piety. Profligacy in the upper classes, and the exhibition of a time serving spirit in the clergy, are the real evils which sap national religion. Notwithstanding the high character of the Church-appointments in the reign of Charles II. , the conduct of the Court had a most unhappy effect upon the general morals of the na tion. But in the reign of James IL, as has been shown, the fear of Popery stimulated many private individuals to extraordinary acts of devotion, and the country never exhibited a more general sense of religion in attendance on the ordinances of the Church than when the controversy with that infatu- 278 State of Public Morals. ated monarch was at its height. As soon as the crisis was over, religious earnestness seemed to die away, and the very faith itself was exposed to a new de scription of peril. Socinianism, or what was not in aptly called Mahommetan Christianity, came much in fashion, and those who were too volatile to think for themselves, embraced the once-exploded opinions of Hobbes and Spinosa ; whilst the gross immorality and impiety of the stage both reflected and served to keep alive the evil spirit of the age. Without exaggerating the importance of the schism occasioned by the defection of the non-jurors, there is no denying that the loss of so many able and zealous men from the ranks of the clergy of the Established Church was sensibly felt. There was Kettlewell, who, however, was removed to a better world in 1695, distinguished for great honesty and integrity, as well as learning and piety, and with all his meekness, most single-minded and courageous. There was Jeremy Collier, the bold rebuker of the stage, and one of the most eminent scholars ofthe Church of England, whose rising career had been arrested by the Revolution, and who was not less devoted than learned ; and there was Leslie, whose dialectical skill is^ well-established ; besides the non- juring Bishops, all men of indisputable honesty and piety, and all sufferers for conscience sake. It is unnecessary to defend or condemn those men in this place. We cannot but lament that there should have been so much virtue diverted from the channel in which it would naturally have flowed. On the other hand, there was much honest conviction on the part of men equally holy,* as Beveridge, Bull, Kidder, * See the Life of Beveridge, prefixed to his Works, p. 29. Behaviour ofthe Nonconformists. 279 Stillingfleet, Hooper, that the conduct of James had so entirely dissolved the tie between himself and his people, that they were free to acknowledge that sovereign who was in possession, whoever he might be ; and then there was the party of Sherlock, whose vacillating behaviour was but an open homage to the world. The laity are not slow in discerning the moral discrepancies of the clergy, and the spirit which pervaded the clerical body reacted upon the nation at large. Men became unusually worldly and sus picious of each other's motives. The good which had attended the Revolution was found to be not unalloyed with evil. Under these circumstances, soon after the Treaty of Peace was signed, the Par liament thought proper to memorialise the King upon the subject of the increase of impiety and immorality. Before recording their address it may be well to state, that the Nonconformists at this time were also much divided amongst themselves, although they abated none of their endeavours to stretch the in dulgence granted them beyond the intention of the law. Sir Humphrey Edwin, a Nonconformist Lord Mayor, had the temerity and indecency to attend a meeting of Dissenters in Pinners' Hall, in his official capacity, causing the insignia of his office to be car ried with him thither. His friends defended him by saying that, by the Toleration Act, his religion was as much established as the Church. But this pro ceeding created just displeasure amongst many, and was certainly impolitic ; for it was one, amongst other reasons, why the Church party in the subse- 280 The House of Commons present a quent reign laboured so hard to prevent occasional conformity.* The Commons' memorial to the King ran as follows : — " They, with great joy and comfort, remembered the testimonies which his Majesty had given them of his sincerity and zeal for the reformed religion as established in this kingdom ; and, in particular, they acknowledged the late declaration, which his Majesty had made them from the throne, that he would effec tually discourage profaneness and immorality ; which, chiefly by the neglect and ill-example of too many, were (like a general contagion) diffused and spread throughout the kingdom, to the great scandal and reproach of the Protestant religion, and to the dis honour and prejudice of his Majesty's government. Therefore, in concurrence with his Majesty's pious intentions, they most humbly desired, that his Ma jesty would issue out his royal proclamation, com manding all judges, justices ofthe peace, and other magistrates, to put in speedy execution the good laws that were now in force against profaneness and immorality, giving encouragement to all such as did their duty therein. " And since the examples of men in high pubhc stations have a powerful influence upon the lives of others, they most humbly besought his Majesty, that all vice, profaneness, and irreligion, might, in a par ticular manner, be discouraged, in all those who had the honour to be employed near his royal person, and in all others who were in his Majesty's service, by sea or land ; and that his Majesty would, upon * See Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 561. Memorial to theKing on the State of Morals. 281 all occasions, distinguish piety and virtue by marks of his favour. They further besought his Majesty to give effectual orders for the suppressing all per nicious books and pamphlets, which contained im pious doctrines against the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles of the Protestant faith, tending to the subversion of the Christian religion ; and that his Majesty's proclamation might be ordered to be read, at least four times in the year, in aU churches and chapels, immediately after Divine Service ; and at the Assizes and Quarter Sessions of the Peace, just before the charge is given." To this address of the House of Commons the King replied, — " That he could not but be very well pleased with an address of this nature ; and he would give immediate directions in the several particulars they desired. But that he could wish that some more effectual provision were, made for suppressing those pernicious books and pamphlets, which their address took notice of."* In accordance with the prayer contained in the Commons' address, and his Majesty's answer, a proclamation on the subject was forthwith issued. The House of Lords, following up the proceedings, passed a bill for the more effectual suppressing Atheism, Profaneness, and Blasphemy. In the midst of the general apathy, we must not suppose there were no individuals actively engaged on the side of truth in the so-called religious world of that day. Societies for the reformation of man ners were at this time reorganised, upon the basis of certain religious societies which originated in the reign of James IL, under the direction of Drs. * See Rapin, vol. iii. p. 499 ; Tindal, vol. ii. pp. 436, 437. 282 Societies for the Reformation of Manners. Horneck and Beveridge.* Horneck was the pious author of The Happy Ascetic, and equally zealous in the cause of the Church of England with Beveridge. The rules of these societies were approved by Comp ton and Tillotson ; and, indeed, could scarcely be disapproved by any one who knew the call which often arises in a large town for some stricter sys tem of discipline than the masses are contented with. One of the especial objects of these societies was to promote that which has since become part of the ordinary discipline of the Church — more frequent preaching and more frequent communions. It appears, the custom of having sermons on a Sun day evening in the London churches took its rise from these societies. The members of these societies were to meet some evening in every week, for pur poses of mutual edification. They were all sworn members of the Church of England. They con tributed what they pleased at the weekly meetings-, for the promotion of charitable objects. None but well-living people were admitted as members ; and their sole object in entering them, was to assist them selves in the growth of personal holiness.f They were bound to mortify their evil passions, and to be constant in the study of God's word and books of general devotion. It may be remarked, in passing, how similar in their beginnings to these were those societies, by aid of which the great Methodist movement was afterwards organised. However, these societies, originating as I have described, now took a new start ; and amongst the useful objects to which they devoted their col- * See Life of Beveridge prefixed to his Works, p. 29. f Ibid, note c. p. lxxxii. Hon. Robert Boyle. 283 lections were those of informing against the grossly immoral and profane, and of procuring the reading of daily prayers and evening sermons in several of the London churches. Some of the same individuals who had interested themselves in them were also instrumental in setting on foot those two Venerable Societies, as they are now called, " The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,'' and " The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge." Imme diately on Tenison's elevation to the primacy, Dean Prideaux, the author of the Connexion of the Old and New Testament History, wrote a sensible letter to him, upon England's neglect in propagating the Christian religion in her foreign possessions. He pointed out that the Roman Catholics had preceded us in this good work, and that the Dutch had also attended to this matter in their settlements. He regretted that no attention had been paid to this subject when the new East India Charter had been granted. It appears, that the Honourable Robert Boyle, when in committee upon that charter, tried, but in vain, to promote this very object. He after wards gave a noble proof of his sincerity in the cause ; for, in 1691, he left by will upwards of 5000/. for the advancement of the Christian religion amongst in fidels. An estate was purchased with this money ; of which the Earl of Burlington and the Bishop of London for the time being were appointed trustees, and the lectures which bear his name were then founded. Sir Leoline Jenkins also founded two Fellowships at Jesus College, Oxford, for persons who should be willing to embark as missionaries to our foreign plantations. 284 Dr. Bray. But although these efforts of individuals showed that some members of our Church were not in sensible to that great duty of diffusing the light of Christianity, as opportunity should offer — which belongs to every church and people — the public mind at large cannot be said to have been awakened to a sense of this duty until the formation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The merit of originating this vene rable and excellent Society is due to Dr. Thomas Bray, a man whose name deserves to be cherished with affection by all Churchmen, not only from his connexion with this Society, but because his whole life was devoted to works of a high and religious nature ; and that, too, in a spirit of particular meekness and self-denial. It was Dr. Bray, more than any one, who developed the plan, which has since been so exten sively followed, of establishing parochial and lending libraries. Indeed, his zeal in this matter first brought him to the notice of the Bishop of London, who, when asked to appoint a Commissary for Maryland, selected Dr. Bray, and the latter afterwards, being in England and desirous to create an interest in that settlement, originated a movement, which at last ended in the incorporation of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The Bishops of the Church took up the matter. They issued an address, inviting the assistance of Church men in behalf of foreign missions, which was readily responded to. A society was formed, and a charter of incorporation was ultimately granted in 1701.* When we read the hst of founders and first sup- * See Public Spirit Illustrated in the Life and Designs ofthe Reverend Thomas Bray, D.D., edit. 1808. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, Sfc. 285 porters of this institution, who were all at this time flourishing, it is difficult to believe the times could have been so bad as they are represented to have been. Tenison, Sharp, Wake, Potter, Compton, Patrick, Burnet, Beveridge, Hough, Gibson, Gastrell, Thomas Wilson, just at the commencement of his episcopate, Stanhope, Prideaux, Bray, John Evelyn, and Robert Nelson.* Here is a list, from which may be selected men of great learning, deep attachment to the Church of England, and fervent piety. Burnet assigns no httle ofthe credit due to the founders of this Society to King Wilham, remarking that " it was a glorious conclusion of a reign, that was begun with preserving our religion, thus to create a corporation for propa gating it to the remoter parts ofthe earth, and among infidels." Perhaps it may be, with equal truth, re marked, that it was fortunate, for the credit of Wil liam's reign, that one ecclesiastical movement should have occurred which was well-pleasing to every member ofthe Church. We cannot but confess that the Society bore the signs of the age in which it ori ginated; for there was no provision made for the estabhshment of a Colonial Episcopate, notwith standing the crying want of the colonists was super vision and union, and to meet which, indeed, Dr. Bray had been appointed a commissary. To search for the precious metals was the lead ing motive which animated the first settlers in Ame rica ; and even Sir Walter Raleigh, in organising the successive expeditions, which he did, to America, and in his first settlement in Virginia, does not ap- * See Wilberforce's History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, p. 93 ; Origin and Objects of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 286 State of Religion pear to have been sufficiently alive to the duty of spreading the Christian religion. It was not till after his execution, in 1618, that an expedition, which set forth this amongst its first motives, sailed for Virginia, and which, in the end, proved the germ ofthe great Anglo-American family. Religion ob tained some place in the first arrangements of the expedition ; and afterwards, in framing the settle ment, it was not altogether left without consideration. In the history of this colony a conspicuous proof was afforded how necessary to the conservation of any society is the religious element, for, but for this, it would have failed entirely. The Reverend Robert Hunt, the first chaplain of the expedition, was, under God, the means of hold ing it together, and preserving it from decay and despair ; and after his death the colony so far de^ clined, that the remaining settlers had embarked in despair, with the resolution of returning home, when they were providentially met by the expedition of Lord Delaware, which had been despatched to their assistance, and taken back and reinstated in their former position. Happily, the system of bringing chaplains and missionaries on their expeditions was now fairly established. Lord Delaware was accom panied by his chaplain, who was placed at James Town ; and, in process of time, other clergymen of the Church of England followed in the wake of those, until the country, which Queen Elizabeth had called Virginia, in record of her own state, was colonised with British subjects, the great majority of whom were living under the teaching of the Church of England, and many of whom were deeply interested in the conversion ofthe heathen population^ by which in the American Colonies. 287 they were surrounded. As the religious spirit of Virginia was Church of England from the beginning, so her temper during the times of the Great Re bellion was loyal. On the death of Cromwell, Virginia did not wait for the mother-country to proclaim Charles H., which she appears to have done at once. On the other hand, at the Revolution this colony followed the example of the mother-country, and readily proclaimed King William and Queen Mary ; no less dreading the innovations of Popery, than the secret combinations which the members of that per suasion were supposed to have formed with the native Indians.* The English colonies which were formed in America subsequently to that of Virginia were dis tinguished, as regards their religious condition, by every shade of opinion. Pennsylvania, originally of Dutch origin, and New York, originally a Swedish colony, reflected, as a matter of course, the religious opinions of Holland and Sweden. In 1683, William Penn purchased of the Duke of York New Castle Town, and the surrounding country, and built the Quaker city of Philadelphia. North and South Carolina, which had been granted by Charles II. to Lord Clarendon and others, were settled upon the basis of religious toleration, and embraced a Con stitution, drawn up by Locke, on principles similar to those to which allusion has already been made ; but, even on American soil, they were found in expedient. Maryland, which adjoins Virginia, was settled with Roman Cathohcs, under the direction of the * See the Bishop of Oxford's History ofthe American Church, p. 40 ; Encyclopedia Britannica, " American Colonies." 288 Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge. second Lord Baltimore, in 1634. The colony had been planned by his father, who obtained a grant of land from Charles I., after whose Queen it was named; but he did not live to accomplish his de signs. The Roman Catholics, persecuted at home, rose superior to the vindictive feelings such perse cutions are apt to inspire, and established a govern ment on principles of Toleration, which met with great success, even provoking symptoms of jealousy amongst the neighbouring colonies. The extensive country known as New England, became the asylum of those Puritan families who, being impatient of the restraints upon their religious opinions in England, transported themselves into Holland ; and, after a time, returning to their native country for their outfit, proceeded to settle themselves in great numbers in the Western world. Maryland, by a singular chain of circumstances, ultimately be came, like the neighbouring country of Virginia, a Church-of-England colony ; and it was from the diffi culties in which the clergy of the colony found them selves placed, with respect to the Roman Catholics and Quakers, that they were led to make the application to the Bishop of London for a Commissary; when Dr. Bray was appointed, who, as we have already seen, was so instrumental in establishing the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. The sister society, for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, has a slight precedence in antiquity to that for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, for it was incorporated in 1699. The first design of it was to promote the circulation of the Scriptures, both at home and abroad ; but another most important object, to which the members of it Efforts in behalf of National Education. 289 early directed their attention, was the promotion of national education. When we review their efforts in behalf of this cause, we are disposed to think that the modern writers on national education have barely done justice to the exertions made by our ancestors for the instruction of the people. In this, as in so many other matters, the achievements of the present day have been celebrated at the expense of the de votion and activity of a day gone by, as if civilization were not essentially progressive, and as if the labours and mental activity of every preceding age had not served to swell the current of modern intelligence.* At the very first meeting of this Society, at which Lord Guildford, Sir Humphry Mackworth, Mr. Jus tice Hook, the Rev. Dr. Thomas Bray, and Colonel Maynard Colchester, were present, part of the pro fligacy and impiety of the age was set down to the want of education in the lower orders. In ac cordance with this view, they determined to promote the erection of schools in every parish in and about London. In a bill introduced into Parliament, dealing with the employment of the poor, the Archbishop was requested to have a clause introduced, requiring that the poor children should be taught to read. The coun try correspondents of the Society were directed to interest themselves in the formation of local schools, and premiums were offered to those individuals who were anxious to establish schools. Finally, some general scheme of school inspection was agreed upon, and even the idea of a normal school for the forma tion of teachers devised. Subscriptions were readily contributed to this object, which, although at this * See Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. " National Education," last edition. U 290 The Anniversary ofthe Charity Children. period not a matter considered for the first time, did now undoubtedly receive a new and great im pulse. S. Andrew's, Holborn, S. James's, Clerken- well, S. Martin's-in-the-Fields, S. Paul's, Shadwell, with many others, owe their charity schools _to the educational movement of that day. At the first annual meeting of the charity schools, in 1704, which took place at S. Andrew's, about two thousand children, educated at these parochial schools, were in attendance.* The annual sermon in behalf of these schools was successively preached at S. Bride's, Fleet Street, at S. Sepulchre's, Snow Hill, when nearly 5000 children were assembled, and at Christ Church, Newgate Street. It was not until 1782 that the anniversary of the charity children was held in S. Paul's Cathedral, upon which occasion Dr. Porteus, bishop of London, preached the sermon. It is considered one of the most impressive spectacles in the metropolis, and thousands eagerly seek to witness it, and to experience the sublime impression which is made upon the mind whilst listening to so many young voices singing the praises of their Maker. Thus did Almighty God bring good out of evil ; for, in an age debased by great impiety and im morality, did these two societies, which have been such important handmaids of the Church, take their rise. Moreover, another Church agent, too long in abeyance, became a theme of much conversation at this time amongst the clergy. From the time of Tillotson's appointment to the * An Account of the Efforts of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in behalf of National Education, by the Rev. T. B. Murray. Convocation. 291 Archbishopric pf Canterbury, no Convocation had met for the despatch of business. The last assem bling of that body had been attended with so little that was satisfactory to the State, or to either party in the Church, that for some time nobody had felt disposed to agitate the question of its revival. Con vocation, however, is a constituent part of the Church of England's polity, and the existence of such an assembly is so agreeable to common sense, as well as to ancient precedent, that times must come round, in the history of the Church, when there wih arise a"general call for its immediate action. The Sacred Synod of the nation is the Church of England by representation ; and it is not true that, before 1665, the chief business of Convocation was voting sub sidies. It was usually engaged in matters of far more lasting importance than this. The Prayer- book, as we have it, first passed through Convoca tion. The Canons of 1603 show upon how vast a number of subjects it may deliberate, and by the consent of the Crown proceed to legislate. Parlia ment can pronounce nothing heresy, with relation to the Church of England, without the consent of Con vocation : so that altogether, if we judge the powers of this assembly from what has been performed by it in past years, we must confess that matters were and are daily arising, and will be continually so doing, which can nowhere be more properly considered than in the National Church Synod.* Tenison had hitherto followed the practice of Archbishop Tillotson, and as the Crown granted no hcense for the Convocation to proceed to legislate, he merely went through the form of calling it together, * Gibson's Codex, vol. ii. p. 932 ; 25 Henry VIII. ch. xix. 292 Convocation. and immediately proroguing it. Those who looked to it as hkely to offer a remedy for some of the pre vailing evils of the day, began to grow impatient of this conduct of the Archbishop, and to desire a revival of its active functions. The intercourse carried on between the State and the Church is through the medium of the Arch bishop. In theory he presides over the whole of the ecclesiastical state, in a similar manner to that in which the Commander-in-Chief presides over the army. Accordingly, as regards Convocation, the Sovereign, by his or her writ, directs the Archbishop to summon that body, which he does according to a certain canonical form of procedure. It seems doubtful how far the Archbishop has the power to prorogue this Synod without the consent of his suffragans, or a special message from the Crown. Since the Restoration, the power of proroguing has been regarded as residing in the Archbishop alone ; but prior to that period there are traces of its having been otherwise. When assembled, the Convocation cannot proceed to make or promulgate canons with out the royal license to do so ; but there is no law which forbids the clergy to deliberate upon their grievances in Convocation, even without any license : and surely this is a privilege well worth putting in practice, for the pubhc discussion of grievances is a great step towards their ultimate remedy, however long that remedy may be deferred. Why have the Clergy so often, of late years, held large meetings to discuss matters of general Church interest, but that they have felt the value of a public demonstration, and know no other way of making it, whilst their Convocational privileges are in abey- The Convocation Controversy. 293 ance? These unauthorised meetings were unknown in the times of William and Queen Anne, and we cannot wonder that the suppressed zeal of the High- Church party at last broke out as it did, in what is commonly called "the Convocation Contro versy." * This was begun by a work entitled A Letter to a Convocation Man, concerning the Rights, Powers, and Privileges of that Body, published anonymously about 1697, by Sir Bartholomew Shower, but frequently attributed to Dr. William Binkes, the prolocutor to the Convocation of 1705. The author insists, in this production, that the Con vocation is as much a part of the Constitution as the Parliament itself. After first stating that it is hkely to prove a fitter remedy for the Socinianism and Infidelity of the day, than the meddling of the Parliament, he asserts that the King is entrusted with the power of convening Synods and Convoca tions, in respect of the Church, for the redress of grievances, as he is with that of summoning Par liaments for a like purpose. He reminds the King of his oath to preserve the rights of the Church, whole and unbroken. He pleads that a writ should be issued for a Con vocation whenever a summons goes out for a Parlia ment. He then proceeds to a more questionable and tender point. He argues against the need of a license to treat and debate, and asserts that Convocation has an independent power of proceeding against any bishop, priest, or deacon, for heresy or schism, or any other spiritual offence, that is not restrained by Act of Parliament ; and he asserts that the canons * Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 554. 294 The Convocation Controversy. passed in Convocation need no parliamentary sanc tion, if they do not run counter to common law. This latter assertion is quite untenable.* To this letter, Dr. Wake, the Rector of S. James, replied in a publication, entitled The Au thority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods. It was a work in octavo, and dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Wake in this first throws discredit upon the motives of the writer of the Letter to a Convocation Man. Throughout the work he strains the power of the civil magistrate to the ut most. After declaring that no synods can be assem bled without the sanction of the Crown, he goes on to assert that, when assembled, they can only debate on subjects proposed to them by the Sovereign. He affirms that the Prince has power over the judicial determinations of the synods, as well as over the canons passed by them. He slights their right of being summoned, by remarking that, whether they possess it or not, it matters little, since they no longer have the power of voting money. He then gives an historical sketch of the English Convo cation from Saxon times. He even calls in question that which the canons of the Church so distinctly lay down, that Convocation is a constituent part of the Church. He gives the Sovereign the most arbitrary authority one can possibly conceive over Convoca tion, and speaks with such contempt of any good likely to result to the Church from the meeting of the national synod, that one is tempted to dis parage the motives which actuated him in the com- * Calamy, vol. i. p. 554 ; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 343 ; Trevor's Convocation's of the Two Provinces; Gibson's Codex, vol. i. pp. 932, 933. The Convocation Controversy. 295 pilation of his book, as he himself did the motives of the writer of A Letter to a Convocation Man. He was soon answered by Samuel Hill, rector of Kilmington, in a work called Municipium Eccle- siasticum, 8vo. 1697, in which the writer expresses his surprise that Dr. Wake should have sold himself to such Erastian principles, and tells him, if he were on the other side of the Tweed they would bring him to the stool of repentance. He complains that his views are not only dangerous to the Church, but to the salvation of the Prince himself, and laments that the powers of the Church are now restrained for ends of a mere political nature.* To this attack Wake hastily rejoined, with An Appeal to all the true Members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy, as by Law established, by our Convocations approved, and by our most eminent Bishops and Clergymen stated and defended, against both the Popish and Fanatical Opposers of it. 8vo. 1698. He begins in this, in support ofhis former argument, with the Act of Sub- mission,f which undoubtedly lays down, as strongly as words can do, that Convocation cannot assemble without the King's writ, or proceed to enact canons without the royal hcense ; but there is nothing in it which prohibits the deliberations of the clergy when the King's writ has called them together. He next appeals to a catena of English divines, in proof of his view of the Royal Supremacy, declaring it to be the right of every Christian king to call his clergy together, and stating it as his opinion, that if for * Calamy, vol. i. p. 559 ; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 345. f See Gibson's Codex, p. 932; 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. 296 Atterbury and Wake. thus defending the King's authority over the clergy he is to be censured, he was afraid so great a part of his order would go with him as would make it scandalous for any to stay behind. Wake, who had much learning, was certainly somewhat annoyed at having been represented as a betrayer of the rights of his own order, and wrote with acrimony in his answer to Hill, which provoked a rejoinder from the latter, who, however, was shortly after thrown into the background by the appearance of a much more formidable champion upon his own side, in the person of the celebrated Francis Atterbury. This divine, as Lecturer at S. Bride's, was already known in London for his excellent preaching; he now published anonymously his Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation, stated and vindicated, in Answer to a late book of Dr. Wake's. This work was received with the greatest applause by a large body of the clergy, and Oxford even showed her sense of the value of the performance by presenting the author of it with his Doctor's degree. He prefixed to the second edition a Dedi cation to the two Archbishops, in which he ani madverted most severely upon Dr. Wake, for pre suming to dedicate "a work, which subverts the fundamental rights and liberties of the Church and Clergy of England," to one of the Archbishops of that Church. He has affixed his name to this Dedi cation, encouraged by the success of his work, which was due more to wit and rhetoric than to temperate arguments. Atterbury appears to have made too light of that authority of the Sovereign, whereby alone Convoca tion is assembled. He interprets the Act of Sub- Atterbury and Burnet. 297 mission as it is explained above. He complains of Wake's perversely using those instruments, which were intended for the preservation of the Church, to her injury — of his disparaging his own order, and of his making no distinction between the ecclesias tical power of an absolute and a limited monarchy. After dwelling upon the rights of the clergy to deli berate by Convocation, he insists upon the necessity of their so doing, in order to preserve their rights.* In the course of his work he attacked, not only Dr. Wake, but Dr. Nicholson, afterwards Bishop of Car lisle, in very contemptuous terms. He laid bare some of the errors contained in Burnet's History of the Reformation; and with justice blamed him for his habit, upon all occasions, of running down the clergy as a body, at the same time that he affected an excessive zeal for their welfare. The greatest enemy of priestcraft might be brought to confess that Burnet's mind was as much biased by early edu cation and his Scotch origin, as ever Atterbury's was by bis High - Church training, first, at his father's rectory in Buckinghamshire, and afterwards at Christ Church, Oxford. That ever-busy Bishop could not remain quiet about a pubhcation which made so great a noise, and in which his own learning and character were reflected upon. He accordingly very soon issued his Reflexions upon Atterbury's book. He cen sured the spirit in which that work was written, declaring if such a book were well received, that fact of itself would be an argument against Con vocation. He confesses that, both as an historian and a divine, he has blamed the clergy, where he * See Calamy, vol. i. p. 567. 298 The Convocation is summoned, has thought they merited censure. He denies that Convocation, as at present constituted, can be con sidered a true representation of the Church ; and remarks that a statute exists, by which the sove reigns of these realms, for the last hundred and fifty years, have been entitled to settle matters of religion without Convocation. To the Bishop's Reflexions Atterbury only replied, in the preface to another edition of his book. Others, indeed, had noticed Burnet's astonishing propensity to decry the clergy ; so much so, that one remarked, " that when he pre tended sometimes to commend the best and brightest of them, who were esteemed the ornaments of the Church, he was observed to do it with so many buts and exceptions, that, like the adjuncts which destroy their subjects, they nulled the praises he pretended to give, and turned them almost into perfect disgrace." Whether the motive which induced the Govern ment of William so often to prorogue the Convoca tion was to spare the clergy unnecessary journeys to London, or to discountenance debates which seldom advanced its own influence, the time had come when the clergy were grown very impatient of their long silence, and even the Government to pay some attention to their claims. In the midst of this controversy they were called together for deliberation. Unhappily, the temper in which they met was a bad one. The Atterbury party was so hard to please, that they pretended to believe they were merely summoned to have their rights disputed, and then settled by the law officers of the crown ; and it was known that Chief-Justice Holt was against them. Agreeably to the spirit of Atterbury's book, the Bishop of London and Sprat of Rochester, and proceeds to business. 299 if not others, summoned the clergy by the Parlia ment writ, according to the clause " Prsemunientes," as well as by the Convocation Writ, which was the ordinary form. They assembled on the 10th of February, 1700-1, when Dr. Haley, the dean of Chichester, preached the sermon. Dr. Hooper, the dean of Canterbury, an accomplished and most amiable divine, was chosen Prolocutor. He had been chaplain to Queen Mary at the Hague, which office he held at the time of the Revolution ; and his integrity and single-mind- edness were recognised and appreciated by that princess : for it was Queen Mary who promoted him to the Deanery of Canterbury. It was originally intended by the High-Church party that Dr. Jane, the dean of Gloucester, should have been proposed as Prolocutor ; but he was not sufficiently well for such a post, although he presented Dr. Hooper to the Upper House, and made an able address upon the occasion.* Upon the 25th they met upon their adjournment, and the Lower House proceeded for two or three hours to consider quietly the usages of Convocation, in respect to adjournments and prorogations.! When the Archbishop's schedule of prorogation came down, instead of acting on it immediately, which had been the ordinary custom, the Prolocutor informed them that they were not to consider themselves ad journed until they had received an intimation from him. They continued to proceed, for a short time, in the business before them, when the Prolocutor published the adjournment ; intimating at the same * See Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. pp. 701-2. | Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. iii. pp. 36, 38. 300 Proceedings of Convocation. time, that they were to meet again in Henry the Eighth's Chapel, and not in the Jerusalem Chamber, as had been specified in the Archbishop's Schedule of Prorogation. Thus did the Lower House assume to itself a right, both of fixing the time and place of its assembling, and arrogate an independence cer tainly not belonging to it. The following session took place on the 28th ofthe month, when Tenison sent for the Prolocutor, and some other members of their House, and questioned them upon these irre gular proceedings. The Prolocutor declined at that time to answer the Archbishop's interrogations, al leging that the matter of prorogations and adjourn ments was under the consideration of their House ; but until they made their report on this, they were only prepared to submit to the Archbishop's manner of prorogation, under a protest in behalf of their own privileges.* On the 6th of March the Prolocutor carried to the Upper House the report of the committee on prorogations, in which they maintained, in substance, the legality of their proceedings. The Bishops list ened to the reading of their report, and afterwards returned them an answer and a refutation of it. At the same time, the President sent by the hands of the Prolocutor to the Lower House an address to the King, to which their concurrence was invited, and which was readily conceded, upon an alteration being made similar to one introduced upon a former occasion ; and the expression, " reformed religion," altered for that of " reformed churches." f When the address was returned, the Bishops expressed their satisfaction at the ready compliance of the Lower * Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 572. f Ibid. Proceedings of Convocation. 301 House. Upon the 10th of March, about sixty mem bers of Convocation, besides the Bishops, vested in their robes, and the Prolocutor wearing his hood and cap, waited upon the King at Kensington, who re ceived them very graciously, and returned a lengthy answer to the address. The clergy, considering they had sufficiently explained their conduct on the prorogations, pro ceeded to censure certain books ; as, Toland's Christianity not Mysterious. Atterbury also had one to complain of from the pen of the Bishop of Salisbury's chaplain : but when they brought up their censure to the Upper House, the Bishops, con sidering their authority impeached by the Lower House endeavouring to elicit from them a sanction to their proceedings, found some excuse, under legal advice, to disregard the representations of the Lower House respecting Toland's book. The censure was, therefore, set aside. It was now that the Bishops returned their answer to the representation presented by the Lower House on the 6th, in which they examine, and answer all the precedents alleged by the clergy in defence of their conduct,* state that they must maintain the authority of their own House, and at the same time complain of the irregularities of the Lower House. After this business had been transacted, the Archbishop prorogued the Convoca tion to the 8th of May, in a speech, in which he re minded the clergy that there were many enemies of the Church, desiring nothing more than its disunion and decay ; that the preservation of the episcopal authority was essential to the weU-being of the whole * Burnet, Own Time, vol. iv. p. 524 ; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 353. 302 Proceedings of Convocation. Church ; and that he had thought fit, with the other Bishops at this solemn season, to prorogue the Con vocation — whilst they were ready to forget the past, and to renew, upon a future occasion, their sittings with all friendliness. The good spirit manifested in this speech met with no response. The Prolocutor, and some members of the Lower House of Convoca tion, still hesitated to obey the Archbishop's Schedule of Prorogation. They returned to Henry the Seventh's Chapel, and adjourned to the next day. Some, how ever, of their body, upon this occasion, protested against these proceedings, and appealed to the Archbishop. On their next meeting, May 8th, the Archbishop informed the Lower House of Convocation that no notice could be taken of anything done by them in the interval of the prorogation ; but, in order to promote a reconciliation between the two Houses, he proceeded to appoint a committee, composed of five Bishops and ten members of the Lower House, to examine the synodical records of the Lower House, in order that the course of their proceedings might be clearly ascertained. The Lower House refused to appoint any committee, and when the Archbishop next prorogued them they still persisted in their opposition, and continued their sittings in spite of the Archbishop's Schedule of Prorogation. The altercations between the two Houses at this period are far too tedious to recount at length. It must be sufficient to remark that the Lower House, soured by real or imaginary ill-treatment, proceeded next to censure Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, without any very definite aim : and although the Archbishop had declined to transact any further Death ofthe Duke of Gloucester. 303 business with them until they had explained the reason of their contumely in refusing the committee, at Burnet's particular request the Upper House took into their consideration the complaint against his book. They wholly denied the power of the Lower House to pass any censure at all, and ended by bestowing a high encomium on Burnet, especially for his History of the Reformation. Shortly after the Convocation was adjourned until September, but the dissolution of Parliament falling in the in terval, the Convocation was also dissolved. As usual, the extremes on either side in this controversy were in error about their own privileges and the un worthiness of their opponents ; and when we find the names of Beveridge, Sherlock, and Bull, amongst those who took a different line from that of the majority in the Lower House, we are the more con firmed in this opinion. We must here interrupt our narrative of eccle siastical matters to relate the melancholy death of the young Duke of Gloucester, the only child of the Prince George of Denmark, and the Princess Anne. He expired July 30, 1700, from a violent chill, accompanied with fever, which he took on his birthday. The Princess had given birth to many children, none of whom had survived but this boy, who was now taken from her just as he had com pleted his tenth year. His education had been entrusted to Burnet, who has described him as an intelligent and promising youth. His death again threw the nation into a state of apprehension about the succession, and led to the passing of an Act in the next Parliament " for the further limitation of 304 Death of James II. the Crown and better securing the rights and hberties of the subject." This Act, after reciting the Act of Settlement passed in the first year of the reign of WiUiam and Mary, and expressing the nation's regret at the death of Queen Mary without issue, and at its unspeakable sorrow at the recent death of the Duke of Gloucester, enacts that the Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, the granddaughter of James I, shall be next in succession to King William and the Princess Anne and their issue. The Lords and Commons, by the same Act, promise to defend and maintain upon the throne the said Electress, or the heirs of her body, being Protestants. This Act makes the most stringent provisions against a Papist occupying the throne, and declares that whoever succeeds to that dignity is to be a member of the Church of England.* Mention should here be made of another political measure, also arising out of a death. James II. died at S. Germains on Sept. 6, 1701. By the treaty of Ryswick, Louis had acknowledged William king of England. It was plain, therefore, in justice, if he pretended to abide by that treaty, he could not concede to James's son the title of King of England. Louis's advisers, the Duke de Beau villiers and the Marquis of Torci, dissuaded him from pursuing so unjust and impolitic a course : however, other coun sellors succeeded in turning the scale in the other direction ; and Louis recognised the Prince of Wales as James III. the same day that it had been de- * Gibson's Codex, vol. i. p. 610 ; Atterbury Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 59. Louis XVI. acknowledges the Prince of Wales. 305 termined in the council-chamber not to do anything of the kind. The tears of Mary of Modena, James's widow, and the eloquence of Madame de Maintenon, prevailed on Louis to pursue a course which his own vanity and haughtiness, in the first place, had suggested to him. The slightest knowledge of the English character might have been sufficient to convince Louis that such conduct would be speedily resented by the English. Diplomatic relations be tween the two kingdoms were immediately sus pended. At the opening of the Parliament above alluded to, the King earnestly exhorted the members thereof to adopt measures which might extinguish the hopes of all pretenders, and secure the Pro testant succession of the Crown. In consequence of this, a Bill was passed for the attainder of the Prince of Wales, and another for abjuring him.* With the new Parliament, in which these mea sures were passed, had assembled also a new Convoca tion. Dr. Sherlock, the Dean of S. Paul's, preached the customary Latin sermon ; after which the Arch bishop dismissed the Lower House to choose a Pro locutor, appointing the Dean of S. Paul's to take the chair in the interim. The old Prolocutor, Dr. Hooper, positively dechned to stand for this post ; the High-Church party, therefore, who were still in the majority, although considerably reduced in number, chose the Dean of Salisbury, Dr. Wood ward, who was presented by the Dean of Canterbury to the Archbishop, a fortnight afterwards, in Henry the Seventh's Chapel. A strong party had wished to have Beveridge as Prolocutor, which would have * See Voltaire's Siecle de Louis XIV. p. 118; Tindal's Continuation, vol. iii. p. 246. X 306 Disputes in Convocation. been a far more suitable selection than the one which was made.* The old and tiresome disputes about the rights of the Lower House to sit after the Archbishop's Schedule of Prorogation had come down were re newed with unabated vigour. There was a more moderate section of the clergy, of which the famous Dr. Prideaux was one, who considered that the un doubted usage of Convocation was, that the Presi dent adjourned both Houses together, and that this was signified by a schedule sent down to the Lower House ; but that the Lower House was not com pelled to attend to that schedule, excepting at such hour on the day of session as they pleased. It was the practice of the Upper House to adjourn early, that the Bishops might attend to their duties in the House of Lords. This party considered, therefore, that the Lower House should be per mitted to appoint their committees to sit upon the intermediate days before the schedule was read. This seems but reasonable, as Convocation is cer tainly more necessary to the parochial clergy than to the bishops, the former possessing no other public opportunity of expressing their opinions upon measures either affecting themselves or the nation. Dr. Beveridge proposed a question upon this very subject, which led to a committee being appointed to consider some expedient for termi nating these unprofitable discussions. This com mittee was composed of the best-known divines of the day, including Hooper, Aldrich, Jane, Atterbury, Beveridge, Kennett, and Prideaux.f Soon after the * Lathbury, Hist, of Convocation, p. 363. f Life of Prideaux, pp. 101-104; Calamy, vol. i. p. 615. Dr. Woodward, the Prolocutor, dies. 307 appointment of this committee, a melancholy event occasioned an interruption to these proceedings of Convocation. Dr. Woodward, the prolocutor, sickened and died in his chambers in Westminster. Every thing which was done at this time was a matter of dispute, and accordingly his right to appoint a deputy in his sickness was much debated : he had named the Dean of Christ Church, but dying soon after, there was hardly time to try the rights of the matter. The Archbishop adjourned them from the 14th to the 19th, and then prorogued them till March, declaring that as many members of Convocation were absent from town it would not be reasonable for them to pro ceed to the choice of another Prolocutor. Dr. Wood ward, it appears, discharged his duties as Prolocutor with more ability and impartiality than was expected of him. He died in somewhat involved circum stances, and unhappily, at the time of his death, was in strife with his diocesan, the Bishop of Salis bury. The Lower House was by no means easy under the prorogation of the Archbishop ; and several members accordingly met, as a private company, as Atterbury describes it, in Henry the Seventh's Chapel, to consider what was to be done in the emergency. One was for one thing, one for another; but when the day arrived to which their House had been prorogued, they had agreed to put Archdeacon Drewe in the chair, and by him to make an oral representation to the Archbishop's Commissary, when he came to prorogue them to a further day, of their right and wish to proceed to the choice of another Prolocutor. The Commissary, on that occasion, was too quick for them, and he had de- 308 Death of William III. livered his message and unrobed before they had prepared themselves for accomplishing their pur pose. He offered, however, to take the sense of the meeting in writing to the Archbishop. Some dissented from this, and an angry discussion ensued, in which the meeting was brought to a close. A few days after this, another more important death than that even of their Prolocutor occurred, which, in effect, dissolved the Convocation. King William expired at Kensington on the 8th day of March, 1701-2, in the 52nd year of his age, and the 14th of his reign, having outlived his perverse and unfor tunate father-in-law but six months. His death must be attributed to the diseased state of lungs, from which he had suffered more or less all his life, and general debility accelerated by a fall from his horse, by which he fractured his collar-bone. In reviewing the character of William III. we must ask the question, Did circumstances justify him in assuming the position he did ? Was the Stadt- h older of Holland really less ambitious than Louis XIV. when he undertook to restore the balance of power in Europe? Did his cause justify the means he took to promote it ? Granting all this, we may pronounce him to have been a great sove reign, and yet devoid of those popular qualities which so commonly attend upon great men. His manners were cold and repulsive, to such an extent that his very admirers have greatly censured them, and blamed him for the haughty indifference which he showed to the effect his behaviour had upon his subjects. He was a brave soldier, although not a very successful one, notwithstanding his victory over the pusillanimous James at the battle of the His Character considered. 309 Boyne. Though his education was imperfect, and in some degree neglected, he spoke the Dutch, French, English, and German languages with suffi cient fluency for all practical purposes. His natural tastes so far accorded with the high position which he was destined to fill, that ah his mind from his early years was given to the study of military tactics, and such matters as most deeply interest the statesman. There is no reason for supposing that William had any misgivings about the truth of the Christian religion. He was, in his way, a religious man, but his views were strongly tinctured with Calvinism. As to his moral character, historians will probably ever continue divided in opinion upon this. Even his conjugal affection for Queen Mary has been made a matter of dispute; but, after all, few things are more difficult to determine exactly than the feelings and relations subsisting between man and wife. Nevertheless, as James II. has been so blamed and ridiculed for his devotion to Catharine Sedley, afterwards Countess of Dorchester, it does not seem fair, in reviewing the character of his son-in-law, to omit all mention of his intimacy with Elizabeth Villiers, lady Orkney, whom many writers of the seventeenth century speak of, without any hesita tion, as King William's mistress. Some, on the other hand, have been so impressed by the natural gravity of this great prince, that they will give credit to no story which attaches to his character the least degree of levity, however unexceptionable the authority may be upon which it depends. 310 CHAPTER X. (1702-4.) Accession of Anne — Her character, and friendly disposition towards the Church of England — The Convocation and its proceedings — The proceedings of Parliament — The Bill against Occasional Conformity — The great Storm — The Death of Bishop Kidder — Queen Anne wishes to restore Ken to the see of Bath and Wells — Bishop Hooper — The Parlia ment re-assembles — Discussions on Occasional Conformity renewed — Queen Anne's Bounty — Some account of the Annates and Tenths — Proceedings in Parliament and Convo cation — The status of the Clergy in Queen Anne's reign — Convocation. Anne was in the thirty-eighth year of her age upon her accession to the throne of England. She was the second daughter of James II. by Anne Hyde (Lord Chancellor Clarendon's daughter), whom that sovereign married when Duke of York. In 1683 she was espoused to George, prince of Denmark; and although she had borne several children, only one outlived the years of infancy — the young and promising Duke of Gloucester, who had, as we have seen, been recently committed to an early grave. Anne resembled her sister Mary in her conjugal de votion : she was warmly attached to her husband, Prince George, and probably, as was the case with her sister, this affection served to deaden and diminish Accession of Anne. 311 that filial love, the want of which has been so often regarded as the great reproach of these sisters. Apart from this stain in her character, which, how ever, some have considered the trying circumstances of her life extenuate, Anne was generous, unosten tatious, simple, and natural in her feelings, easy to a fault with aU her dependants, and strongly imbued with those views respecting the Church of England which so eminently characterised the first Lord Clarendon. It may be judged from the circum stances that a great change took place in the general aspect of affairs when she ascended the throne. In proportion as sovereigns are absolute, sub jects, however remarkable for ability or genius, are allowed only to give out a subdued lustre. The warlike genius of William can bear no comparison to that of Marlborough, and yet it is very impro bable that he would have allowed Marlborough to usurp his personal influence in Holland, and to have commanded throughout those great campaigns which preceded the Peace of Utrecht, whilst he remained an indolent valetudinarian at Kensington. William's character in some measure even affected the literature of the country, and upon the accession of Anne, genius in every walk seemed to gather new life. We cannot, therefore, wonder that it should have been remarked upon that event " that London had become a new world."* The reign of Queen Anne was certainly favour able to the interests of the Church of England. Whether the Church party, so long chafing in dis appointment, was in such a temper as to use the advantages now opening to them most judiciously * Atterbury Correspondence, iv. p. 357. 312 Religious tendencies in her Reign. may be questioned ; but at least it must be ever recognised as a happy circumstance that that valu able section in the Church, distinguished for such eminent abilities and steady principles, which in the former reign had been so much neglected, came into notice. The great politico-church question of this reign was the attempt to put a stop, by Act of Parlia ment, to that kind of conformity to the Church, called "occasional conformity," by which Dissenters qualified themselves for holding places under Government. This we shall see was a constant subject of debate, both in and out of Parliament, until the passing of the Bill against Occasional Conformity in 1711. The feelings of Queen Anne, as regarded the Church, are evident from her liberal behaviour towards it, as well as from the general character of those divines whom she promoted to high positions. The Con vocation disputes, unhappily, were carried on in this reign with little abatement of that acrimony which had distinguished them in the last one. The bold and violent preaching of Sacheverell, and the popular outbreak attending his trial, although not to be judged of apart from the personal history of the Queen, are an indication that the Whig and Revolution principles, with regard to the Church, had been over strained, and required some seasonable check. The disposition of Anne greatly mollified the rancour of the non-jurors, and had the advice ofthe most sober- minded amongst them been followed, this schism might have been closed before the accession of the House of Brunswick. These remarks will serve as a key to the chief matters of ecclesiastical interest which occurred whilst Anne was on the throne. Although, upon the death of King William, some Convocation. 313 members of the Lower House of Convocation were for continuing their sittings in imitation of the House of Commons, the law officers of the crown overruled these pretensions, and they were for tunately dropped. The first Convocation of Queen Anne's reign assembled in October 1702, with the new House of Commons. After some debate and difference of opinion between the Upper and Lower Houses an address to the Queen was agreed upon, in which they expressed their great sense of the favour and goodness of God in setting her Majesty on the throne of her ancestors, and making her the defender of that faith of which she had been so glorious an example. They thanked her Majesty for her many gracious assurances of her immovable resolution to support and protect the Church of England, as by law established, and to continue it to future ages, by maintaining the succession of the crown in the Protestant line. They also added, " That they promised themselves, that whatever might be wanting to restore the Church to its due rights and privileges, her Majesty would have the glory of doing it, and of securing it to posterity." The Queen, in reply to this address, graciously told them, " That their concurrence in this dutiful address was a good presage of their union in all other matters, which was very desirable for her service, and the good ofthe Church."* Upon proceeding to business, the first measure of the Lower House was to present an address to the Bishops, requesting them to suggest a plan for the termination of their differences about the pro- * Tindal, vol. iii. p. 476, 477, 4th ed.; Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 69 ; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 378. 314 Disputes in Convocation cedure of Convocation, in order that they might enter upon business of a more profitable- nature. The Bishops were as anxious as the Lower House for the conclusion of this dispute, but they were unwill ing, at the same time, to surrender what they con sidered their undoubted privileges. They therefore proposed, " That the Lower House might meet in committee, to prepare business between the synodical prorogation;" and also, " that when business should be before the Convocation, the Archbishop would so order the prorogations that sufficient time should be allowed for considering and finishing it." The con cession of the Bishops, it must be confessed, appears sufficient for the occasion, but the Lower House chose to imagine that their liberty of action would still rest upon a most precarious tenure, and would only be respected whilst their consultations were grateful to their superiors. They therefore them selves made certain suggestions to the Bishops, pro posing that the Queen should nominate a committee, which must have been a committee of Privy Council, to adjudicate upon the points under dispute. The Bishops considered that this would derogate from the authority of the Church as an Episcopal Church, and therefore declined to concur in the request of the Lower House. The clergy, on the other hand, be lieving that if they should submit to the views of the Bishops they wrould surrender their rights, which would bring about the suspension of all synodical business, carried their complaints before the Queen herself, and requested the Royal interposition and judgment upon these vexatious disputes.* It may * See Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 69 ; Atterbury Corre spondence, vol. ii. p. 224. referred to the Crown. 315 be added here, that the Dean of Christ Church, Dr. Aldrich, was the Prolocutor of the present Convo cation. The Queen received the petition favourably, and promised to take the matter into her consideration ; but no answer appears ultimately to have been re turned to this petition, although the council arrived at the conclusion that the right of prorogation rested with the Archbishop, and that nothing but an Act of Parliament could interfere with that right. Since, therefore, several members ofthe administration were favourable to the claims of the Lower House, it was thought by some that the answer to the petition was withheld, because anyhow it could not be favourable to those who had been instrumental in urging it. As the Bishops, not without some reason, had intimated that the proceedings of the Lower House of Convocation were calculated to lower the general estimation entertained for Episcopacy, the Lower House, which certainly cherished a truer sense of the Apostolical origin of this form of Church govern ment, drew up a declaration of their opinion of the divine right of Episcopacy, and requested the con currence of the Upper House in this statement. The Bishops evaded what, with or without reason, they deemed a snare, and merely intimated that, without a royal license, they did not feel themselves called upon to subscribe any other declaration than that which they had already subscribed in acqui escing to the preface to the Book of Ordinations. Soon after this Parliament was prorogued ; and the Convocation closed its session, amidst much dis agreement in opinion, which spread from the mem bers of it to the great body of their brethren in 316 Occasional Conformity. the country, and led to the formation of those parties in the Church which were from this time openly denominated respectively High Church and Low Church.* Upon these names Burnet insidi ously remarks, — " All that treated the Dissenters with temper and moderation, and were for residing constantly at their cures, and labouring diligently in them, were called Low Churchmen, to which party also the Bishops particularly belonged." On the other hand, Atterbury, whilst deprecating the use of cant names, after enumerating what things characterised the High Churchman, insisted that, when thus ana lysed, that term only meant a good Christian and a good Englishman.! The Act, commonly called the " Toleration Act," exempted Protestant Dissenters from the penalties of those Acts which had been passed in former reigns to restrain them in the exercise of their religion, excepting the Test Act, by which it was enacted that none should be in office in any corporation who had not within the year previous to his nomination communicated in the Church of England. In order, therefore, to avoid the penalty of this clause in the Toleration Act, many Dissenters were in the habit of attending the services of the Church occasionally, and, by taking the sacrament, had qualified theni- * The distinction of High and Low Church existed long before 1702, although they were not st. mped in full relief before the first year of Queen Anne. When the famous Dr. South was asked the difference between High Church and Low Church ; " Why," says he, " the High Church are those who think highly of the Church, and lowly of themselves ; the Low Church are those who think highly of themselves, and lowly of the Church." t Atterbury Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 230; Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 70. Occasional Conformity. 317 selves for office.* Experience shows us that there are many Dissenters more than half-Churchmen, and many Churchmen who sympathise very strongly with Dissenters ; so that it is perfectly possible that some conscientious men might habitually divide the hours of their public devotion between the con venticle and the church. It is, however, to be feared there were many, no half-Dissenters in their rooted opposition to the Established Church, who scrupled not to partake of the Lord's Supper in the Church, that they might be qualified for holding government places. The Tories and the Church party, which had been kept so much in the back ground in the former reign, witnessed this evasion, as they regarded it, of the law, with much jealousy ; nor did many of the independent Dissenters regard such conduct with more favourable eyes than the Church party. They, equally with Churchmen, wrote against what they deemed a sinful compliance, and a palpable desertion of the true principles of Dis sent ; although, being in the minority, the dispute was regarded as one lying between High Church men and Dissenters generally ; but it were doing the Tories and Dissenters themselves injustice not to mention the difference upon this subject which pre vailed in the ranks of Dissent itself. Upon the ac cession of the Queen, the Tories seized the first op portunity of commencing that long campaign against the practice in question, which holds so prominent a place in the parliamentary annals of Anne's reign. During the whole time ofthe elections for the en suing Parliament the press was busied in issuing * See Blackstone's Commentaries, iv. p. 59; Calamy's Baxter, p. 160. 318 A Bill against Occasional Conformity pamphlets, pro and con, upon this subject. It is uninteresting enough to us of the present day, who are accustomed to see, without surprise, individuals wandering from church to chapel, as the humour takes them, and without any apparent regard for either principle or consistency.* The Queen's address at the opening of this Par liament expressed much anxiety for the welfare of the Church of England. The answer of the Com mons, who had been mainly returned on the Church interest, more than echoed the sentiments of the Queen, as respected the Church ; and accordingly, on the 4th of November, the agitation in Parliament against occasional conformity began. Mr. Bromley, Mr. St. John (afterwards Lord Bolingbroke), and Mr. Annesley, brought in a bill for exempting Protestant Dissenters from such offices as cannot by law be executed by any without first receiving the sacra ment according to the usage of the Church of Eng land. After some debate, the bill passed the House of Commons. It did not forbid any one taking the sacrament according to the usage of the Church, and so qualifying for office ; but it subjected any one to heavy penalties who, after having done so, and whilst retaining office, should, nevertheless, frequent the conventicle. f At the same time, it afforded the person thus mulct the opportunity of reconsidering his behaviour ; and if he gave proof for a year of his sincere attachment to the Church, his disqualification was removed. The Lords made several alterations in this bill, * See Life of Defoe, p. 12. t Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 49; Tindal, vol. iii. 449; Calamy's Baxter, 624. introduced into Parliament. 319 left out some parts of it, and added fresh clauses, mitigating very much the severity of the penalties. These amendments led to a free conference upon the whole measure between the Lords and Commons, the managers of which were, on the part of the Commons, St. John, Finch the Sohcitor- General, and Sir Thos. Powis ; on the part of the Lords, the Duke of Devon shire, the Earl of Peterborough, the Bishop of Salis bury, Lord Somers, and Lord Halifax. On the side of the Commons, it was urged that this bill was only intended to restrain a practice which brought dis credit upon religion; that a National Church is for the well-being of the country ; and that the Test Act was originally designed to preserve the Church from the attempts of those who sufficiently showed how little they wanted the will when they had the power to injure the Church; that this bill neither took from the Dissenters any of that toleration which, by law, was conceded to them, nor added any privileges to the Church of England which were not by law in tended to belong to the estabhshed religion; that nothing justified nonconformity but a firm persuasion ; that the terms of communion required by the Church are sinful, and, therefore, that the levity which was exhibited, in conforming occasionally for temporal ends, was to be discouraged. They also urged par ticular objections against the several amendments introduced into the Bill by the Lords. On the part of the Lords it was answered, that by acquiescing so far as they had done with the Commons they had owned it to be a scandal to rehgion for men to take the sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England, merely to quahfy themselves for holding office ; that they could not believe the better 320 A Bill against Occasional Conformity, Sfc. kind amongst the Dissenters would do any such thing; that the Dissenters are not in spirit what they were at the time the Corporation Act was made ; that in a time of war they considered violent changes danger ous; that if the bill did not propose to enact any thing new, the contest about it would not be so great ; that they were most unwilling to meddle with the Toleration Act, which worked so well ; that if the con duct of Dissenters at the time of the Revolution was considered, it was not true to affirm that they never wanted the will when they had the power to destroy Church and State ; and they concluded by again defending their amendments. It is worthy of note that the Commons, in their rejoinder, alluding to the reasoning of the Bishop of Salisbury, remarked, that they were surprised to hear a prelate supporting the opinions he did. In the House of Lords the advo cates and opponents of the Bill were almost equally divided. The Court was most anxious for the passing of this measure, and even the Queen's Consort, Prince George of Denmark, who maintained a Lutheran chapel, and was himself only an occasional communi cant in the Church of England, voted for it, although foreign Protestants as well as Dissenters, and partial non-jurors, were subjected to the penalties of the Bill. As the Bill favoured the interests of the Church, and yet a majority of the Bishops was against it, they came in for no little censure from those whose views tended to extremes in one direction, in proportion as those of the Bishops appeared to unite in an opposite one. The conference resulting in no change of opinion on the side either of the Commons or the Lords, the Bill was set aside. At the present day there would be very little The Great Storm. 321 difference of opinion upon the expediency of such a measure as this. The principles of toleration have so expanded in this country for good or evil, that not only are Protestant Dissenters freely admitted into civil offices of every kind, but there are only one or two from which even Roman Catholics are excluded. In the reign of Queen Anne we can hardly wonder that it should have been a question how far extreme views about toleration were com patible with the belief that it was expedient for the weU-being of the kingdom that there should be an Established National Church. The notions of tole ration had greatly progressed since the Restoration, but it was still thought by some a part of pohtical wisdom to discourage the too-ready indulgence of a humour, often as factious as conscientious, which induces men to abandon the pale of the Estabhshed Church. The war abroad, between the Emperor of Austria and Louis XIV., raged with increasing violence. Marlborough, just created a Duke, opened the cam paign with the siege of Bonne, the residence of the Elector of Cologne, which he took, and became master of aU the Lower Rhine ; but towards the close of the year a natural phenomenon had nearly proved a worse enemy to the English forces at home than any foreign opponent. The navy had a narrow escape of being annihilated by a tempest of an unusual descrip tion, which recalled public attention from foreign affairs to those nearer home, and to matters interest ing to the ecclesiastical historian. This tornado, from its disastrous consequences called the Great Storm, swept over the sea and land on the 26-27th of November, occasioning wherever it T 322 Death of Kidder. was felt, frightful destruction to life and property. In London alone the loss of property was estimated at 2,000,000?. Steeples were blown down, the leads upon the houses were rolled up, the roofs were torn off and the chimneys blown into the streets, while the inhabitants were in momentary expectation of being buried in the ruins of their houses ; and although the hurricane was felt more in the south-west parts ofthe kingdom than in the north, it was most general. As the greater part of our navy was at sea, a general apprehension prevailed that the nation would have to deplore its entire destruction, but the water being very high at the time, was considered to have proved a great security to the shipping. Notwithstanding this, sixteen vessels of war, in one place or another, were destroyed by this tempest, together with more than 1800 seamen. The merchant service, by com parison, suffered little.* Among the many catastrophes which the storm occasioned, none was more lamentable or memorable than that which befel Kidder, the bishop of Bath and Wells. Both he and his wife, who were sleeping in the Palace at Wells, were killed by the falling in of two chimney-stacks, which drove through the roof on to the Bishop's bed, and even broke through the floor of the chamber. The Bishop, it is supposed, had risen with the alarm, for he was found at some dis- stance from the bed where his wife was killed, and with his dressing-gown on. The death of Kidder again occasioned a vacancy in the see of Bath and Wells ; and Queen Anne's thoughts were immediately directed to the venerable * Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 82; Tindal. See The Storm, by Defoe, 8vo. 1704. Proposals for restoring Ken to his See. 323 bishop into whose see Kidder had been intruded. Since his deprival, Ken, through the sympathy and bounty of Lord Weymouth, had resided at Longleat, a stately and charming mansion belonging to that noble man. Hither he had brought his books, his unsullied reputation, his taste for sacred music and poetry, and his earnest devotion ; ahd here, we are privileged to believe, he must have spent many days of sweet con templation and even pensive happiness, notwithstand ing the loss of his temporal riches and importance. To one of his pious habits and poetical tastes, we cannot imagine that the hours passed amidst the hanging woods and shrubberies of Longleat can have been otherwise than agreeable ; although, perhaps, the urgent feeling which a religious mind so commonly experiences, that we aU have an especial mission to perform in this world, may have made him frequently deplore the apparent inactivity of his existence. Be that as it may, there were other considerations which prevailed with Ken, to satisfy him that at any rate it was not his mission to resume his pastoral labours, notwithstanding the opportunities which opened for his so doing. It appears that Queen Anne, at the beginning of her reign, greatly desired the restora tion of Ken to his diocese, and, prompted by Lord Weymouth, who was of her Privy Council, she was willing to have seized the occasion offered by the first vacancy in the bench to accomplish this object. The Bishopric of Carlisle fell vacant, and it was proposed to move Kidder thither — an arrangement to which he was ready to consent — and so to make way for the return of Ken ; but the deprived Bishop, still hesitating to take the oath of abjuration, declined the offer, and the see was conferred on 324 Ken resigns his Episcopal Office Nicholson, somewhat memorable afterwards for his disputes with Atterbury. But a more providential opportunity for Ken's restoration was certainly af forded by the catastrophe which befel Kidder. As soon as this circumstance was known at Court, the Queen sent for Dr. Hooper, who had but just been appointed to the bishopric of S. Asaph, and told him she intended the now vacant see of Bath and Wells for him. Hooper had formerly been Ken's prede cessor at the Hague, as chaplain to Queen Mary, and the warmest friendship and esteem subsisted between him and the deprived bishop. He therefore interfered, and begged permission of Anne to propose the resto ration of his friend. The Queen was quite agreeable tq this proposition, and deputed Hooper himself to communicate with Ken upon the 'subject; and Hooper, to whom the prevailing schism in the Church was a source of great regret, did his utmost to persuade his friend to embrace the offer of the Queen. Ken, how ever, with many grateful expressions for the Queen's remembrance of him, steadily declined the offer, and at the same time used all his persuasions to induce his old friend to take the oversight of the diocese when he discovered that Queen Anne had designed to place him in the see. He represented that he had always been ready to resign his canonical rights into the hands of a worthy person, and that if he had been restored to. his diocese, his bodily infirmities were such, that the first thing he should have done would have been to shake off the burden and retire. Hooper, therefore, became the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Ken immediately congratulated him' in an affectionate letter, no longer subscribing himself " of Bath and Wells," as an intimation that he had into the hands of Hooper. 325 resigned his Bishopric into his hands. The Jacobites, however, were not prepared to witness with patience this act of Ken. They raised a very great storm against him, and, in spite of his own resolution no longer to be Bishop of Bath and Wells, must have continued so to esteem him, since we find Dodwell upon the death of Lloyd, the deprived bishop of Nor wich, in 1711 writing to inquire of him whether he still chaUenged his obedience ; to which Ken, of course, emphatically answered he did not. The character of Hooper has been most unfairly treated by Burnet; but as if to stamp it with that moderation which certainly distinguished him, Atter bury, on the other hand, has expressed himself very jealous of Hooper. His conduct towards his venerable friend Ken was certainly, in the present instance, excellent ; nor did it end here, for he did not rest until Queen Anne had promised to bestow a pension of 2001. a year upon Ken. Hooper was succeeded in the bishopric of S. Asaph by Dr. William Beveridge, (a name more generally known than his own), now advanced in years as in Christian labours of every description. The Parliament re-assembled in November. The Queen, towards the conclusion of her speech, which was otherwise taken up with demands for additional supplies, expressed an earnest hope that the Parlia ment wouldlay aside "all heats" and "divisions" which were so calculated to encourage the enemies of Church and State. It was thought that the Queen, in these remarks, alluded to the disputes about occasional conformity. She was unwilling to have the discussions of the previous sessions renewed, although there is little question that she sympathised in her own mind 326 Queen Anne makes a Grant with the Tory party, and those who were for putting a stop to the scandal of occasional conformity, as may be inferred from her correspondence with the Duchess of Marlborough. We can hardly be surprised then, notwithstanding the expressions alluded to, that the bill agamst "occasional conformity'' was almost imme diately revived in the House of Commons. The merits of the bill were discussed with more temper than in the previous session, as its opponents allowed. The preamble of the former measure was omitted, and in other respects it was somewhat modified, and in this shape it passed the Commons by a large majority. An opposite fate awaited it in the House of Lords. The Queen's consort no longer appeared in its favour ; the Bishops were equally divided ; but the majority ofthe other Peers were opposed to it: so, of course, the bill was thrown out. Burnet in dorsed the principles of occasional conformity by in forming the Lords that he himself had communicated in the churches of HoUand and Geneva.* It was in this session, on the 7th of February, 1703, being the birthday of Queen Anne, that Mr. Secretary Hedges brought the gracious message to the House of Commons from the Queen of her in tention to make a grant of the first-fruits and tenths for the maintenance of the poorer clergy. The Speaker read the message, which was as follows: — " Anne R. " Her Majesty, having taken into her serious consideration the mean and insufficient main tenance belonging to the clergy in divers parts of this kingdom, to give them some ease, hath been * Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 108; Tindal, vol. iii. p. 572. ofthe First Fruits to the poorer Clergy. 327 pleased to remit the arrears of the tenths of the poor clergy ; and, for augmentation of their maintenance, her Majesty is pleased to declare, that she will make a grant of her whole revenue arising out of first- fruits and tenths, as far as now is or shall become free from incumbrances, to be applied to this pur pose ; and if the House of Commons can find any proper method by which her Majesty's good inten tions to the poor clergy may be made more effectual, it will be a great advantage to the pubhc, and very acceptable to her Majesty." Upon this message, the Commons agreed upon an address to the Queen, full of very hearty expres sions of thankfulness to her Majesty for her great hberahty upon this occasion. When they attended the Queen with this address, upon the 11th of Fe bruary, she rephed in the same spirit in the following words : — " Gentlemen, I am very glad to find my message has been so acceptable to you. I hope you will effectually improve it, to the advantage ofthe Church by law established, for which nobody can have a more true and real concern than myself."* We must not commend the bounty of Anne the less, because the restoring of these tenths and first- fruits to the Church was but an act of justice, too long deferred. The first-fruits, as they were called, originated in Papal usurpation, and were perpetu ated at the time of the Reformation by Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth. These primitise, or annates, consisted of one year's clear revenue of every pre- * Hodgson's Account, p. 7. 328 The Origin of this Impost. ferment, according to a Papal valuation of Pope Innocent IV- in the reign of Henry III., which was further increased in the reign of Edward I., through the instrumentality of Pope Nicholas III. These encroachments of the Pope occasioned much mur muring and dissatisfaction ; and in a Parliament held at Carhsle in the reign of Edward I., so strong a remonstrance was made against the exactions of Tuta, the' Pope's legate, that when the King wrote to the Pontiff upon the subject he found it expedient to relinquish his claims of first-fruits upon abbeys. However, this forbearance was only for a time. In the reign of Edward III. we find complaints of the renewal of these Papal exactions, until, by degrees* they seem to have grown into an established claim. The Papal See alleged, in defence of this impo sition, that he who had the care of all should by all be nourished. Another and more canonical reason was also assigned for them. In the Book of Numbers, the Levites are com manded to make an heave-offering of the tenth of their tithes, and give this to Aaron, the high priest. Upon this Judaical custom the Popes pretended to rest their claim of the tenths. This demand was admitted in the reign of Edward I. ; and although continually and vehemently protested against by the Parliament, continued in force, subject to partial limi tations, until the time of Henry VIII. In the 26th year of his reign an act of Parliament was passed, transferring the revenue derived from the first-fruits of spiritual promotions, and the tenth part of the pos sessions of the Church, from the Pope to the Crown. It was calculated, that in the space of fifty years no less a sum than 800,000 ducats had been sent from The Origin of this Impost. 329 England to Rome on account of first-fruits only. We cannot but remark how much it would have added to the credit of the Reformation if this odious exaction, instead of being added to the Crown, had been, as it ought to have been, abolished for ever. It, however, continued in force until the reign of Philip and Mary ; when Mary, alleging scruples of conscience, renounced all pretensions on the part of the Crown to the annates and tenths, and declared the impost abohshed for ever. Notwith standing this, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth an Act of Parliament was passed, setting forth the injury done to the Crown revenue by the Act of Mary ; and that Parliament, having petitioned the Queen in consequence to resume her claim to the tenths and first-fruits, her sister's measure was re pealed, and these imposts restored to the Crown : and so they continued part of the Imperial revenue until the reign of Queen Anne, when she relin quished them, and established that charity with their proceeds, commonly known as " Queen Anne's Bounty." From this short account of the annates and tenths, we must admit that Mary I. acted a better part by the Church of England than either Henry or Ehzabeth. Whether it was her intention to have restored them ultimately to the Pope does not ap pear. Against this circumstance we must place the fact, that Burnet, much read in the annals of the Reformation, was very instrumental in bringing about the measure which reflects so much credit upon the memory of Queen Anne. He had recommended the subject to the consideration of her sister, Queen Mary ; and urged it so strongly upon the notice of 330 The Convocation presents an Address King William, that but for Lord Sunderland, in all probability that monarch would have forestalled Anne in this act of royal bounty. Burnet, no doubt, saw the injustice of the original impost, whe ther as proceeding from the Pope or the Crown ; and he also saw how fair an opportunity offered, by the relinquishing of these dues, for assisting the clergy, the excessive poverty of whose benefices was con sidered, even in the reign of Queen Anne, a crying evil to a Church which enjoyed the sympathy and patronage of the State and of the vast majority of the nation. In the Convocation which assembled with this session of Parliament, the proceedings were of a somewhat more sober kind than formerly. The Lower House, in December, sent to the Archbishop two papers, one complaining ofthe daring licentious ness and impiety of the press ; the other, of the great difficulty attending the levying of church-rates, and suggesting that Convocation might prepare a bill upon this subject for the consideration of Par liament. During the recess a fuller representation upon these and kindred subjects was drawn up, and presented in February to the Archbishop. It was at this time that the Queen's message to Parliament, announcing her intention to relinquish the annates and tenths in favour of the Church, was delivered, and, as a matter of course, an address to the Queen, expressive of their humble sense of her unexampled bounty to her poor clergy, was agreed upon and presented to her Majesty by the Convocation. The Archbishop of Canterbury, being indisposed at that time, deputed the Archbishop of York to read the address to the Queen ; which, after some demur, he of Thanks to the Queen. 331 did ; and at the same time, he read an address from the Convocation of his own province.* The Pro locutor, Dr. Aldrich, Mr. Dean of Winchester, Dr. Edwards, Dr. Smalridge, and Dr. Atterbury, were also appointed by the Lower House of Convocation to attend the Speaker of the House of Commons, and to thank him and the House of Commons for their zeal in behalf of the Church of England, as manifested in their behaviour respecting this matter, and their promises to do all in their power to enlarge the good accruing to the Church from the Queen's liberality. Robert Harley, the Speaker, rephed in a letter to the Prolocutor, stating how favourably the thanks of the Convocation had been received by the House of Commons, and adding expressions of his own zeal and personal affection for the clergy, f Upon the bill which was brought in, enabling the Queen to alienate these first-fruits and tenths from the Crown revenue, much discussion ensued. By a clause in that bill, the Statute of Mortmain was so far suspended as was necessary to make it possible for benefactors to leave lands or any other property to be invested in the corporation now to be created by charter. Time has proved the utter delusion of those who pretended to see a danger in this, of giving occasion for the recurrence of those practices which, in Roman Catholic times, obliged the Legislature to pass the Statute of Mortmain. The Bishops were unanimous for the Bill, and in consequence it was * Sharpe's Life, vol. i. p. 344. \ See Hodgson's Account of Queen Anne's Bounty; Burnet's History ofhis Own Time, vol. v. p. 118; Gibson's Codex, p. 850; Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 178; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 386 ; Calamy, vol. i. 655. 332 Status ofthe Parochial Clergy. carried, and became law; and, notwithstanding the partial suspension of the Mortmain Statute in favour of the corporation, the benefactions which have accrued to the governors of the Bounty have never been of such an extent as to lead the most jealous to imagine that too much property was about to fall into the hands of the Church.* Scarcely any of the great Church charities have kept pace with the in crease of the clergy consequent upon the still greater proportional increase of the population. The poverty of the clergy is not less a theme of talk in these days than it was in the reign of Queen Anne. The poverty of some of the clergy, the luxury of others, afforded, in the time of Queen Anne, a theme of general conversation. It was remarked that there were numbers of men but country curates, or the incumbents of insignificant livings, who, with the money spent upon their education, might long since have realised a competency in any other walk of life, such as they would, as clergymen, never enjoy. This is the same story so often repeated in our days, and we witness with little satisfaction the many straits to which the clergy are driven to eke out their narrow fortunes. As was the case then, the total income of the Church, however equitably distributed, is insuffi cient for the support of so numerous a body, and the appearance which, notwithstanding these circum stances, the clergy make, must be attributed to causes in force even before the Revolution. Many of this body were then, as now, men of good families. There were then, as now, second sons in orders, to whom had reverted the titles and fortunes of their * Burnet's Hist, of his Own Time, vol. v. p. 122. See 1st charter, and Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 363. Status ofthe Parochial Clergy. 333 elder brothers. There were many possessed of pri vate means, and being without preferment were, as Addison expresses it, rather of " the science than the profession." Others again there were of health too delicate to hold cures at all, and welcome in the best of all society, which is that of men of virtue and talent, where even rank seeks to be admitted, and cheerfully accords to genius a higher distinction than titles confer. For example, take the character, no doubt drawn from the life of the clergyman of "exact good breeding " and " general learning," who was so welcome in the Spectator's Club ; or, as illustrating the position of the clergy, we may refer to Dr. Robinson, the diplomatist, or even to Dean Swift, admitted to the greatest intimacy with ministers of state and courtiers. In a letter of the elder Atterbury to his son, afterwards so celebrated, we find allusion made to the custom of the young clergyman making his fortune by a splendid marriage. The Bishop of Lon don of this time was the sixth son of the Earl of Northampton ; the Bishop of Exeter was Sir Jona than Trelawney, the head of one of the most ancient families in the West of England ; the famous Sach everell, whose history we shall shortly have to record, was of good family and fair position ; and when we add these facts to those which have already been men tioned respecting the poor clergy, we shall be disposed to admit that in the reign of Queen Anne the general character of the English clergy, as far as their status was concerned, was, though very similar, if anything higher than it is at the present time. Although we are accustomed to imagine the stately parsonage, which rivals the Church in importance, and not unseldom excels it, is only the creation of recent 334 Status ofthe Parochial Clergy. times, it is certain that some of the most imposing parsonages* to be found in the kingdom were erected during the reigns of William and Anne. Non-resi dence, however, it must be remarked, was far more prevalent than it is at the present day. The clergy flocked much to London, particularly the nonjurors, many of whom were driven to great extremities to pick up a livelihood ; and as in those days they walked the streets in full canonicals, the casual spectator was struck with the numbers of the clerical body.f The reader is requested to bear in niind, that these facts are adduced simply as illustrating the social rank and importance of the clergymen of the time. Their learning, piety, and zeal, form a question of another kind. The liberality of the Queen appears to have had a very happy effect on the minds of her subjects generally. The supplies necessary for carrying on the war were readily voted. The public credit stood high. In times when the nature of funded property was ill understood, there was no want of * See Evelyn's Diary, July 18, 1688. "Dr. Jeffries [Jessop], the minister of Althorpe, who was my lord's chaplain when ambassador in France, preached the shortest discourse I ever heard ; but what was defective in the amplitude of his sermon he had supplied in the largeness and convenience of the parsonage-house, which the doctor (who had at least six hundred a-year in spiritual advance ment) had new built, and made fit for a person of quality to live in, with gardens and all accommodation according therewith." The reader may also be reminded of Swift's poem, beginning, " .dStatis suse fifty-two, A rich divine began to woo A handsome, young, imperious girl, Nearly related to an earl." t See the Spectator, Nos. 2, 21; Atterbury's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 12; Burke's Peerage; Pope's Letters to Swift. The Convocation. 335 those who were ready to advance their loans on Go vernment security. On the 3d of April, the session of Parliament, in which the bill relating to this matter passed, was closed by a speech from the Throne, in which the Queen thanked the Commons for the great despatch and zeal they had shown in voting the sup plies. She alluded also to the earnest desire she had expressed at the opening of the session that unity might prevail amongst them, and regretted that these expressions had not met with all the success she had expected ; and concluded with a repetition of the same sentiments with which she had opened the session. With the Parliament, the Convocation also closed its session. In March the Lower House appears to have sent a paper to the Upper, asserting their right to be summoned as often as a new Parhament was called ; but beyond this, nothing of moment was done since voting the address to the Queen. The speech in which the Archbishop dismissed the clergy was mainly devoted to answering the repre sentation made by the Lower House of Convocation in February. That representation contained twenty- one articles, a great many of which were but com plaints respecting the lax manner in which the rubrics and canons of the Church were carried out, the practice of using the service appointed for pubhc baptism in private houses, the difficulty attending the recovery of Church-rates, the defective manner in which churchwardens made their presentments, the very unsatisfactory state of the registers, the charge of excessive fees for institutions and at visitations, the corrupt nature of the text of the Bible and Prayer- Book, the licentiousness of the stage and press, and other matters of this character. The Archbishop had, 336 The President's Speech. when this address was first sent. up, informed the clergy that copies of it had been furnished to all the bishops, and a proper use would be made of it at their visitation. He now replied to it more at length. He acknowledged their right to make these complaints, but reminded them that the abuses of which they complained were not evils of only a recent date ; that many of those mentioned were noticed in King William's injunctions ; that the Bishops had never been more frequent or more careful in their visitations than since their deliverance from the open attempts of Popery ; that confirmations had been numerous, and held in places where a Bishop had not been seen since the Reformation ; that they had promoted the establishment of schools for the edu cation of the poor, and interested themselves in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among Heathen People ; and concluded with admitting that, notwithstanding all that had been done, there was ample reason for using all their efforts to rectify abuses. Some of the observations of the Archbishop were true enough. Although the religious world pre sented an unedifying spectacle at this time, and the more prominent divines were much engaged in con troversy and debate, and the religious habits of the people were much relaxed, some cheering signs of life and activity there certainly were. The foundation of the two great religious societies — that for the Diffusion of Christian Knowledge and "that for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts — would have done credit to any age of the Church, particu larly when we consider what important results have flowed from these societies. Addison has borne wit- The President's Speech. 357 ness to the institution of charity-schools at this time, and commended it as one of the greatest instances of public spirit that the age had produced, and, at the same time, greatly applauds the private virtues which issue in such charitable undertakings.* The truth must be admitted, that whatever the general cha racter of the Church of England has been at any particular time, there has always been an under current of zeal and devotion employed on truly pious and charitable undertakings, which have ultimately attracted public attention and consideration. It may here be mentioned, that many works on the Convocation controversy still continued to issue from the press. Of these, by far the most impor tant, was the great work of Dr. Wake, in which he reviews the state of the clergy of England in their Convocations, from the conversion of the Saxons to the time then present. As Atterbury set himself to prove the right of the clergy to assemble in Con vocation as often as a new Parliament met, and to treat upon church matters within their sphere, with out a license under the broad seal of England; Wake devoted his labours to prove the converse of these propositions, and is considered by the best authorities to have carried it over his more brilliant adversary. His work, in wliich he was assisted by Gibson and Tanner, is still considered the ablest one which we have upon this subject. * Spectator, No. 294. 338 CHAPTER XI. (1704.) Success of the English arms abroad, and the General Thanks giving — Proceedings of Parliament— Bill against Occasional Conformity again introduced — The Bishop of S. David's, Dr. Watson, deprived for Simony — Dr. Bull appointed his successor — His great learning, and correspondence controversy with Bossuet — Proceedings in Convocation — A Pamphlet, entitled " A Memorial of the Church of England," publicly burnt — Queen Anne at Cambridge — Dr. Bentley — A New Parliament — Debate about the Church being in danger. The war of succession to the Spanish monarchy was carried on with the most brilliant successes on the part of the Emperor, but entirely through the instru mentality of the English and Dutch. The Em peror's dominions were at the mercy of the French and the Elector of Bavaria, when Marlborough hastened from Holland to the Danube, and by the decisive battle of Hochstadt or Blenheim, fought Aug. 4, 1704, in conjunction with Prince Eugene, entirely turned the scales in the Emperor's favour. The whole of Bavaria was subdued by that one battle, and the country, from the Danube to the Rhine, now lay at the command of the allies. In Spain, almost at the same time as that at which the battle of Blenheim was fought, the English Success ofthe English Arms abroad. 339 secured a footing upon the territory under dispute. The rock and town of Gibraltar fell under the British dominion. Sir George Rooke, who was sailing at the head of the fleet from Barcelona, surprised the garrison (which was, however, very small), and took possession of it for the Archduke Charles, the rival who disputed the succession to the Spanish throne with the French king's grandson, Philip V. A month afterwards the battle of Malaga was fought between the French and English fleets. The vic tory, although not very decisive, was acknowledged by the enemy the following day, when he bore off directly the Enghsh made a show of renewing the engagement. The value of Rooke's acquisition was much debated in England. The Whigs affected to treat it with much contempt, as compared with the brilliant achievements of Marlborough ; but time has united all parties at this day in regarding it as one of the most important and valuable acquisitions of the British Crown, as it is the most remarkable trophy we have of that memorable war. The Duchess of Marlborough, whose secret power over Queen Anne's heart was at this time much on the decline, was not the less ambitious or importunate in pressing the claims of her family upon the attention of the Queen. She had the first notice of the victory, at Blenheim, and took care to improve the occasion. A day of general thanksgiving was properly enough appointed, and the Queen, accompanied by her Royal Consort, the Duchess, and other ladies and chief officers of state, went in public to S. Paul's, to return thanks to God for the recent success of her forces. Whether from faction or conviction, there were some who even at this time ventured to compare 340 The Addresses. the acquisition of Gibraltar with the victory at Blen heim, and to assert the merits of the first ; and some months afterwards, when the Vice-chancellor and prin cipal members of the University of Oxford attended the Queen with copies of speeches and verses made in the Theatre on New Year's Day, they met with but a cold reception, which was attributed to the influence of the Marlborough family, so many members of which were in the court, who could not with patience bear to hear " Calpe Expugnata" described in as elo quent Latin as " Clades Hocstadiensis" or "Marlburius Germanicus." There was, however, perhaps another reason for the Queen's coldness, to be found in the remarks of Burnet upon the Universities, and parti cularly Oxford, which he tells us were, at this time, unhappily successful in corrupting the principles of those who were bred amongst them,* being more apprehensive of the injuries which the Church might sustain from Dissenters, than the progress of Popery, which a failure in the war would infallibly promote ! But to return to more public events. The Queen opened the session of Parliament at Westminster with a speech, alluding to the universal joy expressed by the nation at the success with which God had blessed their arms, demanding the necessary supplies for improving these advantages, and concluding with what may be almost called her usual prayer for peace and unanimity amongst her subjects. "Itis plain,'' said she, " our enemies have no encouragement left but what arises from their hopes of our divisions. 'Tis therefore your concern not to give the least countenance to those hopes." f She added that such a * Boyer's Reign qf Queen Anne, p. 168; Burnet's Own Time, vol. v. p. 139. X See Boyer, p. 159. Bill against Occasional Conformity revived. 341 temper would make her a happy queen, whose utmost endeavours would never be wanting to make her people happy and flourishing. The Lords' address was very complimentary, with nothing in it but what related to the war. In the address of the Commons there was an assurance given that they would use their utmost endeavours, by all proper methods, to prevent divisions. The Queen returned short answers to these addresses. Although there was a general impression that the bill to prevent Occasional Conformity would be suf fered to drop for the present, both the court and city were mistaken. Mr. William Bromley again moved for leave to bring in that bill, and although vehe mently opposed by Mr. Boyle, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the motion passed. The bill differed slightly from the last upon the same subject, for the preamble ofthe first bill was restored. When the ques tion was put whether it should be read a second time, although the affirmative was voted,itwas afterso strong a debate that the High-Church party, despairing of its passing the House of Lords upon its own merits, moved that it should be tacked to a money-bill ; for it was, and is, a standing rule ofthe Parliament, that a money- bill sent up from the Commons to the Lords cannot be altered, and must either be accepted by the Lords in the form in which it is sent up or rejected. This is why Mr. Bromley was for tacking the bill against Oc casional Conformity to a money-bill. In his speech for the tack he said, " that the Sacramental test was appointed by the wisdom of the Legislature to pre serve the Established Church, which Church seemed in as much danger from the Dissenters at this time as it was from Papists," when the Act was made. 342 Bill against Occasional Conformity revived. He also added, " that this law being so necessary, and having been twice refused in the House of Lords, the only way to have it pass was to tack it to a money-bill. That it had been an ancient practice to tack bills that were for the good of the subject to money-bills ; it being reasonable, that while grievous taxes were laid upon the people for the support of the Crown, the Crown should in return pass such laws as were for the good of the people. However, the arguments of Mr. Bromley were smartly answered by Mr. Boyle, Lord Cutts, and others ; and although the Bill against Occasional Conformity was again passed, the motion for the tack was lost by a large majority, there being one hundred and thirty-four for the tack and two hundred and fifty against it. As Queen Anne had just, at this time, taken to attending the House of Lords to hear the debates, and was present when this bih was brought under discussion for the third time, much effort was made on the part of its opponents to marshal all their argu ments against it. The advocates of it dwelt upon the restless tempers of the Nonconformists, whom conces sion only emboldened to be more forward in their opposition to the Church. Archbishop Sharpe re marked, "that he was for so much of it as concerned the Church," and the Earl of Peterborough commented upon the words by saying, "he was glad to hear the learned Prelate make a distinction between the eccle siastical and political part of the bill ; and he hoped that all the Lords who in their consciences were satisfied, as his grace seemed to be, that this bill was framed to serve a temporal as well as a spiritual end, would vote against it." When the question was put whether the bill should be read a second time, it Dr. Watson, bishop of S. David's, deprived. 343 was carried in the negative by seventy-one voices to fifty. So the bill was again lost.* Towards the end of the session a matter came before the House of Lords, which will introduce to our notice the names of some of the most eminent characters in Ecclesiastical History. The Welsh Bishops have nearly all the patronage of their re spective dioceses in their own hands. How noble an opportunity of encouraging piety and learning, and how lamentable a circumstance that such ad vantages should ever be perverted to the most worldly and contemptible ends ! Dr. Thomas Watson, who had been made Bishop of S. David's by James II. in 1687, and whose conduct during that sovereign's reign we have so often had occasion to notice, was accused of simony in the reign of King William, and found guilty ; since which time the Bishopric of S. David's had been in a manner void, and the diocese was in a neglected and unsatisfactory state. He stood convicted also of what, if anything, was a worse crime than this in the eyes of William's government. He had grossly pre varicated about the oaths, admitting many into Holy Orders without requiring of them the oaths, and yet certifying under his seal that they had duly taken them ; indeed there can be little question that he merited no hght censure. When the case came before Archbishop Tenison he called to his assistance six other Bishops, one of whom, the Bishop of Ro chester, withdrew when the sentence was to be pro nounced, but the rest concurred in pronouncing his deprivation. Burnet would have added to this, if he * Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, p. 162 ; Calamy, vol. i. p. 680. 344 Dr. George Bull succeeds him. could have done so, the additional punishment of ex communication. This occurred in 1699. Watson's case stood in abeyance for a long time. After being five years in the hands of the lawyers, judgment was at last pronounced in the Exchequer, that, having been deprived by the Archbishop, he had no right to the temporalities of the see ; but as he refused to submit to the sentence, it was by a writ of error brought before the Lords. He purposely omitted to bring forward or assign the error of the judgment on the appointed day, and then, when the session was nearly over, petitioned for leave to do so : but this was, with good reason, refused. The matter came under discussion in a full house, and upon which occasion Queen Anne was present in private. His petition was rejected, and he accordingly ceased to be either a Peer of Parliament or Bishop of S. David's. The Queen was resolved to make a careful selec tion for his successor, and she consulted Archbishop Tenison upon the appointment. The Archbishop recommended to her one whose name had lately come most honourably before the public. This was the learned Dr. Bull; and as Anne had already been made acquainted with his merits by Archbishop Sharp, she determined to confer the bishopric upon him. Dr. Bull was in the 71st year of his age, added to which, having been abundant in labours of every description all his life, he suffered from very indif ferent health. When he first heard of the Queen's gracious intentions towards him he was filled with concern, and was for immediately rejecting the prof fered honour, so invidious and so onerous to one of His reputation on the Continent. 345 Bull's disposition. The urgent persuasions, however, of his immediate friends, and several of the governors of the Church, at last prevailed with him, and he accepted the bishopric. There were still some who objected to his appointment on account of his age ; but as it has been truly remarked by his bio grapher, Robert Nelson, " it certainly concerned the honour of the nation not to suffer a person to die in an obscure retirement, who, upon the account of his learned performances, had shined with so much lustre in a neighbouring nation, where he had received the united thanks of her Bishops for the great service he had done to the cause of Christianity.'' He was, accordingly, consecrated at Lambeth on the 29th of April, 1705.* The circumstance above alluded to by his bio grapher is that which so recently had brought his name before the public. It was the happy fortune of Dr. Bull to write some very able treatises, and to write them in Latin. Hence the reason of his great reputation on the Continent, as well as in his own country ; and it was certainly much to the credit of the Church of England that the ablest work of the age upon the Divinity of our blessed Saviour should have proceeded from the pen of a clergyman of that Church, at a time when the writings and sentiments of Sherlock, South, Whiston, Clarke, and others, were greatly compromising the character of the Church for orthodoxy. The performance of Dr. Bull, which was so favourably taken notice of by the French Bishops, was his Judicium Ecclesias Catholicce trium primorum seculorum, de necessitate * Nelson's Life of Bull, p. 350. 346 Bossuet's Letter to Robert Nelson. eredendi, quod Dominus noster Jesus Christus sit verus Deus. This work his friend and biographer, Nelson, sent to the celebrated Bossuet, with whom he was on terms of intimacy, and" by whom, indeed, it has been said Nelson's own wife was converted to the Roman Ca tholic persuasion. The Bishop of Meaux received Nelson's present at a fortunate juncture. He hap pened to be attending a general assembly of the Archbishops and Bishops of France, at St. Germain- en-Laye, called together at the appointment of the King. Bossuet both read the treatise himself and recommended it to the notice of the assembled pre lates. The judgment they arrived at respecting Dr. Bull's work will be seen from the following letter, which the reader of such a work as this will doubtless agree with the writer in thinking deserves to be quoted at length. It is from Bossuet to Nelson, and is dated St. Germain-en-Laye, 24th July, 1700: — " I received, sir, about a fortnight ago, the honour of your letter from Blackheath, near London, dated the 18th of July of the last year, when at the same time you sent me Dr. Bull's book, entitled Judicium Ecclesia Catholicce, &c. I must first, sir, acquaint you, that the sight of your hand and name gave me a great deal of joy, and that I was extremely pleased with this testimony of your remembrance. As to Dr. Bull's performance, I was willing to read it all over before I acknowledged the receipt of it, that I might be able to give you my sense of it. It is admir able ; and the matter he treats could not be explained with greater learning and greater judgment. This Bossuet's Letter to Robert Nelson. 347 is what I desire you would be pleased to acquaint him with, and, at the same time, with the unfeigned congratulations of all the clergy of France, assembled in this place, for the service he does the Catholic Church, in so well defending her determination of the necessity of beheving the Divinity of the Son of God. Give me leave to acquaint him there is one thing I wonder at, which is, that so great a man, who speaks so advantageously of the Church, of salvation, which is obtained only in unity with her, and of the infaUible assistance of the Holy Ghost in the Council of Nice, which infers the same assistance for all others assembled in the same Church, can continue a moment without acknowledging her. Or rather, sir, let him vouchsafe to tell me, who am a zealous defender of the doctrine he teaches, what it is he means by the term Catholic Church. Is it the Church of Rome, and those that adhere to her ? is it the Church of England ? is it a confused heap of societies separated the one from the other ? And how can they be that Kingdom of Christ not divided against itself, and which never shall perish ? It would be a great satis faction to me to receive some answer upon this subject, that might explain the opinion of so weighty and solid an author. I very much rejoice at the good news you send me of your lady's welfare, whom I heartily pray for, with you and your family. You have been rightly informed in the account you have received of the admirable qualifications of the Archbishop of Paris, now Cardinal de Noailles ; the see of St. Denis has not for a long time been so worthily filled. If Mr. Collier, whom you mention, has written anything in Latin concerning the modern mystical divinity, you will oblige me in conveying it to me. But, above 348 The Death of Bossuet. all, remember that I am, with a great deal of sin cerity, &c. " J. Benigne, E. de Meaux."* The challenge contained in this letter was an swered by Dr. Bull, in an epistle called The Cor ruptions of the Church of Rome; but this short treatise came to Nelson's hands too late to be for warded to Bossuet, who died April 12th, 1704, in the 77th year of his age. Bull adopts the same method in this letter that he did in his large trea tises. He takes the Creed of Pope Pius IV. as con taining the most authentic summary of the tenets of the Church of Rome, and answers seriatim the twelve last articles, which, in that formulary, are tacked to the Nicene Creed. As Bull's great glory was due to the skill with which he displayed the sentiments ofthe ante-Nicene Fathers, in opposition to subse quent and modern innovators, and as Bossuet's famous Exposition ofthe Catholic Faith is entirely based on the decrees of the Council of Trent, there was something very judicious in the plan he adopted in this letter. The death of Bossuet may certainly be regarded as an era in the Gallican Church. He was the most illustrious divine that Church had produced since the times of S. Bernard. A native eloquence en tered into all the works he wrote ; and one, not cele brated for his partiality to the Church, has spoken with great admiration ofthe majestic force with which he has described the manners, government, and the rise and fall of nations, and interwoven with these his religious views. His funeral ' orations are con- * See Nelson's Life of Bull, pp. 331-2. The Death of Bossuet. 349 sidered masterpieces, and are still read as the text book on pulpit oratory in the seminaries of France.* He has been much commended as a controversialist ; but English writers have complained that, either from disdain or cowardice, he disregarded the an swers which were made to his controversial writings. In his behaviour towards Fenelon and Bourdaloue he is thought to have betrayed a jealousy unbecoming so great a man, and the sacred character which he otherwise supported with so much credit. In the religious disputes of the age in which he lived, his sentiments were generally those which prevailed at Rome, although a zealous member of that Church which accepted the decrees of the Council of Con stance, which declare general councils superior to the Pope in spiritual matters. Such was the person whose queries Bull set himself to answer in the letter above alluded to. Bull, as may be imagined, discharged his epi scopal duties as well as one of his age and infir mities could possibly do. His biographer mentions an anecdote, recorded here, because it seems to bear upon the character of his predecessor. A mise rable person waited upon him one day to solicit some preferment ; but, conscious that he was un deserving of the favour he asked, he drew out a purse of gold, and offered it to the Bishop. The venerable Bishop was confused and overcome by such an act, and waived the man out ofthe room, who, perhaps, had been led to infer, from the cha racter of Watson, that even Bull might not be su perior to such temptations. * Siecle de Louis XIV. c. xxxii. ; Wake's Preface to his Exposition ofthe Doctrine ofthe Church of England. 350 Dr. Wake, bishop of Lincoln. Soon after the elevation of Dr. Bull, Dr. Gardi ner, the bishop of Lincoln, died. He was a man of little note. He was succeeded by another of Bos- suet's opponents, the Dean of Exeter, Dr. Wake, who had early acquired considerable reputation as a preacher in London, and whose exposition of the doctrines of the Church of England, in answer to the Bishop of Meaux, was much admired at the time, and laid the foundation of that literary character which his great work on Convocation completed.* His appointment was, in all respects, a suitable one, although his character for independence and moral courage can bear no comparison with that either of Bull or Ken. Celebrated for the zeal with which he maintained the authority of the civil governor in ecclesiastical matters, the most blameworthy action recorded of him is in connexion with this subject, when, as Archbishop of Canterbury, which he after wards became, he surrendered a document which had been entrusted to him too easily into the hands of his sovereign. The Convocation met, as usual, concurrently with the session of Parliament. Dr. Binkes, the dean of Lichfield, sat as Prolocutor. The same jealousy between the Upper and the Lower Houses continued ; and the complaints the one of the other, if anything, were less guarded by courtesy than usual. For this reason, the records of Convocation at this time are very uninteresting, although they serve to illustrate the spirit of the age, and form an important feature of the ecclesiastical history of the time. We have already seen that the Archbishop, * Evelyn's Diary, vol. i. pp. 261, 264. See Gibson's Preser vative against Popery, vol. iii. p. 1. The Convocation. 351 in proroguing the Convocation in the spring, re turned a well-considered answer to a long repre sentation ofthe Lower House of Convocation. On Dec. 1, the Lower House made another representa tion to the Archbishop and his suffragans. They complained that Convocation had fallen into general disrepute amongst the clergy, because, notwith standing it had now met regularly for some years, no benefit to the Church at large had resulted from these meetings ; that they waited in vain for instructions from their Lordships, and none being received, they took upon themselves to move in some matters, such as the duty of censuring here tical and immoral books ; and other grievances had been mentioned by them to their Lordships, and they should be glad to learn what had been done towards redressing them. They again repeated, what they had formerly said about a measure for the recovery of church- rates, which was particularly called for at that time, owing to the general injury which had been done to the churches by the great storm. They represented the difficulty they were under in respect to the administration of the Holy Communion ; for, when cahed upon to administer it to people who desired to qualify themselves for offices, they did not see how they could repel notorious schismatics, without exposing themselves to vexatious suits at law, and they asked counsel of their Lordships under these difficulties. In February they brought up another paper, complaining of the administration of baptism in pri vate houses by Dissenting teachers ; of the great increase of unlicensed schools and seminaries, which 352 The Convocation. they desire their Lordships to devise some means of suppressing, and thereby to put a stop to the growth of Popery, Schism, and Sedition. They also carried up another paper, complaining again of Burnet, who, in a charge recently delivered, had insinuated that many of the members of the Lower House of Convocation " were enemies to their Lordships, the Queen, and the nation." * They vindicated, in strong terms, their loyalty to Church and Queen. They had, they said, English hearts and English prin ciples, and therefore they could not be enemies to their country ; and they desire his grace and their Lordships to procure either a declaration from the Bishop that such was not his meaning ; or, if it were, an apology for it. At the same time, they brought up a third paper, complaining that their former re presentations had not been attended to, and that the end and object of Convocation was frustrated by the continual, unnecessary adjournments. To these various representations of the Lower House, the Archbishop and Bishops replied at con siderable length, and with evident signs of temper. They complained that " the paper of Dec. 1st was not addressed, according to form, to the President, thus depriving the Archbishop of his proper title ; that it was impossible for Convocation to proceed to busi ness without a royal license, and that the Lower House, by complaining that, notwithstanding their frequent meetings, no business was transacted, only sought thereby to throw an odium upon the Upper House ; that, with regard to withholding the sacrament from unworthy persons, they could give them no better directions than those contained in the rubrics * Calamy, p. 667. The President's Speech to Convocation. 353 and canons of the Church, which, whoever would re ligiously observe, could not fail of doing his duty, either to his ecclesiastical superiors or to the flock over which he presided." On the 14th of March, the Archbishop admonished the Prolocutor of the Lower House that, holding intermediate sessions was a violation ofthe President's right, and forbad them to hold any more. The Lower House took the Archbishop's admonition into their consideration , but returned for answer that, if that admonition was intended to be judicial, they protested against it as null and void ; for the holding of these intermediate sessions was an unquestionable right of the Lower House of Convocation. On March 15th the Convocation was prorogued; upon which occasion, the Archbishop addressed the Prolocutor and the clergy in a speech, in which he reflected upon the proceedings of the sessions. To sum up the substance of his speech in few words, he complained of the undutiful tone pervading their representations. He vindicated the Charge of the Bishop of Sarum ; assured them that the Bishops would govern themselves by the rubrics, canons, and statutes of the Church ; and that the best way to retrieve the character of Convocation was for the clergy of the Lower House to abandon their unwar rantable claims, and abide by the canons and ancient customs. In reference to the dissolution of Parlia ment, he told them the present Convocation was nearly at an end, but that the writs for a new one would be issued ; and that if in that the same con tumacy in the Lower House should be repeated, he should exercise his authority in a way he had not yet done ; but he rather hoped they would meet in A A 354 A Vote ofthe House of Commons, $c. a more dutiful and peaceable temper, as became their function and order.* The Queen, in the speech in which she prorogued the last session of this Parliament, made allusion to the attempt in the Commons to tack the bill against Occasional Conformity to a money bill, and depre cating the evil which would have resulted from it, continued, — "I conclude, therefore, with exhorting you all to peace and union, which are always com mendable, but more particularly necessary at this time, when the whole kingdom, being shortly to pro ceed to new elections, it ought to be the care of everybody, especially such as are in public stations, to carry themselves with the greatest prudence and moderation. Nothing will contribute more to our reputation abroad and our security at home." In this Parliament, which was shortly afterwards dis solved, the Tories had a very decided majority ; but nearly all the measures which they passed, strongly reflecting the principles of the party, were rejected by the Lords. So a bill, which the Lords passed for preventing the growth of Popery, when sent down to the Commons, was subject to such amendments that, had it passed, it would have been more like the old bill against Occasional Conformity than anything else. One thing the Lords could not prevent the House of Commons from doing, which was, the car rying a vote, declaring it to be " villanous and sedi tious, destructive of the liberties of Parliament and the freedom of elections, to asperse any member of the House of Commons with being in the interest of the pretended Prince of Wales and the French Go- * Calamy, vol. i. pp. 667-9; Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 175. A Memorial of the Church of England. 355 vernment." This declaration of the Commons re veals to us, in a remarkable manner, the spirit of party. The policy of the Whigs prompted them to disturb their opponents, as much as possible, with this imputation ; whilst the Tory party were not slow in imputing revolutionary principles to those who withstood their efforts to restrain the growing power ofthe Dissenters. The repeated failure of the bill against Occa sional Conformity in the House of Lords, greatly incensed the Church party, both in the House of Commons and out of it. An inflammatory docu ment issued from the press about this time, entitled A Memorial ofthe Church of England, which may be regarded as a precursor of those sermons of Sach everell which, a few years after, upset the kingdom. It produced a great sensation at the time of its pub lication. The writer in this complained that, not withstanding a certain outward show of prosperity, the Church of England, in reality, was in great peril ; that sectaries abounded ; and that the sons of these very men, who had once been instrumental in over throwing the authority of the Crown, still retained the principles of their fathers, and, doubtless, har boured similar designs ; that those who, not a month before the death of King William, were breathing de fiance against the Church, and insulting the Princess, were suddenly grown the most dutiful of subjects, and the most peaceable of friends ; that in Scotland the Presbyterian party had entirely triumphed, and even endangered the Church and Monarchy of England ; and it recommended those in power not to try the proverbial patience of Churchmen too far ; for, al though the Church is not to be wrought into re- 356 The Queen goes to Newmarket. bellion, the more earnest members of it may adopt means to secure themselves at the expense of those ministers who thus alarm them." * It was certainly not without reason that this document was thought to be aimed at the Duke of Marlborough and the other members of the Govern ment. The author of it was sought for in vain ; but the pamphlet was regarded as a hbel, and presented to the grand jury of Middlesex, by whom it was pronounced to be false and scandalous, and con demned to be then burnt in the presence of the court, and again, on the following Tuesday, before the Royal Exchange.f Such was the manner, in those days, of treating a document which would now be permitted to run its course, and accordingly, in the end perhaps, prove more injurious to the friends it was intended to serve than to the foes it would have disconcerted. After the prorogation of Parliament the Queen went down to Newmarket, whence, upon the invit ation of the University, she paid a visit to Cambridge, accompanied by her husband and the court. She was, upon this occasion, entertained very magnifi- * See Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 178 ; Calamy, vol. i. p. 681. X The publication of this work caused so much excitement that the Queen was compelled to issue a proclamation and offer a reward of 1000Z. for the discovery of the author. The printer in his examination stated that a woman in a mask, with another barefaced, brought him the manuscript, and ordered two hundred and fifty copies to be printed, which he delivered to four porters ; but the Secretary of State found it was impossible to fix it with certainty upon any one. It was, however, the joint production of James Drake, a noted political writer, and Mr. Poley, M.P. for Ipswich. — Kippis's Biographia Britannica, vol. v. p. 356; and Reliquia Hearnianee, vol. i. passim. The University of Cambridge. 357 cently in Trinity College Hall, at an expense to the University of 1000/. This royal visit would be worthy of record, if for no other reason than that the Queen seized the opportunity of bestowing knight hood upon the great Newton. Whilst the University conferred honorary degrees upon Lords Sunderland, Oxford, Wharton, and Harvey, the Queen conferred the honour of knighthood upon the great astronomer, the Vice-Chancellor Ellys, who was a layman, and on Montague the university counsel. But there is another reason for recording this royal visit in an ecclesiastical history. It affords us an occasion of taking a glance at the University during this reign. The Queen was nominally the guest of the Master of Trinity College, Dr. Richard Bentley, who had not only made the name of Cambridge famous on account of his scholarship, but, unfortunately, from the incessant quarrels in which he involved himself with his college.* Bentley had been made Master of Trinity College by King William, on the recom mendation of some of the most distinguished divines of that age. But never did any appointment, appa rently wise and just, turn out more contrary to the expectation of those who made it, than did this. He kept the college in a state of continual trouble and intestine war. Although a Whig, and a hearty friend to King William, one might imagine that he had bor rowed his principles of government from James II. Never did any one carry into the government of a college such arbitrary notions. Although at starting he appears to have made some judicious reforms in the methods of examination for fellowships, yet what he * See Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne; Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 183. 358 The University of Cambridge . did was without ever consulting the eight senior fellows, his statutable councillors. Indeed this ne glect to take counsel of any one in the reforms he adopted, or the plans which he set on foot, was at the root of a quarrel which lasted, with fluctuating results, for thirty years. The difference was not quite at its height at the time of Queen Anne's visit to Cambridge, but some of the most offensive features in it had shown themselves. He had incurred heavy expenses in repairing and beautifying the Master's lodgings, not only without the sanction of the fellows, but in defiance of their remonstrances. He made himself amenable to charges, which he yet expected the college to defray;* and it is in reviewing the characters of the fellows, as brought out by these events, and of their attainments, that we are led to infer that the state of the University was not very materially different at that time from what it was at the commencement of this century. If there is less of visible change and progress in a university than there is in other parts of a kingdom, we also re member there is, or ought to be, a more constant and abiding intelligence. The campaign in Germany this summer was car ried on with doubtful success. The plans of Marl borough on the Moselle were frustrated by the vacillation of Prince Lewis of Baden, and the ex cessive caution of the Dutch. In Italy, Prince Eugene, supported by a very indifferent army, had a hard struggle to maintain his position. In Spain, the allies were more fortunate. The Earl of Peter borough and King Charles, as he was called, laid siege to Barcelona, and, against general expectation, * Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. i. p. 175. A New Parliament. 359 made themselves masters of that town. The Emperor Leopold, who was at the head of the alliance, died in the course of the summer, and was succeeded by his son Joseph, who had been elected King of the Ro mans. The old Emperor was of an amiable and manly character, but of too easy and unsuspicious a nature for the wise guidance of his affairs. He has been blamed for his too great partiality to the priesthood ; but it appears he was a zealous Roman Catholic, and, as such, only consistent in his opinions and conduct. At home, the general election, as it always does when it occurs, engrossed every one's attention. As many as 450 members met the first time to elect a Speaker, which was considered a very unusually large number. The Queen's address, which was from the pen of the Lord Keeper Cowper, gave very general satisfaction. It touched upon the necessity of re storing the kingdom of Spain to the House of Austria, the progress which had been already made towards promoting the union between Scotland and England, and severely censured the causeless cry of "the Church in danger." The Queen added upon this subject : — "I am willing to hope not one of my subjects can really entertain a doubt of my affection to the Church, or so much as suspect that it will not be my chief care to support it, and leave it secure after me ; and, therefore, we may be certain that they who go about to insinuate things of this nature must be mine and the kingdom's enemies, and can only mean to cover designs which they dare not publicly own, by endeavouring to distract us with unreasonable and groundless distrusts and jealousies.'' Then followed a specimen of no uncommon rea- 360 Debate about the Church soning in those days, which certainly has nothing very sincere or profound about it: — "I must be so plain as to tell you the best proofs we ah can give at pre sent of our zeal for the preservation ofthe Church will be to join heartily in prosecuting the war against an enemy who is certainly engaged to extirpate our rehgion, as well as to reduce this kingdom to slavery."* Notwithstanding this speech, as many still be lieved the Church to be in some danger, Lord Halifax, with a view of silencing these murmurers, moved for the appointment of a day upon which the question might be fully debated. Upon that occasion the Earl of Rochester opened the discussion. After apologising for seeming to contradict the Queen's speech, he affirmed that the Church was in danger : 1st, because by the Act of Security in Scotland the Presbyterian form of worship was established without any toleration ; 2d, because the heir to the throne was not in England to become acquainted with the Church and Constitution of the country : 3d, because, by not passing so reasonable a bill as that against Occasional Conformity, it was evident what the temper of the Government towards the Church really was. Although these arguments did really contain some elements of truth and soundness in them, it must be admitted that Lord Halifax answered them pertinently and forcibly. He showed that the danger from the Princess Sophia's absence from the kingdom was but one of eight days' standing ; that the Occasional Conformity Bill had been suffi ciently discussed ; and that as to this cry " upon her Majesty's happy succession, for some time the com- * See Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, pp. 209-10. being in Danger. 361 plaint was silent, but that when she was pleased to make some alterations in her ministry it was im mediately revived, and ever since continued." He concluded by saying "the Church was now in no danger." The Bishop of Salisbury was very angry with those who talked of the Church being in danger. In answer to what the Earl of Rochester had said respecting toleration in Scotland, he informed the House there were fourteen Episcopal meeting-houses in Edinburgh alone, where the English Liturgy was used ; although in aU of them the Queen was not prayed for. He then alluded to the evidence of zeal exhibited in the Society for the Reformation of Man ners, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, and he concluded by casting blame upon the University of Oxford, and the preachers who were there encouraged. Archbishop Sharp adduced the best argument for the motion, where he complained of " the increase of Dissenters," and seminaries set up by them. These were facts, certainly affecting the numerical strength of the Church, and consequently its national importance, and time has proved the justice ofhis apprehensions, for the proportion of Dissenters to Church people in the United Kingdom has increased prodigiously since the times ofthe Revolution and the passing ofthe Toleration Act. The Archbishop of York's observations, however, drew upon him an attack from Lord Wharton, who moved that the judges should be consulted upon suppressing the seminaries ofthe non-jurors; adding, that he understood the Archbishop employed one of their body in the education of his sons. The 362 Debate about the Church Archbishop vindicated himself, stating that his sons indeed had been taught by Mr. Ellis, a learned and virtuous man, who had been properly qualified, but who had refused the Abjuration Oath when it was enjoined, and in consequence of this proceeding on Mr. Ellis's part he had withdrawn his children from his tuition.* Lord Wharton, in replying, said, " This raising a cry of the Church being in danger was only repeating the sentiments of The Memorial ofthe Church of England, which pamphlet he had read, and could learn nothing from it, excepting that the Duke of B , the Earl of R , and the Earl of N , were out of place. What these B's, R's, and N's, meant he could not tell ; but if they meant some certain noble lords then present, he remembered that some of them sat in the High Commission Court, and then made no complaint of the Church being in danger."f The Bishops of Ely, and Lichfield, and Coventry, took the same side. They complained of the Uni versities, and ofthe general insubordination of the clergy to their diocesans, who almost would lead the world to suppose that the Bishops were in a conspiracy to ruin the Church, accept retiring pen sions, and resign their bishoprics. The Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Duke of Leeds supported the affirmative, the former complaining of the prevailing use of the terms High and Low Church, the latter expressing his opinion * Edmund Ellis, formerly Bector of East Allington, Exeter. In the preface to his Sermons, entitled The Quiet Soul, 4to. 1707, he has given many particulars respecting himself. See also Granger's Biographical Dictionary, vol. iii. p. 298, ed. 1775. X Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 218. being in Danger. 363 that the Church was not safe without the act against Occasional Conformity, and at the same time affirm ing that the Queen had expressed herself to him as being of the same opinion. Lord Somers wound up the debate, which resulted in a vote of the House, — "That the Church of England, as by law established, which was rescued from the extremest danger by King William III. of glorious memory, is now, by God's blessing, under the happy reign of her Majesty, in most safe and flourishing condition ; and that whoever goes about to suggest that the Church is in danger under her Majesty's administration is an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom." Against this vote several of the Peers entered a very rea sonable protest, affirming " That it is not a proper way to prevent dangers by voting there are none." Amongst these were the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, and the Bishops of Bath and Wells, S. Asaph, and Rochester, some for part of the rea sons assigned for the protest, some for all. The Lords (Dec. 7, 1705) desired the concur rence of the Commons in their resolution, and accordingly the debate upon the Church being in danger was resumed in the House of Commons, and after a long and warm discussion ended in their confirming the vote of the Lords. Some days after wards they also agreed with the Peers in an address to the Queen, embodying the resolution above recorded, and "beseeching her Majesty to take effec tual measures for making the said resolution public, and also for punishing the authors and spreaders of the seditious and scandalous reports ofthe Church being in danger." The Queen expressed herself gratified with the address, and promised to comply 364 Debate about the Church with the prayer contained in it, and accordingly a proclamation was issued for the discovery of the author ofthe Memorial ofthe Church of England, and the apprehension of the printer, David Edwards, described as a professed Papist.* In this discussion, nothing is more remarkable than the difference of opinion respecting facts be tween men of equal intelligence, and possessed ofthe same opportunities of discovering the truth. Arch bishop Sharp complained of the increase of Dissen ters. Burnet in his History has recorded that one of the reasons he adduced against the affirmative was, that the Dissenters were visibly decreasing. Another remarkable circumstance deserving notice is the manner in which the Queen's name was introduced and referred to in the debate, as if she and her ministers were opposed in sentiment, and that many had a strong conviction that, although she said one thing in public, in private she held opinions very different, if not entirely opposite. It may be observed, that although in parliamentary discus sions in England one side is defeated and the other comes off victorious, the opinions of the oppo sition still affect legislation almost as much as those of the prevailing party. The fear entertained by some for the Episcopal Church, on account of the pending union between Scotland and England, although to many appearing ridiculous, no doubt had a wholesome effect upon those who framed the Articles of Union. And, therefore, an historian of these times would deal very unjustly by those who protested against the resolution if he should say their fears were entirely groundless and only * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, pp. 219, 20. being in Danger. 365 productive of evil. We may rejoice that the more liberal view has prevailed; that as much religious toleration as is consistent with the preservation of a National Church is freely granted to all dissenting from her doctrines and discipline ; and that the union between England and Scotland was consummated as it was. At the same time we recognise the wisdom of an opposition, which served to modify measures primarily injurious to the Church, and to promote the adoption of those safeguards, without which her gradual ruin might have been achieved. 366 CHAPTER XII. (1705-9.) The Proceedings of the New Convocation — A difference of opinion amongst members of the Lower House — The Convo cation prorogued — The Preliminaries of the Union between England and Scotland — The religious bearings of the question — Convocation meets and is prorogued — Death of Patrick — The Non-jurors — Dodwell and Nelson return to the Com munion of the Church of England. We must now direct our attention to the proceedings in the Convocation, which assembled with the new Parliament, Oct. 25th, 1705, first of all in S. Paul's Cathedral; upon which occasion the Latin sermon was preached by Dr. Stanhope, the dean of Canter bury. The Archbishop then directed them to with draw to the Chapter House, there to choose a Pro locutor, to be presented to him at the next meeting of Convocation, to be held in St. Stephen's Chapel, Westminster. Dr. Stanhope was himself proposed by one party, the Dean of Lichfield, Dr. Binkes, by another, and the latter was finally elected by a large majority. The first proceeding of the Upper House was to draw up an address to the Queen, the spirit of which was in exact conformity with the sentiments of the dominant party in Parliament, as exhibited in the Proceedings of the New Convocation. 367 debate about the Church being in danger.* " We, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects," said this address, " the Archbishop and Bishops, with the rest of the clergy in the province of Canterbury, assembled in Convocation, do, with hearts full of gratitude, return our most humble thanks to your Majesty for your affectionate care and tender con cern for the Church of England, as established by law, from your first accession to the Throne to this day. The assurances hereof having been so amply confirmed by your own exemplary zeal for the service of the Church and constant attendance upon it, by your unparalleled munificence to the poorer clergy, and by your repeated declaration ' That the Church of England shall always be your chief care,' we are exceedingly grieved that any of your subjects should be so ungrateful and unworthy as once to suggest, that our Church can be in danger for want of such support and encouragement in your Ma jesty's reign, as may make it flourish in your own time, and leave it secure after you. And although it is no new thing for designing men to prostitute the venerable name of the Church to the service of their own private ends, yet we think it very strange, that any should be found so extremely weak and undutiful as to be deluded by these groundless clamours, when they have been so often and so publicly confuted by your Royal word and actions ; and when the happy state of the Church of England is so much observed and esteemed abroad, that several of the foreign Churches are endeavouring to accommodate themselves to our Liturgy and Con stitution. To insinuate that the Church is in danger * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 224. 368 Proceedings of the New Convocation. under these circumstances, and against all the testi monies and assurances of your Majesty's Royal care and protection, can proceed from nothing but preju dice, interest, and ambition. We humbly crave leave to express our just resentment of the indignity of all such suggestions, not only as false and groundless in themselves, but chiefly as they are dishonourable reflections upon your promises for the support of the Church, and upon your princely wisdom in choosing the most proper and effectual measures to that end. We beg leave also, in deep sense of your Majesty's goodness and an entire dependence upon your Royal word, to profess our great joy and satisfaction in the flourishing condition of the Church, under your most auspicious government. We are sure it will always be in your will to support and protect it; and that these distractions, which these groundless jealousies are intended to raise, may never put it out of your power, we promise to use our utmost endeavours to discountenance them, and in our several stations to defend and preserve inviolably, so far as in us lies, the doctrine, discipline, and worship of our Church as by law established, and to promote peace and unity amongst your subjects ; praying earnestly for your Majesty's long and glorious reign over us, as, under the Divine Providence, the greatest blessing and security that either Church or State can enjoy."* If we bear in mind for a moment the Church politics of the day, we can hardly wonder that the majority of the Lower House should have refused to concur in this address. They referred it to a Committee of their House, which drew up another form, more in accordance with their own sentiments, * Boyer, p. 225. A Division in Lower House of Convocation. 369 and indeed in every way superior to the one quoted above. It expressed the utmost loyalty to the Queen and confidence in her attachment to the Church in which she was baptized, and denounced those who insinuated anything contrary to this as the enemies alike of the Church and her Majesty. It also assured her Majesty of their constant and earnest endeavours to instil into the minds of the people committed to their charge, sentiments of loyalty to her Majesty's Government and affection to the Church. The Bishops would not listen for a minute to this address proposed by the Lower House, but required the clergy to return to their own House and agree to the address sent down to them, or give their reasons for not doing so.* Some of the clergy, headed by the Dean of Lin coln and the Archdeacon of Huntingdon, were for complying with these instructions of the Bishops, but the majority ofthe House, in two separate meetings, agreed to a paper, which the Prolocutor carried to the Upper House, in which the Bishops were besought to receive the form of address of the Lower House, which they again tendered to their Lordships. How ever, to this the Bishops returned a positive denial, and all intercourse between the two Houses was for a short time suspended. The Dean of Peterborough now complained of the many irregularities which had arisen in the Lower House, which he and many others had vainly hoped to have seen amended, but finding they were still disappointed in that hope they pro tested against them. The Dean, by consent of the House, began to read the protest, when Atterbury interrupted him, declaring it was not fit to be read in * Boyer, p. 227. BB 370 The Queen sends a Letter to the President. their chamber; nor would the House, after this, con sent to its being read: so the Dean and the other protesters carried it to the Upper House, and were ordered to leave it upon the table and withdraw. They were afterwards called up again, when the President, thanking them for their proper zeal, promised that the protest; according to their re quest, should be entered in the Acts of the Upper House. Some time after these proceedings, the Convoca tion was adjourned to March 1st. In the interim the Queen sent a letter to the Archbishop, desiring him to prorogue the Convocation to some convenient time ; at the same time lamenting that their quarrels, instead of abating, had rather seemed to increase. She expressed her surprise at this, because it had always been her endeavour to preserve the con stitution of the Church and to suppress divisions and innovations. She added, that she was determined to maintain her own supremacy and the due sub ordination of presbyters to their bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury being indisposed at the time, the Bishop of Norwich was deputed to read the Queen's letter to both Houses. Accord ingly, on the 1st of March, 1706, the Upper House, being assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, the Bishop of Norwich sent for Dr. Binkes, the Prolo cutor, who attended with some members of the Lower House. When the Bishop began to read the letter, and the clergy saw they were to be prorogued, Atterbury puUed Dr. Binkes's sleeve and desired him to with draw ; upon which Burnet immediately rose and said, " It was the greatest piece of insolence he ever saw, thus to refuse to hear the Queen's orders, and told the The Church in Prussia. 371 Prolocutor to go at his peril."* The Prolocutor re mained, but Atterbury and others withdrew to their own House, and adjourned themselves to the following Wednesday. The Lower House of Convocation appears at this time, by a paper which they drew up with a view to presentation to the Upper House, f to have turned their attention to a subject of much interest, the mtroduction of Episcopacy into some of the foreign Protestant churches, which was brought to their notice more particularly by the state of the Church in Prussia ; and there is no question that an admirable opportunity of introducing what we are fond of caU ing our Apostohcal form of church government into that country, was allowed at this period to escape us. The Elector of Brandenburg had, in 1701, pro claimed himself King of Prussia, under the title of Frederick I., and concurrently with his new kingdom he was disposed to have estabhshed an episcopal hierarchy. He had recourse to a very uncanonical proceeding in the first step he took to further this object. He gave the title of Bishop to two of the chiefs of his clergy. The Prussian Church was at that time divided into Lutherans and what were called the Reformed, and one from each of these bodies was selected for this honour; at first, appa rently, only with the view of adding eclat to his coronation: however, he was afterwards anxious to make this subserve to the union of the Lutherans and the Reformed, and the mtroduction of a common Liturgy and Episcopacy. The King, who was married to the daughter of the Princess Sophia, * Boyer, p. 228; Calamy, vol. i. p. 690; Lathbury, 398. •j- Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 722. 372 The Church in Prussia. the heir to the English throne, had a great esteem for the English nation and the Church of Eng land, having been favourably impressed respecting the constitution of the Church by his chaplain, Dr. Daniel Ernestus Jablonski, superintendent of the Protestant Church in Poland. Jablonski had been in England and at Oxford, and had formed his opinions of the merits of the English Church from personal observation. The King therefore commis sioned Jablonski, and Ursinus, one of the bishops alluded to above, to move in the matter. The English Liturgy was first of all translated into Ger man, and Dr. Ursinus was desired to write to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and acquaint him with what had already been done, and also to inform his Grace that it was the King's intention to com mence the use ofthe Liturgy in his chapel on the first Sunday in Advent. Together with this letter were sent two copies of the German translation ofthe English Liturgy — one for Queen Anne, the other for the Archbishop. The King also expressed a wish that a general correspondence should be opened between the Prussian Churches and the Church of England, with a view of eliciting the most feasible scheme for the furtherance of the end in view. The copy of the Liturgy translated into German, trans mitted to the Queen, was duly acknowledged by Lord Raby, the English minister at Berlin, and thanks were returned both to the King and Ursinus ; but not the slightest notice was taken by Tenison ofthe copy or of, the letter, supposed to have been dehvered to him. The Archbishop afterwards declared that he had never received the communications of Dr. Ursinus. They doubtless miscarried, but it is scarcely possible The Union of England and Scotland. 373 to beheve that Tenison (remembering the late address bf the Upper House of Convocation to the Queen) could have been ignorant of the friendly disposition of the King and these Prussian divines to our Church. It was on account of his unfortunate silence that the King of Prussia grew cool about this scheme, and suffered it to drop. There is too much reason to suppose that Tenison was silent and indifferent from political considera tions. Anomahes, no doubt, existed, in the state of the Prussian Church, which might have made it difficult to assimilate that Church to our own in doctrine and discipline ; but the experiment was well worthy of attempt. Time might have perfected what at first was irregular. A further correspondence on the subject took place some years afterwards, be tween Dr. Sharp, archbishop of York, and Jablonski, to which allusion will be made hereafter.* The union of England and Scotland was one of the greatest political events of Queen Anne's reign. It elicited a considerable demonstration of religious feehng on both sides of the Tweed, and on this ac count cahs for some notice here. Providence seems to mark out the natural boun daries which separate different countries ; and even before the accession of King James I., statesmen had desired to see the whole island of Britain united under the same sovereign. When he ascended the throne of this country, he was most anxious to have the two countries united under the same form of government, as they had become united under the same crown. Religious jealousies proved, at that time, a bar to the accomplishment of his wishes. * Life of Sharp, vol. i. pp. 403-405. 374 The Union of England and Scotland. In the reign of Charles I. the same cause checked the consummation of this object; for the Scotch were then afraid of Laud and the High-Church party. Something was attempted to be accomplished in this matter during the reign of Charles II. In the reign of his brother all thoughts upon the subject were, as a matter of course, laid aside. Whilst WiUiam and Mary were on the throne, it was little more than remembered in a royal speech, in which the King recommended it to the consi deration of his Parliament. In the reign of Queen Anne a Treaty was opened upon the subject, and brought to a happy issue ; but when it came before the consideration of Parliament, the religious part of the question occasioned the greatest discussion. The opposition to it, on this account, was equally strong in both countries. The Scotch ministers were for organising an association for the preser vation of the Presbyterian disciphne and church government ; and some of them were for appointing a day of fasting and humihation, that they might obtain the Almighty's direction in the affair ofthe union. Indeed, there was, at first, a show of reason for this clamour ; for the commissioners who had been appointed to draw up the Treaty were, by the act of Parliament, expressly forbidden to entertain the religious question : perhaps, to make more evi dent the wisest course to be pursued. In Scotland, as the progress of the union was sensibly delayed by this, an act was immediately prepared, which declared the maintenance of the Presbyterian wor ship in that country an essential condition of the union. Still, even this did not prevent a great deal of dissatisfaction and murmuring, which in Glasgow A Debate about the Union. 375 and Edinburgh broke out into riots and violence. The act, however, settling the union between the two countries, passed the Scottish Parliament, and was transmitted to London, January 1706-7. In England, the Queen opened the session of Parhament, in which the union was finally discussed, in a speech which gave very general satisfaction. She had the pleasing task of alluding to the victories which continued to crown the British arms under Marlborough, as at Ramilies and elsewhere ; as well as to congratulate Parliament on the progress in the Treaty for the union. We shall pass at once to this subject,, and to that part of it in which the Church was particularly concerned. As soon as it was received in England, the Queen made another speech upon the subject to Parliament, which was a signal for the general discussion of its merits in both Houses. In the House of Commons the oppo sition was not great, or long persevered in. Two or three members dwelt upon the anomaly of an united kingdom, with two forms of Christian worship, established in different parts of the same kingdom. They remarked that as, by the Treaty, the Presby terian form was unalterably established in Scotland, the upholders of the Treaty were the abettors of a form of religion they yet conscientiously differed from. But the government of this country, in recent times, has always been carried on by compromises. As soon as ever the papers were laid on the table in the House of Lords, the Archbishop of Can terbury introduced a biU for the security of the Church of England, by which aU acts heretofore passed in favour of the Church were declared to be in full force, and which was made an essential part 376 A Debate about the Union. of the union. The biU passed both Houses without delay, and received the royal assent; but many were not satisfied with it as a security to the Church of England, as appeared in the debate in the House of Lords which soon after took place (Feb. 14th, 1706-7). Upon that occasion Lord Haversham made a set speech against the Treaty Qf Union ; and although a declared Occasional Conformist, with sin gular inconsistency taunted the Bishops for thus ratifying the Presbyterian form of Church govern ment in Scotland, and so acknowledging it to be the true and pure form, pf Church worship. However just the censure, it came ill from the lips of an Occa sional Conformist. The Bench, however, was by no means unanimous upon this subject. Some ofthe most exemplary of the Bishops were opposed to the union ; in which number we may place Hooper and Beveridge. In the course of a protracted debate the former remarked, " That he was altogether against this union .... that the Episcopal Bench was al ways reckoned the dead weight of the House ; but that the sixteen Scotch peers, being admitted to sit therein, would more effectually be so, especially in any future debates relating to the Church, towards which they could no ways be suspected to be well affected ; and, therefore, he was humbly of opinion that some provision might be made for debarring them of their votes in any Church matters that should hereafter come in agitation." The principal speakers in favour of the union were the Bishops of Oxford, Norwich, and Salisbury ; the Lord Treasurer Sun derland, Hahfax, and Wharton ; but, above all, Earl Somers, who had a great share in framing the articles of the Treaty, and from whom emanated The Principles of Toleration, Sfc. 377 the name of Great Britain, by which the united king doms are now designated. When the measure had passed through committee, the bill for enacting it was drawn up by the Solicitor-General, Sir Simon Harcourt. It was thought to be ably done. In this document the articles are first recited ; then, the different Acts of Parliament by which the two Churches, in their respective countries, are severally secured, the Episcopal form in England and the Presbyterian in Scotland ; and, finally, a clause is added, ratifying aU these.* The principles of toleration cannot be too dearly cherished by Englishmen ; but it is possible to enter tain these and to act upon them, at the same time we esteem religious concord and uniformity matters of the first importance. That it would have been a happy circumstance if the Scotch Church had sub mitted to the same form of Church discipline as that wliich prevailed in England, we must all admit; but as this could not be, the Legislature had to deal with the anomalous position of the two Churches as best it could. The question was, whether it were possible to satisfy the complaints which were pre- vahing on both sides of the Tweed, without declaring the Presbyterian form of Church government in Scotland unalterably estabhshed, as the Episcopal was in England- The only other course was to have left it an entirely open question, and to have suffered the two Churches to work upon each other, leaving time to determine which should predominate generally. But the state of Scotland would not aUow of this. That * See Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 274; Boyer, 260-62; Tindal, vol. iv. 370. 378 The Convocation meets, and is prorogued. country took the initiative in the course which was followed, perhaps feeling herself the weaker, and in the greater danger ; and as gradual or sudden revo lutions annul all laws, these final sort of enactments depend, in great measure, like other laws, upon the course of events. If the Church-of-England party lost somewhat in apparent consistency by submitting to this measure, it gained in other ways. The Act of Uniformity and the Ecclesiastical Constitution of England being in a manner re-enacted, strengthened the Church against the attempts of the Puritan party, and made men see more than ever the propriety of entirely conforming or not conforming. The Dissenters, therefore, although approving of the union on political grounds, were not pleased with the turn of affairs as regarded their favourite schemes for modifying the Church of England.* The Queen came to the House of Lords, March 6th, in her usual state, and gave the royal assent to the measure ; upon which occasion, although the session was not at its close, she addressed a speech to the Parliament upon this great and important act of her reign. We must now turn to the clergy, for they considered it a subject for their deliberations.! The Convocation assembled, as usual, with this session of Parliament, and an address was agreed upon by both Houses, congratulating the Queen upon the great success of her arms abroad ; but in the midst of their discussions upon the union, to which the sense of the Lower House was strongly opposed, the Archbishop, at the instigation of the Crown, prorogued them for three weeks. In the interim * Calamy, vol. i. p. 696. f Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 283. Angry feeling ofthe Clergy. 379 the measure passed through Parliament, so that they were deprived of the opportunity of declaring their sentiments upon it. They strongly resented this proceeding when they re-assembled; they made a representation to the Upper House upon the subject, begging their Lordships to use their utmost endea vours to preserve those ancient usages which they had ever enjoyed, without abusing. The Bishops thought proper to lay the matter before the Queen, and the law-officers of the Crown considered there was sufficient precedent to justify the proceeding of the Crown. Upon this the Queen sent another letter to the Archbishop, severely reflecting upon the be haviour of the clergy, and threatening them with other marks of her displeasure if they persisted in their present undutiful conduct. Notwithstanding the Archbishop had prorogued the Convocation to the 10th of April, the Lower House continued their sittings ; but when the President sent for them upon that day to hear the Queen's letter, they appeared without the Prolocutor, who, it was said, had gone into the country. Tenison considered this so great a contempt of authority that he passed a sentence of contumacy upon him. As the Convocation was now pro rogued, in obedience to a royal writ, until the 30th day of the month, he reserved the declaration of the penalty until that day. Against this treatment of the Prolocutor many of the clergy signed a protest, which was presented to the Archbishop.* They stated, under the advice of an eminent counsel, that a process of this kind, commenced before a prorogation, could not be afterwards continued. Dr. Stanhope himself * Burnet, Tindal, Lathbury. 380 Death of Patrick. delivered this paper to the Upper House; but, although strongly pressed to maintain his ground, he submitted to the President, who then readily removed the sentence. The Parliament was soon after prorogued, and a proclamation was issued, appointing a day of general thanksgiving on account of the union ; upon which occasion many congratu latory addresses were presented to the Queen, but none from Scotland or the University of Oxford — a circumstance which was not suffered to pass without observation.* One of the most voluminous writers amongst our English theologians died this summer, Dr. Simon Patrick, whose name has before been mentioned in connexion with the commissioners appointed to con sider the Comprehension Scheme. He was born in 1626, the year in which Lord Bacon died; and ordained by Dr. Joseph Hall, bishop of Norwich, just about the commencement of those revolutionary persecutions which ended in the expulsion of that original and eloquent writer from his see. Thus his ministry extended over a very long and a very remarkable period, and his writings, although highly valued by many, are of that moderate tone, excepting such as are directly controversial, which is found in so many of the later writers of the same age. Although esteemed, on account of his devotional writings, such as The Heart's Ease, or a Remedy against all Trouble, he does not seem to have shone much in his emendations of the Collects. His most important works are his commentaries upon the Scriptures, which display much learning and industry, and are valuable helps to the theological student, * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 287. The Non-jurors. 381 although somewhat prolix and heavy. His first pre ferment was the living of Battersea, when, in his thirty-sixth year, he was chosen by the fellows of Queen's College, where he had been educated, their Master, in opposition to a royal mandamus appointing Anthony Sparrow to that post ; but the dispute be tween the two candidates being referred to the Privy CouncU, it was decided in favour of Sparrow. Upon this account he took his Doctor's degree at Oxford, having entered himself of Christ Church. In 1689 he was promoted to the see of Chichester, as has been before mentioned; and in 1691, when Turner was deprived, he was translated to Ely. He died on May 31, 1707. He was a man of learning, industry, and steadiness of principle. Some remarks upon the present conduct ofthe non-jurors may here be seasonably introduced. There was at this time a strong, but ineffectual effort, made to put an end to the schism, by the two most eminent laymen belonging to that body, Henry DodweU and Robert Nelson. The former of these, who had resigned the Camden Professorship of Modern History at Cambridge because he could not be prevailed upon to take the oaths to WUliam and Mary, was one of those who never thought the schism should be perpetuated after the deaths of the der prived prelates. Accordingly, in 1705, he pub hshed a tract, which he called The Case in View considered, in which he inquires, whilst yet the non jurors were a united body, what would be the wisest course for them to pursue when all the sees of the non-juring Bishops should be vacated by death. At this time, it may be added, Frampton, Lloyd, and Ken, still survived. 382 Some return to the Communion ofthe Church. Dodwell, for various reasons, which he assigns, advocated the expediency of healing the breach and returning to the National Church. As his views met with considerable opposition from some of those to whom they were addressed, in 1707 he put forth another publication, A further Prospect ofthe Case in View, in answer to some Objections not then con sidered: those objections chiefly had reference to the prayers used in our Liturgy for the reigning sove reign, which formed an insurmountable obstacle in the minds of some of the non-jurors, to complying with Dodwell's recommendations. The course of events soon converted Dodwell's Case in View into " The Case in Fact." Frampton died in 1708 ; Lloyd in 1709 ; and Ken, as we have seen, formally resigned his see to Hooper, and no longer challenged, or would accept, of what was called canonical obedience from any one. It was now that Dodwell, Nelson, and the Rev. Francis Brokesby, who assisted Nelson in the compilation of his book on the Festivals and Fasts, returned to the National Church. Being persuaded that altar was no longer opposed to altar in that communion, the families of these pious men resumed their attendance at the parish churches ofthe respective places where they hved. The Arch bishop of York had assisted in bringing Nelson back to the Church, and from his hands he received the Holy Communion at S. MUdred's, Poultry, on the Easter-day of 1709-10.* The breach, however, was by no means healed, for the most learned of the clergy amongst the non-jurors sthl continued to defend the cause with undiminished zeal. * Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. ii. p. 33. 383 CHAPTER XIII. (1709-12.) Sacheverell — His early history — Chaplain of S. Saviour's — Preaches before Sir Samuel Garrard, the Lord Mayor, at S. Paul's — The Sermon — Great Sensation produced by it in the Metropolis — Sacheverell impeached by the House of Commons — The Trial — Riots in London — Popular De monstration in favour ofthe Church — The Sentence — Sache verell presented to a living in Wales — His progress thither — Overthrow of Lord Godolphin's Ministry — A new Parliament — Convocation — Whiston. The extent to which pohtics and religion were mixed up in the days of Queen Anne, and the height to which party-spirit ran, are strikingly illustrated in the history of Dr. Henry SachevereU. In judging of the astonishing sensation this divine produced in his day, we must not separate the man from the times in which he lived. As in the reign of King WiUiam, semi-official people and others were wont to court the King by flattering the Dissenters, the known bias of the Queen's mind in favour of the High-Church party no doubt made such in these times less cautious in the expression of their opinions. In no reign did State secrets escape more freely through unofficial sources than in that of this amiable and weU-intentioned Queen. The world 384 Sacheverell. must have been perfectly aware of the state of her feelings towards the Duchess of Marlborough. The Duchess and the Whigs generally hated the High- Church party, and were the acknowledged cham pions of the Low-Church party and the Noncon formists.* Henry Sacheverell was constitutionally a High Churchman, if such an expression may be allowed. Those who patronised him were poli ticians as well as Churchmen. Antecedently to the memorable trial which his pulpit oratory gave occa sion to, there was nothing very remarkable in his career. He was the grandson of the Presbyterian minister of Wincanton, who was sflenced in the reign of King Charles II. His father, however, was an Episcopalian clergyman at Marlborough. When a chUd, he was adopted by an apothecary, his sponsor at baptism, and sent to Magdalen CoUege, Oxford, where, in 1689, he was elected a demy, at what is called the golden election, at the same time with Addison. He was then only fifteen years of age. In due course of years he succeeded to a feUowship, and became tutor of his college, in which latter capacity he acquitted himself with perfect credit. He is said to have been refused orders by Bishop Lloyd : but this must have been rather owing to his opinions than his incompetency ; and perhaps to the fact that Sacheverell characteristicaUy disputed a point in Latinity with the Bishop, notwithstanding the acknowledged scholarship of that prelate. Even when at Oxford he was famous for his violent opi nions, which he carried to his first preferment, a small living in Staffordshire, and afterwards to Lon don ; where, in 1705, he was appointed one of the * See Bogue and Bennett. He is invited to preach before the Lord Mayor. 385 Chaplains of S. Saviour's, Southwark, the patron age of which church is in the hands of the parish ioners. Allusion has already been made to the conduct of a Nonconformist Lord Mayor in the former reign, who carried the regalia to a meeting-house. The present Lord Mayor, Sir Samuel Garrard, was a man of entirely opposite views. He was a High Churchman, and no friend to Lord Godolphin's mi nistry ; and he invited Sacheverell to preach before the corporation of the city of London on the 5th of No vember, 1709. Sacheverell, whose abilities have been often spoken very slightingly of, at least possessed that great essential to a successful preacher, an ad mirable delivery. He had a good voice, and great confidence ; so that his audience could not help hearing and attending to what he said. Upon this occasion he took for his text the words, — " In perils among false brethren" (2 Cor. xi. 26). It was an mflammatory discourse, against whomsoever it may have been directed. There can be no question that SachevereU intended to cast reproach upon Non conformists — more especially upon Occasional Con formists — and also upon a set of men who were pro pagating infidelity in a very barefaced way. But he was thought to have aimed at many others besides these. An allusion to " the crafty insidiousness of wily Volpones," in the course of the sermon, was in terpreted as an attack upon Lord Godolphin and the Whigs in general. He classed the sectarians, who brought Charles I. to the block, in the same category with the Papists, who would, had they succeeded in their intentions, have blown up James I. and his Par liament. He declared the altars of the Church of c c 386 The Sermon and its effects, England and her sacraments to be prostituted to hypo crites, Deists, Socinians, and Atheists ; and this, not without the encouragement of her pretended friends and false brethren. He attacked those who denied the Queen's hereditary right to the throne, and who wished to make her a creature of their own; and in strong and vehement language he caUed upon his hearers to stand up in defence of the Church.* The sermon produced a great sensation, and was immediately the talk of the town, at a time when the words of a preacher were much more quoted and thought of than they are at the present day. The Lord Mayor expressed his great satisfaction at the sermon, and his hopes that he should see it in print. He proposed to the Court of Aldermen that their body should, in their corporate capacity, thank the Doctor for his discourse, and desire him to print it. This they declined to do ; but Sacheverell, no doubt encouraged by the approbation of Sir Samuel Gar rard, published it on his own responsibility, with an epistle dedicatory to him. The sale of the sermon for those days was prodigious. In a very short time 40,000 copies were disposed of. The Whigs were greatly exasperated at the con duct of SaehevereU, and it was even pretended that Queen Anne was very much displeased with the preacher, although he had so strongly defended the royal prerogative, in opposition to the senti ments which Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, the rector of S. Peter -le- Poor, had propounded from the pulpit, when also preaching before the Lord Mayor. Upon the occasion in question, that divine had taken for his text the first and second verses of the thirteenth * See the sermon, published in the Trial. Sacheverell is impeached. 387 chapter of S. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and in contradiction to the natural sense of the words had justified therefrom resistance to a wicked sovereign. This led to a controversy which was fresh in the recollection of the public, and the majority in Par liament resolved to proclaim their sentiments in reference to such subjects, by their different treat ment of these two divines, in as marked a manner as they possibly could.* On the 15th of November the Parliament as sembled, and the Queen in her speech, after con gratulating her subjects on the continued success of the war, aUuded to the dearth which was beginning to be felt in the country. Many complaints, she said, were arising amongst the poor, and she begged the Parliament to take this matter into their con sideration. This dearth has been assigned, amongst other causes, for the popularity of Sacheverell, for the Tories were for putting an end to the war, and the people have instinct enough to know that no war conduces to their immediate comfort and happiness. However, a crisis was at hand, The famous sermon ofthe High Churchman was beginning to work. In the early part of December, Mr. Dolben, son of the former Archbishop of York, preferred several charges against the Chaplain of S. Saviour's, on account of two sermons which he had preached, one at the late assizes at Derby, which he had dedicated to Mr. George Sacheverell, the High Sheriff, and the gentle men of the grand jury; the other, his late sermon preached at S. Paul's. Sacheverell was summoned to attend at the bar of the House the following day ; which he did, and acknowledged the authorship of * Tindal, vol. v. p. 221. 388 Mr. Hoadly recommended for Preferment. the obnoxious sermons. Sir Samuel Garrard, who was a member of the House, on being interrogated upon the subject, denied having authorized or even encouraged the publication of the sermon preached before him. Had he admitted that he had done so, he would have been expelled the House. Sacheverell asserted that he had, but the matter was suffered to drop. The Doctor was then commanded to withdraw, when it was immediately resolved to impeach him, in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, of high crimes and misdemeanours, at the bar of the House of Lords. This Mr. Dolben was requested to do. At the very same time these serious proceedings were begun against Sacheverell, resolutions were passed to the effect, " That the Reverend Mr. Ben jamin Hoadly, rector of St. Peter's Poor, London, for having often justified the principles on which her Majesty and the nation proceeded in the late happy revolution, had justly merited the favour and recom mendation of the House. That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she would be gra ciously pleased to bestow some dignity in the Church upon Mr. Hoadly, for his eminent services both to the Church and State." At the risk of being tedious, I shall give the sub stance of those articles on which Sacheverell was impeached, as they very forcibly illustrate the spirit of these times. The preamble dwells upon the bless ings resulting to the country from the Revolution. Sacheverell is then charged with preaching and print ing the two offensive sermons in question, with the malicious intent of setting the people against her Majesty's administration, aspersing the memory of King William, and traducing and condemning the The Articles of SachevereU's Impeachment. 389 late happy Revolution. This general accusation was drawn out and divided into four articles, for the con venience of those speakers who were to take a part in the impeachment. He was charged, in the first article, with declaring the means to which recourse had been had to bring about the Revolution odious, because, he affirmed, to impute resistance to that event was odious. The second article accused him of declaring the toleration granted to Dissenters to be unreasonable; of pronouncing Archbishop Grindal to have been a false son of the Church, and a per fidious prelate to the toleration of the Genevan discipline ; and of caUing upon the superior pastors to thunder out their anathemas against all those who disputed this position. The next article accused him of seditiously suggesting that the Church of England was in danger, notwithstanding a recent vote of both Houses of Parliament to the contrary ; and of stating, by way of reflecting upon that vote, that the House of Commons declared the person of Charles I. to be out of danger at the very time that his murderers were conspiring his death. The last article charges him with having affirmed the Queen's administration to be destructive of the Constitution, and that amongst those in authority, both in Church and State, there are false brethren ; and finally, that as a public incendiary, Henry Sacheverell foments factions and seditions amongst her Majesty's subjects, and wickedly perverts divers texts and passages of Holy Scripture. Such were the crimes for which the fiery High-Church preacher was im peached, and which were supported by the chief parliamentary talent of those days; but never did 390 SachevereU's Answer to them. impeachment turn out more contrary to the expecta tion of those who originated it than this. Although the answer of Sacheverell to these articles of impeachment was close and plausible, and in many particulars thoroughly reasonable, the spirit which pervaded it was deemed by the House of Com mons an aggravation of his offence. Their repli cation, together with the Doctor's answer, was accordr ingly carried to the House of Lords by Mr. Dolben, on February 3d, and the next day their Lordships sent a message to the Commons, stating that they had fixed on next Thursday, February 9, for the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. In the meantime, the usual con sequences of the factious persecution of an individual began to manifest themselves. The public feeling in favour of Dr. Sacheverell grew stronger and more violent every day. His friends found that delay acted in his favour. Those in Parliament, therefore, contrived to have the trial removed from the bar of the House of Lords to Westminster Hall. It took some weeks to prepare the hall for the solemnities of an impeachment, and in the meantime all other busi ness was suspended. The public could think and talk of nothing but of Dr. Sacheverell, and hardly a sermon was preached without some allusion to one who was denounced by one party as a traitor, and exalted into a confessor by the other. On the 27th February, 1709-10, the trial com menced. The Lords and Commons, and principal officers of State, came in procession to Westminster Hall. The Doctor himself, who lodged in the Temple, was escorted thither by vast numbers of the populace, who had heartily espoused his cause. The Queen The Trial. 391 attended every day of the trial, although in a private closet. When the several members of the Legis lature had taken their places, Sacheverell was called to the bar, where he kneeled down, his counsel, Sir Simon Harcourt, Mr. Phipps, Mr. Dee, and Dr. Henchman, standing near to him. The Sergeant-at- Arms then caUed upon the managers of the prose cution to come forward, and make good their charges against the Doctor; and the Chancellor afterwards admonished Sacheverell to conduct himself soberly during the trial, reminding him that their Lordships had shown him every indulgence of time and oppor tunity to enable him to prepare his defence. No great religious principle was involved in this trial, no doctrine was at stake, no vital function of the Church ; but it stirred from the grounds the moral and religious state of the nation. It excited as lively an interest, although not so solemn a one, as the trial of the seven bishops, and for this reason only merits a detaUed notice. The Articles of Impeachment, SachevereU's an swer to them, and the replication of the Commons, having been read by the clerk, the Attorney-General and Mr. Lechmere opened the prosecution by justify ing the Revolution, and insisting that the offensive sermons were directed against that happy event. They maintained that, as nobody in the kingdom was inclined to question the authority of the reign ing sovereign, the Doctor could only have been aiming at the principles of the Revolution when he so needlessly advocated the doctrines of non-resistance and passive obedience. The two dedications, and the sermon preached in St. Paul's, were then read by the Clerk, and this terminated the first day's proceedings. 392 The Trial. The first article was supported by the eloquence of Sir Joseph Jekyll, Eyre the Solicitor -General, Sir John Holland, Mr. Robert Walpole, and General Stanhope. Their great aim was to show that the preacher had endeavoured to hold up King William to reprobation, because it was notorious that the late King had employed resistance to deliver England from the dangers in which she was placed. Their arguments upon this head were much the same, but were most ably advanced by Sir Joseph Jekyll, whose learning and good sense were conspicuous. Colonel Stanhope made a very strong personal attack upon Sacheverell, whom he called an insignificant tool of a party ; and then, with a sinister glance at Atter bury, who, with other well-known clergymen, stood near the prisoner, he fell to criticising a Latin sermon recently preached before the Convocation by that divine. Those appointed to conduct the second article of the impeachment were Sir Peter King, Lord WUliam Powlet, and the Lord ChanceUor's brother, Mr. Cowper. Sacheverell certainly entertained no love for Dissenters, but it was the Occasional Con formists at whom he chiefly directed those of his remarks which these gentlemen were now called upon to criticise. Sir Peter King charged him with con demning all toleration, and aspersing the memory of King William and Queen Mary, in whose reign the Act, commonly called "the Toleration Act," was placed on the statute-book. It may be ques tioned whether his anger was not, after all, more inflamed against the latitudinarians, like Hoadly and the Bishop of Salisbury, than any one else. These he undoubtedly accounted false brethren. The best The Trial. 393 part of Sir Peter King's speech was his vindication of the character of Grindal. The Doctor, he en deavoured to show, had vilified this prelate by way of insinuating a recommendation that the Queen should act as Queen Elizabeth did in her day towards the Puritans, and inflict some pubhc mark of disap probation upon those whom he denominated false brethren. The addresses of Lord Powlet and Mr. Cowper are not deserving particular notice. The House of Commons, in the next article, which was supported by Mr. Thomson, Mr. Comp ton, Lord Coningsby, and Mr. Dolben, sought to show that SachevereU had made himself amenable to the censure passed in 1705 by that House, wherein it was declared, that whosoever should go about to suggest and insinuate that the Church was in danger under her Majesty's administration, was an enemy to the Queen, the Church, and the Kingdom. Mr. Thomson reminded their Lordships of the origin of this vote, which was the publication of that in flammatory pamphlet entitled The Memorial of the Church of England; and he declared that Sach evereU's sermon' was the phoenix which had sprung from the ashes of that book. He told them, if they did not vindicate their own resolutions by the punishment of such as impugned them, not alone the Church, but the State also, would indeed be very soon in danger. The others foUowed in the same strain, but with greater invective; and Mr. Dolben, the original mover of the impeachment, imitating Colonel Stanhope, attacked the friends of the Doctor who surrounded him, remarking in the conclusion of his speech that it was a hard circumstance amidst the general peace, which British valour was bringing 394 The Trial. about, " that we, only we, must be rendered incapable of the common blessing, betrayed at home to a per petual condition of bondage by such false brethren as are at your lordships' bar:" for which saUy he was, however, called to order by the Chancellor. Mr. Sergeant Parker maintained, with consider able ability, the various positions contained in the fourth article. He was supported in his argument by Mr. Secretary Boyle and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ; and we must allow that SachevereU's words can hardly be interpreted in any other sense than that of insinuating that some men of character and station were false brethren : but it required some ingenuity to show that those men of character and station, alluded to by the preacher, could be none other than members ofthe administration. It is worthy of note, that their proof of his quoting Scripture to uphold sedition, could not have been very satisfactory, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others would not have complained so bitterly as they did of the natural lamentation of Sacheverell in his answer to the articles over the hard lot of the ministers of the Gospel, if, when they cite the words of Scripture, in their general exhortations to piety, it shall be said they wrest Scripture to make personal reflections on people in authority. The mere expression of this sentiment was treated as a new offence against the dignity of the House of Commons. The various managers of the impeachment having delivered their arguments and opinions upon the several parts as signed them, Mr. Lechmere gave a brief summary of the charges which had been made, and as, he said, proved against the preacher; and thus terminated the argument of the House of Commons, which had Riots in the Metropolis. 395 lasted four days, during which time the feeling out of doors had grown more and more violent and de monstrative. SachevereU himself continued to be escorted every day from the Temple to Westminster Hall by the mob, which was enthusiastic in his favour. The wealthier admirers of the Doctor accompanied him in hackney-coaches, and helped to inflame the ardour of the crowd by pointed remarks upon the occasion. The people as they paraded the streets did nothing but shout " High Church and SachevereU," and those who would not join in the cry they insulted, or even knocked down. With a freedom which argued a tolerable acquaintance with the Queen's mind, they stopped her chair as she proceeded to the HaU, crying out, " God bless your Majesty and the Church : we hope your Majesty is for Dr. SachevereU." The managers of the prosecution were in bodUy fear, and not without reason, for the public enthusiasm soon transgressed all decorum, and broke out into acts of the utmost violence. The mob attacked Daniel Burgess' meeting-house in Carey Street, and having torn up pulpit and pews, carried them to the middle of Lincoln's Inn Fields, where they burnt them, amidst shouts of " High Church and SachevereU." They also vented their wrath upon Mr. Earle's meet ing-house in Long Acre; Mr. Taylor's, in Leather Lane ; and several others. The Bishop of Salisbury's house was threatened, as well as those of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Wharton, and Mr. Dolben. Indeed there is no saying to what extent the mischief might have gone, had not the trial been stopped, whilst means were taken to quiet the metropolis. The military had already been called out, and a procla- 396 The Counsel for Sacheverell. mation was now made for suppressing the riots, and several. persons taken into custody on the charge of high treason — a timely act of vigour, which secured tranquillity to the town during the continuance of the trial.* To resume the narrative of this trial: Sir Simon Harcourt opened the defence. He seemed resolved not to be behind the promoters of the impeachment in his declarations of attachment to the principles of the Revolution and the person of the reigning sove reign. He laboured to show that the doctrine of non-resistance was the doctrine of the Church of England, as opposed to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which maintained the legality of resisting sovereigns. He admitted that there might be exceptions to the general doctrine, but submitted to their Lordships . that it was not necessary for a clergyman to add these exceptions, whenever he enforced the broad principle in dispute. This, he said, was the only difference between Dr. Sacheve rell and the gentlemen of the House of Commons. He reminded the Lords that Sacheverell was brought up in a seminary where this doctrine was very ex plicitly taught. And in proof that the doctrine had not died out at the Revolution, he was ready to show that it had been maintained by Archbishop Tillotson ; the two Archbishops then alive ; by Stillingfleet, the late bishop of Worcester ; by the present Bishop of that see ; and by the Bishops of Rochester, Salis bury, Ely, Bath and Wells, Lincoln, Exeter, S. Asaph, Carlisle, and Chichester. He reasonably * See the Trial itself ; Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 416; Burnet's History of his Own Time, vol. v. p. 420 ; Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, vol. i. p. 267. The Counsel for Sacheverell. 397 asked, if these right reverend fathers had done so, were the same words coming out of their mouths to be received as oracles of truth, but, when coming from the Doctor only, be deemed fit for articles of impeachment? He concluded by referring to the context for the right understanding of those words, which were referred to in the first article of the im peachment, wherein the Doctor imphed, " that to impute resistance to the Revolution is to cast black and odious colours on his late Majesty and the said Revolution." He showed that Sacheverell was at tacking those who maintained that the only differ ence between the murder of King Charles and the expulsion of James II. was, that one was a wet martyrdom and the other a dry one. Mr. Dodd, and the other counsel for Sacheverell, adduced a very great deal of documentary evidence in defence of their client. After they had spoken, extracts from several recent writers were read by the clerk, as well as from the writings of Hooker and Sanderson. The Oxford decree, pubhshed in the London Gazette, July 26, 1683, was given at length ; as also the unfortunate letter of TUlot- son, addressed to Lord WUliam Russell, when under condemnation in Newgate, which brought him under the imputation of Hobbism, and was, as we have already seen, a source of much an noyance to him when raised to the see of Canter bury. Extracts from Beveridge's Private Thoughts were also read, and from Archbishop Sharp's Ser mons; from Burnet's, Spratt's, and many others. The declaration ofthe Prince of Orange was referred to, in order to show how entirely he disclaimed the idea of force and violence in delivering England from 398 The Counsel for Sacheverell. the arbitrary authority of James. The Doctor's at tack upon Archbishop Grindal was excused by a re ference to Queen Elizabeth's letter to Grindal, on the subject ofthe suppressing the proph esyings of those days, which promoted the development of Puritanism, and Grindal's own letter to the council. In that letter he apologises for not having complied with the wishes of Elizabeth, laments his unhappiness in being under the displeasure of the Queen, and intreats the council to do] their utmost to obtain her Majesty's pardon for him. The Toleration Act was read, in order to show in what sense the liberty con ceded to the Nonconformists by that act was only an indulgence. Dr. Henchman, in defending Sacheverell from the charge contained in the third article of the impeachment, quoted a number of most objection able passages from current publications, which, supposing them to be generally read, were certainly sufficient to endanger any church. The tracts of a certain Mr. Hickeringill, a foolish and violent writer, who took upon himself to ridicule the idea of the inspiration of the Bible ; Dr. Burnet's Archceologia Sacra, an account of The Growth of Deism, Mr. Whiston's Sermons and Essays, Blount's Age of Reason, and a review called the Observator, were referred to in support of the argument; together with many other publications. Mr. Phipps refuted, with much spirit, the arguments adduced in support of the fourth article of the impeachment ; and Dr. Henchman maintained that, according to a well- known rule in the Roman law, where the words of the preacher were of doubtful signification, he ought to be allowed to be his own interpreter. And by a His Speech in his own Defence. 399 another similar canon, inuendoes ought not to form the grounds of an accusation. The counsel for Sacheverell, in conclusion, quoted two proclamations issued by Queen Anne, one for restraining the pub lication of seditious and irreligious publications, the other for the encouragement of piety and virtue, to justify the sentiments of their client, and to show how little he could have intended to cast any reflec tion on the Queen or ministry.* Sir Simon Harcourt, having been returned to Parliament during the trial, could act no longer in apparent opposition to that body. Sacheverell, there fore, was put forward to make a speech in his own defence. As he possessed a comely enough person, and a powerful voice with a certain taking confidence of address, and as the Queen and aU her court ladies were present, it was not unwisely thought that, the words coming from the lips ofthe Doctor himself, would produce a favourable sensation. He began in an ironical strain of modesty : — " He said, that as it was owned that he was but the insigni ficant tool of a party, according to some ofthe managers of the trial, it was plain that they aimed, not only to punish him, but at the total overthrow of that party. He confessed that, if the charges had been proved, he should justly have been exposed to a severe sen-* tence ; but asked, whether they had not been sup ported by strained constructions, so that he had been made to speak what he never thought of. Why, he enquired, was so much time spent in proving- that which, to be true, should have been proved by simple quotations from his sermons? He affirmed that he never applied the doctrine of non-resistance * See the Trial, p. 246. 400 His Speech in his own Defence. to the case of the Revolution. He taught it only as he had learnt it from the articles of his religion. He declared he believed the Queen to be a most affectionate nursing-mother of the Church ; but still thought it was no crime, if religion itself was in danger, to believe the Church was so also. He referred to the blasphemous publications which deluged the public ; and added, that he never be lieved the ministers of religion were so vilified and ridiculed since the foundation of Christianity, as they were at that day. He reminded their Lord ships that he had taken the oath of allegiance, to her Majesty, and that of abjuration against the Pre tender ; and therefore, when he preached non-resist ance, it could only have been non-resistance to the reigning sovereign and the existing government. He repudiated the idea of his wishing to draw a parallel between the fraction of a parliament which sentenced Charles I. to the block, and that which had voted so recently the Church to be out of danger. He read a long extract from some of his published writings to show how genuine was his attachment to the reigning sovereign. He professed that he derived comfort from the reflection that, as he was to be tried, it was before the most illustrious tribunal in the world ; by men whose high position set them above acting upon interested motives in administer ing justice." He concluded, as he had done his first answer to the articles of impeachment exhibited against him, by lamenting the hard fate of those who were caUed and ordained to rebuke vice, and then imprisoned and ruined for so doing. " If this be our case," said he, " who, indeed, is sufficient for these things ? And how truly may we of the ministry, His Speech in his Own Defence. 401 above aU men living, apply to ourselves those words of the Apostle, — ' If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable ; ' but our comfort is, our hope in Christ is not only in this life. Justly might we be reproached, and deserve some of those reflections which, in these licentious times, are so plentifully poured upon us, were we not ready to practise the doctrines which we preach — of self-denial, taking up the cross, and patient sub mission to sufferings and afflictions. For my own part, it matters not what becomes of me, nor is my deliverance or ruin of any moment to the world : or if it be, ' I am ready not only to be bound, but to die,' could I by that do service to my Queen, my Church, or my Country ; ' neither count I my life dear, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus :' but may God so direct your Lordships, that through me a wound may not be given to the doc trines of the Scriptures and of the Church which Christ hath purchased with his own blood."* This speech, which was composed in a style of measured rhetoric, and read with consummate assur ance, produced a considerable sensation, particularly amongst those ladies of the Court who were not members of the Marlborough faction. The style of it was so different from that of the Doctor's published discourses, that it was immediately de clared to be the production of some other hand. It is now generally considered to have been a joint performance, to which Atterbury contributed the most, and to which Smallridge and Sir Simon * See the Trial, and the Atterbury Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 456. D D 402 The Legal Bearings ofthe Case. Harcourt lent their aid to polish and make persua sive. The managers in their reply endeavoured to destroy the general effect produced by the defence, by magnifying the contradictions which they found between SachevereU's sermons and his speech. The reply occupied considerable time, but it would be tedious to the reader to go into further particu lars regarding it. After this, the Earl of Nottingham had nearly quashed the whole proceedings on a legal technicality. He demanded if he might ask the judges a question. Thereupon the Lords were moved to adjourn to their own House, but they there determined that the question should be asked in Westminster Hall.* Accordingly upon their re turn to the Hall, the Earl of Nottingham proposed his question. He requested of their Lordships that the noble Lord on the woolsack might put this ques tion to the judges, — Whether, in indictments of this nature, the particular words supposed to be criminal must not be specified in the indictment? Upon the question being put, the Bench universally declared, that, by the laws of England, the words supposed to be criminal ought to be put in the indictment. It was, however, resolved by the House of Lords, that, according to the law and usage of Parliament, it was not necessary that the words should be inserted in the indictment ; and the case of Maynwaring, one of the royal chaplains in the reign of Charles I., who offended the Parliament by his sermons, was referred to as a precedent. The trial had now lasted from the 27th of Feb ruary to the 16th of March, when a long debate * See the Trial. A Debate in the House qf Lords. 403 ensued in the House of Lords as to the guilt or innocence of Sacheverell. The Peers discussed the articles of impeachment seriatim, but the chief debate was upon the first article, which touched upon the principles upon which the Revolution was carried through. In this the Earl of Wharton, who opened it, said there was a great difference between the Doctor's sermons and his speech. That his statement of the Revolution being effected without any resort to force, was irreconcilable with facts. " If," said he, " the Revolution was not lawful, then many of their Lordships had been guUty of the utmost violence and injustice, and the Queen had no title to the throne which she occupied." Lords Haversham and Ferrers spoke in reply to this. The latter thought the charges were not of a sufficiently clear and definite nature to justify an impeachment. If the Doctor had been guilty of indulging in some unguarded expressions he should have been tried in the courts in Westminster; but he doubted whether, even in the inferior courts, matter would have been found sufficient to convict him. Lord Scarborough reminded their Lordships that the Revolution involved questions above law. Talbot, bishop of Oxford, who spoke especially in reply to Lord Haversham, who had charged the Bishops with inconsistency, remarked, in the course of his speech, that Government was in general designed for the weU-being of the whole people, not for the pleasure and unreasonable fancies of one individual. That although a sovereign might be the father of a people, the nation, as a political child, had an inherent right of self-preservation, which was to be used when its liberties were 404 A Debate in the House of Lords. seriously imperilled. He allowed, that in all go vernments there was an absolute power lodged somewhere, but with us it was in the Legislature. " If," remarked he, " the King endeavoured to over ride the other parts of the Legislature, the Lords and Commons were justified in uniting to withstand such aggression. That SachevereU's preaching up non- resistance at that time of day was unseasonable ; and that he voted against him to deter others from pursuing a similar course." The Bishop of Bath and Wells took the opposite side. He admitted the necessity, in some cases, of employing resistance to a sovereign, but maintained that they were so few that it was safer for the clergy to preach the broad principle of non-resistance, without putting the exceptionable cases into the heads of those who were too ready to dispute the doctrine on any grounds. The Duke of Argyle said that the clergy had in aU ages betrayed the liberties of the people and preached up the power of the King, the better to govern him. The Earl of Anglesey replied to this, that there were occasions when political sermons were caUed for, as on the 30th of January, when they commemorated the martyrdom of King Charles I. The Duke of Leeds took the same side, and spoke at considerable length. He said that he had a great share in the Revolution, but that it had gone further than he had ever anticipated ; nay, than he believed the Prince of Orange himself had ever contemplated. Had it not succeeded, he re marked, it would have been rebellion, since he knew of none other right to a throne but hereditary right. The Bishop of Salisbury, in answer to this, made along and learned speech, which reads more like a A Debate in the House of Lords. 405 treatise upon resistance to sovereigns than anything else. He, of course, justified the Revolution, and the part he had taken in it as chaplain to the Prince of Orange. He referred to the Book of the Mac cabees, contained in the Apocrypha, and approved by our Articles (though not in the canon of Scripture), and applauded the revolt of the Jews against Antiochus under that family. Our homilies, he said, were only directed against wilful rebellion, and were composed by Bishop Jewel, who well understood the distinction between that and the resistance due to oppression. In support of his views he instanced Queen Elizabeth, who assisted the Scotch against their sovereign, and supported the Netherlands in their revolt against the Spanish throne. He endeavoured to press the unhappy Charles I. into his argument, by an allusion to the siege of Rochelle. He alluded to the doctrines of Maynwaring on non-resistance, condemned by the Parliament ; he admitted that much infidelity was prevailing, and characteristicaUy laid the blame of it to his own order ; and in a commentary upon the Revolution he pointed out how the assertors of non- resistance were the first to plead for resistance, and gave his hearty support to the movers of the impeach ment.* The Duke of Devonshire, the Lord Chan cellor, Lords Somers, Halifax, and Mohun, also spoke in favour of the impeachment. On the other hand the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Buckingham, the Earls of Nottingham and Rochester, the Lords Guernsey, North, Grey, and Carmarthen, with the Bishops of London, Rochester, and Llandaff, deemed * See his History of his Own Time, vol. v. p. 434. Speech at end of Trial ; Tindal, vol. v. p. 238. 406 A Debate in the House of Lords. the sermon extravagant and absurd, but did not think the preacher guilty of a misdemeanour, or that a person should be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours merely for uttering nonsense. After this long debate it was declared, by a majority of nineteen, that the Commons had made good their first article against Henry SachevereU.* Upon the following day the debate was resumed upon the second article, when Dr. Wake, the bishop of Lincoln, and Dr. Trimnell, the bishop of Norwich, spoke. Of all the Bishops, Wake appears to have spoken most to the actual matter of the Doctor's sermons. In answer to SachevereU's indignant sneer at what was in those days called " comprehension," he gave an interesting account of all that had been attempted in this matter by Sancroft and Tillotson. He took great pains to show that the persons against whom the Doctor aimed his shafts in his sermons were not really those whom in his defence he had asserted them to be. He concluded by expressing his belief that it was necessary to suppress such preaching, and his readiness to assent to whatever censure upon the Doctor their lordships might deem expedient. The Bishop of Norwich enforced the views of Dr. Wake. He condemned SachevereU for his rash judgment of Grindal, one who for so many years was the first bishop and ornament of the Church so long, and for his presumption in prescribing to his superiors how they were to use their authority. He defended the Toleration Act, and gave instances of Dissenters who had conformed to the Church in consequence of the passing of that measure. He alluded to Sacheve reU's recommendation that men of probity and cour- * See the Trial; and Tindal, vol. v. p. 239. Popular Feeling in SachevereU's Favour. 407 age should be preferred, and false brethren punished, and added, " although he who pleads so warmly for wholesome severities towards those who differ from him has the least title to compassion from their lord ships, yet he hoped he would find it, as far as their just concern for the public tranquillity would allow them to show it. He would not charge the Doctor with the disturbances his trial had occasioned, al though his private prayers* which he had issued seemed rather designed to represent to the world than to God that he was under persecution."! Those who would have spared SachevereU made no reply to these speeches, or on the remaining articles of the impeachment, but contented themselves with pro testing against them. It having been agreed that the Commons had made good the several charges con tained in the four articles, on the 20th of March their Lordships proceeded to Westminster Hall, and, on the question being put, voted the Doctor guilty of the high crimes and misdemeanours with which he was charged, by a majority of seventeen. There now ensued another debate on the nature of the sentence it was expedient to inflict upon him. Two circumstances acted in his favour. The popular fury ran so violently against the authors of the impeachment that many, with reason, apprehended a great disturbance of the public peace, should it be severe. The Queen, it was also reported, desired that it might be mUd. Some were accordingly for his being suspended for one year; others were for * The Bishop alluded to a tract published by Sacheverell, or his admirers, entitled, Prayers and Meditations on the day ofhis Trial. Price one penny. X See his speech at the end of Trial. 408 The Sentence. a suspension of six years. It was at last voted to suspend him for three years. An attempt to declare him incapable of preferment during that time was defeated by one vote. In accordance with this de cision, their Lordships attended the Hall on the 23d, when sentence was pronounced upon the Doctor. He was enjoined not to preach for the three years next ensuing; his two sermons were ordered to be burnt, on a specified day and hour, before the Royal Exchange, and in the presence of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, &c* It was also enjoined that the celebrated decree of 1683, passed in the Oxford Con vocation, should be burnt at the same time with SachevereU's sermons; or rather, a pamphlet con taining that decree, which had been recently printed, and called An Entire Confutation of Mr. Hoadly' s Book ofthe Original of Government, taken from the " London Gazette;" published by authority. Here, indeed, was a mild sentence after such a parade. We can scarcely wonder that it should have been a source of exultation to Sacheverell and his friends. Bonfires and illuminations took place not only in London but throughout the country. The brilliant victories gained during this reign by British valour scarcely elicited such marks of public rejoicing as did the result of this trial. Addresses were poured in from many parts of the kingdom replete with sentiments in accordance with the opinions of Sacheverell and his friends. Hopes were expressed that the Queen would dissolve the Parliament, and assurances given that her petitioners would return another which would uphold the authority of the Crown and the Church. * See the Trial itself ; Burnet's History of his Own Time, vol. v. p. 435 ; Tindal, vol. v. p. 249. General Effects ofthe Trial. 409 As SachevereU's private prayers on the day of the trial had been published, so now a tract, with great temerity, was put forth, entitled Dr. SachevereU's Prayers of Thanksgiving for his Great Deliverance out ofhis Troubles. During the trial a Mr. Palmer, who was reading prayers in the Queen's chapel, had the boldness to desire the prayers of the congrega tion for Dr. Henry Sacheverell, under persecution, for which he was very properly removed from his post.* But a much greater ovation than anything which had yet occurred was in store for the High-Church divine. Indeed, when one reviews this passage of history, one cannot but come to the conclusion that it was not altogether the Church that the public were so enthusiastic about, but that they believed the crisis would redound to the private comfort of one of the most popular sovereigns who ever sat upon the English throne. Soon after the trial the Queen prorogued the Parliament. In the course of the speech which she delivered upon that occasion, she lamented that so much of their time had been consumed on an un necessary matter, and expressed a wish that people would study to be quiet, and attend to their own concerns, instead of reviving questions of a high nature, only calculated to lead to disputes and animosities. She also reiterated her former ex pressions of attachment and devotion to the Church of England, and her wish to suppress immorality and impiety. A royal speech is of course framed by the advice and concurrence of the ministers of the day ; the main design of which is to make the best of the existing state of public affairs, and administer a * See Lathbury's Nonjurors, p. 237. 410 The Doctor is presented to a Living, fyc. gentle reproof to the opposition. The public were, however, quite alive to the real state of Anne's feelings, and both parties began to anticipate a change in the advisers ofthe* Crown. Burnet, there fore, being suffered to do so by the Queen, spoke to her with more than freedom upon the prospect of those changes,, of which the party to which he belonged were so apprehensive.* He told her that it was reported in the country that she designed to make way for the Pretender to succeed to the throne on her demise. He spoke of the Tory party as the Pretender's party, with a great deal more to the same effect. But Anne, who was well acquainted with Burnet's officious disposition and party bias, suffered the Bishop to unburden his mind without interrupting him ; and by the little she said only led him to deceive himself with the idea that he had prevailed, which he afterwards found he had not. But we must follow a little farther the career of Sacheverell. Having been presented by a Mr. Lloyd, of Shrews bury, to a small living in North Wales, he set out to take possession of it. His journey would be more aptly called a progress. Wherever he appeared he was received with public demonstrations and rejoicing, such as are commonly accorded to sovereigns.* The noblemen and gentlemen of the neighbourhoods through which he passed contended for the honour of entertaining the champion of the Church. Even the University of Oxford saw no impropriety in receiving with public festivities one who had yet been condemned by a majority of the Bishops' * Burnet, Own Time, vol. v. p. 441. t Burnet, vol. vi. p. 9; Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 471. His Reception in the Country. 411 bench. As he approached Bridgnorth the astonish ing number of 4000 horsemen and 3000 persons on foot, most of them decorated with white knots edged with gold, came out to meet one who was still under sentence for high crimes and misde meanours. The municipal functionaries feasted him, and yet no notice of these proceedings was taken by the Queen or the Government. Burnet has pointedly enough remarked, that " all this was like the prelude to a greater scene that was to be acted at Court," which truly enough it was. That trial by which the Whigs, or some of them, had hoped to crush the High-Church party by a blow, proved their own ruin. Parliament was dis solved in October, and the writs for a new one were immediately issued. Godolphin, Sunderland, and the rest of the Whig ministry, were dismissed, and were succeeded by Harley, Bolingbroke, and Har- court. The new Parliament was returned on the cry of " High Church and Sacheverell." The opening speech of the Queen, amongst many expressions quite in opposition to the policy of her late advisers, contained the words, " I am resolved to encourage and support the Church of England as by law estab lished." And the Commons, in their answer to this speech, said : " We return your Majesty our humble thanks for the firm assurances you have given, both by your words and actions, of supporting and en couraging the Church of England by law estab lished," and they announced at the same time their resolution to secure in all ways the doctrine, disci pline, and worship of that Church to the best of their power, whUst they respected the indulgence which the law aUowed their Protestant fellow-subjects. In fur- 412 The Tories come into Power. ther proof of the temper of this Parliament it may be mentioned that the Right Hon. William Bromley, member for the University of Oxford, was chosen Speaker — a man of admirable private character, and strongly attached to the High-Church party. The turn which public affairs had taken exercised an immediate influence upon Convocation, which assembled as usual in S. Paul's Cathedral, upon the same day as that upon which the Parliament met. Dr. Kennett, the dean of Peterborough, preached the Latin sermon, and was proposed, upon the Arch bishop's interest, for Prolocutor, in opposition to Atterbury, whom the High-Church party brought forward, and whose election was ultimately carried by a large majority. He was now Dean of Carlisle and on the road to those higher preferments, which, while they afforded him scope for the display of his peculiar abilities, proved unhappily his snare and ruin. Harley, who was greatly indebted to the clergy for the turn in affairs which had been so advan tageous to him, was really anxious to bring the Upper and Lower Houses into such harmony that they might proceed to business. He there fore induced the Queen to address a letter to the Archbishop, expressing her hopes that the deli berations of Convocation might be turned to consi dering in what manner the profane and irreligious sentiments which were abroad might most effectually be suppressed. On the 13th of December the Bishops agreed to an address to the Queen, but in which the Lower House, as usual, would not concur. The President then, as if to rebuke this contumacy, produced the Queen's letter, and adjourned them for The New Convocation. 413 two days ; but when they again met, as the clergy sthl refused to assent to it without additions and alterations, he prorogued them first to the 17th and afterwards to the 24th of January. They were very angry at this step, but were soon appeased, for Lord Dartmouth soon after brought them a license under the great seal, with ampler powers of acting than had been conceded to their body since the times of the Reformation. A common address was now speedily agreed upon, and immediately presented to the Queen. In this they thanked her Majesty for the license which she had graciously sent them by the hands of Lord Dartmouth. They averred their determination to consider whatever was necessary for the wellbeing of the Church and country, and their willingness to entertain whatever matters should be proposed by her Majesty for their delibe rations.* In answer to this address the Queen made a short reply. She soon after despatched another letter to the Archbishop, containing the heads of subjects which she deemed fit for the consideration of Convocation. It was with good reason supposed that Atterbury, who was in high favour with the new ministry, had suggested many of these subjects, but more particularly that he had a hand in some strange alterations now attempted to be made in the procedure of Convocation. In ordinary licenses from the Crown for Convocation to proceed to busi ness the Archbishop is always named the President, and in case of sickness he is empowered to nominate some of his suffragans his commissaries. But in the hcense brought by Lord Dartmouth this custom was * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 490. 414 The New Convocation. departed from. A quorum was nominated by the Queen, without one or more of whom Convocation could not act. This quorum consisted of the Arch bishop, the Bishop of London, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells. This was a manifest attempt to lessen the authority of the President, and circum stances somewhat aggravated its mischievous ten dency. The Archbishop and the Bishop of London were both laid up with the gout, and as the Bishop of Bath and Wells would not assume the invidious position of a president without the Archbishop's appointment he also feigned himself indisposed. The Queen's advisers therefore sent another license, adding to this quorum the names of the Bishops of Winchester, Bristol, and S. David's.* Of these the two last, Dr. Robinson and Dr. Bisse, had but very recently been appointed to the Bench— a circumstance which moved the indignation of Burnet, and those older prelates who owed their promotion to the former reign. On a complaint being made to the Queen respect ing these irregularities, which were ascertained to be contrary to all precedent, an answer was returned, that the Queen had no intention of interfering with the Archbishop's prerogative, but only that her wish was, that Convocation should not deliberate without the presence of some one of the quorum. In all probabUity, this injudicious step was adopted on the advice of Atterbury, to prevent Convocation falling under the direction of Burnet, or Wake, or TrimneU, Lord Sunderland's old tutor, or any others of the * Burnet, vol. vi. p. 47 ; Tindal, vol. v. p. 367 ; Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 490; Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 728. Atterbury's Unfair Representation. 415 Episcopal Bench who had distinguished themselves in the impeachment of Sacheverell. Amongst various matters recommended for the labours of the Convocation in the Queen's letter, was the drawing up of a representation on the state of religion in the country, with regard to the exces sive growth of infidelity, heresy, and profaneness. The Prolocutor contrived to have the composition of this paper left in his own hands. It is perfectly certain that both heresy and infidelity did much abound at this time, and that the great patrons of them, like Toland, Collins, and Whiston, did all they could to make converts to their opinions. But Atterbury in the document which he now produced exaggerated these evils greatly.* He exerted all his ingenuity to discover grievances, and there is an ob vious design in the writer of this representation, of magnifying those inevitable corruptions which pre vail, more or less, in every country, into signs of the times, which they could in fairness hardly be ac counted. The Lower House of Convocation, never theless, adopted this representation ; but the Bishops would not listen to it, and proposed another in its place. This, again, was rejected by the Lower House, and finally none at all was determined upon. A similar result attended the other recommenda tions of the Crown. Although the Convocation had been desired to treat of regulating the proceedings in excommunications ; of preparing forms for the visitation of prisoners, and the reception of converts from the Church of Rome ; of the establishment of rural deaneries where none existed, of making pro- * See the Atterbury Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 315; Burnet, Own Time, vol. vi. p. 52. 416 William Whiston. visions for transmitting more exact returns and accounts of glebes, and of the regulation of marriage licenses, in reality nothing was done in any of these things. A more interesting subject engaged the attention of the Upper House, which was, consider ing how far they could censure the writings and opinions of the eccentric Mr. Whiston. WiUiam Whiston was one of those characters whose integrity, bearing, and originality, serve only to increase the mortification we feel at his adoption of views which could not but throw him into dis grace and difficulties. He was the son of a Leices tershire clergyman, and educated at Clare Hall, Cambridge, of which he became fellow and tutor, and acquired a very considerable university reputa tion. Bishop Moore, who was a great patron of rising talent, made him his chaplain, and gave him the living of Lowestoft-cum-Kessingland, in Suffolk. Here he lived the life of an exemplary parish priest : he preached twice every Sunday ; he catechised the children, and did his best to improve the morals of his flock, until he was recalled to Cambridge, having been named by Newton his deputy in the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics, to which professorship he afterwards succeeded. He was also appointed to preach the Boyle Lectures, an honour conferred on none but the most eminent divines of that day. It was soon after this, whilst resident at Cambridge, that he began to disseminate Arian opinions. He published an Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions (from which he pretended to deduce his tenets), but which the Vice-Chancellor refused to license. And as, notwithstanding this, he persisted in propagating his views, he was summoned before William Whiston. 417 the Academical Court and censured. Upon his still continuing to persevere in the same course the University was compelled to adopt stringent mea sures, and Whiston was accordingly banished from it, on the sentence of the Vice-ChanceUor and eleven of the heads. The following year Whiston thought proper to publish an historical preface to his Essay, and dedi cate it to Convocation — a suicidal proceeding, from wliich his friend Bentley in vain endeavoured to dissuade him.' In instances where a clergyman broaches heretical opinions, the natural course of proceeding against him is for the Bishop of the diocese in which he lives to cite him into his Courts, but as the Convocation was in a manner chaUenged by Whiston's dedication, they determined to take the matter up. There could be no question as to the reprehensible nature of the ex-professor's sentiments ; but the Upper House was in long debate as to how they were to proceed against him, or whether they even had the power of pronouncing what was heresy. The Archbishop, who, as we have seen, was confined to his palace, addressed a letter to his brethren of the Upper House, in which he carefully considered the two points of censuring the book and its doctrines, and that of censuring the person. But still, being uncertain as to the legality of the various courses which he recommended, he advised the Bishops to lay the results of their own deliberations before the Queen, with some account of the offence for which Whiston was to be censured, and to desire her Majesty to be graciously pleased to take the opinion of her judges and law officers upon the right of Convocation to proceed in such E E 418 Whiston and Convocation. matters.* This was accordingly done. The Upper House addressed the Queen to that effect ; stating; that Whiston had contradicted two fundamental articles of the Nicene Creed, and impugned the whole of that commonly called the Creed of S. Athanasius. They added, that it was in their anxiety to obey her Majesty's injunctions for the suppression of blasphemy that they had entered upon this question. The Queen promised to attend to the request of the Archbishop and his brethren, and the judges and the law officers of the Crown were consulted on the question whether the Convocation had a right of censuring heretical publications. Eight of the judges, together with the Attorney and Solicitor- Generals, gave it as their opinion that a prosecution in Convocation, not excluding an appeal to her Majesty, was lawful, and that they knew no statutes of the realm which denied to Convocation a juris diction in matters of heresy ! The other four judges were of opinion that, since the passing the statute of 23 Henry VIII. against citing out of the diocese, the proper tribunals in matters of heresy were the Bishops' Courts. The Queen accordingly sent a message to the Archbishop, communicating the decision of the judicial bench, and commanding the Convocation to employ the powers which be longed to them for repressing the impious attempts which were made for the subversion of the Christian faith. In obedience to these directions of the Crown, the Upper House of Convocation proceeded to select certain passages from Whiston's Historical Preface- * Burnet, Own Time, vol. vi. p. 50 ; Lathbury's Hist, of Con vocation,, p. 412; Tindal, vol. v. p. 369; Monk's Bentley,, p. 290.: ' Whiston and Convocation. 419 to Primitive Christianity, and to pass upon them a strong but well-merited censure. One of these passages wUl be sufficient to satisfy the reader how just a reason the Convocation had for adopting the course which that body had done. Whiston says in the beginning of the Historical Preface, " And now it was, and indeed not till now, that I had all my evidence at once before me, and was able to affirm and assuredly pronounce that the Arian doctrine was in these points (viz. the Trinity and Incarnation) most certainly the original doctrine of Christ Him self, of His holy Apostles, and of the most primitive Christians."* The whole work is devoted to proving these positions, but such is human infatuation, that when he knew that Convocation was engaged in examining his opinions, he sent a letter to the Pro locutor by the hands of Mr. Evelyn, a Unitarian preacher, begging to be heard before his doctrines were censured. f The judgment of the Convocation was imme diately transmitted by the President to the Queen for her approval, but Anne, for some reason, appears to have desired that the matter should not be pushed to extremity. No immediate answer was returned to the Archbishop's communication, and when spoken to upon the subject she declared it had been mislaid. And although another copy of the judg ment was sent to her, the next session of the Con vocation was suffered to arrive without any further notice being taken of Whiston's offence. J * Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. pp. 768, 769. f Atterbury Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 311; Swift's Four last Years of the Reign of Queen Anne, p. 14. X Burnet, Own Time, vol. vi. p. 1-1-3. - 420 CHAPTER XIV. (1712-14.) Favourable disposition of the present Parliament toward the Church — Tactics of the Whigs — The Earl of Nottingham procures the passing of a bill against Occasional Conformity — The Scotch Episcopalians — The Convocation and the Baptismal Controversy — The Death of Bishop Ken — The attempt to introduce Episcopacy into Prussia renewed — The Peace of Utrecht — Bishop Fleetwood's Preface burnt — Thanksgiving for the Peace — Death of Queen Anne. The existing House of Commons having been re turned on the popular outcry of the day, was in a manner pledged to afford some token of its zeal for the national religion, and a very good opportunity for its so doing occurred towards the close of the session. The inhabitants of Greenwich applied to the House of Commons for assistance to enable them to rebuild their parish church ; and this brought be fore the House the general subject of church accom modation in the metropolis. The London churches at this time, although numerous, were, with few ex ceptions, exceedingly small, and rather resembled village churches than such as were adapted to the growing population of a city like London ; and it was at this time remarked that, in the suburbs ofthe town, there were 200,000 people more than could possibly find accommodation in the existing churches. Vote for the Building of New Churches. 421 The Parliament immediately appointed a com mittee to inquire into this subject ; and they were assisted by the co-operation of Convocation. The Lower House sent a message to the Speaker, thank ing the Parliament for the interest that body had displayed in the welfare of the Church, and tender ing the assistance of the clergy in procuring proper information upon the subject of spiritual destitution in populous cities. The Queen also sent a message to the Parliament, recommending the building of several new churches in London. Under these cir cumstances, that body fulfilled the expectation of its friends by voting the erection of fifty new churches in Westminster and London. It was proposed, as far as the scheme could be carried out, to assign a church to every 4750 souls. The clergy, who had been much disposed to regard the impeachment of Sacheverell as an attack upon the whole order, were highly gratified by the piety and hberahty of the vote of the House of Commons. And this satisfac tion was increased amongst the more ambitious mem bers of their body, when Anne appointed Dr. John Robinson, the Bishop of Bristol, to succeed the Duke of Newcastle as Lord Privy Seal. The character of this appointment is so opposed to modern ideas upon the subject of placing Churchmen in secular offices, that it may be as well to remind the reader that Dr. Robinson, from an early time, had been connected with diplomatic life. From being chaplain to the ambassador in Sweden, he became resident when his superior was absent in England, and finally suc ceeded to the place of ambassador himself. This happened in the reign of Charles n. ; and no doubt the Tory ministry raised him to the high position 422 The Earl of Nottingham. of Lord Privy Seal, with the design of employing him in the conferences about to be opened at Utrecht for the promotion of a general peace.* One nobleman there was, who had hoped to suc ceed the Duke of Newcastle, and was much mortified by the elevation of the Bishop of Bristol. This was the Earl of Nottingham. He was looked upon as one of the principal leaders of the Church party, and bore the character of a religious man, who took an especial interest and an active part in all matters affecting the Church. His annoyance, therefore^ was deemed of some political importance, and the Marlborough party immediately avahed themselves of Nottingham's disappointment to draw him over to their side. But as the Tory ministry were the acknowledged champions of the Church, it was thought that Nottingham would greatly compro mise his principles if he should join the Whigs. In one respect his sentiments were in accordance with theirs. He was strongly opposed to the peace now in contemplation. He was ready to support the Marlborough faction in their insatiable love of war ; but before he could, with common decency, abandon his former friends, he required that they should make some change in their proceedings, in deference to his known prejudices in favour of the Church, This they did ; and the Earl undertook to revive the old measure against Occasional Conformity, on the understanding that his new friends would abandon their former opposition to this question, and afford him their support in the House of Lords. The ex-! isting House of Commons could not do otherwise than * Burnet, Own Time, vol. vi. p. 64 ; Swift's Four last Years of the Reign of -Queen Anne, p. 15. ", A Bill against Occasional Conformity passed. 423 readily entertain a measure of this kind. Notting ham and his party, therefore, resolved to work the two things together — their opposition to the peace", and the bill against Occasional Conformity. In this manner they hoped entirely to overthrow, the Tory party, and defeat the pacific resolutions of the Queen and fier advisers. In consequence of these plans, the Earl of Not tingham introduced his measure against Occasional Conformity, which passed the House of Lords without opposition. By this bUl it was enacted, that all per sons in places of trust and profit, and all the com mon councilmen in corporations, who should be at any rehgious meeting otherwise than where divine service according to the Church of England was celebrated, should, upon conviction, forfeit their places ; at the same time, the principles of the Tole ration Act were repeated and confirmed. Although the sinister motives which led to the introduction of this biU could not be disguised from the friends of the ministry, it was too much in accordance with the principles ofthe majority in the House of Commons to meet with any serious opposition in that assem bly. The time had, indeed, arrived, when to pass such a bill was an act of illiberality, to be depre cated by aU wise statesmen ; but such was the di lemma in which the politicians of the day were in volved, that none could safely oppose it who were eager for office and power, and for this reason prin cipally it received the sanction of the legislature.* The Dissenters, in their anxiety, appealed to the Lord Treasurer, who had himself, in former years, fre- * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 529; Burnet, vol. vii p. 77 ; Swift's Four last Years ofthe Reign of Queen Anne. 424 Edmund Calamy's Remarks. quented a Presbyterian place of worship ; but he could do nothing for them, without endangering the stabihty of his party. I shall here quote the words of Ed mund Calamy upon this occasion, as representing the views of the Nonconformists : — " Thus, after fifty years' exclusion from the pub lic churches by the Act of Uniformity, during the one half of which they were exposed to great rigours and severities, though, during the other half, they have had more liberty, are poor Dissenters excluded the service of the State. So far are we from any hopes of a coalition, which has been so often talked of, that nothing wUl do but an entire submission. Consciences truly scrupulous may, indeed, still have their hberty ; but they that would be capable of any places of profit or trust must quit the meetings after March 25th, 1712 ; and they that, in all times and changes, adhered to the true interests of their country, must be publicly branded. Perhaps the time may come, when persons may have other thoughts of this matter than while in the heat of action." * It is well known that the Duke of Marlborough and the war-party were entirely foiled in their de signs. By the creation of a batch of twelve peers, which gave Lord Oxford a majority in the House of Lords, the Tories maintained their ground, and the Queen was enabled when she next met the Parlia ment to announce, that the preliminaries of a peace had been opened at Utrecht. A measure of relief to our Episcopalian brethren in Scotland became law at this time ; but not with out the bitter opposition ofthe Presbyterian Esta- * Calamy's Nonconformists' Memorial, vol. i. p. 725. The Scotch Episcopalians. 425 blished Church. Sir David Dalrymple remarked upon it, — " That since he saw the House was re solved to make no alterations in the bill, he desired the title of it might be, ' A BUI for establishing Jacobitism and Immorality in Scotland.' " Others, whilst granting a legal toleration to Scotch Episco palians, were for reducing them to the same status as Dissenters in England, by introducing a clause in the biU to the effect that Government officials fre quenting Episcopalian places of worship should thereby forfeit their offices ; but this proposition was defeated by a mere review of the absurd con sequences which would have ensued, had it been adopted. The bill, therefore, granting a full legal toleration to the Scotch Episcopalians, which they had not yet enjoyed, passed in its original form.* At the next meeting of the Convocation, the hos tility which had so long prevailed between the two Houses was again exhibited. Atterbury recurred to his old position, that the forms of Convocation and those of the Parliament were in many respects iden tical. Although it was certain that the Schedule of Prorogation did not annul the Queen's license, the Prolocutor pertinaciously maintained that it did. He insisted that it was the same in Convocation as in Parhament, where a prorogation puts a stop to all business stUl under discussion. The Bishops main tained the contrary to this, and, according to former precedent, proceeded with matters which were under discussion at the termination of their last session. Whiston's affair was alluded to, but only to be dropped, since, as has already been stated, the Queen * Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, pp. 542, 543 ; Dean Swift's Four last Years ofthe Reign of Queen Anne, p. 465. 426 The Baptismal Controversy. had chosen to forget or lose every paper sent to her upon this subject. In the meantime, " Atterbury contrived to elicit an opinion from the Attorneys General, in accordance with his views as to the effect of a prorogation, which was an excuse for the clergy to proceed upon the consideration of new matters.* A sermon by Dr. Thomas Brett, on the Remission of Sins according to the Scriptures and the doctrine ofthe Church of England, afforded them matter for some debate, which proved the precursor of a much more important discussion on the validity of lay-bap tism. This controversy, for such it became, may be said to have been bequeathed them by the famous Henry Dodwell, who had recently expired at an advanced age. This learned writer, who was of an ascetic and somewhat dreamy disposition, had in 1706 published a discourse, in which he professes to prove from the Scriptures that the soul is naturally mortal, but immortalised actually by the pleasure of God to punishment or to reward by its union with the Divine baptismal Spirit, which could alone be administered by episcopally ordained clergy. There were many peculiarities in Dodwell's views not included in these propositions, which latter several of the clergy not unnaturally embraced, But the simple question which now occupied the attention of both Houses of Convocation was how far, under any circum stances, baptism administered by one not in orders was to be accounted valid. And this had been brought to their attention by the recent writings of a Mr. Roger Laurence even more than by Dodwell's less tangible theories. Laurence, who, at this time was a layman, had been bred amongst the Dissenters, * See his Works. The Baptismal Controversy. 427 and questioning the validity of the baptism which he had received at their hands, he was re-baptised by an episcopally ordained clergyman, and defended this step by the publication of his Lay. Baptism Invalid. By this means he became involved with the most learned men of the age in a" controversy which excited much interest. The High-Church party took the views, which is not a singular instance of the kind, most opposed to the teaching and practice of the Church of Rome, for they pronounced against the validity of all lay- baptism. Waterland embraced this side at the same time, confessing that they had primitive teaching and the practice of their own Church against them. There was something of party spirit in this, and something of honest apprehension of the irregulari ties which would ensue were Convocation formally to pronounce in favour of the validity of such bap tism. From an expression made use of by Atter bury, in a letter to his patron, Bishop Trelawney, we gain a pretty clear insight into the party spirit that was at work. Speaking of a proposed decla ration of the Bishops on the subject he says, "It wiU be looked upon by wise and good men as a stroke levelled at the present Constitution of the Church of England, and as a cordial intended to keep up the Dissenters' spirits under their late mortifications."* On the other hand, many of more profound learning than Atterbury viewed this question very differently* The learned Joseph Bingham entered the arena with A Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, and dedi cated it to Trelawney, who was also his patron. In this work he shows, as Wall had done before * See Atterbury Correspondence. , 428 The Baptismal Controversy. him in his History of Infant Baptism, that the Pri mitive Church fully admitted the validity of lay- baptism when administered in cases of pressing necessity. If those who had been baptised by here tics sought to enter the Catholic Church, she did not require a new baptism, but only an imposition of hands to confer remission of sins. The baptism of such as denied the Trinity she did not allow, because the proper form was essential in every baptism.* It appears that the practice of our own Church, when in communion with that of Rome, allowed of a much wider hcense in this matter than she has done sub sequently. Her practice since the Reformation, although not denying the validity of lay-baptism, has been to discourage it, her most eminent divines having been guided by the maxim, " Multa fieri non debent quce tamen facta valent." The sense of the Lower House set so strongly against every description of lay-baptism, that the Bishops thought proper to interfere. They feared that multitudes of people, if the opinion of the Lower House prevailed, would be thrown into the utmost anxiety about their baptism, and they therefore drew up a declaration — 1st, against the irregularity of all baptisms administered by persons not in orders ; 2d, declaring according to the practice of the primitive Church, and the constant usage of the Church of England, no baptism in or with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought to be reiterated. At a meeting at Lambeth of the Bishops, at which the Archbishop of York attended, it was unanimously * See Wall's History of Infant Baptism, p. 335; Bingham, vol. ii. p. 570, fol. Death of Bishop Ken. 429 agreed that some statement should be made to quiet people's consciences, and therefore it was proposed that this should be given to the world as the judg ment of the Bishops of England ; but when Tenison sent the declaration to Sharp, the latter declined to accede to it. He dreaded, it seems, the effect of a too open declaration in favour of the validity of lay- baptism. In relating the course of more public events, I have passed over the death of Bishop Ken. This holy and excellent man expired at Longleat, the 19th of March, 1711, in the seventy -fifth year of his age. A circumstance attending this event was cha racteristic of the serious and devout nature of his mind. For many years he had been in the habit of carrying with him, wherever he went, his shroud, that he might be perpetuaUy reminded of his mor tality and of the uncertainty of hfe. He was on a visit in Dorsetshire, at his friend Mrs. Thynne's house, when he was seized with the sickness which was to prove his last. By his earnest desire he was conveyed to Longleat, where, as soon as he had arrived, perceiving that his end was at hand, he proceeded to clothe himself in his shroud, intimating a wish that his body might not be stripped.* This history contains so many records of Ken's hfe that it is needless to dweU further upon it. His blameless conduct, his holy conversation, his singlemindedness, his unfaltering devotion, well entitle him to be re garded as an Israehte in whom was no guile. He was fond of writing Church poetry in imitation of Gregory Nazianzen ; but only two of his poetical * Life of Ken, by a Layman, p. 506; Prose Works, collected by Bound, 1838. 430 Overtures of the Prussian Church received. productions have retained any place in our literature. These are the well-known Morning and Evening Hymns. His most esteemed prose writings are those entitled The Practice of Divine Love, being an Expo sition of the Church Catechism; and his Manual of Prayers for the Winchester Scholars. As a preacher Ken was remarkably popular, so much so that, when in London, if it was known that he was going to preach at any particular church, vast crowds flocked to hear him, and well-qualified judges have left on record the high esteem in which they held his fervid and simple eloquence. He lies buried in Frome churchyard, where a unique monument, erected by Lord Weymouth, covers his grave. Another subject, of which some notice might have been earlier given, was the renewal of the corre spondence between the Prussian and English divines upon the feasibility of introducing the English Liturgy into Prussia. As Tenison had failed to interest him self in the matter, the overtures which proceeded from Prussia were addressed to the Archbishop of York. Sharp was, from every inclination of his mind, much better fitted to consider these proposals than his brother Archbishop. He was, with respect to the discipline and Liturgy of the Church of Eng land, quite an optimist, and he enjoyed a much readier access to Queen Anne than Tenison did. Moreover, it was thought that the present ministry would not be indisposed to interest themselves in a mattex' taken up by High Churchmen, and certainly cre ditable to the reputation of the Church of England. As the King of Prussia was little pleased at the reception which his former overtures to the Arch bishop of Canterbury had met with, the correspond- Dr. Jablonski. 431 ence with Sharp was undertaken without his knowledge. It began with Dr. Jablonski, the first chaplain to the King of Prussia, who transmitted a letter, by the hands of some English clergyman, to the Archbishop of York, in which he sohcited the Archbishop to correspond with him upon the reformation of the Prussian Church. Sharp readily and eagerly complied with Dr. Jablonski's request. He spoke in private to the Queen about it. He was instrumental in having it placed amongst matters recommended by the Crown for the consideration of Convocation, and he even induced Lord Bolingbroke to address a letter to Lord Raby, the English minister at the Court of Prussia, to treat with Baron Prnitz, the Minister of Religion in that country, upon the subject, and to assure him of the sympathy and readiness of the Queen to do anything in her power to promote a closer union between the Churches of England and Prussia.* The Prussian minister in England, M. Bunt, also addressed an excellent letter to his master upon this subject, in which he weU depicted the influence of party spirit in England, even in considering a matter of this kind ; a passage from which I cannot refrain from inserting. After highly eulogising the English Church, he goes on : " A third consideration is, that the Church of Eng land would look upon a conformity of this nature as a great advantage to herself; and that the clergy, united to the Court and Tories, are a very con siderable and powerful body. On the other side, the Whigs, the Presbyterians, and the Independents, and all the other Nonconformists, would look upon this conformity with great concern, as weakening and * Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. p. 424. 432 Leibnitz interests himself in the scheme. disarming their party; and the Electoral House of Brunswick, which depends more upon the latter than the former, may fear lest this conformity should have other consequences. But though the Whigs have more money, because they are more concerned in trade, and though their chiefs may have the repu tation at present of a superior genius, yet the other have more zeal and constant superiority and interest."* We see from these observations the power which, in aU probability, was at work to make Tenison so slow in entertaining the original scheme. But the appre hension that it would prove displeasing to the House of Brunswick was much more in idea than reality. It soon appeared to all those who took an interest in this design, that it was more likely to be brought to a successful issue through means of that court than anyhow else. The Princess Sophia, with her accomplished minister, the celebrated Leibnitz, maintained a con stant correspondence, in reality, with members of all parties and opinions in England, although the Whigs were most in favour. It was not difficult, therefore, to open a communication with Hanover, upon the introduction of the English Liturgy into that court, as preliminary to its further extension into Prussia. Leibnitz was interested in the scheme ; and after communicating with his mistress about it he was able to report to his English correspondents, that if her Majesty would aUow a pension for a chap lain of the Church of England to attend the Princess Sophia at Hanover, it would be very acceptable there. The introduction of the English Liturgy at the court of Hanover would unquestionably have * See original letter, Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. p. 429. The Peace of Utrecht. 433 promoted the accomplishment of the more important project ; but although the leading statesmen at the three courts were favourably disposed to the under taking, it was destined to fail. The more engross ing matters under discussion at Utrecht absorbed the interest of all politicians ; the King of Prussia grew cooler in the original design, and died before the correspondence was closed. The only practical result which appears to have followed from aU that was done in this affair, was the establishment by the King of a fund for the education of students in divinity in the English universities, " legibus funda- tionis conscriptis."* Had the King's original inten tions and desires been accomphshed, with the grow ing importance of Prussia it is not too much to say, that it might have greatly contributed to the draw ing together of Christian communities throughout the Continent. The reader's attention is now again recalled to matters of a political nature. Whatever may have been the demerits of the Peace of Utrecht, the reader will be inchned to ad mit that it was time a peace of some kind was con cluded, when he is reminded that, during the wars of Marlborough, the national debt had increased from 16,000,000/. to 52,000,000/., with a heavy in- terest.f It does not fall to my province to dwell upon all the articles of the Treaty of Peace con cluded at Utrecht. Two only require any notice in these pages. That which concerned the pre servation ofthe Crown in the Protestant line, and that connected with the Slave-trade, which is evi dence how little our ancestors, at that time, con- * Life of Archbishop Sharp, vol. i. p. 448. f Lord Mahon's History, vol. i. p. 26. E P 434 Opposition to the Peace. templated an abolition of the nefarious traffic in human beings. As to the first of these, it was sti-- pulated, in the strongest terms, that France should acknowledge the settlement of the English Crown in the Protestant line ; * and, as a further guarantee of sincerity, cause the Pretender to be immediately removed from her dominions. The other secured to England what was called the " Assiento," or con tract for furnishing the Spanish West Indies with negroes, on the same terms as it was enjoyed by France. It may be added, that the possessions which were restored or ceded to the British Crown under this Treaty were Gibraltar and Minorca, Hudson's Bay, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia. The publication of the terms on which a general peace had been agreed to, was the signal for the most violent complaints and denunciations on the part of the Duke of Marlborough and the Whigs. Numerous pamphlets were published upon the sub ject, declaring that the Tories were incompetent to govern the nation. The one which attracted the most notice emanated from the pen of Dr. Fleet wood, the bishop of S. Asaph, an eminent preacher in his day, and not unknown by his writings to the antiquary. His inflammatory publication, which provoked the anger of the House of Commons, ap peared in the form of a preface to four sermons, which the author had preached upon important oc casions. Fleetwood was a vigorous writer, as well as a very popular preacher. He cordially sympa thised with the principles of the Revolution, and believed the terms of the peace to be dishonourable * Swift's Four last Years ofthe Reign of Queen Anne, vol. xviii. p, 212. Bishop Fleetwood. 435 to England. The sermons were delivered upon the deaths of Queen Mary, the Duke of Gloucester, King WUliam, and the accession of Anne ; and the preface was intended to enforce the principles enun ciated in these, as well as to rebuke what he re garded as the recent departure from them. The Spectator, by way of opposition to a Jacobite peri odical, called The Postboy, published Fleetwood's preface at length, and thus very greatly promoted its circulation,* and, no doubt, the animosity also, of the Tories. The Bishop gave, as his reason for publishing the sermons, the fact " that, at the present time, it had become so unfashionable a thing to speak honourably of the two most excellent princes, who had been so instrumental in delivering the country from arbitrary power;" and he concluded with a passage, well calculated to move the anger of the reigning authorities. "Never," he wrote, " did seven such years pass over the head of an English monarch, nor cover it with so much honour. The crown and sceptre seemed to be the Queen's least ornaments. These other princes wore in common with her ; and her great personal virtues were the same before and since. But such was the fame of the administration of her affairs at home ; such was the reputation of her wisdom and felicity in choosing ministers ; and such was then esteemed their faithfulness and zeal, their diligence and great abUities in executing her commands ; to such a height of mUitary glory did her great general and her armies carry the British name abroad ; such was the harmony and concord betwixt her and her allies ; and such was the bless- * Tindal, vol. v. p. 535; Spectator, No. 384. 436 Bishop Fleetwood. ing of God upon all her counsels and undertakings, that I am as sure as history can make me, no prince of ours was ever yet so prosperous and successful, so loved, esteemed, and honoured by their subjects and their friends, nor near so formidable to their ene mies. We were, as all the world imagine, then just entered on the ways that promised to lead to such a peace, as would have answered all the prayers of our religious Queen, the care and vigilance of a most able ministry, the payments of a willing- and obedient people, as well as all the glorious toils and hazards of the soldiery; when God, for our sins, permitted the spirit of discord to go forth, and by troubling sore the camp, the city, and the country, (and oh, that it had altogether spared the places sacred to His worship!) to spoil for a time this beau tiful and pleasing prospect ; and give, in its stead, I know not what our enemies will tell the rest with pleasure."* The strain of this Preface reminds one of those sermons to which allusion is evidently made in the extract above. In the House of Commons, Mr. Hungerford made a motion upon it, and Mr. Manby, and those lawyers who had conducted the impeach ment of Sacheverell, Sir Peter King, Sir Joseph Jekyll, and Mr. Lechmere, stood up in its defence. The Preface, however, was condemned, by a vote of 119 to 54, to be committed to the flames by the hands of the common hangman, being declared " malicious and factious, highly reflecting upon the present admi nistration of pubhc affairs under her Majesty, and tending to create discord and dissatisfaction amongst her subjects." The Bishop was very little discon- * See the Spectator, No. 384. Sacheverell presented to the living ofS. Andrews. 437 certed by the judgment passed on his book. On the contrary, he was inclined to congratulate himself upon being called to suffer in the same cause with Lord Godolphin and the Duke of Marlborough. In a letter, which Fleetwood addressed to Burnet on this occasion, he shows himself to have been a man of warm feelings, but with that tendency to exagge ration so conspicuous in violent partisans. The ses sion of Parliament in which this censure was passed was soon after closed. The nation still continued busy in discussing the merits of the Peace, the Treaty of which was formaUy signed, by all but the Imperial Plenipotentiaries, April 11, 1713, and a day appointed for a General Thanksgiving to Almighty God.* The term of SachevereU's suspension expired much about this time, when there were great re joicings in London. The crowd to hear the Doctor's first sermon after his return at S. Saviour's, was immense ; and the ministry, instigated by Swift, who was himself promoted about this time to the deanery of S. Patrick, presented Sacheverell to the living of S. Andrew's, Holborn, notwithstanding Bolingbroke called him a busy, meddling, factious feUow, who had set the kingdom in a flame, f It is said that S. John's Chapel, Bedford Row, was erected through the instrumentality of a section of SachevereU's parishioners, who were dissatisfied with his teaching. If this were the case, it forms a curious link in the chain of ecclesiastical events, guiding us to the source, perhaps, of what has since become the comparatively modern school of the Evangelicals — a * Tindal, vol. iv. p. 540. f See Scott's Life of Swift. 438 Death of the Archbishop of York. cant name, it may be added, as offensive to some people's ears as that of High Church and Low Church. In the early part of this year several eminent divines closed their careers. And first of these must be mentioned the upright and conscientious Arch bishop of York, Dr. Sharp. He died at Bath on the 2d of February, 1713-14, in the sixty-ninth year of his age.* Sharp's rise in early life was due to the patron age of Lord Chancellor Nottingham ; but his abilities and character fully justified the favour ofhis patron. He was esteemed a very excellent preacher ; and his sermons, without possessing the correctness and closeness of reasoning for which Tillotson's are con spicuous, contain some popular elements which are wanting in those of his more eminent contemporary. Sharp, when elevated to the see of York, discharged his episcopal functions with conscientious diligence. As the ecclesiastical movements which sprang up in the metropolis were wont to be reflected in the provinces, Sharp lent to them his guiding hand. In cases of conscience he was ready of access ; and several of his letters on these subjects are still pre7 served. He was in great favour with Queen Anne, and much consulted by her. His life was blameless and devout.f A very different member of the Bench had also lately died, viz. on May 30th, 1713. This was the versatile Thomas Sprat, bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster. His talents as a writer, both in prose and verse, and his worldly and indolent dis position, give him a higher place amongst wits and * See Life, p. 96. f Life of Sharp. General Thanksgiving for the Peace. 439 writers than morahsts or theologians. He was born in 1635, and raised to the see of Rochester 1684, The Queen, although with considerable reluctance, was prevailed upon to promote to the various pre ferments vacated by the death of Sprat, Atterbury, a man in many respects resembling his predecessor, although more guarded in his carriage than Sprat, and more ambitious.* He was consecrated Bishop of Rochester at Lambeth, July 5th, 1713 ; and two days afterwards, being the day of the General Thanks giving for the Peace, he took his place in the House of Lords. The declining health of Queen Anne obliged her to excuse herself from attending Divine Service in state, when the Court and Parliament went to S. Paul's ; upon which occasion the ceremony is de scribed as having been very splendid. The cele brated composer, Handel, then in the zenith of his reputation, contributed a special Te Deum for the day ; and Dr. Hooper, the bishop of Bath and WeUs, preached the sermon. The day was also memorable for an event of a very different kind ; for on this day expired Dr. Compton, the bishop of London, in the eighty-first year of his age. The long career of this prelate is already before the reader. When he was first made Bishop of London, he was very dili gent in his efforts to conciliate all parties in his dio cese, Conformists and Nonconformists, for he seve ral times met the latter in Conference. His vigi lance, integrity, and natural generosity, contributed much to his popularity at the commencement of his * Boyer's Annual List of the Deaths of Eminent Persons, p. 60; Burnet, vol. vi. p. 164; Atterbury Correspondence, vol. iii. p. 321. 440 Death of Compton, bishop of London. career.* He was bold and consistent in his oppo sition to the advances of the Church of Rome : for, before the accession of James, he remonstrated with Charles II. (although, with the rest ofthe Bench, opposed to the Bill of Exclusion) upon the conduct of the Roman Catholics in the Duke of York's em ploy. He was very successful in his superintendence of the education of the Princesses, Mary and Anne, for never were sovereigns more attached to the institu tions of their country than were they. But although the historian may speak thus favourably of Compton, he cannot, in justice, denommate him either a great man or an able divine. He has left nothing in litera ture, and he was but an indifferent preacher. His conduct at the Revolution was at one time disin genuous, and at another time undignified ; and his disappointment at being twice passed over, when the metropolitan see was vacant, was more manifest than creditable. Dr. John Robinson; the bishop of Bristol, who had been so lately employed at Utrecht, was appointed his successor. Little more of ecclesiastical history during the reign of Queen Anne remains to be told. Dr. Samuel Clarke, rector of S. James', and one of the chaplains- in-ordinary to the Queen, following, though at some distance, in the footsteps of Whiston, gave great offence by the publication of his Scripture Doctrine ofthe Trinity; whilst a further demonstration ofhis sentiments upon this subject, in an unpardonable manner, led to his name being removed from the list of Queen's chaplains, and justified the proceedings * See the Preface to Scott's Christian Life; Burnet's Own Time, vol. vi. p. 165; Boyer's Annual List of the Deaths of Eminent Persons, 1713. Dr. Samuel Clarke. 441 which were commenced in Convocation against his book. This was his omission of the usual sacrament at S. James' Church on Trinity Sunday, in order that he might escape the necessity of reading the sacramental Collect appointed for that day. The impropriety of this was too manifest not to bring upon Clarke much odium ; and when the Convoca tion assembled in 1714 his book fell under their notice and displeasure. Clarke had dabbled in metaphysics until he had lost the power of distinguishing positive truths. The famous book, the Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, Was divided into three parts, in the first of which all the texts in Scripture which bear upon the subject of the Trinity are adduced. In the second, what the author deems the sense of those texts is coUected into methodical propositions; and in the third, the expressions contained in the Liturgy relating to the same subject are examined. The nature of Clarke's heretical opinions may be pretty well understood from the fohowing commentary upon one of the principal articles in the creed of S. Athanasius, viz. " the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God." " The sense of these words," he teUs his reader, " consistent with the doctrine of Scripture, is, not either that God is the complex name of a species, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are only different names and denominations of one and the same individual, intelligent Being or Person ; but that as a father is master of his own house, and a son and heir in his father's house of his own build ing is master of the same house, viz. the father building the house and governing it by his own son, so, though the Son is in Scripture expressly styled 442 Dr. Samuel Clarke and the Convocation. God, and both the Son and the Holy Ghost are represented as exercising Divine power and authority, yet nevertheless (seeing that all power and authority is originaUy the Father's) there is, properly speak ing, but one God, viz. the Father, governing all things by His Son and His Spirit." In short, Dr. Clarke, over and over again, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, limits the real Godhead to the Father alone.* Dr. Stanhope, who had been chosen in the place of Atterbury, presided as Prolocutor at this time, in the Lower House, and on the 2d of June, 1714, the members of that body made a representation to the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper House, upon the dangerous opinions advanced by Clarke in his book. They complained that, although there were divers passages in the Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles condemning the spirit of his teaching, yet these had been wrested with such subtlety from their obvious meaning that it was made to appear that those who, like Dr. Clarke, impugned the doctrines of the Church at the very time they were propagating their heretical opinions, might yet sign the Articles. They then declare that, under these circumstances, they cannot but feel called upon to make this complaint to their Lordships, whom they beseech to take the premises under their consider ation, and devise some method of effectually putting a stop to this growing and mischievous evil. They then give extracts from Dr. Clarke's book in support of their complaint, f Before the Bishops could proceed in the matter, * See the work itself, from which this account is taken. t See Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 790. Dr. Samuel Clarke and the Convocation. 443 Dr. Clarke thought proper to interpose in his own behalf, by sending on the 2d of July a declaration of his sentiments to the Archbishop, in which he stated that his opinion was that both the Son and Holy Ghost were eternally begotten by the eternal and incomprehensible wUl of the Father. 2. That before the publication of his book on The Scripture Doc trine of the Trinity, he had preached one or two sermons on the subject, but since the book was pub lished he had never touched upon this subject in the pulpit; and that he was willing to promise that he would never preach upon it again. 3. That he did not intend to write any more concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. 4. That in the celebration of divine service in his church, the third and fourth petitions in the Litany had never been omitted, and the Atha nasian Creed only at early prayers, for brevity's sake, and that at the discretion of the officiating curate. Lastly, he declared that he was not aware that in his private conversation with relation to this controversy he had given any cause of offence ; and he expressed himself as heartily sorry that what he had intended for the glory and honour of God should have proved an occasion of offence to that synod, and hoped that his future behaviour would prevent a recurrence of these proceedings.* Such was the formal declaration of Dr. Clarke, in which he cer tainly made as ample an apology for his injudicious conduct as could have been expected from one obsti nate in opinion, and with which the Bishops professed themselves satisfied, although the Lower House of Convocation did not concur in this judgment. But as to the offender himself, no sooner had he returned * Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 798. 444 Death of Queen Anne. to his home than he lamented what he had done, and set himself immediately to consider how he could undo it. But the further history of this controversy belongs to another reign. The present one was rapidly drawing to its close, for Queen Anne expired in August of this year, under circumstances of what may almost be called tragical interest. Her death was certainly hastened by the quarrels of her ministers amongst themselves, and the unfeel ing manner in which party spirit did not hesitate to wound for its own purposes her perhaps somewhat weak prejudices. She was most genuinely English in all her feelings, and even in the most of these prejudices ; and probably it was at least due to nega tive merit in her, if to no higher, that her reign, for the length of it, is the most brilliant in our annals. Had it pleased Almighty God to have spared any of her numerous issue to have succeeded her on the throne, the historian would have wanted the oppor tunity for recording the severest things which have been said of Queen Anne, for her worse faults were eminently those which her isolated position and pecu liar circumstances serve to develope. Amongst these we should hardly place the high sense which she certainly entertained of her authority and prerogative, both in Church and State. It is well known to the student of this reign, and to every reader of the Life of Dr. Johnson, that she claimed the " Charisma Basilicon," and renewed the royal practice of touch ing for the evh, which had been in vogue with our sovereigns from the time of Edward the Confessor untU the accession of William and Mary. The great moralist, however, who was brought by his anxious mother to be touched by Queen Anne, appears to Character ofthe Clergy in this reign. 445 have derived little more from the royal touch than " a confused but somewhat solemn recollection of a lady in diamonds and a long black hood."* But to turn from the Queen to the Church. The moving-spirits amongst the London clergy, during this reign, much compromised the general character of the clerical body. Hoadly, Atterbury, Sacheverell, and Swift, are names which recall to our minds men either of great ability or strong will, but not men eminent for disinterested Christian zeal. Indeed, even the foreign ministers, in their communications to their home governments, dwelt upon the worldly character of too many of the clergy, whom they re presented as given up to faction and controversy. Not that we are to suppose that this is a fair descrip tion of the character of those who were happily re moved from the temptations of ambition or consci ous power. And even amongst the higher clergy, there were not only men of shining abilities but of exemplary lives. Not to dwell upon the honoured names of Sharp, Beveridge, BuU, Ken, Hooper, * Boswell's Life of Johnson, vol. i. p. 18. In a Prayer-book I have seen, printed in 1710, the service which was used upon these occasions, and headed simply " At the Healing," is inserted after that of the " Thanksgiving for the Queen's Accession." It is very short, and chiefly composed of prayers taken from the Liturgy: the only distinguishing feature of it consisting in one rubric and one short prayer, as follows : % " Then shall the infirm persons, one by one, be presented to the Queen, upon their knees, and as every one is presented and while the Queen is laying her hands upon them, and putting the gold about their knecks, the chaplain that officiates turning him self to her majesty, shall say these words following: "God give a blessing to this work; and grant that the sick persons on whom the Queen lays her hands may recover, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 446 Character ofthe Clergy in this reign. Smallridge, and others, the reader must be reminded that Dr. Thomas Wilson, the bishop of Sodor and Man, was at this time at the commencement of that truly apostolical career which has so endeared his name to posterity, and so enhanced the interest we feel in the diocese over which he presided. 447 CHAPTER XV. (1714-17.) Accession of George I. — Public Addresses upon that occasion — Character of the King — Triumph of the Whigs — State of Parties in the Church — The Non-jurors — The Trinitarian Controversy, and Clarke's' Retractation — The interference of Government in this matter — Death of Burnet — Death of Tenison — Hoadly made Bishop of Bangor — Death of Hickes — The Rebellion of 1715 — The Clergy implicated— Howell the Non-juror — Rise ofthe Bangorian Controversy. According to the Act of Settlement, by which, failing heirs of WUliam the Third's body, the crown of Great Britain was for ever settled in the Protestant line of the hereditary fanhly, George Lewis, son of Ernest Augustus, first Elector of Brunswick, by Sophia, grandaughter of King James the First, was, upon the death of Queen Anne, proclaimed King of Great Britain and Ireland. The Regency, which included the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chan cellor, took immediate steps to inform the new sovereign of his elevation, and, notwithstanding the apprehensions of a French invasion and a rising in favour of the Pretender, which had so often been pre dicted by the disappointed faction of the Duke of Marlborough, nothing could be quieter than the accession of this sovereign to the throne. The 448 Accession of George I. ministers of the late Queen, notwithstanding, were immediately made to feel the change. The Lord- justices chose the celebrated Joseph Addison their Secretary of State. This was resented by the im petuous and ambitious Bolingbroke, who experienced the additional mortification of being compelled to stand at the door of the council chamber with his bag and papers, and await the pleasure of their Lord ships. The punishment of Bolingbroke was not unmerited, if there had been no just grounds for sus pecting him of endeavouring to alter the succession to the crown settled by Act of Parliament. His passions extinguished his discretion. He must have been aware of those feelings of bitter animosity with which his political opponents regarded him. He knew, too, how very precarious Queen Anne's life was, and what the sentiments of the Elector of Hanover were upon the policy of the Tory ministry ; yet his conduct had greatly contributed to weaken his party and hasten the death of the Queen.* Both Houses of Parliament agreed upon temperate and suitable addresses of condolence and congratu lation to the King ; in which they declared their resolution to maintain his undoubted right to the crown of the realm against the Pretender and all other enemies. They also expressed their earnest desire for his arrival amongst his new subjects. The King sent a very gracious letter in reply to these addresses, intimating that he was on his way to England. But it is not easy to judge of the character of George I. by those letters which commonly pass for his, whether of a private or public nature, See Swift's Inquiry into the Behaviour of the Queen's last • Accession of George I. 449 since they were aU the composition of Robethon. They generally express a great affection for Queen Anne. They are always courteous and moderate in expression ; and it is unfortunate that the vindictive policy, which characterised the beginning of this reign, was so little in accordance with the spirit of justice and moderation which, one might have been led to expect from them, would have governed the behaviour of Anne's successor. The King was fifty-four years of age. In early life he had been spoken of as a suitor for Anne, but he eventuaUy married his cousin, Sophia Dorothea, the daughter of the Duke of Zell, by whom he had a numerous family. His disposition was warlike, and he had acquired considerable reputation for courage in the field. He had also succeeded in impressing his Hanoverian subjects with a due respect for his government. A maxim recorded of his, is certainly praiseworthy, if, whilst it afforded evidence of a virtue, that virtue was not too often accompanied with a counterbalancing defect. He said " it was his rule never to abandon his friends, to do justice to all the world, and fear no man." There is too much rea son to believe that, by never abandoning his friends, he meant that he should prove himself a very partial sovereign indeed. As the strongest friendship sub sisted between the house of Hanover and that of the Emperor Leopold and his successors, Joseph and Charles, the Elector had co-operated, to the utmost of his abilities, with the allies in their struggle with the French King. Nothing could bring him into the views of the late Queen on the subject of the peace. He entirely concurred in the opposition to this measure which was raised by the Duke of Marl- G G 450 Lord Bolingbroke disgraced. borough and the Whigs, and no doubt, amongst other sentiments, believed with them that those who promoted the peace were for bringing in the Pretender. His accession, therefore, to the throne was the signal for a triumphant attack upon the Queen's last minis try, and all who had supported them, or sympathised with their pacific policy and zeal for the Church. As the Parliament had been returned on High Tory principles its days were numbered. On the motion of Mr. Walpole, the same civil list was voted the King as Queen Anne had enjoyed, and one hundred thousand pounds to any one who should apprehend the Pretender attempting to land in any part of the British dominions. The House was then prorogued, and thus, in effect, ended the present Parliament.* These political events must be kept in view if we would rightly understand the position of the Church, and some of the memorable controversies which distinguished the beginning of this reign. Lord Bolingbroke was removed from his office of Secretary of State by an order from the King, before his arrival in this country. As soon as his Majesty had landed at Greenwich, he sent a polite notification to the Duke of Ormond that his services would no longer be wanted as Captain-general of the forces, and that post was immediately conferred on the Duke of Marlborough. A few months afterwards Boling broke and Ormond being impeached, and despairing of justice or mercy from their opponents, thought proper to secure their personal safety by withdrawing to the Continent. Before the coronation, nearly all the late servants ofthe Queen were displaced, and their old opponents, * See Tindal's Continuation, vol. vi. p. 301. Church Parties, fyc. 451 Nottingham, Stanhope, Walpole, and others, instated in their room. Notwithstanding these changes, the country remained quiet, and perhaps might have continued so, but for the resentment of those in power. The usual addresses upon a coronation were brought up by the various corporations ; and both those of the Universities of Oxford and Cam bridge, whUst deploring the death of the Queen, expressed their satisfaction at the quiet accession of his Majesty to the throne. Louis XIV. was now an aged man, and the reverses which had of late years attended his opera tions in the field had checked the lust of power, which at one time distinguished him. He, therefore, immediately acknowledged the Elector of Hanover as king of Great Britain, notwithstanding his previous declaration in favour of the Pretender on the death of James II. No real danger was, accordingly, to be apprehended from France, further than might result from the Pretender making use of a French port for purposes of embarkation. But we must now con sider the state of religious parties in England. The Church, as is weU known, at this time, was divided into two powerful parties, the extremes of which were very violently opposed to each other. Not only, as in our own days, was it theological opinion which constituted the difference between them, but ever since the Revolution political rancour served to increase and inflame that difference, which seems to be a sort of inseparable concomitant of the Church. As during the reign of Queen Anne both parties, but especially the High-Church party, were sincerely attached to the person of the reigning sovereign, although this theological strife pro- 452 Church Parties, fyc. duced some political changes and created a great deal of noise, it was not really dangerous to the State ; but on the accession of the House of Hanover to this kingdom, the importance of these theological contentions and differences was increased. The Low- Church party, of which Mr. Benjamin Hoadly was the most conspicuous champion, were fond of adding to their denunciations of Popery vehement declara tions of their attachment to the principles of the Revolution. Their leniency towards the Noncon formists amounted to sympathy in their cause, whilst they were stanch advocates of the Compre hension scheme. They made light of ecclesiastical authority, the traditions and ceremonies of the Church ; and some there were who even fraternised with such men as Clarke and Whiston.* The clergy most removed from either extreme may be consi dered as fairly represented by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Lincoln. Tenison was now, however, very infirm, and at the best of times he had been slow and unprogressive. Wake was in every respect a more eminent theologian, and although at one time so strong an advocate of the royal supremacy as to be accounted very Erastian in his sentiments, he was not in reality without a knowledge of and respect for antiquity and the traditions of the Church, of which he subsequently gave decided proof. Some might class these two prelates in the old school of High Church, the ex treme section of which was certainly now tainted with Jacobitism. Many would gladly have evaded taking the oaths to the new sovereign, if they could * See Biographia Britannica, "Hoadly." N.B. Hoadly edited the works and wrote the Life of Clarke. The later Non-jurors. 453 have done so without forfeiting their preferment. Daily some were dropping into the ranks of the Non-jurors, as in the case of Thomas Brett a volumi nous theological writer, who was consecrated a bishop by Collier, Spinkes, and Hawes, on Jan. 25, 1714-15.* A due consideration of these parties in the Church might have taught the ministry of George I. the wisdom of conciliation. As it was, seditious libels and ballads very soon began to make their appearance, which plainly showed that the spirit of which Sacheverell had been the sort of mouthpiece was not yet extinct. The titles of some of these publications ran as follows : Stand fast to the Church. No Presbyterian Government. The State Gamester, or the Church of England's sorrow ful Lamentation. f These, it is true, may have been but the compositions of Non-jurors, or even Papists, but they would scarcely have appeared had the High- Church rage which lately agitated the country been quite defunct. The Non-jurors, like every body of a sectarian character, degenerated with time. The schism had been a bright feature in the history of the Church of England : had it ceased with the lives of those venerable bishops who were originaUy deprived for refusing to transfer their allegiance from one sove reign to another, it had then been a witness to the constancy and magnanimity of Churchmen ; but when it was perpetuated by fresh consecrations it lost what was interesting about it. It became more * See Lathbury's History ofthe Non-jurors, p. 248. X Tindal's Continuation, vol. vi. p. 332 ; Lathbury's Non jurors, pp. 248, 249. 454 The later Non-jurors. violent and unreasonable in its pretensions, and acted very injuriously upon the Church of England, by giving those in authority an excuse for treating all Church principles as identical with such as were hostile to the Protestant succession. Some very learned men were still to be found in the ranks of the Non-jurors, as Hickes, CoUier, Leslie, and others, and their writings in defence of their opinions un doubtedly conduced at this time to bring over several to their views. As to Leslie, he was at the very head-quarters of Jacobitism, for he had accepted an invitation of the Chevalier to reside with him, in his own house at Bar-le-duc ; and here he was in the habit of reading the Church of England service to such English Protestants as formed the sort of Court of the Pretender. It was from this place also, that his Letter to a Member of Parliament which now appeared was dated. But what served quite as much as these writings to promote their cause was the reimposition of the oaths of allegiance upon the accession of George I. All persons holding any kind of office in Church or State were again compelled to take the oaths of ahegiance and abjuration, by which last oath the person who took it engaged to reveal all conspiracies against the reigning sovereign, and disclaim all rights to the Crown on the part of the Pretender. The magistrates were also empowered to tender the oath to any suspected person. Whether these measures were wisely determined upon or not, the effects were to irritate greatly the Non-jurors, and compel them to additional secrecy in the exercise of their religious services. Many of the magistrates connived at those clergymen who, though holding Manifesto ofthe Pretender. 455 livings, scrupled to take the oaths, and were in con sequence removed from their posts. Clergymen who could scarcely be said to belong to the Estab lished Church, or the Non-jurors, found asylum in the houses of the disaffected gentry; all of which circumstances increased the political importance of the extreme Jacobites, and drew upon them the vigilance and animosity of the Government, which rather sought than apprehended the discovery of such treasonable practices as might afford an excuse for commencing those proceedings which were now to be adopted. Every effort of the Whigs was bent on convict ing their late adversaries of secret plotting in favour of the Pretender, and in November the Duke of Marlborough and other members of the party re ceived from Paris a manifesto of the Pretender, dated Plombieres, August 1714, and printed in Latin, French, and English. One declaration which it con tained was thought to implicate Queen Anne's last ministry and their friends. The prince said, " that he could not for some time past doubt of his sister's good intentions towards him." But the writings and representations of the Whigs, quite as much as the secret machinations of the Tories, might have been instrumental in creating such an impression in his mind. Indeed, this manifesto of the Pretender was at first beheved to have been a fabrication ofthe Whigs; but when its genuineness was put beyond dispute, the Ambassador of the Duchy of Lorraine, in which state it was first published, was forbidden the Court.* In addition to those disputes of a more political * See Tindal, vol. vi. p. 332. 456 The Trinitarian Controversy. nature which agitated the minds of Churchmen, the Trinitarian Controversy, which had been provoked by Whiston and Clarke, continued to rage and distract the Church. No sooner had this latter divine allayed the suspicions and animosity of Convocation by the paper which he had delivered to the Upper House, than he began to imagine that he had gone too far, and had reaUy contradicted the statements which he had made in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity; so, a few days afterwards, he delivered an explana tion of that paper to the Bishop of London, intending it to be presented to Convocation. After apologising in this document for having written the former paper in haste, he informs their Lordships that when, in that paper, he states " that the Son was eternally be gotten, by the eternal and incomprehensible power and will of the Father and the Holy Spirit," he did not mean to retract anything, but merely to state that such was the doctrine taught in the book which was so obnoxious to Convocation; adding, that he wished it to be understood that his belief was, " that God the Father alone is, and is to be, honoured, as being avairiog xai Trcxmiriog, the original of aU himself without original."* He also retracted his statement, that he did not intend to write any more on the subject of the Trinity. There is too much reason to believe that Whiston's more robust will and positive opinions' had been brought to bear upon Clarke. The latter was a man of a delicate constitution, and of a mind naturally refined and subtle ; and rendered more so by study and the highest cultivation. It is certain, whether he communicated with Dr. Clarke immedi- * See Kippis, Biographia Britannica, art. " Dr. Samuel Clarke." The Trinitarian Controversy. 457 ately on the subject or not, that Whiston was very angry with him for delivering the paper which he did to Convocation, and called him timid and insincere. But, although there were grounds of sympathy be tween Whiston and Clarke, the views of the former were of a far more dangerous character than those of his friend ; and it was undoubtedly due to the souls under his care, that Clarke should either throw up his living or clear himself of the charge of heresy under which he lay. Clarke's chief opponent in this controversy was Dr. Daniel Waterland, whose lucid controversial writings have given him a standard place amongst English theologians. Whitby the com mentator, at a later period, unhappily, entered the lists against Waterland, and died an Arian. This controversy was embarrassing to the Government of George I., as well as perilous to the national faith. The High Churchmen and the Non jurors pointed to it as the fruits of latitudinarian sen timents. In the reign of Queen Anne, Lord Godol phin had entreated Dr. Clarke to forbear publishing his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, telhng him that, if he persisted in so doing, he could not carry on the Government. We can scarcely wonder, then, that one of the earhest proceedings of George the First's Government was to interfere in this matter.* They remembered the arguments of Dr. SachevereU's counsel, and the array of blasphemous and infidel publications adduced at the trial in excuse for the famous preacher's violent sermbns. Accordingly, on the 11th of December, "Directions" were issued to the Archbishops and Bishops for the preserving unity in the Church, and the purity of the Christian faith, * See Biographia Britannica, " Clarke." 458 The Trinitarian Controversy. concerning the Holy Trinity ; and also for preserving the peace and quiet ofthe State. Those directions were as foUows : "I. That no preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture,^ do presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and is agreeable to the three Creeds and the Thirty- nine Articles of religion. " II. That, in explication of this doctrine, they carefully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of expression as have beeu commonly used in the Church. "III. That care be taken in this matter especially to observe the fifty -third canon of the Church, which forbids public opposition between preachers, because, as that canon expresses it, there groweth thereby much offence and dis- quietness unto the people ; and that, above all things, they abstain from bitter invectives and scurrilous language against all persons whatsoever. " IV. That none ofthe clergy, in their sermons, presume to intermeddle in any affairs of state or government, or the Constitution of the realm, save only on such special feasts and fasts as are, or shall be, appointed by public authority; and then, no farther than the occasion of sueh days shall strictly require: Provided always, that nothing in this direction shall be understood to discharge any person from preaching in defence of the regal supre macy established by law, as often, and in such The Trinitarian Controversy. 459 manner, as the first canon of the Church doth require. " V. That the foregoing directions be also ob served by those who write anything concern ing the said subjects. "VI. Whereas also we are credibly informed that it is the manner of some, in every diocese, before their sermon, either to use a collect and the Lord's prayer, or the Lord's prayer only (which the fifty-fifth canon prescribes at the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer), or, at least, to leave out our titles, by the said canon required to be declared and recognised ; we do further direct that you re quire your clergy, in their prayer before ser mon, that they do keep strictly to the form in the said canon contained, or to the full effect thereof. "VII. And whereas we also understand that divers persons, who are not of the clergy, have of late presumed, not only to talk and dispute against the Christian faith concerning the Blessed Trinity, but also to write and pub lish books and pamphlets against the same, and industriously spread them through the king dom, contrary to the known laws in that be half made and enacted, and particularly to one Act of Parliament, made in the ninth year of King WUliam the Third, intituled, ' An Act for the more effectual suppressing of blas phemy and profaneness;' we, taking all the matters above-mentioned into our Royal and serious consideration, and being desirous to do what in us lies to put a stop to these dis- 460 The Trinitarian Controversy. orders, do strictly charge and command you, together with all other means suitable to your holy profession, to make use of your authority, according to law, for the suppressing and re straining aU such exorbitant practices. And for your assistance we will give charge to our judges, and all other civil officers, to do their duty herein in executing the said Act and all other laws against all such persons as shall, by these means, give occasion of scandal, discord, and disturbance in our Church and Kingdom.* " These directions have only to be perused to satisfy us how entirely the spirit which directed them was of a political nature. The Trinitarian Controversy was deprecated, as not only militating against the purity of the faith, but as being dan gerous to the peace and quiet of the State. The clergy were to be warned against introducing poli tical matter into their sermons, but were given full permission to enlarge upon the importance of the regal supremacy, and reminded to make use of the long bidding prayer before they began their dis courses (which has now fallen into such entire de suetude), because it makes particular mention ofthe name and titles of the reigning sovereign. Thus the use or disuse of this prayer before sermon became another test of the sentiments of a clergyman. To the worldly-minded amongst the priesthood, more over, the greatest possible incentive was offered for preaching up the powers tha be. How readily some avaUed themselves of it, we shall soon have occasion * See Tindal, vol. vi. p. 344. Death of Burnet. 461 to mention ; in the meantime, the reader may gather from the above statements some notion of the poli tical feeling prevailing in the country in its relation to Religion and the National Church at the acces sion of the House of Brunswick. The attention of the reader must now be called to the death-beds of two of those divines whose names have repeatedly occurred throughout this work. That eminent body of theologians, whose careers commenced in the times of the Great Re- beUion, and who were at their zenith at the Revo lution, was passing rapidly away. Tillotson, Stil lingfleet, Sharp, Ken, Bull, and Beveridge, William Sherlock, with many others of like distinction, were gone. The next whose death calls, for our notice was one, for the versatility of his talents and the popular character of some of his writings, more ge nerahy read and accounted of than any of these ; which is, the famous Burnet. He died March 17th, 1714-15, in the seventy- second year of his age, of a pleuritic fever, and was buried near the communion table in Clerkenwell Church. The popular High- Church feeling (on that occasion), which had not yet entirely succumbed to the altered state of public affairs, was exhibited in the rude treatment which was shown by the rabble to the hearse conveying the Bishop's remains. Stones were thrown at it; and the windows of the carriages which conveyed the mourners were broken.* But this disgraceful conduct must be set down as a sign of the times rather than any indication of the general estimate in which Burnet was held. He was a man of varied and great parts ; and his opinions on many subjects, * See Gent. Mag. 1788, vol. lviii. p. 952. 462 Burnetts Character and Opinions. both ecclesiastical and civil, have certainly exercised an influence upon his countrymen, even to the pre sent times. In the " Conclusion" to his History of his Own Time, which, on the whole, is written in a spirit superior to the work itself, we have a fair summary of his political and ecclesiastical creed ; and although he did not always exemplify his own doctrines, his moral sentiments are unexceptionable. He was opposed to enforcing subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, thinking that the integrity of the Church might better be preserved by penal sta tutes, and always having been himself a great advo cate of comprehension. Although he highly es teemed the Liturgy ofthe Church of England, he thought it would have been improved by the adoption of the changes suggested by the Committee of Di vines in 1689. He was for leaving out the cross at baptism ; laying aside the surplice ; and suppressing, in some degree, the choral services in cathedrals. He was greatly in favour of that which it has been reserved for our day to witness, .the erection of a Court of Probate and Divorce, having imbibed his sentiments, no doubt, upon this subject, from those lax communities with which he was familiar, both in Scotland and Holland. He was of opinion that, since auricular confession was not tolerated amongst Protestants, the clergy should have some other means of enforcing Church discipline, the neglect of which he deeply lamented. Although he condemned sepa ration from the National Church, his views on the subject of Toleration were ofthe most liberal nature. Popery, as the reader may have already discovered, was, in his estimation, the one great source of all religious discord and evil. He recommended the Burnet's Character and Opinions. 463 clergy to acquire a thorough mastery of the contro versies on Popish Infallibility and Transubstantia- tion. His general views upon the discharge of the pastoral office were sound and excellent, although he thought the clergy of the Church of England less eminent for zeal than any other clergy in the world. The zeal of such men as Dodwell, and High Church men generally, he regarded as a subtle poison, which would, unless restrained, entirely alienate the affec tions of the laity. Thus, no earnestness, but such as was after his own model, was the least esteemed by him. His general remarks on the Episcopal office are very sound ; yet no prelates ever violated them so much as some of his own school. He severely condemned a time-serving carriage in the House of Lords. He recommended that Bishops should aim at simplicity of living ; should be fonder of residing in their respective dioceses than in the metropolis ; and he condemned all self-seeking and worldly ambition in their families. Such is the ecclesiastical mirror Burnet has left us ; and we may reasonably ask how far he himself is reflected in it. Let us consider his career. Burnet was born in 1643, of a good Scottish fa mily, belonging to the Episcopal Church in Scot land. Of promising parts and good connexions, he was very early offered preferment in Scotland, but declined it. He was ordained priest by the Bishop of Edinburgh in 1665, and elected Professor of Di vinity at Glasgow in 1669. In 1674 he was made Preacher at the Rolls Chapel in London, whither he had lately removed, on account of the religious state of the North. In 1679 his name rose very high in general estimation, after the publication of 464 Death of Archbishop Tenison. his History ofthe Reformation. On the accession of James II. to the throne of this country he with drew to the Continent. He was married three times ; and on each occasion to a lady of family or wealth. The remaining events of any consequence in his life have already been alluded to in the course of this history. It may be remarked, that his birth and education unfitted him to be a true exponent of the opinions of the clergy of the Church of England. His bustling disposition, and evident love of politics, foreign and domestic, were quite at variance with his own portraiture of what a Bishop ought to be, although his zeal for improving the miserable estate of the poorer clergy must ever remain a most com mendable feature in his character. He was a man of great industry, warm affections, but of inveterate prejudices and much personal vanity, which prompted him to rebuke, in no sparing manner, at one time Charles II. and at another time Queen Anne, and to intrude his advice upon William III., in his great expedition to these shores, in a manner which suffi ciently testified how high a value he put upon his own judgment. From Burnet we must turn to the Archbishop, whose health had been for some time in a very precarious state, and who died 14th December, 1715. The last public act of Tenison seems to have been that of crowning George I. He re commended to the King Dr. Wake for his succes sor, and Dr. Gibson for the see of Lincoln, in the event of Wake's promotion. Tenison has no title to be ranked amongst the more illustrious of our Archbishops. He was eminently the example of one whose mediocrity of character and talents was Death of Archbishop Tenison. 465 rendered conspicuous by the exalted position to which he was raised. As a writer, he was inelegant and ungrammatical ; and as an administrator of his diocese, too jealous of novelty and too cautious of deviating from a certain course which he had pre scribed to himself, and which he believed to be in conformity with the principles and status of the Church of England, as defined at the Revolution, to meet with wisdom the change of circumstances, which are incident to aU human institutions. For this reason he failed to institute the Colonial Episcopate, when the fairest opportunity of so doing offered itself; and he was also equaUy remiss in furthering the wishes ofthe King of Prussia, for tlie introduc tion of Episcopacy into his kingdom. His vote in 1696 for the attainder of Sir John Fenwick greatly recommended him to King Wilham, who, as we have seen, in 1700, entrusted him, and three others, with the disposal of the highest preferments in the Church. It must not be forgotten, however, that his charities were very large, and truly laudable, many memorials of which still exist in the metropolis ; nor can we do otherwise than commend his conduct at the Revolution, in his capacity of Rector of S. Martin's-in-the-Fields. It was calm and judicious. According to his express wishes, he was succeeded by Wake, who was raised to the metropolitan see in January, 1715-16.* The part which this latter prelate took in the trial of Sacheverell was such as to recommend him to the present ministry ; but they were much mistaken in his character if they expected to find in him one who would sacrifice all the principles * See Biographia Britannica, art. " Tenison." H H 466 Hoadly made Bishop of Bangor. of Churchmanship to political expediency. As he had once been the zealous defender of what he deemed the constitutional right of princes over their ecclesiastical synods, so he found himself after wards compelled to throw his influence into the opposite scale against the excessive Erastianism and the latitudinarian principles which the Govern ment of George I. encouraged and expected in those whom it was disposed to patronise. The sudden transfer of power which occurred on the accession of George I. immediately brought into notice Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, who, notwithstanding the vote of the Commons in 1709, had, as yet, re ceived no mark of royal favour. He was now made King's Chaplain. He received from the new Archbishop the degree of D.D., and in the course of the year was promoted to be Bishop of Bangor. Hoadly is generahy regarded in the light of Atter bury's great opponent ; but his literary character was of a mixed nature, and gives him also a place amongst the wits with Swift and Steele. He was a considerable pamphleteer, as a reference to his volu minous writings will show. He published various pamphlets in favour of the Whig party, under the fohowing ironical titles : The French King's Thanks io the Tories of Great Britain. The true Genuine Tory's Address. Reasons against receiving the Pretender and restoring the Protestant Line* He also addressed the electors of Great Britain on the character of the Members it behoved them to return to Parliament. His Reasonableness of Conformity had provoked the anger of Calamy. His excessive * See the 4to. edition of his works, with the Memoir affixed. Biographia Britannica, article " Hoadly." Death of Hickes. 467 zeal for the party which had espoused him, and his fatal facility of special pleading, were soon to hurry him into the promulgation of sentiments which kindled the memorable controversy named after the see to which he was now elevated. A name often associated with Hoadly is that of Hickes, whose death occurred about this time. Hickes, who was in the seventy-fifth year of his age, and was the most remarkable man amongst the Non-jurors, left a very high character for learning and varied abihty. Until the Revolution, his career was that of a rising and successful clergyman. He was successively FeUow of Lincoln College, Oxford, Chaplain to the Duke of Lauderdale, King's Chap lain, and finally Dean of Worcester, which prefer ment, as we have seen, he was compeUed to resign on refusing to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to Wilham and Mary. As the more pubhc events of his life have already been recorded I shah merely aUude to some of his writings, the influence of which was felt after his death. His Apologetical Vindication ofthe Church of England belongs to the controversies of James the Second's reign, and has found a place in Gibson's Preservative against Popery. The work which is most likely to preserve his name as a writer amongst general readers is his Linguarum veterum Septentrionalium Thesaurus, which was undertaken at the suggestion of Kennett, who, although ranking as a Low Church man, was a personal friend of Hickes, and rendered him much service at one period of his life. His other controversial writings were very numerous. It will be sufficient to mention his Jovian, in answer to Samuel Johnson's celebrated tract entitled Julian 468 The Rebellion in Scotland breaks out. the Apostate, which was written when James II. was Duke of York, and his posthumous tracts, which appeared in 1716, and which in reality occasioned the first beginnings of the Bangorian Controversy.* But before we enter upon this subject more at large, the reader's attention must be recalled to matters of a secular nature. The disaffected state of the country at this time, and the constant recurrence of disorders and riots, led to the passing the Proclamation Act ; and when the King came in July to give the royal assent to it, he. intimated that he was aware that a rebellion was being organized against his government, upon which several addresses, expressive of loyalty and attachment to his person, were presented to his Majesty — amongst others, from the Convocation, from the Bishop of London and his clergy, from the Dissenting Ministers of London and Westminster, and from the two Universities: all of which were graciously received but that from the University of Oxford; those who were entrusted with the pre sentation of this being rudely told that the King expected that in future they should show their loyalty by their behaviour before they pretended to do so by their words. It must be borne in mind that the Duke of Ormond had been the popular Chancellor of the University.f The King was not premature in his appre hensions. A rebellion now broke out in Scotland, under the leadership of the Earl of Mar, during Queen Anne's reign the Secretary of State for that * See the Wood's Athenaz Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 565 ; Lath bury's Non-jurors, p. 245 ; Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 829. t Tindal, vol. vi. p. 396. The Rebellion in Scotland breaks out. 469 country. Although he had taken the oaths to George I., being mortified with the treatment he and his friends had experienced, he went into Scotland, entered into correspondence with the Jacobites and the Pretender, and proceeded to issue a declaration, dated Bremar, September 9th, in which he invited his countrymen to rise in favour of their legitimate sovereign, announced himself as the leader of the forces, and called upon them to resist the oppression of the present Government, and recover the independence of their country, which had been forfeited at the time of the Union. The Scottish Lords also issued a manifesto, in which the great point they dwelt upon to incite the people to rebelhon was the grievance done their common country by the Articles of the Union.* Some Enghsh noblemen and several Members of the House of Commons were imphcated in the insur rection, of whom Mr. Forster played the most con spicuous part; for, escaping the vigilance of the Government, he raised a troop in Northumberland in the cause of the Pretender. The bulk of the English people were certainly in favour of the existing Government, although the western counties were supposed to harbour many adherents of the exiled famUy, and the University of Oxford was believed to be entirely disaffected to the House of Hanover. The University had lately given a sig nificant token of its sense of the treatment of their Chancellor, the Duke of Ormond, by electing in his place his brother, the Earl of Arran. It had, more over, conferred an honorary degree upon Sir John Everard, a Non-juror, and the language ofthe under- * See Tindal, who quotes the addresses, p. 411. 470 Death of Louis XIV. graduates was in advance of the spirit thus manin fested by their academical superiors. Accordingly, General Pepper invested the town with his troops, summoned the Mayor and the Vice-Chancellor before him, and told them that he had orders to capture several suspected persons, and requested them to facilitate his search. After accomplishing his object he withdrew his soldiers ; but although the Vice- Chancellor professed his loyalty to King George, the Government afterwards thought it expedient to quarter a regiment of soldiers permanently in this academical city.* The death of Louis XIV., which occurred at this time, threw a great damp over the expectations of the rebels. He had rendered the Chevalier de St. George some secret assistance, in the formation of a small armament at Havre ; but the rapid intelligence which the Enghsh Government received, through the Earl of Stair, of all that was done, throws some suspicion upon his sincerity, and his successor, under the advice of the Regent, at once declared himself in favour of King George. It wiU be sufficient to remind the reader, that the disap pointment occasioned by the death of the French King was followed by the battle of Preston, which decided the result of the rebeUion, the forces of Mr. Forster and the noblemen associated with him being compelled to yield at discretion. Notwith standing, however, this signal defeat, the Chevalier de St. George subsequently landed in Scotland, and went through the ceremony of a coronation at Scone. He then withdrew to the Continent. Several noblemen and gentlemen suffered at the * See Tindal, vol. vi. p. 422. The Execution of some Non-jurors. 471 hands of the public executioner in consequence of this rebellion. The confessions made by some of them call for notice in these pages, particularly those of Mr. Paul, a clergyman, and Mr. Hall, who, although not in orders, made a very specific decla ration of his attachment to the non-juring church. Mr. Paul when on the scaffold exclaimed, " 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 schismatical church, whose bishops, set themselves up in opposition to those orthodox fathers who were unlawfully and invahdly deprived by the Prince of Orange : I declare that I renounce that communion, and that I die a dutiful and faithful member of the non-juring church, which has kept itself free from rebellion and schism : and I desire the clergy and aU members of the revolutionary church to consider what bottom they stand upon when their succession is grounded upon an unlawful and invahd depriva tion of Catholic Bishops : the only foundation of which deprivation is a pretended Act of Parlia ment."* We must presume he meant that he had kept himself free from rebeUion against the house of Stuart. Mr. Hall, it appears, in the hopes of a pardon, addressed a petition to the Chief Justice, in which he confessed himself to be guilty of the sin of rebellion; but being brought to execution he retracted this, and like Mr. Paul declared that he died a true and dutiful member of the non-juring church, which had kept itself free from rebeUion and schism, and maintained true orthodox principles in * Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 251. 472 Lawrence Howell, the Non-juror. Church and State.* Considering that a quarter of a century had elapsed since the Revolution, and that all those bishops who were originally deprived had long been in their graves, there is something very remarkable in the vehement and earnest manner in which non-juring principles were at this time again enunciated. The old school of Non-jurors are said to have kept tolerably quiet during this time, these demonstrations emanating principaUy from recent converts to their principles. The conduct of Mr. Paul and Mr. Hall on the scaffold made a great im pression on the public, and their execution rather promoted than otherwise the cause it was intended to discourage. Fresh writings in favour of the Jacobites were published daily, which in the end resulted in interminable controversy. A publication of a Mr. Lawrence Howell, a non- juring clergyman possessed of considerable literary ability, provoked the especial animosity of the Go vernment. It did, however, little more than repeat the old familiar arguments adopted by the original Non jurors in their separation from the National Church. ' The title of his pamphlet was The Case qf Schism in the Church of England truly stated. The drift of his argument was, that at the Revolution a sub- presbyter was " hoisted " into the place of the archbishop, with whom rested the authority of the Church. That that archbishop was UlegaUy de prived of his temporalities for adhering to the spirit of the second canon of the Church, a violation of which canon subjects any one ipso facto to excom munication. Pursuing this line of argument, he treats the whole English Church as deserving, by * Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 251; Tindal, vol. vii. pp. 26, 34. Lawrence Howell, the Non-juror. 473 implication, of excommunication, and then paints in forcible colours the miserable condition of an ex communicated person, but more particularly that of an excommunicated clergyman, every act of whose ministry (he reminds his readers) is thereby rendered nugatory and absurd. If such extravagant sentiments were really making any way in the pubhc mind beyond that section of it to which Howell belonged, we cannot wonder at the vigilance of the Govern ment, which immediately apprehended him and seized his papers, amongst which was discovered the instrument of his ordination by Dr. Hickes, styl ing himself Suffragan Bishop of Thetford.* HoweU was thrown into Newgate, and being brought to trial on a charge of high treason, was found guilty, and condemned to pay a fine of 500/., to lie in prison for three years, and to be twice whipped. On his earnest remonstrance the latter part of the sentence was remitted.f Howell's pamphlet was only a specimen of many similar ones. At last appeared some posthumous writings of Dr. Hickes, setting forth the constitution of the Cathohc Church, and the nature and conse quences of schism.J There was nothing new or original in the sentiments advanced by Hickes in these papers, although the extravagant views of Church power, which the Non-jurors were fond of pretending to themselves, were put forward in the spirit which characterised the writings of this able champion of their party. To give anything like a detailed account of the various pubhcations which * See Tindal, vol. vii. pp. 34-36. f Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 225. X See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 829. 474 Dr. Bennet writes against the Non-jurors. appeared in the controversy which now sprung up would fUl more than a thick octavo volume. The more famous productions of the Bishop of Bangor, from whose episcopal title the controversy has derived its name, were by no means the first which appeared. It was in truth but an angry renewal of the old non-juring controversy, in which Hoadly contrived to provoke the more general opposition of Churchmen. Dr. Thomas Bennet, vicar of S. Giles's, Cripple- gate, opened the attack on the Non-jurors with a publication entitled The Non-jurors' Separation from the public Assemblies of the Church of England ex amined, and proved to be Schismatical upon theif own Principles. This called forth many answers, which, it was thought, left the Non-jurors with the advantage of the argument. The Bishop of Peter borough, Dr. White Kennett, published at this stage of the dispute three letters addressed to the Bishop of Carlisle ; two concerning Bishop Merks and the Pretender, and the other criticis ing the posthumous publication of Hickes. At length, when the controversy had run some course, Hoadly, deeming the reasonings of his own party not sufficiently decisive, gave to the world his Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the Non-jurors. This treatise was divided into two parts ; in the one the writer considers the respective claims of the exiled family and of the House of Hanover to the throne of these realms, and after insinuating some doubt of the legitimacy of the Pretender's birth, he, of course, makes good the right of George I. to the throne. Had he stopped here members of the Church of England could have The Bishop of Bangor's Writings. 475 said httle, but in the second part he calls in question aU Church authority, and exhorts laymen in seeking after their salvation to be guided, not by human pretensions, but by the dictates of their private judg ment and the motions of their natural conscience. Indeed it would appear as if Hoadly had designed to estabhsh the authority of the King on as strong a basis as he possibly could, and by cutting the con stitution of the Church from under her, and deriding her traditions, to leave her the absolute creature of the Sovereign.* Even the more sober-minded of those divines who were not usually ranked with the High Churchmen could not aUow it to be supposed that they concurred with the Bishop in these extreme views. Accordingly, Nathaniel MarshaU disclaims some of Hoadly's opinions in the work he now printed on the Bishop's side of the controversy entitled A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State ; or, an Answer to the late Charge of the Non-jurors: with an Appendix, containing Arch bishop Sancroft's Commission to consecrate Bishops after the Revolution.^ In other respects this work, in which the lawfulness of Sancroft's deprival is maintained, as it was in Hoadly's Preservative, fyc, is one of the most temperate and reasonable which appeared on this side of the dispute. But the Bishop of Bangor, notwithstanding the opposition which his Erastian sentiments encountered, was not satisfied that he had yet given to them that develop ment which they merited, and being caUed upon to preach before the King the 31st of March, he chose * See the fol. ed. of Hoadly's Works, vol. i. f Lathbury's Non-jurors, p. 270; Dr. Nathaniel Marshall's Works. 476 The Bishop of Bangor's Sermon. for his subject The Nature of the Kingdom of the Church of Christ. The sermon, unquestionably, is a remarkable production ; and, but for a knowledge of the times, would be almost unintelligible ; never theless, it was so approved by the court, that the Bishop was ordered to print it.* It could scarcely have entered into the mind of a preacher to prepare such a discourse, unless he had in his eye the practices of men which, indirectly, he desired to censure. Thus he begins his sermon with denouncing "heat" and " fervency" in prayer, which he maintains should be, properly speaking, " a calm and undisturbed address to God." He promulgates some peculiar opinions upon the love of God ; but it was in speaking of the nature of Christ's kingdom that he advanced those sentiments which provoked so bitterly the animosity of Churchmen. As the Church of Christ is the kingdom of Christ, " Christ," he affirmed, " was the sole Lawgiver, and hath left behind Him no visible human authority, no vicegerents," with many similar assertions. The legitimate consequences of such teaching could only result in anarchy and a total relaxation of the mildest restraints of Church autho rity. The clergy were, therefore, not unnaturally moved to indignation by the publication of this discourse, and it was determined to proceed against the Bishop's writings in Convocation as soon as possible. Before that body could put their designs into execution Dr. Snape, one of the King's Chap lains and the Provost of Eton, undertook to write a criticism and dissection of the obnoxious sermon. Snape's pamphlet was the production of a scholar, * See the Sermon, Hoadly's Works, vol. ii. Dr. Snape and the Bishop of Bangor. All and a well-grounded divine.* It was, unfortunately, in part somewhat marred by personalities, which, in the end, much complicated the controversy. After showing, by many examples, how contrary to Scrip ture Hoadly's views of prayer and the love of God were, he lays open the sophistry by wliich the Bishop, by the single word "absolute" conjoined with au thority, had striven to guard his sweeping conclu sions on " the Church." But the Bishop of Bangor was not left friendless, or without allies. Many bitter attacks, and one entitled A Rod for the School master's Back, appeared in answer to Snape's Letter, and Hoadly himself came forward with an answer, which was written with temper and abUity. To this Snape rephed in a second letter, chiefly remarkable for a personal attack upon Hoadly, in which he in sinuated that his Lordship had acquired his art of sophistical writing under the tuition of a certain Jesuit, whom he retained as an inmate in his house. In these remarks Snape alluded to a Member of Par liament, a convert from Romanism to Protestantism, whom Hoadly had taken under his patronage, and who now appeared in his patron's defence with a letter to swell the growing tide of the dispute, as another personal allusion of Snape's brought into the field again Kennett and Dr. Nicholson, the bishop of Carhsle. But we must turn to the proceedings of the Convocation, where the doctrines promulgated by Hoadly engrossed attention, to the exclusion of all other subjects. As the Lower House was resolved that the Bishop of Bangor's sermon should not pass without an expression of their opinion upon its un- * See the Pamphlet. 478 The Bishop of Bangor and the Convocation. soundness, a committee, consisting of Moss, Sher lock, Friend, Sprat, Cannon, and Bisse,* was ap pointed to examine into that and the Preservative against the Principles and Practices ofthe Non-jurors, and to report upon them. The labours of this com mittee resulted in a representation to the Lower House on the 10th of May, which it was proposed to present to the Archbishop and the Bishops of the province of Canterbury. It does not seem to have been formally adopted by the Lower House, al though generahy approved, as expressing the views of the clergy. They declared, in this representation, that it was with heartfelt grief that they were compelled to notice the pernicious teaching of the Bishop of Bangor, in The Sermon of the Kingdom of Christ, recently published by him ; and in his book, A Pre servative against the Principles and Practices ofthe Non-jurors. The tendency of the doctrines con tained in this sermon and book was, they said,— 1st. To subvert aU government and discipline in the Church of Christ, and to reduce His kingdom to a state of anarchy and confusion ; and, 2dly, to impugn and impeach the regal supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, and the authority of the Legislature to enforce obedience in matters of religion by civU sanctions.^ They then proceed to quote several passages from the Sermon and the Preservative in proof of the justness of these two propositions. They show, and it must be admitted with reason, that Hoadly, * Tindal, vol. viii. p. 134. f Cardwell's Synodalia, vol.ii. p. 828; Tindal, vol. vii. p. 134; Lathbury's History of Convocation, p. 454. The Government of George I. interferes. 479 under pretence of exalting the kingdom of Christ, leaves it totaUy deprived of discipline and authority ; that he, even by implication, impugns the authority of the Apostles as teachers, and charges them with setting up themselves in opposition to their Master ; that he treats aU opinions about the regular suc cession ofthe ministry as "trifles" and "dreams," and refers every man, in matters of religion, to his private judgment, as that which will justify the worst choice he may make, and maintain that insincerity is that which alone can make that culpable. With equal force do they show by the passages they quote, in reference to the second proposition, that his teach ing, pushed to its legitimate bounds, is "as destruc tive ofthe legislative power as ofthe regal supre macy."* They allege that he has violated the canons of the Church, and ignored the solemn obhgations of his ordination vows ; and they conclude with an earnest expression of their behef that if their Lord ships, after maturely weighing the premises, shaU think that they were justified in making this repre sentation, they wUl speedhy adopt some measure for vindicating true religion, the honour of God, and the prerogatives of the Crown.f Such was the censure prepared for Hoadly when the Government thought proper to interfere, and, by a hasty prorogation of Convocation, to avert the blow. But although the intentions of the clergy were * Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. p. 840. X See the account of all the considerable pamphlets published on either side of the controversy, by " Philanagnostes Criticus." Hoadly, vol. ii. p. 381. 480 The Bearings of this Controversy. thus defeated, the conduct of the Government by no means put an end to this great and important con troversy, which, by the middle of the year, had ehcited no fewer than seventy publications, and in volved more than thirty of the most eminent divines of the day in the strife of polemics. As the inter ference of the Government to screen Hoadly from the censure of the clergy did little to increase his popularity, he thought proper to disavow, very par ticularly, that he had any voice in persuading the Government to adopt the course it had done. He declared that he was quite prepared to have answered for himself, in his place in Convocation, any charges which might have been brought against him. Indeed he invited a continuance of the discussion, by remind ing his opponents that the debate was now removed from the bar of human authority to that of reason and Scripture ; and, accordingly, the zeal and activity of the combatants did not subside for more than a twelvemonth afterwards. The reader may be disposed to think that the extent to which this controversy was carried bears no proportion to the cause which provoked it; but, in truth, many most important principles of civil and ecclesiastical government were involved in the dis cussion. The Great Rebellion, followed by the Restoration, the turbulent reign of James II. , and the Revolution, had violently disturbed the tra ditional principles of the old school of Church-and- State divines; whilst the advocates of what were called " Revolution principles," pressed them in a manner incompatible with the preservation of an ancient Church and Monarchy. The due importance Decay of zeal in the Church. 48 L of Church authority, the hmitations which are to be assigned to the exercise of private judgment, and the true nature of religious liberty, were the real ques tions under debate in the Bangorian controversy. If the High-Church party were desirous of leading public opinion back to sentiments which it was the fashion to regard as obsolete, the views of Hoadly and his friends, if universally adopted, must, as in great measure they did, destroy the discipline and life of the Church, and lead to a national apostacy. It is notorious that the Church of this country was never in a more inefficient state than it was during the greater part of the eighteenth century. The old school of theology, to which such frequent aUusion has been made in the course of this work, became extinct. The voice of the Church was sUent in Con vocation. An extremely worldly spirit was engen dered in the clergy. The fascinating study of the classics, and the cultivation of the belles lettres, had succeeded to the careful reading of patristic divinity and the old theology. The clerical habit was gradually thrown aside for one more in conformity with the ordinary dress of laymen; whUst a vast population was accumulating round the centres of manufacturing industry, few or no attempts were made by the Church to provide these populations with the saving knowledge of the Gospel. Much infidelity prevaUed in the upper classes. Bishop Gibson, in a letter addressed to Isaac Watts, laments that it had become the fashion to regard the Christian religion as at best but a wise system of morality. Such a state of things could not fail to be followed by a reaction of some kind. The 1 1 482 Decay of zeal in the Church. great Wesleyan movement ensued, by which, although such multitudes were aroused from their ignorance and apathy, we must not forget that they were also taken from the teaching and communion of the Church of England. INDEX. Addison (Joseph), made Secretary of State, 448. Aldrich (Dr. Henry), chosen Prolo cutor, 315. Allegiance, oath of, enjoined to be taken, 191. Alsop (Vincent), a Presbyterian mi nister, 87. Anglo-Saxon dynasty, 2. Annates and tenths, 327-329. Anne, the Princess, flies from London, 171; accession to the throne, 310; friendly disposed towards the Church, 311 ; her bounty, 326 ; visits Cam bridge, 357 ; death and character, 444. Argyle (Archibald, Earl of) prepares an expedition against Scotland, 46 ; fails in his attempt, 47. Ashton (John) executed, 230. Assassination plot, 269. Atterbury (Dr. Francis), his book on Convocation, 296, 337 ; conduct in Convocation, 370 ; assists Sacheverell in his defence, 401 ; chosen Prolo cutor, 412. Augustine (S.), his mission to England, 2-4. Aylesbury (Earl of) visits Archbishop Sancroft in the Temple, 233. Bangorian controversy, 476-480. Baptism by laymen, controversy re specting, 426. Baptists, the sect of, 25-32. Barclay (Robert), his Apology for the Quakers, 35. Barlow (Bishop) orders the Declaration to be read, 121. Barrow (Dr. Isaac), his scholarship, 11. Baxter (Richard) examined by Jeffreys, 44. Bennet (Dr. Thomas) writes against the non-jurors, 474. Bentley (Dr. Richard), his conduct, 357. Beveridge (Dr. Wm.), Rector of S. Peter's, Cornbill, 22 ; made Bishop of S. Asaph, 325. Bingham (Joseph), Scholastical His tory of Lay Baptism, 427. Binkes (Dr. Wm.) made Prolocutor, 293, 350, 366. Bishoprics in England in the eighth century, 3. Bishops, petition ofthe seven presented to James II., 115; interview with him, 116 ; before the Privy Council, 122; confined in the Tower, 124, 127 ; their trial, 128, 131 ; acquittal, 135. Blenheim, battle of, 338 ; general thanksgiving, 339. Bohun (Edward) summoned before Parliament, 258. Bolingbroke (Henry St. John) is dis graced, 448 ; retires to the Conti nent, 450. Boothe (Charles) , the last of the non- juring bishops, 221. Bossuet (J. B.), Bishop of Meaux, letter to Robert Nelson, 346 ; death and character, 348. Boyle (Hon. Robert), his piety and liberality, 283. Bramhall (John), Archbishop of Ar magh, 7 ; opposes Hobbes, 19. Bray (Dr. Thomas), his public spirit, 284. Brett (Dr. Thomas), non-juror, 426, 453. British Church, the early, 1. Brokesby (Francis) leaves the non jurors, 382. Bromley (Wm.), his tactics with the Occasional Conformity Bill, 341 j made Speaker, 412. Brown (Robert), founder ofthe sect of Independents, 30. 484 Index. Bull (Dr. George), his learned retire ment, 23 ; made Bishop of S. David's, 344 ; his learning, 345 ; his Cor ruptions of the Church of Rome, 348. Burnet (Dr. Gilbert), invited to the Hague by the Prince of Orange, 47 ; concerned in the Prince's Manifesto, 155 ; preaches in Exeter Cathedral, 165 ; consecrated Bishop of Salis bury, 192; his Pastoral Letter burnt, 258 ; takes part in the Convocation controversy, 297 ; his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles censured, 302; speech at SachevereU's trial, 405 ; intrudes his advice on Queen Anne, 410; death and character, 461. Calamy (Dr. Edmund), remarks on the bill against Occasional Conformity, 424. Cambridge University, its contest with James II. , 95 ; refuses a degree to a Romanist, 97. Cartwright (Bishop), his character and career, 72, 121 ; death, 222. Cartwright (Thomas), founder of the sect of the Presbyterians, 27 ; his career, 28. Charity schools assemble at S. Paul's, 290. Charter House, James the Second's attempts upon it, 110. Church of England, its position on the accession of James II., 24 ; prudent behaviour of her clergy, 63; able writings of her divines at the Revo lution; 184 ; debate about its being in danger, 360 ; deficiency of church accommodation in the reign of Queen Anne, 420 ; filty new churches pro posed, 421. Church preferment, disposal of, by William III., 265. Churchill (John, Baron) deserts James II., 169. Clagett (Dr. Wm.), a London clergy man, 22. Clarendon (Henry Hyde, Earl of) con cerned in Jacobite schemes, 231. Clarke (Dr. Samuel), his Scripture Doctrine qf the Trinity, 440 ; dis cussed in Convocation, 442. Claude (M.), his work on the French Protestants burnt, 58. Clergy, doubtful conduct of some, 71 ; their polemical writings at the Revo lution, 184 ; their social status in the reign of Queen Anne, 332 ; character of the leading divines, 445. Collier (Jeremy), non-juror, attends Ashton on the scaffold, 230 ; absolves Sir John Friend and Sir Wm. Per kins at Tyburn, 271. Cologne (Elector-Archbishop of), dis pute about his successor, 142. Colonial Church missions, 286. Commission of divines appointed by WiUiam III., 199. Common Prayer-book reviewed in 1689, 200. Comprehension bill, 194, 197. Compton (Henry), promoted Bishop of London, 12 ; his manly conduct in the House of Lords, 55 ; refuses to suspend Dr. Sharp, 66 ; summoned before the Church Commissioners, 68 ; suspended, 70 ; reinstated, 148 ; suspected of having invited the Prince of Orange, 159, 163 ; assists the Princess Anne in her flight, 172 ; President of the Convocation, 207 ; death and character, 439. Conformity, occasional, discussed in the reign of Queen Anne, 312, 316; bills to prevent it passing the Com mons, 318, 341, 360, 423, Conspiracies during the reign of Wil liam III., 257. Convention caUed by the Prince of Orange, 187 ; sanctions the Decla ration of Rights, 188. Convocation ¦. Tillotson recommends William III. to summon it, 198 ; preliminary commission appointed, 199 ; assembles, 206 ; prorogued, 213; revival of its functions debated, 291 ; the Archbishops' authority over it, 292 ; controversy begins, 293 ; summoned for business, 298 Dr. Hooper chosen Prolocutor, 299 Dr. Woodward, Prolocutor, 305 proceedings on the accession of Queen Anne, 313; Dr. Aldrich, Pro locutor, 315; privileges of the Lower House, 314; Dr. Binkes, Prolocutor, 350, 366; address to the Queen, 367 ; Dr. Atterbury, Prolocutor, 412 ; the authority of the President dis cussed, 414; disputes between the two houses, 425 ; discussions on lay baptisms, 428 ; Dr. Stanhope, Prolocutor, 442 ; discussion on Dr. Clarke's work on the Trinity, 443, 456. Cornbury (Edward, Viscount) deserts James II., 168. Corporations tampered with by James II., 111. Crewe (Bishop), his subserviency as a Church Commissioner, 68. Crofts ( Bishop ) , orders the Declaration to be read, 121. Index. 485 Cudworth (Dr. Ralph), his Intellect-ual System ofthe Universe, 19. Cumberland (Dr. Richard), a writer against Atheism, 19 ; Bishop of Peterborough, 237. D'Aveaux, Louis the Fourteenth's envoy at the Hague, 144. Declaration for liberty of conscience published in Scotland, 83; ordered to be read in churches, 113 ; only partially observed, 119. Declaration of Rights, 188, 214. Diocesan Episcopacy and its offices, 4. Dispensing power, its foundation in law, 61. Dodwell (Henry) leaves the non-jurors, 381 ; his peculiar views on baptism, 426. Dryden (John), his controversy with Stillingfleet, 42. Ecclesiastical Commission, court of, established contrary to law, 67. Edwin (Sir Humphrey), a Noncon formist Lord Mayor, 279. Ellis (Edmund), non-juror, 362. Episcopacy abolished, 29. Fagel the Pensionary, his letter to James Steward, 93 ; concocts a Manifesto, 154. FeU (John), Bishop of Oxford, 10. FeU (Dr. Samuel), Dean of Christ Church, 9. Fenwick (Sir John), connected with a Jacobite plot, 273 ; beheaded, 275. Ferguson (Robert), his conduct at Exeter, 165. Feversham (Earl of), his humane con duct, 52; arrested, 181. First-fruits, origin of, 327, 331. Fleetwood (Dr. Wm.) Bishop of S. Asaph, a good writer, 434 ; Preface to his Sermons burnt, 436. Fowler (Dr. Edward) made Bishop of Worcester, 233. Fox (George), founder of the sect of Quakers, 34. Frampton (Dr.Robert) ,deprived Bishop of Gloucester, his submissive con duct, 234. Frederick I. desires to introduce epi scopacy into Prussia, 371, 431, 433. Friend (Sir John), his execution, 271. Garrard (Sir Samuel) invites Sach evereU to preach before the corpo ration, 385, 386, 388. George I. : accession to the throne, 447 ; warlike disposition, 449 ; church parties on his accession, 452 ; crowned by Archbishop Teni son, 464. George of Denmark, his churchman- ship, 320. Glencoe, the massacre of, 269. Gloucester (Duke of), son of the Prin cess Anne, his death, 303. Godolphin (Lord), his ministry over thrown, 411 ; deprecates the publi cation of Clarke's book on the Trinity, 457. Grindal (Edmund), Archbishop of Canterbury, 27, 28. Hales (Sir Edward), his trial at Ro chester, 60 ; accompanies King Jas. II., 177. Hahfax (George Savile, Viscount), author of Letter of Advice to a Dissenter, 89, 123. HaU (Mr.) executed for treason, 471. Hall (Timothy), made Bishop of Ox ford, 119. Harcourt (Sir Simon), defence for SachevereU, 396. Harley (Robert), Earl of Oxford, prime minister, 411. Healing, the Prayers for the, 445. Herbert (Lord) of Cherbury, his scep ticism, 16. Hickes (Dr. George), refuses the oaths, 223 ; his death and writings, 467, 473. High Church and Low Church, mean ing of these terms, 316. HiU (Samuel), his book on Convo cation, 295. Hoadly (Dr. Benj.), sermon before the Lord Mayor, 386 ; recom mended for preferment, 388 ; made Bishop of Bangor, 466 ; sermon on the kingdom of Christ, 476. Hobbes (Thomas) of Malmesbury, his scheme for a universal religion, 16. Holland, the States of, assist the Prince of Orange in his expedition, 156. Hooper (Dr. George) attends Mon mouth after his condemnation, 50 ; chosen Prolocutor, 299 ; made Bishop of S. Asaph, and proposes to Queen Anne the restoration of Ken, 324 ; translated to Bath and Wells, 325. Hough (Dr. John) elected president of Magdalen College, Oxford, 102; summoned before the commission ers, 107 ; expelled, 108. HoweU (Lawrence), non-juror, his in flammatory writings, 472. Independents, their rise and progress, 25, 29. 486 Index. Innocent XII. opposes the King of France, 141. Ireland, state of, time of James II., 78 ; conduct ofthe Protestants after the Revolution, 215. Jablonski (Dr. Daniel Ernestus), 372, 431. James II. : behaviour at his accession, 38 ; publishes his brother's papers, 42 ; directions for preachers, 63 ; disputes with Magdalen CoUege, Oxford, 100 ; summons the FeUows into his presence, 104 ; interview with the seven Bishops, 116 ; birth of the Prince of Wales, 126 ; con duct on the acquittal of the seven bishops, 136 ; recruits the army and navy, 148 ; makes some concessions, 150 ; consults the Bishops, 162 ; deserted by the nobility, 173 ; his flight, 178, 182 ; lands in Ireland, 215 ; death, 304. Jane (Dr.), conference with Romish priests, 81 ; elected Prolocutor of . the Convocation, 207. Jeffreys (Judge) tries the rebels in the West, 52 ; his fall, 179. Jesuits, their chapel in the Savoy, 62. Johnson (Samuel), author of Jovian, prosecuted, 75. Johnson (Dr. Samuel) , touched for the evil, 444. Ken (Bishop) attends Monmouth after his condemnation, 50; asserts his canonical rights, 238 ; retirement at Longleat, 323 ; his restoration pro posed to Queen Anne, 324 ; death and character, 429. Kennett (Dr. White) involved in the Bangorian controversy, 474." Kidder (Dr. Richard), afterwards Bishop of Bath and Wells — his translation of the Psalms, 203 ; suc ceeds Ken as bishop, 238 ; death, 322. Kirke (Major-General), his violent conduct towards the rebels, 53. Lake (Dr. John) deprived Bishop of Chichester ; his death and principles, 222. Lamplugh (Dr. Thomas) translated to York, 167. Latitudinarians, certain divines so named, 19. Laurence (Roger) on lay baptism, 426. Legal profession, its character temp. James II., 129. Leibnitz interested about the English Church, 432. LesHe (Charles), his views on Church' government, 245 ; settles at Bar-le- duc, 454. Leviathan, by Hobbes, a remarkable work, 17. Leyburn (Father), a bishop inpartibus, 62. Lisle (Alice), her cruel execution, 52. Lloyd (Dr. WiUiam) deprived Bishop of Norwich ; much beloved, 234 ; Sancroft delegates his authority to him, 235. Lobb (Stephen), a Presbyterian minis ter, 88. Louis XIV. : his treatment of the French Protestants, 56 ; unpopular with continental princes, 141 ; ap prises James II. of the hostile in tentions of the Prince of Orange, 145 ; acknowledges the son of James II. as king, 304; acknowledges the Elector of Hanover as king, 451 ; his death, 470. Lucius, a petty British sovereign, 1. Magdalen College, Oxford, its dispute with James II. , 100 ; FeUows re stored, 150. Mar (Earl of), joins the Pretender, 468. Marshall (Nath.), writes against the non-jurors, 475. Mary, Queen, her thoughtless be haviour, 189 ; prudent conduct, 218 ; death, 263 ; her Church views, 265 ; funeral sermons for her, 267. Maryland, colony of, 287. Memorial of the Church of England, an inflammatory pamphlet, 355, 364, 393. Monmouth (Duke of), reception by the Prince of Orange, 46 ; fatal descent upon the west coast of Eng land, 48 ; taken prisoner to London, 49 : executed, 51. Moore (Dr. John), Bishop of Nor wich, 235. Mordaunt (Charles, Viscount), 138. More (Dr. Henry), treatise against Atheism, 20. Nantes, edict of, revoked, 56-58. National education temp. WUliam III., 289. Nelson (Robert) with Tillotson at his death, 260 ; sends Bishop Bull's treatise to Bossuet, 346 ; leaves the non-jurors, 381. Nonconformists, their rise, 26 ; the Index. 487 penal laws enforced against them, 44 ; courted by James II., 85. Non-jurors oppose the Comprehension BUI, 206 j refuse to transfer their allegiance from James II. to Wm. III., 220; maUgned, 227; publish a vindication of their conduct, 228 ; Sancroft's commission to Bishop Lloyd to consecrate bishops, 235 ; fresh consecrations, 244 ; Dodwell and Nelson leave their communion, 381 ; proceedings at the accession of George I., 453. Nottingham (Earl of) at SachevereU's trial, 402 ; coalesces with the Whigs, 422. Orange (WUliam, Prince of) watches the affairs of England, 45 ; invited by James II. to concur in his mea sures, 90 ; sends money to the ex pelled Fellows of Magdalen CoUege, 110 ; expedition to England, 140, 156; Declaration, or Manifesto, 154, 158 ; lands at Torbay, 161 ; enters Exeter, 164 ; forged " Third Decla ration," 174 ; his demands, 176 ; enters London, 182 ; summons the Convention, 187 ; declared king, 190. {See Wffliam III.) Ormond (Duke of) retires to the Con tinent, 450. Overall CBishop), his Convocation- book, 253. Oxford University, progress of Ro manism there, 98 ; in disgrace with George I., 468. Parker (Dr. Samuel), Bishop of Ox ford, his character, 73. Parliament votes James II. large sup- pUes, 43 ; refuses to concur in his suspension of the Test Act, 54; first of the reign of Queen Anne, 318 ; votes the building of fifty new churches, 421. Patrick (Bishop), 20 ; conference with Romish priests, 81 ; revises the Col lects, 203; death and character, 380. Paul (Mr.), a non-juring clergyman, executed, 471. Peachel (Dr.), Cambridge vice-chan cellor, 97 ; suspended, 98. Pearson (John), Bishop of Chester, 9. Penn (WiUiam), joins the Quakers, 35, 88 ; his letter to James II. inter cepted, 230. Perkins (Sir WiUiam), his execution, 271. Peterborough (Earl of) assists Sir John Fenwick, 273. Petre (Father), a member of James the Second's secret council, 62, 175. Preachers, directions for, issued by Charles II. and James II., 63. Presbyterians, their rise, 25. Preston (Richard Graham, Viscount), his plot, 230. Pretender (See James Francis Edward Stuart). Prideaux (Dr. Humphrey), 23; on the usage of Convocation, 306. Prussia, the Church in, 371 ; the adoption of the English Uturgy sug gested, 430-133. Quakers, their peculiar tenets, 25, 34. Rebelhon of 1715 in Scotland, 469. RebeUion, the Great, sufferings of the clergy in England, 6 ; in Ireland, 7. Revolution of 1688, reasons of its suc cess, 190. Rights, Bill of, 188, 214. Robinson (Dr. John), Bishop of Bris tol, made Lord Privy Seal, 421. Robinson (John), Independent minis ter at Leyden, 33. Rochester (Lawrence Hyde, Earl of), James II. endeavours his conversion, 80. Roman Catholicism, its progress throughout Europe, 55. Roman Catholics, their pretensions, 99 ; plundered at the abdication of James II., 175. RoseweU (Thomas), a Presbyterian minister, 87. Ryswick, the peace of, 276. Sacheverell (Dr. Henry), his early career, 383 ; sermon before the cor poration of London, 385; is im peached, 387-389 ; trial, 391-402 ; riots in the metropohs, 395 ; speech in his own defence, 399 ; debate in the Lords, 403 ; popular feeling in his favour, 407, 411 ; his sentence, 408 ; presented to a living in Wales, 410; term of his suspension expires, 437 ; presented to S. Andrew's, Holborn, 437. S. John's Chapel, Bedford Row, origin of, 437. Sancroft (William), elevated to the primacy, 12 ; sent to the Tower, 124 ; prudent measures after his trial, 137 ; advice to James II. , 149 ; consulted by the King, 159; attends the meeting at Guildhall, 180 ; con- cihates the Dissenters, 196 ; ejected from Lambeth, 232 ; commission to Bishop Lloyd, 235 ; retires to Fres- 488 Index. singfield, 240; conspiracy against him, 241 ; edits Laud's papers, 242 ; death, 243. Savoy Conference promoted by Chas. II., 195. Sawyer (Sir Robert), 121. Schomberg (Frederick, Count of) commands in Ireland, 216 ; killed at the battle of the Boyne, 217. Schools, charity and parochial, founded, 290. Scotland, state of, temp. James II., 77 ; publication of declaration for Uberty of conscience, 83. Scott (Dr. John), an eminent London clergyman, 22. Scottish Episcopalians obtain some relief, 425. Sedgemoor, battle of, 49. Sedley (Catharine), Countess of Dor chester, James the Second's mistress, 309. Seymour (Sir Edward) joins the Prince of Orange, 167. Sharp (John), Archbishop of York, writes the address of the grand jury of London, 39 ; incurs the anger of the Court by a sermon, 64 ; corre sponds with Dr. Jablonski, 431 ; death, 438. Sherlock (Dr. Thomas), Master ofthe Temple, 257. Sherlock (Dr. Wm.), Master of the Temple, 23 ; made Dean of S. Paul's, 252 ; his tergiversations, 253 ; emi nence as a writer, 256 ; death, 257. Shower (Sir Bartholomew), author of A Letter to a Convocation Man, 293. Slave-trade, how regarded at the peace of Utrecht, 433. Smallridge (Dr.) assists SachevereU in his defence, 401. Smith (John), father of the Arminian Baptists, 33. Snape (Dr.) writes against Hoadly, 476. Societies for the Reformation of Man ners, 281. Society for the Propagation of the Gospel founded, 284, 336. South (Dr. Robert), controversy with Dean Sherlock, 255 ; on the distinc tion of High aud Low Churchmen, 316. Sprat (Bishop), a church commissioner, 68 ; withdraws from the commission of WUliam III., 201 ; conspiracy against him, 241 ; death, 438. Sparrow (Dr. Anthony), Bishop of Norwich, 8. Stanhope (Dr.), Dean of Canterbury, 366 ; chosen Prolocutor, 442. Steward (James), a Scotch lawyer, corresponds with the pensionary Fagel, 93. StiUingfleet (Dr. Edward), early career, 20, 22; prudent conduct, 1 19 ; Queen Mary wishes him to succeed Tillot son, 262. Storm, the great, in 1703, 321. Stuart (James Francis Edward), son of James II., his birth, 126, 153 ; acknowledged as king by Louis XIV., 304 ; price set upon his head, 450 ; issues a manifesto, 455. Sunderland (Robert Spencer, Earl of), his character, 40 ; pretended con version to Romanism, 146. Taylor (Bishop Jeremy), 7. Tenison (Dr. Thomas), 20 ; attends the Earl of Monmouth after his condemnation, 50 ; mentions the Prince of Oiange's expedition to Evelyn, 147 ; made Archbishop of Canterbury, 262 ; remarks in Con vocation, 336, 353 ; refuses the overtures from the Prussian church, 372 ; persuades Nelson to leave the non-jurors, 382; death and character, 464. Test Act, its nature and origin, 59. Thomas (Dr. Wm.), Bishop of Wor cester, his death and principles, 223. TiUotson (Dr. John), his early career, 20 ; prudent conduct, 119 ; recom mends King William to summon a convocation, 198; consecrated Arch bishop of Canterbury, 247, 252 ; his peculiar disposition, 249 ; WUliam has a great partiality for him, 250 ; last days and death, 259. Toland (John), his Chrktiat.ity not Mysterious, 301. Toleration Act, its provisions, 192 ; effects of it on the state of religion, 193 ; its penalties evaded by the Dissenters, 316. Tower of London, the seven bishops confined there, 124, 127. Trinitarian controversy, 440, 442, 457. Turner (Dr. Francis) deprived Bishop of Ely, his character, 15 ; letter to James II., 230. Tyrconnel (Earl of) adheres to James IL, 215. Union of Scotland and England, 373- 377. Ursinus (George Henry), a Prussian divine, 372. Index. 489 Utrecht, the peace of, 433 ; opposition to it, 434. ViUiers (Eliz.), Lady Orkney, WUliam the Third's mistress, 309. Virginia, early missions to, 286. Wake (Dr. Wm.), his first book on Convocation, 294 ; his great work on Convocation, 337 ; made Bishop of Lincoln, 350 ; speech on Sache vereU's trial, 406 ; translated to Canterbury, 465. Wales, the Prince of (See James Francis Edward Stuart). Walker (Rev. George) defends Lon donderry, 216 ; killed at the battle of the Boyne, 217. Walker (Dr. Obadiah) turns Romanist, 99. Waterland (Dr.) on lay baptism, 427 ; opposes Dr. Samuel Clarke, 457. Watson (Dr. Thomas), Bishop of S. David's, 121 ; deprived for simony, 343. Whichcote (Dr. Benjamin), 20. Whiston (WiUiam), his early career and opinions, 416 ; dedicates a work to Convocation, 417 ; who condemn his writings, 419. White (Dr. Thomas), deprived Bishop of Peterborough, 237 ; prepares Sir John Fenwick for death, 275. Whitgift (John), Archbishop of Can terbury, 28. WUkins (Dr. John), Bishop of Chester, 20. WUliam III. (See Prince of Orange) : Reply to an address from Convoca tion, 211 ; conspiracies during his reign, 257 ; grief at the death of Queen Mary, 264 ; his treatment of the Princess Anne, 264 ; disposal of high church preferment, 265 ; death and character, 308. WiUiams (Dr.), afterwards Bishop of Chichester, his Diary of the pro ceedings ofthe Ecclesiastical Com missioners, 199. WiUiams (Sir Wm.), Solicitor-general, 130. Woodward (Dr. Robert), chosen Pro locutor, 305 ; his death, 307. Wright (Chief Justice), his character, 129. Zuylestein, envoy between William and the English Protestants, 181. LONDON : Printed by G. Barclay, Castle St. Leicester Sq. K K MESSES. BELL AND DALDY'S THEOLOGICAL WORKS. SERMONS. Twenty-four Sermons on Christian Doctrine and Practice, and on the Church. By C. J. Blomfield, D.D., late Lord Bishop of London. (Hitherto unpublished.) 8vo. 10*. 6d. Missionary Sermons preached at Hagley, by the Rev R. Law- son, M. A., Canon Trevor, the Bishop of St. Helena, the Rev. E. Monro, M.A., the Bishop of Capetown, and Canon Claughton. Edited by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Lyttleton, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d.' King's College Sermons, by the Rev. E. H. Plumptre, M.A., Divinity Professor. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Sermons preached in "Westminster. By the Rev. C. F. Secretan, M.A., Incumbent of Holy Trinity, VauxhaU Bridge Road. Fcap. 8vo. 6». Sermons. By the Rev. A. Gatty. Post 8vo. 8s. Twenty Plain Sermons for Country Congregations and Family Reading. By the Rev. A. Gatty, Vicar of Ecclesfield. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. Sermons to a Country Congregation — Advent to Trinity. By the Rev. Hastings Gordon, M.A. 12mo. 6s. Parochial Sermons. By the Rev. D. G. Stacy, Vicar of Horn- church, Essex. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. Sermons delivered at St. Saviour's Church, Bath. By the Rev. W. C. Magee, B.A. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5*. Second Series, Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. Sermons on the Christian Life. By the late Rev. A. J. Macleane, M.A. 8vo. 10s. 6a!. Second Series (on Faith and Other Subjects), 8vo. 10s. 6d. Third Series (on Various Subjects), 8vo. 10s. 6d. Our Privileges, Responsibilities, and Trials. — Sermons for the Times, preached at St. Mark's Church, Surbiton. By the Rev. E. PhiUips, M.A., Incumbent. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. Plain Parochial Sermons. By the Rev. C. F. C. Pigott, B.A., late Curate of St. Michael's, Handsworth. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. Sermons, chiefly Practical. By the Rev. T. Nunns, M.A. Edited by the Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D., Dean of Chichester. 12mo. 6s. Sermons suggested by the Miracles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D., Dean of Chichester. 2 vols. Fcap. 8vo. 12*. Five Sermons, Preached before the University of Oxford. By the Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D., Dean of Chichester. Third Edition. 3s. Messrs. Bell and Daldy's Theological Works. Sermons, Preached in the Parish Church of Godalming, Surrey, by the Rev. E. J. Boyce, M.A., Vicar. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 6s. Life in Christ. — Sermons preached at Christ Church, St. Mary- lebone. By the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies, M.A., Rector of Christ Church, Marylebone, and Fellow of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. The Church of England ; its Constitution, Mission, and Trials : Sermons by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Broughton. Edited, with a Prefatory Memoir, by the Ven. Archdeacon Harrison. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Short Meditations for Every Day in the Year. Edited by the Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D. New Edition. 4 vols. fcap. 8vo., large type, 14s. ; morocco, 30s. The Christian taught by the Church's Services. Edited by the Very Rev, W. F. Hook, D.D. New Edition,fca.-p. 8vo. large type, 6s. 6d.; antique calf, or morocco, lis. 6d. Holy Thoughts and Prayers, arranged for Daily Use on each Day of the Week, according to the stated Hours of Prayer. Fifth Edition, with additions. 16mo. Cloth, red edges, 2s.; calf, gilt edges, 3s. A Companion to the Altar. Being Prayers, Thanksgivings, and Meditations, and the Office of the Holy Communion. Edited by the Very Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D. Second Edition. Handsomely printed in red and black. 32mo. Cloth, red edges, 2s. ; morocco, 3s. 6d. The Church Sunday-School Hymn-Book. Edited by Dean Hook, D.D. Large Paper. Cloth, ls. &d. ; calf, gilt edges, 3s. 6d. *** For cheap editions of the above Five Books, see List of the Devotional Library. Short Sunday-Evening Readings, Selected and Abridged from various Authors, by the Countess of Cawdor. In large type. 8vo. 5s. A New Commentary on the Gospels of the Sundays and Fes tivals ofthe Christian Year. By the Rev. W. Denton, M.A. [In the Press. A Companion to the Authorized Version of the New Testament. Being Emendatory Notes, together with Explanatory Observations and a Preface. By the Rev. H. B. HaU, M.A. University CoUege, Durham. Fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d. Readings on the Morning and Evening Prayer and the Litany. By Miss Blunt. Second Edition, enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. The Book of Psalms (Prayer-book Version). With Short Headings and Explanatory Notes. By the Rev. Ernest Hawkins, B.D., Prebendary of St. Paul's. Second and cheaper Edition, revised and enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. cloth limp, red edges, 2s. dd. *** A School Edition, in cloth, at 18s. per dozen copies. Church Reading : containing the Morning, Evening, and Com munion Services of the Church of England, pointed according to the method advised by Thomas Sheridan, M.A. By the Rev. J. J. Halcombe, B.A. of Magdalen College, Cambridge. 8vo. 3s. &d.